Abstract
A considerable number of Chinese postgraduate students with strong academic and professional competences choose to stay abroad, despite the Chinese government’s success in attracting many overseas students. The paper explores the main considerations of these highly qualified non-returnees in choice-making between staying in the host country and returning home after graduation. The paper uses the Push-Pull framework to analyze online interview data with 12 participants. A hybrid “opportunity-constraint” heuristic has been extracted, and three types of Chinese overseas postgraduate students’ identities as stayers, nomads, and future returnees have been displayed. They emphasized career and individual development spaces, including access to different career choices, professional development, favorable social environment and lifestyle, and cultural recognition. This paper outlines the connection of Chinese students’ identity changes through international learning and decision making, provides insights for further analysis of the “brain drain,” “brain gain,” and “brain circulation.”
Introduction
Highly-skilled professionals and researchers are crucial to a country’s innovation and advancement. China has made various endeavors to attract its high-ended intellectuals who have overseas learning and work experience. From 1978 to the end of 2018, the aggregate number of students studying overseas has reached 5.85 million, and 84.46% of those who have completed their studies have returned to the home country. In 2018, around 78.45% of Chinese overseas students had come back to China (Ministry of Education, 2018). Achieving “brain gain” has been celebrated as the Chinese government has lured back overseas students. Incentives at the central, provincial, and municipal levels of government have been implemented to encourage those with international credentials to come back. However, the low return rate of top-tiers postgraduate students and researchers with Master’s or Doctoral degrees should not be neglected (Wang, 2013). For instance, around 80% of Ph.D. holders in the US remain in the host country after five years of graduation. Chinese universities and research institutes cannot win back the “crème de la crème” of its overseas talent (Zweig, 2013).
What drives the returnees’ decisions to stay abroad or go back home is still a puzzle. The Push-Pull factor theory in higher education (Altbach, 1998) has provided some insights on this topic while having analyzed the “push” forces in the home country and “pull” forces in the host country that tended to motivate international student mobility. Related studies in this area (e.g., Li and Bray 2008; Oleksiyenko et al., 2012) have provided an analysis of inbound and outbound flows, as well as choices that drive these flows within the Greater China area (e.g., Hong Kong and Macau).
Nonetheless, there has been little investigation done on the Push-Pull factors in the choices of the top Chinese post-graduate students taking programs at the high-ranking universities abroad. Indeed, international education has played an increasingly significant role in overseas students’ learning and decision making (Marginson, 2014). However, it is not clear how these students relate their identities with their envisions in the home and the host country. It will be highly relevant to understand Chinese international students’ perceptions of themselves and their development by making sense of their choices to stay abroad or return home upon graduation. The analysis of Chinese students’ international mobility before the Covid-19 pandemic may contribute to international education’s future dialogues in the post-pandemic period.
This paper tries to reduce the knowledge gap by exploring the push and pull factors in the choices of top-tier Chinese postgraduate students who decided to stay in the host country upon their graduation. It intends to comprehend Chinese international students’ experiences and changing identities. In the subsequent sections, I examine the previous findings on Chinese international student mobility and define analytical perspectives to explain student choices. Then I elaborate on the methodological approach and highlight significant findings from the study. The final section discusses how the results contribute to the current conceptualization framework and what opportunities might emerge for further research.
Literature Review
Ambitious and excellence-oriented students have been drawn toward developed countries, primarily located in the west and endowed with superior academic environments and research powers (Altbach, 2002). Push and pull factors of westward mobility of such students resulted from structural changes in the local education environments, where the quality of education was increasingly compromised by mass higher education and utilitarian motivations (Gong & Huybers, 2015; Li & Bray, 2007; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Oleksiyenko et al., 2012). Globally, many graduates were pushed by their career development needs in the home country on the one hand; While pulled by the host country’s political and economic comforts on the other hand (Hao, Wen, & Welch, 2016; Musumba et al., 2009; Saxenian, 2005; Tharenou & Seet, 2014; Wen & Shen, 2016). Job opportunities, status improvement, civic freedoms, cultural tolerance, and quality of lifestyle appeared to encourage many students to go to western economies.
