This article utilizes a dual-pronged aspirations-capabilities framework to highlight the experiences of international students that were “locked out” of China during the extent of the Covid-19 pandemic. This participatory action research (par) was conceived and supported through the collective efforts of an online student support group labelled “Students outside of China”. Through the process of collective institutional redress, students volunteered to have their experiences with involuntary immobility documented and presented within a published manuscript. As such, this research utilizes data garnered from questionnaires and in-depth interviews to answer questions of how pandemic-borne involuntary immobility impacted the isw aspirations/capabilities of China's “locked out” ihe student population, as well as how this influenced their subsequent perceptions of China and its system of education.
AgnéH., & MörkenstamU. (2018). Should first-year doctoral students be supervised collectively or individually? effects on thesis completion and time to completion. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 669–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1453785.
2.
AksanN., Kısac, B., Aydın, M., & DemirbukenS. (2009). Symbolic interaction theory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 902–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.160.
3.
BéginC., & GéarardL. (2013). The role of supervisors in light of the experience of doctoral students. Policy Futures in Education, 11(3), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.3.267.
4.
BenwareC. A., & DeciE. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755–765. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021004755.
BraunV., & ClarkeV. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
7.
BunnellT. (2020). The elite nature of international schooling: A theoretical framework based upon rituals and character formation. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 30(3), 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2020.1789489.
8.
CardiliniA. P. A., RiselyA., & RichardsonM. F. (2021). Supervising the PhD: Identifying common mismatches in expectations between candidate and supervisor to improve research training outcomes. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(3), 613–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1874887.
9.
CollinsR.2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
10.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing from five approaches.(3rd Ed.) Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
11.
DaiK., & ElliotD. L. (2023). ‘Shi men’ as key doctoral practice: Understanding International Doctoral Students’ Learning Communities and Research Culture in China. Oxford Review of Education, 49(5), 588–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2022.2123309.
12.
DombroskiK., WatkinsA. F., FittH., FraterJ., BanwellK., MackenzieK., MutamboL., HawkeK., PersendtF., Turković, J., KoS. Y., & HartD. (2018). Journeying from “I” to “we”: Assembling hybrid caring collectives of geography doctoral scholars. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 42(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2017.1335295.
13.
DongX., MaassenP., StensakerB., & XuX. (2020). Governance for excellence and diversity? the impact of Central and regional affiliation for the strategic positioning of Chinese Top Universities. Higher Education, 80(5), 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00516-3.
14.
ElliotD. L., & MakaraK. A. (2021). An online community of international scholars: Enabling spaces for reciprocal academic and psychological support. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(6), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1991424.
15.
FletcherJ. R., & BirkR. H. (2020). From fighting animals to the biosocial mechanisms of the human mind: A comparison of Selten's social defeat and Mead's Symbolic Interaction. The Sociological Review, 68(6), 1273–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026120902997.
GoffmanE.1990. The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.
18.
HealeyM., JordanF., PellB., & ShortC. (2010). The research-teaching nexus: A case study of students’ awareness, experiences and perceptions of research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703291003718968.
HuY., van der RijstR. M., van VeenK., & VerloopN. (2016). The purposes and processes of master's thesis supervision: A comparison of Chinese and Dutch supervisors. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(5), 910–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1139550.
21.
KaurA., KumarV., & NomanM. (2021). Partnering with doctoral students in research supervision: Opportunities and challenges. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(3), 789–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1871326.
LeeS., & ElliotD. (2020). Re-Imagining international doctoral students as diasporic academics. In GauleeU., SharmaS., & K. Bista (Eds.), Rethinking education across borders: Emerging issues and critical insights on globally mobile students, (pp. 255-268). Singapore: Springer.
25.
LiS., & SealeC. (2007). Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision: A qualitative case study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476225.
26.
Lundgren-ResenterraM., & CrostaL. (2019). Beyond personal expectations: Research supervision framed as a collective endeavour in online structured doctoral programmes. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 703–720. https://doi.org/10.28945/4439.
27.
