The Study of China in Universities: A Comparative Case Study of A ...

His clarification helps in avoiding the danger of falling into the trap of engaging in theoretical debates of the discipline that is under investigation. This is also helpful in clarifying the role that I adopted when undertaking research on the realm of Chinese studies. For example, debates on the best ways to study ancient Chinese history, or the Mongolian influence on China in the 13th century, or Mao Zedong’s real role in the Cultural Revolution are not the concern of this work. These are matters for China specialists and/or sinologists to investigate. Thus, Bloor’s theories are adopted in this research in two ways: (a) in distinguishing the inside and outside of the realm of a knowledge where sociologists seek social explanations and (b) in recognizing that the role of a sociologist is not to engage in discussions of the subject matter.

There is, however, a problem with one of Bloor’s assumptions—namely, his assumption that the realm of mathematics is a structured and bounded territory. Such an assumption implies that the actors involved are aware of the territory and agree what constitutes the territory of the discipline. In other words, it is an assumption that there is, somehow, a consensus as to the validity of the boundary. A structured and bounded territory may, arguably, be a suitable description for mathematics, but it is certainly not a suitable description for Chinese studies. By saying this, I do not mean the concept of a realm does not apply. It does apply. The problem is that the realm of Chinese studies, like sociology and like the sociology of knowledge, is not a clear and static one. Chinese studies as a field of knowledge is not a bounded mathematical truth to be considered as a permanent fixture of a realm. The boundaries of the study of China are not always structured; they are elusive and shift over time, as I discussed in the previous section. The task of this research is to seek to identify sociological phenomena that contribute to the elusiveness and to seek the forces that cause shifts in a disciplinary boundary. This is why Mannheim’s theories are relevant to the ontology of my research problem.