The study, conducted by Ningning Ma of the Department of Sociology at Peking University, analyses the public defence speeches required of finalists for a prestigious undergraduate award at a leading Chinese research university. Using qualitative narrative analysis, Ma treats these speeches not as incidental ceremony but as the decisive mechanism through which student achievement is converted into institutional legitimacy. The findings suggest that in elite higher education, being excellent is not enough; a student must also be able to tell a particular kind of story about how that excellence came to be.

Across disciplines and across the seven years of speeches examined, Ma found that candidates relied on a strikingly consistent narrative arc. The story almost always begins with struggle, ordinariness, or even failure: an unremarkable entrance, early academic difficulty, or a period of uncertainty. What follows is a transformation, achieved not through raw talent alone but through institutional opportunities, mentorship, and structured cultivation provided by the university. The arc concludes with certified achievement, typically marked by international publications, conference presentations, and overseas exchange experiences. Excellence, in this telling, is the outcome of a journey that the institution itself made possible.

This framing has significant implications for how merit is understood. Rather than presenting ability as innate or self-generated, finalists consistently positioned themselves as products of institutional cultivation. The university appears in these narratives as the enabling environment without which individual potential would never mature into recognised accomplishment. In doing so, candidates simultaneously demonstrate humility and affirm the value of the very institution judging them, a rhetorical move that aligns the award winner’s success with the university’s own mission and reputation.

Yet the study shows that listing achievements is not sufficient on its own. International publications, conferences, and study-abroad experiences featured prominently in nearly every defence speech, but candidates rarely presented them as ends in themselves. Instead, these markers of global academic mobility were consistently reframed through narratives of responsibility, contribution, and public value. A publication became evidence of a commitment to advancing knowledge for society; an overseas exchange became a story of bringing back perspectives to serve the home country and community. The evaluative logic, Ma argues, rewards not only demonstrated capability but the ability to present oneself as reliable, socially responsible, and institutionally aligned.

Ma develops the concept of narrative certification to describe this process. Award defences, in this view, function as institutional rituals of certification, comparable in analytical terms to the rituals of verification that scholars of audit culture have identified in universities worldwide. Through the defence, three qualities are validated: cultivability, meaning the candidate can be shown to have been shaped and improved by the institution; comparability, meaning achievements can be ranked and judged against those of peers; and reliability, meaning the candidate can be trusted to embody the values the institution wishes to project. Only trajectories that satisfy these three conditions become recognisable as legitimate forms of excellence.

The concept draws on a rich theoretical tradition. Ma’s analysis engages with Foucauldian ideas of discipline and governmentality, in which subjects are shaped to govern themselves according to institutional norms, and with sociological work on audit culture and rankings, which has shown how public measures do not simply describe social worlds but actively recreate them. Just as university rankings change the behaviour of the institutions they measure, the scholarship defence changes the kinds of students the university produces, encouraging candidates to internalise and perform the narrative forms that the evaluation process rewards.

One of the study’s most notable findings concerns humanities and social science students. Although they were well represented among the finalists, their recognition often depended on demonstrating instrumental relevance and broader social contribution. In an evaluation environment dominated by metrics designed with the natural sciences in mind, such as international publications and conference participation, students in less quantifiable fields had to work harder to translate their achievements into the shared narrative currency of public value. Their success in the defence process, Ma suggests, reveals how institutional recognition can quietly discipline entire disciplines into adopting the evaluative frames of more metric-friendly fields.

The research also situates the Chinese case within the global rise of world-class university projects. Scholars have long debated how elite universities in East Asia blend Confucian traditions of moral cultivation with Western models of research excellence and global competition. The defence speeches analysed in this study embody that blend: candidates celebrate international visibility and global metrics while simultaneously framing their achievements as service to national and social purposes. The result is a distinctive model of excellence in which global ambition and public responsibility are narrated as inseparable, reflecting broader tensions and aspirations in Chinese higher education policy.

Methodologically, the study demonstrates the value of treating institutional documents as active social artefacts rather than passive records. By analysing publicly available defence speeches over seven years, Ma captures a recurring, formalised performance whose conventions remain stable across cohorts of students. Because the study relies on public institutional materials and involves no direct interaction with human participants, it also raises relatively few ethical concerns, while offering a template for researchers elsewhere who wish to examine how their own institutions certify merit. The broader lesson extends well beyond a single Chinese university: wherever scholarships, prizes, and honours are awarded through formal defence or interview processes, excellence is being narratively constructed, and understanding those narratives is essential to understanding how elite status is made, maintained, and legitimised in modern higher education.

Subject of Research: Narrative certification of student excellence in scholarship defence processes at an elite Chinese university

Article Title: Producing legible excellence: narrative certification in an elite Chinese university’s scholarship defence

Article References: Producing legible excellence: narrative certification in an elite Chinese university’s scholarship defence. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-026-01760-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10734-026-01760-9

Keywords: narrative certification, higher education, elite universities, audit culture, scholarship defence, elite formation, world-class universities, China, student evaluation, academic excellence, Peking University, qualitative narrative analysis