Decisions on staying abroad and returning home differ among different experiential trajectories of students. Graduates with well-recognized foreign credentials tended to return home stimulated by improved career prospects, the familiar culture, social connections, and the possibility to reunite with family (C. G. Chen & Liu, 2003; Hao et al., 2016; Porschitz et al., 2012; Tian, 2003). For instance, China’s booming market (particularly in
Hao and Welch (2012) noted that some returnees experienced several challenges, such as reverse cultural shock and social readaptation, when they sought jobs back home. Major deterrents also included the obstacles in career advancement, nepotistic culture, and the lower quality of lifestyle (Tharenou & Seet, 2014). For returning scholars, differences between Chinese and Western research norms and academic culture were also named as creating cross-roads in decisions about staying abroad or returning home (Yang, 2020).
These examples demonstrate that international learning experience is powerful in transforming individuals with dynamic environments. As Marginson (2014) suggests, international higher education is a self-formation process. The host country’s work and study experience can transform students because they have chances to “manage their lives reflexively, fashion their own changing identities and form their self-trajectories” between home and host identities (p.6). The concept of “self-determination” by Amartya Sen, indicates that an adult “acts and brings about change, and whose achievements can be judged in terms of her own values and objectives” (cited in Marginson, 2014, p. 4). It means that higher education enables students to learn, take charge of their well-being, and use their capabilities in desirable ways. Meanwhile, students evaluate the optimal ways to develop and live with their changed and changing capacities, attitudes, and the value gained from a higher education learning process.
International students use different strategies to adapt and acculturate in host countries. Simultaneously, their identities are not fixed and constantly constructed in the social context and academic environment. For instance, Gill’s (2007) study based on empirical data in the UK illustrates that Chinese students experience the “stress-adaptation-development” process in the host country. Students transformed their understanding of “learning experience, self-knowledge, awareness of the Other, and values and worldview” (Gill, 2007, p. 167), when they live in a foreign country, interact with its people, their environment, the use of a foreign language, and make sense of knowledge, skills and teaching practices in a different academic context. Dai (2020) elaborated his own constantly changing sense of identity, agency, and belonging via in-betweenness learning spaces in a China-Australia 2+2 articulation program. Different learning chances unfolded between certainty and uncertainty, familiarity and unfamiliarity, empowerment, and disempowerment, as a follower and an explorer when he crossed cultural backgrounds as an international student. The (re)formation of the in-between identities also connects to overseas students’ decision to leave or stay. They use their agency and choose the desirable life according to their experience and perceptions of realities (Marginson, 2014).
The framework of Push-Pull factor juxtapositions in the decision-making has been discussed in different contexts. Altbach (1998) has linked the study abroad “push and pull” factors to broader policy contexts and differentiated inbound-outbound student flows. The “push” factors at home would usually stand against the “pull” factors in the host country. Altbach’s theory mostly presented the “push” factors as negative forces and the “pull” factors as positive ones.
To analyze Mainland China students’ considerations to study in Hong Kong or Macau, Li and Bray (2007) structured a more sophisticated framework with multilayers as academic, economic, social, cultural, and political factors that pushed or pulled the flows of mainland China students to these two regions. Tharenou and Seet (2014) further advanced the Push-Pull factor analysis through empirical studies of those who expatriated, or re-expatriated at a later point in their careers, to China, while striving to re-adjust to their home country on their re-entry. Among others, the factors explaining either attractions at home (economic and career opportunities, families and friends) and a host country (e.g., high salaries, quality of lifestyle), and deterrents at home (e.g., low or inequitable salary, negative lifestyle factors) and at a host country (e.g., dissatisfaction with career and economic opportunities).
In this study, I have considered Tharenou and Seet’s (2014) discussion of push and pull factors simultaneously in home and host countries. I focused on the decisions of Chinese non-returnees with top foreign credentials. I tried to understand the staying abroad decision in a dynamic way, considering individual postgraduate students’ (re)construction of identities. The article hopes to show how various push and pull factors in both home and host countries emerged.
