Scholarship and Individuality: Guideposts of Sociological Research in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan

Scholarship and Individuality: Guideposts of Sociological Research in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan STELLA QUAH National University of Singapore sosquah @leon is. nus. sg it difficult to assess the appropriateness ofthe research designs, the generalizability of the empirical findings, the soundness of the explanations, and, ultimately, their contribution to sociological knowledge. To put sociological explanation at the center of research, we obviously need to develop substantive sociological theories that can specify causal mechanisms, scopes of applicability, and be empirically verifiable. There is also a pressing need to institutionalize an evaluation system to assess the quality of scholarly work, to develop shared standards of sociological research, and to disseminate sociological knowledge. Although empirical research has mushroomed in the last 18 years, sociological knowledge has not accumulated as we might have expected. Research projects rarely aim at verifying the findings in previous research or improve existing sociological explanations in a specific area. As a result, there tends to be a large number of reports on similar topics, but the value added to sociological knowledge is at times marginal, due to varying quality, incomparability in research design, and lack of sustained research foci. At present, this appears to be a major hurdle for the intellectual development of Chinese sociology. In our view, the development of an institutionalized evaluation system (e. g., nationally refereed professional journals and regular forums for scholarly communication) is critical to the maintenance and improvement of research quality, and as a basis for the accumulation of sociological knowledge. We note in conclusion that the development of Chinese sociology takes place in a unique historical context: Rapid social changes in China raised challenging issues that stimulated sociological inquiries; pressing social problems led to active government-sponsored research as a basis for social policymaking; the opening of Chinese society to the outside world exposed Chinese sociologists to research techniques and theoretical models in other countries. Several intellectual traditions have also helped to shape sociological research in China. First, the empirical research tradition of an earlier generation of sociologists, as exemplified by Fei Xiaotong, strongly influenced young sociologists' research orientations. Second, this empirical research tradition also coincided with the case (dianxing diaocha) method as a policy research tool advocated by Mao Zedong. Finally, the introduction of Western sociology provided a frame of reference for institutionalizing Chinese sociology. The agenda and the style of sociological research in China can be best understood in light of these historical and intellectual conditions. Chinese sociologists are now in a unique position to study the monumental social changes and societal transformation in that country, and to make important contributions to sociological knowledge. Sociologists in other parts of the world should pay closer attention to the scholarly work of their peers in China.