Research Writing

The purpose of writing any thesis is to present the findings of the author in such a manner that the conclusions may be of benefit to other academics, researchers and persons with an interest in the subject under investigation. Giddens (1986, p. 44), illustrates the challenges faced by research writers when attempting to communicate with readers: “One of the main tasks of the study of the text … must be precisely to examine the divergence which can become instituted between the circumstances of their production” and the meaning sustained by their author at the time of writing. Kitching (2008, p. 63) contends that “the very multiplicity, complexity and variety of ways in which people use language itself makes it very difficult for them to have a ‘clear view’ or understanding of how they are using it.” Academics resort to the use of jargon, because terms used have been uniquely defined and convey fully and faithfully the meanings that the author wishes to communicate.

Jargon is the language of the specialist speaking to equals, but jargon also has its detractors. According to Pinker et al., (2014), “academic writing stinks”, and jargon is a large part of the reason for the “stink”. Sword, (cited in Pinker et al., 2014); has reflected on the merits and disadvantages of Jargon, something that this thesis has used sparingly. A survey of 100 writing guides

“found that 21 recommend against disciplinary jargon of any kind; 46 caution that technical language should be used carefully, accurately, and sparingly; and 33 make no comment on the subject. I have yet to discover a single academic-style guide that advocates a freewheeling embrace of jargon” (Pinker, et al., 2014, p. 14).

However, despite the fact that no guide recommends a freewheeling use of jargon, “academic journals are awash in the stuff” (Pinker, et al., 2014, p. 14).

Readers of this thesis could include sociological scholars, administrative staff within universities and students from China who potentially will come to Australia to study at university. For sociological scholars it is important to use the terminology (jargon) that has been developed and widely used in this field. To assist others, who may also read this thesis, I have adopted Professor Singh’s suggestion and defined the key terms and definitions used. Pinker et al., (2014), explain, “Writers do not deny the utility of jargon, nor do they eschew its intellectual and aesthetic pleasures. Instead they deploy specialised language gracefully, cautiously, and meticulously, taking care to keep their readers on board”. (Pinker, et al., 2014, p. 14). That is the aim for this thesis.

4.8 DISCUSSION

The genesis of this research followed traditional lines of focus group interviews to refine the scope of research, large-scale questionnaires to produce statistical inferential data, and follow up interviews to refine certain aspects of the data. These traditional methods seemed to produce findings that agreed with others who have conducted similar research. The first breakthrough in the research came when interviewing parents as a follow-up to the Internet Questionnaire; it is often the parents and not the children who are the decision makers. This discovery mandated that the forces; (fear of corruption allegations, need for wealth protection), connections; (international business partners and government officials in China), and the imaginations; (the benefits of the Western middle class lifestyle in a free society), of the parents were germane to the research conclusions. I had prior evidence of this situation when interviewing parents and students in China for overseas study. It was generally the parents setting the tone of the interview, and the questions were often about the lifestyle features of the possible host nation rather than the qualities of the university. In the latter stages of this research it became evident that:

2. There was already in existence an abundance of evidence from reports in reputable media sources and government publications regarding corruption issues (Chung (2013, 2015, 2017), Cornwall 2014, De Jong 2014, Thornton 2016, Dziedzic 2017, and Kumar 2017) in China and Australia that made Australia a safe haven for capital flight from China (Olesen 2016).

3. The original research question: “What forces, connections or imaginations influenced students from China to complete their tertiary education in Australia?” seemed redundant in the light of this new evidence and it was changed to: ‘What are the forces, connections and imaginations informing Chinese parents and students’ reasons for studying overseas, in particular for choosing Australian universities?’

4. Although Chapter Two lists multiple creditable sources documenting corruption in China and Australia (see Table 2.2) it should be noted that this research is not a racist attack on the Chinese.

5. It is quite possible that the corrupt practices that exist in China are prevalent in many other countries, and this issue could also account for a significant proportion of students from those countries studying in Australia.

This research was unable to attribute a statistic to the actual proportion of students studying at Australian universities because of corruption issues, nor would this researcher have the tools and investigative skills to carry out such a research. Corruption has also seeped into Australian universities keen to balance their budgets through the funds provided by international students. Irregularities in recruitment by agents, plagiarisms and ghost-writers ensure that students graduate and the income stream from international students continues, according to Bretag (2016), Bochenski (2015), Besser et al., (2015), and ICAC (2015). Such practices come with their own risk.

4.9 CONCLUSION

This chapter explains the methodologies used to interrogate the main question of the research and the contributing questions. The full gamut of the methodologies includes research method, data sources, data validation and data interpretation, all of which have been justified in this chapter.

The value of any research is its relevance, reliability and credibility. The reputation of Professor Singh, and his assistant Dr. Han, provide integrity to the research. Relevance is provided by unique linking of corruption issues in China and Australia as a further motive for parents and students from China to choose Australia as a study destination. Chapter Five defines Australia’s reliance on international students and how government policy has been designed to maximise that benefit. Similar scenarios exist in Australia’s main competitors with the US, the UK, Canada, Japan and New Zealand framing policies to attract international students to their learning institutions. There is ample evidence (Olesen, 2016), that Chinese capital flight has benefited all these nations; most likely the accompanying corruption issues involved with university education in Australia also exist in the same countries.

The next chapter examines the government policies of the five countries mentioned above, and Australia, and analyses how these policies have moderated the international student market.