Blogs

Xiangqun Chang

Abstract：This blog takes two academic and cultural events attended by the author in London as its empirical point of departure and, based on on-site observation, examines the pathways through which Chinese culture and scholarship are entering the contemporary global space. It argues that the global circulation of Chinese experience is increasingly characterised by a pattern of “direct entry,” in which individuals and teams engage in cross-cultural communication and knowledge dissemination through forms of co-presence in specific institutional settings.

Building on this observation, the blog raises a further question: how can such forms of situated entry be transformed from one-off practices into sustainable mechanisms of knowledge production and institutional operation? To address this, the article adopts the perspective of “relational civilisation,” in conjunction with the theory of relational generativity and a methodological approach combining corpus analysis, artificial intelligence, and theoretical judgment. It seeks to integrate dispersed experiences and theoretical reflections into a structurally coherent system of knowledge.

At a broader level, the blog engages with Fei Xiaotong’s vision of a Chinese school of sociology and anthropology. It proposes a five-dimensional framework of knowledge production—comprising experience, concept (language), theory, method, and institution—and, through the coordinated development of academic institutions, publishing platforms, and dialogical forums, explores the structural pathways through which Chinese social scientific knowledge can enter the global knowledge system. The blog argues that “direct entry” should be understood as a starting point, whose significance lies in enabling the structural transformation and institutional extension of knowledge through the ongoing generative processes of relations.

Keywords relational civilisation; relational generativity; li shang wang lai (reciprocity); renxin; direct entry; institutionalisation; five-dimensional knowledge production framework; corpus–AI–theoretical judgment; transculturality; a Chinese school of sociology and anthropology

In the past week, I attended two events held in London, each organized and led by a Chinese writer and their team, as well as a Chinese scholar and their team. The two events differed in format and approach, yet both achieved unexpectedly positive outcomes. Through participating in these on-site experiences, I gained clearer insights into how Chinese culture and scholarship are currently entering the global space.

At the same time, I am in the process of compiling the book “40 Years of Witnessing the Globalization of Chinese Social Sciences.” Thus, after each event, I promptly recorded and organized the related materials and reflections overnight, ensuring they would not be lost over time. Using this as an opportunity, I extracted several relevant sections from the book’s overall framework, presenting them as extended discussions later on. These outline my work over the past decade or so in theoretical research, methodological and method innovations, platform development, and exploring pathways for fostering a Chinese school of sociology and anthropology.

On April 6th, I will visit China and plan to stay for three months. During this period, I will deliver academic talks at certain universities and research institutes and revisit several villages where I conducted fieldwork 30 years ago. Amid multiple ongoing projects, I had not intended to add new activities, yet these two events this week naturally became a starting point for this phase of observation and reflection. Let us begin with a recap of the most recent event.

I. Entering University Spaces via Academic Communities: The Practice of FANG Lili

On March 27th, an event was held at the UCL Institute of Archaeology. It was, in fact, my first time in 35 years crossing disciplines to attend something in the field of archaeology in London. Originally, I went out of courtesy to support Professor FANG Lili, a friend in academic circles. However, to my amazement, the lecture hall was packed. The title of Professor Fang’s lecture was “Post-Agricultural Civilisation: Insights from the Development and Transformation of Jingdezhen, China’s ‘Porcelain Capital.’” Based on her long-term fieldwork in Jingdezhen, the concept of post-agricultural civilisation she proposed was quite inspiring. The short films played before and after the lecture added a certain “performative” layer, enriching the academic presentation.

Notably, the week-long exchange at UCL was coordinated by Professor Rodney Harrison from the Institute of Archaeology’s Heritage Studies. The short films shown before the lecture indicated that Professor Harrison had previously conducted fieldwork in China, hosted and accompanied by Fang Lili. This trip can be seen as a continuation of reciprocal visits—from China to the UK—returning to a specific academic space and forming a cross-national exchange mechanism built upon personal academic ties.

FANG Lili is the last postdoctoral researcher of Fei Xiaotong, one of the key founders of Chinese sociology and anthropology. She has inherited and expanded the platform of the Chinese Society of Art Anthropology established with support from Fei, which now has about 4,000 members. After the lecture, we reminisced about the 2019 “Fei’s Disciples Walk Fei Xiaotong’s Path” events in the U.S., including sessions at the University of Chicago. Plans back then included continuing this academic route in the UK, though these have been cancelled due to the pandemic.

Interestingly, at the UCL lecture, a scholar raised a comparison between Jingdezhen’s experience and Chile in South America. This question brought back an earlier idea: in the original UK visit plan, there was a proposal to visit Stoke-on-Trent, the UK’s “ceramics capital,” since back in 1981, when Fei Xiaotong came to the UK to receive the Huxley Award, the Royal Anthropological Institute arranged for him to visit that location. This unfinished comparative path was implicitly evoked in a new academic context.

After the lecture, during the reception, I introduced UCL anthropology PhD students to FANG Lili, and we took a group photo. To some extent, this facilitated mutual introductions between her and these younger researchers, extending academic ties between archaeology and anthropology in the UK context through direct interaction.

In the subsequent conversation, I spoke with one of Professor Fang’s doctoral students. Using theater theory as a lens, she was conducting research in Kaixiangong Village, the field site of Fei Xiaotong’s Peasant Life in China. I told her that as early as 1996, I had conducted fieldwork in that village, completing my doctoral dissertation and the book Guanxi or Li Shang Wanglai ?: Reciprocity, Social Support Networks, Social Creativity in a Chinese Village . It has now been exactly 30 years. Over the past two decades, I have revisited Kaixiangong multiple times and maintained close ties with the local community. This May, I will return once again for a brief revisit.

The chair of the event, Professor Harrison, posed the first question after FANG Lili’s talk—a classic anthropological methodological question: How representative is the case of Jingdezhen for China? This question turned a specific case into a methodological issue and became the starting point for my upcoming fieldwork. Around this question, I will not only revisit Kaixiangong but also plan to conduct a new round of fieldwork across 10 villages in five provinces, just as I did 10 years ago. Through this cross-temporal comparison, I will gather continuous data on the thirty-year changes in these villages and attempt to bring Fang Lili’s concept of post-agricultural civilisation into my field research perspective for verification and development.

II. Entering University Spaces through Literature and Publishing: The Practice of Xue Mo

On 21 March, an event was held at SOAS, University of London. I arrived after attending another event, and the scale of the event was, comparatively speaking, quite substantial. The title was “New Literary Creation and Cross-Cultural Communication in UK Universities: A Symposium on the Works of Xue Mo and International Academic Exchange.” It reminded me of the international conference “Weber and China: Culture, Law and Capitalism” that we held at the same venue in 2013, which brought together scholars from around the world and was similar in overall scale.

