Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: The Disciplinary Development of Sociology at Tsinghua University (East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education) 9811901627, 9789811901621

Citation preview

East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education Series Editor Ruth Hayhoe, Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

This book series focuses on higher education crosscurrents between Asia and the West, including traditional comprehensive universities, normal universities for teachers, higher vocational institutions, community colleges, distance and on-line universities and all the differing approaches to higher education emerging under processes of massification and diversification. It gives attention to the ways in which the Asian context shapes the internationalization of higher education and the response to globalization differently from that of the West, as well as new phenomena that are arising in the interface between these two broad regions, such as higher education hubs and regional networks of collaboration. Lastly, it will highlight the growing reciprocity between these two regions, whose higher education systems have grown from such deeply different historical roots. Higher Education has deep roots in the cultures and civilizations of diverse regions of the world, but perhaps the most influential models shaping contemporary globalization come from Europe and China. Universities established in Europe in the Middle Ages have developed into what is now described as the “global research university,” a model profoundly shaped by 19th century Germany and 20th century America, and spread around the world both through colonization and the emulation of its scientific achievements and contribution to nation building. A millennium earlier China spawned another influential model, characterized by close integration within a meritocratic bureaucracy that entrusted governance to those who could demonstrate their knowledge through written examinations. The Chinese model was greatly admired in Europe from the time it was introduced in the 16th century, and one can see its contours in what Burton Clark described as the “continental model” in contradistinction to the “Anglo-American model” epitomized in the global research university. What has become clear in the maelstrom of globalization, which has stimulated the growth of a global knowledge economy and created circumstances where nations consider higher education as crucial to remaining competitive, is that the integration of core features from both models would be optimal: from Asia, a tradition of strong state support for and involvement in higher education, which is crucial for good governance and social advancement; and from Europe and North America, the ideas of university autonomy and academic freedom, which are essential to promoting scientific creativity and innovation.

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/13844

Meng Xie

Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China The Disciplinary Development of Sociology at Tsinghua University

Meng Xie School of Education Renmin University of China Beijing, China

ISSN 2364-6810 ISSN 2364-6829 (electronic) East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education ISBN 978-981-19-0162-1 ISBN 978-981-19-0163-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

It is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him, and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature: like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. —John Henry Newman (1801–1890)

周易六十四卦, 言君子者凡五十三。乾坤二 卦所雲尤為提要鈞元。乾象曰: 天行健, 君 子以自強不息。坤象曰: 地勢坤, 君子以厚 德載物。推本乎此, 君子之條件庶幾近之矣 … 清華學子, 薈中西之鴻儒, 集四方之俊 秀, 為師為友, 相蹉相磨, 他年遨遊海外, 吸 收新文明, 改良我社會, 促進我政治, 所謂 君子人者, 非清華學子, 行將焉屬? 雖然君 子之德風, 小人之德草, 今日之清華學子, 將來即為社會之表率, 語默作止, 皆為國民 所仿效。設或不慎, 壞習慣之傳行急如暴雨, 則大事僨矣。深願及此時機, 崇德修學, 勉 為真君子, 異日出膺大任, 足以挽既倒之狂 瀾, 作中流之底柱, 則民國幸甚矣。 —梁啟超 (1873–1929)

Foreword

As the COVID-19 rages out of control, it also propels anti-globalist political forces throughout the world. Its ensuing magnitude has become a powerful catalyst for the shift toward an era of de-globalization. This is a particular historical juncture of heightened disenchantment with globalization and its political proponents. While greater integration and interdependence exacerbate the need for mutual understanding and respect across civilizations, political positions follow the policy rationale of protecting the state by taking back the control that was lost by so-called globalist policies. Globalization is now at its highly disjunctive phase in human history. The pandemic crisis has combined with the vulnerabilities of global capitalism to break down social routines. However, the current moment of the great unsettling could also offer a critical opportunity to take stock of the present state of globalization. What Zygmunt Bauman wrote critically about sociology can be extended to all social research. In light of changes in society, we must also change social research from being mimetic of society to being consciously dialogic with the world it seeks to apprehend and improve. We build the ship as we sail it. With the staggering multifaceted effects of the COVID-19, we are in the midst of a social tumult that will have a far-reaching impact. The current environment, where alliances are uncertain and international cooperation is lacking, poses special questions for social researchers, demanding us to substantively rethink our ideas of society and some of the prevailing assumptions, methods, and theories of the social science. With so much about society at stake, there may be an opening for the human and social sciences to be more humane and social in their aims and ambitions. This moment affords an opportunity to consider what social research has gotten wrong and to enact new practices around what we know about all too well. It is also an opportunity to pose questions about the conditions of our work as scholars. As we ask what kind of society we want in the future, inherent in the question is the type of robust social research we will need to both apprehend and construct these renewed social communities. This is a time for creating knowledge pathways to a better world. This book is a timely examination and re-engagement with some prominent themes on global knowledge asymmetries and the shifting global constellations of vii

viii

Foreword

academic power and their implications for today’s social science research especially in non-Western societies. China serves as a telling example here. This book includes the global scenario and its implications for the disciplinary development of the social sciences in China. Specifically, it presents theoretical reflections on the development of the social science in a global context of asymmetrical academic relations across knowledge systems, maps the historical trajectory of the disciplinary evolution of China’s social sciences under the influence of internationalization, and scrutinizes the complex academic relations between various forces during different historical periods. Indeed, China has mainly two channels of intellectual resources with inherent linkage between them. One is historical, based on its extraordinarily rich heritage over millennia. The other, equally momentous, is the profound experience gained through the reform and opening over the past four decades. The more significant value of this book is to make a holistic and in-depth exploration of the current state of development of the social sciences in China’s premier universities by taking Tsinghua University’s sociology as a case. The book presents how the internationalization of higher education shapes the disciplinary development of Tsinghua’s sociology, given the global landscape of asymmetrical academic relations, the peculiarities of sociopolitical, cultural, and educational contexts in China’s profound transformations, and the institutional features and specific committed efforts of Tsinghua. It vividly portrays both an escalating assertiveness and dilemmas of social science scholars in this Chinese flagship university. While engineering and natural sciences are usually the priorities of Chinese universities, this book elucidates that a rising China offers great opportunities to both Chinese and international social scientists to contribute to global scholarly development. It is time for China’s leading universities to reassess the long-term impact of internationalization on academic disciplines and to pay sufficient attention to the development of social sciences. In the next phase of globalization, Chinese social scientists are asked to take their historical responsibility to bring China further to the world. This book also reveals that conventional social studies face far more fundamental challenges in a context of globalization. They failed to predict the environmental crisis, the breakdown of the Soviet Empire (except Wallerstein), the diverse economic and financial crises, terrorism and the crisis of democracy. The social science more than often fails to be able to interpret what is going on especially in non-Western societies. The knowledge it produces is particularly fragile at this moment. The way to challenge Euro-American domination of the social science and make others more visible is not to discard Western knowledge, but by demonstrating its inapplicability in other contexts through discovery of alternative knowledge bases. Indeed, it has been a long intellectual tradition in China to explore the application of Western social theories and methods in the Chinese context. Earlier scholars, such as Xiong Shili (熊十力, 1885–1968), Wang Guowei (王国维, 1877–1927), and Chang Kwang-chih (张光直, 1931–2001), discussed this explicitly. It has even become a heated debate topic on the Chinese mainland. If studied properly, Chinese experience is ideally positioned to make enormous contributions to world human and social sciences. To do so, the studies need to mature from a “consumer field” (dependent for its analytical insights upon imports from the study of other countries) to a “producer field” (capable

Foreword

ix

of generating original analyses of interest to comparativists in general), as Elizabeth Perry has suggested. This book originates from Dr. Meng Xie’s doctoral research under my supervision. She began her Ph.D. study in 2013 in the Faculty of Education of the University of Hong Kong. Since then, I have been watching her unceasing efforts and growth. I had opportunities to interact with her during her doctoral studies on a variety of issues from specific research topics, data collection, and analysis methods and approaches to much broader themes such as how to grow into an international scholar without losing one’s local footing and identity. I have been enormously pleased to see her great progress all sidedly. While part of her progress has been indicated evidently by her list of research outputs including some celebrated articles published in the most respected journal internationally in the field of higher education, many of her other progresses are equally important yet less straightforward, such as her high expectations of future academic life, her great passion for scholarly work, and her fast-increasing global networking with major scholars, to name but a few. These are all significant factors for a promising scholar to win national and international reputation. Meng Xie’s doctoral thesis was highly acclaimed by the panel of examiners including Professor Simon Marginson and Professor Ruth Hayhoe. It was recommended for publication as a monograph in her oral examination. Since then, she has been mentored and supported continuously by Professor Marginson and Professor Hayhoe throughout the publication process as one of the items in the series of EastWest Crosscurrents in Higher Education. As her doctoral supervisor, I feel proud of her achievements. Here, let me stress her great personal integrity and strong commitment. She is always well liked by the people around her and an excellent team player. Being hardworking, dedicated, and passionate, she has been working well with almost everyone related. She is by nature modest, humble, and always willing and ready to help anyone in need. After earning her Ph.D., she is well positioned to pursue her academic career at Renmin University of China, and has been dedicating herself wholeheartedly to her students there, with impressive intellectual enthusiasm and perseverance. As China’s next generation of scholars in the field of comparative and international studies in (higher) education, Dr. Xie has demonstrated clear signs of promise to earn international influence in perhaps not-so-distant future. This is particularly rewarding for me to observe as her teacher. Rui Yang Faculty of Education University of Hong Kong Hong Kong

Preface

The social sciences are assuming growing significance against a backdrop of increasing problems within and between societies, especially during the present moment of great uncertainty. Human society is undergoing unprecedented changes, yet the social sciences have not developed at a commensurate pace. While cultural diversity and fundamental challenges have permeated all dimensions of our social lives, the paradigms of the social sciences have remained dominated by the West, failing to meet the new demands of a global society and particularly non-Western societies. In today’s era of globalization, a more multi-polarized academic system is emerging, enabling many non-Western societies to challenge global knowledge asymmetries and Western epistemological hegemony in the social sciences. The current social reality and changing global forces and spaces are inspiring the rethinking, refining, and re-empowering of the world social sciences to broach the frontiers of human knowledge, enhance mutual understanding across cultures and civilizations, and shape a better world. In this respect, social scientists in various societies are expected to cooperate across national boundaries and disciplinary territories to respond to the challenges around us. Indigenous knowledge and diverse cultures that have been largely overlooked are crying out to be included in the global social sciences. Despite the long history and rich civilization of countries such as China, their intellectual traditions and indigenous epistemology, knowledge, and cultures have not been well positioned or developed to reach their potential to enrich human knowledge in the contemporary world. The modern social science disciplines were introduced into China starting in the late nineteenth century, and since then it has been virtually impossible not to find Western influences in this field. Dominated by the Western academic and epistemological paradigms, the social sciences in China have been fragmented throughout the modern period, and how to integrate Chinese and Western patterns has been a fundamental issue in their development. Meanwhile, this has led Chinese academics to focus on what and how the Chinese social sciences will contribute to both global and national/local knowledge and society. Tsinghua University, the most prestigious in mainland China, has presented a particular historic and contemporary nexus with the West. The university has striven xi

xii

Preface

to hone its mission to enhance its global standing and international prestige. Its notable efforts have included reforming and strengthening its academic disciplines, research capacity, university governance, personnel system, and other areas. Each of these reforms is one piece of the world-class university puzzle and a growing push toward internationalization. Taking Tsinghua University’s sociology as a case, this book concentrates on how internationalization shapes disciplinary development in a global context of asymmetrical academic relations and set amidst China’s dramatic economic, social, political, and cultural transformations, together with the institutional reforms in this Chinese flagship university. This book employs semi-structured interviews, participant observations, and document analyses as its major approaches to collect the first-hand empirical data and policy texts at various levels, and reports its findings through the lens of Wallerstein’s three essential elements of disciplinary development: knowledge, organization, and culture. In line with Tsinghua University’s growing ambition to attain world-class status, higher education internationalization has triggered intellectual, institutional, and cultural developments in its social science disciplines. Sociologists at the university emphasize both “local commitment” and “global significance” in the development of their academic profession and discipline. While concentrating on social transformations along with problems in Chinese society, they are actively pursuing theoretical innovations to interact with international academic communities and are contributing to knowledge creation and distribution at local, national, and global levels. Nevertheless, the disciplinary development of the university’s sociology has met some organizational hurdles. Scholars have been frustrated by institutional and cultural dilemmas in their struggles to balance global and national/local demands, and they have called these dilemmas “double shackles.” The first shackle refers to their disadvantaged status in the asymmetrical global academic system. The second relates to the institutional, intellectual, and cultural milieus of Chinese higher education, characterized by structural barriers and institutional disturbances in the academic system. This book argues that internationalization is superficial if it fails to contribute to free inquiry, knowledge creation, and disciplinary development. There are two crucial aspects to achieving authentic internationalization. First, creating a healthy institutional, intellectual, and cultural milieu is much more meaningful than short-term academic achievements, as an over-emphasis on quantifiable and visible outcomes ultimately hinders long-term development. Second, adequate time and space need to be granted to academics so that they can contribute to global and national scholarship, assume social commitments, and promote dialog with international communities and among civilizations. This book highlights that higher education internationalization is an evolving process whose advanced phase would require Chinese social scientists to bring China to the world. While a rising China offers opportunities to both Chinese and international social scientists, sociologists at Tsinghua are faced with both advantages and obligations. They are expected to contribute to domestic social transformations and global and national/local scholarly development at the same

Preface

xiii

time. It is time for the university to reassess the long-term impact of internationalization on its academic disciplines and provide sufficient support for the development of the social sciences. Beijing, China

Meng Xie

Acknowledgments

This book originated from my doctoral study that was initiated at the University of Hong Kong and was promoted at both Tsinghua University and Cambridge University. This book was further developed during my academic work at the Renmin University of China, where I continued my research on the intellectual history and academic development of the Chinese social sciences. Although this book retains many elements of my doctoral thesis, it has been further modified under the guidance of Prof. Yang Rui, Prof. Simon Marginson, and Prof. Ruth Hayhoe. Their continuous support enabled me to write this book with great determination and intellectual enthusiasm. I am extremely grateful to my primary supervisor, Prof. Yang Rui from the University of Hong Kong, for introducing me to the research field of international and comparative studies in (higher) education and guiding my doctoral study from conception to completion. His rigorous training and meticulous guidance have nurtured within me the seeds of an independent thinker and international scholar. I am also indebted to my co-supervisor, Prof. Cheng Kai-ming from the University of Hong Kong, for his intellectual inspiration and magnanimous support. I express here deep gratitude to Prof. Ruth Hayhoe from the University of Toronto and Prof. Simon Marginson from the University of Oxford, examiners of my doctoral thesis, for their insightful comments and academic support. It is my humble hope that I can follow in their footsteps in global higher education research. I am thankful to Prof. Patrick Baert for hosting me as a visiting scholar in Cambridge University’s Department of Sociology. Professor Patrick is the person who opened my imagination to the beauty of intellectual life. I will always cherish the time I spent at Cambridge. Studying in the Department, the old site of the Cavendish Laboratory, and living at Downing College where I could amble along the Free School Lane, was some of the most delightful moments of my doctoral journey. My warm thanks also go to Prof. Guo Yike, a scientist of Imperial College London, for being a fantastic mentor. Three generations of his family have been Tsinghuaers. I am thankful for his precious observations and insights about the old and the new Tsinghua, different higher education systems around the world, and the subtle nuances of China’s modernization and its impact on education and xv

xvi

Acknowledgments

research. He has urged me to keep an open mind, nurtured my curiosity, engaged in interdisciplinary dialog, and reminded me to widen my intellectual horizons. I have received generous support from my anonymous participants in the Sociology Department at Tsinghua. The biggest treasure of my doctoral study has been the chance I was given to communicate with these prominent scholars in Chinese sociology. I am fascinated by the intellectual style of Tsinghua’s sociologists, who have integrated their academic aspirations with their social commitments. I could not have accomplished this research work without their support. Special thanks go to all my friends and colleagues in HOC 109, HOC 102, and RMS 401 who have always been by my side and have accompanied me through my doctoral journey. Above all, I am indebted to my family for giving me unfailing love and immense support. I owe my deepest gratitude to my family. Their unwavering belief in me keeps me pursuing my dreams. Beijing, China

Meng Xie

Contents

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction . . . . 1.1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 The Evolution of the Global Social Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 The Internationalization of Higher Education in China . . . . . 1.1.3 The International Visibility and Influence of China’s Social Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4 In the Spotlight: The Global Vision and Achievements of Tsinghua University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.5 Opportunities and Challenges for Tsinghua’s Social Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Methodological Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.1 Rationales for Adopting the Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3.2 Rationales for Adopting Tsinghua’s Sociology as the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 The Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.1 Theoretical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4.2 Practical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Structure of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic Relations: A Theoretical Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Studies on the Internationalization of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Understanding the Internationalization of Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Internationalization Versus Globalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Studies on Academic Disciplines and the Social Sciences . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Comprehending Academic Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Classification of Academic Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Theories of the Academic Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 1 3 6 8 10 11 12 12 14 19 19 21 22 23 29 30 30 34 36 36 38 40

xvii

xviii

Contents

2.3 A Review of International Academic Relations in the Social Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 The Uneven Internationalization of the Social Sciences . . . . 2.3.2 Challenging Euro-American Domination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 A Multi-polarized Academic World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 A Revolution in the Global Social Sciences? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44 44 51 53 55 59 59

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese Universities: A Historical and Critical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.1 The Social Sciences in Imperial China (1840–1912): The Emerging Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.1.1 Western Hegemony and the Spread of Western Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3.1.2 Chinese Translations of Foreign Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.1.3 Overseas-Trained Chinese Intellectuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.1.4 The Development of Modern Universities and the Discipline System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3.2 Social Sciences in the ROC Period (1912–1949): Europeanization and Americanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.2.1 Socio-political, Cultural, and Educational Backgrounds of the Development of the Social Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.2.2 Developing the Social Sciences Under Western Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3.2.3 Indigenizing the Social Sciences in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3.2.4 Achievements and Dilemmas in the Social Sciences in the ROC Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 3.3 Social Sciences in the PRC During the Mao Period (1949– 1976): The Soviet Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 3.3.1 The Soviet Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3.3.2 Ten Lost Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3.4 Social Sciences in the PRC in the Post-Mao Period (After 1976): Internationalization and Indigenization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 3.4.1 The Reconstruction of the Social Sciences in Chinese Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 3.4.2 The Contemporary Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3.4.3 The Indigenous Response to the Western Social Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Contents

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology at Tsinghua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 The Disciplinary Organization of Tsinghua’s Sociology: An Institutional Snapshot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 World-Class University Policies and Internationalization Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Phase I: Projects 211 and 985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Phase II: Double First-Class University Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Institutional Isomorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Mimetic Isomorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Normative Isomorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Coercive Isomorphism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Institutional Heterogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Chinese Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 The Tsinghua Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Features of the Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production and Dissemination of Tsinghua’s Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Examining Knowledge Production and Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 The Sites of Knowledge Production and Circulation . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Research Scopes and Territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Theoretical Affiliations and Originality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.4 Methodological Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 The Dialectical Relations in Intellectual Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 The Language Used: Chinese or English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Intellectual Spaces: Internationalization and Indigenization Internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Asymmetric Patterns: Center and Periphery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 The Conceptual Framework of Disciplinary Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Theme 1: International Scholars? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Theme 2: International Academic Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Theme 3: Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Theme 4: Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Theme 5: Disciplinary Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.1 Academic Development and Social Commitment . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2 National Significance and International Frontiers . . . . . . . . . 6.6.3 National/Local Contributions and Global Influences . . . . . . . 6.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xix

103 104 106 106 109 110 113 117 119 122 123 125 129 131 132 135 136 136 138 142 147 148 149 152 157 160 161 165 165 166 168 171 173 176 176 177 178 180 181

xx

Contents

7 Discussions and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Organizational Evolution: Three Circles with Inherent Opportunities and Complexities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Intellectual Evolution: Fragmentation and Integration in Sociological Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Cultural Evolution: The Coexistence of Ever-Increasing Disquiet and Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183 184 187 193 197 199

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Abbreviations

CPC HE HEIs HESA HSS IIM ISCED ISSC JACS MIT MOE OECD PKU PRC ROC SCI SSCI TPHRC UK UNESCO US WoS

The Communist Party of China Higher Education Higher Education Institutions Higher Education Statistics Agency Humanities and Social Sciences Institutional Isomorphism Model International Standard Classification of Education International Social Science Council Joint Academic Classification of Subjects Massachusetts Institute of Technology The Ministry of Education (of the PRC) Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Peking University The People’s Republic of China The Republic of China Science Citation Index Social Science Citation Index Tsinghua’s Research Center for Public Health The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization The United States of America Web of Science

xxi

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 2.1 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 6.1 Fig. A.1

China’s research publications indexed in the WoS (1997– 2017). Source Web of Science (2017a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The historical trajectory of Tsinghua University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Becher and Trowler’s taxonomy of academic disciplines. Source Becher and Trowler (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Books issued by the Translation Department of the Jiangnan Arsenal (1868–1909). Source Fu (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total annual production of research papers by Tsinghua’s sociologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The percentage of CSSCI and SSCI articles published by Tsinghua’s sociologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research categories of the SSCI articles of Tsinghua’s Sociologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tsinghua university’s top 10 partnership countries. Source Tsinghua University (2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interactive model for qualitative research design. Source Maxwell (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 14 42 71 137 138 139 169 205

xxiii

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 6.1 Table A.1

Discipline system in Chinese universities in 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . Disciplinary fields of Chinese students in American universities (1909–1929) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic societies in the ROC period (1928–1935) . . . . . . . . . A 985 project fund for C9 universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project funds of beijing high school high-tech innovation centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tsinghua’s disciplines listed on the double first-class university plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational backgrounds of academics in Tsinghua’s Department of Sociology in 2016 (N = 14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . International and national rankings of sociology departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tsinghua university’s registered students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interviewees from the department of sociology, Tsinghua University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79 81 87 108 111 112 118 129 175 208

xxv

Chapter 1

Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

This book concentrates on how higher education (HE) internationalization shapes disciplinary development in a global context of asymmetrical academic relations. It does so by examining Tsinghua University’s sociology as a case set amidst both China’s dramatic economic, social, political, and cultural transformations, and the dynamic institutional reforms in this flagship university. I begin the introductory chapter by setting the scene of my research from a global horizon. Next, this chapter focuses on the target situation and subject matter of this work. This is followed by an explanation of the questions guiding this research, as well as the theoretical and practical rationales for choosing this research topic and utilizing a case-based methodological approach. Finally, I illuminate the scope of the book with an overview of each chapter.

1.1 Statement of the Problem 1.1.1 The Evolution of the Global Social Sciences Today’s era of (de-)globalization is witness to the expanding complexity of and fundamental challenges to the development of the social sciences. In a globalized world, human society is undergoing unprecedented changes—economic, political, social, and philosophical—yet the social sciences have not developed at a commensurate pace (Wallerstein, 1996). In light of the anti-globalist movements that have likely been heightened by the coronavirus pandemic, the world can be seen as both increasingly interdependent and multi-dimensional and, at the same time, complexly and unpredictably mutable, proverbially influenced by geopolitical uncertainty and an eroding international order (McClory, 2017, 2019). The current situation further exposes the limitations of the social sciences’ capacity to instill understanding © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Xie, Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China, East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8_1

1

2

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

among different civilizations, promote human welfare, and orchestrate strategies to respond to growing problems, including global health security, economic crises, social inequity, terrorist attacks, and environmental pollution, amongst others. There has been no shortage of criticism of the inadequacy of the evolution of the social sciences (Wallerstein, 1997). In the World Social Science Report 2010, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Social Science Council (ISSC) pointed out that the social sciences are in a position to broach the frontiers of human knowledge and shape a better world; however, knowledge divides and uneven global academic relations are detrimental to the social sciences’ ability to respond to ongoing changes and global challenges. The social sciences that could enable us to understand human societies and interpret social behaviors and problems are deemed to be extremely monocultural, fragmented, and heterogeneous (UNESCO & ISSC, 2010). Indeed, a longstanding concern of the social science disciplines has been the fragmentation of knowledge and the exclusion of knowledge and cultures from a large majority of non-Western societies (Alatas, 2000; Bueno, 2013; Keim, 2010; Yang, 2014). The uneven academic relations and an asymmetrical knowledge structure have hampered the further evolution of the global social sciences (Keim, 2011). The social sciences in many non-Western countries have been extremely marginalized, while the international mainstream and academic discourses have been dominated by a handful of superpowers. Huge disparities in knowledge generation capacities and large inequalities in knowledge dissemination across countries exist in an uneven global social science system (Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010). Despite the long history and rich civilization of countries such as China and India, their indigenous knowledge and traditional cultures have not been well positioned to reach their full potential to enrich human knowledge in a modern but asymmetrical global academic world (Altbach, 2014). Nevertheless, globalization and international development are changing the global academic spaces and inspiring the rethinking, refining, and re-empowering of the world social sciences (Alatas, 2006; Keim, 2011; Sinha, 2003; Wallerstein, 1998). A growing multi-polarized space is emerging to embrace diversity and innovation. Thus social scientists in various societies are expected to cooperate across national boundaries and disciplinary territories to respond to the challenges around us. There is an increasing trend of breaking with the Eurocentric, monocultural, and patriarchal hegemony and assuming the legitimacy of listening to different voices and alternative discourses in the mainstream social sciences. In this respect, indigenous knowledge and diverse cultures cry out to be included in the global social sciences. This has inspired Chinese intellectuals to ask what and how the Chinese social sciences will contribute to the global knowledge society. China has been in a long transition to modernization since the mid-nineteenth century (Wang, 2000; Xu, 2006). Currently, it is the world’s most populous country, with a population of 1.4 billion. It is the second-largest economy in the world and plays as an indispensable role in the world economy. China has undergone spectacular development involving unprecedented economic, social, political, and cultural transformations since Deng Xiaoping’s introduction of economic reforms in 1978 and now stands at a crucial

1.1 Statement of the Problem

3

moment in its history (Li, 2016a, 2016b). China’s transition is unique in human history. While the world’s most developed countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US), have experienced industrialization, urbanization, and an information age sequentially over hundreds of years, China is undergoing them all almost simultaneously. As Zhang stated, “Think about using the United States as a parallel example, it’s like having Carnegie, Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, and Mark Zuckerberg sitting together in the same room, in the same decade, building up all the wealth and value at the same time” (Yale School of Management, 2015). Without doubt, both unparalleled opportunities and drastic conflicts have emerged during such a process. The evolution of the Chinese social sciences has been enmeshed in the social revolution and transition of China. The Chinese social sciences were rejuvenated after the adoption of the “Reform and Opening-Up” policy in the 1980s (Dirlik, 2012; Hayhoe, 1996). Notwithstanding their visible development over the past four decades, the scale and pace of the growth of the Chinese social sciences have not matched China’s transitions. Building on the unparalleled transformation and social development in China, the Chinese social sciences are now encountering both great opportunities for and challenges to understanding and interpreting the nature of society and the complexity of ever-changing social circumstances, while providing strategic solutions to cope with these social challenges. Chinese social scientists cannot fulfill these missions by merely looking deep into Chinese society while isolating it from the world community (Yang, 2017). It is no longer wise and possible to refine the Chinese social sciences without embracing international landscapes and global horizons, while, at the same time, traditional scholarship and indigenous epistemology, knowledge, and cultures are crucially important to the further advancement of the Chinese social sciences. The empowerment of the Chinese social sciences can instill a rich civilization in the global community and can become an integrated part of the evolution of or even revolution in the world social sciences in an emerging multi-polarized academic space (Hayhoe, 2001; Roulleau-Berger, 2016).

1.1.2 The Internationalization of Higher Education in China China’s higher education system has been exponentially transformed in terms of its scale, quality, and impact since the 1980s (Kirby, 2014a; Mohrman et al., 2011; Yang, 2015). The expansion and far-reaching growth of higher education has occurred in tandem with China’s modernization and transformation in the economic, political, and social spheres (Hayhoe et al., 2011; Xie, 2018; Yang, 2017). Based on the appeal initiated by Deng Xiaoping—“education should face modernization, the world, and the future”—China has aligned higher education development with dramatic changes in its economy and society. The expansion of China’s higher education has outstripped that of any other country in the world over the past four decades and has accelerated in the last two decades. China currently has the largest higher education

4

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

system in the world, with 2738 regular higher education institutions and a total enrolment of 41.83 million students in 2020 (MOE, 2020). Moreover, China’s endeavors to improve the quality and international competitiveness of its higher education have begun to pay off (Marginson, 2021; Mohrman, 2013). Chinese universities have long competed with their domestic peers within national borders but have been less able to compete with their international counterparts on the global stage (Marginson, 2006). The past forty years, however, have witnessed profound changes in Chinese universities, which have developed their international connectivity and global competitiveness (Yang, 2015; Yang & Xie, 2015). In particular, China’s flagship universities have been at the forefront of educational reform, embracing waves of HE internationalization in response to challenges generated by ever-changing global trends while having a growing impact in the international arena (Allen, 2017; Yang, 2017). The development of China’s flagship universities has been an integral part of the national strategy. China has been transformed into a newly rising world power with startling economic development and has become a scientific research giant (Gu, 2001; Wu, 2019). At present, the country seeks to continue to develop rapidly and enhance its status as a global power in today’s knowledge-based economy and era of scientific innovation. As such, China’s leading universities, among others, are expected to play a crucial role in facilitating national development and rejuvenation (Altbach & Wang, 2012; Yang & Welch, 2012). They have been pushed to stand on the global stage and face international competition while being extensively supported by the Chinese government (Luo, 2013). The Chinese central government has inaugurated policy initiatives to accelerate higher education development and boost the number of world-class universities and first-class disciplines. China’s higher education system presents a pyramidal structure, with a handful of flagship universities at the top and a large number of universities and colleges at the base (Altbach, 2016). In 1998, three years after the implementation of Project 211, the Chinese government launched Project 985, which supported a handful of top-tier Chinese universities’ pursuit of world-class status. In 2015 the Ministry of Education (MOE) further inaugurated the Double First-Class Initiative, marking a major shift in focus: rather than only creating a number of world-class universities, the project would also foster the growth of a large number of firstclass disciplines. As Postiglione and Altbach (2013) noted, a university can hardly have world-class status without internationalization. As such, internationalization has been adopted by leading universities as a major strategy to achieve national targets for world-class standing (Mohrman, 2008; Xie, 2018). In China, current perceptions of the internationalization of HE have evolved from willingness and efforts to: (i) introduce the world to China; (ii) catch up with developed societies; and, (iii) bring China to the world (Yang, 2015). It is worth noting that these three stages can occur both sequentially and simultaneously. China’s HE institutions have been largely influenced by the West by “bringing in” and incorporating international (Western) knowledge and patterns in the first stage. In the second stage, China’s top universities have constructively embraced international standards and norms while further engaging with global competition and catching up with world

1.1 Statement of the Problem

5

leading universities. Currently, there is no shortage of evidence that China’s flagship universities have enjoyed impressive achievements in attracting global attention (Altbach & Wang, 2012; Marginson, 2014). In the third stage, China has striven to support its universities in broadening their engagement with the world, enhancing their global prestige and competitiveness, and developing their Chinese characteristics, so as to contribute to the global community and establish the Chinese model. In this way, China can project its soft power and cultural diplomacy on a global scale during the process of HE internationalization (Wu, 2021; Yang, 2017). China’s leading universities are being reshaped by the above-mentioned topdown reforms fueled by the need for intensifying internationalization, a trend that is profoundly changing every aspect of Chinese universities. These universities are now challenged to discover how to position themselves on the international stage, how to build themselves into world-class universities with Chinese characteristics, and what to bring to the world community. Answering these questions will require a comprehensive and balanced development of the Chinese higher education system. Nevertheless, it seems that Chinese universities, including the top ones, have skewed the equilibrium between scale expansion and quality development, between imitative and creative advancement, between attention to the “hard” (e.g., the natural sciences and engineering) and the “soft” disciplines (e.g., the social sciences and humanities), between applied and pure academic pursuits, and between “inward-oriented” and “outward-oriented” internationalization, to some extent (Altbach, 2013, 2016; Luo, 2016; Mohrman, 2008; Wu, 2021; Xie, 2018; Yang, 2017). Internationalization is currently a prominent theme in Chinese higher education; however, during its course, it has been characterized by the import of foreign influences and models, rather than the export of Chinese influences and culture (Wu, 2021; Xie, 2018; Yang, 2017; Zha et al., 2019). China’s top universities’ striking achievements and rise in world rankings have not yielded an exportable Chinese model to bring Chinese civilization and culture to the world. Both insiders and outsiders are curious to know the endpoint of the long-term and ongoing transformation of China’s modern universities. What will Chinese universities bring to the world? This kind of inquiry is related to the future development and status of China’s higher education—will Chinese universities join the ranks of world-class universities and even challenge the supremacy of Western universities, or will they continue to fall behind as followers? However, the more important concern is how modern Chinese universities will bring Chinese civilization and culture to the world, and open up refreshingly new approaches to and spaces for intercommunication and mutual integration with internationalization (Hayhoe, 2017; Yang, 2017).

6

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

1.1.3 The International Visibility and Influence of China’s Social Sciences Worldwide, the course of the internationalization of higher education has been different in various subject areas, with the “hard” sciences having a higher degree of internationalization than the “soft” sciences.1 This is due to linguistic, cultural, and ideological conditions inherent in the “soft” sciences (Altbach, 1998; Hayhoe, 1993). More specifically, the social sciences are embedded in cultural contexts while at the same time relying greatly on specific languages to convey meanings (Yang, 2005). Not merely influenced by cultural complexity, the social sciences are also rooted in social contexts with a close association with political and ideological discourses such that the development of the social sciences is readily influenced by domestic considerations (Zhou et al., 2010). The evolution of the social sciences in China has been interwoven with all the aforementioned factors, with political and ideological factors in particular having exerted considerable influence (Huang, 2010). The disciplinary disparities between the “hard” and “soft” sciences in terms of the level of internationalization are pronounced in the Chinese higher education system. Approximately twenty years ago, prominent scholar Ruth Hayhoe (1993) observed that China’s “hard” sciences had experienced considerable development, while the Chinese social sciences were still obscure to the international knowledge community. After two decades of notable advancement in higher education and scientific research, it is clear that, while both the “hard” and “soft” sciences have made great progress in China, the huge disparity between them has not only remained, it has expanded. The former, in particular, play a more important role in international science and technology, with some research realms—such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)—increasingly at the forefront (Altbach & Wang, 2012; Kuhn & Okamoto, 2014). The latter, however, still have marginal international influence, with Chinese social scientists enjoying relatively limited global visibility and prestige (Yang, 2015). In practice, top Chinese universities strive to boost their research productivity, knowledge production and innovation, and scientific publications as a strategy to enhance their global status and engage in world league tables (Postiglione & Jung, 2013). There has been momentous growth in scientific productivity and innovation by Chinese academics pumping out an increasing number of international publications, particularly by researchers in the natural and technological sciences (Yang, 2015). Studies in bibliometrics have shown that China has emerged as a science and technology superpower in terms of the sheer volume of global scientific publications and has been ranked second in the world since 2006 (Zhou et al., 2009). As indicated by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), China overtook the United States for the first time and became the world’s largest producer of science and engineering 1

In the Chinese context, the “soft” sciences refer to “Wen Ke” (文科), which is a constellation of all academic disciplines in the humanities and the social sciences. This book specifically concentrates on the development of the social science disciplines.

SCI

SSCI

2017

2016

2015

2013

2014

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2003

7

2004

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1.1 Statement of the Problem

A&HCI

Fig. 1.1 China’s research publications indexed in the WoS (1997–2017). Source Web of Science (2017a)

articles in 2016 (Tollefson, 2018). In addition, a recent report by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET, 2021) revealed that China has consistently surpassed the United States in the number of STEM doctorates since the mid-2000s and will produce nearly twice as many STEM doctorates as the United States by 2025. Conversely, the Chinese social sciences are still deficiently represented in the global academic community and knowledge system, in terms of both publications and international influence (Yang, 2013). For example, among a total of 2,921,664 publications indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) from 1997 to 2017, only 114,681 (3.93%) and 11,614 (0.40%) were in the social sciences and humanities, respectively (Fig. 1.1). Notwithstanding a good performance in the total number of scientific publications, China’s world share of publications and citations in the social sciences has been quite low (Zhou et al., 2009). China’s achievements in the natural sciences and technologies have been much more visible than those in the social sciences. There exists a huge gap between the “hard” and “soft” sciences in terms of their internationalization levels and standards. This leads us to question why China’s social sciences still have such a marginal status in the global knowledge system. Previous research has shown that China’s social scientists encounter barriers to promoting themselves in the global arena due to cultural differences, language barriers, geopolitical disturbances, and unequal international academic relations (Zhou et al., 2009). Other scholars, however, have argued that a more critical and fundamental problem is the inappropriate, insufficient, and incomplete integration of Chinese and Western epistemology, knowledge, and values (Hayhoe, 2001; Xie, 2018; Yang, 2013; Yang, et al., 2019). As the social science disciplines in modern Chinese universities are foreign transplants that have their roots in Western societies, the evolution of China’s social sciences in the internationalization process has been largely influenced by international and, in particular, North American and

8

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

Western European knowledge, values, and disciplinary norms. However, valuable cultural traditions and local knowledge have not been well positioned or developed to promote the evolution of the social sciences in China. While a few scholars, such as Pan Guangdan (潘光旦) and Fei Xiaotong (費孝通), have successfully integrated Chinese indigenous knowledge and culture with Western learning, most current Chinese scholars find it a great challenge to approach such a standard. Nowadays, Chinese social scientists are highly expected to advance human knowledge and contribute to national/local and global scholarship while at the same time taking more responsibility for national development and contributing to a wider global community. In 2012, China’s President Xi Jinping advocated the slogan Chinese Dream (中國夢), inspiring Chinese intellectuals to work for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. In 2017, the building of a community with a shared future for mankind (人類命運共同體) was included in the text of the Constitution of the Communist Party of China (CPC). China’s foreign policy has shifted from being inward-oriented to outward-oriented with the aim of enhancing international influence and contributing to a global community (Wu, 2021; Wu & Zha, 2018; Yang, 2015). After forty years of unprecedented growth, China currently stands on the cusp of technological innovation, diplomatic relationships, and a social transition. Against this backdrop, Chinese social scientists are faced with both obligations and challenges in exploring the strategic path forward. They are responsible for engaging with global communities, facilitating the enhancement of China’s influence on international relations and global affairs, and bringing Chinese learning and civilization to the world. In this process, China’s flagship universities, such as Tsinghua University (Tsinghua), along with their scholars are highly expected to take on heavy responsibilities.

1.1.4 In the Spotlight: The Global Vision and Achievements of Tsinghua University Tsinghua University, the most prestigious in mainland China, occupies a particular historic and contemporary nexus with the West. Established in 1911 under the support of the Gengzi Indemnity Fund (庚子賠款), it was originally situated in a former royal garden in Beijing. Originally named Tsinghua Xuetang (清華學堂), it served as a preparatory school for Chinese students who would be sent by the Chinese government to study in the United States. It was renamed National Tsinghua University (國 立清華大學) in 1928 and developed into “a highly visible comprehensive university, with programs in the basic arts and sciences, as well as professional areas such as law and engineering” (Hayhoe, 1996, p. 49). Tsinghua was known for academic excellence and developed a tradition of integrating “Chinese and Western cultures, the sciences and humanities, and the ancient and modern” (Tsinghua University, 2021). Following the outbreak of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1937–1945), Tsinghua merged with National Peking University (PKU) and Nankai

1.1 Statement of the Problem

9

University to form the far-reaching National South-West Associated University (國立西南聯合大學) in Kunming, from 1938 to 1946. Extreme hardship did not suppress Tsinghua academics’ taste for intellectual pursuit and social commitment (Kirby, 2014b). In 1946, Tsinghua moved back to its Beijing campus. In 1952, after a nationwide restructuring of colleges and universities under the influence of the Soviet model, Tsinghua became a multidisciplinary polytechnic university, prestigious for training generations of “Red engineers.”2 Tsinghua did not reconstruct its humanities and social sciences until the late of 1970s, yet has re-established itself as a comprehensive research university in a short period. With substantial support from the central state through Project 211, Project 985, and the Double First-Class Initiative, the overall disciplinary landscape of Tsinghua has seen striking changes, and now encompasses engineering, science, economics, management, art, medicine, philosophy, law, literature, history, and education (Tsinghua University, 2021). Simultaneously, its advantages in engineering and sciences have been further strengthened (Kirby & Eby, 2016). Tsinghua’s stated goal is to “uplift its overall level to world-class standards during 2012–2020” (Yang & Welch, 2012, p. 648). The University has striven to hone its mission to enhance its global standing and international prestige. Its notable efforts include reforming and strengthening its academic disciplines, research capacity, governance, personnel system, and other areas. Each of these reforms is “one piece of the world class university puzzle” (Kirby & Eby, 2016, p. 2), and “a growing push toward internationalization” (p. 10). Tsinghua has had strong performance in global university rankings. According to U.S. News & World Report’s rankings, Tsinghua has, since 2015, displaced the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as the world’s best university for engineering and computer science. Tsinghua has been ranked within the top fifty and top twenty universities worldwide since 2013 and 2021 respectively, based on both the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Tsinghua is now well-positioned to join the global league tables in alignment with its stated plan. Tsinghua’s various attainments in scientific research, talent training, and social service have earned growing national and global recognition (Wang, 2014). The University has been among the top universities in the world and is a cradle for cultivating China’s leading scientists and engineers—such as the Nobel laureates Yang Zhenning and Li Zhengdao—and such high-level government officials as President Xi Jinping and former President Hu Jintao. Today, Tsinghua is making determined efforts to expand its international visibility and influence. For instance, through the 2016 establishment of the elite Schwarzman Scholars program (蘇世民書院), it is attempting to inspire the next generation of global leaders. Another example is the Global Innovation Exchange (GIE), an overseas campus run cooperatively by Tsinghua University and the University of Washington, with foundational support from Microsoft, to bring intelligent people together to work on innovative ways to

2

As president Jiang Nanxiang stated, Tsinghua was committed to cultivating “Red engineers” who were both deeply expert and thoroughly committed to the CPC.

10

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

cope with global challenges. Tsinghua also plays an active role in the Asian Universities Alliance (亞洲大學聯盟) to deepen regional cooperation, and has established partnerships with forty-eight countries and 271 universities to strengthen international academic exchange. Through these international activities and collaborations, Tsinghua is pursuing its positive impact at both the national and global levels. Over the past century, the University has shared China’s hardships and glories, and its development has been embedded in the destiny of the nation. Per its motto of “selfdiscipline and social commitment” (自強不息 厚德載物), Tsinghua is committed to academic excellence, the well-being of Chinese society, and global development. Accompanying Tsinghua’s far-reaching development has been an escalating social commitment, and China’s rise has equipped this flagship university with growing opportunities and responsibilities in both national and global communities. Tsinghua is positioned for leadership in China’s global strategy, and its efforts to catch up with leading global universities have been accelerated. The University has become more active in the ever-changing international arena and much more integrated into world elite groups. Moreover, the aspiring Tsinghua people are striving to establish a great university with Chinese characteristics, one that can both assert Tsinghua’s cultural identity and achieve its global mission. Tsinghua’s current president, Qiu Yong, has stated that having Chinese characteristics and being world-class are inseparable attributes (Kirby & Eby, 2016).

1.1.5 Opportunities and Challenges for Tsinghua’s Social Sciences Tsinghua’s pursuit of global university status and social commitment cannot exclusively rest on the ascendancy and strong performance of its research capacity, productivity, and innovation in science and technology (Xie, 2018; Yang & Welch, 2012). A thread that runs through Tsinghua’s unwavering goal to build up a world-status university with Chinese characteristics has been its efforts to develop into a comprehensive university and reconstruct its humanities and social sciences (Xie, 2011; Xie & Liu, 2019). This book specifically focuses on the status and evolution of Tsinghua’s social sciences in a burgeoning internationalization discourse. In retrospect, Tsinghua’s social sciences had a splendid history between the 1920s and 1940s. They hosted renowned scholars, cultivated talented students, established outstanding research, and nurtured an intellectual tradition of advocating for harmoniously blending the ancient and the modern (古今貫通), integrating the Chinese and the Western (中西融合), and interconnecting the humanities and sciences (文理 滲透). Meanwhile, Tsinghua’s social scientists adhered to a tradition of connecting social commitment to national progress and development through their academic work—a practice Chinese intellectuals had long sought to establish. Nevertheless, the historical trajectory of Tsinghua’s social sciences has been discontinuous, as the disciplines were disbanded after 1952 and not reconstructed until the 1980s.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

11

Tsinghua’s social sciences have undergone extensive development in the decades since. Once referred to as the “MIT of China,” Tsinghua was a polytechnic university specializing in science and engineering. Its world-class university building policies and initiatives led to a surge in discipline construction. One of the most crucial themes in this process has been the reconstruction and rejuvenation of the social sciences (Xie, 2018; Yang & Welch, 2012). The University had already developed into a comprehensive institution around 2002 (Wang, 2003), but it has focused extensively upon science and engineering until today (Wang, 2014). Tsinghua’s “hard” sciences are attracting growing international attention. In sharp contrast, its social sciences are still under-represented, with relatively limited visibility and influence in the international knowledge community. Tsinghua’s scientists already enjoy considerable advantages and primarily work on cutting-edge research amid fierce international competition, while their colleagues in the social sciences are much less visible internationally. Tsinghua has become one of the world’s top producers of international publications in science and technology, while Tsinghua’s social scientists have contributed a relatively limited number of papers to top international peer-reviewed journals. For example, in the five years from 2013 to 2017, Tsinghua’s academics contributed a total of 37,729 SCI and SSCI papers, with 94.95% of SCI articles in science and engineering and approximately 5.05% of SSCI articles in social science areas (WoS, 2017b). Tsinghua has sought to achieve its transformation into a top comprehensive research university, foster its leadership in international higher education, and raise its status in the global community. As a flagship university in China, Tsinghua is expected to promote cutting-edge knowledge, cultivate global leaders, serve China’s social development in influential ways by advancing both hard and soft powers, and contribute to the progress of human civilization (Hayhoe, 2017; Yang, 2017). Hence the rise of science and technology at Tsinghua should be accompanied by social and cultural undertakings, meaning Tsinghua needs to further strengthen its humanities and social sciences (Xie & Liu, 2019). As Tsinghua is challenged to fulfill its mission and dedicated to social commitment at home and abroad, its social scientists enjoy great opportunities to strengthen their academic disciplines.

1.2 Research Questions The ongoing process of internationalization has changed the landscape of China’s higher education in a dramatic manner. Much previous research has focused upon internationalization at the university level without going further to investigate a particular academic discipline. Given the tremendous differences between the “hard” and “soft” sciences and “pure” and “applied” disciplines (Becher & Trowler, 2001), it is important to examine the connotations and impacts of internationalization on specific academic disciplines. Hence, this research looked at the impacts of HE internationalization on the social sciences by examining the perspectives and experiences that

12

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

Tsinghua’s scholars have used to integrate international and Chinese elements and patterns while developing their academic disciplines. This book investigates how HE internationalization is influencing the development of the social sciences at Tsinghua, using one academic discipline—sociology—as an example. It asks the question: • How has HE internationalization shaped the disciplinary development of Tsinghua’s sociology, whose growth and tensions are situated both in a global context of asymmetrical academic relations and in China’s dramatic economic, social, political, and cultural transformations, as well as the University’s institutional reforms? To answer this core question, this book examines the disciplinary development of Tsinghua’s sociology under the influence of HE internationalization through the lens of Wallerstein’s three essential dimensions of the social science disciplines—disciplinary organization, disciplinary knowledge, and disciplinary culture (see Chap. 2). This research investigated the core question via the following subordinate questions: • How has internationalization influenced the development of Tsinghua’s sociology organizationally, intellectually, and culturally? • How have Chinese and international (Western) patterns, knowledge, and cultures been integrated to construct Tsinghua’s sociology at the organizational, intellectual, and cultural levels? • How have global, national, and institutional forces interacted during the process of internationalization to exert impact on the organizational, intellectual, and cultural developments of Tsinghua’s sociology? In this book, particular attention is paid to how Chinese and Western dimensions and patterns have been integrated into Tsinghua’s sociology in these three aspects. These processes and mechanisms are couched in national and institutional milieus and are subject to international and global influences. This book investigates the subtle tensions, contradictions, and predicaments inherent in such a process. These questions primarily reflect both the perceptions and experiences of Tsinghua’s sociologists—that is, the chief practitioners and pioneers of its disciplinary evolution. This book also identifies and analyzes the challenges and opportunities encountered by Tsinghua’s sociologists, as well as the strategies and approaches they have adopted to strengthen Tsinghua’s sociology.

1.3 Methodological Considerations 1.3.1 Rationales for Adopting the Case Study In this book, a qualitative case study is used to develop a naturalistic and holistic exploration and in-depth understanding of the research questions (see Appendix A: Methodology and Method). A case study is an in-depth investigation and empirical

1.3 Methodological Considerations

13

inquiry of a given social unit (Yin, 2009). It intensively portrays “what it is like” in a particular situation in a real-life context and strives to approach reality (Cohen et al., 2007). It is a method that enables thick description of the central phenomenon, person, or event by employing multiple sources of evidence (Merriam, 1998; Robson, 2002). In the words of Miles and Huberman (1994), a case study is “a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context” (p. 25). Yin (2009) presented the following definition of a case study: an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. (p. 18)

The case study method can be used for various research purposes, such as providing description and exploration (Yin, 2009), testing and refining theory (King et al., 1996), and generating theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). This method was selected for this study for two reasons. First, the case study approach is appropriate for capturing explanatory information (Yin, 1993) and unearthing answers to “how” and “why” questions (Merriam, 1998), which matched this research’s aim of investigating how the internationalization process is influencing the disciplinary evolution of the Chinese social sciences. Second, a case study approach lends itself well to presenting a holistic and naturalistic picture of a research problem and leads to in-depth understanding (Yin, 2009). This research investigated the disciplinary evolution of the Chinese social sciences in the multi-faceted context of a set of asymmetrical international academic relationships, the peculiarities of a transforming China, and the institutional features and specific efforts of a leading university. Case study was particularly useful to this research due to its intensive and in-depth explorations of dynamic and complex issues in complex settings (Eisenhardt, 1989). In a case study, the selected case(s) are expected to enable the investigator to address the research questions and satisfy the research purposes. There exist various types of case study. Merriam (1988) described three types of case study (descriptive, interpretative, and evaluative), as did Yin (2009) (descriptive, exploratory, and explanatory), Stake (1995) (intrinsic, instrumental, and collective), and Thomas (2010) (key, special or outlier, and local-knowledge). These classifications are based on different epistemological standpoints (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin, 2009). In the context of this study, a single case was selected for both exploratory and explanatory purposes. The rationales for choosing Tsinghua’s sociology as an example are explained in the following sections.

14

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

1.3.2 Rationales for Adopting Tsinghua’s Sociology as the Case 1.3.2.1

Case: Tsinghua University

In April 1911 Tsinghua Xuetang (清華學堂) was established in Beijing, on the site of Qing Hua Yuan. It was partly funded by the Boxer Rebellion indemnity and operated as a preparatory school to foster Chinese students for entry into American universities. The university section was launched in 1925, offering four-year undergraduate programs. In 1926, seventeen academic departments were founded, including the departments of Sociology, Politics, Economics, and Psychology (Qian & Li, 2011). A graduate school was established in 1929. In 1931, Mei Yiqi (梅貽琦) became the president of Tsinghua, and he made remarkable contributions to Tsinghua during his long tenure (1931–1948). Over time, under the leadership of President Mei Yiqi, Tsinghua became a top multidisciplinary university and enjoyed prestige at home and abroad. By the end of the 1940s, twenty-six departments had been constructed and incorporated into five schools—the Schools of Arts, Science, Law, Engineering, and Agriculture (Shi, 2011). Tsinghuaers were nurtured to encompass academic aspiration and personal dignity and, even during the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, did not slacken their academic pursuits and social commitment. After the foundation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, led by the CPC, China’s higher education became influenced by the Soviet model. As a result of institutional adjustment, Tsinghua became a polytechnic university in 1952, specializing in engineering. President Jiang Nanxiang (蔣南翔) took charge of Tsinghua and developed it into a national center for cultivating “Red engineers” and scientists. The humanities and social sciences were removed from Tsinghua, and the profile of the University was reconfigured. Accordingly, the trajectory of the University was divided into two phases in this study—old Tsinghua University (1911–1952) and new Tsinghua University (1952–the present) (Fig. 1.2). Tsinghuaers began to make substantial efforts to transform this polytechnic institute into a comprehensive university when China reopened itself to outside influences in 1978 (Pan, 2009). It is worth noting that the reconstruction was carried forward with the support of national world-class university building reforms. Subsequently, a series of new departments and schools was developed at Tsinghua. For example, the Departments of Economy, Politics, Sociology, and Psychology were re-established in 1984, 2000, 2000, and 2008, respectively.

Fig. 1.2 The historical trajectory of Tsinghua University

1.3 Methodological Considerations

15

At present, Tsinghua has transformed itself into an open, comprehensive, and international research university that consolidates the aim of building a worldclass university (Yang & Welch, 2012). It has twenty-one schools and fifty-nine departments, with faculties in Philosophy, Economics, Management, Medicine, Law, Engineering, Education, Literature, History, Science, and Art (Tsinghua University, 2021). Different social science disciplines are mainly incorporated into seven schools: the School of Social Sciences, the School of Marxism, the School of Economics and Management, the School of Public Policy and Management, the School of Journalism and Communication, the School of Law, and the PBC School of Finance. Internationalization is espoused by all of these schools to strengthen disciplinary development and boost global status. In this book, the selection of Tsinghua was based upon purposeful sampling. Tsinghua was adopted as a significant but unique case to explore the implications and effects of HE internationalization on the disciplinary development of the Chinese social sciences. As Cohen and his colleagues (2007) stated, “significance rather than frequency is a hallmark of case studies” (p. 258), which offer insights into the dynamics of situations in a real setting. The following section illustrates the reasons behind and significance of using Tsinghua as a case study. First, the Chinese higher education system is marked by a hierarchical structure that positions institutions “according to their function and goals” (Zha, 2009, p. 55). Tsinghua is positioned at the top of this structure, representing the highest level of higher learning and research in mainland China (Pan, 2007). Hence, Tsinghua was selected as a key case in this study (Thomas, 2010). As Gerard A. Postiglione described, Tsinghua University and Peking University are the best two universities in China, standing well above the rest (Jiang, 2001). The academic standards and developmental trends of various disciplines at these leading research universities represent the top level in mainland China. The reforms, initiatives, and disciplinary construction strategies of these flagship universities influence other Chinese universities. Besides, prominent scholars at these elite universities play an important role in leading disciplinary development throughout China’s universities. It is important to delve into the intellectual strategies and academic cultures of social scientists at these top universities and to investigate their perspectives and experiences associated with the disciplinary development of the Chinese social sciences. Tsinghua was used in this book as an example and key case to address the research questions, owing to its status in China’s higher education structure. Second, Tsinghua was selected as an important case because it occupies a close historical and contemporary nexus with Western (in particular American) universities and the Western scientific system, and because it has and continues to represent the highest level of HE internationalization among Chinese universities. Tsinghua was originally constructed according to the American model; therefore it has been empathetic to American academic and disciplinary norms and has a comprehensive engagement with the United States. The development of Tsinghua and its academic disciplines was deeply influenced by Western knowledge and cultures (Pan, 2009). Tsinghua’s academics paid great attention and even struggled to balance the Chinese and the Western, the ancient and the modern, and the sciences and the humanities

16

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

(Shi, 2011, p. 69). For example, the “Four Tutors”—Wang Guowei (王國維, 1877– 1927), Liang Qichao (梁啟超, 1873–1929), Chen Yingke(陳寅恪, 1890–1969), and Zhao Yuanren (趙元任, 1892–1982)—had a profound impact on Chinese classics, contributing academic achievements in the course of valuing the interaction between Chinese and Western knowledge and cultures. Today, Tsinghua is striving to raise its overall status in the global league tables and has adopted internationalization as an important strategy to enhance its global influence and competitiveness. Tsinghua highlights the importance of creating effective and international platforms to explore Western culture and cutting-edge knowledge while at the same time fostering its global vision and standing. It has vigorously established international networks to extend its cooperation with prestigious universities, research centers, and enterprises (Yang & Xie, 2015). It is meaningful to investigate the connotations, implications, approaches, and impacts of internationalization at this flagship university and its impacts on the evolution of academic disciplines. For the abovementioned reasons, Tsinghua was adopted as a key case to contribute insights into this book’s research questions (Yin, 2009). I also claim that Tsinghua is a unique case (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Thomas, 2010). First, the standards of academic research and talent cultivation at Tsinghua are well above those of the average Chinese university (Yang & Welch, 2012). By almost every benchmark—such as educational appropriation, reputation, research, innovation, university ranking performance, internationalization level, and disciplinary construction—it is above the standards of not only average Chinese universities but even C93 standards. Tsinghua has a distinctive status in Chinese higher education (Kirby & Eby, 2016). Second, Tsinghua is a unique case due to its distinct disciplinary development trajectory in the social sciences throughout the past century. This trajectory can be divided into three phases: the construction period (1926–1952); the abolishment period (1952–1978); and the reconstruction period (after 1978). Tsinghua began to establish its modern social science disciplines in the 1920s. Numerous social science departments in the old Tsinghua were constructed as a national cradle to generate knowledge, cultivate scholars, and integrate East and West. The University was the home of spectacular achievements in the Chinese social sciences during the first half of the twentieth century (Qian & Li, 2011) and hosted numerous famous scholars, such as the economist Chen Daisun (陳岱孫, 1900–1997), the sociologist Chen Da ( 陳達, 1892–1975), and the sociologist Fei Xiaotong (1910–2005) (Qian & Li, 2011). However, the social science disciplines were abolished at Tsinghua after 1952 and were not re-established until the end of the 1970s. Since then, Tsinghua’s social sciences have experienced notable growth (Xie, 2006). Today, academics face great challenges to upgrade the international status and influence of Tsinghua’s social sciences. 3

The C9 League is seen as the “Chinese Ivy League.” It was formed in 2009 by nine key universities of the 985 Project, namely, Tsinghua University, Peking University, Fudan University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Zhejiang University, Nanjing University, Harbin Institute of Technology, University of Science and Technology of China, and Xi’an Jiao Tong University (Yang & Xie, 2015).

1.3 Methodological Considerations

17

Third, Tsinghua’s uniqueness is also reflected in the disciplinary characteristics of its social sciences, as well as their distinct development trends in comparison with the “hard” sciences. The University improved its overall capacity after the implementation of Projects 211 and 985 (Shi, 2011). Driven by its mission to build a world-class university, Tsinghua’s social sciences have been strengthened, and its economics, management, law, sociology, psychology, and education disciplines have come occupy top positions in China. Nevertheless, the evolution of the social sciences at the University still trails that of its natural and technological sciences. The University’s “hard” disciplinary realms are advancing at a rapid pace and making many achievements; in many fields—computer science and bio-engineering, for example—they take leading global positions. The divergences between Tsinghua’s social sciences and its natural and technological sciences in terms of international visibility, influence, and competitiveness are striking. To sum up, the fundamental rationales for the selection of Tsinghua as a case for inquiry into the problem of internationalizing the social sciences in China relate to its status in the Chinese HE system, its historical and contemporary nexus with the West, and the distinct disciplinary histories and characteristics of its social sciences. However, this book used Tsinghua as a unique case, presenting an emblematic rather than representative understanding of the research problems. The case of Tsinghua provided an in-depth exploration of the development trends, opportunities, and challenges of Chinese social sciences in a global context, given the coexistence of Western hegemony and cultural imperialism, the shifting global distribution of power, and the increasing demand for diversity and vitality.

1.3.2.2

Subcase: Tsinghua’s Sociology

Among Tsinghua’s social sciences, four academic disciplines have their historical roots in the old Tsinghua—economics, sociology, politics, and psychology. These departments were established in 1926, and Tsinghua’s faculty have taught and conducted academic research within these institutionalized organizations. The social sciences at the old Tsinghua had four characteristics (Qian & Li, 2011, pp. I–X): i.

ii.

Scientific research methods: Tsinghua’s social scientists investigated social phenomena, behaviors, and problems in China by using research methods derived from experimental and natural sciences. Positivism and rationalism were the core values of the scientific research methodology. International vision and academic standards: A large percentage of Tsinghua’s academics were overseas returnees from American and European universities. They introduced international academic norms and advanced standards. Their

18

iii.

iv.

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

academic work, such as research, teaching, and publication, adhered to international standards. Tsinghua’s faculty issued the first English-language journal in the social sciences in China—The China Social and Political Science Review.4 Chinese studies and social commitment: Tsinghua’s social scientists carried out original research on Chinese social issues, which emphasizing the philosophy of humanistic pragmatism (經世致用). President Luo Jialun (羅家倫) stated that the social sciences were significant to social reconstruction. A spirit of independence: Ideas of academic freedom and independent thinking were valued by Tsinghua’s scholars. In 1929 Chen Yinke’s statement concerning “the spirit of independence, freedom of thought” (獨立之精 神 自由之思想) had a profound impact on both university development and the academic life of Tsinghua’s scholars.

Among these four academic disciplines, the Department of Sociology was initially established at Tsinghua in 1926 and led by prominent Chinese sociologist Chen Da, a graduate of Columbia University who became the foremost sociologist in China (Candela, 2015). Chen Da promoted the institutionalization of sociology at Tsinghua. During the 1920s and 1940s, the Department had comprehensive engagements with universities in the United States and retained scholars from major US universities. For instance, Wu Jingchao (吳景超) obtained a doctoral degree from the University of Chicago, Pan Guangdan graduated from Columbia University, and Li Jinghan ( 李景漢) graduated from the University of Chicago. Furthermore, foreign scholars such as Sergei M. Shirokogorov were recruited. Due to their efforts the Department of Sociology became one of the best in China (Qian & Li, 2011). The Second SinoJapanese War did not interrupt Tsinghua’s sociology, but the Department was closed in 1952 during the university’s restructuring period and re-established in 2000. This book purposefully selected sociology as the subcase from old Tsinghua’s four basic social sciences for the following reasons. First, the rule of purposeful sampling in qualitative case studies requires that information-rich case(s) be selected for indepth study (Patton, 1990; Yin, 2009). Sociology at Tsinghua is an informationrich and meaningful case. In addition, I could access data in this Department by conducting extended fieldwork with participant observation in teaching and research. Second, this subcase is fascinating due to its spectacular advancement over the past two decades to become one of the most venerated sociology programs in China (Xie, 2018). For instance, according to the fourth round of the China Discipline Evaluation conducted by the Centre for Academic Degrees and Postgraduate Education (CDGDC), Tsinghua’s sociology was ranked fourth in China (CDGDC, 2017). Additionally, from 2015 to 2018 it was consistently among the top 51–100 in the world, based on QS World University Rankings by Subject, despite having only fourteen faculty members. How could Tsinghua’s Sociology achieve such progress after its reconstruction at the turn of the twenty-first century with a small number of academics? 4

This journal was set up in 1916 under the supervision of Tsinghua’s President Yan Helin (嚴鶴 齡) but was suspended in 1941 during the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression.

1.3 Methodological Considerations

19

Third, this subcase is important because of its historical roots. Whilst the current sociology discipline at Tsinghua now has a totally different profile from the old regime, it has inherited some of the merits and spirit of its predecessors (Qian & Li, 2011). Furthermore, the present challenges and even predicaments encountered by Tsinghua’s social scientists, such as the tensions between internationalization and indigenization, between global engagement and local relevance, and between universalism and particularism, might also have vexed their predecessors during the first half of the twentieth century. Fourth, Tsinghua’s sociology presents a high level of internationalization, but it is not completely shaped by foreign influences and emphasizes indigenization. As Tsinghua’s scholars (Li, 2015) explained, among the various social science disciplines in China, Chinese sociology has the strongest indigenization habitus. As Qu (2014) described, this is due to the close connection between sociology and national, local, traditional, and indigenous cultures and values. The history of the development of Chinese sociology has always presented a strong tension between internationalization and indigenization. Accordingly, the foci of this book are to explore how different types of knowledge and cultures have interacted to shape the evolution of Tsinghua’s sociology, and the strategies that have been used by its social scientists to advance disciplinary development in the glonacal context (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002). Scholars must deal with different influences, including intellectual traditions and indigenous knowledge, Marxism-Leninism, and Western and American schools, amongst others. Tsinghua’s sociology is taken as an example to present a holistic and in-depth exploration of how a discipline institution can work to enhance its disciplinary development by absorbing various influences on the one hand, while propelling academic research, contributing to global-national knowledge pools, and remaining attuned to local society and culture on the other.

1.4 The Significance of the Study The crux of this research resides in understanding how HE internationalization has influenced the disciplinary development of Tsinghua’s sociology, given the asymmetrical academic relations in a global landscape, the peculiarities of socio-political, cultural, and educational contexts in a transforming China, and the institutional features and specific committed efforts of Tsinghua. This book has both theoretical and practical significance.

