Dancing in fetters: A national scenario of China’s English-language academic journals in the humanities and social sciences

• In Event: Highlighted session: Inclusion, representation, and education

Proposal

Past four decades have witnessed Mainland China’s remarkable achievements in higher education, which can be evidenced by its rapid growth in global university rankings. However,
China’s research developments in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) largely lag behind its natural sciences and engineering counterparts. For example, in the 2016 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), 19 Chinese universities were ranked among top 200 in natural sciences and mathematics, 42 in engineering/technology and computer sciences, and only 3 in social sciences. This is because of the relatively high dependency on language, and the varied ideologies, paradigms, discourses inherent in the humanities and social sciences (Yang, 2014). Key ideas out which the HSS as modern disciplines were constituted came from Europe. Today, HSS research is still dominated by Western paradigms, theories, and methods (Gosovic, 2000). Although increasing voices have been heard calling for multiple perspectives and pluralistic epistemologies (e.g., Al zeera, 2001; Polkinghorne, 1983), achievements of non-Western societies being recognized in global HSS community are still very limited.

Humanities and social sciences (HSS) as disciplines in China can be traced back to the late 19th and early 20th century, when China looked to the West for knowledge to save the nation. From then on, the emphasis of HSS development in China had largely been importing theories, methodologies, and practices from the outside (mainly the West). However, recently there appears to be a shift from a unidirectional import to a more balanced reciprocal or multi-directional dialogue in China’s HSS development (Li, 2018). Establishing English-language academic journals is one of China’s most active initiatives for its HSS to reach out to the world. These journals provide a much-needed platform for connecting the Chinese and the international in HSS. By 2018, there are about 62 HSS English-language journals in China and they are mainly hosted by Chinese universities and Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). Among the 62 journals, 55 (89%) were founded in or after 2000, 47 (76%) were started in or after 2006, 32 (48%) were established in or after 2010; and 35 (57%) have ‘China’ or ‘Chinese’ in their titles, such as the journal China and World Economy. These journals are in different areas of studies such as economics, law, philosophy, history, education, literary studies, etc.

The development of China’s HSS English-language journals to some extent challenges and is inevitable conditioned by the imbalanced international knowledge system, usually explained under the notion of academic dependency dividing the scholarly world into center and periphery (e.g., Altbach, 1998; Alatas, 2003). The center produces theories and methods, and controls means of knowledge dissemination such as journals and publishers, while the periphery provides ‘raw materials’ for applying theories and methods from the center. Drawing on three overlapping literatures: theories of uneven global structure of knowledges, the postcolonial critique of Eurocentrism and emphasis on multiplicities in understandings, and literature on China’s experiences of dealing with Western learning and Chinese learning in HSS development since the late 19th century, this study investigates struggles and agencies of China’s HSS English-language academic journals in an unequal international knowledge system. Using China as a case, this study sheds light on how to develop and internationalize HSS in non-Western societies and how to develop ‘alternative discourses’ (Alatas, 2000) under hegemonic global HSS circumstances.

As a relatively new development in China, HSS English-language journals have rarely been empirically researched. In order to better grasp the phenomenon, this study seeks to portrait a national scenario of these journals. A qualitative approach is employed to understand practices of the journals and perceptions of journal editors. Two sources of data were collected: interview responses and documents. In-depth interviews were conducted with editors-in-chief/editors/managing editors of these journals. Purposive sampling (Manson, 2002) and snowball sampling was used to identify and approach participants. Semi-structured interviews were employed to allow participants to express any thoughts or feelings about the achievements, difficulties, and significance of the journal or HSS development in China. Eventually, 32 participants from 27 journals (44% of the total 62) were interviewed. The length of each interview ranged from 30 mins to 2 hours, with most interviews lasted around 1 hour. In addition, the author searched information on all the 62 journals, especially those cannot be accessed through interviews. Policy documents, journal contents, and other materials relevant to these journals were collected and analyzed.

The overall international impact of China’s HSS English-language journals has been very limited. None has been included in the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and only 6 are indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). With regard to the difficulties of journal development, three dimensions of hegemony were identified upon data analysis: research evaluation system, language, and intellectual paradigm or tradition. Research evaluation system is increasingly powerfully shaped by international citation indices such as SSCI and A&HCI, especially in countries like China who is eager to pursue a world-class status in global higher education. This has become an institutional barrier for China’s HSS English-language journals to attract high-quality international and domestic submissions. Language challenges reflects in two aspects: most Chinese HSS researchers still cannot write fluently in English; and publishing in English underlies a given conception of scholarship and accepted norms of writing for a given academic community. Paradigmatic hegemony lies in that journal editors find it difficult for indigenous theoretical contributions by Chinese scholars to dialogue with existing theoretical constructions, and for Chinese intellectual traditions to be integrated with existing paradigms, under the self and other binary of Eurocentrism. These journals are struggling between internationalization and indigenization. Despite the abovementioned predicaments, editors perceive these journals as a platform for rethinking the relevance of western theories in China’s localities, and opening up new spaces for research imagination. Many of them demonstrate a clear awareness of countering hegemonic global HSS structure. Analysis of the aims & scopes of the 62 journals showed these journals seek to provide Chinese/Asian/non-Western perspectives in HSS research.

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. (2000). An introduction of the idea of alternative discourses. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 28(1), 1-12.
Altbach, P. (1998). Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the University, and Development. London: Alex Publishing Corporation.
Al zeera, Z. (2001). Paradigm shifts in the social sciences in the East and West. In Hayhoe, R. & Pan, J. (Eds.), Knowledge across Cultures: A Contribution to Dialogue among Civilizations (pp.55-74). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
Gosovic, B. (2000). Global intellectual hegemony and the international development agenda. International social Science journal, 52(166), 447-456.
Li, M. (2018), Engaging in dialogue with the world: what English-language academic journals tell us about the internationalization of China's humanities and social sciences, In Proctor, D. & Rumbley, L. E. (Eds.), The Future Agenda for Internationalization in Higher Education: Next Generation Insights into Research, Policy, and Practice. UK and US: Routledge, 113-122.
Manson, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Polkinghorne, D.E. (1983). Methodology for the Human Sciences: Systems of Inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Yang, R. (2014). China’s strategy for the internationalization of higher education. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(2): 151-162.

Author

• Mengyang LI, The University of Hong Kong