A Theory of Contemporary Rhetoric (21 page)

The aims of the research presented in the present chapter are to examine this assumption, asking the following questions: to what extent is it justifiable to suggest that the models of argumentation and rhetoric are different between East and West? Are the differences, if they exist, one of product or process? Are there similarities in approach?

These questions are addressed by reviewing existing research by Watkins and Biggs (1996), Andrews (2007, 2010), and others; by examination of new written texts; and by the undertaking of in-depth interviews. Furthermore, cultural assumptions are examined, leading to questions of how the postgraduate learner sees him- or herself in terms of developing and using argumentational skills. The research situates itself within multilingual rhetorical theory, which takes as its starting point that social and political notions of identity and practice manifest themselves through writers/composers and do so in different languages and cultures. The sub-strands to which the chapter would lend itself are intercultural communication and teaching and learning from a cultural perspective.

The findings suggest that students from east Asia have more in common with their Western counterparts than has been assumed and that such commonalities include a desire to reach the “truth” of the matter through intellectual enquiry, whether that truth be objective knowledge or post-modernist in nature; a common understanding of what good argumentation looks like as a
product
; and a desire for success in academic inquiry
through argumentation
. Differences are more likely to occur in
processes
and approaches to argumentation, including a deductive as opposed to an inductive approach, some degree of difference between explicit and implicit argumentation, and different notions of what it means to be “critical.” Differences are noted within approaches in the West (e.g., between U.S. and UK approaches to argument), which may also exist within east Asia, thus suggesting that a simple East/West divide is neither accurate nor appropriate.

The number of students who study abroad for the whole or part of their undergraduate and/or postgraduate studies continues to increase at a rate of 12% (BBC 2012). Although figures are hard to quantify and to validate, UNESCO statistics for 2009 show that international students rose from 2.96 million to 3.43 million over a year. The measures are many and varied, but the overall estimate from UNESCO suggests that numbers of overseas students have risen by more than 75% since 2000. Currently, the most popular destinations for students are the USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia—in other words, there is a migration from developing econo-mies to so-called Western countries with highly developed undergraduate and postgraduate provision.

The largest exporter of overseas students is China. In 2010, there were 284,000 Chinese students abroad; in 2011, that figure had risen to 440,000. Current estimates are that, in total (given that the increasing trend is for Chinese students to stay abroad), there are somewhere in the region of 1.27 million Chinese studying overseas. However, there is also an increasing trend for Chinese students to return to China after their studies. In 2011, for example, 186,200 Chinese students returned home by the end of 2011, an increase of 38% on 2010's figures. In addition to this rising figure of returning students, China is planning to rapidly increase the number of overseas students coming into China, with an ambitious plan of 500,000 places. One can see in these plans a wish to match the flow of exporting students (440,000 in 2011) to the number of students coming into the country. The reason for the increase in returning students, and the planned increase of overseas students in China, is to ensure that China increases the quality of its intellectual firepower and that the economy continues to internationalize; that, in short, its knowl-edge economy does not fall behind that of the West and that there is no “brain drain” from the country.

The UK, on the other hand, is a bigger importer than exporter of students—it is the second biggest destination for overseas students, after the United States. Figures released from the British Council in 2011, how-ever, show that there are more overseas students taking UK degrees in their own countries than traveling to the UK to study. In 2011, there were 340,000 students taking UK courses in their home countries, either through partnerships between UK and local universities or through
branch campuses. More than 150 branch campuses are open in 50 countries, mostly by U.S. universities. Furthermore, online degrees can only increase the numbers of students living in one country, but registering for a degree in another. The University of London International Programmes, for example, have been running in one form or another since 1858 and currently register 50,000 students in 190 countries for the University's degrees.

There are thus three kinds of international student: (1) those who travel overseas to register for a full-time program; (2) those who register over-seas but who study in their own country; and (3) those who undertake online distance programs.

The cultural assumptions of international students are often underestimated. In particular, the academic conventions of the host countries in relation to the expectations and practices of overseas students are an area where there can be problems, or at the very least, a period of induction and transition is required so that the expectations of the host institution can be met by the overseas student, and vice-versa.

At the cutting edge of student experience is how to compose academic argument. Success in Western universities, in all disciplines (though manifested in different ways), is predicated upon the ability to argue a case by taking a particular stand on an issue, or simply to argue academically by weighing up the pros and cons of a situation (see Andrews 2010). Although the criterion of argumentation in the assessment of student essays and other forms of assignment is not always explicitly stated, it is always there—at undergraduate, postgraduate, and research degree levels. That criterion can be best represented, in general terms, as the ability to present a coherent argument, that is, to present a logical or quasi-logical set of propositions or claims, to support these with evidence and/ or with intellectual (abstract) justification, and, through the combination of statement and proof, to put forward a proposition and stand by it.

