A Relationship Restored: Trends in U.S.-China Educational Exchanges, 1978-1984 (1986)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

SExchange on Campus The speed with which Chinese students, scholars, and institutions have adapted to the American university scene since 1978 is one of the most notable features of Sino-American academic exchange. When the first PRC students and scholars applied to American schools, admissions officers and graduate departments had to make admissions decisions with virtually none of the standardized student information on which they normally rely. Transcripts from Chinese institutions frequently were unavailable; when available, they were not readily interpretable by admissions officers. The Chinese provided no standardized test scores to assess applicants' academic preparation, potential, and English language competence. Indeed, the very idea of rigorous grading and testing had been anathema to the Cultural Revolution radicals who had literally closed down China's institutions of higher education from late 1966 until the early 1970s. Even with Mao Zedong's death in late 1976, many Chinese were reluctant to embark on a path of strict aca- demic evaluation that a few short years before had been denouncer] as "revisionist." Equally problematic for universities was China's desire to send to America many nonmatriculated "visiting scholars," often scientists who sought knowledge at the scientific frontiers that had advanced dramati- cally during the isolation of the Cultural Revolution decade. Universi- ties found this group difficult to deal with because of their age and comparatively senior status and because they were not enrolled in regu- lar courses. Financial and social questions also were of concern. Would PRC students and scholars be able to adapt to the social milieu of the 102

EXCHANGE ON CAMPUS 103 American campus? Would they be able to compete for scarce financial resources? By 1985 many of these problems had been substantially ameliorated and the questions answered affirmatively. All parts of the Graduate Record Examination (ORE) have been administered in China since October 1982, and the Test of English As a Foreign Language (TOEFL) is used routinely, though many persons still encounter difficulties in actually getting to the test sites and paying for the examinations. Ameri- can university officials have a better understanding of Chinese grading systems, and today's graduates of Chinese institutions are selected much more methodically for study abroad under the officially sponsored pro- gram than were those sent in the late 1970s. Finally, although "visiting scholars" still comprise a significant percentage of the Chinese coming to the United States for study, the percentage of younger students is rising. In short, the Chinese have adapted rapidly to the American system, and PRC students and scholars generally are doing well. Colleges and universities (drawing funds from a variety of sources) have become by far the biggest institutional financial supporters of PRC students and scholars in the United States, as seen in Chapter 3 (Table 3- 16~. In the wake of normalization, institutions of higher education signed many interinstitutional agreements with Chinese counterparts. Although these agreements are very important, the majority of exchange participants in both countries are not involved in them. Against the backdrop of these expenditures and the proliferation of interinstitutional ties, this chapter addresses the following questions: How are PRC students and scholars distributed in the United States and among different types of American educational institutions? What problems, financial and other, have arisen in the process of accommo- dating the needs of PRC students and scholars in the United States and those of Americans in China? How has the academic performance of PRC students and scholars been perceived on American campuses? What historical and other factors account for the proliferation of interinstitutional ties between American and Chinese educational insti- tutions? Are these linkages generally working effectively and, if not, why? Can such relationships be modified to better serve American aca- demic interests? PRC STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS ON THE AMERICAN CAMPUS Regional and Institutional Distribution The great majority of PRC students and scholars come to the United States from comparatively few geographic areas in China and are

104 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED drawn heavily from China's "key" educational institutions (Table 3-12 and Appendix D). But in the United States they are dispersed through- out almost all the states in the Union; indeed, one is struck by the very substantial geographic reach of China's academic presence in the United States (see Table A-24. The range of programs in which they are involved is equally broad; they attend all types of American schools of higher learning, from junior colleges to graduate institutions, with pro- grams that range from vocational training to liberal arts and humanities studies. Information on the intended destination in the United States of all PRC students and scholars is available only for 1983.~ Overall, PRC students and scholars were somewhat more likely to be in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific regions than would be expected from either popula- tion size or the number of colleges and universities in those areas. Within these regions, New York and California had the highest percent- ages of PRC students and scholars, reflecting traditional settlement pat- terns of Americans of Chinese origin (see Table A-25. The American South receives relatively fewer students and scholars than would be expected based either on concentration of population or on institutions of higher education. Geographic patterns are different for the two visa categories. F-1 visa holders, who are generally in the United States under private and family arrangements, are more concentrated in Cali- fornia and New York than are the ]-1 visa holders, most of whom are officially sponsored by the PRC government. J-ls tend to be distributed in a way that reflects American university fellowship support while distribution of F-ls tends to reflect the residential patterns of Americans of Chinese origin. PRC students and scholars who received visas in 1983 intended to go to 440 different American schools (see Table A-26. Although there were three times as many J-ls as F-ls, F-ls mentioned more schools than did ]-ls. F-ls attend a broader range of American institutions than J-ls do, because their academic level is more heterogeneous and there are many undergraduates in this group (see Tables A-26 and A-27. Also, because fewer F-ls study in fields targeted by the PRC government, more Amer- ican schools are relevant to their needs. ]-1 visa holders, in contrast, were interested in a much narrower range of institutions. Seventy-six percent of this group intended to go to one of America's top 100 research universities,2 whereas only 38 percent of the F-ls planned to do so (see Table A-28. This trend reflects the research focus and more selective character of the official Chinese pro- gram. Since officially sponsored PRC students and scholars are likely to play significant roles in development upon their return to China, it will be important to observe how their attendance at a comparatively small

EXCHANGE ON CAMPUS .. ~ ~ ~ it. ~ 105 number ot leading American institutions will affect their future career mobility, attitudes toward the United States, and future patterns of academic exchange. Equally important is the question of how this gen- eration of American-trained Chinese will interact with their peers trained solely in the PRC and with the previous generation trained in the Soviet Union. Funding PRC Students and Scholars on the American Campus The Adequacy of Stipends American university officials estimate that PRC stipends for officially sponsored students and scholars are about $460 per month, with some variation for local cost of living.3 There is ample evidence that many administrators and faculty at Amer- ican universities and colleges believe that these stipends are inadequate, particularly in high-cost urban locales. In a questionnaire designed for this study, universities were asked about their perception of the ade- quacy or inadequacy of the PRC's stipend level for officially sponsored students and scholars. Two-thirds of the 112 respondents (usually the foreign student advisors at these universities) thought stipends were inadequate. This represents an increase compared with survey findings of Fingar and Reed which indicated that 42 percent of the respondents thought PRC stipends were not adequate.4 The increase may reflect a number of factors: the rising costs of education in the United States, the reluctance of the PRC to raise stipend levels, and the increasing unwill- ingness of American institutions to waive stipend-level requirements for PRC students. The university respondents estimated that the average total stipend needed was about $680 per month $220 per month more than the estimated amount of PRC stipends cited above. From the perspective of American academics, low stipends cause several problems: they promote group living that hinders English lan- guage acquisition and encourages cultural isolation, they force PRC students and scholars to seek housing in unsafe buildings and neighbor- hoods, and they reduce the likelihood that they will purchase health insurance or participate in field trips and other educational activities. Finally, many universities have minimum financial support require- ments for all foreign students, and administrators consider it inequita- ble to exempt PRC students from these requirements. Stanford University Vice-Provost Gerald Lieberman, for instance, recently described that university's response to this problem: The stipend which the Chinese Government gives ranges between $420 and $450 a month. This is obviously substantially below our foreign student budget.... We have signed visa certificates for these students with increasing reluctance. Effective for 1985-86 we will no longer be able to do this.... It is

106 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED inequitable for students from all the other countries and violates our own policy. We require all other foreign students to verify funds from Stanford or outside sources, up to the official budget in order to have a visa certificate issued.5 Health insurance is an equally critical financial issue. Many PRC visitors simply do not understand the potential cost of illness in Ameri- can society, nor do Americans understand the responsibilities of the Chinese government in paying medical costs. Discussion with Chinese Embassy officials in Washington suggests that the PRC assumes no financial liability for privately sponsored (or self-paying) students and scholars in the United States. For officially sponsored students and scholars (see Glossary), the Chinese government may pay most medical costs if the person was officially selected by the PRC, but not all offi- cially sponsored students and scholars are officially selected. The PRC government will insure these officially selected people for up to $10,000. If medical costs exceed that amount, the PRC's position is that the individual should return to China. Of course, it is in precisely such cases that individuals may be too ill to return.6 American universities may contribute to this problem by failing to require health insurance. More than 60 percent of the universities responding to the CSCPRC survey do require health insurance for exchange students and scholars, but that figure also indicates that many universities do not require it. Still other institutions require health insurance for students but not for visiting scholars and persons at the institution for short terms. The experience of one such uninsured scholar illustrates the problems this can cause. In early 1985 a PRC scholar hosted by a major American university was seriously injured and rap- idly accumulated more than $6,000 in medical bills. The Chinese authorities reportedly assumed no liability and the scholar was not covered by the American host institution's health insurance plan, which did not insure visitors who stay for less than three months. With no other source of funds, individuals at the host institution were trying to raise money from private sources to pay these bills. The definitive way to prevent such situations is for all American colleges and universities to require all foreign students and scholars to show proof of adequate medical coverage. Higher stipends and health insurance could improve the well-being of PRC students and scholars in many ways. But even if stipends are raised, there is no guarantee that the Chinese would use the added increment for better housing, educational materials, or health insur- ance. Many respondents mentioned that PRC students and scholars are frugal, and, indeed, many seek either to save American currency or to

EXCHANGE ON CAMPUS 107 use it to purchase items not generally or easily obtainable in China. In 1984 such articles were referred to as the "eight great items" (color television, stereo, refrigerator, typewriter, washing machine and dryer, camera, and either a bicycle or a sewing machine).7 That the Chinese might use stipends in these ways does not weaken the recommendation that stipend levels be raised. They should be. The Issue of Financial Remissions to China Some Americans have been concerned that many officially sponsored PRC students and scholars are remitting the portion of their fellowships in excess of the official Chinese government stipend level to their home work unit. Two separate interviews with officials of the Chinese Acad- emy of Sciences (CAS) in 1984 helped clarify the situation. At that time, different Chinese organizations apparently had varying policies on the remissions of stipends, and some may have applied their guidelines unevenly within organizations. In 1984, for example, the CAS appar- ently offered a choice to students or scholars going abroad. Option "A" permitted the person who was awarded financial assistance in the United States to keep approximately $450 per month, which was roughly equal to the official Chinese stipend level. Above that level, the individual remitted 85 percent to his or her work unit and kept 15 percent for personal use this amounted to an 85 percent income tax on amounts in excess of the official Chinese stipend level. The student or scholar who chose this option was then entitled to keep the "start-up allowances" provided to officially sponsored individuals and did not have to repay the subsidies and continuing wages provided by the work unit to family members who stayed at home (e.g., for housing and medical care). Under option "B", the officially sponsored PRC student or scholar could keep all of the American fellowship but had to repay the home unit for all subsidies and wages he or she directly received during the period abroad, as well as subsidies family members received during that time. Apparently it made financial sense to switch to option "B" when American aid reached about $600 per month. The Chinese officials said that this policy was in place to adjust for the financial benefits that PRC students and scholars abroad and their families in China continued to receive from the work units, and so to prevent "double dipping." Moreover, the officials also expressed some concern about students and scholars abroad having a standard of living too far above the level of colleagues in China.8 Since 1984, the Chinese may have modified these policies somewhat. A more recent study concluded:

108 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED The policies on kickbacks to the Chinese government of money received from American institutions has evolved over time as both Chinese and Americans have registered complaint. No longer are Chinese required to return to their government all, or even a percentage, of what they receive above $5,000. The current policy, reported to us informally by some who are subject to it, requires students and scholars to remit to their own work unit in American dollars the equivalent of their Chinese salaries for the period they were in the United States.9 Whether such arrangements are universal, applied consistently within organizations, or subject to change, they engender the percep- tion among Americans that officially sponsored PRC students and scholars are not the only beneficiaries of American university fellowship support. Both the practice and perception are harmful to PRC exchange visitors. American universities and faculty are discouraged by such practices from providing partial grants to officially sponsored PRC stu- dents and scholars, believing that most of the increment over the official Chinese government stipend level goes to the home unit. Nonetheless, in the end, what PRC students and scholars do with their money is their own business, as is the case with all students. American institutions should require that China's official stipends be adequate and recognize that they cannot regulate how the money is spent. PRC Students and Scholars: American Funding and Perceptions of Quality The financial policy of the Chinese government in sending students ant] scholars abroad was stated clearly by Chinese Ministry of Educa- tion (MOE) officials in a 1984 interview: "Get more accomplishes] with less money" (Shao hua qian, duo ban shi). Officers of the MOE noted that when the exchange program began, the Chinese government paid about two-thirds of the cost. Now this contribution (in percentage terms) has been reduced because many PRC graduate students can obtain fellowships after their first year in graduate school. CSCPRC interviewers were told that there is "no need for more than one year."~° The basic premise underlying this position is that officially sponsored students and scholars should not need more than one year of PRC support if they are good. For "research scholars," the one-year limit to PRC support is rigid. One official of the Chinese Embassy has specified MOE policy on funding research scholars: The Ministry tof Education] will provide one year tof] financial support to the scholars selected in 1984 and afterwards. In case a scholar finds it professionally necessary . . . to go on with his program in the United States for some more time, and he can manage to get [American] financial support for this extra

EXCHANGE ON CAMPUS 109 period, then, with the approval of relevant authority, he is permitted to extend the duration of his stay for a limited period not more than one year. The Ministry of Education hopes that, with this change, the scholars will be encour- aged to work still harder. . . . ~i The MOE's policy toward officially sponsored students is slightly more flexible, depending on the student's field of study and the avail- ability of American support. For instance, if a student in physics does not secure American funding after two years, MOE officials view that person as unlikely ever to do so and thus will not continue government support. But in some fields such as agriculture and law where American financial support is less readily available, the MOE appeared willing to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Some Americans believe that these policies are undesirable because they encourage PRC students and scholars to become inordinately pre- occupiec] with funding, discourage them from taking noncredit English language courses, and are insufficiently sensitive to the vagaries of fund- ing in graduate departments. However, as long as American universities allocate financial support competitively on the basis of merit, it is diffi- cult to object when the Chinese government employs the same criteria. The academic performance of Chinese students and scholars suggests that they are indeed generally working hard enough to fulfill the PRC government requirements. In CSCPRC's questionnaire to American Universities and Colleges, respondents (usually foreign student advisors) were asked, "Generally speaking, how do the grades of students from the PRC compare to Other categories of students on campus]?" Forty- four percent of the college and university officials who responded to that questionnaire said that Chinese students' grades were "better than" those of "all graduate students." Ninety-seven percent said that Chinese students' grades were "better than" or "the same as" all graduate stu- clents.~2 These perceptions of quality are consistent with the success of PRC students in the competition for support. Maddox and Thurston report: Repeatedly at the schools where we interviewed, we were told that the top physics students despite often serious language difficulties were Chinese. In fact, in some science departments, non-Chinese students have begun to com- plain that their Chinese colleagues are so good that they are throwing off the curve. 13 Maddox and Thurston also quote one science faculty member who ranks PRC graduate students at the top of the class. It is because the quality of students that come is so high that enthusiasm con- tinues. If the quality were poor, it wouldn't last. Basically, it's because these kids come with the sole purpose of study. They aren't special agents of the

110 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED government. They're here solely to study and learn. They do 100 percent 150 percent of what they're asked to do. ]4 Visiting scholars have been a more heterogeneous and difficult group for American universities and colleges to deal with than students, and their performance is less easily measured. In the humanities and social sciences, there are no systematic data on how American scholars per- ceive their Chinese counterparts. Visiting scholars in the natural sci- ences received a generally favorable assessment in a survey conducted by University of Southern California chemist Otto Schnepp. The survey was addressed to faculty who have dealt with visiting scholars at seven American universities—Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, University of California at Los Angeles, University of Chi- cago, University of Minnesota, University of Southern California, and University of Wisconsin. About 70 percent of the visiting PRC scholars in Schnepp's sample "would be welcomed back if they were to wish to return to the host research group" on the American campus where they previously had been. is A similar percentage of the visiting PRC scholars were reported to have "made significant contributions to the research they participated in." Although visiting scholars, particularly in the natural sciences, are perceived to have made contributions to some American research, some American faculty members also cite problems that arise because the visiting scholars tend to be older and less adaptable than the students, with academic needs that are less easily met by regular university pro- grams. All of these factors combine to impose heavy demands on visiting scholars' American faculty hosts. Overall, however, the American aca- demic community believes that the presence of PRC students and scholars in the natural sciences on campus has enriched academic life in the United States. INTE:!UNSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS Formal exchange agreements between American and Chinese institu- tions have been one important vehicle for Sino-American exchange. From 1979 through 1984 there was a proliferation of agreements between American and Chinese universities and research and adminis- trative entities. These offer American scholars and students potential avenues of access to a wide variety of institutions and localities in China. For some PRC institutions, these ties have become the principal vehicle by which they send their students and scholars to the United States. The majority of agreements, however, are substantially under-

EXCHANGE ON CAMPUS 111 utilized on both sides, symbolizing good intentions but little actual accomplishment. The task ahead is to identify the most vigorous interinstitutional arrangements and to strengthen them. Of the 216 American universities and colleges that returned usable questionnaires (i.e., usable, as opposed to partially completed or blank questionnaires), 81 reported signing at least one interinstitutional agree- ment with a Chinese counterpart some time from 1979 to 1984.~7 This figure is fairly close to that given in a statement by the Chinese MOE in spring 1984: "About 100 U.S. universities have regular exchange pro- grams with their Chinese counterparts to carry out joint research projects." The 81 American universities reported 214 agreements—an average of 2.6 agreements each (see Tables A-29 and A-30. CSCPRC's survey also showed that 123 Chinese institutions were reported to have at least one agreement with an American counterpart (see Table A-31. Since there were 211 agreements, each Chinese institution had an average of 1.7 agreements. Fifteen percent of the 125 Chinese institutions with at least one agreement were not colleges or universities, but organizations such as CAS, media institutions, some ministries, and administrative entities such as the Hubei Provincial Bureau of Education. In the United States, impetus for these ties has come from several sources: historical and personal ties, a highly motivated Chinese studies community, and enthusiastic central university administrations. In China, university administrators initially saw such arrangements as a way to rapidly increase opportunities for their students and faculty to go abroad without securing vast quantities of scarce foreign exchange. Also, particularly during periods in which Beijing has emphasized the decentralization of educational administration, Chinese universities find such relationships useful means of avoiding the cumbersome cen- tral bureaucracy in the capital that controls the official student-abroad program. For some Chinese administrators, ties to American schools also are highly valued as a means of boosting the image of their institu- tions. is For every American university that has set up an exchange with China, there are dozens that have not. In some instances, institutions (particularly smaller prestigious schools) have consciously decided not to establish such interinstitutional ties. These institutions have opted against doing so because they believe that top-notch scholars and stu- dents from China (particularly in the natural sciences) wit1 apply any- way,20 and that their faculty probably would have adequate oppor- tunity to undertake research in the absence of such agreements. More- over, individual departments fear that they might lose their traditional

