Currently, I am pursuing my second master's degree in the Design and Environmental Analysis program at Cornell University. I invite you to join me in my world of design and photography utopia.
Linghao Li ｜李凌昊
PhD in Design
MA Design in D+EA ‘24
MA Graphic Design and Visual Experience ‘22
BFA Visual Communication Design ‘16
NCSU | Cornell University｜SCAD｜TAFA
+ 1 912-391-7213 | ll933@cornell.edu
Behance / Instagram / Linkedin / Mail
Design Works
Photography Works
Research Topic
About Myself
Resume/CV
Building upon my foundation in design theory and art education, I have significantly broadened my research interests. During my time at Cornell University's Human-Centered Design Department, I had the privilege of systematically exploring Pluriversal Design under the guidance of Dr. Renata Leitão. Concurrently, I pursued a minor in Anthropology, mentored by Dr. Viranjini Munasinghe. This diverse academic experience, encompassing Cultural Anthropology, Visual Studies, History of Photography, and Design for Interaction, propelled me into the realm of interdisciplinary research and helped me define my unique research trajectory.
A pivotal moment in solidifying my academic direction came through my studies with Professor Andrew Moisey. His deep insights into visual studies and photography profoundly influenced my approach to understanding how visual culture shapes and reflects societal narratives. His mentorship has been instrumental in affirming my commitment to pursuing visual studies as the core of my future academic career.
Presently, my research focuses on the intersection of visual culture, design, art history, and anthropology. I am particularly fascinated by the history of photography and visual media in early 20th-century Northeast Asia, especially in relation to how these mediums influenced socio-political narratives during periods of colonization.
My passion for these topics drives my commitment to advancing knowledge in these areas. I invite you to explore more about my work and research interests in the following messages. This dedication fuels my pursuit of creating meaningful contributions to the understanding of visual culture and design in East Asia. Welcome to my academic journey.
- Design Research Society
Linghao Lia,c, Wangda Zhub , TingxinZhengc
aNorth Carolina State University
bHong Kong Polytechnic University
cCornell University
*Corresponding author e-mail: dklittle@ncsu.edu, wz334@cornell.edu
Since the first programs were established in 2011, China's design doctoral education has expanded to 37 institutions by 2024, yet Chinese scholars remain marginalized in international venues like DRS (3.6% of papers, 2012–2024). Through mixed-methods analysis of 426 dissertations, 95 conference papers, 6,239 citations, 40 author trajectories, and 9 interviews, we reveal systematic divergence rather than exclusion. Citation analysis demonstrates a 50.9 percentage point shift: scholars cite 54.5% Chinese-language sources in dissertations but only 3.6% in DRS papers. Author tracking shows 72.5% became one-time participants with no subsequent first-author international publications, evidencing strategic credential-seeking over sustained engagement. Keyword analysis confirms Chinese research concentrates on cultural heritage (58.2%) while international discourse emphasizes user-centered approaches (44.5%). We theorize this as institutionalized epistemic sovereignty: active construction of parallel knowledge infrastructure serving mainland China's knowledge demands independently of international norms, raising fundamental questions about for whom design knowledge should be produced.
Existing scholarship explains non-Western underrepresentation through two frameworks. The deficit approach attributes marginalization to language barriers (Canagarajah, 2002; Flowerdew, 1999), methodological training gaps (Li & Flowerdew, 2007), and resource constraints (Salager-Meyer, 2008). The structural exclusion framework emphasizes Western gatekeeping (Lillis & Curry, 2010), citation politics privileging Western knowledge (Alatas, 2003), and review processes structured around Western epistemological assumptions (Salager-Meyer, 2008). Both frameworks presuppose unidirectional aspiration—that scholars from non-Western contexts either "want but cannot" or are "blocked from entry."
This study challenges deficit and exclusion frameworks by revealing rational construction under specific institutional logics. Through citation analysis of 6,239 references and tracking 40 DRS authors over multi-year windows, we document systematic bibliographic code-switching—with Chinese-language sources declining from majority to near-complete elimination when publishing internationally—and strategic one-time participation patterns where the substantial majority of scholars produce no subsequent first-author international publications. This phenomenon evidences what we theorize as institutionalized epistemic sovereignty: autonomous knowledge systems serving mainland China's knowledge demands while asserting independence from international validation structures. This framework draws on Said's (2003) knowledge-power theory—who holds authority to define research relevance—and Bourdieu's (2007) field autonomy concept—how alternative systems of symbolic capital emerge within bounded scholarly communities. Our analysis employs three complementary methodological lenses: keyword distribution patterns revealing thematic divergence, citation analysis documenting bibliographic code-switching, and author trajectory tracking evidencing strategic rather than sustained international engagement.
The Chinese case challenges assumptions about "internationalization" itself. When a knowledge system possesses sufficient internal markets (1.4 billion population, rapid urbanization, massive design industry demand, cultural policy imperatives), must it pursue "international recognition"? This question concerns epistemic sovereignty—who defines "good research" and "for whom knowledge is produced."