Methodological Approach
This qualitative study has employed semi-structured online interviews with 12 Chinese graduates from top universities in Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and the USA. Nine of twelve interviewees originated from the same geographic area—Guangzhou, a metropolis in South China; one from a medium-size town near Guangzhou; one from Beijing; and one from Qingdao, a major city in Shandong Province. Except for one participant from a rural household, all participants were raised in middle-income urban families. The selection of these participants resulted from a combination of purposeful sampling, convenient sampling, and snowball sampling. I knew some of these participants personally and thus could conduct fact-checking while remaining cautious of the shortcomings such as “membership categorization” (Baker, 2001), “familiarity” and “insider” positions of shared native culture (X. Chen, 2000).
Universities that these interviewees attended for postgraduate study are ranked highly in global ranking tables. All participants graduated from undergraduate programs in China’s first-rank universities and then completed their master’s study abroad. Their master’s degrees have ranged across basic and applied natural and social sciences and humanities. At the time of the study in 2014, they were employed in a specialism-related position or obtaining full-scholarship for doctoral study in the host country. They were aged between 25 to 30 years old. Male and female interviewees were equally represented in the sample.
I conducted online interviews and audio-recorded them. Interviews with 11 open-ended questions lasted for 30 minutes to 50 minutes. The number of interviews was driven by the process of saturation when the generated data provided a sufficient “authentic insight into people’s experiences” (Miller & Glassner, 2004, p. 126). I reviewed the transcripts and decided on additional questions to be asked. Participants were given the transcript draft to review to ensure that their meanings were properly presented in both Chinese and English.
The collected data were structured in the Push-Pull analytical matrix across dimensions of economic, career/organizational, culture/social; family/peer factors in both host and home countries (Li & Bray, 2007; Tharenou & Seet, 2014). Data were extracted from the transcribed text, which was synthesized and rectified by the time of the saturation. Then, “thematic connections” were explored (Seidman, 1998); data were organized to identify the main topics and trends. The process was repeated throughout each interview. Data from all individual interviews were aggregated for further abstraction and deletion in the overall Push-Pull matrix. By revisiting the original transcripts, reinterpreting the labeled points, reconnecting, and reorganizing the coding, some of the abstracted information was further simplified and merged to the same category. The matrix table and the results can be seen in Table 1 in the Findings section.
In this research, instead of looking for statistical generalizations, I tried to understand to what extent analytical generalizations could be made, and whether the current matrix analysis could create better conceptualization in the future.
Findings
The participants’ decisions on staying/leaving suggested that they could be categorized as stayers, future returnees, and nomads (coded under S, F, N in Table 1 below). In the investigated sample, two were stayers, who preferred to immigrate and reside in the host country. Seven participants were categorized as future returnees, who argued that they stayed temporarily and planned to return to China. Three participants were nomads who kept their options open to stay in the host country, return to China, or move to another country.
Two way Push-Pull factors in both home and Host countries
Two way Push-Pull factors in both home and Host countries
As demonstrated in Table 1 the most significant considerations were attributed to career/organizational and cultural/social factors. Besides, family and economic elements also made decisive impacts on the interviewees. Nevertheless, stayers tended to focus more on the host country’s positive sides and pay less attention to those in the home country. Accordingly, future returnees and nomads were apt to view the host country’s benefit elements critically and evaluate the pros and cons at home and abroad constantly. Some peculiarities in each category are briefly outlined under each category in the subsequent sections. The number after S, F, N indicates how many participants expressed such opinions in each category.
Half of the participants across the three types were pulled to their host countries by “better economic return available for new graduate students.” Several future returnees expressed their desire to earn more money in the hosting country because they self-funded tuition fees. Meanwhile, several future returnees in
Conversely, several nomads and future returnees with work experience in China acknowledged that “competitive salaries in some disciplines” such as architecture could be equally attractive for those contemplating to return home. In that regard, salaries did not constitute a push factor in the home country. Overall, there were more host-pull factors than home-pull factors, while home-push factors continued to dominate in the participant decisions.
