







































Emerging Perspectives 
ep.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca 

*ling.lei@ucalgary.ca 

 

 

 

Returning “Home”? Exploring the Re-integration Experiences of 

Internationally Educated Chinese Academic Returnees 

Ling Lei* 

University of Calgary 

 

Return migration of internationally educated Chinese academics has been a 

significant feature of China’s higher education internationalization strategy and a top 

governmental concern for boosting China’s development in the globalized knowledge 

economy. However, despite the government’s expectation of returnee academics’ 

long-term settlement in China, there has been a trend of their re-migration to settle 

overseas. It is necessary then to explore how their re-integration experiences in China 

affect their intentions for future migration. This study employs a qualitative case study 

method to explore the re-integration experiences for internationally educated Chinese 

academic returnees. Their experiences are interpreted vis-à-vis the institutional and 

national contexts. The findings indicate that what appears to be personal struggles 

juggling with different cultures are actually reflective of competing powers of 

recognition that value cultural knowledges differently in a seemingly uniform process 

of global higher education internationalization.  

Keywords: Academic returnee, re-integration, academic migration, 

internationalization, case study 

Lei, L. (2020). Returning “home”? Exploring the re-integration experiences of 

internationally educated Chinese academic returnees. Emerging Perspectives, 4(1), 

13-18. 

 

 The return migration of internationally educated Chinese academics has been seen as an 

important manifestation of China’s higher education internationalization, and a governmental 

talent deployment strategy for advancing China’s development in the globalized knowledge 

economy (Pan, 2016; Wang & Zweig, 2009). Racing to promptly elevate its position 

internationally in university rankings and research output, China has been sparing no efforts to 

mobilize “imported” talents in the form of their international experience and research skills. Less 

attention, however, has been directed to the cultivation of its own domestic academic cultures. 

Meanwhile, despite the government’s expectation of returnee academics’ long-term settlement in 

China, there has been a trend of their re-migration to settle overseas (Feng, 2017). Such a trend of 

talent outflow necessitates the exploration of the interplay between cross-border migration and 

home country re-integration. In this study, I aimed to explore how transnational academic 

migration experiences affect returnee academics’ work and learning after their return to China. 

This paper addresses the question: How did internationally educated Chinese academic returnees 

experience re-integration in China?  



Lei / Emerging Perspectives (2020)  14 

 

 Re-integration is a critical aspect of migration and intercultural studies (Presbitero, 2016), 

but has been less examined compared to the phenomenon of host-country integration (Gaw, 2000; 

Jackson, 2004). The difficulties or barriers migrants encounter while crossing cultural borders have, 

however, been discussed through the lens of culture shock or reverse culture shock. Literature 

shows that migrants would experience psychological stresses and sociocultural challenges while 

adapting to unfamiliar environments (Ward & Lin, 2010). The degree to which migrants are able 

to cope with such adaptation processes affects their sense of identity and life satisfaction, as well 

as their ability to deal with stresses at work and in society at large (Chiu, Wu, Zhuang, & Hsu, 

2009). Nevertheless, such an intercultural framework is prone to be contested as studies from anti-

racist and postcolonial perspectives caution against its uncritical inclination toward taking cultures 

as neutral, fixed, de-politicized, and reduced to symbols like cultural dresses, dances, and food 

(Gorski, 2008; Nieto, 2010). This study holds a critical stance that situates cultural differences 

manifested in academic work against the social, political, and historical forces in global and local 

contexts.    

Methodology 

This study employs the methodology of a qualitative case study (Stake, 1995). The in-depth 

exploration of cases, through multiple sources of data and detailed description, allows for an 

understanding of the complexity of the phenomenon that takes into account important contextual 

factors (Simmons, 2009). Such features of qualitative case study align with my intentions to 

interpret participants’ re-integration experiences vis-à-vis the institutional and national contexts 

where they were situated. 

Each individual is a case, or unit of analysis, bounded by their lived experience as 

internationally educated returnee academics. Specifically, they were incumbent Chinese 

professors in social sciences, and humanities, who had completed their doctoral degrees overseas 

and maintained social and professional connections with their host countries of doctoral studies. 

Through purposive and snowball sampling, 12 participants were recruited from three universities 

labelled as: Universities A, B, and C in Beijing, China. All of these institutions are among the top 

research universities in China, demonstrating strengths in both the social sciences and humanities. 

Participants returned to China from a total of nine destination countries or regions, where they had 

conducted their doctoral studies. Their education and employment profiles are presented in Table 

1. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, field observations, and document 

analyses of their academic curriculum vitae and institutional policy documents. Interviews were 

recorded and transcribed verbatim. They were guided by two probing questions: What difficulties 

or barriers have you encountered in workplace re-integration? In what ways have you tried to 

address those challenges?  

