Network for Research into Chinese Education Mobilities (NRCEM)

Research Highlighted:

Sin, I.L., Leung, M.W.H., & Waters, J. (2019) Degrees of value: Comparing the contextual complexities of UK transnational education in Malaysia and Hong Kong. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 49(1), 132-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1390663

The rapid expansion of transnational education over the last two decades has seen an unprecedented growth of predominantly Western foreign universities delivering education in Asia. The United Kingdom (UK), the leading exporter of transnational education (TNE), has more tertiary-level international students pursuing a UK qualification overseas than within the UK, one in two of whom is based in Asia (Wake, 2019). The value of transnational education to these students (and graduates) is often overlooked. It is overshadowed by UK and wider literature which give more focus to the macro-economic value of TNE (see O’Mahony, 2014) and related marketing, development, management and delivery issues (e.g. Wilkins & Huisman 2019; Cai & Hall, 2016; Healey, 2016). Together with Maggi Leung and Johanna Waters, I set out to highlight the value of TNE to international students and graduates, particularly in Malaysia and Hong Kong where we had conducted our separate research exploring their lived experiences (e.g. Sin, 2013; Waters & Leung, 2012).

The idea for our paper came about after an e-mail exchange when we noticed notable similarities in our research findings. At that time, I had completed a study exploring the link between cultural capital, obtained through various modes of UK education, and the social mobility of middle-class Malaysians. Waters and Leung had comparable data from their project on UK TNE programmes in Hong Kong. The similarities between Malaysia and Hong Kong as transnational education contexts were and are still striking.

The UK dominates the provision of TNE in both former British colonies which aspire to be regional education hubs. Malaysia and Hong Kong rely heavily on transnational education to meet high demand for tertiary places which local public universities could not adequately meet. They are among the largest TNE markets for the UK, Malaysia (72485 TNE students in 2017/18) traditionally being the leading market (although recently surpassed by China) and Hong Kong (25675 TNE students in 2017/18) being in the top 7 (Wake 2019). UK TNE programmes are commonly marketed as cost effective for students who could not study wholly overseas but still seek a UK education and its associated benefits such as a competitive employability advantage and an international outlook. The programmes are promoted as similar to those offered at the parent or partner university in the UK in terms such as course content, academic standards and qualification awarded. However, we recognised from our own observations and findings that the transnational education landscape is far more complex and differentiated than what educational marketing discourses depict. The fact that UK transnational programmes are delivered in different institutional and host contexts with varying resources and opportunities suggested to us that there were finer contextual differences in TNE experiences waiting to be uncovered. This motivated our comparative inquiry.  

We sought to compare and contrast the value of transnational education as perceived by students and graduates in Malaysia and Hong Kong. Our central argument is that the transnational education landscape is uneven and examining contextual specificities is important to delayer the complexities and nuances of value ascribed to TNE at the everyday level.

We combined our data and thematically analysed findings from qualitative semi-structured interviews with 21 UK TNE students and graduates in Malaysia, and 70 students and graduates in Hong Kong. It has to be pointed out that our research scope stretches the usual boundaries of Chinese education mobilities. Firstly, our participants were non- or less-mobile students whose tertiary education were enabled by the cross-border mobility of UK programmes. Secondly, a few Malaysian participants were non-Chinese but generally exhibited characteristics that are typically linked to the Malaysian Chinese ethic of high aspirations, ambition and investment in education (Joseph 2014). Importantly, our comparative research sheds light on some of the finer-grained commonalities and variations in predominantly ethnic Chinese experiences of educational (im)mobilities across two traditional UK TNE contexts.