1.4.1 Theoretical Significance This book’ core ideas have been profoundly inspired by two scholars who have contributed intriguing and thought-provoking works to the fields of global higher

20

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

education and international and comparative education. One is Ruth Hayhoe, a distinguished international scholar who has carried out extensive research relating to China’s higher education and written renowned monographs and articles, including China’s Universities 1895–1995: A Century of Cultural Conflict (Hayhoe, 1996) and “Ideas of higher learning, east and west: Conflicting values in the development of the Chinese University” (Hayhoe, 1994). Another important voice is that of Rui Yang, who has contributed a series of influential works including The Third Delight: The Internationalization of Higher Education in China (Yang, 2002) and “The cultural mission of China’s elite universities: Examples from Peking and Tsinghua” (Yang, 2017). Both scholars have examined the historical progress and modern transformation of Chinese universities from a cultural and civilizational perspective, while at the same time positioning Chinese universities in the global academic and knowledge system and comparing them with Western universities. In particular, a thread running throughout their work has been how to integrate China’s distinctive and rich civilization and culture into the Western-dominated higher education model. This model harbors a remarkable Western (European and North American) heritage and, of course, its accompanying hegemony (Altbach, 1998). They have delved into what Chinese civilization and cultural resources may be unearthed and developed to support the ongoing transformation of Chinese higher education on the one hand and to contribute to the global community on the other (Hayhoe, 1996, 2017; Yang, 2002, 2017). They have been keenly aware of the shifting global higher education landscape and academic distribution, and have connected the development and contribution of China’s higher education with them. At present, China’s higher education is in the midst of transition after more than two decades of unprecedented development. As Hayhoe (2005) asked, “What are the cultural, educational, and political implications of China’s likely future dominance in the global community? What new resources may China bring into this community from various dimensions of its rich civilization, and how could these contribute to global educational debates?” (p. 576). The core issues raised by these two scholars are related to the future path and model of Chinese universities. They have speculated on the future position and influence of Chinese higher education in the global arena. To answer these questions, Hayhoe (1993, 2017) and Yang (2013, 2017) have paid considerable attention to the growth of the Chinese social sciences, which are embedded in and thus affected by social, cultural, and philosophical grounds in China. However, there has been a lack of empirical and systematic research to face these challenging problems, especially in the field of the Chinese social sciences. This book seeks to explore how Chinese and Western knowledge and cultures are integrated in the process of internationalization through a qualitative case study at Tsinghua, one of China’s flagship universities, by taking Tsinghua’s sociology as an empirical subcase. This book concentrates on the disciplinary evolution of Tsinghua’s sociology—intellectually, institutionally, and culturally—through the perceptions and experiences of Tsinghua’s scholars.

1.4 The Significance of the Study

21

1.4.2 Practical Significance Having been trained at Tsinghua’s Institute of Education from 2009 to 2012, I viewed the growth of Tsinghua’s social sciences in parallel with its pursuit of international status. My experience there offered me an opportunity to observe the disciplinary characteristics and evolution of Tsinghua’s social sciences, and their less advantageous status compared with the “hard” sciences. At that time, Tsinghua struggled with exploring strategies to develop itself as a comprehensive research university with global status; to strengthen its sciences and engineering while reconstructing its social sciences and humanities; and to pursue its national and global prestige. Although Tsinghua recognized the importance of rejuvenating its social sciences, academics in the related disciplines encountered great barriers to developing themselves and their academic disciplines. Such practical inquiries triggered my interest in exploring the growth of the social sciences at Tsinghua. Tsinghua is an important and interesting case to view the growth of the Chinese social sciences against the backdrop of national world-class building policies, asymmetrical international academic relationships, and ongoing worldwide multipolarization and cultural diversification. This is partly due to the prominent status of Tsinghua in China’s higher education system, along with its clear-cut mission in the global arena. Also, Tsinghua is a meaningful case due to its tradition of blending Western and Chinese learning and cultures. Furthermore, it is significant to examine the development of the social sciences in a top Chinese university with ascendant and strong performance in science and technology. Apart from Tsinghua, five of the C9 League universities have the attributes of polytechnics, with distinct strengths in various disciplines relating to science and technology. They disbanded their social science disciplines after 1952 and have more recently borne the burden of reconstructing these disciplines to transform into comprehensive universities and engage in global competition after the implementation of world-class university building policies. These universities have aggressively taken part in scientific competitions, with considerable success; however, their social science disciplines have remained peripheral, and are still likely to encounter numerous predicaments and paradoxes while trying to develop themselves. Research based on empirical data regarding the development of the Chinese social sciences under the influence of internationalization is extremely scarce. This book describes a systematic and empirical study that adopted Tsinghua’s sociology as an example. Tsinghua is still challenged by questions related to how to develop its social sciences while integrating Chinese characteristics, local commitments, and global influences. This book examines the disciplinary development dynamics of the social sciences at Tsinghua and gives suggestions for their further development. Additionally, Tsinghua’s experiences in reconstructing and boosting its social science disciplines could shed light on the growth of the social sciences in other leading polytechnic universities.

22

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

1.5 Structure of the Book This book is organized into seven chapters. Following this introductory chapter, Chap. 2 presents the theoretical underpinnings of this research pertaining to the internationalization and international academic relations in higher education and the social sciences. It firstly explains previous studies on the internationalization of higher education. It then gives an overview of past studies and theories about academic disciplines and the social sciences. This chapter particularly articulates the theoretical underpinning proposed by Wallerstein to examine disciplinary developments from three essential dimensions—organizational, intellectual, and cultural. Next, this chapter presents theoretical reflections on the evolution and internationalization of the social sciences in a global landscape. Chapter 3 presents historical progress and focused problems of the development of China’s social sciences. It maps the historical trajectory of the development of the social sciences in Chinese universities under the impact of HE internationalization, which can be separated into four stages: the imperial period before 1912; the Republic of China (hereafter the ROC) between 1912 and 1949; the People’s Republic of China (hereafter the PRC) under Mao between 1949 and 1976; and the PRC in the post-Mao period after 1976. This chapter sketches the major developments and issues in the Chinese social sciences chronologically in these four phases, while paying attention to the possible integrations of, and conflicts between, both Chinese and Western influences. Chapters 4–6 present a naturalistic and holistic exploration and in-depth investigation of the effects of HE internationalization upon Tsinghua’s sociology, from institutional, intellectual, and cultural perspectives. Chapter 4 provides an in-depth understanding of the influence of internationalization on the dynamics and mechanisms of organizational construction and the institutional evolution of Tsinghua’s sociology. The impact of internationalization on the disciplinary organization and institution of Tsinghua’s sociology is revealed in different layers, from top-down national and institutional reforms to individual scholars’ experiences and perspectives. This chapter elucidates the mechanisms affecting a convergence trend under the influence of internationalization and explains the institutional heterogeneity of the Tsinghua’s Department of Sociology. Chapter 5 aims to investigate the dynamics and mechanisms of knowledge manufacturing and intellectual development of Tsinghua’s sociology. It first examines knowledge generation territories, methodological spaces, and the theoretical affiliations and originality of Tsinghua’s sociology. The second major part of this chapter analyzes a series of themes and, in particular, tensions to illuminate how Tsinghua’s sociologists have internationalized their academic discipline and propelled knowledge production and transformation in today’s globalized academic world. It reveals their intellectual approaches, original strategies, and outcomes in terms of blending indigenous and international dimensions to achieve epistemic autonomy and academic attainment. Chapter 6 seeks to shed light on how internationalization has influenced the development of the disciplinary culture of Tsinghua’s sociology from the perspectives of academic staff. An analytical framework was

1.5 Structure of the Book

23

derived from the literature. Several key themes emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data to reveal the transforming disciplinary culture of Tsinghua’s sociology, including: academic roles and position(s); international activities; research (scholarship and research collaboration); teaching (pedagogical and curricular aspects); and academic disciplinary construction. Chapter 7 discusses the core question of this research while revisiting the longstanding theoretical and historical issues pertaining to the development of China’s social sciences within an asymmetrical yet increasingly multi-polarized global academic world. Moreover, the methodological basis for this research, including the research paradigm, data collection methods, data analysis, and reporting techniques, and ethical issues related to the research, are presented in Appendix A.

References Alatas, S. F. (2000). Academic dependency in the social sciences: Reflections on India and Malaysia. American Studies International, 38(2), 80–96. Alatas, S. F. (2006). Alternative discourses in Asian social science: Responses to Eurocentrism. Sage Publications. Altbach, P. G. (1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university, and development. Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. Altbach, P. G. (2013). The Humanities and Social Sciences in Asia. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The international imperative in higher education (pp. 149–152). Sense Publishers. Altbach, P. G. (2014). The giants awake: The present and future of higher education systems in China and India. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(46), 1–32. Altbach, P. G. (2016). Chinese higher education: “glass ceiling” and “feet of clay.” International Higher Education, 86, 11–13. Altbach, P. G., & Wang, Q. (2012). Can China keep rising? World-class status for research excellence comes with a new set of challenges. Scientific American, 307(4), 46–47. Allen, R. M. (2017). A comparison of China’s “ivy league” to other peer groupings through global university rankings. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21(5), 395–411. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. SRHE and Open University Press. Bueno, C. (2013). Knowledge production: A perspective from the periphery. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters (pp. 111– 128). ibidem Press. Candela, A. M. (2015). Sociology in times of crisis: Chen Da, national salvation and the indigenization of knowledge. Journal of World-Systems Research, 21(2), 362. CDGDC. (2017). Evaluation result for colleges and universities. http://www.chinadegrees.cn/xwy yjsjyxx/cde/lacde/ Chen, X. (1997). Internationalization of higher education: History, theories and strategies. Shanghai Higher Education Research, 11, 57–61. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge. Dirlik, A. (2012). Zhongguohua: Worlding China the case of sociology and anthropology in twentieth century China. In A. Dirlik, G. Li, & H.-P. Yen (Eds.), Sociology and anthropology in twentieth-century China: Between universalism and indigenism (pp. 1–39). Chinese University Press.

24

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

CSET. (2021). China is fast outpacing U.S. STEM PhD growth. https://cset.georgetown.edu/public ation/china-is-fast-outpacing-u-s-stem-phd-growth/ Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. Gu, M. (2001). Modernisation and education in China’s cultural traditions. In M. Gu (Ed.), Education in China and abroad: Perspectives from a lifetime in comparative education (A. L.J. Chan, Trans.) (pp. 101–110). Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. Hayhoe, R. (1993). Chinese universities and the social sciences. Minerva, 31(4), 478–503. Hayhoe, R. (1994). Ideas of higher learning, east and west: Conflicting values in the development of the Chinese University. Minerva, 32(4), 361–382. Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s universities, 1895–1995: A century of cultural conflict. Garland Publishing. Hayhoe, R. (2001). Lessons from the Chinese academy. In R. Hayhoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge across cultures: A contribution to dialogue among civilizations (pp. 323–347). Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. Hayhoe, R. (2005). Peking University and the spirit of Chinese scholarship. Comparative Education Review, 49(4), 575–583. Hayhoe, R., Li, J., Lin, J., & Zha, Q. (2011). Portraits of 21st century Chinese universities: In the move to mass higher education. Springer/CERC, University of Hong Kong. Hayhoe, R. (2017). China in the centre: What will it mean for global education. Frontiers of Education in China, 12(1), 3–28. Huang, H. (2010). China’s historical encounter with Western sciences and humanities. In M. Kuhn & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 21–43). Transaction Publishers. Jiang, X. (2001). China’s top 2 universities try for “world class” status. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(17). Keim, W. (2010). The internationalization of social sciences: distortions, dominations and prospects. In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 169–170). UNESCO Publishing. Keim, W. (2011). Counterhegemonic currents and internationalization of sociology: Theoretical reflections and an empirical example. International Sociology, 26(1), 123–145. King, G., Keohane, R., & Verba, S. (1996). Designing social inquiry. Princeton University Press. Kirby, W. C. (2014a). The world of universities in modern China. In L. E. Rumbley, R. M. Helms, P. M. Peterson, & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Global opportunities and challenges for higher education leaders: Briefs on key themes (pp. 73–76). Sense Publishers. Kirby, W. C. (2014b). The Chinese century? The challenges of higher education. Daedalus, 143(2), 145–156. Kirby, W. C., & Eby, J. W. (2016). From preparatory academy to national flagship: The evolution of Tsinghua University. Harvard University. Knight, J. (1997). Internationalization higher education: A conceptual framework. In J. Knight, & H. De Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education in Asia pacific countries. EAIE/IDP. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Kuhn, M., & Okamoto, K. (Eds.). (2014). Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters. ibidem. Kuhn, M., & Weidemann, D. (2010). Internationalization of the social sciences: Introduction. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 11–19). Transaction Publishers. Li, Q. (2015). The indigenization and development of Chinese Sociology. People’s Daily, 05–11. Li, Q. (2016a). Social stratification in contemporary China: Definitive survey and analysis. Bridge 21 Publications. Li, Q. (2016). How far is China from an olive-type society? A sociological analysis of the development of the middle class. Exploration and Debate, 8, 4–11.

References

25

Luo, Y. (2013). Building world-class universities in China. In J. C. Shin & B. M. Kehm (Eds.), Institutionalization of world-class university in global competition (pp. 165–183). Springer. Luo, Y. (2016). Globalization and the transformation of Chinese universities. Fudan Education Forum, 14(3), 5–18. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39. Marginson, S. (2014). Academic freedom: A global comparative approach. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(1), 24–41. Marginson, S. (2021). National modernisation and global science in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 84, 102407. McClory, J. (2017). The soft power 30: A global ranking of soft power 2017. Portland. McClory, J. (2019). The soft power 30: A global ranking of soft power 2019. Portland. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from case study research in education. Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage. MOE. (2020). Overview of educational achievements in China in 2020. http://www.moe.gov.cn/ jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202005/t20200520_456751.html Mohrman, K. (2008). The emerging global model with Chinese characteristics. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 29–48. Mohrman, K., Geng, Y., & Wang, Y. (2011). Faculty life in China. The NEA 2011 almanac of higher education (pp. 83–99). National Education Association. Mohrman, K. (2013). Are Chinese universities globally competitive? The China Quarterly, 215, 727–743. Pan, S. Y. (2007). Intertwining of academia and officialdom and university autonomy: Experience from Tsinghua University in China. Higher Education Policy, 20(2), 121–144. Pan, S. Y. (2009). University autonomy, the state and social change in China. Hong Kong University Press. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research methods. Sage publications. Postiglione, G. A., & Altbach, P. G. (2013). Professors: The key to internationalization. International Higher Education, 73, 11–12. Postiglione, G. A., & Jung, J. (2013). World-class University and Asia’s top-tier researchers. In Q. Wang, Y. Cheng, & N. C. Liu (Eds.), Building world-class universities (pp. 161–179). Sense Publishers. Qian, Y., & Li, Q. (2011). Social sciences in the old Tsinghua University. Tsinghua University Press. Qu, J. (2014). The crisis of the increasingly Americanization of social sciences. Wen Hui Bao. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Blackwell publishers. Roulleau-Berger, L. (2016). Post-Western revolution in sociology: From China to Europe. Brill Publishers. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage publications. Shen, C. (2014). Differentiation and analysis of several analogical concepts with the concept of internationalization of higher education. Global Education, 43(6), 45–53. Shi, J. H. (2011). The Foundation and trends of undergraduate education reform in China’s research Universities. Chinese Education and Society, 44(5), 67–83. Sinha, V. (2003). Decentring social sciences in practice through individual acts and choices. Current Sociology, 51(1), 7–26. Thomas, G. (2010). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. Sage publications. Tollefson, J. (2018). China declared world’s largest producer of scientific articles. Nature, 553(7686), 390–391.

26

1 Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China: An Introduction

Tsinghua University. (2021). General information. https://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/en/About/Gen eral_Information.htm UNESCO & ISSC. (2010). World social science report 2010. UNESCO Publishing. Wallerstein, I. (1996). Open the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. Stanford University Press. Wallerstein, I. (1997). Eurocentrism and its avatars: The dilemmas of social science. Sociological Bulletin, 46, 21–39. Wallerstein, I. (1998). The time of space and the space of time: The future of social science. Political Geography, 17(1), 71–82. Wang, D. (2003). Thinking and practice of the strategies for building world-class universities. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 24(3), 2–7. Wang, G. (2000). Joining the modern world: Inside and outside China. Singapore University Press. Wang, J. (2002). Conception of the internationalization of higher education. Modern University Education, 1, 5–8. Wang, X. (2014). Tsinghua University and the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurialism. In R. A. Rhoads, X. G. Shi, & Y. C. Chang (Eds.), China’s rising research universities: A new era of global ambition. JHU Press. WoS. (2017a). China’s research publications indexed in WoS. http://apps.webofknowledge.com. eproxy2.lib.hku.hk/WOS_AdvancedSearch_input.do?product= WoS. (2017b). Tsinghua’s SCI and SSCI publications between 2013 and 2017. http://apps.webofk nowledge.com.eproxy2.lib.hku.hk/WOS_AdvancedSearch_input Wu, H. (2021). China’s outward-oriented higher education internationalization. Springer. Wu, H., & Zha, Q. (2018). A new typology for analyzing the direction of movement in higher education internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(3), 259–277. Wu, S. (2019). China: How science made a superpower. Nature, 574, 25–28. Xie, M. (2018). Living with internationalization: The changing face of the academic life of Chinese social scientists. Higher Education, 75(3), 381–397. Xie, W. (2006). Retrospection and reflection on the construction and scientific research management of humanities and social sciences. http://news.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish/thunews/9649/2011/201 10225231823046713429/20110225231823046713429_.html Xie, W. (2011). The right track of Tsinghua’s humanities and social sciences. In Edit Group of Tsinghua’s Humanities and Social Sciences (Eds.), Construction and development of humanities and social sciences at Tsinghua University (pp. I–IV). Tsinghua University Publishing House. Xie, W., & Liu, C. (2019). Wen mai: Tsinghua University’s humanities and social sciences in the early 21st Century. The Commercial Press. Xu, Z. (2006). Prolonging rivers: Chinese history and culture. Shanghai Literature & Art Publishing House. Yale School of Management. (2015). In China, an unprecedented economic transformation. https:// som.yale.edu/news/2015/05/china-unprecedented-economic-transformation Yang, R. (2002). Third delight: The internationalization of higher education in China. Routledge. Yang, R. (2005). Internationalisation, indigenisation and educational research in China. Australian Journal of Education, 49(1), 66–88. Yang, R. (2013). Indigenised while internationalised? Tensions and dilemmas in China’s modern transformation of social sciences in an age of globalisation. In M. Kuhn, & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters. Stuttgart: ibidem Press. Yang, R. (2014). China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(2), 151–162. Yang, R. (2015). Reassessing China’s higher education development: A focus on academic culture. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(4), 527–535. Yang, R. (2017). The cultural mission of China’s elite universities: Examples from Peking and Tsinghua. Studies in Higher Education, 42(10), 1825–1838. Yang, R., & Welch, A. (2012). A world-class university in China? The case of Tsinghua. Higher Education, 63(5), 645–666.

References

27

Yang, R., & Xie, M. (2015). Leaning toward the centers: International networking at China’s five C9 league universities. Frontiers of Education in China, 10(1), 66–90. Yang, R., Xie, M., & Wen, W. (2019). Pilgrimage to the West: Modern transformations of Chinese intellectual formation in social sciences. Higher Education, 77(5), 815–829. Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Sage Publishing. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Publishing. Zha, Q. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248–270. Zha, Q. (2009). Diversification or homogenization: How governments and markets have combined to (re) shape Chinese higher education in its recent massification process. Higher Education, 58(1), 41–58. Zha, Q., Wu, H., & Hayhoe, R. (2019). Why Chinese universities embrace internationalization: An exploration with two case studies. Higher Education, 78(4), 669–686. Zhou, P., Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2009). Is China also becoming a giant in social sciences? Scientometrics, 79(3), 593–621. Zhou, P., Su, X., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1360–1376.

Chapter 2

The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic Relations: A Theoretical Reflection

The internationalization of higher education is a major theme in higher education research. This book focuses on the impacts of dynamic HE internationalization on the evolution of the social sciences. In this book, the social sciences is a term that encapsulates a category of academic disciplines of modern universities. The social science disciplines originated and became institutionalized in the late nineteenth century in Europe, and now flourish at higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide. This chapter begins with an overview of studies on the internationalization of HE, in which the distinction between internationalization and globalization is revealed. This is followed by a brief explanation of the connotations and classifications of academic disciplines. This chapter then revisits some theoretical underpinnings of academic disciplines. In particular, a theoretical underpinning contributed by Wallerstein is adopted to examine three essential dimensions of disciplinary development—organizational, intellectual, and cultural. Next, this chapter details international academic relations in the social sciences during the internationalization process, as this book aims to puts forward a global perspective and comparative approaches for analyzing the evolution of the social sciences in non-Western societies. The extensive power asymmetries that exist in different societies and affect the creation and circulation of social science knowledge are acknowledged. World systems theories, center-periphery models, and dependency theories are reviewed. Furthermore, the shifting dynamics and landscapes of international academic relations and their impacts on the growth of world social sciences are discussed. This chapter argues that, in an era of (de-) globalization with great complexity and uncertainty, an emerging multi-polarized academic world carries forward new requirements for and challenges to the evolution of world social sciences. This chapter ends with theoretical reflections on long-term problems in, contemporary challenges to, and chances for the evolution of the social sciences in non-Western societies, followed by a brief summary.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Xie, Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China, East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8_2

29

30

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

2.1 Studies on the Internationalization of Higher Education 2.1.1 Understanding the Internationalization of Higher Education Internationalization is prevalent and widespread in global higher education but it not a new phenomenon. The international dimensions and characteristics of higher education tie in with its medieval roots in European universities in the twelfth century (Altbach, 2015; Scott, 2006). It is widely acknowledged that universities are naturally open to international exchanges and influences, as this typology of institutions is immersed in knowledge that flows beyond borders (Chen, 1997; Marginson & Van der Wende, 2007). Typically, scholars devote themselves to exchanging and advancing knowledge across national boundaries (Altbach, 2004). Despite universities’ intrinsic association with internationalization, owing to several historical and socio-political changes, universities have experienced waves of isolationism. In retrospect, the early modern era was an isolationist period in the field of higher education, as attention was draw to national construction, while the international dimensions of HEIs were neglected or even constrained (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Knight & De Wit, 1995). New demands for HE internationalization have been driven by the trend of globalization since the end of the Cold War and especially since the late twentieth century. HEIs around the world have been required to reassess, reconstruct, and renew their roles and strategies (Altbach, 2015). As Knight (2003) observed, the popularity of internationalization in the area of education has soared since the early 1980s. For instance, internationalization has been adopted by a majority of HEIs as a strategy to improve their own strength and thus adapt to highly complex environments and global competition (Mohsin & Zaman, 2014). Studies on HE internationalization have been burgeoning in parallel with this prevalent phenomenon since the mid-1990s (Knight, 2004; Zha, 2003). However, most of these studies have been considered under-conceptualized and under-theorized. Scholars have noted that the connotation of HE internationalization has been uncertainly defined and even contested in light of its multifaceted nature and complexity (Knight, 2004; Yang, 2002; Zha, 2003). HE internationalization is indeed a multi-dimensional phenomenon perceived differently by people from different countries, universities, and disciplinary backgrounds (Yang, 2002). For example, trends in higher education under neoliberalism and the knowledge economy have made intellectual properties and higher learning become kinds of private good and commodities traded across borders (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Marginson & Considine, 2000). A number of English-speaking and privileged countries, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, perceive the internationalization of higher education from the perspectives of commercial activities and benefits (De Wit, 2002; Doherty & Singh, 2005; Khorsandi Taskoh, 2014). Meanwhile, top HEIs in China, South Korea, and Singapore have adopted strategic initiatives of internationalization with the goal of integrating themselves into the league tables of global

2.1 Studies on the Internationalization of Higher Education

31

universities (Yang, 2002). Additionally, there exist disparities between the understandings of HE internationalization in divergent disciplinary fields. Studies have shown that scholars in science and technology areas pay attention to international standards and norms for research paradigms, scientific discourses, leadership in innovation, and global competitiveness (Yang, 2003). By comparison, academics in the social sciences and humanities attach importance to engaging with global academia and pursuing international prestige and influence (Becher & Trowler, 2001). The internationalization of higher education means “different things to different people and is thus used in a variety of ways” (Knight, 2004, p. 5). First, the internationalization of higher education is usually seen as a range of activities. Some are related to teaching and research that occur across national boundaries, which are called as “cross-border education”; other are programs carried out within a national or local context with international networks, which are defined as “internationalization at home” (Knight, 2012). Taking Arum and Van de Water’s (1992) definition as an example, internationalization is regarded as “the multiple activities, programs and services that fall within international studies, international educational exchange and technical cooperation” (p. 202). In recent years, it has become obvious that international activities in higher education are increasingly diverse and vigorous, involving student mobility, scholarly exchange, joint research, multi-national collaborations, offshore campuses, international aid, and so on (Harman, 2005; Wu, 2021; Zha et al., 2019). Second, internationalization is perceived as embodying strategies to respond to specific challenges and continuous changes in the global higher education scenario (Tuinamuana, 2005). OECD countries, for example, have achieved a consensus that HE internationalization is an effective strategy for both institutional and individual development. HEIs in developed and developing countries formulate international strategies to make their higher education systems more attractive and competitive. In particular, research universities vigorously inaugurate international strategies to deal with global competition and pursue outstanding performance in world university rankings (Mohsin & Zaman, 2014). It seems that most HEIs tend to recognize the positive aspects of internationalization. Third, academics prefer to interpret internationalization as a dynamic process, emphasizing it as an ongoing effort rather than a static consequence or final stage. As Ellingboe (1998) articulated, it is a “process of integrating an international perspective into a college or university system” (p. 199). Knight (2004) pointed out that internationalization is “the process of integrating the international, intercultural or global dimensions into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education” (p. 11). The most popular definition and typology related to HE internationalization was initially contributed by Knight and de Wit (1995) and further developed by Knight (2004, 2007, 2012). They contributed a working definition and conceptual framework to analyze HE internationalization, involving four key components: meanings, rationales, approaches, and strategies. Knight (2004, 2012) shifted the focus of this framework: rather than only looking at the institutional level, it would also pay attention to the national conditions in which HEIs are rooted. The framework is appropriate

32

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

for both top-down and bottom-up approaches to analyzing the internationalization process at the national, sectoral, and institutional levels. Meanings. There is no consensus about the connotations of internationalization in the higher education sector. However, Knight’s definition has been widely circulated in academic circles. According to Knight (2012), “internationalization at the national, sector, and institutional levels is defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education” (p. 29). Internationalization is highlighted as an on-going and dynamic process. During this process, purpose pertains to the missions or core values of an institution or a higher education system; function refers to the primary tasks of universities involving teaching, research, and social service (Clark, 1986); and delivery means providing programs and activities at home and abroad in various ways. Rationales. The forces that drive the trend of HE internationalization can be divided into four categories: (i) political; (ii) economic; (iii) social/cultural; and, (iv) academic (Knight, 2004, 2008). This typology provides a lens to explore the reasons behind HE internationalization at different levels (Knight & De Wit, 1997; Zha, 2003). The political rationale is defined principally in relation to issues relating to a country’s role and position in international relations, such as foreign policy, national security, peace/mutual understanding, national identity, regional identity, and technical assistance. For instance, higher education can be used as an instrument for foreign policy that transmits national culture and values to the outside world and promotes global communication (Knight, 1997). Also, higher education is seen as “a form of diplomatic investment for future political and economic relations” (Knight, 1997, p. 9), as international graduates are expected to improve mutual understanding and collaborate with sponsoring countries. As for the economic rationale, it is apparent that HE internationalization is often seen as a profit-making initiative with commercial benefits (Altbach & Knight, 2007). The recruitment of international students who can afford high tuition fees and thus generate revenue becomes a strong incentive for universities to promote internationalization (Healey, 2008). By and large, English-speaking countries like the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia recruit the largest proportion of international students, enjoying a large share of the market and a direct economic interest in maintaining HE internationalization (Altbach, 2004; Chen, 2008). Besides, a growing number of governments recognize that cultivating their new generations with international competence to meet the new demands of both national and global labor markets contributes to a long-term economic effect. In our quest for the internationalization of HE, the social and cultural factors do not seem to be as powerful as the economic and political factors, but the former are playing a long-term invisible and vital role. The social and cultural rationales are related to the sustainable development of society, intercultural understanding, cultural identity, and global citizenship development (Knight, 2004). Due to the cultural conflicts between and among societies and the vulnerability of contemporary society, it is vital to enhance mutual and intercultural understanding to work

2.1 Studies on the Internationalization of Higher Education

33

and live in harmony on the global stage (UNESCO, 2021). Harnessing a rich diversity of cultures and equipping younger generations with capabilities to understand international relations and work in culturally diverse environments is increasingly important in an interconnected world. The academic rationale stems from universities’ commitment to the creation of knowledge and the cultivation of bright students. Knight (2008) in particular pointed out that the academic rationale refers to the extension of academic horizons, institution building, and the enhancement of the quality of teaching, learning, and research activities. Engaging in the process of internationalization urges HEIs to pursue highly international standards to achieve academic excellence. Furthermore, in recent years a university’s internationalization strategy has become inextricably intertwined with its international reputation, profile, and competitiveness (Seeber et al., 2016). The desire to succeed in global league tables provides a strong incentive for universities to embark on globalization initiatives (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Approaches. The approaches to internationalization are always not fixed (Zha, 2003). As Knight (1997, 2004) interpreted the term, “approach” refers to the manner in which various internationalization strategies, activities, and programs are implemented. Today, diverse approaches are utilized by nations and institutions to address the international dimension of universities, considering different priorities, resources, and cultures. In most cases, these approaches are different but mutually inclusive. Strategies. Knight (2007) stated that “strategy” is a principal component of the analytical framework of HE internationalization, explaining that “the notion of a more planned, integrated, and strategic approach is therefore implied in the use of the word strategies” (Knight, 2004, p. 13). Knight divided the strategies of HE internationalization into two major categories, including academic strategies and organization strategies. For instance, at an institutional level, the former primarily include planned academic programs, research collaboration, external relations, and extracurricular activities, and the latter include governance, operation, services, and human resources. Knight’s definition of HE internationalization is popular and also widely noted by Chinese scholars in the field of international and comparative higher education. Research on HE internationalization in China has been carried out since the 1990s. Internationalization in the context of China’s higher education was confused with other terminologies for a long time, including Jie Gui (a Chinese term referring to connecting the tracks), Westernization, Americanization, and globalization (Chen, 2004; Duan, 2013; Liu, 2001; Wang, 2002). Specifically, the phenomenon of HE internationalization soared in China after the implementation of the “Reform and Opening-Up” policy. During the initial stage, Deng Xiaoping’s appeal—“we must rapidly catch up”—inspired Chinese intellectuals and students to learn from the major Western industrialized countries (Li, 2015). They adopted a catching-up mentality (Huang, 2003; Jokila, 2015), with internationalization being regarded as an channel to and an approach for learning from the West, integrating into the international knowledge community, and achieving on par with advanced countries. Hence, the term Jie Gui was widely used in the Chinese context for practical considerations.

34

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

Simultaneously, Chinese universities and academics assiduously absorbed standards and practices of Western, particularly American, universities (Mohrman, 2008), such that internationalization was perceived as Westernization and Americanization. Research on China’s internationalization of HE has been burgeoning since the turn of the twenty-first century. However, theoretical studies have been scarce, with few scholars meticulously clarifying the notion of this term in the context of China (Shen, 2014; Wang, 2002; Zha, 2003). Chen (1997), from Peking University, articulated four approaches to defining the internationalization of higher education, including “the activity approach, the competency approach, the echoing approach, and the process approach” (p. 58). Internationalization is exemplified through various types of international activities in the activity approach, emphasizing the practical and instrumental functions. Internationalization, in the competency approach, particularly focuses on personal advancement through the innovation of knowledge, culture, and skills. From the echoing perspective, the cultural and spiritual values of universities are renewed and reassessed. The process approach implies that HE internationalization is a dynamic process of blending international and intercultural dimensions and norms in universities. Yang (2000) focused on the internationalization of HE in the context of China for more than two decades, explaining it as “the exchange of people, ideas, good and services between two or more nations and cultural identities” (p. 320). He observed the positive implications of HE internationalization for the development of China’s higher education, and Chinese universities’ endeavors to engage in the international knowledge system and build up world-class universities and first-class disciplines. Notwithstanding the major trend of internationalization characterized by outside influences coming in rather than inside influences going out, Yang (2015) stated that Chinese universities have harbored ambitions and been adjusting strategies to engage with the global community and to bring China to the world since the beginning of twenty-first century. He delved into this area from a cultural/civilizational perspective, arguing that internationalization is “the awareness and operation of interactions within and between cultures through its teaching, research and service functions, with the ultimate aim of achieving mutual understanding across cultural borders” (Yang, 2002, p. 83). He paid attention to the cultural tensions that appear in nonWestern universities in the course of internationalization, as they are rooted in very different traditions and cultures compared to their Western counterparts. Yang (2014) regarded China’s HE internationalization as a part of “much larger process of cultural integration between China and the West” (p. 151).

2.1.2 Internationalization Versus Globalization Despite the rise of de-globalization, the trend towards globalization is inevitable in the twenty-first century (Altbach & Knight, 2007), and imperative in all spheres of human society (Freidman, 2005; Scholte, 2017). The earliest theories of globalization emanated from economic and business circles that concentrated on the flow

2.1 Studies on the Internationalization of Higher Education

35

of production, trade, and investment occurring on a trans-national scale. Attention expanded rapidly to other areas, such as political, social, and cultural spheres in the 1990s. Sociologist Giddens (1990) defined globalization as “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” (p. 64). James (2005) stated that “[g]lobalization is the extension of social relations across world-space, defining that world-space in terms of the historically variable ways that it has been practiced and socially understood through changing world-time” (p. 197). Academia has looked closely at the trend of globalization as its influence has become undeniable and inescapable (Vaira, 2004). Regardless of whether scholars are positive or skeptical of globalization, they cannot ignore the influence of globalization upon almost every aspect of the higher education sector (Zha et al., 2019). It is no longer possible for HEIs to formulate and implement policies and strategies merely based on factors within a nation-state scale without embracing trends that occur in transnational and globally networked spaces (Altbach, 2015; Knight, 1997; Rizvi & Lingard, 2009). An overarching analytical heuristic named as glonacal agency was offered by Marginson and Rhoades (2002). Glonacal agency regards globalization as a dynamic and multifaceted process that draws local, national, and global dimensions closely together and reshapes higher education. Nevertheless, this enterprise is fraught with tensions and contradictions in the course of integrating different dimensions. From the start, scholars of nonWestern societies showed their concern about the negative effects of globalization, such as homogenization and exclusion (Rizvi & Lingard, 2009; Yang, 2003). Globalization and internationalization are inherently related to each other and in most cases the two terminologies are used interchangeably in the field of higher education. However, they are two different notions with subtle distinctions (Altbach, 2004; Altbach & Knight, 2007; Cheung, 2012). I try to distinguish these two terms at the beginning of the book, as it aims to investigate the dynamics and possible predicaments and tensions that occur in the process of internationalizing Tsinghua’s social sciences by setting this study in a global academic scenario. First, these two intertwined terminologies clearly have different scopes. As a name implies, globalization is a worldwide phenomenon relating to a widening and deepening of global interconnection across “time” and “space” that creates a consciousness of working and living in an ever-changing, compacted, and interconnected world (Marginson & Van der Wende, 2007). Altbach (2004) saw globalization as a constellation of “broad economic, technological, and scientific trends” (p. 5) that directly affects the role, policy-making, and governance of HEIs. By contrast, internationalization in higher education can happen at home and abroad, and operates within and between two or more cross-border units. Additionally, globalization is perceived as an external environment, while internationalization involves the internal dynamics and strategies of institutions (Ellingboe, 1998; Seeber et al., 2016). Second, internationalization is regarded as an outcome of the ineluctable trend and impact of globalization (Altbach, 2015; Altbach & Teichler, 2001; Yang, 2002). Whilst universities have always run their international dimensions through various

36

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

approaches, the new wave of globalization has accelerated today’s trend of internationalization in higher education (Altbach, 2007). Knight (2008) explained that globalization can be understood as a catalyst that engenders change in almost every aspect of the internationalization process in higher education. In recent years, the policies, organization, and strategies of higher education have been transformed by globalization (Marginson & Van der Wende, 2007; Vaira, 2004). Increasingly, international dimensions and standards have been incorporated into HEIs worldwide, and internationalization has become a primary strategy for the development of universities in a globalized context. Third, internationalization is adopted as a proactive response and a strategic approach in which universities deal with challenges and opportunities generated by globalization (Welch, 2002; Yang, 2002; Zha et al., 2019). HEIs are challenged by the imperatives of globalization, as the forces and uncertainties posed by the trend are generally deemed beyond the control of individual actors (Freidman, 2005). Internationalization is thought to help institutions face new imperatives (Enders & Fulton, 2002). As Altbach and Knight (2007) pointed out, “globalization may be unalterable, but internationalization involves many choices” (p. 291). For instance, Knight (1997) argued that the internationalization of higher education is an effective way to counter the trend of homogenization aggravated by globalization. Yang (2002) stated that, although “globalization is an extension of historical imbalances linked to Western colonialization and dominance, internationalization has the potential to create more equitable relations” (p. 81). More specifically, Altbach (2015) distinguished between the two concepts, saying “globalization refers to trends in higher education that have cross-national implication […] Internationalization refers to the specific policies and initiatives of countries and individual academic institutions or systems to deal with global trends” (p. 6). Globalization, an inevitable phenomenon with great uncertainty, is widely acknowledged as a double-edged sword for HEIs (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Yang, 2003). Internationalization can be adopted in a proactive way to respond appropriately to the challenges and opportunities of globalization, and to give individual nations and institutions rein to balance resources and priorities in the higher education sector (Ellingboe, 1998; Taylor, 2004).

2.2 Studies on Academic Disciplines and the Social Sciences 2.2.1 Comprehending Academic Disciplines It is well known that universities are composed of a series of academic disciplines suitable for generating, organizing, and propagating knowledge and nurturing students and scholars (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Clark, 1987; Wallerstein, 2008). Etymologically speaking, the term “discipline” originates from a Latin word “disciplina,” which is rooted in the concepts of instruction, tuition, and teaching (Lewis & Short, 1879).

2.2 Studies on Academic Disciplines and the Social Sciences

37

The most general definitions of “discipline” proposed by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) are: (i) senses relating to punishment; (ii) senses relating to training, instruction, or method; and, (iii) senses relating to order arising from training or instruction. The sense of punishment originates from the Christian church, which has written records dating back to 1225, referring to religious chastisement and penance. The domain of education and schooling uses the term “discipline” in written records originating in the 1930s, with senses relating to instruction, teaching, and a branch of learning or knowledge (OED Online, 2018). An academic discipline is acknowledged as an organized branch of knowledge for teaching and research in universities (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Wallerstein, 1996), which functions as the basic unit of knowledge-based higher learning institutions. The specific definition of this term has broader connotations in the university context. Three dimensions appear to define the academic discipline in universities: (i) branches of knowledge; (ii) subjects of instruction; and, (iii) organizational units of the institution such as academic departments and faculties (Bao, 2002). It is a knowledge-focused concept whose meaning is related to either the pursuit of promotion or the instruction of knowledge. Furthermore, it owns institutional authority at universities using distinct organizations and orders. The following section traces the historical trajectory of academic disciplines in universities from antiquity to the present. The earliest European universities—the University of Bologna (1088–), the University of Paris (1105–), and the University of Oxford (1167–)—included a limited spectrum of subjects, such as medicine, law, theology, and arts (Rashdall, 1895). The faculty of arts provided teaching of seven liberal arts, including the trivium (i.e., grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the quadrivium (i.e., arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). It also taught the Aristotelian philosophies including physics, metaphysics, and moral philosophy. After roughly six years, students who obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Master of Arts degree could apply to pursue a doctoral degree in arts or study in other faculties in medicine, law, and theology. The late medieval period (1300–1500) witnessed the blossoming of universities and colleges around Europe, where theology occupied the supremacy for hundreds of years. At the same time, a transcendental order was assumed, and disciplinary knowledge was organized in accordance with theological dogma. In addition, philosophy was understood as an encompassing field that revealed the laws and the basic principles of the natural and human worlds. The great era of the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution, and the ensuing Enlightenment, constituted the significant period of growth of the sciences (Cohen, 1994; Israel, 2001). Intellectuals and students were inspired to pursue truth and equip themselves with scientific reasoning. Disciplinary knowledge became more secularized, yet the new rationalisms still faced criticism and skepticism (Deacon, 2006). Theology was still titled the “queen of sciences,” but the sciences were the “handmaidens to theology” (Porter, 2010). The throne of theology was hardly replaced by other academic disciplines, such as the sciences and humanities, but more disciplines achieved autonomy and institutional existence in universities. For instance, Cambridge and Oxford expanded to embrace several new fields during the 1700s,

38

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

including “Anglo-Saxon, Botany, Chemistry, Experimental Philosophy, Geology, Modern History, and Rural Economy” (Brown, 2016, p. 6). Sciences came to fruition among universities by the nineteenth century. They no longer occupied a subordinate status and were distinguished as an independent paradigm of inquiry and firmly institutionalized at Germany universities such as Humboldt University of Berlin (1810–) along with other European universities (Krishnan, 2009). The nineteenth century saw the secularization of universities and the specialization of knowledge. A large number of academic disciplines were born at this stage (Wallerstein, 1996). Categories of “hard” science and social science disciplines merged and divided, ultimately achieving intellectual legitimacy and institutional bases in modern universities (Brown, 2016). The solid disciplinary system within modern universities was established in this century, comprising knowledge fields with structural specializations and the designations of the academic profession. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Western disciplinary system and the Western style of civilization spread from the European and American HEIs across the global, and eventually were accepted by HEIs of various countries (Altbach, 2004; Ashby, 1967). Universities witnessed an explosion of knowledge and a proliferation of academic disciplines, resulting in an expansion of organizational settings and structures—the rise of new and discipline-based departments and schools, degree programs, academic associations, journals, and so on. A wide range of social science disciplines—including sociology, politics, economics, and psychology—were established and institutionalized at universities worldwide (Wallerstein, 1996). Entering the second half of the twentieth century, academic disciplines achieved further specialization and refinement on the one hand, yet faced the new demands of an expanding multi-, cross-, inter-, and trans- disciplinary trajectory on the other (King, 2000; Klein, 1990, 1999).

2.2.2 Classification of Academic Disciplines Based on various theoretical considerations and practical purposes, there exists a wide range of disciplinary classification frameworks. Aristotle (384–322 BC) regarded the branches of learning as sciences (epistêmai) and divided them into three categories—theoretical, practical, and productive (Shields, 2012). Theoretical sciences pursue knowledge for its own sake, concentrating on the puzzles engendered by the laws of nature and the regulations of the universe. Mathematics, physics, biology, and so on fall under this branch, and inquire into what Aristotle named “first philosophy.” In contrast, practical sciences focus upon practical inquiry into actions and issues pertaining to both the individual and society. The practical sciences include political science and ethics. Productive sciences, including agriculture, medicine, and music, seek knowledge of human productions and artifacts. Snow (1959) illuminated the huge divides and conflicts between scientists and humanists in his influential work The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.

2.2 Studies on Academic Disciplines and the Social Sciences

39

He stated that intellectual life at universities in the Western world is split into “two polar groups” (p. 4)—scientific and humanistic cultures. Scholars at these two poles are irrevocably separated from and even antagonistic towards each other. Noting that “it is bizarre how very little of twentieth-century science has been assimilated into twentieth-century art” (Snow, 1959, p. 17), Snow chided humanist scholars for their ignorance of scientific evolution, which he saw as a barrier to further development and impeding the evolution of knowledge. Hence, Snow and his adherents advocated diminishing this disciplinary chasm and bridging the “two cultures.” Psychologist Biglan (1973a, 1973b) presented a framework for disciplinary classification containing three dimensions based on his empirical research: (i) “hard” or paradigmatic versus “soft” or pre-paradigmatic—that is, disciplines categorized as either hard (e.g., natural sciences) or soft (e.g., humanities and social sciences) according to their paradigmatic degree; (ii) applied versus pure, in which the former (e.g., engineering and education) handles practical problems while the latter (e.g., history and mathematics) is primarily theoretical; and, (iii) life versus non-life systems, based on whether they are involved with living and organic matter (e.g., medicine and biology) or not (e.g., mathematics and engineering). The cognitive styles, behavioral patterns, institutional structures, and research outputs of each disciplinary category present systematic differences. In addition to theoretical interpretations, various practice-based disciplinary classification systems exist in different educational organizations and countries. UNESCO, for instance, established an International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). In a renewed version of the ISCED Fields of Education and Training classification, UNESCO (2015) categorizes disciplines into eleven fields: generic programs and qualifications; education; arts and humanities; social sciences, journalism, and information; business, administration, and law; natural sciences, mathematics, and statistics; information and communication technologies; engineering, manufacturing, and construction; agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and veterinary; health and welfare, and services. It provides uniform definitions and standards for educational data compilations and comparisons across countries. In the UK, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) supplied a Joint Academic Classification of Subjects (JACS), which is used to classify academic disciplines among twenty categories: medicine and dentistry; subjects allied to medicine; biological sciences; veterinary science; agriculture and related subjects; physical sciences; mathematical sciences; computer science; engineering and technology; architecture; building and planning; social studies; law; business and administrative studies; mass communications and documentation; languages; historical and philosophical studies; creative arts and design; education; and combined subjects (HESA, 2013). The Ministry of Education (MOE) of China formulated the Catalogue of Degrees Awarded and Talent Training Subjects, setting fourteen disciplinary categories associated with degree programs, including: philosophy, economics, law, education, literature, history, science, engineering, agriculture, medicine, military science, administration, arts, and an interdisciplinary category (MOE, 2020a, 2020b). This book specifically explores the evolution of the social sciences at Chinese universities. The social science disciplines is a term that encapsulates a category

40

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

of academic disciplines that originated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Europe, and that now flourish at HEIs worldwide. The social science(s) are defined by The Merriam Webster Dictionary as “a branch of science that deals with the institutions and functioning of human society and with the interpersonal relationships of individuals as members of society, and a science (as economics or political science) dealing with a particular phase or aspect of human society.” Wallerstein (1996) elucidated that “social science is an enterprise of the modern world” (p. 2) in his influential work, Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. The advent of the social sciences was related to far-reaching social changes in European societies in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.1 Several categories of social scientific knowledge were formulated and gained institutional legitimacy in Western universities in the nineteenth century, while the expansion of the social science disciplines occurred during the twentieth century. The social sciences were preoccupied with social transformations—i.e., from traditional societies to modern technocratic ones (Wittrock et al., 1991). To sum up, the term social science(s) is used in this book to refer to a major category of academic disciplines organized for research and teaching at HEIs. The social science disciplines include sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics, political science, law, education, social work, and history, among others. Among these disciplines, Wallerstein (2008) articulated that sociology, economics, and political science are the three great nomothetic social science disciplines. Additionally, social science disciplines are distributed among “soft” disciplines, according to the taxonomy constructed by Biglan (1973a) and Becher and Trowler (2001), and emphasize both theoretical and practical values. The social sciences, on the one hand, are expected to promote knowledge relating to various aspects of human society and, on the other hand, play a crucial role in unearthing and understanding societal transformation. Also, the social sciences yield technical expertise, strategies, and instruments to cope with contemporary transitions and social problems in the age of (de-) globalization.

2.2.3 Theories of the Academic Discipline 2.2.3.1

Foucault’s Power/Knowledge Dialectic

Foucault (1977, 1980) persuaded us to reconstitute our ideas about the subtle ways in which power works to shape the seemingly mundane ideas and practices of human society and individual experience. Theoretically, Foucault presented a power-relation formula to excavate and explain the term “discipline” in his monograph Discipline and Punish. Discipline refers to a type of power Foucault named a physics or anatomy 1

Wallerstein (1998) specifically pinpointed that the social sciences were invented between 1850 and 1914.

2.2 Studies on Academic Disciplines and the Social Sciences

41

of power. Foucault (1980) explained that disciplines are subtle techniques that involve meticulous control to regulate bodies and minds through different mechanisms of power. Here, power is particularly associated with external force and subjugation. “Docile” bodies are cultivated under the influence of disciplines. Each discipline requires “space,” such as specialized enclosures and boundaries, wherein disciplinary uniformity and orders are protected. Also, disciplines create complex spaces that constitute architectural, functional, and hierarchical senses within natural or artificial boundaries (Foucault, 1977, 1980). Individuals and institutions compete to occupy distinct positions within hierarchical fields. “Time” is another important criterion for enforcing disciplinary practices. Furthermore, Foucault (1980) proposed a power/knowledge dialectic that connects the relationship between power and the formation of knowledge. He argued that power and knowledge are inextricably related. Foucault saw that power is everywhere in modern society, and is constituted by knowledge (Deacon, 2006). On the one hand, power produces knowledge. More specifically, knowledge generation and legitimation are entangled with power relations that are effects of power struggles both between and within institutions and among individuals who exercise power. One the other hand, knowledge and power interact with each other. Knowledge is a distribution of power relations. Foucault’s theory elucidates the senses relating to punishment and chastisement involved in the term “discipline” and, in particular, the mechanisms and dynamic processes through which specific modes of discipline evolve in social institutions. Even in the domain of schooling, discipline carries the senses of chastisement and correction, combining punishment and pedagogy in practice. Furthermore, Foucault’s power/knowledge dialectic illuminates the exploration of the formation of knowledge pertaining to human society and social organizations, under the direct and indirect influence of external power.

2.2.3.2

Becher and Trowler’s Academic Tribes and Territories

Becher and Trowler (1989, 2001) identified the disciplinary characteristics and differences between divergent clustered disciplines. Based on their long-time observation and empirical research in British and American universities, they developed a taxonomy to categorize academic disciplines into four groupings—hard-pure, hardapplied, soft-pure, and soft-applied (Fig. 2.1)—and systematized the epistemological and cultural features of each category. In the monograph Academic Tribes and Territories, Becher and Trowler (2001) compared academic cultures to “tribes” and disciplinary knowledge to “territories.” Each category has unique epistemological characteristics that are related to the nature of knowledge. Simultaneously, each is shaped by the unique cultures of different disciplinary communities in relation to scholars’ fundamental ideologies, common values, unique traditions, and so on. They conducted exploratory studies to distinguish the characteristic features of disciplinary epistemologies and

42

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

Fig. 2.1 Becher and Trowler’s taxonomy of academic disciplines. Source Becher and Trowler (2001)

the cultural communities that coalesce around these four clusters and identified the interconnection between the social and cognitive attributes in these four categories.

2.2.3.3

Wallerstein’s Three Underpinnings of Academic Disciplines

Wallerstein (1996, 2008) contributed a three-fold division of academic disciplines that identifies three basic dimensions of each discipline: intellectual modes and boundaries; organizational structures and institutions; and cultural attributes and paradigms. In Wallerstein’s (2008) words: Disciplines are three quite different things. They are claims to defining specific intellectual boundaries as making intellectual sense. But they are also organizational constructs, the claim to turf. And finally, they are cultures, the largely shared assumptions of persons trained in or associated with a certain intellectual set of boundaries and organizational turf. (p. 5)

Disciplinary Knowledge. HEIs are distinct social institutions and intellectual arenas that are unequivocally devoted to the pursuit of knowledge and truth. Modern universities are primarily organized according to knowledge-based units—faculties and academic disciplines (Clark, 1986; Kerr, 2001). The formation and development of each academic discipline is the result of a boom in knowledge specialization. Every academic discipline, no matter how theoretical or practical, has branches of accumulated specialist knowledge that have gained legitimacy and accepted stable boundaries. Knowledge is the central part of academic disciplines and animates universities (Rashdall, 1895).

2.2 Studies on Academic Disciplines and the Social Sciences

43

Principles exist to regulate disciplinary knowledge. First, a stable object of research (e.g., society, economy, or politics) is established to encompass knowledge. Second, specific terminologies, unifying theoretical paradigms, and research methodologies are developed around the object of research to advance the academic tribe. Third, systematic categories and schools of expert knowledge are accumulated and specialized, simultaneously contributing to the intellectual foundation and upholding the epistemology and orthodoxy of each discipline. Academics and experts construct intellectual categories. In the meantime, accumulated knowledge preserves the authority and influence of academics in different disciplinary territories. As Krishnan (2009) explained, “knowledge can become largely esoteric and debates might be so full of technical terms and jargon that they would be only understandable to a small elite group” (p. 23). Specialists uphold their academic territories, and outsiders and amateurs cannot easily approach the threshold of other disciplines. Disciplinary Organization. Both HEIs and academic disciplines can trace their precursors to ancient times. Nevertheless, as Haskings Rashdall (1895) stated in his work, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, the university is acknowledged as a distinctly medieval creation. Researchers, including Newman and Kerr, have been advocates of this point, agreeing that the features of universities established in the medieval period prevail today. As Kerr (2001) explained, universities have unique institutional features that chiefly include: a name and a central location, masters with a degree of autonomy, students, a system of lectures, a procedure for examinations and degrees, and even an administrative structure with its faculties. (p. 8)

Since the academic disciplines are parts of HEIs, they have specific organizational components, institutional structures, and elaborate forms. It is important to delve into the organizational and institutional aspects when inspecting academic disciplines in the context of modern universities. Wallerstein (2008) offered a broad understanding of disciplinary organization that encompasses the senses relating to organization, institution, and institutionalization. Academic disciplines have organizational and institutional imperatives to fulfill their research and teaching functions. More specifically, the disciplinarization and professionalization of knowledge have been advanced through the construction of institutional structures at higher learning institutions (Wallerstein, 1996). Only through institutionalization are academic disciplines able to reproduce themselves at HEIs by producing knowledge and training the next generation of gatekeepers and producers of knowledge (Krishnan, 2009). The institutional settings normally include professional chairs and associations, academic departments, and research centers. The evolution of disciplinary organization at present, on the one hand, sticks to the principle of ensuring the specialization and territory of each academic discipline and, on the other hand, creates milieus of interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary development (Szostak et al., 2016). Apart from a series of organizational components within universities (e.g., departments, degree programs, and research centers with disciplinary names), Wallerstein

44

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

(1996) expanded the discipline’s connotation to organizational structures and regulations outside universities and colleges (e.g., national and international associations, scholarly conferences, and journals). Disciplinary Culture. Each academic discipline is a part of cultural groupings and a microcosm with distinct characteristic features and even prejudices (Becher, 1981; Krishnan, 2009). Knowledge generation and institutional construction cannot occur without the involvement of practitioners and professionals in specialist fields who contribute to knowledge territories and academic tribes (Becher & Trowler, 2001). These practitioners distinguish themselves by creating specific values, disciplinary identities, and cultural practices. In addition, professionals tend to reproduce cultural tribalism to protect their academic tribes. Disciplinary cultures reflect the social aspects of knowledge communities. Becher and Trowler (2001) defined disciplinary culture as a set of “taken-for-granted values, attitudes and ways of behaving, which are articulated through and reinforced by recurrent practices among a group of people in a given context” (p. 23). Theories pertaining to academic disciplines contributed by Foucault, Becher and Trowler, and Wallerstein were applied to this research. Specifically, this study assumed that: (i) the evolution of the social sciences is intertwined with knowledge/power relations; and, (ii) academic disciplines are three-dimensional and these three dimensions simultaneously construct a unified pedestal to represent each social science discipline (Wallerstein, 1996, 1998, 2008). In practice, disciplinary epistemology, organization, and culture are inseparable. There exist different criteria to define and evaluate an academic discipline. Wallerstein’s threefold division of academic disciplines was adopted as it articulates the three most essential dimensions and principal criteria to assess an academic discipline. Accordingly, the social sciences, as one category of academic discipline, encompass these three dimensions. They are university-based disciplines with intellectual territories, organizational settings, and cultural tribes, but do not merely refer to social thinking and social knowledge (Keim, 2010; Solovey & Cravens, 2012). Each social science discipline owns specific disciplinary knowledge, and a specific organization and culture.

2.3 A Review of International Academic Relations in the Social Sciences 2.3.1 The Uneven Internationalization of the Social Sciences Modern universities and the disciplinary system originating in the West spread from European countries across the global and eventually was accepted by HEIs of various countries. The literature on the evolution of social sciences of vast non-Western countries presents a pathetic picture, constituted by academic dependence (Alatas, 2003),

2.3 A Review of International Academic Relations in the Social Sciences

45

intellectual imperialism and hegemony (Altbach, 1998; Gosovic, 2000), marginalization (Keim, 2010), and so on. The social sciences in non-Western countries have learnt from and depend upon Euro-American models in a variety of ways. Many scholars have argued that Western societies dominate the global academic system and knowledge production space, and that social scientific ideas and knowledge developed in non-Western countries have been marginalized (Bueno, 2013; Gosovic, 2000; Keim, 2010; Vessuri, 2010). Western hegemony in the social sciences was not merely the case in the colonial period, but also continues in the age of post-colonialism and the current era of globalization.

2.3.1.1

Academic Inequality in a World-Historical Context

As Keim (2010) pointed out, “Although social thinking has been present in all societies at all times, the social sciences as academic disciplines within specialized institutions are of European origin” (p. 169). The social sciences were born in the torrent of European history associated with the eighteenth century Enlightenment, and the subsequent nineteenth century industrialization and the emergence of nation states. The social sciences were preoccupied with the advent and development of the modern world and its need for knowledge about human society (Wallerstein, 1996; Wittrock et al., 1991). Since their inception in nineteenth century Europe, the social sciences have become internationalized (Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010), as intellectuals have used their intellectual enthusiasm to cultivate and exchange knowledge across national borders. Academic rationales have been the primary motivation for international exchanges and collaborations. However, the social science disciplines began to spread from European societies to other regions and societies in a peculiar world-historical context—the latter encountering Western hegemony (Yang, 2013). More specifically, modern universities, academic systems, and the social sciences were introduced from Europe to colonial (e.g., India, Cambodia, and Brazil) and semi-colonial (e.g., China) countries. Since the assumption was that “the morals and values of the colonizer are superior to those of the colonized” (Chakkarath, 2010, p. 91), the European institutions and knowledge systems were declared civilized. In contrast, the so-called primitive cultures and indigenous knowledge of the colonies were subjugated to those of the privileged. Owing to this unique historical trajectory, modern universities and the social sciences to some extent have been seen as elements of European colonialism and cultural hegemony (Krishnan, 2009). For instance, Kuhn and Weidemann (2010) observed that the internationalization of the social sciences in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was specifically “Europeanization.” European countries colonized many countries around the world, and thereafter exported their social sciences to those colonies and later to newly independent nation states. Even today’s social sciences “superpower,” the United States, looked to Europe for ideas and experts throughout this period (Solovey & Cravens, 2012). As the social sciences expanded from Europe to other regions, paralleling the course of colonialism and

46

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

post-colonialism, a historical inequality emerged within the internationalization process, and many countries had to deal with Eurocentrism in the social sciences. The American social sciences expanded enormously after the Second World War (1939–1945). The United States emerged as one of the world’s leaders in the global social sciences from 1945 to the early 1970s, dramatically overtaking the European dominance (Solovey & Cravens, 2012). In the post-war era, the United States held overwhelming economic advantages over its European counterparts. Its federal agencies—including the Defense Department, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and the National Institution of Mental Health—allocated substantial funding to support the development of the social sciences. A wide range of social science research, scholarly publications, university departments, and research centers expanded with substantial financial and political support. Social scientists became closely involved in national affairs and action-oriented strategies in the military, economic, political, and diplomatic fields. Their works were impressive and important, becoming essential resources for articulating the core values of the United States and for exhibiting how that country could serve as a model for the rest of the world. Due to the high-profile presence of the United States in the global arena, American social scientists and their works received a great deal of international attention. Ever since, the United States has held a stable and central position in world social sciences and continues to exert great influence on other countries, including Asian countries such as China, Japan, Singapore, and India. Meanwhile, the internationalization of the social sciences implies a trend of Americanization for foreign commentators, especially for those in South America (Várnagy, 2010). The social sciences exponentially expanded and took root in different regions on a world scale after the end of the Second World War. At present, the social science disciplines flourish in universities and colleges around the world while producing a wealth of social scientific knowledge. However, the development of the social sciences in different societies reveals considerable disparity. Former colonies in Southern Africa, South Asia, and Latin America were and are largely dependent upon North America and Western Europe, and even countries with little or no experience of colonization have suffered from Western hegemony (Huang, 2010; Okamoto, 2010). They have radically imported the epistemological and institutional patterns of Western social sciences, yet their traditional learning and indigenous knowledge has not effectively and harmoniously coexisted with the imported knowledge and values. Accordingly, contradictions and conflicts exist in the internationalization of the social sciences, marking a powerful but uneven system of world social sciences (Alatas, 2003; Altbach, 2004; Keim, 2010; Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010).

2.3.1.2

World Systems Analysis and the Center-Periphery Model

Theoretical lenses have been developed and brought to bear upon the international academic relations between universities and scholars from different countries. In this section I review related theories, including world systems inquiry, the centerperiphery model, and dependency theory, that have been widely utilized to analyze the

2.3 A Review of International Academic Relations in the Social Sciences

47

international academic relations in the internationalization course of higher education and the social sciences. World Systems Analysis. Wallerstein (1974a, 1974b) developed world systems theory in the 1970s, offering a macro-sociological and world-historical perspective to explain world history and social change. The world system is adopted as a unit of analysis in this theory, and each single nation state exists within a broad and structuralized framing. Capitalist world systems have a power hierarchy that defines nations in one of three ways: core, periphery, or semi-peripheral. This structure is mainly constituted by the division of labor. Core countries concentrate on higherskill and capital-intensive production, while peripheral states feature concentrations of low-skill and labor-intensive production (Wallerstein, 1974a). Core countries dominate and even exploit peripheral and semi-peripheral ones. As Wallerstein (1974a) explained, unequal exchanges are “enforced by strong states on weak ones, by core states on peripheral areas” (p. 401). Core countries or metropolises gain benefits in international exchanges, while peripheral countries or satellites are exploited and thus fail to accumulate capital and complete the process of industrialization. At the end of the twentieth century, the core referred to wealthy industrialized countries (e.g., European countries, North America, and Japan), while other, less developed countries were deemed semi-peripheral or peripheral. However, world systems are dynamic and capable of change over time (Wallerstein, 1974b). Wallerstein’s thought has become the staple of world systems theory; it is not restricted to economic and political research and has been adopted in various areas. World systems enquiry is used by social scientists to analyze different issues, such as world dynamics, international relations, and social changes. It has also been developed in studies on international and comparative higher education, providing a critical perspective on relations in international higher education to examine the developments in different countries and higher education systems (Clayton, 2000). Center-Periphery Model. The center-periphery model is used to illuminate the academic power structures in higher education, specifically in the social sciences. More specifically, there is an unequal international academic structure among different societies which is characterized by centers and peripheries (Alatas, 1993, 2003; Altbach, 1998, 2004, 2007; Batur, 2014; Bueno, 2013; Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010). Arnove (1980, 2009) is a pioneer who introduced world systems analysis into comparative education. Altbach (2007) then developed a center-periphery analysis in comparative education research to explain educational issues in a distinctive way. Altbach (2004) stated that modern universities originated from European tradition, and their models spread to Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania mainly through colonial infiltration. The international academic relations between Western and nonWestern countries have their roots in the historical context of colonialism. Even after the colonial period, developing countries have depended upon Western models in a variety of ways. Neo-colonialism is a critical problem that developing countries must deal with. The institutionalization and development of HEIs in these countries have followed European tradition and North American models.

