How do they become globally high achieving? Trajectories, struggles, and achievements of ethnic Chinese humanities and social sciences scholars

The paper interrogates whether ethnic Chinese HSS scholars have become part of a global mainstream and, more critically, questions the construction of that mainstream given epistemic injustice and center–periphery dynamics in global academia. Drawing on world-systems perspectives and accounts of epistemic injustice, the author situates ethnic Chinese HSS scholars within unequal global knowledge structures historically dominated by Euro-American systems, while acknowledging increasing diversity due to mobility and connectivity. Against this backdrop, the study poses the research question: how have certain ethnic Chinese HSS scholars become globally high achieving? The study focuses on tensions and opportunities in engaging Chinese and Western cultures/knowledges and in pursuing international careers. It aims to contribute conceptually to understanding scholars’ academic development in HSS—an area less studied than STEM—and practically to training and development of scholars in and beyond Greater China.

Two strands are reviewed. (1) Academic development of scholars: Research typically examines career development (working conditions, aspirations, stages, mentoring, success metrics such as grants/publications/positions) and agency–structure interactions. Identity-trajectory theory emphasizes temporal biographies (past–present–future), individual agency, and embedding academic work within personal life. Studies note impacts of neoliberal reforms, precarity, and geopolitical tensions on academics’ identities, activities, and productivity. However, factors such as ethnicity, culture, and personal epistemologies are underexplored, especially in HSS. (2) Ethnic Chinese HSS scholars: One body of work analyzes their academic activities (publishing strategies under policy incentives, language choices and limited multilingualism, career trajectories including women academics, performance regimes). Another frames them as public intellectuals navigating cultural missions and identity tensions between Chinese traditions and Western modernity, including issues of insider/outsider positions, topic selection, and language of publication. Studies on building independent HSS knowledge in Greater China emphasize integrating Chinese traditions with Western theories (e.g., Fei Xiaotong, Zhao Tingyang), advocating cultural appreciation, engagement with multiple knowledges, and culturally oriented agendas. The review highlights two inseparable elements in ethnic Chinese scholars’ development: general academic career processes and culturally/epistemologically situated identities and tensions, with a paucity of work on high-achieving cases that might illuminate ways to harness such tensions productively.

A narrative research design was employed to investigate life stories and scholarship of ten globally high-achieving ethnic Chinese HSS scholars. Inclusion criteria at data collection: holding full professorships at leading research-intensive, English-medium universities (Hong Kong SAR, United States, Australia); widely recognized as world-leading in their fields; having received at least compulsory and undergraduate education in Greater China. Data sources included: semi-structured narrative interviews; participants’ research outputs; blog/newspaper pieces; reflective pieces (where provided); published biographies; and public interview texts. Interviews (conducted in 2022; in-person in Hong Kong or via Zoom elsewhere) comprised (a) an uninterrupted biographical narrative and (b) a tailored semi-structured component; each interview lasted around 180 minutes. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Hong Kong HREC (EA220332). Sampling notes: small sample size, but depth and multiple sources add richness; gender and geographical imbalances suggest caution and avenues for future research.

Across varied trajectories, participants shared commonalities: strong agency and independence; deep reflexivity and intentional planning; support from mentors/family/colleagues (guiren 貴人); and commitment to knowledge for its own sake (echoing Daoist wei er bu you). Four salient elements are most associated with global high achievement: - Strong resilience: Many lived through adversity (e.g., Cultural Revolution, war, poverty). P4, orphaned young and forced into rural/factory work, continued self-study, gained top marks in the reinstated Gaokao, entered a top master’s program without prior undergraduate degree, then completed a US PhD and built a globally influential career. Similar resilience was evident in P7 and P8. - Engagement with Chinese traditional cultures and knowledges: For some (e.g., P1, P2, P4, P5, P8) early immersion shaped life goals and research (P2 aimed to integrate Chinese and Western philosophies for peaceful co-existence). Others (P3, P6, P7, P9, P10) turned later to Chinese traditions upon recognizing limits of Western theories for explaining Chinese contexts (e.g., P3’s “eureka” on cultural mismatch; P9’s search to integrate practice and theory locally). - Development of multiple lenses: Participants cultivated cultural, insider/outsider, and positional lenses through global mobility and multilingualism. Experiencing, contrasting, and dialoguing across contexts enhanced reflexivity and problem recognition (P5’s Mount Lu analogy). Mastering other languages was seen as opening new epistemic windows (P4). - Realization of zide (自得)—staying true to oneself: After periods of feeling torn or marginalized between East/West, many reached an academic state of comfort with their positionality, following intrinsic interests and the pure pursuit of knowledge. P8 reframed marginality as strength—“one foot each in Eastern and Western cultures”—valuing independent spirit and multiple perspectives. Sample descriptors and process notes: N=10 globally recognized full professors; interviews ~180 minutes; data triangulated with publications and biographies. These elements coalesced to support lasting global impact in HSS.

The findings address how certain ethnic Chinese HSS scholars attain global high achievement by highlighting an interaction of personal, educational, and structural factors. Three reason groups emerged: (1) Personal characteristics—resilience, strong agency, intrinsic passion, intentionality—were crucial in navigating turbulence and constraints. (2) Education and training—solid research skills, English proficiency, global mobility, multilingualism, and cultivated multiple cultural lenses—facilitated reflexivity and internationally resonant scholarship; for HSS specifically, grounding in Chinese classics and deep knowledge of Chinese cultures enhanced originality and contextual validity. (3) Structural conditions and opportunities—social/institutional environments, mobility opportunities, and academic networks—shaped pathways, though many participants downplayed constraints, possibly because their careers predated intensified neoliberal shifts or because their zide state reframed constraints. Two challenge categories were distinguished: (a) general structural pressures (competition, neoliberal reforms, funding declines, geopolitics, knowledge asymmetries) and (b) challenges specific to non-Western/ethnic Chinese scholars (linguistic/cultural/epistemological marginalization, intellectual extraversion, insider/outsider dilemmas, questions about the legitimacy of Chinese knowledge traditions). High-achieving participants often transformed feelings of being torn into sources of strength via zide, multiple lenses, and integration across knowledge systems. The study thus suggests pathways for early/mid-career scholars and for institutions seeking to foster equitable, plural knowledge production.

The study contributes one of the first empirical explorations of globally high-achieving ethnic Chinese HSS scholars, identifying four intertwined elements—resilience, engagement with Chinese traditions, multiple lenses, and striving toward zide—that underpin lasting global impact. Practically, it recommends that non-Euro-American systems incorporate indigenous cultures/knowledges into training, support foreign language learning (especially English), enable global mobility, and cultivate bicultural/multicultural competencies and reflective debate. Individually, scholars can develop resilience, deepen cultural/epistemic understanding, and work toward zide through sustained self-reflection and growth. Future research should expand balanced sampling (gender, geography), probe the psychological processes of achieving zide, and compare trajectories across diverse non-Western backgrounds to map convergences/divergences in challenges and strategies.

The sample is small (N=10) and imbalanced in gender and geography, limiting generalizability. Participants’ narratives and career timing may understate contemporary neoliberal constraints. While evidence indicates movement toward a zide state, the psychological processes and mechanisms of achieving zide remain underexplored. Findings are derived from narrative self-reports and documentary triangulation, which may carry recall and selection biases.