Our key contribution is contextualising traditional social closure theories to account for how transnational education has diversified and shifted individual understandings of the value of higher education. Drawing but departing from traditional positional and cultural capital approaches to higher education (Hirsch, 1976; Bourdieu, 1984), we showed that a higher and relatively exclusive higher education in the form of a UK TNE was generally a positional good as it improved economic and status opportunities for our participants relative to comparable others. However, this came at varying degrees of success as our participants noted the relative limitations of different TNE modes, programmes (e.g. overseas branch campus, franchised, twinning or distance learning programmes, etc.) and study providers. Our findings showed that TNE programmes in overseas branch campuses and well-established local partner institutions in Malaysia held greater positional value than those offered in smaller local institutions in both host contexts (typically franchised programmes from lower ranked, revenue-maximising UK institutions). Reasons for this include the wider availability of recognised full-degree programmes, more direct contact with UK staff, a more internationally diverse student community, the option of overseas study exchange and credit transfer, and better campuses, facilities and social activities that would enhance desired cultural and social capital (knowledge, skills, dispositions and networks).

Another key contribution of our paper is highlighting the under-researched value of transnational education as an intrinsic and personal good.  These aspects of value involve less pecuniary and positional considerations such as personal development and transformation, and the fulfilment of place-specific personal interests, obligations and commitments. As a whole, we offered more visibility and voice to diverse transnational students and graduates as they meet differentiated opportunities and barriers in transnational education and attach finer gradations and types of value to their education.

The paper has important implications for policy and practice. We called for greater quality assurance and a more socially responsible marketing and delivery of transnational education which are attuned to context specificities and the various positional, intrinsic and personal needs of students and graduates. The urgent task at hand is to address varying gaps between marketing rhetoric and educational reality across what is presently a highly inequitable transnational education landscape.  

References

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.

Cai, L., & Hall, C. (2016). Motivations, expectations, and experiences of expatriate academic staff on an international branch campus in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315623055

Healey, N. M. (2016). The challenges of leading an international branch campus: The “lived experience” of in-country senior managers. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315602928

Hirsch, F. (1976). The social limits to growth. Harvard University Press.

Joseph, C. (2014). Growing up female in multi-ethnic Malaysia. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759081

O’Mohany, J. (2014). Enhancing student learning and teacher development in transnational education. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/enhancing-student-learning-and-teacher-development-transnational-education

Sin, I.L. (2013). Cultural capital and distinction: aspirations of the ‘other’ foreign student, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34 (5-6), 848-867. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.816030

Wake, D. (2019). The scale of UK higher education transnational education 2017-18. Universities UK. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Pages/The-Scale-of-UK-Higher-Education-Transnational-Education-2017-18.aspx

Waters, J., and Leung, M. W. H. (2012) Young people and the reproduction of disadvantage through transnational higher education in Hong Kong. Sociological Research Online 17 (3), 6. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2499

Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2019). Institution strategy in transnational higher education: Late entrants in mature markets – the case of international branch campuses in the United Arab Emirates. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1649386

Author biography

Dr. I Lin Sin is an independent scholar based in Glasgow. Her research primarily intersects higher education, social mobility and international migration, with a focus on privilege, inequality and disadvantage in transnational contexts. Her current research involves a collaborative project on the mobilities, positionalities and subjectivities of academic and teacher expatriates in Malaysia. She is also a UX researcher, applying her research skills in innovative ways to build a bridge between social science research and user experience design. She holds a PhD in Sociology from the University of Edinburgh.

E-mail: sinilin@gmail.com

Zhang, C. (2020). Who bypasses the Great Firewall in China?. First Monday, 25(4). Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10256

Abstract:

The blockage of foreign Web sites, which is often called the “Great Firewall (GFW)”, serves an important part of the Internet censorship in mainland China. This study investigated the inequality of bypassing the GFW in mainland China, and the possible difference in some “capital-enhancing” uses of the Internet (using the Internet for work, learning and political expression) between GFW-bypassing netizens and those still suffer from strict Internet censorship. This study used data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS). Although there is no direct measurement of netizens’ GFW bypassing, a variable measuring the ownership of Facebook accounts was used as a proxy of the status of GFW bypassing. Firstly, the results of bivariate analyses and multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) suggest that mainland Chinese netizens who can bypass Internet censorship and access blocked foreign Web sites are more socio-economically better off (higher social class, well-educated and urban residing) and younger. Moreover, the results of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and logistic regression models tell that in general bypassing the GFW is related to more activeness in using the Internet for learning and political expression. After controlling socio-economic and demographic characteristics, GFW bypassing is no longer found to be related to online learning, but is still related to an expression of political views online.