48

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

Altbach (2007) articulated that the global academic system is highly unequal. Prestigious universities are mainly concentrated in developed countries such as the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Canada, and Australia, and they are the center of the world’s academic system. The vast majority of universities in developing countries are marginalized. They participate in an international system, but face huge obstacles in overcoming their marginal conditions (Altbach, 1998). The current trend of globalization, however, has exacerbated the inequality and imbalance in the world’s academic system. As Altbach (2013) argued, “the inequalities of the global age are just as profound and in part more complex than the realities of the era of colonialism” (p. 8). English has become the dominant academic language in the global knowledge system, leading to the deepening and widening of the hegemony of a few English-speaking countries. Meanwhile, advanced information technology has strengthened this unequal system. The United States and the United Kingdom have become academic superpowers (Altbach, 2013). The global academic system is increasingly complex, and it is more difficult for peripheral countries to participate in the centers. Alatas (2003) particularly analyzed academic power structures in the social sciences and identified centers, the semi-periphery, and peripheral communities. Alatas (2003) regarded the United States, the United Kingdom, and France as the contemporary social science powers in a hierarchical structure. Four principal criteria were extracted to justify their central position: (i) center countries generate more research outputs in different forms; (ii) the ideas and information contained in these works have a global reach; (iii) they exert considerable influence on the social science of other societies; and, (iv) they achieve worldwide recognition and prestige. In addition, the second level is constituted of semi-peripheral countries in the social sciences—including Germany, Japan, and Australia—that are in the middle position. While they have an impact on other countries to a certain extent, they also rely upon the global social science centers. The lowest level includes the peripheral social science groups, mainly from developing countries—most of which are former colonies of Western countries—that rely upon global social science powers in various spheres. Different standards exist to affirm center-periphery relations. According to the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences (Wallerstein, 1996), the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and the United States are five major players in social science research and teaching. These countries host social science scholars and institutions with international prestige. Institutional buildings in the social sciences—such as departments and schools—were firstly established at universities among these countries. Scholarly publications and libraries were founded, and national and international associations for social science scholars were developed with global reputation. Wallerstein (2008) stated that intellectual boundaries, organizational constructs, and disciplinary cultures are all shaped by these countries. Academic Dependence. The notion of academic dependence has been widely discussed by social science scholars (Alatas, 2000; Gareau, 1988; Vessuri, 2010). In

2.3 A Review of International Academic Relations in the Social Sciences

49

Altbach’s (2015) words “the developing countries find themselves dependent on the major academic superpowers” (p. 6). It is regarded as an ongoing problem for the development of social sciences in the periphery (or developing countries, the global south, the Third World). Peripheral countries, especially former colonies, depend upon Europe and North America due to long-term Western hegemony and dependent relationships that persist even today. Some peripheral countries rely upon developed countries because of a lack of financial resources and institutional construction to conduct research, but most rely upon Western superpowers intellectually and academically (Bueno, 2013). Alatas (2003) in particular stated that the “social sciences of certain countries are conditioned by the development and growth of the social sciences of other countries to which the former is subjected” (p. 603). The “captive mind” mode is a result of academic dependence. The social science powers in North America and Western Europe exert profound influence, while scholars from developing countries depend upon the centers in different ways. Alatas (2003) proposed six dimensions to analyze specific dependency conditions. First, peripheral countries depend on ideas provided by social science powers. Typically, they conduct empirical work while looking to the West for theoretical perspectives and methodologies; thus, knowledge and ideas flow from the centers to the peripheries. The intellectual contribution and global influence of peripheral social science communities are limited. Second, peripheral countries rely on idea-sharing media provided by the centers, including books, research papers, social science journals, electronic materials, and conferences. The social science superpowers has produced a large amount of academic media, and their social sciences have considerable global influence. The third aspect is dependence upon educational technology. The center countries control advanced educational technology, and peripheral countries rely on these centers for technology and services. The fourth aspect involves the assistance of governments and institutions to research and teaching. Without external assistance, some peripheral countries will encounter difficulties in their development. Fifth, peripheral countries depend upon investment in education from wealthy developed countries. Alatas (2003) explained that this “refers to the direct investment of education institutions from the West in the Third World” (p. 605). The final dimension is dependence on skills—i.e., peripheral social science communities relying upon the expertise and skills of intellectual powers.

2.3.1.3

Empirical Works in the Context of Globalization

A series of studies has employed, in addition to thought-provoking theoretical analysis, empirical research to investigate issues of internationalization in the social sciences. Academic research production (Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010), knowledge production and accumulation (Keim et al., 2016; Okamoto, 2010), knowledge flow (Qi, 2014), collaboration patterns (Weidemann, 2010), and citation patterns

50

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

(Gingras & Natanson, 2010) in the social sciences have been used as major indicators to analyze the research and scholarship of social scientists in different regions and countries. Frenken et al. (2010) found that the social sciences remain subject to an uneven structure and continue to be dominated by a small number of Western nations. The peripheral regions and nations have not integrated well into the world academic structure over the past two decades. A scientometric method was adopted to analyze co-publications in nine regions by measuring data from the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI). They found that those peripheral regions and countries, including South America, South Asia, Africa, and the Arab states, are under-represented in the global knowledge system due to language barriers, a shortage of financial and intellectual support, limited motivations to publish, and other factors. Co-publications and international collaborations are led by North American and Western European countries. A strong center-periphery structure persists in the globally-networked spaces of social sciences in terms of research collaborations. Gingras and Natanson (2010) concentrated on the world distribution of social science publications. They classified seven regions (i.e., Europe, North America, Asia, Latin America, Oceania, Southern Africa, and the Commonwealth of Independent States). They found that international social science publications are mostly produced by four countries (i.e., the US, the UK, Netherlands, and Germany) that account for two-thirds of the world’s peer-reviewed articles in the social sciences. In particular, North American countries published half of all social science journals from 1988 to 2007. Additionally, social science citations among these seven regions present significant disparities. European and North American journals are the most cited by other countries and by themselves; Africa is a Europe-dependent region, with 53.4% of its references being to European publications in 2003–2005; and Latin America and Asia are North American-dependent regions with, respectively, 56.2% and 54.1% of their references being to North American journals in 2003–2005 (Gingras & Natanson, 2010, p. 153). International social science publications and citations are led by North America, with only Europe being comparable. Today’s globalized age make worldwide social sciences more international and provide effective channels for knowledge distribution and exchange. Many people are curious to know whether globalization weakens or strengthens the historically uneven structure of the social sciences. Indeed, no matter what indicators one uses, from the global production of knowledge, international mobility, and knowledge dissemination, to international exchange and collaboration, it is apparent that the social sciences are more internationalized than ever before. Nevertheless, along with the trend of globalization, there is a growing consensus that the asymmetrical global knowledge system and uneven internationalization have continued and even strengthened (Altbach, 2013; UNESCO & ISSC, 2010). Empirical studies have indicated that: (i) North America and Europe are the unchallenged centers of the global social sciences; these two major centers substantially dominate global social sciences; (ii) There is rapid growth in Asian social sciences; and, (iii) Increased production of academic

2.3 A Review of International Academic Relations in the Social Sciences

51

articles and international collaborations has not yet led to more homogeneous knowledge production and circulation between the centers and peripheral countries. Social scientists from peripheral regions have a stronger tendency to cooperate and coauthor with Western social scientists, and cite more academic works produced by social scientists in the center regions.

2.3.2 Challenging Euro-American Domination In the past decades, social scientists in developing countries and the metropolitan cores alike have noted and criticized the asymmetrical academic relations and power mechanisms (Bhambra, 2007; Gareau, 1988). In particular, it has become a recurring problem for scholars in peripheral communities to develop themselves. As Kundu (2007) observed, “There is nothing called East now. It does not exist. Everything is WEST” (p. 74). However, the Western social sciences likely fail to reflect the social realities and orders of other societies. Hence, the latter’s academics attempt to react against Euro-America-centric hegemonic patterns in an effort to change the uneven structures in international social sciences (Alatas, 2003; Qi, 2013). Furthermore, the current trend towards globalization energizes this tension, arousing debates around Western domination and stimulating further exploration of indigenous knowledge, cultural diversity, academic dependence, and universal knowledge in the social sciences. In addition to independent scholars, several international organizations and communities (e.g., UNESCO, the World Social Sciences and Humanities Network, the International Social Science Council, the Social Science History Association) and several regional communities (e.g., the Association of Asian Social Science Research Councils, the Arab Council for the Social Sciences, the Latin American Council of Social Sciences, and the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa) have paid growing attention to the issue, particularly in the era of globalization. These organizations have launched systematic studies of international trends in the social sciences. UNESCO has collaborated with ISSC in publishing the biennial World Social Science Report since 1999. In the first report, they indicated that research in the global social sciences with international influence is overwhelmingly produced in North America and Europe, a phenomenon called “Eurocentrism and Asymmetry” (UNESCO & ISSC, 1999). The World Social Science Report 2010 highlights knowledge divides among different countries and regions. Three forms of divide are identified: (i) divides in research capacity due to varied quantity and quality of research institutions and researchers in different countries; (ii) asymmetries in research production and circulation of knowledge, measured by the quantity, quality, and international visibility of research; and, (iii) divides in epistemological underpinnings associated with the diverse traditions, cultures, and philosophies of different regions and societies

52

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

(UNESCO & ISSC, 2010). As Bokova stated, “the huge disparities in research capacities across countries and the fragmentation of knowledge hamper the capacity of social sciences to respond to the challenges of today and tomorrow” (UNESCO & ISSC, 2010, p. iii). The social sciences run the risk of being dominated by a handful of North American and Western European countries, along with the radical exclusion of local relevance, knowledge production, and favored intellectuals in peripheral or non-Western societies (Frenken et al., 2010). This phenomenon leads to intensive debates between universalists and particularists (Keim, 2010). Indeed, conflicts between universal versus particular claims have been innate to the social sciences since they originated in the late nineteenth century. The 1970s witnessed heated debates over universalism and particularism in social scientific fields. This was a period in which numerous schools of thought and intellectual movements emerged such as feminism, decolonization, neoliberalism, civil rights, and anti-war movements, among others. Those events stirred the social sciences to re-adjust to new geopolitical and social atmospheres and seek to correct asymmetries and inequalities. The current contradictions relate particularly to the changing global constellations of academic power and endeavors to transform the asymmetrical relations. Western imperialism is said to lead to a distorted form of universality in the global social sciences (Gordon et al., 1990). For instance, Keim (2010) attributed the problem to “radical exclusion” and “radical inclusion.” The world social sciences exclude the knowledge and experience of non-Western others, while deeming Western-controlled disciplines to be universal. Scholars have remarked that EuroAmerican-centric social sciences claim to embody universal validity, leading to a fundamental epistemological problem in mainstream social sciences (Alatas, 2003; Plaatjie, 2013). Furthermore, the Euro-American dominated system keeps the scholars of other regions from participating equally to exert their intellectual influence, and marginalizes them in the global scientific system. One consequence of this is the accumulated disadvantages facing scholars on the periphery of the international power structure and knowledge system. Knowledge production and flow in the global arena have distinctive biases towards Western traditions (Keim et al., 2016), which distort universalism but extends particularism. Accordingly, scholars and the above-mentioned organizations have sought to remedy the uneven international relations and academic power structure in the process of internationalizing the social sciences. First, internationalization is highly controversial, as it lacks the participation of most countries and is controlled by a handful of influential states. Kuhn and Weidemann (2010) stated that, whilst internationalization is a pervasive phenomenon in the world social sciences, it is not true internationalization, as international academic communities emphatically exclude non-Western countries. Social scientists from different countries have appealed for equal participation in the global academic community. Second, internationalization implies the transnational circulation of knowledge and ideas. However, social science knowledge generated in peripheral societies is marginalized by the mainstream; thus, such societies fail to develop in the international scientific system. As RoulleauBerger (2016) noted, “knowledge produced outside the Western world has been and

2.3 A Review of International Academic Relations in the Social Sciences

53

still partially is considered as coming from suburbs of knowledge, places of lesser legitimacy” (p. 4). This exclusion of knowledge and distorted knowledge circulation hinder the social sciences from keeping pace with the ever-changing global society. Many scholars advocate breaking up the Euro-American-centric patterns and integrating indigenous knowledge. Without doubt, numerous difficulties are faced by scholars in non-Western societies when attempting to react against such power structures and hierarchical orders. One of the most challenging tasks is to establish epistemic and intellectual autonomy in the context of Euro-American hegemony. Academics in South America, Africa, and Asia have exclusively depended upon the epistemological order of Euro-American knowledge and academic norms to construct their social science disciplines and conduct research (Rosa, 2014). They have little endemic scholarship with which to conceptualize and theorize social problems in their own societies and even less to establish an autonomous system (Kundu, 2007). Despite the disadvantages and distortions, a growing number of social scientist from different regions have endeavored to reconstruct their academic work and disciplines. Counter-hegemonic currents have emerged to promote the pursuit of purely original and autonomous social sciences (Keim, 2011). Typically, the way adopted by academics in many peripheral communities to develop their disciplines is to integrate indigenous and international dimensions by digging into indigenous histories, cultures, and contemporary social circumstances. The indigenization movement gains momentum when social scientists have a strong desire to pursue epistemic autonomy (Zheng, 2009). Advocates of alternative discourses (Alatas, 2001, 2006) and post-Western social sciences (Roulleau-Berger, 2016) are rising to contribute social science knowledge from non-Western civilizations.

2.3.3 A Multi-polarized Academic World Are the long-lasting and uneven academic structure and asymmetrical knowledge system in the global social sciences unchangeable? Since the late twentieth century, the acceleration of globalization has stimulated nation states worldwide to become more integrated, while remaining competitive and conflicted (Ninnes & Hellstén, 2005). The Eurocentric stereotypes and North Atlantic models have persisted in the social sciences (Alatas, 2006; Chakkarath, 2010). Meanwhile, ongoing globalization is intensifying Western hegemony on the one hand, and the tensions between centers and peripheries on the other (Keim, 2010). Nevertheless, the distribution of academic power is fluid, and the global academic structure is much more complex under globalization (Altbach, 2007; Hopkins, 2011; Keim, 2011; Marginson, 2000; Scott, 2000; Yang, 2013). Scholars have provided insightful perspectives into the multi-polarized academic world and the evolutionary path of the social sciences. Appadurai (1996, 2000) saw globalization as a new space to create cultural diversity and heterogeneity through the “global media” and the “work of imagination.” The global academic structure is much more complex (Altbach, 2007), and the distribution of power increasingly fluid (Yang, 2002, 2013, 2015). Higher education worldwide is

54

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

facing a turbulent moment (Knight, 2008). Multi-polarization, economic globalization, and cultural diversification provide new imperatives for re-imaging the social sciences. As Kuhn and Yazawa (2013) stated, globalization provides an opportunity to explore new paradigms, discourses, and approaches in the world social sciences, while challenging Western hegemony. Meanwhile, the multipolar world implies that scholars worldwide have the chance to create a better and truer internationalization (Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010). Global relations are undergoing chaotic turbulence (Wallerstein, 2008) and the world academic structure is shifting (Roulleau-Berger, 2016; Yang, 2017). The unprecedented progress of globalization means that the social sciences are facing a new environment marked by complexity and contingency (Knight, 2008). Traditional social sciences have exhausted their capability to deal with such uncertainty. Furthermore, the global knowledge landscape is evolving towards fragmentation, without a coordinated effort to generate rigorous and pluralistic social science knowledge. Pluralistic knowledge from different regions of the world, it is anticipated, will be assimilated by the social sciences to deal with complex and interconnected issues in a globalized society (Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010; Kuhn & Yazawa, 2013). Globalization, cultural diversification, and the multipolar world arguably open a new arena for challenging Western supremacy and establishing a new global constellation of academic power. Noting that a persistently unequal power and knowledge structure undermines the capability of the social sciences to become global and generate truly universal knowledge (Huntington, 1996; Keim et al., 2016), academics seek to renew universalism by freeing themselves from Western hegemony (Lauer & Aswani, 2009), stimulating a plurality of spaces (Hall et al., 2000), and embracing a multiplicity of Western and non-Western knowledge and civilizations (Hayhoe, 2001; Slater, 1995; Yang, 2013). During this process, internationalization could be used to promote the growth of social scientific knowledge by respecting pluralist patterns and cultural diversity and strengthening dialogues among different civilizations. There are two trends developing in the multi-polarized academic world. First, it is valuable to uncover and incorporate the experiences and perspectives of social science knowledge embedded in diverse traditions and cultures (Keim, 2010). Embracing social science knowledge from different societies and a rich diversity of civilizations will invigorate and rejuvenate the social sciences, and social experiences and knowledge from non-Western countries can enrich world social sciences (Alatas, 2006; Gunaratne, 2010; Qi, 2013; UNESCO & ISSC, 2010). This perspective is also the credo of this research. Furthermore, a collective supranational platform will bridge and cross both Western and Eastern spaces, creating a renewed and increased plurality in the global academic structure, and resulting in universal social science knowledge. Second, along with the growth of research capacity and self-consciousness— in terms of pursuing epistemological autonomy, intellectual influence, and cultural identity—it becomes possible for some peripheral or semi-peripheral countries to reverse their capacity and status in the international academic scenario. The emergence of new social science centers might enrich global knowledge and challenge the antiquated and rigid center-periphery mode to create a multi-polar academic

2.3 A Review of International Academic Relations in the Social Sciences

55

world. Against this backdrop, the widening, deepening, and speeding up of tensions and interactions might occur between different forms of social scientific thought and knowledge, based on very different cultures and traditions, and is valuable for reinvigorating and rejuvenating the social sciences (UNESCO & ISSC, 2010).

2.3.4 A Revolution in the Global Social Sciences? As for the future evolution of the world social sciences and the revolution of Western hegemony, many scholars remain pessimistic, but a number of academics are beginning to adopt an optimistic stance. Typically, scholars point out that the global academic system is dominated by Western countries and has never been evenly open to other regions and countries. The uneven relations and asymmetrical structures between the academic superpowers and most nations in the global south or non-Western universities have been a long-standing concern of the world social sciences. For example, Mosbah-Natanson and Gingras (2014) argued that peripheral regions risk losing their interests in local issues and commitments in the international exchange. The internationalization of the social sciences thus leads to a phagocytosis of the periphery into the two major centers. In contrast, some scholars, especially those witnessing the rapid growth of the social sciences of Asian countries, present different perspectives. Roulleau-Berger (2016) advanced the notion of post-Western social sciences and advocated for theoretical and methodological assemblages of Western and Eastern spaces. Based on her long-term observation and research in Asia, Roulleau-Berger (2016) stated: Within a movement towards the circulation and globalization of knowledge, new centers and new peripheries form and new hierarchies appear—more or less discretely—producing competition and rivalry in the development of “new” knowledge. Centers of gravity in social sciences have been displaced towards Asia, especially China. We have entered a period of de-westernization of knowledge and co-production of transnational knowledge. This is a scientific revolution in the social sciences which imposes detours, displacements, reversals. It means a turning point in the history of social sciences. (p. 1)

2.3.4.1

The Chinese Context and Perspectives

Despite the great pacesetters and rich intellectual traditions in the country’s past— starting in the Zhou dynasty (1046–256 BC), which included Laozi (604–531 BC), Confucius (551–479 BC), Mozi (470–391 BC), and Mencius (372–289 BC)—the social sciences, as academic disciplines, are a modern creation and a Western transplant in Chinese universities (Gransow, 2008; Hayhoe, 1996; Huang, 2003; Keim, 2010; Yang, 2013). China was in a deep pit of internal rife and external aggression in the late nineteenth century, and fell into a semi-colonial state; since then it abolished its traditional higher learning system and established a modern academic

56

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

and higher education system, including the social science disciplines, by adopting Western knowledge and patterns2 (Huang, 2003). As Yang (2020) stated: It has been an arduous task since the nineteenth century when Western knowledge became institutionalized in China. China’s modern education system has been based on Western knowledge, which allows little space for China’s indigenous educational traditions. Due to their fundamental differences, the two value systems are not compatible with each other. Rather, tensions between them lead to a great divorce between formal curricula at all levels of Chinese education and China’s socio-cultural reality, making it difficult for scholars to theorize China’s recent remarkable achievements in education. (p. 34)

Significant progress in the Chinese social sciences occurred during the period of the Republic of China (ROC), made manifested by the fact that they were institutionalized and professionalized as well as indigenized. Meanwhile, the Chinese social sciences in this period were heavily influenced by the Western social sciences, especially their Anglo-American forms (Chiang, 2001; Zuo, 2004). The Republican period witnessed the impressive growth of the modern discipline system and the social sciences in Chinese universities (Dirlik, 2012; Hayhoe, 1996). Moreover, spectacular transformation in the Chinese higher education system took place in the period of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially starting with the far-reaching Reform and Opening-Up policy. China’s higher education has experienced world-renowned achievements, and the Chinese social sciences have also flourished with impressive growth since 1978. However, the development of the Chinese social sciences has not kept pace with China’s unprecedented and promising social transformation, and it has been relatively limited in terms of gaining international prestige and influence. The Chinese social sciences are still in a relatively less advanced position in the global academic system. Deng (2010), a late distinguished scholar, pointed out that the internationalization of the social sciences in China have gone through three stages since 1978. First, Chinese scholars introduced Western social science theories, methodologies, disciplinary institutions, and academic systems into China. Second, Chinese scholars used Western theories and methodologies to investigate Chinese issues. At this stage, Chinese scholars conducted a great deal of empirical research in the social sciences, but theoretical innovation was limited. Third, Chinese social scientists have attempted to integrate into the global academic community in accordance with Western-led standards and directions since the mid- to late 1990s. Deng (2010) urged that the Chinese social sciences must “establish academic standards based on China’s indigenous knowledge and achieve a knowledge transition towards the world” (p. 182). He regarded the “going global” strategies of the social sciences as a rare opportunity for the development of China’s social sciences. The Chinese academic community firmly expects the Chinese social sciences to play a more important role in the global academic community. In order to achieve this goal, Chinese scholars have realized that internationalization and indigenization should be respected synchronously (Chen, 1999; He, 2006; Ou et al., 2005; Zhu, 2009). More importantly, internationalization not only means learning from others, 2

Chapter 3 maps the historical trajectory of the evolution of Chinese social sciences.

2.3 A Review of International Academic Relations in the Social Sciences

57

but also means transferring Chinese knowledge and cultures to the world (Zhu, 2009). Nevertheless, Chinese social scientists always encounter challenges when attempting to adapt to international (Western) influences and to incorporate knowledge and values of Chinese culture and civilization. A small number of Chinese scholars have a thorough knowledge of both Western and Chinese learning and thereby contribute academic theories and gain recognition on the world academic stage. Huang (2010) pointed out that the development of Chinese social sciences has been influenced by three traditions—China’s intellectual traditions (e.g., Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism), Marxist studies, and Western influences. However, there has been increasing concern about excessive reliance on Western social sciences, which are not suitable for Chinese society and not conducive to the autonomous growth of Chinese social sciences (Deng, 2010; He, 2006; Yang, 2013; Zhu, 2009). As an example, Ling (2009) proposed a crucial question: “Who controls Chinese minds?” (p. 32). Empirical studies have indicated that Western social sciences, especially European and American social science models, have had a significant impact on Chinese social sciences in the past few decades (He, 2006; Ling, 2009). Additionally, the Chinese social sciences are under-represented in the global knowledge system. Advocates of breaking up the Euro-American-centric patterns and hierarchical orders, integrating indigenous knowledge and diverse traditions, and building up a multi-polarized academic world are rising (Keim, 2011; Roulleau-Berger, 2016). As mentioned above, one of the most challenging tasks is to establish epistemic and intellectual autonomy in the context of Euro-American hegemony. The recent years have witnessed a stronger desire on the part of Chinese social scientists to promote the pursuit of purely original and autonomous social sciences (Zhu, 2009). They are endeavoring to establish an autonomous social science academic and knowledge system with Chinese characteristics and international influences (Zheng, 2009). Typically, Chinese academics tend to integrate indigenous and international dimensions, while digging into indigenous histories, cultures, and contemporary social circumstances. Scholars have suggested various paths and strategies to integrate Chinese and Western patterns. Hayhoe (1996) stated that the traditional cultures and values of Chinese scholarship should be uncovered. In addition, Hayhoe (1996) saw the South-West Associated University in Kunming as something of a beacon in China’s higher education, integrating Western ideas about the modern university and Chinese values of Shuyuan in remarkable ways. Chen (1999) argued that the integration of Chinese and Western patterns refers to a theoretical and methodological reconstruction of the social sciences. Yang (2014) claimed that the core problem of internationalization in China’s social sciences is the cultural integration between the Chinese and Western knowledge and values. Li (2011) proposed the notion of Tianxia or Tianxiaism as a Chinese idea that harmonizes different values, cultures, and patterns.

58

2.3.4.2

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

Essential Issues and the Research Gap

The world social sciences are expected to play an important role in helping people around the world understand and deal with global issues (UNESCO & ISSC, 1999). However, the social sciences actually face both “exaggerated expectations” and “undue disregard” (Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010), as well as “radical exclusion” and “radical inclusion” (Keim, 2010). There is no doubt that internationalization is a desirable process for advancing the global social sciences in a new era of complex and unpredictable changes (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Nevertheless, there always have been controversies surrounding the unequal power mechanisms and asymmetrical academic relations between different regions and countries in the internationalization of the social sciences (Altbach, 2013). It has been argued that peripheral countries have obtained valuable sources in the interconnected world system, but their academic development has been restricted and subjugated by more powerful forces. In today’s era of (de-)globalization influenced by geopolitical uncertainty and an eroding international order, it seems that the global academic system is shifting and growing more multi-polarized and multicultural. However, the Euro-America-centric hegemonic patterns still prevail in the social sciences, leaving peripheral countries dependent upon them in various ways (Alatas, 2003; Altbach, 1998; Wallerstein, 1996). Will globalization continue to reinforce historical inequality, Western hegemony, and the academic dependence of peripheral countries on the dominant countries, or will it open a renewed pluralism for non-Western countries? These questions need to be answered in an ever-changing globalized world. Internationalization has been deemed to be the outcome of and a strategic response to globalization (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Yang, 2002). It has been argued that a multi-polarized academic world and post-Western space should be established to embrace cultures and knowledge of different histories and traditions (Appadurai, 2000; Keim, 2011; Roulleau-Berger, 2016). It is important to investigate how the social science knowledge of non-Western countries will be developed and incorporated to reinvigorate the world social sciences in the process of internationalization. The Asian social sciences have seen considerable development in recent decades, and questions are being posed as to how different Asian and Western knowledge and values can be gathered together to refine the social sciences. Chinese social sciences are expected to make more contributions to the nation’s political, cultural, and economic development, and to the wider global community. However, as Hayhoe (1996) pointed out, “social sciences in China have been fragmented throughout the modern period” (p. 50). A fundamental issue in the internationalization of the social sciences is integrating Chinese and Western patterns in a remarkable way, which raises several questions. What values, cultures, and knowledge will the Chinese social sciences bring to the global community? What kinds of Chinese and Western patterns should be integrated, and what approaches should be used for this dynamic integration? How can Chinese social scientists use internationalization as a strategy to enhance their international status and influence? Whilst there have been intensive discussions and debates on the internationalization of the social sciences within

2.3 A Review of International Academic Relations in the Social Sciences

59

the Chinese academic community, systematic research on this theme is rare, and empirical studies are especially lacking.

2.4 Summary Proceeding from conceptual overviews to theoretical reflections, this chapter has concentrated on research relevant to the evolution of the social sciences from a comparative global perspective. Theoretical lenses have been brought to bear upon the international academic relations between different regions and countries during the process of internationalization. To put it in perspective, there has been an asymmetrical power structure and unequal global academic and knowledge system in the world social sciences. Nevertheless, in an era of globalization, a more multipolarized and complex academic world is emerging that arguably opens a new arena to challenge Western supremacy and establish a new global constellation of academic power. Against this background, a series of questions spring out. Will the trend of globalization reinforce or emancipate the asymmetrical global academic relations and uneven knowledge system? Is there a revolution in the world social sciences that has the potential to break through the uneven system and Euro-American hegemony? What are the new roles of and opportunities for social sciences in such non-Western societies as mainland China to facilitate the rethinking, refining, and re-empowering of the world social sciences? Little is known about these questions, and there is a lack of empirical study investigating these issues.

References Alatas, S. F. (1993). On the indigenization of academic discourse. Alternatives, 18(3), 307–338. Alatas, S. F. (2000). Academic dependency in the social sciences: Reflections on India and Malaysia. American Studies International, 38(2), 80–96. Alatas, S. F. (2001). The study of the social sciences in developing societies: Towards an adequate conceptualization of relevance. Current Sociology, 49(2), 1–19. Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labor in the social sciences. Current Sociology, 51(6), 599–613. Alatas, S. F. (2006). Alternative discourses in Asian social science: Responses to eurocentrism. Sage Publications. Altbach, P. G. (1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university, and development. Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education & Management, 10(1), 3–25. Altbach, P. G. (2007). Globalization and the university: Realities in an unequal world. In J. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 121–139). Springer. Altbach, P. G. (2013). The humanities and social sciences in Asia. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The international imperative in higher education (pp. 149–152). Sense Publishers. Altbach, P. G. (2015). Perspectives on internationalizing higher education. International Higher Education, 27, 6–8.

60

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. Altbach, P. G., & Teichler, U. (2001). Internationalization and exchanges in a globalized university. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(1), 5–25. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity al large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. University of Minnesota Press. Appadurai, A. (2000). Grassroots globalization and the research imagination. Public Culture, 12(1), 1–19. Arnove, R. F. (1980). Comparative education and world-systems analysis. Comparative Education Review, 24(1), 48–62. Arnove, R. F. (2009). World-systems analysis and comparative education in the age of globalization. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 101–119). Springer. Arum, S., & Van de Water, J. (1992). The need for a definition of international education in US universities. In C. B. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the future: Strategies for internationalizing higher education (pp. 191–203). Association of International Education Administration. Ashby, E. (1967). The future of the nineteenth century idea of a university. Minerva, 6(1), 3–17. Bao, R. (2002). On the origin and development of disciplinarity. Journal of Higher Education, 23(4), 102–106. Batur, S. (2014). Center and periphery. In T. Toe (Ed.), Encyclopedia of critical psychology (pp. 212– 215). Springer. Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109–122. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. SRHE and Open University Press. Bhambra, G. (2007). Rethinking modernity: Postcolonialism and the sociological imagination. Palgrave Macmillan. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203. Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204–213. Brown, B. C. (2016). What are academic disciplines? Department of History, Bradley University. Retrieved from https://www.bradley.edu/academic/departments/history/documents/Discip lines%20Pub.pdf Bueno, C. (2013). Knowledge production: A perspective from the periphery. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters (pp. 111– 128). ibidem Press. Chakkarath, P. (2010). Internationalization education and the social sciences: Reflections on the Indian context. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 87–114). Transaction Publishers. Chen, H. (2004). Higher education internationalization, Westernization, and Americanization. Fudan Education Forum, 2(2), 52–54. Chen, L. H. (2008). Internationalization or international marketing? Two frameworks for understanding international students’ choice of Canadian universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 18(1), 1–33. Chen, W. (1999). Internationalization and indigenization of social science research. Journal of Jiangxi Normal University, 32(2), 25–34. Chen, X. (1997). Internationalization of higher education: History, theories and strategies. Shanghai Higher Education Research, 11, 57–61.

References

61

Cheung, A. B. (2012). How Hong Kong universities balance the global and the regional. In B. Adamson, J. Nixon, & S. Feng (Eds.), The reorientation of higher education: Challenging the east-west dichotomy. Springer. Chiang, Y. C. (2001). Social engineering and the social sciences in China, 1919–1949. Cambridge University Press. Clark, B. R. (1986). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. University of California Press. Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton University Press. Clayton, T. (2000). Education and the politics of language: Hegemony and pragmatism in Cambodia, 1979–1989. Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. De Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Greenwood Publishing Group. Deacon, R. (2006). Michel Foucault on education: A preliminary theoretical overview. South African Journal of Education, 26(2), 177–187. Deng, Z. (2010). Westernization of the Chinese social sciences: the case of legal science (1978– 2008). In: UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 182–185). UNESCO Publishing. Dirlik, A. (2012). Zhongguohua: Worlding China the case of sociology and anthropology in twentieth century China. In A. Dirlik, G. Li, & H.-P. Yen (Eds.), Sociology and anthropology in twentieth-century China: Between universalism and indigenism (pp. 1–39). Chinese University Press. Cohen, H. F. (1994). The scientific revolution: A historiographical inquiry. University of Chicago Press. Doherty, C., & Singh, P. (2005). How the West is done: Simulating Western pedagogy in a curriculum for Asian international students. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education (pp. 53–73). Springer. Duan, D. (2013). Differentiation on the concept of internationalization and globalization of higher education. Journal of Henan Institute of Education, 1, 57–59. Ellingboe, B. J. (1998). Divisional strategies to internationalise a campus portrait: Results, resistance and recommendations from a case study at US universities. In J. A. Mestenhauser & B. J. Ellingboe (Eds.), Reforming the higher education curriculum: Internationalising the campus (pp. 198–228). American Council on Education & Oryx Press. Enders, J., & Fulton, O. (2002). Blurring boundaries and blistering institutions. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalizing world. International trends and mutual observations. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Foucault, M. (1985). The history of sexuality: The use of pleasure. Vintage Books. Freidman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Frenken, K., Hoekman, J., & Hardeman, S. (2010). The globalization of research collaboration. In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 144–148). UNESCO Publishing. Gareau, F. H. (1988). Another type of third world dependency: The social sciences. International Sociology, 3(2), 171–178. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Polity Press. Gingras, Y., & Natanson, S. (2010). Where are social sciences produced? In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 149–153). UNESCO Publishing. Gransow, B. (2008). The social sciences in China. In T. M. Porter & D. Ross (Eds.), The Cambridge history of science: The modern social sciences (pp. 498–514). Cambridge University Press. Gosovic, B. (2000). Global intellectual hegemony and the international development agenda. International Social Science Journal, 52(166), 447–456.

62

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

Gordon, E. W., Miller, F., & Rollock, D. (1990). Coping with communicentric bias in knowledge production in the social sciences. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 14–19. Gunaratne, S. A. (2010). De-Westernizing communication/social science research: Opportunities and limitations. Media, Culture & Society, 32(3), 473–500. Hall, B. L., Dei, G. J. S., & Rosenberg, D. G. (Eds.). (2000). Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world. University of Toronto Press. Harman, G. (2005). Internationalization of Australian higher education: A critical review of literature and research. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education (pp. 119–140). Springer. Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s universities, 1895–1995: A century of cultural conflict. Garland Publishing. Hayhoe, R. (2001). Lessons from the Chinese academy. In R. Hayhoe & J. Pan (Eds.), Knowledge across cultures: A contribution to dialogue among civilizations (pp. 323–347). Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. He, X. (2006). The sinolization and internationalization of the social science research. Journal of Art College of Inner Mongolia University, 3(3), 3–11. Healey, N. M. (2008). Is higher education in really ‘internationalising’? Higher Education, 55(3), 333–355. HESA. (2013). Joint academic classification of subjects 3.0: Principal subject codes. Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/support/documentation/jacs/jacs3-principal Hopkins, A. G. (2011). Globalisation in world history. Random House. Huang, F. (2003). Policy and practice of the internationalization of higher education in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(3), 225–240. Huang, H. (2010). China’s historical encounter with Western sciences and humanities. In M. Kuhn & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 21–43). Transaction Publishers. Huntington, S. P. (1996). The west unique, not universal. Foreign Affairs, 75(6), 28–46. Israel, J. I. (2001). Radical enlightenment: Philosophy and the making of modernity, 1650–1750. Oxford University Press. James, P. (2005). Arguing globalizations: Propositions towards an investigation of global formation. Globalizations, 2(2), 193–209. Jokila, S. (2015). The internationalization of higher education with Chinese characteristics: Appadurai’s ideas explored. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(1), 125–139. Keim, W. (2010). The internationalization of social sciences: distortions, dominations and prospects. In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 169–170). UNESCO Publishing. Keim, W. (2011). Counterhegemonic currents and internationalization of sociology: Theoretical reflections and an empirical example. International Sociology, 26(1), 123–145. Keim, W., Çelik, E., & Wöhrer, V. (Eds.). (2016). Global knowledge production in the social sciences: Made in circulation. Routledge. Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Harvard University Press. Khorsandi Taskoh, A. (2014). A critical policy analysis of internationalization in postsecondary education: An Ontario case study. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. The University of Western Ontario. Toronto, Canada. King, I. (2000). Social science and complexity: The scientific foundations. Nova Science Publishers. Klein, J. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press. Klein, J. (1999). Mapping interdisciplinary studies. Association of American Colleges and Universities. Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H. De Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalization of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America (pp. 5–32). EAIE.

References

63

Knight, J. (1997). Internationalization higher education: a conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H. De Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education in Asia pacific countries. EAIE/IDP. Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (Eds.). (1997). Internationalization of higher education in Asia Pacific countries. European Association for International Education. Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education, 33, 2–3. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Knight, J. (2007). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities and challenges. In J. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 207–227). Springer. Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalisation. Sense Publishers. Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In H. Wit & J. D. Heyl (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 27–42). SAGE. Krishnan, A. (2009). What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, Working paper 03/09. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/783/ Kundu, M. (2007). Review alternative discourses in Asian social science: Responses to Eurocentrism. Social Scientist, 35(5/6), 73–76. Kuhn, M., & Weidemann, D. (2010). Internationalization of the social sciences: Introduction. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 11–19). Transaction Publishers. Kuhn, M., & Yazawa, S. (2013). Theories about and strategies against hegemonic social sciences. Center for Glocal Studies, Seijo University. Lauer, M., & Aswani, S. (2009). Indigenous ecological knowledge as situated practices: Understanding fishers’ knowledge in the western Solomon Islands. American Anthropologist, 111(3), 317–329. Lewis, C. T., & Short, C. (1879). A Latin dictionary. Clarendon Press. Li, Q. (2011). “Semi-integration” and “non-integration” in the process of urbanization in China. Hebei Journal, 31(5), 106–114. Li, Q. (2015). The indigenization and development of Chinese Sociology. People’s Daily, 05–11. Li, Q. (2016). How far is China from an olive-type society? A sociological analysis of the development of the middle class. Exploration and Debate, 8, 4–11. Ling, B. (2009). A citation study on Chinese humanities and social sciences thirty years scholarship: 1978–2007. Journal of Tsinghua University (philosophy and Social Sciences), 24(1), 32–50. Liu, H. (2001). Internationlization and indigenization of higher education. Chinese Higher Education, 2, 22–29. Marginson, S. (2000). Rethinking academic work in the global era. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(1), 23–35. Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge University Press. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–329. MOE. (2020). Overview of educational achievements in China in 2020. Retrieved from http://www. moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202005/t20200520_456751.html MOE. (2020). Notification of the establishment of interdisciplinary categories: “integrated circuit science and engineering” and “national security” as the first-level disciplines. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202108/t20210827_555004.html Mohrman, K. (2008). The emerging global model with Chinese characteristics. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 29–48.

64

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

Mohsin, A., & Zaman, K. (2014). Internationalization of universities: Emerging trends, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Economic, 3(1), 1–21. Mosbah-Natanson, S., & Gingras, Y. (2014). The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009). Current Sociology, 62(5), 626–646. Ninnes, P., & Hellstén, M. (2005). Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy. Springer Science & Business Media. OED Online. (2018). Discipline, n. January 2018. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http:// www.oed.com/view/Entry/53744 (accessed February 21, 2018) Okamoto, K. (2010). Internationalization of Japanese social sciences: Importing and exporting social science knowledge. In M. Kuhn & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 21–43). Transaction Publishers. Ou, Y., Zhu, H., & Liao, Z. (2005). The localization of the social sciences of China in time of globalization. Lanzhou Xuekan, 2, 57–59. Plaatjie, S. R. (2013). Beyond Western-centric and Eurocentric development: A case for decolonizing development. Africanus, 43(2), 118–130. Porter, S. L. (2010). Theology as queen and psychology as handmaid: The authority of theology in integrative endeavours. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 29(1), 3–15. Qi, X. (2013). Guanxi, social capital theory and beyond: Toward a globalized social science. The British Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 308–324. Qi, X. (2014). Globalized knowledge flows and Chinese social theory. Routledge. Rashdall, H. (1895). The universities of Europe in the middle ages. Clarendon Press. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy. Routledge. Rosa, M. C. (2014). Theories of the South: Limits and perspectives of an emergent movement in social sciences. Current Sociology, 62(6), 851–867. Roulleau-Berger, L. (2016). Post-Western revolution in sociology: From China to Europe. Brill Publishers. Scholte, J. A. (2017). Globalization: A critical introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing. Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 1–39. Scott, P. (2000). Globalisation and higher education: Challenges for the 21st century. Journal of Studies in International Education, 4(1), 3–10. Seeber, M., Cattaneo, M., Huisman, J., & Paleari, S. (2016). Why do higher education institutions internationalize? An investigation of the multilevel determinants of internationalization rationales. Higher Education, 72(5), 685–702. Shen, C. (2014). Differentiation and analysis of several analogical concepts with the concept of internationalization of higher education. Global Education, 43(6), 45–53. Shields, C. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of Aristotle. Oxford University Press. Slater, D. (1995). Challenging Western visions of the global: The geopolitics of theory and NorthSouth relations. The European Journal of Development Research, 7(2), 366–388. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press. Solovey, M., & Cravens, H. (2012). Cold war social science: Knowledge production, liberal democracy, and human nature. Palgrave Macmillan. Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., & López-Huertas, M. (2016). Interdisciplinary knowledge organization. Springer. Taylor, J. (2004). Toward a strategy for internationalisation: Lessons and practice from four universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(2), 149–171. Tuinamuana, K. (2005). International policy convergence in higher education: An analysis from the periphery. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellstén (Eds.), Internationalizing Higher Education (pp. 199–214). Springer. UNESCO & ISSC. (1999). World social science report 1999. UNESCO Publishing. UNESCO & ISSC. (2010). World social science report 2010. UNESCO Publishing.

References

65

UNESCO. (2015). International standard classification of education. Retrieved from http://uis.une sco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-fieldsof-education-and-training-2013-detailed-field-descriptions-2015-en.pdf UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707.locale=en Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 48(4), 483–510. Várnagy, T. (2010). The Americanization of Argentine and Latin American social sciences. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences. Transaction Publishers. Vessuri, H. (2010). The current internationalization of the social sciences in Latin America: Old wine in new barrels. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 135–157). Transaction Publishers. Wallerstein, I. (1974a). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. Academic. Wallerstein, I. (1974b). The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: Concepts for comparative analysis. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16(4), 387–415. Wallerstein, I. (1996). Open the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. Stanford University Press. Wallerstein, I. (1998). The time of space and the space of time: The future of social science. Political Geography, 17(1), 71–82. Wallerstein, I. (2008). What is historical social science? Paper presented at the contention, change, and explanation: A conference in Honor of Charles Tilly. Wang, J. (2002). Conception of the internationalization of higher education. Modern University Education, 1, 5–8. Weidemann, D. (2010). Challenges of international collabor presented at the contention, change, and explanation: A Conference in Honor of Nation in the social sciences. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationlization of the social science (pp. 353–378). Transaction Publishers. Welch, A. (2002). Going global? Internationalizing Australian universities in a time of global crisis. Comparative Education Review, 46(4), 433–471. Wittrock, B., Wagner, P., & Wollmann, H. (1991). Social sciences and the modern state: Policy knowledge and political institutions in Western Europe and the United States. In P. Wagner, C. H. Weiss, B. Wittrock, & H. Wollmann (Eds.), Social sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads (pp. 28–85). Cambridge University Press. Wu, H. (2021). China’s outward-oriented higher education internationalization. Springer. Yang, R. (2000). Tensions between the global and the local: A comparative illustration of the reorganisation of China’s higher education in the 1950s and 1990s. Higher Education, 39(3), 319–337. Yang, R. (2002). Third delight: The internationalization of higher education in China. Routledge. Yang, R. (2003). Globalisation and higher education development: A critical analysis. International Review of Education, 49(3), 269–291. Yang, R. (2013). Indigenised while internationalised? Tensions and dilemmas in China’s modern transformation of social sciences in an age of globalisation. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters. ibidem Press. Yang, R. (2014). China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(2), 151–162. Yang, R. (2015). Reassessing China’s higher education development: A focus on academic culture. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(4), 527–535. Yang, R. (2017). The cultural mission of China’s elite universities: Examples from Peking and Tsinghua. Studies in Higher Education, 42(10), 1825–1838. Yang, R. (2020). Schooling in China. In K. Latham (Ed.), Routledge handbook of Chinese culture and society (pp. 34–49). Routledge. Zha, Q. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248–270.

66

2 The Evolution of the Social Sciences and Global Academic …

Zha, Q., Wu, H., & Hayhoe, R. (2019). Why Chinese universities embrace internationalization: An exploration with two case studies. Higher Education, 78(4), 669–686. Zheng, H. S. (2009). Cujin Zhongguo Shehuixue De Lilunzijue: Women Xuyao Shenmeyang De Zhongguo Shehuixue? [Promoting the theory consciousness of Chinese sociology: What kind of Chinese sociology do we need?]. Jiangsu Social Sciences, 5, 1–7. Zhu, J. (2009). Academic appraisal, periodical and internationalization: A proper thought over the upsurge of internationalization of humanities and social sciences. Journal of Tsinghua University (philosophy and Social Sciences), 24(5), 126–137. Zuo, Y. (2004). The transformation of disciplinary system from traditional to modern. Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House.

Chapter 3

The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese Universities: A Historical and Critical Perspective

Make a mind for Heaven and Earth, establish the Tao for human beings, restore the lost teachings of the past sages, and build a peaceful world for all future generations (為天地立心, 為生民 立命, 為往聖繼絕學, 為萬世開太平). —Zhang Zai (1020–1077)

Proceeding from theoretical reflections on the development of the social sciences within the global context of an asymmetrical academic relations and knowledge system, this chapter maps the historical trajectory of the evolution of the Chinese social sciences under the influence of internationalization and scrutinizes the complex academic relations between various forces during different historical periods. The modern social sciences were introduced into China starting in the late nineteenth century, and since then it has been virtually impossible not to find Western influences in the development of Chinese social sciences. The historical trajectory of the social sciences in China can be separated into four stages: the imperial period before 1912; the Republic of China (hereafter the ROC) between 1912 and 1949; the People’s Republic of China (hereafter the PRC) under Mao between 1949 and 1976, and the PRC in the post-Mao period after 1976. These four stages witnessed dynamic and complex international academic relations develop between Chinese and foreign powers in distinct times and spaces. It should be mentioned that this chronological exploration touches upon various social science disciplines, but it dwells especially on sociology.

3.1 The Social Sciences in Imperial China (1840–1912): The Emerging Disciplines China’s intellectual traditions and schools of thought can be traced back to the Zhou dynasty (1046–256 BC), in particular the Spring and Autumn period (771–476 BC) and the Warring States period (480–221 BC). Throughout this period education was the privilege of the elite. Early curricula were centered on the “Six Arts”: rites, music, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Xie, Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China, East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8_3

67

68

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

archery, chariot-riding, calligraphy and mathematics (禮樂射禦書數). The intellectual systems of the schools of thought, with their different ideals and attitudes to human life, constitute the basic pattern of traditional Chinese culture, while traditional intellectual values are the foundation for its development. Chinese cultural values have undergone dramatic changes, but a core set of unique features has been retained. Chinese cultural values have remained consistent despite the changes over time and various external influences. During the following dynasties, the Chinese mind was modified many times. Fundamentally influenced by Confucianism (儒學), traditional Chinese curricula emphasized the principles of society and governance. The imperial examinations later deemed it as the official method for recruiting bureaucrats from the Sui dynasty (581–618) until the Qing attempted at modernization in 1905. Candidates were tested on their knowledge of the Confucian classic texts. China’s traditional higher education institutions (HEIs), including Taixue, Guozijian, and Shuyuan, amongst others, raised to an academic level the traditional scholarship composed of four branches of knowledge. Knowledge organization was officially demonstrated by the Complete Library in Four Sections: classics, histories, masters and collections (經史子集), in marked contrast to the Western academic discipline system based on scientific constructions of knowledge (Chiang, 2001; Hayhoe, 1996). The curriculum of ancient Chinese higher learning institutions was characterized by the Confucian approach to scholarship of serving the rulers. The Western invasion in the nineteenth century alerted China’s open-minded thinkers to the great challenges faced by Chinese civilization (Friedman, 1994). In line with societal changes during the turn of the twentieth century, a radical restructuring of Chinese education took place, with the emphasis on Western learning. A new educational system was built up to train the professional personnel required for nation-building. The educational aim of producing encyclopedic Confucian scholarbureaucrats was abandoned. Education was designated to be accessible to the general public and its content related to ordinary people’s social and economic lives. After realizing traditional statecraft was no longer useful for nation-building, the Chinese intellectuals turned to discipline-based Western statecraft, which was socially and economically practical. Modern categorization of knowledge disciplines became institutionalized in China’s school curriculum initially after the First Opium War (1839–42) through the efforts of both Chinese Westernizers and foreign missionaries. This was greatly accelerated by China’s defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–95), and was widely accepted by the early twentieth century. The shift of knowledge system from traditional learning to Western intellectual formation and scientific constructions, as part of China’s modernization of higher education, was symbolized by the establishment of modern academic disciplines in Chinese universities (Zuo, 2004). In this process, the modern social sciences were introduced into China in the late Qing dynasty (1644–1912) under the influence of Western powers. As Keim (2010) argued, the modern social sciences and the entire scientific system were mainly expanded to other countries through colonialism and imperialism. This was also the case in China. The modern social sciences that were institutionalized and legitimated as academic disciplines were of Western origin

3.1 The Social Sciences in Imperial China (1840–1912) …

69

(Wang, 1973; Weidemann, 2013). Four major factors led to the emergence of the social sciences in China in the late nineteenth century: Western hegemony and the spread of Western learning; translated foreign social scientific texts; Chinese students studying abroad; and the establishment of modern universities and a new discipline system. More detailed analyses of these dimensions are articulated in the following section. However, it should be noted that at the turn of the twentieth century, the social sciences were in an embryonic stage or in their formative years in China’s academic system.

3.1.1 Western Hegemony and the Spread of Western Learning China’s turn to Western knowledge was in line with the trend of the times in its turbulent modern history. As Lu and Hayhoe (2004) pointed out, the adoption was “more a matter of survival than of choice” (p. 269). In Perraton’s analysis, “relying on its traditional structures of higher education, China saw little need for foreign alternatives until the late nineteenth century when, suffering from the turmoil marked by the opium wars, the Qing authorities resolved to use Western ideas in a program of modernization” (2016, p. 859). The emergence of Western knowledge and the social sciences in China was implicated in wild transformations and even catastrophes during the late Qing dynasty. China underwent tumultuous changes beginning in the late nineteenth century, when Western capitalist economics, political hegemony, and military exploit spread across the globe. After the humiliating opium wars, the Qing government was forced to abolish its closed-door policy and open China to Western influence and imperialism (Friedman, 1994). The First Opium War (1839–1842) and the British Royal Navy made the Chinese aware of Western superiority in technology and military sciences. However, China’s traditional statecraft and social values, which had existed for over two thousand years, were deemed to be sophisticated and advanced (Huang, 2010). The Qing government urged Chinese officials to bring in Western technology and science, while using traditional systems and values to govern the state and remain in power. In particular, Confucianism remained the state orthodoxy. The Second Opium War (1856–1860) led to a series of humiliating defeats and unequal treaties. The Self-Strengthening Movement (1860–1895) was initiated by a handful of political figures in the Qing imperial court, such as Zeng Guofan, Li Hongzhang, and Zhang Zhidong, to bolster China’s capability to react to the Western threats. The ti-yong formula,1 i.e., Chinese learning for fundamental principles, Western learning for practical application (中學為體 西學為用), was formed in the movement (Levenson, 1968). The advocates launched reforms and placed efforts 1

It was a scheme of Western learning borrowing, called the Ti (essence)/Yong (application) formula: maintaining Chinese culture as the essence, and applying Western learning to solve the practical problems of the world. The idea was expressed by Fong Guifeng (1809–74) in 1861, and accurately phrased by Shen Shoukang (1807–1907) in 1895. It was referenced later by Sun Jianai (1827–1909) in 1896 and Zhang Zhidong (1837–1909) in 1898 in their memorials to the Emperor.

70

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

to develop military and economic might. The majority of the ruling elite hoped to strengthen the nation by preserving Qing’s rule and maintaining traditional values while embracing Western military and industrial practices. This could be achieved by establishing shipyards and arsenals, and hiring foreign advisers to train Chinese artisans to manufacture such wares in China. They recognized the importance of Western science and technology, but were less interested in anything beyond the scope of economic and military modernization (Huang, 2010). The scientific inquiry and intellectual essence of Western learning was not their focus. China’s defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895) demonstrated the failure of the Self-Strengthening Movement. It warned educated Chinese that Western superiority was not limited to the technical dimension but also played out in political power and social ideas (Gasster, 2008). A growing number of Chinese intellectuals and officials became more hospitable towards Western learning when the late Qing government was on the verge of collapse (Wang, 2006). In 1898, enlightenment intellectuals, such as Kang Youwei (1858–1927) and Liang Qichao (1873– 1929), launched the Hundred-Day Reform (戊戌變法) for a radical constitutional monarchy. These reformers believed that merely depending upon industrial and military modernization would not save China and what the dilapidated state needed most were political and social reforms. They looked to Western political theories, economic policies, and social administrations to explore the strength of these Western powers and came to appreciate their secrets of success (Gransow, 2008). Chinese intellectuals also paid attention to Japan—an East Asian state that had transformed and developed under Western influence after the Meiji Restoration (1868). These intellectuals also proposed a plan for educational reform for the Qing court. They suggested abolishing the imperial examination system and outlined a modern nationwide education system to replace the old one (Peterson et al., 2001). Unfortunately, this plan came to a tragic conclusion when Empress Dowager Cixi took control of the regime and disrupted the reform procedure. In the face of external pressure and internal collapse, Empress Cixi was forced to launch the New System of Politics (清末新政) in 1901, which stimulated extensive learning from the West and carried forward wide-ranging reforms, but still was reminiscent of the old sociopolitical system by using Confucianism as the state orthodoxy. Western knowledge coexisted with Confucianism in China’s education system during the final years of the Qing court. However, without the collapse of the Confucian-centered imperial examination system, Chinese intellectuals were bound by Confucian classics; thus it was almost impossible for progressive growth of the modern academic system and the social sciences in China to occur in this context.

3.1.2 Chinese Translations of Foreign Books During this period, Western learning was introduced into China mainly through two approaches: translating foreign books and sending students abroad. Translation played a crucial role in disseminating knowledge, which exposed educated Chinese

3.1 The Social Sciences in Imperial China (1840–1912) …

71

people to Western ideology, cultures, and systems. Numerous Qing intellectuals and students learned from translated social science books while some of them vigorously engaged in reform movements for social progress. Initially, the missionaries who headed to China translated some Western books into Chinese, including social science texts. For instance, William Martin (1827– 1916) translated Henry Wheaton’s Elements of International Law, and Timothy Richards (1845–1919) translated MacKenzie’s History of Christian Civilization in the Nineteenth Century. Although they were mainly for the purpose of spreading religion, the translations greatly facilitated the spread of Western knowledge and values. During the 1840s–1850s, more Western works were translated by foreign missionaries together with Chinese scholars (e.g., Lian Shanlan and Xu Shou). While many of the translated works were about Christianity, some were in science and technology such as chemistry, geology, astronomy, and mathematics (Zuo, 2004). Only a small number of them were in the social sciences. In the 1860s, the advocates of the Self-Strengthening Movement, named the Yangwu Group, financially supported several official institutions to select and translate Western books. For instance, the Translation Department of the Jiangnan Arsenal (江南製造局翻譯館), established in 1868, was a prominent national translation institute (Fu, 2005). It translated approximately 200 foreign books between 1868 and 1909 (see Fig. 3.1). Among all the translated foreign books, social science books accounted for only 13.5%, natural science books accounted for 23.5%, and applied science books accounted for 63%. The translation of foreign books was adopted by the Qing court as a quick approach to introducing science and technology (西 藝) from the West. This trend once more demonstrated the attitude of the government towards Western learning, which could be described by the Chinese saying: “Learning advanced skills from the barbarians to conquer them” (師夷長技以制夷).

Fig. 3.1 Books issued by the Translation Department of the Jiangnan Arsenal (1868–1909). Source Fu (2005)

72

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

Here the “advanced skills” referred only to Western science and technology; it did not include knowledge of the social sciences. This trend had changed slightly by the 1890s, when enlightened intellectuals and reform-minded officials realized the urgent demand for introducing Western political and institutional systems (西政) into China (Gransow, 2008). They searched for Western social theories and knowledge to propose new viewpoints and enlighten the nation. Chinese modernizers, especially returning scholars proficient in Chinese and foreign languages, translated numerous important social science books. Their translation work was mainly linked to their political views, rather than academic concerns. For instance, Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao borrowed Western sociological theories to support their viewpoints on social reform in China. Nevertheless, such transformations served as the foundation for the social sciences in China during these formative years. Among these translators, Yan Fu (1854–1921), a reform-minded intellectual and a pioneer of Western learning, was a significant figure. He translated a series of famous social science books in a systematic way (e.g., Thomas Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics, Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Herbert Spencer’s The Study of Sociology, Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws). These translations had considerable influence on Chinese thought at the turn of the twentieth century and inspired Chinese youth to learn about the Western social sciences. Social Darwinist theory became popular in China beginning with the efforts of Yan Fu (Dirlik, 2012), who advocated that evolution was an objective law and neither the natural nor human world could escape it. Whilst inspired by new Western learning, Yan Fu reiterated that the conventional social and political structure of China and Confucianism could be preserved as the core value while Western social science knowledge could be used to educate officials for the civil service. This attitude was typical of Chinese intellectuals when it came to the relationship between traditional learning and Western knowledge in the late Qing dynasty. Western social science books were mainly translated from English, French, and German into Chinese. In addition, a considerable number of Western social science books, terminology, and theories were initially translated into Japanese versions and then into Chinese. Whilst these translators did not specifically seek to contribute to the emerging social science disciplines, their work provided an important foundation for nourishing the social sciences in China. All of these translated works played a key role in disseminating Western knowledge, and further made the Chinese acknowledge the new categories of knowledge emerging in a modern scientific discipline system (Zuo, 2004).

3.1.3 Overseas-Trained Chinese Intellectuals The second major approach to adopting Western knowledge was to send Chinese students to study abroad. The Qing government purposefully sent Chinese students abroad to learn science and technology from the West. Some of these students played

3.1 The Social Sciences in Imperial China (1840–1912) …

73

a crucial role in introducing Western social sciences into China, and the returnees became the vehicle for Western knowledge dissemination (Chiang, 2001). Before the 1890s, the Qing court had sponsored numerous Chinese students to study abroad as part of the Self-Strengthening Movement for the purpose of military modernization, putting emphasis on cultivating military and technical experts (Hartnett, 1998). The government also sent Chinese students to learn technologies and basic sciences in subsequent years. The United States and some European countries such as Britain, France, and Germany were the major destinations for Chinese students. The first group of students was sent to the United States under the support of Li Hongzhang. However, when American discrimination against Chinese students occurred during the late 1870s, he reorganized the study abroad program and numerous students were then sent to Europe. Most of them acquired professional skills in specific domains. In the meantime, years of exposure to Western society and civilization decisively enlightened their understanding of the world and made some inclined towards Western thought and political theory. For example, Yan Fu was sent by the Qing government to study naval technology in England from 1877 to 1879, but he immersed himself in Western social theory and political institutions and translated a series of highly popular Western social science books in the 1880s (Dirlik, 2012). In addition to Western countries, Japan was another favorable destination for Chinese students to study abroad owing to similarities in culture and language and geographical proximity. Ironically, after the First Sino-Japanese War, the Qing court sent many Chinese students to Japan to learn from the Japanese experience to strengthen the nation and preserve Confucian values. Approximately 18,000 Chinese students were trained in Japan before 1911 (Bays, 1978). During that period, the social sciences flourished in Japan and some academic disciplines such as sociology were developed. The Qing government assumed that this study abroad program would help China emulate the Japanese experience in terms of acquiring advanced technology and pave the way for modernization that would guarantee the longevity of the Qing throne. Nevertheless, many of these students were impressed with Western thought and ideas and eventually joined the anti-Qing revolution and overthrew the dynasty. During this process, social science knowledge and Western thought were acquired by Chinese students by way of Japan. These ideas were adopted as new ideologies and values to inspire Chinese people to fight for a democratic republic as well as a new social system. Exposed to foreign societies, Chinese students believed that Western learning had much more to offer China than the mere adoption of instrumental and technological advancements. Indeed, the returning Chinese played an invaluable role in collecting and disseminating Western social thought, political principles, cultural traditions, education models, and religions. They contributed to reforming the country and fueling the growth of modern education and culture in China (Shu, 1989), serving as the catalyst for the modern education system, scholarly structure, and indigenous social science.

74

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

3.1.4 The Development of Modern Universities and the Discipline System In the late Qing dynasty, with the reform of educational system, the newly established higher education institutions incorporated the modern academic disciplinary system and provided institutional space for emerging social sciences in China. In late nineteenth century China, modern institutions of higher learning were initially established by those who advocated self-strengthening to cultivate students with professional knowledge in foreign languages, industrial technologies, the military, and natural sciences (Pan, 2009; Peterson et al., 2001). Tongwen Guan (同文 館) was established in 1862 with the purpose of fostering modern diplomats to deal with diplomatic affairs. It was also the first official institution dedicated to foreign languages and Western learning sponsored by the Qing government (Sturniolo, 2016). It expanded its curricula from the core subjects (i.e., foreign languages, mathematics, and science) to a variety of scientific studies together with a few courses in the social sciences, such as international law and political economy (Hayhoe, 1993). According to Sturniolo (2016), Tongwen Guan “laid the foundation for a modern Chinese university system based on the notion of adopting Western disciplines” (p. 12). In the 1860s, Kiangnan Arsenal, Fuzhou Arsenal, and Tianjin Arsenal were founded. They were manufacturing centers but also served as training centers to cultivate practitioners in marine engineering, navigation, and military skills. Established in 1966, Fuzhou Arsenal School (福州船政學堂) was the most well-known. It recruited foreign lecturers to train students and supported them to study in France, Germany, and England. Since the 1890s, the establishment of modern universities in China provided the necessary institutional foundation for the emerging academic disciplines including the social sciences. Reformers of the Qing government supported building up modern universities based on Western models. In 1895 Peiyang gongxue (北洋公學), (now Tianjin University), was established, and was widely acknowledged as the first modern university in China (Hayhoe, 1996). Nanyang gongxue (南洋公學), (now Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Xi’an Jiao Tong University), was established in 1896. The Imperial University of Peking (京師大學堂) (the predecessor of Peking University) was founded in 1898. The founders of these universities valued Western education experiences and used them as references in setting up disciplinary courses, departments, and the academic system generally. These modern universities and schools broadened their scholarly disciplines from Four Books and Five Classics to a modern scientific discipline structure. Disciplines centered on Western science and technology (e.g., arithmetic, geometry, algebra, military studies, navigation, medicine, physics, chemistry, and architecture), were the most popular, and were the first to flourish in Chinese HEIs. Nevertheless, the social science disciplines had not yet developed before the abolition of traditional Confucian institutions and the imperial examination system. Only some social science-related

3.1 The Social Sciences in Imperial China (1840–1912) …

75

courses were offered at those modern institutions. Before 1905, modern universities were subordinated to the traditional scholarly institutions that continued to use Confucian classics as core content and were geared toward the civil service examinations (Hayhoe, 1989). The imperial examination was still valued by Chinese people who strived for social mobility and status by engaging in the political system. After 1900, the Qing government was forced to carry out institutional reforms involving the domain of education. China’s first modern educational system in 1904 named as Guimao Education system (癸卯學制) was promulgated by the Minister of Education Zhang Baixi (1847–1907). It marked the start of educational modernization in China. Reformers such as Zhang Baixi learned from Japan’s education system and practice and borrowed the Japanese education model. With the nationwide implementation of the new educational system, in addition to the newly established modern schools, traditional institutions were restructured into modern schools against this background. Subsequently, a new higher education system began to emerge, including a variety of institutions—universities, higher preparatory schools, higher vocational schools, schools of languages, and higher normal schools (Hartnett, 1998). A new disciplinary structure characterized by eight categories of academic discipline (八科之學) was adopted by these HEIs, including Confucianism, politics and law, arts, medicine, science, agriculture, engineering, and business (Peterson et al., 2001, p. 198). When the state examination system was abolished in 1905, the development of China’s higher education turned a new page. While traditional Chinese learning gradually lost its supreme prestige, the new categories of knowledge and Western learning were incorporated into modern institutions (Hayhoe, 1993). Accordingly, social science courses developed in Chinese HEIs. National universities (e.g., The Imperial University of Peking and Peiyang gongxue) and missionary universities (e.g., St. John’s College and Hangzhou Presbyterian College) provided the social science courses for Chinese students. These universities played different roles in the dissemination of social science knowledge in China; for example, American missionary universities were prominent in the growth of sociological knowledge (Dirlik, 2012). Nevertheless, compared with the development trend of science, industrial and military technology, foreign languages, medicine and other disciplines, the social science courses and disciplines of these newly established HEIs were largely limited. In summary, in the late Qing dynasty, the Ti-Yong formula—“Chinese learning for the fundamental principles, Western learning for practical application”—was the strategy adopted by Chinese intellectuals to deal with Western influence and knowledge. In this light, technological and natural sciences obtained legitimacy and coexisted with traditional Chinese learning, while other subjects occupied a much lower position (Gransow, 2008). However, China had a deep-seated ignorance of the West. Even after a series of defeats, and after China became enmeshed in the West-centered global historical process, the Chinese mind remained trapped in the all-encompassing sociopolitical tradition. The intellectual essence of Western learning was not Chinese

76

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

intellectuals’ focus. Against this background, several factors contributed to the emergence of the social sciences in China. However, the social sciences had not yet developed into academic disciplines in a modern sense at the turn of the twentieth century in China.

3.2 Social Sciences in the ROC Period (1912–1949): Europeanization and Americanization The 1911 Revolution overthrew China’s last imperial dynasty and led to the establishment of the Republic of China (ROC, 1912–1949). The ROC period witnessed the impressive growth of the modern disciplinary system and the social sciences. The modern disciplinary system in China started in the 1860s, took shape in the early twentieth century, and was basically established in the May Fourth period. The 1930s marked the maturity of the modern disciplinary system (Hayhoe, 1989, p. 57). Almost concurrent with the trajectory of the modern disciplinary system came the development of the Chinese social sciences. Tremendous progress in China’s social sciences occurred in the period between 1919 and 1949, made manifested by the fact that they were institutionalized and professionalized as well as indigenized. Meanwhile, the Chinese social sciences in the Republican period were heavily influenced by the Western social sciences, especially their Anglo-American forms (Zuo, 2004).

