[iCONADA Research Team] Xi Jinping’s Push to Break Up Academic Cliques: What Could It Mean for China’s Cultural and Creative Industries?

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent call to dismantle entrenched academic hierarchies and “circle culture” was directed primarily at engineering, technology and basic scientific research. At its core, however, the campaign challenges a broader set of practices: the concentration of resources in the hands of established networks, academic inbreeding, seniority-based privilege and excessive reliance on titles and credentials.

If this policy direction extends further into China’s cultural and creative industries (CCI), including the arts, design, publishing and the humanities and social sciences, it could have several significant implications.

1. Challenging entrenched “literary” and “artistic” power networks

Breaking up entrenched circles

China’s cultural and artistic sectors have long been characterised, in some areas, by influential senior figures and their protégés controlling access to exhibitions, speaking engagements, government procurement, cultural projects and public funding.

A stronger official push against academic and professional “cliques” could put pressure on such informal networks within industry associations — including writers’ and artists’ associations and professional design bodies — as well as within university-based creative programmes.

The broader issue is not simply who holds a formal position, but who controls access to opportunities.

Scrutinising ghost production and honorary credit

The concerns are also comparable to practices in academia where senior supervisors may attach their names to work substantially produced by junior researchers.

Similar arrangements can arise in the arts and design sectors. A prominent artist, designer or academic may secure a major government or commercial cultural project and subsequently delegate much of the actual production to students, assistants or less established designers, while retaining the public recognition and a disproportionate share of the remuneration.

Greater scrutiny of such informal chains of patronage and benefit-sharing could become part of the wider effort to improve professional integrity.
2. Moving beyond “four credentials” in evaluating creative talent

From titles and institutional status to creative and social value

China has already seen efforts to move away from what is sometimes described as the “four-only” approach — placing excessive weight on titles, academic qualifications, publications and awards.

In the cultural and creative sectors, this could translate into less emphasis on professional “badges” such as nationally recognised master titles, prestigious university affiliations or official awards, and greater attention to the work itself.

Potential evaluation criteria could include cultural innovation, social impact, public reception and the ability to translate creative work into sustainable cultural and commercial applications.

This would represent a shift from asking who produced the work? to asking what does the work actually achieve?

More room for younger and independent creators

If established networks lose some of their ability to monopolise access to resources, public funding and institutional support could potentially become more accessible to younger creative teams, independent designers and digital creators without strong institutional affiliations.

For China’s rapidly expanding digital creative economy, this could be particularly significant. Online platforms have already lowered some of the traditional barriers between professional cultural institutions and audiences.
3. Tighter scrutiny of cultural funds and research projects

Greater accountability for public funding

Large-scale projects involving cultural heritage, digital creativity and cultural-industry research have often relied heavily on government funding and institutional partnerships.

A stronger anti-clique campaign could therefore bring greater scrutiny to how such funds are allocated, spent and evaluated.

The emphasis may increasingly be placed not only on whether a project has formally met its contractual requirements, but also on whether the resulting cultural products, research reports or digital projects demonstrate substantive value rather than merely providing enough documentation to secure project completion.

This could increase pressure on universities, research institutes, cultural organisations and project leaders to demonstrate measurable outcomes and stronger professional accountability.

4. A potential downside: a more cautious creative environment

There is, however, another side to the reform.

While dismantling entrenched professional networks could open opportunities for younger and less-connected creators, a more institutionalised system of oversight could also increase the direct influence of administrative authorities over cultural production.

For creators seeking public funding, institutional recognition or access to major cultural projects, alignment with officially supported cultural priorities may consequently become more important.

This could create a more cautious environment for some forms of experimental, avant-garde or openly critical cultural production. The issue, therefore, is not simply whether old networks disappear, but what replaces them.

Beyond breaking up the old circles

For China’s cultural and creative industries, the significance of Xi’s campaign may ultimately lie in a deeper question: who gets to define cultural value, and on what basis?

Breaking up closed professional networks could broaden access to resources, encourage younger talent and strengthen accountability in the use of public funds. But if institutional control simply replaces informal patronage, the underlying concentration of cultural power may not necessarily disappear.

The long-term impact will depend on whether the reform produces a genuinely more open ecosystem — one in which creative value is assessed increasingly through the quality, originality and social resonance of cultural work — or merely reorganises the channels through which recognition and resources are distributed.

For the CCI, that distinction could prove more consequential than the campaign against “academic cliques” itself.