Career/Organizational Push-Pull Factors
Host-Pull Factors vs. Home-Push Factors
For most participants, “advanced disciplinary development” was a significant host-pull factor. They looked for employment opportunities at multinational corporations (e.g.,
The argument about the “performance-oriented work environment and established industry” resounded across the comments of stayers. They claimed that the established institutional structure, clearly defined work procedures, well-developed legislation, laws, and regulations set a reliable career environment. A few stayers and nomads highlighted that they benefited from the mature industry culture and management styles. For instance, a future returnee argued that “companies in America assess employees mainly by their competence” instead of taking in other considerations, such as seniority.
Some participants pointed to the host country corporation’s advantage of creating “diverse work experience and more possibilities” for career development. For example, one stayer working in the food industry emphasized:
In my professional field, the North American market is larger comparing with China’s. I might go to more places and try more unusual things. I mean more chances to be involved in international work, not only in Canada but also in the U.S. or Europe (Interviewee 6).
The participants repeatedly mentioned convenient access to people from whom they could learn. Living in a different environment with a new culture can trigger overseas students’ fresh understanding of self and others (Grill, 2007). “Strong profession-related climate and more foreign language exposure” were outlined, especially by those in the science and technology field (S&T). One participant said he was encouraged to discuss professional challenges and seek advice from enthusiastic and open-minded peers, contrary to the highly competitive atmosphere among peers in school and workplaces in China (Interviewee 4). Future returnees and nomads regarded such connections as an excellent opportunity to sharpen their language skills for the upcoming career. Overall, the opportunities to learn core professional knowledge and skills and progress in their careers were the key pull forces among three interviewees.
About push factors in the home country, “developing and uncertain work environment” was a concern. After a few years of study and work abroad, these international students worried about the negative impacts of guanxi culture when they readapted to Chinese society. A few stayers expressed their fear of nepotism in the workplace as one reason to choose to work abroad.
“Mismatch of skills and the domestic market demand” was put forward by nomads and future returnees. One nomad studying early childhood education worried that all different educational philosophies, systems, and values might not be applicable in China. Likewise, a future returnee who studied sustainable architecture shared this concern because most architecture firms had yet shifted the paradigm to a sustainable level. Besides, nomads and future returnees tried to avoid “overloaded work and lack of collaborative atmosphere” at home. According to the informants’ interaction with their peers in the home country, they thought the intense workload would weaken their career development potential because they hardly had time to reflect or update knowledge and skills.
Host-Push Factors vs. Home-Pull Factors
Host countries harbored several push factors that raised concerns among the participants. At the national level, the most obvious obstacle could be “a protectionist recruitment system/ policy,” which encouraged host country employers to reserve more positions for permanent citizens over international applicants, which was especially emphasized by stayers. Nomads said it would be crucial for them to consider the future destination, while future returnees viewed it less critical.
At the institutional level, “fewer promotion opportunities and more career insecurity” were identified by nomads and future returnees. The lower career “glass ceiling” and slower promotion than their local colleagues were mentioned based on their observation. At the personal level, “lack of career/personal network and insufficient understanding of the local regulations” were outlined, especially by nomads and future returnees.
Corresponding merits abroad, pull factors at home show similar patterns. Firstly, “the promising industrial future” in the home country constituted one of the most important pull factors at home. Nomads and future returnees held optimistic views on their current learning and work experience, which would soon match the industry development trend in the home country. For future returnees with entrepreneurial intention, one of them stressed: “The gap (between home and host country) is narrowing. China provides many funds for incubators as well” (Interviewee 8). Secondly, all types of interviewees recognized the importance of “diverse career opportunities/ larger space to compete in the market” for both entrepreneurial type and employed types of returnees in large cities in China. Compared to the well-established industry aboard with clearly divided positions, a few stayers and nomads would expect more chances to involve in different positions within one institution. Likewise, some future returnees inclined to start their own business agreed that there were more niches in the domestic market. Thirdly, as one push factor abroad, “more reliable social networking,” was a crucial advantage to access more professional and social resources in the home country, especially for potential entrepreneurs.
