Since joining Zhejiang University in 2012, Zhao Dingxin has held various positions including visiting scholar, chief expert in sociology department discipline construction, director of the sociology department, and dean of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities. Recently, Zhao Dingxin stepped down from his position as director of the sociology department at Zhejiang University and wrote a resignation letter, resigning from all positions related to the sociology department at Zhejiang University. This resignation letter has been widely circulated on the internet, sparking widespread attention in academic circles.
Before joining Zhejiang University, Zhao Dingxin taught at the prestigious University of Chicago, a top institution in the field of world sociology research, and had limited understanding of the current state of academic research in China. His experience of returning to China after ten years abroad provided him with a new perspective. He has his own reflections on the current academic ecology in China.
"In some fields, academic research in China still lacks a sense of professionalism," Zhao Dingxin said in an interview with China Science Daily.
China Science Daily: In your years of leading the reconstruction of the sociology discipline at Zhejiang University, what has been your greatest achievement?
Zhao Dingxin: Over the years, I have achieved a lot.
Compared to other disciplines, sociology in China started relatively early, with significant development during the Republic of China era. However, the reconstruction of sociology as a discipline began only in the 1980s and 1990s. Influenced by the overall trend of higher education development, sociology development in the reform and opening up era tended to emphasize its "tool" attributes, leaning towards a more "engineering-oriented" approach in research methods.
This is reflected in many aspects. For example, there is a greater emphasis on researching specific social issues occurring in mainland China, with a methodological focus on quantitative research, especially studies based on questionnaire surveys and statistical analysis. However, regardless of whether it was at its inception or at present, the greater value of sociology lies in providing a "mother tongue" for other disciplines.
For instance, disciplines like journalism and communication, management, and business, many of their early classic theories originated from various analytical perspectives and narrative syntax developed by sociologists. These disciplines continue to draw theoretical nourishment from sociology. From this perspective, sociology plays the role of a "mother discipline" for the entire social sciences, possessing significant foundational attributes.
This has been an important aspect of my work at Zhejiang University - expanding the role of sociology as a "fundamental discipline" in the social sciences and addressing the university's weaknesses in fundamental disciplines.
Furthermore, although Chinese philosophical thought contains elements of sociological thinking, sociology as a discipline originated in the West. This has led to post-reform and opening up China's sociological research, whether in research topics or analytical syntax, heavily imitating the West, lacking its own characteristics, and focusing more on mainland China in research perspective, with relatively insufficient research on China's ethnic minority areas and foreign sociological research. In this regard, I hope to broaden the research perspective of sociology to include border regions and overseas areas, thereby establishing a set of sociological research methods with Chinese characteristics, and even discourse systems.
It should be said that over the years, the aforementioned work has been my direction of effort. Although my ideal has not yet been fully realized, many achievements have been made.
For example, the research perspectives of faculty and students in the sociology department at Zhejiang University have not only delved into border regions of China but also expanded to other countries and regions such as the United States, Russia, Central Asia, South Asia, and Africa. The papers and works of many young scholars have gained attention from peers both domestically and internationally, and the sociology department at Zhejiang University has gained considerable recognition internationally, which is something to be proud of.
China Science Daily: Besides achievements, what regrets do you have?
Zhao Dingxin: My biggest regret is being too tired. After all, what we are doing involves a certain degree of pioneering work, which inevitably creates friction with certain established systems and rules, thereby significantly increasing the cost of our exploration.
For example, in order to avoid various dependency relationships between students and supervisors, in our exploration of talent training, we stipulated that doctoral students should not be supervised by a single supervisor but by a collective supervisory team. Although this reform was agreed upon and supported by the university, it encountered significant difficulties in implementation - according to the traditional system of doctoral student training where "the supervisor provides funding," the issue of who should provide funding within the supervisory team became an insurmountable problem. As a result, a large amount of training funds for doctoral and even master's students ultimately had to be borne by the department.
Furthermore, some of our teachers have research topics that are somewhat unique, making it difficult to apply for national-level projects at times. In order to support these research endeavors, we do not forcefully require young teachers to apply for projects during their probationary period. However, the resistance to such "untimely" regulations can be imagined.
Over the years, such problems have not been uncommon in our work. The solution to these issues is not difficult - that is, not linking the promotion of teachers with the "level" and quantity of projects. In fact, this is also a common practice in top international universities.
The Lack of "Professionalism" in the Academic Community
China Science Daily: Having worked in both Western and Chinese academic environments for many years, what differences do you see between them?
Zhao Dingxin: In recent years, China has made remarkable progress in the field of academic research. However, it must be acknowledged that compared to countries with deeper academic atmospheres and accumulations, we still lack a sense of "professionalism" in many fields.
