This study investigates the impact of transnationalism on Chinese international graduate students’ literacy practices in online information seeking. Using phenomenological interviewing, weekly diaries, and focus group data, the study found that these students actively engage in recursive, dynamic, and flexible online information-seeking literacy practices that transcend linguistic, digital, and unconventional cultural boundaries due to their multilingual capacity and unique social positioning in the online information landscape. This study reveals that these students’ transnational habitus in online information seeking manifests as a configuration of dispositions rather than one fixed transnational habitus. These findings underscore the importance of understanding multilingual international students’ online information-seeking experiences, literacies, and challenges to inform engaging, transnationally inclusive, and culturally relevant information literacy curricula and instruction in U.S. higher education institutions.
AstaritaC.PatienceA. (2020). Chinese students’ access to media information in Australia and France: A comparative perspective. Media International Australia, 175(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20905695
2.
BergerR. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
3.
BlairA. (2016). Academic uses of language (re) defined: A case of emergent bilinguals engaging in languages and literacies in and outside of school. Linguistics and Education, 35(35), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.07.003
4.
BourdieuP. (1990). The logic of practice. Polity.
5.
CarlsonS.SchneickertC. (2021). Habitus in the context of transnationalization: From ‘transnational habitus’ to a configuration of dispositions and fields. The Sociological Review, 69(5), 1124–1140. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261211021778
6.
CaseD. O.GivenL. M. (2016). Looking for information: A survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior (4th ed.). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
7.
ChanN.-M.HoI. T.KuK. Y. (2011). Epistemic beliefs and critical thinking of Chinese students. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.001
8.
ChangS.GomesC. (2017). Digital journeys: A perspective on understanding the digital experiences of international students. Journal of International Students, 7(2), 347–466. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v7i2.385
9.
ChangS.GomesC. (2020). Digital experiences of International students: Challenging assumptions and rethinking engagement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429276088
10.
ChangS.GomesC.McKayD. (2020). The digital information ecology of international students: Understanding the complexity of communication. In ChangS.GomesC. (Eds.), Digital experiences of International students: Challenging assumptions and rethinking engagement (pp. 3–24). Routledge.
ClickA. B.WileyC. W.HoulihanM. (2017). The internationalization of the academic library: A systematic review of 25 years of literature on international students. College & Research Libraries, 78(3), 328. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.3.328
13.
CoiroJ. (2021). Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.302
14.
CristE.PopaD. (2020). Information literacy and cultural context: Chinese English language learners’ understandings of information authority. College & Research Libraries, 81(4), 646. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.4.646
GarcíaO.LiW. (2014). Language, bilingualism and education. In Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education (pp. 46–62). Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
GuarnizoL. E. (1997). The emergence of a transnational social formation and the mirage of return migration among dominican transmigrants. Identities, 4(2), 281–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289x.1997.9962591
18.
GuoJ.HuangJ. (2020). Information literacy education in WeChat environment at academic libraries in China. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(1), 102073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102073
19.
HanJ. (2012). Information literacy challenges for Chinese PhD students in Australia: A biographical study. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.11645/6.1.1603
20.
HertzumM.HyldegårdJ. S. (2019). Information seeking abroad: An everyday-life study of international students. Journal of Documentation, 75(6), 1298–1316. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2018-0183
21.
HicksA. (2016). Reframing librarian approaches to international student information literacy through the lens of New Literacy Studies. In McNicol S. (Ed.), Critical literacy for information professionals (pp. 43–56). Facet Publishing.
22.
HicksA. (2019). Mitigating risk: Mediating transition through the enactment of information literacy practices. Journal of Documentation, 75(5), 1190–1210. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2018-0184
23.
HoD. Y.-f. (1994). Filial piety, authoritarian moralism, and cognitive conservatism in Chinese societies. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 120(3), 347–365.
24.
HobbsR. (2020). Propaganda in an age of algorithmic personalization: Expanding literacy research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(3), 521–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.301
25.
HughesH. (2013). International students using online information resources to learn: Complex experience and learning needs. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 37(1), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.644778
JimenezR. T.SmithP. H.TeagueB. L. (2009). Transnational and community literacies for teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.53.1.2
28.
