To investigate Chinese returnee academic staff’s lived experiences, we adopt a qualitative methodology using semi-structured interviews. Because “internationalisation” could be subject to different interpretations between actors (Mok, 2007), qualitative methodology is preferred as it provides thick descriptions which are necessary to explore different meanings, and it is compatible with an interpretivist paradigm we adopted to understand the constructed meaning of internationalisation.
In this study, we chose XJTLU as the specific research location. The university is identified purposefully due to its idiographic form of Sino-foreign institution in China, as explained above, within which the analysis of its unique construction of internationalisation would be meaningful. We also ensured that we only used publicly available material from XJTLU. The first step was to collect academic staff information from XJTLU’s official website by examining the “academic staff” page under each department’s website. Keeping in mind that habitus-forming is a process of internalising what individuals experience in the field, which can become gradually unconscious for individuals, we have purposefully excluded staffs who have worked at XJTLU for over five years. This identified 200 Chinese academic staff within our selection criteria. Because this study is not discipline-specific, all eligible staffs were invited to participate in an interview by email, from which 11 accepted the invitation.
The dataset contains 11 in-depth semi-structured interviews with Chinese academic staff in XJTLU. The participants are of different ages, genders, disciplines, educational backgrounds, and at different academic career stages. Ethical permission was gained from the authors’ university research ethics committee; 10 interviewees agreed to be audio-recorded, one did not, so the primary researcher made interview notes; and interviewees were provided with consent forms and information sheets to ensure their consent upon participation. Participants’ confidentiality was protected by using a pseudonym (see Table 1); identifiable places or affiliations were anonymised to preserve confidentiality; participants’ disciplines were collapsed to broad ‘academic areas’. Participants were free to choose between Chinese and English as interview language, which led to ten Chinese interviews and one English. Interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom, recorded, and automatically transcribed with manually grammatical edits.
The interview questions were developed from a Bourdieusian perspective. Questions about prior experiences and career expectations derive from the common starting point of all participants having professional or educational experiences in Western countries. It is hypothesised that similarities in their habitus have led to an imagined field in which they would be a good fit for XJTLU. According to Bourdieu (1977, p. 72), every field has its underlying principle which generates practises that produce implicit “rules for the game”. Therefore, individuals with a habitus homologous to the field will ‘naturally’ be attracted to this field, enabling them to “choose the fate that is also statistically the most likely for them” (Maton, 2014, p. 57). By asking about actual experiences and if they still consider themselves as a fit, the interview scheduled explored potential discrepancies between imagined and actual field, and the strategies participants employed in response.
The primary researcher conducted data analysis, with support and clarifications from the research team. We conducted inductive thematic analysis to analyse data as this approach is inherently descriptive and analytical which requires researchers to immerse themselves in the data, with theoretical assumptions (Braun and Clarke, 2019) - in this case, guided by Bourdieu’s concepts of field, habitus, symbolic violence, and false anticipation. We conducted data analysis by NVivo, to categorise, merge and visualise data that has been identified in transcribing process. The primary researcher undertook three rounds of inductive, line-by-line coding of the data in Chinese. Selected extracts were discussed with research team in translation to confirm consistency and coherence. These several hundred initial codes were then categorised into broad themes, developed with the research team.
Table 1
Participant | Pseudonym | Academic Area | Study-abroad destination |
1 | Sun | Science | Europe |
2 | Long | Humanities | North America |
3 | Zheng | Business | Europe |
4 | Shao | Business | Europe |
5 | Gao | Science | Europe |
6 | Jia | Business | North America |
7 | Song | Business | North America |
8 | Tan | Humanities | Europe |
9 | Li | Science | Europe |
10 | Yi | Science | North America |
11 | Chang | Humanities | North America |
Findings
We developed four key themes from the participants’ accounts of their experiences. All returnee academics situated working in the West as a first choice, and XJTLU as the next best option. At the time of exploring XJTLU as a potential workplace, they took at face-value website and policy claims about internationalisation, EMI, and pedagogy. Their lived experiences highlighted discrepancies that we characterise as ‘false anticipation’, and we define their coping strategies as ‘repertoire approach’.