We examine three interrelated questions: (1) What knowledge do Chinese design doctoral students produce? (2) For whom is this knowledge produced? (3) How does this shape their relationship with international design research communities?
In this paper, "international design research" refers to the global scholarly ecosystem as currently constituted, which is predominantly shaped by Western institutions, languages, and epistemic norms, though not synonymous with the West itself.
Chinese design doctoral education emerged through centralized policy intervention. In 2011, design gained status as a first-level discipline when Art separated from the Literature category to become an independent disciplinary mega-category, enabling the first authorization of design doctoral programs, emphasizing applied practice and social needs (Xu, 2024). The subsequent expansion was dramatic: from zero authorized institutions in 2011 to 37 by 2024, paralleling China's broader graduate education growth to 3.65 million enrolled students by 2022—the world's second-largest system (People’s Daily, 2023).
Critically, the 2022 catalogue established professional doctoral degrees in design for the first time, with policy mandating that by 2027, professional degree programs should constitute the majority of new doctoral authorizations (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (MOE), 2024). This represents a fundamental policy-driven reorientation toward practice-oriented research, exemplified by the state directive to "writing dissertations on Chinese soil" —explicitly linking research to domestic application (MOE, 2020; Xia, 2023; Xu, 2024), , though recent studies reveal ongoing tensions between foundational skills training and technological integration (Zhang & Wang, 2025).
What constitutes the "international" in design research, and whose knowledge production shapes its boundaries? The Design Research Society (DRS) conference represents a key venue for examining these dynamics (Christensen & Ball, 2019). At DRS2022, the top 5 countries (UK, Netherlands, USA, Italy, Denmark) accounted for 68.77% of all papers (Lockt on et al., 2022). Recent critiques challenge whether "international" has become a euphemism for Western-dominated knowledge production with token participation from elsewhere (Abdulla et al., 2019; Tunstall, 2023). For non-Western scholars, engagement with these venues demands epistemic code-switching: translating culturally-specific research into frameworks legible to predominantly Western reviewers (Abdulla et al., 2019; Tunstall, 2023).
Academic Peripheries: Deficit vs. Exclusion Frameworks
Existing scholarship on non-Western participation in design research predominantly operates within two analytical frameworks. The deficit approach attributes marginalization to language barriers (Canagarajah, 2002; Flowerdew, 1999), methodological training gaps (Li & Flowerdew, 2007), and resource constraints (Salager-Meyer, 2008).Conversely, the structural exclusion framework emphasizes systemic barriers including journal gatekeeping (Lillis & Curry, 2010), citation politics that privilege Western knowledge (Alatas, 2003), and review processes structured around Western epistemological assumptions (Salager-Meyer, 2008). Griffin (2017) notes communication barriers between design research communities, with "excellent work from non-English-speaking countries (such as Brazil, Japan, South Korea, China) remaining unknown to outsiders." This suggests not just exclusion, but a dynamic indicative of parallel knowledge worlds operating with limited intersection.
Recent work complicates this binary: networks such as Design and Oppression (Serpa et al., 2022) have reclaimed exclusion as productive position, deliberately operating outside Western-dominated circuits. However, neither the deficit nor exclusion framework—whether resisted or embraced—explains cases where scholars possess capacity for international engagement but rationally choose domestic focus given evaluation structures, career markets, and knowledge demands. This gap motivates our empirical investigation of alternative patterns.
This research adopted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Clark, 2018), We focus on doctoral dissertations as the primary unit of analysis because they represent the most systematic indicator of what knowledge a doctoral education system trains students to produce—reflecting institutional priorities, advisor expertise, and policy frameworks rather than individual researcher preferences. Unlike journal articles, which may be shaped by editorial gatekeeping or strategic venue selection, dissertations reveal the intended knowledge outputs of training systems. The study progressed through three phases: (1) bibliometric analysis of dissertation keywords, citation patterns, and conference participation to identify divergent knowledge priorities; (2) author trajectory tracking to reveal behavioral patterns of international engagement; (3) qualitative interviews to explain underlying institutional mechanisms. The quantitative phase employed bibliometric methods (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017; Bhandari, 2023; Ghufrooni, 2024) and directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
Research Context and Sampling Rationale
Chinese institutions: Hunan University (HNU, 20 advisors) and China Academy of Art (CAA, 36 advisors) were selected as focal cases representing comprehensive research universities versus arts-focused institutions—the two dominant institutional types in Chinese design doctoral education.
Cross-national reference corpus: Cornell University (Design + Environmental Analysis, est. 2009) and NC State University (PhD in Design, est. 1999) provide a reference corpus rather than a fully representative international baseline. We selected these programs for disciplinary alignment—both emphasize human-centered design within humanities/social sciences frameworks, matching Chinese design doctoral education's positioning—and temporal comparability with China's 2011 discipline authorization. We acknowledge this introduces geographic limitation: European, Australasian, and other non-US programs would broaden the comparative frame. However, our primary analytical contribution lies in the within-China patterns (citation code-switching, author trajectories, institutional variation between HNU and CAA), where US data provides contextual contrast rather than serving as the international benchmark. Future research should expand cross-national comparison beyond US institutions.
