Elaine Walsh Senior Lecturer, Graduate Schools Imperial College London

The Perceptions of International Doctoral Students within the

Context of a Continuum Model of Research Group Microclimate

Elaine WalshSenior Lecturer, Graduate Schools

Imperial College London

“Macro” Background• Increasing numbers of postgraduate research students

are from overseas.– Source: HESA student record (re-analysis of data

commissioned by HEPI from HESA) – includes research masters

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1995-6 1996-7 1997-8 1998-9 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

Home FT

Home PT

Overseas FT

Overseas PT

UKCOSA findings

• International students with UK friends were more likely to be satisfied overall with their stay in the UK

• 93% vs 86%– “Broadening Our Horizons, 2004

• More likely to have UK friends:– Women, younger, no dependants,

undergraduates, studying science or medicine

Doctoral students

• Very little formal curriculum

• The “myth” of the research group in science and technology

• Relatively little research done from the student perspective– Leonard et al, Lit review for HEA (2006)

“Micro” Background

• New developments following “Roberts’” funding– A 3-day residential course for new PhD

students attended by roughly 60% of cohort– “Developing Cultural Awareness” workshops

• 29% of PhD student body from non-EU

• 4-year submission rates slightly lower for overseas PhDs

Method

• Part of a broader, qualitative study

• What do overseas PhD students perceive as the biggest problems and barriers to overcome when undertaking their doctoral study?

• Levels of interactions with home students emerged as one issue

Phase 1: Letters

• Written as if to a friend or family member about to begin a PhD at the same institution

• Using their experience to advise about difficulties and problems and how to deal with them

• 18 were received

• Analysis to identify the main issues

Phase 2:

• 9 follow up interviews– 8 from letter writers and 1 invited participant

• Asked about their workplace interactions, social interactions, supervision, motivation during their PhD, biggest difficulties encountered, etc.

Bias in the sample

• Bias towards those who feel confident in writing English (one exception)

• Bias towards those with more problems or difficulties

• More outgoing than the norm, since (with one exception) they volunteered for the study

• But: All were expecting to submit within 4 years

Code Country of

origin

Sex Age Family status

Time on PhD so

far

Discipline

A Australia F 29 Single 2 yrs 1 mo Science

B Colombia M 28 Married 2yrs 1 mo Engineering

C Iran F 28Married, 1

child 1yr 6 mo Science

D China F 26 Single 1 yr 1 mo Engineering

E Thailand M 23 Single 2 mos Science

F Pakistan F 33Married, 3

children 7 mos Science

G Taiwan F 32 Single 1 yr 2 mos Science

H S Korea M 35Married, 1

child 6 months Engineering

J China M 28 Married 1yr 2 mo Science

The Sample

The PhD Experience

• Widely varying sample

• Ages 23 – 35

• From single to married with 3 children

• Circumstances and motivations very considerably

Findings: the factors influencing interactions with home students

• A number of factors seemed to cluster to form research group “microclimates”– Numbers in workplace– Interactions for work purposes– Interactions for social purpose– Relationship with supervisor

• Other opportunities for interactions

• Role of language and culture

The research group microclimate continuum

Increasing Increasing

Isolation Cohesiveness

Fragmented Granular Structured Inclusive

C, H A, J F, G B, D, E

Inclusive groups

• The ideal

• Overseas students participate fully in the life of the research group

• Good relationships regardless of nationality

• “like a family”– Relaxed, uninhibited, frank

• The “myth” frequently written about

Structured groups

• More hierarchy

• Social and work interactions are less natural

• Like a different sort of family– More power, less frankness

Granular groups

• “.. it is too difficult to communicate, and I think what we lose in the group is a good connector, to connect each other together, nobody’s in the role of this, and that’s why a group is like a group of loose sand.”

• Much less interaction amongst the group

Fragmented groups

• Most isolating situation

• A problem factor inhibits “normal” interactions– E.g. absent supervisor, unhelpful or

obstructive colleagues, physical isolation of students.

The research group microclimate continuum

Increasing Increasing

Isolation Cohesiveness

Fragmented Granular Structured Inclusive

C, H A, J F, G B, D, E

Micro-climate

Fragmented Granular Structured Inclusive

Total number in workplace?

Private (C)3 (H)

3(J)5(A)

4( F)5 (G)

6 (E)16 (B)30 (D)

Descrip-tors used for workplace

Quiet, The culture is very different, It’s not easy (H)

I spent the first 18 mos the only one in the office even though there were four people assigned to it (A)

quite friendly (F)

harmony (G)

friendly(B)very good, I get along with my friends very well (E)

Numbers in the immediate Workplace

Numbers in workplace

• Long hours culture adds to significance• More colleagues create more opportunities

for interaction• Proximity creates closer bonds and sense

of group identity• Repeated initial contact facilitates

relationship building by helping to overcome cultural “stumbles”

• Larger offices make any divisions visible

Interactions for work purposes

Micro-climate

Fragmented Granular Structured Inclusive

Helpingeachother?

