Dominik ANTONOWICZ, Brendan CANTWELL, Maia CHANKSELIANI, Michelle Wing Tung CHENG, Yusuf Ikbal OLDAC, Anatoly OLEKSIYENKO,
and Zhenzhou ZHAO
、
In 1962, Minerva published Michael Polanyi’s disquisition on the nature and politics of scientific organization. Polanyi reflected on the growing pressures for coordination and control inside and outside scholarly communities in the UK, while pondering the rationales and implications of moving away from the self-regulated networks of inquiry and learning. In the following decades, his concerns about the disappearing power of communal and disinterested science only soared (Macfarlane, 2024). The rift between the advocates of academic freedom and managerial approaches grew wider (Oleksiyenko, 2019). Meanwhile, top-down regulation has grown across many university systems as the global mega-science arose to dictate the rules and expectations of research and production (Baker and Powell, 2024).
At the Centre for Higher Education Leadership and Policy Studies in Hong Kong, we discussed Polanyi’s concerns through the lens of implications for the context of higher education in Hong Kong. Bruce Macfarlane, who invited us to read this thought-provoking article, enthused a small group to share across different cultural interpretations of governance concepts. Anatoly Oleksiyenko called for additional reflections in a written forum which this paper represents. He also invited CHELPS’s friends in Europe and North America to participate and contribute their thoughts on Polanyi’s concerns regarding the shifts in scientific organization. Thus, the Asian-Euro-Atlantic polylogue has emerged.
Below, you will see a discussion on a citizenship-republic nexus which opens new dilemmas in the modern “Republic of Science”. The pieces below invite readers to re-consider Polanyi’s arguments and re-examine the constructs and constraints of science governance under disparate disciplinary and institutional lenses, which the global academe positions for multiple and competing agendas in research, education, and service.
Losing Control to Other Powerful Players?
Dominik Antonowicz
Michael Polanyi’s text was published nearly six decades ago, yet despite its maturity, it has not lost its value. It continues to be frequently referenced in contemporary discussions on science and higher education. Naturally, this quintessentially British text is read and interpreted through the lens of individual experiences, political contexts, and institutional conditions specific to each reader’s environment. Having said that, it raises a pertinent question: why, over six decades does Polanyi’s work remain relevant? And why should we not only cite it but, more importantly, engage with it carefully and critically?
The primary reason is that his work provides essential insight into the nature of science—what distinguishes it from other spheres of social life and what makes it unique. Polanyi explicitly identifies two defining characteristics: the self-organization of the scientific community and a disinterested yet uncompromising curiosity in exploring the world. These two values are the foundation of science, yet they are increasingly pushed aside under political and economic pressure.
It is therefore unsurprising that there is a growing belief that science has been taken away from the republic of scholars —or perhaps, preoccupied with their individual careers, scientists themselves have surrendered the field to other powerful actors. Contrary to Polanyi’s vision, the selection of research problems and the nature of scientific discourse have slipped out of the control of the republic of scholars.
Science is still conducted by researchers who use the scientific method to seek truth about the world. At the same time, however, research has become an exceedingly costly endeavor, requiring substantial investment from the national governments. It makes the latter to seek influence to steer research interest. In today’s world, it is nearly impossible to conduct research without ample financial resources, and only a privileged few—those employed at elite institutions in wealthy countries—enjoy access to unlimited resources. This disparity extends to open access publishing as well, where large publishing companies have significantly impacted access to scientific findings. As a result, it is the big business —rather than the republic of scholars—that now defines the format and rules of scientific discourse in a manner that would likely leave Polanyi stunned.
Fortunately, the world of science still remains a fascinating endeavor because it continues to attract those curiosity driven — individuals who ask inconvenient questions and identify intriguing problems that keep them awake at night. These are questions to which the answers seem trivial to most that they are not even considered worth exploring. Yet science remains a domain for the inquisitive, those who follow their instincts as explorers, but also those who are willing to face the scrutiny of collective reasoning. This is particularly challenging in an era of narratives obsessed with excellence. Today, everything scholars do is expected to be excellent. For many, the notion of scientific excellence makes it difficult to accept criticism, to embrace scientific reviews, and to recognize failure as an opportunity for improvement and refinement. The discourse of excellence leaves little room for imperfection—an inherent element of human creativity.
