Taiwan Today

In late November 1993, the Free China Review invited several scholars to discuss the current status of Taiwan studies in Taiwan from the perspectives of their respective disciplines. The seminar was chaired by Hsin-huang Michael Hsiao (蕭新煌), professor of sociology, National Taiwan University (NTU), and deputy director, Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica. The other participants were Yin Chien-chung ( 尹建中), professor of anthropology, NTU; Huang Fu-san (黃富三), professor of history, NTU, and director, preparatory office for the institute of Taiwan History, Academia Sinica; Chu Yun-han (朱雲漢), professor of political science, NTU; Hsu Song-ken (許松根), research fellow, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica; and Chang Mau-kuei ( 張茂桂), research fellow, institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica. Excerpts follow:

Hsin-huang Michael Hsiao:
The situation for Taiwan studies in Taiwan itself is quite ironic. Up to a decade ago, Taiwan was not considered a subject for research. Since the early eighties, most of the researchers who have gone into this area are thirty-five to fifty years old. They have all gone through the Taiwan development experience because they either were born here or came to Taiwan as kids. Of course, this has had a certain influence on them. The territorial dispute between the ROC and Japan concerning the Tiaoyutai islands, and then the withdrawal of the ROC from the United Nations in the early seventies, all had an impact. Since then, Taiwan's diplomatic setbacks and isolation stimulated local people, including scholars, to search for their identity.

In the eighties, Taiwan's economic growth and rapid political changes started drawing considerable international attention, and this also had a positive influence on Taiwan studies. Foreign scholarly interest aroused local researchers' interest in the field.

The status of Taiwan studies can be discussed from at least four orientations: to consider all studies concerning Taiwan as part of Taiwan studies; to consider studies of Taiwan that are done from a Taiwan point of view, which can be academic, political, or sentimental; to study Taiwan in order to generate indigenous theories in various disciplines that can specifically explain the Taiwan development experience; and to study Taiwan with the goal of developing theories that can supplement, challenge, or correct theories that are already accepted in the international academic community.

In Taiwan, certain scholars in the social sciences and humanities started an indigenization movement in the 1980s, and this led to today' s interest in Taiwan studies. Many researchers are focusing on empirical studies and the collection of basic data and information. Although there are people eager to establish new theories, I believe most researchers share a general understanding that we should at present concentrate on fundamental empirical studies. We are still not doing enough, but we have made some contributions. Professors today at least have more materials printed in Chinese for use in class than those who taught us had.

Yin Chien-chung, professor of anthropology, NTU:
Academic study of Taiwan started during the Japanese occupation [1895-1945]. After the Japanese colonized the island, they started collecting documents concerning civic groups and also began systematic observation of other organizations. This empirical work helped lay the groundwork for the “Japanization” movement in the 1940s, when the Japanese began intense monitoring of all local organizations.

The Japanese really did a comprehensive job in their anthropological research on ethnic groups in Taiwan, including both the Han and the native tribes. Recently, I went back to work on researching aboriginal myths and legends because they are disappearing as religious orientations change. The core of a tribal culture lies in its myths and legends. We need to record them. I've found that after Taiwan returned to Chinese rule in 1945, few people did any systematic study of Taiwan's tribal people. The number of research papers on this topic also decreased after the war. Although more people have become interested in the topic and related publications have been printed, most of them are translations from earlier Japanese works.

In 1896, the Japanese also initiated the research on the Neolithic Yuanshan Culture in the northwestern part of the island. This led to opening up archaeological sites and developing formal archaeological studies. On August 1,1949, when NTU established its Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, our researchers had to rely on previous discoveries made by the Japanese. However, the well-known Neolithic Peinan site on the east coast and the Iron Age Shihsanhang archaeological site in the northwest were not found by the Japanese. They were accidentally discovered by construction workers.

Why did the Japanese study Taiwan? Basically, to understand their colony. In a similar vein, British archaeology and anthropology started when Britain colonized Africa. And the westward movement in the United States stimulated anthropological interest in the American Indians.

In past decades, when Chinese scholars went abroad for advanced study, they discovered that their foreign professors were all engaging in colonial studies and the study of tribal societies. Likewise, when they came back to China, they started studying minority groups in the border areas. But today, the lives of tribes people living in the mainland border regions are becoming urbanized and industrialized.

