During the last two decades, the Chinese government has substantially increased public research funding to its higher education institutions (HEIs), and the main form of these grants is project-based competitive funding. These supports have promoted China’s scientific productivity remarkably. However, many critics questioned whether they also improved scholars’ research quality, especially in the social sciences and the humanities (SS&H). To address this issue, this exploratory qualitative study investigated how social scientists consider the role of such funding in their academic research activities, which could provide insights for reforming research policies in China.
The author carried out semi-structured interviews with seven scholars in SS&H in three research-intensive universities in Beijing. To analyze interview data, the author adopts Latour and Woolgar’s theory of “cycle of credibility” (CC). CC regards knowledge production as a process of credibility accumulation and reinvestment; funding is a type of credibility and it can be converted into equipment and staff, and then into data, arguments and publications, which bring recognition and then again will be converted into funding (Latour & Woolgar, 1986).
Findings suggest that the CC and the role of funding differ between scholars who mainly conduct empirical research and those conduct theoretical studies. For empirical scholars, funding is an indispensable part of their CC and is a prerequisite for establishing a research team and collecting first-hand data. Only on this basis can they put forward arguments, write and publish papers, and then get recognition. CC of these scholars is similar to that of biological scientists in Latour and Woolgar’s book, but one difference is that funding in China’s context can directly bring recognition to scholars, especially those granted by state research council. This is because competition of these funding is fierce and funding itself becomes an indicator of research excellence. Moreover, many universities regard funding as one standard of scholars’ performance assessment, promotion, and reward, which turn funding into a kind of symbolic capital. For theoretical scholars, they do not cost much to do research, so their CC essentially consists of argument, publication, and recognition; funding is not an indispensable part. Although funding may bring some recognition, it has little effect on the research itself. However, due to the symbolic value, many scholars are compelled or encouraged by their institutions to apply for funding, regardless of whether it is needed or not. This issue may impair their academic research, especially those who mainly do theoretical studies, because funding application and management usually consume much time that would otherwise be available for research. It is suggested that HEIs pay attention to its research evaluation practice to avoid its adverse impacts on scholars’ autonomy in terms of funding application.
The contribution of the study is that it indicates the different functions that funding has in different social scientists’ knowledge production and points out how funding may hinder scholars’ academic research; it also describes the variations of CC in SS&H in China’s context.
Errong GUO is a Ph.D. candidate at the Graduate School of Education at Peking University. Her research interests include academic career, knowledge production, and graduate education.
Dear Errong Guo,
Congratulations on your poster, I enjoyed very much reading it. Please find below some comments I hope could be helpful.
Since this is a qualitative study, I suggest describing the sampling process as more detailed as possible. For instance, I recommend mentioning the criteria for selecting seven researchers from three research universities –are their trajectories similar? do the universities have similar reward systems? Maybe the author could give more information about who these scholars are, and why the concept of cycles or credibility could be applied to study their stories.
In the findings section, the differences found in empirical and theoretical researchers are clearly stated. Yet I would be also interested in knowing more about the disciplines because publishing practices differ in social sciences and humanities. For instance, in Philosophy scholars publish different academic publication genres, mostly books and chapters. Whereas in Sociology, there is a predominance of the paper, which could determine the number of publications a researcher can have yearly, and also maybe the number of her chances of applying for funds. Another important data about participants that could help readership contextualize findings is gender and/or age. To my understanding, there are many studies that argue these demographics strongly determine the accumulation of credibility and prestige among faculty.
Some of the critiques of Latour and Woolgar’s theory highlight that they leave out of the discussion the politics and economics of science. In that sense, I suggest considering the following questions for future research: What are the political and economic conditions of China in the production of SS&H outputs? What are the science-policy priorities and goals in China and how do the metrics that include grants contribute to reaching those goals?, and eventually, what is the role of cash-per-publication reward policy in Social Sciences and Humanities? How does this policy affect cycles of credibility?
Thanks for sharing your info. I really appreciate your efforts and I will be waiting for your further write ups thank you once again.
my home page : okbet mobile app
I’m writing on this topic these days, but I have stopped writing because there is no reference material. Then I accidentally found your article. I can refer to a variety of materials, so I think the work I was preparing will work! Thank you for your efforts.
my home page : okbet casino