Polanyi believed in the strength and authority of the scientific community. He was convinced that the collective wisdom of the republic of scholars was not only capable of assessing scientific quality but shedding light on its future challenges. His faith rested on the idea that the shared commitment to truth and the scientific method would be strong enough to overcome all other divisions. However, his vision proved to be wishful thinking. As science became increasingly massified, community-defined values, ethical norms, and the very objectives of scientific inquiry weakened. And science itself became more susceptible to the forces of politics and economics.
This does not mean that Polanyi was wrong. On the contrary, he was absolutely right: science should be organized by the republic of scholars. However, it cannot be merely the result of their competing interests—it must be a true community of values.
Competition and Conflict Strain Governance in the Republic of Science, and The Importance of Higher Education Scholarship
Brendan Cantwell
Higher education scholars could be accused of adopting a pessimistic stance, catastrophizing and bemoaning ruin when the university is flourishing on a global scale. Anyone who has attended scholarly meetings in the field over the past two decades will know what I mean. Our preoccupation with gloom has been noticed in the disciplines. Sociologists David Frank and John Myer recently chastised higher education scholars for excessive attention to competition. They said, “Perhaps the fact that the higher education literature is produced by and mostly for participants in particular local organizations accounts for this narrow focus and inattention to the wider global institutional canopy.” (Frank & Meyer, 2024, p. 1781). For Frank and Meyer, the friction and conflict of competition are incidental to the university institution advancing, all the while legitimizing the special status of science and accrediting established knowledge as the prime schema for a global society. Their self-described cosmology (Frank & Meyer, 2019) is optimistic, almost an “end of history”-type theory (Fukuyama, 1992). Frank and Meyer’s account of the university institution as central to a world society has descriptive value and analytic purchase. But it also overlooks the plain reality that the university as a global institution is on the verge of a crisis of governance that threatens its stability (and capacity to stabilize), and that any global crisis has emergent local causes.
Polanyi (1962) famously argued that science functions best as a self-governing Republic of individual scientists who enjoy great liberty to pursue their interests. Individual scientists understand only a fraction of established knowledge and expand the frontiers of knowledge along the margins of their sub-specialties. Interactions between scientists, especially skepticism, critical evaluation, and, in some cases, acceptance and adoption of other’s work, regulate the boundaries of science (and academia). New scientists and academicians are socialized into these habits of interaction so that they are transmitted intergenerationally. These conditions, Polanyi argued, facilitate all scientific progress, and result in a Republic of Science that is self-governing without central coordination.
Adapting the scientific processes into a range of activities – the administration of schools, public health policies, food safety regulations, managing the risk of maintaining opposing nuclear weapons arsenals – results in the sort of stabilizing institutionalization that Frank and Meyer theorize. As the frontiers of the Republic of Science extend to encompass more domains, people outside of it become partially subject to rule by professional judgment. While the result of this expansion is sometimes institutionalization, and adoption of scientific values in other domains, it is sometimes rebellion and the rejection of science and established knowledge.
Polanyi (1962) understood the potential for conflict. Tradition, economic interests, and ethno-identity restrain scientific liberty. With the expansion of the university as a global social institution, the potential for conflictual encounters grows. Some examples: how much public funding should go higher education, and how the money should be distributed; who should control the means of academic production, and under what conditions; should universities be free to select faculty, students, and collaborators from anywhere in the world, or prioritize local people; should scientific consensus enjoy authority in setting public policy, or do popular passions and elite interests prevail. These conflicts manifest locally, often within and between individual universities or through national political processes. In some cases, local conflicts become large-scale revolts against the Republic of Science that threaten to partially destabilize higher education governance globally.
