Multidimensional meanings of studying abroad : international mobility experiences of Taiwanese joint dual doctoral program students in Belgium

Abstract

Promoting dual doctoral degree programs is a critical strategy adopted to not only internationalize Taiwan's higher education system but also improve the low enrollment rates in doctoral programs in the country. However, limited research attention has been paid to the experiences of Taiwanese students enrolled in dual degree programs. Therefore, the present study adopted a qualitative approach to explore the experiences of Taiwanese students enrolled in a Taiwanese-Belgian joint dual doctoral program. A total of seven Taiwanese students and Belgian scholars participated in this study. The findings indicated that all student informants intended to study abroad before deciding to participate in the joint dual doctoral program; however, due to time and money restrictions, they participated in the joint dual doctoral programs established by their home universities in Taiwan. This study highlighted that students were motivated to participate in international, cooperative doctoral programs because obtaining dual learning experiences at both domestic and overseas universities differentiated them from purely domestic doctoral students. In this manner, the experience of studying abroad enhances their unique value in the academic market. While studying abroad, intercultural communication, in addition to differences in doctoral training schemes and supervision styles, were vital challenges that affected student informants' learning experiences and adaptation to life. During this process, the students constructed their adaptation and negotiation strategies to address those challenges. These strategies made them (re)define and (re)confirm their academic positions and identities. However, the limited period for studying abroad reduced students' motivation to participate and engage in local activities and establish social networks with local residents and friends in the host society. Moreover, the public and academic colleagues' limited understanding of the joint dual doctoral program may not only negatively affect students' academic mobility in terms of obtaining positions in the academic market but also influence prospective students' willingness to participate in such programs. Moreover, this study provides constructive suggestions for the development of joint dual doctoral programs on the basis of students' own practical experiences. Finally, the study's limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.