Approaches, Methods, and Challenges in Chinese Studies

This module offers some perspectives on the challenges of doing research in and on China these days, specifically the ways in which various authors have grappled with the ethical and epistemic dimensions of studying China. The module is composed of five clusters. In the first, we present discussions about broad approaches to the study of Chinese politics and society, including takes on how to navigate opposing narratives, the merits of cross-national comparative analyses, and how to balance different research strategies. The second focuses on the methods, challenges, and ethics of conducting fieldwork, specifically how to navigate politically sensitive environments, recognise complex trade-offs, and translate one’s work between interlocutors. The third underscores the need for a gendered lens to the study of China, with essays that contemplate the effect of gendered violence on researchers and the integration of feminist theory into research methodologies. The fourth provides a series of critical takes on issues related to open science and academic freedom, including analyses of how the commercial academic publishing industry is undermining critical discussions about China. Finally, the fifth (which for now features only one piece but which we will expand soon as we prepare an entire issue of Global China Pulse on the topic) offers perspectives on how to do grounded research on Global China.

Framing Scholarship on Contemporary China

• Ivan Franceschini and Nicholas Loubere, ‘What about Whataboutism? Viral Loads and Hyperactive Immune Responses in the China Debate’, Made in China Journal, 7 July 2020, online only. Link.

A severe disease has infected the public discourse surrounding Chinese politics: whataboutism. The virus of whataboutism produces at least two symptoms. On the one hand, it fosters apathy: if any form of criticism is just seen as hypocrisy, then what is the point of having endless discussions? On the other hand, it blinds by obscuring basic similarities, muddying the water and making it difficult to identify actual commonalities that extend beyond national borders and are inherent to the organisation of the global economy in our current stage of late capitalism. However, this is not the end of the story. Whataboutism also produces a powerful hyperactive immune response that manifests itself as a complete dismissal of any attempt to find similarities between dynamics in China and elsewhere, a form of argumentation that can be defined as ‘essentialism’. How should we deal with the virus of whataboutism and its essentialist hyperactive immune reaction?

• Ivan Franceschini and Nicholas Loubere, Global China as Method, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022. Link.

Is China part of the world? Based on much of the political, media, and popular discourse in the West the answer is seemingly no. Even after four decades of integration into the global socioeconomic system, discussions of China continue to be underpinned by a core assumption: that the country represents a fundamentally different ‘other’ that somehow exists outside the ‘real’ world. Either implicitly or explicitly, China is generally depicted as an external force with the potential to impact on the ‘normal’ functioning of things. This core assumption, of China as an orientalised, externalised, and separate ‘other’, ultimately produces a distorted image of both China and the world. In this Open Access book that builds upon their ‘What about Whataboutism’ op-ed for the Made in China Journal , Ivan Franceschini and Nicholas Loubere seek to illuminate the ways in which the country and people form an integral part of the global capitalist system.

• William Hurst, ‘Treating What Ails the Study of Chinese Politics’, Made in China Journal 2(3), 2017, pp. 55–59. Link. + Christian Sorace, ‘Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom: A Response to William Hurst on the Field of Chinese Politics’, Made in China Journal 2(3), 2017, pp. 60–63.Link.

The study of Chinese politics has struggled with isolation and exceptionalism, but efforts using big data and advanced methods have not fully integrated it into political science. William Hurst suggests pursuing cross-national comparative analyses, especially with Southeast Asian countries, to leverage complementary research strengths and better understand China’s political landscape. This approach could bring Chinese politics into closer dialogue with the broader field of political science. In his response, Christian Sorace adds onto William Hurst’s argument by making the case that in addition to making the study of Chinese politics more relevant to the discipline of global political science, scholars should also consider how the study of China can help us rethink the study and practice of comparative politics. A necessary starting point is showing intellectual generosity and curiosity, and engaging with diverse methodologies.

• William Hurst, ‘Blandness, Bathos, or Brashness? Choosing Pathways to Validity and Relevance for Chinese Politics Research’, Made in China Journal 3(3), 2018, pp. 26–29. Link.

The essay discusses the challenges of conducting field research in China due to tightening restrictions and the abundance of new data. It explores three approaches to Chinese politics research: descriptive (bland), methods-driven (bathetic), and concept/theory-building (brash), emphasizing the need for a balance of all three. The author argues that researchers must recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each approach to ensure a coexistence that advances the field and fully leverages the available data.

• Christian Sorace, ‘From the Outside Looking In: A Response to John Garnaut’s Primer on Ideology’, Made in China Journal 4(1), 2019, pp. 29–33. Link.

What is ideology? In the op-ed, Christian Sorace argues that it is the inescapable air we breathe as political and social beings. We are never above, beyond, or outside ideology. For that reason, we should not project as ideology only that which takes place in China or elsewhere, something that happens to other, ‘passive’ minds. Understanding ideology requires self-reflexivity, and attunement to historical and political contexts.

