58
about CHC could be recognized as a particularly nuanced methodology subject to
certain conditionals (Park 2011 ). One of such conditionals is that a culturally sensi-
tive Asian research methodology ought to take into account variation in experience
to overcome the tension between emic and etic dimensions of research. The referred
variation is the distance between the experience of the actor and the experience cum
articulation of it by researchers. The following section will deal with problem.
Researchers and Research Subjects in “HE Field”
However plausible it may be, the abovementioned account of “compliance issue”
with the Western methodology, numerous Asian HE researchers think that escaping
the rigor of Western research methodologies is possible. After reviewing more than
200 works by scholars in and outside Asia, I recently published the salient argu-
ments from such a position (Park 2016 ). I do not think that they constitute an aca-
demic community with an esprit de corps or a field, but I am quite certain that they
share a common concern: Asia’s modernity, colonization, and the Cold War pro-
foundly damaged the interplay of structures and subjectivity of Asia, which, in order
to heal, necessitates a local reference point, knowledge structure, and production so
that “self may be transformed, and subjectivity rebuilt” (Chen 2010 , p. 212).
Outside the circle, however, the position differs among scholars. For example,
Asian higher education expert William Lo ( 2011 ) identifies two main perspectives
in understanding the hegemonic struggle in Asian HE knowledge production. From
an anti-colonial perspective, he says, such hegemony of knowledge production
would be an oppression, whereas, from a soft-power perspective, an attraction. My
opinion is that either way applies to how Asia looks at herself. Whether it is a charm
offensive, animosity, or both does not matter. What really does is that, without strug-
gle against the privileges of knowledge (knowledge, competence, and qualifica-
tion), Asia would never get rid of the scar of subjection and submission. (For what
privilege of knowledge entails, see Foucault 1983 , p. 212.)
The preceding analysis is important if we are to understand researchers and
research subjects in Asian HE knowledge production. A powerful and incisive
observation can open our discussion, and it is from noted Taiwanese intellectual
Kuan-Hsing Chen ( 2003 , p. 878):
The ‘west’ is equipped with universalist ‘theory’ and the rest of us have ‘particularist’ empir-
ical data, and eventually in writing, ‘we’ become a footnote to either validate or invalidate
theoretical propositions. Hence, theoretically minded researcher vs. native informant.This accusation rings an alarm bell of how ethical issues and methodological issues
overlap in research. The overlap occurs at the very start of a knowledge production
process. The act of singling out a research problem from hundreds that come to the
attention of a researcher depends on the exercise of the researcher’s freedom and
choice; hence, it is a moral act in a Kantian sense. Bewilderment or sense of wonder
makes researchers choose a research problem while dismissing all others, while not
J. Park