Abstract:
In this paper, educational equity research in China is discussed in the relation to Western academic discourses. It begins with a historical review of the models deployed and developed in China in regard to academic discourse more broadly. Such development has undergone three changes: (1) fully copying the 'Soviet Model' since the founding of China in 1949, (2) reference to the 'Anglo-American Model' since the 'Reform and Opening' in 1978, (3) then gradually forming the prototype of the 'Chinese Model'. Looking back at decades of academic development in China , Western academic discourses have provided the main theoretical resources. To a large extent, Chinese academic research is still under their influence; local academic innovation is also declining. Due to excessive reliance on Western academic discourses, innovations in local theory are in short supply. Thus almost no concept belongs to China "own." Chinese educational equity research is no exception. This paper shows how mainstream Chinese educational equity research has been manifest in relation to these different models; the Soviet, the Anglo-American and the Chinese. In the contemporary era of globalization, local academic research faces the massive challenges. Utilizing a specific theory of globalization, this paper also interprets how does Chinese educational equity research confronts the dominant role of Western academic discourse. It asks, what is the role of Chinese academic research in the context of globalization? Should it continue to be dominated by Western discourse, or let the world listen to China 's own voice? Chinese academic research must make a choice; but also ask what is China 's own voice? This paper concludes that in addition to a focus on the changes brought by globalization, Chinese educational equity research should be based on domestic contexts. It should pay more attention to the localization of Western academic discourse. Furthermore, based on local historical and cultural backgrounds, Chinese educational equity research should actively construct its own academic discourse and academic system. Overall it concludes that although it is usually necessary and even desirable to learn and borrow from international academic discourses, it also needs to be acknowledged that hose that are locally produced or adapted usually have more explanatory power in specific contexts.