Fieldwork Methods, Challenges, and Ethics

• Sam Berlin, ‘On Becoming a “Blue-eyed, Blond American Friend”: Difficult Fieldwork, Positionality, and Being a Participant-Researcher’, Made in China Journal 4(3), 2019, pp. 108–11. Link.

For researchers working in China, particularly foreigners, the problems of doing fieldwork as an ‘outsider’ often feel acute. However, in this essay Sam Berlin argues that the frustrations felt while setting up and carrying out fieldwork can distract from the more complex social dynamics that researchers are enmeshed within in the field. In particular, the ways that issues of ‘positionality’ have been theorised in feminist social science can help clarify how the impossibility of full understanding and transparency between researchers and research participants is not just limiting but also creates opportunities for knowledge production.

• Tyler Harlan, ‘State of Sensitivity: Navigating Fieldwork in an Increasingly Authoritarian China’, Made in China Journal 4(3), 2019, pp. 116–19. Link.

This essay reflects on the process of designing, conducting, and writing about fieldwork in China’s politically sensitive environment. Tyler Harlan draws on his experience as a foreign scholar researching the hydropower industry in China in the 2010s and describes attempts and strategies (both successful and unsuccessful) to navigate sensitivity in framing his project, accessing and conducting interviews, and sharing results. Overall, the essay provides some cautious optimism for early-career scholars headed into the field.

• Wenjing Jiang, ‘Researching China Through Translation and Presentation’, Made in China Journal 4(3), 2019, pp. 120–23. Link.

To present a research project as understandable, inoffensive, and interesting to people in the field involves both politics and artfulness. Drawing on her experience in rural Sichuan, Wenjing Jiang describes how researchers, the researched, and potential collaborators together constitute the politics of fieldwork, at the centre of which are ongoing processes to establish expectations of possible benefits or conflicts of interests. The multidimensional politics on the ground remind us to consciously and continually seek appropriate translation and presentation of our research and position while conducting fieldwork in China.

• Björn Alpermann, ‘Ethics in Social Science Research on China’, Made in China Journal 7(1), 2022, pp. 36–43. Link.

This essay draws from the relevant literature and the author’s own experiences to offer a reflection on professional, personal, and political ethics in social science research in China. It argues that we must recognise the complex trade-offs involved rather than proposing simple solutions. Social research in authoritarian settings such as contemporary China requires delicately weighing different options, none of which will be ideal, if we do not want to forgo any chance of firsthand data-gathering inside the system.

• Xiao Tan, Nahui Zhen, Leiheng Wang, and Yue Zhao, ‘Doing Fieldwork in China During and Beyond the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Study’, Made in China Journal 8(1), 2023, pp. 40–47. Link.

The Covid-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for those conducting fieldwork in China. To understand how the situation evolved, the authors collected firsthand accounts from internationally based China specialists, showcasing the difficulties they encountered and the strategies they used to cope. The authors also obtained insights from scholars based in China, which provided valuable perspectives on the changing fieldwork environment in the country.

• Zachary Lowell, Mengyao Li, and Yuzong Chen, ‘Rebooting Qualitative Research in China: Reflections on Doing Fieldwork in the Post-Covid Era’, Made in China Journal 9(2), 2024. Link.

The forum discusses the challenges and opportunities for international researchers returning to China post-Covid, highlighting the complexities of conducting fieldwork amid geopolitical tensions and sensitive topics. Three postgraduate researchers share their diverse experiences, emphasizing how personal, cultural, and political dimensions intersect during the research process and contribute to a shared theme of discomfort with imposed expectations. They aim to provide firsthand insights into China’s current research environment, inspire unconventional research approaches, and continue the conversation about the challenges of China-based fieldwork.

Gendered Lenses

• Yifan Cai. 2019, ‘Confronting Sexual Harassment in the Field,’ Made in China Journal 4(3), 2019, pp. 112–15. Link.

This essay sheds light on gendered violence negotiated by researchers conducting fieldwork in China. It examines coping and resistance strategies employed by female researchers, and analyses how the female researcher’s body is disciplined in a hetero-patriarchal setting. Linking gendered field experience to the #MeToo movement in China, Yifan Cai discusses the role of academics in feminist movements and the implications for the broader civil rights issues in the Chinese context.

• Huang Yun, ‘Taking a Step Back to Conduct Research and Liberal Feminism as a Theory of Action’, Made in China Journal 6(2), 2021, pp. 194–99. Link.