The same is true of Taiwan's indigenous people. They subscribe to cable TV. Their lifestyle does not differ much from that of the majority. Some people are trying to teach Taiwan's younger tribespeople their mother tongues, but the teachers themselves don't have a firm grasp of the languages. Adults might encourage kids to learn, but kids don't want to study the language because it is not included in the high school and college entrance examinations. One of the most serious problems is that when young tribesmen finish their mandatory military service, many of them start working as crew members on fishing boats and other vessels; this tears them away from their society. Studying Taiwan's indigenous people can no longer be termed the study of primitive societies. This has had a great impact on recent anthropology.

In the late fifties, a number of American graduate students in anthropology came to Taiwan to do their Ph.D. research on Han Chinese. These included Bernard Gallin, Arthur Wolf, and Hill Gates. In 1963 and 1964, an especially important academic figure came to Taiwan to study Chinese society: Morton Fried, then chairman of the Department of Anthropology at Columbia University. While here, he focused on Han lineage organization. I was a university sophomore at the time and became his assistant.

During that period, most local anthropologists were studying Taiwan's indigenous tribes. None of them studied the Han. These Americans were the first scholars to concentrate on studying the Han in Taiwan, and they had a great impact. I think it's especially because of Professor Fried that researchers turned to the study of the mainstream society in Taiwan.

Why did these Americans come to Taiwan to study Han society? Simple. Taiwan was considered the experimental ground for studying Mainland Chinese societies. Because the mainland was closed to outsiders, American scholars in China studies went to Hong Kong to interview mainland refugees, then came to Taiwan for further study. But the results of China studies done in Taiwan could usually apply only to the case of Fujian and, maybe, Guangdong provinces.

The Japanese studied Taiwan for colonial reasons; the Americans came here to use Taiwan as a substitute for the mainland. But both groups influenced local scholars. They stimulated the interest of local anthropologists in studying Taiwan. I can testify to that. Because of these foreigners, many local scholars, myself included, chose Taiwan studies for their dissertation topics.

Nowadays, Taiwan studies are flourishing in the mainland. Studies there are undeniably politically oriented. And like Japanese and American scholars, mainlanders are interested in Taiwan's political and economic development.

It seems that fewer foreigners now come here for anthropological studies now that the mainland has opened its doors. The Japanese are also going there, and they are utilizing their noted skills in documentation. They are collecting materials and doing detailed descriptive work. Even when an academic theory dies, documentation still has its value. Japanese scholars are continuing their anthropological studies by building up materials in the mainland on the basis of the work they did in Taiwan.

But Taiwan scholars tend to base their work on a theory, and when the theory dies, the research results follow suit. It's like tying a small boat to a big boat; once the big boat sinks, the small boat sinks, too. Unfortunately, we have always neglected documentation. Take NTU for example. It has history and anthropology departments, but it hasn't even compiled a history of the university.

Neither do government agencies give special attention to their archival data. Although Taiwan can be proud of its household registration records, even these are facing a preservation problem because the paper used in the early days is deteriorating. We have to think about preserving these data and making them available to researchers. We also need an archive law that sets down rules for preservation and access to documents.

The nine universities in Taiwan with history departments all offer courses on Taiwan studies. But they seem to neglect the studies of Western and Japanese history. Do we really need to put all our efforts into Taiwan studies? Doesn't it make sense to diversify our efforts and establish a balance between studying Taiwan and studying foreign cultures?

This is a terrible situation. Anthropology encourages the study of foreign societies and cultures. But if our anthropologists concentrate only on our own culture and society, their efforts will only be taken advantage of by foreigners. If we only study what we are familiar with, local anthropological research will go nowhere. Turning inward instead of outward, anthropologists cannot benefit much from this situation. Moreover, when people here do Taiwan studies, they are engaging in the quest for identity: they are trying to establish Taiwan studies as something independent, separate from the mainland and Chinese culture. In choosing such a direction, political considerations are very much involved. It's not purely an academic decision. We need to encourage our scholars to aim their studies outward. We need balance.

Too many people have gone to the States for further 3tudy. We have been using American theories to test phenomena here ever since 1949. It's like using American recipes to cook Chinese food. How can you come up with a good dish? How can you gain approval from other people? How can you make an impact on your own basic theories? Impossible! American scholars have never neglected the study of foreign countries. But anthropologists here are aiming more and more inward. This is neither healthy nor normal.