Xue Mo is an internationally recognised novelist and cultural scholar. I edited the overseas Simplified Chinese edition of his book Renxin (Human Hearts and Minds), which was launched at the London Book Fair in 2024 as part of the “Chinese Concepts” series of Global Century Press. The book carries a clear intellectual orientation. In recent years, Xue Mo has continued to participate in international publishing platforms such as the Frankfurt Book Fair. Through multilingual publications, live events, and sustained visibility, he has gradually built a stable international readership and a growing network of cultural dissemination. His success is reflected not only in the cross-linguistic circulation of his works, but also in the sustained presence and visibility of both the author and his team within the global cultural space.

As I arrived toward the end of the event, I happened to see several speakers engaged in discussion. Two of them were familiar to me: Professor Hugo de Burgh, former Director of the China Media Centre at the University of Westminster, where I once served as a visiting professor; and Dr Yukteshwar Kumar, currently Director of the China Studies programme at the University of Bath. During the Beijing International Book Fair last year, I had chaired a dialogue between him and Xue Mo.

In the final part of the discussion, the moderator invited each speaker to leave the audience with a single sentence. Taken together, these remarks revealed a shared orientation: while participants approached Xue Mo’s work from different pathways, they all pointed toward its underlying intellectual depth. This was precisely the intention behind our publication of Renxin—to present Xue Mo not only as a novelist, but as a thinker. At the same time, this process of entering the same text through multiple perspectives generated a transcultural space of understanding across different disciplines and cultural experiences.

Before the event concluded, a book presentation ceremony was held. The representative receiving the donated copies on behalf of SOAS was Dr Lianyi Song, Principal Teaching Fellow at the Department of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics at SOAS, and also one of the founding editors of the Journal of Chinese for Social Sciences, published by Global Century Press.

Finally, Xue Mo collaborated with a music teacher from SOAS for a live performance, accompanied by the pipa. This moment extended what had been an academic event centred on literature and ideas into a more integrated form of cultural expression. The atmosphere shifted from discussion to participation, creating another sense of “being present.” In this process, text, sound, and embodied practice were reconnected, and academic exchange moved beyond language alone into a lived experience of relational generation.

Before leaving, I arranged to visit Xue Mo’s academy in early May, during my fieldwork trip to Gansu, in order to further experience the cultural and historical environment that informs his writing.

III. From Direct Entry to Relational Civilisation: My Methodological and Theoretical Reflections and Platform Development

In the first two sections, whether through academic communities entering university settings or through literature and publishing entering academic spaces, both cases reflect a pattern of “direct entry.” However, when these practices are considered at the level of theory and method, a further question emerges: how should we understand the position of these dispersed experiences within a broader structure of knowledge?

While listening to these presentations, I gradually became aware of a related issue: how can we move from rich but scattered experiences toward an analytical framework that allows us to grasp their overall structure? In this sense, FANG Lili’s work provides an important empirical foundation and practical inspiration for addressing this question.

This, in turn, points to a more general problem. In the Chinese academic context, research has often developed in relatively fragmented clusters, lacking an overarching structure capable of integrating these experiences into a coherent whole. This is precisely the issue that Fei Xiaotong had in mind in his vision of constructing a Chinese school of sociology and anthropology.

1. From Linear Development to Relational Civilisation: Methodological Shift and Theoretical Construction

I noticed that in this lecture, FANG Lili approached the question of civilisation primarily from her fieldwork experience, without explicitly situating it within the theoretical lineage of Fei Xiaotong’s work. From the perspective of the development of Chinese sociology and anthropology, this issue of theoretical continuity is itself of considerable significance. It also points to a more fundamental question: as empirical knowledge continues to accumulate, how can such research be brought back into existing theoretical traditions and, on that basis, developed into a knowledge system with an internal structure.

In my view, the development of human knowledge should, on the basis of accumulated experience, take the form of a “knowledge architecture” with its own internal logic and layered structure. In this sense, Fei Xiaotong’s work provides a crucial foundation. He not only proposed the relational vision of civilisation expressed in the idea of “each appreciating its own beauty and the beauty of others,” but also established a level of theoretical articulation upon which Chinese sociology and anthropology can continue to develop.

It is worth noting that Fei Xiaotong did not produce systematic monographs explicitly titled “modernisation” or “civilisation.” Instead, his reflections on these themes are dispersed across texts written in different periods and contexts. Yet it is precisely through this cross-temporal and cross-contextual body of writing that a rich and internally connected set of ideas emerges.

Against this background, a key question arises: how can dispersed fieldwork experience, theoretical reflection, and practical engagement be integrated into a coherent system of knowledge with an internal structure? This question has emerged from my long-term corpus-based research on The Complete Works of Fei Xiaotong (20 volumes). This corpus constitutes a continuous body of thought spanning approximately 80 years, systematically documenting the transformation of Chinese society from rural structures to modern forms, together with its accompanying theoretical reflections. It is one of the most extensive and structurally complete individual intellectual corpora in the history of Chinese social sciences, and is also rare in global scholarship.

On this basis, I further introduce a methodological approach combining corpus analysis, artificial intelligence, and theoretical judgment. By systematically analysing the concept of “civilisation” across the corpus, dispersed texts can be reorganised at a structural level. This allows the question of civilisation to move beyond a linear developmental framework toward an understanding based on relational structures and generative processes, thereby providing a methodological foundation for the development of a theory of relational civilisation. Along this line of inquiry, this blog seeks to advance the ideas of “relational civilisation” and “relational generativity,” responding to Fei Xiaotong’s vision of constructing a Chinese school of sociology and anthropology.

Based on corpus statistics across the 20 volumes, the term “civilisation” appears 725 times, including approximately 188 occurrences in the translated works (Volumes 18 and 19). The corpus also contains fragmentary references to or engagements with other theorists of civilisation, including Oswald Spengler, Arnold J. Toynbee, and Samuel P. Huntington. This tradition generally treats civilisation as a macro-historical unit, focusing on rise, development, and conflict, and is largely characterised by a linear model of development.

By contrast, Fei Xiaotong’s understanding of civilisation is more directly rooted in conceptual resources from his early translated works, particularly in Volumes 18 and 19. These include authors such as William F. Ogburn, Bronislaw Malinowski, Raymond Firth, C. G. Seligman, and Elton Mayo. In these texts, “civilisation” appears mainly in analyses of social development, institutional structures, social types, and industrial society, forming an important methodological foundation for his early anthropological training.

In Fei’s own writings, the term “civilisation” appears 537 times and shows a clear shift over time. In the early period (1930s–1950s), it is used largely in descriptive sociological and anthropological contexts. In the middle period (1980s–1990s), it becomes more closely associated with discussions of Chinese civilisation and social transformation. In the later period (around 2000, particularly in Volume 17), it appears 237 times—about 44% of all occurrences—marking its transition from a descriptive term to a central analytical concept. At this stage, “civilisation” is no longer treated as a given object of analysis, but is re-problematised as a question of relations between different civilisations, articulated normatively through the idea of “each appreciating its own beauty and the beauty of others.”

This shift indicates that Fei Xiaotong’s theory of civilisation moves from imported analytical tools in translation to a relational theory developed in his own writings. It not only departs from linear developmental or civilisational conflict models, but also offers an alternative approach centred on coexistence.