Keywords: the Great Firewall, Internet censorship, China, digital divide, capital-enhancing, inequality

Background

The “Great Firewall (GFW)” is a metaphorical term describing Internet censorship by blocking foreign Web sites in mainland China (Barmé and Ye, 1997). According to some Chinese policy-makers, the GFW was mainly built for national security, since free-flowing uncensored information from foreign Web sites might pose a threat to ideological control (Zhang, 2006). But the “wall” might not be equally effective for all Internet users in mainland China. By using virtual private networks (VPN) and other tools, some mainland Chinese netizens manage to bypass the GFW and access a wide range of information resources (e.g., Yang and Liu, 2014). However, few studies have focused on the social implication of bypassing the GFW. The gap between netizens on either side of the GFW is a new form of digital divide in mainland China.

For more than two decades, there have been numerous studies on the digital divide. The focus has widened from analyzing differences in Internet access (e.g., NTIA, 1995) to differences in digital skills (e.g., Hargittai and Walejko, 2008; van Deursen and van Dijk, 2010), online activities (e.g., Zillien and Hargittai, 2009; Blank and Groselj, 2015) and even outcomes (e.g., van Deursen and Helsper, 2015). Inspired by “knowledge gap theory” (Tichenor, et al., 1970), DiMaggio and Hargittai (2002) proposed a focus on the gap of the “capital-enhancing” use of the Internet (e.g., using the Internet for career, education or political participation). Capital-enhancing uses of the Internet may be related to improvements and opportunities in life, however, but those capital-enhancing usages were tied to socio-economically advantaged populations (e.g., Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008; Helsper and Galacz, 2009). Therefore, capital-enhancing uses may likely broaden existing social inequalities. In a context of Internet censorship in China, GFW bypassing may grant some netizens more diverse information resources. Therefore, GFW bypassing activities should be considered as a kind of capital enhancing use of the Internet in the context of mainland China. It is crucial to broaden our understandings of the possible gaps induced by bypassing Internet censorship, examining the effects after GFW bypassing.

Research questions

This study investigates a possible digital divide related to GFW bypassing. This study firstly investigated whether GFW-bypassing netizens are socio-economically advantaged populations among all mainland Chinese netizens. In addition, this study also investigated whether GFW-bypassing netizens were more engaged in other kinds of “capital-enhancing” uses of the Internet, specifically using the Internet for work, learning and political expression.

Methods

This analysis used data from the survey dataset China Family Panel Studies (CFPS). Given the difficulty of securing direct information about netizens’ GFW bypassing activities due to its political sensitivity, and the fact that facebook.com, one of the most popular social networking sites in the world, is banned in mainland China, the available variable Facebook account (whether or not having a Facebook account) from the dataset is used as a proxy for GFW bypassing. For the first research question, bivariate analyses and multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) were conducted. To answer the second question, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and logistic regression models were run.

Socio-economic divide in bypassing the GFW

Using Facebook account ownership as a proxy, this study found evidence on the relationship between socio-economic characteristics of mainland Chinese Internet users and a likelihood of bypassing the GFW. GFW bypassers were more likely to be young, belong to a higher social class, well-educated and urban living. These findings are consistent with literature on socio-economic digital divides, especially those focusing on capital-enhancing uses of the Internet (e.g., Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008; Helsper and Galacz, 2009). Even though Internet access is related to socio-economic level, more socio-economic advantaged users were linked to more advanced ways of using the Internet that could possibly help their lives (Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008; Helsper and Galacz, 2009). Well-educated and higher social class urban residents were more likely to bypass Internet censorship, and therefore have the potential to enjoy the benefits of more diverse information resources. In comparison, information resources to which the less advantaged populations could access might be relatively limited, because they were less likely to bypass Internet censorship and therefore more subject to the power of the state related to information access.

