Positioning myself politically

Critical social research [3.8] should concern itself with

challenging the political status quo (Hammersley, 1999). It serves to “rethink, even re-imagine, possibilities for different futures” (Boden & Epstein, 2006:224). These different futures can be brought about by using research findings to inform objectives, strategies and policies: consequently, research in the human world is eminently political (Clough & Nutbrown, 2007). Crotty (1998) and Steinberg & Kinchloe (2012) argue that any socially-

critical enquiry needs to go beyond suggesting that “a bit of social engineering” (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2003:159) is sufficient to bring about change. Rather, they argue that enquiry in this tradition should take a more emancipatory objective, and ask questions of society as a whole, keeping a constant eye on differential relationships within social structures. I believe, therefore, that there are political questions to be asked about how Chinese post-graduate students are conceptualised and approached in the university classroom. Whilst my participants reported that their time in the UK had been

transformational and life enhancing in many ways (see 4.5.9), there were aspects of their experience which make for uncomfortable reading, and which stem, I contend, from policies which have fomented detrimental conditions in the university classroom (see 2.3). These conditions lead to Chinese post-graduate students being less visible, and often

[3.8_{] Critical social research is}

generally associated with a left-wing political perspective. That is not necessarily the case, however: as critical theories exist to change the world for the better, it is feasible that someone with a more reactionary stance may also take a socially- critical position. For example, those who believe that welfare support leads individuals to shun employment may argue, from a critical perspective, that cutting support will rectify this.

perceived as less able, than other students, and it is because of this that I have viewed my participants’ experiences through the twin lenses of neo-Marxism and critical

transformative pedagogy, which are intertwined in the emancipatory strand I established in 1.2; the two sections which follow explore these philosophical positions.

3.6.1 A Gramscian neo-Marxist lens

I am holding up a neo-Marxist (rather than a classical Marxist) lens to the human world because, even though the economic arguments of Marxism may have been discredited, its stance on issues of power in society still carries weight, and can still be used to explain the ways in which the world we live in is structured and functions. This shift in focus – from economic to social critique – is what differentiates classical Marxism and neo-Marxism, with the latter engaging less in “struggle and action” (Cole, 2008) and Leninist calls for a

revolutionary vanguard, and more in a “just, equal, mutual and respectful” pursuit of fairness (Jiang, 2011).

My enquiry falls into what can be considered to be a “third wave” of neo-Marxist critiques of education. The first wave occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, and concerned itself with

educational inequalities engendered by class, race and gender. The second wave critiqued and extended the first wave, arguing that, by not considering aspects such as age, sexuality or disability, it was limited in scope (Greaves et al., 2007). The current third wave differs from the first two in that it rejects “actually existing socialism” (Cole et al., 1997:188) in the light of the abhorrent excesses of Soviet-style state socialism, thus advocating a kind of humanist Marxism. It has also refined the first two waves, in an attempt to evaluate and trouble social structures and institutions rather than critiquing the social order per se. A key feature of this is the emphasis on challenging the “ability of the ruling class to keep control” (Hammersley, 1999:43) through a hegemonic model of society and culture to which the population a adheres en masse. Given what I say about the neo-liberalism of higher education in 2.3, troubling and subverting the socio-cultural construction of the internationalised classroom has been a key driver of this thesis.

The concept of “hegemony” stems from the writings of Antonio Gramsci, who speaks particularly loudly to this project. Gramsci died aged 46, a result of his imprisonment by the Italian fascist government for founding the Partito Comunista d'Italia. Because of his

writing on the hierarchical and conditioning relationship between “political society” (the government, army, police, the courts and prison system and so on) and “civil society” (the church, family, communication, culture, trade unions, and the education system), Gramsci is a key figure in the development of neo-Marxist thought, and a “radical hero” (Coben, 1998) in the field of adult education. He argued that the ruling classes (and, by extension,

Capitalism itself) have developed a hegemonic system which promulgates their ideals and

principles. These ideals and principles become accepted as the “common sense" values of society as a whole, and all members of society work to maintain the status quo precisely because they seem to be common sensical. This is legitimised by gaining the approval and consent of the majority, typically through the press

(ibid.), as well as through societal structures such as

education, which replicate and reinforce the ideals and principles of the ruling classes, because education can be used to coerce the people more easily and effectively than physical force (Cole, 2008). This hegemonic system has had a significant impact on, and is pervasive in, the shape and scope of higher education in the UK (see 2.3), and thus, by extension, impinges upon the

experiences of Chinese post-graduate students [3.9_].

3.6.2 A critical transformative pedagogy lens

Critical transformative pedagogy challenges those processes and systems which create dogmatic, and ultimately detrimental, educational practices. It engages with more progressive and emancipatory forms of teaching and learning (Greaves et al., 2007), and problematises the way hegemonies emerge and are perpetuated in education systems. It therefore contributes to my troubling of the status quo in the internationalised university classroom, and my considerations of what ideological structures lie behind those

hegemonies (see 2.3). This is because the rapid increase in the numbers of international students in UK higher education has not been accompanied by adequate structural,

pedagogical or conceptual shifts, and the lack of adequate integration and accommodation of these students has led to poor outcomes for some (Gu, 2009, 2011; Hunley, 2010; Colvin & Volet, 2014). The majority of curricular and pedagogical choices in the university reflect typically Western content and approaches (Killick, 2015), and may

[3.9_{] I recognise that there are}

tensions in embracing a post-modern perspective earlier and espousing a neo-Marxist perspective here, since the two are self-contradictory: postmodern thinking is

individualistic and anti-rationalist, whilst Marxism provides a collective, progressive narrative of the human condition (Hammersley, 1999). However, I argue that the inequality created by the fragmented (and therefore postmodern) nature of higher education has become an example of Gramscian common sense.

therefore not be appropriate in institutions with significant numbers of non-Western students (see 4.4.2).

There is, consequently, a pressing need to reconsider what curricula and pedagogies should be embraced in order to better attend to the needs of students in the

internationalised university, and this is why my own project includes an “action agenda for reform” (Creswell, 2003:9-10, in Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006:np). I bring this agenda to bear on classroom practices (see 5.3), curriculum planning (see 5.4) and institutions (see 5.5).