Data coverage limitations: Chinese data derives from China Doctoral Full-text Database (CDFD), which covers only 19 of 37 authorized institutions. Several elite universities (Tsinghua, Tongji) maintain dissertations exclusively in institutional repositories inaccessible to external researchers, introducing potential elite institution bias. However, CDFD remains the most comprehensive publicly accessible database. No centralized statistics explain institutional non-participation; anecdotal evidence suggests varied institutional data-sharing policies and delayed synchronization practices. We interpret findings cautiously given this partial institutional visibility.
Data Collection
Dissertation Keyword Corpus
Chinese corpus: 360 dissertations from 19 institutions (2011-2024, 1,701 keywords) via CDFD, including focal institutions HNU (40 dissertations, 204 keywords) and CAA (71 dissertations, 328 keywords).; US corpus: 66 dissertations from Cornell (42) and NC State (24) via ProQuest (2011-2024, 640 keywords). Search strategy: dep(design) AND sch.Exact("[University Name]"). Citation Pattern Analysis
To quantitatively demonstrate bibliographic code-switching, we analyzed 6,239 references from two matched contexts at Hunan University—selected because HNU produces the largest share of Chinese DRS papers, enabling direct comparison between domestic and international outputs from the same institutional community. The dissertation sample comprises 27 HNU dissertations (2012–2022)—all dissertations available in CDFD for this period—containing 5,436 references, manually extracted and classified by: (1) language (Chinese/English); (2) source type (book/journal/conference/online); (3) venue classification (domestic CSSCI/PKU-Core vs. international journals); (4) publication period.; DRS paper citations: 21 HNU-authored DRS papers containing 803 references, classified using identical schema.This dual-context analysis reveals how the same institutional community adapts bibliographic practices when addressing different audiences, providing material evidence of epistemic code-switching beyond keyword-level analysis.
Author Trajectory Tracking and Conference Participation Data
To address our second and third research questions—for whom knowledge is produced and how this shapes relationships with international communities—we tracked post-publication trajectories of 40 Chinese scholars who appeared as first authors at DRS conferences (2012–2022). If international participation reflects genuine community integration, we would expect continued engagement; if it serves primarily as institutional credentialing (e.g., satisfying graduation requirements), we would expect disengagement after initial publication. Scholars were tracked over an average 4.8-year window (range: 2–12 years post-initial publication).Data collection: Google Scholar profiles, institutional CVs, and ResearchGate accounts identified all subsequent first-author and co-author publications in international venues (journals and conferences indexed in Web of Science/Scopus).
Classification criteria: One-time participants: No subsequent first-author international publications.; Sporadic participants: 1-2 first-author international publications.; Sustained participants: ≥3 first-author international publications
This methodology distinguishes scholars who maintain international research trajectories from those whose DRS participation represents isolated credentialing events aligned with graduation requirements.
We analyzed 95 papers from Chinese institutions across DRS (2012-2024, 56 papers from 1,586 total) and IASDR 2023 (39 papers from 226 total), documenting institutional participation frequency and author-provided keywords.
Qualitative Interviews
Nine participants (5 doctoral students, 2 focus group members, 2 faculty advisors) recruited via RedNote social media platform underwent 60-90 minute semi-structured interviews exploring topic selection, publication strategies, and career incentives.Saturation justification: Thematic saturation was reached after seven interviews when no new codes emerged regarding core mechanisms (evaluation systems, policy-driven agendas, discourse training gaps). Two additional faculty interviews confirmed institutional-level patterns. Participant diversity spanned comprehensive universities and art colleges, current students and recent graduates, ensuring representation across institutional types and career stages rather than pursuing demographic representativeness. Given the study's focus on institutional mechanisms rather than individual experiences, this purposive sample provided sufficient variation to identify systematic patterns.
Dissertation Keyword Corpus
Faculty demographic profiles (educational background, overseas experience, academic rank) for all 110 doctoral advisors across four institutions were compiled via institutional websites, LinkedIn, and CVs, cross-verified by multiple researchers.Data Analysis
Keyword classification: We developed a 23-category system through iterative coding. Initial categories were derived deductively from DRS conference themes across twelve editions (2002–2024), then organized within Buchanan's Four Orders framework (1992, 2001) to enable theoretical interpretation. Categories include, for example, Cultural Heritage Preservation and Traditional Crafts (First Order), Service Design and User Experience (Third Order), and Design for Social Innovation and Policy and Governance (Fourth Order). Two researchers independently classified a subset of 200 keywords (Cohen's κ = 0.82), resolving disagreements through discussion. We acknowledge that categories derived from DRS themes may underrepresent distinctively Chinese research orientations not legible within international classification schemes—a limitation consistent with the epistemic asymmetries this paper documents. Chi-square tests (Bonferroni-corrected) assessed distribution differences across contexts.