In this context, the concepts of complicity and commensuration proposed by Professor Hans Steinmüller in his inaugural lecture at the London School of Economics provide an important mid-level analytical perspective. Complicity refers to tacit, situational forms of alignment grounded in relationships, which increase social complexity. Commensuration refers to processes of standardisation and comparability that reduce complexity and enable large-scale social coordination. Together, they reveal the dynamic balance between complexity and simplification.

Further, in her lecture at UCL, FANG Lili, drawing on long-term fieldwork in Jingdezhen, pointed out that civilisation does not develop along a single linear trajectory, but unfolds through ongoing cycles of return and recombination between historical resources and present conditions. This observation of “indirect development” provides an empirical correction to linear models of civilisation and demonstrates how relations are realised in concrete contexts through processes of reconfiguration.

Within this framework, Fang Lili’s work and my own theory of relational generativity form a relationship of resonance with distinct emphases. Both are grounded in long-term fieldwork and focus on how relations are formed and enacted in practice. However, FANG Lili places greater emphasis on how relations are realised under contemporary conditions, while my work focuses more on the continuity of relational elements and examines how relations are generated and transformed across different historical conditions. In this sense, if Steinmüller highlights the tension between complexity and simplification, my approach further examines how this tension is sustained and transformed through ongoing generative processes.

From a more general perspective, civilisation is often understood in terms of material and spiritual dimensions: the former relating to systems of production and technology, and the latter to systems of value and meaning. On this basis, I propose a perspective of “relational civilisation”, which understands civilisation as a form of social organisation centred on relations.

Within this framework, Fei Xiaotong’s idea of “each appreciating its own beauty and the beauty of others” constitutes the normative level, pointing toward a normative goal of coexistence among different civilisations. Steinmüller’s concepts of complicity and commensuration constitute the mechanism level, explaining how relations operate between complexity and simplification. Fang’s fieldwork constitutes the practical level, demonstrating how relations are realised through processes of reconfiguration. The “theory of relational generativity” constitutes the generative level, explaining how relations are continuously produced and transformed across different historical conditions.

Building on my research on lishang wanglai or ‘recipropriety’, I have been developing the theory of relational generativity, understood as the generative logic of social relations. Here, li shang provides the structural foundation of relations as norm and expression, while wang lai constitutes the practical process of relational generation as interaction and circulation. Through their continuous interplay, relations are generated, sustained, and extended. My research further shows that the key elements of society and civilisation have not disappeared, but have instead continuously changed their forms across different historical stages, undergoing transformation and recombination while maintaining continuity. This helps explain how relations are continuously generated and transformed across contexts.

In this sense, relational civilisation is not only a normative ideal, but also a dynamic system unfolding through mechanisms, practices, and generative processes. It manifests both as structures of human coexistence and as an ongoing historical process of relational generation.

As mentioned earlier, I edited and published Xue Mo’s book Renxin. Xue Mo enters the public sphere through literature, thought, and narrative, reaching human hearts through reading and dissemination. My own work, by contrast, unfolds more through relations and practice, enabling renxin to emerge and operate through processes of relational generation in concrete interactions, fieldwork, and platform development. These two paths differ, yet converge on a shared question: how renxin can be connected, understood, and transformed into relational structures that can continue to unfold in contemporary society.

In this context, Xue Mo’s notion of renxin refers primarily to inner moral cultivation and spiritual development, representing an inward-oriented humanistic practice. By contrast, in my research on lishang wanglai, renxin refers to the ontological foundation of relational generation: the capacity of human beings, as relational beings, to make judgments, negotiate situations, and generate relations in concrete contexts. This shift moves renxin from an ethical category to an ontological basis of relational generation, transforming the question of inner cultivation into the question of how relations are generated and unfold.

In recent years, my research has moved from Marshall Sahlins’ typology of reciprocity and Max Weber’s understanding of meaningful action, toward Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of social reproduction and Anthony Giddens’ theory of the interaction between structure and agency. Through this ongoing dialogue, I have gradually developed the basic structure of relational generativity: renxin as the ontological foundation; lishang as the dynamic structure, encompassing morality, emotion, reason, and belief; wanglai as the relational form, including generous, expressive, instrumental, and negative forms; and the generative mechanism understood as transformations between different types of relations.

On this basis, this theoretical framework advances existing social theory at three levels: it shifts the analysis of relations from structure and exchange toward generative processes, provides an ontological foundation for relations in renxin, and offers a pathway through which Chinese experience can enter theoretical structures with broader explanatory relevance.

2. Two Pathways of Entry: Situated Practice and Mechanism Transformation

1）Two pathways of entry and their contributions to cultural and academic exchange

From a broader perspective, the two events described above reveal two distinct yet equally instructive pathways through which Chinese culture and scholarship are entering the global space.

During the 2022 Frankfurt Book Fair, Xue Mo ranked first among international media trending topics outside Germany. As a writer working with his team, he has continuously entered the global cultural sphere through international book fairs and publishing systems. FANG Lili, by contrast, relied on the platform of the Chinese Society of Art Anthropology to organise a group of twelve scholars for lectures and study visits, engaging directly within university settings.

Although these two pathways differ in form, they share a common tendency: entering target spaces as active subjects, and completing communication and exchange through forms of co-presence and interaction, rather than relying primarily on external intermediary structures.

This shift is also closely related to technological conditions. Although FANG Lili’s lecture was delivered in Chinese, the use of English slides and real-time screen translation—including live interpretation during the Q&A—enabled participants from different linguistic backgrounds to engage simultaneously. Technological development has thus shifted cross-language communication from transmission mediated by others toward shared understanding in co-present settings, providing practical conditions for this mode of direct entry.

One may recall Fang Lili’s observation, based on her research on Jingdezhen, that in periods of transformation there always emerges a group of “pioneering actors.” In this sense, both Xue Mo—who continues to enter the global cultural sphere through literature and thought—and FANG Lili—who engages through academic communities in concrete institutional settings—are not merely participants, but actors shaping emerging pathways of global transformation. What their practices reveal is not simply individual success, but a new possibility for Chinese culture and scholarship in the contemporary world.

2）From pathways of entry to institutional mechanisms: a five-dimensional framework and platform development

If the pathways of “direct entry” emphasise presence and practice in specific settings, a further question arises: how can such entry be transformed from one-off actions into mechanisms capable of sustained operation?

Across forty years of academic practice, this question has gradually taken the form of a structural task: how to transform dispersed empirical research and theoretical exploration into a knowledge production system with an internal structure and the capacity for continuous development.

From this perspective, my work has not followed a single linear trajectory, but has unfolded across five interrelated dimensions: experience, concept, theory, method, and institution. Experience is grounded in fieldwork and historical materials; concepts emerge through linguistic abstraction and articulation; theory provides explanatory structure; method offers pathways for comparison and verification; and institution enables the sustained production and dissemination of knowledge.

This five-dimensional framework transforms “direct entry” from individual practice into an institutionalised mechanism that can be organised, extended, and reproduced over time.

