The transition to independent research: Intercultural misunderstandings between a Chinese doctoral student and a Dutch supervisor

Author(s):

Yanjuan Hu(presenting / submitting)Klaas van Veen Alessandra Corda

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

22. Research in Higher Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

22 SES 06 D, Doctoral Programs in Various Perspectives

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-09

15:30-17:00

Room:

340. [Main]

Chair:

Aidan Seery

Contribution

Introduction

Supervising doctoral research students is an important but challenging task for university educators, and a doctoral student’s transformation into an independent researcher is a key issue confronting many students and their supervisors (Gardner, 2008; Lovitts, 2008). Doctoral students’ intelligence, thinking style, personal traits, and previous education, as well as the type of supervisor and the learning environment, can all powerfully influence this transition (Lovitts, 2008).

This challenge is complicated at Western universities by the growing number of international students in advanced research programs (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2013), and Asian students in particular. In addition to the general challenges, international students confront new, drastically different learning environments and face hurdles such as acculturation (Curtin, Stewart, & Ostrove, 2013; McClure, 2007) and social isolation (Erichsen & Bolliger, 2011). Therefore, as students adapt to the new learning environment, both constructive and destructive frictions can occur if the students and the teachers differ in their expectations. For example, Western perceptions of the degree of teacher/student regulation of learning (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999) might result in Asian students bitterly concluding that the teachers do not teach and professors becoming frustrated that the Asian students are dependent and passive learners (cf. Chen & Bennett, 2012). Whether these claims are valid is not a point of discussion here, but it is clear that both the students and the teachers experience frictions, likely originating from their cultural (cf. Lee, 2011) and educational (cf. Hu & Smith, 2011) differences. In this light, it is worthwhile to explore how the groups perceive each other and the teaching and supervision processes.

The aim of this study is to shed light on the causes of communication difficulties and misunderstandings between Western supervisors and Asian research students in relation to their cultural and educational differences. We conducted a self-study (Hamilton, Smith, & Worthington, 2008; Loughran, 2007) of our experience, as a Chinese international student and her Dutch supervisor during her doctoral research project at a Dutch university. We use intercultural communication and educational theory to analyze the results. By using a theoretical approach, we also demonstrate how our findings go beyond our individual experiences and are valuable to teachers and students involved in intercultural education as a whole.

Cultural and educational differences between China and the Netherlands

China and the Netherlands can be assumed as representative examples of Asian and Western cultures and educational orientations. China’s masculine culture is success oriented and driven; it is desirable to become as highly qualified as possible; Excellence is openly rewarded, and failing in school can be a disaster. In addition, it is a restraint culture and exhibits high power distance between teachers and students. China’s exam-based filtering system has more structure and teacher regulation in the educational programs. High entrance regulations are used and intense competitions exists among all students. Average study time lasts 8–12 hours each day, five to six days a week, especially in the last three years of secondary education (e.g., Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; Hu & Smith, 2011; Mathias et al., 2013).

The Netherlands, in contrast, has a feminine culture oriented toward work–life balance and personal well-being. Average achievement is sufficient to pass to a higher grade or to access higher education. Moreover, it is an indulgence culture and exhibits low power distance. Dutch education has more freedom and student initiatives in the educational programs. Students are allowed to play after school, teachers avoid pressuring them to learn, and students have a say in decisions about their education (e.g., Belo, van Driel, van Veen & Verloop, 2014; Hofstede et al. 2010).

Method

The present study We opted for a self-study methodology because, among others, self-study can most effectively reveal the misunderstandings involved in actual supervision encounters (cf. Hamilton, 2005), which are often subtle and easily go unnoticed when rooted in core cultural and educational differences (cf. Hofstede et al., 2010). We asked ourselves the following research questions: • What expectations did the supervisor and the student each have for the doctoral project? • What misunderstandings did the student and the supervisor experience during the supervision of the doctoral research? • How are these expectations and misunderstandings related to cultural and educational differences? Participants A Dutch supervisor and a Chinese doctoral student participated in this self-study. At the time of the study, the supervisor was an associate professor at a research university in the Netherlands. The student came to the Netherlands in 2010 to complete her doctorate and finished in 2014. Data collection Self-study involves a continual interplay between the subject researched and the research process (Loughran, 2007). Thus, the data collection and data analysis in this study were largely interwoven and followed an iterative process, involving the development of a list of communication difficulties during the three years of supervision (September till December 2013), open and deep interviews with both participants (December 2013), and open and ongoing discussions about the interview summaries, the initial results and several revisions of the results (January–August 2014). The whole process included both participants and a third independent researcher actively pursuing alternative perspectives of understanding to “minimize possibilities for self-justification” (Schön, 1983 quoted in Loughran, 2007, p. 16). Key terms used for data analysis Implicit expectations refer to expectations held only by the student or the supervisor but not openly stated, so that the other was not aware of those expectations. As a result of mismatched implicit expectations, certain misunderstandings occurred, which we refer to as “implicit misunderstandings.” Informality refers to the way the supervision and learning environment is organized (e.g., how to address each other, how formal the daily conversation should be). Feedback and assessment refers to the way student work is evaluated, in either spoken or written form (e.g., complimenting, making suggestions, and criticizing research assignments). Learning and teaching styles refer to the degree of student or teacher regulation in the learning process (e.g., teaching by providing answers or guiding questions, learning from the models or learning from trial and error).