Working in the West as a first choice
After completing their doctoral studies, most participants unequivocally stated that they would prefer to work internationally rather than in China, owing to two perceived factors: attractiveness of Western academia and unsatisfactory conditions in China. The former refers to the characteristics of working abroad that most participants find appealing and rewarding based on their international experiences, for example, being professionally supported by supervisors and their department:
“Everyone did their part to support me” (Tan).
Jia highlighted feeling that his experiences abroad provided a more inclusive environment than in China:
People with different political stances can co-exist very well in where I studied.
Other participants reflected feeling that academic cultures in the West were less hierarchical, based on their observations between PhD researchers and their supervisors. For example, Sun reflected on this when she was in Europe, which she compared with supervisory relationships in Chinese universities:
My supervisors [in Europe] made no attempt to keep me under control. I can go around and ask everyone; all I have to do is to send them an email and I'll get excellent feedback. However, I was surprised to learn later that some Chinese supervisors try to restrict their students, saying things like ‘you're my students, you're crossing the line if you ask someone else’.
These perceptions led to the impression of the Chinese ‘field’ as more hierarchical and controlled, in contrast to the ‘Western’ field as more open and inclusive. According to Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992), fields operate in a semi-autonomous way in their own distinct logic, thus naturalising and justifying practises, and therefore, producing symbolic violence under different logic. This is confirmed by the above quotes which show that participants have established habitus of being more at ease in the field of Western HE, when they have already internalised its logic and developed a feel for the game, based on previous experiences.
There are multiple reasons participants considered themselves to not “fit in” with Chinese academia, mainly due to their perceived detachment from the Chinese context and the loss of opportunities to refresh their local knowledge due to their physical absence (Hao & Welch, 2012). One of the most important deterrences for participants was the heavy reliance on guanxi - interpersonal relationships and social networks that serve as valuable resources for job markets (Hao et al., 2016). After spending more than five years in North America, Song found the most obstructive aspect to securing a domestic job was the lack of guanxi. He observed that:
Because my PhD degree was not acquired in China, networking was a challenge for me. Despite the fact that my PhD supervisor is Chinese, [s]he has no domestic contacts, thus I am not familiar with Chinese job market. So, initially, I had no intention of returning to China to work.
However, working in the West was also a challenge, and several participants noted the competitiveness of securing an overseas academic position:
It was incredibly tough for the job because there were so many applications, and a recent graduate like me was unlikely to be offered. After being turned down for a few (overseas) jobs, I decided to look for domestic positions. (Tan)
His response was typical of participants’ descriptions of working in China as a compromise (echoed also by Sun, Long, Gao and Song). While competitiveness serves as a powerful push, there are also two non-negligible attractions of working in China. The first is family obligations, which often link to the urgency of finding a job:
I needed to find a job as soon as possible to support my family. So, I decided that if I couldn't secure a job in North America, I would return to China. (Long)
The second is employment opportunities offered by Chinese universities. When combined with anxiety associated with difficulty of finding a job abroad, several participants adopted a “why not?” attitude and accepted offers from Chinese universities. For example, Gao comments on his first job in China:
I had a chance to go back to a Chinese university where I graduated…Since I hadn't got an offer in Europe, I thought, ‘Yes, why not?’
Other participants adopted a similar attitude when they were offered positions in XJTLU. Therefore, although the habitus created through Western education “naturally” leads to the field of overseas academia, it is also conditioned by “the range of options available at that moment” (Maton, 2014, p. 51).