N/AVery little help, evenobstruction

Rarely -not reallyable toSome will

help

YesYes,mostly

Yes -oftenYes -oftenYes

Formal orsemi-formalGroupmeetings

?

NoNo

Yes - Weekly,strictYes

No!No!But about to startup!

Yes -weeklyYes -weeklyYes -every 2months

Work interactions

• Clear progression regarding the giving and receiving of help– Normal and common to help each other vs. “read the

manual!” approach

• Group meetings in inclusive groups were frequent and often had a social aspect

• Fragmented groups had no group meetings• Granular groups had strict, stressful meetings for

work purposes only.

Granular group meeting

• “No we are not allowed, we are not permitted, or we are not expected to chat with coffee, we have to take our notes, report what we have done, that is it, maybe lasting one or one and a half hours each week, and we don’t have personal chat, personal communications.”

Micro-climate Fragmented Granular Structured Inclusive

Fluent upon arrival?

NoYes

YesYes

YesNo

YesNo No

Native speakers as close friends?

NoYes

YesYes (post-

doc)

YesNo

YesYesNo

Involved with National Society?

PresidentNo

NoNo

NoWeak

NoNoNo

Social event frequency?

NeverNever

OccasionalRare

OccasionalRare

Twice weeklyWeekly Weekly

Social event type?

N/AN/A

One : oneOne : one

Most of group

Whole group

Whole groupWhole groupMost of

group

Social interactions within groups

Inclusive groups

• “like a small family”• Lots of social interactions, e.g. lunch,

coffee breaks and weekly or more with whole group

• Overseas students influence activity of group– Suggestions for activities, becoming rep– It is assumed that all will turn up at social

events

Fragmented groups

• Very few if any whole group social activity• Difficulties in making friends with UK students

– “So sometimes I suggested some ideas just like … how about going to eat dinner together, for example one day we can try Korean food in Korean restaurant and then one day we can try Spanish restaurant, and so on. But nobody answers to me….so I am thinking, I am thinking what is the problem with me?”

• Students take refuge in their national societies?

Work and social interactions are connected

• Optimum work interactions are not possible without the “underpinning” of social interactions?

• “Learning is a social activity” e.g. Wenger

• Heavily influenced by supervisor’s style / relationships with students

Microclimate

Fragmented Granular Structured Inclusive

RelationshipincludesSocialaspects

?

Yes!No

NoNo

YesYes

YesYesYes

Super-visor per-ception

“very realInternationalprofessor ora businessman”

“very veryfocused onscience, …not verygood atcommuni-cating withothers”

Like afearedparent

Like a nurturingparent –“it’s like asmallfamily”

Supervisor Style

Avail-ability?

OK!Not enough – less than monthly

LimitedJust about enough

OKOK

Very goodVery goodGood

Quotes “So if I want to see him, I can see him but he often hasn’t encouraged it” (H)

“She never goes social life, so that’s a problem” (J)

“Quite often we chat socially, but I feel myself not very frank with her” (F)

“He is a very caring person, he’s looked after me so well, electroni-cally.” (E)

Micro-climate

Fragmented Granular Structured Inclusive

Supervisor style

• A social side to relationship is significant– Just “how was your weekend?” “how is your

wife?” etc – not necessary to be deep

• Availability – a clear spectrum was demonstrated– Face to face contact not necessary

• No or little responsibility attributed to supervisor by students for levels of interaction

Supervisor - 2• “overseas students are more problematic”

(Acker, 1999, Goode, 2007)

• Supervisors vary in the degree to which they recognise particular needs of overseas students or notice any segregation or consider it of concern (Trice, 2003)

• Supervisors have concerns about pastoral side of the relationship (Hockey 1995)

• BUT: the transition from student to scientist emerges through social interaction (Campbell, 2003)

Student E clearly expressed the importance of the supervisor:

“I would say choosing the right supervisor is half the success of

your PhD and your … well, not just PhD, I mean the whole academic

career.”

Microclimates - summary– Successful interactions with home students

require repeated opportunities within a supportive environment

– Numbers in workplace, interactions for work and social purposes and supervisor style

Increasing Increasing

Isolation Cohesiveness

Fragmented Granular Structured Inclusive

Other opportunities for interactions with UK nationals beyond the

research group• Students felt that opportunity was the

limiting factor

• The residential course for new PhD students was an important enabling factor for those in fragmented and granular groups.

Micro-climate

Fragmented Granular Structured Inclusive

AttendedresidentialRSDcourse?

YesNo

YesYes

NoNo

YesYesYes

MentionsresidentialRSDcourse?

YesN/A

YesYes

N/AN/A

NoNo No

Significance of Residential Course

Why does the residential course work?

• Friendships can begin– Long enough time for repeated interactions– Working closely in small groups– Groups encouraged to value contributions

from all– Challenging exercises needing cooperation

for successful outcomes

• Marked contrast to the atmosphere in the fragmented or granular groups

The role of language and culture

• 8/9 were non-native speakers

• Began PhDs with varying levels of language ability from basic to fluent

• When speaking with UK nationals they reported as difficulties:– Vocabulary (technical or general)– Accent– Cultural complications

“in my first year I took an undergraduate course in our

department, and I thought that was quite helpful to, you know, help me to catch up the words, to catch up the

knowledge because .. in my mind, all the knowledge was in Chinese, so I had to find a bridge to connect or to

translate it [into] English.”