Prompted by the arrest of the ‘Feminist Five,’ Huang Yun, a scholar in Chinese political philosophy, reflects on the integration of feminist theory into her research. Highlighting the challenges of conducting fieldwork and pursuing feminist research in China’s restrictive environment, she develops a ‘Rawlsian feminism’ theory centered on principles of justice and women’s core interests. By advocating for the inclusion of gender issues within the broader human rights and liberalism discourse, the essay underscores the importance of diverse methodological approaches in advancing both feminist and liberal agendas in Chinese political research.

• Mengyao Li, ‘Under the Gaze: Reflections on Conducting Fieldwork as a Female Researcher in China’, Made in China Journal 9(2), 2024. Link.

Published as part of a broader forum in which three postgraduate researchers share their diverse experiences doing fieldwork in China after the pandemic, this essay discusses the different gazes the author encountered during her fieldwork in post-Covid China, unpacking the emotional challenges she experienced while conducting fieldwork as a female researcher in remote rural areas. In doing so, this article seeks to draw the attention of the Chinese Studies community to the discomfort and obstacles faced by early career female scholars conducting research in China, fostering dialogue and introspection under a pervasive male gaze and societal expectations rooted in traditional gender norms.

Open Science and Academic Freedom

• Yangyang Cheng, ‘Troubling the Water’, Made in China Journal 9(1), 2024, pp. 32–39. Link.

The concept of open science, like ‘free market’, is a depoliticising myth that conceals the uneven structures of power undergirding knowledge production and transmission, writes Yangyang Cheng. New restrictions from the US Government on scientific collaborations with China are not an aberration due to current geopolitical tensions, but the continuation of a decades-old effort to subject academic research to state and corporate interests, as reflected in the long history of US–China academic exchange. Knowledge flows across borders have always been conditional; the question is under whose conditions and what are the borders for.

• Ivan Franceschini and Nicholas Loubere, ‘The Academe’, in Global China as Method, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022, pp. 48–57. Link.

In this chapter of Global China as Method, Ivan Franceschini and Nicholas Loubere zoom in on academia, highlighting how universities have become a site of contention in debates over China’s perceived influence abroad. In doing so, they show how the neoliberalisation of the university has opened up the possibility for outside actors (including Chinese ones) to threaten the fundamental principles of academic freedom.

• Nicholas Loubere and Ivan Franceschini, ‘Beyond the Great Paywall: A Lesson from the Cambridge University Press China Incident’, Made in China Journal 2(3), 2017, pp. 64–66. Link. + Nicholas Loubere and Ivan Franceschini, ‘How the Chinese Censors Highlight Fundamental Flaws in Academic Publishing’, Made in China Journal 3(4), 2020, pp. 22–25. Link.

In August 2017, Cambridge University Press was found to have complied with the demands of Chinese government censors to block access on its website in China to hundreds of ‘politically sensitive’ articles published in its prestigious journal, The China Quarterly. The ensuing debate generally overlooked the problematic nature of the commercial academic publishing industry. At that time, Nicholas Loubere and Ivan Franceschini argued that it is time to take the profit motive out of the equation and rediscover a certain measure of idealism in academic publishing. They then further elaborated on the topic in a second op-ed in which they discussed how commercial publishers profitting heavily while keeping publicly funded research behind expensive paywalls can end up facilitating government censorship and surveillance.

• Nicholas Loubere, Ivan Franceschini, and Andrea E. Pia, ‘Setting Knowledge Free: Towards an Ethical Open Access’, Made in China Journal, 27 February 2023, online only. Link.

In this article, the authors explore the ethical dilemmas of academic publishing, focusing on the inequalities perpetuated by commercial publishers that profit from unpaid scholarly labour while restricting access to knowledge. The essay critiques the dominance of paywalled journals and the pressures they create within academia, limiting the global circulation of research. Advocating for a more just and accessible system, the article highlights alternative open-access models driven by academic communities and non-profit initiatives. It calls for a fundamental shift towards publishing practices that prioritise knowledge as a public good, ensuring broader accessibility, academic freedom, and intellectual equity.

Researching Global China

• Ivan Franceschini and Ling Li, ‘Global China’s Dark Side’, Global China Pulse 2(1), 2023, pp. 20–33. Link.

As China’s global economic reach expands, so does its entanglement with illicit transnational networks. In this essay, Ivan Franceschini and Ling Li advocate a mixed-methods approach—combining digital ethnography, open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysis, and fieldwork—to investigate the dark underside of Global China. Examining cybercrime, human trafficking, and underground finance, they reveal how criminal enterprises in many cases led by ethnic Chinese actors exploit governance gaps, financial loopholes, and digital infrastructures. By triangulating investigative reports, leaked documents, and interviews, they expose the structural conditions enabling cyber-fraud compounds, online gambling hubs, and forced labour schemes, challenging state-centric narratives of ethnic Chinese transnational crime.