The recent storm over the academic fraud scandal and subsequent resignation of Chiang Wei-ling (蔣偉寧) as minister of education have blindsided attempts to clean up corruption within academia, while, after an initial groundswell of anger and criticism, public outrage has subsided, almost as if nothing had happened.
This is a perfect reflection of the root problem behind the state of affairs of Taiwanese academia: The authorities simply do not have the capacity for self-reflection and also lack the resolve and courage to undertake much-needed, sweeping reforms.
Let us take a look at how things came to this: About 10 years ago, there was an economist involved in policymaking who strongly advocated that academic contribution evaluations be based on how many papers a given academic had published in overseas journals. This met with strong opposition at the time.
Some objected on the grounds that “you cannot compare apples with oranges,” saying that applying standards such as the Science Citation Index and the Engineering Index — designed for use in the natural sciences — wholesale upon social science research in the nation, which is simultaneously diverse and very specific to Taiwan, was of questionable utility.
Others were critical of the enforced implementation of evaluations based upon the Social Sciences Citation Index, saying that this was open to abuse of power and could lead to the unintended consequence of reinforcing systemic elitism.
The trouble was that, back then, these voices proved about as effective as a dog barking at a speeding locomotive. Before long, academia in Taiwan was enveloped in a preoccupation with university rankings based on a numbers game of who had published how many papers, with hiring and promotions being decided through a narrow reading of these citation indices.
Shockingly — though perhaps not all that surprising — this preposterous situation, in which reviews only take into account quantitative indices, originated within the field of science and technology, a discipline that prides itself in its rigorous precision, and the minister of education was complicit in this.
Not only, then, have previous repeated announcements to the effect that the government will raise standards in academia proven hollow, or suggestions to apply the same review standards to the social sciences as are used in the natural sciences been proven wrong, but the recent turn of events has also revealed the rampant mendacity and fraud within academia in Taiwan. Who now will trust these citation indices, or believe that Taiwanese academics did not doctor the figures of papers they submit?
At its root, the problem derives from the failure of the academic world to address how best to assess an individual’s academic contribution in a fair, effective way. The result of this preoccupation with quantitative indices to the exclusion of any other criteria has been the reinforcement of the vested interests of overseas — and English-language — periodicals, while academics in this country taking part in genuinely useful research do not get their due recompense.
Over the past decade, the humanities and social sciences have fallen on bad times at Academia Sinica, and its natural science departments have been discredited. How has it come to this? Is it not time for those responsible to own up and apologize? And rebuild the entire system from the ground up to allow the errant world of academia to get back on the right path?
Ku Chung-hwa is a standing board member of Citizen’s Congress Watch.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US