3.2.1 Socio-political, Cultural, and Educational Backgrounds of the Development of the Social Sciences In the first half of the twentieth century, Western academic influences ran throughout the whole process of the evolution of the social sciences in China, while this process was also shaped by many other influences, for example, domestic political disturbances, two world wars, dramatic social changes, and education reforms. Under such circumstances, specific sociopolitical, institutional, and intellectual conditions were bound together in a space that stimulated the evolution of the Chinese social sciences. Socio-political and Cultural Backgrounds After the abdication of the last Manchu emperor Puyi (Henry Pu Yi, 1906–1967), China became a modern nation-state led by Sun Yat-sen (1866–1925). However, Sun’s short-lived republic was overtaken by Yuan Shikai (1859–1916) in 1913. He restored the monarchy in 1915. After the death of Yuan Shikai, China entered the Warlord Era with its dark political scene. Not until 1928 did China enter the Nanjing Decade under the re-united governance of the Nationalist Party. Before 1928, China was in a chaotic condition as there was no strong centralized power to govern the country (Chiang, 2001). Moreover, the First World War

3.2 Social Sciences in the ROC Period (1912–1949): Europeanization …

77

(1914–1918) further accentuated political instability and insecurity in China. Both the domestic and international environment urged Chinese students and intellectuals to explore new ideas from the East and the West, with the purpose of strengthening and modernizing the nation. As Spence (1990) described, this period was characterized by “unparalleled intellectual self-scrutiny and exploration” (p. 269). The modern social sciences, therefore, were adopted constructively by Chinese scholars as a means of engineering the modernization of China (Chiang, 2001; Hartnett, 1998; Wu, 1993). The social sciences, along with other modern disciplines, also began to take the place of traditional Confucian learning in terms of preparing educated people for the civil service after the abolition of the imperial examination (Gransow, 2008). Hartnett (1998) stated that this period was also a time when pluralism and academic freedom existed, as little political influence or centralized control were exercised over Chinese universities and intellectuals by governments. Chinese scholars experienced few ideological and political pressures, and enjoyed freedom to learn diverse forms of knowledge and express their ideas about social and political affairs. The New Cultural Movement (新文化運動) and May Fourth Movement (五四運 動) led to a climax in intellectual exploration and inspiration, during which Chinese intellectuals played an important and powerful role (Sturniolo, 2016). Figures such as Chen Duxiu, Qu Qiubai, Cai Yuanpei, and Hu Shi, who had received a good traditional education before their exposure to Western learning, led the movements. They were introspective about Confucianism and traditional culture, criticized the Ti-Yong formula, and called for the creation of a new and modernizing culture (Pan, 2009). For instance, Chen Duxiu believed that “China would thrive through practical and scientific pursuits rather than in historical and obsolete Confucian tradition” (Sturniolo, 2016, p. 65), and encouraged the youth of China to “be independent, progressive, and more open to internationalization” (Sturniolo, 2016, p. 65). Hu Shi advocated the Literary Revolution (1916–1917) through which a new official Chinese vernacular replaced classical Chinese, promoting the spread of knowledge and education to the masses. The New Cultural Movement was updated into an anti-imperialist, cultural, and political movement in 1919 known as the May Fourth Movement when Chinese students and intellectuals demonstrated against the Treaty of Versailles. This movement “strongly expressed the determination of Chinese intellectuals to rebuild their country” (Hon, 2014, p. 211). Chinese intellectuals tended to shake off Confucian dogma and stirred up a wholehearted endeavor to explore new Western ideas of political, cultural, and educational reform. One significant result of these movements was the spread of the new ideology based on Democracy and Science that shaped the spirit of Chinese intellectuals and their work in the social sciences. Consequently, a new cultural and intellectual atmosphere was brought about (Chiang, 2001; Ogden, 1982), providing the soil for the growth of modern higher learning and the social sciences. The social sciences then began to thrive in China. The May Fourth Movement, therefore, has been regarded as a crucial point in the evolution of the social sciences in China (Hartnett, 1998). In 1928, the Nanjing Nationalist Government took the helm and strengthened its control and censorship of higher education. Under the rule of the Kuomintang

78

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

(the KMT), the new government gave priority to science and technology while deliberately restricting the expansion of the social sciences and humanities. The percentage of enrollments in the social sciences and humanities had been 72.6% in 1928, but declined to 49% by 1938 (Hayhoe, 1993, p. 483). The KMT was pragmatic about the social sciences. Some disciplines, such as economics and political science, which might be valuable for enriching the nation were emphasized, whilst sociology was restricted because the government believed that it was too closely linked to socialism. In addition, social science knowledge about Marxism and the communists was censored by the KMT. Shanghai University, the left-wing school that offered several social science courses, was shut down (Gransow, 2008). However, surprisingly, the development of the social sciences, such as sociology, anthropology, and education, did not suffer stagnation. Rather, Chinese social sciences experienced a ground for institutionalization. However, the rapid development of the Chinese social sciences was disrupted by the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (1937–1945) and the ensuing Civil War (1945–1948). Many university campuses were severely damaged by the Japanese forces, and a number temporarily moved from the metropolises to the hinterlands of China. At these universities, the status and hierarchy of disciplines remained basically the same, with the sciences at the top and the social sciences and humanities at the bottom (Gransow, 2008). As in Hayhoe’s (1993) analysis, “the natural sciences in China might have emerged into the world scientific community at that time, as might such social sciences as sociology and anthropology” (p. 480). Unfortunately, the progress had been disrupted by the wars. Educational Background A variety of Western-style modern universities and schools flourished in China shortly after 1912. These institutional spaces provided ground for the growth of the social sciences in China. The 1920s in particular witnessed the spectacular growth of modern universities in China. International scholars explained that this chaotic socio-political and cultural environment created a unique atmosphere for the development of academic institutions, as Chinese scholars enjoyed greater academic freedom and opportunity to implement educational experiments and develop ideas and modes (Hayhoe, 1996; Sturniolo, 2016). Western-educated Chinese intellectuals played a significant role in organizing modern universities in China by absorbing Western curricula and practices of teaching, research, and administration. Moreover, they helped to instill university autonomy and academic freedom, the two core components of Western universities, into newly established Chinese universities (Pan, 2009). This was a period in the history of higher education in China, with the development of public universities, private universities, and missionary universities. These universities offered social science courses in general, and some established dedicated departments and promoted original research. Along with the development of new universities, a modern disciplinary system developed and had evolved by the 1930s. The Ministry of Education issued a University Order in 1912, which stipulated that a new system of seven categories of academic discipline (七科之學) should

3.2 Social Sciences in the ROC Period (1912–1949): Europeanization …

79

Table 3.1 Discipline system in Chinese universities in 1913 Discipline

Subsidiary discipline

Arts

Philosophy, Literature, History, Geography

Science

Mathematics, Astronomy, Theoretical Physics, Experimental Physics, Chemistry, Zoology, Botany, Geology, Mineralogy

Law

Law, Political Science, Economics

Commerce

Banking, Insurance, International Trade, Management, Taxation, Traffic Transportation

Medicine

Medicine, Pharmacy

Agriculture

Agronomy, Agronomic Chemistry, Forestry, Veterinary Science

Engineering Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Marine Science, Naval Architecture, Military Building Science, Electrical Engineering, Architecture, Applied Chemistry, Gunpowder Science, Mining Science, Metallurgy Source University Regulations issued by the Ministry of Education of Chinese government (Shu, 1961)

be adopted. It contained arts, sciences, law, commerce, medicine, agriculture, and engineering (Hartnett, 1998, p. 43). It was followed by the University Regulations of 1913, which classified subsidiary academic disciplines in seven categories (see Table 3.1). Table 3.1 shows that disciplines around science and technology occupied the largest portion of the academic system, while fewer social science disciplines and sub-disciplines were provided by Chinese universities at the time. The Minister of Education, Cai Yuanpei, advocated that a qualified university should embrace liberal arts and science faculties together with other ones. Various faculties and departments were established in Chinese universities (Hartnett, 1998; Hayhoe, 1987). Shortly after the implementation of the reform agenda, the modern disciplinary structure replaced the traditional one in the Chinese higher education system. Confucianism was no longer an independent discipline in this new structure, and the teaching and research of Confucianism were generally carried out in the schools of liberal arts. In 1929 the KMT government enacted the University Organization Law, which categorized and legitimized eight disciplines (八科之學), including arts, science, law, education, commerce, medicine, agriculture, and engineering (Hayhoe, 1987). The discipline structure of 1929 was used in Chinese higher education system until 1949.

3.2.2 Developing the Social Sciences Under Western Influences In the 1900s, numerous higher learning schools that were established in China according to the Japanese model mainly offered training in administration and law for students who planned to pursue a position in the Chinese civil service (Gransow,

80

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

2008). However, with the deteriorating Sino-Japanese relationship, China turned away from the Japanese model for educational experiments and towards American and European patterns (Hayhoe, 1996). Sturniolo (2016) argued that “the Japanese model of the modern university was largely an empty shell in China [and] made no substantive contributions to the development of a modern Chinese higher education system” (p. 28). The American and European patterns exerted extensive influences on the evolution of Chinese universities and social science disciplines in the first half of the twentieth century. The social sciences entered a stage of growth between the mid-1920s and the late-1930s in China (Second Historical Archives of China, 1991, p. 167), when the number of Chinese universities and colleges rose rapidly. Chinese universities continued to translate and absorb Western works of social science as the basis for their curricula (Gransow, 2008), subsequently founding standardized curricula, disciplinary institutions, and research centers according to Western models and practices. First, the imported social sciences experienced rapid institutional growth with the establishment of an increasing number of departments providing curricula and formal degree programs for Chinese students. For example, by the mid-1930s, approximately 41% of universities had organized a department of sociology. Some universities that did not have sociology departments began to offer sociology courses. Such teaching activities significantly contributed to the dissemination of Western social science knowledge in China (Dirlik, 2012). Second, Chinese social scientists began to use the disciplinary knowledge as a means of investigating social problems in the late 1920s (Tao, 2008). A great many social surveys were conducted by Chinese scholars. This research had strong affinities with American and European social science theories and methodologies (RoulleauBerger, 2016). In sum, institutions experienced growth along with the institutionalization and professionalization of teaching and research activities, which mimicked Western patterns. But how did this happen, and what or who was responsible for such a relationship? Teaching and research in the social sciences were overwhelmingly controlled by returning scholars trained in North American and West European universities, mainly from the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany. The returning academics institutionalized and internationalized the social sciences in Chinese universities (Tao, 2008; Wang, 1973). After their return, these scholars took up lecture positions or professorships, and they naturally introduced Western theories, teaching materials, and research methods into Chinese universities. They also competed to conduct research projects and establish research centers, periodicals, and academic associations. Returning scholars to a large extent shaped the social sciences in China, but they also made Chinese social sciences dependent upon Western learning and institutional patterns. As Chiang (2001) described it, not surprisingly, some of them directly repeated what they had learned abroad, which led to the uncritical reception of the Western social science curricula and knowledge. Additionally, responsible for establishing the reform agendas when they were installed in administrative

3.2 Social Sciences in the ROC Period (1912–1949): Europeanization …

81

positions, these scholars adopted the Western model for curricula design, discipline construction, and teacher management, among other areas. Compared with scholars returning from other countries, those who graduated from American universities became leaders in the formation and organization of the social sciences in China (Dirlik, 2012, p. 4). With financial support from the Boxer Indemnity Fund, and later the Rockefeller Foundation, the Chinese government sent batches of Chinese youths to study in the United States. Chinese students typically gravitated towards numerous elite American universities such as Harvard, Columbia, and Yale (Chiang, 2001). Among the America-trained students, a great number pursued studies in the social sciences during the ROC period. For example, between 1909 and 1929, of the Chinese students in American universities, 23.84% studied social sciences (law: 2.77%; political science: 9.15%; economics: 10.38%; sociology: 1.54%; education: 5.04%; business: 11.25%), second only to those who studied engineering (see Table 3.2). Upon their return to China, they strongly influenced the establishment of social science departments and the formation of social science disciplines. A number of them, such as Sun Benwen (Columbia), Pan Guangdan (Columbia), Wu Jingchao (University of Chicago), and Lei Jieqiong (University of Southern California) became prominent scholars in Chinese academic circles. These leading scholars contributed to the institutionalization and professionalization of Chinese social sciences. Besides, their international cooperation and publications were naturally aimed at the American academic community, which further promoted the American influences on the Chinese social sciences. Meanwhile, the work of Western missionaries and scholars in Catholic and Protestant universities in China also meant the social sciences would evolve under Western influences. Hayhoe (1993) stated that “government universities typically focused on political science, law, economics and education, while missionary colleges and universities distinguished themselves by favoring sociology and community studies” (p. 483). Dirlik (2012) also pointed out that, until the mid-1920s, sociology departments were dominated by American missionary universities, which were primarily supported by American scholars and missionary sociologists. This distribution altered in the next decade with the development of the field and course offerings Table 3.2 Disciplinary fields of Chinese students in American universities (1909–1929)

Disciplinary field

Proportion (%)

Engineering

32.33

Science

10.99

Medicine

5.19

Agriculture

3.63

Military science

1.94

Humanities

5.54

Music Social sciences Source Chiang (2001)

0.25 23.84

82

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

in Chinese universities, while the contribution and influence of missionary scholars in the above-mentioned domains were still outstanding. Most of them focused upon transmitting social science knowledge within the context of Western social forms and Christian norms in particular. However, some scholars, such as C. G. Dittmer of Tsinghua University, John Stewart Burgess, the founder of the sociology department of Yenching University, and his follower Sidney D. Gamble, attempted to utilize the empirical research method to help Chinese students understand social problems in China. The earliest empirical studies (or field studies) beginning in the 1910s in China were organized by these foreign professors who contributed vital survey reports and literature in English. Their research methods and objectives were consonant with Euro-American patterns. Additionally, some visiting scholars, such as John Dewey (1859–1952) and Robert Park (1864–1944) from the United States and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and Alfred Radcliffe Brown (1881–1955) from England, had considerable influence on the evolution of the Chinese social sciences, especially in terms of the spread of empirical knowledge and scientific reason. During the May Fourth era, the Western scientific method and Dewey’s pragmatism became popular in Chinese academic circles (Chiang, 2001). Thereafter, Chinese social scientists were inspired to adopt empirical research methods to study social reality rather than adhere to the traditional approach of remaining in the study room and delving into the classics. Under their influence, the European-inspired and American-inspired models shaped the construction of social science knowledge in China. The former emphasized advancing knowledge for its own sake, while the latter provided a more flexible and open approach to generating insights, combining social science knowledge with social organization, state administration, and economic modernization. Chinese scholars in the spheres of political science, economics, and sociology saw their work as a tool for engineering modernization in China, which would in turn contribute to social transformation, economic construction, and educational modernization (Chiang, 2001; Hartnett, 1998; Wu, 1993). American patterns were in the ascendant as they were chosen by Chinese scholars with aspirations to engineer society. Also, the impact of the Rockefeller Foundation on the progress of the Chinese social sciences could not be ignored in the 1920s and 1930s. As we have seen, this foundation supported Chinese students to study at American universities and eventually strengthened academic relations between China and America. Moreover, as the financial founder, the Rockefeller Foundation had a more direct influence on certain Chinese social science institutes, such as the Nankai Institute of Economics and the Peking Institute for Social Research.

3.2.3 Indigenizing the Social Sciences in China Calls to indigenize or Sinicize the social sciences were afoot from the early days of the introduction of modern European and American social sciences in the late 1920s, and there have been continuous demands for this until today, although the driving

3.2 Social Sciences in the ROC Period (1912–1949): Europeanization …

83

forces have changed in different times and places. Initial concern was aroused by the need for the domestication of Western social sciences in China. Rather than blindly copying the Western learning, serving as mere mouthpieces for international social scientific knowledge, and uncritically relying upon foreign theories and models, Chinese scholars, despite diverging in academic viewpoints and schools, more or less reached a consensus on how to structure the modern social science disciplines within a Chinese context. They attempted to conduct original work including compiling textbooks, carrying out empirical studies, and building theories to transform the social sciences. Moreover, the dramatic social changes and progress in the ROC period greatly appealed to Chinese intellectuals striving to apply their disciplines to Chinese society. They recognized the importance of using their disciplines to understand social problems and promote the modernization of China. For example, economist Ma Yinchu stated that “For the development of China, the research regarding the economic conditions and strategies for solving economic problems is much more urgent than the profound theoretical studies. What is the benefit for today’s China, if we only focus on the theoretical research?”. Indeed, such efforts to investigate Chinese society and cope with social problems largely contributed to the indigenization of the social sciences in China. When the American influence led to a flowering of empirical scientific research in China, Chinese social scientists were apt to utilize this empirical scientific research (e.g., questionnaires, surveys, and fieldwork) to collect firsthand data and explore social problems. Eventually, the first Chinese social survey movement triggered voluminous empirical research. Between 1927 and 1935, more than 9000 studies were completed in China, as documented by Li Yuren, a graduate student of the Department of Sociology and Social Work at Yenching University. The numbers show that Chinese intellectuals gave priority to economic subjects, with two-thirds of the studies focusing upon this area. This was followed by the investigation of social topics, which occupied 25% of the total number, while less than 10% of the studies were political (Chiang, 2001). The survey movement covered a wide range of research topics. To mention just a few, it included microeconomics, labor studies, rural industry, urban studies, gender issues, national minorities, population, demography, social welfare, and education. Numerous factors contributed to the upsurge of the social survey movement. As regards sociology, Li et al. (1987) of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences explained that academics’ engagement was motivated by the desire to make sociology Chinese. It was also a period when Chinese intellectuals shifted their focus from a purely theoretical introduction to empirical research and sought to link social science knowledge with practical issues and social problems in China to make contributions to social progress. The Ding Xian Experiment was the foremost representative of this trend. Gransow (2008) highlighted that the concept of “Sinicized social science” was developed from the Ding Xian Experiment in the 1930s, a rural reconstruction and mass education movement directed by Yan Yangchu (James Yen; 1893–1990), and Liang Shuming (1893–1988) in a village in Heibei Province. Whilst this experiment was financially aided by American foundations, the Chinese intellectuals shared a collective goal to develop applicable Chinese models and techniques to reform rural

84

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

China and ameliorate the impoverished village life of peasants. This experiment gained national attention and attracted numerous Chinese intellectuals such as the economist Chen Xujing (1903–1967), the economic sociologist Wu Jingchao (1901– 1968), and many others. According to the analysis of Dirlik (2012), these intellectuals were identified as the school of rural reconstruction. Among them, the Americaneducated sociologist Li Jinghan (1894–1986) of Tsinghua University conducted the Dingxian Social Situation Survey in 1930. Using quantitative methods, Li Jinghan collected a large amount of data from 3.78 million participants, and his publication Dingxian shehui gaikuang diaocha gained a high reputation. In the prolegomena of Li’s book, Yan Yangchu proposed a simple definition of Sinicized social science as “the social scientific study of Chinese society using social surveys and aiming for social reforms” (Gransow, 2008, p. 505). Apart from the rural reconstruction school, there were other scientific schools in China that contributed diverse perspectives on, and approaches to, indigenizing or Sinicizing the social sciences. One of the most prominent schools was Marxism. Its representative member was Chen Hansheng (Geoffrey Chen; 1897–2004), who was trained at Chicago, Harvard, and Berlin universities and focused upon rural China. He worked for the Communist side and conducted comprehensive rural surveys of the agrarian economy that led to academic contributions including his famous books Landlords and Peasants in China (1936) and Industrial Capital and China’s Peasants (1939). In addition, he shaped the rural policy and land revolution of the Chinese Communist Party. Intellectuals in this school and several leaders of the CPC placed great importance on the social survey approach. In addition to social surveys and experiments, efforts were also made to construct theoretical frameworks and systems in the Chinese context, and each school was identified by its theoretical standing and contributions. In the sociology area, following the Marxist school, the original theory of Marxism was introduced into China from Germany, Russia, and Japan around 1900 and saw rapid elaboration and diffusion following the establishment of the Chinese Communist Party in 1921. Chinese intellectuals, and the leaders of the CPC, Mao Zedong and Li Dazhao, in particular, developed their own version of Marxism around the 1930s. The school of community studies in China emphasized empirical research and practical applications in rural and urban China while deploying substantial theoretical contributions. The representatives of this school were Wu Wenzao (1901–1985), Fei Xiaotong (1910–2005), and Lin Yaohua (1910–2000), who were theoretically linked to sociology and anthropology. They argued that the Sinicization of the social sciences might become possible by depending upon scientific competence, which meant hypotheses were grounded in scientific and theoretical foundations and verified through community research in the Chinese context. However, social surveys or reform projects such as the Ding Xian Experiment that were merely based on quantitative research made it impossible to achieve this aim, let alone make theoretical improvements. The Syncretic school was represented by Sun Benwen (1891–1979), who had studied at the universities of Chicago and Columbia and was appointed as the Dean of the Sociological Department at Nanjing Central University in 1928. He tended

3.2 Social Sciences in the ROC Period (1912–1949): Europeanization …

85

towards purely theoretical perspectives rather than social surveys and drew inspiration from culture and social psychology to analyze society. Sun had an extensive research output, among which The Principles of Sociology (1935) was the most influential publication to integrate the Western framework with extensive Chinese materials and was a widely used textbook. In Social Problems of China, Sun paid special attention to the use of social theories to discuss the social realities and problems of China. He asserted that simply copying Western theories was detrimental to the evolution of Chinese sociology and his Cotemporary Chinese Sociology called for the Sinicization of both theoretical and applied sociology. For the former, he asserted that it was important, first, to collect Chinese materials regarding the histories of social ideas, institutions, movements, and social behaviors. Second, it was necessary to create research outputs and reports based on social surveys and studies to investigate the characteristics of Chinese society, and thirdly, to compile textbooks and academic work to build up an integrated system of sociological theory in China. For the latter, he argued that a comprehensive plan was required to create a China-centered sociology that was appropriate to the social realities of China. Chinese sociologists Zheng (2011) regard Sun Benwen as the founder of Chinese sociology and the leading scholar dedicated to the indigenization of sociology. Dirlik (2012), an American historian, stated that Sun was the foremost voice in promoting the Sinicization of the social sciences. Other prominent scholars cannot be so simply categorized, such as Chen Da (1892–1976) and Lei Jieqiong (1905–1993), who also conducted important research, raising the level and professionalization of research methodologies in China and making theoretical contributions. In sum, led by a number of prominent scholars, Chinese social scientists collectively aimed to promote the Sinicization and indigenization of the social sciences during this period and contributed significantly to the evolution of sociology and other social science disciplines. As evaluated by Li Hanlin and his colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (1987), the 1920s were characterized by the introduction of Western theories, whereas the 1930s were marked by the application of these theories to China and eventually by the creation of indigenous theories and patterns based on the framework of Chinese history and reality. Throughout this process, there were intense debates over Western and Chinese culture and knowledge. On one side those such as Hu Shi and Chen Xujing proposed total Westernization as the only strategy for modernizing China. On the other, many defended Chinese culture in the context of significant Western influence. For instance, intending to create concepts for social science disciplines that would fully embody and reflect China’s own intellectual traditions, Ma Xiangbo (1840–1939) proposed a Chinese National Academy (Hanxia Kaowenyuan) modelled on the Académie Française (Lu & Hayhoe, 2004). This was a major event in China’s institutionalization and indigenization of academic research, but unfortunately for the nation he failed in his attempts. His legacy continued through the Academia Sinica. Another example was the Manifesto for Reconstruction of Culture Using China as a Basis announced by ten professors in 1935 as a strong response to Chinese intellectuals advocating total westernization. In the manifesto, scholars pointed out that the

86

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

Chinese essence and culture would be lost if China blindly copied the West, and the reconstruction of culture was an urgent demand. They did not propose concrete ways for achieving this goal while most social scientists failed to go deep and contribute systematic theories that might engineer modernization for China under its own culture and terms. Nevertheless, Chinese social scientists never ceased to explore this goal. All the above mentioned indigenization movements and activities proved the salience of cultural consciousness for building social sciences with a distinct Chinese history and culture.

3.2.4 Achievements and Dilemmas in the Social Sciences in the ROC Period The Republican period witnessed the spectacular development of the Chinese social sciences. The evolution of Chinese social sciences accelerated after 1919, and numerous scholarly disciplines were established in Chinese universities. Several Chinese and foreign scholars have been of the view that the ROC period was a significant era of Chinese higher education (Tao, 2008), academic research (Hayhoe, 1996), and the social sciences (Gransow, 2008). According to Gransow (2008), sociological research in China even played the role of “a third flourishing center” (p. 498) along with North America and Western Europe in the 1930s. The 1920s and 1930s witnessed the institutionalization and professionalization of the social sciences in China. Universities became capable of offering well-developed undergraduate and graduate degree programs to students, and teaching and research in the social sciences grew to maturity. Furthermore, governmental-sponsored universities and colleges were financially supported to establish graduate schools and research centers and pursue advanced research (Hayhoe, 1987). In addition, the government founded two outstanding national research institutes, the Academia Sinica and the National Academy of Peiping, that primarily focused upon natural and applied sciences but also supported research in the social sciences and humanities. Besides, a rapid increase in academic associations in the social sciences marked the institutionalization and development of this field during the Republican period. Between 1928 and 1935, 18% of academic societies were in the field of social sciences, and these occupied the largest percentage of the total number of newly established academic societies (see Table 3.3). The social sciences reached maturity in Chinese universities with some social science institutions and scholars achieving international prestige. For example, the Institute of Economics of National Nankai University was renowned for its macroeconomics, and Yanjing’s Sociology Department was famous for its empirical sociology and social surveys. A number of Chinese social scientists (e.g., sociologist Fei Xiaotong, anthropologist Xu Langguan, economist Ma Yinchu, and economist Fang Xianting) gained reputations in both the Chinese and international academic

3.2 Social Sciences in the ROC Period (1912–1949): Europeanization … Table 3.3 Academic societies in the ROC period (1928–1935)

Disciplinary field

87

Proportion (%)

General

17

Sciences

11

Agriculture and forestry

4

Engineering

8

Medicine

13

Literature and art

8

Social sciences

18

Education

14

Physical culture and sports

7

Source Wang (1973)

circles. By integrating Chinese realities, traditional learning, and Western theories, these scholars produced influential work in Chinese social sciences. Despite these remarkable developments, the social sciences in China had several shortcomings during the Republican period. First, they were fragmented to some extent because of the lack of a national plan to connect institutions and help them formulate plans for disciplinary development (Hayhoe, 1996; Huang, 2010). Second, this fragmentation was also due to the unsystematic adoption of the Western social sciences to China (Hartnett, 1998). Third, the Chinese social sciences suffered from an over-reliance on Western (American in particular) knowledge and academic patterns (Chiang, 2001). The disciplinary knowledge, research discourses, and academic standards of the West shaped the Chinese social sciences. Besides, many social science programs and research were of low quality as returned scholars uncritically copied Western social science knowledge while largely neglecting the real social problems in Chinese society. Fourth, Chinese universities and social science faculties were centralized in metropolises such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Nanjing, and this distribution was detrimental to the spread of the social sciences in China.

3.3 Social Sciences in the PRC During the Mao Period (1949–1976): The Soviet Model The establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 by the Communist Party and President Mao Zedong (1893–1976), a founding father of the PRC, was the beginning of a New China. Chinese higher education institutions were plunged into a series of reforms during the Maoist era, which removed European and American influences while embracing the Soviet model. All of the HEIs were nationalized. The complete restructuring of colleges and universities in 1952 shifted the landscape of China’s higher education and was concentrated around polytechnics and engineering.

88

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

The social sciences were restricted to the principles of state-sponsored MarxistLeninism-Mao Zedong Thought to serve socialist construction and the proletarian revolution. Due to political disturbances after the 1950s, the Chinese social sciences suffered a huge setback in the periods of the Great Leap Forward (1958–1960) and the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). The social sciences were not able to develop, and university admissions were dramatically reduced (Dirlik, 2012; Fairbank & Goldman, 2006). Chinese scholar Li (1966) described the Chinese social sciences in this age as communist social sciences that were “poles” apart from the Western social sciences. French sociologist Roulleau-Berger (2016) called this period a “blank page” that resulted in invisibility. German scholar Gransow (2008) viewed it as a “forgotten page” in the history of world social sciences.

3.3.1 The Soviet Model Beginning in 1947, the Cold War prohibited international collaboration between Communist China and capitalist nations around the world. China’s Communist government was in power in late 1949 and showed its conformity to the Soviet Union by adopting Soviet models to reestablish state power and recover its economy. The Communist Party led by President Mao Zedong recognized the urgent demands for utilizing education to serve the economic and political purposes (Fairbank & Goldman, 2006). The primary function of higher learning was to equip graduates with specialist knowledge to serve industrialization as well as to provide political education (Li, 1966). From the early 1950s, China disaffiliated itself from Euro-American influences and began a vigorous imitation of the ready-made Soviet model to reconstruct its higher education system. Soviet patterns were adopted in almost every aspect of the educational and academic realms. As Hayhoe (1989) stated, during that period Chinese universities resembled large laboratories for testing Soviet education policies and theories. Besides, Hartnett (1998) explained, “For China, the Soviet model of the university was as much a Western model as had been the American and European patterns introduced at earlier periods” (p. 197). However, the Soviet model did not nourish university autonomy and academic independence, which were the soul of Western universities. The central government oversaw this entirely new higher education system. Universities had relatively little autonomy to make policies for themselves. For instance, student enrolment, detailed teaching plans, course outlines, and standardized textbooks for college students were tightly censored by the government agency. After the 1952 restructuring of higher education, Chinese universities were transformed into three types: comprehensive universities, polytechnic institutions, and

3.3 Social Sciences in the PRC During the Mao Period (1949–1976) …

89

single specialty institutions. There were fourteen comprehensive universities, thirtyeight polytechnic universities, and one hundred and twenty-eight specialty institutions by 1953,2 with twenty-nine agriculture and forestry institutions, twenty-nine medicine and pharmacy institutions, thirty-three teacher training institutions, eight language and literature institutions, six finance and economics institutions, four political science and law institutions, four physical culture institutions, and fifty art institutions (Hayhoe, 1989, p. 52). This distribution reflected the distinctive characteristic of the Soviet model of higher education, as demystified by Hayhoe (1987), and Fairbank and Goldman (2006), that is, its concentration around polytechnics and engineering. Tsinghua, for instance, once a comprehensive university, was transformed into a polytechnic institution. This reconstruction also highlighted that the newly established state gave the highest priority to the development of science and technology, which were deemed to be crucial to industrial construction and economic modernization. However, the humanities and social sciences had never obtained equal opportunity for growth. Another feature that the Soviet model led to was the separation of teaching and research functions in HEIs (Huang, 2010). Universities were assigned to train students. The central government established specific institutions to conduct research, such as the Chinese Academy of Sciences (中國科學學院) and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (中國社會科學學院). This transformation further skewed the equilibrium between the “hard” and “soft” disciplines. The growth of the humanities and social sciences was restricted and censored by the government, a state of affairs partly reflected in the dramatic reduction in university enrollment in these areas. Among a total of 441,181 college students in 1957, 36.9% were in engineering, 26% were in teacher training, 11% in medicine and pharmacy, 9% in agriculture and forestry, 6.4% in basic sciences, and 4.4% in arts, but only 2.7% were in finance and economics and 1.8% were in political sciences and law (Hayhoe, 1987; Ogden, 1982). The percentage of enrollments in the humanities and social sciences had been 72.6% in 1928, and 49% in 1938, but declined to 34.9% in 1957 (Hayhoe, 1993, p. 483). Indeed, the CPC had shifted the emphasis of higher education from liberal arts programs to the training of technical knowledge and socialist commitment (Pan, 2007). The sciences and engineering were the most popular subjects for students, borne out by the Chinese saying, “There will be no difficulties for you, if you study your mathematics, physics and chemistry well” (學好數理化 走遍天下都不怕). In addition, a new concept of “Red and Expert” (又紅又專) emerged at the time, indicating that a college student should be trained as a socialist conformist and be equipped with professional capabilities to serve the state’s industrialization and modernization. Training students with the quality of “Red and Expert” had become the purpose of higher education. In contrast, the humanities and social sciences were restricted and reformed according to the principles of state-sponsored MarxistLeninism-Mao Zedong Thought. As Li (1993) pointed out, the government adopted 2

All of these universities were public ones, while previous missionary universities and private universities were merged into these public universities or/and disbanded in China.

90

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

more political and ideological concerns rather than academic rationales to reconstruct these disciplines. Accordingly, several theoretical social sciences (e.g., sociology and anthropology) were officially banished one after another in 1952. Indeed, before the banning of these disciplines, Chinese intellectuals had made strenuous efforts to perpetuate and reform their disciplines. For example, Fei Xiaotong raised the question of how to reform sociology and give it legitimacy in the new Republic of China. In response, scholars attending Peiping Consultation in 1950 came to the consensus that “sociology departments could work on verifying Communist theories, improving social survey methods, promoting reforms of the family system in accordance with the principles of the new democracy, enforcing communization measures in the racial minority areas, and preparing census-taking technicians for the government, while the department of philosophy was responsible for researches on Marxism-Leninism” (Li, 1966, p. 6). However, the fact was that studies in the social sciences became a problematic pursuit, and after 1952 the disciplinary institutions they joined failed to survive. The Hundred Flowers Campaign of 1956–1957 gave Chinese intellectuals another opportunity to restore the social sciences in China. President Mao Zedong and the CPC inspired intellectuals to express their thoughts about the communist regime and to flourish culture and science. Many Chinese social scientists seized this opportunity. However, this second attempt suffered another failure when this short-term era of political liberalization was ultimately terminated, and an Anti-Rightist Campaign ensued. In 1957 Fei Xiaotong’s Early Spring Climate for the Intellectuals was regarded as a signal for the campaign. Numerous Chinese social scientists, especially America-educated academics, such as Wu Wenzao, Chen Da, and Ma Yinchu, were denounced as rightist and bourgeois scholars and became the targets of the political crackdown. The ruling social sciences (i.e., political economy, law, and finance) were fundamentally transformed through the ideology of Marxist-Leninism, while other capitalist and Western ideologies were excluded in these disciplines (Hayhoe, 1987, 1989). The ruling disciplines, political economy in particular, converged in a number of specialty institutions. For instance, there were six finance and economics institutions and four political science and law institutions in 1953, and twenty-one finance and economics institutions and one political science and law institution in 1965. These institutions were led by Renmin University of China (RUC), a newly established university under the leadership of the CPC. It retained Chinese social scientists who were loyal to the CPC and invited numerous Soviet experts to develop social science knowledge and build socialist ideology by integrating Soviet-developed Marxist Leninism with Chinese characteristics. The alumni of RUC had the potential to engage in the communist governance of the CPC to guard the political order. All social science disciplines in China were subordinated to Marxist-Leninism—the doctrine of the Communist social sciences (Ogden, 1982, p. 583). The ruling social sciences were obliged to impart Communist values to college students and make them socialist conformists serving the construction of the state. In short, a number of theoretical social sciences were suspended; the ruling social sciences were subject to Marxist-Leninism and historical materialism, excluding

3.3 Social Sciences in the PRC During the Mao Period (1949–1976) …

91

other ideologies. Based on the ruling social sciences, Chinese HEIs supplied compulsory political education courses (e.g., Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, Mao Zedong Thought, and Political Economics) for every college student. The specific purpose of the Chinese social sciences was “to rationalize the Party line and to inculcate political values” (Hayhoe, 1993). However, as Li (1966) observed, this type of Chinese social sciences never gained recognition in the international academic arena during that period.

3.3.2 Ten Lost Years Fairbank and Goldman (2006) called the years between 1957 and 1977 “twenty lost years” because the political chaos that ensued disturbed the evolution of Chinese higher education and the social sciences. The trajectory of the Chinese social sciences was interrupted by several occurrences, and Chinese intellectuals suffered in a series of political campaigns from the 1950s, including the Great Leap Forward (1958– 1960), the Three Years of Natural Calamity (1959–1961), and the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). As documented, the “ten bad years” (another name given to the Cultural Revolution) completely alienated China’s academic system from other parts of the world (Li, 2015). Chinese universities sloughed off all foreign influences in the Cultural Revolution. According to Hayhoe (1989), China was probably the only nation in Asia, perhaps in the world, that dared to dismantle its whole modern education system in hopes of establishing completely new institutions suited to an independent socialist nation (p. 49). In this period, Chinese universities became a space for political movements to serve the political socialization. First, college students were enrolled because of their political performance and reliability but not as a result of the college entrance examination (Hayhoe, 1996). Students with peasant and worker backgrounds had advantages in gaining access to universities. This was supported by President Mao Zedong’s idea—common people and the proletariat embodied the hope of the state’s future. Second, university autonomy and academic freedom were completely dismantled during the Cultural Revolution, as political activists took over campuses and violently criticized presidents and professors. Third, university activities were centered on political movements, and political courses became the compulsory and core curricula. Besides, political activists motivated college students to become involved in heated campaigns, promoting Mao’s thought, guarding communist triumphs, and fighting against reactionary and pro-capitalist figures. Unfortunately, numerous university professors and intellectuals became targets in the political campaigns, and a considerable number of prominent Chinese social scientists were harshly treated and attacked. As scholars have critically appraised, the political campaigns led to the stagnation and destruction of the evolution of the Chinese social sciences and deprived Chinese scholars of opportunities for academic pursuit (Ogden, 1982). Moreover, severance

92

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

from foreign influences and international association and engagement proved to be unworkable for the sustainable development of higher education and the social sciences (Huang, 2010).

3.4 Social Sciences in the PRC in the Post-Mao Period (After 1976): Internationalization and Indigenization Spectacular transformation took place in China starting with the far-reaching Reform and Opening-Up policy and economic reform led by Deng Xiaoping (1904–1997), a highly regarded leader of the PRC. A marketed-oriented socialist economy replaced the centralized planned economy. Meanwhile, a newly international engagement and global connection terminated China’s isolation from the outside world. The reforms stimulated unprecedented changes that occurred in almost every field of Chinese society, and one of the most vigorous changes took place in the domain of higher education. The advancement of higher education was regarded as a crucial component of the national strategies to modernize the country, stabilize society, and upgrade the economy (Guo & Guo, 2016). China’s higher education have experienced rapid growth and tremendous achievements in the reform era and transformed tremendously in size,3 quality, and influence (Altbach & Wang, 2012; Marginson, 2006). China has built the world’s largest higher education system with a total enrolment of 41.83 million students in 2020. The international influence and overall ranking of Chinese universities in the world has moved forward significantly. Among this education system, the social science curricula, departments, and schools have firmly developed in 2738 higher education institutions. At present, President Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized to accelerate the development of higher education and strive to build a disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system with Chinese characteristics. Academic activities and disciplinary construction have regained vibrancy.

3.4.1 The Reconstruction of the Social Sciences in Chinese Universities The social sciences were resurrected in the late 1970s, after the termination of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). Deng Xiaoping took the helm of the CPC in 1977 and prioritized economic modernization and national construction. As part of his farreaching modernization blueprint—Four Modernizations in Agriculture, Industry, 3

In 1949, the total number of higher education institutions in China was 205, the total enrollment of higher education was 117,000, and the gross enrollment rate of higher education was 0.26%. In 2019, the gross enrollment rate of higher education reached 51.6%, and the total enrollment of students in 2688 higher education institutions reached 40.02 million.

3.4 Social Sciences in the PRC in the Post-Mao Period (After 1976) …

93

Science and Technology, and Defense—in 1977 Deng stated that there were urgent needs to improve science and education in China to ensure economic ascendancy and enhance China’s international status (Ogden, 1982). Deng (1994) further pointed that “science” did not merely refer to the natural sciences but also contained the social sciences, and that both of them lagged far behind developed countries. The National Plan for Developing the Social Sciences (1978) charted the rehabilitation of the social sciences (Hayhoe, 1989, p. 49). In 1979, President Hu Qiaomu (1912–1992) announced the reorganization of sociology in China. The Communist leaders encouraged intellectuals to work for the reconstruction and prosperity of the social sciences. Thereafter, the social science disciplines obtained a stable platform for steady development, as faculties and departments were reorganized in Chinese universities, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was empowered, and academic societies and journals were developed (Gransow, 2008). In the beginning, the reconstruction effort encountered a tortuous course, as there was an ideological debate between Marxism and the Western social sciences, particularly during the late 1970s and the 1980s. A “cultural fever” emerged in that period and triggered intellectuals to reflect deeply on cultural and educational realms (Gu, 2001). While Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought continued to be the official ideology, reform-minded Chinese thinkers “engaged with great eagerness in searching for an alternative intellectual framework, derived from modern Western theories in social sciences and humanities” (Gu, 1999: 389). Although these scholars were required to obey the official ideology, they reflected on Chinese traditional culture while strongly desiring to learn alternative thinking from the West, hoping to achieve a combination of approaches. Indeed, with a shift from political campaigns to economic modernization, different ways of thinking and multiple values were tolerated (Fairbank & Goldman, 2006). A public intellectual space became visible in the 1980s, where Chinese intellectuals launched extensive discussions and debates on a variety of topics, including democracy, a market-oriented economy, modern capitalism, world systems, and global communications. Deng Xiaoping coined a slogan that would become widely accepted—“It does not matter whether the cat is white or black, so long as it catches mice”—which characterized the reform-minded philosophy of the state. Chinese social scientists were no longer bound to explain everything based on the framework of the two blocs of socialism and capitalism, but paid attention to concrete and pragmatic issues such as modernization, decentralization, and enterprise. The ideological emancipation and exploration of new ideas and multiple values were disturbed in the wake of the 1989 Students’ Movement but were reopened after Deng Xiaoping’s 1992 southern tour. International communication recovered shortly afterwards when Deng Xiaoping reinstated market-driven economic reform. Stimulated by economic modernization and the trend of globalization, Chinese intellectuals became more involved in learning from the West and international communities. They were obliged to develop the Chinese social sciences by integrating various types of knowledge and values, both indigenous and international. Simultaneously, political socialization was a regular part of Chinese higher learning (Du,

94

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

2020). Chinese academics retained the Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought-Deng Xiaoping Theory as the ideological leitmotif in their work. Apart from the extraordinary vibrancy in ideological and intellectual realms, a new institutional space was build up for the reconstruction and further evolution of the social sciences in China (Yang et al., 2019). The national college entrance examinations, commonly known as Gao Kao (高考), that had been officially abolished in the Cultural Revolution, were restored in 1977 (Gu, 2001). Chinese universities refreshed their teaching and research functions, which urged the revival of various academic disciplines, including the social science disciplines. However, due to a vast shortage of professional personnel after lengthy proscription, the old generations of Chinese intellectuals, Ma Yinchu (1882–1982), Fei Xiaotong (1910–2005), Li Yining (1930–), and Wu Jinglian (1930–), became the backbone of the reconstruction (Gransow, 2008). Endeavors were made to establish social science departments and research institutions that were assigned to supply courses, degree programs, and research projects. They prioritized the reconstruction of a variety of independent academic disciplines and the training of future generations of Chinese social scientists (Fei, 2000). Consequently, a huge number of social science departments, schools, and research centers were founded or restored in Chinese HEIs in the 1980s, and many experienced institutionalization and professionalization in the 1990s. Furthermore, academic research was supported by these institutions, where original studies in the social sciences facilitated the vitality of the newly established organizations, enhancing their status and impact. A growing number of university-based academic journals for “Wen Ke” (a Mandarin concept relating to the humanities and social sciences) sprang up and became the major outlets for faculty members’ research products. Furthermore, many social scientists were involved in government-assigned research projects and worked for the CPC and communist leaders so that their research outputs and opinions might influence the strategy of government policy-makers (Ogden, 1982). For instance, the advocacy of economist Li Yining contributed to the rise of China’s stock market in 1990 and economist Wu Jinglian was renowned for his theory that established a market system in China, a socialist country. Along with the knowledge economy and global competition, universities were placed in a supreme position. Chinese universities and their academic disciplines gained great opportunities for profound changes and developments in the new millennium. Following Project 211 (establish in 1995), the central government launched Project 985 in 1998, selecting a handful of universities to achieve world-class standing. Leading universities always spared no effort in propelling their disciplines in the sciences and engineering forward. The construction of the social sciences and humanities was also enhanced, as these top universities recognized the significance of building up a comprehensive university that would facilitate the world-class strategy. At present, a comprehensive knowledge and institutional system in the social sciences has been firmly established in China. Additionally, the recent years have witnessed the growth of the trend of interdisciplinary social sciences in Chinese universities.

3.4 Social Sciences in the PRC in the Post-Mao Period (After 1976) …

95

3.4.2 The Contemporary Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese Universities China reoriented itself to the Western-led world after 1978 following the Open-Door Policy. International academic relations between China and other countries were reconstructed within an uneven global academic system. Before that, China was immersed in the Soviet model and socialist ideologies while it excluded others, simply separating world relations into two blocs—capitalist and socialist. After 1978, China embraced open and multiple perspectives on world relations while the framework of the developed and the developing was frequently adopted to contextualize national status and global affairs. China strategically participated in the world economy and several international organizations, involving itself in the global system and competition. The following sections scrutinized the evolution of the Chinese social sciences under the impact of internationalization in reform-era China. The Chinese social sciences became open to Western influences after 1978, and the reorganization and evolution of the Chinese social sciences were embedded in the internationalization process. China swiftly moved away from the Soviet model to Western patterns, using them as the locus of reference to reconstruct its higher education system and academic disciplines (Hayhoe, 1996). After ten years of cultural and political closure, Chinese intellectuals felt a burning desire to explore the world. In their desire to catch up with the developed countries, Chinese universities and intellectuals were passionate about learning from the West (Yang, 2002). This situation opened the way to the reconstruction and internationalization of the social sciences in China. In addition, as the global academic system was modelled on North American and West European countries (Altbach, 2007; Keim, 2010), the reconstructed Chinese social sciences became inextricably connected with Western patterns and norms. The reforms in the 1980s further accelerated the opening up of higher education and international cooperation and exchanges. In 1983, Deng Xiaoping initiated his famous slogan, “Education should be geared toward modernization, the world, and the future” (教育要面向現代化 面向世界 面向未來). This was followed by a series of government policies that called for learning from major developed and industrialized countries (Li, 2015). This slogan would be regarded as a sign in China of the internationalization of higher education and the social sciences. Chinese scholars and students eager to learn from developed countries and they seized upon the opportunity to develop social science disciplines. As in the past, the introduction of Western learning into China occurred mainly through two approaches, translating foreign books and sending students abroad. Translated social science books became the major channel for researching and importing knowledge from the West and played an important role in rebuilding the knowledge system in the social sciences (Huang, 2010). Meanwhile, a growing number of students were sent to Western universities. In particular, American universities became the most favorable destination for Chinese students to study abroad. Besides, Western scholars were invited to give lectures in Chinese universities and

96

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

supported the reconstruction (Ogden, 1982). However, this period was typically characterized by one-way knowledge circulation with various schools of Western social sciences introduced into China (Wu, 2021). During the 1990s, an emerging internationalization trend began to influence the growth of the social sciences in China. The domestic and international situation underwent profound changes in this period. The end of the Cold War in 1991 shifted global geopolitical relations and alleviated ideological barriers that had blocked international communication and collaboration between China and major capitalist countries (Luo, 2016). The world became more globally interconnected as a result of economic integration and technological revolution (Freidman, 2005; Rizvi & Lingard, 2009). The Chinese social sciences were rethought in this setting, plunging into a series of developments and addressing complex international academic relations. Chinese scholars and policy-makers of HEIs closely followed international trends and Western models to develop their social science disciplines. Ever since the mid1990s, there has been a popular Chinese saying, Jie Gui, referring to developing and complying with international (mainly Western-dominated) conventions and standards (Chen, 1997; Wang, 2002; Zha et al., 2019). Chinese social scientists were committed to Marxist-Leninist positions on the one hand, but learned from Western social sciences and academic norms on the other hand. Several major approaches were taken to internationalize the social sciences, including curricular adaptions, book translations, studying abroad, and research collaborations with foreign scholars. The comprehensive knowledge and academic system of the social sciences were established in Chinese universities during the 1990s and 2000s, partly based on Western models and frameworks. The Chinese social sciences developed steadily but still lacked international visibility and influence. As Hayhoe described in 1993, “They are little known in the wider academic community as a result of linguistic barriers, as well as for other reasons” (p. 478). At the turn of the twenty-first century, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) and experienced a growth in global connections. Project 211 and Project 985 accelerated the internationalization process of higher education and the social sciences in China. Chinese universities and scholars were supported by these projects to participate in international cooperation and competition (Li, 2012; Mohrman, 2008). Internationalization became a strategic priority for Chinese universities, especially the leading ones, as they recognized it as an effective approach to global competition and to promoting their global prestige (Mohrman, 2008; Yang, 2014). As part of the internationalization strategy, Chinese academics were pushed to upgrade their teaching and research to international standards (Xie, 2018). Chinese social scientists undertook dual responsibilities and challenges to strengthen their academic research and disciplines, combining national/local with global contributions and influences (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002). Dirlik (2012) observed that the Chinese social sciences have now been integrated with the Euro/American social sciences more than ever before. The research of Li and his colleague (2015) showed that China’s humanities and social sciences have experienced rapid development since 2001. One major indicator of the growth is

3.4 Social Sciences in the PRC in the Post-Mao Period (After 1976) …

97

international publication and co-authorship. However, Marginson (2014) pointed out that “China’s internationalization is still seen in terms of outside influences coming in, rather than inside factors flowing out” (p. 171). Twenty years ago, Hayhoe (1993) observed that the sciences and engineering at Chinese universities had gained increasing attention, while the social sciences were little known by the international academic circle. After two decades of fast growth in China’s higher education and academic research, this huge variation is still evident at Chinese universities today. China’s science and technology are on the rise, and global attention has been paid to such areas as a result (Altbach & Wang, 2012; Yang, 2015). In marked contrast, the social sciences are stagnating at relatively lower levels of internationalization and have gained little recognition in global academic circles. Chinese social scientists face an ongoing series of difficulties when promoting themselves in the global academic context due to geopolitical disturbances, cultural differences, language barriers, and unequal international academic relations (Hayhoe, 1993; Yang, 2013). After more than forty years of development in reform-era China, the Chinese social sciences still encounter the problem of international status and influence and have challenges achieving knowledge dissemination.

3.4.3 The Indigenous Response to the Western Social Sciences Chinese social sciences have benefited from the internationalization process as Western knowledge and norms have contributed a lot to the reconstruction of the social sciences in China (Altbach, 1989; Xie, 2018; Yang et al., 2019). Chinese social scientists still look towards Western universities (prestigious American and European universities in particular) to seek advanced standards for their discipline development. However, the social sciences in China face the same problems and challenges as many non-Western countries have encountered in terms of an overdependence upon the absorption and imitation of the Western social sciences (Alatas, 1993, 2003; Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010). Blindly copying the West has been criticized, and there are urgent demands for Chinese scholars to break the monopoly of the Western social sciences (Yang, 2013) to achieve “a knowledge transition toward the world” (Deng, 2010). As Dirlik (2012) observed, the demands of nationalizing and indigenizing the social sciences are always central to their evolution in China. In the early 1980s Fei Xiaotong, who was responsible for leading the rehabilitation of sociology in China, pointed out that the sociology in the new country should have two fundamental characteristics. The first one is that it should be indigenous and the second that it should be socialist in nature. As for the approaches to generating indigenous sociology, he emphasized absorbing knowledge from the Chinese tradition and the Western social sciences and integrating them with China’s social reality and modernization process. Therefore, the way to indigenize sociology and any other social science disciplines

98

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

primarily depended upon carrying out empirical research and investigating social, economic, and political problems in China, and then developing theories based on empirical research. Chinese social scientists confirmed their achievements and merit in their empirical research and social surveys. For example, in the 1980s, indigenous contributions emerged from several empirical studies in small towns and on family and marriage (See the research of Professor Lei Jieqiong). Apart from prominent intellectuals’ efforts to advocate for the indigenization of the social sciences in China, the waves of indigenous social science movements have involved a growing number of Chinese social scientists. There have been intensive discussions about indigenizing the social sciences in China (Yang, 2013). The movement to indigenize the social sciences first occurred in Taiwan in the 1980s. The conference on The Sinicization of the Social and Behavioral Sciences in 1981 was seen as hailing the beginnings of the movement among the Chinese academic communities. Chinese scholars in Hong Kong and mainland China were inspired by and engaged in the indigenous movement, and some Western scholars also showed both sympathetic and critical reactions to it. Since then, the rationales for, approaches to, meanings of, and predicaments of the indigenization of the social sciences in China have been widely discussed. There is widespread recognition that the indigenization of the social sciences in China is affording the Chinese social sciences more international prominence, especially in the era of globalization, and a number of renowned Chinese scholars have called for this indigenization passionately. Psychologists Yang and Wen (1982) observed that: Although the subjects of our studies concern Chinese society and Chinese people, the theories and methods we employ are almost exclusively from the West or are western in style. In our daily life we are Chinese; but when carrying out our research work we turn into westerners. Either intentionally or unintentionally we suppress thoughts, ideas, and philosophical orientations that are Chinese in style…. As for our research, neither quantitatively nor qualitatively can we compete against the West. Today, neither our contributions to the social or behavioral sciences of the world nor our withdrawal from them, matter at all…. We are nothing but vassals for the West. (p. iii)

Whilst Chinese academics are aware of the significance of developing academic disciplines within indigenous contexts that have socio-cultural characteristics and traditions, they always face various challenges. For instance, indigenization in Hong Kong and Taiwan has suffered institutional barriers as their academic systems are over-reliant upon international academic indexes. However, compared with these institutional barriers, Kim et al. (2006) argued that making Chinese scholars in mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong break their psychological barriers was the most challenging part of the indigenization of the social sciences. These psychological barriers might be reflected in scholars overly depending upon Western models and theories and having limited knowledge and confidence in their own socio-culture and tradition. These scholars have looked up to Western culture and social science theories in a pilgrimage posture, but underestimated their own culture and intellectual traditions (Yang et al., 2019). Indeed, the indigenization of the social sciences is a very difficult part of the academic work for Chinese scholars due to both practical and theoretical reasons.

3.4 Social Sciences in the PRC in the Post-Mao Period (After 1976) …

99

Many Chinese social scientists still do not have enough scholarship to understand the academic relations between China and the global system. They are challenged to have real dialogues with the international academic community, let alone generate scholarly knowledge for global consumption (Huang, 2010). Also, unsurprising, many scholars and students use Western social science concepts, theories, and research approaches uncritically and even incorrectly in the Chinese context (Deng, 2010). In addition, language and cultural barriers, as well as institutional conditions and restrictions, may become obstructions to academic research and discipline construction. As a result, there is a lack of original and fundamental contributions of the Chinese social sciences to the global academic community. “We are nothing but vassals for the West”—the view proposed by Yang and Wen (1982), has until recently amounted to a caution for academic communities in China, especially when this issue is considered in the context of globalization and associated with Chinese policies of building world-class universities and claiming global league tables. Chinese social scientists have been increasingly pushed to embrace international academic norms and to publish in international journals. The policies of leading Chinese universities are more consonant with international criteria, that is, they are keen to recruit more talented faculty members in a global market and have a higher index of international publications. However, as the international academic discourses and norms are controlled by North American and Western European countries, Chinese social scientists must work with two different academic systems. Many efforts have been made to create local Chinese knowledge, indigenize the Western social sciences in the Chinese context, promote multiple types of knowledge circulation, and facilitate the “going out” strategy of the Chinese social sciences, among other aims. During this stage, Chinese social scientists have suffered a variety of challenges such as how to balance local relevance and global influences, adapt to both the national and international academic communities, and deal with different academic discourses and socio-cultural boundaries (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002). Chinese social scientists have faced huge tension of promoting the internationalization as well as the indigenization of their academic research and disciplines (Yang, 2013).

3.5 Summary A theme of Western influences, together with indigenous responses and strategies, runs through the development of the social sciences in China, and to understand this trajectory is the concern of this research. This chapter has sketched the major developments and issues in the Chinese social sciences chronologically in the four stages, focusing upon the entangled relationship between the internationalization and indigenization of the social sciences in China. This research has paid attention to the possible integrations of, and conflicts between, the Chinese and Western influences that have been employed by Chinese intellectuals. Illumination of how Chinese

100

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

intellectuals have positioned themselves in the national and international academic spheres is embedded in this research.

References Alatas, S. F. (1993). On the indigenization of academic discourse. Alternatives, 18(3), 307–338. Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labor in the social sciences. Current Sociology, 51(6), 599–613. Altbach, P. G. (1989). Twisted roots: The Western impact on Asian higher education. Higher Education, 18(1), 9–29. Altbach, P. G. (2007). Peripheries and centres: Research universities in developing countries. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 1–24. Altbach, P. G., & Wang, Q. (2012). Can China keep rising? World-class status for research excellence comes with a new set of challenges. Scientific American, 307(4), 46–47. Bays, D. H. (1978). China enters the twentieth century: Chang Chih-tung and the issues of a new age, 1895–1909. University of Michigan Press. Chen, X. (1997). Internationalization of higher education: History, theories and strategies. Shanghai Higher Education Research, 11, 57–61. Chiang, Y. C. (2001). Social engineering and the social sciences in China, 1919–1949. Cambridge University Press. Deng, X. (1994). Several opinions about science and education work, August 8, 1977. In Selected works of Deng Xiaoping (Vol. 2). People’s Publishing House. Deng, Z. (2010). Westernization of the Chinese social sciences: The case of legal science (1978– 2008). In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 182–185). UNESCO Publishing. Dirlik, A. (2012). Zhongguohua: Worlding China the case of sociology and anthropology in twentieth century China. In A. Dirlik, G. Li, & H.-P. Yen (Eds.), Sociology and anthropology in twentieth-century China: Between universalism and indigenism (pp. 1–39). Chinese University Press. Du, X. (2020). Role differentiation phenomenon in Chinese higher education: A tension between political socialization and academic autonomy. Springer. Fairbank, J. K., & Goldman, M. (2006). China: A new history. Harvard University Press. Fei, X. T. (2000). A review of the reconstruction of sociology in China and my views on its development. Social Sciences in China, 1, 30–39. Friedman, E. (1994). Reconstructing China’s national identity: A southern alternative to Mao-era anti-imperialist nationalism. The Journal of Asian Studies, 51(1), 67–91. Freidman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty first century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Fu, L. (2005). Research on the method of Western science translation in the Translation Department of the Jiangnan Arsenal. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 43(1), 119–127. Gasster, M. (2008). The republican revolutionary movement. In J. K. Fairbank & K. C. Liu (Eds.), The Cambridge history of China (pp. 463–534). Cambridge University Press. Gransow, B. (2008). The social sciences in China. In T. M. Porter & D. Ross (Eds.), The Cambridge history of science: The modern social sciences (pp. 498–514). Cambridge University Press. Gu, E. X. (1999). Cultural intellectuals and the politics of the cultural public space in communist China (1979–1989): A case study of three intellectual groups. The Journal of Asian Studies, 58(2), 389–431. Gu, M. (2001). Modernisation and education in China’s cultural traditions. In M. Gu (Ed.), Education in China and abroad: Perspectives from a lifetime in comparative education (A. L. J. Chan, Trans.) (pp. 101–110). Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.

References

101

Guo, S., & Guo, Y. (2016). Spotlight on China: Changes in education under China’s market economy. Sense Publishers. Hartnett, R. A. (1998). The saga of Chinese higher education from the Tongzhi restoration to Tiananmen Square: Revolution and reform. The Edwin Mellen Press. Hayhoe, R. (1987). China’s higher curricular reform in historical perspective. The China Quarterly, 110, 196–230. Hayhoe, R. (1989). China’s universities and Western academic models. Higher Education, 18(1), 49–85. Hayhoe, R. (1993). Chinese universities and the social sciences. Minerva, 31(4), 478–503. Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s universities, 1895–1995: A century of cultural conflict. Garland Publishing. Hon, T. (2014). The Chinese path to modernisation: Discussions of culture and morality in Republican China. International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity, 2(3), 211–228. Huang, H. (2010). China’s historical encounter with Western sciences and humanities. In M. Kuhn & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 21–43). Transaction Publishers. Keim, W. (2010). The internationalization of social sciences: Distortions, dominations and prospects. In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 169–170). UNESCO Publishing. Kim, U., Yang, K. S., & Hwang, K. K. (Eds.). (2006). Indigenous and cultural psychology. Springer. Kuhn, M., & Weidemann, D. (2010). Internationalization of the social sciences: Introduction. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 11–19). Transaction Publishers. Levenson, J. R. (1968). Confucian China and its modern fate: A trilogy. University of California Press. Li, B. (1993). A brief overview of Sino-Western exchange: Past and present. In R. Hayhoe & H. Briks (Eds.), Knowledge across cultures: Universities East and West (pp. 301–308). OISE Press. Li, H., Fang, M., Wang, Y., Sun, B., & Qi, W. (1987). Chinese sociology, 1898–1986. Social Forces, 65(3), 612–640. Li, J. (2012). World-class higher education and the emerging Chinese model of the university. Prospects, 42(3), 319–339. Li, Q. (2015). The indigenization and development of Chinese sociology. People’s Daily, 05–11. Li, S. K. (1966). Social sciences in Communist China. American Behavioral Scientist, 9(8), 3–7. Lu, Y. L., & Hayhoe, R. (2004). Chinese higher learning: The transition process from classical knowledge patterns to modern disciplines 1860–1910. In C. Charle, J. Schriewer, & P. Wagner (Eds.), Transnational intellectual networks: Forms of academic knowledge and the search for cultural identities (pp. 269–306). Campus Verlag. Luo, Y. (2016). Globalization and the transformation of Chinese universities. Fudan Education Forum, 14(3), 5–18. Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39. Marginson, S. (2014). A response from Simon Marginson for China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(4), 169–174. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. Mohrman, K. (2008). The emerging global model with Chinese characteristics. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 29–48. Ogden, S. (1982). China’s social sciences: Prospects for teaching and research in the 1980s. Asian Survey, 22(7), 581–608. Pan, S. Y. (2007). Intertwining of academia and officialdom and university autonomy: Experience from Tsinghua University in China. Higher Education Policy, 20(2), 121–144.

102

3 The Internationalization of the Social Sciences in Chinese …

Pan, S. Y. (2009). University autonomy, the state and social change in China. Hong Kong University Press. Perraton, H. (2016). A history of higher education exchange: China and America. History of Education, 45(6), 859–861. Peterson, G., Hayhoe, R., & Lu, Y. (2001). Education, culture, and identity in twentieth-century China. Hong Kong University Press. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). Globalizing education policy. Routledge. Roulleau-Berger, L. (2016). Post-Western revolution in sociology: From China to Europe. Brill Publishers. Second Historical Archives of China. (1991). Comprehensive collection of archival papers on history of Republic of China. Jiangsu Classics Publishing House. Shu, X. C. (1961). Data of Chinese modern educational history. People’s Education Press. Shu, X. C. (1989). China’s contemporary history of studying abroad movements. Shanghai Culture Press. Spence, J. D. (1990). The search for modern China. W.W. Norton & Company. Sturniolo, A. C. (2016). Influences of Western philosophy and educational thought in China and their effects on the New Culture Movement (Master’s thesis), State University of New York. Tao, Y. (2008). Academic history of education in Republic China. Showwe Information Co., Ltd. Wang, J. (2002). Conception of the internationalization of higher education. Modern University Education, 1, 5–8. Wang, Y. (1973). Yun wu encyclopedia of social sciences. The Commercial Press Ltd. Wang, Z. (2006). World system and rise of powers. Peking University Press. Weidemann, D. (2013). Three decades of Chinese indigenous psychology: A contribution to overcoming the hegemonic structures of international science? In M. Kuhn & S. Yazawa (Eds.), Theories about and strategies against hegemonic social sciences (pp. 105–118). Center for Glocal Studies Seijo University. Wu, H. (2021). China’s outward-oriented higher education internationalization. Springer. Wu, X. (1993). A case study of the Catholic University of Peking during the Benedictine period (1927–1933) (Ed.D. dissertation), University of San Francisco. Xie, M. (2018). Living with internationalization: The changing face of the academic life of Chinese social scientists. Higher Education, 75(3), 381–397. Yang, G., & Wen, C. (1982). Sinicizing social and behaviour sciences. Academia Sinica Institute of Ethnology. Yang, R. (2002). Third delight: The internationalization of higher education in China. Routledge. Yang, R. (2013). Indigenised while internationalised? Tensions and dilemmas in China’s modern transformation of social sciences in an age of globalisation. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters. ibidem Press. Yang, R. (2014). China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(2), 151–162. Yang, R. (2015). Reassessing China’s higher education development: A focus on academic culture. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(4), 527–535. Yang, R., Xie, M., & Wen, W. (2019). Pilgrimage to the West: Modern transformations of Chinese intellectual formation in social sciences. Higher Education, 77(5), 815–829. Zha, Q., Wu, H., & Hayhoe, R. (2019). Why Chinese universities embrace internationalization: An exploration with two case studies. Higher Education, 78(4), 669–686. Zheng, H. S. (2011). Academic discourse power and the development of Chinese sociology. Chinese Social Sciences, 2, 27–34. Zuo, Y. (2004). The transformation of disciplinary system from traditional to modern. Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House.

