Coping with global knowledge asymmetries : a study of China's English-language academic journals in the humanities and social sciences

Abstract

In the era of globalization, an inclusive and integrated human and social science is needed to respond to global, local, historical, and present challenges. However, humanities and social sciences (HSS) are still marked by the fragmentation of knowledge and center- periphery disparity. Drawing on postcolonial and critical perspectives, scholars are problematizing Euro-American hegemony and calling for alternative discourses in HSS research. However, little research has been done on attempts made in non-Western societies to bring forth changes to the hegemonic knowledge structure. This thesis contributes to filling the gap by examining an effort made in China – i.e., developing HSS English-language journals to bring Chinese HSS scholarship to the world, to move from the unidirectional import of Western knowledge to a more balanced reciprocal knowledge flow. The thesis portrays a national landscape of the journals and explores how they seek to improve the international visibility of Chinese scholarship and counterbalance Anglo- American hegemony in knowledge creation and circulation. This study consists of two parts: a national landscape of the journals and three case studies of journals in different subject areas. The three cases are Frontiers of Education in China (FEDC), Frontiers of History in China (FHC), and Chinese Journal of International Politics (CJIP). Data were collected from documents and semi-structured interviews with 32 journal editors from 27 journals. Additionally, content analysis and citation analysis of the three case journals are conducted to explore the specific strategies and struggles of each journal. The findings show that the journals seek to counterbalance, yet are simultaneously conditioned by the hierarchical knowledge structure. Due to global and local complexities, they face profound predicaments when internationalizing and generating genuine dialogue between Chinese and Western scholarship. On the whole, the journals are still at an embryonic development stage, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The journal editors interviewed have demonstrated a clear awareness of the hierarchical global knowledge structure. Some have shown agency by mobilizing social imagination to re-interpret and re-construct global knowledge flows, with deep reflection on problems and struggles in both Chinese and international academia. Some journals have made substantial efforts in carving out research imaginaries and facilitating multiplicities in HSS research, by publishing indigenous Chinese theoretical constructions and articles that re-contextualize and re-examine existing (Western) concepts, theories, and approaches. The three case journals (especially CJIP) are relatively well-developed, due to strategic reliance on international resources to enhance their international impact and integrate Chinese scholarship into international academia. To conclude, this study argues that consistent support at different levels must be provided to the journals, and that the journals must balance realistic strategies to improve international visibility with an orientation to Western research agendas and long-term commitment to a truly ‘global’ discipline that embraces diverse and plural foundations.