112 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED independence in the admission of students and be subject to pressure. Finally, in some cases, the institutions simply have no history of estab- lishing such ties.2i Past relationships, both institutional and individual, are one factor shaping today's exchanges. For example, Oberlin College had a reli- gious and educational presence in the Shanxi, Ming County Middle School, from the late 1800s until 1951. Ironically, Shanxi Province Vice- Governor Wang Zhongqing, the same official who dismantled Oberlin's program in the 1950s, personally arranged and paid for former Oberlin representative Ellsworth Carlson's 1979 return to the province in order to discuss the resumption of relations. Although Oberlin's ties in the 1980s are not religious in character, its exchanges are with two of Ming County Middle School's institutional descendants Shanxi Agricultural University and Taiyuan Engineering Institute. Americans of Chinese origin in U. S. universities have played, and are playing, a critical role in developing academic linkages and cooperative research projects with China. Although only one of the seven American universities visited in the course of this study cited faculty members of Chinese origin as the initial impetus for developing exchanges with China, four of the seven identified Chinese-American faculty as a very prominent factor in implementing the relationships, because they serve as bilingual, cross-cultural communicators, have extensive networks of personal ties in China, and retain a great sense of obligation to Chinese culture and society. The personal and professional interests of Chinese studies faculty have been equally critical at these seven institutions. These faculty members have promoted interinstitutional ties because they seek to cre- ate research opportunities for themselves and their students as well as for the larger university community. Many also find appealing a sense of participating in China's experimental policies. For university administrators, forming ties to China was motivated by a desire to internationalize the campus, to expand research opportu- nities, to create new programs that generate local interest and visibility, to satisfy their own personal intellectual interests, and, in a few cases, to raise university revenues. The central administration at Hofstra Univer- sity, for example, believes that acting as a go-between for American firms that want to establish economic ties with Chinese enterprises will both enhance the university's access to China's intellectual circles and produce new university revenues.22 According to the New York Times, "The university would receive a commission for each agreement it nego- tiated between China and a United States business."23 The flow of students under interinstitutional agreements suggests that

EXCHANGE ON CAMPUS 113 the agreements are perhaps a comparatively more important vehicle for American students and scholars than for the Chinese. The 81 institu- tional respondents to the CSCPRC survey reported that, in academic years 1979-1980 through 1983-1984, a total of 838 PRC Chinese have come to American schools under these agreements. During the same period, 506 American students and faculty were reported to have gone to China under these arrangements. Although the PRC Chinese out- number the Americans by a ratio of 1.6:1.0, this is much less of a disparity than exists in the overall Sino-American academic relation- ship. However, many of the Americans going to China under these arrangements go for short periods of time, and they frequently go to teach rather than to conduct their own research. Of the 214 reported interinstitutional agreements, 49 percent appear to have no exchange participants moving in either direction. This inac- tivity can be traced to three circumstances. First, universities frequently have little funding with which to send either their students or faculty to China (see Table A-32. Indeed, in each of academic years 1983-1984 and 1984-1985, well over one-half of responding institutions had none of their own funds for sending undergraduates, graduate students, or faculty to China. Thus, students and faculty generally must find exter- nal support if they are to participate in their school's exchange program. Respondents also were asked how many students and faculty were sup- ported by funds "administered by your university" (e.g., Fulbrights or Foreign Language and Area Studies fellowships). Eight of the 19 responding Asian studies centers had such funds, and each of the 8 supported from one to three persons in each of the two academic years 1983-1984 and 1984-1985. Ironically, the responses to the questionnaires suggest that university support is much more available to bring Chinese students to the United States than to send American faculty and students to China. For Ameri- can faculty and graduate students, most universities operate on the assumption that good projects can be funded externally. A second impediment to the development of interinstitutional agree- ments has been the linking of generally comprehensive American uni- versities with less comprehensive Chinese institutions. Almost all American universities have departments of political science, anthropol- ogy, and sociology, as well as numerous departments in the natural sciences but this is not so in the PRC. Although changing slightly, most Chinese institutions are substantially less comprehensive. This means that only a few of the American institutions' faculty members see any natural "fit" between their interests and ongoing work at the particular Chinese institution with which their university happens to have a rela-

114 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED tionship. The location of the Chinese institution further shrinks the number of potentially interested faculty. Among those institutions whose fields are matched, only some American faculty will be inter- ested because the location of the Chinese institution may be irrelevant to their research. Finally, the number of qualified faculty and graduate students in any given American school is reduced further because very few Americans speak Chinese (see Chapter 6~. The third problem affecting interinstitutional agreements involves the needs of American scholars who want to conduct research in China. A Chinese institution involved in such agreements generally finds that its American partner wants to send social scientists and humanists to do research, not to enroll in classes. These researchers (whether faculty or graduate students) want to conduct field research or, at a minimum, gain access to archives outside the individual Chinese institution's con- trol that are not routinely open to foreigners. Because the Chinese unit has little leverage over external organizations, American schools wish- ing to send their students and faculty to China frequently fad] to obtain the desired access. Even when access is eventually granted, the Ameri- can institution becomes involved in protracted discussions encumbered by poor communication. Chinese institutions often feel overburdened by the need to negotiate with an endless number of external organiza- tions to facilitate the research needs of the Americans. PRC administra- tors wonder why America cannot simply send people to study language, work quietly in the institution's library, undertake joint research in a laboratory, or teach classes in fields of interest to the Chinese. All of these factors adversely affect the likelihood of successfully undertaking social science research in China and decrease both the willingness of people to participate in these programs and the availability of funds to underwrite them. The very character of the comprehensive American university makes it exceedingly difficult to establish linkages that promote mutual responsiveness. Maddox and Thurston summarize the problem well: Often, the Chinese university is interested in sending scientists to the United States while the American university is interested in sending social scientists or humanists to China. Were the Chinese university to have difficulty accepting the social scientist or humanist, few of those with whom we spoke in American science divisions seem willing to refuse a Chinese scientist in order to force Chinese acceptance of the social scientist or humanistic This suggests that one way to establish highly responsive linkages is on a more specialized level, between departments or, for example, engineer- ing schools. At this level, interests of the Chinese and Americans would

EXCHANGE ON CAMPUS 115 presumably overlap enough to make both sides eager to meet one another's requirements. The problems that affect interinstitutional programs are balanced by some equally important strengths.25 First, these arrangements generally involve the American student or faculty member with a less cumber- some application and placement bureaucracy than when they must deal with national bureaucracies. They are more flexible in terms of the length and purposes of the stay in China. Because of this flexibility, these local programs permit a broader range of academics to undertake work in China. Second, if the agreement involves an explicitly recipro- cal exchange of individuals, the Chinese tend to exert themselves more to meet the needs of the Americans, because they see a clear connection between accommodating the Americans and the continuation of the exchange. Third, some CSCPRC interviewees believed that research that would not have found favor among the national bureaucracies in Beijing was possible when local decision makers had control. Some field research (e.g., anthropology) is more effectively conducted when not subject to the scrutiny of either Chinese or American national bureau- cracies. Finally, by raising money locally, these agreements can broaden the financial base of academic exchanges with China beyond resources provided by national-level organizations. As shown in the discussion above, interinstitutional agreements are an important channel by which American students and faculty can go to China for a broad range of purposes and gain access to many geo- graphic areas. Nonetheless, many of these linkages have difficulties, and it is essential to strengthen the most viable programs if this valuable pluralism is to be preserved. It would be undesirable (even if it were possible) to centralize, at the national level, the selection and funding of all American scholars and students going to China. How can the most promising of these programs be strengthened? One potentially useful approach would be more specialized agreements, for instance, between departments, though this could weaken the univer- sity's leverage in bargaining for access in other fields. Another approach might be for several American institutions to pool their slots in China and devise a joint application and selection process. This would create more options for individual American faculty and students, permit more intensive use of available slots, enhance the competitiveness of the application process, and simultaneously maintain some of the flexibility that makes local arrangements attractive. Such a consortium would be a more potent bargaining entity with the Chinese. Once consortia are established, federal, state, and institutional funds should be focused on them. An organization such as the CSCPRC could play a useful role in

116 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED catalyzing cooperation among American universities and promoting expanded access to Chinese materials and society. For such cooperative interinstitutional arrangements to be effective, there must be a strong link between meeting Chinese requests and the accommodation of the American institutions' needs in China. There is no contradiction between developing and expanding ties with China while at the same time requiring that the Chinese satisfy legitimate American requests. Indeed, a pattern of unilateralism almost certainly would erode long-term American support for these relationships. The importance of Chinese responsiveness was clearly stated in the 1984 correspondence from a program director at a major American univer- sity to the vice-president of one Chinese institution of higher education: We have done our best to be equitable and collaborative partners in our linkage and we are pleased to be able to offer full support to three of your students studying here. We would hope that in return your College could provide the support needed by one of our graduate students at OX University]. Our efforts in searching for new sources of financial support to continue the linkage are being negatively influenced by this difficulty in access to materials and facilities for thesis research.26 PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The stipends provided officially sponsored students and scholars by the Chinese government are inadequate. Low stipend levels force many of these students and scholars to live in poor-quality, high-density housing with other Chinese. This, in turn, is inimical to English lan- guage acquisition, physical security, and overall educational opportu- nity. Finally, it is unfair to other foreign students who must comply with university rules regarding minimum stipend levels for foreign students. The Chinese official stipend level should conform to the current figures listed in the Institute of International Education's annually updated publication, Costs at U. S. Educational Institutions. Although there can be no assurance of how increased stipends will, in fact, be spent, ade- quate stipends make it possible for PRC students and scholars to improve their physical situation and educational experience. All Ameri- can colleges and universities should require proof of adequate medical coverage for all foreign students and scholars. 2. Interinstitutional agreements (either at the university or- depart- ment level) are excellent channels for some American universities and colleges to gain scholarly access to China. These linkages help mitigate the geographic bias in the recruitment of officially sponsored PRC Chi- nese who come to the United States, and afford opportunities for more

EXCHANGE ON CAMPUS 117 American scholars to undertake academic work in many areas of China. Nonetheless, these channels for Americans have been underutilized and many linkages are moribund. To more fully realize the potential of these relationships, increased financial support for Americans to go abroad is required, cooperation among American universities to utilize available "slots" is desirable, and more Chinese responsiveness and commitment are necessary to meet the research needs of American scholars. The pluralistic character of the Sino-American academic relationship is one of its greatest strengths. NOTES 1. Where these individuals "intend" to go is generally where they in fact go. The I-20 and IAP-66 forms are specific for a given institution. To enroll in another school, the individual needs a new I-20 or IAP-66. These documents are valid for only a limited period of time. 2. A list of the top 100 research universities in the United States was obtained from Federal Support to Universities, Colleges, and Selected NonprofitInstitutions, Fiscal Year 1982, Surveys of Science Resources Series (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, March 1984), Table B-4, pp. 47-48. 3. Patrick G. Maddox and Anne F. Thurston, "Academic Exchanges: The Goals and Roles of U.S. Universities," prepared for the Conference on Sino-American Educa- tional and Cultural Exchange, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, Feb. 18-22, 1985, note 35 on p. 53. 4. Thomas Fingar and Linda A. Reed, Survey Summary: Students and Scholars from the People s Republic of China in the United States, August 1981 (hereafter referred to as Survey Summary, 1981~. A joint project of the Committee on Scholarly Communica- tion with the People's Republic of China and the National Association for Foreign Student Affairs (Washington, D.C.: 1981), p. 24. 5. Memorandum from Gerald J. Lieberman, February 1985. 6. David M. Lampton, interview with Chinese Embassy official, July 2, 1985, Washing- ton, D.C. 7. Maddox and Thursto\n, "Academic Exchanges," p. 43. 8. Otto Schnepp, MicheI5)ksenberg, and David M. Lampton, interviews in China. 9. Maddox and Thurston, Unacademic Exchanges," p. 46; see also footnote 36, p. 53. 10. Interview with MOE officials, May 23, 1984. 11. Correspondence, Aug. 18, '1984. 12. See Survey Summary, 1981, pp. 13-14 and Table 8 for similar findings of the earlier survey. 13. Maddox and Thurston, "Academic Exchanges," p. 25. 14. Ibid., p. 26. 15. Otto Schnepp, University of Southern California, "The Chinese Visiting Scholar Pro- gram in Science and Engineering." Report prepared for the National Science Founda- tion (unpublished), p. 16. 16. Ibid., p. 15. "Significant contribution" was defined as "concrete contribution to at least one research paper published in a refereed journal." 17. For earlier information, see Fingar and Reed, Survey Summary, 1981, pp. 49-52. 18. FBIS, Apr. 24, 1984, p. B13, from Xinhua.

118 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED 19. Factors that led to the establishment of these interinstitutional relationships were analyzed in intensive interviews at seven American universities and colleges— Appalachian State University, the University of California at Berkeley, Hofstra Uni- versity, the University of Minnesota, Oberlin College, the University of Pittsburgh, and Stanford University—and also extracted from commissioned case studies analyz- ing the impact of exchanges on specific fields of study and research (see Chapter 7~. The onsite interviews were conducted and analyzed by Kyna Rubin, Acting Director of the National Program, CSCPRC. These seven institutions were selected by the study's Steering Committee, which sought to include a variety of types of American colleges and universities in the cases. 20. Maddox and Thurston, "Academic Exchanges," pp. 25-26, report, "Interestingly enough, the quest for high quality students in the sciences is not a motivation for the establishment of formal exchange programs. American universities have been able to attract high quality students in the sciences without the institution of special programs.... This does not, in the main, hold true for the social sciences and humanities." 21. Correspondence from Professor Clarence Allen, Mar. 23, 1984. 22. David E. Sanger, "China Engages Hofstra U. To Arrange Deals with American Com- panies," New York Times, Dec. 3, 1984, pp. B1 and Be. 23. Ibid.,p.Bl. 24. Maddox and Thurston, "Academic Exchanges," p. 37. 25. CSCPRC staff conducted interviews with 11 persons who had undertaken research in China under the auspices of both the CSCPRC's National Program and other kinds of programs (including interinstitutional exchanges). These interviews and others con- ducted at seven American universities and colleges indicate that interinstitutional agreements have several strengths. 26. Correspondence, Sept. 12, 1984, p. 2.

6 Language Training in Chinese and English Throughout this study, the issues of language competency and lan- guage learning for both Americans and Chinese have come up repeat- edly. The opportunity to live and work in China has made it possible for Americans to immerse themselves in the environment in which the liv- ing language of nearly one-quarter of the worId's population is spoken. In the process of this immersion, Americans also learn a great deal about Chinese society, history, and culture. Similarly, for Chinese, the chance to live in the United States promotes greatly improved English language skills and a better understanding of American society ant] culture. These opportunities may be among the most important if least measurable benefits of Sino-American academic exchange. Because these opportunities are so important, this chapter addresses issues of language training in each society that influence the ability of both sides to derive maximum benefit from the academic exchange. An assessment of the massive program to promote the study of English in the PRC is well beyond the scope of this study. The program under way in China almost certainly is the largest effort ever launched to teach the citizens of one country a foreign language. A recent Chinese publication estimated that approximately 50 million Chinese were learning English in mid-1985.~ As part of this English language training The authors of this report would like to thank William M. Speidel and Ronald Walton for their comments on an earlier draft of this chapter; though they are not, of course, responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation. 119

120 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED effort, uncounted numbers of Americans (and other English-speaking foreign nationals) have gone to the PRC to teach English (see Table 3-21~. More research is needed concerning the scale and effects of this attempt to popularize English in China. ASSESSMENT OF LANGUAGE PREPARATION OF AME:1UCAN STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS WHO Go TO CHINA Systematic and reliable information on the Chinese language skills of American students and scholars who go to China is scarce. The Center for Applied Linguistics has developed a "Chinese Proficiency Test" (CPT), which now is available for administration.2 But neither this nor any other source could provide time-series data that would enable a reliable assessment of the Chinese language proficiency of American students and scholars going to China. Nor is there yet any rigorous way to compare the quality of various Chinese language training programs. Since there is no central source of time-series information, the authors of this report relied on data derived from examinations of applicants to the CSCPRC's National Program for Advanced Study and Research in China (hereafter referred to as the National Program) and the experi- ences of American teachers of Chinese language. Taken together, these sources offer a clear, if dismaying, picture the Chinese language proficiency of many Americans going to China is not high. Although this is only one of many deficiencies in America's foreign language programs, problems are particularly severe for Chinese and other less commonly taught languages. The study Beyond Growth: The Next Stage in Language and Area Studies summarized Americans' over- al1 competence in foreign languages: High-level competency in the less commonly taught languages is difficult to achieve and maintain, and the number of Americans who have done so is too small. The competency of many presumed language and area specialists is inadequate. Too many students are graduating with too low a level of language competency.3 One well-informed assessment of Americans' proficiency in Chinese comes from Professor Gregory Chiang of MiddIebury College, who has been responsible for administering and assessing the Chinese language proficiency test for graduate student applicants to the National Pro- gram since its inception. This competitive, national-level program draws applicants from a broad array of America's leading universities and colleges. But the applicants' language skills generally do not match

LANGUAGE TRAINING IN CHINESE AND ENGLISH 121 their other credentials. In a recent year's report on the-Chinese lan- guage proficiency test results, Professor Chiang noted: Although language ability should not be considered the sole criterion for select- ing the applicants, one is not likely to be able to conduct meaningful research in China without some language competency. Generally speaking, the level of this year's "student] applicants' language training is disappointingly low. Therefore, one of the better among the group is not necessarily equipped to study at a Chinese institution of higher learning.4 Chiang went on to add that applicants who wish to undertake research on Confucius, Daoism (Taoism), metaphysics of the Song (Sung) Dynasty, and so on have no classical Chinese language training at all, or score very poorly on the test. Moreover, candidates with contemporary research topics cannot read simplified characters. Why are so few Americans truly fluent in the Chinese language? Beyond the immediate explanation—the Chinese language is difficult and time-consuming to learn the reasons are not complex, although the solutions may well be. First, not enough people study Chinese. Second, many begin to study Chinese too late in their careers. Third, of those who do undertake such study, most do not study long enough to become truly proficient. And fourth, most students are never or only briefly immersed in a Chinese-speaking environment, a critical part of attaining fluency. The first, most basic problem is that comparatively few Americans are enrolled in Chinese language classes, although the number has grown recently. According to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Inc. (ACTFL), in the fall of 1976 a total of 1,629 students in American public secondary schools were enrolled in Chinese language courses; in the fall of 1978 that figure fell to 1,241; then by fall 1982 it rose again to 1,980. In comparison, in the fall of 1982, 1,562,789 public secondary school students were enrolled in Spanish language courses nationwide.5 In institutions of higher education, the Modern Language Association (MLA) reports that enrollments in Chinese lan- guage courses rose from 9,809 in 1979 to 13,178 in 1983, an increase of 34 percent.6 Although this represents substantial growth, linguistic resources have probably fallen further behind U.S. needs, given America's increased involvement with the PRC and Chinese-speaking areas in Asia. As busi- ness, cultural, political, and other ties to Chinese-speaking areas have expanded, there has been a rapidly growing need for persons fluent in Chinese language. To exemplify the kinds of growth generating this demand for language competency: Sino-American trade expanded 90.6

122 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED percent between 1979 and 1983, and the United States now is China's third-largest trade partner, behind Japan and Hong Kong.7 Second, Chinese language study has not escaped a problem that afflicts virtually all foreign language study in the United States, particu- larly the less commonly taught languages. As the figures on secondary enrollments clearly reveal, an overwhelming percentage of students begin Chinese language instruction too late in life to really become fluent. Richard Brod, director of foreign language programs at the MLA, has said, in line with the prevailing conventional wisdom, "Unlike the Western languages, without the base of precollegiate Chi- nese, it's not easy to gain functional proficiency at the college level."8 In addition, Professor Perry Link of the University of California at Los Angeles recently stated, "Those who study English and French can discuss Shakespeare or Proust and have intelligent literary discussion even as college freshmen.... But with the Chinese language, college students can just barely read simple stories. Most of the literary work has to be done in translation."9 The growing enrollments in Chinese language classes are encourag- ing, but they obscure the third problem: of the students who do enroll in Chinese language classes, relatively few study long enough or with sufficient intensity to become proficient. For example, Title VI East Asian Centers reported that for 1982, of all students enrolled in Chinese language courses (overwhelmingly Mandarin), 76 percent were enrolled in first- and second-year Chinese, with only 13 percent in third-year, and 10.5 percent in fourth-year and higher levels.~° Several structural factors have promoted this widespread practice of studying the Chinese language for short periods. One is that, particularly in the social sciences, the professional requirements of the disciplines are heavy and so students frequently treat language capability and regional concentration as peripheral concerns. Graduate students do not always see the connection between language acquisition and success either in their graduate program or subsequent academic job prospects. Com- pounding this, many departments measure students' progress by the speed with which they move toward completed dissertations. Concen- trating on Chinese language inevitably lengthens that period, and few departments are willing to maintain financial aid for what they view as an excessive length of time. A 1983 RAND study on Foreign Language and Area Studies reported, "On average respondents [concentrating on regional studies] took slightly over 8 years to complete their Ph.D.s . . . East Asian specialists spent the longest time in graduate school (8.9 years total, 6.3 years officially enrolled), a significantly longer period than for all other world areas except Western Europe and Southeast Asia."

