Introduction
This study investigates the advising relationships between faculty advisors and students at four leading Chinese universities—Tsinghua University, Peking University, Zhejiang University and East China Normal University—through the lens of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Engeström, 1987). The core research question asks: How do institutional, cultural, and historical factors shape the dynamic between advisors and students in contemporary Chinese higher education, and what implications does this have for advising practices both in China and internationally?

Research Context and Objectives

Advising relationships in Chinese universities are undergoing significant shifts due to broader reforms in higher education, including increased global competition, pressures for internationalization, and the growing importance of research productivity (Marginson, 2011). Within this context, advisors often serve multiple roles as mentors, research supervisors, and gatekeepers to professional networks (Li, 2016). However, these evolving roles sometimes conflict with traditional Confucian values of hierarchy and collectivism (Xu, 2020). By examining promotional materials and policy documents regarding advisor-student relationships, this research aims to:

Illuminate the underlying cultural and historical structures guiding advising practices in Chinese universities.

Examine the tensions and contradictions that arise when traditional norms intersect with global academic standards.

Propose strategies for improving advising relationships in ways that are sensitive to Chinese cultural contexts yet resonant with international best practices.

Theoretical Framework

Grounded in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, this study conceptualizes advising as a collective activity system situated within broader institutional and sociocultural contexts (Engeström, 2001). CHAT is particularly well-suited for analyzing the multi-layered dynamics of advisor-student interactions because it:

Recognizes the historical evolution of institutional practices.

Focuses on how systemic contradictions stimulate change.

Emphasizes tools, rules, and the division of labor within activity systems.

Applying CHAT to the Chinese context highlights how the deeply rooted Confucian ethos intersects with contemporary global norms of research supervision, creating hybrid advising models. These hybrid models often produce internal contradictions, such as balancing the respect for authority with promoting student autonomy (Vygotsky, 1978; Engeström, 2007). Understanding these tensions is critical not only for improving advising in Chinese institutions but also for extending the global discourse on supervision practices.

European/International Dimension

While China's higher education system has unique cultural and historical features, its rapid internationalization has significant implications for European and global academic communities (Marginson, 2011). As Chinese universities increasingly partner with European institutions, the success of joint research projects and student exchange programs depends in part on effective advising mechanisms that bridge cultural differences. By elucidating the interplay of tradition and modernity in Chinese advising relationships, this study contributes insights that can inform international collaborations, enhance cross-cultural supervisory competence, and foster shared standards of academic excellence. The findings will be relevant to European higher education institutions that seek to adapt and refine their own advising structures in the face of evolving global demands.

In sum, this research will offer a comprehensive understanding of how cultural-historical factors shape advising in Chinese elite universities. It aims to provide actionable recommendations for stakeholders, including policymakers, faculty, and students, to cultivate more equitable, transparent, and robust advising systems in both national and international contexts.

This study adopts a qualitative research approach, with a primary emphasis on textual analysis of official documents from four leading Chinese universities: Tsinghua University, Peking University, Zhejiang University and East China Normal University. These documents include publicly available institutional materials such as advisor guidelines, mentorship policy statements, and promotional texts describing advising relationships. Textual analysis enables a close examination of the underlying discourses, cultural norms, and institutional logics that frame advisor-student interactions. To complement this document-based approach, the study incorporates semi-structured interviews as a supplementary method. A purposive sample of faculty advisors and students will be selected, representing different academic disciplines and levels of experience with advising relationships. These interviews aim to provide contextual depth, offering firsthand perspectives on how institutional guidelines and cultural expectations are enacted in practice. By contrasting official narratives with lived experiences, the research identifies tensions and contradictions that may not be evident in the textual materials alone. Data analysis is conducted in two main phases. The first phase involves systematic coding of institutional documents, identifying recurring themes, policy intentions, and implicit values. The second phase involves a thematic analysis of interview transcripts, mapping how participants interpret and navigate the rules, roles, and responsibilities outlined in the official texts. By integrating these data sources, the study captures a more nuanced picture of advising as a multi-layered activity system. Throughout the research process, Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Engeström, 1987) serves as the guiding analytical framework. This theoretical lens focuses on how institutional artifacts—such as policy documents—mediate the interactions between advisors and students. It also highlights systemic contradictions and their potential to drive changes in advising practices. The combination of textual analysis and targeted interviews enables a richer understanding of the advising landscape in Chinese universities and its broader implications for higher education internationally.

Preliminary analysis suggests that advising relationships in China's leading universities are shaped by a complex interplay of hierarchical Confucian traditions, modern research imperatives, and global competitiveness pressures. The findings are expected to illuminate how each institution's historical identity and mission inform advising practices, sometimes reinforcing paternalistic structures even as they promote student autonomy and international collaboration. Moreover, the study anticipates uncovering contradictions within these advising systems. For instance, formal policies might encourage open dialogue and academic freedom, while entrenched norms of deference to authority may hamper students' willingness to question their advisors. These contradictions often serve as catalysts for reform, prompting experimentation with new supervision models that balance tradition and innovation. By highlighting the dynamic nature of advisor-student relationships in leading Chinese universities, this research will propose actionable strategies to address both cultural and systemic challenges. These may include more explicit guidelines on advisor responsibilities, formal mechanisms for feedback and conflict resolution, and professional development programs that raise awareness of cross-cultural communication skills. Ultimately, the study's insights are intended to inform not only institutional policy in China but also global discussions on best practices in academic advising, enhancing mutual understanding in international partnerships and contributing to a more inclusive, dialogic approach to student supervision worldwide.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge University Press. Li, J. (2016). Confucian ethics and the supervision of Chinese doctoral students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 110–120. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE. Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 411–433. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. Xu, L. (2020). Cultural tensions in doctoral supervision in China: Navigating Confucian and global academic norms. Studies in Continuing Education, 42(3), 425–440. Clouder, L., Billot, J., King, V., & Smith, J. (2020). Friend or foe: the complexities of being an academic and a doctoral student in the same institution. Studies in Higher Education. Wei, G., & Sannino, A. (2024). Supporting transformative agency in initial teacher education: a change laboratory in China. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 47. Huang, R., & Wei, G. (2022). Research-practice partnerships in lesson and learning studies: a review from Asian experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(1), 138–153. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline. Harvard University Press. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. Miettinen, R. (2009). Artifact mediation in Dewey and Vygotsky: Beyond the metaphysics of objects. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(1), 70–88. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and Pedagogy. Routledge. Fang, W. (2012). The Chinese doctoral experience: A cultural perspective. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 111–124. Feng, W., & Li, X. (2023). Chinese postgraduate education in transition: An overview. Asian Education and Development Studies, 12(3), 290–310.