Beyond Nihonjinron: Integrating Japanese Philosophy into the Global Knowledge Production of Japanese Studies

The decolonization of knowledge is increasingly high on the agenda of applied and sociolinguistics. This article contributes to this agenda by examining how peripheral multilingual scholars confront their linguistic and epistemic exclusion from global knowledge production. Based on the product of such a challenge – a Chinese-centric special issue of Multilingua, a global academic Q1 journal, devoted to crisis communication during the COVID-19 pandemic and committed to furthering intercultural dialogue in research – we explore the decades-long knowledge production process behind that product and so provide a look into the “black box” of academic networking and publishing. Advocating for collaborative autoethnography as an inherently inclusive method, we focus on enabling academic and personal networks, textual scaffolding, and linguistic and epistemic brokerage. The article closes with three aspects of linguistic and epistemic citizenship that are central to inclusion, namely recognition of the value of peripheral knowledges, recognition of a collaborative ethics of care, and recognition of shared responsibility.

Increasing calls to decolonize global knowledge production highlight the necessity of understanding the causes of inequality in global knowledge production, or ‘academic dependency.’ While theories of academic dependency or dimensions thereof already exist, there is a shortage of comprehensive accounts of the mechanisms creating and re-inscribing academic dependency. Integrating and extending previous theorizations, this article presents such a theory: I show how global academic stratification grants the academic core a standard-setting position, giving it power over the globally most highly valued mechanisms of evaluating research. This pressures academics anywhere on the globe to orient their research toward the preferences of the academic core (i.e., Global North ones). Further, the global stratification of the research degree system, with both core and periphery academic elites being trained in the core, strengthens Northern intellectual lineages and enhances North-to-South flows of academic influence, while disrupting Southern intellectual traditions and stifling South-to-North flows of academic influence. The stronger power of core academics in core-periphery collaborations centers Northern concerns and marginalizes Southern ones. English as the global academic language further privileges academics from Anglophone countries. This creates an inward-orientation of Northern knowledge production, producing over-theorized and Eurocentric knowledge lacking corrective feedback from the South, while creating an outward-orientation of Southern knowledge production, yielding fragmented, undertheorized knowledge disconnected from local concerns.

Purpose The article highlights the significance of the centre-(semi-)peripheries dynamics in the co-construction of global public goods and the limits of openness in global knowledge production. Challenging the assumption of global public good is not to discount the benefits of openness, but rather to initiate a conversation about the political economy, regionalism and internationalism of global knowledge production. Design/methodology/approach By examining “information/knowledge as a public good” and historical incidents where information flows were expedited and prohibited, this article shows that the public good justification for openness demands further examination. Findings First, although intangible information is inherently a public good, publicly funded research outputs are tangible information and they are not necessarily qualified as public goods. Second, intellectual property rights and private ownership can be conducive to the creation of public goods. Third, openness can become a convenient slogan for commercial interests or national priorities without regard to common or public good. Furthermore, national borders, international relations and geopolitical tensions can slow and stop transnational information flows because not every kinds of information are permitted to be global public goods. Originality/value The paper considers some assumptions of openness that have been overlooked or understudied in the context of global knowledge production.

In this paper, we analyze the extent to which low-income countries integrate into the global knowledge production network. We develop an (undirected) research collaboration model based on which we identify the drivers of global research collaboration using publication data of the field Business and Economics from the Web of Science and macroeconomic data from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Statistics. Network and dynamic panel regression techniques are employed. Our results show that (i) reciprocal preferential attachment and the homophily between countries reinforce scientific collaboration, (ii) there is no evidence that low-income countries are becoming better integrated into the global knowledge production over the years, despite their active participation in international reserach collaboration, while (iii) high-income countries show a basic willingness to cooperate with them, which, in turn, promotes the integration of low-income countries, although this willingness seems to decline; and (iv) as to low-income countries, they have little choice but to invest more in education and R&D in order to advance in the global knowledge production network.

This introduction to the special issue ‘Women’s and Gender History in the Iberian Worlds: Global Knowledge Production’ argues that recovering women’s experiences of Iberian empires requires three interconnected methodological shifts. First, we must confront archival silences not as absences but as active productions of patriarchal and imperial power, requiring sensitive analysis that moves beyond traditional sources. Second, we advocate for a global approach that traces how local women’s actions and experiences shaped and were shaped by imperial structures. Third, we propose ‘knowledges’ in the plural to recognise diverse women’s expertise as central to imperial functioning. Building on the work of feminist and gender historians who have begun to recover intersectional histories across the Spanish and Portuguese empire, this special issue contributes to debates about gender, global history, and knowledge production.