LANGUAGE TRAINING IN CHINESE AND ENGLISH 123 Fourth, since Chinese language frequently is only one of several classes that a graduate student is taking at any one time, the student rarely is immersed in Chinese. Language study becomes only one brief interlude in a daily routine with many other intellectual demands. This difficulty could be partially addressed if graduate students were encouraged to take intensive summer language courses both prior to their first year of graduate school and during subsequent summers. More resources should be made available for this purpose. Finally, once a person graduates and begins to teach or to undertake research, the structure of disciplinary incentives frequently works against maintain- ing language skills, let alone learning a new language. Those who want to pursue midcareer language study find little financial support avail- able. Financial constraints also are important in explaining why few Amer- icans are truly fluent in Chinese. Looking at the Title VI fellowships (formerly referred to as National Defense Foreign Language fellowships and now described as Foreign Language and Area Studies, or FLAS, fellowships),~3 several facts emerge clearly (see Table A-33. During each of the Fiscal Years 1980 through 1984, with the exception of 1982, absolute dollar expenditures for FLAS fellowships rose. But because the cost per student is increasing, the number of awards for Chinese lan- guage study has generally remained at a rather low level, even declining by 25 percent in FY 1983. Although absolute dollar expenditures gener- ally rose, Congress appropriated these monies in the face of executive branch desires to end such expenditures entirely. In summary, few Americans are proficient in the Chinese language, and the proficiency levels of many students and scholars going to China are correspondingly low. To remedy this deficiency, students must start instruction earlier and be encouraged to undertake intensive language study. Chinese language study needs sustained and targeted financing for necessarily long periods, and both graduate students and faculty need professional incentives that will encourage them to make the long- term investment required to master, maintain, and enhance language skills throughout their careers. One particularly innovative and encouraging program that takes these interlocking problems into account is the "China Initiative" of the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation (see also Chapter 4~. In 1983 the foun- dation initiated a program of support for Chinese language instruction beginning in the ninth grade. For 1983 and 1984, the foundation com- mitted $1.4 million for Chinese language instruction in 36 high schools plus an additional $200,000 for curriculum development and teacher workshops. i4

124 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED WHERE TO STUDY CHINESE LANGUAGE One consequence of the 1979 "normalization" of Sino-American dip- lomatic and academic relations and of China's subsequent "open" pol- icy has been the development of previously unavailable opportunities to study Chinese language in the PRC. American and Chinese institutions have now developed many short-term, semester, year-long, and sum- mer language programs in China. Their very profusion and short track records compound the difficulties inherent in judging the quality of language instruction anywhere. In preparing this study, the authors identified 16 American institutions that sponsor language programs in China (see Appendix ]), although there are likely to be other programs of which the CSCPRC staff is unaware. A survey of program adminis- trators made it clear that the limited availability of financial aid is a key problem that keeps interested persons from applying and qualified applicants from participating. It is of practical interest to assess how current language training opportunities in China compare with opportunities in America, Tai- wan, and elsewhere, and which choices are best for students of varying aims and levels of fluency. These important questions provoke consider- able debate, but little conclusive, comparative information is available to answer them. For this study, a language questionnaire was sent to the heads of Chinese language departments in 64 universities with Asian studies programs; there were 22 responses to the language portion of the questionnaire. Although this low response rate limits the conclusions that may be drawn, respondents expressed sufficiently strong agreement that the broad results would probably not change with a larger sample. Most respondents were familiar with several of the more established language programs in the PRC, and some respondents simply evaluated the Chinese language programs with which their university or college has a relationship. The respondents were not able to evaluate the many new Chinese language programs in the PRC about which little or noth- ing is known in the United States. Respondents were asked to evaluate Chinese language programs in the PRC in general, but not to compare specific language programs in the PRC. Thus, it is not possible to assess the quality of various individ- ual programs. First, respondents were asked to rate certain aspects of the programs and then to provide a general assessment. The rating system was as follows: Excellent = 7, Good = 5, Only fair = 3, and Poor= 1. Overall, the respondents showed very substantial agreement that the general quality of Chinese language instruction for Americans in the

LANGUAGE TRAINING IN CHINESE AND ENGLISH 125 PRC is not very high. The average response for each category was between "Only fair" and "Good." Aspect of Instruction Instructional materials Quality of teachers Teaching methodology General experience Overall Average of Respondents (N=21) 4.5 ("Only fair" to "Good") 3.6 ("Only fair" to "Good") 2.5 ("Poor" to "Only fair") 4.2 ("Only fair" to "Good") 4.0 ("Only fair" to "Good") Instructional materials were rated the best aspect of training, although the average on this rating, too, fell short of "Good." In con- trast, teaching methodology was rated very low, receiving several "Poor" ratings and an average response of 2.S, or "Poor" to "Only fair." Although teaching methods undoubtedly vary from institution to insti- tution and teacher to teacher, the overall impression is that they are not particularly good in the PRC. Closely related to teaching methods is the quality of instruction. This was rated somewhat higher but was still not considered good. One respondent noted that the teachers have no formal training in teaching Chinese as a second language. This is a deficiency from an American perspective, since the United States generally has emphasized the importance of teaching methodology. Consequently, American students and program evaluators may react to differences in teaching style as much as to the material being taught. The Chinese, apparently, are alert to this situation; in June 1983 they established "The Association of Teaching Chinese Language to Foreigners." In 1985 the "First Interna- tional Symposium on Teaching Chinese As a Foreign Language" was convened in Beijing; 260 Chinese and foreign scholars attended. i6 Respondents to the Asian studies questionnaire also were asked to compare alternatives to studying Chinese in the PRC, including study- ing in the United States, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Hong Kong was selected as an attractive choice only for persons studying Cantonese. Taiwan was the most popular alternative. Of 21 respondents, 18 said that teaching methods in the PRC were worse than those in Taiwan. Similarly, most respondents rated the quality of instruction and the general learning experience in the PRC worse than in Taiwan. One-half of the respondents believed that instructional materials in Taiwan and the PRC are the same; the other half believed that Taiwan's materials are better. Comparisons with the United States also revealed a prefer- ence for the United States over the PRC. Only in terms of the general experience did the average response favor the PRC. In choosing the best alternative for varying levels of language instruc-

126 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED tion, the respondents favored the United States, overwhelmingly, for beginning students. Of 22 respondents, 20 expressed this preference, noting that a good foundation is important to language acquisition and that students need good teaching techniques and regimens to advance to higher levels of fluency. For the intermediate level Taiwan was pre- ferred; only 4 respondents chose the PRC. For advanced language stu- dents Taiwan again was preferred, but less strikingly so: 10 respondents chose Taiwan, 5 chose the PRC, and 7 said that the two were equal. Some respondents elaborated on the reasons they preferred Taiwan to the PRC. One factor was the Inter-University Program (IUP) in Taipei, administered by Stanford University. Founded in 1963, IUP is a long- established and well-respected program that strengthened interest in Taiwan considerably. Twelve of 22 respondents made positive mention of IUP. One respondent said that the "quality of teaching and teacher supervision, low teacher-student ratio, and wide range of student research and study interests that can be met there" make it an attractive choice. Others mentioned that IUP was tailored to American students' needs. An additional consideration is that students may have more extensive, informal contact with citizens in Taiwan than in the PRC; several respondents mentioned that students may live with Chinese families in Taiwan and thus increase their exposure to the language. While China is changing in this respect, at the time of the Asian studies questionnaire (late 1984), respondents still perceived only "limited opportunity to communicate with local people" in the PRC. In addition to IUP, three other language schools are operating in Taiwan for which the authors of this report have no specific evaluations: the Mandarin Training Center, the Taipei Language Institute, and the Mandarin Daily News Language School. Two of the 22 respondents clearly favored language study in the PRC. One respondent believed that Beijing Language Institute (BLI) was improving under effective new leadership and that, given the added advantage of living in China, BLI was overtaking IUP. The other respondent felt that materials were better in China, stating, "Although one can find many things to criticize about the mainland teaching materials, they do have the definite advantage that they represent cur- rent language. For some reason materials produced abroad generally lag behind current usage by 10 or 20 years." In sum, this limited information points up the need to know much more about the range and quality of language training alternatives in China. A standardized, widely administered measurement instrument would make it much easier to compare programs. In any event, some

LANGUAGE TRAINING IN CHINESE AND ENGLISH 127 language training programs in China apparently are improving, and, since perceptions inevitably lag behind changing reality, they may be better than the CSCPRC survey suggests. At present, however, for American students and scholars whose principal objective is language acquisition, the basic foundation of the Chinese language can best be obtained in the United States, perhaps in an intensive program. Inter- mediate work is best continued in Taiwan; at the advanced level, a student should be able to profit from language training in the PRC. For many students, other scholarly pursuits may take precedence over lan- guage acquisition. In those cases the language study site must be selected according to students' needs. ASSESSMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE PREPARATION OF PRC STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS WHO COME TO THE UNITED STATES Systematic information on the English language proficiency of Chi- nese students and visiting scholars who actually come to the United States is not available. Visiting Chinese scholars seldom undergo any formal application or English language evaluation process, and while students are evaluated through university procedures and examinations, there is no universally used instrument for measuring language profi- ciency. The best available measure is the scores of persons who listed their native country as the PRC on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). However, these scores do not distinguish between those who were admitted to U.S. universities after taking the test and those who were not. These scores do suggest that there has been some modest improvement in the English language capacity of PRC students since 1980, but there is still considerable room for improvement. The mean test score for the period 1980 to July 1982 was 473 out of a possible 800. For the period July 1982 through June 1984, the mean score had risen to 491. However, the average score for all foreign students was about 515 for the 1984-1985 testing year.~7 To establish a broader base for judging English proficiency, CSCPRC staff sent a "Questionnaire for American Universities and Colleges" to 391 institutions of higher education; 216 responses were received. From these responses, two things are clear about the overall language profi- ciency of Chinese students who are accepted by American institutions. First, nearly one-half of the university and college respondents, most of whom were foreign student advisors, felt that "most" or "virtually all" of these students "require additional English training through course- work after arriving at the institution."

128 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED Second, since 1981, the process of evaluating the English language skill of Chinese student applicants to American universities and colleges has become significantly more standardized. Of the 208 U.S. institu- tions that answered the question, 87 percent recognized TOEFL as one of the acceptable instruments to certify English language proficiency, and 45 percent used TOEFL as their primary evaluation instrument. Forty-three percent would accept other tests, such as the Michigan Test for English Language Proficiency (MTELP). TOEFL now is adminis- tered in China, although many Chinese applicants find it difficult to pay the hard-currency testing fee or to reach test centers. In contrast to commonly held views in U.S. universities, PRC stu- dents and scholars generally do not intend to study English once they are in the United States. According to the 1983 visa application data, only 2 percent of ]-1 visa holders (see Glossary) planned to study English language in America. The Chinese do take English ability into account in selecting officially sponsored students and scholars, so the language level of this group is presumed adequate by the Chinese authorities. Once in the United States, the imperative that these students and scholars obtain American financial support after one year discourages them from spending time in "peripheral" English language study. Among F-1 visa holders (see Glossary), the situation is different. In 1983, 25 percent said that they intended to study English as well as their major field. These students are presumably self-selected, have more time to complete their studies in America, and are not subject to the one-year imperative. Since many F-ls are undergraduates and therefore subject to the language requirements of American universities and col- leges, it is likely that more than 25 percent will take English courses while in the United States. To meet the needs of the large number of foreign students studying in the United States, many universities offer English as a Second Language (ESL) courses. Usually these classes are noncredit, and students enrolled in them must reach a certain proficiency before enrolling in other classes. Universities and colleges were asked whether they offered any courses designed specifically for Chinese students and scholars to over- come their language difficulties. Two-thirds said they did not and one- third said they did. Some of those responding negatively had general ESL courses for foreign students, which were not specifically tailored to PRC students and scholars. Of those who said that they did-have a specific course, more than 60 percent described a program that was actually general ESL for foreign students. Only a few universities appeared to offer PRC students anything other than general ESL usually tutoring or intensive English courses.

LANGUAGE TRAINING IN CHINESE AND ENGLISH PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 129 1. As the Chinese are asked to respond favorably to American requests for access to China, U.S. students and faculty must be better prepared linguistically to take full advantage of such opportunities. Indeed, many of the problems that American students and scholars encounter in China arise from poor language performance and insuffi- cient cultural sensitivity, a sensitivity that language training could improve. The reasons for the generally poor Chinese language perfor- mance of American students are numerous; remedies will be slow in coming and expensive to carry out. Nonetheless, the United States as a nation must place importance on foreign language acquisition in gen- eral and on Chinese language acquisition in particular. This higher level of priority must be made visible in a variety of ways, such as sustaining funding at the undergraduate and graduate levels, targeting those funds on students and on institutions that perform well, and structuring disci- plinary and career incentives to reward those who maintain and improve language skills. In addition, efforts should be made to deter- mine the utility and cost effectiveness of Chinese language instruction at the secondary level. 2. Better scholarship is not the only rationale for Chinese language acquisition. With increasing economic, strategic, and cultural ties to Chinese-speaking areas in the Pacific Basin, journalists and business persons also need linguistic capabilities. Development of such skills, however, not only requires programs aimed at professionals but also that the professions be willing to devote the necessary time and resources to make such training successful. Existing exchange and lan- guage programs should take professional constituencies into greater account. ~9 3. To identify promising individuals and institutions, to target lim- ited funds for Chinese language study, and to compare various pro- grams, wide administration of the "Chinese Proficiency Test" of the Center for Applied Linguistics should be encouraged. 4. A systematic survey and evaluation of language study programs in China is needed. The U.S. government and professional language orga- nizations in America should agree on the contours of such a study and then cooperate with the Chinese authorities and American institutions with programs in China to implement it. Moreover, a major study on Chinese language proficiency levels and Chinese language teaching and learning is needed. 5. There has been notable progress in standardizing evaluation of the English language capabilities of Chinese applying to American universi-

130 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED ties and colleges. Nonetheless, Chinese students, like other foreign stu- dents, still experience substantial difficulty with English. It is recommended that the Chinese government place more emphasis on language training in the United States for their students and scholars, relax the "one-year rule" that discourages English language study in the United States, and encourage students and scholars to live in English- speaking environments rather than exclusively with other speakers of Chinese. Raising official stipends would at least make this possible. It is recognized, however, that the Chinese have made a much more con- certe`d and systematic effort to learn the English language than Ameri- cans have made to learn Chinese. NOTES I. "China Diversifies Its Language Craze," Beijing Review July 22, 1985), p. 10. 2. "The CPT has been normed at 41 colleges and universities in the United States and abroad, and is available for administration, on a secure basis, by institutions on dates which they select. Following administration, the test is scored at CAL tthe Center for Applied Linguistics] and a score report roster sent to the institution." "Newsletter," Chinese Language Teachers Association, Vol. 8 (August 1984), p. 5. 3. Richard D. Lambert et al., Beyond Growth: The Next Stage in Language and Area Studies (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Universities, 1984), p. 263. 4. Correspondence with Gregory Chiang, Middlebury College. 5. The figures on Chinese language enrollments, it must be realized, are deficient in at least two respects: they omit private school and extracurricular programs. Addition- ally, some states have not reported their possible enrollments at all. In this respect, the figures cited underestimate the secondary school Chinese language effort to some unknown extent. However, the figures cited are fall enrollment figures and therefore disregard attrition. 6. "966,000 Are Taking Foreign Languages, Up 4.5 Pet. in 4 Years," Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Aug. 29, 1984), pp. 1 and 23. 7. China's Economy and Foreign Trade, 1981-85 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, September 1984), p. 41. 8. Terry Hoyt, "Andover's Opening to China Studies," New York Times, Jan. 6, 1985, p. 61. 9. Sheppard Ranbom, "Teachers of Chinese Explore Ways to Nurture Their Difficult Subject," Education Week (Aug. 22, 1984~. 10. Lambert et al., Beyond Growth, p. 320. 11. Lorraine M. McDonnell, with Cathleen Stasz and Rodger Madison, Federal Support for Training Foreign Language and Area Specialists: The Education and Careers of FLAS Fellowship Recipients, prepared for U.S. Department of Education (Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corporation, 1983), pp. 23, 26, cited in Lambert et al., Beyond Growth, p. 111. 12. Lambert et al., Beyond Growth, pp. 76-78. 13. NDFL fellowships are also frequently referred to as either National Resource Fellow- ships (NRF) or Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships.

LANGUAGE TRAINING IN CHINESE AND ENGLISH 131 14. Correspondence with Scott McVay, executive director, Geraldine R. Dodge Founda- tion, Oct. 31, 1984. Updated in telephone conversation with Scott McVay's office, Sept. 30, 1985. 15. Pamela Peirce, "Survey of Chinese Language Study Programs in the PRC," China Exchange News, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sept. 1985), pp. 35-38. 16. For establishment of "The Association of Teaching Chinese Language to Foreigners," see Foreign Broadcast Information Service, Oct. 16, 1984, p. A4, from Xinhua; for the 1985 conference, see Beijing Review, No. 38 (1985), pp. 24-26. 17. Information from a telephone conversation with Vera Jones, Educational Testing Service, Aug. 13, 1985. 18. An earlier survey found that "fifty-nine percent of the 125 institutions responding to this question said that most PRC students required additional English language train- ing.... " Thomas Fingar and Linda A. Reed, Survey Summary: Students and Scholars from the Peoples Republic of China in the United States, August 1981 (Washington, D. C.: U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, 1981), p. 17. 19. In 1985 the CSCPRC initiated the "Professional Language Program" component of the National Program. It offers support for individuals with the B.A. enrolled in a professional study program, or recently embarked on a nonacademic professional career, for full-time study of Chinese.