Over the past decade, I have developed the theory of relational generativity on the basis of long-term fieldwork and comparative research, taking renxin as its ontological foundation and systematically examining how relations are generated and transformed across different contexts. At the same time, I have advanced a methodological approach combining corpus analysis, artificial intelligence, and theoretical judgment, exploring how Chinese social research can move from empirical description toward conceptual refinement, theoretical construction, and methodological innovation.

Within this framework, I propose a five-dimensional model of knowledge production—experience, concept (language), theory, method, and institution—and explore how research on Chinese society, both within and beyond China, can enter the global knowledge system through processes of structural transformation. At the same time, I have worked to promote the global dissemination and integration of Chinese social scientific knowledge through the institutional platforms I have established.

In terms of institutional and platform development, three interrelated platforms have gradually taken shape.

First, the Global China Academy is an independent, global, fellowship-based academic institution headquartered in the United Kingdom. Grounded in a global and comparative perspective, it is dedicated to advancing comprehensive research on China in the humanities and social sciences, while sustaining dialogue and collaboration within transnational academic networks.

Second, Global Century Press serves as a publishing platform. As Editor-in-Chief, I oversee the Journal of Global and China in Comparative Perspectives, the Global China Dialogue Proceedings, and several book series including Chinese Concepts, The Globalisation of Chinese Social Sciences, China and Chinese Civilisation in Comparative Perspective, Three-Eyed Transcultural Studies, and Emerging Frontiers. Through four academic journals and eight bilingual series, this platform establishes a sustained mechanism for knowledge production and dissemination.

Third, the Global China Dialogue forum operates as a platform for ongoing exchange. Based on interdisciplinary and comparative approaches, it brings together scholars, professionals, and members of the public from different countries. Through continuous dialogue, it promotes understanding of global issues and shared concerns. The forum connects universities, research institutes, governments, international organisations, media, and publishers, and develops its agenda around the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, covering areas such as AI, energy, education, migration, health, and global security. It is gradually forming a global space of dialogue centred on transculturality and social creativity.

These three platforms have distinct functions yet operate in a mutually reinforcing manner: The academy, with fellows as its core driving force, provides an institutional framework while continuously advancing academic community building; the press sustains knowledge production and dissemination; and the dialogue platform enables ongoing exchange and problem generation. Together, they form a structural system linking research, communication, and institutional development.

Conclusion

The two events observed in London over the past week illustrate that Chinese culture and scholarship are entering the global space through multiple pathways. On the one hand, “direct entry” enables face-to-face engagement and communication in specific settings through individuals and teams. On the other hand, these practices themselves raise new questions: how can such situated forms of entry be transformed into sustainable mechanisms of knowledge and institutional operation?

In this sense, these events are not only significant in their own academic and cultural terms, but also provide an empirical basis for further structural development.

At the same time, the content of the lectures—whether grounded in fieldwork on civilisational transformation or expressed through literary and intellectual explorations of renxin—points to a deeper question: how to establish internal connections between experience, concept, and theory, so that dispersed knowledge can enter structured frameworks of understanding.

It is in response to this question that this blog has sought to develop a perspective of relational civilisation, drawing on relational generativity and the methodological approach of corpus–AI–theoretical judgment, in order to further theorise how relations are generated, operate, and transform across different levels.

From this perspective, “direct entry” is not an endpoint, but a starting point. It allows Chinese experience to become visible in the global space. Through platform development and methodological innovation, such entry can be transformed into a sustained process of knowledge production. It is precisely in this process that the relationships between experience, theory, and institution are gradually reorganised, opening pathways for Chinese social sciences to enter broader global knowledge systems.

References (omitted)

In early June 2024, Professor Zhao Kejin of Tsinghua University contacted Professor Xiangqun Chang to propose two academic visiting programmes. The first was a 22-day field study (27 July–17 August), led by Professor Zhao, focusing on British modernisation and its global development experience. The second was a seven-day visit (17–23 August) to the United Kingdom by scholars from four universities in Beijing and Shanghai, centred on the development of artificial intelligence and global governance.

These visits formed part of the concrete measures agreed upon during Professor Zhao Kejin’s visit to the Global China Academy Centre on 20 January 2024, where institutional cooperation between Tsinghua University and the Global China Academy (GCA) was discussed and confirmed. They also represented the fulfilment of the late Professor Li Qiang’s (1950–2023) long-held vision — founding dean of the School of Social Sciences at Tsinghua University and former Chinese Chair of the GCA Council — to continue strengthening and developing the academic relationship between the two institutions.

For this reason, both the GCA Board of Trustees and the GCA Council attached great importance to the visit of Tsinghua and other Chinese scholars to the UK, and hoped to sustain and deepen the partnership through collaboration with the School of Social Sciences at Tsinghua University. Based on a previous invitation-letter template, Professor Tony McEnery (Chair of the GCA Council) and Professor Xiangqun Chang (President/Director of GCA) jointly issued formal invitations, clearly stating that all programme arrangements and services would be organised and delivered by the Global China Academy, while the associated costs would be covered by the Institute for Global Industry (IGI), Tsinghua University. As the visit took place during the holiday period, GCA also ensured that each key activity would be attended by different GCA leaders or Fellows.

With regard to transport and accommodation, we appropriately outsourced certain elements; for catering, thanks to sponsorship from two entrepreneurs, we raised the standard where appropriate. We also proactively added a clause to the previously signed contract stating that any excess costs beyond the agreed level would be borne by GCA, as a gesture of good faith and commitment as the host. Drawing on decades of experience in academic exchange with Chinese scholars, we extended the traditional Chinese literati ideal of “reading ten thousand books and travelling ten thousand miles” by adding another principle: “sharing international meals and making friends from all corners of the world.” For Chinese guests—given the cultural importance of food—“sharing international meals” is also a practical way to embody Fei Xiaotong’s well-known vision of cultural reciprocity and cosmopolitan coexistence: appreciating one’s own beauty, appreciating the beauty of others, and achieving harmony through mutual flourishing—often summarised as “harmony without uniformity.”

All aspects of the programme — including its academic content, travel arrangements, accommodation, meals, site visits, and scheduling — were discussed, reviewed, and confirmed with the delegation in advance of their arrival in the United Kingdom. Below are brief daily summaries of activities and related photos (mainly based on images shared in our WeChat group). This documentation is not only for record-keeping, but also to uphold the authenticity, fairness, and transparency of academic work—and to demonstrate the work undertaken and the effort invested.

17 August (Saturday) Arrival in London · Welcome Party

• Around 10:45 Arrival at Beijing Capital International Airport (Terminal 3). Check-in counter: H.
• 13:45–17:45 Flight CA937 from Beijing Capital International Airport (T3) to London Heathrow Airport (T2). GCA arranged airport pick-up (7 people + 7 suitcases, 9-seat minibus).
• 20:00 A welcome party was held at the GCA Fellows’ Home. Attendees included:

Chinese delegation (10 people):

• Professor Wang Tianfu (Dean, School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University);
• Professor Zhao Kejin (Department of International Relations, Tsinghua University);
• Professor Dai Changzheng (Dean, School of International Relations, University of International Business and Economics);
• Professor Zhu Jiejin (Former Vice Dean of School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University);
• Dr Liu Lina (Assistant Professor, School of International Studies, Renmin University of China);
• Dr Xing Yajie (Department of International Relations, Tsinghua University);
• Ms Yuan Yuhong (Deputy Director, Administrative Office, School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University);
• Ms Sui Jingzhu (Institute for Global Industry, Tsinghua University);
• and Professor Zhao Kejin’s wife and son.
• In addition, Professor Zhang Shuyan (Northeast Normal University) and her daughter also joined.

