Due to the politicisation of universities-within-the-state, the state’s governance of higher education in China differentiates itself from other countries. This study examines how the Chinese central government adjusts its governance over universities between 1978 and 2018. Based on an extensive analysis of policy documents and scholarly research, this study proposes an analytic framework, comprising the state’s governance logics, governance instruments, and institutional demonstrations. The three strategically selected governance instruments, i.e. laws, policies, and finance, are demonstrated through various aspects integral to China’s higher education—the dual-goverance structure, appointment of the principal leadership, access to higher education, university and discipline structures, curriculum and ideology, funding and grants, and tuition fees. Based on an in-depth investigation, the study argues that the underlying governance logics of the state are moving from direct controls to indirect supervision; however, despite the increasing university autonomy and academic freedom in some areas, the state has never abdicated the essential power and authority over higher education institutions. This paper contributes to the theoretical and practical understanding of China’s governance of higher education in recent decades.

The current expansion of English language publishing by scholars from China is supported by national and university policies, including monetary and career incentives to publish in English. These incentives, which extend to work in the humanities and social sciences (HSS, the focus of this paper) as well as the sciences and technologies, are situated in evolving strategies of internationalization. China has moved from an internationalization strategy simply based on learning from the West, to a ‘going out’ strategy designed to both lift domestic research capacity and advance China’s influence in the world. However, the ‘going out’ strategy nonetheless embodies ambiguities and dilemmas. The world of academic knowledge is not a level playing field but more closely approximates the centre–periphery dynamic described in world systems theory. This study explores the influence of publication incentives in the context of a centre–periphery world. It draws on analysis of 172 institutional incentive documents and interviews with 75 HSS academics, university senior administrators, and journal editors. The study identifies practices within China’s HSS that reproduce centre–periphery relationships. By focusing on international publications, Chinese universities run the risk of downplaying Chinese-language publications and adopting standards and norms from global centres to assess domestic knowledge production. These could result in creating knowledge from and about China primarily in Western terms without adding a distinctive Chinese strand to the global conversation. Nonetheless, the study also identifies alternative dynamics that challenge the existing power hierarchies in global HSS, highlighting indigenous knowledge and the need to pluralize global knowledge production.

This mixed-methods study explores the language-related difficulties and ELT support offered in English-medium programmes at eight universities in China. Data included a student questionnaire (n = 394) measuring the difficulties of 45 academic tasks, organized around the four skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Results revealed students faced the largest difficulties with productive skills, especially writing. To explore structural language support for overcoming such challenges, fieldwork interviews with twenty-six senior faculty at eight universities in four cities in China were conducted. These revealed three main types of institutional support: concurrent language support from English language teachers offered alongside English medium programmes; preparatory programmes taken before students enrolled in English medium courses, which were prevalent in language-specialist universities; and self-access learning and writing centres, which were found at two transnational universities. When structural support was lacking, content teachers reported making grassroots efforts to help students understand content via use of the students’ multilingual repertoires in explanations, interactions, and materials.

This paper reflects on the transpositional comparison in Marginson and Yang’s article in this special issue, with a focused discussion on epistemic diversity and cross-cultural comparative research. It argues that in global research, epistemic diversity largely co-exists with epistemic inequity and injustice, despite long-standing normative appeals. Against this backdrop, cross-cultural comparative studies have significant value, albeit facing a range of challenges. There are five outcomes of cross-cultural encounters: assimilation, immiscibility, and being different together (including unity in diversity, harmony with diversity, and together with diversity). Although East–West encounters demonstrated all possible outcomes, being different together is both possible and valuable, not only for East–West encounters but also for cross-civilisational comparisons.

This study examines Chinese universities’ incentive schemes for international publication in the humanities and social sciences (HSS). It analysed 172 incentive documents collected at 116 research-intensive universities in China, including monetary bonus schemes and career-related incentives. This analysis is complemented by interviews with six senior administrators at six Chinese universities and four journal editors to explore the policy-making process and impact of incentivisation. The study found that most universities actively promoted international publications, with variations and similarities in their incentive schemes. In general, more benefits were granted for SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) and A&HCI (Arts and Humanities Citation Index) journal publications than domestic publications. We conclude that such incentivisation showcases the influence of western standards and global benchmarking in the internationalisation of Chinese HSS, and that the incentive schemes may create a ‘Matthew Effect’ enabling SSCI and A&HCI journals to flourish, while deepening the divide between these and other journals.