中英学术交流中的市场安全紧张:来自英国高等教育的视角

Chi Zhang
{"title":"中英学术交流中的市场安全紧张:来自英国高等教育的视角","authors":"Chi Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s44216-025-00057-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper examines the securitization of UK–China academic exchange in the context of intensifying geopolitical tensions and higher education marketization. It argues that UK universities are caught in a dilemma: compelled to navigate growing state-imposed security imperatives while remaining financially dependent on international students from China. Drawing on securitization theory and interpretive analysis of policy documents, media narratives, and ethnographic insights, the paper conceptualizes universities as active sites of controlled interdependence—negotiating risks, compliance demands, and academic freedom. The analysis highlights how securitization processes, framed as safeguarding national security, can lead to racialized suspicion and epistemic exclusion. This dynamic is compounded by austerity-driven budget cuts that disproportionately affect language and area studies, further shrinking the space for open, critical inquiry. The paper concludes with reflections on policy and scholarly implications, calling for renewed investment in China expertise and more balanced, evidence-based governance of international academic partnerships.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100130,"journal":{"name":"Asian Review of Political Economy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44216-025-00057-5.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Market–security tensions in UK–China academic engagement: perspectives from UK higher education\",\"authors\":\"Chi Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44216-025-00057-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper examines the securitization of UK–China academic exchange in the context of intensifying geopolitical tensions and higher education marketization. It argues that UK universities are caught in a dilemma: compelled to navigate growing state-imposed security imperatives while remaining financially dependent on international students from China. Drawing on securitization theory and interpretive analysis of policy documents, media narratives, and ethnographic insights, the paper conceptualizes universities as active sites of controlled interdependence—negotiating risks, compliance demands, and academic freedom. The analysis highlights how securitization processes, framed as safeguarding national security, can lead to racialized suspicion and epistemic exclusion. This dynamic is compounded by austerity-driven budget cuts that disproportionately affect language and area studies, further shrinking the space for open, critical inquiry. The paper concludes with reflections on policy and scholarly implications, calling for renewed investment in China expertise and more balanced, evidence-based governance of international academic partnerships.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Review of Political Economy\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44216-025-00057-5.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Review of Political Economy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44216-025-00057-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Review of Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44216-025-00057-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了地缘政治紧张加剧和高等教育市场化背景下的英中学术交流证券化问题。报告认为,英国大学陷入了两难境地:一方面被迫应对日益增长的国家安全要求,另一方面在经济上仍依赖来自中国的国际学生。利用证券化理论和对政策文件、媒体叙述和民族志见解的解释性分析,本文将大学概念化为受控相互依赖的活跃场所——谈判风险、合规要求和学术自由。分析强调了以维护国家安全为框架的证券化过程如何导致种族化的怀疑和认知排斥。财政紧缩导致的预算削减对语言和区域研究造成了不成比例的影响,进一步缩小了开放、批判性研究的空间。论文最后对政策和学术影响进行了反思,呼吁重新投资中国专业知识,并对国际学术伙伴关系进行更平衡、基于证据的治理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Market–security tensions in UK–China academic engagement: perspectives from UK higher education

This paper examines the securitization of UK–China academic exchange in the context of intensifying geopolitical tensions and higher education marketization. It argues that UK universities are caught in a dilemma: compelled to navigate growing state-imposed security imperatives while remaining financially dependent on international students from China. Drawing on securitization theory and interpretive analysis of policy documents, media narratives, and ethnographic insights, the paper conceptualizes universities as active sites of controlled interdependence—negotiating risks, compliance demands, and academic freedom. The analysis highlights how securitization processes, framed as safeguarding national security, can lead to racialized suspicion and epistemic exclusion. This dynamic is compounded by austerity-driven budget cuts that disproportionately affect language and area studies, further shrinking the space for open, critical inquiry. The paper concludes with reflections on policy and scholarly implications, calling for renewed investment in China expertise and more balanced, evidence-based governance of international academic partnerships.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信