{"title":"Equity and opacity in enacting Chinese higher education policy: contrasting perspectives of domestic and international students","authors":"Kun Dai, I. Hardy","doi":"10.1080/01596306.2022.2046548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract\n Drawing upon notions of a global higher education policy field and recently theorised conceptions of ‘global-local’ imbrications in social space, this article explores the complex tensions that characterise the enactment of internationalisation policies in Chinese higher education (HE) and their contrasting effects upon domestic and international students. Ten domestic Chinese and ten international students attending an elite university in China were interviewed. The article reveals that although the Chinese government and universities ostensibly sought to introduce internationalisation policies that ‘managed’ domestic and international students ‘similarly’, comparisons of domestic and international students’ experiences revealed different ways of recruiting, educating, and hosting domestic and international students; these left the former feeling the system was inequitable and encouraged lower standards, and the latter feeling the system was opaque and difficult to navigate. The study cautions that the political imperative to increase the number of international students as a measure of internationalisation adversely influences efforts to develop sustainable international HE in China, even as the limitations of this approach are increasingly recognised.","PeriodicalId":47908,"journal":{"name":"Discourse-Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education","volume":"44 1","pages":"562 - 578"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse-Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2022.2046548","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
Abstract
Drawing upon notions of a global higher education policy field and recently theorised conceptions of ‘global-local’ imbrications in social space, this article explores the complex tensions that characterise the enactment of internationalisation policies in Chinese higher education (HE) and their contrasting effects upon domestic and international students. Ten domestic Chinese and ten international students attending an elite university in China were interviewed. The article reveals that although the Chinese government and universities ostensibly sought to introduce internationalisation policies that ‘managed’ domestic and international students ‘similarly’, comparisons of domestic and international students’ experiences revealed different ways of recruiting, educating, and hosting domestic and international students; these left the former feeling the system was inequitable and encouraged lower standards, and the latter feeling the system was opaque and difficult to navigate. The study cautions that the political imperative to increase the number of international students as a measure of internationalisation adversely influences efforts to develop sustainable international HE in China, even as the limitations of this approach are increasingly recognised.
期刊介绍:
Discourse is an international, fully peer-reviewed journal publishing contemporary research and theorising in the cultural politics of education. The journal publishes academic articles from throughout the world which contribute to contemporary debates on the new social, cultural and political configurations that now mark education as a highly contested but important cultural site. Discourse adopts a broadly critical orientation, but is not tied to any particular ideological, disciplinary or methodological position. It encourages interdisciplinary approaches to the analysis of educational theory, policy and practice. It welcomes papers which explore speculative ideas in education, are written in innovative ways, or are presented in experimental ways.