Huang Fu-san, professor of history, NTU:
Professor Yin has just said that we should have a world view, that people should see themselves as part of a global village. I agree, but there is also another important trend: the search for roots, one's native soil. These two do not have to contradict each other. I agree that we should expand our research scope to include the world, but I don't think that Taiwan studies is overheated. Although study in this area has increased to some extent quantitatively, its quality needs to be improved and the participation of academics is still very inadequate.

Among the social sciences, anthropology certainly developed earlier in Taiwan than did other fields. American scholars were a major force, in part because of U.S. foreign policy concerns about the Bamboo Curtain that mainland China set up after World War II. At that time, because American scholars could not go to the mainland, they turned to Taiwan as a substitute.

Taiwan studies has recently prospered among academics here as a result of the trend toward more political openness, the opposition party's demand for “localization” or “Taiwanization,” the worldwide interest in “searching for one's roots,” and the increasing number of our students doing graduate work. The desire to do advanced studies abroad is not as strong as in the past, and to earn a degree, a graduate student has to select a topic that offers enough source material for a thesis or dissertation. This is the major reason that Taiwan studies is a first choice for research topics. But there are good and bad sides to this. On the one hand, as the number of researchers increases, competition helps to improve the quality of study. But there is also some blind trend-following and random publication that may disseminate inaccurate information.

In recent years, the number of publications on Taiwan studies has increased remarkably. Now a large number of local bookstores contain a special section for such publications. But quality is uneven. In the past, many academics approached Taiwan studies in an amateurish manner. The recent increase of scholarly interest has boosted the number of academic publications, but many works were written simply to meet an immediate market demand. Unfortunately, they spread information with little or no academic basis.

I suggest that some of our publishers set up a system for judging publications as soon as possible. Articles and book manuscripts should be evaluated by several experts before a decision is made about publishing them. Not everything should go into print.

We can find many publications on Taiwan studies, especially concerning the political situation after World War II. People can't resist buying these, but they sometimes find out the work has been plagiarized. One of the main problems in Taiwan studies is that many authors here are not used to identifying sources with footnotes and a bibliography. In addition, many writers are more interested in presenting controversial political opinions than solid research.

Recently, however, there are signs of improvement in the quality of Taiwan studies. In the past, it was not a vibrant field. Taiwan history is a case in point. Following World War II, NTU Professor Yang Yun-ping (楊雲萍) was the only scholar teaching Taiwan history for at least three decades. In recent years, many other universities have added Taiwan studies, and the courses are becoming more refined and specialized.

When I was in college, the Taiwan history I learned only covered the period before the conquest and rule of Cheng Cheng-kung [known in the West as Koxinga] in the seventeenth century. When I first taught Taiwan history, the course was extended up to the beginning of Japanese occupation in 1895. Recently, scholars have returned from abroad and are including the Japanese occupation period in their courses. A complete history of Taiwan is finally being formulated and established. The field is becoming vigorous. There are now more specialized courses, such as contemporary history, economic history, social history, political history, and cultural and literary history. There is also some improvement in quality, but more effort is still needed. I feel that many social scientists have a casual attitude toward research in Taiwan studies. They are not fully engaged. Perhaps only later will we separate the real thing from the superficial.

The scope of Taiwan history studies has expanded tremendously. In terms of periodization, the focus in the past was on Taiwan during the Chengs' rule (1661-1683). Later, the stress was on Ching dynasty rule (1683-1895). Now studies on the Japanese occupation and the years after World War II have been strengthened. For example, the taboos on discussing the February 28 Incident of 1947 have been relaxed since the report on the incident by the Executive Yuan was released in 1992. Few taboos are left. Even the “White Terror” of the 1950s is now a topic of major concern.

We are still not very satisfied with the accessibility to some source material. For example, in the case of the February 28 Incident, which recently received special attention from the government, parts of the official files and documents about the incident were photocopied and placed in the Institute of Modern History at Academia Sinica. But other materials are still not available. There are no laws on the preservation and management of files. We are very worried that some sensitive files and documents may be intentionally or unintentionally destroyed.