Global China Academy participants:

• Professor Tony McEnery (Chair of the GCA Council);
• Dr Frances Wood (former Secretary to the GCA Board of Trustees);
• Professor Xiangqun Chang (President/Director of GCA);
• Mr Liu Daqian (Executive Manager, GCA);
• Mr Liang Kai (GCA Events Officer);
• and volunteer Bruce Liu Hongran (student at King’s College London), among others.

21:30 Check-in at the hotel. Accommodation in London

• The Manor Elstree, Barnet Lane, Elstree, WD6 3RE, UK
  (33–55 minutes’ drive from the airport; 65–90 minutes to Oxford; 55–75 minutes to Cambridge)
• GCA Fellows’ Home, 32 Hankins Lane, London NW7 3AG

The drive between the two locations is approximately 6–8 minutes, and both are about 40–120 minutes from central London depending on traffic. The minibus first dropped luggage at The Manor Elstree, then proceeded to the Fellows’ Home for the welcome reception.

The welcome party was hosted by Global China Academy at the Fellows’ Home. By early evening, staff and volunteers had already set up a long table. The buffet featured mainly Western hot dishes and cold platters, accompanied by salad, fruit, desserts, and drinks—allowing guests to serve themselves freely and socialise at ease. This welcoming dinner also became a cross-institutional, cross-cultural, and cross-generational exchange carried out in a relaxed atmosphere, laying a warm and solid emotional foundation for the intensive academic itinerary of the week ahead.

Scholars chatted freely by the table, in the garden, and on the steps, creating a rare sense of ease and closeness. Scholars from Tsinghua University, Renmin University of China, the University of International Business and Economics, Fudan University, and Northeast Normal University sat together with UK academics, members of the GCA Board of Trustees and Council, and volunteers. Conversations ranged from research, teaching, and international collaboration to observations of cities, family life, and personal interests. It was precisely in this informal setting that many exchanges—hard to unfold in formal meetings—took place naturally.

Professor Tony McEnery (Chair of the GCA Council), Dr Frances Wood (former Trustee), and Professor Xiangqun Chang (President) each delivered words of welcome, warmly greeting the delegation on their first collective UK visit after the pandemic and thanking them for their trust and support for transnational academic exchange. Professor Wang Tianfu (Dean, Tsinghua SSS), Professor Zhao Kejin (Executive Director, IGI, Tsinghua), and other members of the delegation then expressed appreciation for GCA’s invitation and the careful arrangements throughout, sharing their anticipation for the resumption of face-to-face exchange; applause and laughter were frequent.

On behalf of Tsinghua University, Professor Wang Tianfu presented GCA with a highly symbolic commemorative gift—an art installation themed around “TSINGHUA.” Here, the word “Tsinghua” was no longer merely a university name; it became an academic token crossing geography and institutional boundaries. It marked the reconnection of UK–China academic exchange after the pandemic and signalled a shared commitment to continued collaboration in global academic dialogue and knowledge production.

18 August (Sunday) Greenwich · Canary Wharf · River Thames

• 08:00 Departure. Two cars took participants from their accommodation to the local station.
• 08:14 Jubilee Line from Stanmore Station.
• 09:02 Arrive at North Greenwich.
• 09:09 Bus 129 (towards Lewisham) from North Greenwich Station (Stop C).
• 09:21 Get off at Trafalgar Estate (Stop T).
• 09:34 Arrive at Royal Observatory Greenwich.
• 10:00 Visit the Royal Observatory Greenwich.
• 11:00 Visit the University of Greenwich.
• 11:45 Take the driverless DLR (Cutty Sark → Canary Wharf).
• 12:00 Explore Canary Wharf, Europe’s largest financial district/enterprise zone.
• 12:30 Lunch: Big Easy Canary Wharf (American BBQ & seafood; 12 people).
• Accompanying staff: Bruce Liu Hongran (full day); Fang Zhou (Landmark Pinnacle visit + lunch)
• 14:00 Travel from Canary Wharf to RB1 Tower Pier.
• 15:30 Visit Tower Bridge and the Tower of London (around the sites).
• 16:30 Thames river cruise (London Tower Pier → Westminster).
• 17:00 Visit Westminster Abbey.
• 18:00 Visit the Palace of Westminster (not open on Sundays; visit the surrounding area).
• 18:30 Dinner: Peacock London, County Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 7PB (10 people + Xiangqun Chang, Liu Daqian, Yu Li, Bruce Liu Hongran)

Background Notes

• Royal Observatory Greenwich: the site of the Prime Meridian (0° longitude), symbolising a global coordinate for time and space.
• University of Greenwich: formerly the Royal Naval College (1890); Yan Fu once studied here.
• Canary Wharf: transformed from a declining docklands area into Europe’s leading financial district—an emblematic case of UK urban regeneration.
• Landmark Pinnacle: Europe’s tallest residential building (75 floors), offering panoramic views of the City, the O2, London City Airport, etc.
• Westminster Abbey: a symbolic site of Britain’s parliamentary monarchy; on Sundays it is open primarily for worship.

On Sunday, the delegation’s first day in London focused mainly on sightseeing and recovery from travel. The itinerary followed the Thames—stretching from Greenwich to Canary Wharf and back to Westminster—forming a classic route through which to understand London’s time, space, and urban transformation.

In the morning, visits to the Royal Observatory and the University of Greenwich began from the global temporal reference point of the Prime Meridian, offering a direct sense of Britain’s historical foundations in navigation, science, and higher education. The group then took the DLR to Canary Wharf to observe the UK model of docklands regeneration into a financial and commercial hub, and went up to Landmark Pinnacle to view London’s wider urban landscape. Lunch in Canary Wharf—seafood and barbecue—provided an easy and restorative break after the journey.

In the afternoon, the group cruised down the Thames, passing Tower Bridge and the Tower of London before reaching Westminster. The Sunday atmosphere around Westminster Abbey and Parliament was calm and spacious. Delegates sat on the grass, slowing down briefly and experiencing London’s distinctive Sunday ease and composure.

What left the strongest impression that day was not only London’s iconic landmarks, but also the lived experience of the city. The day moved from a river journey to moments of rest on the grass, and finally to a carefully structured rhythm of meals. Lunch was a Sunday brunch in Canary Wharf, where a single plate combined lobster and steak, offering a distinctly modern, financial-district version of a London weekend. Dinner, by contrast, was a Chinese meal at County Hall on the South Bank, directly facing Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. The meal, which happened to pair lobster with crab, echoed the richness of the earlier lunch in a different cultural register. In the evening light by the Thames, familiar flavours returned in a setting framed by the symbols of British governance. The convergence of urban space, institutional landmarks, and everyday dining created a sense of balance and continuity, providing a composed and grounded transition into the intensive academic programme that followed.