Conflict over the control of research underway in the United States is one such example, but such conflicts are not restricted to the US. Local competitions and conflicts within and between universities that emerge in relation to national politics will shape the ways national policy unfolds and, indirectly, shape academic science and higher education globally. We higher education scholars who study competition and conflict in proximal organizations might sometimes give too much attention to local strife and fail to notice global developments and longer-run trends. By the same token, ignorance of emergent local conditions can result in misplaced confidence in the durability and stability of macrosocial conditions. Today, it seems safe to say that local competition and conflict have profound geopolitical implications that threaten the capacity of the Republic of Science to govern itself and, therefore, casts into question the continuation of scientific processes that havecontributed so much human wellbeing. Understanding these competitions and conflicts locally is indispensable for resolving them and ensuring the continued productive development of global academic science.
From Republic to Oligarchy? The Future of Scientific Autonomy and Citizenship
Maia Chankseliani
Polanyi’s The Republic of Science (1962) remains a seminal defence of the autonomy of scientific inquiry. His vision of science as a self-organizing community, where knowledge production is governed by internal norms rather than external political control, has influenced generations of scholars concerned with academic freedom. But while Polanyi provides an elegant defence of the invisible hand of science, his account overlooks the full extent of challenges facing knowledge production today—particularly the erosion of academic citizenship in an era of hyper-competition, technocratic governance, and the instrumentalisation of research.
Reading Polanyi in 2025, in a world where science is increasingly shaped by economic and political imperatives, one must ask: is the republic of science still a functioning reality, or has it become a hollow metaphor? And can it survive without a strong culture of academic citizenship? Polanyi assumes that science is an inherently self-correcting enterprise. He suggests that individual researchers, guided by their own intellectual curiosity, contribute to the collective advance of knowledge through mutual adjustment. Yet this assumption no longer holds in an era where the production of knowledge is driven by external pressures—government priorities, commercial funding, and the logic of academic capitalism.
Contemporary research problems are not purely technical but involve deep uncertainties, high stakes, and urgent societal concerns. From climate change to artificial intelligence, the most pressing challenges of our time demand interdisciplinary approaches, public engagement, and ethical reflection—Polanyi’s republic remains indifferent to these wider responsibilities. His model assumes a science governed purely by internal logic, ignoring the social, ethical, and political dimensions of research. This is where academic citizenship becomes essential. In an era where knowledge is increasingly shaped by economic and political realities, scientists must actively engage in protecting the integrity, inclusivity, and social relevance of science itself. Science is not an insulated republic but a public institution with obligations beyond its own epistemic boundaries.
If we take seriously the idea that science is a republic, then we must ask what kind of citizenship sustains it. In the past, academic citizenship was upheld through peer review, institutional service, mentoring, and knowledge dissemination. But in the age of metrics-driven research and precarious academic labour, these responsibilities have been systematically devalued. Peer review and editorial work are increasingly unpaid and undervalued despite being fundamental to the republic of science. Early-career researchers, often in precarious positions, have little time or incentive to engage in academic service when their futures depend solely on publication output and funding success. Public engagement, once considered a crucial function of the academy, is now often treated as a distraction from ‘serious’ research. If these trends continue, the Republic of Science will not collapse from external control but from internal neglect. Without a renewed commitment to academic citizenship, we risk a science that is governed not by epistemic integrity but by market logic, where success is measured in citation impact rather than scholarly contribution.
While preserving epistemic integrity is essential, a revitalised vision of the Republic of Science must go further, expanding beyond Polanyi’s narrowly epistemic account to incorporate a more socially and ethically engaged model. Universities and funding bodies must actively incentivise and reward peer review, mentorship, and interdisciplinary collaboration rather than privileging only individual research outputs. The Republic of Science cannot afford to be an insular elite—it must be responsive to societal needs, ethical concerns, and global inequalities in knowledge production. Science is never neutral; it is embedded in power structures and value systems. Academic citizens must actively question not just their own research but the conditions under which knowledge is produced and legitimised.
Polanyi’s Republic of Science was a defence of autonomy, but in 2025, autonomy alone is not enough. The real challenge is ensuring that science remains not only free but also responsible, inclusive, and self-critical. Without a renewed commitment to academic citizenship, science risks becoming not a republic but an oligarchy—where knowledge is shaped by institutional power, corporate funding, and epistemic hierarchy rather than by the open exchange of ideas. If science is to serve society, then scholars must serve science—not as isolated individuals but as active participants in a shared intellectual commons. The republic of science must be more than a metaphor; it must be a lived practice of collective responsibility.