Chapter 4

Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology at Tsinghua

There will not be a second Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, MIT, or Cambridge, but will be the first famous Chinese institutions of higher education—Peking University, Tsinghua University, Zhejiang University, Fudan University, Nanjing University, and more. We must diligently absorb global experience and best practices in school management and governance, but even more so, we must adhere to educational rules, and have university administration take root in China. (世界上不會有第二個哈佛 、牛津、斯坦福、麻省理工、劍橋, 但會有第一個北大、清 華、浙大、復旦、南大等中國著名學府。我們要認真吸收世 界上先進的辦學治學經驗, 更要遵循教育規律, 紮根中國大 地辦大學). — Xi Jinping

Along with China’s world-class university building initiatives, a burgeoning internationalization trend has left its mark on the disciplinary organization of Tsinghua’s social sciences. This chapter provides an in-depth understanding of the impact of internationalization on the dynamics and mechanisms of organizational construction and institutional evolution of Tsinghua’s sociology. It uncovers the evolving tensions between and the integration of international influences and national patterns (Hayhoe, 1996; Yang, 2013). The impact of internationalization on the disciplinary organization and institutionalization of Tsinghua’s sociology is revealed in different layers, from top-down national and institutional reforms to individual scholars’ experiences and perspectives. After providing an institutional snapshot of Tsinghua’s sociology, this chapter first expatiates on top-down policy initiatives and reforms pertaining to the internationalization of Chinese higher education and then maps out their influence upon the reconstruction and development of Tsinghua’s sociology. This is followed by a detailed exploration using qualitative data of the institutionally isomorphic changes in Tsinghua’s sociology and the rationales and institutional logics behind them during internationalization. This chapter also examines the institutional idiosyncrasies that are rooted in national and institutional structures. It ends with a short summary. The focal point of this chapter is investigating how international, national, and institutional

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Xie, Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China, East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8_4

103

104

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

forces have interacted to shape the organizational structure and institutionalization of Tsinghua’s sociology from an internal perspective.

4.1 The Disciplinary Organization of Tsinghua’s Sociology: An Institutional Snapshot At present, the organizational forms of university-based social science disciplines have converged into a common set of institutional building blocks, including schools, faculties, departments, academic boards, and professorships (Bao, 2002; Becher & Trowler, 2001; Wallerstein, 1996). They facilitate the execution of the crucial functions of the social sciences in terms of producing, criticizing, accumulating, and distributing knowledge. These institutional settings that penetrate universities worldwide to varying degrees have their roots in medieval Europe (Dirlik, 2012; Hayhoe, 1993; Kim, 2007; Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010; Yang, 2013; Zha, 2011). Tsinghua’s social science disciplines are no exception. Specifically, the institutional design of Tsinghua bears a close relationship with the American model, owing to its historical origins and trajectory. In China’s Republican era, Tsinghua’s overall structure followed the American university model from its establishment in 1911 through its development into a multidisciplinary and international higher learning institute in the 1930s (Luo, 2013; Pan, 2009). During this period, the values of university autonomy and academic freedom were diffused in its social science departments (Qian & Li, 2011). Academics with overseas study experience and international prestige were recruited. Disciplinary organizations and research centers were institutionalized according to the standards of American universities to facilitate knowledge exchange and international cooperation. Tsinghua’s Department of Sociology was established in 1926 and experienced institutionalization during the Republican period; however, it was dismantled in 1952 and was not reconstructed until the year 2000. Today, the Department exists alongside four other departments affiliated with Tsinghua’s School of Social Sciences1 (清華大 學社會科學學院). They have been constructed by combining both international and domestic institutional norms under the supervision of the Chinese government (Interviewee 8). The Department has one head and two deputy heads who are responsible for academic and administrative affairs, effective teaching and learning, and research excellence, among other responsibilities. At the same time, it has a secretary and one vice-secretary of the Party committee who take charge of organizational supervision and governance (Pan, 2009). Academic committees and Party offices have been structured accordingly. In the Department, prominent sociologists undertake dual

1

The School of Social Sciences of Tsinghua University has five departments and institutes, including the Department of Sociology, the Department of Political Science, the Department of International Relations, the Department of Psychology, and the Institute of Economics.

4.1 The Disciplinary Organization of Tsinghua’s Sociology…

105

roles on academic and CPC committees, exerting influence to balance academic and political authority (Interviewee 1). First, academic committees, including the Academic Affairs Committee, Academic Degree Committee, and Academic Ethics Board, have been established in the Department to institutionalize and preserve academic freedom and authority (Interviewee 2). These building blocks have their origins in Western universities and have been introduced into China and accepted in Chinese academic circles. It is worth noting that ethical issues in research have not gained universal and sufficient attention in Chinese universities (Yang, 2016). A large proportion of social science departments and faculties have not set up ethics boards; Tsinghua’s sociologists have taken the lead in this area by establishing an Academic Ethics Board (學術道德委 員會) based on the American experience (Interviewee 3). Second, nine research centers have been set up in the Department and one sociology journal has been established, providing institutional and intellectual platforms for knowledge building and supporting interdisciplinary collaboration and international exchange. Tsinghua’s sociologists appreciate their roles as independent scholars and are also affiliated with various research centers that allow them to embark on collaborative research and enhance the impact of their scholarship. The Department includes research centers for Aging Society, Medical Sociology, Anthropology and Ethnology, Urbanization and Urban–Rural Coordination, Contemporary China, Globalization, Corporate Responsibility and Social Development, Social Networking, and Xinyi Community Construction. These research centers, led by prominent scholars in the Department, emphasize high-level multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration, integrate intellectual and disciplinary resources from Tsinghua, and focus upon significant social issues and transitions in China. Additionally, as mentioned above, the Department also publishes a Chinese sociology journal, Tsinghua Sociological Review (清華社會學評論). Third, in addition to the research sectors, the Department has advanced its educational function, fertilizing both undergraduate and graduate (M.A. and Ph.D.) degree programs and a postdoctoral training program. Formalized courses and research tutors are supplied to each student (Interviewee 3, Interviewee 6). Furthermore, training programs and curricula for Tsinghua’s undergraduate, postgraduate, and international students have been institutionalized by absorbing diverse teaching content and approaches, internationalizing the curriculum, supporting students’ global exchanges and activities, and recruiting overseas students (Interviewee 1). In addition, four concentrated areas of postdoctoral research have been established, including urban sociology, medical sociology, sociology of transformation, and cultural anthropology.

106

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

4.2 World-Class University Policies and Internationalization Strategies The discipline construction and development of Tsinghua University have been largely influenced by the national education policies. This book highlights that only after the state’s new higher education policies were implemented in the mid-1990s did Tsinghua’s social sciences obtain the opportunity for reconstruction and revival. The reconstruction initiatives of Tsinghua’s social sciences have taken place under the influence of world-class university building reforms, university planning, and related internationalization strategies (Office of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Administration, 2011).

4.2.1 Phase I: Projects 211 and 985 Since the 1990s, the Chinese central party-state has promoted a quest for worldclass universities, responding to challenges from the knowledge-based economy, international competition, and unprecedented changes from inside and outside of China (Huang, 2015). A series of top-down national policies, including the Program for Education Reform and Development in China (1993), the Education Act of the People’s Republic of China (1995), Project 211 (1995), and Project 985 (1998), were promulgated by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council (Yang & Xie, 2015). These state policies provided impetus for selected leading Chinese universities to pursue the world-class goal (Deem et al., 2008). In response, Tsinghua briskly formulated its schedule, organized university planning, and promoted revolutionary and evolutionary reforms to enhance its global competitiveness and achieve leading status. By tracing and analyzing higher education policies over the last three decades at both the national and institutional levels, this study uncovered the unparalleled relationship and mutual trust between Tsinghua and the Chinese central government (Pan, 2009). Tsinghua has always demonstrated loyalty to the government, responding to its commands in efficient and innovative ways and playing a pioneering role in reforms. Simultaneously, Tsinghua has substantially benefited from top-down national reforms. Policy analysis explains the prompt development of Tsinghua’s social sciences at the turn of the twenty-first century. This research emphasizes that Tsinghua’s social sciences have been revitalized by the collaborative efforts of the state government and the University while pursing global status. Indeed, before the implementation of Projects 211 and 985, Tsinghua had attempted to rebuild its social sciences. In 1984 the central University administration nominated a group, the Wen Ke Leading Group (文科領導小組), to undertake the reconstruction work. However, the group found it was extremely difficult to reorganize and rejuvenate the social sciences and humanities at a polytechnic university (Office of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Administration, 2011).

4.2 World-Class University Policies and Internationalization …

107

In 1993 the state issued the Program for Education Reform and Development in China, stimulating the development of education for China’s rejuvenation and modernization (Tsang, 2000). Tsinghua accordingly established its goal of building a socialist world-class university with Chinese characteristics. Tsinghua’s leading administrators recognized that a world-class university should have a comprehensive array of disciplinary fields. Hence, the School of Humanities and Social Sciences (School of HSS, 清華大學人文社會科學學院) was rebuilt by the end of 1993, comprising three departments (the Department of Philosophy and Sociology; the Department of Chinese Language and Literature; and the Department of History) and five institutes (the Institute of Ideology and Culture; the Institute of Science, Technology, and Society; the Institute of Economics; the Institute of Education; and the Institute of Art Education). Although an initial organizational structure of the humanities and social science disciplines had been established at Tsinghua, the resuscitation effort encountered enduring obstacles and dilemmas. Professors in the “hard” sciences rigorously questioned the necessity of redeveloping the humanities and social sciences at Tsinghua, as it was already famous as a polytechnic institute and owed its reputation to training engineers and scientists. Professor Li (2011), a senior administrator who was responsible for the reconstruction work, recalled: It was beyond our expectation that the reconstruction work was so difficult at Tsinghua, where engineering subjects were dominant and increased resistance to the rejuvenation of the humanities and social sciences. Lots of misunderstandings and tensions erupted between scholars from different subject areas. (p. 228)

Notwithstanding Tsinghua’s highly centralized administration and institutional impetus, the reconstruction efforts encountered enormous resistance and a lack of support from the engineering faculty. It was nearly impossible to redistribute the University’s expenditures and resources away from engineering areas to the newly established School of Humanities and Social Sciences. Without additional funding, the fundamental development of Wen Ke at Tsinghua proved difficult. Fortunately, the state’s quest for and support of world-class universities, along with Tsinghua’s overall restructuring reforms, created an opportunity for reviving the humanities and social sciences. Led by its then-President Wang Dazhong,2 Tsinghua laid down its Overall Planning Report of Project 211 in 1994 and the Report of the 9th Five-Year Plan for the Development of Tsinghua University in 1995. It mapped out three key worldclass values it endeavored to pursue—comprehensiveness, research-intensiveness, and internationalism (綜合性 研究型 開放式). Relying upon extra funding from Project 211, Tsinghua University seized the chance to reconstruct and strengthen its Wen Ke, drawing up an explicit blueprint: 1) emphasizing basic disciplines, applying Marxism as a guide, and promoting the fine tradition of Tsinghua’s humanities and social sciences; and, 2) adhering to the maxim: “Be 2

Wang Dazhong (王大中) is a prominent engineer studying nuclear reactors, and an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences who was in charge of Tsinghua University from 1994 to 2003.

108

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

conversant with the ancient and the modern, and versed in the Chinese and the Western; conjoin the humanities and sciences to innovate and make a difference”. (中西融合 古今貫 通 文理交叉 綜合創新)

Thereafter, the evolution of Tsinghua’s social sciences was further boosted by its swift response to the central government’s launch of Project 985. In 1999 the University proposed its Tsinghua University’s Program to Build a World-Class University (1999–2001), which specified clear steps for achieving this goal. Almost all strategies in this plan centered on the understanding that a world-class university should be a comprehensive and research-intensive institution with globally recognized status. Tsinghua steadily incorporated the humanities and social science disciplines to transform itself into a comprehensive university as a compulsory step in climbing the global league tables (Yang & Welch, 2012). Project 985 marked a turning point in the growth of the social sciences at Tsinghua. Extra funds allocated by central and provincial/municipal governments were funneled to 39 top-tier universities in China (Postiglione & Jung, 2013). Nine of them formed the C9 League (see Table 4.1) to engage in the world league tables. Tsinghua University and Peking University took the lead, and were awarded each RMB1.8 billion between 1999 and 2001 (Luo, 2013). Tsinghua found or restored its social science departments, built up its research centers, and recruited a large number of top-tier social scientists using the project’s funding. In addition to the above-mentioned nine departments and institutes at the School of HSS, the Institute of International Studies was created in 1997, followed by the re-establishment of the Department of Sociology and the Department of Political Science in 2000, and the Department of Psychology in 2008. The newly established or restored institutions were strengthened by recruiting prominent scholars, institutionalizing their disciplinary organization, and boosting their research capability and influence (Interviewee 1). Table 4.1 A 985 project fund for C9 universities Phase I (1999–2003)

Phase II (2004–2010)

Phase III (2010–2015)

Tsinghua University

1.8

0.9

4.0

Peking University

1.8

0.9

4.0

Fudan University

1.2

0.6

2.6

Zhejiang University

1.4

0.7

2.6

Nanjing University

1.2

0.6

2.6

Shanghai Jiao Tong University

1.2

0.6

2.6

University of Science and Technology of China

0.9

0.6

1.8

Xi’an Jiao Tong University

0.9

0.6

1.5

Harbin Institute of Technology

1.0

/

/

Unit billion RMB Source Luo (2013)

4.2 World-Class University Policies and Internationalization …

109

As for the Department of Sociology, relying upon both national- and universitylevel talent introduction policies, it recruited eight distinguished sociologists from mainland China (Renmin University of China and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences), Hong Kong SAR (The Chinese University of Hong Kong), and the United States (Harvard University and Duke University) between 1999 and 2001.3 These academics were attracted by Tsinghua’s national status and academic prestige along with its brilliant history in the social sciences and humanities (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 7). More important, they looked forward to setting up a new and firm foothold for sociology at this flagship university and a purely academic platform for knowledge creation (Interviewee 2). A group of eight well-known Chinese sociologists collectively mobilized at Tsinghua, attracting the attention of the Chinese sociological circle and becoming the founders of the Department. Through their academic prestige, experience, professional enthusiasm, international vision, and collaboration with the central university administration, they efficiently promoted the institutionalization and professionalization of the Department. Tsinghua’s sociology was soon ranked among the top-tier of Chinese sociology programs, including Peking University, Renmin University of China, Fudan University, Nanjing University, and Sun Yat-sen University, and has excited high expectations ever since (Interviewee 1).

4.2.2 Phase II: Double First-Class University Plan In 2015, China’s MOE updated its mission to the Double First-Class Initiative (or World-Class 2.0), marking a major shift from building world-class universities to pursuing both world-class universities and first-class academic disciplines (世界 一流大學和一流學科建設, 簡稱雙一流). In 2017 the Implementation Measures to Coordinate Development of World-Class Universities and First-Class Discipline Construction was released, proposing a three-step plan to implement “Double-First Class” measures: by 2020, to develop a number of world-class universities and first-class disciplines; by 2030, to promote more world-class universities and first-class disciplines, to have numerous universities and disciplines entering the world’s front ranks, and to facilitate significant improvement in China’s overall higher education strength; by 2050, to escalate the number and quality of world-class universities and disciplines to among the first-rate in the world and to make China a higher education power. (MOE, 2017)

The Double First-Class Initiative derived collective investment from central and provincial/municipal governments alike to sustain higher education development. By 2017, thirty-one provincial governments in mainland China had officially

3

Faculty recruitment policy of Tsinghua was decided by the central university administration which assigned eight recruitment quotas to the Department of Sociology between 1999 and 2001.

110

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

announced their related plans, formulated a Higher Education Blueprint, and regulated their funding distribution policies. Financial support from central and provincial/municipal governments was earmarked for forty-two universities for world-class university building and for another 95 universities to develop their preponderant disciplines to first-rate status.4 Almost all provinces are in favor of supporting the technological and natural sciences. Very few social science disciplines have been selected by the Double First-Class strategic initiatives. For instance, the Beijing Municipal Education Commission launched the Project of the Beijing High School HighTech Innovation Centers (北京高等學校高精尖創新中心建設計畫) and endowed twenty-one Beijing high-tech innovation centers (HICs) with 50–100 million RMB per year for each center (Beijing Municipal Education Commission, 2016) (see Table 4.2). Among the twenty-one HICs, only 23.8% of them are related to HSS disciplines, while most specialize in natural and engineering sciences and, in particular, advanced scientific undertakings. Tsinghua has two HICs; both are related to technological and natural sciences. World-Class 2.0 has revitalized provincial and local governments to compete to attract talented researchers and strengthen the promotion of their universities and academic disciplines. However, the governmental blueprints reveal that every provincial government has offered favorable investments to science and technology and innovative and commercial research (Postiglione & Jung, 2013), while the humanities and social sciences have been under-appreciated and under-supported. Additionally, the blueprints have highlighted the significance of boosting research productivity and innovation in the areas of technology and sciences to cope with deepening global competition but have given a cold shoulder to the evolution of the Chinese social sciences. The Double First-Class policy will reinforce and further enlarge the disparity between “hard” and “soft” subjects. Tsinghua has a total of thirty-four disciplines listed on the MOE’s Double First-Class University Plan, 70.59% of which are in the natural and engineering sciences and 29.41% in the humanities and social sciences (see Table 4.3). The disciplinary imbalance may be magnified at Tsinghua University, with its engineering and sciences gaining momentum and overshadowing the humanities and social sciences. This disequilibrium could hamper Tsinghua’s efforts to present itself as a global elite university.

4.3 Institutional Isomorphism Building a world-class university has become a strategic priority for Tsinghua that has led to an overwhelming disciplinary construction movement and propelled its overall level of internationalization (Yang & Welch, 2012). This study stresses that 4

In 2017, MOE released two lists pertaining to the Double First-Class University Plan. One was the “University List” including 42 first-class universities and the other was the “Discipline List” encompassing 95 universities with first-class disciplines.

4.3 Institutional Isomorphism

111

Table 4.2 Project funds of beijing high school high-tech innovation centers University name

Center name

Disciplinary area

Tsinghua University

Future Chip Technology HIC

T&S

Structural Biology HIC

T&S

Peking University

Engineering Science and Emerging Technologies HIC

T&S

Future Genetic Diagnosis HIC

T&S

Beijing University of Aeronautics

Big Data Science and Brain Machine T&S Intelligence HIC Biomedical Engineering HIC

T&S

Renmin University of China

Ideological and Political Theory Course in Beijing HIC

HSS

Beijing Institute of Technology

Beijing Future Network Technology HIC

T&S

Beijing University of Technology

Intelligent Robot and System HIC

T&S

Beijing University of Chemical Technology

Soft Substances Science and Engineering HIC

T&S

China Agricultural University

Food Nutrition and Human Health HIC

T&S

Capital Normal University

Imaging Technology HIC

T&S

Beijing Normal University

Future Education HIC

HSS

Beijing Forestry University

Molecular Design and Forest Reconstruction HIC

T&S

Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture

Future Urban Design HIC

T&S

Beijing Language and Culture University

Language Resources HIC

HSS

Capital University of Medical Sciences

Human Brain Protection HIC

T&S

China Conservatory of Music

Chinese Music School HIC

HSS

China Central Academy of Fine Arts Visual Art HIC

HSS

Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics & Capital Medical University

Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data-Based Precision Medicine

T&S

Beijing Film Academy

Advanced Innovation Center for Future Visual Entertainment

T&S

both the reconstruction of the social sciences and the internationalization process are embedded in Tsinghua’s world-class building blueprint. The target of pursuing a globally advanced level has made Tsinghua confront and cope with global pressures and competition. Furthermore, it has required every discipline to foster its levels of internationalization for global engagement and competitiveness. During the reconstruction and embellishment of their disciplinary organization, these disciplines have

112

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

Table 4.3 Tsinghua’s disciplines listed on the double first-class university plan Category

Number Discipline

Social sciences

9

Law, Political Science, Marxist Theory, Business Administration, Public Administration, Design, Accounting and Finance, Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Operations Research

Humanities

1

Modern Linguistics

Natural sciences 5

Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mechanics

Engineering

Mechanical Engineering, Instrument Science and Technology, Materials Science and Engineering, Power Engineering and Engineering Thermophysics, Electrical Engineering, Information and Communication Engineering, Control Science and Engineering, Computer Science and Technology, Architecture, Civil Engineering, Hydraulic Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Technology, Nuclear Science and Technology, Environmental Science and Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Urban and Rural Planning, Landscape Architecture, Software Engineering, Management Science and Engineering

19

embraced a growing number of globally recognized values, norms, and standards that have mainly been legitimized by Euro-American universities (Altbach, 2004). The Department of Sociology has been heavily involved in the university’s reform initiatives, and has fostered the evolution of its institutional structures. Norms, and organizational arrangements through the conjoining of national and international influences. In organizational research, neo-institutionalism has shifted the research focus from explaining why organizations are so heterogeneous to why they are so homogenous (Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004; Powell & DiMaggio, 2012). Previous research has identified and interpreted the ineluctable isomorphism and convergence of organizational changes in higher learning institutions under the influence of globalization and internationalization (Dobbins & Knill, 2009; Kim, 2007; Luo, 2013; Vaira, 2004). The growth of global connections has fostered in universities an impetus towards startling homogeneity, as the globalization have created considerable convergence factors. The more deeply a university is involved in globalization, the more similarity it shares with other institutions around the world and the more it is pushed to absorb the common model and implement globally acknowledged regulations and dictates. However, these globally accepted norms and discourses, as illuminated above (see Chaps. 1 and 2), have been ruled by a handful of Euro-American universities (Altbach, 2007; Yang, 2002). Despite studies in university organization and governance under global and international influences, there is limited knowledge of disciplinary organization—the basic unit of knowledge-based HEIs. The institutional isomorphism model (IIM) developed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) was adopted in this research to reveal the mechanisms and dynamics of the homogenization of Tsinghua’s Department of Sociology under the influence

4.3 Institutional Isomorphism

113

of internationalization. This model focuses on explaining “what makes organizations so similar” (p. 147) and “why there is such startling homogeneity of organizational forms and practices” (p. 148). DiMaggio and Powell (1983, 1991) established a three-analytical-element model—including coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism—to explain these problems. These three elements overlap, but each operates through its own antecedents and mechanisms. First, coercive isomorphism is a result of a rational decision by organizational administrators and actors to realize the legitimacy and institutionalization of their organization by accepting ritualized organizational structures, values, rules, and practices in reaction to internal and external pressures and expectations (Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004). Second, mimetic isomorphism is related to modelling behavior. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) explained that borrowing organizations tend to imitate others, intentionally or unintentionally, to deal with uncertainty. Third, normative isomorphism stems from professionalization. Two types of professionalization give rise to institutional isomorphism: one is nurtured, disciplined, and endorsed by formal professional training institutes such as universities and colleges; the other stems from involvement in professional associations and communities (Powell & DiMaggio, 2012). Following these socialization processes, individuals naturally perform as gatekeepers of disciplinary organizations by guarding their norms and values. The IIM posits homogeneity and isomorphism of organizational structures and practitioners, providing three nuanced mechanisms to excavate and explain institutional isomorphic change. This model was used in this study to reveal how internationalization has influenced and shaped the institutional evolution of the Department of Sociology at Tsinghua. By analyzing data from in-depth interviews, participant observation, and policy documents, this research explored insights into the vehicles for and dynamics of isomorphism in the Department, under the impacts of internationalization.

4.3.1 Mimetic Isomorphism Reforms at Tsinghua have centered on its desire to become a world-class university, and major influential reforms have been top-down. The Department’s organizational construction, under such circumstances, has been based upon the university’s reforms and planning. Institutional transitions and changes in the University have had the greatest influence on the organizational evolution of the Department. Thus, it is meaningful to trace organizational changes at the University level under the impact of international scrutiny and pressure, as this helps to understand the evolution of the Department’s institutional structures, settings, values, and norms. Seen through the lens of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991), this study first interprets the process of isomorphic change of Tsinghua’s sociology through the mechanism of mimetic isomorphism. As Altbach (2015) argued, everyone wants a world-class university, no one knows what it is, and no one knows how to make one. Notwithstanding the emphatic quest for

114

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

internationally advanced status, a large number of Tsinghua’s academic and administrative staff had not understood the real essence of a world-class university, nor the approach required to become one within a short period of time. These conditions accounted for uncertainty and controversy. A “bamboo pole theory” (竹竿論) was proposed by scholars who argued that “fruits” would be acquired by using the longest bamboo poles; for Tsinghua engineering disciplines have been considered the longest poles. Conversely, academics who advocated the “bamboo pipe theory” ( 竹筒論) stated that the capacity of a bamboo tube is determined by the height of the shortest bamboo. Therefore, they appealed for holistic and comprehensive discipline planning and development, which included the renaissance of Tsinghua’s humanities and social sciences (Hu, 2011). The explicit goal of attaining world-class status, however, when coupled with an ambiguous understanding of this notion and confusion about the ways to achieve it, has led to a constellation of uncertainty. To solve this problem, the University soon went beyond theoretical debates and attempted to cope with this uncertainty by drawing inspiration from its models—a handful of highly recognized universities and prominent American prototypes in particular (Pan, 2009). Tsinghua has striven to join an exclusive group of world elite universities, including Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Cambridge, Oxford, and the University of Tokyo, by imitating their standards and models and by comparing itself to and trying to catch up with them (Yang & Xie, 2015). Modeling itself after institutions it perceives to be highly influential, Tsinghua has triggered a series of reforms that have led to changes in the organizational and institutional realms. In most cases, Tsinghua adopted a number of top American research universities as prototypes for its organizational reform (Fang, 2011; Wang, 2003), due to its historical and contemporary connections with American universities that arose from China’s foreign academic relationship with the US (Altbach, 1989). Of course, the outstanding global status of American higher education was another important reason. Specifically, Tsinghua modeled itself on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),5 absorbing its university governance, discipline construction, talent recruitment, technological transformation, curricula design, and pedagogical methodologies, among other areas. Tsinghua continuously sent academic and administrative staff and students to MIT and promoted institutional and individual collaborations. In addition, systematic research on MIT was conducted by Tsinghua’s Policy Research Office and its Institute of Education to support Tsinghua’s strategic planning and reforms. However, the strong “MIT complex” (麻省理工情結) caused lots of academics in engineering subjects to question the growth of the humanities and social sciences at Tsinghua, arguing that “scholars in Wen Ke merely write some books; why should so many departments and centers be established?” (Hu, 2011). In the 1990s, Tsinghua progressively incorporated international dimensions into its university policies and reforms (Pan, 2009; Wang, 2003). One of the direct results of absorbing the American experience was the re-establishment of the School of 5

Altbach compared Tsinghua University to MIT while regarding Peking University as the “Harvard” of China in his article The Elite of the Elite at Peking University.

4.3 Institutional Isomorphism

115

Humanities and Social Sciences in 1993. Tsinghua sent four senior administrative staff to the US to visit six American universities (Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, the University of Washington, Purdue University, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Eastern Illinois University). Most of these universities had developed preponderant disciplines in engineering, the natural sciences, and agriculture, and then enhanced their humanities and social sciences. Tsinghua’s visiting group referred to the experiences of these American universities to propel the reconstruction of Tsinghua’ HSS, and as a result the disciplinary organizations of HSS was set up in the same year (Office of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Administration, 2011, p. 17). Furthermore, the desire to build a world-class university provided extra impetus for Tsinghua to revitalize and internationalize its humanities and social sciences. In 1997 President Wang Dazhong stated that Tsinghua’s disciplinary structure should break with the “MIT prototype.” In striving for advanced international status, Wang pointed out, Tsinghua must embrace the social sciences and humanities and promote them to international standing (Office of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Administration, 2011). The comprehensive development of Tsinghua’s academic disciplines was emphasized. Accordingly, the late 1990s witnessed a mushrooming of the social science departments, institutions, and research centers at Tsinghua. These academic organizations were established by referencing both national and international regulations and standards. As a result of the disciplinary construction, Tsinghua developed into a comprehensive university around 2002 (Wang, 2003). During the 2000s, before Tsinghua’s 100th anniversary, President Gu Binglin6 led groups of staff to visit leading overseas universities. These delegations leaned towards the American universities they recognized as archetypal examples of world elite universities (the University of California at Berkeley, Stanford University, the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, MIT, Columbia University, and Harvard University), learned from them, and promoted substantial collaboration with them. These visiting and collaborating activities thus have accelerated the adoption of international, and in particular American, patterns and standards in Tsinghua’s governance, organizational structures, academic norms, financial management and allocation, curriculum provision, and so forth. These efforts have laid a foundation for the promotion of Tsinghua’s internationlization. Tsinghua’s international engagement and global competitiveness surged after the University’s celebration of its 100th anniversary in 2011 (Xie & Liu, 2019). Tsinghua stated its plans to “uplift its overall level to world-class standards during 2012–2020” (Yang & Welch, 2012, p. 648). The University administrative center led by Presidents Chen Jining and Qiu Yong7 has launched increasingly significant reforms to 6

Gu Binglin (顧秉林) is a scientist of condensed matter physics and expert of computational materials science and a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He served as the principal of Tsinghua University from 2003 to 2012. 7 Chen Jining (陳吉寧), a scientist of environmental system analysis, served as the president of Tsinghua University from 2012 to 2015 and then was appointed as Minister of the Ministry of Environmental Protection. Qiu Yong (邱勇), a chemist and a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is the current president of Tsinghua.

116

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

accelerate its plans, including reforms in the personnel system, university governance, research capacity, academic disciplines, and other areas (Kirby & Eby, 2016). In 2012 the School of Humanities and Social Sciences was split into two independent schools.8 The revival of Tsinghua’s humanities and social sciences has been accepted as an indispensable part of the University’s endeavors to build itself into a comprehensive and open world-class research university. Indeed, the construction and strengthening of academic disciplines have always occupied a central place in Tsinghua’s world-class university building projects and reforms. Almost all academic disciplines, including the HSS, have been driven to raise their international profile and global competitiveness (Wang, 2003). Their organizational structures and disciplinary institutions have been internationalized in a variety of ways, such as competing to attract and recruit researchers from the global platform, embracing advanced global standards and regulations in research and scholarship, and strengthening international networks and collaborations. The Schools of Humanities and Social Sciences, together with the Department of Sociology, have likewise incorporated more internationally recognized standards to construct their organizations by modeling themselves on leading institutions. As one senior scholar in this study stated: Internationalization is an extraordinarily broad concept, but, in the context of Tsinghua, it could be specific. Discussions on internationalization at Tsinghua lead us to think about: What are Tsinghua’s models? Is it Spain? No. Is it Portugal? No. Is it Turkey? Nor others? The models are nothing more than [universities of] the most powerful countries in modern history including the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, or other developed countries, in fact, the Western developed countries. (Interviewee 3)

This precisely echoes Mohrman’s (2008) observation that “the desire to have internationally competitive universities in China provides impetus for the best institutions to follow the lead of European and North American nations” (p. 29). Tsinghua has adopted the tactic of drawing inspiration from these models and asserting its legitimacy and engaging with world elite universities by emulating them. This is exactly the second stage of internationalization proposed by Yang (2015), as China’s top universities have constructively embraced international standards and norms while further engaging with global competition and catching up with world leading universities. In accordance with university planning, Tsinghua’s sociologists have attempted to institutionalize and internationalize their Department by referring to Western patterns and regulations cautiously and critically. It is natural for them to learn about the best standards and practices of American sociology faculties, such as the sociology departments of the University of Chicago, Harvard, and Stanford. They also have a natural affiliation with the best institutions in Western Europe and East Asia, such as the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), the University of Hong Kong (HKU), the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST), and the University of Tokyo. These prominent institutions provide intellectual inspiration and multiple supports for scholars to conduct research and concentrate on knowledge production and 8

The School of Humanities and the School of Social Sciences were founded in 2012.

4.3 Institutional Isomorphism

117

dissemination. These institutions also have outstanding academic performance and worldwide influence that dominates international academic standards and discourses (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 4, Interviewee 5). Tsinghua’s sociologists have learned from these institutions with the purpose of exploring the organizational settings and institutional merits that support their academic standing and global influence. Tsinghua’s sociologists have modified their organizational objectives, regulations, and standards by emulating those top sociology organizations that are perceived to be more legitimate and successful at the global level. They have never shied away from adopting a broad and international perspective.

4.3.2 Normative Isomorphism A more detailed and insightful understanding of how the disciplinary organization of the Department has changed by confronting the impacts of internationalization is revealed at the micro level, through the perspectives and experiences of faculty members. Academics of the Department have acted as agents of institutional isomorphic change during the course of globalization, thus contributing to the phenomenon. Before the implementation of world-class university initiatives, Tsinghua’s social scientists were only required to position themselves within the national academic system who were accustomed to domestic professional norms and regulations. However, at present, with higher expectations and increased challenges, most of them are required to work on both national and international platforms. They have to accept international values and norms and work under international scrutiny. Tsinghua’s sociologists are also challenged by the new rules and standards (Interviewee 1). Under such circumstances, increasing normative requirements and pressures stemming from both nationally and internationally recognized professional communities have tended to influence and shape their academic norms and values (Rhoads & Hu, 2012). These requirements and pressures are also associated with professionalization and internationalization, which have influenced organizational orientations and constrained faculty members’ attitudes and behaviors (Powell & DiMaggio, 2012). More specifically, an exploration of the mechanisms of normative isomorphic change in Tsinghua’s Department of Sociology can begin with an analysis of the profiles and backgrounds of its academic staff (Table 4.4). The Department has been prone to recruit two types of scholars—national leaders in specific academic fields and young Ph.D. holders trained at world elite universities (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2). Approximately two-thirds of the full-time faculty members have earned doctorates from overseas universities, in particular, from prominent American universities such as Harvard and Stanford. As one returning scholar stated, “The Department of Sociology at Tsinghua performs better than those at other high-profile Chinese sociology institutions such

118 Table 4.4 Educational backgrounds of academics in Tsinghua’s Department of Sociology in 2016 (N = 14)9

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology … Number

Percentage

2

14.3

Educational levels MA/MS Ph.D.

12

85.7

Foreign trained

8

57.1

US

6

42.9

European countries

1

7.1

Hong Kong

1

7.1

Domestically trained

6

42.9

as Beida, Renda, and Minda10 regarding levels of internationalization” (Interviewee 9). This is because Tsinghua retains a larger proportion of academics who obtained their highest degrees from overseas universities, thus further propelling the internationalization of their Department (Interviewee 8). Indeed, most of them have graduate education experiences and received rigorous academic training at noted global research universities, undergoing the early stages of academic socialization and professionalization in specific disciplinary fields (Weidman & Stein, 2003). They have retained academic and professional commitments to their own disciplinary domains and seek to preserve their professional values and regulations. Furthermore, actively promulgating the advanced experience and standards of the noted Western and in particular American universities, overseas returnees have played an important role in propelling institutionalization, professionalization, and internationalization of their disciplinary organization (Zhou & Wu, 2016). They also have been keen on fostering interactions between the Department and other institutions abroad. Previous studies have demonstrated that distinct contradictions exist between overseas returnees and their domestically trained peers in terms of regulating, governing, and reforming their institutions (Mohrman et al., 2011). Nevertheless, Tsinghua’s sociologists with different backgrounds work in harmony in the Department. At the departmental level, senior professors and administrative staff have constructed an open atmosphere of management. In addition, they are willing to absorb new regulations and international trends to refresh their Department (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2). At the university level, Tsinghua encourages its academics to nurture closer relations with international organizations and scholars. There is a tacit understanding that faculty members are encouraged to embrace the advanced international experiences and occupational norms of leading universities. Overseas

9

The total number of full-time faculty members in Tsinghua’s Department of Sociology has increased from fourteen in 2016 to twenty-three in 2021. 10 Beida, Renda, and Minda refer to Peking University, Renmin University of China, and Minzu University of China respectively. They are top-tier universities in China and have maintained wellknown social science scholars and various research centers.

4.3 Institutional Isomorphism

119

returnees and local faculty members have cooperated to crystallize their organizational objectives and optimize their institutions by referring to norms that are acknowledged by both domestic and international professional communities. Moreover, the normative isomorphism of the Department has been consolidated by the engagement of its academics in the international arena. Once sporadic international academic activities and collaborations have become common and systematic. Internationally recognized values and norms are diffused, directly and indirectly, through faculty members’ extensive participation in activities and communities in a global academic landscape. A set of professional networks and associations functions as a vehicle for promulgating the normative regulations and behaviors of the international sociological circle (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Faculty members are required to obey the norms regulated by these international associations. As Powell and DiMaggio (2012) explained, the values and norms of the academic profession influence scholars’ attitudes and professional behaviors, visibly and invisibly, as well as their approaches to institutionalizing their departments. As Tsinghua’s sociologists have tended to construct their organization as a platform for both national and international academic exchange and knowledge creation and dissemination (Interviewee 2; Interviewee 3), it has been necessary for them to absorb internationally recognized normative perceptions and orientations in order to gain legitimacy and pave the way for international cooperation. Tsinghua’s sociologists have also learned from their collaborators’ professional standards and regulations when they have cooperated with overseas institutions and intellectuals. By and large, normative isomorphic progress points to the internal demands for Tsinghua’s sociologists to pursue advanced standards and regulations to raise the professionalization and institutionalization of their Department and to make it operate based on academic rationales (Knight, 2008). Recruiting overseas returnees and upgrading international integration and cooperation have been regarded as important channels for absorbing the experience of overseas institutions and intellectuals (Interviewee 1; Interviewee 6). In addition, international visiting scholars hosted by the Department have been conducive to the diffusion of disciplinary models and standards through scholar transfer and turnover.

4.3.3 Coercive Isomorphism The institutional evolution of Tsinghua’s sociology has been the result of the coexistence of exogenous and endogenous factors and both internal demands and external pressures. In addition to normative isomorphism, another important source of organizational isomorphic change is a kind of coercion called coercive isomorphism (Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004). The Department and its academics have experienced unprecedented pressures to embrace a series of coercive criteria and compulsory regulations in a more competitive environment. These pressures have come from the state’s education policies, university reforms and regulations, and international norms and trends.

120

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

One dramatic coercive imperative faced by Tsinghua’s scholars has been the personnel policy reform, which has touched upon faculty recruitment and promotion criteria (Interviewee 6). For Tsinghua, the crucial rationale for internationalization has been to upgrade its international influences and competitiveness and to climb the global league tables (Postiglione & Jung, 2013; Yang & Welch, 2012). Tsinghua has initiated a timetable for pursuing that goal. Recognizing that the overall quality of its academics did not match those of the best universities, Tsinghua has made substantial efforts to recruit highly qualified Chinese academics from the global market and reform its ossified criteria in faculty recruitment and promotion (Kirby & Eby, 2016). These reforms have reformulated criteria and practices to be more in accordance with international norms, developed stricter standards for recruiting high-profile academic staff, and established higher requirements for scholars’ research performance. Propelled by Tsinghua’s top-down policy and revolutionary personnel system reform, the Department’s recruitment and promotion criteria have been regulated to conform increasingly to international (American) standards in recent years. Since 2012, overseas peer reviews have been incorporated into recruitment and promotion procedures. They have examined the quality of a candidate’s current research, its importance to the field, the candidate’s academic potential among peers, and the status of those universities that recommended the candidate for a full professorship (School of Social Sciences, 2015). Overseas peer reviews have not only guaranteed the international backgrounds of recruited faculty members but have also ensured the quality of scholars’ research capability and potential. Furthermore, in 2016 the Department began to implement a personnel reform in response to the University’s requirements. Simultaneously, a tenure system was introduced in the Department and adopted for faculty members. These reforms have set stricter standards and a more competitive mechanism in which scholars must demonstrate their academic capability, competitiveness, and research productivity in both the national and international spheres (Luo, 2016). As such, their profession has undergone substantial changes and challenges. For instance, without research productivity, a faculty member may be placed on a teaching track, which offers fewer chances for tenure. They may not achieve a permanent position owing to a deficiency in recognized research publications, while they are required to publish in both Chinese and international (English) journals. One participant reflected: “The personnel reform is the most profound one that I have experienced during my employment period at Tsinghua” (Interviewee 5). Another professor explained: I support the tenure system, which can serve as an effective approach to testify as to whether young scholars have particular strengths for an academic career. But more space ought to be offered to academics when they gain permanent positions. Merely focusing on publication or winning some honors—these short-term goals—can be harmful to the long-term academic development of a scholar. (Interviewee 6)

Another coercive imperative closely connected with Tsinghua’s personnel reform is the changed evaluation criteria and incentive norms for scholars’ academic performance. International academic performance and influence have been increasingly emphasized and have been formally regulated in the evaluation system (Zhou, 2016).

4.3 Institutional Isomorphism

121

Before the personnel reform, international involvement, visibility, and influence were not compulsory requirements for Tsinghua’s social scientists. Additionally, the University and the Department did not regulate rigid publication requirements for academics. Today, scholars are expected to perform excellently in both national and international arenas and to achieve heightened status (Interviewee 3). Faculty members, particularly young scholars, are under great pressure to become productive researchers (Postiglione & Jung, 2013), and compete for publishing in highly reputed national and international journals. Moreover, international (i.e., English-language) publication and its impact factors have been regulated as important indicators for evaluating scholars’ academic performance. Some interviewees called this evaluation system the “SSCI system,” in which English publications with high impact factors were highly valued by the University and became crucial indicators to measure social scientists’ academic performance and influence. Furthermore, this “SSCI system” has been strengthened through the tenure track. Faculty members have been pushed to publish articles in international journals to win promotion. Senior scholars of this department have voiced their independent perspectives on this evolution system: Tsinghua requires its scholars to publish in international (American) journals. Chinese scholars must imitate the foreign patterns and discourses to write the papers. If you are contrary to the editors’ requirements and ideas, it cannot be published. Chinese works, written in the context of China and for the Chinese, always have deeper thought and more extensive influences than the papers published in American journals … The research of the social sciences is relatively subtle. It is important to publish articles in American journals, but this cannot be regarded as more important than conducting academic research on Chinese issues and contributing influential works in Chinese. In the case of universities of Hong Kong, publication in international journals becomes the sole indicator. But in mainland China, it is equally important for us to publish in top domestic journals, and we do not believe their qualities are inferior to the ones published in American journals. It would be ridiculous for China, a great nation, to regard publishing in top American journals as the highest academic performance. (Interviewee 1) The SSCI evaluation system is likely to account for the gradual loss of subjectivity and independence. Our situation in mainland China is much better than Hong Kong and Taiwan, but we face the same danger in the long run. I take Taiwan as an example. It is notable to find that Taiwan’s scholars finally are not concerned about the research of local problems, as they focus on writing articles for top US journals. American problems and discourses to a large extent determine their research, because it can be easier to publish in those top journals such as Academy of Management Journal (AMJ). Taiwan introduced the evaluation system from the U.S., but in fact the American academic circle has not shown itself to be as obsessed as the Taiwanese. For example, Columbia University gives a nine-year tenure track for junior faculty who can prove their eligibility to be members of the academic circle. When they finally get the tenures, they are not restricted to the original evaluation system and publications. I have also met and heard that, at Chicago and Berkeley, a faculty member is evaluated by his/her masterpiece. Only masters can understand and identify potential masters. However, today’s evaluation system in Taiwan has become very obsessive and ossified, overemphasizing quantitative indicators. All faculties are restricted to this SSCI system, which has no potential to raise a master, but conversely makes a scholar become a paper machine. (Interviewee 6) The evaluation system should be implemented very discreetly. Publishing in SSCI journals is not hard for me. It can certify the collection of my research into the global knowledge

122

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

system but cannot prove real contribution. I never see it as a very important contribution of my academic work. It is easy to cope with the evaluation criteria of the University. This year I have published four SSCI articles merely depending on very simple analysis, but they are not thoughtful. They have impact factors. But is this the real contribution of my research? It is garbage when we write such an article that is nothing more than meeting the requirements of the University. The University attaches great importance to the SSCI system and gives you rewards. But when I deliberately conduct research on some meaningful and thoughtful problems such as a Chinese secret recipe, I will not be rewarded. There are certain tensions in the evaluation system when the University plans to improve its international profile. The University should do so. But we must always be vigilant as we cannot become like a university in Hong Kong and will never take the road like Hong Kong. (Interviewee 3)

The new personnel reform and evaluation system have been implemented to motivate the excellence of Tsinghua’s academics. However, these reforms have also demonstrated a coercive nature and a technical rationale (Luo, 2016). A certain number of indicators, such as the quantity of SSCI papers and impact factors, are superficially used to measure faculty members’ research performance. Limiting to the university’s mandatory publishing standards while concealing the inherent motivation of scholars to pursue academic interests, could be detrimental to the pursuit of high academic standards and real excellence.

4.4 Institutional Heterogeneity Notwithstanding the homogenization and convergence processes that take place in organizations under the influence of internationalization, the institutional settings, arrangements, values, and norms of academic disciplinary organizations have idiosyncratic features owing to the specific national and local contexts in which they are embedded (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002; Vaira, 2004). In the Chinese context, a set of unique and entrenched socio-political, cultural, and educational characteristics significantly affects the governance of academic institutions (Hayhoe et al., 2011). Accordingly, while the organizational structure and their normative regulations of the Department have embraced an increasing number of international patterns and standards derived from the West on the one hand, they are subject to the peculiarities of Chinese political, educational, and governance systems, along with Tsinghua’s unique institutional characteristics, on the other. However, the interplay between international/global influences and national and institutional factors has created ongoing tensions affecting the evolution of the disciplinary organization of Tsinghua’s sociology.

4.4 Institutional Heterogeneity

123

4.4.1 Chinese Characteristics As one faculty member of the Department observed, “There is no fundamental difference between Tsinghua and other Chinese universities, as they are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education and share the same institutional arrangements” (Interviewee 4). Indeed, the institutional arrangements of HEIs are affected by sociopolitical, cultural, and governance features inherited from the main structure of their national agencies (Vaira, 2004). The following section expatiates on the organizational structures of Chinese universities and their affiliated disciplinary institutions, together with important principles and rationales underpinning their governance and operation. In China, university governance and management have shifted from the trend of centralization to decentralization since the late 1990s, consonant with the country’s political and economic transitions (Wen, 2013). The central government has provided more autonomy and flexibility to universities, transforming from a state control model to a state supervisory model (Zha, 2011). The overarching authority and managerial power of the state have inexorably been maintained in the higher education system (Interviewee 2; Interviewee 4; Interviewee 8). The central government has determined the procedure for the decentralization process, while at the same time maintaining a centralized higher education system (Hawkins, 2000). Rather than tightly controlling organizational and administrative processes, the central government now manages knowledge creation and scientific innovation and oversees the performance of universities (Mok, 2003; Zha, 2011). In such a system, a set of rationales and philosophical underpinnings affect the operation of university systems and disciplinary organizations and the status of scholars’ academic values and behaviors. First, the political rationale dominates. According to The Higher Education Law of the People’s Republic of China (1998), university governance is marked by a dual management system that adheres to the mechanism of “presidential responsibility and accountability under the leadership and guidance of the Chinese Communist Party.” Chinese universities own unique organizational structures and arrangements, with the Party secretaries of the CPC and university presidents collaborating to govern, steer, and operate the system (Zha, 2011; Zhong et al, 2011). The government appoints both Party secretaries and university presidents (Altbach, 2014). The former are university chairs who support the state’s management and inspection of Chinese universities, while the latter are mainly responsible for administration and academic affairs (Hayhoe, 2011). This dual leadership system reflects an organizational pattern that extends to the school and departmental levels, where academic and political structures and authorities coexist (Interviewee 4). However, sometimes, political authority may exert larger impacts on daily and academic affairs than academic leadership. This research adopted the notion of semi-dependence in university autonomy to understand the relationship between the Chinese government and flagship universities (Pan, 2009). China’s top universities are public ones and heavily rely upon central and/or provincial governments’ financial resources, while they try to maintain

124

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

university autonomy and protect academic freedom. Indeed, university governance and academic activities are subject to political supervision and the managerial power of the state, as professors of the Department observed (Interviewee 2, Interviewee 4). Scholars are naturally inclined towards academic freedom while they are also responsible for demonstrating their political reliability to the Communist Party. A number of Chinese academics have proactively built strong ties with the political authority and served as scholar-officials, attempting to acquire both academic authority and political position through the university system. This is partly due to the tradition of Confucianism and the civil service system that influence the ideas of Chinese intellectuals (Hayhoe et al., 2011). Put explicitly, one tenet of Confucian philosophy—i.e., that officialdom is the natural outlet for good scholars (學而優則仕)—is still enshrined in the higher learning sector. Here, Tsinghua is a typical example, having since the 1950s developed a trend of fostering and supporting its faculty and alumni to undertake these dual responsibilities (Pan, 2009). Recent decades have witnessed a number of Tsinghua alumni moving into important positions of state power. However, Tsinghua’s sociologists have limited interest in being officials. They tend to have inherited the virtues of Chinese traditional intellectuals who achieve their social commitments and national responsibilities through their academic ambitions (Interviewee 1; Interviewee 3). The second rationale that affects the organizational operation of Tsinghua’s social science institutes is the ideological underpinning of the Chinese higher education system. As Kirby observed (2014a), universities function as crucial agencies for ideological socialization in China. Faculty members and students of Chinese universities are required to adhere to Marxism and socialist ideology—the orthodoxy of the state (Du, 2020). The role of universities should be committed to serving the state’s mission of building a socialist country with Chinese characteristics and acting as incubators of students with socialist values. However, a variety of ideologies and values have arisen along with the process of socio-economic transition and the deepening trend of globalization. Thus simmering tensions between diverse ideological paradigms have appeared in higher learning and academic areas. The state has tended towards stricter ideological education of universities and faculty members in recent years (Kirby & Eby, 2016). This phenomenon has been perceived by Tsinghua’s sociologists, who have witnessed waves of ideological work over education in China (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2, Interviewee 3). Indeed, one function of Tsinghua’s humanities and social sciences is ideology building for the state (Xie, 2011). The University retains sophisticated scholars and specialized disciplinary teams to undertake this work. The School of Marxism is a major platform. Additionally, Tsinghua has been famous as a cradle of Red engineers, training students to be “Red and Expert” (Andreas, 2009). Although Tsinghua’s talent training objectives have become diversified, it has retained the principle of cultivating elite students with a strong political stance (Interviewee 9). Furthermore, the University has built a solid political instructor system to facilitate the loyalty of its students and teachers to the state. It is also compulsory for faculty members in every subject to undertake a series of training sessions that include ideo-political education (Interviewee 9).

4.4 Institutional Heterogeneity

125

A third rationale that underlies the mechanisms steering university systems and academic organizations is economic (Ross & Lou, 2005; Kirby, 2014a). Chinese universities are undergoing waves of far-reaching and systemic institutional and organizational changes against a background of global competition, a deepening knowledge-driven economy, and scientific and industrial revolution. A few disciplinary organizations that have been deemed unsuited to market demands and global competition have lost their clout. For instance, schools of education at such noted comprehensive institutions as Lanzhou University, Zhongshan University, and Wuhan University have been dismantled. On the other hand, the number of marketoriented programs, research projects, and centers has increased, while technical innovation institutes have been reinforced. Chinese scholars have experienced great changes in their academic lives under the influence of neoliberalism and academic capitalism. Academic staff have developed diverse channels to achieve extra financial gain, such as technical transformation and application, technology innovation and entrepreneurship, and company operation. Research that is market-driven and interest-oriented has been underscored. However, there are huge disciplinary divides. Academics in “hard” and “applied” disciplines have more opportunities to engage in economically oriented activities. By contrast, in sociology, a “soft” and “pure” disciplinary domain, academic staff have focused mainly upon scholarly activities. In fact, the research findings of this study show that the economic rationale has not become an important factor regulating institutional or individual behaviors in this Department during the course of internationalization. Lastly, an efficiency principle has emerged that affects Chinese universities’ institutional reforms and scholars’ academic norms and behaviors. The urgent desire to pursue world-class universities in a fiercely competitive environment has led to a new interactive relationship between the state and Chinese universities. Whilst the state has offered seemingly increased autonomy to universities, it has enforced more governmental scrutiny and regular evaluation of universities’ research performance (Mohrman, 2008). The state has managed knowledge production and research performance through academic evaluation and funding allocation (Zha, 2011). Substantial investment has been dispersed among the most renowned universities and research centers (Yang, 2015). Research universities compete to gain extra government funds, and a highly competitive environment urges academic institutions and scholars to enhance their research efficiency and pursue instant success.

4.4.2 The Tsinghua Style As a flagship university in China, Tsinghua has established a holistic and efficient organizational structure and governance and operation system that support academic excellence, scientific innovation, and public service. To acquire entry to the world’s elite academic league, one mission is to strengthen the University’s academic disciplines. The evolution of Tsinghua’s social sciences has become an indispensable part of its efforts to pursue its stated goal. However, the divergences between Tsinghua’s

126

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

social sciences and its natural and technological sciences are clear in terms of international standing, visibility, and influence. This section elucidates the institutional factors supporting and inhibiting the disciplinary evolution of sociology at Tsinghua. The organizational and institutional development of Tsinghua’s sociology is part of a larger narrative of the University’s organizational structures and characteristics.

4.4.2.1

University Strategic Plan and a Highly Centralized Governance Mode

Tsinghua has emphasized its strategic plans for pursuing global university status. Elaborate arrangements for achieving its inspiring goal have been formulated stepby-step. Subsequent to the state council’s Project 211, Tsinghua issued the Report of the 11th Five-Year Plan for the Development of Tsinghua University, elaborating a schedule for the University’s entrance into the world-class league: (1) transforming itself into a comprehensive university in 1994–2002; (2) ranking among world-class universities in 2003–2011; and, (3) raising its overall level to global elite status in 2012–2020 (Wang, 2003). Indeed, many scholars were skeptical of China’s (and Tsinghua’s) plans to build world-class universities in a very short period. However, the accelerated and impressive development of Tsinghua has attracted attention from home and abroad, and has been reflected in its rapid rise in international rankings (Kirby & Eby, 2016). Tsinghua people are very pragmatic, inspired by the maxim: “Actions speak louder than words” (行勝於言), and are experts at finding strategic solutions to complex and challenging problems. They have formulated an annual, medium, and long-term development program, which adheres to Tsinghua’s desire to achieve global standing. The University’s strategic decision-making and planning have been approved by top administrators. The University council, and its academic committee in particular, have undertaken this work under the supervision of the standing committee of the CPC of Tsinghua. The University has commonly appointed one president and several vice-presidents, who are important council members. For a long while, only one vice-president majored in the social sciences, while the others studied natural and technological sciences. This vice-president oversees the construction of Tsinghua’s humanities and social sciences provision. During decision-making processes, he strives for the welfare of Tsinghua’s humanities and social sciences. One interviewee observed that: The development of the humanities and social sciences is relatively hard at Tsinghua, an engineering university. I believe that the last vice-president (Professor Xie Weihe) experienced a lot. He is a very good vice president, fighting for the benefits and evolution of our HSS. Our HSS have developed strongly under his leadership […] In this respect, I must be very clear that many engineering scholars have complained a lot, as they think that university resources are grabbed by our HSS. The grumbles and tensions are inevitable. (Interviewee 5)

Once the central university administration has organized and issued strategic plans, Tsinghua has demonstrated its efficiency and effectiveness in implementing

4.4 Institutional Heterogeneity

127

the policies and reform initiatives. Two major attributes characterize the University’s institutional norms. First, one striking feature of Tsinghua’s organizational culture is its consolidation. Tsinghuaers have a strong sense of collectivism. The coalescence of Tsinghua’s academic and administrative staff has made for effectiveness and innovation. In these scenarios, some revolutionary reforms such as personnel reform have been carried forward at Tsinghua successfully while they have experienced difficult circumstances at other universities. Second, Tsinghua has a strong central authority that is controlled by top university administrators, with the supervision and support of Tsinghua’s CPC committee, and that has led to both administrative efficiency and also negative effects. Interviewees in this study observed that policy-makers are not necessarily people who really understand academic research and teaching in the HSS. Consequently, sometimes they have formulated university policies that have failed to respect academic rules and characteristics (Interviewee 6). Also, the centralized university management mode has narrowed the space and authority for the self-governance of disciplinary organizations including different schools and departments. For example, the Department of Sociology has kept its own institutional authority in finance, faculty recruitment, faculty workload regulation, student enrolment, program design, academic evaluation, and so on. However, all these activities and duties are carried out under the strict scrutiny of the University. Moreover, every key affair and procedure has been tightly controlled by the University, such as the recruitment and promotion of academic faculty members. As one interviewee said, “Tsinghua is a very conservative school that only recruits people who will not bring troubles to it. The operation of Wen Ke is under the strict control of the University” (Interviewee 8). In fact, without permission from the University, the Department cannot recruit any new faculty members. Furthermore, tensions have arisen between University policies and Departmental requirements in terms of talent recruitment. One senior administrator of the Department of Sociology stated that: The faculty recruitment of our Department is restricted by the University. Last year, we planned to recruit a doctor trained super strictly from a famous American university, and the candidate’s research field matched our emphasis. We submitted the application to the School of Social Sciences and got approval. But the University turned it down as the University Staff Promotion and Evaluation Committee thought that the candidate had spent eight years getting a doctoral degree and did not show proven capability and efficiency. (Interviewee 2)

4.4.2.2

Engineering Hegemony and Intellectual Style

Tsinghua has special strengths in engineering subjects and sciences. Although there has been rapid development of the social sciences at Tsinghua, they show a vast gap compared with the progress of the natural and technological sciences. The reconstruction and rejuvenation of the social sciences has remained a challenge for Tsinghua (Yang & Welch, 2012). Some entrenched organizational patterns and institutional factors have prevented revolutionary changes to Tsinghua’s social sciences. First, Tsinghua has emphasized its engineering disciplines and sciences while the social sciences, particularly such basic ones as sociology and anthropology, have not

128

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

been able to gain equal attention and support. State and non-state resources have been pumped into engineering disciplines, while relatively limited resources have been distributed to Tsinghua’s humanities and social sciences, and social scientists have not obtained support equal to that afforded their peers in the sciences (Interviewee 3; Interviewee 4; Interviewee 5). Worse, they are not understood at Tsinghua, and hard scientists do not appreciate their research. As one senior sociology scholar expressed: We are not excluded but cannot be understood. It is not easy to make them understand our research and us. Why do we study social problems? Why do we study culture? They can understand the importance of research on arts and design, and to a certain extent they think the study of history is interesting. But the study of society is meaningless. They recognize the significance of studying the economy, but what is the necessity for studying society? The economic system requires a complete set of knowledge to study and explain it. However, they cannot recognize the rationale for building specialized knowledge and research methods to study society. The understanding of society can be based on our social perceptions and then rise to a plain theory of experience. As social beings, how can we not understand society? The senior academic staff members of Tsinghua’s social sciences are very strong and influential. If Tsinghua’s sociologists as a group were mobilized to a university that emphasized and consciously supported academic construction in the social sciences, it would see remarkable progress. But Tsinghua has been cold to our basic social sciences. (Interviewee 3)

Second, the academic environment and intellectual style at Tsinghua has been shaped and bounded by engineering thinking. Engineering and the “hard” sciences dominate the University and have been continuously reinforced by it, with the result that a holistic and robust disciplinary group in the basic social sciences has not been established at Tsinghua (Interviewee 2). The soil of Tsinghua will be more fertile once the natural sciences, basic social sciences, and liberal arts have bloomed on the campus. One interviewee pointed out that: The intellectual style and academic environment of Tsinghua are restricted to the engineering idiosyncrasy, concentrating on solving complex real-world problems but lacking imagination and innovation. Engineering thought is normative thinking, which is not likely to give birth to creative thinking, directly and straightforwardly. The brightest and most creative thought springs out of natural sciences and the liberal arts. Without integrating natural and technological sciences, and humanities and social sciences, the narrowed mind and vision can hardly foster innovative talents. (Interviewee 2)

Third, the regulating criteria for performance evaluation and faculty promotion at Tsinghua have followed the standards and characteristics of engineering and the sciences (Interviewee 2; Interviewee 3). At Tsinghua, engineering professors have commonly been appointed to important positions on academic committees and to administrative offices. They have helped to formalize evaluation criteria and academic requirements for the humanities and social sciences without carefully understanding and respecting the disciplinary characteristics thereof. They have tended to use the same framework and benchmarks to measure the performance of academic staff in different areas. Furthermore, some superficial indicators have been used to measure faculty members’ research performance and influence (Luo, 2016).

4.4 Institutional Heterogeneity

129

4.4.3 Features of the Department 4.4.3.1

Small but Excellent

Owing to its reputation and extensive financial support from central government revenue, Tsinghua has maintained a considerable number of first-rate Chinese academics. A vibrant group of social scientists has been established in the Department with the support of and in accordance with criteria set by the central University administration. The size of the Department of Sociology at Tsinghua is extraordinarily small compared with other renowned sociology institutions at home and abroad (see Table 4.5), and the University administration has tightly controlled the quotas and criteria for the appointment of its academic faculty members. In the long term, Table 4.5 International and national rankings of sociology departments Country

University names

Department names

Global ranking

National ranking

Faculty numbers

China

Renmin University of China

Department of Sociology

201–250

1

29

China

Peking University

Department of Sociology

27

2

39

China

Nanjing University

Department of Sociology

–

3

22

China

Zhongshan University

Department of Sociology and Social Work

–

4

35

China

Tsinghua University

Department of Sociology

51–100

5

14

China

Fudan University

Department of Sociology

105–150

6

21

US

Harvard University

Department of Sociology

1

–

22

US

University of California, Berkeley

Sociology Department

2

–

29

UK

University of Oxford

Department of Sociology

3

–

22

UK

London School of Economics and Political Science

Department of Sociology

4

–

35

US

Stanford University

Department of Sociology

5

–

21

US

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Department of Sociology

6

–

43

Global ranking QS World University Rankings by Subject 2017 National ranking Ministry of Education Evaluation of Disciplines in Chinese Universities 2012

130

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

as explained by a senior administrator, the Department will maintain its modest size by limiting its academic staff to between fourteen and twenty members (Interviewee 1). Despite its small size, the Department has maintained outstanding sociologists and has continuously been ranked as “small but excellent” (小而精) among the top programs nationally—a description administrative and academic staff have adopted as a strategic principle for constructing their organization (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 6). The Department has deliberately introduced well-known scholars from other universities inside and outside China and has recruited outstanding junior PhD holders from the world’s best Western universities. Its senior scholars are highly regarded. At the time of this study, two were with the New Century Excellent Talents of China program, one was with the Changjiang Scholars Program endorsed by the Ministry of Education, and the others had gained national and international honors. All had already established their academic standing in China and several enjoyed international prestige. Junior and new academic staff are expected to build up their own academic territory and achieve to leading status.

4.4.3.2

Independent Researchers and Academic Freedom

Tsinghua’s sociologists are independent scholars, concentrating on research for scholarly and intellectual inquiry and for social commitment (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2, Interviewee 3). They have conducted theoretical research and governmentsupported projects, touching upon a diverse range of social problems in China and maintaining certain research scopes. They have tended to combine perceived social commitment with their academic work, looking into significant social transitions and problems in China, such as social stratification, population aging, and public health, among others. Immersed in academic research, staff members have worked as gatekeepers of academic norms and professional standards, and as guardians of academic freedom (Interviewee 4). They have helped to spread common academic perceptions and orientations in their discipline organization and have embraced more internationally advanced norms and standards (Interviewee 3). Due to their efforts, the Department has incorporated a set of merits into its organization. First, the academic rationale functions as the most important principle underlying the operation and management of the Department. Academic authority has been highly respected and largely protected while administrative powers have been restricted. Second, the Department has built up a flat organizational form, rather than a hierarchical one (Interviewee 9). Every staff member, whether having an administrative or a political role, whether senior or junior, has equal status to participate in organization building. Whilst Tsinghua’s sociologists are unsatisfied with the dominant engineering intellectual idiosyncrasy at Tsinghua, they appreciate the good and supportive environment provided by their Department (Interviewee 3, Interviewee 6, Interviewee 9). The Department has provided its academics with a platform that inspires their intellectual challenges and scholarly pursuits, and largely protects their academic

4.4 Institutional Heterogeneity

131

freedom. As one interviewee stated, the Department has supplied a comfortable atmosphere supporting academic staff to concentrate on research (Interviewee 6). Faculty have been inspired by the Department’s organizational mission of fostering scholars to pursue profound scholarship and serve social development. Simultaneously, they are supported by their organization. Faculty members are attached to their Department.

4.5 Summary This chapter has provided a top-down exploration of the mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change in Tsinghua’s Department of Sociology, under the influence of internationalization. By analyzing policies and reform initiatives at both the national and institutional levels, this research has highlighted that the organizational evolution of Tsinghua’s social science disciplines and its internationalization process have been caused by national world-class university building reforms. The specific purposes of Tsinghua—in terms of upgrading its international prestige and status and involvement in the world league tables—have increased the forces driving the University to learn from the standards of world-class universities, especially these leading Western (American) universities. This chapter has discreetly elucidated the evolutionary and revolutionary organizational changes to the Department of Sociology that were triggered by national and University top-down reforms, international influences, and global pressures. A rich variety of internationally-recognized norms, standards, and orientations have been embraced, resulting in isomorphic change in the institutional framework of the Department. The mechanisms of the convergence trend, under the impact of the internationalization process, have been elucidated in this research by applying the IIM theory model and analyzing these mechanisms from three aspects: mimetic, normative, and coercive isomorphism. This chapter has also explained the institutional heterogeneity of Tsinghua’s Department of Sociology, noting that, at the national level, the dual management system in Chinese universities and various institutional logics and driving forces shape the institutional framework of each academic discipline, with Tsinghua adding its own institutional habits and idiosyncrasies. The organizational and institutional growth of Tsinghua’s sociology is rooted in the national context, while at the same time being restricted by the University’s norms. The convergence and divergence trends in organizational construction reflect the tensions and interactions between international, national, and institutional forces.

