Returning Chinese scholars ‘marginalised’ at home and abroad
Chinese scholars encouraged to return home by the nation’s government face great challenges in balancing the practices they learned in the West and the realities of domestic institutions, according to a new study.
Researchers at the China Institute of Education Policy at Beijing Normal University interviewed 18 returnees at three top Chinese universities, and also observed their interactions in classrooms, laboratories and offices.
Their findings, to be published in the September issue of Higher Education, show that returnees struggle to bridge cultural gaps in how Chinese institutions approach hiring, publishing and networking.
Two major sticking points were “the lack of international academic peer review and tenure track mechanisms”, which presented a “dual dilemma” for returning academics, says the paper, written by Jian Li and Eryong Xue.
It suggests it would be “necessary” for China to incorporate these sorts of practices to match world-class universities overseas. Returnee experiences and feedback could guide Chinese universities in balancing international good practice with local considerations, the paper argues.
The interviewees – who were split evenly between male and female, and between science and the social sciences – had acquired PhDs in the US or Europe, and were now at the associate professor or professor level in China.
They felt that they had to play dual roles, the paper finds. For example, they were expected to publish prolifically in both English- and Chinese-language journals, while also teaching courses. However, they also felt they were not fully recognised either as international scholars or local academics.
One faculty member said that he was “struggling” after having published 39 Chinese and 38 English articles since 2006. He wished to publish more English papers, which have more impact, but his dean required Chinese papers to increase the institution’s “local relevance and influence”.
Another faculty member, in the field of psychology, said that he wanted to publish more English papers to boost his position internationally. “I am dreaming of living in a free academic space where I can communicate with my international academic peers,” he said.
The returnees used strong terminology to describe their experiences. Seven self-mockingly called themselves “abandoned orphans” to describe their “marginalised status in international academic networks and in the Chinese higher education system”. One said that he felt “depressed, lost, hopeless and lonely” upon his return to China several years ago.
Returnees said that it was “not easy” to build academic partnerships with local peers, and expressed “anxiety about the difficulties of finding suitable co-authorship”. They cited some institutions’ lack of subscriptions to international academic publishers and databases, as well as bureaucratic hurdles to attending overseas conferences.
Marginalisation was felt more strongly in the humanities and social sciences, where departments are smaller and political considerations are greater. Scholars in these fields are “required to commit to the national strategic ideology” and would be encouraged to study “Marxist theoretical concepts” to follow trends set by Chinese academics and publications, the paper says. Scholars who do not take this path could receive less government funding and encounter “resistance to their research outputs because the Chinese state also strictly censors all publications”.
These considerations should be taken into account as institutions seek to be more globally relevant. “Returnee faculty members play an indispensable role in internationalising China’s universities,” the paper concludes.