Scholarlink

<p>The “up-or-out” policy in Chinese universities is often studied as a pressure-generating management tool, leaving its operational dynamics and governance mechanisms underexplored. This study examines the “up-or-out” policy in Chinese universities as a governance technique that reconfigured academic power dynamics through affective politics. Drawing on affective politics and Bourdieu’s capital theory, we analyzed 25 junior scholars’ experiences across elite institutions. Findings reveal that, (1) strategic ambiguity in evaluation criteria legitimizes administrative discretion, triggering inflation of academic capital while amplifying the value of social and political capital; (2) scholars transform from “academic artisans” into “hybrid capital investors”, diversifying efforts across research, networking, and administrative alignment; (3) an affective cycle of suspended anxiety and managed hope sustains scholars’ self-exploitative productivity. This research exposes how globalizing higher education reforms localize through power-centralizing logics, with implications for academic sustainability worldwide, and illuminates the function of affect as a crucial micro-power technology in contemporary academic governance.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“You have to Survive Before Ideals”: Affective Politics and the Reproduction of Hybrid Capital Under “Up-or-Out” Policy in Chinese Universities

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月16日

查看全文
  • Zhiyuan Liu,
  • Qinggen Zhang,
  • Jianhui Wang

摘要

The “up-or-out” policy in Chinese universities is often studied as a pressure-generating management tool, leaving its operational dynamics and governance mechanisms underexplored. This study examines the “up-or-out” policy in Chinese universities as a governance technique that reconfigured academic power dynamics through affective politics. Drawing on affective politics and Bourdieu’s capital theory, we analyzed 25 junior scholars’ experiences across elite institutions. Findings reveal that, (1) strategic ambiguity in evaluation criteria legitimizes administrative discretion, triggering inflation of academic capital while amplifying the value of social and political capital; (2) scholars transform from “academic artisans” into “hybrid capital investors”, diversifying efforts across research, networking, and administrative alignment; (3) an affective cycle of suspended anxiety and managed hope sustains scholars’ self-exploitative productivity. This research exposes how globalizing higher education reforms localize through power-centralizing logics, with implications for academic sustainability worldwide, and illuminates the function of affect as a crucial micro-power technology in contemporary academic governance.