Citation analysis: Comparative distributions of language, source type, and venue classification were calculated using percentage-point shifts to quantify bibliographic transformation magnitude. This follows bibliometric analysis conventions (Brika et al., 2021; Ghufrooni, 2024) for documenting knowledge source patterns.
Author trajectories: Participation patterns (one-time/sporadic/sustained) were tabulated with descriptive statistics (means, percentages) stratified by author role (student/faculty) and tracking window length to control for observation period effects.
Interview coding: Transcripts underwent reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022)using NVivo, identifying themes around evaluation pressures, audience orientation, and epistemic community identification.
Divergent Knowledge Priorities
Statistical comparison of keyword distributions confirms fundamental differences (χ²(9) = 183.4, p < .001). Chinese dissertations concentrate on Cultural Heritage Preservation (18.3%), Traditional Crafts (15.7%), and Regional/Ethnic Design (12.4%), totaling 46.4% of keywords. US dissertations prioritize User-Centered Design (22.1%), Social Innovation (18.9%), and Sustainability (16.3%), totaling 57.3%. Chinese-authored DRS papers show intermediate positioning—higher alignment with international discourse (Human-AI Collaboration 18.5%, Participatory Design 15.7%) than domestic dissertations, yet distinct from US patterns, evidencing partial epistemic code-switching.
Mapping onto Buchanan's (1992, 2001) Four Orders reveals temporal divergence: Chinese dissertations concentrate in First Order (symbols, visual communication: 58.2%) while US research emphasizes Third/Fourth Orders (activities, systems: 44.5% combined), reflecting retrospective cultural preservation versus anticipatory problem-solving orientations (Figure 1). DRS China papers occupy an intermediate position (35.1% First Order), evidencing strategic repositioning for international audiences. While this distributional pattern is consistent with different orientations toward design's purpose—cultural preservation versus systems-level problem-solving—the keyword data alone cannot establish the reasons for this divergence. Interview and policy data (Sections 4.4–4.5) provide interpretive context for why these priorities differ.
Figure 1 Divergent knowledge production across three corpora. (a) Schematic representation of keyword concentration across Buchanan's Four Orders. Chinese dissertations (red, n=360) concentrate on First Order themes (58.2%), including cultural heritage and traditional crafts. US dissertations (blue, n=66) emphasize Third/Fourth Order themes (44.5% combined). Chinese DRS papers (dashed purple, n=95) occupy an intermediate position (35.1% First Order). Curves are schematic representations of categorical distributions, not fitted statistical models. (b) Citation language distribution at Hunan University showing 50.9 percentage point shift from Chinese-language sources (54.5% in dissertations) to near-complete elimination (3.6% in DRS papers).
Institutional variation within China reveals heterogeneous rather than monolithic patterns. Hunan University demonstrates strategic alignment: cultural heritage research virtually disappears when publishing at DRS (12.3% → 1.3%), while human-AI collaboration surges (3.4% → 22.5%). China Academy of Art maintains stronger domestic orientation (24.1% cultural heritage in dissertations). Faculty background data contextualizes divergence: HNU shows 45% overseas visiting experience versus CAA's 22%, while overseas PhD rates remain similarly low (10% vs. 8%). Interview evidence contextualizes these patterns:
“All domestic research is related to national policy... Hunan University also has intangible cultural heritage research topics, following national policy.“ (P5)
“I submitted to DRS once. Reviewers said my cultural heritage work was 'interesting context' but lacked theoretical contribution to design research broadly. I realized they wanted me to frame it as contributing to participatory design theory. That's not how we're trained to think.“ (P7)
Dual Citation Repertoires: Material Evidence of Epistemic Code-Switching
Analysis of 6,239 citations from Hunan University researchers reveals systematic bibliographic transformation across publication contexts. This dual citation repertoire pattern—maintaining distinct bibliographic practices for mainland Chinese venues versus venues outside mainland China audiences—provides material evidence of institutionalized epistemic sovereignty rather than gradual internationalization.
The 50.9 percentage point shift: Doctoral dissertations (n=27, containing 5,436 citations) show Chinese-language sources comprising the majority of references, while DRS papers from the same institutional community (n=21, containing 803 citations) demonstrate near-complete elimination of Chinese sources—a transformation exceeding 50 percentage points (Table 1).
Table 1 Citation Language Distribution
| Context | Chinese Sources | English Sources | Total |
| Dissertations | 2,963 (54.5%) | 2,473 (45.5%) | 5,436 |
| DRS Papers | 29 (3.6%) | 774 (96.4%) | 803 |
| Shift | -50.9 pp | ‘+50.9 pp | - |
Table 1 documents this bibliographic code-switching: dissertations cite 54.5% Chinese sources versus 3.6% in DRS papers, representing complete repertoire transformation rather than gradual internationalization. This is not gradual internationalization but strategic repertoire-switching. Temporal analysis reveals recent dissertations approaching international norms (2022: 19.3% Chinese citations), yet maintaining a persistent 15.7 percentage point gap with DRS papers—evidencing maintained genre differentiation even among highly internationalized scholars.