Cultural/Social Factors
Host-Pull Factors vs. Home-Push Factors
Three categories of interviewees exhibited a high degree of consensus on pull factors in the cultural and social aspects. By indicating the “open social atmosphere and inclusive attitude,” all interviewees admired that the social climate was more relaxing and tolerant. After experiencing the individual-oriented culture, a nomad who identified herself as “an outliner” stated: “I am not someone always following the cultural conventions. If there is something good about the US, it is the space to be me without too many limitations (Interviewee 6).” Likewise, some stayers and future returnees pointed out that their local colleagues fully respected them as international graduates. Nonetheless, the culture in East Asian countries (e.g., Japan & South Korea) might differ. For example, one future returnee working in Japan pointed out that local people treated foreigners politely but always saw them as outsiders.
Contrary to a highly competitive work environment and heavy workloads in the home country, “work-life balance” was highly appreciated in the Western host countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, Australia) by different types of participants. Clear boundaries between work and life allowed them to shift different roles comfortably and reserve time and energy for learning and reflection. “Multicultural environment and exposure to the local life” further enticed them to stay. The chance to interact with people from local and other different background were highly appreciated. To sum up, almost all participants expressed that the affluent host country provided them the freedom to explore and learn in many informal ways.
Some push forces in the home country in the cultural dimension corresponded to the host country’s positive factors mentioned above. First, the “homogeneous lifestyle” was pinpointed by future returnees and nomads. Since they considered life back home more than stayers, some were reluctant to accept the so-called “mainstream” values (e.g., defining success as owning wealth and fame, winning over others in competitions). Consequently, “the anxious society” and “less access to high-quality social/learning activities” (both in universities and in the community) in the home country attributed to the motivations for stayers due to the overwhelming competition among people and the fear of sliding down the social classes. Two stayers emphasized the lack of a peaceful climate in the society would impair their intellectual capacity.
Home-Pull Factors vs. Host-Push Factors
In the home country, “the sense of belonging” was repeatedly emphasized by nomads and future returnees as the pull cultural factor. Some nomads and future returnees stated that embracing their own culture and the familiarity was fundamental. One future returnee said, “there is no memory” in the host country and regarded studying abroad as “a destiny” and “a learning process” for him. Eventually, he would return to China because the “cultural root” was there.
In the host country, “language barrier and cultural difference” were the most challenging point. Foreign language competence as non-native speakers restricted their ability to speak out. All types of participants shared similar feelings and had difficulty fully express themselves at work and in life. The language barrier and cultural difference led to “the sense of loneliness.” In host countries like South Korea and Japan, the collectivist culture might push nomads to leave since they felt excluded and would “never be viewed as one of them.”
Family/Peer Factors
Host-Pull Factors vs. Home-Pull Factors
For the decision of staying, stayers, some nomads, and future returnees indicated that they received “full support from parents or significant other.” Some of them had siblings living with their parents or in the same city. Interestingly, two stayers who demonstrated a firm intention to live in the host country were the only child in their families. In a few cases, they were encouraged to stay in the host country with their partner’s and family’s support. “Parents’ expectation of children’s returning” was the major pull factor for all types of interviewees, even stayers. Another attractive force was “peers’ good development at home.” Their cousins’, former classmates’ and friends’ promising career and stable life also had pulling impacts on different types of respondents.
Discussion
Different themes of hybrid opportunities and constraints dominated the interview data among various types of students. Beneficial factors for career/organization development and satisfying life related to suitable culture and atmosphere were prioritized. Economic and family factors were attached to considerable importance. Focusing on one’s personal development turns to be the commonality of these respondents. The marked Push-Pull factors reflect on participants’ fresh retrospections on their understanding based on a few years’ learning and living experience in host countries. The significant characteristics of their identities when they decided to stay are shown as follows.
1. Stayers tended to accept the culture in host countries (mostly individualist value) and prioritize the social/cultural attractiveness in the host countries. They considered the host environment optimal for their learning in their industries, the balance of work and life. Some of them saw advantages from the favorable immigration policies as high-quality immigrant talents in the host country. The long-term personal development in a sustainable lifestyle was appreciated.
2. Future returnees recognized the home country’s culture and value and had positive expectations on China’s prospects. They underlined career development in the host country by accumulating professional work experience and deepening understanding of local culture. They identified their international experience as a pragmatic process to augment intellectual capital.
