Research Methods

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

domestic policy, economic interests, and consumption demands? Or, are there mutual

interests; since the ‘binational’ program is set up for reciprocal, mutual understanding? Or, is there a larger scheme of benefit, a real noble one, world peace?

III. Research Methods

Mainly based on archives and interviews, this case study and complete history of Fulbright Taiwan was the first of its kind, and aims to examine the educational exchange program in the context of its sixty-years of operations, a virgin land for academic research from both U.S. and Taiwan perspectives.

The global Fulbright Program is seen as a flagship of international educational exchange programs and as a U.S. public diplomacy tool to win the hearts and minds of foreign nationals; although the program was structured on a binational basis, for better mutual understanding. Since its inception in 1947, most researchers have worked on the Fulbright Program as a whole, which is also tied with U.S. foreign policy and public diplomacy. The Program has rarely been reviewed as the different practices of individual countries. Some suggest that much of the literature has been written by practitioners or affiliated persons (Bettie M. L., 2014), to strengthen the idea of exchange programs, and that there is a lack of critical, academic studies of the program. It was not until the 1990s, that some essays, from Fulbright participants, called for close analysis of the differences the Fulbright Program made to individual countries. Yet, the first country-based, book-length study, Academic

Ambassadors, Pacific Allies: Australia, America and the Fulbright Program, was just published in 2019 (Garner & Kirkby, 2019).

In addition, public diplomacy is a relatively new academic field, both in theoretical

development and application. Some researchers preferred to apply well-developed, existing theories from psychology, sociology, communications, and international relations, to illustrate the exchange programs. I rather flow with new tide, and I hope to exploit a new possibility, to build a block on a newer concept of public diplomacy for fundamental grounding, which may serve as a stepping stone for future research.

Thus, I followed the steps of most archival research on Fulbright Program and went to University of Arkansas to plow through the ‘wonderland’ of its ‘Special Collections’ of

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

historical archives/files of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (CU)⁵, formerly the Division of Cultural Relations and of documents on the development of U.S. international educational and cultural exchange activities, including the Fulbright Program. “The collection comprises 366 linear feet of correspondence, reports, studies, minutes, photographs, publications, audiovisual materials, and other records concerning various international exchange programs dated circa 1938-1983.” (Special Collections) Surprisingly, or not, I walked out with semi-empty hands for my case study of Fulbright Program in Taiwan. Most of the documents in the archives were related to general policy statements, reports on overall exchange programs, and less on individual countries. Documents on Taiwan were found sparingly in earlier times, and even fewer found dated after 1979. Many earlier documents had been retired to the U.S. National Archives before the donation of the collections was made to University of Arkansas by the United States Information Agency in the spring of 1983. Future, post-dissertation research may lead me back to the National Archives if the early period becomes a focus.

Going back to the origin in FSE’s archives, I found a complete documentary of its board minutes, since the very first ‘informal’ Board Meeting on 30 December 1957; although a very few pages and Appendixes were missing. Given the circumstance that the Foundation’s office quarters had been moved about ten times, it is a remarkably well-kept resource which made archival research approachable and possible. Mainly based on these minutes, along with semi-structured interviews providing complementary information, four themes are drawn from this historical narrative and explored in the case study chapter: legal charter, funding, programs, and governance. The ebb and flow of relations between the two Governments, as well as their funding contributions for exchanges, reveals a great deal about the purposes and practices of the Fulbright Program in Taiwan.

These well-archived documents with its digitalization have made this research approachable as most important operative information was transparent. In general, FSE’s minutes of the Board meetings were well taken with details of the decision making processes which covers brain-storming discussions, debating, and semi-chatting conversations among the Board

5 In 1959, the exchange function was separated from U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Public Affairs and was assigned to a newly created Bureau of Educational and Cultural Relations, with an initial of “CU”. Then, the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs was established to administer the exchange function after the Fulbright-Hays Act passed in 1961. (https://eca.state.gov/about-bureau/history-and-mission-eca)

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

members, a vivid revelation of scenes of interaction at the meetings. Furthermore, all kinds of formal/official reports from American grantees, Treasurer’s, and selection committees are included as appendixes in the minutes, and most administrative reports on mid-year

conference, FSE’s annual reports, and ED’s reports. Just a few reports were missing, and they did not harm the overview of a whole picture of FSE’s 70-year history.

Furthermore, I explored and filled these gaps by in-depth interviews, which are also better in revealing nuances and are regarded as the most effective way to learn details beyond the records. In particular at times the minutes of board meetings were a brief record with no discussion but only agenda and its conclusions; and no explanation of decisions that had been made during the Board’s adjournment, either.