Working at XJTLU - An internationalised field in China
Within this compromise, participants reflected on XJTLU as a “next best choice”, constructing it as a field that is both akin to Western universities while being drastically different from domestic institutions, due to the high proportion of international staff, heavy reliance on EMI and an internationalised curriculum setting. Many participants developed their understanding of the institutional field through reviewing university’s website. For example:
After browsing its website, I found XJTLU is a successful joint university which has great potential. The fact that most students studying abroad afterwards, and there are a large number of foreign and returnee faculty, may indicate that it is different from most traditional Chinese universities. (Long)
I had a look at the curriculum design and the departmental atmosphere, I thought it is an internationalised setting. (Zheng)
However, it is risky to rely on website to forecast experiences, because university websites are primarily used to communicate with their target audience (Bae et al., 2021), instead of potential employees. Similarly, several participants were initially attracted to “100% EMI” teaching policy outlined on the university website. This was often related to their comfort in teaching in English rather than Chinese, linked to their established habitus through prior studying-abroad experiences:
I feel more comfortable explaining terminologies in English as I never taught in Chinese. (Zheng)
As returnees, they believed they possessed competitive advantages:
We do not need to go through a language ability test…our English is not questioned because we are returnees. (Jia)
They are also willing to maintain English proficiency:
Teaching in English is important to maintain our English ability now that we don’t have the immersive English-language environment. (Song)
And Tan was drawn to XJTLU’s overall reliance of English during the application process:
I didn't bother to translate my CV into Chinese, so I only applied to Chinese universities that accept English-language applications.
At this stage, participants believed their proficiency in English was a fit and asset for XJTLU. Nonetheless, participants who did not previously study in English-speaking destinations or who spent a short period in English-speaking countries as visiting scholar, indicated language-related concerns:
I was worried if I’m capable to teach in English. (Shao)
I was afraid I’m going to be awkward socialising with foreign colleagues. (Yi)
The part of their habitus developed from Western countries is perceived as their competitive advantage, helping them secure a job in an international JV and thrive in the environment without challenges. The expectation that is solely based on university texts and perceived competitive advantage is likely to be problematic - a “false anticipation”, although their false anticipation might be inevitable when these texts are the only information they can build their expectations on.
Experiencing false anticipation under an “internationalised” approach
“False anticipation” has been felt by participants according to their responses in terms of, for example, the unexpectedly heavy teaching responsibility (Sun), limited national funding (Jia), and the difficulty of adapting to a UK evaluation system (Tan). The most obvious one is EMI implementation, as the heavy reliance on English was for many a key reason to apply for a job there, as it corresponded to their habitus, and symbolic capital, acquired abroad. There is only one participant, Gao, is particularly concerned as a teacher about EMI implementation:
My concern is that it would be stressful for students if they aren't used to learning in English.
Gao’s concern about students’ language ability was confirmed by participants’ disjunctions when implementing EMI. Six participants shared their observations on how they and their students struggled to adjust to a 100% EMI environment. Sun has been asked by her Chinese students to use Chinese in tutorials; Yi expressed concern on the effectiveness of EMI when his students gradually lost interest in the class due to language barrier; Shao worried about building rapport with students due to his limited ability to use humour in English. Also, although XJTLU claims to be attentive of students’ language limitations by offering English for Academic Purposes (EAP) which aims for “raise English language proficiency…and prepare students for academic study in their future degree programmes” (XJTLU, 2021a), Tan argued that, based on comments from students, EAP does not appear to be effective in facilitating a smooth transition.
Establishing an English-language reading list is also key to the enactment of EMI, according to XJTLU public-facing documents. In this regard, Long, as a humanities teacher, highlighted discipline-specific concerns about students’ scope being narrowed and missing out rich perspectives on contemporary issues in Chinese publications:
It can be difficult to find appropriate English publications on China's most cutting-edge concerns…there are Chinese publications on these topics, but they must be excluded...I can look for English press releases, but I'm concerned that they’re not written academically.
Similarly, the student-centred teaching approach, which is strongly encouraged by XJTLU, is another “internationalised” feature that participants find particularly difficult for students to adapt to. According to XJTLU’s executive president, a student-centred approach, as opposed to “passive learning”, has been built as XJTLU’s core educational philosophy (XJTLU, 2014). Teachers are encouraged to embody it in their teaching practices, however, Yi spotted a mismatch between student-centred setting and Chinese students’ experiences:
Our director has requested that we employ the flipped-classroom method, but I don't believe it’s appropriate for Chinese students. First, their language abilities prevent them from taking the lead; second, flipped-classroom necessitates too much commitment from students, who already spend a lot of time studying class material; third, most Chinese students are not accustomed to dominating a class, forcing them to do so will only end in awkward silence.