We acknowledge that dissertations and conference papers differ as genres—dissertations undergo advisor-directed review while conference papers face anonymous peer review, and genre conventions differ in length, citation density, and source preferences. However, the magnitude of transformation (50.9 percentage points) and the complete elimination of Chinese venues (37.4% → 0%) exceed what genre differences alone would predict. Moreover, the within-China comparison (HNU dissertations vs. HNU-authored DRS papers) controls for institutional context, isolating audience-driven adaptation from other confounds.
Venue elimination and source type transformation: The code-switching extends beyond language to venue infrastructure. Dissertations cite 2,033 mainland Chinese venues (37.4%)—CSSCI journals, Chinese university presses, domestic conferences—while DRS papers cite zero mainland Chinese venues (complete elimination). Source type transformations parallel this pattern: books decrease from 25.9% (dissertations) to 2.9% (DRS papers), while conference citations increase from 3.8% to 16.4%, indicating different citation literacy for mainland Chinese venues versus venues outside mainland China contexts.
Most striking is the erasure of Chinese design theorists. Dissertations cite canonical scholars like He Renke and Liu Guanzhong (1.32% of total citations), providing theoretical foundations rooted in Chinese design discourse. DRS papers cite zero Chinese theorists, substituting Western frameworks exclusively. This evidence is not linguistic incapacity or lack of access to international sources, but strategic bibliographic adaptation—scholars maintain dual repertoires optimized for distinct validation systems.
Interview data explains the mechanisms producing these citation patterns. Participants described citation practices as institutionally transmitted rather than individually chosen: doctoral training emphasizes theoretical synthesis using Chinese scholarly sources, with no formal instruction in international bibliometric conventions and academic writing training. As P3 explained, advisor mentorship focused on theoretical analysis rather than empirical writing conventions, leaving students to discover international citation norms only through reviewer feedback. P9 described citation practices as learned through imitation of previous dissertations rather than explicit instruction—a process that reproduces domestic bibliographic norms generationally. Beyond pedagogical mechanisms, some participants articulated substantive epistemological rationale for domestic citation dominance. P7 noted that her dissertation research on intangible cultural heritage—a field she and her advisors viewed as uniquely rooted in Chinese cultural contexts—made international sources feel largely irrelevant: the scholarly conversations that mattered were conducted in Chinese, by Chinese researchers, about Chinese cultural phenomena. This suggests that citation patterns reflect not only training conventions but also the genuine cultural specificity of research objects themselves. These accounts reveal systemic pedagogical architectures and epistemological orientations optimized for Chinese theoretical discourse rather than individual capacity deficits.
Strategic Participation Without Community Integration
To test whether international conference participation represents sustained epistemic community engagement versus strategic credential-seeking, we tracked 40 Chinese scholars (form 22 DRS research papers) who published at DRS conferences (2012-2022) over an average 4.8-year window following their initial appearance.
The 72.5% one-time participation rate: The findings reveal striking disengagement: nearly three-quarters of Chinese DRS authors became 'one-time participants' who published no subsequent first-author papers in international venues (Table 2). Among doctoral students who were first authors—the population most likely to develop sustained research trajectories—this pattern remains dominant, affecting over half of this subgroup. This pattern persists when controlling for tracking window length: among authors with ≥4 years of observation (n=25), the one-time participation rate remains substantively unchanged .
Table 2 Author Participation Patterns
| Pattern | Definition | n | % | Avg First-Author | Avg Co-Author |
| One-Time | No subsequent first-author pubs | 29 | 72.50% | 0 | 1.4 |
| Sporadic | 1-2 first-author pubs | 7 | 17.50% | 1.1 | 2.9 |
| Sustained | 3+ first-author pubs | 4 | 10.00% | 4 | 7 |
Distinguishing first-author from co-author publications reveals asymmetric profiles. While 72.5% produced zero subsequent first-author publications, they averaged 2.25 co-author publications—indicating participation through collaborative networks rather than independent research capacity. Only 12.5% (5/40) demonstrated independent researcher profiles (more first-author than co-author publications). One-time conference participation is not unique to Chinese scholars—design research conferences generally show high proportions of authors who publish once and do not return. What distinguishes the Chinese pattern is the combination of one-time participation with the institutional incentive structures documented in Section 4.4: graduation requirements explicitly mandate a single international publication, creating structural conditions for strategic one-time engagement rather than the varied personal reasons (career changes, shifting interests) that may explain one-time participation elsewhere.
Faculty patterns reveal the institutional logic most clearly. Faculty members showed the highest one-time participation rate (83.3%, 10/12) despite averaging 5.33 co-author publications—a pattern explicable only through institutional incentive structures rather than capacity constraints. Interviews consistently identified the disconnect between international publication effort and domestic career reward as the primary mechanism:
“I published at DRS to establish my research group's international presence and to train my PhD students in international publication processes. But my tenure evaluation counts CSSCI papers and national grants. Why would I invest scarce time in venues that don't count?" (F1)
This behavioural pattern—strategic one-time participation serving institutional credentialing rather than sustained epistemic community engagement—constitutes the third empirical manifestation of institutionalized epistemic sovereignty alongside thematic divergence (Section 4.1) and dual citation repertoires (Section 4.2).