Of course, one reason for inaccessibility of documents is because some are politically sensitive. But judging from my own experience, the problem goes beyond that. Inaccessibility is sometimes due to a lack of systematic cataloguing and storage, as well as laws governing access. For example, we still do not have a national archives office, and there is no system for library and archival management. Therefore, government offices have no rules to follow, even though they may be willing to help.

I once visited the Taiwan Provincial Museum to collect source materials. Their response was that it was not their responsibility to help and there was no room for me to read the materials. I had to borrow a desk in one of the offices. We need an archival law to govern the management of national files. Documents that have exceeded a specific deadline for preservation should be sent to an archive office for preservation and public use.

Here is an example that shows the seriousness of this problem. Taiwan was the first colony of Japan, and they weren't sure how to rule it. To understand this place, they carried out a series of island-wide investigations on land ownership, household customs, and other topics. The Japanese compiled many maps, charts, and tables and other valuable material – for example, the Declaration of Land Ownership, in which landowners were required to submit details about the amount of land they possessed and where the land was located. These are invaluable documents. They are important for the understanding of the early colonial days, as well as the study of the Ching dynasty, especially the later years.

Unfortunately, almost all of these materials were destroyed – they were burned by the provincial government in the late 1970s. Why? It is said that the responsible authorities thought that the materials were of no use and that it was too much trouble to handle them when offices moved from one place to another. Only a small part survived – the documents covering land ownership in Hsinchu county. They were preserved as “samples.” Try to imagine it: these invaluable documents, which in other countries would be considered national treasures, were so easily destroyed! An American scholar who visited Taiwan was shocked when he learned that documents he had read when he first visited Taiwan had been destroyed.

This is not a problem of political sensitivity – it's just stupidity. We have treated many of our old documents this way. Given these circumstances, what is the future of our current documents? Obviously, the story will repeat if we do not take action immediately to speed up the legislation on setting up national archives. This is our highest priority. The passage of such laws and regulations will be invaluable for academic research now and in the future. Furthermore, to improve library services, it is essential to raise the position and salary of librarians.

In addition, source material in the private sector should not be neglected. When I was studying the Lin Family in Wufeng, at first I thought it would be difficult to get related information from the family. It turned out that they had saved many land documents and old pictures. I found boxes of photographs in the family's attic. The Lin family gave them to me and I have sent them to NTU's Graduate Institute of Building and Planning. They are invaluable materials. Although they are old, they are well-preserved and the pictures are still very clear.

There are still many such documents in the private sector. But it will take some effort, including legislation, to collect these materials and provide incentives for people to give them to libraries or archives. In special cases, it may be necessary to purchase them. If such efforts are made, I predict surprisingly good results.

One measure of academic achievement is whether our scholars are invited to participate in more international conferences and whether their research is being published in more international journals. So far there is only a slight increase. Nevertheless, we should see Taiwan as one center for Taiwan studies. This is a small island, and it is not realistic or practical to expect foreigners to emphasize the development of Taiwan studies. This would be like climbing a tree to get fish-it's seeking something from the wrong source. We should play the major role in integrating international research on Taiwan studies. This can be achieved in part through hosting international seminars in Taiwan and abroad to present the results of research in the area.

I've noticed that the number of studies being done by the private sector is even greater than those done by academics. Local groups of varied kinds have been set up. For example, one has been established to study the history and literature of [the town of] Tamsui. The group has already published materials. At first, financial support for the group came from the members themselves. Now the administrative office of the township also provides financial support. Another example is the establishment of the Museum of Ilan County History [in northeastern Taiwan]. These illustrate the popularity of Taiwan studies among the public.

But inadequate academic training, or too much enthusiasm, can also hinder objective observation and rational analysis. To urge Taiwan studies along the proper path of development, it's very important for researchers to see how the private sector is doing. Both sides can benefit from each other. Enthusiasm can be transformed into solid, long-lasting results.

As for government funding of Taiwan studies, the government is sponsoring several large-scale projects. For example, a few years ago, the Provincial Historical Research Commission started a writing project on contemporary Taiwan history. Another example is the Taiwan Studies Team recently set up by National Tsinghua University.

It is said that there are only about sixty Chinese characters on the February 28 Incident in junior high school textbooks. But I believe that an increasing amount of Taiwan history material will be included in textbooks for both primary and high schools. It is very important to familiarize people with the history of their native soil.

