Jackson and Kwak identify three distinct groups of scholars, categorized by their academic training and cultural orientation:
Group One: Non-Western scholars educated in the West but based in Asia. Often motivated by either a belief in the intellectual superiority of Western traditions or a desire for global engagement, they tend to neglect deep, locally grounded explorations. Their work becomes compartmentalized—split between engaging in Western philosophical discourse and conducting research on local topics.
Group Two: Western-educated, Western-born scholars residing in Asia. These expatriate or immigrant academics often attempt to engage with non-Western traditions but do so tentatively. Their scholarship tends to reflect a persistent desire for deeper cultural understanding, yet they frequently struggle to fully grasp the traditions they study.
Group Three: Locally educated scholars who engage with both Western and indigenous philosophies. However, their work is often marginalized for being perceived as lacking modernity. Despite this, they remain committed to preserving and advancing their native intellectual and cultural heritages outside of dominant Western frameworks.
Although these groups live and work in close proximity, meaningful scholarly dialogue among them is rare. All three groups experience a kind of epistemological unease—a sense of dislocation and internal conflict arising from their respective academic and cultural positions. Jackson and Kwak suggest that this fragmentation is rooted in colonial-era legacies that introduced Western knowledge systems into the region in the late 19th century. These systems created enduring psychological, political, and academic barriers among scholars.
The authors argue that this lack of engagement has left all groups intellectually disadvantaged in addressing the educational challenges specific to their contexts. They particularly stress the urgent need for sustained dialogue between Groups Two and Three, whose contrasting philosophical backgrounds could yield richer insights. Group One scholars, with their hybrid training, are seen as potential mediators who might bridge these epistemic divides.
But what exactly are the intellectual disadvantages caused by this divide? First, the differing philosophical foundations among the groups lead to the use of incompatible conceptual vocabularies, which hinder genuine dialogue. Scholars often reference each other's work superficially, sounding more like strangers than colleagues. As a result, non-Western scholars lack adequate conceptual and cultural tools to interpret educational experiences that differ fundamentally from Western models due to divergent modernization paths.
Second, the scholarship itself becomes tenuous. For Group One, the theoretical language borrowed from Western traditions may feel disconnected from local realities. For Group Three, their indigenous conceptual frameworks are often dismissed as outdated or irrelevant, despite their depth and relevance.
For more information, see the call: https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/special_issues/tenuous-or-creative-scholarship/
Abstracts (800-1000 words) should be prepared for blind review and sent to Duck-Joo Kwak (djkwak@snu.ac.kr) or Liz Jackson(lizj@hku.hk). All submissions must be original and not under consideration elsewhere.
Invited authors will subsequently be invited to submit a full paper (6000 words). Submissions will be subject to the normal Educational Philosophy and Theory review process. Please ensure that your paper follows the APA referencing style for all references and citations.