7 The Consequences of Exchange for Selected Disciplines The effects of Sino-American academic exchanges on different fields have been varied and asymmetrical: in the United States academic exchanges with China have had the most visible effect in the field of Chinese studies; in the PRC the effects have been most evident in tech- nical areas. However, this simple dichotomy obscures the significant effects of exchange on the social sciences in China (e.g., economics, law, and, increasingly, other social sciences) and on agriculture, seis- mology, cancer epidemiology, and other natural sciences in the United States. This chapter analyzes the effects of educational exchanges in selected aspects of six broad fields: (1) Chinese studies (the study of China's past, sociology and anthropology, political science, literature, and econom- ics), (2) American studies, (3) physics, (4) cancer epidemiology, (5) seismology, and (6) agriculture. Within the confines of this study, it was not possible to cover all fields or to provide a comprehensive assessment even of those selected for consideration. Each field was chosen either to highlight particular aspects of the exchange relationship or to present information that further elucidates trends described elsewhere in this study. The technical nature of some of these fields necessitated the coopera- tion of scholars who are both eminent within their own disciplines and familiar with exchanges with China. Commissioned papers were writ- ten for this study by active scholars in physics, cancer epidemiology, seismology, economics of China, and agriculture.) Analyses of Ameri- 132

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 133 can studies and of selected aspects of Chinese studies were compiled from information gathered through onsite and telephone interviews, questionnaires, commissioned papers, trip reports, and published and unpublished papers.2 . . . Cutting across many of these disciplines are themes and problems related to the quality of academic exchange. From the American per- spective, limited access to scholarly resources in China has reduced the positive effects of the exchanges. Although the individual experiences of Americans have varied considerably, it is possible to characterize overall trends in access to these resources. In the postnormalization period of late 1978 and 1979, the Chinese opened the doors comparatively wide to American social science field research, only to restrict that access very substantially in 1981. Since 1982, the Chinese authorities have again, gradually, permitted American scholars greater access to archives, interview opportunities, and limited field research for scholars in both the natural and social sciences. (The field access problems of social and natural scientists have been remarkably similar. Both groups find that the principal problem remains one of moving beyond one's Chinese host unit into the larger Chinese environment, whether physical or social.) The principal impediments to field research have changed during the 1979-1985 period. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Chinese resisted requests for such research for several reasons ideological con- cerns about the social sciences per se, fear of letting foreigners penetrate deeply into unapproved locations, concern over the conditions in much of rural China, the chaotic state of local archives, and the opposition of local officials. Now, although some of these problems remain, they have been eased by the revival of social science in China, freer domestic travel, and new economic policies that encourage entrepreneurship. American scholars find that the obstacle to gaining access to Chinese society and archival materials is increasingly becoming the escalating and unpredictable charges for living expenses and research needs in China. SELECTED FIELDS OF CHINESE STUDIES Study o] the Chinese Past The long and richly documented history of China, from pre-Shang to the present, is a source of justifiable pride to the Chinese people and government. In the words of one American scholar, "China, more than any country in the world today, devotes attention, as a matter of national policy, to its premodern past."3 For the Chinese state, through-

134 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED out its long history, the study of the past has had political implications in the present, providing a standard against which to measure the current political leadership. Potentially, this may hamper the work of the many Americans to whom China's past is of enormous interest; the study of fairly contemporary periods might fall prey to current political inhibi- tions. The study of China's prehistory, ancient history, and imperial history is sufficiently removed from current events to make the pros- pects good for meaningful academic work by Americans in China. Thus far, the American scholars who have undertaken research on China's past have generally focused on four areas: archaeology, intellectual his- tory, imperial history, and the Republican period. Although it may be difficult to assess with precision the impact of access to China on scholarship in these fields, there is no doubt that it has been profound. The difficulty in assessing these effects stems from the fact that such effects manifest themselves slowly. Moreover, because rich source materials are also found in archives and libraries outside China, exciting new insights result from access to materials in several locations. Nonetheless, the next five years will witness a great increase in the publication of research that has benefited greatly by access to China. American scholars are greatly interested in archaeological opportuni- ties in China, where there is significant potential for important discov- eries. In November 1982 the possibility that these scholars might participate in Chinese excavations became formalized, when "Chinese law was changed to allow foreign scholars, with the permission of rele- vant authorities, to engage in archaeological field work."4 Since then a few individuals have worked on excavations, but exchanges and collab- orative research in archaeology have not been numerous. Americans would like access to sites and relics that heretofore have been inaccessi- ble, and China could benefit from Western techniques of preservation and analysis. There is some urgency to this work, for according to Professor lack Dull, Chinese archaeologists are staying "one step ahead of the bulldozer or the shovel-and-basket brigade."5 Progress in archaeological cooperation has been slow for two related reasons: (1) Many Chinese feel that pre-1949 collaborative work with Americans, in the end, worked to the advantage of the Americans and not the Chinese. In the words of Harvard anthropologist K. C. Chang, "American scholars often got the better part of both fame and bounty."6 (2) In China as in many other places in the world, an element of nation- alism and commercial interest intrudes the Chinese feel that they should be the first to tell of China's past through newly discovered and rare materials, and to profit from those discoveries. Despite these inhi- bitions, slow but steady progress in collaborative work has been made.

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 135 One important archaeological project has involved the collaboration of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University and the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), a program funded in part by the National Science Foundation. The project deals with hominoid evolution and focuses on fossil remains from the late Miocene (7.5 to 15 million years ago). Sites in both northern Pakistan (Siwalik) and Lufeng in China's Yunnan Province are involved. Catherine Badgley, who worked in Luieng in November 1981, sums up the importance of the site and project: The Lufeng site is a paleontolog~cal gem. Its hominoid fossils include the only complete skulls known for Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus.... tT]he high concentration of fossils and the diversity of skeletal parts at Lufeng indicate that it is also a promising source of postcranial bones (e. g., arm and leg bones) of Ramapithecus and Sivapithecus. From these bones, we can infer the locomo- tion and body sizes of the ramapithecids. In addition, it will be possible to put together a detailed picture of the faunal and floral environment in which these hominoids lived.... The two sites tSiwalik and Lufeng] are radically different records of Miocene hominoids and their environments. The Siwalik sequence contains an enor- mously long record with relatively little detail available at any single level. The Lufeng site represents an instant of geological time but holds as much detail as the terrestrial fossil record ever yields. Thus, comparison of these sites will be a great advance for hominoid research.7 Another example of cooperative Sino-American archaeological research is the 1981 and 1982 joint project of IVPP and the Smithsonian Institution, which investigated the origin of human populations in the Western hemisphere. As Dennis Stanford notes: Competing hypotheses agree that human populations in the Western hemi- sphere are of Asian origin, but little data exist to confirm any hypothesis about the initial entry of people into the New World or the Old World cultural tradition from which these first peoples may have originated.8 To address these questions, a Chinese team came to the United States in 1981 to examine relevant North American sites and collections. The following summer, a contingent of Americans went to China and visited more than 16 Pleistocene locations in northeast China, most of which proved not to be "of primary importance for this study." In 1982 there was hope that additional Chinese sites in the northeast and west could help provide answers to the origins of New World culture. For the strategic Neolithic and Bronze Age periods when the true character of Chinese culture was established, American researchers have greatly benefited from the opportunity to visit research institutes,

136 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED museums, and an occasional dig in China. American graduate students, by taking archaeology courses in Chinese universities, have obtained invaluable insights into the training, excavation techniques, and taxo- nomic strategies of the authors of the published reports, both present and future, upon which understanding of the field so heavily depends. And much has been gained from the opportunity to meet with Chinese archaeologists at various international conferences held in China, the United States, and elsewhere.9 Attention should also be called to the considerable cultural impact of the major archaeological exhibitions from China that toured the United States in 1975-1976 and 1980-1981. There is, of course, still consider- able room for improvement: many Chinese conferences are still off limits to foreigners, Americans are not able to study archaeological collections in a systematic way and only infrequently participate in digs, and the Chinese government does not give high priority to the training of its archaeologists in the United States. Nevertheless, Ameri- can access to the archaeological evidence and to the scholars responsible for its excavation and for publication is now immeasurably superior to what it was only 15 years ago. China, with its wealth of Neolithic sites, is potentially the world's greatest archaeological laboratory for under- standing the genesis of Chinese culture and thus of a great part of human civilization itself. Many disciplines in the United States, such as paleontology, physical anthropology, paleolinguistics, climate history, crop genetics, and cultural anthropology, stand to benefit profoundly from the continuing exchange of scholars, information, and analytical models with archaeologists in China. To summarize, collaborative archaeological research has great poten- tial value, but thus far progress has been slow. Exchange could be enhanced, but only with great sensitivity to and respect for Chinese concerns that grew out of previously unsatisfactory experiences with the West. From the viewpoint of Americans' progress will occur only with increased access to more localities in China and more opportunities to undertake research in more museums and research institutes. The past six years have brought many excellent opportunities for research on imperial and Republican China and Chinese intellectual history. Two key factors have been access to Chinese archives and libraries and the opportunity to conduct discussions with Chinese aca- demics with whom personal contact has only recently been restored. One of the principal benefits to historical scholarship thus far, however, has come from the recent publication of Chinese historical documents. Chi Wang, at the Library of Congress, notes that "great emphasis is also being placed on the editing and publishing of archival historical materi- als."~i The Number One Historical Archives in Beijing (with Ming and

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 137 Qing Dynasty materials), in conjunction with Nanjing's Number Two Archives (with Republican era materials), publishes Historical Archives (L?shi dang'an), a quarterly composed of selected historical documents. The Number One Archives also publishes a serial entitled Collected Historical Materials from the Archives of the Qing Period (Qingdai dang'an shiliao conghian). In addition, many other document collec- tions that address a single theme are being published. is Americans have had mixed success in gaining access to archives, libraries, and museums in China. There have been substantial suc- cesses, such as Professor Frederic Wakeman's recent archival work on law and order in Shanghai during the 1920s and 1930s, or Paul Pic- kowicz's studies of Chinese films. But overall, many American scholars have been continually frustrated by problems of access to archives, museums, research institutes, and libraries. Historians and other scholars frequently complain about the seemingly random imposition of the neibu (or internal) classification on documents, which they find particularly frustrating when materials so classified have no apparent relationship to national security or current politics. As Dull notes, "When an atlas of the Han dynasty is decreed neibu, it seems to be simply si~ly."~3 This classification also poses a more novel problem. Because of the recent proliferation of publications in China and the entrepreneurial spirit now taking hold there, it is difficult for foreign scholars to avoid coming into the possession of neibu materials; indeed they are freely sold in many locations. The possession of such materials does expose the foreigner to possible sanctions. The access issue raises some basic questions that have no self-evident answers. At what point do requests for American access to materials become demands for special treatment not enjoyed by Chinese scholars? How open should archival materials be to a society's citizens and for- eigners? What is embraced by the term national security? When is "collaborative" research a true partnership and how should credit for joint work be apportioned? Despite the ambiguities and frustrations, scholarship dealing with China's past, in both the PRC and the United States, is experiencing a great rejuvenation. The revival is the result of recent intellectual reforms, increasing interaction between Chinese and foreign scholars, the growth in publication in China, and access to Chinese materials in China. American historians and archaeologists who have taken part in scholarly exchanges with China are virtually unanimous in their convic- tion that their own understanding of China was greatly enhanced by the opportunity to acquire a feel for the land and materials to which they were exposed. Although the preceding analysis deals with only selected aspects of

138 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED the study of the Chinese past, major benefits to historical research have accrued from the materials the Chinese are publishing, some of which are available abroad. While access to Chinese museums, research insti- tutes, archives, and libraries holds great promise, not enough time has passed to permit an assessment of what all the fruits of that access will be. Sociology and Anthropology Although sociology and anthropology are separate fields of study, their common reliance upon ethnographic observation and shared con- cern with the day-to-day workings of societies present similar challenges for the Sino-American exchange relationship. Because of the similarity in the Chinese approach to the study of these two disciplines, this sec- tion considers them together. Wherever possible, the distinctive charac- teristics of each field are underscored. Prior to normalization, American scholars interested in Chinese soci- ety had little choice but to rely on information gathered in interviews with refugees and emigres who had settled in Hong Kong. Some excel- lent research that has withstood the test of time emerged from this work. Nonetheless, because sociology and anthropology rely on field- work and mass survey sampling, the opening of China held special promise for researchers in this field. The Chinese now officially sanction and even encourage scholarship in the social sciences. Beijing's planners included provisions for social development along with economic development in the Sixth Five-Year Plan (1981-1985), with sociology specifically mentioned among the dozen key areas of research. Nevertheless, the study of sociology and particularly of anthropology is growing at only a modest pace. A dele- gation of American sociologists and anthropologists traveled to China in early 1984 to assess the status of these disciplines. The group noted a cautious mood among Chinese colleagues and a desire on their part to show how their disciplines could contribute to social and economic modernization. ]4 Unlike the other social sciences, which were banned during the dec- ade of the Cultural Revolution, the study of sociology was first forbid- den in 1952 and remained so until 1979. This status literally crippled the discipline for a generation. During these 27 years, U.S. social scien- tists made significant methodological advances and began the quantita- tive revolution using computer technology and statistical software packages. The Chinese have not yet made up for the long dormant period, either in terms of scope or understanding of methodology and

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 139 practice. In 1984 only four Chinese universities (Beijing, Nankai, Shanghai, and Zhongshan universities) had sociology departments. A few other institutions offered sociology courses within other depart- ments. The remainder of sociological research is undertaken by the Institute of Sociology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and the professional associations under the Chinese Sociological Associ- ation. Anthropology enjoys even less support. As of early 1985, there were only two centers for anthropology in China: Zhongshan University and Xiamen University. The Planning Commission for Chinese Anthropol- ogy Disciplines was organized only in 1980 by CASS, and the first meeting of the Chinese Anthropological Association was held in 1981. Since the early 1980s, the development of anthropological research has been slow, and most research has focused on "the 7 percent of the population who are members of the 55 minority nationalities."~5 The comparatively small academic infrastructure in these two fields has deeply affected the quality of Sino-American exchanges. Since the graduates of those few universities that offer relevant programs still lack the practical and linguistic experience to interact with foreign col- leagues, American sociologists and anthropologists prefer to collaborate with older Chinese scholars who were active in these fields before the 1950s. Fei Xiaotong, Lei Jieqiong, Li Jinghan, Wang Kang, Wu Wen- zao, and Lin Yuehua all number among these sociologists. This situa- tion, therefore, favors senior American scholars who now are reestablishing ties. Younger American scholars without these personal ties may encoun- ter substantial difficulty eliciting Chinese cooperation to conduct field- work in areas where the host institution is unfamiliar with the concepts and aims of the social sciences. ]7 That most American anthropologists and many sociologists must do fieldwork has become a point of contention and dissatisfaction for both sides. The Americans argue that "the best fieldwork can provide color- ful detail, awareness of human variety, and a sensitivity to the gap between ideals and reality, features essential to any realistic picture of social life." Given the opportunity to conduct field research in China, these scholars believe they could clarify or correct earlier perceptions of the culture formed from research in Taiwan or Hong Kong. Many researchers find unreasonable the Chinese reluctance to release what Americans consider innocuous documents such as local birth, death, and marital registries. Part of this difference of opinion stems from the fundamental differ- ences in Chinese and American perceptions and approaches to the study

140 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED of culture and society. For the Chinese today, as in the past, the study of society and culture has a larger normative purpose to make people "good" by showing them the good. For Western social scientists, "objec- tivity" in research has meant separating research from values as far as possible. The Chinese desire to have the foreigner study "model" units that are neither randomly selected nor representative of the larger soci- ety runs counter to the American grain. The Chinese also have resisted questionnaire research and generally preferred that interviews be con- ducted in groups rather than with single individuals. There is little guarantee that the responses of individuals, whether oral or written, will remain confidential between the researcher and respondents. From a methodological perspective, all of this limits the utility of sociological research in China and requires that researchers treat their subjects with a special sense of responsibility. Beyond these differences in approach, the Chinese often are embar- rassed at the backward conditions in some villages and regions, often those that American researchers view as the most interesting for research precisely because they have not yet felt the full force of mod- ernization. The Chinese are particularly leery of anthropological (as opposed to sociological) research, possibly, as Alice Rossi suggests, because they perceive negative and condescending connotations of Westerners studying less sophisticated people. i9 Despite these considerations, anthropologists and sociologists remain intensely interested in many facets of Chinese life and in a wide variety of topics, such as the implications of the one-child family, peasant life in the face of modernization, the changing role of women, juvenile delin- quency, and labor and industrial organization. Significant research already has been undertaken on a number of important subjects: the treatment of aged persons in China's countryside,20 the effect of eco- nomic change on village life; Chinese emigration;22 mental health in Shanghai (a collaborative study) ;23 the social roles and cultural status of Chinese women;24 and family structure.25 Finally, China's release of its 1982 census data has provided both Chinese and foreign scholars with a very detailed look at patterns of family structure, birth, literacy, resi- dence, and so forth. These data, together with other research, have helped to shift social scientists' perceptions of China. As Martin King Whyte puts it, "To the extent that China fieldwork has enabled . . . people to get beyond fascination with the 'Maoist model' and penetrate into actual social relationships, the result has been to reject the earlier, simpler image of China in favor of more complex portrayals."26 Academic exchange in sociology and anthropology is also helping to develop Chinese interest in these fields and their methodological refine-

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 141 meet. American sociologists have had a direct impact on the revival of their discipline in China through lecture tours, minicourses, and consul- tations on curriculum-related matters. In the long run, the approaches of the two countries to social science may combine to produce a very worthwhile result. "If something of the American technical wizardry is blended with the Chinese subtle appreciation of the inter-connectedness of communal institutions, the explanatory power of the social sciences may undergo an exponential intellectual growth."27 In sum, in conducting research in China many American sociologists and anthropologists have faced very real problems, caused at least in part by the weak institutional base of their disciplines in China and by China's reluctance to provide foreigners with data on society. Nonethe- less, these difficulties should not obscure the significant research that Americans have conducted in these fields. As these disciplines grow and develop, in some cases with American assistance (see Chapter 4), the opportunities for both collaborative and individual research will expand. In the future, it is probable that the trend toward charging foreigners fees for access to sites, interviews, and questionnaire respon- dents will become a principal issue. Political Science The scholar of Chinese politics immediately encounters two problems in China that make it difficult to conform to the norms of political science. In the United States the discipline has become increasingly quantitative. But in China the nature of data acquired and the limita- tions on the use of interview materials acquired there are highly con- straining. Moreover, politics in China today, as in the past, is carried on "behind the curtain." Information that is freely published in many Western political systems is tightly held in the People's Republic.28 Those who are able to peer behind this curtain may find their future access curtailed if they reveal what they have seen. Many of the Ameri- cans who have the best access to political life in China are constrained by that very access, which requires that they not tear the fabric of carefully cultivated relationships by revealing too much. Taken together, studying Chinese politics, meeting the norms of the discipline and the academic standards of colleagues, assuring future access, and protecting human subjects in China are most difficult. In addition, some American political scientists are debating whether they should devote their attention to securing access for American scholars of Chinese politics or to helping revive the PRC's political science community and assisting in its methodological and organiza-

