Ideology in My Controversy

Analyzing Aspects of Ideology in the Chinese Science Award Debate

In this post, I take time to analyze the various sides of the ideology comprising my controversy. I examine what sides exist on the controversy over China's selected winner of the National Natural Science Award, and what the different sides value in this controversy in addition to how they are expressing these values through their arguments.

Ryanli, "North Gate of the East Campus of University of Science and Technology of China" 15 July 2007 via Wikipedia.
CC BY-SA 3.0 License.

• Who is involved in the controversy?
• Overall, I would say all parties affected by this controversy or who have spoken about it can be grouped into two sides. One side, comprised of the Chinese government who made the selection, the winning project's creator Zhang Yaoxue and his team, and supporters of the selection, are involved in the controversy in that they are defending the award going to Yaoxue's networking operating system. The other side is made up of critics of the selection, academic officials at various universities, and the China Computer Federation (CCF).

• Who are some of the major speakers/writers in these groups?
• It is difficult to name specific speakers and writers in this controversy, because those speaking in the opposition to the Chinese government's selection to be named often asked to not be named when giving a response to a news source, and other statements against the selections were removed. On the pro-selection side of the controversy, the major speaker has been the award winner, Zhang Yaoxue, who has detailed his project and why it was selected for the award as a breakthrough for Chinese computer operating systems and networks. Additionally, the Chinese government has been acting in this controversy but not necessarily issuing statements as Yaoxue has. On the other side of the controversy, however, the major speakers who have revealed the lack of transparency in the award selection process and pre-decision in the evaluation process of the 2003 award have almost all been asked not to be named, possibly in fear of being identified by the government. The China Computer Federation (CCF) has also spoken out against the selection in this controversy, but their online post that did so was removed days after its publishing, and those involved have not made further comment.

• What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?
• The balance of power in this argument is generally one-sided. The Chinese government played a large role in the award selection, and thus the group supporting the choice in this controversy has the Chinese government's almost absolute power of the economic resources, political influence, and even societal power as it can force removals of posts online that attack the decision. The only power that the group speaking out against the selection has is that of cultural power. Many individuals identifying with this group, either formally in statements or informally on social media, have named Chinese pride in the scientific world sphere as their reason for being upset over the award being given to Yaoxue, who they believe did not deserve it and thus is degrading China's scientific standing on the world stage.

• What resources are available to different positions?
• Again, as the Chinese government is backing the pro-selection group, the group supporting the award being given to Yaoxue has resources at a national scale,both economic and in oversight of internet and media. However, the groups speaking out against the decision still are being heard through media online, as evidenced by the South China Morning Post's article, and have not all been forced to revoke posts on the issue as the CCF did (to clarify, the "forcing" has not been confirmed but seems to have drawn significant suspicion as their post was targeted at the Chinese government's role in the scientific award selection). The outspoken group also has the resources of history, namely the history of the award that was given to Yaoxue, which they use to illustrate why his project was undeserving of the award that has been given to more impressive projects and even not all in the past.

• What does each group value?
• The group supporting the decision seems to simply support the award's selection, and seeks to defend it against criticism. By extension, this group not just values Yaoxue as the selection, but the selection process as it is today, with the government involved in the decision-making. The group that opposes the decision generally seems to value the pride of China's scientific standing, as most of their arguments have been rooted in the belief that Yaoxue does not represent a scientific work deserving of the award and thus not deserving of international recognition. This group's main concern is how China appears to others and how the award's history may now be viewed negatively.

• What counts as evidence for the different positions?
• The pro-selection group values the evidence as stated by the selection process as the proper evidence supporting the award being given to Yaoxue. This group cites Yaoxue's operating system as evidence that it is advanced and useful to China, and as one individual posted on social media, China's needs to create non-western operating systems is what lends validity to Yaoxue's work being selected. The group speaking out against the decision considers the award's history, academic officials' statements, and statements made by those who used to serve in the selection process citing corruption as evidence, however the Chinese government has allegedly made actions to refute some of this evidence by removing posts online or not acknowledging certain statements.

• Is there a power differential between the groups?
• There is most certainly a power differential between the two groups. The group supporting the selection has much more power over those speaking against the decision, as the Chinese government has vast resources being used to defend the selection process, including what some think is the power to silence statements being made against the selection process as was the case with the CCF.

• Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?
• The only likely acknowledged common ground between the two groups' limited direction interaction is the credibility of the award selection process. Both sides of the controversy are interested in the award's history of being credible, and thus either defending that history by justifying the 2014 selection or speaking out against it in the context of the selection not being worthy of the award.

• Is there any unacknowledged common ground?
• Chinese pride in the world scientific sphere may be the only unacknowledged common ground, but the pro-selection group hasn't explicitly said they are concerned with Chinese pride, but more so the advancement of China's goals, such as developing a Chinese operating system, as Yaoxue's project promises.

• Do the various groups listen to each other? Do they respond directly to claims made by each other? Or do they only talk to people who already hold the same position?
• Overall, the two sides do not listen to each other. The pro-selection group has the Chinese government on its side, which has allegedly tried and succeeded in silencing the other side's claims, rather than listening to them. Additionally, as the Chinese government is hard to reach directly, the group opposing the award's selection have been speaking to other academics in computer science both in China and other countries in hopes to inform others and gather opinions on the issue.