The Rights and Duties of Being a “Citizen of Science”
Michelle Wing Tung CHENG
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, “citizenship” means the state of being a member of a particular country and having rights because of it. Certainly, when the concept of citizenship is applied to science, the idea of geographical location and country should be neglected. Therefore, such citizenship can be understood as being a member of the scientific group and having rights because of it. One may then ask: what are the rights of being a citizen of science?
Polanyi (1962) interprets the term “citizen of science” (p. 68) as indicating that there is no central authority among this group of citizens, but rather “an invisible hand” (p. 55) that facilitates a series of independent scientists to mutually adjust themselves based on the published results of others and work towards the joint discovery of a hidden system. Therefore, one of the obvious rights of being part of the scientific community is to enjoy the freedom and democracy to work on one’s most desired research topic rather than being told what to research, such as the “pursuit of fashionable subjects” (p. 64). Additionally, “the present practice of filling vacant chairs by the most eminent candidate that the university can attract is the best safeguard for the rational distribution of efforts over rival lines of scientific research” (p. 64), meaning that your research interests should not affect your chances of being hired or promoted, as long as you excel in your research topic. However, to safeguard these rights, there must also be duties.
To construct a trustworthy scientific community, the production of scientific knowledge needs to achieve scientific merit, defined as “contribution of sufficient plausibility and of a given scientific value...and originality” (Polanyi, 1962, p. 58). This standard still holds true today, and it is essential to meet the standards of scientific merit accepted by the scientific community for one’s work to be published. While this serves as a reminder for all citizens to produce quality research, we must not ignore that the number of cases involving research misconduct has dramatically increased in recent years (Hanson et al., 2024). Polanyi also provides a perspective on peer review and its proper function. The authority of scientific opinion is established among the citizens of science to control the quality of research work. However, in modern times, there are increasing challenges for journal editorial teams to find qualified peer reviewers, as many individuals prefer to have their papers reviewed rather than review others (Horta & Jung, 2024). They often do not consider this part of their “job duties,” neglecting their basic responsibilities as citizens of science.
To what extent a scientist recognizes and identifies themselves as a citizen of science varies. The enjoyment of rights and freedoms carries with it duties and responsibilities. If one does not put effort into fulfilling the duties of citizenship, how can they expect their rights to be maintained? I am not saying this is the only factor that undermines the rights of citizens as scientists, but who can you blame when external parties highlight the flaws and then demand more centralized coordination or a higher authority to ensure that public resources allocated to scientific research are used effectively? Rip (1994) argued that “the invisible hand of scientific opinion is made visible, in a sense, in the way research councils draw on the judgments of scientists” (p. 5). It might be beneficial to reflect on the current position of the republic of sciences and how and why we have moved further away from the model described by Polanyi (1962).
Ideas on the Inclusivity of Citizenship in the Republic of Science
Yusuf Ikbal OLDAC
Polanyi (1962) likens the organisation and functioning of the Republic of Science to that of a free society. The focus is on the principles of spontaneous coordination, mutual adjustment, and the autonomy of scientific progress. In this regard, Polanyi's (1962) Republic of Science should be a concept that goes beyond the limited national boundaries due to the universal relevance of scientific inquiry and the interconnectedness of scientists worldwide. However, some critical aspects are left undiscussed in Polanyi’s seminal paper (1962), and they are worth paying attention to, especially those about the inclusivity of citizenship to the Republic of Science.
One question that comes to mind would be whether the citizens of the Republic of Science only include scientists speaking a mainstream language. This is because the principles of mutual adjustment among scientists or spontaneous collaboration may not work when some scientists do not speak a shared language. Most scientists would not be aware of the findings of another fellow citizen in the Republic of Science who communicates in a different language to ‘adjust’ their own studies. Ignoring scientific advances in non-mainstream languages is already happening in today’s world (Oldac et al., 2024). Considering all these, there has to be a shared language among the scientists for the idea of citizenship in the Republic of Science to work, which is not discussed in the seminal paper.
