“Every Piece Can Fit”: Understanding and Remedying Cultural Mismatches Between Chinese Diaspora Students and Advisors

Research shows that academic and career development, although important to all students, are especially connected to well-being and identity for Asian American students (Kodama et al., 2001; Ma, 2020). Furthermore, Asian students—particularly Chinese international students (Yan & Berliner, 2011)—perceive advisors as a crucial touchpoint to their HEI (Smith & Allen, 2006). Despite the importance of advising to Chinese students and their significant representation at U.S. HEIs (Zong & Batalova, 2019), limited literature exists on their HEI or advising experiences. Early literature relies on essentializing tropes (e.g., “model minority;” Kim et al., 2001) or studies Asian students as a monolith (Zhang & Dixon, 2001). Even when the literature moves beyond stereotypes or focuses on East Asian students, it still tends to oversimplify these students’ academic decision-making processes, over-emphasizing parental influence (Samura, 2015; Song & Glick, 2004), while neglecting other factors (e.g., financial security, peers) that also drive students’ decisions (Schell, 2022).

Even if advisors recognize diversity in students’ motivations, guidance on applying this understanding is limited. A meta-analysis of Asian American students’ academic development (Kodama & Huynh, 2017) and a guide on advising Chinese international students (Galinova & Giannetti, 2014) identify promising ways to translate knowledge of cultural differences into advising (e.g., coaching to help students develop cross-cultural competence). However, neither addresses aspects beyond the content of advice, such as effective delivery or expectations of the advising relationship. Moreover, except for Galinova and Giannetti’s (2014) individual perspectives as scholar-practitioners, these studies do not integrate advisors’ perspectives, a critical gap. Scholarship that relies solely on students’ perspectives neglects to account for the ways advisors’ perspectives shape the advice students receive or how advice is given.

Most studies focus on Asian American students’ advising experiences. Very few works (two books and six papers, according to Lin and Liu [2019]) isolate international students’ advising experiences, and even fewer concentrate specifically on Chinese international students. This literature highlights unique considerations for these students, such as language barriers and acculturation stress (Andrade, 2006; Galinova & Giannetti, 2014; Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002).

Recent literature on Chinese international students broadly notes changing demographics and the detrimental impact of COVID-19 on this population. An increasing number of Chinese international students are from less-resourced or rural backgrounds (Yan, 2017; Zhu, 2018). These students also reported significant upticks in anti-Chinese sentiment (Koo et al., 2023; Ma & Zhan, 2022; Tessler et al., 2020) since the pandemic’s onset. Together, these changes heighten the potential for acculturation stress, increasing students’ need for culturally responsive advising in turn.

Cultural mismatch theory (Stephens et al., 2012) argues that there are differences between institutional norms and the norms of students from underrepresented groups. Furthermore, students’ academic performance and well-being depend on an alignment between institutional and personal norms. Specifically, theories suggest mismatches between Chinese diaspora students and their advisors on three fronts.

Individualistic cultures (e.g., U.S.) typically prioritize the individual and emphasize self-directedness and independence. Collectivistic cultures (e.g., China) typically prioritize the family unit, value deference, and emphasize collaborative decision-making (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis et al., 1988). Clashes between individualistic and collectivistic decision-making have been shown to drive cultural mismatch (Schell, 2022; Stephens et al., 2012), but other explanations for this mismatch remain underexplored.

In the U.S., HEIs encourage students to explore various academic and extracurricular interests. At Chinese HEIs, where students enter majors based on college entrance examination scores, choice and exploration are neither expected nor encouraged (Liu, 2013). These differences are partially driven by cultural differences in perceptions of emerging adulthood. According to emerging adulthood theory (Arnett, 2000) as well as Erikson’s concept of psychological moratorium (Erikson, 1968), European American 18- to 24-year-olds are not seen as fully adult and do not identify as such. They are encouraged to use their undergraduate years to experiment with different roles and career paths. Conversely, Chinese 18- to 24-year-olds are perceived as adults and identify as such; their undergraduate experience is intended to prepare them for a career (Nelson et al., 2004). Such disparate expectations may create an environment where Chinese diaspora students feel pressured to explore when selecting courses, even if it feels unnatural or directionless.

Research on Tsai’s affect valuation theory (2007) found that, in European American contexts, displaying excited affect (e.g., passion) is expected, while in East Asian contexts, calm affect and measured communication are preferred. These cultural norms, known as a culture’s ideal affect (Tsai, 2007), have significant implications, such as perceptions of a leader’s competence based on their smile (Tsai et al., 2016). Consequently, advisors might expect Chinese diaspora students to demonstrate passion toward their academic pursuits when such intense positive affect is not highly valued by these students’ communities. Moreover, a Chinese diaspora student might perceive an advisor as less competent because of their excited affect.

