Worldwide, humanities and social sciences (HSS) scholars produce and disseminate knowledge in an unequal global knowledge space, which can be caused by various structural, epistemological, and individual-level factors. Although global epistemic injustice receives much attention, the factors contributing to it, including the extraverted mindsets and practices of non-Euro-American scholars, remain less discussed. This article draws on semibiographical interviews with 30 high-achieving ethnic Chinese HSS scholars in mainland China, in Hong Kong, and overseas. It explores how these scholars display intellectual extraversion and why and how they are reflexive about and confronting it. The findings reveal three manifestations of intellectual extraversion, four sources of reflexivity regarding such extraversion, and three ways to confront it. The research uncovers the continuous reflexivity and efforts of ethnic Chinese HSS scholars in dealing with lingering epistemic discontinuities and exclusions and sheds light on new possible approaches to challenging global epistemic injustice in HSS research.

The global knowledge asymmetries are increasingly interrogated by non-Western humanities and social sciences (HSS) scholars whose research is anchored in local contexts yet must adhere to international (Western) standards. Under this circumstance, the study aims to examine how the cultural self-awareness of non-Western HSS scholars is manifested in research through a Chinese lens. Based on previous theoretical perspectives and Fei Xiaotong’s theory of cultural self-awareness, the study first constructs two analytical dimensions: academic self-reflexivity and cultural appreciation attitudes. It then performs a qualitative investigation including 28 Mainland Chinese HSS scholars through interviews and literature analyses. The findings highlight key principles for academic self-reflexivity, namely reflecting on intellectual extraversion, dichotomous thinking, and the reemphasis on Chinese culture and knowledge. The cultural appreciation attitudes are also elaborated, which are embodied in the recognition and revaluation of traditional Chinese knowledge, the continued appreciation of modern Western knowledge, and the synthesis of different cultures and knowledge in research. These findings develop Fei’s cultural self-awareness theory and add new discourses to address global knowledge imbalances, promoting a more diverse and inclusive global higher education landscape.

The asymmetrical global higher education and knowledge systems ordered by Euro–American hegemony have been increasingly interrogated, especially by scholars in the humanities and social sciences (HSS). With gathering awareness, growing HSS scholars from non-Western backgrounds have called for global intellectual pluriversality. Responding to such a trend, this article sheds new light on the status quo of East Asian and other non-Euro–American intellectual traditions by taking Chinese intellectual traditions as a case. Since the nineteenth century, generations of Chinese intellectuals have strived to transform their intellectual traditions into modern resources. This historical mission has been carried on by contemporary scholars and become even more complex in the current global era. By unpacking the real perceptions and recent experiences of Chinese HSS scholars, this study demonstrates that Chinese intellectual traditions deeply influence today’s knowledge production and have been transformed into three kinds of academic resources: approaches, methodologies/paradigms, and theories. However, the transformation process has never been smooth. Domestically, the great endeavours of Chinese HSS scholars are often impeded by the dominant intellectual extraversion and coercive audit culture; internationally, they feel constrained by epistemic injustice. This article proposes an empirical approach to examining and presenting intellectual traditions in the individual experiences of scholars. It reveals the high complexities of navigating through asymmetrical globalisation to achieve intellectual pluriversality.