Chu Yun-han, professor of political science, NTU:
Two points need to be made when discussing the development of political science in Taiwan studies. First, it is very natural for our political scientists to focus their studies on the political experience of Taiwan because they are a part of this society. It is theirobligation to examine power structures and their impact on social, political, and economic issues, as well as to stimulate public dialogue about these issues.

Secondly, Taiwan's current political situation hinges on the degree of democratization and pluralism in society. Viewed from this perspective, the studies of the so-called Taiwan experience, or studies on political development in Taiwan before the mid-1980s, were very weak-a common situation in all authoritarian societies. To determine if a society is authoritarian or not, one valid index is to see if there is a vibrant political science community and, if so, what sort of research is being done. Even now, this index is reliable.

Prior to the mid-1980s, local political scientists were mainly doing comparative studies of different political systems or historical studies. The latter were often not differentiated from those done in the history department. But the period covered was often restricted to before the end of the Sino-Japanese War, because anything later would often involve sensitive political issues, such as the loss of the mainland, that might bring scholars into conflict with the interpretations of the political authorities of the day. They also researched areas such as public laws and international politics. But these studies were not developed enough to be full-blown international relations studies.

By the late 1980s, due to changes in Taiwan's politic environment, there was a rapid increase in the number of academic writings as more and more political scientists shifted their focus to Taiwan's political experience. They also pursued a greater variety of research topics.

In the past few years, many aspects of the authoritarian period have been researched. Often these issues are treated in relation to the process of the weakening and disintegration of the authoritarian system and the deepening of the democratization process. Other topics include elections, political culture, political partIcIpation, political parties, local political factions, and social movements. In the mid-1980s, the Taiwan development experience also attracted the attention of U.S. scholars, especially economists and sociologists.

Basically, there are now almost no political taboos on research projects. So far, however, local political scientists tend to restrict themselves to the scope of traditional political science studies. They seldom adopt sociological or political economy approaches; those who do are often younger scholars who have studied abroad. As for the accessibility of information, the situation is the same. There are difficulties. But I think we can improve this situation with some reforms, such as legislation on freedom of information and the management of national archives, as mentioned by Professor Huang.

Curriculum development has been slow to react to recent academic trends. Political science courses, especially those for undergraduates, are still based mainly on texts originally in foreign languages, which of course were not written for our students. Not many teachers take the initiative to add the latest discoveries or theories by scholars of Taiwan studies to their lectures. These are weak points that need improvement.

The situation is better in graduate programs because the curricula are more flexible. Although it has only been a short time since Taiwan's development experience entered into political science discussions, judging from standards of the international academic community, I believe that the major force for Taiwan studies is now in Taiwan. This is not so much because we have exceptional achievement, but because Taiwan studies was in the past only a very marginal subfield in the United States. In the past, almost no U.S. scholar focusing on Taiwan studies could gain tenure. It was impossible for a Taiwan specialist to gain an academic reputation. Some Taiwan scholars survived because they were able to branch out into studies of Japan, Korea, or mainland China. It wasn't until the 1980s that there appeared a few exceptions, one being sociologist Thomas Gold at U.c. Berkeley. From this we can see that Taiwan studies in the past was very weak, sparse, and fragmented, at least in the field of political science.

Some changes have taken place in the last decade because of academic interest in the “East Asia Experience” and the special modes of development in some of the newly industrialized East Asian countries. Academic advisers in political science and other social sciences are encouraging students to use Taiwan in comparative studies – to compare Taiwan with Latin America or to make comparisons between East Asian countries. Many of these young scholars have returned to Taiwan, and their study, training, and academic interests have influenced the development of the field.

In the United States, the major publications about Taiwan are mostly done by scholars originally from Taiwan. They are the accumulated achievement of dissertation work by young scholars. But these days, I do not make a strict distinction between the studies of Taiwan's political experience done here and abroad because political scientists have become a community, especially through the use of E-mail and other mass media, as well as increasing conference opportunities. The cost of staying informed on international academic developments is very low, so interaction is very frequent.

In 1991, the American Political Science Association set up the Conference Group on Taiwan Studies (CGOTS) under the association. I am one of the founding members. Each year it holds two to three panels for Taiwan and U.S. scholars to exchange ideas and research findings on Taiwan politics. So far, this network has been working well.