Using sociology as an example, the importance of "professionalism" can be understood in many ways. For example, as sociologists, we must understand that while society greatly needs sociological thinking, society does not necessarily need sociology to exist in the form of a "sociology department." Therefore, to maintain the vitality of sociology as a profession, we must cherish our academic honor and responsibility very much. I worked at the University of Chicago for over 20 years, during which a viewpoint was constantly instilled in me, that the University of Chicago was the birthplace of the world's first sociology department. This "industry" and honor should not be destroyed by us. Therefore, scholars take academic research very seriously and always have a sense of crisis.
This "seriousness" is manifested in many aspects. For example, at the University of Chicago, whether writing recommendation letters for undergraduate or graduate students, or writing tenure recommendation letters for young faculty, teachers are personally involved, taking it seriously, sometimes spending several days repeatedly revising a single letter. In contrast, such phenomena are not common in China. In my opinion, the root cause is that many scholars fail to view their academic work from a "professional" perspective and lack sufficient sense of honor and responsibility.
This point is also reflected in other aspects. For example, in China, there are a large number of academic articles whose academic value is not very high even if they are successfully published. This is because many scholars are adept at literature review and "telling stories," but their perspectives and viewpoints are not clear, and they lack reflection on why one narrative style is better than another, which is something that a scholar should first establish.
This is especially evident in the field of humanities and social sciences. It should be noted that although humanities and social sciences carry the label of "science" and also use a lot of scientific methods, their most important value lies in perspectives, viewpoints, and analytical methods. A study that lacks perspectives, viewpoints, and employs outdated analytical methods will certainly not have much value.
"China Science News": How do you think we should enhance the "professionalism" of the academic community?
Zhao Dingxin: At the national level, it is difficult to generalize how this problem should be addressed, but based on our work, there are three experiences that can be drawn upon.
First, when it comes to the publication of papers by young faculty members, emphasis should be placed on quality and academic individual development, rather than quantity. Second, it is essential to invite academic committee members from outside universities who possess both integrity and scholarship to conduct academic reviews. Third, research topics and any titles should not be used as standards for academic assessment. To give an extreme example, even if a young faculty member obtains multiple national academic titles, these titles will not be important criteria for promotion in our department.
One must first gain inner freedom
"China Science News": You mentioned earlier that you hope to spend the second half of your life creating a relatively free research environment for young people. What does the freedom you mentioned entail?
Zhao Dingxin: In my understanding, the so-called freedom environment firstly resides in the heart, or whether scholars have "freedom" in their hearts. To put it more simply, many scholars nowadays are more concerned about what research topics are more likely to publish articles and apply for projects, which journal standards are more relaxed, what writing styles are more appealing to editors, and what types of knowledge can bring fame and fortune... When these utilitarian ideas dominate their research, scholars bind themselves, leading to hesitation and fear in academic research, ultimately hindering their success.
In my work, I strongly support young scholars around me to break free from these internal constraints. At the same time, we have also recruited many scholars who research "niche" topics. These scholars may not be prolific publishers, but we are willing to provide them with relatively relaxed spaces.
In addition, traditional Chinese education has emphasized respecting teachers and advocating for hierarchical order for thousands of years. This is certainly an excellent traditional culture, but it does not mean that it should be rigidly adhered to.
For example, in many university departments, young teachers may "fear" prestigious professors, dare not approach them, and the phenomenon of being submissive in front of them is not uncommon. This needs a certain degree of guidance and the creation of an atmosphere of equality and relaxation.
When I served as the head of the Sociology Department at Zhejiang University, many young teachers referred to me as "Old Zhao" behind my back. Instead of getting angry, I would joke with them if they didn't change their address promptly: "Since you call me that behind my back, just continue calling me that to my face."
For another example, when we moved into a new office building, according to regulations, I could use a 75-square-meter office, but I insisted that every teacher, including myself, use the same size office. As a result, except for a few senior professors, the offices of all the teachers in the department were 15 square meters. This was also done to create an equal environment.
"China Science News": Is the issue you just mentioned related to the current talent evaluation standards?
Zhao Dingxin: On this issue, we can make a comparison between the East and the West.
I am not fully aware of the situation in Europe. From what I observe, there are no unified teacher evaluation standards in American universities. Generally speaking, the further away from the "leadership path" a university is, the more evaluation standards it has and the more "hard" they are; in contrast, top American universities have almost no hard evaluation standards. As long as a colleague in the department recognizes that a teacher's level is high, even if the teacher has not published many papers or works, they will still be promoted.
For example, during my time at the University of Chicago, I rose from assistant professor to full professor and then to chaired professorship. During this period, before publishing the English version of the book "Confucianism and Legalism," I did not publish many articles, and relied more on the academic reputation I earned from daily exchanges with colleagues.