Considering the scholarly gaps, this study incorporates the perspectives of students and advisors to answer the following research questions:

I purposefully chose selective Research 1 (R1) HEIs, as these institutions present the best opportunity to observe cultural mismatches in advising. Specifically, I analyzed two private and two public R1s on the East and West Coasts based on each school’s sizable population of Chinese diaspora students and varied advising approaches (i.e., professional staff at two, volunteer staff at one, and faculty members at one).

I gathered a cross-cultural sample of Chinese international, Chinese American, and European American first- and second-year undergraduates aged 18–20, an age range aligned with the shortened window of emerging adulthood in a Chinese context (Nelson et al., 2004). I included European American students (who may identify more with European American norms) as a comparison group to observe a spectrum of matched to mismatched advising experiences (illustrated in Figure 1). Participants were allowed to self-identify cultural backgrounds—a common practice in cultural psychology (Lu & Wan, 2018)—because it is important to understand how students perceive of their own background relative to cultural mismatch. I also recruited advisors who self-identified as European American and/or Asian American. Over a data collection period spanning April–May 2022, I interviewed 41 students and 33 advisors who fit participant demographic requirements (see Table 1).

I recruited participants via snowball sampling (Goodman, 1961), first reaching out to student organizations and advising offices to find participants who fit study requirements, and then letting the word of the study snowball. Students and advisors responded through an online form and were then directed to a demographic questionnaire and interview scheduling page.

Demographic questionnaire items for both students and advisors covered topics such as racial, ethnic, and gender identification; socioeconomic status; parental education; immigration status (if applicable); and exposure to diversity growing up. Chinese diaspora students also received all 12 items from the Marin et al. (1987) Short Acculturation Scale to determine the degree to which these students had acculturated to European American norms. As Berry’s (1997) acculturation theory suggests, greater levels of acculturation to European American norms may buffer students from more intense cultural mismatches with advisors.

After consenting to the study, participants completed semistructured interviews, as interviews are an ideal approach to gather individuals’ beliefs about their experiences (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Interviews ranged between 45 minutes and 55 minutes for advisors and 55 minutes and 65 minutes for students. All participants received $20 gift cards for their time. Both advisor and student interviews examined similar topics to understand convergence and divergence in both groups’ expectations of the advising relationship (as well as the reasons behind divergences). Interviews addressed: goal(s) for advising; expectations concerning the nature of advising (e.g., affect, logistics); and students’ academic decision-making processes (or advisors’ perceptions of those processes). Students answered additional questions regarding how their expectations of advising shifted over the academic year and reasons for those shifts.

After concluding data collection, separate codebooks for students (39 items) and advisors (28 items) were developed, with input from Chinese international colleagues, researchers, and advising professionals. These codebooks (Tables A1 and A2) included descriptive (e.g., “exploration”), interpretive (e.g., “desire for relationship”), categorical (“expectation type”), and in vivo (e.g., “advisor talk”) code types derived from the literature and interview transcripts. I refined my codebooks through testing them on a subset of 16 interviews and then double-coding all 74 interviews, documenting coding decision-making through analytic memoranda to enhance the validity and replicability of the analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Findings indicate cultural mismatches between advisors and Chinese diaspora students on the following fronts: definitions of autonomy; the amount of student voice expected in advising; the degree to which students should engage in academic exploration; the degree to which passion should motivate academic decisions; and the amount and type of socioemotional support in advising.

Advisors, many of whom were influenced by European American norms, often subscribed to individualistic expectations of decision-making. They encouraged students to focus on what they individually wanted to do and seldom asked questions about who else might be important to their decision-making. For example, Sandy, a professional advisor, described her approach to advising first-year students:

In contrast to this individualistic conception of autonomy, Chinese international and some Chinese American students made decisions in a more collectivistic manner, seeking input from stakeholders such as family. When advisors did not account for these stakeholders, Chinese diaspora students felt advice was “disconnected from their reality” or discounted important people in their lives. For some students, to involve parents in decision-making was to exercise autonomy, as they autonomously chose whose input to value. Carina, a Chinese American student, explained the significance of her parents’ perspectives:

Of course, not all students shared such positive experiences of parental involvement. A small, but notable, portion of Chinese diaspora students who wanted a more individualistic decision-making process or felt their wishes conflicted with their parents’ wishes, reported challenging parental interactions. Nonetheless, they perceived parental involvement as a nonnegotiable element in decision-making; advisors who encouraged these students to follow their desires, even if they differed from those of their parents, were considered “out of touch.” Gloria, a Chinese American student with a strained relationship to her parents, expressed frustrations with an advisor whom she considered unwilling to understand her situation:

When advisors focus only on the individual when supporting students who make decisions in a collectivistic manner, they risk being perceived as “invalidating” or “unhelpful.”