MainhardT., van der RijstR., van TartwijkJ., & WubbelsT. (2009). A model for the supervisor-doctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9199-8.
28.
MalcolmM. (2020). The challenge of achieving transparency in undergraduate honours-level dissertation supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1776246.
29.
ManathungaC. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and Boundary Crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01580370701424650.
30.
MatsunagaK., BarnesM. M., & SaitoE. (2020). Exploring, negotiating and responding: International students’ experiences of group work at Australian Universities. Higher Education, 81(5), 989–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00592-5.
31.
MaxwellT. W., & SmythR. (2011). Higher degree research supervision: From practice toward theory. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.509762.
32.
MoskvichevaN., BordovskaiaN., & DarinskayaL. (2015). Role of students and supervisors’ interaction in research projects: Expectations and evaluations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 576–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.163.
33.
NordentoftH. M., ThomsenR., & Wichmann-HansenG. (2012). Collective academic supervision: A model for participation and learning in higher education. Higher Education, 65(5), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9564-x.
34.
OverallN. C., DeaneK. L., & PetersonE. R. (2011). Promoting doctoral students’ research self-efficacy: Combining academic guidance with autonomy support. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(6), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.535508.
35.
Parker-JenkinsM. (2016). Mind the gap: Developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor-supervisee relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1153622.
36.
PekrunR. (1988). Anxiety and motivation in achievement settings: Towards a systems-theoretical approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 12(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(88)90008-0.
37.
PlatowM. J. (2012). Phd experience and subsequent outcomes: A look at self-perceptions of acquired graduate attributes and supervisor support. Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.501104.
38.
RosenbergC.(1979/1998). Toward an Ecology of Knowledge: On Discipline, Context, and History. In CortadaJ. W. (Ed.), Rise of The Knowledge Worker (pp. 221–232). London: Routledge.
39.
SamaraA. (2006). Group supervision in Graduate Education: A process of Supervision Skill Development and text improvement. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360600610362.
40.
SchulzeS. (2012). Empowering and disempowering students in student-supervisor relationships. Koers - Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, 77(2). https://doi.org/10.4102/koers.v77i2.47.
41.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
42.
SimonsH. (2014). Case Study Research: In-Depth Understanding in Context. In LeavyP. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 455–470). Oxford University Press.
43.
SouthworthJ. (2022). Bridging Critical Thinking and Transformative Learning: The role of perspective-taking. Theory and Research in Education, 20(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785221090853.
44.
SuW., QiQ., & YuanS. (2022). A moderated mediation model of academic supervisor developmental feedback and postgraduate student creativity: Evidence from China. Behavioral Sciences, 12(12), 484. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12120484.
45.
ThomasK., McNaughtC., WongK., & LiY. (2011). Early-career academics’ perceptions of teaching and learning in Hong Kong: Implications for professional development. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2011.596731.
46.
TomaszewskiL. E., ZarestkyJ., & GonzalezE. (2020). Planning qualitative research: Design and decision making for new researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 160940692096717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920967174.
47.
WattsJ. H. (2010). Team supervision of the doctorate: Managing roles, relationships and contradictions. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 335–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003740908.
48.
WeiJ., CarterS., & LaursD. (2018). Handling the loss of innocence: First-time exchange of writing and feedback in doctoral supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(1), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1541074.
49.
Wichmann-HansenG., GodskesenM., & KileyM. (2019). Successful development programs for experienced doctoral supervisors - what does it take?International Journal for Academic Development, 25(2), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2019.1663352.
50.
Wichmann-HansenG., ThomsenR., & NordentoftH. M. (2014). Challenges in collective academic supervision: Supervisors’ experiences from a master Programme in guidance and counselling. Higher Education, 70(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9821-2.
51.
XiaZ., YangF., & XuQ. (2019). Authoritarian-benevolent leadership and its effect on graduate student creativity: The mediating role of Intrinsic Motivation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.431.
52.
YangR. (2020). Political Culture and Higher Education Governance in Chinese Societies: Some Reflections. Frontiers of Education in China, 15(2), 187–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11516-020-0010-z.
