Knowledge Globalization Within and Across the People’s Republic of China and the United States

Abstract

The study examines globalization within and across China and the United States in conjunction with a portrayal of the nature of the scholarly endeavors over the past 10 years in the two preeminent educational research journals of these countries. By extensive analyses of topics, methodology, and citations the research clarifies the global and local forces at work within and across countries, including the types of internationalization occurring between the United States and People’s Republic of China. The findings suggest that globalization involves forces in transaction with one another—local forces addressing national interests and international forces seeking a comparative perspective primarily tied to local interests. The findings highlight the insularity of each country’s scholarly endeavors and how research is skewed toward western scholarship.

Toward a Model of Global Meaning Making

“…If the stewards of our field desire to democratize our epistemologies, then changes are needed to the regulatory systems (e.g., research and style demands, editorial board representation) that control knowledge flow. Instead, practices need to be introduced that bridge across borders and open up a wider sphere of accepted scholarly genres (Cummings & Hoebink, 2017; Tierney & Kan, 2016). Such change is not straightforward given the systemic forces at play, including the constitution of editorial boards and reviewer panels that lack a diverse global representation.…”

“… 2. A study of AERJ found that there were no citations of scholars from mainland China among the thousands of citations provided across articles published over four years of the past decade (Tierney & Kan, 2016). In contrast, it was notable that citations of Western theorists and research were not uncommon in Chinese journals. …”

Moving Forward with Exceptional Literacy Research and Practice Amidst Educational Policy Changes

“…These developments occur at a time when I see myself as more global than national as I engage with educational colleagues in different communities, schools, and universities in Asia and Africa as well as indigenous places in Australia. My passions are focused upon global uncertainties especially pertaining to sociologies of knowledges, migration, and enculturation; indigenous epistemologies; and organic forms of learnercentered situation-based education capitalizing upon local literacies and diverse knowings (Purcell-Gates, 2006;Smith, 2003).…”

“…My research is rooted in certain values: local self-determination over global authority, integration and accommodation over subjugation and assimilation, inclusiveness rather than exclusivity. I am not an advocate of U.S. preeminence or Western bias, but I have a concern for colonial and global forces that perpetuate a domination of the West or any group over another and contribute to forms of epistemocide or disappearance of the local, especially via education that does not build upon the diverse indigenous knowings of communities for their children (Connell, 2007; de Sousa Santos, 2013; Tierney & Kan, 2016). I fear our subordination, if not domestication, in the name of neoliberalism, standardization of curriculum, accountability, and competition.…”

Latin American Influences on Multiliteracies

“…The flow of knowledge has been unbalanced and, as a result, there has been little recognition of the knowledge produced in Latin America or the global South (Jaramillo & Vera, 2013; Tierney & Wei, 2016). This lack of recognition or what Santos (2012) calls the “sociology of absences” became a problem of practice for us as critically oriented literacy scholars (p. 52).…”