Search results

A main challenge in studying China is that different views clash. A more serious challenge is that studies that are critical of or dissent from the Chinese government policies are labeled “anti-China” by the Chinese authorities, affecting the free academic exchange of ideas on China. This article discusses this issue and proposes a long-term solution.

This is a perspective study and uses the qualitative approach to develop the authors’ arguments.

The authors argue that the contention in China-related studies is derived primarily from the different perspectives that scholars use. This study identifies two main perspectives: the China-centric view and the rest of the world’s view. The combination of the clash of perspectives and the interference of the Chinese state hinders the development of our knowledge regarding China. Using Rawls’ theory of justice and the veil of ignorance, the authors propose to build common ground for the China study community based on academic freedom, equality and the rule of law. This study further shows that building the common ground is feasible.

The authors’ proposed common ground will help create a free environment for meaningful exchange between different perspectives and reduce the risks in China studies.

The authors’ angle to examine the contentiousness and riskiness of China studies is new. It is the first time that different perspectives on China studies are delineated and compared, the costs of the contentiousness and riskiness are assessed, and the long-term consequences of different paths are examined.