No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
The new improved relations with China have placed China specialists in the United States, and in some other countries as well, in an apparently contradictory position. On the one hand, direct contact is now possible: instead of being confined to libraries an ocean away or visiting Hong Kong a border away, China specialists can now look forward to visiting China itself, and to experiencing at first hand what before was principally a mental concept. On the other hand, it appears that most of the scholarly exchanges will be in areas such as physics, medicine, and the biological sciences, and that social scientists in general and China specialists in particular are low on the priority list of people being admitted to China. There are exceptions to this, of course, including fields such as population studies and early childhood development, and perhaps archaeology, art, and language. Still, it is undeniable that the opportunities for doing research in China are very limited. So near and yet so far.
1. Li, Victor H., ”Survey interviewing as a tool for research in Chinese law,” in Cohen, Jerome (ed.), Problems and Prospectives in Research in Chinese Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; and ” Public security work in Hui-yang Hsien, 1952–1964,” in Lewis, John W. (ed.), The City in Communist China (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971)Google Scholar.