The discrepancy between students’ ability and the archetype like “100% EMI” and “flipped-classroom” is repeatedly noticed across interviews, contrasting participants’ initial focus on their ability and experiences as competitive advantage during job-application stage, inspiring them to devise new combination of elements from their habitus repertoire to support students.
Enacting and constructing “internationalisation” through mismatched expectations
The challenging experiences provided a crucial opportunity for some participants to (re-)consider what “internationalisation” implies. Most participants sensed a conflict between fulfilling XJTLU’s internationalisation demand and conducting their professional practice in a way they believed most efficiently supported students. They admitted their limitations in EMI and demonstrated empathy towards students who had linguistic difficulties, and like one participant in a study by Jiang et al. (2019, p. 112), they also feel that “teaching key conceptual knowledge in Chinese is safer and time-saving”.
It has evoked important reflection for participants: where internationalisation is intended to be inclusive and horizon-broadening in principle, it becomes exclusionary and narrows students’ scope in practice. Yi expresses concern on the over-reliance of English would lead to the perception of XJTLU as a steppingstone, undermining value of internationalisation of Chinese HE as a substitute to Western HE:
It is dangerous if students and their parents perceive XJTLU as a place that prepares students to study abroad; this is not the type of internationalisation we want. That, I believe, is a challenge for any institution that is highly internationalised.
The challenges encountered by participants were mainly related to a mismatch between Chinese students’ experience and ability, and university requirements. To respond, participants described similar strategies of responding to challenges of EMI in a Chinese context to those identified by Jiang et al. (2019): code-switching, which occurs when speakers purposefully switch between two languages; and input-enhancement, when speakers rephrase or repeat in English. 4 participants (Long, Gao, Song, Tan) prioritise input-enhancement as they believe it is beneficial to students’ English skills while adhering to “100% EMI” policy; 6 participants (Sun, Long, Zheng, Jia, Yi, Chang) used code-switching by inserting corresponding Chinese text in parenthesis, though most of them stressed that it should only be used as a last resort. 8 participants (Sun, Zheng, Gao, Jia, Song, Li, Yi, Chang) said they would not insist on using English in an unrecorded session with only Chinese students so that they are still operating within the norm of practice. Furthermore, Li remarked that when Chinese is included, there is a sense of risk-management; for example, he uses Chinese when he needs to guarantee that students understand safety precautions prior to a field trip. However, whether XJTLU provides clear induction on the extent to which Chinese can be utilised remains ambiguous:
Our department director often warns us not to use Chinese in any situation, but I don't believe we will be punished if we do, at least not in my experience. (Sun)
Sun’s belief can be interpreted as evidence of that part of her habitus formed in XJTLU is the acquisition of unwritten rules of the game, an example of ‘discretionary space’ available to participants.
In terms of pedagogy, participants sought to simulate a student-centred approach while accommodating students’ experiences of uniquely teacher-led didactic settings. For example, Yi introduced a “question-led” strategy, which entails providing students clear questions to discuss and ensuring that the class adhered to the intended learning outcomes in terms of content. However, pedagogy was not a frequent topic of discussion during interviews, suggesting most participants experienced less dissonance in this domain than in that of EMI.
Generally, participants were comfortable dealing with unexpected experiences, e.g., within an English-only requirement. They appear to know when and to what extent they can use Chinese, almost instinctively as it is shaped by their habitus. This is mostly due to their familiarity with the situations of Chinese students, since they also had experiences of being educated in China:
I’ve been educated in China for more than 10 years; I know what challenges they’re going through. (Sun)
Such familiarity with different contexts and values contributes to their advantage as returnees, and it also appears to shape their understanding of internationalisation, for example, when being asked if they consider their teaching practises as internationalised, a common theme identified is “internationalisation as a repertoire of values”:
I will use either a Chinese or a Western approach, depending on which one helps students comprehend the content better. (Jia)
My teaching style is a mix between a Chinese and a British approach. I believe that high-school Chinese style would help students in their foundation phase... However, for higher levels, I will use the British approach, because asking year-four students to conduct in-class practice makes little sense. (Gao)
Participants see their habitus as a repertoire that contains elements/strategies developed from different fields, where they could develop appropriate strategy to respond to different situations. Yet, they must continuously remind themselves that these strategies are conditioned by university regulations.