A Foucauldian analysis of research Assessment in a postcolonial context: the example of Hong Kong

ABSTRACT

This article analyses performance-based research evaluation for the higher education sector in a postcolonial context through a Foucauldian lens. Using Hong Kong as an example, this paper examines the formulation of and receptions towards the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). It is argued that Hong Kong academics, especially those working in the humanities and social sciences, associate the key concepts of ‘world-leading’ and ‘internationally excellent’ research in the RAE framework with Western knowledge that undermines local and regional research. They respond to RAE in four main ways: pragmatic compliance; refusal to conform to the demands of RAE; adoption of a dualistic strategy by publishing internationally and locally; and re-imagining of research assessment coupled with the promotion of indigenous knowledge. Two significant implications are highlighted in this article. First, the preservation of a research evaluation mechanism inherited from a colonial government perpetuates and entrenches external control and dominance in the former colony. Secondly, there is a need to re-construct the research appraisal apparatus as well as advance indigenous and hybrid knowledge in a postcolonial educational landscape.

KEYWORDS:

• Affect
• Foucault
• Hong Kong
• postcolonialism
• research assessment exercise

Acknowledgments

I thank the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Declaration

• Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

• No potential competing interest was reported by the author.

• The author did not receive support from any organisation for the submitted work.

• The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

• This is a theoretical paper that does not involve human participants and/or animals. There are no empirical data associated with this paper.

Notes

1. A number of researchers have critiqued the RAE in the UK. The major criticisms are the instigation of a performative culture that purely rewards publication as the goal and overlooks the pursuit of knowledge (Bence and Oppenheim 2005), proliferation of ‘game playing’ by focussing on conservative and quick research (Hare, 2003, Koelman & Venniker, 2001), and the devaluation of good scholarship and practice-based work (Broadbent 2010, Sikes, 2006). As these concerns have also been raised by researchers in their critique of Hong Kong’s RAE, this article shall not rehearse them (for details, see Currie 2008a, b; Li, 2021; Li & Li, 2022a, b; O’Sullivan, 2018). Rather, the aim of this paper is to address the two questions mentioned at the start of the essay: To what extent, if any, are the knowledge, affect and reasoning associated with colonialism maintained and perpetuated by the RAE? How do academics in Hong Kong respond to RAE?

2. The materials for RAE 2026 are not available on the official website (University Grants Committee, 2017) at the point of writing this paper.

3. The categories and definitions of quality levels for Impact are as follows (University Grants Committee, n.d., p. 15):

4 star (4*) Outstanding impacts in terms of their reach and significance.

3 star (3*) Considerable impacts in terms of their reach and significance.

2 star (2*) Some impacts in terms of their reach and significance.

1 star (1*) Limited impacts in terms of their reach and significance.

unclassified (u/c) The impact is of either no reach or no significance; or the impact was not eligible; or the impact was not underpinned by research produced by the submitting unit; or nil submission.

4. The categories for environment are as follows (University Grants Committee, n.d., p. 17):

4 star (4*) An environment that is conducive to producing research of world-leading quality, in terms of its vitality and sustainability.

3 star (3*) An environment that is conducive to producing research of internationally excellent quality, in terms of its vitality and sustainability.

2 star (2*) An environment that is conducive to producing research of internationally recognised quality, in terms of its vitality and sustainability.

1 star (1*) An environment that is conducive to producing research of limited quality, in terms of its vitality and sustainability.

unclassified (u/c) An environment that is not conducive to producing research of 1 star quality; or nil submission.

5. Admittedly, the assessment component of ‘Impact’ which comprises 15% of the overall weighting acknowledges the socio-economic contributions of the academics’ research to the local community and beyond. However, the RAE’s demand for ‘world leading’/‘international’ research outputs means that no academic participating in the RAE can afford to attend only to local needs and agendas, and neglect publications that are tailored for the international audience and settings.

6. Currie’s study examines the disciplines within the humanities and social sciences. Hence her arguments are not necessarily relevant to academics working in other fields such as the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines.

7. It needs to be clarified that the preference of English to local languages is not solely attributed to colonisation and post-colonialism. Universities in Hong Kong as well as their counterparts in East Asia such as Singapore have sought to raise their international profiles and university rankings by embracing English as the medium of instruction. Encouraging academics to publish in English instead of indigenous languages ensures that their works are more accessible to a wider audience, especially readers from the Anglophone societies. I thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the above. However, the primary objection of the Hong Kong academics with the RAE is not the need to publish in English. Rather, their main grievance is the perception that only works published in English are valued and likely to obtain a high rating in the RAE. That the RAE originates from the UK where English is considered a local language and is most widely spoken (unlike in Hong Kong) adds to the prevailing impression that the RAE devalues non-English languages in Hong Kong.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Charlene Tan

Charlene Tan, PhD, is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong. Her research interests fcous on educational policy, philosophy and leadership in Asia. She is the (co)author of over 180 books, book chapters and refereed journal articles, including the book ‘Comparing High-performing Education Systems: Understanding Singapore, Shanghai, and Hong Kong’ (Routledge).