142 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED tional development. In the latter case the hope is that a strengthened community of political scientists in China will be able and willing to deal with foreign colleagues in the future. In the authors' view, it is essential to move in both directions simultaneously, as indeed is occur- ring. The American Political Science Association is working with the recently revived Chinese Political Science Association to assist in field development, while the CSCPRC is continuing efforts to assure access for American political scientists who wish to study China. American political scientists are dealing with their Chinese counter- parts much more frequently as a result of the development of the CASS Institute on World Economics and Politics and the Institute of American Studies, the modest development of political science in China's universi- ties, the return to China of Chinese graduate students trained abroad in political science and international relations, and the increasing interac- tion between foreign scholars and various international relations and policy advisory institutes. For their part, the Chinese have become increasingly attentive to interest-group politics in the United States, the process by which American foreign policy is made, and the problems of the strategic arms race. For Americans, the study of Chinese politics has made considerable progress simply as a result of U. S. scholars' living in and coping with the Chinese system, and thus having access to Chinese officials and the growing body of printed matter in the PRC. Because of this direct exposure to the PRC, "China" can never again be the undifferentiated entity it was before the exchanges. The capacity to perceive lines of bureaucratic, regional, generational, and socioeconomic cleavage is key to political science. Americans now see more clearly the basic dividing lines in China and understand better how the Chinese manage and resolve tensions.29 Exchanges have enhanced American knowledge of Chinese politics in three important respects: the study of the structure and operation of the Chinese policy process (for both domestic policy and, to a lesser extent, foreign policy, the study of policy implementa- tion, and the study of political culture in today's China. Although access to China has led to progress in the study of Chinese politics, two qualifications are important. First, an unofficial system of self-censorship means that American scholars do not propose many research subjects because they think it would be impossible to do the work in China. Topics pertaining to the public security apparatus, the military, the relations between the military and other civilian agencies, inner-Party workings, elite factionalism, and biographic research on elite political figures all have been "self-censored" by potential researchers. The issues not studied in the exchanges are critical, and

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 143 American political scientists must not let the limitations on research in China itself totally circumscribe their work on China's political system. Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the United States will remain the places where one can best study many critical Chinese institutions and issues for the foreseeable future; meaningful research on some important questions is not yet possible in China. Second, increased American understanding of Chinese politics has come not only from onsite scholarly research but also from the presence of Chinese students, scholars, and officials in America, the reconstitu- tion of the Chinese statistical system, the deluge of publications coming from localities and bureaucracies throughout China, and the generally more open environment in the PRC. In short, the availability of Chi- nese written materials abroad has been as important as access to China. Finally, the utility of long-term research in China depends greatly on the specific topic to be studied. In China, American political scientists conducting research about China have had only a modest impact beyond establishing personal ties that have made subsequent interinstitutional cooperation possible. American political scientists who are lecturing about political science as a discipline there, rather than conducting research, may be encourag- ing the Chinese to develop the fields of comparative politics, American politics, more quantitatively oriented methods of analysis, and studies of international relations (particularly international political economy and arms control). Recently launched efforts to train Chinese students and senior scholars in international relations and political science in the United States and in China (efforts such as those of the Ford Founcia- tion, Stanford University's U.S.-China Relations Program, and the joint Johns Hopkins University-Nanjing University Center for Chinese and American Studies) probably will have the greatest long-term impact (see Chapter 4~. This impact will be increasingly evident as China builds its political analysis capability in research and policy advi- sory organs and in universities. Aspects of Chinese Literature (Modern and Traditional) and the Arts * Renewed exchange relations with China have revitalized the field of modern Chinese literature in the United States by giving scholars oppor- *Many of the ideas and facts in this section have been drawn from a paper by Dr. Leo Ou-fan Lee, "Research on Chinese Literature and the Arts: A Preliminary Evaluation," forthcoming in Bullock and Oksenberg, untitled volume.

144 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED "unities to read the extensive and exciting new works of young Chinese writers and to interview Chinese authors. For instance, in recent exchanges, American scholars of the May Fourth period have used per- sonal interviews to add substantially to biographical data on Chinese authors of the period. The exchange relationship among literary scholars has taken many forms, from visits of individual writers and scholars to group delega- tions. Well-known Chinese authors such as Shen Congwen, Cao Yu, Al Qing, Xiao Jun. and Wu Zuxiang30 have visited various American uni- versity and college campuses. A number of joint conferences on modern literature also have been held on such themes as the following: Lu Xun, contemporary Chinese literature, comparative literature in China, and current topics in East-West comparative literature in the United States. And within China, literary journals are multiplying rapidly, restoring a long absent forum for scholarly discussion. Nevertheless, politics and literature in China remain inextricably bound, and this too affects the climate of academic exchange. The policy of the Two Hundreds propounded by the PRC government Let one hundred flowers bloom, let one hundred schools of thought contend has been greeted with cautious optimism by many Chinese. At the same time, many new artists and writers of post-Cultural Revo- lution China are still struggling with ideological constraints while also seeking to reenter the international literary mainstream. Works pro- duced during certain periods, such as the Sino-]apanese War, previously have been ignored because of their political sensitivity and the dearth of materials. Political constraints are being loosened, but no one is certain how long this will continue or whether the changes will endure. In the field of traditional Chinese literature, the resumption of Sino- American educational exchanges has been less in evidence, but equally exciting for American scholars. Senior Chinese literary scholars still offer an immensely sophisticated view on the thought and theory of traditional Chinese literature. Leo Ou-fan Lee notes, however, that since much of the "rejuvenation" of the study of traditional Chinese literature has involved restoring the reputations and theories of aged and formerly venerated Chinese literary scholars, America's senior scholars are in a better position to benefit from renewed exchanges than are less established junior colleagues. (This has been the case in sociol- ogy and anthropology as well, as noted above.) Exchanges have brought about long-postponed reunions between Chinese and American experts on traditional literature. Literary debate has resumed, with new vigor and new insights from both sides, on the traditional subject of "redol-

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 145 ogy" (which involves the extensive examination of the classic Chinese novel The Dream of the Red Chamber) and on other classics such as Shui-hu Zhuan and fin Ping Mei. The American scholarly community has not yet begun to examine the fascinating new works of young Chinese painters and other modern artists. The study of modern Chinese art and its relation to current societal and political trends has received little attention, and "scholarly research and field work tend to be overshadowed by media events...."3i In the performing arts, most exchange has occurred under the auspices of the Center for United States-China Arts Exchange (see Chapter 4~. Economics * In recent years Western research on China's economy has changed both in terms of its process and substance. The research process for- merly involved a considerable amount of "detective work." The econo- mist studying China sifter] through library materials trying to piece together information from diverse sources to develop an understanding of China's economy. Time-series data sets could be constructed only with difficulty. Occasionally, interviewing expatriates in Hong Kong provicled valuable information. Now, although the economist must still spend considerable time perusing Chinese publications, information about China's economy is much more readily available. The increased volume of Chinese publications available in the West and the resump- tion of scholarly exchanges have both contributed to this change. As a result of this influx of information, work in economics now reflects greater knowledge of economic processes and of regional and microeconomic issues. At the same time, recent research has become methodologically more sophisticated. To some extent, these develop- ments in economic research would probably have occurred even with- out exchanges as economists made use of the newly available published materials. Moreover, despite their overall positive contribution, schol- arly exchanges have been less productive than hoped for in some respects. This is especially true in the area of survey research and field- work. Viewed in historical perspective, recent research on China's economy *This section is a condensed version of the report written for this study by Professor Terry Sicular of Stanford University, entitled "Scholarly Exchange and Research on Chi- na's Economy." The full report is available from the CSCPRC.

146 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED is distinguished from earlier scholarship in four respects. First, the pace of research on China's economy has quickened in recent years. This trend reflects both the growing number of economists involved in such research and the increased productivity and shorter lead times for research projects. Many factors lie behind the growth in the numbers of economists studying China; one of them is the greater opportunity for scholarly exchange. The possibility of traveling to China has sparked the interest of general economists who do not normally study China and of some graduate students who have entered the field because of inter- esting dissertation possibilities. Increased productivity and shorter lead times in research are proba- bly due to the greater accessibility of published materials rather than to scholarly exchange. Exchange may at times speed up research in that it allows scholars to visit China to get a fee] for the latest developments, discuss research already in progress, fill in information gaps, and shop for books. But those who depend on a trip to China to obtain the basic material for their work may find themselves frustrated. The consider- able time and scholarly risk involved in working in China may be one reason why established economists are reluctant to go there for extended periods of in-depth research. Second, recent research on China's economy shows greater knowI- edge of economic processes. Historically, economists have been inter- ested in how China's economy functioned. Although this earlier work was superb in outlining more formal aspects of the economy, it rarely conveyed detailed knowledge about the informal mechanisms that allow the economy to function. Such knowledge is increasingly covered in recent research.32 Third, a rising proportion of new research looks at regional and microeconomic issues.33 Increased research on these topics is important not only because it sheds light on how lower levels of the economy operate, but also because it dissects aggregate trends and thereby con- tributes to our understanding of the entire economy. Research on regional and microeconomic issues has been boosted by the recent Chinese publication of provincial-level data in statistical yearbooks and by the publication in journals and newspapers of less systematic, but increasingly available, data for localities and lower- leve} economic units. These publications have important implications for research in China. With such information, scholars going to China can sharpen the focus of their research, refine their questions, and thus use the experience more productively. Finally, the increase in information has allowed work on China's

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 147 economy to become increasingly sophisticated methodologically. One can now find work that uses more advanced empirical techniques such as linear programming and econometrics. At the same time, economic scholarship on China is displaying greater theoretical sophistication.34 Advanced empirical techniques are data-intensive, and only now are enough data available to allow their use.35 In a few cases, economists have been able to conduct fieldwork to collect the necessary data36 or have been able to make use of field data collected by Chinese econo- mists or China specialists in other disciplines.37 Despite these welcome developments, certain gaps in the literature persist and, in general, research on China's economy remains methodo- logically less sophisticated than research on other developing econo- mies. These deficiencies will persist to some extent until scholarly exchanges can arrange for economists to conduct surveys in China. American researchers currently are unable to collect systematic data to fill in gaps in published state statistical information. These, in turn, translate clirectly into gaps in the literature. Exchanges are also contributing to China's knowledge about Western economics and economies. In part because of the increased scholarly exchange and in part because of improved access to Western publica- tions within China, China's understanding of Western economics has grown considerably since the late 1970s. Evidence of this growth in understanding is widespread. Current issues of Chinese scholarly jour- nals now often contain articles applying neoclassical economic theory or using econometric and linear programming methods. Increasingly, Western economists can find Chinese counterparts whose skills and research priorities are compatible with their own. In the long run, these developments will make scholarly exchanges more productive for both sides. Summarizing the preceding field overviews, the impact of academic exchanges on the study of China has been very substantial, though it varies by field and by topic within fields. Exchanges have perceptibly given scholars a "feel" for China and have made it possible to differenti- ate and disaggregate China's society, polity, and economy in a way not possible before. Nonetheless, much of our increased understanding of China has resulted from the increased detail and availability of Chinese publications and the presence of Chinese students and scholars on American campuses. Finally, the benefits to the American scholarly community of exchanges would increase dramatically with better access to archives, museums, and research institutes, and more opportunities for survey and field research.

148 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED AMERICAN STUDIES* In the United States, "American studies" refers to an interdisciplinary enterprise with faculty drawn from traditional departments in a coop- erative exploration of themes or periods in the American experience. In China, however, with a few notable exceptions, there is no interdiscipli- nary study of the United States. Although there is interest in American studies in a growing number of Chinese universities, the approach is not well developed, mainly because there is a severe shortage of primary research materials and instructors with training in the West and no interdisciplinary tradition in universities and institutes. Where Ameri- can studies does exist as a separate scholarly entity, it does so largely as an ideal to be realized some time in the future. In China, "American studies" generally means American subject matter the study of the United States under the conventional rubrics of history, literature, eco- nomics, politics, and international affairs. American history is taught as a part of world history; American literature as part of world literature; and economics, politics, and American foreign policy as part of courses with an international theme. Several key universities in China have significant teaching and research programs in American subject matter. Each university is build- ing upon its limited material resources and faculty, many of whom were trained in the United States in the 1930s and the 1940s. Since 1979, a small but increasing number of younger faculty in history, literature, and international relations have been sent to the United States for a year or more of advanced study and research. As these students and scholars return to China in the next several years, taking up teaching positions in universities, research positions in institutes, and other posts requiring knowledge of the United States, information about American history and culture may be disseminated more widely, thereby bringing about an increase in the number of exchanges in this field. As of 1985, there were three "centers of American studies" in the People's Republic: Beijing, Fudan, and Nanjing universities. The cen- ters at Beijing and Fudan are loose organizations of faculty and grad- uate students whose primary purpose is to promote exchanges both within China and with the United States. Nanjing University is under- taking a unique effort, established jointly by the university and Johns *This section has been condensed from American Studies in China: A Report of a Delegation Visit, October 1984 (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985).

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 149 Hopkins University, to build a Center for Chinese and American Stud- ies. Scheduled to open in September 1986 with about 50 students from each country,38 the program will stress the preprofessional study of eco- nomics, foreign policy, and contemporary social problems to Chinese and American students "who will someday be managing aspects of the U.S.-China relationship in both the public and private sectors."39 Chi- nese students will study in English under American professors, and the Americans will study under Chinese professors teaching in Chinese. At several key universities, notably Wuhan, Nankai, and Shandong universities, programs in American history and literature are growing steadily. Wuhan University has an Institute of American History within its Department of History, which is carrying out studies of modern American history, particularly since World War II. Nankai University's Department of History is strong in Afro-American history. Shandong University's Institute of Modern American Literature has published more than 100 articles and a dozen books on modern and contemporary American literature during the past few years. All of these institutions are operating with inadequate collections of books, periodicals, and other materials needed to study the United States. Most university libraries have good collections of publications up to the 1960s, then very little material published until 1977-1978. Docu- mentary collections are scarce and fragmentary. Since this situation is not likely to improve dramatically any time soon, it remains essential for Chinese universities to send their graduate students in American studies to the United States for advanced degrees. At present, relatively few Chinese are coming to the United States in American studies or allied fields, a situation that reflects both Chinese priorities and the dearth of American funding (see Chapter 3~. This funding problem is one of the major factors that has led the Fulbright Program, founda- tions, and other private-sector organizations in the United States to emphasize the development of China's corps of American studies experts (see Chapter 4~. Several research institutes, primarily in Beijing, routinely send researchers to study in the United States. These include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Institute of International Relations, the State Council's Institute of Contemporary International Relations, And the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' Institute of American Studies. Most of their research on the United States focuses on contemporary politics, econom- ics, society, and culture. In China more material resources are available in these institutes than in the universities, but, unfortunately, few of the institute materials are available to university faculty or graduate stu-

150 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED dents. Moreover, many of the research products of these institutes are policy papers written for official audiences rather than for open schol- arly publication. Some of these institutes take graduate students and award M.A. degrees. All of them play important roles in studying the United States. Academic exchanges could play an increasingly important part in improving the status of American studies in China, although the impact of those exchanges to date has been modest and difficult to assess. In the context of current economic reforms, the Chinese are seeking exchanges in this field as one way to build the foundation necessary for long-term political and economic ties to America. Some Chinese academics believe that American society, culture, and history must be understood if there is to be long-term bilateral cooperation. Perhaps the most important component of American studies exchange has been the Fulbright Program (see Chapter 4~. During the past five years, the scope of this program has been defined as American studies in the broad sense. Its principal mandate has been to help develop scholarly knowledge of the United States and to strengthen the institutional basis for this scholarship in China. American Fulbright professors teach in Chinese universities and Chinese students and senior scholars come to the United States under Fulbright auspices for periods of several months to several years. In conclusion, like Chinese studies in America, American studies in China remains the domain of a small number of social scientists, humanities scholars, and their students. Exchanges could improve this state of affairs substantially. By expanding the exchange of books, jour- nals, students, and scholars, the opportunities in China will also expand for personal and intellectual contact with, and deeper understanding of, the United States. ASPECTS OF NATURAL SCIENCES Many observers in the United States view Sino-American exchanges in highly technical fields as largely characterized by an unbalanced flow of resources and information out of America into China. The disparate technical and economic levels of the two societies may make such an unbalanced flow inevitable. But several of the field case studies prepared for this report reveal that the benefits have been much more mutual than is generally believed. Of necessity, the overviews provided below only address selected dimensions of each of the very broad fields with which they are concerned.

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 151 Physics * In its "Decision on the Reform of the Science and Technology Man- agement System" (dated March 13, 1985), China's Central Committee asserted that "modern science and technology are the most active and decisive factors in the new social productive force."40 Whether or not this is an overassessment within science, China's development of a strong physics research and development component plays a key role in several respects. First, China needs a well-trained reserve of physicists able to conduct advanced research in high-energy and particle physics; condensed matter (solid-state) physics; plasma, atomic, and molecular physics; and nuclear physics. These specialties are important if China is to catch up and keep pace with developments in such critical areas as energy resources, materials, electronic computers, lasers, and space sci- ence and technology. Second, training in modern basic physics, includ- ing performing research recognized internationally, provides excellent background for scientific personnel who will be active in high-tech (electronics, computers, lasers, space science) developments later in their careers. Following the death of Mao Zeclong, China's scientific leadership joined other Chinese scholars in expressing alarm at the damage wrought by the Cultural Revolution to the physics research apparatus. Those leaders made plans to catch up in physics. One element of these plans was to construct a high-energy accelerator that would be used both to train Chinese scientists in modern instrumentation and to put China on the world map of experimental particle physics. Professors Robert R. Wilson (Cornell University), W. K. H. Panofsky (Stanford University), and T. D. Lee (Nobel Laureate, Columbia University) were among the leading American physicists participating in the origi- nal High Energy Plan, along with their Chinese counterparts, such as Professor Zhou Guangzhao, director of the Institute of Theoretical Physics (CAS) and a leading Chinese particle physicist who was trained in the USSR at the Dubna High Energy Physics Center and is known internationally for his original work. Financial constraints, however, forced the delay of this plan. The attention of Chinese and American physicists then turned to alternate plans to promote cooperative Sino-American development of Chinese physics and to strengthen the research programs of Chinese *This section is a condensed version of the report, commissioned for this study, by Dr. Joseph L. Birman of the City College of New York, entitled, "Case Study—Physics." The report is available from the CSCPRC.

