This literature review has discussed the relationship between individual actors and social structures by applying structuration theory. It has also explored the cultural identity change of returnees and their experiences in Chinese universities. The literature indicates that no single study has included the perspectives of all participants – returnees, non-returnees and administrators, and no research has been from the perspective of social structuration or cultural communication.
According to Kou (2011), previous studies about Chinese returnees have been mainly focused on three major issues. The first issue is the “brain drain” from China to Western countries, as many Chinese students decide to stay in their host countries instead of returning to China after finishing their studies abroad. These studies have mainly focused on the reasons for this brain drain, including issues such as China’s political stability, personal political freedom, career concerns (career mobility and work environment), research facilities, family and economics (Cao, 2004; Chang & Deng, 1992; Orleans, 1988; D. Zweig, 1997; D. Zweig, Chen, & Rosen, 1995).
The second issue is the “reverse brain drain” or “brain gain”, which occurred when the number of foreign-educated returnees increased dramatically in the 1990s after China’s rapid economic growth and the government’s series of policies to attract overseas-
educated Chinese to return home. Most of these studies focus on two aspects regarding
this “brain gain”: the social capital that returnees obtain by studying abroad and China’s
policies to attract returnees. With regard to the latter, these studies describe China’s strategies to encourage the return of overseas professionals, such as providing them with preferential financial support and easing the government restrictions regarding returning. For example, Zweig’s (2006) study explains how the Chinese government developed strategies to appeal to foreign-educated Chinese and skilled professionals to serve their home country without necessarily returning to China permanently, thus successfully reversing the brain drain and gaining transnational human capital. Zhao and Zhu’s (2009) study compares central government and local government initiatives to attract
global talent. Wang’s (2005, 2007, 2011a) studies mainly focus on returnees in the
Chinese economic sector and examines their contribution to globalising China’s economy.
Other studies have investigated returnees’ status and mobility in China’s higher education. Gou’s (1998) study explores how different generations of returnees have changed China’s higher education. Li (2004a, 2005a) examines returnees’ political and leadership roles
in Chinese higher education. He argues that Chinese returnees have played an important
role in China’s higher education and returnees have already dominated the political and academic leadership of Chinese higher education.
The third issue is the way China has experienced “brain circulation”. Studies have
examined the way returned highly skilled professionals and scholars create development opportunities for their home countries as they build professional and business connections to the home countries while also maintaining close ties with their host countries. By studying information technology in China and India, Saxenian (2005) claims that Chinese-born engineers are accelerating the development of information technology industries in China while maintaining close ties to the market in America. Wang (2009) also insists that Chinese foreign-educated returnees have become a bridging link between China and the rest of the world by globalising China’s economy, especially through entrepreneurial endeavours and international trade and business.
All these studies have contributed significantly to the understanding of Chinese foreign- educated returnees, their contribution to China, factors influencing their return, their
status and mobility in China’s economic, political and social landscape, as well as their
performance in Chinese higher education. However, there has been little research from the perspective of organisational and cultural communication in terms of returnees’ life
and work back in China’s higher education system and even less from the viewpoint of
multi-parties (returnees, local colleagues and university’s managerial levels).
Gill (2010) conducted a study on returnees through interviews with returned postgraduates from the UK, investigating their motivations for returning to China, readjustments to life in China, and their perceptions of the impact of their overseas
experiences, as well as the returnees’ sense of identity. However, his research did not involve returnees in Chinese higher education and studies would be required to investigate the experiences returnees have when returning to work in the Chinese education sector. Xu’s (2009) research explored the effects of social and political factors
on returnees. Although he mentions culture shock and returnees’ perceptions of their
relationships with others, especially with neighbours, his study relies mainly on self- reports, which are subjective and are also not about returnees working in Chinese universities. Further, his study was conducted in coastal cities and was not focused on returnees in higher education. Huang (2008) investigated the reasons and motivations for Chinese return migration, but this study was conducted with qualitative research with a relatively small sampling. The findings are not comprehensive and representative of skilled Chinese returnees.
None of these studies is from the perspective of returnees in Chinese higher education. He (2009) studied the peer relationship between returnees and locally educated Chinese employees in the Chinese education sector, but more culturally appropriate surveys with more in-depth qualitative studies are required. Li’s (2005) study is more closely related to Chinese returnees in Chinese higher education, but is more concerned with Chinese
returnees’ political influence and their leadership role. Guo (1998) divided Chinese
returnees into five generations and studied their roles before the 1990s. However, this study is not empirical or from the perspective of the returnees themselves. The work of Wang, Zweig, Chen and Rosen (H. Wang, 2009; H. Wang, Zweig, & Lin, 2011; David Zweig, 2006; D. Zweig et al., 2004; D. Zweig & Chen, 2007), is also worth mentioning
here. All of them have studied returnees’ roles in the Chinese economy and they
maintain that Chinese returnees, together with the Chinese diaspora, have played an
increasingly important role in China’s globalisation. However, their studies have not aimed to investigate returnees in Chinese higher education.
and perceive their re-entry experiences in the Chinese academic sector has been largely neglected in the literature. Thus, the present study has focused mainly on these issues and offers systematic and empirical understanding on this aspect that has been missing in the study of Chinese returnees.