19 August (Monday) University of Oxford · Academic Dialogue on AI and Global Governance

• 07:30 Departure for Oxford. Visits included: Christ Church College, University of Oxford and Oxford University Libraries (library system)
• 13:00 Lunch: Comptoir Libanais (Lebanese restaurant; 11 people).
• 15:00–17:20 Academic dialogue at Oxford. Theme: “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Work and Life, and the Discussion of Its Global Governance”; Venue: Lecture Hall, Merton College
• 18:00 Dinner: COSMO World Buffet Restaurant

Accompanying staff: Hugo Tai (MSc Politics, University of Oxford; former President of the British Postgraduate Network for Chinese Studies, BPCS)

Participants: the delegation + 4 from GCA (Xiangqun Chang, Robin Cohen, David Parkin, Hugo Tai). Dinner also included two Oxford-based scholars and others such as Cheng Yutong (PhD student, UCL), etc.

That morning, the delegation travelled from London to Oxford and visited Christ Church College—one of Oxford’s most emblematic historic colleges—and the Oxford University library system. In the courtyards of ancient colleges and within library spaces, delegates experienced at close range the academic traditions, institutional culture, and spatial order that Oxford has sustained as a world-leading university, setting a strong scholarly atmosphere for the later dialogue.

At midday, the group had lunch at Comptoir Libanais in central Oxford. The colourful, diverse Mediterranean dishes created a relaxed interlude within a tightly scheduled day. Conversation continued around the morning visits and provided a natural transition to the afternoon academic dialogue on AI and global governance.

In the afternoon, the delegation attended an academic dialogue at Merton College, University of Oxford, themed “The Impact of AI on Work, Life, and Global Governance.” The event was hosted by the Oxford Prospects and Global Development Institute, and co-hosted by the Institute for Global Industry at Tsinghua University and the Global China Academy. It constituted an important interdisciplinary exchange between Chinese and UK scholars on the societal impact of AI.

The meeting was opened and chaired by Dr Wang Shidong, who delivered introductory remarks. Professor Wang Tianfu and Professor Xiangqun Chang also offered opening speeches, noting that AI is profoundly reshaping human work, social structure, and governance—and that international academic dialogue is urgently needed to deepen understanding and build consensus. The roundtable was chaired by Professor Zhao Kejin. Scholars discussed opportunities and challenges from perspectives including international relations, global governance, public policy, and social research. The contributions of two GCA Fellows were particularly memorable to participants: Professor David Parkin (left) emphasised, from the standpoint of language and politics, that language is fundamentally a tool of communication, and that in formal settings such as political negotiation, AI can play a particularly significant role in persuasion and expression; Professor Robin Cohen (right), from the perspective of migration studies, noted that while AI brings convenience, it also raises challenges including energy consumption, privacy, and ethics—making responsible use of AI a global challenge.

This dialogue deepened UK–China scholarly understanding of AI’s broad societal implications and laid a foundation for continued collaboration on global governance and technological transformation.

Related coverage

20 August (Tuesday) Cambridge · Brocket Hall · Walking–Talking Route

• 07:30 Depart for Cambridge.
• 09:15 Punting on the River Cam.
• 10:30 Visit King’s College, University of Cambridge.
• 12:00 Lunch: The Ivy Cambridge Brasserie.
• 14:00 Most members of the delegation travelled to Brocket Hall (Welwyn Garden City). Professor Wang Tianfu and Professor Xiangqun Chang stayed behind in Cambridge for visits and exchanges.
• 17:30 Dinner: Brocket Hall Clubhouse.
• 19:00 Return to the hotel and the Fellows’ Home.
• 20:00 Leadership exchange between the School of Social Sciences (Tsinghua) and GCA.

Cambridge hosts/support:

• Jeni Kong (a white British daughter-in-law of Kong Zhong, 72th-generation descendant of Confucius; speaks Chinese);
• Dr Liu Chong (Tsinghua SSS alumna; postdoctoral researcher at Cambridge’s Department of Land Economy);
• Guo Haotian (PhD student, Cambridge Sociology).
• Brocket Hall hosts/support: David Liu, General Manager.

In the morning, the delegation arrived at Cambridge, visited King’s College and its chapel, and took a punt along the River Cam. Moving among historic colleges, lawns, and waterways, delegates engaged in walking conversations and gained an intuitive understanding of the spatial structure, collegiate system, and academic traditions of a leading UK university. This segment of the day opened the academic visit in the mode of “scholarship in motion.” At noon, the delegation had lunch at The Ivy Cambridge Brasserie. Located in central Cambridge, the restaurant is known for its blend of British tradition and contemporary design, making it a classic setting for rest and conversation between academic visits. In a relaxed atmosphere, scholars continued to exchange reflections from the morning and transitioned naturally into the afternoon programme.

Afterwards, Professor Wang Tianfu (Dean, Tsinghua SSS) and Professor Xiangqun Chang (President, GCA)—both sociologists—visited the teaching and research environment of Cambridge Sociology, accompanied by Dr Liu Chong (Tsinghua SSS alumna, postdoctoral researcher in Cambridge’s Department of Land Economy) and Mr Guo Haotian (PhD student, Cambridge Sociology). As it was the summer vacation, there were relatively few people in the department, and the visit focused mainly on on-site observation and understanding of the academic environment.

The group then met with Professor Bao Xiaohui (Department of Land Economy) for discussion, focusing on topics including urban development, institutional analysis, and comparative research. Finally, they visited Selwyn College and met Professor Patrick Baert in his office, engaging with themes such as social theory, AI, comparative research, and academic training. Exchanges took place across office, library, and college spaces. The pace was unhurried and the discussions substantive—reflecting the British academic style in which openness and seriousness coexist, even during the holiday period.

In the afternoon, most of the delegation travelled to Brocket Hall in Welwyn Garden City. The neoclassical estate was once the residence of Prime Ministers Melbourne and Palmerston, the latter of whom played a pivotal role in the First Opium War. Scholars walked and talked across the lawns, lakeside, and buildings, placing contemporary academic questions alongside a historical site in a manner rich with symbolism—forming a “Walking–Talking” discussion. Debates about UK–China relations initiated by the First Opium War, the formation of the modern state system, the shaping of a global trade order, and their lasting impact on China’s modernisation unfolded naturally through the walk. In this setting, history was no longer simply something narrated; it became a site for renewed understanding and reflection.

In the evening, the delegation dined at the Brocket Hall Clubhouse. Situated at the heart of the estate, it offered a calm and open setting: lake and lawns outside, and an interior preserving the ambience of a traditional English country-house dining room. Dinner was served in a Western set-menu style at a measured pace, providing space to unwind and organise thoughts after a full day. Professor Xiangqun Chang and Professor Wang Tianfu joined the dinner, exchanging reflections with delegates on the day’s visits to Cambridge and Brocket Hall and sharing their own observations. Discussion flowed naturally around the table, creating emotional and intellectual continuity for the more in-depth evening conversations.