132

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

References Altbach, P. G. (1989). Twisted roots: The Western impact on Asian higher education. Higher Education, 18(1), 9–29. Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education & Management, 10(1), 3–25. Altbach, P. G. (2007). Peripheries and centres: Research universities in developing countries. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 1–24. Altbach, P. G. (2014). Chinese challenges: Toward a mature academic system. In L. E. Rumbley, R. M. Helms, P. M. Peterson, & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Global opportunities and challenges for higher education leaders: Briefs on key themes (pp. 83–86). Sense Publishers. Altbach, P. G. (2015). The costs and benefits of world-class universities. International Higher Education, 33, 5–7. Andreas, J. (2009). Rise of the red engineers: The cultural revolution and the origins of China’s new class. Stanford University Press. Bao, R. (2002). On the origin and development of disciplinarity. Journal of Higher Education, 23(4), 102–106. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. SRHE and Open University Press. Beijing Municipal Education Commission. (2016). Notice of the Beijing Municipal Commission of Education on distributing the implementation plan for the construction of high-precision innovation centers in Beijing colleges and universities. http://zfxxgk.beijing.gov.cn/110003/xxky53/ 2016-07/26/content_722009.shtml Deem, R., Mok, K. H., & Lucas, L. (2008). Transforming higher education in whose image? Exploring the concept of the “world-class” university in Europe and Asia. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 83–97. Dirlik, A. (2012). Zhongguohua: Worlding China the case of sociology and anthropology in twentieth century China. In A. Dirlik, G. Li, & H.-P. Yen (Eds.), Sociology and anthropology in twentieth-century China: Between universalism and indigenism (pp. 1–39). Chinese University Press. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press. Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2009). Higher education policies in central and eastern Europe: Convergence toward a common model? Governance, 22(3), 397–430. Du, X. (2020). Role differentiation phenomenon in Chinese higher education: A tension between political socialization and academic autonomy. Springer. Fang, H. (2011). Retrospecting the development of the liberal arts of Tsinghua University. In Edit Group of Tsinghua’s Humanities and Social Sciences (Eds.), Construction and development of humanities and social sciences at Tsinghua University (pp. 68–73). Tsinghua University Publishing House. Frumkin, P., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283–307. Hawkins, J. N. (2000). Centralization, decentralization, recentralization-Educational reform in China. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(5), 442–455. Hayhoe, R. (1993). Chinese universities and the social sciences. Minerva, 31(4), 478–503. Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s universities, 1895–1995: A century of cultural conflict. Garland Publishing. Hayhoe, R. (2011). Introduction and acknowledgements. In R. Hayhoe, J. Li, J. Lin, & Q. Zha (Eds.), Portraits of 21st century Chinese universities (pp. 1–18). Springer/CERC, University of Hong Kong.

References

133

Hayhoe, R., Li, J., Lin, J., & Zha, Q. (2011). Portraits of 21st century Chinese universities: In the move to mass higher education. Springer/CERC, University of Hong Kong. Hu, X. (2011). New school with cultural and historical supports. In Edit Group of Tsinghua’s Humanities and Social Sciences (Eds.), Construction and development of humanities and social sciences at Tsinghua University (pp. 68–73). Tsinghua University Publishing House. Huang, F. (2015). Building the world-class research universities: A case study of China. Higher Education, 70(2), 203–215. Kim, T. (2007). Old borrowings and new models of the university in East Asia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 39–52. Kirby, W. C. (2014a). The world of universities in modern China. In L. E. Rumbley, R. M. Helms, P. M. Peterson, & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Global opportunities and challenges for higher education leaders: Briefs on key themes (pp. 73–76). Sense Publishers. Kirby, W. C., & Eby, J. W. (2016). From preparatory academy to national flagship: The evolution of Tsinghua University. Harvard University. Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalisation. Sense Publishers. Kuhn, M., & Weidemann, D. (2010). Internationalization of the Social Sciences: Introduction. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 11–19). Transaction Publishers. Li, S. (2011). The days at Tsinghua for the construction of liberal arts. In Edit Group of Tsinghua’s Humanities and Social Sciences (Eds.), Construction and development of humanities and social sciences at Tsinghua University (pp. 68–73). Tsinghua University Publishing House. Office of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Administration (2011). The construction and development of the humanities and social sciences at Tsinghua University. In Edit Group of Tsinghua’s Humanities and Social Sciences (Eds.), Construction and development of the humanities and social sciences at Tsinghua University (pp. 68–73). Tsinghua University Publishing House. Luo, Y. (2013). Building world-class universities in China. In J. C. Shin & B. M. Kehm (Eds.), Institutionalization of world-class university in global competition (pp. 165–183). Springer. Luo, Y. (2016). Globalization and the transformation of Chinese universities. Fudan Education Forum, 14(3), 5–18. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. MOE. (2017). Implementation measures to coordinate development of world-class universities and first-class discipline construction. https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.moe. gov.cn/jyb_xxgk/moe_1777/moe_1778/201511/t20151105_217823.html&source=gmail&ust= 1528121173380000&usg=AFQjCNEDeg299JOBQMOsPK-RDPa7UMJu7g Mohrman, K. (2008). The emerging global model with Chinese characteristics. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 29–48. Mohrman, K., Geng, Y., & Wang, Y. (2011). Faculty life in China. The NEA 2011 almanac of higher education (pp. 83–99). National Education Association. Mok, K. H. (2003). Globalisation and higher education restructuring in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(2), 117–129. Pan, S. Y. (2009). University autonomy, the state and social change in China. Hong Kong University Press. Postiglione, G. A., & Jung, J. (2013). World-class University and Asia’s top-tier researchers. In Q. Wang, Y. Cheng, & N. C. Liu (Eds.), Building world-class universities (pp. 161–179). Sense Publishers. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press. Qian, Y., & Li, Q. (2011). Social sciences in the old Tsinghua University. Tsinghua University Press. Rhoads, R. A., & Hu, J. (2012). The internationalization of faculty life in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(3), 351–365.

134

4 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Organization of Sociology …

Ross, H. A., & Lou, J. (2005). “Glocalizing” Chinese higher education: Groping for stones to cross the river, Mo zhe shi tou guo he. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 12(1), 227–250. School of Social Sciences. (2015). International peer review. Tsinghua University. Tsang, M. C. (2000). Education and national development in China since 1949: Oscillating policies and enduring dilemmas. The China Review, 579–618. Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 48(4), 483–510. Wallerstein, I. (1996). Open the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. Stanford University Press. Wang, D. (2003). Thinking and practice of the strategies for building world-class universities. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 24(3), 2–7. Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 641–656. Wen, W. (2013). The formulation and transition of China’s education policy from 1978 to 2007: A discourse analysis. Foreign Language Publication, Ohio State University. Xie, W. (2011). The right track of Tsinghua’s humanities and social sciences. In Edit Group of Tsinghua’s Humanities and Social Sciences (Eds.), Construction and development of humanities and social sciences at Tsinghua University (pp. I–IV). Tsinghua University Publishing House. Xie, W., & Liu, C. (2019). Wen mai: Tsinghua University’s humanities and social sciences in the early 21st Century. The Commercial Press. Yang, R. (2002). Third delight: The internationalization of higher education in China. Routledge. Yang, R. (2013). Indigenised while internationalised? Tensions and dilemmas in China’s modern transformation of social sciences in an age of globalisation. In M. Kuhn, & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters. ibidem Press. Yang, R. (2015). Reassessing China’s higher education development: A focus on academic culture. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(4), 527–535. Yang, R. (2016). Cultural challenges facing East Asian higher education: A preliminary assessment. In C. Collins, M. Lee, J. Hawkins, & D. Neubauer (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Asia Pacific higher education (pp. 227–245). Palgrave Macmillan. Yang, R., & Welch, A. (2012). A world-class university in China? The case of Tsinghua. Higher Education, 63(5), 645–666. Yang, R., & Xie, M. (2015). Leaning toward the centers: International networking at China’s five C9 league universities. Frontiers of Education in China, 10(1), 66–90. Zha, Q. (2011). Is there an emerging Chinese model of the university? In R. Hayhoe, J. Li, & Q. Zha (Eds.), Portraits of 21st century Chinese universities (pp. 451–471). Springer/CERC, University of Hong Kong. Zhou, G. L. (2016). The triple breakthrough of “double first-class” construction: System, management and technology. University Education Science, 4, 2–10. Zhou, G. L., & Wu, J. X. (2016). What are world-class academic disciplines. China Higher Education Research, 1, 65–73. Zhong, B., Zhao, Y., & Hong, Y. (2011). Institutional construction of modern universities with Chinese characteristics. Journal of Beijing Normal University, 4, 5–10.

Chapter 5

Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production and Dissemination of Tsinghua’s Sociology Throughout the ages all those who have been highly successful in great ventures and in the pursuit of learning must of necessity have experienced three kinds of realm (古今之成大事業,大學 問者,必經過三種之境界) Last night the west wind shriveled the green-clad trees, alone I climb the high tower, to gaze my fill along the road to the horizon—expresses the first state (昨夜西風凋碧樹。獨上高樓, 望盡天涯路。此第一境也) My clothes grow daily more loose, yet care I not. For you am I thus wasting away in sorrow and pain—expresses the second state (衣帶漸寬終不悔,為伊消得人憔悴。此第二境也) I sought her in the crowd a hundred, a thousand times. Suddenly with a turn of the head, that one there where the lamplight was fading—expresses the third state (眾裡尋他千百度,驀然回首, 那人卻在,燈火闌珊處。此第三境也) —Wang Guowei (1877–1927)

Disciplinary knowledge constitutes epistemological and intellectual underpinnings of the social sciences and lies at the core of disciplinary development (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Wallerstein 2008). The creation, accumulation, and dissemination of knowledge are crucial indices for evaluating intellectual advancement and disciplinary growth in the social sciences. These dynamic mechanisms can be affected by the global constellations of academic power, international academic relations, national policies, and institutional peculiarities and missions (Foucault, 1980; Weidemann, 2010). The Chinese social sciences have witnessed the twin trends of internationalization and indigenization as they have become involved in the globally circulated knowledge system. Chinese academics have been challenged to deal with the entangled relationship between domestic and international forces, to blend the Chinese and the Western, and to create Chinese social science knowledge with international influence (Hayhoe, 1996; Yang, 2013). Through tapping into and analyzing journal articles published by Tsinghua’s sociologists, together with anthropological data, this chapter aims to investigate the assimilation and dissemination, and the creation and circulation, of this disciplinary knowledge. This chapter first investigates the international and domestic knowledge © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Xie, Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China, East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8_5

135

136

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

production and dissemination of Tsinghua’s sociologists. This provides the foundation for exploring the agentive spaces in which Tsinghua’s sociologists boost knowledge production and dissemination. In its second major part, the chapter analyzes a series of themes, and in particular tensions, to illuminate how Tsinghua’s sociologists internationalize their academic discipline and propel knowledge production and transformation in today’s globalized academic world. These themes include English language and Chinese language, internationalization and indigenization, and center and periphery, all of which co-exist alongside each other. This is followed by a brief summary.

5.1 Examining Knowledge Production and Dissemination “No matter in what kind of academic system, universities undertake an eternal responsibility for knowledge accumulation, innovation, and transmission,” as one Tsinghua sociologist remarked (Interviewee 3). Research universities are placed at the center of the global knowledge economy by producing, spreading, and applying knowledge (Marginson, 2006, 2007). There are numerous forms of knowledge generation and exchange, among which periodical publishing is an important form. At Tsinghua, a research university with a clear international vision and high academic standards, it is crucial for academics to boost their research performance and productivity and produce influential academic works (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 6). The advancement of knowledge creation is an essential part of their academic profession. Tsinghua’s social scientists have shown impressive performance in scholarly publishing, especially in Chinese-language publications. Nevertheless, at present they are under considerable pressure to publish in both national and international journals. In the Department of Sociology, there has been sustained growth in social science articles published in Chinese and English-language periodicals, revealing the vitality of the research and intellectual dynamics of Tsinghua’s sociologists. A panoramic sketch of faculty members’ knowledge creation and dissemination, as demonstrated by their articles published in national and international journals, is illuminated below through an analysis of their sites of knowledge production, research scope, theoretical affiliation and originality, and methodologies.

5.1.1 The Sites of Knowledge Production and Circulation Tsinghua’s sociologists published a total of 557 journal articles in both Chinese and English-language periodicals from 2000 to September 2017,1 as reported by the 1

Journal articles recorded in CNKI and Wos were collected in September 2017. Data collection and analysis methods are reported in Appendix A.

5.1 Examining Knowledge Production and Dissemination

137

China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and the Web of Science (WoS) databases. There were 485 Chinese journal articles, among which 52.2% were recorded in the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI). In addition, nine faculty members produced a total of 72 international peer-reviewed journal articles included in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) database in this period (WoS, 2017). There are two tendencies in terms of sites where these articles were published. First, the clear majority of scholarly papers by Tsinghua’s sociologists were written in Chinese and published in domestic periodicals. These have been the major intellectual spaces in which Tsinghua’s sociologists have generated and have exchanged knowledge (Interviewee 1). Their scholarly work has been recorded in China’s most famous sociology and social sciences periodicals, such as the Journal of Sociological Research (社會學研究), the Chinese Journal of Sociology (社會), and Social Sciences in China (中國社會科學). This is unsurprising, as social scientists worldwide publish much more in their domestic/local journals by writing in their mother languages than in English-language international periodicals (Zhou et al., 2010), in part because the research outputs of social scientists are often locally and/or nationally oriented and associated with the peculiarities of their own cultures, histories, and socio-political statuses (Yang, 2013). Besides, Tsinghua sociologists’ research outputs have recently become more internationally distributed. As shown in Figure 5.1, there has been notable growth in SSCI publications produced by faculty members since 2010. Second, there is visible individual variation in terms of journal publications (see Figure 5.2). Senior or older Department scholars primarily have written in Chinese, while younger returnee staff have exhaustively published in SSCI journals. In addition, the middle generation has published in both English and Chinese. The research outputs of the Department with more international visibility have been mainly contributed by overseas returnees. 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1995

2000

2005 CSSCI

2010

2015

SSCI

Fig. 5.1 Total annual production of research papers by Tsinghua’s sociologists

2020

138

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

SCHOLAR M SCHOLAR K SCHOLAR I SCHOLAR G SCHOLAR E SCHOLAR C SCHOLAR A 0%

20%

40% CSSCI

60%

80%

100%

SSCI

Fig. 5.2 The percentage of CSSCI and SSCI articles published by Tsinghua’s sociologists

5.1.2 Research Scopes and Territories Research Fields The research articles of this Department have covered a wide range of topics and crossed different disciplinary territories. Based on the CKNI’s categories, Tsinghua sociologists’ CSSCI publications have represented a broad array of research fields, ranging from sociology and statistics, to ethnology, culture, economy, management, and mathematics. Analysis showed that the research scope of their Chinese articles has been much broader than that of their English-language articles. Although the research outputs presented in their Chinese articles have encompassed a broad range of topics, faculty members have had a strong desire to establish their own academic identities and territories by concentrating on specific research fields. They have focused on a number of fields, including social stratification, social transition, the middle-class, health issues, economic sociology, rural and urban sociology, and gerontology (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3). Tsinghua’s sociologists conduct research against the backdrop of China’s social and economic transitions, and their studies focusing on these areas have had visibility in both CSSCI and SSCI articles. More specifically, nine faculty members have had SSCI publications to their credit, with each concentrating on fixed and established research fields in their English-language articles. Among these SSCI publications, 87.5% have pertained to Chinese studies, 5.6% have been cross-national studies, and 4.2% have been American studies; the remaining 2.7% have pertained to methodological and theoretical issues (see Figure 5.3). Research on Chinese social phenomena, relations, and problems have assumed a central place, including public health, guanxi (a Chinese term relating to interpersonal connections and relationships), the Chinese elderly, Chinese migrant workers and peasants, and social policy fairness.

5.1 Examining Knowledge Production and Dissemination

139

STUDY IN METHEDOLOGY THEORETICAL STUDY CROSS-NATIONAL STUDY AMERICAN STUDY CHINESE STUDY

0.875 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Fig. 5.3 Research categories of the SSCI articles of Tsinghua’s Sociologists

Research Questions After an examining of their research fields, thematic analysis and content analysis were used to examine the research questions Tsinghua’s sociologists have raised. By tracking fourteen faculty members’ SSCI and CSSCI publications, numerous themes relevant to research problems emerged, covering a broad set of questions associated with social transition, problems, and realities, as well as some urgent social events in contemporary Chinese society. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of Tsinghua sociologists’ English and Chinese publications was conducted to present the similarities and dissimilarities of their research foci on different platforms. First, 7.94% of the Chinese studies covered by SSCI publications concentrated on research around the Chinese term guanxi. Luo Jar-Der, a sociologist at Tsinghua, has specialized in this field for over two decades. In his SSCI publications, he has asked such questions as: How do different types of guanxi open up complex exchanges to larger circles (Luo, 2011)? and, How does the guanxi network’s structural phenomenon affect organizational trust (Luo & Cheng, 2015) and employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors (Luo et al., 2016)? By adopting the theoretical lenses proffered by organizational theory and management science, Luo (2011) has conceptualized and theorized guanxi in conjunction with Chinese culture and explored intra-organizational phenomena and behaviors in Chinese workplaces. Second, 11.11% of such studies have pertained to sociological research on Chinese workers and peasants. Tsinghua sociologists Shen Yuan and Guo Yuhua have devoted themselves to studies of China’s labor differentiation and social divide in the process of industrialization, globalization, and social transformation. They have argued that these intertwined conditions have led to an urban-rural divide, labor differentiation, and structural conflicts in Chinese society (Guo & Chen, 2011; Lee, & Shen, 2009). Particular attention has been paid to the social divide in rural China, and the working and living conditions of Chinese rural migrant workers. Furthermore, they have probed into the experiences of Chinese workers from a global perspective, asking:

140

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

What role can global public sociology and labor studies play in examining Chinese workers? (Pun et al., 2014, 2016). In addition to their academic pursuits, they have striven to make the voices of Chinese labors, migrants, and grassroots organizations heard. Third, the issue of the Chinese elderly has drawn a great deal of research interest, with 28.57% of articles focusing on rural old age support and the health issues facing the elderly in rural and urban China. Given that both family and state support are decreasing in rural areas, Tsinghua sociologist Pei and Tang (2010) examined potential mechanisms for rural communities to generate and allocate resources for old age support. Pei Xiaomei and Luo Hao, collaborating with American sociologists, investigated how village characteristics affect the health conditions of elderly people in China’s rich and poor villages alike (Yeatts et al., 2013). They examined the influence of environment on the subjective well-being of older Chinese adults (Yeatts et al., 2013). Furthermore, Tsinghua sociologists have expanded their research on the Chinese elderly beyond mainland China, investigating the aging-in-place preference and neighborhood factors facing low-income elderly people in Hong Kong (Lum et al., 2014). Fourth, health issues have attracted considerable sociological attention, with five faculty members publishing SSCI articles related to this topic. A total of 44.44% of Chinese studies in SSCI publications were related to such public health issues as HIV, sex workers’ health, health issues of the elderly, and post-traumatic stress disorder related to the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. In particular, Tsinghua sociologist Jing Jun has focused on and produced considerable research outputs in this research area. In collaboration with his co-authors, Jing has posed a series of specific questions about the transmission of HIV, including behavioral factors associated with unprotected anal intercourse among men (Chow et al., 2015) and socio-cultural factors influencing the acquisition of HIV in rural China (Bao et al., 2014). They have also researched means of intervening in the transmission of HIV, such as ways to improve condom use and HIV testing among female sex workers (Chow et al., 2015), and aspects of HIV treatment, including the association between an ART and mortality for people infected with HIV, and variations of treatment effectiveness influenced by the wait time between HIV diagnoses and ART influence (Su et al., 2016). Their research also touches upon other sexually transmitted infections in China, such as hepatitis, and offer suggestions for the formulation and implementation of governmental policy initiatives to prevent and treat urgent infections. A substantial body of the research contributed by Tsinghua’s sociologists, however, has not been presented in international publications, but has merely been disseminated in domestic journals. As such, the SSCI database reveals only the shallow end of the pool of knowledge generated by Tsinghua’s sociologists. In comparison with the faculty’s international publications, their Chinese articles have incorporated a much broader range of research questions and have offered more profound discussions of macroscopic and crucial issues in China. As Tsinghua sociologist Sun (2000) pointed out, Chinese sociologists have many more research agendas in the twenty-first century than ever before. Shen (2007) emphasized the importance of raising questions to address pivotal social problems in China’s transformation

5.1 Examining Knowledge Production and Dissemination

141

and speaking truth to power and the public. Tsinghua sociologists have tended to explore issues related to the momentous challenges and essential problems of Chinese society. These studies have examined the relationships between the state, the market, and society, and between social transformation, social stratification, social equality, and justice (Merle, 2004). Certain important issues disseminated only in domestic journals without international visibility are analyzed below. Of particular interest is Tsinghua’s senior sociologists’ devotion to studying social stratification. Sun (2003) argued that social transformation has primarily been manifested by changes in social structure, which is undergoing multi-faceted, multi-level, and multi-dimensional transformation that can lead to a fractured society. Tsinghua sociologist Li (2005) has concentrated on research into social structure, from the theoretical perspective of social stratification, looking at the changing processes, internal structures, and types of mechanism, and their associated problems, by tracing the evolution of social stratification over the past three decades (Li, 2005). He has advanced the notion of an “olive-shaped social structure,” questioning how far China will grow to reflect this shape (Li, 2016b; Li & Wang, 2017). He has also expanded his research into “middle-class lags” (Li & Wang, 2017) and has striven to explore strategies for coping with structural strain and ameliorating the current structure. The unparalleled social transformation in China has drawn much attention, and related issues of social inequality have always played a role in the scholarly research of Tsinghua’s sociologists. Sun (2009) observed that demarcation lines between different classes have become increasingly visible. Faculty members have investigated social inequality in its various aspects, mainly touching on the areas of education, public health, the Chinese elderly, and social mobility. Liu (2009, 2014) concentrated on inequalities in both basic and higher education, inquiring into how students’ ability and family background influence their education opportunities and achievements and how endogenous and exogenous family resources affect inequality during basic education. Sun (2004) looked at how the income gap between urban and rural residents affects their differing health care. In addition, the extraordinary economic boom has gone hand-in-hand with urbanization2 in China, another focal point of Tsinghua sociology. Urbanization entered an expeditious period in the mid-to-late 1990s, and China’s population is predicted to be 60% urban by 2030 (McGee, 2001). The scale of China’s urban explosion is unprecedented in human history. Tsinghua’s sociologists have examined both China’s urbanization and the consequences it has wrought, concentrating on urban changes and transitions, and attempting to delineate and explain the distinctive characteristics and unique Chinese models of urbanization (Li et al., 2012). In particular, Li (2011) has probed the integration of rural migrants into urban structures, while Shen (2006) has specialized in research into peasant workers in Chinese urban factories. In addition, Tsinghua’s sociologists have focused on community construction and community governance, looking for ways to stimulate social vitality to deal with social 2

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, stated that China’s urban transition and American technological innovation are likely to be the two main forces shaping human development in the twenty-first century.

142

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

problems rather than resorting to political intervention (Ge & Li, 2016). Their explorations have revisited the operations of communities as well as the interrelationships between the state and civil society. To sum up, most of the research questions that Tsinghua’s sociologists have raised are related to the backdrop of China’s social transformation.

5.1.3 Theoretical Affiliations and Originality There are often theoretical concerns in the production of social science knowledge, and theoretical issues and repercussions must be dealt with. In most cases, Chinese social scientists are influenced by three epistemic underpinnings and theoretical frameworks—Chinese traditional philosophy and thought, Marxist and Socialist theories, and the West’s epistemological order and other social scientific theories (Huang, 2010). In particular, social scientists encounter challenges in dealing with two layers of relationship: Western influences and indigenous reflections; and Marxist tenets and innovative Chinese social science studies (Zhou et al., 2010). Faculty members of the Department have had open attitudes towards these epistemic underpinnings and different theoretical perspectives. They have tended to gain in-depth understanding of complex and challenging social realities and problems by using various existing theories and by attempting to generate original ones. Affiliations Tsinghua’s sociologists recognize that the international knowledge system and networks are persistently dominated by the West. When they attempt to participate in the current global system, they understand that non-Western societies must accept the West’s epistemological order, disciplinary traditions, and academic models and norms (Interviewee 1). Eurocentric fundamentalism and Americanism prevail in global sociology, and their influence is powerful (Kuhn & Weidemann, 2013; Roulleau-Berger, 2016). As such, sociological knowledge that does not adhere to Western theoretical horizons may be viewed as lacking legitimacy in the international arena and may encounter barriers to being published in top international journals. Faculty members affirmed that theoretical discourses, research orientations, and leading sociology periodicals are principally dominated by a handful of Western countries (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 6). One professor explained that: It refers to the research agenda, academic discourses, and the disciplinary tradition of sociology as well. Sociological theories that were constructed by scholars in France, Britain, and Germany, and then the United States have been transmitted around the world. Theoretical traditions in sociology are always important. (Interviewee 3)

The scholarly research outputs of Tsinghua’s sociologists have demonstrated visible affiliations with the Western epistemological order and theories, and especially with European and American sociology and anthropology. Seeking to enhance

5.1 Examining Knowledge Production and Dissemination

143

their intellectual development and knowledge creation, faculty members have persevered in absorbing sociological theories from the West (Interviewee 6) ranging from constructivism, interactionism, pragmatism, structural-functionalism, ecological theories, stratification lenses, and the sociology of collective action, to rational choice theory. These theories have provided theoretical lenses, guidelines, and models to academic staff, preventing them from being deluged with an enormous amount of data and caught up in narrow viewpoints, while helping them construct their research territories, obtain legitimacy, and dialogue with the global academic circle. More analytically, Tsinghua’s sociologists normally have synthesized Western and Chinese literature in their English-language papers, although the majority of theories used have been derived from Western social sciences. In particular, Tsinghua’s sociologists have privileged American sociology, as reflected in their scholarly work and remarked in their interviews (Interviewee 6, Interviewee 8). They have been apt to learn from American research paradigms and theoretical discourses, propel dialogue with the American academic community, and publish in American journals (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 6). While the traditional Sino-American relationship in sociology accounts for this orientation, it has been enhanced at Tsinghua, which has standardized its academic benchmarks to match those of American research universities and is catching up with the frontiers of American research. Marxism and historical materialism retain a huge role for Chinese academics, as they are regulated as official Party guide in China’s political and ideological realm (Zhou et al., 2010). According to Merle’s (2004) observation, Chinese sociological circles have shown dwindling interest in Marxist sociology since the 1990s. For instance, the Marxist typology of social classes is no longer adopted by Chinese academics to probe China’s social strata (Merle, 2004). In recent years, MarxistLeninist-Mao Zedong Thought-Deng Xiaoping Theory-Xi Jinping Thought have been underscored in both education and academic realms. Marxist philosophy and dialectical materialism have been adopted by Chinese social scientists to interpret their research. Tsinghua’s academics must respect the guidance of Marxism-Leninism in academic life and scholarly publication; at the same time, however, they are free to draw upon other theoretical presuppositions and frameworks to conduct academic work. Traditional Chinese philosophy and thought—e.g., Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism—have appeared in articles by Tsinghua’s sociologists sporadically. For instance, filial piety, embodied in Confucian philosophy, has been invoked to discuss support for the elderly in China (Lin & Pei, 2016). Another example involved research into the guanxi circle in the workplace, in which the term “family ties”—a Chinese concept referring to a protective belt between in-group members and outsiders—was used to illustrate the supervisor–subordinate relationship (Luo et al., 2016). The first example tested a reciprocity theory while the second employed a leader-member exchange theory—both of which are derived from the West. Integrating Chinese cultural thought and indigenous concepts into Western theories is a typical way in which scholars have combined Chinese and Western knowledge. Compared with

144

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

the widespread adoption of Western theories, Chinese traditional philosophy and indigenous knowledge have been superficially embodied. In comparison, Tsinghua sociologists’ SSCI publications have been dependent on Western epistemological norms and theories. As one senior scholar evaluated, “It is impossible to publish an article without complying with the rules and agenda of American editors. Thus, scholars must imitate their discourses and paradigms to compose English articles” (Interviewee 1). Academic staff have organized their English-language articles into a standardized structure in which Western theories play a pivotal role in providing theoretical hypotheses and models or supplying theoretical discourses and perspectives. Nevertheless, while Western sociological theories and knowledge have been habitually embodied in academic staff’s Englishlanguage works, their Chinese works have enabled them to extricate themselves from Western-dominated discourses and theoretical underpinnings. They have organized their Chinese articles within more flexible structures and have used foreign sociological theories in more varied forms. Although Tsinghua’ sociologists constantly absorb foreign theories and literature, they have never been limited to theoretical space dominated by the West. Moreover, they have attempted to elaborate on their social thoughts in their Chinese works and to construct their own original theories (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 6). Originality Originality is one of the most important criteria for evaluating scholarship in the social sciences (see Guetzkow et al., 2004). The strong preference of Chinese sociologists for Western theories explains to a certain extent the lasting influence of European and American social sciences. However, in most cases, it is beyond the ability of Western sociological theories to explain the puzzling complexity of Chinese social transformation. By pointing out that Western presuppositions and theoretical guidance cannot understand China’s social relations, reality, and transformation, sociologists at Tsinghua have begun to reflect on their intellectual and theoretical appropriateness. Tsinghua’s sociologists, especially senior ones, have attached great importance to theoretical thinking, innovation, and attainments. They have clearly admitted that it is necessary to liberate themselves from the Western epistemic framework and break the asymmetry of Chinese and Western knowledge, but more importantly, that they must integrate knowledge resources and establish new conceptual and theoretical horizons (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2, Interviewee 6). Theory innovation has never been easy. The theoretical development and innovation of Chinese sociology has been at a standstill for a long time (Chen, 2017). Tsinghua’s sociologists have held the view that the most influential theories of Chinese indigenous sociology were contributed by their predecessors such as Pan Guangdan and Fei Xiaotong in the 1920s and 1930s (Interviewee 3, Interviewee 6). For example, in his masterpiece From the Soil (鄉土中國), applying concise but profound language, Fei Xiaotong theorized his long-term research and extracted essential concepts from Chinese society and culture—that is, relationalism (關係 主義) and differential modes of association (差序格局)—that have been praised in the international sociology circle. However, Tsinghua’s sociologists have stated that

5.1 Examining Knowledge Production and Dissemination

145

the theoretical attainments of their predecessors have not yet been exceeded by the younger cohorts of Chinese sociologists. Despite the recognizable intellectual development of Chinese sociology, there has not been an explosive breakthrough in its theoretical construction (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 6). Unprecedented changes have taken place in China since the late of 1970s, and many social science theories and assumptions have become untenable under the new situation. Andrew Walder (2007), a sociologist dedicated to China studies at Stanford, pointed out that many scholars often complain about the ineffectiveness of Western theories in non-Western societies, but observed that most Western social science doctrines are also not applicable to Western societies. Any theory, no matter who its supporter is, faces challenges, and must prove its theoretical correctness and its adaptability in practice. Sun (2000) argued that neither the modernization theory of Western developed countries nor the development theory related to many non-developed countries can provide a proper explanation and understanding of China’s social development. Tsinghua’s sociologists have recognized the importance of stimulating theoretical innovation (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2, Interviewee 3). A professor commented that sociologists at Tsinghua may have theoretical breakthroughs in several research fields: Our scholars have made good performances and theoretical progress in the fields of social stratification, social mobility, and educational inequality. Theoretical explorations in organizational sociology, social networks, circles, and guanxi have also shown good signs. Additionally, we look forward to a theoretical breakthrough in urbanization in China, although the current research is completely inadequate. (Interviewee 7)

Faculty members have acknowledged the inapplicability of Western theories and the shortage of original theories explaining the general and specific laws of Chinese society (Interviewee 2; Interviewee 5). Meanwhile, they have realized the momentous opportunities and innovative space for Chinese social scientists to establish powerful theories to explain the complexity of Chinese society and its transformation (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 6). Senior scholars at the Department have striven to establish their own theories while pursuing international status. Several theoretical themes developed by senior scholars are presented below. Theories of Social Stratification. Compared with other sociological studies, the research on social structure and social stratification is arguably “the most methodologically sophisticated and theoretically the most self-conscious” (Chen, 2017, p. 63). Li Qiang, a well-known scholar and social theorist, has conducted systematic research in this field and published many research monographs. His research on social stratification is very complicated and in-depth. Li (2005, 2016a, b) has tackled and articulated the shifting patterns of social stratification since China’s Reform and Opening-Up. After forty years’ development, the overall shape of Chinese society has transformed from a reversed T-form towards a reversed Y-form of social structure (Li, 2016b). Where will China’s social transformation lead? Li (2016b) has raised this question and pointed out that the study of social stratification is rooted in China’s social transformation:

146

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

The Chinese case is great significant to the world. The transition from a traditional agricultural society to a more advanced industrial society is considered a social transformation. It first occurred in European countries and began in the United Kingdom. The United States is a special case, which turned to a post-industrial society after The Second World War. In the world, there are two successful social transformation models, namely the EuropeanAmerican model and the East Asian model. China has not yet completed this transformation. The per capita GDP of developed capitalist countries is around 30,000 to 50,000 US dollars, while China has only 7,000 US dollars. Considering the socialist camp, the Soviet Union remains a question mark, while China is undergoing social transformation. The model of the Soviet camp collapsed and gave way to new systems. China adheres to the socialist system and is moving towards a post-socialist system. What is the direction of China’s transformation? This is a concern of the whole world.

Li (2016a) has studied the ways to promote social development and the ideal model of Chinese social structure. He has explained that China is at a critical stage of modernization and social transformation, but at the same time it is also facing unprecedented social problems and dilemmas, such as the widening gap between the rich and the poor, the increasing division of social classes, and the decline in social mobility. His concept of an “olive-shaped” social structure (橄欖型社會) depends on the entry of more people from the lower class into the middle stratum. The “oliveshaped” model and the expansion of the middle class are considered to be a means of maintaining social stability and harmony. Using the International Socio-Economic Index, Professor Li’s research shows that the growth of China’s middle class is steadily increasing; specifically, the middle class has grown from 11.94% in 1982 to 30.05% in 2010, and is predicted to increase to 60% by 2050. Guanxi. Tsinghua’s sociologists have generated an original conceptual space associated with local considerations and cultural patterns to explain social reality and relations. They have employed an expanding body of indigenous concepts such as guanxi (關係), quanzi (圈子), and hukou (戶口) to establish new theoreticalanalytical perspectives and frameworks. The concept of guanxi is a typical example. Guanxi is rooted in orthodox Confucianism and traditional Chinese values, and has long been an integral part of Chinese culture (Luo, 2011). Tsinghua sociologist Luo Jar-Der has shown a keen interest in the theorization of the guanxi circle. He has emphasized the absorption of Chinese traditional philosophy and modern thought and the open study of Western theories (Li, et al., 2012). He has tried to conceptualize and theorize the guanxi circle, and to explain social behaviors and organizational management from a local perspective. According to his study, the guanxi circle is constituted of family, family relationships, and acquaintance ties (Luo et al., 2016), which are considered to explain complex transaction behavior, organizational trust, the generation of group knowledge in high-tech organizations, and so forth. Communist Civilization. A group of Tsinghua’s sociologists, including Sun Liping, Shen Yuan, Guo Yuhua, etc., have initiated a new topic of theoretical exploration, the study of “communist civilization” (Merle, 2004), pointing out that the classical sociology contributed by Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber mainly discussed the social reality and changes in the capitalist world. They have proposed that, in the context of China’s contemporary transformation, “communist civilization” should

5.1 Examining Knowledge Production and Dissemination

147

be the subject of sociological research, which echoes Weber’s theory of “capitalist civilization.” They have observed the transitional stage and nature of the communist system, as well as the special circumstances of China, and developed the initial theories and methods to develop communist sociology based on the social facts of the social transition period.

5.1.4 Methodological Spaces Positivism and empiricism have become the mainstream paradigms of Chinese sociological research. Since the 1980s, Chinese sociology has been characterized by a preference for positivism and has taken social realities and problems as its research objects (Ying et al., 2006). This is partly due to an obsession with the empirical paradigm under the extreme influence of American sociology (Zhou & Pei, 1997). On the one hand, large-scale social surveys and scrupulous quantitative research have been the most popular methods (Sun, 2000); on the other, field investigation, ethnographic methods, and oral history have been revived. These empirical orientations and methodological predilections have existed in the social science studies of Tsinghua’s scholars, and have been even more consolidated as a result of the strong influence of Tsinghua’s intellectual style and academic atmosphere. According to statistics, 88.89% and 55.55% of Tsinghua sociologists’ SSCI and CSSCI research papers were based on empirical research, respectively. Quantitative research has been the method most commonly used by Tsinghua’s sociologists, covering large-scale social surveys, longitudinal quantitative research, network analysis, and big-data analysis. Among the published empirical articles, more than half of the SSCI and SCI papers used quantitative research methods. Tsinghua’s sociologists have been inclined to use quantitative methods in their academic research, especially in SSCI publications (Interviewee 3). In particular, scholars trained by top American research universities have placed quantitative methods at the core of the research paradigm, consistently upgrading questionnaire design, sampling methods, and sophisticated statistical techniques, and continually absorbing the latest methodological improvements. Tsinghua’s sociologists have not only conducted a number of quantitative studies, but also have embarked on social surveys across the country. The University has allocated funds to support these largescale investigations and survey-based studies and to establish databases. For instance, the Department of Sociology has collaborated with the Institute of Education and School of Economics and Management to conduct a project called the “China College Student Survey” (CCSS) to collect relevant data on Chinese college students nationwide. In addition, in 2015, the Department participated in the first national Resident Household Survey (Interviewee 1). Qualitative research, including interviews, the ethnographic approach, and fieldwork study, has been another important methodological paradigm for Tsinghua’s sociologists. In particular, they have tended to adopt these qualitative research methods in their Chinese papers. As Roulleau-Berger (2016) explained, Tsinghua’s

148

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

scholars have combined sociological and anthropological methods in their academic research, and have respected an intellectual tradition that was developed by their predecessors. In particular, anthropological approaches, such as field investigation and participant/semi-participant observation, have helped them to gain empirical data and have enhanced their in-depth understanding of subtle social phenomena and mechanisms (Sun, 2000). Tsinghua’s sociologists have been immersed in fieldwork, and meticulous research has enabled them to understand the complexity and dynamics of Chinese society and social transition. They have admitted that qualitative methodological approaches cannot be replaced by quantitative methods, as the complexity of social realities and problems cannot be revealed merely by a set of numbers and equations. One interviewee observed: Some overseas returnees are obsessed with Western methodological theories and are reluctant to conduct fieldwork. However, to become an outstanding sociologist, scholars cannot escape from qualitative research, while at the same time specializing in those theoretical models and scientific methods. It is extremely important for sociologists to gain internal experiences through fieldwork, for example, working as an intern in factories and communicating with participants. The fieldwork helps sociologists approach the nature of the research problems. However, it is a “dangerous” phenomenon for Chinese sociologists to copy Western theories and scientific models to explore social problems in China and publish SSCI journals. Overseas returnees are familiar with Western theories and paradigms, but it is a huge challenge for them to combine Western knowledge with Chinese sociological research. (Interviewee 6)

Overall, the empirical paradigm has been the prevalent form adopted by the faculty members of the Department. Tsinghua’s sociologists have been experts in quantitative methods while at the same time emphasizing qualitative methods, especially field studies (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 6, Interviewee 9). As one professor stated, “We prefer to have fieldwork experience instead of working in the office and doing data massage.” (Interviewee 6). In addition, mixed research methodology has emerged as another research paradigm adopted by faculty members. Tsinghua’s sociologists have recognized that the coexistence of qualitative and quantitative research and the sociological and anthropological methods is conducive to their research (Interviewee 9).

5.2 The Dialectical Relations in Intellectual Evolution In the process of globalization and internationalization, a series of tensions related to the creation and dissemination of sociological knowledge has emerged. The main tensions are manifested in strains between the English and Chinese languages, internationalization and indigenization, and the asymmetrical pattern of center and periphery. These tensions have been strengthened and concentrated in the context of university reforms, which have required scholars to commit themselves to improving the international level and global impact of their academic work.

5.2 The Dialectical Relations in Intellectual Evolution

149

5.2.1 The Language Used: Chinese or English As Yang (2014) observed, China’s flagship universities have returned to the world community and are striving to upgrade their international profile and standing. These universities have increasingly adopted English—the global lingua franca— as their medium for international communication, instruction, and research (Seidlhofer, 2005). At this point, English has become an indispensable language for most academics at Tsinghua. In the Department, a large percentage of scholars are overseas returnees from English-speaking countries (see Chap. 4) and have been wellequipped to use English to produce and disseminate knowledge. Only a handful of senior sociologists cannot write in English. Although the official language is Chinese, Tsinghua’s academics have been required to participate in international communication, teaching (e.g., degree programs and summer schools for international students), and research using English. As an example, the Schwarzman College of Tsinghua (2018) provides a highly selective and privileged program for both domestic and international students, with the aim to bridge China and the world and to nurture the next generation of global leaders. This college requires all teaching and research to be conducted in English. It has selected a small number of outstanding scholars to be faculty members; among a total of forty-three faculty members in this college in 2018, Tsinghua sociologists Li Qiang and Zheng Lu had been selected. Moreover, Tsinghua’s academics have been urged to conduct research and publish in international journals. Faculty members in the “hard” sciences have adapted to the requirements of international publishing with abundant research outputs. By comparison, Tsinghua’s social scientists have had in a dilemma when choosing between English and Chinese for academic publication. This linguistic tension is embedded in an asymmetric academic and knowledge system in the global arena, and has been aggravated by Tsinghua’s specific strategy of internationalization. As one senior professor grumbled: Why has English but not Chinese been emphasized in the process of internationalization? If we succumb to internationalization, does it mean cultural surrenders? It would be very interesting if we discussed with French scholars the linguistic issues associated with internationalization […] As Chinese scholars, we seem to have no choice but to publish in English to accumulate global influence. This is the status quo, but there are potential anxiety and melancholy. (Interviewee 3)

On the one hand, English has been the dominant language in the global knowledge system (Marginson, 2000). The trend of globalization and the development of information technology have consolidated the supremacy of English in the social sciences. Tsinghua’s sociologists have acknowledged that the widespread use of English has become an irreversible trend in the process of internationalization. In addition, the international knowledge system and social science journals have been extremely biased towards English and have been controlled by several Englishspeaking countries (Altbach, 1998; Keim, 2011). Tsinghua’s sociologists must use English to promote dialogue and cooperation with foreign scholars, and to publish

150

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

articles in international journals to spread and exchange knowledge (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 7). This trend has been reinforced at Tsinghua, as it seeks to strengthen its global status and become one of the world’s most prestigious universities. To that end, the University is building an international environment to attract global talents and enhance its international reputation and competitiveness, and is driving its scholars to improve their international dialogue, collaboration, and influence. Publishing in international journals has become an important assessment index in faculty recruitment and promotion, following Tsinghua’s comprehensive internal reform. Against this backdrop, English has played an increasingly important role in the academic activities of Tsinghua’s sociologists. This study predicts that scholars, especially those in the younger cohort, who are not prepared to instruct and publish in English will not be recruited by the Department in the future. On the other hand, it is necessary to preserve the pivotal position of Chinese in the academic work of Chinese sociologists, as the language is congruent with Chinese culture, values, and civilization (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3). Therefore, no matter how powerful the trend of internationalization and how supreme the English language is, the privileged position of Chinese in the domestic education and the scholastic system is unassailable. Besides, the social sciences are inevitably linked to the cultural and political characteristics of different countries. Many social phenomena can be better expressed and appreciated in mother tongues than in English. As one professor stated: My best thoughts are expressed naturally in my mother tongue. Why can’t I write in my native language and then let others translate the work? If I only write and publish in English, how can I reflect the wisdom of my mother tongue? (Interviewee 3)

In practice, there is a potentially competitive relationship between Chinese and English in academic writing and publishing. Articles by Tsinghua’s sociologists are predominantly in Chinese, but their number of international publications has increased since 2010. English-language social science articles are predominantly contributed to by overseas returnees, who have adopted different strategies for publishing: I mainly publish my research on circles and guanxi in English journals. (Interviewee 6) I publish in Chinese journals to establish domestic influence, apply for national research projects, and carry out research with Chinese characteristic. But I write and publish in English when I try to approach international readers as my research issues are related to international discourses. (Interviewee 5)

An interesting phenomenon is that young returnees in the Department who are proficient in English publication patterns have begun to re-examine their forms of knowledge creation and dissemination. Eventually, they have decided to publish in English to create and circulate knowledge in the global academic circle, while publishing in Chinese to gain entry to and accumulate academic influence in the Chinese sociological community. Interviewees reflected:

5.2 The Dialectical Relations in Intellectual Evolution

151

I am used to writing in English, and at the same time I started publishing in Chinese. The overall quality of international peer-reviewed journals is better than Chinese periodicals. However, if I don’t have works in Chinese, I may not be able to accumulate academic influence in China, and I cannot find research partners in the domestic circle. (Interviewee 9) I wonder if I should write and publish more articles in Chinese. It takes time to publish an English paper. However, it may fail to attract attention from the Chinese sociology circle because many scholars do not follow the international periodicals. Once I publish an article in one of the top three Chinese sociology journals, people will know it immediately. In contrast, the paper published in a top American sociological periodical may not be noticed. As it is important to improve national influences, I would be better to publish more in the top Chinese journals. (Interviewee 8)

This study identified three viewpoints held by sociologists at Tsinghua University on language issues related to the internationalization of Chinese sociology. First, they have repeatedly emphasized the irreplaceable role of Chinese in sociological research in the context of Chinese society (Interviewee 6). In a sociological study on Chinese issues, if the researcher is not able to use the Chinese language, and does not conduct field investigations in China, it will be difficult for that study to be recognized by the Chinese sociological circle (Interviewee 6, Interviewee 8). Tsinghua’s sociologists adhered to the view that “scholars can truly understand China and its society only by using Chinese and immersing themselves in Chinese society” (Interviewee 1). Even well-known foreign scholars who have been dedicated to China studies, such as King Fairbank (費正清) and Ezra Vogel (傅高義), have conducted intensive fieldwork in China for long periods. Second, writing and publishing in English is not a compulsory precondition to accumulating a global reputation and academic influence. The best and finest works of Chinese sociology are written in Chinese for Chinese people, not for international journals (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 6). Many prominent works—for instance, Fei Xiaotong’s From the Soil and Cao Jinqing’s China Along the Yellow River—were composed in Chinese, and then identified and translated by foreign scholars. Tsinghua’s sociologists urged Chinese social scientists to have the confidence to conduct indigenous research in Chinese. If they contribute good work, it can be translated into foreign languages by others (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3). One scholar stated: Overseas trained academics are capable of publishing English works, but many notable Chinese sociologists and anthropologists only write in Chinese. Some of their prominent works have been translated into English. For instance, Zhuang Kongshao wrote his Silver Wings (银翅) over twenty years ago. It has been translated three times and is due to be published in the United States. (Interviewee 3)

Third, Tsinghua’s sociologists are aware of the importance of taking on both the Chinese and English languages to conduct research and publish in both domestic and international periodicals. On the one hand, given its large population and rich civilization, China is powerful enough to maintain an independent and prosperous academic system using its national language (Interviewee 1). To make a national contribution and accumulate national prestige, Tsinghua’s sociologists must create

152

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

and exchange knowledge in Chinese; at the same time, however, they are urged to enhance their international visibility through English-language publication.

5.2.2 Intellectual Spaces: Internationalization and Indigenization Internationalization Interpretations of Internationalization. Taking a broad perspective, Tsinghua’s sociologists have conceived internationalization as an open-minded perspective and an integration of different types of knowledge and diverse cultures (Interviewee 1; Interviewee 3; Interviewee 6). They also have recognized the processual nature of the internationalization of HE and the social sciences. First of all, Tsinghua’s sociologists stated that the internationalization of HE has been embedded in the country’s strategic opening to the world (Interviewee 1). Through reflecting upon the history of China, faculty members have had a positive attitude towards China’s opening-up initiatives. In historical periods when China was strong in national power, such as the Tang dynasty, it showed its vigorous openness and tolerance by continuing to absorb foreign influences. China’s history and the practice of Reform and Opening-Up have proved that China’s opening up to the outside world is of strategic significance. Accordingly, Tsinghua’s sociologists have affirmed the internationalization of HE, whereby they have maintained an open attitude towards the world. Second, faculty members of the Department also stated that internationalization refers to exposure to diversity across national boundaries and enables dealing with and integrating various influences (Interviewee 3). Nevertheless, the internationalization of the social sciences in China has reinforced a specific orientation that gives prominence to Western learning. Tsinghua’s sociologists observed that, to this day, a handful of European and North American countries have dominated the rhythms of internationalization (Interviewee 5). The notion of internationalization, therefore, has been used interchangeably with two concepts—Occidentalization or Westernization. They criticized that the evolution of Chinese sociology has been overwhelmed by Western (American) influences (Sun, 2000). Third, the hegemony of American and European sociological knowledge, along with the apparent imposition of a monoculture, have led to reflections on the nature of internationalization. Tsinghua’s sociologists have further depicted an ideal model of internationalization, that is, a blend of multi-cultures and a diverse knowledge pool, rather than the dominance of a monoculture. They have shown a strong consciousness of and a commitment to accentuating the integration of the Chinese and the Western, and making the voice of Chinese sociology heard by global communities (Interviewee 1; Interviewee 5). Approaches to Internationalization. Tsinghua’s sociologists pointed that the initial approaches to internationalization have been marked by “learning from” and

5.2 The Dialectical Relations in Intellectual Evolution

153

“bringing in” Western social science knowledge and values (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 4). As one senior scholar recalled her own experience at the beginning of the Reform and Opening-Up: Young college students absorbed knowledge like sponges soaking up water. There were opportunities to read and to learn, whereby we reconstructed perspectives to look at the world—a broader world [...] The society went back to the right track. We had the experience of doing what we wanted to do, learning what we wanted to learn, reading what we liked, and engaging in open discussions. (Interviewee 4)

Chinese intellectuals at that time showed great enthusiasm for absorbing fresh ideas from abroad. The re-establishment of the Chinese social sciences, including sociology, was facilitated by the substantial adoption and assimilation of Western knowledge. One interviewee explained that: In the early stage of the reconstruction of sociology, Chinese academics did not even have basic sociological concepts. Therefore, they vigorously learned from the West. The perception of internationalization at that stage chiefly referred to a learning strategy—learning from the advanced industrialized countries. (Interviewee 1)

One of the most prominent features of the internationalization strategy adopted by Chinese academics has been “learning from the centers” (Yang & Xie, 2015). Tsinghua’s sociologists explained that North American and Western European countries have contributed to a conventional knowledge structure in sociology and have maintained hegemony in the global knowledge system. As a post-developing country that has not engendered such a modern knowledge structure, China must learn from the West. Moreover, Tsinghua’s academics observed that American institutions and scholars have been “top-notch” in both the “hard” sciences (e.g., astronomy, physics, and chemistry) and the social sciences (e.g., politics, economics, and sociology) (Interviewee 1; Interviewee 6). Nevertheless, the internationalization process has reinforced the existing hegemony, as scholars in other societies attempt to imitate and catch up with those in the centers. The subsequent question has been how to learn from the centers in the process of internationalization. Tsinghua’s sociologists have clearly articulated the necessity for and importance of soaking up Western social science knowledge, from social theories and methodological paradigms to technologies (Interviewee 7). According to the observation of faculty members (Interviewee 6, Interviewee 7), a number of Chinese academics used to study behind closed doors without referring to previous studies (閉門造車) and only made superficial applications of Western social science knowledge. One interviewee remarked: The famous American sociologist Parsons has set a good example in research. He comprehensively reviewed previous studies and different schools of sociological theory, according to which Parsons paved his own way for the advancement of research and contributed important sociological theories. However, many Chinese academics and students do not pay enough attention to literature review and theoretical thinking. Their research eventually hovers at the superficial analysis of social phenomena. (Interviewee 7)

Such inadequate learning and superficial application have led to an inherent insufficiency of theoretical originality and a shortage of international influence. A large

154

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

number of Chinese sociological studies have only involved investigations and discussions in specific contexts, without in-depth exploration of theoretical foundations and the pursuit of theoretical contributions (Interviewee 7). Therefore, Tsinghua’s sociologists pointed out that Chinese academics must earnestly study sociological knowledge and follow up on the latest academic developments and accomplishments at home and abroad. Digging into different theoretical schools and viewpoints and updating research frontiers are the primary approaches to laying the foundation for knowledge production and theoretical innovation. In general, the internationalization of Chinese sociology has been manifested as a one-way flow of knowledge. External influences have come in, but internal influences have not gone out. At this stage, the sociologists of Tsinghua have been faced with an important commitment in the process of internationalization, that is, to contribute to the national and global knowledge base and to let international communities hear the voice of Chinese sociology. Therefore, a series of international activities have been strengthened, such as providing knowledge to international audiences through foreign language publishing and translation, international conferences, and research collaborations (Yang, 2017). A Tsinghua’s sociologist emphasized, “When your academic works are quoted and discussed by scholars at home and abroad, this is truly internationalization” (Interviewee 3). Dilemmas in Internationalization. Tsinghua’s sociologists have noticed that there are many problems in the internationalization of Chinese sociology, among which the linguistic issue is the chief one (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3). Today, scholars across the world must separate from their native language to a certain extent, and write and publish in English in order to have an academic impact on the world stage. However, generally speaking, social scientists do their best work in their native language. As one Tsinghua sociologist recalled: My favorite articles are not the ones included in SSCI, but the Chinese works. Not only Chinese sociologists, but also scholars in European countries such as France and Germany are also facing language difficulties in their research. For example, the École Normale Supérieure, the Vrije Universiteit Brussels, and the Universität zu Köln are traditionally preeminent universities in sociology; as they are not in English-speaking countries and maintain conventions to publish in their native languages, their academics have fewer SSCI publications and citations than many universities where English is the primary language, such as New Delhi University and the University of Hong Kong. (Interviewee 3)

If the SSCI system is overwhelmingly and superficially used as the dominant benchmark to evaluate scholarship and internationalization levels in sociological research, non-English-speaking countries and institutions will be at a disadvantage status in the global academic system. Therefore, language issues hinder the path of the social sciences to true internationalization. Another bottleneck is academic discourse that has been controlled by the hand of Western countries. Sociologists at Tsinghua explained that, despite the language barriers faced by certain European non-English speaking countries, they have at least the same academic discourse as the UK and the US. Due to divergences in socio-cultural traditions, religious values, and institutional logics, the Western

5.2 The Dialectical Relations in Intellectual Evolution

155

academic discourse is not feasible to some extent in the Chinese context. In addition, China is at a different stage of development and has its own research interests and academic discourse to explain social realities and changes (Interviewee 6). An implicit obstacle to exchanging knowledge between Chinese sociology and the international community is the incompatibility of their academic discourses. Despite this major incompatibility, Chinese sociology is still overwhelmed by Western sociological discourses and theories, due to the hegemony of Western academic power in the global knowledge system and the international community. Engaging in the international landscape, Tsinghua’s sociologists have not been able to avoid the influence of such an asymmetric power relation. If Tsinghua’s social scientists do not accept the academic discourse rooted in the West and the disciplinary norms governed by the center, they will not be able to dialogue with the international community and gain global recognition. They must formulate appropriate academic discourses and theories to structure their own research and communicate with the international community (Interviewee 3). Furthermore, this unbalanced academic power relationship exacerbates the difficulty of attaining theoretical breakthroughs and international influence. As one scholar remarked, if a social problem occurs in the American context, it will become a front-page issue of sociological research and attract the attention of the international community, while research on the same issue in China will not gain sufficient attention from the international community (Interviewee 7). Indigenization Tsinghua’s sociologists realized from the beginning that their research must be indigenized. As Dirlik (2012) explained, indigenization has occupied a central position in the evolution of Chinese sociology. Li (2015) explained that in the past four decades, the Chinese sociology circle has carried out a lot of work on the indigenization of sociology. Compared with other social science disciplines, Chinese sociology has carried out the most in-depth work of indigenization. Tsinghua’s sociologists have developed different perspectives and approaches to the indigenization of Chinese sociology. Rationales for Indigenization. Indigenization has been considered an indispensable process for the development of sociology in non-Western countries on the basis of different assumptions. Sociology has been shaped by specific national forces and socio-cultural factors, because social realities and transitions are related to specific conditions (Lebaron, 2010). As one interviewee remarked, due to the European origins of this discipline, even American sociology experienced an indigenization procedure during its formative years (Interviewee 1). Indigenization has been recognized as a universal principle for constructing this discipline. One interviewee explained: The results of physics and chemistry research and experiments in the United States and China are no different. However, if the same social experiment is carried out in different countries, it will present different or even contradictory results. (Interviewee 5)

156

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

Indigenization is not legitimized in natural science research, but it is important in many studies in the social sciences, partly due to the uncontrollability of social conditions and environments. The construction of sociology involves not only technical issues, but also cultural expression, values systems, and national spirit (Interviewee 1). Furthermore, imported sociological theories and methods have proved irrelevant and inappropriate to local realities and problems (Interviewee 8). Indigenous sociological research is crucial for a better understanding of national and local phenomena. The indigenization of sociology in China has been regarded as a selfreflective movement in the face of Western domination, and a long-term effort to strive for intellectual, academic, and cultural autonomy (Zheng, 2009). Categories of Indigenization. This study showed that there exist three categories related to the indigenization of sociology. Topic-level indigenization: Western sociological research themes explicitly focus on the complexity of Western societies, while Chinese sociological research centers on the dynamics of social realities and social transition in China (Xie, 2018). Tsinghua’s sociologists have mainly focused on Chinese studies, while less attention has been paid to sociological research in other regions and countries. Application-level indigenization: Interviewees explained that the initial awareness in China of the indigenization of sociology stemmed from an attempt to combine the imported social theories, concepts, methods, and research tools of Western sociology with the specific circumstances and settings of the Chinese context (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 9). A typical example is the translation, modification, and adaptation of questionnaires. English questionnaires cannot be simply translated into Chinese. They must be adapted to the Chinese language and culture, while maintaining their original measurement attributes (Interviewee 8). Traditionally, social investigation has been the most important method used by academics to solve the problem of the indigenization of sociology, which has enhanced their in-depth understanding of indigenous and subtle social phenomena and mechanisms (Li, 2015). Paradigm-level indigenization: The basic rationale for indigenizing sociology is that it is much more important than the pursuit of adaptation to Western-dominated knowledge and values. The desire to generate original sociological knowledge has been the major impetus for Chinese scholars to carry out indigenization activities (Li, 2015). Since Western theoretical frameworks have been not effective for explaining social phenomena and problems in the Chinese context, there has been an urgent need to generate sociological knowledge for local societies. Tsinghua’s sociologists have recognized indigenization as a way to expand the knowledge base and theoretical system of Chinese sociology to adapt to the social realities of Chinese society. They have carried out a series of social investigations and community studies to promote the indigenization of sociological knowledge. Moreover, this indigenization has been a revolt against the hegemony of Western sociological discourse and monoculture. Besides, the current era of globalization has stimulated reflections on and recognitions of the exclusion of a wide variety of local realities and indigenous knowledge. Indigenous knowledge and diverse voices have been expected to be involved in rather than excluded from global social science knowledge. Based

5.2 The Dialectical Relations in Intellectual Evolution

157

on social reality and indigenous epistemological and cultural resources, Tsinghua’s scholars have tended to generate knowledge with national/local relevance and thus make contributions to the international knowledge base. This is the path for Tsinghua sociologists to promote knowledge generation and theoretical advancement. Tsinghua’s sociologists have made efforts to construct original theories by integrating contemporary Chinese experiences and China’s philosophical and cultural heritage with the Western epistemological order and knowledge system. They have contributed influential original theories and have won recognition in the Chinese academic community, but their theoretical attainments have rarely gained a high reputation in a global academic circle. Faculty members commented on the reasons why indigenous sociological theories have not yet been well established. First, most studies by faculty members have concentrated on Chinese studies. As Walder (2017) observed, regional and country studies have rarely involved theoretical innovation, neither questioning existing Western theories, nor proposing new theories. Second, Tsinghua’s sociologists have conducted much policy- and solutionoriented research that has underscored effectively practical and pragmatic implications. This kind of research focuses on understanding the reality of specific social problems and supplying information and problem-solving suggestions to the Chinese government. Third, interviewees observed that they have not been satisfied with their own theory-building capabilities, both in terms of improving existing theories and creating new ones. Fourth, they also attributed the rarity of theoretical attainment to the use of less-sophisticated research methodologies. As one faculty member pointed out: Theories are divided into three levels—grand theory, middle theory, and theoretical models. Theoretical models are available for verification. Our theory is thought to be unrefined owing to poor methods, lacking the capability to transform grand theories into middle theories and then into theoretical models. Lots of scholars conduct research as social thinkers but not as social scientists. They are over-confident in establishing theories and new concepts without verifying them. Does this phenomenon occur in Western academia? They certainly have unverifiable social theories, such as Parsons’ AGAL and Giddens’s Third Way. However, there are striking differences in grand theories generated by well-trained and non-trained social scientists. I compare it to the differences between physicists and science fiction writers. Those social scientists with fine training can be compared to physicists who might involve themselves in philosophical discussions. They do not conduct experiments, but their research guides the direction of other experimental studies; take Hawking’ theory of black holes as an example. (Interviewee 6)

5.2.3 Asymmetric Patterns: Center and Periphery In 2000, Sun Liping, a sociologist at Tsinghua University, pinpointed out that Chinese sociology was at the periphery of the international sociological arena. He further argued that one of the most challenging issues facing Chinese sociology in the new millennium would be the standing of Chinese sociology in the global academic landscape and international knowledge system (Sun, 2000). Twenty years later, Tsinghua’s sociologists have developed different views on this issue.

