Different paths, same destination? Mobility trajectories of Mainland PhD students during the COVID-19 pandemic at a Hong Kong University

Wang, L., & Yang, R. (2023). Different paths, same destination? Mobility trajectories of Mainland PhD students during the COVID-19 pandemic at a Hong Kong University. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-13. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2023.2284104

Existing studies on student mobility are plentiful. They have predominantly focused on the push and pull factors that drive linear student mobilities from less developed regions to regions with more advanced systems of education; the identity formation of students during their transnational or transborder journeys; and the policy rationales, developments, and implications of students’ transnational mobilities (Gümüş et al., 2020; Hong, 2022; Tran, 2016; Xu, 2018; Wen & Hu, 2019). However, few studies have investigated mobility trajectories characterized by different durations of stay and directions of movement that individual students navigate at different points in their academic lives. Additionally, the impact of the outbreak of COVID-19—the global pandemic that significantly decreased global movement but made virtual mobilities (e.g., online learning) prevalent—on students’ academic mobilities remains unexplored.

Another important strand of research has revealed that Hong Kong (HK), the regional education hub characterized by a hybrid culture and sociopolitical tensions between HK local and Mainland China (MC) students, has attracted students from MC for numerous decades (e.g., Li & Bray, 2007, Xu, 2018). However, few studies have examined the academic experiences of students who relocated to HK in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, how these students perceive their academic experience in HK, and whether their mobility plans have changed since coming to HK. Given the research gaps identified, the study has two aims: to investigate diverse academic mobility trajectories among MC students who have relocated to HK for doctoral studies and to explore the factors that shape mobility trajectories. 

This study conceptualizes student mobility through the lens of power by combining and adapting the work of Hong (2022) and Holyk (2011). Hong (2022) synthesizes the work of He and Wilkins (2019), Tran and Vu (2018), and Bae and Lee (2020) on the soft power of national cultural or education programs and considers three types of soft power produced by student mobility: social capital soft power, cultural soft power, and participatory capital soft power. Taking into consideration the fact that financial support and HK’s geopolitical proximity to MC are significant factors to attract MC students (Li & Bray, 2007), this study also includes economic hard power—geographical advantages and financial support as emphasized by Holyk (2011, p. 229) in our framework. Based on this framework, we argue that multiple student mobility trajectories exist in universities due to the combined impact of soft power and hard power. Universities serve as convergence points for diverse ideas, values, and cultures. Students, whose identities embody dynamic hybridity, find themselves embedded in interconnected social networks influenced by various forms of power that are distributed unevenly in terms of size and influence. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced a distinctive spatial-temporal context, leading students to respond differently to various manifestations of power. As a result, distinct mobility trajectories have surfaced.

Our research data include semi-structured interviews with 20 full-time PhD students from a prestigious university (University A) supplemented by university documents on student mobility projects, COVID-19 policies, and university development plans. Ethical clearance was obtained before research. All the interviewees were recruited through a purposeful sampling strategy and had previously studied at top Western universities and navigated multiple mobility trajectories. Their cross-cultural experiences offered valuable insights into the intricate and multifaceted processes that influence the formation of various mobility patterns and their underlying factors. Data were analyzed deductively and inductively following the method of Saldaña (2016).

Our findings reveal two forms of cross-border mobilities: 1) degree mobilities from Western societies to HK and 2) international academic mobilities that involved HK as a place of both departure and return. What motivated interviewees to choose HK as a study destination was the combined effect of economic hard power (the availability of generous scholarships and HK’s geopolitical proximity to MC), one aspect of social capital power (having desirable doctoral supervisors), and the global pandemic that restricted travel restrictions. Aspects of cultural soft power closely connected to a university’s core missions of research and teaching seemed to exert minimal influence on the decisions of these students to choose HK. The power imbalance between University A and prominent Western universities was evident because of University A’s lack of international exchange programs and visiting opportunities with top-tier Western universities.