Expected Outcomes

Conclusions We conclude on a selection of misunderstandings which were implicitly rooted in the cultural (power distance, individualism, masculinity, indulgence) and educational (education oriented towards qualification versus personal development, level of competition, degree of teacher regulation) differences between the supervisor and the student. These implicit misunderstandings occurred due to mismatched and unspoken expectations about the learning goals and learning behaviours between the supervisor and the student, largely reflecting their educational and cultural background differences. The supervisor and the student first differed in their expected learning goals and procedure of the doctoral program (excellent qualifications for Chinese doctoral student; average achievement and personal well-being for the Dutch supervisor). They also differed in their understandings concerning how formal and informal the supervision should be, how feedback and assessment should be provided and understood (strict versus implicit critiques; open praise for excellence versus praise to encourage), and how one is expected to teach and learn (expecting answers versus providing questions; learn from modelling versus learn by trial and error). To increase awareness of hidden misunderstandings, university educators and students involved in intercultural education should clearly communicate their intended learning goals and expected learning behaviours at the start and establish an environment to sustain open and ongoing communication. The specific implicit misunderstandings reported in this study can be a helpful resource for identifying likely areas that need communication (e.g., educational goals together with program organization, expected student–teacher interactions, evaluations of student progress, preferred level of student regulation of learning). Knowing how misunderstandings may be embedded in the cultural and educational backgrounds of the learner can empower university lecturers to diagnose, more accurately and quickly, the misunderstandings or difficulties their students experience (e.g., reluctance to express their opinions, hesitancy to question the teacher’s knowledge, tendency to be guided by teachers rather than taking initiative).

References

References Belo, N. A. H., van Driel, J. H., van Veen, K., & Verloop, N. (2014). Beyond the dichotomy of teacher- versus student-focused education: A survey study on physics teachers’ beliefs about the goals and pedagogy of physics education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 89–101. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.12.008. Chen, R. T.-H., & Bennett, S. (2012). When Chinese learners meet constructivist pedagogy online. Higher Education, 64(5), 677–691. doi: 10.1007/s10734-012-9520-9 Curtin, N., Stewart, A. J., & Ostrove, J. M. (2013). Fostering academic self-concept: Advisor support and sense of belonging among international and domestic graduate students. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 108–137. doi: 10.3102/0002831212446662 Erichsen, E., & Bolliger, D. (2011). Towards understanding international graduate student isolation in traditional and online environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 309–326. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9161-6 Gardner, S. K. (2008). "What's too much and what's too little?": The process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 326–350. Hamilton, M. L., Smith, L., & Worthington, K. (2008). Fitting the Methodology with the Research: An exploration of narrative, self-study and auto-ethnography. Studying Teacher Education, 4(1), 17–28. doi: 10.1080/17425960801976321 Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hu, R., & Smith, J. J. (2011). Cultural perspectives on teaching and learning: A collaborative self-study of two professors' first year teaching experiences. Studying Teacher Education, 7(1), 19–33. doi: 10.1080/17425964.2011.558347 Lee, Y. A. (2011). Self-study of cross-cultural supervision of teacher candidates for social justice. Studying Teacher Education, 7(1), 3–18. doi: 10.1080/17425964.2011.558341 Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 12–20. doi: 10.1177/0022487106296217 Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn't, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296–325. Mathias, J., Bruce, M., & Newton, D. P. (2013). Challenging the Western stereotype: do Chinese international foundation students learn by rote? Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 18(3), 221–238. doi: 10.1080/13596748.2013.819257 McClure, J. W. (2007). International graduates’ cross-cultural adjustment: Experiences, coping strategies, and suggested programmatic responses. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(2), 199–217. doi: 10.1080/13562510701191976 OECD. (2013). Education at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280

Author Information

Yanjuan Hu (presenting / submitting)

Southwest University

Faculty of Education

Chongqing

Klaas van Veen

University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Alessandra Corda

Hogeschool van Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.