In spite of such exchanges, however, I still feel that we need to encourage new directions for research in Taiwan. Some areas need to be further strengthened. For example, we should stress comparative studies. In foreign countries, including the United States, Taiwan studies is not yet a well-established field or subfield. As a result, it is difficult to know if a piece of scholarship is really of good quality, compared with other fields, both in theoretical value and methodology. It is dangerous for scholars of Taiwan studies in Taiwan to be overly confident. I sometimes think we have low standards in evaluating our achievements, and I feel this is not a good sign.

Academic circles in Taiwan lack self-discipline. I agree with Professor Huang that there is no quality control in the publishing system. From my experience in conducting the oral examinations for M.A. theses, I feel we must be more responsible about this. Students often cite political campaign materials and opinionated essays as the basis for central ideas in their theses. It is now common for scholars to do so as well. Standards for academic evaluation need to be improved.

There are many resources in Taiwan on Taiwan studies. But if we don't do comparative studies, it's possible that our perspective will not be broad enough, and this will limit our ability to deal with more universal and profound issues. Unless we broaden our scope, Taiwan studies will not reach the level of Latin American studies, which is not only an area of study, but also provides feedback to mainstream studies. Latin American studies shows that a marginal field can move to the center. If we confine ourselves to a comer and are too quickly contented with our achievements, and maintain little interaction with the outside, our limitations will be very clear.

In terms of government funding, compared with other countries, the amount given to political science studies of Taiwan is sufficient. But whether the use of these resources is efficient and reasonable is quite another matter. In Taiwan, the resources for basic research work should increase. Currently, most funding is designated for policy-oriented research. In this area, too many resources are chasing too few researchers. Many scholars spend a lot of time fulfilling the numerous projects funded by various government agencies. Since the government is not willing to cultivate its own human resources and professional researchers, it often asks academic circles to give it a free ride. The government may provide NT$15,000 (US$555) to NT$20,000 (US$740) every month to a researcher and ask him to focus his studies on the issues it considers of immediate relevance and concern. This is a serious problem.

Unfortunately, many empirical data are not used and exchanged systematically. Because there are no rules for opening up these materials to the public, there is no guarantee about their quality. And because the scholars that use these materials are not obliged to identify the sources cited, other scholars cannot use the same data. As a result, there is much repetition and wasted effort in data collection. In the future, I hope the National Science Council and other similar organizations will set up archives or at least data banks for empirical studies. These would save and store data and make it available to the public. In brief, I don't think we need to ask for more resources and funding; it is more important to strengthen and rationalize the use of our existing resources.

To promote the studies of economics and politics in Taiwan, we have to transcend the role of doing academic subcontractor's work or just collecting data for large international projects. We have to be autonomous and set up important directions and issues for academic research. But this academic autonomy must be based on the understanding that the subject we are dealing with is not just Taiwan society – it is also human society and basic theoretical issues, including those of sociology, economics, and political science, and the interactions of these subjects. It is easy to lose balance if autonomy is overly emphasized, forgetting that one is still working within the framework of a global accumulation of human knowledge.

Some of our research is influenced too much by current political consciousness, debate, and conflicts of ideology. This is not a good sign. Sometimes, in a concealed way, the problem of “political correctness” appears. For example, in studying the authoritarian period, if scholars argue that there were positive social and economic developments during this time, and that authoritarianism helped facilitate these developments, they would be criticized as supporting authoritarian systems. If they say that the authoritarian period was inefficient, corrupt, and repressive, they are seldom challenged, even though the arguments are supported largely with hypotheses rather than evidence. This is not healthy. Researchers must be able to put political controversies in perspective and adhere to the facts. Research must be based on solid theoretical analysis and strict methodology and be built following established academic standards.

I stress the importance of comparative studies, but it is difficult for us to collect information about, say, South Korea, because we do not have broad academic exchanges. The situation with Japan is almost the same. I think the major reason for this is that we do not consciously think about this when designing and setting up directions for academic research. We should stress comparative studies because it will enrich our own analysis of the various phenomena in Taiwan and help us realize the uniqueness of our experience. If we close the door to comparative study, we may not be able to appreciate the particularity of our experience.