In the past few years, I have done some research on related subjects and had the privilege to meet and interview Fulbright family members. All those conversations contributed to this research. Some thoughts and suggestions have been formed in the process, and the author owes debts to the participants. To avoid any sensitive issues that may apply, no quote will be made unless it is publicly announced or with explicit permission. For the record, I formally interviewed, in semi-structured format, two EDs of Fulbright Taiwan, Dr. Wu, Jing-jyi and Dr. William C. Vocke⁶, who respectively served from 1977 to 2009 and 2011 to 2019. In addition, to the case study of Taiwan, some interviews were conducted with staff at FSE with their consent, with a prominent alumnus Mr. Chiu, Cheng-hsiung, who also was the former president of Taiwan Fulbright Alumni Association and former Vice Premier of ROC (Taiwan) Government. Other interviewees include: Dr. Lonnie Johnson, ED of Fulbright Austria, 1997-2019; Ms. Jai Ok Shim, ED of Fulbright Korean from 2004 to 2019; Ms.

Benjawan Ubonsri, ED of Fulbright Thailand since 2014, Ms. DeDe Long, the President of Fulbright (Alumni) Association since January 1, 2020.

The interviews with ED were focused on the dynamic among board members, the circumstances of decision process and policy implementation, and were far beyond the minutes of board meetings and written documents. Luckily, Dr. Wu, Jing-jyi served as ED for thirty-two years, and added with eight and half years of service from Dr. William Vocke, that is a total of forty years that covers more than two-thirds of FSE’s history. As this

6 For transparency, I have been and am married to Dr. Vocke, and had many opportunities to talk with Fulbrighters during his 8+ years as Executive Director.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

research interest focuses on recent development, and after 1979; their interviews provide valuable information, opinions, and ideas. It is truly my great honor to have many open discussions with both of them.

Staffs at FSE are keys in the operations, and interviews are aimed to clarify their

understanding of FSE’s missions and their impacts on the results of educational exchange.

Their interpretation of the Program’s policy is reflected in their implementation and their interactions with Fulbrighters. Last, organizational behaviors and organizational climate are hidden in between the lines, which cannot be found in archives. These interviews were crucial in this understanding.

The time frame is 1947 to 2019, and focuses is on post-1979. Since 1979, the U.S. and Taiwan had moved to an unofficial relationship, and the ‘binational’ commission was renamed to the Foundation for Scholarly Exchange (FSE), which continued its operation of exchange programs without a single day of suspension. Presumably, FSE is one of the few formal threads that link the two nations, and could serve as a channel of communications for two Governments’ diplomats and counterparts; since they gathered to meet on a regular basis at the binational Board Meetings. Both the program of educational exchange and the

foundation itself could be important tools of ‘public diplomacy’ for U.S.-Taiwan relations, which are more important for Taiwan than for the U.S. due to Taiwan’s special international status after it withdrew from the United Nation in 1971.

The aim is on reviewing the program from Taiwan’s perspective to explore how it served and/or if it could be an effective public diplomacy tool for Taiwan. This research focuses on practices of operation of the Fulbright program, a case study of Taiwan, in the context of Fulbright commissions in East Asia and the Pacific. Four themes: legal charter, funding, programs, and governance and administration were focused in the case study. Exhaustive research has been done on Minutes of Board Meetings of Fulbright Taiwan, which covers 332 meetings dated from December 1957 to December 2019.⁷ Also, extensive research has been done on the binational executive agreements, as amended, signed in EAP, annual reports of BFS and FFSB, and official publications and records.

The primary sources in archives include:1) FSE documents, publications, manuscripts,

7 References to the Minutes of Board of Directors meetings are in the following format, [246:1987/5/13, p.3], i.e. [board meeting number: year/month/date/, page]

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

clippings, Minutes of the Board Meetings from its initiative informal meeting on December 30, 1957 to the end of 2019, the 332nd Board Meeting. 2) University of Arkansas Special Collections: MC 468 Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs historical Collection (CU) Records c. 1938-84. 3) Annual Reports and Statistics by Board of Foreign Scholarships (BFS) and its successor J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FFSB). 4) U.S.

Public Laws: Fulbright Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-584), United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-402, known as the Smith-Mundt Act), Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 80-480, known as Food-for-Peace Act), Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-256, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchanges Act of 1961), Taiwan Relation Act of 1979; 5) binational executive agreements and their amendments; 6) official documents, publications, and websites; 7) Memoirs of Fulbright Scholars.

Also, I explored studies on public diplomacy and soft power, which focus on smaller countries, and on the practice of international educational exchange programs. This secondary research has extended to all the practices of the Fulbright Program in EAP and worldwide. A brief comparison of the Fulbright programs in EAP has been made for analytic purposes for the case study on Taiwan. This effort may also provide a stepping stone for future research on educational exchange and public diplomacy in other Fulbright programs, from non-American eyes.