Evaluation architecture: Graduation typically requires two publications in core journal catalogs—Peking University Core Journal Catalog (PKU-Core) or Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI). Over 95% of recognized venues are Chinese-language publications focused on Chinese design contexts, while English-language international journals constitute less than 5% of approved venues. International publications remain optional supplements that enhance but cannot substitute for core journal requirements.
“Graduation requires two CSSCI papers. They're all Chinese journals about Chinese topics for Chinese readers. Why would I spend extra time on English papers that don't count toward graduation?" (P6)
Faculty advancement mirrors these priorities. Interview participants identified Chinese core journal publications (91% rating as "very important") and national funding acquisition (82%) as primary hiring criteria, with international publications viewed as marginally beneficial supplements (18% rating as "very important").
Recognition without requirement: Some research-intensive institutions have developed supplementary recognition systems for international publications, establishing equivalence formulas where top-tier international journals might equal three to five CSSCI papers. However, graduation still mandates Chinese publications regardless of international achievements. Students articulated clear hierarchical logic:
“Publish Chinese papers first to ensure graduation, then if time and advisor support allow, pursue international venues. Chinese publications are necessary conditions, international ones are aspirational additions." (P2, P4, P6, P7)
Analysis of institutional origins reveals striking concentration: Hunan University, Tongji University, and Zhejiang University—three elite comprehensive research universities—account for 78.57% of all Chinese DRS participation (44/56 papers, 2012-2024) and 69.23% of IASDR 2023 papers (27/39). This concentration parallels global academic hierarchies where elite institutions dominate international venues, yet reveals a paradox: these same elite institutions enforce the most stringent mainland chinese publication requirements. Interview data reveals tension between design-specific and broader academic prestige:
“Our university leadership doesn't recognize DRS as top-tier. They want us publishing at CHI—interdisciplinary HCI conferences with higher impact factors and computer science prestige. Design conferences are seen as too narrow, too practice-oriented.“ (F2)
This reflects competing prestige economies: while DRS represents disciplinary prestige within design research, Chinese comprehensive universities increasingly value computational and interdisciplinary venues aligned with STEM standards rather than design-specific discourse.
Our convergent evidence challenges both deficit and exclusion frameworks that dominate scholarship on participation from scholars outside Western academic centers. Neither "lack of capacity" nor "systematic gatekeeping" explains scholars who demonstrate international publication competence yet rationally disengage afterward, or institutions enforcing stringent requirements for mainland Chinese publications while simultaneously producing the majority of Chinese-authored papers at international conferences.
We theorize these patterns as institutionalized epistemic sovereignty: the emergence of autonomous knowledge production, validation, and circulation systems through policy frameworks, evaluation architectures, and training structures that collectively—though not necessarily by deliberate design targeting design research specifically—produce independence from international norms. This sovereignty is institutional rather than cultural, emerging from convergent policy decisions (discipline authorization, evaluation criteria, funding priorities) rather than coordinated strategic intent.
The three empirical analyses presented in Sections 4.1-4.3 document distinct but interconnected manifestations of this sovereignty: thematic priorities reveal what knowledge is valued, citation practices demonstrate how knowledge is validated, and participation patterns show who sustains international engagement.
This extends Said's (2003) knowledge-power analysis beyond passive resistance, revealing active construction of alternative authority systems where mainland Chinese institutions increasingly define design research for themselves—determining what counts as legitimate knowledge independent of external validation. It builds on Bourdieu's (2007) concept of field autonomy, demonstrating how alternative systems of symbolic capital emerge within bounded scholarly communities. Chinese design doctoral education has created a field where CSSCI publications, National Social Science Fund grants, and policy-aligned research constitute valued currency—operating with internal coherence even as it diverges from international design research's valorization of participatory methods and cross-cultural generalizability. This sovereignty describes institutional architecture rather than cultural characteristics.
Three interconnected dimensions constitute this sovereignty: Evaluative autonomy manifests through graduation requirements mandating mainland Chinese venue publication regardless of international achievements, and tenure criteria privileging CSSCI papers (91% rated "very important") over international publications (18%). Citation analysis reveals complete domestic venue elimination when publishing internationally—from over one-third of dissertation citations to zero in DRS papers. We believe that demonstrates not gradual internationalization but maintained genre differentiation—scholars strategically preserve dual repertoires optimized for distinct validation systems.
Thematic sovereignty emerges through policy-aligned research agendas. The keyword analysis of 360 mainland Chinese dissertations reveals 60.9% clustering around cultural heritage preservation, rural revitalization, and cultural industries—themes shaped by National Social Science Fund priorities (acknowledged in 52% of dissertations). This contrasts sharply with the 95 Chinese-authored international conference papers, where these themes decrease dramatically while human-AI collaboration and participatory design increase correspondingly. The temporal divergence revealed through Buchanan's framework—58.2% retrospective inquiry in mainland dissertations versus 44.5% anticipatory problem-solving in US dissertations—reflects fundamentally different understandings of design's social purpose. Critically, Chinese-authored DRS papers (35.1% retrospective themes) occupy intermediate positions, suggesting strategic repositioning rather than complete transformation when addressing international audiences.