Africa is recognised as the cradle of humankind with a proven record of creativity and innovation as evidenced by its great empires and kingdoms. It is thus an enigma that currently Africa contributes only 2% to global knowledge production, a situation that is widely believed to account for its underdevelopment. Even though scholarly disagreement cuts very deep here, it is mostly due to the reasons of the status quo rather than to disputing the poor showing of Africa in global knowledge production. The high quality of articles presented in this supplementary issue showcases our conviction that Africa can indeed shake off historical stigmas and reposition itself as a giant in knowledge production. This editorial introduces the contributions in the issue which interrogates the status quo and explores ways in which knowledge production can be enhanced. Three key thematic approaches are presented: a decolonial approach to legitimising African knowledge based on its needs, culture, and heritage; development of robust knowledge production and quality assurance institutions; and inclusive education and knowledge production.

The Kemitraan Negara Berkembang (KNB) Scholarship Program, launched by the government of the Republic of Indonesia, represents a transformative approach to educational exchange that challenges traditional North-South paradigms. This study adopts several frameworks to comprehensively analyze how the KNB Scholarship Program fosters South-South Cooperation (SSC), disrupts Western-centric knowledge hierarchies, and contributes to capacity building in the Global South. Through a qualitative methodology, the research involves a comprehensive document review of official reports, policy papers, tracer studies, and university evaluations related to the scholarship program, as well as written and oral interviews from the current scholars and alumni and articles, theses, dissertations produced by KNB scholarship recipients. The findings highlight the KNB Scholarship’s role in redefining Indonesia’s soft power and reshaping Global South knowledge production. It serves not only as a means of individual empowerment but also as a catalyst for systemic change, which drives a transformation in the global educational and diplomatic landscape. In line with the Bandung Conference’s spirit of solidarity and self-determination, the KNB Scholarship Program advances Indonesia’s role in shaping a more inclusive and equitable global governance framework, offering valuable insights into the future of educational diplomacy and global power dynamics. By prioritizing Global South solidarity, equitable and sustainable development, and the decolonization of knowledge, the KNB Scholarship Program supports the objectives of promoting Indonesia’s soft power and governance in SSC and challenging the dominance of Western academic and political paradigms—which constitutes “KNB Diplomacy.”

This article argues that US higher education knowledge production remains localized but gets disguised as global. Consequently, local ways of knowing get projected as universal and students’ worldviews are never complicated or expanded. It offers a pedagogical corrective to this trend and situates the world literature classroom as one of the primary locations that is capable of reimagining global knowledge production in U.S. universities. More specifically, the article explores the fluid movement between close and distant reading as well as the potential of Globally Networked Learning Environments (GLNE) as concrete ways of ensuring that global knowledge production is truly global in scope. Utilizing GNLEs in the world literature class provides a pedagogical model that enables critical engagement with the complexity of global issues through the study and discussion of global texts all while in a global environment. While US institutions seek to expand their global footprints, the educational experiences of students too often remain local. Ultimately, through theoretical and practical examples, the article argues that if students in the US academy are to have a truly global education, teachers and administrators must first start by reforming and transforming local sites of learning.

Global knowledge production in China’s social sciences has witnessed rapid development, yet its long-term positional evolution remains underexplored. Drawing on data from the InCites database spanning 1981 to 2024, this study offers a comprehensive analysis of the historical trajectory and key milestones in China’s global standing in social science knowledge production. Employing a “structure – practice – imagination” analytical framework, the paper investigates the multi-layered interactions underpinning these transformations. Findings reveal that over the past 45 years, China’s social sciences have experienced significant growth in research output, rising global impact, and increasingly differentiated patterns of international collaboration. The years 2004, 2011, 2013, 2017, and 2020 emerge as critical turning points. These shifts are primarily driven by the dynamic interactions among the state, higher education institutions (HEIs), and academics within China’s higher education system. This process operates through a “top-down imaginary projection” mechanism: the state outlines the developmental direction of social science knowledge through policy directives; HEIs translate these directives into institutional strategies; and academics, responding to both external evaluation pressures and internalized state discourse, increasingly engage in international publishing. This process reflects the distinctive institutional logic and cultural context of China’s academic system.

