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.

Reflection on Magolda & Gross (2009)

It’s All About Jesus: Faith as an Oppositional Collegiate Subculture / Magolda & Gross (2009)

Magolda and Gross, non-evangelicals wrote this book through two years’ ethnographic study of a collegiate evangelical student organization on public university because there were few and old research to understand the experiences of evangelical students in public higher education.  Their methodological approach and personal reflections is based on thick description that offed details of dailies.  They tried to integrate three topics (religion, faith/spiritual life, and higher education) by examine “how students’ participation in a homogeneous evangelical student organization enhances their satisfaction with their collegiate experience and helps them develop important life lessons and skills” in their research study (p. 14).  Through their study, they emphasized student engagement and enhanced the role of religion in the (co)curriculum on higher education.

They used rituals (performative act, symbolic mechanisms, and symbolic performances) as their interpretive framework to categorize the values and behaviors of the Student Serving Christ (SSC).  They detailed and thoughtfully examined SSC and its members to assess the role of religious and secular organizations on campus in the moral development of students.  In chapter two and three, the outcome of this qualitative research exemplified a good ethnography method by the following procedures: 1) gaining access; 2) collecting data by observations, interviews, and physical artifacts, and 3) analyzing data with face validity, content validity, and catalytic validity including data triangulation (investigator triangulation, theory triangulation, and methodological triangulation).

They recounted their confessional tale and focused on SSC’s ritual recruitment, teaching and learning, outreach, and the construction of leadership.  Then, they focused their analysis on how the lesson learned from their field study and discuss some important points related to student success.  For example, they found that evangelical student involvement in the co-curriculum and peer education inside and outside classroom were powerful to foster their learning experiences as well as campus fellowships with their sense of safety.  They also found that “religion, spirituality, and the pursuit of meaning in life are topic of interest” for these SSC believer in their study (p. 67).

Firstly, the role of peers in the rituals of SSC was important to create a supportive community and increase student success.  As a SSC’S pedagogy and effective student involvements, they presented “four qualitatively different levels of involvement”; entry-level worship programs, second level of Bible study, third level of the Servant Leadership Team (SLT), and fourth level of the Evangelism Team and the Discipleship Team (p. 273).  Through these levels of involvements, students had opportunities for development of intrapersonal belief, morals and ethical behaviors, interpersonal skills, and leadership abilities. Consequentially, SSC’S cocurriculum encouraged students to mobilize to achieve a greater good. 

Secondly, they added an importance role of SCC for “building a sense of community among student–a sense of belonging at the institution” by observing that SSC leadership team recognized the importance of Christian students’ need for belonging to a community where they could openly express their Christian beliefs (p. 87).  For example, from the Matthew’s preaching during a Friday worship service, researchers found that “SSC’s cocurriculum interconnected students learning with the organization’s core values: faith, fellowship, and fun” that fostered build a supportive community in students’ educational settings (p. 277).  Thus they challenged educators to dedicate to bridging the gap between curricular and co-curricular aspects of students’ lives with their research analysis.

Lastly, Magolda and Gross as ethnographers found that SSC strived to transform the university culture and offer new ways of interpreting the world with the goal of producing Christian life.  As Astin (2004) observed that spiritual involvement helped college students develop their emotional maturity, moral development, and self-understanding, they also found that rituals (or spiritual activities) of SSC were “essential to students’ identity development and essential to living out American higher education standards” (300).  For example, as students explore aspects of “,” they wrestled with the their self-identity and “questions of significance and meaning” about “what matters to them and to what they are willing to devote their lives” (p. 241).  Therefore, religious aspect of campus climate should be considered as “creating new ways of interpreting the world though mixing religion with their college education” (p. 103)

Reflection on Rebekah Nathan

My Freshman Year: What A Professor Learned by Becoming A Student by Rebekah Nathan (2005).

This book is one professor’s report of the difficulties and frustrations in understanding the thoughts and behaviors of college students.  Rebekah Nathan, an anthropology professor in her fifties, decided to become a college student to better understand the college experience and culture of students.  The professor observed the various circumstances and experiences of students such as living in the dormitory, attending the classes, participating campus activities.  As a participant observer, the professor was able to have a more in-depth analysis through the direct, hands on experiences as a student.  The study broadened her understanding of students’ behaviors and also provided practical advice or solutions that addressed the specific needs of students.