Methodological independence operates through training systems emphasizing theoretical synthesis over empirical methods. The 85-92% mainland-trained faculty rates, combined with citation literacy gaps (3.8% conference citations in dissertations versus 16.4% in DRS papers), evidence limited exposure to research-through-design and speculative approaches that dominate international venues. However, this represents different epistemological training—valuing cultural-theoretical depth over methodological innovation.
Legitimate Needs and Real Costs
This framework risks romanticizing separation if celebrated uncritically. Mainland China's 1.4 billion population undergoing rapid urbanization generates design challenges requiring deep contextual expertise: intangible cultural heritage at risk from modernization, ethnic minority visual culture preservation, rural-urban design transitions, and policy implementation requiring government collaboration. These constitute context-specific challenges where scholars from other regions lack linguistic access, cultural knowledge, and institutional relationships necessary for meaningful contribution.
Haraway's (1988) situated knowledge concept validates such research as epistemologically necessary. International design discourse increasingly emphasizes sustainability, social innovation, and participatory methods—valuable but not exhaustive orientations. The mainland Chinese emphasis on cultural meanings, historical continuity, and symbolic communication reflects alternative understanding of design's purposes, as participants articulated: "My research directly helps local governments implement rural revitalization strategy. I work with craftspeople preserving traditional techniques. This serves real community needs" (P5).
However, separation imposes costs requiring acknowledgment. Limited methodological exposure reduces innovation capacity—mainland Chinese heritage preservation approaches could inform international decolonial design practice, while participatory methods developed elsewhere could enhance mainland Chinese community-engaged design, yet current separation prevents mutual learning. The complete erasure of Chinese design theorists (He Renke, Liu Guanzhong) when publishing internationally reflects strategic adaptation to reviewing expectations, where Chinese theoretical contributions are reformulated within internationally recognized frameworks to enhance manuscript acceptance likelihood.
Moreover, mainland China's scale enables parallel system construction—a privilege unavailable to many nations. Epistemic sovereignty thus emerges as capacity contingent on substantial resources rather than universally available options, raising equity questions for genuinely marginalized knowledge communities.
The behavioral pattern of limited sustained engagement, while rational given institutional incentives, foreclosed potential collaborations addressing planetary-scale challenges—design and environmental analysis, human-centered design, sustainable urbanization, technological ethics—where intercultural dialogue could generate insights neither community produces alone. Faculty concerns reflect recognition of these costs: "We've built a self-sufficient system. But I worry our students' horizons are narrow. They don't know what questions researchers elsewhere ask" (F2).
Additionally, the sheer speed of China's design doctoral expansion—from zero to 37 programs in thirteen years—may independently contribute to observed patterns. Rapid growth strains advisor capacity, potentially limiting exposure to international research norms and reducing time for international engagement. Disentangling expansion-speed effects from epistemic sovereignty requires longitudinal analysis as the system matures.
Toward Mutual Understanding and Dialogue
Current patterns reflect parallel development rather than failed integration, suggesting need for deeper mutual understanding rather than assuming separation requires "solving." For international design research communities, this demands moving beyond token diversity toward structural recognition of multiple legitimate knowledge centers. Mainland Chinese heritage preservation research shouldn't require framing as "contributing to participatory design theory" to merit publication—review processes must develop capacity to evaluate scholarship on its own epistemological terms. Geographic diversity in editorial boards, multilingual abstract policies for highly-ranked papers, and regional conference partnerships represent concrete changes enabling engagement without demanding assimilation.
For mainland Chinese institutions, contextual relevance shouldn't preclude methodological diversity. Current evaluation systems treat international publication as optional supplement; creating genuine pathways—international research collaborations, conference travel funding, English academic writing support, joint faculty appointments—represents rational investment if institutions value dialogue beyond symbolic recognition. The 8-15% overseas PhD faculty rates suggest intentional diversification could introduce methodological alternatives while maintaining cultural expertise.
Critically, progress requires questioning "internationalization" itself when empirically it means conformity to established frameworks. The case for engagement must be mutual learning rather than hierarchical integration. Mainland Chinese scholars bring deep expertise in design for cultural sustainability, intangible heritage preservation, and large-scale policy implementation; researchers from other regions offer methodological sophistication in participatory approaches, speculative methods, and cross-cultural comparative analysis. Neither possesses monopoly on design research excellence.
The keyword divergence between mainland dissertations (cultural heritage 46.4%) and DRS papers from mainland authors (cultural heritage 8.2%) reveals capacity for strategic adaptation, demonstrating scholars possess linguistic and conceptual tools for international engagement. The question becomes not "how to enable participation" but "how to create conditions where scholars choose sustained engagement because it genuinely enriches their research rather than merely satisfying graduation requirements."