In certain circumstances, a shared language would be less important, especially if scholarly communication and publications were less dependent on language and more on numbers or inventions. In this sense, STEM (Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) areas in research would be more likely to have a more inclusive citizenship to the Republic of Science. However, the same may not be said for social sciences or humanities, as these research areas heavily depend on contextual factors, language, and culture (Xu, 2020). Such a situation may indicate different dynamics for the idea of a Republic of Science for different fields and research areas, which could be an argument towards multiple republics of sciences. Is there really one republic of science, or should we consider citizenship dynamics differently for different republics of sciences? The situation that different research systems around the world have different research councils for different kinds of research (e.g., Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) of UK versus Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)) could be an indication that principles such as spontaneous coordination, mutual adjustment, and the autonomy of scientific progress are working differently and independently of in diverse republics.
Further, would scientists have equal citizenship in the said Republic of Science? If a fundamental aspect of a republic in today’s world is based on the premise of equal citizenship and opportunities, would that exist in the Republic of Science? This needs critical reflection. Ideas from scientists in developing contexts are not always as visible as those from dominant science systems due to potential biases regarding the rigour of scientific contribution (Nkansah et al., 2024). Such a situation would, again, put some of the principles of the Republic of Science, such as spontaneous coordination and mutual adjustment, at risk of being defunct.
Much of what is discussed in this section depends on the nature of the envisioned Republic of Science. Is it a national-level or a small regional idea? Or are we envisioning a global republic of scientists? Because of the global relevance of scientific inquiry and the existing intensity of cross-border collaborations of scientists worldwide, the Republic of Science idea may benefit from being more inclusive, and citizenship to it should follow suit. However, the idea of a global republic of science would have the challenges highlighted above, and we would need to work together to tackle them so our republic would be a functioning one.
Science Citizenship and Ethical Excellence
Anatoly Oleksiyenko
Plato’s Republic of philosopher-kings, wisely governing only those who deserve the status of citizens, and Polanyi’s Republic of Science, managing democratic markets through shared principles of self-governing knowledge creation, have significant differences in concepts and ethics. The former justifies authority through hierarchy and exceptionality, while the latter sees this authority in communal norms supporting diverse and unpredictable scholarly interests and pursuits. At a time when universities get preoccupied with creating authority through hierarchy and prestige economy, the concerns about Polanyi’s Republic are particularly critical as there is a growing expansion of the “surrogate academic freedom” (Oleksiyenko, 2021) and the crisis in “ethical excellence” (Macfarlane, 2021).
With the encroachment of scientific management onto academic terrains, the concerns about regulation and structuration of academic behaviours and responsibilities become ubiquitous. The so-called “invisible hand”, extended by markets or by states, can hardly be a trustworthy force in making science these days. In the context of geopolitics, hybrid wars and post-truth politics, scientists can be drawn into campaigns and projects of brutal devastation and mass destruction. The pure belief in the wisdom of an invisible hand can be highly naïve and dangerous, given that modern marketers of global science can end up selling their knowledge products to a genocidal regime while still justifying their disinterestedness in political processes. As a new Cold War begins to take shape, the dissent of Andrei Sakharov—a Soviet-era scientist and the architect of the hydrogen bomb—serves as a poignant reminder of the ongoing struggle against his homeland’s oppressive regime controlled by quasi-Platonian philosophers. [Sakharov's story unfolds in earnest a decade after the publication by Michael Polanyi. Notably, his son John Polanyi, the 1986 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, was honoured with the Andrei Sakharov Prize from the American Physical Society for “tireless activism for a nuclear-weapons-free world, commitment to human rights and freedom of speech worldwide, dedication to public education on the vital role of science in society, and his visionary approach to fostering a hopeful and peaceful future" (University of Toronto, 2021).]
In the neoliberal academe, science citizenship emerges as a major counterbalance to performative pressures and self-censorship. Despite corporate confines, the science citizen cultivates an environment for truth-seeking and open discussion. Within the Republic of Science, the scholar investigates and communicates critically important and disturbing questions as the Republic has a strong interest in pushing the boundaries of science while simultaneously challenging ethical assumptions. In view of authority, science citizens often need the courage to confront the interests of their own academic tribes and territories in order to sustain methodological and ethical standards and pursue the excellence of knowledge-making. The communal interest in sustainable and trustworthy research stimulates science citizens to take care of shared values and responsibilities. Knowledge-making, in this case, resembles a producer’s behaviour in a village market where everyone knows each other and benefits from mutual trust in selling-buying despite inequality in fruits, harvests, prices and profits.