152 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED physicists. Given China's increasing emphasis on applied science, prior- ity naturally shifted to some important areas of basic physics that were closer to practical applications. Both sides felt that basic research in condensed-matter (solid-state) physics and in laser-related optical phys- ics should be developed early. One plan was to set up a new, major research center to train Chinese physicists in China, specializing in condensed matter and laser-related quantum optics. This idea had the merit of putting such a laboratory close to universities and other insti- tutes, thus enabling them to benefit from it. But because of problems in finding suitably trained leaders, obtaining and maintaining adequate equipment, and financing operations, physicists shifted their attention to activities in the United States and considered the idea of an advanced, highly selective postdoctoral scholar program in leading lab- oratories in America. The merit of this approach lay in the possibility of cooperative activities in the United States. In this field, as in others, the practice and ideology of the Cultural Revolution prevented the emergence of scientific leaders among the scientists who were between 35 and 50 years old in 1985. The American Physical Society (APS) sponsored a Chinese-American cooperative Basic Research Program in Atomic, Molecular, and Condensed Matter Phys- ics initiated by Professors Robert E. Marshak (Virginia Polytechnic Institute) and C. N. Yang (Nobel Laureate, State University of New York at Stony Brook). This program began in 1983 in part because leading Chinese and American physicists saw a need to train leaders in this age group for the planned expansion of basic and applied research in China. The program is designed to provide each member of a small group (about 10 individuals per year) of carefully selected, mature Chinese physicists (ages 35 to 50) with two years of advanced research training under the mentorship of a distinguished American host physi- cist. A total of some 15 to 20 physicists are in the United States under this program, which is supported in part by the Exxon Educational Foundation (see also Chapter 4~. China's scientific leaders hoped that by training potential scientific leaders at major American laboratories where they would work on research problems at the frontiers of knowledge, the PRC would get a group of physicists who could help move Chinese science forward. The American laboratories that sponsored the physicists would benefit from the work of these highly selected and motivated scholars, who would, after a period of adjustment, make the same contribution as a senior research associate during the two years of work. At the same time, the American hosts would be establishing strong links to China's developing physics community.

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 153 The new interest in exchange in physics also prompted development of an effective program to evaluate and place Chinese physics graduate students in American colleges and universities. In 1979 Professor T. D. Lee initiated discussions with China's leaders on a plan to train the coming generation of Chinese university graduates at the Ph.D. level in physics, chemistry, biology, and some other fields. Out of these discus- sions came a system to select the best Chinese university graduates and to send them to the United States for doctoral training. Each year since 1980, up to 1,000 of the top graduating seniors from Chinese universi- ties have taken a qualifying examination in physics, which is compara- ble in difficulty to the American Graduate Record Examination. This program is officially called the Chinese-U.S. Physics Examination and Application (CUSPEA). Approximately 120 of the 1,000 students pass this examination each year and a subsequent English test each year, thus becoming part of that year's pool. Participating universities in the United States receive the names and test scores of the students, a precis of the students' records, and a brief statement from each student describing his or her main field of interest for graduate work. In phys- ics, interested American departments then invite students to undertake doctoral work at their universities by enrolling in the regular Ph.D. physics program. When no university initially accepts a student, the program director works to arrange a suitable placement. About 50 American universities participate, and as of January 1985 about 340 Chinese CUSPEA students were enrolled in graduate physics programs in the United States. The CUSPEA program is a private collegial arrangement. The Chinese students generally compete for research and teaching fellowships on an equal footing with American, European, and other entering graduate students. The PRC pays the overseas travel expenses for all CUSPEA students. Thus far these students have been excellent. They are among the top performers in Ph. D. qualifying examinations (usually second-year grad- uate level) in their American universities' departments. Since these stu- dents are now doing their thesis work, it is too soon to evaluate the originality and overall quality of that work. The students focusing on theoretical physics generally excel at problem solving, many Chinese experimental physics students, through hard work, compensate in part for their lack of previous hands-on experimental experience in China. The outstanding performance of these Chinese students has had at least two major effects. First, their performance has made American universities much more receptive to candidates from China in this field, reversing a long-held belief that the years of disruption and turmoil in China had produced students who were much inferior to those trained

154 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED in America or Taiwan. Second, the strong performance of these students by American and international standards reflects very well on Chinese training in basic physics. In fact, an indirect result in China of the CUSPEA program has been to encourage Chinese universities to apply higher standards in physics training in order to maximize the accep- tance rate of their students in the program. It is important to note that American physicists of Chinese origin have played an essential role in initiating Sino-American graduate stu- dent and postdoctoral scholar programs in physics. They provided much of the initial impetus, framework of ideas and structures, and, most importantly, the initial key contacts to senior Chinese officials. These contacts made the difference in being able to follow through on exchange plans or not. Although the Chinese have reaped major benefits in these exchanges in physics, the United States also has achieved significant gains. For American universities, "300 excellent Chinese graduate students in physics provide a significant fraction of the total graduate student body at a time when the enrollment of American students in these programs has not recovered from the serious declines of the 1970's."4~ And for the larger American academic and governmental communities, Sino- American academic exchanges in physics have contributed to greater understanding of the Chinese bureaucracies and the financial con- straints under which they operate.42 Cancer (Epidemiology) Research * On November 19, 1979, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding. This agreement came shortly after the June 22 signing of a Protocol for Cooperation in the Science and Technology of Medicine and Public Health between what was then the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) and the Chinese Ministry of Public Health (see Appendix G). These docu- ments together provided the framework for Sino-American cooperation in the biology, prevention, diagnosis, carcinogenesis, epidemiology, and therapy of cancer.43 *Unless otherwise cited, the conclusions and information presented here were drawn from a paper written for this study by Dr. Ronald Glaser of Ohio State University. The paper, entitled "Report on Cancer Research with China: Collaborative Studies with the Chinese Cancer Institute, Beijing, and the Main Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Shang- hai, on Studies on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma," is available from the CSCPRC.

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 155 Thus far, collaborative Sino-American research on cancer has been reported at a 1983 symposium, sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, on "Clues to the Etiology of Human Cancer from Studies in China" and a 1984 "Conference on Cancer in the Pacific Basin" held in Hawaii. In the words of Frederick P. Li of the National Cancer Institute, "Chinese scientists at these meetings reported impressive results from a wide range of studies, many con- ducted in cooperation with U.S. associates."44 Overall, both the United States and China have benefited from exchanges in the field of cancer research. While Chinese scientists and researchers receive advanced training and access to up-to-date instru- mentation, American laboratories and universities can acquire valuable scientific specimens of cancers that are rare in the United States. Ameri- cans frequently initiate the exchanges, believing that the substantial expenditures made by American universities and funding agencies are more than compensated for by opportunities to obtain biopsies and conduct first-hand observations. The distinctive patterns of cancer inci- dence make the exchange especially valuable. In China, esophageal, stomach, and liver cancer are particularly prevalent among Chinese men. The most common forms of cancer among U.S. males affect the prostate, colon, and lungs.45 Moreover, several cancers found in China are regionally localized, providing researchers the opportunity to study carcinogenic factors present in one locality and absent in another. Indeed, "one of the first collaborative efforts between NCI and CAMS scientists involved a comparison of the geographic patterns of cancer in the U.S. and China."46 American exchange visitors to the Chinese Cancer Institute in Beijing in 1977 discovered that an extensive survey conducted by that institute in the mid-1970s had mapped out the geographic patterns of cancer mortality throughout the nation, an accomplishment that greatly aided subsequent epidemiological studies. Henderson, Yu, and Wu report that "it was immediately obvious tin 1977] that this remarkable cancer sur- vey would become the foundation for virtually all substantive colIabo- rative epidemiological programs."47 American scientists also found that while many Chinese laboratories lagged behind the United States in the sophistication and availability of equipment, their Chinese counter- parts had developed innovative methods of cancer detection (for exam- ple, the friction balloon cytology test for esophageal cancer)48 and were experimenting with traditional herbal medicines as possible cancer cures. As in other disciplines, Americans of Chinese origin and American- educated Chinese have played key roles in making the contacts that

156 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED resulted in exchanges in the cancer field. Without Chinese-American guanxi (connections) in the preliminary stages of negotiations, espe- cially in situations where government agencies either could not or would not take the lead in coordinating international exchanges, many programs probably would not have been undertaken. These contacts highlight the very exclusive and personal nature of relationships within Chinese administration at all levels. The scale of Sino-American exchange in cancer research is illustrated by the activities of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. "Over the past two decades, some 65 PRC scientists have come to Memorial Sloan-Kettering as visiting investigators and research fellows for stays of up to three years."49 Although it is still too early to confirm the results of exchange in cancer studies, preliminary evaluations suggest that the Chinese contri- bution is yielding valuable results. Dr. Ronald Glaser, for instance, reports one key finding: We found that an antibody to an enzyme made by the ED virus which we had previously described is very specific for identifying NPC (nasopharyngeal can- cer) patients, particularly at the time of diagnosis. Since it is very difficult to diagnose NPC patients, any marker that can be used to identify such patients will have impact on survival rates.50 In conclusion, the cancer research conducted in exchanges with China has produced benefits. First, the personal contact brought about by the exchange is helping to create a durable and influential network that will facilitate future collaborative ventures. Exchange also serves the goal of gathering as much information as possible and funneling it into the collective, worldwide effort to discover a cancer cure. By pro- viding access to the patients, specimens, and data available in China and advancing the training of Chinese scientists in the West, exchanges in the field of cancer research between the United States and China have the potential to contribute substantially to the welfare of human- ity. As this collaborative relationship unfolds, it must do so with the highest standards of protection for human subjects. Seismology * In the field of seismology, binational cooperation and exchange have produced immediate mutual scholarly gains while simultaneously *This section is a condensed version of the report, commissioned for this study, by Professor Bruce A. Bolt of the University of California at Berkeley, entitled, "The Impact of Seismological Exchanges Between the U.S.A. and the People's Republic of China, 1979-1984." The report is available from the CSCPRC.

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 157 advancing the perpetual quest for knowledge about earthquakes and the Earth's interior. The practical and political implications of seismo- logical research earthquake prediction in particular convinced Chi- nese leaders to retain their nation's international scholarly ties in that discipline, even during the Cultural Revolution decade.5i When Sino- American academic relations were being restored in the 1970s, exchanges in seismology and earthquake engineering were among the first to experience significant new activity. Both nations were anxious to establish cooperative research opportunities and to increase the exchange of seismological delegations. As early as 1974, when an Amer- ican geophysical delegation visited the PRC, Frank Press, now president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, noted the unusual latitude permitted the group. Although China has been wracked by earthquakes throughout his- tory, it was not until 1966 that a severe tremor near Beijing prompted China's leaders to elevate seismology to its current high status. The Cultural Revolution's emphasis on mass mobilization and criticism of "bourgeois experts" paradoxically created an atmosphere conducive to an emphasis on earthquake prediction, especially using predictive methods in which mass mobilization played an important role. On February 4, 1975, a damaging earthquake occurred near Hai- chen~ Livening Province. fo7Iowina official warnings to the populace to expect the tremor. This seemingly successful instance of earthquake prediction stirred great interest and controversy both nationally and internationally. But shortly after this apparent seismological achieve- ment, the disastrous Tangshan earthquake in July 1976 killed more than 300,000 persons and revealed the inadequacies of China's forecasting and warning methodology.52 It became clear that Chinese programs in seismology were based on weak scientific premises and that structural damage had been compounded by poor engineering practices. The cooperative seismological program of the United States and the PRC began in the aftermath of this earthquake, a time when tremors also ran through the political system, the most significant of which was the demise of Mao Zedong. Exchanges in seismology were boosted dramatically in January 1980 with the signing of the protocol between the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the State Seismo- logical Bureau (SSB) of the PRC for scientific and technical cooperation in earthquake studies (see Appendix G). The annexes to the protocol aimed at Venerating cooperative research in earthquake prediction, _^—_——o ~ ~ _ o ~ — 7 J ~ —o ~ a ~ a _ , , earthquake hazards evaluation, earthquake engineering, and other basic and applied studies of earthquake phenomena. Both sides were intrigued by opportunities in the other nation. Amer-

158 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED leans were acutely interested in gathering information in China on seismic sources, active faulting, seismic zones, earthquake prediction, earthquake hazard reduction, building construction, and related topics and were equally eager to confirm Chinese claims of successful earth- quake predictions. On the Chinese side, there was the hope of learning modern techniques from the United States; their first priority has been the acquisition of more technology, particularly computers and modern recording equipment. This demand for American technology comple- ments U.S. seismological strengths, provided the cooperative arrange- ments include an exchange of data. Fortunately, seismology has always been an international science that recognized the necessity of free exchange of data. The exchange program has prompted many innovations in Chinese seismology. Chinese academics and professionals bring new textbooks and lecture course materials from the United States. They also return to China with fresh formulations of problems, particularly those that deal with the importance of defining causative models based on dynamic principles. In the basic tectonic aspects of earthquake occurrence, the advanced state of plate tectonic analysis in the United States required much debate and analysis when applied to Asia.s3 Predictive models of earthquakes contrasted sharply with the largely empirical correlations previously relied upon in China. The exchange programs also have played a role, although perhaps not a decisive one, in a change in emphasis of the PRC seismology program that goes beyond the diversification of research efforts. Recently the Chinese have redirected their efforts from earthquake forecasting to the broader questions involved in earthquake hazard mit- igation. This remarkable shift parallels a similar change that took place in the United States some 10 years earlier. In both countries it became apparent that, given the lack of achievement in pure prediction, contin- ued strong governmental support would require a more broadly based program, ranging from earthquake engineering research to economic studies of earthquake loss. In all probability, the lessons learned in the 1976 Tangshan earthquake also drove the Chinese program in this direc- tion. Consequently, the exchange program now also involves studies of prediction of strong ground motion and intensity patterns in China. The results of this research are expected to lead to better earthquake- resistant design codes and better construction and development plan- ning. Sino-American seismological exchanges have had a measurable effect on research and publication in the United States, and most papers pub- lished in peer-reviewed journals are of high quality. Research results on the Tangshan earthquake precursors have been particularly noteworthy,

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 159 as have work on the recurrence of slip on active faults such as the Red River fault, the study of strong-motion arrays at various sites in China, work in rock mechanics, and studies of special magnitude-moment scales that were part of a major study in earthquake prediction in Yunnan Province. Seismological research has also served as a prototype for a new system of funding. Chinese scientific research programs have been opened up by partial adoption of NSF-type funding of research proposals. The main institutions the SSB, the Institute of Engineering Mechanics, Harbin, and Beijing University have been asked to work out proce- dures for reviewing competitive proposals on earthquake research. Del- egations from the PRC already have examined the grant structure at the National Science Foundation and the USGS (see also Chapter 8~. Although generally quite successful, Sino-American seismological exchanges were hindered, especially at their outset, by obstacles related not only to cultural and political differences but also to the technologi- cal gap between the two nations. Seismologists from both nations have been frustrated at their counterparts' lack of language skill and conse- quent inability to study primary source material or to present complex scientific arguments. Progress has also been slowed by the dearth of computers in China and Chinese undergraduates' lack of exposure to computer facilities.54 The quality of education in China also has been variable, and Chinese universities have had rigid academic structures. Finally, the organizational and territorial compartmentalization of var- ious Chinese administrative units relevant to seismology and related fields also has impeded fieldwork. At times, there has been a lack of field maps, structural maps showing Quaternary faults, and associated remote-sensing data. But in most cases, both Chinese and American workers accept these difficulties as an additional challenge, and recog- nize that the situation is improving. Access to remote regions is becom- ing more common. Most of the problems preventing both nations from reaping maxi- mum benefits from exchange can be overcome fairly readily. In particu- lar, such drawbacks as lack of active fault mapping and inefficient data retrieval are already being eased. As modern computers become more available, seismologists have less need for knowledge of Chinese charac- ters. American researchers have reported difficulties in taking data out of China, but discussion and explanation help remove such hindrances. Looking ahead, however, maintenance of modern equipment, such as seismographs and data analysis systems, may present a long-term prob- lem because of growing demand for technicians as China acquires more technologically sophisticated equipment. Upgrading the analysis of seismological data has been a first priority

160 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED in the PRC, and modern VAX-type computers will be installed at a number of provincial seismological research centers and in Beijing, paid for mainly with Chinese funds. These facilities will take advantage of a modern network of three-component digital broadband seismographs that were being linked across China in 1985. The system will be as up to date as any in the United States. A Center for Analysis and Prediction for Earthquakes will be staffed in part by returning exchange seismolo- gists and will have the benefit of visiting American specialists. Overall, the seismological exchange program has been successful and relatively trouble-free. Both sides agree that it should be continued and strengthened. The seismology exchange has succeeded largely because it meets the interests of both sides while also contributing to progress in seismology. Seismology, in turn, plays an important role in prospecting for oil and mineral deposits. No less important, earthquake hazard mitigation is critical in China, where a huge section of the population is housed in non-earthquake-resistant structures and where intensive con- struction of dams and bridges is under way. Cooperative activity is attractive to American earthquake engineers and seismologists working on strong ground-motion problems. The exchange program is likely to expand slightly in the future. Seis- mologists on both sides could benefit from more sustained and regular contact in research programs; this would require additional funds for more joint U.S.-PRC seismological conferences. The program would also profit from greater involvement of international organizations, such as the International Association for Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior, and special Regional Assemblies; workshops at these assemblies would help to consolidate the results of the exchange pro- gram. Enhanced facilities for broad seismological research in selected Chinese universities would also strengthen exchanges in this field. The current introduction of graduate programs in China should improve the situation. At the same time, the Chinese must ensure that advanced degrees, particularly the Ph.D., are awarded by Chinese universities and not professional institutes so that the same standards as those at the best universities in the West can be maintained. A word should be added about program costs and logistics. In seis- mology, accommodations are needed not only in Beijing, Harbin, Shanghai, and other cities, but in many provincial centers where earth- quakes occur. Accommodations and travel have been expensive for the Chinese groups, and there are signs that local sponsors cannot indefi- nitely continue the past levels of local subsidy for foreign visitors. Both nations may have to work out per diem allowances for exchange visitors in each country, using a different basis than the present arrangement. In

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 161 fact, many American geologists and seismologists have volunteered to live in the field under rough circumstances to reduce program costs. Overall, it does not appear that there is urgent need to channel addi- tional seismological cooperation through bilateral government arrange- ments (see Chapter 4~. If Chinese society continues to open, it is very likely that the various connections that have been established in the last decade will grow stronger. As this process continues, more substantial cooperative activities should emerge in seismology and allied scientific fields. The modes of cooperation should become more diverse and rela- tionships more reciprocal as Chinese seismologists at all levels gain fur- ther experience and training. All the evidence points to even closer collaboration in the short run between American and Chinese seismolo- gists. Agriculture * Since the mid-1950s, Chinese leaders have recognized agriculture, at least rhetorically, as the linchpin in the Chinese economy, although Mao Zedong and his successors differed radically in their approaches to achieving agricultural growth. For Mao, mobilization and rural collec- tivization were the answers, but for his heirs, the key lies in providing peasant households with production incentives while also accelerating the transfer of science and technology to the rural sector. This latter strategy provides the context in which to view current Sino-American agricultural exchange. Mutual interest has promoted agricultural exchange. Even before the end of the Cultural Revolution decade, the scientific communities in both nations felt they would benefit from sharing knowledge and genetic resources and exchanging scholars and students. For many in the American farm community, especially in the late 1970s and early 1980s when China was importing large quantities of grain and agricul- tural raw material and had ambitious plans for agricultural mechaniza- tion, such exchanges were seen as a way to promote American commercial interests. Finally, many Americans with a global perspec- tive viewed facilitating Chinese agricultural growth as one way to mini- mize the likelihood that China would be chronically short of food and that it would destabilize the international food system. *This section is a condensed version of the report, commissioned for this study, by Dr. Sylvan H. Wittwer of Michigan State University, entitled, "U.S.-Chinese Agricultural Exchanges—A Field Case Study." This report is available from the CSCPRC.