158

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

The Changing International Status of Chinese Sociology Tsinghua’s sociologists have divided the developmental trajectory of Chinese sociology into three stages relating to its international visibility and standing. The first stage, in the 1980s, witnessed considerable Western (American) influences, but the international community was unacquainted with Chinese sociology at the time (Interviewee 3). Indeed, the rebirth of sociology in China did not start until the late 1970s, after the announcement of Reform and Opening Up policies (Bian & Zhang, 2008). The second stage began in the 1990s. Leading sociological scholars attempted to re-introduce Chinese sociology to the international circle, while most academics were not equipped with the vision and capability to develop international visibility (Interviewee 8). The third stage is currently underway, in conjunction with China’s economic rise and unprecedented social transformation (Sun, 2000). Chinese sociology has developed substantially over the past four decades, with Chinese sociological studies emerging in important international journals and top American periodicals. Additionally, foreign scholars have shown growing interest in examining China’s social changes; American sociologist Victor Nee, for instance, contributed a representative work, A Theory of Market Transition: From Redistribution to Markets in State Socialism. However, faculty members have emphasized that research on Chinese society chiefly relies upon the endeavors of Chinese scholars, rather than foreign sociologists. Indeed, China’s ongoing transition, reflected in almost every aspect of society, has attracted much attention, nationally and internationally. Against this backdrop, Chinese sociology is in a moment of rebirth, even as it assumes an important position in the global landscape (Interviewee 6). As one senior scholar articulated: (i) China returned to the world market and a capitalist structure, embracing the principles of market economy transformation; (ii) China’s social transition (or social experiment) has been claimed as a communist path and civilization that arouses global interest and attention, and (iii) China is a core state in East Asia, representing a distinct cultural and historical tradition. There is a demand for new sociological theories to interpret its development path and the eventual destination of this profound transition. (Interviewee 1)

The significant development of sociology has been tightly interwoven with social evolution. In retrospect, sociology, as an academic discipline, has made progress in response to social changes and problems in modern society. It has been particularly associated with social transformations in European societies; as they evolved from traditionally agrarian to industrial societies and from imperial to capitalist organizations, the centers of sociology extended from France and other European societies to the United States. However, these countries have went through their social transitions with accomplished structures; in the very limited space remaining, their sociologists can no longer construct “skyscrapers,” but must resort to “decoration” to modify their sociological research in more sophisticated ways. In contrast, Chinese sociology has not, as it were, finalized its skyscraper construction (Interviewee 1). Tsinghua’s sociologists have observed that Chinese academics at present have great opportunities to

5.2 The Dialectical Relations in Intellectual Evolution

159

work towards breakthroughs in sociology, and to escalate its international standing and intellectual influence (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 6). At the Edges of the Centers? When one thinks about the status of Chinese sociology in the global landscape, it is impossible to avoid reflecting on the asymmetric international relations within the global knowledge structure. Tsinghua’s sociologists acknowledged that North American and Western European countries control the centers of world sociology while maintaining hegemony within the global scientific system, with American sociological scholars, periodicals, and institutions being accepted as the standard of excellence (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 6). American sociological knowledge, discourses, and research paradigms have had considerable impact on the evolution of Chinese sociology. Moreover, Tsinghua’s sociologists have observed that the current trend of globalization is strengthening North Atlantic domination rather than weakening the uneven academic relationships between countries. This asymmetric structure has largely hindered the development of international influence and the standing of sociology within non-Western societies. Against this backdrop, numerous scholars have criticized the problematic position of sociology as an undeveloped, subordinated, and dependent discipline (Keim, 2011). Tsinghua’s sociologists have recognized the deficiencies of Chinese sociology. However, they also have taken a positive view of the position(s) of Chinese sociology in the international sphere. Reflecting on their long-time experience within the domain, during which they have witnessed the growth of Chinese sociology, they argued that: In the past, whether in quantity or quality, our research could not compare with the West. At present, the number of our international peer-reviewed articles is undergoing a sharp increase, and the overall level of research is improving, being progressively closer to the centers. (Interviewee 8) A Chinese-American scholar, Li Cheng, composed The Chinese Middle Class, which he wrote in English and later translated into Chinese. In his book he reviewed the studies of the Chinese middle class systematically. He found that the research carried out by Chinese scholars in mainland China has greatly exceeded that of European and American scholars in terms of both quantity and quality. Chinese sociological studies have already performed well in certain areas. (Interviewee 1) Chinese social sciences face a dilemma to enhance their international influences, but I do not think that they are far behind. In recent years, whether measuring the quality or quantity of the training of PhDs, Chinese sociology and anthropology are not far behind those of France and Britain. Lots of Western countries have a dwindling supply of funding for PhDs in such subjects. The Chinese sociology and anthropology fields have 400–500 PhD graduates per year. Among this large population, outstanding students and works are emerging. Additionally, Chinese scholars and PhDs have good publications in both Chinese and English. (Interviewee 3) The international landscapes and power structures are varied considering different social science disciplines. Management and psychology are monocentric, and the Chinese academic community has not reached the center. Economics also has an apparent mainstream, in which Chinese economics is relatively close to the center. In contrast, other social sciences,

160

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

including [public management, political science, and sociology] are recognized as multicenter disciplines. They accept the conditions of cultural difference in diverse settings. Chinese sociology is not too far away from the centers but stays at the edge of the centers. (Interviewee 6)

By and large, Tsinghua’s sociologists affirmed that Chinese sociology has not yet advanced to the center of the global academic system. Acknowledging that it is neither at the center nor on the periphery, sociologists located Chinese sociology at the edges of the centers. Notwithstanding the shortcomings of Chinese sociology, which they have harshly criticized, most of Tsinghua’s sociologists have been confident and positive about the growing status of Chinese sociology in the international landscape (Interviewee 3; Interviewee 5). First, the re-establishment and far-reaching development of Chinese sociology over the past forty years have paved the way for its further growth, and prepared the institutional space for its further evolution. Sociologists at Tsinghua stated it takes time to improve its methodological technologies, theoretical originality, and international engagement and influence (Interviewee 1). Second, China’s profound transformation and social change have provided vast opportunities and necessity for the evolution of Chinese sociology. Classical and prevailing social theories from other countries have failed to help explain social reality and changes in the Chinese context. China is conducting the world’s largest social experiment—the pursuit of communist civilization. It has created a social space for academics to enrich the global sociological knowledge base while exploring the innovative theoretical system of Chinese sociology. Third, Chinese studies have attracted growing attention from international communities. China’s development has accelerated over the past quarter of a century, and it economic rise and military growth have led to irreversible shifts in China’s international position and global identity and have drawn the world’s attention to its economic growth, technological innovation, diplomatic strategy, and social transition, among others. Chinese sociological studies have also attracted increasing international interest, and an international space has been opened up to enhance the global visibility and status of Chinese sociology. Fourth, the academic standing of the Chinese social sciences have been associated with the country’s overall status on the global stage, as a form of what is called “soft power.” As one scholar stated, “The evolution of Chinese sociology has always been closely connected with China’s destiny” (Interviewee 4). Tsinghua’s sociologists saw the further development of Chinese society, and of Chinese sociology, as coinciding with China’s cultural and historical support.

5.3 Summary This chapter has delved into the dynamics and mechanisms of knowledge manufacturing and intellectual development in Tsinghua’s sociology under the influence of

5.3 Summary

161

internationalization. By analyzing both English and Chinese journal articles by fourteen Department academics, it has examined the knowledge generation territories, methodological spaces, theoretical affiliations, and originality of Tsinghua’s sociologists, as well as their intellectual approaches, original strategies, and outcomes in terms of blending indigenous and international dimensions to achieve epistemic autonomy and academic attainment. Analyses showed that their scholarly work and knowledge generation have been influenced by American research paradigms and theoretical discourses, and that they have been apt to learn from and pursue dialogues with the American academic community and to publish in top American journals. Simultaneously, Tsinghua’s sociologists have explicitly acknowledged not only the necessity of freeing themselves from Western epistemic frameworks and breaking the asymmetry between Chinese and Western knowledge but—more important—of synthesizing knowledge pools and building new conceptual and theoretical horizons. They have recognized the momentous opportunities and innovative spaces for establishing original theories that can explain the complexity and mechanisms of Chinese society and its transitions.

References Altbach, P. G. (1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university, and development. Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. Bao, Y., Jing, J., Zhang, Y., Li, H., Feng, L., Ning, Z., & Tan, H. (2014). Effects of HIV status notification on reducing the risk of sexual transmission of HIV in China. Chinese Medical Journal, 127(24), 4177–4183. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. SRHE and Open University Press. Bian, Y., & Zhang, L. (2008). Sociology in China. Contexts, 7(3), 20–25. Chen, H. (2017). Chinese sociology: State-building and the institutionalization of globally circulated knowledge. Springer. Chow, E. P., Chen, X., Zhao, J., Zhuang, X., Jing, J., & Zhang, L. (2015). Factors associated with self-reported unprotected anal intercourse among men who have sex with men in Changsha city of Hunan province. China AIDS Care, 27(10), 1332–1342. Dirlik, A. (2012). Zhongguohua: Worlding China the case of sociology and anthropology in twentieth century China. In A. Dirlik, G. Li, & H.-P. Yen (Eds.), Sociology and anthropology in twentieth-century China: Between universalism and indigenism (pp. 1–39). Chinese University Press. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Ge, T., & Li, Q. (2016). Four models of urban community governance innovation in China. Journal of Northwest Normal University, 6, 5–13. Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review, 69(2), 190–212. Guo, Y., & Chen, P. (2011). Digital divide and social cleavage: Case studies of ICT usage among peasants in contemporary China. The China Quarterly, 207, 580–599. Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s universities, 1895–1995: A century of cultural conflict. Garland Publishing.

162

5 Internationalization and Indigenization: Knowledge Production …

Huang, H. (2010). China’s historical encounter with Western sciences and humanities. In M. Kuhn & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Internationalization of the Social Sciences (pp. 21–43). Transaction Publishers. Keim, W. (2011). Counterhegemonic currents and internationalization of sociology: Theoretical reflections and an empirical example. International Sociology, 26(1), 123–145. Kuhn, M., & Weidemann, D. (2013). Internationalization of the social sciences. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought local knowledge in global science encounters. Stuttgart: ibidem Press Lebaron, F. (2010). Economics and sociology in the context of globalization. In UNESCO. & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 197–198), Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Lee, C. K., & Shen, Y. (2009). China: The paradox and possibility of a public sociology of labor. Work and Occupations, 36(2), 110–125. Li, Q. (2005). T-shaped social structure and structural tension. Sociological Studies, 2, 55–73. Li, Q. (2011). “Semi-integration” and “non-integration” in the process of urbanization in China. Hebei Journal, 31(5), 106–114. Li, Q. (2016). How far is China from an olive-type society? A sociological analysis of the development of the middle class. Exploration and Debate, 8, 4–11. Li, Q., Chen, Y., & Liu, J. (2012). Research on the “propulsion model” of urbanization in China. Chinese Social Sciences, 7(82), 82–100. Li, Q., & Wang, Yi. (2017). The scale, structural problems and development strategies of China’s middle class. Society, 37(3), 163–179. Li, Q. (2015). The indigenization and development of Chinese Sociology. People’s Daily, 05–11. Li, Q. (2016a). Social stratification in contemporary China: Definitive survey and analysis. California: Bridge 21 Publications. Lin, Z., & Pei, X. (2016). Intergenerational exchange of resources and elderly support in rural China. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 83(2), 108–127. Liu, J. (2009). Opportunity inequality in the field of basic education in China and its changes. Xinhua Wenzhai, 1, 119–122. Liu, J. (2014). Competence and background: An analysis of the mechanism for the distribution of higher education enrollment opportunities. Chinese Social Sciences, 8, 109–128. Lum, T. Y., Lou, V. W., Chen, Y., Wong, G. H., Luo, H., & Tong, T. L. (2014). Neighborhood support and aging-in-place preference among low-income elderly Chinese city-dwellers. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71(1), 98–105. Luo, J. D. (2011). Guanxi revisited: An exploratory study of familiar ties in a Chinese workplace. Management and Organization Review, 7(2), 329–351. Luo, J. D., & Cheng, M. Y. (2015). Guanxi circles’ effect on organizational trust: Bringing power and vertical social exchanges into intraorganizational network analysis. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(8), 1024–1037. Luo, J. D., Cheng, M. Y., & Zhang, T. (2016). Guanxi circle and organizational citizenship behavior: Context of a Chinese workplace. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(3), 649–671. Marginson, S. (2000). Rethinking academic work in the global era. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(1), 23–35. Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39. Marginson, S. (2007). University mission and identity for a post public era. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(1), 117–131. McGee, T. (2001). Urbanization takes on new dimensions in Asia’s population giants. Population Today, 29(7), 1–2. Merle, A. (2004). Towards a Chinese sociology for “communist civilisation.” China Perspectives, 2004(52), 1–16. Pei, X., & Tang, Y. (2010). Old age protection in the context of rural development. IDS Bulletin, 41(4), 22–30.

References

163

Pun, N., Shen, Y., Guo, Y., Lu, H., Chan, J., & Selden, M. (2014). Worker–intellectual unity: Trans-border sociological intervention in Foxconn. Current Sociology, 62(2), 209–222. Pun, N., Shen, Y., Guo, Y., Lu, H., Chan, J., & Selden, M. (2016). Apple, Foxconn, and Chinese workers’ struggles from a global labor perspective. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 17(2), 166–185. Roulleau-Berger, L. (2016). Post-Western revolution in sociology: From China to Europe. Brill Publishers. Schwarzman College of Tsinghua University. (2018). Program. Retrieved from https://www.sch warzmanscholars.org/program/ Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339–341. Shen, Y. (2006). Social transformation and the re-formation of the working class. Sociological Research, 2, 13–36. Shen, Y. (2007). The Production of Society. Society, 27(2), 170–185. Su, S., Chen, X., Mao, L., He, J., Wei, X., Jing, J., & Zhang, L. (2016). Superior effects of antiretroviral treatment among men who have sex with men compared to other HIV at-risk populations in a large cohort study in Hunan, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(3), 283. Sun, L. (2000). The 21st Century Chinese Social Sciences. Chinese Social Sciences, 1, 1–12. Sun, L. (2003). Where is the power of society? Enterprise Technology Development, 11, 23–35. Sun, F. (2004). Reform, development and inequity in health care between urban and rural residents. Statistics and Decision Making, 2, 64–66. Sun, L. (2009). Changes in China’s social structure and the transformation of its analytical models. Nanjing Social Sciences, 5, 92–92. Walder, A. G. (2007). The transformation of contemporary Chinese studies. Tsinghua Sociological Review, 7, 65–82. Wallerstein, I. (2008). What is historical social science? Paper presented at the Contention, Change, and Explanation: A Conference in Honor of Charles Tilly, New York. Weidemann, D. (2010). Challenges of international collabor presented at the contention, change, and explanation: A Conference in Honor of action in the social sciences. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationlization of the social science (pp. 353–378). Transaction Publishers. WoS. (2017). Tsinghua’s SCI and SSCI publications between 2013 and 2017. Retrieved from http:// apps.webofknowledge.com.eproxy2.lib.hku.hk/WOS_AdvancedSearch_input Xie, M. (2018). Living with internationalization: The changing face of the academic life of Chinese social scientists. Higher Education, 75(3), 381–397. Yang, R. (2014). China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(2), 151–162. Yang, R. (2017). The cultural mission of China’s elite universities: Examples from Peking and Tsinghua. Studies in Higher Education, 42(10), 1825–1838. Yang, R., & Xie, M. (2015). Leaning toward the centers: International networking at China’s five C9 league universities. Frontiers of Education in China, 10(1), 66–90. Yang, R. (2013). Indigenised while internationalised? Tensions and dilemmas in China’s modern transformation of social sciences in an age of globalisation. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters. Stuttgart: ibidem Press. Yeatts, D. E., Pei, X., Cready, C. M., Shen, Y., Luo, H., & Tan, J. (2013). Village characteristics and health of rural Chinese older adults: Examining the CHARLS pilot study of a rich and poor province. Social Science & Medicine, 98, 71–78. Ying, X., Wu, F., Zhao, X., & Shen, Y. (2006). Rethinking the traditional Chinese sociological thought tradition. Sociological Studies, 4, 186–200. Zheng, H. S. (2009). Promoting the theory consciousness of Chinese sociology: What kind of Chinese sociology do we need? Jiangsu Social Sciences, 5, 1–7. Zhou, X., & Pei, X. (1997). Chinese sociology in a transitional society. Contemporary Sociology, 26(5), 569–572. Zhou, P., Su, X., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1360–1376.

Chapter 6

Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s Sociology

Be the first to worry about the worries of the world, the last to take pleasure in its pleasures (先天下之憂而憂, 後天下之樂而樂). —Fan Zhongyan (989–1052)

Academic disciplines are epistemological as well as cultural phenomena. This chapter seeks to throw light on how a burgeoning internationalization has influenced the evolution of the disciplinary culture of Tsinghua’s sociology from the perspectives of academic staff. An analytical framework was derived from the literature. Several key themes emerged from the analysis of the qualitative data to reveal the transforming disciplinary culture of Tsinghua’s sociology. They include: academic roles and position(s); international activities; research (scholarship and research collaboration); teaching (pedagogical and curricular aspects); and academic disciplinary construction. By scrutinizing the impact of internationalization on these five correlative dimensions, this chapter articulates the dynamics of the disciplinary ecology of Tsinghua’s sociology. Attention is paid to subtle tensions and struggles that academic staff have experienced owing to cultural conflicts inherent in international, national, and institutional criteria and rationales.

6.1 The Conceptual Framework of Disciplinary Culture Given their cultural traits, academic disciplines can be compared to tribes (Becher & Trowler, 2001). As Becher (1981) explained “they are embodied in collections of likeminded people, each with their own codes of conduct, sets of values and distinctive intellectual tasks” (p. 109). A disciplinary culture is formed by the academics who inhabit and cultivate it (Baert & Shipman, 2012; Bartell, 2003; Becher & Trowler, 2001). The core aspects of disciplinary culture, as perceived and constructed by scholars, are relevant to how they view (i) themselves; (ii) their academic lives and activities; and (iii) the construction of their disciplinary territories.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Xie, Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China, East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8_6

165

166

6 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s …

The analytical framework for this chapter was arrived at through reference to the literature. Clark (1987) highlighted research and teaching functions in his classic The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds as the primary tasks of faculty members in any disciplinary field. The existing literature provided two core elements—teaching and research—of the analytical framework used to investigate the dynamic of disciplinary culture in this study. In addition, Rhoads and Hu (2012) captured the shifting facets of academic life and culture under the influence of internationalization in the context of the Chinese higher education system. These shifting facets include teaching, research, and international activities. This study looked at how internationalization has influenced the ideas and practices of Tsinghua’s sociologists regarding their roles, their academic activities (teaching, research, and international academic activities), and disciplinary construction. By examining the impact of internationalization on these five correlative dimensions, this study reflected on the dynamics and recent shifts of the disciplinary culture of Tsinghua’s sociology (Postiglione & Altbach, 2013).

6.2 Theme 1: International Scholars? In the past, Chinese universities merely competed with each other, lacking an international frame of reference for a long while (Mohrman, 2013). Their institutional capability and competitiveness were insufficient to support them in gaining world status in the international community (Marginson, 2006; Mok, 2007). Thus, social scientists in Chinese universities had limited global vision, did not stray from the national system, and lacked internal and external motivation for global engagement. Few of them achieved international visibility or influence (Hayhoe, 1993; Yang, 2013; Zhou et al., 2010). As internationalization became a strategic part of university reform initiatives, Chinese academics were encouraged to develop their international insights and involvement (Yang, 2003). In particular, demands for global engagement and competition have multiplied. China’s world-class university building policies have been implemented assiduously at both national and institutional levels. The academic environment has become more competitive than ever before (Mohrman et al., 2011). Chinese social scientists, especially those at research-intensive universities, have been urged to move on to a new stage and position themselves in both national and international arenas (Xu & Jiang, 2018). As a flagship university, Tsinghua has managed to maintain its leading role in China’s higher education reforms, institutional capacity construction, and internationalization strategies (Kirby & Eby, 2016; Yang & Welch, 2012). Tsinghua is evolving into a more international higher education institution in the new era and continues to strive for international status in world league tables (Kirby & Eby, 2016). Consequently, internationalization has become an even more integral part of the academic life and activities of Tsinghua’s social scientists (Interviewee 8; Interviewee 9). Furthermore, a determined global strategy has been inaugurated

6.2 Theme 1: International Scholars?

167

to enhance the University’s global status and strengthen transnational cooperation. With the growing status of Tsinghua, its academics have encountered the demand to consolidate the international profiles and influences of their disciplinary territories and scholastic works. The internationalization process has been shifting the disciplinary realms of Tsinghua’s social sciences. To be specific, before the top-down reforms and internationalization strategies were inaugurated at Tsinghua, its sociologists mainly focused on inquiring into the social problems and development of Chinese society and building up scholastic prestige nationally. Following a series of reforms, the academic ecology has become much more dynamic and competitive (Yan, 2010). Tsinghua’s sociologists are now expected to locate themselves in both national and international arenas, consolidate a global-national-local knowledge base, and enhance their international visibility and influence (Cai, 2004). According to the Department’s requirement (Interviewee 1), Tsinghua’s sociologists at present are committed to: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Working for excellence in research; Broaching frontiers in sociological knowledge; Facing the crucial problems of the Chinese society, and Balancing national significance and international influence.

Indeed, the research findings uncovered the fact that faculty members prioritized their national/local commitments and foci while at the same time gradually increasing their capacity to build transnational communication and global engagement (Interviewee 5). Accordingly, faculty members have adopted many more internationalized standards and norms in their research, scholarship, and talent training. Furthermore, they have tended to enhance the visibility of their academic works in the international realm through English-language publication and translation, and international cooperation (e.g., co-authored publications) and communication (e.g., international conferences). This global involvement begs a question regarding the definition of “international scholar.” Tsinghua’s sociologists explicitly highlighted the notion of “academic influence,” which they used to map out the position of a scholar in domestic and international academic circles. A key question is how academic influence should be estimated. One senior sociologist proposed an answer: “It depends on the quality and influence of your scholastic works, and it is reflected by how many people are talking about and citing your work” (Interviewee 3). In this sense, Tsinghua’s sociologists are influential scholars with academic and intellectual leadership as well as social impacts domestically, yet they have not gained distinctive international prestige (Interviewee 6). This is due to the limited international visibility of their scholastic work, the deficiency of innovative and profound theoretical construction in their work, and their lack of significant contribution to the global sociological knowledge base. In addition, they have indulged in Chinese studies but have not had effective dialogue with different theoretical schools and have not embarked on a broader approach to international studies. In retrospect, they acknowledged that their predecessors at Tsinghua, including Chen Da, Pan Guangdan, Li Jinghan, and Fei Xiaotong, were outstanding Chinese sociologists with both national and international prestige. One of the common

168

6 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s …

features of these scholars was their solid grounding in both traditional Chinese learning and Western sociological knowledge, and their resultant innovative integration of different knowledge and values (Interviewee 3). In contrast, the younger generation has been limited by their infertile Chinese learning, especially in traditional knowledge and culture (Interviewee 1). They have not contributed scholastic works that are as influential as those of their predecessors. Several faculty members expressed their concern about “fresh blood” in their Department: Faculty members’ academic influence is shrinking, generation by generation. I always feel ashamed when remembering our predecessors. (Interviewee 3) Tsinghua’s central university administration tightly controls the appointment and promotion of personnel. Our scholastic estimation of faculty recruitment may yield to university-level standards and then fail to recruit an ideal candidate. (Interviewee 2)

Although the Department has retained a number of prominent Chinese sociologists, approximately 30% of the faculty will retire in the coming years (Interviewee 7). The Department will suffer a dearth of new and vigorous members, which could be an opportunity but also a challenge to the disciplinary evolution of Tsinghua’s sociology. With the acceleration of Tsinghua’s global engagement, the University’s Staff Promotion and Evaluation Committee will continually increase the standards for faculty screening, recruitment, and promotion. High-caliber talents with international competitiveness will be recruited to strengthen the Department, but concerns about their contribution to the global-national-local pools of sociological knowledge and their genuine academic influence in the global arena will persist. Strenuous efforts are expected to be made to upgrade their national and international status.

6.3 Theme 2: International Academic Activities Great disparities exist in Chinese higher education institutions with respect to levels of internationalization (Yang, 2002). Tsinghua presents the highest level of internationalization among the hierarchical system (Yang & Xie, 2015). The University can afford to support large-scale internationalization and develop its professoriates on the global stage. The international academic activities of social scientists are related to research, publication, communication, conferences, and funding (Kuhn & Weidemann, 2013). Influenced by the prevailing trend of globalization and internationalization and the rising status of Tsinghua, its social scientists have gained more opportunities for transnational communication and cooperation. Tsinghua has made substantial efforts to enhance its international dimension. One outcome of these efforts has been its strategic global partnerships and collaborations (Yang & Xie, 2015). At present, the University has relationships with 231 partnership universities around the world, 63.64% of which are North American and European (Tsinghua University, 2017). In particular, Tsinghua is known for its international connections with the United States and has established partnerships with fortyone top American universities (see Fig. 6.1). Because Tsinghua supplies favorable

6.3 Theme 2: International Academic Activities

169

Sweden Italy Russia Germany Republic of Korea Australia Canada United Kingdom France Japan United States 0

10

20

30

40

50

Fig. 6.1 Tsinghua university’s top 10 partnership countries. Source Tsinghua University (2017)

platforms that support international engagement, it is a desirable destination for many Chinese social scientists. As one interviewee explained, “We have ample opportunity to join in international activities to a certain extent thanks to the reputation and worldwide partnerships of our university” (Interviewee 7). Another interviewee stated, “Foreign scholars pay increasing attention to China and explore cooperation with us earnestly” (Interviewee 9). Most of Tsinghua’s partners are prominent and are the leading HEIs in their countries or regions (Tsinghua University, 2017). Cooperation with prestigious institutions and scholars has required Tsinghua’s social scientists to enhance their own academic and comprehensive capabilities constantly and to optimize their departments by meeting advanced international standards. Their positions at Tsinghua have promised them more and better opportunities for global engagement. Meanwhile, the University has expected them to place themselves in the global academic landscape in more visible and influential ways. Tsinghua’s sociologists have an in-depth understanding of their own advantages and disadvantages. Visions of upgrading their international academic influence have stimulated self-reflection about their scholarship, academic profession, and organizational development. Tsinghua’s social scientists are involved in an international realm under the auspices of the University. In this process, they share the institutional tradition of nurturing close academic relationships with scholars and institutions in North America and Europe, and with the United States in particular. Tsinghua’s bid for globally recognized status has expanded its international influence, providing broader activities and opportunities for its scholars. Both institutionto-institution and faculty-to-faculty international partnerships have enhanced the benefits of such expansion, and numerous international academic activities such as research cooperation, knowledge exchanges, and international conferences have become an indispensable part of the academic life of Tsinghua’s social scientists (Interviewee 3, Interviewee 5, Interviewee 9). Previously, the international academic activities of Tsinghua scholars were confined to personnel and information exchanges and participating in research conferences and projects led by overseas organizations

170

6 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s …

and scholars (Yang & Welch, 2012). At present, international activities have become increasingly diversified. Tsinghua scholars have been playing an increasingly important role in international communication and collaboration, such as taking initiative to hold high-level international conferences and academic exchanges and chairing international joint research projects and institutes (Interviewee 3). In terms of the international activities of Tsinghua’s sociologists, all faculty members of the Department have had substantial overseas visiting and/or work experience that they consider important for exchanging knowledge and promoting their career. Analyses of the Department members’ biographical overviews showed that those without overseas degrees (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 5, Interviewee 7) have tended to expand their international experience by becoming visiting scholars at top foreign universities. The University has encouraged all scholars to strengthen their international cooperation and enhance their academic influence. A number of transnational activities have been particularly encouraged by the Department. These include contributions to high-level international journals, international cooperation with foreign scholars and organizations, and international pedagogy and conferences (Interviewee 1). In general, faculty members held a positive attitude towards and were actively involved in these activities, seeing themselves as essential channels for knowledge exchange and academic communication in the international arena (Interviewee 3, Interviewee 8). This study found no discrepancy between overseas-trained and domestically trained academics regarding their overall level of international engagement. However, overseas-trained scholars have performed better than their domestically trained peers in English-language publications and as members of international academic societies. Furthermore, senior scholars have focused on certain international communities while junior scholars have tended to broaden their international networks. Engaging in international activities and joining global academic communities have already been important parts of their academic lives. Faculty members have proactively established academic collaboration and networks with internationally prestigious sociology departments and scholars. Communication and interaction between international scholars and Tsinghua’s sociologists through various events and activities has become increasingly frequent. Tsinghua’s sociologists consider the advancement of knowledge and scholarship as key dimensions for individual and institutional development. International activities, therefore, have also centered on such a purpose (Altbach, 1989). Diverse forms of international academic activity and association have been flourishing, yet faculty members believe that academic reading and writing are the most basic and important approaches to knowledge generation and dissemination (Interviewee 3, Interviewee 7). Regrettably, as one interviewee criticized, both teachers and students “rarely” read international journals diligently. He suggested, “It would be better to regulate the academic reading of literature published in top national and international sociological journals as a compulsory course” (Interviewee 7). Another interviewee also noted that academics in leading Chinese universities are not sufficiently well-read in English literature (Interviewee 5). The most fundamental approach to internationalization—systematic and thorough academic reading, reviewing, and criticizing—has

6.3 Theme 2: International Academic Activities

171

been evidently inadequate. In this study, Tsinghua’s sociologists appealed to improve substantial communication with domestic and international peers in this common but crucial way.

6.4 Theme 3: Research Academics at Tsinghua have demonstrated an enthusiastic commitment to research. Tsinghua’s sociologists strive for excellence and constitute an illustrious body with research specialties in urban sociology, medical sociology, social anthropology, and other fields. Each researcher is independent. Senior scholars have their own research territories, lead research centers, and control various academic resources (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2, Interviewee 3). Junior scholars have been inspired to hone their research capabilities and build their own fields, balancing international engagement and national/local commitments. The early years of junior scholars’ academic lives, however, have often been characterized by loneliness, intellectual challenges, and lack of support (Interviewee 9). They are under pressure to compete for government-funded research projects and tenure-track positions. Once a permanent position in a highly competitive university has been obtained, scholars can embark on their own academic research rather than research that is more distant from their interests but more rewarding in terms of job opportunities and government-funded research projects (Altbach, 2015). One scholar explained: In China it takes young scholars some luck to gain support from governmental research funds. For example, I made it in my first attempt to apply for the Ministry of Education Project for Humanities and Social Sciences. However, my applications failed in the next two attempts for the same research fund. What is worse, my proposal was not nominated even for the first round of review. Picking an appropriate research topic is rather important. (Interviewee 8)

Furthermore, in many cases young scholars, particularly overseas returnees, undergo a socialization process to re-adjust their research fields while adapting or readapting to the Chinese higher education and academic system. They must acculturate themselves to Tsinghua’s intellectual and academic environment and institutional demands as well (Interviewee 8, Interviewee 9). In this study, many participants reflected upon how they had adjusted their research fields. They had experienced various conflicts between international, national, and institutional regulations. First, they needed to single out research areas to satisfy their own scholastic interests, while at the same time conforming to the academic regulations and discourses in China, and in particular to the legitimacy and ideology in China’s power structures (Pan, 2009). Senior scholars witnessed a gradual relaxation of ideological supervision in Chinese sociology between the 1990s and 2010s. In recent years, ideological work has become tightened by the central government. Tsinghua’s sociologists have certain academic authority to conduct research and express opinions as independent

172

6 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s …

scholars and public intellectuals, while at the same time adhering to the state’s ideological requirements. They have had the academic freedom to absorb knowledge from the mainstream and the frontiers of Western and Chinese academia by referring to it in their research, while their activities and outputs must respect the legitimacy and ideology of the state (Interviewee 2, Interviewee 8). Second, institutional features, academic atmosphere, and resources enable academic staff to adjust their research fields. Young scholars tend to cooperate with leading scholars and rely upon databases of university research centers (Interviewee 9). Their horizons and research scopes are naturally influenced by leading scholars and the demands of the research centers. In addition, faculty members collaborate with colleagues in other departments to explore interdisciplinary issues. The organizational culture of Tsinghua is characterized by “collectivism” and “self-discipline,” which require academic staff to work in a harmonious and collaborative atmosphere. Tsinghua’s scholars venerate such collectivism; sometimes they give way to it but sacrifice their research interests and territories. Third, the organizational culture and mission of the Department have inherently reshaped the research interests and fields of academic staff. According to the Department’s requirements, Tsinghua’s sociologists are expected to (i) concentrate on real and significant problems in Chinese society in the course of socio-political, economic, and cultural transitions; (ii) enhance in-depth understanding of the internal structures and mechanisms of the society; (iii) construct theoretical systems based on China’s indigenous knowledge and experience; and (iv) formulate knowledge for social progress and harmonization (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2). These values have influenced academic horizons and activities in an unconscious but longstanding way. Tsinghua’s sociologists in general appreciate the inspiring and supportive environment provided by the Department. The University’s policy initiatives—the quest for world-class status, high rankings, and publication leadership—have also influenced their research activities and knowledge creation mechanisms (Xu & Jiang, 2018). They believe that the University has been enveloped in a rational, efficient, and functional doctrine (Interviewee 2, Interviewee 3). Tsinghua has encouraged its academic staff to publish in international journals, particularly in those indexed by SCI, SSCI, and EI. Faculty members have been expected to produce more Chinese and English articles with high impact factors. A “publish or perish” environment emerged at Tsinghua following the adoption of an American-style tenure system (Interviewee 5). The research performance of Tsinghua’s sociologists has been evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively by accounting for the number of works published and the prestige of the periodicals and academic works. In addition, faculty members argued that Tsinghua has attempted to make sociology and other basic social sciences prosper in an exclusively empirical and scientific way, rather than considering the basic values and natures of these disciplines in its quest to propel their advancement (Interviewee 3, Interviewee 4). One senior scholar pointed out that: It is important for universities to deeply venerate pure academic and intellectual work. Tsinghua has an appraised tradition in Wen Ke that has been remarked upon by four tutors

6.4 Theme 3: Research

173

and a large collection of famous scholars in the humanities and social sciences. Tsinghua must preserve such merits and traditions. (Interviewee 4)

Tsinghua’s sociologists also stated that Chinese universities have continued to embody an official-oriented academic ecology. A variety of bureaucratic practices have affected the disciplinary culture and academic research of Chinese scholars (Interviewee 4, Interviewee 6). A typical example is the special approach to evaluating academic performances. The academic work and social impacts of a social scientist can be considered outstanding if it is recognized by government offices (e.g., ministerial or Central Committee members, members of the CPC Politburo or the Politburo Standing Committee, or even the President of China) (Interviewee 6). In addition, research resources are in the hands of political powers, and consequently the distribution of research funding can deviate from purely academic standards (Interviewee 8). The bureaucratic academic environment in China’s higher education has been criticized by domestic and foreign scholars (Altbach, 2016; Yang, 2016). Tsinghua’s sociologists are anxious about such an academic culture as they believe it is detrimental to the sustainable and effective development of their disciplinary areas as well as the healthy development of the academic profession (Interviewee 2, Interviewee 4). Nevertheless, the bureaucratic culture is stubborn in the Chinese higher education system. Chinese social scientists, especially overseas returnees, must adapt to such a culture to secure their positions.

6.5 Theme 4: Teaching Faculty members have dual commitments to both teaching and research that are intertwined in their academic lives. Many researchers have claimed that there are contradictions between teaching and research, as the latter plays a dominant role in knowledge generation, international competition, and global university rankings (Teichler et al., 2013). At present, many research-intensive HEIs in China have shown growing enthusiasm for research with insufficient emphasis on teaching. Tsinghua, however, which attracts the most gifted Chinese students, has placed equal emphasis on teaching and research (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2). This research found that faculty members could not afford to be apathetic about either of these two goals, given the University’s regulations. Tsinghua’s sociologists have made continuous efforts to improve the quality of teaching. As shown in my participant observation of curricula, at Tsinghua senior sociologists, among others, have striven to integrate knowledge from both international and Chinese contexts, which has created an enriched nexus between teaching and research. For example, one scholar ran an elective under the title of Social Stratification, entertaining students with integrated knowledge (e.g., Western social science theories) and at the same time encouraging students’ involvement in probing into social stratification issues in China (Interviewee 1). Senior academics have been active in sharing their research experiences as well as theoretical and methodological

174

6 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s …

attainments with students, especially during postgraduate teaching and supervision. In comparison, junior scholars have specialized in passing on the latest research methods and advances in international research to their students. They are more familiar with international events and the cutting edge of their disciplinary developments. (Interviewee 8, Interviewee 9). Both have paid attention to the mutual development of teaching and research. Furthermore, while teaching in the contemporary international and information-based context, Tsinghua’s social scientists are expected to have a holistic understanding of which knowledge to absorb and integrate into their research and teaching, as well as the ability to produce cutting-edge knowledge that informs their teaching. This has been especially the case as heuristic and participatory teaching has become increasingly emphasized. Faculty members have been required to ensure their teaching practices adhere to acceptable principles. Maintaining the status of Marxism and Leninism remains a huge role for the Chinese social sciences. As the School of Marxism is designed to undertake ideological and political education at Tsinghua for undergraduate and graduate students, it is not compulsory for faculty members of the Department to provide Marxism courses. One of the institutional principles of Tsinghua is that faculty members are responsible for fostering loyalty among students to the party state (Pan, 2009). To some extent, scholars have the academic freedom to criticize social and political problems in their lectures. In recent years, faculty members have noted that the Chinese government has been imposing stricter supervision on teaching activities of social scientists than in the past (Interviewee 1). Besides, Tsinghua’s sociologists pointed out that plurality and diversity contribute to the richness and sustainability of disciplinary evolution and talent training. However, Chinese higher education and its academic system have not nurtured such a dynamic intellectual environment (Interviewee 3, Interviewee 6). The Ministry Of Education and other official organizations play important roles in regulating teaching materials and principles. As one scholar remarked, “The most orthodox books are stipulated by the government, while different institutions are required to use the same text books” (Interviewee 6). In addition to maintaining the principles and quality of teaching contents, Tsinghua’s social scientists have been required to improve their teaching methods. In doing so, they can transmit knowledge to students more efficiently, and work on enhancing teaching quality and emphasizing the cultivation of creative and critical thinking. Tsinghua’s sociologists have been inclined to combine different approaches, including lectures, group discussions, student presentations, seminars, tutorials, and fieldwork, to enrich their teaching activities and encourage student engagement. At Tsinghua, a variety of advanced teaching methods and technologies such as massive open online courses (MOOCs) and distance learning technologies have become popular. That being said, this research found that Tsinghua’s sociologists have not yet widely applied MOOCs but still largely have relied upon traditional ways of teaching. However, compared with students in other departments, sociology students, especially at the doctoral level, have had more support from the Department to embark on fieldwork to approach real societal environments.

6.5 Theme 4: Teaching Table 6.1 Tsinghua university’s registered students

175 Registered students

Numbers

Undergraduates

15,636

Including: international students

1373

Post-graduates

18,661

Including: international students

998

Doctorate candidates:

11,903

Including: international students

321

Source Tsinghua University (2018)

Furthermore, Tsinghua’s social scientists have had a growing mission of nurturing international students. It has been China’s national strategy to recruit more international students to increase the country’s “soft power” (Wen et al., 2018). As a leading university, Tsinghua has become one of the largest hosts of international students among Chinese universities. International students account for approximately 5.8% of Tsinghua’s 46,200 students (Table 6.1). Faced with such the challenge of instructing globally mobile elites, Tsinghua’s academics have been required to teach in both Chinese and English and transform their teaching styles and approaches to attract high-quality international students to learn about Chinese society and culture. The research findings revealed that, in most cases, returned scholars have undertaken the teaching of international students. They can deliver courses in English and have the required communication skills to cooperate with foreign students. Programs for international students have tended to be separate from those designed for Chinese students. The teaching contents have focused particularly on Chinese issues. In general, international programs and courses have been organized by the University. However, departments and research centers have begun to design boutique programs for foreign students in recent years. Led by Professor Jing Jun of the Department of Sociology, Tsinghua’s Research Center for Public Health (TPHRC) in 2013 took the initiative to create an Education Program for the International Master’s in Public Health. This Center has supplied a one-year postgraduate program for foreign students, which has helped students to concentrate on changing global public health problems, especially challenging issues in developing countries. By adopting innovative, interdisciplinary, and cross-cultural approaches, it has provided a comprehensive training and theoretical tools for students to understand public health issues and practices in different countries and has attempted to explore innovative and collaborative ways of coping with public health problems. In 2017 TPHRC initiated another international program called the Silk-Road Global Health Fellowship Program, established to train future leaders in global health fields and to upgrade China’s international contribution to global health and development.

176

6 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s …

6.6 Theme 5: Disciplinary Development Three criteria for the disciplinary development of Tsinghua’s sociology were drawn from the collected qualitative data: (i) academic development and social commitment, (ii) national significance and international frontiers, and (iii) national/local contributions and global influences. The Department has nurtured a supportive setting for scholars to advance towards such standards (Interviewee 5).

6.6.1 Academic Development and Social Commitment Professor Li Qiang, the first Dean of the School of Social Sciences and a well-known sociologist, announced explicit strategies for the development of the social science disciplines at Tsinghua: Broaching the frontiers of social science at the international level along with the major strategic demands of China, we endeavor to advance the comprehensive development of Tsinghua’s social sciences at the academic level on the one hand, and work as a high-caliber and research-intensive think tank for China on the other hand.

Clearly, Tsinghua’s social scientists have been inspired to pursue academic attainment while working for social, economic, and political developments (School of Social Sciences, 2016). This echoes the dual commitments of scholars. It means they are committed to consolidating their disciplinary territories and exploring the frontiers as well as working for the social construction and modernization of China. Shen Yuan, the former head of the Department of Sociology, also stated, “We were hoping to have the capacity to tackle the real problems of Chinese society, but at the same time we wanted to be able to establish a constructive dialogue with contemporary social theory” (Merle, 2004, p. 7). Tsinghua’s sociologists naturally have combined these two kinds of devotion. Rooted in social reality and indigenous Chinese epistemological and cultural resources, these scholars have sought to generate knowledge of national/local relevance and make epistemic contributions to international sociology. Each faculty member has specialized academic interests, but they have respected the common and inherited culture and organizational mission of the Department, connecting their work to social progress and national development. This study found that Tsinghua’s sociologists, and senior intellectuals in particular, ave very likely to integrate their social commitment with academic research (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2). Following their predecessors in Tsinghua’s sociology, they have immersed themselves in a complex and changing society and have adopted their professional knowledge as a tool to reveal and even attempt to solve social problems. For example, one interviewee referred to sociologists as “doctors of human society” who are committed to dealing with its “illnesses” (Interviewee 4). They represent the spirituality of the intellectual’s responsibility for social issues. Tsinghua’s sociologists stressed their double mission in terms of academic and social devotion in the face of the unpatrolled modernization and transformation of Chinese society.

6.6 Theme 5: Disciplinary Development

177

6.6.2 National Significance and International Frontiers Tsinghua’s sociology presents two distinct features pertaining to knowledge generation and disciplinary construction mechanisms. The first is marked by the importance of research. The research fields of Tsinghua’s sociologists are tied to China’s contemporary social issues—the real and significant problems in China’s social contexts (Interviewee 2; Interviewee 4). The second feature is reflected in research scopes and horizons. Positioned at the summit of Chinese academia, Tsinghua’s scholars have possessed particular advantages, visions, and capabilities to spearhead research projects across the country. Their research projects have had the potential to touch whole regions of the country, rather than being limited to local and provincial spheres (Interviewee 1). Tsinghua’s sociologists have been dedicated to a broad set of research areas that covers both universal and particular problems throughout different provinces and regions. Their unique national standing has shaped their research scopes and the significance of their exploration. Probing China’s real problems, Tsinghua’s sociologists have been challenged by the questions: How do we analyze and explain these social problems and transformations? and how do we dialogue with contemporary social theories and further develop original theories drawn from China’s social experiments? Apart from devotion to real and significant problems, other important evaluation criteria have influenced the disciplinary evolution of Tsinghua’s sociology—international visibility, creativity, and influence (Interviewee 6). These sociologists have continually absorbed knowledge from abroad and attempted to catch up with international initiatives. However, a fundamentally important step is to challenge existing theories and contribute to extending and deepening the frontiers. In doing so, they can position themselves at the forefront of disciplinary territories and achieve fundamental disciplinary development (Interviewee 2). At present, “China is undergoing an unprecedented transition that is attracting the world’s attention to an astonishing degree. It is time for Chinese sociologists to research the social transitions and problems of China,” one professor stated (Interviewee 6). Another professor explained, “Once Chinese scholars deeply investigate realistic problems and develop theories to understand these transitions, they may make great contributions to the world’s social sciences” (Interviewee 1). Various strategies and approaches have been adopted by faculty members to pursue such purposes. Remaining open-minded and learning from international knowledge and experience are the most important attitudes and approaches. It seems that the Chinese sociological circle has learnt from American, British, and French social science knowledge. Nevertheless, faculty members have remained discontented with the status quo concerning foreign theoretical assimilation in general. They recommended absorbing foreign sociological theories with more painstaking attention and advocated for more meticulous and systematic learning from Western theories and their limitations (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 6, Interviewee 7). Interviewees argued that Chinese academia has gained a comprehensive understanding of different sociological schools, but their sub-categories, details, and newest developments have not yet been acquired precisely (Interviewee 6, Interviewee 7). Moreover,

178

6 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s …

many foreign theories, concepts, and analytical tools have been used improperly and incorrectly in the Chinese context. As one interviewee stated: It is a pressing task for Chinese social scientists to absorb foreign theories and concepts in the correct way, rather than carrying on research behind closed doors or generating concepts and theories arbitrarily. I usually take this case as an example. Lots of Chinese scholars study social governance or community governance, yet at the same time ignore the most prominent theories in governance. In fact, at least five Nobel Prize laureates have contributed to theories in this domain, which is largely neglected by Chinese scholars. Why not carry forward research by standing on the shoulders of these giants? There is another example regarding research on social capital. It is a well-developed theoretical concept in both the sociological and economic fields. However, it is ridiculously converted into a Chinese term—private money. (Interviewee 6)

Another important approach to the international frontiers of sociological knowledge and disciplinary development has been through transnational cooperation. Knowledge generation in the social sciences is both an individual and a social process. Collaborative activities are conducive to exchanging, combining, exploiting, and accumulating knowledge. Today, cross-border research collaboration in the social sciences is fueled by globalization along with information technology and the global lingua franca, which accentuates both the collision and integration of intercultural and international perspectives and ideas. There exist different forms and patterns of international research collaboration. “The most visible expression of scientific collaboration is obviously co-authorship” (Larivière et al., 2006, p. 531), which is widely accepted as the important proxy and metric for measuring scientific research collaboration (Li & Li, 2015). In recent years, Tsinghua’s sociologists have increased their international research collaboration, a fact that can be reliably represented by co-authorship in their publications (Frenken et al., 2010). In addition, they have cooperated with foreign scholars to operate research centers and projects. These activities have exerted an important impact on broadening the international horizons of Tsinghua’s scholars and making them sensitive to the intellectual dynamics of the global sphere.

6.6.3 National/Local Contributions and Global Influences In striving for first-class status among universities and academic disciplines, Tsinghua and its academics have emphasized global visions and international competitiveness. They have been committed to examining academic disciplines in a global landscape that demands internationally recognized performance (Kirby & Eby, 2016). Driven by internal motivation and high academic standards, Tsinghua’s sociologists have conducted original research and published articles in respected journals. In addition, they have striven to explore and formulate distinct characteristics for Tsinghua’s sociology (Interviewee 6). The social scientists in the Department

6.6 Theme 5: Disciplinary Development

179

particularly emphasized “global significance” and “local commitment” when examining how internationalization and globalization have influenced their disciplinary development (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 8). Tensions—as manifested in, for example, publication activities where scholars continually compared the pros and cons of publishing either in Chinese or in English—have always arisen from this desire, mostly due to the delicate but hard-to-maintain balance between international impact (e.g., global engagement) and domestic forces (e.g., local relevance) (Flowerdew & Li, 2009; Yang, 2013). However, Tsinghua’s sociologists clarified that prestigious Chinese journals (e.g., Sociological Studies, The Chinese Journal of Sociology, and Social Sciences) were taken as equally important as top international journals (e.g., The American Journal of Sociology and The British Journal of Sociology) (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 6, Interviewee 7). A typical example is a Tsinghua sociologist with fortyone Chinese publications and forty international articles, including two French ones. This scholar reflected: I always ask myself: Should I publish in English or Chinese journals? My answer is to balance them. I have published some papers with high impact factors (e.g., 26.68 in Science and 36.43 in The Lancet). But I think it is important to keep writing and publishing in Chinese. Chinese is my own language in which I can express a particular logic, ideas, and cultures. More important, Chinese academic work has more local relevance and contributions to make. (Interviewee 3)

More analytically, Tsinghua sociologists’ English-language publications demonstrated that they normally synthesize Western and Chinese literature by searching English and Chinese databases and building a contextual episteme to delve into their research fields, as most of their research is in Chinese studies. However, the clear majority of the theories used in their research are derived from the West. It would be difficult to publish in prominent international journals without theoretical affiliations and dialogue with the mainstream sociological knowledge. As the interviewees explained, the theoretical tradition and the contemporary knowledge system of sociology are dominated by the West. Whilst they recognized such an asymmetrical knowledge system, Tsinghua’s sociologists emphasized learning from the West (Interviewee 1). As one faculty member explained, “I consider such learning as standing on the shoulder of giants to see further” (Interviewee 6). International academic discourse in the social sciences is dominated by Europe and North America, and the US and the UK in particular (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 5, Interviewee 6, Interviewee 7). Scholars in the Department do have recognized such Western domination, center-periphery structure, or academic dependence. They have sought to face the challenges and narrow the gap by continuously absorbing knowledge from abroad on the one hand and generating indigenous knowledge on the other. They have respected and persevered with international norms and practices to construct their academic disciplines. Moreover, they have been committed to investigating major social problems in China, and they have honored its rich culture and traditions by contributing indigenous knowledge (Interviewee 3, Interviewee 4). As one senior professor attested:

180

6 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s …

Learning from the highest international standards in the social sciences is compulsory, but we need to absorb foreign studies critically and indigenize them properly. Our scholars pay attention to international frontiers, on the one hand, and highly value and seek great academic contributions to China on the other. If we only focus on catching up with the West or publishing in top American journals without academic contributions to national and local problems in Chinese society, this direction is totally wrong and ridiculous. (Interviewee 1)

Many interviewees agreed that Tsinghua’s institutional tradition had inspired them to combine Western and Chinese learning, and to seek national and international achievements (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 8). They referenced Chinese sociologists such as Chen Da, Li Jinghan, Pan Guangdan, Wu Jingchao, and Fei Xiaotong, those scholars in the old Tsinghua with academic recognition in both the Chinese and international academic communities (Qian & Li, 2011). Current scholars regarded them as role models in promoting academic research and the disciplinary development of Tsinghua’s sociology. They agreed that their predecessors’ grounding in Chinese studies and elaborate training in Western learning had contributed to their pre-eminent academic attainments. This has been the pathway that Tsinghua’s social scientists have used to promote knowledge generation and theory advancement. However, they were also introspective about the indigenization and construction of Tsinghua’s sociology. The Department’s new generations have not yet matched their predecessors’ achievements in acquiring indigenous and traditional knowledge of Chinese and Western traditions in social sciences, or in generating original academic values. They did believe, however, that traditional culture, indigenous knowledge, and Western learning in the social sciences are essential to the growth of Tsinghua’s sociology (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 6, Interviewee 7). Everyone appeared to recognize the importance of integrating these elements to develop the discipline, but few scholars had successfully achieved this target. Internationalization can be a valid strategy for linking Tsinghua’s social scientists to the international academic community, increasing their prestige in the eyes of national and international peers, and legitimating themselves in the national/local environment. The interviewees argued that the internationalization of sociology does not exclusively refer to the adoption of Euro-American standards. Rather, the aim of internationalization is to promote cross-national and cross-cultural understanding. However, in the wake of this imbalance of academic power, the internationalization of the social sciences faces continual challenges in trying to integrate Western-centric disciplines with Chinese knowledge and culture. Such a process is bound to be difficult.

6.7 Summary This chapter has provided a bottom-up exploration of the changing disciplinary culture of Tsinghua’s sociology as cultivated and perceived by its faculty members under the impact of internationalization. It first examined the transformed and transforming role of academic staff, and found that despite their concentration

6.7 Summary

181

on national/local territories, Tsinghua’s sociologists have more consciousness of upgrading their international profiles and influences to become international scholars. This was followed by an analysis of three types of disciplinary tasks during internationalization: international activities, research, and teaching. The findings showed that the internationalization process of Tsinghua has promoted the adoption of internationalized criteria in faculty performance and promotion mechanisms, stimulated enthusiasm for international activities, and strengthened internationally oriented (largely North American) norms and practices in research, teaching, and discipline development. Then, this chapter explicated the disciplinary construction features shaped by both national and international forces. Inherent tensions exist when Tsinghua’s sociologists have attempted to maintain a balance between national/local commitment and international influence.

References Altbach, P. G. (1989). Twisted roots: The Western impact on Asian higher education. Higher Education, 18(1), 9–29. Altbach, P. G. (2015). The costs and benefits of world-class universities. International Higher Education, 33, 5–7. Altbach, P. G. (2016). Chinese higher education: “Glass ceiling” and “feet of clay.” International Higher Education, 86, 11–13. Baert, P., & Shipman, A. (2012). Transforming the intellectual. In F. D. Rubio & P. Baert (Eds.), The politics of knowledge (pp. 179–204). Routledge. Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45(1), 43–70. Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109–122. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. SRHE and Open University Press. Cai, Y. (2004). Confronting the global and the local—A case study of Chinese higher education. Tertiary Education & Management, 10(2), 157–169. Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton University Press. Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 1–16. Frenken, K., Hoekman, J., & Hardeman, S. (2010). The globalization of research collaboration. In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 144–148). UNESCO Publishing. Hayhoe, R. (1993). Chinese universities and the social sciences. Minerva, 31(4), 478–503. Kirby, W. C., & Eby, J. W. (2016). From preparatory academy to national flagship: The evolution of Tsinghua University. Harvard University. Kuhn, M., & Weidemann, D. (2013). Internationalization of the social sciences. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought local knowledge in global science encounters. ibidem Press. Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533. Lee, C. K., & Shen, Y. (2009). China: The paradox and possibility of a public sociology of labor. Work and Occupations, 36(2), 110–125.

182

6 Internationalizing the Disciplinary Culture of Tsinghua’s …

Li, J., & Li, Y. (2015). Patterns and evolution of coauthorship in China’s humanities and social sciences. Scientometrics, 102(3), 1997–2010. Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39. Merle, A. (2004). Towards a Chinese sociology for “communist civilisation.” China Perspectives, 2004(52), 1–16. Mohrman, K. (2013). Are Chinese universities globally competitive? The China Quarterly, 215, 727–743. Mohrman, K., Geng, Y., & Wang, Y. (2011). Faculty life in China. The NEA 2011 almanac of higher education (pp. 83–99). National Education Association. Mok, K. H. (2007). Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: Critical reflections. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 433–454. Pan, S. Y. (2009). University autonomy, the state and social change in China. Hong Kong University Press. Postiglione, G. A., & Altbach, P. G. (2013). Professors: The key to internationalization. International Higher Education, 73, 11–12. Qian, Y., & Li, Q. (2011). Social sciences in the old Tsinghua University. Tsinghua University Press. Rhoads, R. A., & Hu, J. (2012). The internationalization of faculty life in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(3), 351–365. School of Social Sciences. (2016). 90 years of Tsinghua social science commemoration conference & 105th anniversary alumni seminar. Retrieved from http://www.sss.tsinghua.edu.cn/pub lish/sssen/7920/2016/20160711161221064541358/20160711161221064541358_.html Teichler, U., Arimoto, A., & Cummings, W. K. (2013). The changing academic profession. Springer. Tsinghua University. (2017). International partners. Retrieved from http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/ publish/newthuen/newthuen_cnt/international/international-5.html Tsinghua University. (2018). Statistical information. Retrieved from http://www.tsinghua.edu.cn/ publish/newthu/newthu_cnt/about/about-6.html Wen, W., Hu, D., & Hao, J. (2018). International students’ experiences in China: Does the planned reverse mobility work? International Journal of Educational Development, 61, 204–212. Xu, X., & Jiang, K. (2018). International publication and incentive system in humanities and social sciences: From the perspective of academics. Journal of Higher Education, 39(1), 43–55. Yan, F. (2010). The academic profession in China in the context of social transition: An institutional perspective. European Review, 18(S1), S99–S116. Yang, R. (2002). Third delight: The internationalization of higher education in China. Routledge. Yang, R. (2003). Globalisation and higher education development: A critical analysis. International Review of Education, 49(3), 269–291. Yang, R. (2013). Indigenised while internationalised? Tensions and dilemmas in China’s modern transformation of social sciences in an age of globalisation. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters. ibidem Press. Yang, R. (2016). Cultural challenges facing East Asian higher education: A preliminary assessment. In C. Collins, M. Lee, J. Hawkins, & D. Neubauer (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Asia Pacific higher education (pp. 227–245). Palgrave Macmillan. Yang, R., & Welch, A. (2012). A world-class university in China? The case of Tsinghua. Higher Education, 63(5), 645–666. Yang, R., & Xie, M. (2015). Leaning toward the centers: International networking at China’s five C9 league universities. Frontiers of Education in China, 10(1), 66–90. Zhou, P., Su, X., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences. Journal of the Association for Informational Science and Technology, 61(7), 1360–1376.

Chapter 7

Discussions and Conclusion

Every form of beauty has its uniqueness. Precious it is to appreciate other forms of beauty with openness. If beauty represents itself with diversity and integrity, the world will be blessed with harmony and unity (各美其美, 美人之美, 美美與共, 天下大同). — Fei Xiaotong (1910–2005)

Tsinghua University has been explicitly positioning itself to pursue leadership in a global academic landscape, and this stated goal has been accompanied by reforms and advancements in its comprehensive academic disciplines (Kirby & Eby, 2016; Yang & Welch, 2012). These reforms have profoundly reshaped the mechanisms, directions, and standards of disciplinary development for its social sciences. The evolution of Tsinghua’s social sciences has required the integration of both national and international criteria and standards. Internationalization has been taken by Tsinghua as a crucial strategy to upgrade its international prestige, mission, and influence in a globalized world. The process of internationalization has triggered the growth of Tsinghua’s social sciences, while international norms and global competition are rushing headlong towards the disciplinary evolution dynamics of Tsinghua’s social sciences. At Tsinghua, the Department of Sociology was established in 1926 and gained academic prestige in both national and international academic communities, but was dismantled in 1952 and was not reconstructed until the year 2000. This book attempts to explore the disciplinary evolution of Tsinghua’s sociology after its reconstruction—intellectually, institutionally, and culturally—under the impact of internationalization through the cognition and experiences of Tsinghua’s scholars (Wallerstein, 1996, 1998, 2008). Following the previous three chapters, which have depicted research findings from these three interrelated aspects, this chapter launches discussions around the core questions of this book while revisiting the long-standing theoretical and historical issues related to the disciplinary evolution of the Chinese social sciences within an asymmetrical yet increasingly multi-polarized global academic world. This book recognizes the internationalization of higher education in China as multi-staged, and its advanced stage is to bring China to the world. This book highlights exchanges and mutual learning between civilizations and states that the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Xie, Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China, East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8_7

183

184

7 Discussions and Conclusion

evolution of both the Chinese and global social sciences should take into account different cultures and traditions.

7.1 Organizational Evolution: Three Circles with Inherent Opportunities and Complexities Tsinghua’s world-class university building policies and initiatives have led to overwhelming disciplinary construction. One of the most crucial themes has been the reconstruction of the social sciences (Xie & Liu, 2019; Yang & Welch, 2012). This study has found that both strategies for restructuring its social sciences and internationalization have been embedded in Tsinghua’s world-class university building blueprint. Simultaneously, the internationalization process with specific goals has influenced the University’s strategic planning and reforms, as well as the construction of the social sciences at both the micro and macro levels. Under this circumstance, the organizational arrangements and institutional structures and norms of Tsinghua’s sociology have been inextricably built up by incorporating international models and ideas (Hayhoe, 1989; Xie, 2018). To be specific, the present international norms and patterns in modern universities and the social sciences have been much shaped by advanced North American and Western European universities (Altbach, 1991; Altbach & Knight, 2007; Wang, 1992). In the case of Tsinghua, it has shown a strong tendency to learn from and compete with global leading universities, while at the same time firmly adhering to Chinese characteristics (Wang, 2003). The organizational structure and institutional settings of the Department of Sociology at Tsinghua have mainly incorporated Chinese and Western patterns (Altbach, 1991; Kim, 2007). Initially, standardized structures and universal norms were embraced in its search for legitimacy, as has been the case for most reestablished institutions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Robertson, 1995). Besides, there has been a great urge to adopt internationally recognized regulations, under global pressure. All these efforts have led to isomorphic institutional changes in the Department in accordance with both national and international norms and standards. In fact, universities and disciplinary organizations worldwide have been converging towards a set of perceptions, orientations, and regulations in the course of globalization and internationalization (Altbach, 2015b). This research argues that the Department along with other social science institutions at Tsinghua will incorporate more high-standard and internationally respected regulations and components. Thus further institutionalization of the Department will tend to converge with world-leading sociology departments such as those at Harvard and Stanford. In the past two decades of reconstruction and development, the Department of Sociology at Tsinghua has embraced not only evolutionary development, but also revolutionary growth through a series of institutional reforms—outgrowths of its world-class university building initiative and global competition—such as a new personnel system, international peer reviews, and tenure track (Kirby & Eby, 2016;

7.1 Organizational Evolution: Three Circles …

185

Luo, 2016). Among these reforms, the most striking one with the most profound potential for influence has been the personnel reform. This research found that many international criteria for faculty recruitment and promotion have been endorsed by central university administrators and have been incorporated into Tsinghua’s reform policies. This trend has changed the institutional ecology, leading to a highly competitive environment where faculty members work under tremendous pressure to survive, based on both national and international criteria and standards (Luo, 2016). Specifically, a growing number of international criteria have been incorporated to reshape institutional standards, which have generated daunting challenges for younger academics seeking tenured positions while urging their senior colleagues to reflect on their roles (Mohrman et al., 2011). Nevertheless, this research has remarked that the institutionalization of the university personnel system represents a kind of nationalism. As Salmi (2009) pinpointed, recruiting and retaining global talents to compete with the world’s brightest minds is one of the most crucial factors in stimulating organizational development and achieving institutional capacity building. Preeminent scholars are considered an essential source of development and prosperity in global leading universities (Altbach, 2015a); this recognition is so persuasive that universities scramble to recruit talented scholars, with top universities commonly attracting the world’s top-notch scholars. However, Chinese universities have not been open to recruiting a number of international scholars, especially in the fields of the humanities and social sciences. This has also been the case at Tsinghua, although this top university has already established a higher standard of internationalization. This study has observed that Tsinghua has been keen to recruit talents globally and has encouraged its academics to enhance their international collaboration and influence (Xie & Liu, 2019). Nevertheless, most job opportunities at Tsinghua have been offered only to Chinese academics, specifically well-known Chinese scholars and promising overseas returnees (Xie, 2018). Besides, a growing number of international visiting scholars have been hosted by the University. This research argues that the lack of talented international academics among its faculty members may hinder its advanced stage of HE internationalization and restrict its global competitiveness, as world-class universities deliberately attract and retain the best academics from all parts of the world (Altbach, 2015a, 2015b; Mok & Cheung, 2011). Although the fields of humanities and social sciences have their particularities, the participation of an appropriate proportion of outstanding international scholars in Chinese universities is necessary for the construction of world-class universities and first-class disciplines. Notwithstanding intense international influences, disciplinary organization is embedded in the national environment and hence cannot ignore the effects of various domestic factors and institutional logics (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002; Portnoi & Bagley, 2011). The development of Tsinghua’s sociology has occurred among three interrelated ecological systems: departmental, institutional, and national. These three systems are interconnected and influenced by international trends, yet each presents different priorities and particularities.

186

7 Discussions and Conclusion

First, most interviewees felt that the Department is a delightful environment for conducting research with a certain degree of academic freedom (Interviewee 5, Interviewee 7). It is a small but autonomous space, where faculty members and administrators respect academic norms and qualities. Although both international and national impacts are present, the Department maintains its own organizational features and institutional idiosyncrasies. It has formulated its strategic approaches to promoting organizational growth, establishing its “small but excellent” features (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 6). A supportive and inspiring atmosphere has been built up at the Department to protect academic authority and freedom, and to inspire its academic members to conduct pure scholarly research. Tsinghua’s sociologists compared their Department to a “secret garden” that is strikingly different from a bustling world affected by the trends of commercialization, politicization, and instrumental rationalism (Gauchat, 2012; Knight, 2012). This “secret garden” has been sympathetic to advanced standards and professional norms in scholarship (Interviewee 3; Interviewee 4). The fundamental rationale for the Department joining in the process of internationalization has been purely academically oriented, with the purpose of propelling disciplinary growth, scholarly research, and knowledge generation and exchange (Knight, 2004). Second, at the University level, however, many interviewees complained that the institutional settings and advantages of Tsinghua primarily focus on the natural and engineering sciences, to the extent that scholars in the social sciences have been somewhat overlooked (Interviewee 2, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 4, Interviewee 6). As one professor remarked, “The atmosphere of Tsinghua is largely dominated by the disciplinary features of sciences and engineering, which have made scholars in the social sciences feel uncomfortable” (Interviewee 3). Such an atmosphere partially means that Tsinghua over-emphasizes productivity and efficiency in research, which works well in the fields of sciences and engineering but does not benefit the growth of the basic social sciences (Marginson, 2021). Moreover, policy changes designed to achieve world-class performance have increasingly driven the “efficiency”, “productivity”, and “international visibility” of each discipline. Tsinghua is now competing in global league tables and the knowledge-based global economy, and urging the measurement of each academic discipline’s “excellence” and “competitiveness” on both national and international scales. Third, at the national higher education level, there are complex institutional logics affecting academic development. Academic rationale should broadly work as a fundamental force for disciplinary development, serve as the basic principle underlying the operation and governance of academic systems and institutions, and function as a platform for the pursuit of excellence in knowledge generation and talent cultivation (Knight, 2004; Zhou, 2017). Other rationales are supposed to be ranked after academic authority and regulations; however, Chinese universities and their disciplinary organizations are unable to avoid pressures from external factors such as politics, ideology, and the economy (Yang et al., 2007; Zha, 2009). As Altbach (2014) pointed out, the macro- and micro-ecological environments in China’s academic system have been highly bureaucratic. Yang and Welch (2012) described this system as the intertwining of academia and officialdom. Kirby (2014a) stated

7.1 Organizational Evolution: Three Circles …

187

that “the Chinese political system remains restrictive, while it has allowed, indeed enabled, universities to grow and flourish” (p. 75). Additionally, the social sciences have been recognized as an important ideological battlefield. In recent years, the central government has increasingly strengthened ideological work in the domain of higher education (Interviewee 1). Tsinghua’s faculty members have been required to accurately grasp the relationship between ideology and the principle of academic freedom and to adhere to socialist construction (Interviewee 4). In China’s academic system, the development of the social sciences can be implemented through top-down reforms and policies in accordance with national requirements (Gransow, 2008). In the meanwhile, the evolution of the social sciences is bottom-up, initiated by academia and professional groups (Dirlik, 2012). The forces of top-down policies and those of bottom-up demands are entwined, but they often produce contradictions. It is necessary to coordinate these two aspects to nurture a supportive environment for the prosperity and further development of the social sciences. However, many scholars have criticized the lack of autonomous growth and academic freedom in Chinese universities (Marginson, 2014; Mohrman, 2008; Ren & Li, 2013; Yang et al., 2007). Among them, Mohrman (2013) considered that academic freedom and institutional autonomy are important conditions for the institutional growth of Chinese universities and their academic disciplines. Altbach (2016) regarded the “impediment to academic freedom” as a crucial component of the structural barrier—i.e., “glass ceiling”—that tends to inhibit China’s leading universities from advancing into the world’s top tier. The real solution to the contradiction between academic rationale and external factors lies in enhancing an intellectual space for the independent growth of the basic social sciences and vigorously promoting the development of the academic profession. In an interview, when asked to describe the ideal model of a disciplinary organization, one faculty member replied that it is a model that can “raise you up” (Respondent 6). It is supportive and active in the institutional setting, and there are no structural barriers to the pursuit of excellence in scholarship and academic careers.