Bypassing the GFW and other “capital-enhancing” uses of the internet

GFW bypassing provides access to more diverse information resources, but whether people could really benefit more also depends on what individuals really do after having access to more diverse resources. For example, Taneja and Wu (2014) found that even being given full access to all Web sites, Chinese Web users were still more keen on browsing Web sites based on cultural proximity. This study further investigated the link between bypassing the GFW and other kinds of capital-enhancing uses of the Internet. There is a general association between GFW bypassing and using the Internet for learning and political expression online. The evidence on the link between GFW bypassing and using the Internet for learning was somewhat weak. Also, rather than concluding a direct relation between the GFW bypassing and online learning, it is more reasonable to say that the appearance of the “bypassing-learning” association was because both of them were associated with socio-economically advantaged netizens, as suggested by the findings of this study.

However, expressing political views online was found to have nothing to do with socio-economic backgrounds, but solely GFW bypassing itself. In addition, the association between bypassing the GFW and expressing political views online was found to be strong, as bypassers were at least 10 times more likely than their counterparts to express political views online. This might be related to strict Internet censorship in China not permitting negative comments on the political establishment. So bypassing the GFW might be a necessary condition for the expression of critical political opinions online, regardless of socioeconomic background.

Author Biography

Chong Zhang is a PhD researcher in the department of sociology, Durham University. His researcher interests include: social inequality and mobility, education and lifelong learning, digital studies, Marxism and neo-Marxism. His PhD researches the role of digital learning in mitigating unequal occupational mobilities between rural and urban background workers in China’s urban labour market. Chong can be contacted via email: chong.zhang@durham.ac.uk

Reference

Geremie R. Barme and Sang Ye, 1997. “The great firewall of China,” Wired, at https://www.wired.com/1997/06/china-3/, accessed 22 March 2020.

Grant Blank and Darja Groselj, 2015. “Examining Internet use through a Weberian lens,” International Journal of Communication, volume 9, pp. 2,863–2,783, and at https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3114/1453, accessed 1 May 2019.

Eszter Hargittai and Amanda Hinnant, 2008. “Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the Internet,” Communication Research, volume 35, number 5, pp. 602–621.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321782, accessed 1 May 2019.

Eszter Hargittai and Gina Walejko, 2008. “The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital age,” Information, Community & Society, volume 11, number 2, pp. 239–256.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801946150, accessed 1 May 2019.

Ellen J. Helsper and Anna Galacz, 2009. “Understanding the links between social and digital exclusion in Europe,” In: Gustavo Cardoso, Angus Cheong and Jeffrey Cole (editors). World wide Internet: Changing societies, economies and cultures. Macau: University of Macau Press, pp. 146–178.

Harsh Taneja and Angela Xiao Wu, 2014. “Does the Great Firewall really isolate the Chinese? Integrating access blockage with cultural factors to explain Web user behavior,” Information Society, volume 30, number 5, pp. 297–309.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.944728, accessed 1 May 2019.

Phillip J. Tichenor, George A. Donohue and Clarice N. Olien, 1970. “Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge,” Public Opinion Quarterly, volume 34, number 2, pp. 159–170.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/267786, accessed 1 May 2019.

Alexander van Deursen and Jan van Dijk, 2010. “Internet skills and the digital divide,” New Media & Society, volume 13, number 6, pp. 893–911.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774, accessed 1 May 2019.

Alexander J.A.M. van Deursen and Ellen J. Helsper, 2015. “The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online?” Communication and Information Technologies Annual, volume 10, pp. 29–52.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002, accessed 1 May 2019.

Qinghua Yang and Yu Liu, 2014. “What’s on the other side of the great firewall? Chinese Web users’ motivations for bypassing the Internet censorship,” Computers in Human Behavior, volume 37, pp. 249–257.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.054, accessed 22 March 2020.

Nicole Zillien and Eszter Hargittai, 2009. “Digital distinction: Statusspecific types of Internet usage,” Social Science Quarterly, volume 90, number 2, pp. 274–291.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00617.x, accessed 1 May 2019.

Lena L. Zhang, 2006. “Behind the ‘Great Firewall’: Decoding China’s Internet media policies from the inside,” Convergence, volume 12, number 3, pp. 271–291.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856506067201, accessed 1 May 2019.