162 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED In 1974 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) sent a research team on plant studies to the PRC. Other NAS-sponsored agricultural exchanges followed. After "normalization" in January 1979, many agri- cultural exchanges were sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agricul- ture (USDA) under the November 1978 U. S.-Chinese agricultural bilateral agreement entitled "Understanding on Agricultural Exchange" (See Appendix G). Beginning in 1980, many American land grant universities and related institutions established formal exchange agreements and also started sending instructors to sister agricultural research and teaching institutions in China (see Tables A-29 through A-31. For the most part, American educational institutions provide the financial support for their obligations under these agreements with little or no dependence on federal funds. Both sides have accrued benefits from the exchanges with further potential benefits promised. The Chinese excel in waste management and by-product recycling, Atolls culture, methane generation, and fish production. Chinese farmers are the most efficient of the world's organic gardeners, and their advanced knowledge of soil uses has enabled them to maintain land productivity for thousands of years. Their progress in protecting plants from pests and use of integrated pest control methods are innovative and impressive. Their plant scientists are among the world's leaders in hybrid rice developments, haploid (pollen) culture of cereal grains, and new tissue-culture technologies. Chinese forestry programs involve seed exchange for trees that do not exist in the United States, though as mentioned earlier in this chapter, those who have tried to remove botanical specimens from China have encountered disquieting difficulties. China's vast plant and crop genetic resources of both wild and culti- vated species offer great potential value for the United States. The crops include wheat, Tibetan barley, sweet potato, soybeans, cowpeas, Chi- nese cabbage, ordinary cabbage, seven species of onions, cucurbits, medicinal herbs, and tropical, subtropical, temperate-zone, and winter-hardy fruits. China also is the place of origin for the cultivated soybean. The wild plants of China are of special international impor- tance. With more than 30,000 species of flowering plants, gymno- sperms and ferns, China's wild plants constitute one out of eight species in the world. China is a center for survival for plants that once grew across Eurasia and North America. China's animal life also offers exotic and useful genetic resources. The black-boned chicken, used not only as a source of food but also of medicine, and the often extremely prolific native breeds of pigs that adapt to various regions of China fascinate American agricultural

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 163 experts. Other exotic domesticated and wild animals, some of which are not found even in American zoos, roam the grasslands of Inner Mongo- lia, the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, and the Xizang (Tibet) and Qinghai plateaus where fine cashmeres and other prized natural fibers have their origin. Moreover, Chinese research efforts in animal genetics and the extensive practice of artificial insemination for cattle and pigs are of great interest to American specialists. On the other hand, the Chinese have benefited and will continue to benefit from the knowledge and insight of American agricultural administrators, scientists, and research directors both in terms of model systems and scientific knowledge. For example, the coordinated fed- eral, state, and county system for cooperative agricultural extension is a model that could be effective in China, especially as China is working to develop a new production responsibility system and attempting to inte- grate university research and economic production more closely. The Chinese also have an interest in agricultural economics, marketing eco- nomics, cell physiology, plant tissue culture, haploid culture, somatic cell fusion, integrated pest management, and biological control meth- ods for crop and livestock pests. In the area of agricultural growth, Chinese plant scientists are eagerly seeking new fertilizer and irrigation technologies and information, developed in the United States, on the use of exotic plant growth regulators to enhance crop yields and to improve crop quality. Recent genetic engineering developments could help the Chinese improve animal health and develop disease- and weather-resistant crop varieties, new American biologically synthesized pesticides could also be of great value to China. PRC scientists are increasingly interested in protected cultivation or controlled- environment agriculture, and American, European, and Japanese sci- entists could contribute significantly to this movement of "climate-proofing" of crops. Another area of great importance to China is postharvest handling of crops and food technology. For China, these problems are of enormous magnitude- it has been estimated that under certain circumstances, up to 50 percent of some of China's harvested fruits and vegetables may not reach consumers. The Chinese could benefit greatly from American expertise in this area, expertise that resides in both the public sector (e.g., USDA's Agricultural Research Service) and the private sector (in universities and food-processing and distribution companies). To merely process and preserve summer crop surpluses, primarily fruits and vege- tables, for winter consumption would add greatly to China's food resources and reserves. Food conservation technologies are an impor- tant area for future collaboration.

164 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED As with many other exchange programs, the road to Sino-American cooperation in the field of agriculture remains strewn with obstacles. One constraint has been inadequate funding, particularly the very lim- ited foundation support for agricultural exchanges (see Chapter 4) and the high cost of cooperative ventures, which usually occur in China. Deficiencies in language preparation on both sides also hinder effective collaboration. And finally, lack of communication between the various arms of the Chinese bureaucracies poses recurring problems. In 1984 the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture divested itself of university con- tacts, leaving the responsibility of inviting foreign lecturers and devel- oping exchange programs with individual universities or provincial academies of agricultural science. Many of the foreign affairs officers with exchange responsibilities are inexperienced, lack knowledge of English (as their American counterparts cannot speak Chinese), and tend to confine the activities of visitors from abroad to a single univer- sity or province. The initial American enthusiasm for agricultural exchanges is cooling for several reasons. First, the USDA has suspended all of its exchanges with China until the Chinese purchase all of the grain that they were obligated to buy for 1983 and 1984 under the long-term grain agree- ment. Second, many agricultural economists have encountered prob- lems when they tried to undertake field studies in China (see Chapter 5~. It is hard for faculty to win administrative and financial support for exchanges when their priority projects are not feasible through the exchanges. Finally, China's domestic agricultural policies have pro- duced a dramatic increase in grain and cotton production (among other commodities). Thus, China's need to import some crops dropped far below levels anticipated just a few years ago, and in the case of some crops China is now an exporter to be reckoned with. This change has, in turn, led some people involved in American farm exports to fear that assisting Chinese agriculture will simply strengthen a potential compet- itor. American machinery, technology, and food-processing firms, how- ever, recognize that China's agricultural growth, its land and water resources, and its favorable labor costs will open important economic opportunities for them. Most agricultural science exchanges with China have been carried out by publicly supported research and educational institutions. But in the United States, the private sector, which does approximately two- thirds of the agricultural research and development, offers an area of great potential for future collaboration. The way is now open for Amer- ican agribusiness to join hands with America's publicly supported research and educational institutions in jointly financing further

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 165 exchange programs, particularly for graduate students, and other pro- fessionals in food production and processing and crop development. Such areas for cooperation, however, must be carefully selected if they are to be mutually beneficial. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Academic exchanges with the PRC have affected China and the United States in different ways. The effects in the United States have been most apparent in Chinese studies, while in China technical areas have been most visibly affected. Nonetheless, this dichotomy obscures a significant impact on the social sciences in China (e. g., economics, law, and increasingly, other social sciences) and on the natural sciences in the United States (e.g., agriculture, seismology, and cancer epidemiology). Even in fields such as physics, where most technical information flows from the United States to China, one of the substantial benefits to America has been the infusion into U.S. physics programs of PRC Chi- nese students and scholars of exceptional quality. 2. In the field of Chinese studies in the United States, it is becoming essential for American students and scholars to spend significant periods in China conducting archival and field research. While acknowledging that the utility of such work depends greatly on one's topic of research and on the availability of published materials abroad, research in China has important benefits, not the least of which is building the kinds of interpersonal and institutional ties that will facilitate the scholar's own future work and that-of his or her graduate students. Although many scholars in social sciences and humanities have not yet published all of the results of work done in the PRC, the experience and the materials there are providing these scholars with a deeper and more comprehen- sive feeling for China past and present. Taiwan and Hong Kong, nonetheless, remain important sites in the region where certain essential topics of research on China (e.g., the Communist Party, elite conflict, the public security apparatus, the mili- tary, popular religion, and so forth) can be effectively pursued. More- over, Taiwan and Hong Kong constitute important subjects for research in their own right. 3. Social and natural scientists have been hampered by restrictions on field research in China, and these restrictions have substantially reduced the benefits of exchanges from the American perspective. Although there has been some improvement since 1982, research oppor- tunities and conditions must expand and improve to enhance the mutu- ally beneficial character of academic exchanges. At the same time,

166 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED Americans must be mindful of the economic constraints in the PRC, the limits placed on China's own scholars, and the very different cultural and academic traditions in the two nations. Nonetheless, lack of field research opportunities in both the natural and social sciences has dimin- ished the zeal with which many pursue exchange with China. Finally, as China continues the trend toward permitting more extensive field, archival, survey, and interview research, it is essential to ensure that American scholars and institutions are not subjected to unreasonable and rapidly escalating fees for such access. 4. Access to Chinese archives, museums, and research institutes is critical from an American perspective, and to date this also has been a problem. It would enhance the mutually beneficial character of the exchanges if the Chinese authorities at central, regional, and local levels made the archives under their control increasingly accessible to foreign scholars. 5. American scholars have had a variety of experiences in China, and the quality of those experiences does not necessarily reflect central Chi- nese government policy in all respects. A number of factors influence the character of any particular researcher's experience in the PRC: the researcher's ties ("connections") with relevant Chinese academics and officials, the researcher's interpersonal skills, domestic politics in China, the state of Sino-American bilateral relations, the topic of research, the social, political, and/or professional status of the American scholar, ties between the scholar's home organization and the Chinese host unit, the specific financial arrangements covering the scholar's stay in China, and the personality and cooperativeness of key Chinese officials in local organizations. 6. Increasing attention should be given to long-term and large-scale cooperative research in China in both the social and natural sciences, as a vital supplement to ongoing individual research. Many social and natural processes (e.g., economic and environmental change) can only be examined through careful longitudinal measurement. Work in can- cer epidemiology is a good example of how observations of localities and regions over time, in a cooperative project, can produce mutual schol- arly benefits. The Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China can play an important role in developing frameworks for such cooperative activity in China. Cooperative and long-term research must be built upon strong intel- lectual and interpersonal foundations. Fields in which academic exchange has been most extensive and productive have developed through a long process that began with delegation trips and briefings, which were followed by individual research and conferences. Moreover,

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 167 there must be a critical mass of Chinese scholarly interest if cooperative research is to be feasible. In retrospect, the problems that emerged in some social science exchanges in the early 1980s occurred in part because an adequate foundation was not built. 7. Chinese graduate students in the American physics community (and more generally in some natural sciences) are an important element in American graduate education. They are high-quality students, and it is expected that a high percentage of them will return to the PRC to play significant roles. All of this, however, raises two broader questions. First, is the United States underinvesting in training its own citizens in many scientific and technical fields and, therefore, depending on stu- dents from abroad to fill the gap? Nationally, in 1983, 54 percent of all engineering doctorates earned in the United States were awarded to non-U.S. citizens; in mathematics the proportion was 37 percent, and in agricultural sciences, 35 percent.55 In some respects, the United States has some interest in highly trained foreign citizens choosing to remain here. This raises the question of whether and to what degree the interests of the United States run counter to the hopes of the PRC in sending its students abroad in the sciences namely, that they will return to assist China in its modernization drive. As of 1985, it seems most likely that a large percentage of PRC officially sponsored students will return home, but the lure of the scientific infrastructure and eco- nomic level in the Unitecl States will be strong. These cross-cutting interests, therefore, are likely to be a source of debate in the United States itself, and between China and America. NOTES 1. A list of these authors and their institutional affiliations is provided in Appendix K. Copies of these studies are on file and available from CSCPRC. 2. Mary B. Bullock and Michel C. Oksenberg, untitled volume, forthcoming from West- view Press. 3. Jack L. Dull, "Premodern Chinese History: A Personal Assessment" (unpublished), p. 1 (forthcoming, in Bullock and Oksenberg, untitled volume). 4. Ibid., pp. 4-5. 5. Ibid., p. 3. 6. K. C. Chang, "A Decade of US-China Relations in Archaeology," China Exchange News (hereafter referred to as CEN), Vol. 11, No. 1 (March 1983), p. 1. 7. Catherine Badgley, "Collaborative Research on a Remarkable Fossil Site in Yunnan," CEN, Vol. 11, No. 1 (March 1983), p. 4. 8. Dennis Stanford, "Pleistocene Studies in Northeast China and the Rocky Mountains of Colorado: A Joint US-China Research Program on New World Cultural Origins," CEN, Vol. 11, No. 1 (March 1983), p. 6.

168 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED 9. Workshop on the Mawangdui Manuscripts (Berkeley, Calif., June 1979~; The Great Bronze Age of China (New York, April 1980~; Fourth Annual Conference of the Chinese Paleography Association (Taiyuan, Shanxi, September 1981); The Interna- tional Conference on Shang Civilization (Hawaii, September 1982); La Civlita Cinese Antica (Venice, April 1985~; Ancient China and Social Science Generalizations (Airlie House, Virginia, June 1986~. See David N. Keightley, University of California at Berkeley, correspondence, Oct. 12, 1985, p. 3. 10. In 1982 there were reportedly 29 provincial historical archives, 305 regional archives, and 2,337 county-level archives. 11. Chi Wang, "An Overview of Libraries in the People's Republic of China," CEN, Vol. 12, No. 3 (September 1984), p. 5. 12. Yeh-chien Wang, "Working at the First Historical Archives in Beijing," CEN, Vol. 12, No. 3 (September 1984), p. 9. 13. Dull, "Premodern Chinese History," p. 18. 14. Alice Rossi, ea., Sociology and Anthropology in the Peoples Republic of China: Report of a Delegation Visit, February-March 1984, (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1985), p. 130. 15. Ibid.,p.49. 16. Ibid.,p.3. 17. For example, see Patricia Beaver, "Social Anthropological Research on Women in China," CEN, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 1984), pp. 12-14. 18. Martin King Whyte, "Research on Chinese Society: A Preliminary Evaluation," unpublished, 1983, pp. 21-22 (forthcoming, in Bullock and Oksenberg, untitled vol- ume). 19. Rossi, Sociology and Anthropology in the PRO, pp. 6-7. 20. Deborah Davis-Friedmann, Long Lives: Chinese Elderly and the Communist Revolu- tion (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983). 21. "Victor Nee of the University of California, Santa Barbara . . . traveled to Wuping County to conduct fieldwork in Yangbei village.... Nee spent three weeks in the village both to obtain an independent check on the data he had collected in the U.S. and to collect additional data on subsequent developments in the village following the departure of the educated youths. Nee conducted household surveys in four produc- tion teams; interviewed peasants, cadres and technical personnel; and had free access to all brigade and team statistical records on population trends and economic perfor- mance." In Lucie Cheng, "Chinese American Collaboration with Chinese Scholars on Social Science Research: The UCLA-Zhongshan Joint Research Project on Chinese Emigration," CEN, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 1984), p. 11. 22. Ibid., pp. 7-11. 23. "William Liu initiated a collaborative study on mental health in January 1983 between the Pacific/Asian American Mental Health Research Center (PAAMHRC) in Chicago and the Shanghai Psychiatric Hospital. The study is the largest undertaking by an American sociologist. It is a longitudinal, multi-wave project involving a psy- chiatric epidemiological survey of 3,120 households in the Xuhui Health District of Shanghai and a case-control study that calls for intensive interviews of samples of individuals who scored positive or negative on the latest version of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule developed by the National Institute of Mental Health in 1981.... 'Major objectives of the study are to estimate the prevalence rate of psychiatric disor- ders for the adult population aged 18 to 64, and to assess various socio-economic, cultural, psychological and environmental factors associated with psychiatric disor- ders.'" in Cheng, CEN, p. 11. 24. Beaver, CEN, pp. 12-14, and the work of Margery Wolf.

CONSEQUENCES OF EXCHANGE: SELECTED DISCIPLINES 169 25. Tamara K. Hareven, "Chinese Families Close Up," CEN, Vol. 12, No. 4 (December 1984), pp. 14-16. 26. Whyte, "Research on Chinese Society," p. 22. 27. Rossi, Sociology and Anthropology in the PRO, p. 132. 28. Information of interest to the political scientist is frequently classified neibu (for internal use only). 29. Information on this subject will appear in a forthcoming volume edited by David M. Lampton: Policy Implementation in Post-Mao China (to be published by the Univer- sity of California Press in 1987~. The papers for this volume were prepared for the workshop on "Policy Implementation in Post-Mao China," cosponsored by the Joint Committee on Chinese Studies of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council, and the Mershon Center of the Ohio State Univer- sity; Columbus, Ohio, June 20-24, 1983. 30. Leo Ou-fan Lee, "Research on Chinese Literature and the Arts: A Preliminary Evalu- ation," forthcoming in Bullock and Oksenberg, untitled volume, p. 5. 31. Ibid.,p.22. 32. Such knowledge is reflected in the work of Christine Wong, "Ownership and Control in Chinese Industry: The Maoist Legacy and Prospects for the 1980s," forthcoming in Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, The Chinese Economy in the 1980s (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office); and that of Barry Naughton, "Economic Reforms and Decentralization: China's Problematic Materials Allocation System," paper prepared for the Regional Seminar in Chinese Studies, University of California at Berkeley, April 6, 1984. These papers examine not simply the formal structure of planning and the materials allocation system in industry, but also analyze who actually makes economic decisions and how enterprises are able to operate under the complex web of controls and inconsistent plans. Similarly, a recent article by Susan Shirk ("Recent Chinese Labour Policies and the Transformation of Industrial Organization in China," China Quarterly' No. 88 (December 1981), pp. 575-593) explains not just the form of new industrial labor policies, but the way in which the new policies were received by enterprises and workers and how they ultimately affected hiring, wage, and bonus practices. Another recent article by Anita Chan and Jonathan Unger ("Grey and Black: The Hidden Economy of Rural China," Pacific Affairs, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Fall 1982), pp. 452-471) describes the numerous, informal economic arrangements that arise in rural areas. All of these authors have spent extended periods of time in China. 33. New work that treats provincial-level economics includes Kenneth R. Walker's Food Grain Procurement and Consumption in China (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984) and A. S. Bhalla's Economic Transition in Hunan and Southern China (Hong Kong: Macmillan, 1984). Works examining county or lower-level microeco- nomic units include Tom Wiens's study of triple-cropping in production teams in Suzhou Prefecture ("The Limits to Agricultural Intensification: The Suzhou Experi- ence," in China Under the Four Modernizations, Part 1, Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress "Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982], pp. 462-474~. See also Y. Y. Kueh's article on county-level economic reform: "Eco- nomic Reform at the Xian Level," China Quarterly, No. 96 (December 1983), pp. 665-688. 34. See, for example, Terry Sicular, "Using a Farm-Household Model to Analyze Labor Allocation in a Chinese Collective Farm," in J. Strauss, I. Singh, and L. Squire, eds., Agricultural Household Models: Extensions, Applications and Policy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, forthcoming). 35. The works of Gregory C. Chow (The Chinese Economy (New York: Harper and Row,

170 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED 1985)) and Loren Brandt ("A Note on Rural Incomes and Productivity Differences in Chinese Agriculture," unpublished manuscript, 1984), for example, rely heavily on information newly available in statistical yearbooks. Nicholas R. Lardy, in Agricul- ture in China's Modern Economic Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), used information culled from Chinese newspapers and journal articles. 36. For example, the works of Sicular and Wiens, cited above. 37. For example, Jushan Bai, Teh-wei Hu, and Suzhong Shi, "Household Expenditure Patterns in a Large Chinese City," unpublished manuscript, 1984. 38. William M. Speidel, "An Experiment in International Relations," China Business Review, Vol. 12, No. 3 (May-June 1985), pp. 42-43. 39. Ibid., p. 42. 40. FBIS, March 21, 1985, p. K1, from Xinhua. 41. Joseph L. Birman, "Case Study-Physics," pp. 2-3. 42. Ibid., p. 3. 43. I. Wesley Simmons, "US-PRC Health Protocol: Cooperation in Cancer," in CEN, Vol. 13, No. 1 (March 1985), p. 3. 44. Frederick P. Li, "US-Chinese Cooperation in Cancer Research," in CEN, Vol. 13, No. 1 (March 1985), p. 3. 45. Ibid., p. 2. 46. Simmons, "US-PRC Health Protocol," p. 4. 47. Brian Henderson, Mimi C. Yu, and Anna H. Wu, "University of Southern California Cancer Epidemiology Programs with China," CEN, Vol. 13, No. 1 (March 1985)? p. 6. 48. Gerry S. de Harven, "The American Cancer Society and the Development of Cancer Control in China," CEN, Vol. 13, No. 1 (March 1985), p. 17. 49. "Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Work with China," CEN, Vol. 13, No. 1 (March 1985), p. 15. 50. Glaser, p. 9. 51. Frank Press et al., "Earthquake Research in China," EOS Trans. AGU, Vol. 56, No. 11 (1975), pp. 838-881; and Frank Press, "Plate Tectonics and Earthquake Prediction: Contrasting Approaches in China and the United States," Bulletin, American Acad- emy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 8 (1975), pp. 14-27. 52. Lester Ross, "Earthquake Policy in China," Asian Survey, Vol. 24, No. 7 (1984), pp. 773-787. 53. Peter Molnar and P. Tapponier, "Relation of the Tectonics of Eastern China to the India-Eurasian Collision: Application of Slip-line Field Theory to Large-Scale Conti- nental Tectonics," Geology, Vol. 5 (1977), pp. 212-216. 54. T. A. D'Auria, ea., "ACM's Visit of the People's Republic of China," Special Report, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 27, No. 3 (1984). 55. Compare these figures to those in 1973, when 35 percent of all engineering doctorates earned in the United States were earned by foreign citizens; 21 percent in mathemat- ics, and 37 percent in agricultural sciences. Figures in Higher Education ~ National Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 6 (Apr. 8, 1985), p. 3; and compiled by the National Research Council, "Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities," 1973 and 1983 Sum- mary Reports.