First, her diverse research method skills used to conduct this study is impressive.  This book is based on her long-term personal relationship with college students as a freshman through her anthropological lens (in analysis of the undergraduate life-both her own and others’-over the course of that year).  She conducted forty formal interviews with American and international students, two focus groups (one with freshmen and one with seniors), and diverse informal conversations.  She kept “descriptive records of dorm meetings, events, and incidents, as well as daily field notes” about her personal experiences, observations, and discussions (p. 16).  Although the author used these various qualitative research skills, she gave addressed the weakness of the qualitative research.  For example, she said,

“As anthropologists learn in their overseas experience, one can never really “go native” or expect that one’s own experience is indicative of the experience of others born in the culture.  At the same time, it is the experience of living village life that offers the insight and vantage point needed to ask relevant questions and understand the context of the answers given.  It is this that I hoped to accomplish by becoming a freshman” (p.15).

Second, through the book, I learned her genuine passion and compassion with scholarly efforts to observe college experiences of students and improve their college life through the qualitative research.  Her integrity or authenticity to conduct the research was more powerful than excellences of her research methods and skills because humanity was alive for both the participant observer and subject students through the research.  The authenticity and genuineness of the author opened new opportunities to understand the experiences of college students.  Thus, through her efforts to research in a way never done before, she vividly conveys an account of realities faced by students that is missing in the general research and studies done before. This is why her book offers more than simple data, presenting a fresh and unique approach to learning about the issues students face.  

Third, the author gives people like me who are unfamiliar with the American college experience, an inside look through her observations of various student behaviors.  The author’s analysis of the college community has given me new insights to the student lifestyles and development during their collegiate years. One example in which I was interested was ‘community’ topic in this book because it had different meaning that I understood before.  As it were, the author discovered that while the campus (environment) encourages building a community and it is ultimately up to the individual to make relationships and get involved in the campus life.  Engagement with the communities provide opportunities for students to participate in the different groups and classes, but also leave it up to the student as “one can easily opts to move out of the dorm, drop the class, change majors, or quit the club, resulting in a social world that always seems to be in flux (p. 39).  Therefore, the author said the university ‘community’ becomes both elusive and unreliable.  However, she examined that more often than not, students do not take advantage of the resources or opportunities to connect.  Instead, they often stick to what they know and who they know, joining communities they are familiar and comfortable to be a part of.  This was prevalent when she asked students in interviews whether they felt they had a community, most said yes.  So she identified the community with the followings,

                                                                                                                                “what they meant by community were these personal networks of friends that some referred to as my ‘homeys.’  It was these small, ego-centered groups that were the backbone of most students’ social experience in the university.  …  The intense reciprocity of ego-based groups helped explain a problem about campus traffic that had long puzzled me” (p. 55).

In conclusion, I agree with the author’s perspective following her study that in order to reduce the ignorance, misperceptions, and intolerance between professors and students, empathy and understanding.  I wish that “more teachers could see students and student culture from the other side. … As for students, I wish they could more readily see that classroom bureaucracy arises from the recurrent behavior of the thousands of students who have gone before them” (p. 145).  

Developing My Research Questions

Developing My Research Questions

Research questions are important to explain how to conduct my study including my research design and methods.  Research questions should also connect to the purpose and conceptual framework of my research (Creswell, 2007).  Especially, in a qualitative study, well-constructed and focused research questions can accomplish “the result of an interactive design process, rather than being the starting point for developing a design” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 73).  As some caution for developing qualitative research questions, Maxwell (2013) suggests that research question should neither be too general nor be too focused (specific).  Unexamined assumptions should not be imposed into the research question.  With this advice, I formed my research questions.

The purpose of my qualitative study is to increase our understanding of the student success of Korean international students attending a Protestant theological seminary in the United States.  The study will include the perceptions of Korean students as to how they view student success. 

The central question of my study is to understand how Korean international students studying at a Protestant theological seminary in the United States view success along with three sub-questions; a) how do Korean international seminary students define students success?, b) how do they describe their experience with institutional services as related to their success?, and c) how do they describe how they contributed to their own students success? 

On the basis of this central question of my research, I have made my research protocol.

1.     Is there any (specific) reason to study abroad in America?

2.     Could you tell me an image of success (or failure) of an international student in your mind?  

      Why does this image come up in your mind?