The ability to argue is also closely connected to criticality in students' work. Criticality manifests itself in a number of ways (Andrews 2007), all of which are essential to success and which help to sharpen and develop argumentational skills. These include weighing up one source against another; developing a logical or quasi-logical sequence of ideas; testing the propositions against evidence, and, furthermore, questioning the relationship between propositions and evidence according to the “war-rant” (Toulmin 2003) that validates the relationship; developing one's own “position” on a topic; operating via a skeptical intellectual approach rather than by compliance or deference to existing ideas and/or to lecturers, professors, and other “authorities”; and not taking the “truth” for
granted, but questioning accepted truths in order to reach a higher and more accurate sense of the truth of a case.

What is often missing from debates about rhetoric, argumentation, and criticality is the question of intercultural influence and emphasis. In the present chapter, attention turns to the East Asian learner and how he/she deals with the expectations of the Western conventions of argumentation and criticality. In order to do so, we will first look at existing research on the Confucian-heritage learner, then compare three East Asian doctoral students with three European doctoral students to see how rhetoric, argumentation, and criticality manifest themselves in their work.

A significant publication, emanating from the Comparative Education Research Centre at the University of Hong Kong (Watkins and Biggs 1996), suggested that the success of Southeast and East Asian students in Western academic contexts was a matter not only of hard work based on a strong work ethic, as well as competence in achieving proficiency in English, but also of the adaptability of such students to “read” the demands of Western academic conventions and practices. Such conventions and practices can be characterized as having developed from a personal-psychological model to a socio-constructivist model. That is to say, there is a core of personal development theory at the heart of approaches to learning and studying in the West, but that core has been developed in the twentieth century by a strong sense that learning is not only personal and “psychological,” but an effect of community; a socially generated act; a social, political, as well as personal transformational process. To link this model of learning with the previous section on rhetoric, argumentation, and criticality, it is not enough, in the West, to learn “facts” or to make measurable advances in relation to interventions within a psychological paradigm. Rather, learning in the West is defined by a complex interaction between deduction and induction; between the development of new ideas and propositions in relation to evidence; and via engagement, critique, and debate. In a mistaken deficit approach, some Western academics have assumed that, because East Asian learners do not share the Greco-Roman origins of rhetoric, argumentation, and criticality in European and Western thought, they are somehow “deficient” in being able to argue, to be critical, and to attain the highest grades in academic assignments.

Lee Wing On (1996) presents the East Asian Confucian perspective with a caveat that, although “east Asian societies such as China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea and Japan share an obvious Confucian tradition” (26), it cannot be taken for granted that the presentation of Confucian ethics and practices is the same in all of these countries. We
know, too, from a recently successful PhD at the Institute of Education, University of London (Zhu 2012), that Confucian thinking itself is highly contentious within East Asia and that, within China itself, Confucius goes in and out of favor according to the political climate. Nevertheless, the Confucian influence in East Asia is considerable, particularly in terms of higher education approaches. Lee Wing On points out that the “Confucian tradition is characterized by discourse and debate on learning—why learning is significant and how it is to be carried out” (27). Among the tenets of Confucian thinking are that everyone is educable, that motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) is more important than innate intelligence, that “everyone can be come a sage” and attain a degree of perfectability through effort, and that reaching a purely rational state of being, to be applied in decision making in the world to the moral betterment of the self and society, is a worthy goal. The important aspect to note with regard to the discussion of rhetoric, argumentation, and criticality is that Confucian approaches suggest that learning must be “deep”; in other words, surface approaches to learning are to be the subject of critique. Self- and public knowledge of the truth comes from deep reflection on propositions and existing states of knowledge. More specifically, with regard to reflective thinking, “we should not take for granted that what one reads is correct. We should suspend our judgement for the time being, then read more in order to gain a new view” (On 1996, 35, in citing the work of Zhu Xi). The sequence of learning consists of memorizing, understanding, reflecting, and questioning—not just of memorizing or close reading. Indeed, the supposed emphasis on memorization in East Asian learning is a chimera—first, it is not possible, given the information explosion; and second, it is often misunderstood, and refers principally to the initial and close engagement with “reading.”

Are there significant differences between Western approaches to rhetoric and argumentation on the one hand, and East Asian on the other? If these differences exist, are they principally matters of product or process? Are there similarities in approach that are masked behind the apparent surface quest for difference between West and East?

In order to examine the question of whether it is justifiable to suggest that the models of rhetoric and argumentation are culturally different, a small research study looked in depth at the work of six successful doctoral students: three from Europe and three from China. While this sample is small and opportunistic, the study was in-depth and consisted of three elements: a close examination of the supervision and examination of the students, a study of their final dissertations, and interviews with all six. The limitations of this study are evident: it is small in scale, all the degrees were examined and awarded in English universities (Exeter and the Institute of Education, University of London), and the field is Education studies. It is therefore intended as an initial study that might
lead to larger scale comparative and international work on doctoral the-sis composition from a perspective of rhetorical, argumentational, and “critical” concerns.

All six students agreed to having their work cited in this chapter, so we can be explicit about their work. They are outlined in
Table 8.1
.

First, it can be said that there is little or no difference between the awarding universities. Both have a set of criteria for the award of PhD that includes the following: that it makes a distinct contribution to

Table 8.1
Research Students and Their Theses