8 Future Issues and Opportunities By virtue of its immense size, its strategic location, its character as a developing nation and a nuclear power, the creativity of its people, and the grandeur of its civilization, the People's Republic of China presents special issues and opportunities to other nations, most particularly to the United States. This chapter addresses the broader effects of Sino- American academic exchanges to date, the issues they raise in both societies, and the challenges that lie ahead. INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES One principal consequence of Sino-American academic exchanges has been to provide China's elite with alternative institutional models as it strives to modernize the country. Since the mid-nineteenth century, China's leaders and intellectuals have frequently looked abroad for models that could promote internal order, economic growth, and national security. Although the PRC's leaders adamantly oppose uncrit- ical institutional borrowing from abroad, they are intensely interested in systems and institutions that might be useful in China. Although it is not certain to what extent any American systems are in fact relevant to China, the Chinese have been particularly attracted to American edu- cational and scientific institutions. For example, on March 19, 1985, China's Communist Party Central Committee announced: 171

172 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED The system of science foundations will be gradually introduced on a trial basis to support basic and some applied research projects, and the funds will primar- ily come from state appropriations. A national natural science foundation and other science and technology foundations will be established, opened to the public, and will accept fund applications from all sectors, organize the appraisal of the applications by people in the given field, and select the most feasible projects for support, in accordance with the national science and tech- nology development plan. ~ Presumably, the U.S. National Science Foundation and the American private foundation community inspired the Chinese to shift to peer review and remove some research monies from China's traditional budgetary mechanisms.2 Similarly, Chinese interest in policy advisory "think tanks" and contract research has been given focus and direction as Beijing's leaders have interacted with such organizations in America, elsewhere in the West, and in the USSR.3 Both in the pre-1949 era and today, the concept of comprehensive research universities, the extension functions of American land grant universities, the close ties between some American universities and high-tech industries, and internal American university organization, financing, and personnel policies and practices have all piqued Chinese interest. This is not to say that China is copying, or should copy, American (or other) institutional patterns. Nonetheless, as China's leaders are moving forward, they are looking abroad at a wide range of options, and many American institutional forms have attracted particular notice. It behooves Americans not to oversell the U.S. system. China, for its part, should and will continue to cast its net very wide. Beijing's consider- ation of foreign approaches to major institutional problems may be one of the most enduring legacies of academic exchanges. RETURNED PRC STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS: REABSORPTION ,, The "reabsorption" of PRC students and scholars who have studied and worked abroad is a major concern in both nations. The Chinese government wants to protect its investment in this training by avoiding socially disruptive consequences that occur if returnees are not success- fully reintegrated into their work units and Chinese society. Some PRC students and scholars abroad are uncertain what their role will be on returning to China. These anxieties influence their decision about whether to return home or to stay abroad. American educational and research institutions are interested in the experiences of returnees because they want to provide training appropriate to China's needs and conditions.

FUTURE ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 173 China has problems in putting the skill and training of returned students and scholars to best use despite the fact that Beijing is making an earnest effort to alleviate this difficulty. From November 23 to 29, 1984, China's State Council convened a national conference at which State Councillor Zhang jingfu was reported to have "called for a change in work conditions for the 14,000 people who have returned from over- seas study. Seventy percent of them were not being fully used because of a shortage of advanced facilities and unsuitable work assignments"4 (emphasis added). Although both officially-sponsored and self-paying students and scholars have encountered difficulties being"reabsorbed," the "self-paying" students apparently experience somewhat greater problems. In his speech, Zhang Jingfu took particular pains to note that "students studying abroad at their own expense must be treated equally and given the necessary assistance as are those studying abroad at the state's expense."5 The variations in the experiences of exchange participants upon returning depend upon their previous status and their circumstances in China. Those sent abroad by the Chinese government are dispatched by a particular "unit" or organization. Those who are "research scholars" frequently have considerable seniority in their unit, and, therefore, an organizational niche usually awaits them on their return. In contrast, "self-paying" students, who generally go abroad under ad hoc personal arrangements, are less likely to have an organizational home awaiting them. Most self-paying students are young, with little or no seniority, and the skills they acquire abroad might not fit any particular Chinese organization's needs at home. Because China has virtually no labor market or mobility (though this may gradually change), those who are not in an organization's personnel plan find it very difficult to locate a good job. In many cases, these students are gambling, hoping that if there is not a suitable position in China they will find one in the United States. Even those individuals who have an organizational base could find their effectiveness reduced by a number of factors. The unit's senior leaders might not choose to facilitate the returned individual's work, depending upon whether his or her skills are viewed as an opportunity or a threat. Similarly, seniority frequently conflicts with considerations of merit in promotion decisions; more deserving workers who have studied abroad can still be passed over in favor of a more senior col- league.6 Even when individuals trained abroad are appropriately placed in an organization, insufficient funds, equipment, and supplies frequently retard their work.7 Ever present, too, is the possibility that the research an individual undertook abroad simply is not a high prior-

174 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED ity for the unit upon return. At least one Chinese report suggests that this has been a problem: The research projects in which they were engaged while overseas should be basically linked up with the work they did before going abroad.... After their return from abroad, their professional directions can be adjusted slightly in light of China's specific realities and conditions, merging each person's aspira- tions and characteristics and rationally arranging his or her work.8 The present heavy emphasis on applied research could create some friction with returned students and scholars whose work in the United States was more "basic" in character. How well China succeeds in reintegrating students and scholars who return from abroad will greatly affect the rate at which PRC students and scholars return to China in the future. As noted in Chapter 3, the return rate for ]-1 students and scholars is likely to be higher than for F-ls. Nonetheless, action by the Chinese government could affect the potentially unstable rate at which ]-ls return to China. If more ]-ls stay in the United States, the resulting "brain drain" would become a politi- cal issue in China. In the United States, it would become part of the larger immigration issue. Through policy pronouncements and institutional changes, the Chi- nese have tackled the reabsorption issue directly and promptly, and China's top leaders have resolved publicly to make effective use of returned students and scholars. The 1984 conference mentioned earlier was one forum for airing this issue. Before that, in late 1983, a video- tape of senior Chinese leaders was played to Chinese students and scholars studying in the United States. A principal purpose of this tape, brought to the United States by a group "entrusted by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council," was to reassure the students and scholars that "when you have finished your study and come home, you should be a fresh crack force for Chi- na's cause of socialist modernization and pillars of the state by the first years of the 21st century."9 China has also made a financial commitment toward helping the returnees. In late 1984, the government announced that the State would allocate 20 million yuan (U.S. $8 million) to "set up 10 places through- out the country where returned students would have equipment to work with while they spent two years seeking suitable jobs."~° Furthermore, from 1982 through 1986, China's Ministry of Education (MOE) used $150 million U.S. dollars in World Bank loan funds to purchase teach- ing and research equipment for 28 major universities. According to senior Chinese scientists and officials interviewed by University of

FUTURE ISS UES AND OPPOR TUNITIES 175 Southern California Professor Otto Schnepp, returning exchange scholars have benefited from this investment in instrumentation. If the science reforms promulgated in March 1985 take full effected they will enhance the prospects of returning scholars. These scholars presumably would benefit from China's efforts to move toward a peer review and competitive grant system, freer labor mobility for technical personnel, and more opportunities for consultancy and contract research. The reforms are still in the early stages and progress is uncer- tain, but the direction is promising. Three questions are paramount. Will these policies be effectively implemented? Will they be sustained long enough for wary scientists and intellectuals to become more confi- dent? Will a perception of favored treatment for returning scholars become a serious domestic political problem in China? Nonetheless, PRC students and scholars in the United States demonstrate a great sense of obligation to their homeland, which will almost certainly keep their return rate higher than has been the case for many other student groups from developing countries in the United States. I~CHNOLOGY MANSE: ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE Though the 1982 National Research Council study entitled Scientific Communication and National Security was principally concerned with the Soviet Union, its recommendations are a fitting starting point for U.S. policies on China and technology control in the university setting. The key recommendation of that study is as follows: No restriction of any kind limiting access or communication should be applied to any area of university research, be it basic or applied, unless it involves a technology meeting all the following criteria: · The technology is developing rapidly, and the time from basic science to application is short; · The technology has identifiable direct military applications; or it is dual-use and involves process or production-related techniques; · Transfer of the technology would give the U.S.S.R. tChina] a significant near-term military benefit; and · The U.S. is the only source of information about the technology, or other friendly nations that could also be the source have control systems as secure as ours. 13 Technology transfer issues in the Sino-American academic relation- ship are complex and of far-reaching importance. Four points are clear. First, the Chinese turned toward the West, and particularly to the United States in the 1970s, in part because they wanted to acquire a broad range of high technology. Second, the United States must protect

176 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED its security and proprietary interests. Third, American national security concerns have caused friction with the PRC. On at least two occasions in 1984, Chinese officials expressed concern that Chinese students and scholars had been "restricted to [a] certain number of courses or special- ties, and the extent of such restriction exceeds that for the students and scholars from other countries or regions."~4 PRC officials have raised similar concerns about limitations on attendance of Chinese at some academic and professional association meetings in the Uniter] States. Fourth, the complexity of the American monitoring and regulatory mechanisms makes it difficult for both Americans and Chinese to know what our technology transfer policy really is and who is responsible for its enforcement, since the mechanisms are fragmented among the intel- ligence community, the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, Energy, and justice, and the Customs Service. In the American system, a distinction should be drawn between uni- versities, which should remain as open as possible, and government and private research laboratories that quite appropriately seek to protect national security and proprietary information. We believe that, on bal- ance, America is best served by its universities when they pursue a policy of continual innovation and openness. Given the importance of foreign graduate students in basic science research at universities, any restraints placed on the access of foreign nationals to technical informa- tion and nonclassifiecl research equipmentis will greatly slow important research progress on American campuses. American universities have given Chinese students and scholars the same reception accorded all other foreign students and overall have been very open in their dealings. Nonetheless, a very few American universities have restricted enrollment in some classes to United States citizens (see Appendix L). Several professional association meetings, or parts of these meetings, have been closed to non-U.S. citizens even though participants were discussing unc~assipe~ technology subject to export control. One recent example was the January 1985 conference of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) on "Composites in Man- ufacturing 4." The program announcement reportedly said, "This con- ference is open to U. S. citizens only. You must prove citizenship in order to be admitted."~6 In speaking of the effects on academic freedom of new export control regulations, Harvard Vice-President john Shattuck said that they are dramatically illustrated by a course on Metal Matrix Composites offered recently at U.C.L.A., that was advertised in the course catalogue as restricted to "U.S. Citizens Only." The restriction was required because the course mate- rial involved unclassified technical data appearing on the [U.S. government's] Munitions Control List (I.T.A.R.) and thus subject to export control.~7

FUTURE ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 177 It must be noted, however, that this action was not aimed solely at PRC students and that UCLA has since refused to participate in programs restricted to U.S. citizens. In short, the Chinese are now affected by the same restrictions that also affect our allies in Japan and Western Europe. i9 It must also be observed that the Chinese have closed many of their conferences to foreigners. It is hoped that in a spirit of responsive- ness, this trend will be reversed so that Americans and other foreigners will be able to attend more conferences in China. FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CUMULATIVE AND COOPERATIVE RESEARCH In the immediate wake of diplomatic "normalization," both the Chi- nese and American sides, appropriately, focused their attention on the exchange of individual students and scholars. It now is time to think about longer-term, group, and collaborative research to supplement— not replace the individual research and study in the PRC that remains critically important. As increasing numbers of PRC students and scholars return from study and research in the West, they do so with personal ties, improved foreign language command, greater commonality of intellectual frame- works, and more compatible research objectives that will make long- term collaborative research feasible. Sustained, systematic, and interdisciplinary projects could focus on such varied topics as the fol- lowing: monitoring changes in the global distribution of toxic sub- stances; charting ecological or societal change on the Tibetan Plateau; looking at demographic processes during economic change; following disease patterns as internal mobility, urbanization, industrialization, and foreign contact all increase; or charting socioeconomic change. Any such studies of physical and social change require systematic observa- tion over time. The United States is now, it may be hoped, near a point in its rela- tionship with China that such undertakings are possible, with research occurring in both the United States and the PRC. The challenge for scholars is to define the priority areas for inquiry and to identify partici- pants from both sides. Rich possibilities exist in both the social and natural sciences. INVOLVEMENT IN SCIENTIFIC, ECONOMIC, AND TECHNICAL CHANGE IN CHINA American government and private-sector organizations are becoming involved in helping to build or revitalize some fields of study in China. At the same time, some American institutional forms have impressed

178 A RELATIONSHIP RESTORED the Chinese as they seek promising directions for economic and social reform. In addition, a few American foundations have supported the physical expansion and modernization of Chinese academic and scien- tific institutions. American government initiatives, such as the Dalian Center for Industrial Science and Technology Management Develop- ment (see Chapter 4), contribute to Chinese manpower training. And, in the case of johns Hopkins University and its joint project with Nan- jing University, an American university has made a long-term commit- ment to institutional development in the PRC. In essence, academic exchanges now are beginning to address issues of structural reform in China, and American academics and industrial scientists are, for better or worse, becoming involved in Chinese institu- tional change. To prevent disillusionment in both societies, the United States' challenge is to make it plain that American institutions have limits even in America, let alone in the far different circumstances of a China that is socialist, 80 percent peasant, and still deeply ambivalent about what Westerners almost gleefully call "interdependence." More- over, American financial resources are small in comparison to Chinese needs. This opportunity for involvement in China's economic and scientific development raises profound questions that are not easily answered. Is it wise to fuel Chinese expectations about American technical and financial capacities? Can the United States, and should it ever, be more than a marginal influence on the course of Chinese development? What would be the costs of standing on the sidelines compared to the costs of disillusionment in both China and the West if China's current efforts do not produce the desired results? What are the United States' security interests? If China imports products and commodities from abroad, it must also export, and that means that some American and Western industries will face unwelcome competition. Is it in the U.S. interest to help potential competitors develop? As American universities become involved in China's economic development, what is the "proper" rela- tionship between institutions of higher education and the entrepreneur- ial activities of both Chinese and American businesses? For business, knowledge is a saleable commodity for the university, it traditionally has been a free good. This study concludes as it began with questions. However, the new questions confronting educational and scientific leaders in both coun- tries document how far the Sino-American exchange relationship has progressed in the short span of six years.

FUTURE ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES NOTES 179 1. Foreign Broadcast Information Service Daily Report: China (hereafter referred to as FBIS), March 21, 1985, p. K2, from Xinhua. 2. Marjorie Sun, "China's Science Academy Revamps Funding Process," Science, Vol. 227, No. 4687 (1985), p. 615. 3. loins Publications Research Service (hereafter referred to as JPRS), CST-85-003, Ian. 28, 1985, Science and Technology, pp. 27-36, from Guangming Riboo and Keyan Guanli (Scientific Research Management); also, JPRS, CPS-84-054, Aug. 10, 1984, Political, Sociological, and Military Affairs, pp. 17-19. 4. China Daily, Nov. 30, 1984, p. 1. 5. FBlS, Nov. 30, 1984, p. K9, from Xinhua. 6. Wall Street Journal, July 6, 1984, p. 1. 7. Otto Schnepp, "The Chinese Visiting Scholar Program in Science and Engineering," unpublished manuscript prepared for National Science Foundation, July 1985, pp. 20-29. 8. JPRS, CPS-85-003, Jan. 28, 1985, pp. 23-24, from Guangming Riboo [Bright Daily], Aug. 29, 1984, p. 1. 9. FBIS, Dec. 30, 1983, p. B1, from Xinhua. 10. China Daily, Nov. 30, 1984. It should be noted that some PRC students and scholars in the United States view these centers with apprehension, fearing that they also are intended to control returned students rather than facilitate their work. 11. Schnepp, "The Chinese Visiting Scholar Program," pp. 35-36. 12. FBIS, March 21, 1985, pp. Kl-K10, from Xinhua; also, FBIS, March 8, 1985, pp. K1-K3, from Xinhua. 13. Scientific Communication and National Security: A Report Prepared by the Panel on Scientific Communication and National Security and the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1982), p.5. 14. Correspondence, August 1984. 15. "Curb on Campus Computers: Pentagon vs. Academia," New YoTk Times, Aug. 17, 1985, p. L-7; also, "NSF Backs Off Rules Restricting Access to Supercomputers," Chronicle of Higher Education 0dly 24, 1985), p. 1. 16. Robert L. Park, "Intimidation Leads to Self-Censorship in Science," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (March 1985), p. 22. 17. Chronicle of Higher Education Qan. 9, 1985), pp. 15-16. 18. Park, p. 23. 19. Wall Street Journal, Jan. 25, 1985.