Democratising English Language Research Education in the Face of Eurocentric Knowledge Transfer

ABSTRACT The internationalisation of higher education witnesses more students from countries through continental Asia studying in Australian universities. They bring with them a fund of intellectual assets from their own countries. However, research education in Australian universities tends to engage in educational processes of transnational knowledge transfer largely centred on Euro-American theories. The intellectual assets of international students from continental Asia tend to be mute in their Australian research education. This poses problems for the democratisation of Australian research education. Under such intellectual circumstances, this book investigated the uses of “Chinese intellectual assets” (a linguistic and theoretical category recognised as problematic) by international students from the People’s Republic of China undertaking research higher degrees in Australia. The main question is: What pedagogies might be developed to enable such students to use their Chinese linguistic and intellectual assets to contribute to the democratisation of Australian research education? The conceptual framework is built upon theories that critique Eurocentric knowledge diffusion (Alatas, 2006; J. Blaut, 1993; J. Clarke, 1997; Connell, 2007; Hobson, 2004; Said, 1982). Blaut (1993) and Hobson (2004) question as mistaken the belief that the West created the modern world through developing its intellectual culture and knowledge autonomously, and then diffused them into the East. Connell (2007) has critiqued Eurocentric knowledge diffusion for the absence of Eastern theories in global social sciences. Other conceptual tools are derived from debates over the irrelevance of Western theories and concepts to the situations and problems of non-Western nations (Alatas, 2006; Davies, 2007), academic dependency (Alatas, 2006), the global division of intellectual labour (Alatas, 2006) and alternative social sciences (Alatas, 2006). However, when it comes to education, and specifically research education, these socio-historical studies are lacking in Qi / Chi 气 [vital energy], because none of them provide research-based knowledge of pedagogical strategies to stimulate worldly theoretical interactions (Singh, 2011). To address this problem, I use Goody’s (2010) alternation argument to provide possibilities for generating better insights into the educational issues at stake. Goody’s (2010) claim is that sometimes “one society gained an advantage over the others, but this was only a temporary state of affairs since this position was characterised by the existence of alternation between the major societies” (p. 108). In this book, the alternation theory is tested for its potential to generate new insights for democratising Australian research education. Asian countries such as China and India are emerging as “alter/nations” as sources of original contributions to knowledge, but as Blaut (1993) and Hobson (2004) note about Western Europe, not necessarily in and of themselves. They can also be expected to contribute to global social sciences. I am concerned with what this means for the democratisation of Australian research education, and in particular issues of pedagogy. This led to testing Rancière’s concepts of democracy (1991, 2006a, 2007b, 2009c) and mute speech (1999, 2007b, 2010a) to provide a new interpretation of Chinese students’ uses of their own intellectual assets in their research. This study is located in reference to the research literature on the internationalisation of higher education in Australia and elsewhere. Efforts have been done to help international students adapt to the new academic environment faster, but most of them have been silenced, both behaviorally and intellectualy. Much of the research was found to focus on students’ behavioural silences, ignoring intellectual silences. However, the “mute” use of Chinese intellectual assets poses problems to the construction of democratic research education in Australia. Chapters 4 through to 8 are the evidentiary chapters of this book. I analyse factors associated with the “non-use” of Chinese intellectual assets in Chapter 4 showing that processes of research education in Australia are such that transnational knowledge transfer is largely centred on Euro-American theories. To explore the potential uses of Chinese intellectual resources in the democratisation of Australian research education, Chapters 5 to 7 provide a novel analysis of the evidence of the intellectual silence in the theses of international research students from China. Specifcially, in these chapters Rancière’s (1999, 2007b, 2010a) concepts asociated with the theoretical category “mute speech” are used to analyse the uses of Chinese intellectual assets as representing excesses of meaning, needs and mode of communication. The data analysis presented in these three chapters shows that while the uses of Chinese intellectual assets are muted, their significance exceeds (i) their literal meaning, (ii) the requirements of Australian universities, and (iii) using English as a sensible mode of communication. Chapter 8 provides an analysis of pedagogies that might help turn international students’ “mute” knowledge into audible theoretical tools for worldly theoretical interactions and intellectual conversations within, and beyond the Australian educational research community. I summarise the main research capabilities developed through the research project reported in the last chapter. There are five key findings: First, Chinese international research students’ “non-use” of their own intellectual resources might be associated with the hegemonic Western research environment, Chinese students’ “captive mine” (Alatas, 2006), their ignorance of Chinese intellectual resources, supervisors’ negative attitude towards engaging such resources and students’ worries about possible negative feedback from examiners. Second, some Chinese international research students’ “mute” use of Chinese concepts in their research exceeds the concepts’ literal meaning, and points to the issue of intellectual equality as a defining attribute of democracy, and thus the democratisation of Australian research education. Third, the mute use of Chinese intellectual assets exceeds necessity or what is required by the norm of Australian research education. This points to the place of intellectual diversity in democracy, and again the democratisation of Australian research education. Fourth, the muted use of Chinese words exceeds the “sensible” mode of communication (English) in Australian research education. This recalls the importance of dissensus as a change mechanism in democracy, and provides a basis for leveraging the democratisation of Australian research education. Fifth, the mute speech pedagogy of “教学做合一 jiao xue zuo he yi [combining teaching, learning and doing]” can be used to turn students’ mute intellectual resources into audible speech in the communication with the Australian educational research community.