The delegation then returned to London. That evening, the leadership teams of Tsinghua’s School of Social Sciences and the Global China Academy held a dedicated exchange, discussing future directions, academic mechanisms, and long-term plans for sustained collaboration. The day concluded with informal yet highly focused dialogue, laying a solid foundation for subsequent visits and cooperation.

21 August (Wednesday) British Museum · National Gallery · Musical Theatre

• 08:00 Depart for Mill Hill Broadway Station; take Thameslink to St Pancras.
  Visits included: British Library (exterior), British Museum, National Gallery and Trafalgar Square.
• 12:30 Lunch: New China (Chinese restaurant).
• 14:00 Oxford Street, Regent Street, Liberty, Carnaby.
• 16:00 Visit to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the UK.
• 17:30 Dinner: Angus Steakhouse.
• 19:30 Watch the musical Les Misérables.
• 21:30 Return by Underground; 22:30 two cars collected the group and returned to accommodation.

The day concentrated on visits to London’s national cultural institutions and public urban spaces, combining cultural exploration with rest and recuperation. Departing from Mill Hill Broadway in the morning and travelling into central London via Thameslink, the group visited the exterior of the British Library, the British Museum, and the National Gallery, stopping at Trafalgar Square to experience London’s museum ecosystem and civic public spaces as a global cultural capital. Lunch at New China offered a pause and recovery. In the afternoon, the delegation walked through Oxford Street, Regent Street, Liberty, and Carnaby, observing London’s commercial districts and the rhythm of city life.

At 4:00 pm, the delegation visited the Chinese Embassy in the UK for formal exchange. During the visit, the delegation was received by Ambassador Zheng Zeguang. They reported on the gradual resumption of UK–China academic exchange over the four years of the pandemic, and described the overall significance of this UK visit as an academic “ice-breaking journey.” Ambassador Zheng highly affirmed the delegation’s efforts to sustain international academic exchange under special circumstances and offered encouragement and support for further strengthening cooperation between UK and Chinese universities and academic institutions. This meeting added an important official and symbolic dimension to the programme.

After dinner at Angus Steakhouse, the group attended the classic musical Les Misérables, experiencing British public culture through music and theatre. Les Misérables is one of the world’s most famous and longest-running musicals, adapted from Victor Hugo’s novel. Set against the backdrop of nineteenth-century France, it follows the fate of Jean Valjean and explores themes of justice, redemption, love, and revolution. Since its London premiere in 1985, it has remained a flagship production in the West End, emblematic of London’s theatre culture and Britain’s global influence in musical production and dissemination. After the performance, the delegation returned by Underground and was driven back to accommodation by two cars, concluding a culturally rich day.

22 August (Thursday) The British Academy · Buckingham Palace · LSE Workshop

• 07:45 Depart for central London.
• 09:00 Visit the exterior of The British Academy.
• 09:45 Visit Buckingham Palace (interior visit).
• 11:20 Lunch at the Royal Automobile Club (RAC).
• 13:45 Registration for the LSE workshop.
• 14:00–17:15 Workshop theme: “China–US Relations and the New International Order” (Professor Wang Tianfu left after the tea break to take flight CA856 back to Beijing that evening.)
• 17:15–18:15 Drinks (Lincoln’s Inn Fields).
• 19:00 Dinner: Santoré.

The day unfolded along a clear line: “academic institution—national symbol—international dialogue.” In the morning, the delegation travelled into central London, visited the exterior of the British Academy, and entered Buckingham Palace for an interior tour. As one of the most important symbolic buildings of the British monarchy, Buckingham Palace is both the King’s official London residence and the core site for state ceremonies, diplomatic receptions, and major national celebrations. The tour covered multiple State Rooms, including halls and galleries used for state banquets, investitures, and diplomatic events. The rooms display a significant collection of royal paintings, furniture, and decorative arts, offering a concentrated view of the monarchy’s continuity across art, institutions, and national history. Through this visit, the delegation gained a more direct understanding of the relationship between monarchy and governance, public symbolism and political ritual within a constitutional monarchy—completing an on-site observation of institutions and culture within spaces of British academic tradition and national symbolism. This also provided a vivid institutional contrast and real-world context for the afternoon discussions on international order and governance at the London School of Economics.

Afterwards, the delegation had lunch at the Royal Automobile Club (RAC), using this high-end social space—rich in academic and civic tradition—for exchange. This arrangement was supported by Mr Martin Garthwaite, Fellow of Royal Society of Arts, an Outstanding Client Manager at PwC, and Co-Chair of the Social Mobility Network.

This segment of the programme also carried an important academic memory. In July 2014, Professor Li Qiang, Founding Dean of the School of Social Sciences at Tsinghua University, visited the UK for a short holiday and academic exchange with his wife, Ms Zhang Hua. Professor Xiangqun Chang—then President of the CCPN Global, the predecessor of today’s Global China Academy—planned the itinerary in advance as a friend and hosted them throughout their time in London. It left precious and unforgettable memories for both sides. Within just a few days, Professor Li and Ms Zhang visited many of London’s key cultural and academic landmarks, including RHS Wisley Gardens, Tower Bridge, Westminster, Trafalgar Square, the British Museum, the British Academy, and the London School of Economics; they also met and exchanged with Professor Martin Albrow, a leading UK sociologist. The itinerary combined on-site observation of Britain’s history, culture, and institutions with in-depth discussions on globalisation, urbanisation, and social-science methodology. That visit was not only a memory of friendship and scholarly exchange, but also an emotional and intellectual starting point for the long-term engagement between Tsinghua University and the UK academic community—its meaning and value becoming even clearer when revisited ten years later.

Notably, Professor Martin Albrow, former President of the British Sociological Association, hosted Professor Li Qiang—then President of the Chinese Sociological Association and Dean of Tsinghua’s School of Social Sciences—and his wife at the Royal Automobile Club, and presented him with his major work, The Global Age. It was through that meeting that Professor Albrow and the School of Social Sciences at Tsinghua University established sustained and stable academic ties. This relationship continued for many years until Professor Li’s passing, becoming a deep and enduring scholarly friendship in the history of UK–China social-science exchange.

Ten years later, when the Tsinghua SSS delegation returned to the UK in 2024, Professor Albrow happened to be away on holiday and could not meet the delegation in London. In GCA’s overall arrangement, the programme intentionally extended Professor Li’s earlier academic route in London: the delegation again came to RAC for dining and exchange, experiencing the club’s distinctive tradition of academic sociability and public cultural ambience. This visit served both as a tribute to Professor Li’s scholarly footsteps and as a symbol of continuity across time in UK–China academic exchange—people may change, but the pathway endures; the friendship continues forward.

