Search results

The aim of this article is two-fold. First, it offers a unique account of San Min, the prototype of the current Chinese educational principle proposed by Yan Fu (1854–1921) that aimed at improving people’s physical, intellectual and moral capacities. This system of educational thinking has received only marginal attention in Anglophone research literature. Second, given the influence of Yan Fu’s interpretation and promulgation of Herbert Spencer’s educational philosophy during that period, it investigates the extent to which San Min is derived from Spencer’s educational thought (the “Spencerian Triad”). This article focusses on how Yan Fu adapted the ideas of San Min from Spencer’s account.

This article considers Yan Fu’s principle of San Min in relation to Spencer’s educational triad through a close reading and comparison of key primary texts (including Yan Fu’s original writing). It explores the similarities and differences between each account of education’s goals and its proposed means of attainment.

Yan Fu’s principle of San Min is shown to have been adapted from the Spencerian Triad. However, using the theory of Social Organism, Yan Fu re-interpreted Spencer’s individual liberty as liberty for the nation. While Spencer’s goal was to empower individuals, Yan Fu aimed to serve collective independence, wealth and power.

This article addresses oversights concerning San Min’s Western origins in the Spencerian Triad and its influence on Chinese education under Yan Fu’s sway. It is significant because San Min is still at the core of the current Chinese educational policy.

The purpose of this case study was to complement existing weeding and retention criteria beyond the most used methods in academic libraries and to consider citation counts in the identification of important scholarly works.

Using a small sample of items chosen for withdrawal from a small liberal arts college library, this case study looks at the use of Google Scholar citation counts as a metric for identification of notable monographs in the social sciences and mathematics.

Google Scholar citation counts are a quick indicator of classic, foundational or discursive monographs in a particular field and should be given more consideration in weeding and retention analysis decisions that impact scholarly collections. Higher citation counts can be an indicator of higher circulation counts.

The authors found little indication in the literature that Google Scholar citation counts are being used as a metric for identification of notable works or for retention of monographs in academic libraries.