Advisors tended to expect students to lead the conversation, which proved daunting to some, particularly Chinese international and first-generation, low-income (FGLI) Chinese American students. This difference in expectations may arise from individualistic versus collectivistic expectations for engagement. Katie, a 1.5-generation Chinese American student, described her acculturation process in middle school adjusting to this individualistic style of engagement:

Different expectations of student voice may also stem from a developmental advising approach. Developmental advising entails encouraging “shared responsibility, allowing the student to take responsibility for [their] decisions and actions” (King, 2005, para. 4). It is currently the most popular advising approach, in contrast to traditional forms of “prescriptivist advising” (i.e., prescribing a course of action for students). However, this approach was developed in European American contexts (Drake et al., 2013), which may create mismatches when applied in non-European American contexts. Most advisors appeared to receive some developmentally based training. For instance, Rene, a volunteer advisor, described a typical first meeting:

For some Chinese American students, such as Katie, and most European American students, the idea of a class plan and prepared questions is feasible. Even the few European American students who did not have a clear plan entering college felt comfortable discussing themselves, their interests, and their goals. To some Chinese diaspora students, however, the student-led approach felt “overwhelming.” For example, Haley, a Chinese American student, described her discomfort with her advisor’s open-ended approach:

Haley and four other Chinese participants stopped seeing their advisors after initial meetings because she found the student-led nature of the process unhelpful. At the time of data collection, Haley had not been contacted again by her advisor.

Another cultural mismatch between advisors and their Chinese diaspora students was the amount of exploration advisors encouraged students to pursue as compared to the amount of exploration students wanted or felt prepared to pursue. When asked, “How do you perceive the role you play in your advisees’ college trajectories,” 31 out of 33 advisors’ responses related to exploration. For some advisors, their emphasis on exploration was rooted in European American cultural expectations of emerging adulthood, which encourages emerging adults to try different roles before stepping into their adult identities. Corey, a faculty advisor, described the critical role of exploration in his advising:

Although cultural expectations of emerging adulthood influenced advisors’ attitudes, the ideals of a liberal arts education also proved important. Linda, a faculty advisor, made an explicit connection between the goals of liberal arts and student exploration:

Many Chinese diaspora students responded to this encouragement with trepidation. Some, such as Gloria, bristled at the seemingly sudden expectation to explore, because their communities discouraged exploration. Other students were eager to explore, but with limited exposure to exploration, were unsure where to begin. Opal, a Chinese international student who chose to come to the U.S. for its liberal arts education, explained:

For FGLI students (including European American students), messaging around exploration proved especially fraught. In addition to the concerns mentioned above, these students felt financial pressure to reach the “end goal” of exploration. Andrea, a FGLI, Chinese American student, recounted her frustration with advisors who urged her to explore:

Although some advisors acknowledged the potential challenges of academic exploration, they often attributed them to institutional structures (e.g., the complexity of the course catalog), rather than considering different cultural valuations or lack of exposure to exploration. Few advisors provided scaffolding to help students navigate the exploration process, especially during students’ crucial first-year transition.

In line with theoretical work on the excited ideal affect in European American cultural contexts, advisors generally expected students to express passion or excitement about their academic decisions. Although they rarely used the word passion, advisors frequently referenced interest when discussing course exploration (c.f. Corey and Linda’s statements). Implicit messaging surrounding the ideal of passion in academic decision-making was prevalent throughout interviews, such as the following statement from Miranda, a professional advisor:

Messages about “find[ing] fulfillment” or passion were familiar to European American students and resonated with the motivations of students like Carl, who recounted that, “the overarching message I got through school was do something you’re passionate about, don’t worry about money or difficulty. If you’re passionate, it won’t be draining. That’s how I chose environmental science.”

For most Chinese international and some Chinese American students not from predominantly European American communities, these messages were perceived as unfamiliar, inauthentic, or (in the case of FGLI participants) coming from a place of socioeconomic privilege.

The final evidence of cultural mismatch concerned both the need for and type of socioemotional support. To some advisors, providing any nonacademic support went beyond the scope of their job, as Eamon, a faculty advisor, expressed:

In contrast, advisors who embraced discussing nonacademic topics, such as Lola (a professional advisor), received more referrals from students of color and/or FGLI students, many of whom were navigating complex cultural or financial questions alongside their academic ones. Some students even came from outside of Lola’s advising group (e.g., “this [Vietnamese] student called me and said, my friend told me to call you because you’re the best”). While one cannot infer causality from this study, the advisors who seemed to attract more marginalized advisees were those who provided holistic support.