3. Nomads highlighted the economic and career/organization factors most. They sought the best opportunities to utilize their expertise and develop their intellectual capacity. This group attached the most importance to their control to live their desired life.
In conclusion, after living and studying in the host countries, these postgraduate students experienced and acculturated to values and attitudes in host countries to different extents. They compared and evaluated the pros and cons. Participants learned in the third (or in-between) space, deliberated their needs, and envisioned the best choices. They reflected on self and others, contemplated the familiar and unfamiliar cultures, close and open systems, competition and collaboration, isolations and belongings (as indicated in Dai, 2020). Most participants were concerned about learning, developing, and living in a relatively open and diverse environment. Accordingly, the “push and pull” forces analyzed in this research can be abstracted to two major themes—“opportunity” versus “constraint” in different aspects—benefits and limitations for professional development, cultural familiarity and recognition, family support, high economic return, inclusive social and cultural atmosphere, the promising environment and increasing career support. Table 2 presents the “opportunity-constraint” heuristic abstracted from the findings and highlights these points for each student category. The following paragraphs will elaborate on the details.
Benefits for Professional Developments
Prospective advantages for professional development constitute the most significant element for their stay. Expected economic return and employment prospects have been one of the universal reasons even before international students start their studies (C. Cao et al., 2015; Tran, 2016). With the increasingly competitive employment environment domestically, gaining extra credentials in the host country appears a wise strategy. The future returnees need to rival their counterparts at home with practical work experience and advanced knowledge. It aggregates “different forms of intellectual capital” for the prospective returnees, agreeing with the study by Hao et al. (2016).
Comparatively, the incredibly intense pressure to compete in the job market and the gap of industrial development in the home country deter the postgraduates from returning immediately upon graduation. Annually, millions of domestic college and university graduate students pose incredible pressure for nomads and future returnees to gain competitive edges. As a developing country, inevitable gaps exist in industrial development and research arenas between China and host countries (Welch & Zhen, 2008). Hence, whether returnees are satisfied with their pay and their lives largely depends on their choice of major and international work experience (Zweig & Ge, 2018).
Inclusive Social and Cultural Atmosphere
The charm of the host country’s social and cultural environment allows individual differences and attracted the postgraduate students in this study. Their learning experience in overseas universities and the pursuit of individual goals are valued. It contradicts traditional Chinese students’ images—who tend to fit themselves in the group (in family, school, workforce) and subject themselves to senior group members (e.g., parents, supervisors) instead of separating themselves from the group. The interviewees in this study presented characteristics as proactive learners and stressed their learning interests, rather than merely stressing the pragmatic usefulness of learning (Kellogg, 2010; R. Yang, 2013).
Their preference for inclusivity abroad is also related to the background that they were born and bred. The majority of interviewees in this study were born in the late 1980s and lived in urban areas. They have been influenced by the reform and opening policy and enjoyed the increasing stability and household wealth. The learning and work experiences abroad have further exposed them to diverse life attitudes and values and adapt them to individualism value to some extent (J. Cao, 2009; Hao & Welch, 2012).
From the cultural perspectives, the extensively existing “guanxi” (hierarchical social networks) refers to the way people consider the norm in Chinese societies in personal, business, and political contexts. It is defined as “a dyadic, particular, and sentimental tie that has the potential for facilitating the exchange of favors between the two parties connected by the tie” (Bian, 2019, p. 4). Guanxi can be perceived in both positive and negative terms. It becomes a shared concern when participants considered re-entry into the workplace in China. They worried about building and maintaining “guanxi” would require extra time and resources even though performance management and quantitative appraisal prevail in China’s private and public sectors. To a certain extent, this interpretation showed some participants’ biases on a local concept.