Yet, scientific production in a global village requires more than the pursuit of productivity and profit. Collaborative ingenuity and discovery depend on the quality and ethics of communities that are formed through disparate social organizations. While markets empower some producers and give them a competitive advantage over time, sustainability ensues when and if markets succeed in creating a mutually beneficial exchange for most, if not all, participants. Respectively, it is citizenship rather than salesmanship that becomes a cardinal mechanism for the adjustment of rules and beliefs in the markets. With the disruptive globalization of markets and the de-tribalization of scientific fields, the challenge of citizenship certainly becomes more sophisticated. The 21st-century scholar has to ask time and again: What does it really mean to create trustworthy citizenship in the global mega-science, which Baker and Powell (2024) see as re-arranging our capacities for scientific work? What should a global science citizen do to secure quality and trust, as well as improve individual and common benefits in multi-disciplinary knowledge production? Polanyi’s paper gives curious counsel - by finding our own intellectual satisfaction, we enlighten others and thus help “society to fulfil its obligation towards intellectual self-improvement”.
The Role of Citizenship in the Scientific Inquiry on Chinese Pedagogy
Zhenzhou ZHAO
On January 16, 2025, China Education Daily, a prominent publication of the Chinese Ministry of Education, featured an article discussing the construction of ‘an autonomous knowledge system of Chinese pedagogy’ (Zeng, 2025). The article first acknowledges the long history of pedagogy as a field but emphasizes the significance of this initiative in the following manner:
It not only reflects a strong theoretical self-confidence but also asserts the identity and global influence of Chinese pedagogical knowledge within the broader landscape of international educational discourse. Furthermore, this development is vital for supporting the construction of a strong educational nation. (Zeng, 2025, p. 7)
A prominent educational researcher, Zeng Tianshan then argues that ‘Chinese pedagogy’ refers to the Sinification of Marxist educational theories, the modernization of traditional Chinese educational thought, and the localization of advanced foreign educational theories.
The ongoing discourse surrounding the development of an ‘autonomous’ knowledge system in China raises an important question about the role of citizenship in scientific inquiry and within the global scientific community. In examining the implications of Polanyi’s (1962, p. 71) vision of the Republic of Science for educational research, it is intriguing to explore how citizenship influences scientific inquiry into educational development.
Citizenship informs membership and regulates the relationship between a citizen subject and the polity (Isin, 2024). The significance of citizenship can be understood in two primary senses. Firstly, globally, a substantial number of educational institutions at various levels are funded publicly. The close link between schooling and the local polities limits the ability of educational researchers and educators to initiate educational programmes independently. Local polities are among one of the most influential stakeholders in this context. Furthermore, the coordination efforts of researchers often extend beyond the academic community, necessitating engagement with government entities, parents, and other stakeholders.
Secondly, while educational inquiries across various contexts aim to promote public welfare, the interpretation of ‘public welfare’ can vary significantly. The international community has generally converged on the goals of human development; however, long-standing debates persist regarding the purpose of education and the diverse approaches to educational practice. These debates are closely tied to the different traditions and norms of various political and socio-cultural communities (Rosenman, 1980; Okakok, 1989; Roosevelt, 2008; Marini, 2024; Zhao, 2023).
In this sense, a citizenship perspective suggests the importance of contextual complexity in educational research, as neither researchers nor participants can be entirely ‘independent’ (Polanyi, 1962, p. 71). Polanyi’s (1962) concept of the ‘Republic of Science’, nevertheless, encourages us to envision educational inquiries beyond the confines of citizenship and to engage in fostering cross-cultural dialogue on educational issues within a global context. More recently, Isin (2024) argued that citizenship, as a governmental apparatus, can exert both dominating and emancipatory influences. Educational researchers should be mindful of reflexivity within the dual realms of citizenship.