7.2 Intellectual Evolution: Fragmentation and Integration in Sociological Knowledge This study delved into the dynamics and mechanisms of knowledge manufacturing and intellectual development in Tsinghua’s sociology under the influence of internationalization. Through the analysis of the research results, this study found that the knowledge generation mechanisms of Tsinghua’s sociologists have four distinctive features: (i) starting from the consciousness of social problems and social commitment; (ii) embracing inter-disciplinary research; (iii) moving from a solely scientific and empirical research paradigm towards a holistic research paradigm; and, (iv)

188

7 Discussions and Conclusion

upgrading intellectual dialogues and boosting theoretical originality. These mechanisms are affected by the interaction of international, national, and institutional forces. Problem Consciousness. Tsinghua’s sociologists are laden with problem consciousness and social commitment (Interviewee 1). They respect and tend to inherit the virtues of traditional Chinese intellectuals, embracing a strong sense of social responsibility and abiding by the motto of “concern about all over the world first and enjoyment for oneself last” (先天下之憂而憂, 後天下之樂而樂). Therefore, they have been unequivocally devoted to the study of major social issues and transitions in contemporary Chinese society (Interviewee 2; Interviewee 4). This quintessential feature has also been present in their scholarly work and reflections. For example, Professor Shen Yuan (2007b), former dean of the Department, observed that the efforts of reconstructing sociology in China had been undergoing a profound “paradox and dilemma.” In the book Market, Class and Society: Critical Issues on Sociology of Transformation, Shen (2007) stated that: China is in the midst of important and complex changes, which creates a huge space for social imagination for the academic work of social scientists. Disappointingly, Chinese sociology has not been successful in supplying appropriate theoretical perspectives and technical tools to interpret and predict such changes. It presents a distressing picture. Chinese sociologists tend to research occupational stratification when class stratification emerges in the society; look into the stability of social structure in the period of frequent social conflicts; dwell in micro-practice when institutional changes happen; probe into Chinese labor without observing their production process; and stress “value neutral” in front of the grievances and struggles of the bottom of society. Consequently, sociology is caught in a ridiculous situation, and it is even deformed by what was named by Bourdieu as “social witchcraft.” This kind of sociology uses scientific approaches to shallow the social reality and paralyze people’s minds, but never provides new knowledge. (p. iii)

The Department has urged its academics to probe into the “real problems” of Chinese society. In fact, Tsinghua’s sociologists have been working hard to fight against “paradox and dilemma” and have formulated a strategic direction for their disciplinary growth. During the process, senior scholars have led their younger colleagues to conduct in-depth research on major social issues in China. They have striven to provide perspicacious explanations and sociological theories for China’s social reality and social transformation. Besides, they have begun to carry on international collaborative research to deal with local, regional, and global social issues, such as global public health. Interdisciplinary Spaces of Knowledge Production. Currently, the pursuit of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research has become an increasingly important trend in the creation and dissemination of knowledge around the world (Altbach, 2016; Salmi, 2001). Tsinghua has nurtured its traditions of blending the ancient and the modern, and interconnecting the humanities and sciences (School of Social Science, 2016). Its social scientists have concentrated on propelling the professionalization and in-depth development of their disciplinary fields on one hand, and have been committed to exploring inter-, multi-, and cross-disciplinary spaces for knowledge excavation on the other.

7.2 Intellectual Evolution: Fragmentation and Integration …

189

Tsinghua’s sociologists affirmed that they have benefited from interdisciplinary research in terms of knowledge generation, theoretical innovation, and policy recommendation (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3, Interviewee 5). They have also made progress in interdisciplinary collaboration, not only expanding cooperation with other social science institutes, but also launching collaborative projects with scholars in the sciences and engineering (Interviewee 1). For instance, the Department has launched sustainable cooperation with academics in Tsinghua’s School of Architecture to conduct research on Chinese communities, social stratification, and gerontology and to supply related courses to graduate students (Interviewee 2). A growing number of university-level interdisciplinary research projects and centers have been established, with Tsinghua’s sociologists’ active participation and even initiation. Among the Department’s collaborative research centers, the Research Centre for Public Health—established in 2010 through the joint efforts of the Department and the School of Medicine—is a prominent one, highlighting interdisciplinary studies relevant to public health at home and abroad. Through it, an interdisciplinary space has been built combining medical science, life science, public administration, economic management, laws, communication studies, and environmental science. Academics with different disciplinary backgrounds and advantages work together to find solutions to public health issues, produce high quality publications, and contribute to government policy making (Interviewee 3). Tsinghua’s sociologists highly appraised cross-, inter-, and multi-disciplinary exploration, encompassing Wen Ke and sciences, and “soft” and “hard” disciplines. This kind of exploration and collaboration was deemed to be conducive to developing the characteristics and wide-ranging advantages of Tsinghua’s social sciences. The development potential of Tsinghua’s social sciences can be realized through multifaceted cooperation with the arts, engineering, and sciences, which can provide diverse and comprehensive perspectives and methods to solve complex social problems. Accordingly, Tsinghua’s sociologists have appealed for substantial interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary collaboration under the support of the university. Holistic Research Paradigms. The methodological space where academics conceive and conduct research is always important (Shen, 2007; Sun, 2000). Different methodologies together with ontological and epistemology paradigms undoubtedly lead to differing natures and forms of knowledge-manufacturing processes. Nonaka (1994) pointed out that the conventional Western epistemology emphasizes the “truthfulness of knowledge,” but the concept of “justified true belief” can also be used as another definition of knowledge formation. He claimed that: While the former naturally emphasizes the absolute, static, and nonhuman nature of knowledge, typically expressed in propositional forms in formal logic, the latter sees knowledge as a dynamic human process of justifying personal beliefs as part of an aspiration for the truth. (p. 15)

Predominantly influenced by the intellectual mode of scientific thinking, Tsinghua’s academics to a large extent believe in the first form of knowledge, as Nonaka (1994) concluded. They prioritize Western scientific knowledge and

190

7 Discussions and Conclusion

reasoning, especially positivist paradigm and experimental approach over other paradigms. Most researchers at Tsinghua disfavor alternative ways of thinking for knowledge generation. As one interviewee remarked, scientists in biology might accept diversity and pluralism because of the importance of biodiversity; scientists in other subjects at Tsinghua indulge in an absolute result drawn from the verification of the repeatable (Interviewee 3). Tsinghua’s sociologists respect diversity nested in different cultural roots, while pursuing “scientific authenticity” and “justified belief.” Participants put forward thoughtful reflections on their research paradigms and methodologies. Opening their horizons and combining the strengths of different research paradigms is their strategy to penetrate the reality of Chinese society. Qualitative research close to anthropological exploration is valued. Through participating in observations and in-depth interviews, they probe deeply into society and provide in-depth explanations. In addition, Tsinghua’s sociologists prefer quantitative research, although they admit that it is inadequate to merely use one “reigning” paradigm to gain a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of China (Interviewee 9). As one professor explained: Quantitative research and mathematical models are popular in many social science disciplines such as economics and management. But sociology emphasizes a comprehensive understanding of society. Therefore, sociologists cannot rely solely on sophisticated mathematical models. (Interviewee 1)

Besides, although many studies adopt quantitative research methods, most of them fail to make theoretical contributions and cannot correctly explain Chinese society. As China is undergoing profound social transformation, excessive reliance on quantitative techniques may bring potential risks to the development of Chinese sociology (Interviewee 4). Hence, Tsinghua’s sociologists have turned their attention to the holistic research paradigm, rather than just adopting so-called scientific and empirical research. Even sociologists who are quantitative research experts tend to include other research paradigms, such as qualitative research and dialectical research, and incorporate deep-level social investigations into their research agenda. The social reality and problems in human society are too complicated to be measured and explained solely by scientific questionnaires and quantitative research (Zhou, 2017). Therefore, Tsinghua’s sociologists attach importance to different knowledge manufacturing paradigms, conduct research on real-world social issues, pursue theoretical attainments, and interpret the problems of today’s transitional society in China. Intellectual Dialogues and Theoretical Originality. Sociologists in China have been constantly challenged by the question of how to combine Western sociological theories and Chinese learning and values, while keeping the balance between universalist and culturalist poles. Tsinghua’s sociologists have conceived internationalization as an open-minded perspective and an integration of different types of knowledge and diverse cultures. They affirmed that remaining open-minded and learning from international knowledge and experience are the most important attitudes and approaches. Tsinghua’s sociologists unequivocally take inspiration from Western sociological theories. They attach importance to assimilating Western theories and having dialogues with foreign

7.2 Intellectual Evolution: Fragmentation and Integration …

191

theorists through knowledge generation and publication. In general, they have been particularly inspired by the British, American, and French schools of sociology (Interviewee 3). Nevertheless, it is disappointing to observe that those theories are overwhelmingly based on Western experiences and are not always appropriate and sufficient to explain the reality and complexity of Chinese society. These theories— deemed “universal” despite being rooted exclusively in Western culture—are criticized for having exhausted their capability to explain the social transitions and problems in many non-Western societies (Wallerstein, 1997). Tsinghua’s sociologists feel obliged to explore innovative theories to explain Chinese society and contribute to the world’s sociology knowledge pool. One of the quintessential features of their knowledge generation mechanism revolves around contemporary social problems and transitions in China. At present, China is undergoing extraordinary transformations and faces numerous social issues and challenges, as well as great opportunities. Such social circumstances provide Chinese social scientists with a momentous space to explore and develop stunning new social theories to supply insights into and explanations of China’s complexity. Tsinghua’s sociologists have recognized this great opportunity and have made a commitment to work toward theoretical breakthroughs based on China’s unique path of reform and development (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 2, Interviewee 3). One senior scholar stated: As an ancient country with five thousand years of civilization, China can never be completely ignored by the global community. According to Huntington, there are seven kinds of civilization in the human world. The most distinct ones are Western and Eastern civilizations. China owns an important position in Eastern civilizations, while the Western civilization has its roots in Ancient Greece and Rome. Eastern and Western civilizations are different cultural systems weaved by human beings in tune with varied values and human behaviors. From the perspective of culture and civilization, no one in the world turns a blind eye to China and deliberately disregards its social sciences. Chinese social scientists are obligated to protect this cultural resource and reputation. It is a mission for Chinese social scientists to construct an innovative and modern social science knowledge base that is rooted in Chinese civilization to interpret the institutional logics of the society and social behaviors of a tremendous population of 1.4 billion Chinese people. (Interviewee 1)

There is an urgent need to build an innovative and modern sociological knowledge system in China. Nevertheless, many studies have become stuck at a superficial level by a lack of theorization, let alone systematic construction of sociological theories (Interviewee 7). For example, the topic of migrant children has attracted much research attention in recent years, but most studies have been policy-oriented and have lacked thoughtful theoretical exploration. Another example is the problem of urbanization. Chinese sociologists have conducted research in various provinces— including Yunnan, Guangxi, and Guizhou—but those studies have been scattered and fragmented. Theoretical themes are urgently required to link these studies and look for theoretical attainments. This book argues that the Chinese sociological community needs to cooperate to deal with the fragmentation of sociological research and knowledge generation. Tsinghua’s sociologists, as elite scholars, bear certain responsibilities for such restructuring.

192

7 Discussions and Conclusion

Another problem is overdependence on Western sociological theories (Alatas, 2003; Keim, 2010, 2011; Kuhn & Weidemann, 2010). The Chinese sociological knowledge base has been built on and shaped by Western sociology (Zheng, 2011), especially American sociology (Sun, 2000). Many of its predetermined definitions, preselected variables, and predesigned theories have been borrowed from the West. Accordingly, Western epistemological reasoning and methodological paradigms have been brought in to reveal research problems and mechanisms in Chinese society. This overemphasis on Western theories means that Chinese intellectual traditions have been largely ignored. Therefore, Tsinghua’s scholars appeal for theoretical innovation based on indigenous studies. My research findings showed that, against a background of the supremacy of European-American social science knowledge within an asymmetrical global structure, both Eastern civilization and Chinese culture have seldom been well positioned in sociological research to pursue theoretical breakthroughs. Tsinghua’s sociologists have a strong consciousness of working for theoretical attainment, as well as to improve their academic status in the international arena (Interviewee 5). They have carried forward research and dialogue with social theories and created original sociological knowledge rooted in the complexity and dynamics of Chinese society (Merle, 2004). Moreover, senior scholars have a stronger sense of the need to create original conceptual frameworks and theories to interpret the peculiarities of China’s social transitional experience, emancipating themselves from the epistemic autonomy of Western sociology. Both cultural consciousness and theoretical consciousness are respected (Fei, 2016; Jin, 1998; Zheng, 2009). Chinese traditional civilization, culture, and philosophy impact the scholarly work of Tsinghua’s sociologists to varying degrees (Interviewee 9). Such a process is bound to be difficult. It takes time for Tsinghua’s sociologists to collaborate with the Chinese sociological community to construct an innovative and comprehensive sociological knowledge system. Additionally, there is a pressing need for Chinese academics to enhance the Chinese social sciences’ standards of internationalization as a strategic approach to engaging the international academic community and global knowledge system (Yang, 2005, 2013). The interviewees agreed that Chinese social scientists often face dilemmas when striving to build their reputation in international academia (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 3). For example, Tsinghua’s sociologists have voices in China, in both academic and public spheres, and are quite active in national academic communities. However, most still have low international visibility and global influence, for several reasons. First, most of their original research and knowledge have not been written and disseminated in English. Second, there are language barriers in communication between senior scholars with theoretical attainments and international academics. Third, Tsinghua’s sociologists have concentrated on Chinese studies overwhelmingly and have conducted few research on global, regional, and foreign themes. Disseminating their sociological research in the English is an important way to raise their international visibility and influence. However, it is not compulsory that every Chinese sociologist write and publish in English. Several other

7.2 Intellectual Evolution: Fragmentation and Integration …

193

approaches could be used to project their international influence, such as translating their scholarly works and establishing international journals by Chinese institutions and scholars. Besides, Tsinghua’s sociologists claimed that Chinese academics own distinct advantages when conducting research on China’s social issues, transitions, and modernity, given the peculiarities of Chinese language and culture (Interviewee 8). Tsinghua’s sociologists acknowledged their duty to delve into Chinese studies and create innovative knowledge and sociological theories to understand China; meanwhile, they continue to pay increasing research attention to foreign and global studies. Various strategies have been adopted by Tsinghua’s sociologists to increase their international status and academic influence. However, the fundamental path is to increase the originality and creativity of their knowledge generation and theoretical innovation. International academic circles today are paying growing attention to China (Interviewee 5), and Chinese academics therefore have much greater opportunities to enhance their international visibility and influence than ever before (Kuhn & Okamoto, 2014; Roulleau-Berger, 2016). However, it is still too early to examine the international influence of Tsinghua’s sociology; as one interviewee stated, “It takes time to witness its further evolution” (Interviewee 8). Nevertheless, Tsinghua’s sociologists’ international engagement and efforts are echoing the true rationale for internationalization, which is to capture as many voices as possible to reaffirm a moral universe that respects a plurality of perspectives on and paths to the truth to avoid homogenizing the mind into a monoculture (Yang, 2005).

7.3 Cultural Evolution: The Coexistence of Ever-Increasing Disquiet and Expectations Tsinghua is undergoing comprehensive reforms due to its unquenchable desire to build a world-class university. Internationalization has been designated as a strategic component, presenting its own priorities and features in accordance with the demands for upgrading international prestige and competitiveness (Kirby & Eby, 2016; Yang & Welch, 2012). Paralleling the university’s comprehensive reforms and need to intensify internationalization is the transforming disciplinary culture of Tsinghua’s social sciences (Bartell, 2003; Xie, 2018). My research findings show that internationalization has penetrated the disciplinary culture and ecological system of Tsinghua’s Sociology Department at different levels: First, in their day-to-day work, faculty members of the Department vibrantly engage in international academic activities and tend to collaborate with colleagues and institutions from different countries. Their attitudes and behaviors challenge the global scenario. As Postiglione and Altbach (2013) observed, “the willingness of the academic profession everywhere to deepen their international engagement appears stalled” (p. 11). Indeed, not only Tsinghua but every leading Chinese university aspires to integrate into international communities, with strong support

194

7 Discussions and Conclusion

from the national government (Postiglione & Jung, 2013). Internationalization is almost embedded in the core activities of academic life at China’s elite universities as they pursue their further development and improved international status and competitiveness. There are striking institutional disparities among Chinese universities in terms of their standards of internationalization (Mohrman et al., 2011). Tsinghua has the most comprehensive integration with global academic communities (Yang & Xie, 2015). Therefore, its social scientists gain abundant opportunities and resources for international activities. Overseas returnees have made substantial contribution to the Department’s engagement in international communities. Also, some scholars have begun to initiate project-related and resource-based collaborations with individuals and institutions in different countries (Interviewee 6), thus promoting their academic careers and pursuing the frontiers of knowledge for its own sake, and consequently upgrading the international visibility of Tsinghua’s sociology. Second, more international academic regulations and practices have been incorporated into the activities of Tsinghua’s social scientists. The quest for world-class status has led Tsinghua to strive to catch up with leading North American and European universities and learn from their experiences and standards (Yang & Welch, 2012). As academic discourses and regulations in the global social sciences have been dominated by a handful of North American and Western European countries, Chinese social scientists must integrate these norms into their academic work (Lai, 2010a, 2010b; Li, 2009). Accordingly, scholars in the Department accept a wide range of internationally oriented norms, standards, and practices to regulate their teaching and research during internationalization. The old, self-perpetuating, and isolated academic culture can no longer support its new mission to position itself on both the national and international academic stages. The integration of these norms and standards facilitates their adaptation into a global and competitive environment. Third, the process of internationalization has influenced the shared values and beliefs of faculty members in terms of their identities, academic profession, and disciplinary construction (Bartell, 2003). Scholars in the Department strive for excellence in research and teaching, and for the growth and prosperity of Tsinghua’s sociology. They show growing willingness to expand their activities, collaborations, and academic influences in international spheres, while placing significant emphasis on indigenizing the social sciences to enhance their local relevance and contributions. The two dimensions are deeply intertwined. Therefore, the academic culture of the Department’s social scientists can be described as “walking on two legs” (Interviewee 1). Tsinghua’s sociologists affirmed the value of internationalization, despite their increasing “disquiet” and criticisms (Interviewee 3). The first of these relate to the negative effects caused by superficial understandings of and approaches to the evolving process of internationalization (Interviewee 2). Tsinghua’s social scientists enjoy the advantages and endure the disadvantages of working at a flagship Chinese university, especially one making every effort to upgrade its global status. Internationalization, in practice, has brought some benefits to Tsinghua’s social scientists, such as knowledge exchange, research cooperation, dialogues between different cultures,

7.3 Cultural Evolution: The Coexistence of Ever-Increasing …

195

and various international activities facilitating their academic aspirations. However, negative effects and even costs have also emerged during this period of rapid development (Interviewee 2; Interviewee 3; Interviewee 4). The transformation highlights the significance of international engagement, influence, and competitiveness, which is driven by the university’s ambition (Luo, 2016). Faculty members face unprecedented pressures and challenges to enhance their research effectiveness and productivity and increase their international publication outputs (Xu & Jiang, 2018). A utilitarian culture is emerging, and a variety of international activities could stagnate at a superficial level without making any real contribution to knowledge generation and disciplinary growth (Interviewee 3). With different international activities and modes taking place, the most important approaches—academic reading and writing—are likely to be squeezed out (Interviewee 3). The second source of disquiet and imbalance concerns the apparent hierarchy of different discipline groups at Tsinghua, with the natural and engineering sciences at the top and the social sciences and humanities at the bottom. Little attention is paid to the disciplinary characteristics of the social sciences, and there is scant respect for disciplinary differences (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Clark, 1987). Academics in the sciences and engineering fields enjoy an ingrained sense of superiority, while numerous social scientists are marginalized. The University’s culture is overwhelmingly influenced by the disciplinary culture of science and engineering, which emphasize such values as efficiency, research effectiveness, and instrumental rationality.1 These values are further accentuated by policy changes generated by the process of rising to world-class status in a short period of time. As one professor stated, “It will be impossible for us to nurture a real da shi (academic master) if the University pushes hard to accelerate the efficiency of research, productivity and outcomes” (Interviewee 6). It would be better if Tsinghua’s administrators were to acknowledge that being “driven to win can never lead to true victory, because anyone who is driven to do anything is being whipped along by forces outside of himself” (Finley, 2009, p. 34). The third source of disquiet is related to international scholarly relations. Most notable is that, in the global academic system, the most authoritative communities are dominated by European and North American societies and intellectuals, while others must follow their standards (Alatas, 2003; Postiglione & Altbach, 2013). In today’s era of globalization, the process of internationalization facilitates the absorption and integration of recognized norms and standards dominated by the West (Altbach & Knight, 2007). Once Tsinghua’s sociologists planned to join the global academic community, they were forced to follow its rules. Moreover, the commitment to pursuing world-class university standing has strongly shaped the mind of Chinese academics and has narrowed their understanding of internationalization—which, in this sense, implies learning from the centers (Yang, 2017). Tsinghua’s sociologists 1

The instrumental rationality, performance management system, and utilitarian culture give priority to efficiency and productivity, which is detrimental to the nature and development of humanities, arts, and soft social sciences. Chen Pinyuan (2017), a prominent scholar of Peking University, claimed that the decline of humanities is an indisputable fact in today’s academic ecosystem.

196

7 Discussions and Conclusion

still lack the authority to influence the rule-making process in global sociology circles; thus, in most cases, they are passive receivers of international norms and standards. It is not easy for them to become active constitutors of international regulations within the Western-dominated global academic system. The fourth source of disquiet refers to the mechanisms for maintaining equilibrium between international engagement and local contribution. It is not easy for academics to balance international influences and domestic forces, and doing so always creates tensions (Hayhoe, 1996; Yang, 2013). Such tensions can be reflected in academic languages and publication activities, with scholars continually weighing the relative benefits of publishing in Chinese or in English (Flowerdew & Li, 2009; Li & Flowerdew, 2009). Domestic academic journals compete with international publications indexed by the SCI and SSCI databases, as there is increased pressure for faculty members to publish more often in internationally recognized journals. Chinese will certainly maintain its position as the dominant language for research and publication, but this study suggests that the coming years will witness an increasing number of SSCI publications by Tsinghua social scientists, together with much more international cooperation with international scholars involving research collaborations and co-authorship networks. Many young returnees will have good track records of publications in SSCI journals, but only a handful of elite Chinese scholars will be able to achieve a balance between international integration and local responsiveness (Yang, 2013). The potential loss of educational and cultural sovereignty during globalization and international integration is of primary concern (Mohrman, 2013; Yang, 2014). Tsinghua’s sociologists show willingness to engage globally, while paying close attention to the independence and excellence of their scholarship and disciplinary construction (Interviewee 1). They have reported that engaging with global academic circles and collaborating and even competing with prestigious partners require higher standards of scholarship and research performance (Interviewee 3). Nevertheless, the disciplinary standards and academic discourses cannot merely be manipulated by Western sociological communities. Strengthening their academic development and increasing their global status are further challenges faced by elite Chinese social scientists as they seek to exert their roles in the global arena. Although Tsinghua’s social scientists face an array of disquieting circumstances and challenges, they show confidence in and have high expectations of the further development of their discipline. Faculty members stated that it “takes time” for Chinese academics to enhance their scholarship, advance disciplinary construction, and play a more important role in global communities. To attain these goals, Tsinghua must make progress in developing a vibrant disciplinary culture for the development of the social sciences (Altbach, 2014).

7.4 Concluding Remarks

197

7.4 Concluding Remarks The varying impact of internationalization on the social sciences, in terms of disciplinary development, is a result of national and institutional undertakings (Huang, 2015; Rhoads & Hu, 2012). Tsinghua’s ambition for world-class status, as observed in this study, is intertwined with its internationalization, with these dual forces causing a dynamic transition in the disciplinary ecology of Tsinghua’s social sciences (Kirby & Eby, 2016). To achieve its ambition, Tsinghua’s social sciences are expected to strengthen its competitiveness and expand its influence at home and abroad. Academics in the Department of Sociology have stressed the necessity and urgency of both “global significance” and “local commitment” in the development of their academic careers and their discipline (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 8). It can be observed that Tsinghua’s sociologists have adopted a “walking-on-two-legs” strategy. On the one hand, they have concentrated on studies of social transformations and problems in China; on the other, they have actively pursued theoretical innovations to interact with international communities. They are contributing to knowledge creation and distribution at all levels, from the local to the national and global. Nevertheless, the disciplinary development of the University’s Sociology discipline has met with some organizational hurdles. Scholars have encountered institutional and cultural dilemmas in their struggles to balance global and national/local demands while constructing their discipline and international influence. They have described these dilemmas as “double shackles”. The first “shackle” refers to their disadvantaged status in the asymmetrical international academic structure, under which the global academic standards, models, and directions have been set by the major Western professional societies that rest at the pinnacle of the global social sciences system (Alatas, 2003, 2006; Keim et al., 2016; Kuhn & Weidemann, 2013; Yang, 2013). Non-Western societies like China have little choice but to adopt these overriding guidelines for their social sciences; thus, the discourse of international academia is dominated by the West (Foucault, 1980; Wallerstein, 1996, 1997), especially the US and the UK (Interviewee 1, Interviewee 5, Interviewee 6, Interviewee 7). Scholars in the Department, on the one hand, criticized this Western domination and center-periphery structure; on the other, they have moved forward to face the challenges and reduce the gap by continuously absorbing knowledge from abroad while incorporating indigenous knowledge for disciplinary development. The second “shackle” relates to the institutional, intellectual, and cultural milieus within China’s academic system, characterized by structural barriers and institutional disturbances (Altbach, 2016; Marginson, 2014; Mohrman, 2008). The institutional construction of a leading research-intensive university is supposed to support scholars in reaching their full potential by pursing excellence and intellectual creativity in research and knowledge creation. Global first-class universities urge scholars to search for new knowledge in the spirit of academic autonomy and free inquiry (Salmi, 2009). Nevertheless, the institutional commonalties and cultural characteristics of Tsinghua to some extent inhibit its academics in the basic social sciences

198

7 Discussions and Conclusion

from pursing intellectual interests and achieving their academic aspirations and social commitments. Tsinghua’s social scientists have conditional autonomy over their own research and teaching activities, under the co-supervision by the Chinese government and the University. Moreover, internationalization linked largely to world-class university building policies and top-down institutional reforms centers on a rational mechanism and academic performance (Luo, 2016; Xu & Jiang, 2018). Tsinghua’s social scientists are pushed to engage in international competitions and high academic productivity under the performance management system. The book argues that internationalization is superficial if it fails to contribute to free inquiry, knowledge creation, and disciplinary development. Restricting social scientists through strict disciplines and rigid evaluation indicators could be compared to putting birds in a cage. Worse, visible and quantifiable short-term academic outcomes tend to come at the expense of long-term development (Luo, 2016). It is noteworthy that the creation of a healthy institutional, intellectual, and cultural milieu is more important than short-term academic achievement itself. Top-quality scholars regard their academic work as a calling rather than a job or assignment (Altbach, 2015a). Without a favorable environment and reasonable assessment system, a healthy and dynamic ecosystem of academic discipline can be disturbed. The book stresses that internationalization is an evolving process with varied priorities and features in different phases. The approach of “introducing in” knowledge, experiences, and models from developed Western countries has been important for Chinese academic system since the late 1970s. Then, the “catching up” mindset has become prominent since the 1990s, with the explicit purpose of joining the ranks of world-class universities and first-class disciplines. The advanced phase of internationalization would require Chinese social scientists to be committed to “bringing China to the world” (Yang, 2015). As Kim (2007) observed, the world-class university model in East Asia shows an eagerness to embrace the “global standard,” which is chiefly dominated by advanced North American and Western European universities. Nevertheless, learning from Western models is currently limited to a range of indicators, such as international publications, frequently cited researchers, and world university rankings (Altbach & Wang, 2012; Luo, 2016; Marginson & Van der Wende, 2007). Tsinghua’s unquenchable desire for global status drives the University to emulate global leading universities, especially top American universities (Yang, 2016, 2017). Internationalization has been adopted by the University as a strategy for “catching up” to leading universities and “raising” its leadership in global higher education communities, rather than “building up” its own institutional model through the support of culture and civilization. In general, China’s traditional civilization and indigenous culture have not been well explored and used to nourish the development of Chinese higher learning institutions. It is increasingly clear that Tsinghua has been rising in the global league tables with an escalating assertiveness (Kirby, 2014b). However, Tsinghua has not yet moved on to the next stage of building a distinctive model that is empowered by the integration and innovation of diverse cultures and civilizations.

7.4 Concluding Remarks

199

A rising China could offer much to the global community (Hayhoe, 2017), but many Chinese universities have not yet paid attention to their global roles, responsibilities, and influence (Yang, 2017). Tsinghua, as a leading Chinese university, shoulders multiple academic, social, and cultural responsibilities. While a rising China offers opportunities to both Chinese and international social scientists, social scientists at Tsinghua also have both advantages and obligations, and are expected to contribute to domestic social transformations and global scholarly development at the same time. It is time for the University to reassess the long-term impact of internationalization on its academic disciplines, and to pay sufficient attention to and have more patience regarding the development of its basic social sciences. Meanwhile, adequate time and space must be granted to Tsinghua’s social scientists, so they can contribute to global scholarship, assume social commitments, and promote dialogues with international communities. In the advanced stage of internationalization, Tsinghua’s responsibility is not limited to demonstrating the strength of Chinese higher education in the global arena, but also includes contributing to the construction of a higher education model with Chinese characteristics and a Chinese philosophy.

References Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labor in the social sciences. Current Sociology, 51(6), 599–613. Alatas, S. F. (2006). Alternative discourses in Asian social science: Responses to Eurocentrism. Sage Publications. Altbach, P. G. (1991). Patterns in higher education development: Toward the year 2000. The Review of Higher Education, 14(3), 293–315. Altbach, P. G. (2014). Chinese challenges: Toward a mature academic system. In L. E. Rumbley, R. M. Helms, P. M. Peterson, & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Global opportunities and challenges for higher education leaders: Briefs on key themes (pp. 83–86). Sense Publishers. Altbach, P. G. (2015). The costs and benefits of world-class universities. International Higher Education, 33, 5–7. Altbach, P. G. (2015). Perspectives on internationalizing higher education. International Higher Education, 27, 6–8. Altbach, P. G. (2016). Chinese higher education: “glass ceiling” and “feet of clay.” International Higher Education, 86, 11–13. Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. Altbach, P. G., & Wang, Q. (2012). Can China keep rising? World-class status for research excellence comes with a new set of challenges. Scientific American, 307(4), 46–47. Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45(1), 43–70. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. SRHE and Open University Press. Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton University Press. Dirlik, A. (2012). Zhongguohua: Worlding China the case of sociology and anthropology in twentieth century China. In A. Dirlik, G. Li, & H.-P. Yen (Eds.), Sociology and anthropology in twentieth-century China: Between universalism and indigenism (pp. 1–39). Chinese University Press.

200

7 Discussions and Conclusion

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press. Fei, X. T. (2016). Culture and cultural consciousness. Qunyan Publishing House. Finley, G. (2009). Letting go: A little bit at a time. Llewellyn Publications. Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 1–16. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167–187. Gransow, B. (2008). The social sciences in China. In T. M. Porter & D. Ross (Eds.), The Cambridge history of science: The modern social sciences (pp. 498–514). Cambridge University Press. Hayhoe, R. (1989). China’s universities and Western academic models. Higher Education, 18(1), 49–85. Hayhoe, R. (1996). China’s universities, 1895–1995: A century of cultural conflict. Garland Publishing. Hayhoe, R. (2017). China in the Centre: What will it mean for Global Education. Frontiers of Education in China, 12(1), 3–28. Huang, F. (2015). Building the world-class research universities: A case study of China. Higher Education, 70(2), 203–215. Jin, Y. J. (1998). Modernity debate and the orientation of Chinese sociology. Journal of Peking University, 6, 91–99. Keim, W. (2010). The internationalization of social sciences: distortions, dominations and prospects. In UNESCO & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 169–170), Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Keim, W. (2011). Counterhegemonic currents and internationalization of sociology: Theoretical reflections and an empirical example. International Sociology, 26(1), 123–145. Keim, W., Çelik, E., & Wöhrer, V. (Eds.). (2016). Global knowledge production in the social sciences: Made in circulation. Routledge. Kim, T. (2007). Old borrowings and new models of the university in East Asia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 39–52. Kirby, W. C. (2014). The world of universities in modern China. In L. E. Rumbley, R. M. Helms, P. M. Peterson, & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Global opportunities and challenges for higher education leaders: Briefs on key themes (pp. 73–76). Sense Publishers. Kirby, W. C. (2014). The Chinese century? The challenges of higher education. Daedalus, 143(2), 145–156. Kirby, W. C., & Eby, J. W. (2016). From preparatory academy to national flagship: The evolution of Tsinghua University. Harvard University. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In H. Wit & J. D. Heyl (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 27–42). SAGE. Kuhn, M., & Okamoto, K. (Eds.). (2014). Spatial social thought: local knowledge in global science encounters. Stuttgart: ibidem. Kuhn, M., & Weidemann, D. (2010). Internationalization of the Social Sciences: Introduction. In M. Kuhn & D. Weidemann (Eds.), Internationalization of the social sciences (pp. 11–19). Transaction Publishers. Kuhn, M., & Weidemann, D. (2013). Internationalization of the social sciences. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought local knowledge in global science encounters. Stuttgart: ibidem Press

References

201

Lai, M. (2010). Challenges faced by Chinese academics in the academic heartland. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 34(2), 271–290. Lai, M. (2010). Challenges to the work life of academics: The experience of a renowned university in the Chinese mainland. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(1), 89–111. Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2009). International engagement versus local commitment: Hong Kong academics in the humanities and social sciences writing for publication. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 279–293. Luo, Y. (2016). Globalization and the transformation of Chinese universities. Fudan Education Forum, 14(3), 5–18. Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. Marginson, S. (2014). A Response from Simon Marginson for China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(4), 169–174. Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–329. Marginson, S. (2021). National modernisation and global science in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 84, 102407. Merle, A. (2004). Towards a Chinese sociology for “communist civilisation.” China Perspectives, 2004(52), 1–16. Mohrman, K. (2008). The emerging global model with Chinese characteristics. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 29–48. Mohrman, K., Geng, Y., & Wang, Y. (2011). Faculty life in China The NEA 2011 almanac of higher education (pp. 83–99). National Education Association. Mohrman, K. (2013). Are Chinese universities globally competitive? The China Quarterly, 215, 727–743. Mok, K. H., & Cheung, A. B. (2011). Global aspirations and strategising for world-class status: New form of politics in higher education governance in Hong Kong. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(3), 231–251. Morgan, M., & Baert, P. (2015). Conflict in the academy: A study in the sociology of intellectuals. Palgrave. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. Portnoi, L. M., & Bagley, S. S. (2011). Global competition in higher education: Strategies in a glonacal context. World Studies in Education, 12(2), 5–33. Postiglione, G. A., & Altbach, P. G. (2013). Professors: The key to internationalization. International Higher Education, 73, 11–12. Postiglione, G. A., & Jung, J. (2013). World-class University and Asia’s top-tier researchers. In Q. Wang, Y. Cheng, & N. C. Liu (Eds.), Building World-Class Universities (pp. 161–179). Sense Publishers. Ren, K., & Li, J. (2013). Academic freedom and university autonomy: A higher education policy perspective. Higher Education Policy, 26(4), 507–522. Rhoads, R. A., & Hu, J. (2012). The internationalization of faculty life in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(3), 351–365. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. Global Modernities, 2, 25–45. Roulleau-Berger, L. (2016). Post-Western revolution in sociology: From China to Europe. Brill Publishers. Salmi, J. (2001). Tertiary education in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities. Higher Education Management, 13(2), 105–131. Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. World Bank.

202

7 Discussions and Conclusion

School of Social Sciences. (2016). 90 years of Tsinghua social science commemoration conference & 105th anniversary alumni seminar. Retrieved from http://www.sss.tsinghua.edu.cn/pub lish/sssen/7920/2016/20160711161221064541358/20160711161221064541358_.html Shen, Y. (2007). Market, class and society: Critical issues on sociology of transformation. Chinese Social Science Press. Sun, L. (2000). The 21st century chinese social sciences. Chinese Social Sciences, 1, 1–12. Wallerstein, I. (1996). Open the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. Stanford University Press. Wallerstein, I. (1997). Eurocentrism and its avatars: The dilemmas of social science. Sociological Bulletin, 46, 21–39. Wallerstein, I. (1998). The time of space and the space of time: The future of social science. Political Geography, 17(1), 71–82. Wallerstein, I. (2008). What is historical social science? Paper presented at the contention, change, and explanation: A conference in honor of Charles Tilly, New York. Wang, D. (2003). Thinking and practice of the strategies for building world-class universities. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 24(3), 2–7. Wang, G. (1992). Universities in transition in Asia. Oxford Review of Education, 18(1), 17–27. Xie, M. (2018). Living with internationalization: The changing face of the academic life of Chinese social scientists. Higher Education, 75(3), 381–397. Xie, W., & Liu, C. (2019). Wen mai: Tsinghua University’s humanities and social sciences in the early 21st Century. The Commercial Press. Xu, X., & Jiang, K. (2018). International publication and incentive system in humanities and social sciences: From the perspective of academics. Journal of Higher Education, 39(1), 43–55. Yang, R. (2005). Internationalisation, indigenisation and educational research in China. Australian Journal of Education, 49(1), 66–88. Yang, R. (2013). Indigenised while internationalised? Tensions and dilemmas in China’s modern transformation of social sciences in an age of globalisation. In M. Kuhn & K. Okamoto (Eds.), Spatial social thought: Local knowledge in global science encounters. Stuttgart: ibidem Press. Yang, R. (2014). China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education: An overview. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(2), 151–162. Yang, R. (2015). Reassessing China’s higher education development: A focus on academic culture. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(4), 527–535. Yang, R. (2016). Cultural challenges facing East Asian higher education: A preliminary assessment. In C. Collins, M. Lee, J. Hawkins, & D. Neubauer (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Asia Pacific higher education (pp. 227–245). Palgrave Macmillan. Yang, R. (2017). The cultural mission of China’s elite universities: Examples from Peking and Tsinghua. Studies in Higher Education, 42(10), 1825–1838. Yang, R., Vidovich, L., & Currie, J. (2007). “Dancing in a cage”: Changing autonomy in Chinese higher education. Higher Education, 54(4), 575–592. Yang, R., & Welch, A. (2012). A world-class university in China? The Case of Tsinghua Higher Education, 63(5), 645–666. Yang, R., & Xie, M. (2015). Leaning toward the centers: International networking at China’s five C9 league universities. Frontiers of Education in China, 10(1), 66–90. Zha, Q. (2009). Diversification or homogenization: How governments and markets have combined to (re) shape Chinese higher education in its recent massification process. Higher Education, 58(1), 41–58. Zhou, D. (2017). Will the gap in universities grow bigger after “double first class”? September 22, 2017 Caixin. Retrieved from http://m.opinion.caixin.com/m/2017-09-22/101149174.html Zheng, H. S. (2009). Promoting the theory consciousness of Chinese sociology: What kind of Chinese sociology do we need? Jiangsu Social Sciences, 5, 1–7. Zheng, H. S. (2011). Academic discourse power and the development of Chinese sociology. Chinese Social Sciences, 2, 27–34.

Appendix A

Methodology and Method This appendix details the methodological considerations employed in this work to address the research questions articulated in Chap. 1. This research is qualitative in nature. A qualitative case study is used to develop a naturalistic and holistic exploration and in-depth understanding of research questions. This chapter begins by explaining the rationales behind using a qualitative methodology and then introduces an interactive model for a qualitative research design. The third section considers data collection methods for the qualitative case study, including semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and documentary analysis. The fourth section focuses upon considerations pertaining to data analysis and reporting techniques, while the fifth presents ethical issues related to the research.

Qualitative Research and Methodological Considerations Rationales for Using Qualitative Research Research methodology is associated with a particular epistemology and theoretical perspective, and a systematic selection of methods (Crotty, 1998). These three dimensions are interconnected. Epistemology (i.e., how we know the world) informs the theoretical perspective (i.e., the philosophical stance). Research methodology is based on the theoretical perspective, and it governs methods or techniques (Frankel & Devers, 1999). A research design moves from fundamental philosophical assumptions to inquiry techniques. Different research goals require different research designs (Merriam, 1998). In educational research, research methodology can be divided into three basic categories—quantitative research, qualitative research, © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Xie, Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China, East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8

203

204

Appendix A

and mixed-methods research (Creswell, 2013; Frankel & Devers, 1999)—each of which has different ontological and epistemological assumptions and methodological considerations (Cohen et al., 2007). In quantitative research, reality is recognized as “stable, observable and measurable” (Merriam, 1998, p. 4), and numerical data is generated and analyzed to quantify research problems. Quantitative researchers normally adopt a positivist stance, believing that reality and the clearest possible idea of knowledge is approachable and measurable (Cohen et al., 2007). Nevertheless, positivism, numerical data, and quantitative research have limitations when attempting to explain the complexity of the social and human world (Creswell, 2013; Soltis, 1984). The nature of qualitative research is “naturalistic” and “interpretive” (Cohen et al., 2007; Lee et al., 1999; Marshall & Rossman, 2010). As Merriam (1998) explained, the philosophical assumption of qualitative research is that reality “is constructed by individuals interacting with their social worlds” (p. 6). The goal of qualitative researchers is to “understand and interpret the world in terms of its actors” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 26). Creswell (1998) defined qualitative research as: an inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex holistic picture, analyses words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting. (p. 15)

Whilst there is no consensus on the definition of qualitative research, a set of distinctive hallmarks of qualitative research can be identified. First, qualitative research is conducted in a naturalistic setting where researchers usually engage in fieldwork, spending a long period collecting data (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). Second, “the researcher is the primary instrument of data collection and analysis” (Merriam, 1998, p. 11), using multiple research methods to collect and analyze data. Third, qualitative study is fundamentally interpretive. Words rather than numbers are adopted to describe and explain participants’ experiences and perceptions regarding research problems (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). In the context of this study, a qualitative research methodology was employed for three reasons. First, the clear driving force behind choosing a qualitative methodology was the research questions of this book. This study inquired into how internationalization affects the disciplinary development of Tsinghua’s social sciences, and one major focus was to examine how Tsinghua’s academics are integrating Chinese and Western patterns in their social science disciplines. Qualitative research was used by this study because it is an in-depth process well-suited to tackling these sorts of “how” questions (Takona, 2012). Second, a qualitative research methodology was suitable for this research’s goals of gaining an in-depth exploration and understanding of the dynamics and mechanisms of disciplinary development (Creswell, 2013). Third, as this study was exploratory and interpretive in nature, it was appropriate to adopt a qualitative research method (Merriam, 1998).

Appendix A

205

Qualitative Research Design A research design refers to a plan that embraces research questions, ontological and epistemological assumptions, theoretical perspectives, and methodological considerations (Cohen et al., 2007). Maxwell’s (2008, 2012) qualitative research design model was adopted in this study, for the following reasons. First, Maxwell’s model emphasizes that the qualitative research design process is flexible and reflexive, and allows the researcher to construct and reconstruct his or her study throughout the research process when interacting with specific contexts and natural settings. Second, Maxwell’s model is an interactive one, encompassing five components (see Fig. A.1) that are interconnected rather than “linked in a linear or cyclic sequence” (Maxwell, 2008, p. 216). Therefore, Maxwell’s qualitative research model is flexible and non-sequential, without following a fixed and straightforward order. Goals: Research goals are related to specific purposes and aim at conducting a study. Maxwell (2008) detailed three categories of goals for conducting research, including personal goals (e.g., personal interests and experiences), practical goals (e.g., administrative and policy goals), and intellectual goals (e.g., theoretical contributions). In this research, I focused on exploring the development of Chinese social sciences in a context where various values and types of knowledge emerge, exchange, and collide due to the theoretical and practical considerations articulated in Chap. 1. It was also interesting to me to probe the developmental mechanisms and dilemmas of the social sciences at a moment when the world is preoccupied with scientific innovation and entrepreneurship. I have experienced waves of struggles relating to my own identity as a doctoral student in the field of social sciences when encountering the conflicts between “hard” sciences and “soft” sciences. Echoing Charles P. Snow (1959), I

Fig. A.1 Interactive model for qualitative research design. Source Maxwell (2008)

206

Appendix A

observe that the disciplinary disparities between the “two cultures” (referring to the two different disciplinary groups) remain striking. Conceptual framework: Maxwell (2008) explained that this term denotes a broad concept, implying “a system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research” (p. 222). A conceptual framework can be constructed using existing literature, experiential knowledge, pilot studies, and/or thought experiments (Maxwell, 2008, p. 223). In this study, the conceptual framework was derived from existing literature on internationalization (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Knight & De Wit, 1995) and academic disciplines (Becher & Trowler, 2001; Wallerstein, 2008). Based on Wallerstein’s (2008) theory, the disciplinary development of a social science was examined from three dimensions—organizational, intellectual, and cultural. Meanwhile, theories of internationalization and international academic relations were embraced to shed light on the research. The conceptual framework of this study is expatiated in Chap. 3. Research questions: Research questions are placed at the center of Maxwell’s model, interacting with other components. Maxwell (2008) stated it is not compulsory to present research questions at the starting point of qualitative research design. Research questions can be developed in natural settings when investigators interact with participants. In the context of this study, research questions were proposed at the beginning, based on both theoretical and practical considerations. These research questions were clarified and refined when I entered the research field to communicate with participants and engaged in activities and events at the university and departmental levels. Methods: Qualitative research has been recognized as an umbrella term (Hennink et al., 2010) and a paradigm encompassing a wide range of methods and techniques (Merriam, 1998). The term “methods” implies several approaches used in research to “gather data that are to be used as a basis for inference and interpretation for explanation and prediction” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 47). Interviews, observation, and document review are three core methods of qualitative research (Creswell, 2013). Validity: Maxwell (2008; 2012) indicated it is important to identify threats to validity when planning and conducting qualitative research, although it is impossible for the researcher to list all the threats in advance. He regarded research bias and reactivity as the most common pitfalls in qualitative research (Maxwell, 2008). Responding to this issue, Yin (2009) provided strategies to enhance the validity and reliability of a qualitative study by following a set of principles, including “adopting multiple sources of evidence, creating a case study database, and maintaining a chain of evidence” (p. 18). Also, adopting triangulation methods in data collection and analysis increases validity and reliability (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 1998).

Appendix A

207

Methods in Fieldwork for Data Collection Qualitative case study is based upon the constructivist and interpretative paradigms, which believe social realities are constructed by individuals interacting with the social world (Stake, 1995). The researcher acts as a “primary instrument” for data collection (Merriam, 1998, p. 15). Five major procedures for designing and conducting a case study have been derived from existing theories of the case study approach (Eisenhardt, 1989; Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995; Thomas, 2010; Yin, 2009). They are: (i) identifying research questions; (ii) selecting case(s); (iii) entering the field and collecting data; (iv) analyzing data; and, (v) composing the case study report. Identifying research questions is the first step in conducting a case study (Yin, 1993; Creswell, 2013). Many scholars explain that research questions shape research methods and mandate the most relevant strategies and techniques. Therefore, investigators need to identify research questions explicitly at the beginning of case study research (Eisenhardt, 1989; Thomas, 2010). Nevertheless, according to Maxwell’s (2008) qualitative model, research questions can be constructed and reconstructed while carrying out a qualitative case study. This study’s research questions were modified during the fieldwork. This section illustrates the fieldwork and data gathering procedures, methods, and techniques (Cohen et al., 2007; Yin, 2009) used in this qualitative case study. A six-month fieldwork project was conducted at Tsinghua University in Beijing, from May 8th to November 8th, 2015. Additionally, I joined one participant’s research team to conduct fieldwork at the Qinghe Subdistrict of the north-eastern Haidian District. I entered the field as a former student of Tsinghua University and as a doctoral candidate at the University of Hong Kong. My identity as a Tsinghuaer facilitated communications with participants. In this study, semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and document review were utilized to collect data simultaneously.

Semi-structured Interviews Qualitative research allows investigators to get close to the social world and collect first-hand data by themselves (Chen, 2000; Merriam, 1998). It is important to understand a phenomenon or event from the perspectives and experiences of different stakeholders in a natural setting (Yin, 1993). Interviews are a major data gathering approach in qualitative research, as they allow investigators to “enter into the other person’s perspective” (Patton, 1990, p. 196). This approach was adopted in this study as it matched the research purposes, in terms of investigating the effects of internationalization upon the disciplinary development of Tsinghua’s sociology from the perspectives and experiences of faculty members of the Department. There are different types of interviews—structured, semi-structured, and unstructured (Merrian, 1998)—that range in character from highly formulaic and fixed to

208

Appendix A

open and conversational (Tuckman & Harper, 2012). In the context of this research, semi-structured interviews were utilized (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009), as this technique allows the researcher to probe participants’ responses in depth, thus increasing the data comprehensiveness of specific research questions (Creswell, 2013; Thomas, 2010). An interview guide was used in my semi-structured interviews, consisting of a list of open-ended, rather than closed, questions I intended to ask about major topics and issues (see Appendix B). All topics centered on my research questions. The sequence of questions listed in the interview guide was decided by participants during the interviews (Creswell, 2013; Patton, 1990; Thomas, 2010). To obtain detailed and rich data sources and present a holistic picture (Cohen et al., 2007) of the development of Tsinghua’s sociology, I tried to approach each faculty member of the Department. I sent my invitation letter and interview guide to a total of fourteen faculty members, nine of whom accepted my invitation and agreed to participate (see Table A.1). Eight interviewees permitted audio recording, while one scholar rejected it. Audio recording allows the investigator to preserve interview data for later analysis. In addition to tape recording, I took notes during the interviews to record my reactions to the interviews and signal the important things a participant said. Each interview lasted from one to one-and-a-half hours, and was conducted in Mandarin Chinese. Normally, I began by seeking descriptive information and asking some neutral questions, allowing the participant to decide the sequence and wording thereof. Table A.1 Interviewees from the department of sociology, Tsinghua University Respondent

Gender

Age group

Highest academic degree

Professional rank

Administrative level

Interviewee 1

Male

60–70

Master’s Domestic

Professor

Senior Administrator

Interviewee 2

Male

60–70

Ph.D. Domestic

Professor

Senior Administrator

Interviewee 3

Male

50–60

Ph.D. Overseas

Professor

Faculty member

Interviewee 4

Female

60–70

Ph.D. Domestic

Professor

Faculty member

Interviewee 5

Female

50–60

Ph.D. Domestic

Professor

Faculty member

Interviewee 6

Male

50–60

Ph.D. Overseas

Professor

Faculty member

Interviewee 7

Male

50–60

Ph.D. Domestic

Professor

Faculty member

Interviewee 8

Male

30–40

Ph.D. Overseas

Associate Professor

Junior Administrator

Interviewee 9

Female

20–30

Ph.D. Overseas

Lecturer

Faculty member

Appendix A

209

Participant Observations Qualitative research encompasses both participant and non-participant observation (Cohen et al., 2007). Using participant observation, the researcher can collect data in natural settings to describe existing phenomena and situations through observing and participating in activities (Creswell, 2013). Participant observation was used in this research. I observed the teaching and research activities of faculty members while engaging in their activities and events in classrooms, seminars, field research, and social surveys. My basic way to begin participant observation was to establish relations with academics and students of the Department (Yin, 2009). As an alumna of Tsinghua, I was familiar with the surroundings and institutional norms of the University. When I introduced myself as a former student of Tsinghua’s Institute of Education, my participants permitted me to observe their teaching and research. I entered the field smoothly, with the acceptance and support of the faculty members and students of the Department. I participated in and observed teaching and research activities of Tsinghua’s sociologists during this six-month qualitative case study. Curriculum schedules were collected (see Appendix B). I observed courses developed and delivered by faculty members to undergraduate and postgraduate students. Compared with their undergraduate-level courses, students in postgraduate-level courses had more opportunities to interact with their teachers and classmates. I also had more opportunities to participate in discussions and pose questions in the postgraduate-level courses. In addition, I was invited by students and academics to join their group work for research design and academic presentations. I was encouraged by them to share my opinions, from an interdisciplinary perspective. Tsinghua’s sociologists combine their teaching and research activities and offer research opportunities to their students in their courses. Graduate students in particular could participate in academic and applied research projects with Tsinghua’s sociologists. For instance, in one course on community governance, a senior professor led around forty students to design research plans and become involved with local communities to carry out research. I was permitted by this scholar to participate in their research in the Qinghe Subdistrict, a zone in which twenty-eight urban and rural residential communities coexist. It is an ideal place to observe many sociological issues, such as social stratification and social justice. Through the participant observations, I gained opportunities to get close to the academic life, teaching, and research activities of Tsinghua’s sociologists. In this study, one major focus was whether and how Tsinghua’s sociologists integrated Chinese and Western knowledge, values, and patterns in the process of internationalization.

210

Appendix A

Document Review The use of documentary sources was important in this qualitative study (Yin, 2009). Merriam (1998) regarded documentation as an umbrella term for “a wide range of written, visual, and physical material relevant to the study” (p. 112). I took advantage of multiple sources of documentary evidence to answer this study’s research questions. Written materials that contained information associated with my research problems were purposefully collected (Gaborone, 2006), encompassing national, institutional, and individual documentary data. First, national-level policy texts promulgated by the MOE or other government agencies regarding internationalization and strategies for building world-class universities were collected. Second, documentary evidence pertaining to Tsinghua’s internationalization strategies and policies, as well as the construction of its social sciences, were collected and analyzed in chronological order. To be specific, official publications and reports (Patton, 1990), archival records (Yin, 2013), and institutional documents (Merriam, 1998) were major sources. Third, personal documents from faculty members—monographs, book chapters, conference proceedings, newspapers, letters, notes, and web pages—were collected. In particular, articles faculty members had published in national and international journals were collected. Research articles were analyzed to investigate their knowledge production and circulation (Gingras & Mosbah-Natanson, 2010; Zhou et al., 2010). Journal articles covered by the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Web of Science (WoS) databases were collected. Besides, articles recorded in the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) were analyzed. Faculty members’ publications were collected, using the following queries:

Web of Science (WoS) Advanced search Organizations: Tsinghua University (OO = Tsinghua University) Author: ** (AU = **) Timespan: All years (from 1956 to 2017) More settings: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Advanced search Organizations: Tsinghua University Author: ** Timespan: All years More settings: Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI)

Appendix A

211

Data Analysis and Report Data Analysis Approaches Data analysis overlapped data collection during the fieldwork in this qualitative case study (Maxwell, 2008). Verbatim transcription of recorded interviews, field notes of observations, and documentary materials constituted a database available for data analysis (Merriam, 1998). This section presents the data analysis strategies used in this research. First, the research questions were articulated (Maxwell, 2008). Qualitative data were analyzed by focusing on research questions about the impact of internationalization upon the disciplinary development of Tsinghua’s sociology in a global context of asymmetrical international academic relations, a national context of China’s dramatic economic, social, political, and cultural transformations, and an institutional context of Tsinghua’s reforms. Second, the unit of analysis was selected. Yin (1993) explained that “it is important to identify the unit of analysis, because it functions as the main analytical level for the case being studied” (p. 48). In the context of this study, the unit of analysis was Tsinghua’s sociology discipline, institutionalized in the Department of Sociology. Per the theory of academic discipline developed by Wallerstein (1996, 2006, 2008), the unit of analysis in this study was divided into three levels—disciplinary knowledge, disciplinary organization, and disciplinary culture—that served as core dimensions to examine the growth of a specific academic discipline. These three elements reflected the dynamics of integrating Chinese and Western patterns in the process of internationalization. Third, qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis, which is “a strict and systematic set of procedures for the rigorous analysis, examination and verification of the contents of written data” (Cohen et al., 2007, p. 475). Coding is recognized the important part of content analysis. Qualitative data were coded, categorized, and compared in this study, and conclusions were then drawn (Cohen et al., 2007). A coding system was built—based on disciplinary knowledge acquired by analyzing their articles published by Tsinghua sociologists—to inquire into the knowledge production of Tsinghua’s sociology. It included the sites of knowledge generation, research themes, concepts, theories, and methodologies. Fourth, thematic analysis was adopted. Several analytical frameworks were arrived at by referring to the literature to examine the three core aspects of Tsinghua’s sociology (Guest et al., 2012)—i.e., its shifting organizational and institutional structures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Powell & DiMaggio, 2012); epistemological patterns and knowledge generation mechanisms (Dirlik, 2012); and disciplinary culture (Clark, 1987; Rhoads & Hu, 2012). One of the major tasks of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the growth of Tsinghua’s sociology based on faculty members’ perceptions and experiences. First-hand data gathered through fieldwork were analyzed according to analytical frameworks. Additionally, new themes beyond the original frameworks emerged and were reported in this study.

212

Appendix A

Data Reporting The qualitative case study approach enables the researcher to provide a holistic and meaningful account of a phenomenon or event in its natural setting (Yin, 2009; Merriam, 1998). This research presented an in-depth and multi-faceted explanation the disciplinary growth of the Chinese social sciences under the influence of internationalization by using Tsinghua’s sociology as an example. It reported the dynamics and mechanisms of the disciplinary growth of Tsinghua’s sociology, based on such data sources as top-down and bottom-up policies and reforms at the national and institutional levels, and academics’ perspectives, activities, and strategies at the individual level. Research findings related to disciplinary organization, disciplinary knowledge, and disciplinary culture are reported in three chapters. A holistic and rich exploration of the dynamics of integrating Chinese and international patterns, knowledge, and cultures into Tsinghua’s sociology was one focus in the data reporting. Also reported were the costs and benefits experienced by Tsinghua’s social scientists when they strove to promote disciplinary development in both national and international arenas.

Ethical Issues The research design of qualitative studies implies both methodological and ethical considerations (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). My application for ethics approval was reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee for Non-Clinical Faculties (HRECNCF) of the University of Hong Kong. After I received my ethical clearance in April 2015, I began to conduct fieldwork at Tsinghua University, and paid attention to ethical issues throughout the study. This research was carried out with strict attention to the regulations released by the HRECNCF. First, the data collection procedures regarding interviews and observations were approved by participants in the Department of Sociology. Invitation letters were sent to them to introduce my doctoral research and enable them to make informed decisions on their participations. All my data collection activities were carried out with my participants’ permission and support. Second, the first-hand data in transcripts and field notes were anonymized. Additionally, data gathered from participants will be destroyed three years after completion of this doctoral thesis. Third, I focused on ethical issues throughout the data reporting and thesis writing to avoid potential harms to participants (Cohen et al., 2007).

Summary This section has delineated the methodological considerations and research design of this research. It has interpreted the rationales behind using a qualitative case study

Appendix A

213

and the purposes of adopting Tsinghua’s sociology as an example, and described how, in line with a qualitative case study approach, semi-structured interviews, participant observations, and document analyses were employed as the three major data collection methods. This was followed by the explanation of the study’s data analysis and reporting procedures and methods. Finally, ethical considerations were discussed. References Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Chen, X. (2000). Qualitative studies and social science research. Education Science Press. Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton University Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage publications. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 1–19). Sage. Dirlik, A. (2012). Zhongguohua: Worlding China the case of sociology and anthropology in twentieth century China. In A. Dirlik, G. Li & H. Yen (Eds.), Sociology and anthropology in twentieth-century China: Between universalism and indigenism (pp. 1–39). Chinese University Press. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. Frankel, R. M., & Devers, K. J. (1999). Study design in qualitative research—1: Developing questions and assessing resource needs. Education for Health, 13(2), 251–261. Gaborone, B. (2006). The use of documentary research methods in social research. African Sociological Review, 10(1), 221–230.

214

Appendix A

Gingras, Y., & Natanson, S. (2010). Where are social sciences produced? In UNESCO. & ISSC (Eds.), World social science report 2010 (pp. 149–153). UNESCO Publishing. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Sage publications. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2010). Qualitative research methods. Sage. Knight, J., & De Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalization of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives, in H. De Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalization of higher education: A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America (pp. 5–32). EAIE. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage. Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 161–187. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research. Sage publications. Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The sage handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 214–246). Sage publications. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from case study research in education. Jossey-Bass. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research methods. Sage publications. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (2012). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press. Rhoads, R. A., & Hu, J. (2012). The internationalization of faculty life in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(3), 351–365. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field. An introduction to qualitative research. Sage publications. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press. Soltis, J. F. (1984). On the nature of educational research. Educational Researcher, 13(10), 5–10. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage publications. Takona, J. (2012). Educational research: Principles and practice. Writers Club Press. Thomas, G. (2010). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. Sage publications. Tuckman, B. W., & Harper, B. E. (2012). Conducting educational research. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Wallerstein, I. (1996). Open the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. Stanford University Press.

Appendix A

215

Wallerstein, I. (2008). What is historical social science? Paper presented at the Contention, Change, and Explanation: A Conference in Honor of Charles Tilly, New York. Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. Sage Publishing. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Publishing. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publishing. Zhou, P., Su, X., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). A comparative study on communication structures of Chinese journals in the social sciences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1360–1376.

Appendix B

Semi-structured Interview Guide Question 1: How long have you worked in the Department of Sociology at Tsinghua University? Question 2: Can you introduce your work and experiences in this Department? Question 3: According to you, what is the meaning of internationalization in the field of social sciences and in your academic discipline? And can you explain why you hold such perceptions? Question 4: In your opinion, why do China and its research universities such as Tsinghua University carry forward with internationalization? And what are the rationales behind your Department’s embrace of the process of internationalization? Question 5: How have Tsinghua and your Department been internationalizing the social sciences? And what are the specific strategies and approaches they have used? Question 6: Has has the process of internationalization influenced or changed your teaching, research, and academic life? If so, how?

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Xie, Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China, East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8

217

218

Appendix B

Question 7: Has the process of internationalization affected the disciplinary knowledge in your domain? If so, how? Question 8: Has the process of internationalization affected the disciplinary organization in your domain? If so, how? Question 9: Has the process of internationalization affected the disciplinary culture in your domain? If so, how? Question 10: How have international (Western) knowledge, cultures and models influenced the disciplinary development of the Chinese social sciences? And what do Western influences mean in your academic discipline? Question 11: How have traditional and indigenous Chinese knowledge and cultures influenced the disciplinary development of the Chinese social sciences? And what are the functions and the values placed on them in your academic discipline? Question 12: How have Chinese and international (Western) elements been integrated in Tsinghua’s sociology? Question 13: What’s your opinion about the national and international status of your discipline? What are the core values and criteria for such evaluation? Question 14: How has internationalization been affecting the disciplinary development of sociology at Tsinghua? Have Tsinghua and the Department been using internationalization to boost the global status of its sociology? If so, how? Question 15: How can the international status and influences of Tsinghua’s sociology be enhanced? How should China and its research universities treat the process of internationalization and adopt it as a strategy to develop the Chinese social sciences and enhance their global status? Question 16: What can the Chinese social sciences contribute to the global community?

Appendix C

Curriculum Schedule Curriculum Schedule of the Department of Sociology for Undergraduates (2015 Fall Term) From 2015-9-14 to 2016-1-3. No

Name

Teacher

Time

Weeks

Location

Capacity

30700283

Introduction to sociology

Faculty 1

2

14

5103

150

30700633

Social survey and research methodology

Faculty 1

2

14

6A303

70

40700113

Intellectual history of Western sociology

Faculty 1

3–4

8

4305

70

40700133

Social statistics

Faculty 2

3–4

8

6A311

70

40700153

Cultural anthropology

Faculty 3

2

14

6C202

200

40700163

Organizational sociology

Faculty 4

2

14

6A211

70

40700823

Labor sociology

Faculty 5

2

14

4305

70

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 M. Xie, Internationalizing the Social Sciences in China, East-West Crosscurrents in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0163-8

219

220

Appendix C

Curriculum Schedule of the Department of Sociology for Graduates (2015 Fall Term) From 2015-9-14 to 2016-1-3. No

Name

Teacher

Time

Weeks

Location

Capacity

60700033

Big data analysis

Faculty 6

3

8

6A111

40

60700073

Big data for social network analysis

Faculty 7

2

12

6B312

40

70611343

Sociological theories

PKU’s scholar

3–4

8

1308

30

70612463

Social statistics

Faculty 2

2

14

403

25

70612603

Anthropology research

Faculty 9

6

12

6B108

40

80613113

Collective behavior and social movement

Faculty 1

2

10

6B108

20

80614193

Historical anthropology research

Faculty 3

6

12

6B412

40

80700303

Global health governance

Faculty 9

6

11

6B306

40

80700563

Self-organization theory and community creation

Faculty 4

6

11

6B112

40

80700583

Urban sociology research

Faculty 8

2

11

6B201

40

80700633

Frontiers in Social work research

Faculty 1

2

8

202,408

20