Opportunities at Home, Constraints Abroad
The Promising Environment and Increasing Career Support
In some host countries, “brain waste”—the devaluation of foreign credentials and work experience for Chinese professionals—has further pushed Chinese international graduates back to their home country (Zong & Lu, 2017). China presents its charm with its potential and vigor for prospective returnees in this study. Innovation and creativity have been prioritized for further economic rise. Compared with the “bamboo ceiling” for outbound students in overseas tech companies (Kelly, 2018), those returnees in
More attention has been paid to the support for highly-skilled returnees’ careers to eliminating obstacles on the road of transitioning from abroad to the home country career (Porschitz et al., 2012). New Policies launched at different levels encourage the entrepreneurial type of talents to start up their own business, including housing and property allowance, tax deduction, and other preferable conditions (Fan et al., 2013). For prospective returnee academics, China has made efforts to decentralize higher education and offer more academic autonomy for academic development. These attempts pose a very positive influence on “pulling” the postgraduate students back. This study’s respondents attached importance to national and local policies and hoped to achieve career success by their competitive edges.
Cultural Familiarity and Recognition
Cultural familiarity and recognition have constituted one of the significant pulling factors in the home country. The “opportunity-constraint” heuristic in this study was partially anticipated from the angle of the “post-80s” generation (who were born in the 1980s). Admittedly, these young postgraduate students demonstrated their self-oriented personality and had a clear goal for their development (Egri & Ralston, 2004). However, as Porschitz et al. (2012) point out, some of these Chinese international students intend to apply their knowledge and skills acquired abroad into the familiar cultural context in China. Some future returnees, particularly the entrepreneurial type, act positively in establishing social networks and sharing information (Cai et al., 2010).
Opportunities at Home and Abroad
High Economic Return and Family Support
It is one of the direct stimulators for these graduates to either stay or to return. It accords to previous studies of Chinese students’ international study considerations (C. Cao et al., 2015; L. Yang et al. 2013). Besides, family support in both the host and home country assures all the interviewees to pursue their goals. As Choi and Nieminen (2013) argue, East Asian families view their children’s success as the whole family’s achievement, so they are willing to support them.
Concluding Remarks
This study provides the audience with understandings of Chinese international students’ representative opinions and core values from a micro-perspective. As a result of their learning experience in host countries, these Chinese postgraduate students with credentials in top overseas universities increased their competitiveness in learning, social status, and economic income. The cross-border learning experience aroused their awareness of different cultures and (re)formed their identities as global citizens, professionals, and lifelong learners. During their overseas study, some of them had kept tuned about local policies and updated their knowledge about industrial development in China. These early-career postgraduate students’ limitations can be traced from their accounts, e.g., some biased opinions about guanxi or preferable lifestyle with individualist cultural characteristics. Theoretically, the “opportunity-constraint” heuristic abstracted from the Push-Pull matrix allows us to see the participants’ changing identities and values from a realistic angle.
The study suggests that a large percentage of these participants had the intention to return to China when it can create a more flexible environment allowing diverse individual development. The keys to retaining high-level overseas postgraduate students include widening international collaborations, the stably and healthily growing economy, the sound legal system, and the level-playing fields.
Unexpectedly, in the year 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic has made unprecedented impacts in almost every aspect of the world. Chinese international students at home or abroad are given an unexpected chance to contemplate globalization and deglobalization (Wang, 2020). They witnessed the dialogues and collaborations of governments and international organizations, and they experienced controversies about the origin of the virus (and even discriminations because of it). They could effectively compare policy differences about traveling bans and social distancing (as narrated in Peters et al., 2020).
Nationalism and protectionism are on the rise, leading to xenophobia in different places. As a result, Chinese students who seek education across the border need to rethink mixed Push-Pull factors and hybrid opportunities and constraints. In the immediate future, Chinese international students’ shrinking outward mobility is expected due to the fear of pandemic and deglobalization. However, in the long run, Chinese students may continue to mobilize and learn in different intercultural settings while developing higher agility to deal with challenges of local, national, and global learning. Chinese overseas talents may gain a well-rounded understanding of the world’s development. Increasing “brain gain” and “brain circulation” can be anticipated. More analysis on relevant issues will be needed amid new global challenges.
Footnotes
Nian Ruan is a researcher in Center for Higher Education Research at Southern University of Science and Technology. Her research focuses on higher education policies and leadership, international student mobility, teaching and learning in higher education in mainland China and Hong Kong.