These patterns constitute institutionalized epistemic sovereignty: rational construction of parallel knowledge production systems serving legitimate contextual demands while operating independently of international validation mechanisms. This sovereignty proves simultaneously justified by massive contextual knowledge needs and limiting through reduced methodological exchange and foreclosed dialogue.
Our findings challenge teleological assumptions about academic globalization—that all knowledge systems aspire toward established international centers and face barriers. Instead, we document deliberate autonomous system construction when scale, resources, and contextual demands enable independence. This raises fundamental questions about whose knowledge counts globally and whether "internationalization" must mean conformity rather than pluralism.
Currently, we observe two largely parallel design research worlds—each productive within respective contexts yet minimally intersecting, each defining design's purposes differently, each legitimate within its frameworks yet potentially enriched through greater exchange. Genuine internationalization requires neither demanding conformity nor celebrating autonomy, but rather creating conditions enabling authentic engagement—respecting epistemic sovereignty while building capacity for mutual learning through collective effort from all communities.
This study itself operates within the tensions it describes. Writing in English for an international venue, we employ categories like 'mainland China' and 'international' not as natural divisions but as historically contingent configurations requiring ongoing interrogation. Future research might ask: what would design research look like if no single geographic or linguistic community claimed universal relevance?
- Reference
Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences. Current Sociology, 51(6), 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516003
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Bhandari, A. (2023). Design Thinking: From Bibliometric Analysis to Content Analysis, Current Research Trends, and Future Research Directions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 14(3), 3097–3152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00920-3
Bourdieu, P. (2007). Homo Academicus (P. Collier, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Brika, S. K. M., Algamdi, A., Chergui, K., Musa, A. A., & Zouaghi, R. (2021). Frontiers | Quality of Higher Education: A Bibliometric Review Study. Educational Psychology, 6:666087. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.666087
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056
Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A Geopolitics Of Academic Writing. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2019). Building a discipline: Indicators of expansion, integration and consolidation in design research across four decades. Design Studies, 65, 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.001
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80116-7
Ghufrooni, R. (2024). Trends of Design Thinking Research in STEM Education: Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Research in Environmental and Science Education, 1(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.70232/fbzhy395
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Li, Y., & Flowerdew, J. (2007). Shaping Chinese novice scientists’ manuscripts for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.05.001
Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic Writing in a Global Context: The Politics and Practices of Publishing in English. Routledge.
Lockt on, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., & Lloyd, P. (2022). DRS2022: Bilbao. DRS Conference Volumes. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.cv001
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2020, December 30). MOE press conference to highlight breakthroughs in higher education during the 13th Five-year Plan period—Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. http://en.moe.gov.cn/news/press_releases/202012/t20201230_508196.html
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2024, March 3). MOE press conference presents China’s educational achievements in 2023—Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. http://en.moe.gov.cn/news/press_releases/202403/t20240311_1119782.html
People’s Daily. (2023, December 20). 我国研究生教育分类发展格局已基本形成 [China’s graduate education classification development pattern has basically taken shape]. People’s Daily Overseas Edition, 03.
Said, E. W. (2003). Orientalism. Penguin Classics.
Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.009
Serpa, B., Amstel, F. van, Mazzarotto, M., Carvalho, R., Gonzatto, R., Silva, S. B. e, & Menezes, Y. da S. (2022). Weaving design as a practice of freedom: Critical pedagogy in an insurgent network. DRS Biennial Conference Series. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2022/researchpapers/265
Tunstall, E. (with Agi, E.). (2023). Decolonizing Design: A Cultural Justice Guidebook. The MIT Press.
Xia, Y. (2023). 艺术学新版学科专业目录新在育人的分类培养 [The new version of the arts and humanities subject catalogue is new in the categorized training of talents]. 艺术教育 [Art Education], 10, 7–13.
Xu, F. (2024). 完善分类培养体系，促进科教融合，推动设计教育转型发展 [Improving the classified training system, promoting the integration of science and education, and advancing the transformation and development of design education]. 艺术教育 [Art Education], 02, 25–29.
Zhang, L., & Wang, C. X. (2025). AI in Design Education at College Level-Educators’ Perspectives and Challenges. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.17481
Zhu, J., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, C. (2024). Graduate Education in China. In N. Liu, Z. Feng, & Q. Wang (Eds.), Education in China and the World: Achievements and Contemporary Issues (pp. 231–279). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5861-0_6
Zwetsloot, R., Corrigan, J., Weinstein, E. S., Peterson, D., Gehlhaus, D., & Fedasiuk, R. (2021). China is Fast Outpacing U.S. STEM PhD Growth. Center for Security and Emerging Technology. https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/china-is-fast-outpacing-u-s-stem-phd-growth/
Wangda Zhu is an Assistant Professor at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, School of Design. His research focuses on creative systems design, AI in education, and design research methods. He holds a PhD from Cornell University.
Tingxin Zheng is a design researcher with an MS in Human Centered Design from Cornell University. Her work examines computational design tools, virtual environments, and human behavior research. She was recognized among Metropolis Magazine's Future 100.