In the afternoon, on 22 August 2024, “US–China Relations and the New World Order” workshop was held at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). The event was jointly organised by the Phelan United States Centre at LSE, the Institute of Global Industry at Tsinghua University, and the Global China Academy (UK).

The workshop brought together scholars from leading universities in China and the UK to discuss the evolving trajectory of US–China relations and the restructuring of the global order, with particular attention to international politics, global governance, and institutional change. Through two themed sessions and interdisciplinary dialogue, participants exchanged perspectives on trust, strategic competition, global monetary systems, and the role of third-party countries in shaping international relations.

The event was opened by Professor Peter Trubowitz (LSE), Professor Wang Tianfu (Tsinghua University), and Professor Xiangqun Chang (Global China Academy). Discussions highlighted both the structural challenges and the necessity of sustained academic dialogue in a period of global uncertainty.

Following the formal sessions, participants continued their exchanges during informal discussions over coffee and dinner, extending scholarly dialogue beyond the workshop setting and strengthening personal and institutional connections. The workshop not only enhanced mutual understanding of the current international landscape but also laid a foundation for future academic collaboration and more institutionalised communication between UK and Chinese research communities.

Related coverage

23 August (Friday) GCA Exchange · Airport Departure

• 09:00 Depart for the GCA Fellows’ Home.
• 09:30 Exchange meeting with the Global China Academy.
• 12:00 Brunch: Mill Hill Golf Club.
• 16:00 Coach transfer for all delegation members (10 people) and luggage to the airport.
• 17:00 After seeing the delegation off, GCA Executive Manager Mr Liu Daqian returned to the Fellows’ Home and met with the President and volunteers, then took a walk around Mill Hill Golf Club.
• 20:25 Flight CA938.

That morning, the delegation travelled from accommodation to the GCA Fellows’ Home for a final exchange meeting with the GCA team. Both sides reviewed the overall outcomes of the visit, discussed future directions of cooperation, and reflected on mechanisms for more institutionalised academic exchange—clarifying pathways for continued collaboration.

At noon, the delegation had brunch at Mill Hill Golf Club, revisiting the week’s intensive and rich academic itinerary in a relaxed setting. In the afternoon, GCA arranged a coach transfer for all delegation members and luggage to the airport. Mr Liu Daqian then returned to the Fellows’ Home, and together with the President and volunteers, joined a walk around Mill Hill Golf Club—bringing the visit to a quiet and composed close.

At 20:25 that evening, the delegation departed London on flight CA938, concluding the one-week UK academic visit.

Related coverage

Summary: An Academic Walk Across Time and the Continuation of Relationships

The UK visit by the delegation from Tsinghua University’s School of Social Sciences and scholars from four universities in Beijing and Shanghai (17–23 August 2024) was not only an academic programme centred on AI, global governance, and US-China relationship and international order; it was also a scholarly pathway reconnected across time. Its institutional and emotional foundations originated in the UK–China academic exchange that the late Professor Li Qiang (1950–2023), founding Dean of Tsinghua’s School of Social Sciences, had long promoted.

Professor Li Qiang served successively as the Chinese Honorary President of the Global China Academy and as the Chinese Chair of the GCA Council. He played a pivotal role in the Academy’s early development and in establishing mechanisms for UK–China academic exchange, laying an important foundation for long-term and stable scholarly engagement between the two sides. A decade ago, the UK–China social-science route he initiated in London has now been walked again by a new generation of scholars; the same city route, the same academic spaces, and the same modes of scholarly interaction have been reactivated and infused with new issues of our time.

This symbolic “renewal of departure” began on the evening of arrival with a welcome gathering at the GCA Fellows’ Home. The welcome party was not a ceremonial formality, but a deliberately designed practice of rebuilding an academic community: scholars exchanged freely across courtyard, garden, and steps, quickly forming cross-institutional, cross-disciplinary, and cross-generational connections in a relaxed atmosphere. It was from this lived and relational beginning that the tightly scheduled academic week gained its shared rhythm and emotional grounding.

Over the following days, the programme unfolded across different cities and institutional spaces. In Oxford, scholars engaged in an interdisciplinary dialogue on AI’s impact on work, life, and global governance. In Cambridge, the delegation revisited collegiate traditions and, within college spaces, libraries, and walking routes, discussed institutions, cities, AI, and social theory with UK scholars—experiencing a British mode of knowledge production in which “life–institution–theory” are deeply intertwined. At the London School of Economics (LSE), UK and Chinese scholars held a high-level workshop on China–US relations and the new international order, where contemporary global issues and institutional comparison intersected within a single academic arena.

At the Royal Automobile Club (RAC), the delegation returned to a symbolic space of scholarly friendship where Professor Li had once forged thought-provoking and enduring ties with leading UK sociologists a decade earlier. At Brocket Hall, scholars placed discussions of modernisation, imperial legacies, and global order directly within a key historical site of modern British political memory—using a “Walking–Talking” approach to embed academic questions in their historical and institutional setting. History, in that moment, was no longer merely narrated; it became a place for renewed understanding and reflection. Such “situated scholarship” is also one of the methodological commitments long advocated by the Global China Academy.

Guided by the principle of “reading ten thousand books, travelling ten thousand miles, sharing international meals, and making friends from all corners of the world,” the Global China Academy integrates Chinese intellectual traditions with British and global academic practice. In this way, academic exchange carries not only intellectual weight, but also cultural depth and lived warmth. Dialogue takes place in lecture halls and meeting rooms, but also extends into city spaces, historical buildings, shared meals, and collective walking—so that knowledge production becomes a holistic cultural practice embedded in everyday life, rather than an isolated series of meetings.

On the final day, the delegation held a concluding exchange meeting with the GCA team at the Fellows’ Home. Both sides systematically reviewed the academic outcomes, cooperation mechanisms, and future pathways. This seemingly quiet farewell conversation in fact marked a key transition from “completing an itinerary” to “continuing a relationship”: it helped consolidate a week of intensive activities into sustainable directions for future cooperation.

At the operational level, both the GCA Board of Trustees and the GCA Council placed high importance on the visit and regarded it as an essential project for fulfilling long-term commitments to UK–China academic collaboration. All core activities were coordinated by GCA, and even under summer constraints, key academic events were attended by GCA leaders or Fellows to ensure programme quality and scholarly continuity.

During implementation, due to peak-season scheduling, changes in delegation size, and necessary on-site adjustments, additional expenditure directly related to the academic itinerary was incurred—primarily for programme meals, local transport, and cultural and educational visits. All such expenditure was approved at executive level, was one-off in nature, and fully served GCA’s charitable objectives of academic exchange, cultural understanding, and international cooperation. It does not constitute recurring expenditure, nor does it alter GCA’s long-term financial structure.

When the delegation departed London on the evening of 23 August 2024, the visit did not end; rather, it entered a new stage. Through shared experience, it reaffirmed the continuity of UK–China academic relations and laid foundations of trust and connection for more institutionalised, longer-term, and deeper cooperation in the future. People may change, but the pathway continues; issues evolve, and relationships deepen—this is precisely the most enduring and vital meaning of academic exchange.