Globalization has impacted unprecedentedly on global knowledge production. The politics of knowledge production has taken a new dimension since the end of the Cold War era in which Euro-American ideals has continued to sweep around the world. The import of this is that there has been universalization of what constitutes knowledge and how it is produced. Development generally is patterned after the with the West as the ideal. Africa, a colonial construct has also been affected by the globalization of knowledge production. This paper adopts the qualitative research methodology with the analysis of extant academic works and other materials to make sense of the situation of Africa in the global politics of knowledge production. The paper notes that while Africa was just wriggling out of throes of colonialism politically and efforts at decolonizing knowledge at infancy, the onset of globalization has confined the continent to the backseat among other continents. It notes further that as a result of this, what constitutes knowledge, how it is produced and accessed in Africa remains Western. As a result of this African development is vainly patterned after her ‘erstwhile’ colonial masters. The whole idea of post-colonialism in Africa is misleading and knowledge production with which to forge ahead is perpetually colonial, hence Africa’s unhealthy backwardness. The paper recommends that Africa needs not only to decolonise knowledge production but also assert its position in global politics of knowledge production in order to be in charge of its development.

This study investigates the intricate politics, patterns, and processes involved in the false narratives of Sinocentric perception, focusing on knowledge production and language fragility within China–Nigeria relations. Utilising a qualitative ethnographic approach, the research probes into the lived experiences of Nigerian communities and Chinese actors engaged in political, economic, and cultural exchanges. The analysis reveals that while China’s involvement in Nigeria is framed as a departure from Western colonial legacies, it simultaneously introduces new forms of power dynamics that shape knowledge production. Using critical discourse and post-colonial theories, this research examines the impact of China’s cultural diplomacy on the academic curricula in Nigeria, underlining the alterations in knowledge production processes and language policies that gratify the adoption of Mandarin. Utilising key informant interviews (KIIs) and textual analysis, 21 purposively selected study participants uncover how local narratives and identities are negotiated, contested, and redefined amidst these interactions. The study findings contribute to the discourse on developed states withdrawing by revealing how purportedly neutral partnerships can perpetuate linguistic and epistemic marginalisation. This study reveals the nuanced understanding of China–Nigeria relations, urging policymakers and scholars to consider the complex interplay between global power structures, language politics, and knowledge production in the ongoing processes of decolonisation.

This article conceptualises the variety of approaches taken by International Relations (IR) scholars around the world to dominant forms of knowledge production in IR. In doing so, it advances Global IR debates along two axes: on practices and on spatiality. We argue that binary conceptions are unhelpful and that engagement with knowledge production practices is best captured by a landscape of complexity, requiring a deeper interrogation of positionality, globality and context. Using 26 qualitative interviews with IR academics at institutions in East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, Eurasia and Africa, we construct a typology comprising seven modes of engagement that capture the conflicted relationships to dominant forms and practices of knowledge production in IR. The typology is intended to highlight the variation, complexity and contextual particularities in global IR knowledge production practices and to enable an interrogation of spatial hierarchies that unsettle conventional geopolitical West/non-West fault-lines.

In this paper I shed new light on contemporary developments in global health governance, policymaking, and knowledge production. Specifically, by investigating the historical roots and emergence of global health emergency governance. Drawing on the Foucauldian notion of “problematisation” and on Science and Technology Studies of disaster, I trace, examine, and elucidate three main axes through which, I argue, health emergencies became a problem of global governance. I show, first, the formation of emergency management as a distinct professional field. Second, the migration of emergency management into global health governance and its proliferation within it. And third, the move from global health emergency management to the global governance of health emergencies. Overall, I suggest the rise of global health emergency governance provides crucial context for understanding social, political, and epistemic tensions and controversies in health emergencies such as COVID-19. Through the analysis, I identify a particular rationale that is rooted in emergency management and had become embedded in global health emergency governance. A rationale that involves “temporal compression” and “structural plasticity.” I discuss possible implications of this rationale for global health governance, policy, and knowledge.

This essay is a case study about information gathering and knowledge production in early modern Malabar and the Netherlands with the aim to review the historiography about the making of the Hortus Malabaricus. It focuses on the making of the twelve volumes of the Hortus Malabaricus and analyses the different stages of its production as well as the role of a Dutch servant of the Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC) in transforming information from Malabar into European knowledge. Why Malabar did not equally benefit from the exchange of information? We shall assess Dutch overseas expansion and the impact of trade in global knowledge production, and discuss why Europe has allegedly led the path in the making of early modern science, since approximately 1500. While several scholars embrace the idea of ‘the rise of Europe’, others, first and foremost Andre Gunder Frank, have called for a review of this subject. We will employ this case study to further elucidate certain aspects of knowledge production and the ‘great divergence’ in economic conditions of South Asia and Europe which started to become evident in the mid-eighteenth century. While comparing the social and economic conditions in Malabar and the Netherlands, we will attempt to understand why a centralisation of knowledge took place in the Netherlands and not in Malabar.

Global knowledge production is still dominated by a few Western countries, especially those with former colonial ties and large literate societies to consume that knowledge. This entry considers the scientific networks and inequalities of the global production of knowledge on memory activism – within academia and without – through the concept of the scholar-activist.