• What was the principle value of taking this class?

Interactions with other NNES

• Some commented that it was easier to speak with other non-native speakers– Simpler vocabulary– Accent easier in the beginning– More patience in other person– Slower paced delivery– Fewer opaque cultural references

Cultural issues

• British are hard to know – “British reserve”

• Problems cited include alcohol, humour, not knowing about TV etc

• Individual students show limited awareness of cultural differences

• Pragmatic competence is an issue, i.e. meaning within a cultural context

Pragmatic Competence

– I sometimes suggested ‘how about, today is Friday, how about going to a pub to drink?’ but the English guy refused to join, yes. Yes I can understand, if I talk with English people the conversation sometimes stops and it’s not comfortable for each other and they can, ‘yes he’s not interesting’, so yes.

Cultural barriers

• First few encounters may not go well– “How are you?” “Tell me about it?” (“Is the

pope a Catholic?”)

• Can reinforce the desire to seek “refuge” with co-nationals

• A unrecognised, unmet need exists for cultural awareness training– For example….

…in one of the inclusive groups, student D told of a quiz. She had gone along but had only been able to score

one point.

• “Yeah, because there are like four sections and then the first three sections are all about the American or English history and European history and I don’t know anything, and then the last session is about the techniques in the department, like the equipment like, the material.”

Risk of marginalisation(e.g. Wenger, 1998)

• All new research students may experience peripherality– Not necessarily problematic– Depends on trajectory

• A higher risk in fragmented or granular groups that overseas students will be defined by their non-participation and become marginalised

Closing thoughts

• How can a potential overseas PhD student accurately assess the microclimate of groups? (Wu, 2002)

• The presence of repeated opportunities for interactions and the encouragement of a supervisor are key

• When a microclimate is less “healthy” international students are the first to suffer (Canaries in the coalmine – Carroll & Ryan, 2005)

Some recommendations for action:Universities

• Addressing marginalisation of overseas students as a institutional responsibility (Stone, 2006)

• Induction should not be a one-off activity

• Raise awareness of cultural differences and offer support workshops, etc.

Some recommendations for action:Departments

• Recognise the value of attendance at classes and create more opportunities to attend

• Named member of staff with pastoral responsibility for overseas PhD students

• Plan office / lab space to avoid isolation• Assist with technical vocabulary, e.g. create

photo-dictionaries of kit etc.

Some recommendations for action:Supervisors

• Have regular group meetings with a social element

• Get to know PhD students in a simple, friendly way

• Be aware of the types and levels of interaction in the group and take action to improve things where necessary

Some recommendations for action:International offices

• Showcase examples of successful interaction via national societies, induction events, “facebook” etc.

Some recommendations for actionAll

• Create more opportunities for language learning focussing on pragmatic competence (fluency vs correctness)

• Consider how electronic communications can be employed to reduce isolation / marginalisation (Wisker, 2007)

References 1• Acker, S. (1999). Students and

Supervisors: The Ambiguous Relationship. Perspectives on the supervisory process in Britain and Canada. Review of Australian Research in Education, 5, 75-94.

• Alpay, E., & Walsh, E. (2008). A skills perception inventory for evaluating postgraduate transferable skills development. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education.

• Campbell, R. A. (2003). Preparing the Next Generation of Scientists: The Social Process of Managing Students. Social Studies of Science, 33(6), 897-928.

• Carroll, J., & Ryan, J. (2005). Teaching International Students: Improving learning for all. London: Routledge.

• Goode, J. (2007). Empowering or disempowering the international Ph.D. student? Constructions of the dependent and independent learner. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(5), 589-603.

• Hockey, J. (1995). Getting too close: A problem and possible solution in social science PhD supervision. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23(2), 199 - 210.

References 2• Leonard, D., Metcalfe, J., Becker,

R., & Evans, J. (2006). Review of literature on the doctoral experience for the Higher Education Academy.

• Salter-Dvorak. 'Academic Tourism' or 'a truly multicultural community?' Why international students need pragmatic training for British H.E. .

• Roberts, G.(2002). SET for success: Final Report of Sir Gareth Roberts' Review. HM treasury.

• Sastry, T. (2004). Postgraduate Education in the United Kingdom: Higher Education Policy Unit.

• Stone, N. (2006). Internationalising the Student Learning Experience: Possible Indicators. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 409-413.

• Trice, A. G. (2003). Faculty Perceptions of Graduate International Students: The Benefits and Challenges. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(4), 379-403.

• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• UKCOSA (2004): Broadening our horizons: International students in UK universities and colleges: Executive summary. http://www.ukcosa.org.uk/about/pubs_research.php accessed June 08.

References 3

• Wisker, G., Robinson, G., & Shacham, M. (2007) Postgraduate research success: communities of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(3)

• Wu, S. (2002). Filling the Pot or Lighting the Fire? Cultural Variations in Conceptions of Pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(4), 387-396.