The research methods of returnees were also mentioned in this research. A1, A3, A7, A9, NR1 and NR10 all said that returnees’ research methods were more rigorous than those of non-returnees and more like Western standards. A3 even stated that most returnees not only knew how to do better research than non-returnees, but their research projects were always the latest in the world and stood at the frontier of research. One non-returnee colleague (NR5) argued that returnees were more concerned about academic
ethics and were more likely to consider participants’ feelings. He said:
I think returnees’ merits are that they are more likely to share their research ideas with others. This is their greatest strength. Furthermore, they have the idea of equality. They pay more attention to academic ethics. If they want to do any
research, they … ask for the participants’ views. In research, they will first ask for
participants’ agreement to participate. This is different from non-returnees.
NR5 claimed that if non-returnees wanted to do a research project at a school, they would ask the leaders to hand out the questionnaires directly instead of asking for participants’
agreement. He also argued that as returnees usually had a more broadened vision, influenced by foreign advanced academic ideas, their research methods were more probing and more specific. They were more likely to use case studies, while non- returnees were more likely to be interested in general topics. A7 shared similar views
on returnees’ research methods and his comment was even more specific:
You know the way of doing research in China is different from that in foreign
countries. It is much more rigorous in foreign countries. … So foreign-educated returnees are more likely to be interested in and focused on some specific problems, which are usually ignored by non-returnee teachers. Non-returnee teachers are more likely to do general and non-experimental problems and they seldom do actual study. He thought that non-returnees were more likely to focus on something with potential individual benefit and do research that might enhance personal benefit, such as titles, position and income, saying:
It seems that not only returnees’ way of doing research is different, but also their
attitude towards research is different, especially when it comes to their interest in
doing research. … Returnees are more likely to value their development and improvement in a specific academic area (instead of profits). I think this is an essential and big difference between returnees and non-returnees.
That is, A7 believed that the research of non-returnees was likely to be benefit -oriented whereas that of returnees was more likely to be interest-oriented. This difference shows different attitudes towards doing research between returnees and non-returnees and differences between the Western and Chinese academics regarding research. Western academics are thought to do research based on their interests and they are more concerned about their personal development in the area. The personal benefit-oriented aspect of Chinese academia is further discussed in Section 5.3.3.2.
The data from this research also showed that proficiency in English is another significant asset for returnees to China, allowing them to access the latest research and technology from the Western world, and to publish articles in English. Fluent oral English and a deep understanding of Western cultures also make their classroom teaching more attractive to students and give it more credibility. NR2 pointed out that because most returnees went to English-speaking countries, what they could demonstrate to students
was different from their non-returnee colleagues (e.g., their English-speaking ability and their understanding of English-speaking countries’ cultures). A3 reported that in addition to their new ideas and new perspectives, returnees could provide bilingual courses that were much better than those of non-returnee colleagues. A9 believed that the ability of returnees to give bilingual lectures to undergraduate and postgraduate students was better than at any previous time at his school. He argued that not only did they have a very good command of the English language, but they also knew their disciplines well.
As mentioned earlier in Section 3.2, non-returnees and administrators were presented with the following three statements, designed with a five-point Likert scale to identify
their level of agreement, to assess their attitude regarding returnees’ performance at their
universities:
1) Returnees’ participation is important in updating the teaching standards at this university.
2) Returnees’ participation is important in updating the research standards at this university.
3) There is no point recruiting foreign-educated returnees.
Figures 4-4 and 4-5 show the distribution of the responses of non-returnees and administrators to these questions.
Figure 4-4 Non-returnee colleagues’ attitudes regarding returnees (N=11)
Figure 4-5 Administrators’ attitudes regarding returnees (N=9)
The data regarding the first two statements showed that nearly 67% (N=7) of the 11 non- returnee colleagues agreed that returnees were important in updating the teaching standards of the universities, while the proportion for the nine interviewed administrators was nearly 78% (N=8). Non-returnee colleagues held a similar view on the returnees’ role in updating the research standards of the universities, with approximately 67% (N=7) choosing “strongly agree”. Nearly 67% (N=6) of the nine administrators agreed that
returnees’ participation was important for updating the research standards of the
0% 50% 100%
There is no point recruiting foreign-educated returnees at
this university
Returnees' participation is important in updating the research standards at this
university
Returnees' participation is important in updating the teaching standards at this
university
Non-returnees' attitudes towards returnees (N=11)
Strongly disagree Disagree Uncertain
0% 50% 100%
There is no point recruiting foreign-educated returnees Returnees' participation is important in updating the research standards at this
university
Returnees' participation is important in updating the teaching standards at this
university
Administrators' attitudes towards returnees (N=9)
strongly disagree Disagree
Uncertain Agree
universities. For the third statement, regarding the way these two groups perceived
universities’ employment of returnees, nearly 55% (N=6) of the non-returnees chose strongly disagree and nearly 36.4% of them selected disagree. One chose uncertain. This result showed that ten non-returnees disagreed that there was no point recruiting foreign-educated returnees, which indicated that they had positive attitude towards universities’ employment of returnees. The portion for administrators was also positive. It showed that 89% (N=8) of the administrators strongly disagreed that there was no point recruiting foreign-educated returnees, and one chose disagree, which demonstrates that all nine administrators agreed on universities’ policies of recruiting foreign-educated returnees. The data implied that most of the non-returnees and administrators interviewed believed that it was necessary to recruit returnees.
Both the interviews and the responses to the questionnaire survey were consistent with these views. Nearly 67% (N=6) of the administrators were satisfied with returnees’
academic role in teaching and 55.5% (N=5) were satisfied with returnees’ academic role
in research (see Figure 4-6). Clearly, although administrators generally had positive attitudes towards returnees in terms of their teaching and research performance, they were more satisfied with the former. This issue is explored in detail in the next section.
Figure 4-6 Level of administrators’ satisfaction with returnees’ role in teaching and research (N=9) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Strongly disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly agree
I feel satisfied with returnees' role in research I feel satisfied with returnees' role in teaching