From this perspective, academic evaluation is a very "strange" thing—seemingly diverse and varied, but the most crucial standard is the "scale" in each person's heart.
In contrast, most domestic universities still rely on various "hard indicators" for faculty evaluation. In a sense, this is also a "helpless move" because if we do not rely on indicators, the "academic gatekeepers" in academic teams must be authoritative and impartial enough. However, at present, we lack such "gatekeepers" and the related environment. "Chinese Science Bulletin": Do you think this is a major challenge currently facing the "breaking the five-only" situation?
Zhao Dingxin: In fact, in the domestic academic community, we generally have a rough understanding of the academic level of our peers in the same field. For example, the Sociology Department of Zhejiang University has invited many venerable professors to form an academic committee. Their qualifications, vision, and integrity are sufficient to serve as "academic gatekeepers." Of course, the extent to which they can exert influence remains a practical question.
However, on the other hand, in the current domestic academic community, the phenomenon of networking and personal favors has not disappeared, and it can even be said to be quite common. This phenomenon greatly affects the academic evaluation among peers; furthermore, many universities in China are now implementing a system of "representative works," which is aimed at escaping various "hard indicators," but the recognition of "representative works" still requires a high-quality "academic gatekeeper" as a prerequisite.
Emphasizing quality evaluation is the right path, but an important foundation for the effective implementation of this system is to have a fair, reasonable, and effective academic evaluation system.
In this regard, we still have a lot of room for improvement. Specifically, it is necessary to decentralize power and let professionals "guard the gate," without engaging in various high-level guidance closely linked to interests. Otherwise, it will inevitably lead to disorderly competition among scholars, trigger academic corruption, and even lead young teachers and students astray.
We need the most "down-to-earth" research team.
"Chinese Science Bulletin": What do you think an ideal academic research team should be like?
Zhao Dingxin: This question is not easy to answer because there is no fixed rule for the composition of talent teams, which depends on the specific situation of research fields and topics. However, I think there are some common points to note, at least in the field of humanities and social sciences.
For example, China is committed to establishing our own discourse system internationally and voicing out China's perspectives. This is undoubtedly necessary, otherwise, we may easily fall into the awkward situation of using others' language to speak about our own affairs in the international community or talking to ourselves.
This sets higher requirements for scholars in relevant fields—their research results should be able to appear in internationally authoritative journals or be published by publishers with international influence. At the same time, they should also innovate in ontology, epistemology, and methodology in their respective research fields. Only in this way can they occupy a place in the predominantly Western discourse system.
From this perspective, we need the most "down-to-earth" research team—they should be able to truly delve into China's national conditions, while also establishing social sciences with Chinese characteristics at the level of ontology, epistemology, and problem consciousness in their own research fields, and then disseminate their research results with a resounding voice in the international space, thus mastering the discourse power in relevant fields.
"Chinese Science Bulletin": In your opinion, what should be the academic growth path for a young scholar?
Zhao Dingxin: I think a person's academic growth should go through several steps. When young, one should learn basic skills rigorously and broaden their horizons and academic personality.
The so-called basic skills include various disciplines and methods including mathematics, physics, biology, psychology, statistics, big data, etc. Young people need to have a wide range of knowledge and read extensively. The greater a young person's academic "ambition," the wider the range of basic skills they should cover.
For example, I myself have extensively studied mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and other natural science knowledge when I was young, which has given me a deep understanding of the history of science worldwide since the 17th century. As a result, I can anchor the significance of my research more clearly.
Apart from basic skills, young people should broaden their horizons even more. In academic research, ambition alone is far from enough. Because in many academic research fields, scholars' vision and perspectives are more important than "facts." Many people who do well in academia ultimately fail to become "great" because of their narrow vision and lack of reflection, thus being limited by their character.
A respected historian once likened the basic training in the field of history to exercising arm strength—if someone can wring out some water from a towel that others can't, then they are more capable.
This metaphor is vivid, but I think it needs to go a step further. If we can change our perspective based on extensive knowledge, we have the ability to wring out water from a towel that has been dried in an oven to the water of the East China Sea. When your perspective changes and your horizons broaden, you will have a completely new understanding of the materials you were once familiar with. This is a transformation from "science" to "art of the mind," and the support for this transformation is one's academic personality.
A scholar's academic personality must be based on materialism, and its other side is the scholar's ability to reflect, or the "idealistic" side. If a scholar only has basic academic skills without reflective ability, they will be a very "clumsy" person; conversely, if they only have reflective ability without basic academic skills, they become "wild foxes." In short, your academic personality determines the level of your scholarship.