Polanyi (1962, p. 72) argues that the ‘Republic of Science’ enables explorers to ‘enlighten all men and thus help society fulfill its obligation towards intellectual self-improvement.’ While engaging in an ‘autonomous knowledge system of Chinese pedagogy’ (Zeng, 2025), Chinese researchers may consider how research on Chinese pedagogy can contribute to intellectual self-improvement both locally and internationally.
For scholars in the field of higher education, the idea of the university as a complex republic of science - a wise accumulator of knowledge with multiple originators and coordinators of scientific processes who know when to engage with institutional regulations and when not - implies understanding the idea of well-tuned and responsible citizenship. These knowledge producers are often far from finding perfect balances between freedoms and duties in science, which in itself is not a perfect construct. How we understand those balances can make the Republic of Science thrive or wane. Our engagement with this dilemma is a continuum of efforts to inquire and learn, as our forum suggests.
References
Baker, D. P., & Powell, J. J. (2024). Global Mega-Science: Universities, Research Collaborations, and Knowledge Production. Stanford University Press.
Chaddah, P. (2021). Ethics in research publications: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in science.Academic Integrity and Research Quality, 18-33.
Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2024). On university competition. Studies in Higher Education, 49(10), 1779-1787. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2385541
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31645-7_2
Isin, E. (2024). Citizenship: New Trajectories in Law. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003395997
Macfarlane, B. (2021). The neoliberal academic: Illustrating shifting academic norms in an age of hyper-performativity. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(5), 459-468.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1684262
Macfarlane, B. (2024). The DECAY of Merton’s scientific norms and the new academic ethos. Oxford Review of Education, 50(4), 468-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2243814
Marini, G. (2024). Academic Freedom and Academics as Pub
lic Intellectuals. Universities & Intellectuals, 1(1), 2-9. https://chelps.eduhk.hk/post/academic-freedom-and-academics-as-public-intellectuals
Nkansah, J. O., Oldac, Y. I., & Yang, L. (2024). Dependency and neocolonialism in international research collaboration: Evidence from a Ghanaian elite university. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01393-w
Oldac, Y. I., Nkansah, J. O., & Yang, L. (2024). ‘West is must, the rest is optional’: Epistemic injustice and positional good in international research collaboration. Higher Education, 88(2), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01127-4
Oleksiyenko, A. V. (2019). Academic Collaborations in the Global Marketplace. Cham: Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23141-5
Oleksiyenko, A. V. (2021). Is academic freedom feasible in the post-Soviet space of higher education?. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53(11), 1116-1126.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1773799
Okakok, L. (1989). Serving the purpose of education. Harvard Educational Review, 59(4), 405-423.https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.59.4.j774101814p68423
Polanyi, M. (1962). The Republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01101453
Roosevelt, E. (2008). Good citizenship: The purpose of education. Teachers College Record, 110(14), 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810811001499
Rosenman, M. (1980). Empowerment as a purpose of education. Alternative Higher Education, 4(4), 248-259.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079732
University of Toronto (2021, October 21). John Polanyi receives American Physical Society's Andrei Sakharov Prize. https://www.utoronto.ca/celebrates/john-polanyi-receives-american-physical-society-s-andrei-sakharov-prize
Xu, X. (2020). China ‘goes out’ in a centre–periphery world: Incentivizing international publications in the humanities and social sciences. Higher Education, 80(1), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00470-9
Zeng, T. (2025). Overall construction of an autonomous knowledge system of Chinese pedagogy (zhengti jiangou zhongguo jiaoyuxue zizhu zhishi tixi). China Education Daily (Zhongguo jiaoyubao), 16 January, 2025. Page 7.
Zhao, Z. (2023). What does the ideal citizen look like in China’s new era? A bottom-up view. Citizenship Studies, 27(6), 744-760. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2023.2287828
To cite this article: Antonowicz, D., Cantwell, B., Chankseliani, M., Cheng, M.W.T., Oldac, Y.I., Oleksiyenko, A., and Zhao, Z. (2025). Does Citizenship Matter in the Republic of Science? Universities & Intellectuals, 20-37
See all papers