A Critique of a Qualitative Journal Article

Zhang, Y. (2016). International Students in Transition: Voices of Chinese Doctoral Students in a U.S. Research University. Journal of International Students, 6(1), 175-194.

This article addresses the necessity to understand the transition experiences of international Chinese doctoral students and explores “strategies that can be employed to improve these students’ academic and sociocultural experiences” on American campuses (p. 175).  As a significant contribution in the article, this study provides higher education educators and leaders with insightful knowledge for new practice, programs, and policies that “can be created to improve international students’ transition and success” (p. 175).   

The review of the literature is well covered from the perspective of the adjustments in “both academic and social environments” of Chinese international students in America (p. 177).  In order to understand the difficulties that Chinese students experience, cultural differences and psychological or mental stress are also demonstrated as their transitioning challenges in the previous studies.  Adult transition theory (Goodman, Schlossberg, & Anderson, 2006) is used with 4S factors (“situation, self, support, and strategies”) as the theoretical framework for this study (p. 179). 

This research is well developed with a heading title and subtitle that convince readers of the importance of the purpose statement.  The author’s purpose statement is logically related to the literature review of international students’ adjustment in transition and the theoretical framework of adult transition theory in this research.  However, research questions are not clear in this study.  Instead, the central phenomenon seems to be considered a tacit hypothesis of the research.  The central phenomenon - Chinese international doctoral students have difficulty to adjust their academic and social life in the United States - is set up as if to prove the hypothesis. 

This research design is appropriate for identifying the purpose of the study by using a qualitative research method, used an interpretive phenomenological method.  Zhang (2016) mainly used snowballing sampling technique and selected ten doctoral students form Mainland China, studied in the Midwestern U.S in the academic year of 2010-2011, for this study.  Phenomenology as the guiding methodological framework (Moustakas, 1994) was implemented to explore “the essence of shared meaning of the international Chinese graduate students’ experiences (p. 179).  The researcher collected information from two focus group interviews with open-ended and semi-structured by audio recorded and verbatim transcriptions. 

To add more clarification of collecting data, interview records were first transcribed into Chinese and then translated into English.  Furthermore, the transcription and its English translation were sent back to each respondent for accuracy checks.  This is a great way to reduce bias. However, there were still limitations including “the findings of the study were not optional for external generalizability; this study conducted focus group interviews without additional follow-up interviews; and this study was limited to perspectives of international Chinese doctoral students only” (p. 181).

The conclusions and interpretations of this article seem to follow logically from the results presented with the findings (being as an ESL learner, tension in relationships, and changes of self-identification in the Chinese doctoral students in transition), discussion (four perspectives, according to Goodman and colleagues (2005), including academic and social situation, self-awareness, and institutional supports, and strategies) and implications of the study.  However, as I indicate above, its results cannot be generalized to all Chinese doctoral international students in Unites States because this research was of a small number of students in a particular school.  If the research was repeated in a different setting to a group of students with different backgrounds, it’s very possible to derive a whole new set of results.

While the results of this study cannot be generalized, it can be transferable to other contexts.  In other words, it provides insightful knowledge for new practice and policies that will “be created to improve international students’ transition and success” (p. 175).  For example, this study helps instructors (educators) and advisors who work with international students for the better understanding of international Asian students’ special challenges and needs.  So, they, both the students and instructors can be more aware of their difficulties in transition. 

Furthermore, this study guides how American institutions can assist international doctoral students to “establish a support network and provide them with more opportunities” (both academic and non-academic related) to share their own experiences and knowledge that can contribute on diverse campus cultures in higher education in America (p. 189). Therefore, the research deserves special attention because of the benefits for Chinese international students and the educators who hope to develop them in American universities.