  



Lei / Emerging Perspectives (2020)  15 

 

Table 1 

Participants’ International Education and Current Employment Profile   

Name Employment 

Institution 

Title Field of 

Study 

Country/Region 

of Study 

Year of 

Return 

Nick A Associate 

Professor 

Education Belgium 2011 

Grace A Associate 

Professor 

Education UK 2012 

Stella A Lecturer Education Australia 2012 

Barbara B Assistant 

Professor 

Journalism UK 2014 

GZ B Assistant 

Professor 

Journalism Holland 2013 

Sophie B Assistant 

Professor 

Journalism Hong Kong 2017 

Clara C Lecturer Finance US 2015 

Tim C Associate 

Professor 

Finance US 2013 

Rick C Associate 

Professor 

Economics US 2013 

Liangna C Lecturer French France 2016 

Jasmine C Associate 

Professor 

English Canada 2009 

Andy C Associate 

Professor 

English Japan 2006 

 

Note. All names are pseudonyms selected by participants. 

Findings 

All participants indicated that they experienced various problems in transitioning and 

adapting to a different academic evaluation system and academic culture when they returned to 

China after graduation. Many academics believed that the Chinese academic system values 

efficiency of research output over research quality, and this pushed them to find ways to publish 

with increasing speed. Professors from University C, for instance, were required to have at least 

one publication each year. This forced some participants to change their research fields to more 

practical and applied research. Barbara’s statement provides a good illustration:  

When I just returned, many people believed that I must have had difficulty applying for 

projects in China because I told them I was doing cultural studies. In China, people are 

more concerned about topics like national image building. For the sake of one’s academic 

growth, I think I may have to cater my research topics to the trend in China, but in the UK, 

there’s no problem at all if I basically follow my own academic interests. 

This adaptation process was complicated by the concurrent process of identity transition 

from a student to a knowledge worker. Since teaching and research became part of participants’ 

employment in a professorship, accordingly, they were expected to teach and produce research in 

order to retain their jobs and gain promotions. However, most of my participants did not have a 



Lei / Emerging Perspectives (2020)  16 

 

single publication before they started their current work. They explained that during their doctoral 

studies, their research was focused on writing their own dissertations, and many of them 

considered their PhD programs to be a period for systematic training in theories and methodologies. 

In spite of these beliefs, they were immediately required to publish upon employment, which led 

to a sharp increase in their overall anxiety.  

Language also presented an issue for participants to regain academic recognition in China. 

Sophie placed a “language shift” as the foremost issue she encountered since in her institution an 

English publication was not counted towards work accomplishment. However, she was trained in 

English and she still believed that her assertions could only be conveyed in English. In contrast, in 

Universities A and C, publishing in English was an explicit requirement for returnee professors. If 

they were to publish in English, they could target only SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) 

journals and had to be the lead author in order for their publications to be accepted as work 

achievement. Another of my participants, Stella, believed that this posed a high publication 

demand due to the fact that:  

foreign scholars can and do publish in non-SSCI journals, and if they are to be the non-first 

authors, they won’t proactively approach Chinese scholars like me as they have many 

potential research partners right around them who are more competitive in terms of English 

proficiency and available academic resources. 

In addition, some of the newly employed academics mentioned that they had to adapt to a 

workplace culture that differed from what they had experienced as PhD students. Grace pointed 

out that the Chinese academic culture is one relating to a “parenting style.” The workplace culture 

that Grace found herself within relied upon hierarchical power relations and bureaucratic 

administrations, which exerted pressure on her as communication or cooperation was not that 

straightforward. 

In light of these issues surrounding re-integration, maintaining connections with former 

supervisors and colleagues became an adaptation strategy for fulfilling work requirements, gaining 

collective support, and sustaining the confidence to carry on with intellectual interests and pursuits. 

Such connections helped the participants to gain a sense of recognition and belonging in their 

transnational academic community. Participants kept approaching their supervisors for mentorship, 

going to the same conferences, and collaborating on publications and research projects. The most 

intense form of these types of connection was epitomized by the experience of Sophie. She 

remained a part of the transnational learning community comprised of her supervisor and her 

supervisor’s former and current students attending weekly reading clubs and other monthly online 

learning sessions. As Sophie commented:  

In our community, everybody is willing to communicate. Perhaps our research is more on 

critical issues, or on the socially marginalized, we don’t feel discriminated [among 

ourselves]. We feel we are equal. It is a very supportive community and it has formed a 

mechanism [for communication]. We won’t feel disconnected even if we don’t get in touch 

that often for some time. In fact, we keep our connections every day. 

The affinity and substantive connections with their host countries led participants to envision or 

even plan for re-migration. For example, Liangna acknowledged that she would consider a 

maximum of three years as a reasonable length of time to see if she could re-establish herself 

academically in China. Frustrated by her publication experiences in China, she envisioned a better 

career platform for herself in France as she felt professionally and emotionally supported by both 

of her French supervisors. Their shared interests had gone beyond academics to include a love for 



Lei / Emerging Perspectives (2020)  17 

 

literature, arts, and music, whereas in China, Liangna’s humanistic feelings and ideals did not seem 

to find an echo.  