KimB. S.BrennerB. R.LiangC. T.AsayP. A. (2003). A qualitative study of adaptation experiences of 1.5-generation Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.9.2.156
29.
KimS. (2018). “It was kind of a given that we were all multilingual”: Transnational youth identity work in digital translanguaging. Linguistics and Education, 43, 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.10.008
30.
KohnenA. M.MertensG. E.BoehmS. M. (2020). Can middle schoolers learn to read the web like experts? Possibilities and limits of a strategy-based intervention. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 12(2), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2020-12-2-6
31.
KruegerR. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage.
32.
LahireB. (2003). From the habitus to an individual heritage of dispositions. Towards a sociology at the level of the individual. Poetics, 31(5-6), 329–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2003.08.002
33.
LamW. S. E. (2009). Multiliteracies on instant messaging in negotiating local, translocal, and transnational affiliations: A case of an adolescent immigrant. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.4.5
34.
LamW. S. E. (2014). Literacy and capital in immigrant youths’ online networks across countries. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(4), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.942665
35.
LamW. S. E.WarrinerD. S. (2012). Transnationalism and literacy: Investigating the mobility of people, languages, texts, and practices in contexts of migration. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.016
36.
LevittP. (2009). Roots and routes: Understanding the lives of the second generation transnationally. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(7), 1225–1242. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830903006309
37.
LevittP.SchillerN. G. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society. The International Migration Review, 38(3), 1002–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00227.x
38.
LimbergL.SundinO.TaljaS. (2012). Three theoretical perspectives on information literacy. Human IT: Journal for Information Technology Studies as a Human Science, 11(2), 93–130.
39.
LloydA.WilliamsonK. (2008). Towards an understanding of information literacy in context: Implications for research. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 40(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000607086616
40.
MansourA.FranckeH. (2017). Credibility assessments of everyday life information on Facebook: A sociocultural investigation of a group of mothers. Information Research, 22(2), 1–17, paper 750.
41.
MerriamS.TisdellE. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (Fourth). John Wiley & Sons.
42.
NedelcuM. (2012). Migrants’ new transnational habitus: Rethinking migration through a cosmopolitan lens in the digital age. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(9), 1339–1356. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.698203
RodriguezE. (2014). Information-seeking behavior and the intercultural learning process: Experiences of international graduate students from China: A qualitative sense-making case study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pittsburgh.
45.
SawG.AbbottW.DonagheyJ.McDonaldC. (2013). Social media for international students—it's not all about Facebook. Library Management, 34(3), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121311310860
46.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers College Press.
47.
SinS.-C. J. (2015). Demographic differences in international students’ information source uses and everyday information seeking challenges. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(4), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.04.003
48.
SinS.-C. J.KimK.-S. (2018). How are we the same or different: Information needs and barriers of domestic and international students. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(6), 712–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.10.005
49.
SkerrettA. (2012). Languages and literacies in translocation: Experiences and perspectives of a transnational youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(4), 364–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296 ( 12459511
50.
SkerrettA. (2015). Teaching transnational youth-Literacy and education in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
51.
SoongH.StahlG.ShanH. (2018). Transnational mobility through education: A Bourdieusian insight on life as middle transnationals in Australia and Canada. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 16(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2017.1396886
52.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
WangX.FreedR. (2021). A Bourdieusian analysis of the sociocultural capital of Chinese international graduate students in the United States. Journal of International Students, 11(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v11i1.952
55.
WarrinerD. S. (2007). Transnational literacies: Immigration, language learning, and identity. Linguistics and Education, 18(3–4), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2007.10.003
56.
WineburgS.McGrewS.BreakstoneJ.OrtegaT. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford University.
57.
YoonJ.ChungE. (2017). International students’ information needs and seeking behaviours throughout the settlement stages. Libri, 67(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2016-0048
58.
ZengX.SunP.WangM.DuW. (2008). Delphi research on information literacy competency standards for higher education in Beijing, China. Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal, 25, 1–13.
59.
Zhang-WuQ. (2018). Chinese International students’ experiences in American higher education institutes: A critical review of the literature. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 1173–1197. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v8i2.139
60.
ZhaoJ. C.MawhinneyT. (2015). Comparison of native Chinese-speaking and native English-speaking engineering students’ information literacy challenges. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(6), 712–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.09.010