3.     What do you think about yourself?  Are you a successful international student or not? Why? 

4.     What do you think about the international student support system of your school 

      (including international student services office, students affairs office, and academic advising and 

      student financial office)?

      * Do you remember when your school supported your needs? Why do you remember this (critical 

       factors)? 

       (If yes) What supports did you receive from your school? 

       (If not) What did your school not meet your needs?

5.     Is achieving good grades and degree completion important to you? 

      (If yes) Why? 

      (If no) Is there anything more important to you? Why?

6.     What are you doing for the success as you define it?

7.     If you do not achieve your degree completion, or do not find a (good) job after you graduate, 

      how would you feel?

Through these interview questions, I hope for the international students to find their own hope and purpose through their unique experiences in America.

Memo on the Concept Map

Memo on the Concept Map

As Creswell (2007) suggest that researchers begin studies with their conceptual and theoretical maps, a concept map can be useful to present my research design.  The concept map is developed with my personal experiences and previous theoretical or conceptual models

Student Success. Various studies of student success in college have been done using different methods of measuring success.  First, research on student retention and college graduation has mainly measured college student outcomes (Barkley, 2010; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005; Shapiro, Dundar, Chen, Ziskin, Park, Torres, & Chiang, 2012), which were conducted as an important indicator of student success related to academic, economic and social interaction (Cahalan & Perna, 2015; Tinto, 1993).  Kuh and colleagues (2007) offered an extended definition of student success with effects of student engagement on their academic achievement.  As another study for students’ academic success, research on psychological well-being and individual motivation has been demonstrated as an expanded view for improving students’ learning outcomes (Schreiner, McIntosh, Nelson & Pothoven, 2009).  In a recent study of student success, Schreiner (2014) suggested a student thriving model to increase student persistence, academic success, and satisfaction. 

International Student Success. There are various approaches for understanding of student success, because students have various racial and ethnic backgrounds, their unique history and experiences, and diverse learning patterns and perceptions (Harper & Quaye, 2009; 2014).  For example, researchers have demonstrated different results of student-faculty interaction (which was one of the most prominent motivational factors on student success) across student race and their cultural (or social) awareness (Kim & Sax, 2009).  Grayson (2008) interestingly found that international students engaged in campus activities that related to their educational outcomes as much as American students when they meet their academic supports from their school.  Other researchers explained that nontraditional students (including students of color, underrepresented minority students, and international students) have been one of the most struggled from their academic success (Shapiro, et al., 2012). 

Critical Component of Diversity.  Hurtado and Carter (1997) also described that student interaction with diverse ethnic/racial group has positive impact for students’ academic success.  The study of international students who increase a critical component of campus diversity in higher education is significantly examined as a general impact on student success (Bevis & Lucas, 2007; Renn & Reason, 2013).  In addition, a study of international students’ thriving is essential to “advocate for the creation of conditions in the learning environment” that takes into account their particular needs (Schreiner, Louis, & Nelson, 2012, p. xxii). 

Two Theoretical Concept Maps

From the prior research, I use two existing theoretical frames in my qualitative research.  First, Astin’s (1993) Inputs-Environments-Outputs (I-E-O) model provides a basic conceptual framework for my research of international student success.  This conceptual framework focuses on the importance of considering student and institutional characteristics together for evaluating student outcomes in education.  This model is useful to clarify complex college experiences of international students with the following procedures: college readiness, college enrollment, college achievement, and post-college attainment. 

Second, for the study of international students’ success, a college student development model is another theoretical framework, which includes students’ psychological and behavioral development related to cognitive and affective results of student success.  Among the student development models, I used a holistic perspective on student development framework of Baxter Magolda’s (2009) psychosocial concept that integrates cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal dimensions of individual development.

These two conceptual frameworks may useful for me to make a sense and have ideas for doing the qualitative research.  However, there are also risks when I use the conceptual frameworks for the qualitative study.  For example, these conceptual frameworks may mislead me to try to fit my observation into these frameworks.  I may unconsciously judge or define participants’ perspectives within the theories.  Therefore, I should take account of the tension between advantage and disadvantage when I use the conceptual frameworks to do my research. To make good use of existing theory, I prepare to open to the international students who have absence of a clear, consistent, and comprehensive definition for student success as well as to turn my careful attention to their diverse opinions on how to define their student success.  

Figure 1.1 The Concept Map with I-E-O & Development Model

Figure 1.2 The Concept Map for a Study of International Student Success