Survey reveals overseas China scholars’ self-censorship

Repressive experiences during the conduct of research on China may be rare but they are a “real phenomenon” and a barrier to doing research in the country, leading some scholars to self-censor and others to change research focus or abandon it altogether, according to a new study. It analyses data from the first ever survey of self-censorship among China scholars overseas.

The survey of some 562 China scholars in North America, Europe, Australia and Hong Kong found 70% of respondents agreeing that self-censorship is a problem in the field of academic China studies, with only 7% disagreeing, according to the paper by Sheena Chestnut Greitens, assistant professor of political science at the University of Missouri, and Rory Truex, assistant professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University in the United States.

The paper, “Repressive Experiences among China Scholars”, found that researchers and academics are subjected to different pressures including the threat of being blacklisted from entering the country – although this is relatively rare – plus difficulties with visas to China, pressure by authorities while in China, and monitoring and surveillance of their activities and who they meet.

Just 12 out of 562 respondents reported being formally blacklisted or banned from China for an extended period. Around 5% of the sample reported difficulties obtaining China visas in the past 10 years.

“The Chinese government does appear to strategically use visa issuance to manage researchers’ access to the country and set boundaries – formally and informally – for their conduct while they are there,” the authors said.

Repressive measures

Around 9% of the China scholars surveyed in the first half of 2018 report having been “taken for tea” by authorities within the past 10 years – often a euphemism for a ‘warning chat’ or even an interrogation.

Around 70% or two-thirds of the sample who use interviews and participant observation reported having had interview subjects withdraw “in a suspicious or an unexplained manner”. This occurred particularly in the fields of political science and anthropology.

Fewer than 2% of the sample reported having had their computer or materials confiscated during field research. Others described having notes temporarily confiscated and reviewed by archivists, officials or local police, before being returned.

According to the survey, the most common problem was being denied access to particular materials in an archive, or being denied access to an archive altogether, with a quarter of scholars who conduct archival research in China reporting access problems.

Even if they have not faced such restrictions, two-thirds of those surveyed believe their research is somewhat or very sensitive.

The line as to what constitutes sensitive research “remains blurry for foreign scholars”, the paper said.

“The lines between acceptable and unacceptable appear to be blurred by rumour and innuendo, such that people do not know where they stand and consequently tend to err on the side of caution,” reported one respondent.

“You never know where the border[line] is; you only know when you’ve crossed it,” another respondent reported.

“It is an ambivalent subject, probably designed in a deliberate way, to encourage self-censorship and over-censorship among scholars,” another respondent said.

Who faces problems?

Scholars who faced problems disproportionately study topics like ethnicity, human rights, religion and the Communist Party itself. Scholars operating in areas with heightened security, such as in Xinjiang, are more likely to run up against the state than those working in less securitised areas, the paper says.

In general, anthropologists and political scientists are more likely to have repressive experiences while economists have relatively few, the paper notes, while academic rank does not play a major role. “If anything repressive experiences are slightly more prevalent among more junior researchers,” the paper said.

According to Greitens, researchers employ several tactics in the face of such pressures. Almost half –some 48% – of respondents adapted how they describe their project in order to continue doing it, 25% changed the project’s focus, and 15% discontinued a project because of concern for sensitivity – or feasibility as the likelihood of being denied archive access in China made many projects unfeasible.

These tactics were more common among Chinese citizens, women, junior faculty and scholars with family living in China, Greitens said via twitter, “in other words, people who are simply more vulnerable to pressure applied by the Chinese political system”.

Many scholars noted that much of the self-censorship “is done to protect colleagues and informants who live in China with little chance of leaving”.

“If there is a conflict between never engaging in self-censorship and maintaining ethical research practices, I will choose to maintain ethical research practices,” one respondent was quoted in the paper as saying, referring to the core ethical research practice of protecting people. Another respondent noted that “being careful with the words and being respectful to the country and the people that you study is not self-censorship”.

Caution and outspokenness

According to the paper, most researchers choose their words carefully while in China. However, many saw a clear difference between exercising caution while conducting research, and changing the conclusion of the research “to avoid political unpopularity with the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] authorities”, the latter being seen as unacceptable and unethical.

However, even the threat of blacklisting does not deter some scholars, with one respondent terming blacklisting or a repressive experience as the “badge of honour” that may “certify a scholar’s intellectual honesty and resistance to political conformity”.

Another said: “Keep speaking out. No one is in a better position to do so than researchers located outside of China.”

“The scholars saw resistance to self-censorship as a principled exercise in intellectual integrity and responsibility for those for whom it was possible,” the paper’s authors said.