But although we may propose critical, comparative studies, we tend to ignore whether the ideal social order is based on some ideology. We are not critical enough about this. We should have our own standards in formulating the mode of comparative studies we need and decide through what network such a mode can be set up.

Interpretation and theorization about current social phenomena in Taiwan are abundant, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Political scientists are studying issues such as how the economic policies in the past were made, what are the social relations between government officials and businesspeople, and what were the structural affinities between these relations and the control and legitimacy of an authoritarian society in the 1950s and 1960s. These are important issues, but I feel we are seeking quick answers and facile interpretations. I think this is because as soon as scholars have an interpretation, they are asked to participate in the current dialogue. They are asked to give timely response or direction to, say, the student movement or to gain publicity in the mass media. If we can extend the theoretical horizon of Taiwan studies and improve our analysis, we can develop favorably. It is therefore important to do comparative studies between Taiwan and other East and Southeast Asian countries, including Mainland China.

Hsu Song-ken, research fellow, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica:
Studies on Taiwan can be classified into two categories. One is pure academic study, which gives humankind new knowledge. The other is practical study, which is useful to the people in Taiwan.

Generally speaking, economics has attracted the most attention among the various fields of social science. Economists have no problem getting funding for projects. In addition, they often hold important positions in government; even our president is an economist. Taiwan economists have long done three types of writing: purely theoretical, studies focused on Taiwan's economic experience, and newspaper commentaries.

The establishment of several economic research institutes in Taiwan has also had an important influence in the field. In the early days, only NTU had a Department of Economics. Then Academia Sinica set up its Institute of Economics; it was the major research institute during the 1970s. The Taiwan Institute of Economic Research was established in 1976, and the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research in 1981.

From 1979 to 1985, some organizations like Academia Sinica's Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy were still in the preparatory stage. During this time, a large number of scholars finished their Ph.D. study in the United States and came back to Taiwan. Some of them published work in recognized international journals.

Since 1986, the field has become even stronger. Some of the scholars who stayed in Taiwan for advanced training have also had their papers accepted by renowned publications. Each year, several papers are published in top international journals such as the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy, and Quarterly Journal of Economics. They all have very strict standards when choosing articles; less than 20 percent of the papers submitted to these journals are published. Some people say that papers focusing on economic development in Taiwan will not be published in first-class international journals. This is not true. As long as the work is of high quality, it will be published. Since Taiwan's economic experience is unique, some scholars are now focusing on the theoretical implications for basic theories concerning developing economies.

In the history of Taiwan's economic development, 1951 was a watershed year. After that date, we can find lots of information and statistics collected by the Executive Yuan's Directorate General of Budget, Accounting & Statistics. Most of the academic work has focused on Taiwan's economic development after the fifties. Only in the past three or four years have a few scholars begun studying Taiwan's earlier economic development, including the Japanese occupation period.

Taiwan's economists have already written textbooks and other materials for college students concerning the island's economic development. Some efforts have also been devoted to educational materials for elementary and high-school students.

Concerning standards, I agree that academic papers should be carefully evaluated before being accepted for local publication. I estimate that at least 30 percent of the papers submitted should be eliminated because of bad quality. Moreover, members of the evaluation committee should be highly qualified. If they have not written academic papers themselves, how can they evaluate the quality of work done by others? At present, academic standards vary greatly among local research organizations and schools; theoretically, the standards should be the same for everyone.

Basically, the academic relationship between Taiwan and the United States is bilateral. Many Taiwan students have gone there for advanced study, and after returning, a number have had an impact on formulating Taiwan's economic policies. Academic exchange between Taiwan and Japan is rather limited, but local scholars have drawn more heavily on Ja­ pan's own economic development experience for their research on Taiwan's development.

What is the impact of Taiwan's economic experience on the international field of economics? Some economic phenomena seem unique to Taiwan; others may have considerable relevance for other developing economies. These are worth studying in depth. For example, most big companies in Taiwan consider the domestic market their main one. On the other hand, most small enterprises are engaged in export. This is considerably different from South Korea and Brazil. Why did these approaches work here? Local scholars are no longer just adopting foreign theoretical economic models and applying them to Taiwan. Taiwan is different in many ways, and it suggests that generally accepted economic models for developing societies may need substantial revision.