The intracity academic mobilities of students in this study were characterized by disengaged virtual spaces and confined physical spaces, both contributing to decreased academic mobilities. Although online learning helped overcome spatial barriers, it posed challenges related to student engagement and teaching quality, as illustrated by previous studies (Mok et al., 2021). Moreover, the subpar quality of teaching, combined with a highly competitive research environment where students struggled to establish meaningful connections with peers and academics, left them disempowered to build the social capital necessary for fostering a supportive learning environment. Consequently, their intracity academic mobility trajectories were limited.

The interviewees’ reflections on HK as both a safe and unsafe place, a finding that emerged from the interview data, were based on their intra- and intercity physical mobility experiences, which were influenced by various factors including the COVID-19 policies of HK and MC, Mandarin discrimination, and HK’s political movements. As a result, very few interviewees were able to cultivate a sense of belonging in HK. Their identities as bystanders in HK gave support to the statement that ‘ways of being’ and ‘ways of belonging’ are different (Levitt & Schiller, 2004, p. 1008) and academic involvement and social engagement are important dimensions of belonging (Ahn & Davis, 2020).

Limitations of the study include the small sample size and the lack of representativeness of our participants. Despite these limitations, various types of power, each with different levels of influence, shape the directions and durations of student mobilities, offering a novel perspective into student mobility trajectories. Our findings also emphasize the significance of students’ sociocultural development through meaningful interactions and the importance of a campus that fosters intellectual exchanges and respectful dialogue in a space of equality.

Author’s bio

Ling Wang is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. Her research focuses on power and leadership in higher education, academic career, and doctoral education.

Rui Yang is a Professor and Dean in the Faculty of Education at The University of Hong Kong. With three and a half decades in China, Australia and Hong Kong, he has established his reputation among scholars in English and Chinese languages in the fields of comparative and international education and Chinese higher education. His research interests include education policy sociology, comparative and cross-cultural studies in education, international higher education, educational development in Chinese societies, and international politics in educational research.

References

Ahn, M. Y., & Davis, H. H. (2020). Four domains of students’ sense of belonging to university. Studies in Higher Education, 45(3), 622–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1564902

Bae, Y., & Lee, Y. W. (2020). Socialized soft power: Recasting analytical path and public diplomacy. Journal of International Relations and Development, 23(4), 871–898. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-019-00169-5

Gümüş, S., Gök, E., & Esen, M. (2020). A Review of Research on International Student Mobility: Science Mapping the Existing Knowledge Base. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(5), 495–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319893651

He, L., & Wilkins, S. (2019). The Return of China’s Soft Power in South East Asia: An Analysis of the International Branch Campuses Established by Three Chinese Universities. Higher Education Policy, 32(3), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0084-x

Hong, M. (2022). Evaluating the soft power of outbound student mobility: An analysis of Australia’s New Colombo Plan. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(3), 743–758.

Holyk, G. G. (2011). Paper Tiger? Chinese Soft Power in East Asia. Political Science Quarterly, 126(2), 223–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2011.tb00700.x

Tran, L. T. (2016). Mobility as ‘becoming’: A Bourdieuian analysis of the factors shaping international student mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(8), 1268–1289. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1044070

Levitt, P., & Schiller, N. G. (2004). Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A Transnational Social Field Perspective on Society1. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1002–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00227.x

Li, M., & Bray, M. (2007). Cross-Border Flows of Students for Higher Education: Push-Pull Factors and Motivations of Mainland Chinese Students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education, 53(6), 791–818.

Mok, K. H., Xiong, W., & Bin Aedy Rahman, H. N. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic’s disruption on university teaching and learning and competence cultivation: Student evaluation of online learning experiences in Hong Kong. International Journal of Chinese Education, 10(1), 22125868211007011. https://doi.org/10.1177/22125868211007011

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researcher (3rd ed.). Sage.

Tran, L. T., & Vu, T. T. P. (2018). Beyond the ‘normal’ to the ‘new possibles’: Australian students’ experiences in Asia and their roles in making connections with the region via the New Colombo Plan. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(3), 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12166

Xu, C. L. (2018). Transborder habitus in a within-country mobility context: A Bourdieusian analysis of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong. The Sociological Review, 66(6), 1128–1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026117732669

Managing Editor: Tong Meng