Conclusions and Implications 

The findings of this study conform with literature on reverse culture shock (Adler, 1981; 

Kim, 2008) but it should be noted that an intercultural perspective ignores the contested 

implications of culture on education and learning (Dei, James, Karumanchery, James-Wilson, & 

Zine, 2000). In this study, it is revealed that what appears to be personal struggles juggling with 

different cultures are actually reflective of competing powers of recognition that value cultural 

knowledges differently in a seemingly uniform process of global higher education 

internationalization (see also, Guo & Jamal, 2007). Chinese universities are eager to gain 

international recognition by pushing internationally educated returnee academics to publish 

academic papers. At the same time, however, China is disregarding the substantive differences in 

academic development between the West and its own academic system. The latter has alienated 

internationally educated academics whose ways of research seem foreign to domestically educated 

colleagues. Meanwhile, local academic community building seems to be sidelined in the hasty 

pursuit of international publication, ignoring the necessity for cultivating an academic culture that 

values democratic dialogue, sharing and caring. Due to the changes and ambivalences in China’s 

own internationalization process, there is actually no fixed “home” for returnee academics to return 

to. Instead, they make their own academic “home” by connecting and working with those who 

share their research tradition, support their growth, and recognize their values. Migration is thus 

the manifestation of their need for recognition.  

This study suggests that for sustained academic development, China’s higher education 

internationalization should take the time to work on local academic community building that 

recognizes and supports returnee academics’ ways of knowing and doing. An analysis of results 

from this study also suggests that there should be more opportunities within Chinese universities 

for open dialogue and exchange about different ways of conducting research.  

References 

Adler, P. (1981). Re-entry: Managing cross-cultural transitions. Group & Organizational Studies, 

6(3), 341-356. doi:10.1177/105960118100600310 

Chiu, Y. P., Wu, M., Zhuang, W. L., & Hsu, Y. Y. (2009). Influences on expatriate social networks 

in China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), 790-809. 

doi:10.1080/09585190902770703 

Dei, G. J. S., James, I. M., Karumanchery, L. L., James-Wilson, S., & Zine, J. (2000). Removing 

the margins: The challenges and possibilities of inclusive schooling. Toronto: Canadian 

Scholars’ Press. 

Feng, J. (2017, May 9). Tsinghua loses star molecular biologist to Princeton-China society and 

culture news from May 9, 2017. Retrieved from 

http://supchina.com/2017/05/09/tsinghua-loses-star-molecular-biologist-princeton-china-

society-culture-news-may-9-2017/ 

Gaw, K. F. (2000). Reverse culture shock in students returning from overseas. International 

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(1), 83-104. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00024-3 

http://supchina.com/2017/05/09/tsinghua-loses-star-molecular-biologist-princeton-china-society-culture-news-may-9-2017/
http://supchina.com/2017/05/09/tsinghua-loses-star-molecular-biologist-princeton-china-society-culture-news-may-9-2017/
http://supchina.com/2017/05/09/tsinghua-loses-star-molecular-biologist-princeton-china-society-culture-news-may-9-2017/
http://supchina.com/2017/05/09/tsinghua-loses-star-molecular-biologist-princeton-china-society-culture-news-may-9-2017/


Lei / Emerging Perspectives (2020)  18 

 

Gorski, P. C. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonizing intercultural education. 

Intercultural Education, 19(6), 515-525. doi:10.1080/14675980802568319 

Guo, S., & Jamal, Z. (2007). Nurturing cultural diversity in higher education: A critical review of 

selected models. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37(3), 27-49. 

Jackson, J. (2004). Language and cultural immersion: An ethnographic case study. Regional 

Language Centre Journal, 35(3), 261-279. doi:10.1177/0033688205052140 

Kim, Y. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being. International 

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 359-368. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.04.005 

Nieto, S. (2010). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New 

York, NY: Teachers College Press. 

Pan, S. (2016). Competing for global talents. In S. Guo & Y. Guo (Eds.), Spotlight on China: 

Chinese education in the globalized world (pp. 341-358). Rotterdam, NL: Sense. 

Presbitero, A. (2016). Culture shock and reverse culture shock: The moderating role of cultural 

intelligence in international students’ adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural 

Relations, 53, 28-38. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.05.004 

Simons, H. (2009). Case study research in practice. London: Sage.  

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Wang, H., & Zweig, D. (2009, February). China’s diaspora and returnees: Impact on China’s 

globalization process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA’s 50th Annual 

Convention, New York, NY. Retrieved from 

https://convention2.allacademic.com/one/isa/isa09/index.php?click_key=2#search_top 

Ward, C., & Lin, E. (2010). There are homes at four corners of the sea: Acculturation and  

adaptation in overseas Chinese. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese 

psychology (pp. 657-677). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. 

 