Chang Mau-kuei, research fellow, Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica:
I think we can look at the development of Taiwan studies over the past thirty years as a dialogue between the development of the social sciences and the development of society. But only in the last decade has the status of sociology really been established in Taiwan.

Like other places, the development of social sciences here came about in response to industrialization and the rise of capitalism. Taiwan actually chose the road toward capitalism, and as it progressed along this route, sociology grew as well. At first, there were ideological hurdles. It was necessary to remove the political fear that social sciences dealt only with socialism. I still remember reading articles about the relationship between socialism and the social sciences when I was studying sociology in college.

These political concerns had an impact on the development of the field. Sociologists, for example, tended not to touch political issues. They focused instead on the social problems caused by changes in family, social values, and religion, as well as changes in the population. These issues avoided political implications.

There was plenty to investigate because so many social problems were caused by industrialization and the transformation into a capitalist society. Sociology as a field was given legitimacy by the research done on problems such as teenage criminal behavior and social welfare issues. Moreover, the government was very willing to support research in these areas. Considerable empirical work has been done, and it provides a valuable record of Taiwan's social and economic development. Similar work is now being done in the mainland, and for a similar reason: empirical studies can generally avoid direct confrontations with power holders.

In the past, most professors in Taiwan were encouraged to teach, not to do research; nowadays, professors have to do both. This has had a major impact on attitudes because scholars have been forced to deal with Western theories and research methods. It has forced local social scientists to question whether these theories and instruments are appropriate for understanding Taiwan.

In the 1980s, local sociologists were influenced by the left-wing to liberal thinking in the West that had arisen along with the civil rights movement. This more critical attitude and analytic stance was adopted by scholars looking at Taiwan's social problems. It stimulated more criticism of the logic behind industrialization and capitalism. One result was that scholars took a closer look at labor issues and the social impact of industrialization on people and groups. The new stance meant that earlier empirical research, geared toward fact finding, was re-examined and re-evaluated.

By the beginning of this decade, Taiwan's social sciences had become much more diversified and refined. Empirical studies, for example, are now very sophisticated. Academia Sinica, with the support of the National Science Council, has been collecting important base-line data through numerous empirical studies on Taiwan society. This data will be very important to future studies of Taiwan's social development. Academia Sinica has already made thirty or forty conference papers available that focus on empirical data. Many other critical studies are now coming out; some of them are produced by civic organizations and clubs.

Of course, politics has continued to have an influence on the development of the social sciences, and we have seen a major shift since the lifting of martial law in 1987. Political development reflects the search for empowerment, the means to gain power and position and be oneself. Compared with the years under the authoritarian regime, the environment is now very different. And it is reflected in social phenomena. Civil rights and other social movements have become important issues. The search for a new sense of empowerment is now different from the days under the authoritarian system. The new political environment is stimulating more community studies that focus directly on grassroots issues.

So what is Taiwan studies? Actually, anyone who conducts empirical research on Taiwan can be said to be doing it. But today, it seems that Taiwan studies necessarily includes the search for identity. In sociology, this is illustrated by the studies on Taiwan's current problems, which are invariably rooted in the past. As we investigate the past, we discover what we were and what we now are – both are issues of identity. We study ourselves and explain ourselves, then we try to make generalizations. The question is whether this line of research can be generalized and theoretically based for other academic audiences. I think it can.

But this kind of study does not necessarily get high international visibility. It is therefore important to publish in recognized journals. I agree with Professor Chu that it is very dangerous for scholars here to become overly smug about their achievements. One reason is the weakness of the theoretical component of local scholarship. After scholars generate theories, they must be tested in the international academic community.

Apart from establishing more visibility for Taiwan studies, we should also seek to make some contribution to the development of social science theories. One way to do this is to do more comparative studies. This is an important way to gain knowledge. But we have a problem of limited resources, unless we tie into international information networks.

There are other difficulties as well. Comparative studies require language training. If local scholars don't speak Korean, Vietnamese, or Tagalog, they can only use secondary sources in English, which creates an obstacle. With the exception of English, foreign language study is rarely encouraged in Taiwan's academic community. And if scholars want to study languages, they won't get any financial support from the government. That's why we are so dependent on the English-speaking world. By the time we graduate from college, we have studied English for eight to ten years. While it is important to have high goals for comparative work, the actual distance between those goals and reality is very great.