More Chinese diaspora students wanted emotional or social support from their advisors as compared to their European American peers. In response to a question that asked students to rank forms of support from most to least important (i.e., academic, career, social/cultural, emotional, and one write-in option), Chinese international students more often listed emotional or social/cultural support among their top two (73%), as compared to 53% of their Chinese American and 36% of their European American peers. While a thorough explanation of these differences is beyond this study’s scope, Jennifer, a Chinese international student, suggests one reason:

Jennifer’s statement also calls attention to an important nuance in socioemotional support. Specifically, Chinese diaspora students often sought a different type of socioemotional support than advisors provided, if they provided socioemotional support at all. When asked about emotional or social support, multiple advisors described “talking students down” from high stress about grades and reminding them that their “GPA doesn’t matter that much,” rather than asking questions about students’ social lives or belonging. This approach to socioemotional support might work for some European American students, such as Amanda, who would likely perceive such questions as invasive (e.g., “I don’t need someone to hold my hand”). Conversely, Klara, a Chinese international student, perceived her advisor’s attempt to de-emphasize grades as unsupportive:

When reflecting on socioemotional support they received from advisors, Chinese diaspora students made a distinction between “real talk” versus “advisor talk,” in which the latter entailed advisors telling students not to worry about grades. Chinese diaspora students, many of whom came from schools in which grades were the only metric for evaluation, perceived this advice as extremely out of touch. Advisor talk often caused advisors to lose credibility with Chinese diaspora students and sullied advising relationships. In place of advisor talk, many Chinese diaspora students wanted support in navigating European American spaces and the xenophobia that could arise, especially post-COVID-19 (Jeung et al., 2021; Tessler et al., 2020).

To address RQ2, students with less exposure to European American norms more frequently experienced friction from institutional norms conflicting with their personal norms, as acculturation theories would suggest (e.g., Berry, 1997). While all Chinese diaspora students experienced some degree of mismatch, mismatches were most acute for Chinese international students, Chinese American students from predominantly Asian communities, Chinese American students newer to the U.S. (e.g., 1.5-generation), and Chinese diaspora students who concurrently were FGLI.

Even if unsurprising, this finding concerning the experiences of FGLI Chinese diaspora students warrants further attention. Scholarship often overlooks the experiences of FGLI Chinese diaspora students, relying on stereotypical representations of Chinese communities, with negative ramifications for these students. Andrea recalled trying to advocate for the same resources that her non-Asian FGLI peers received:

Matthias, another FGLI Chinese American student, noted that the gap between the support offered and needed was even more concerning at public universities, where there are fewer opportunities for students to rectify academic mistakes.

All advisors—professional, faculty, and volunteer staff—contributed to at least one cultural mismatch identified above. However, professional advisors were most adept at avoiding potential mismatches. They more frequently acknowledged that some students face different expectations from home because of their individual circumstances (e.g., culture, class); provided more scaffolding for students who might be less familiar with academic exploration; and modulated the type of support they provide (e.g., developmental vs. prescriptivist, academic vs. socioemotional) based on individual needs. Aliya, a professional advisor, explained how she works with students from different cultural backgrounds:

Aliya’s statement highlights this modulation process—utilizing preexisting knowledge of student communities, asking open-ended questions to make room for cultural differences (if there are any), and altering approaches as needed. More professional advisors engaged in this process than faculty or volunteer advisors.

Of the 33 advisors interviewed, only two identified as Asian. In addition, the only advisor who included factors such as “what you are good at” and “what will get you a job” in their model of students’ academic decision-making was the sole Chinese American advisor. Her model was different than almost all other advisors, who relied predominantly on enjoyment.

Having a shared cultural background or common experience may help create a cultural match for some Chinese diaspora students (e.g., by “being understood without explaining”). Nonetheless, Chinese diaspora advisees rarely expected a shared background with their advisors beyond academic interests. Some students, such as Marian, a Chinese international student, even noted a preference that their advisor not share their identities because they came to the U.S. specifically to gain exposure to other ways of seeing the world. Moreover, shared identity was not an essential prerequisite for culturally responsive advising, as many of the advisors who exercised the most culturally responsive advising for Chinese diaspora students were European American.

There are three main limitations of this study. First, the study only included students and advisors from R1 universities, which may not fully represent the experiences and needs of individuals at comprehensive state or two-year HEIs. Second, the study focused on Chinese diaspora students. However, other underrepresented student communities also experience cultural mismatches in advising, such as Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and FGLI students. Third, although my Mandarin fluency, extensive cultural study in China and Taiwan, and collaborations with Chinese diaspora communities ensured strong cross-cultural validity in the study’s design and analysis, I recognize that my positionality as a European American researcher may still have influenced participants’ responses and/or my interpretation of their responses.

Given these limitations, there are promising directions for future research. Future research could examine cultural mismatches in advising at other types of HEIs (e.g., comprehensive state universities, community colleges). It could also build on the scholarly framework in this study to investigate cultural mismatches for other underrepresented groups. The following section includes promising steps to improve the cultural responsiveness of advising for Chinese diaspora students; future research could implement these suggestions to evaluate their actual usefulness in improving the quality and responsiveness of advising.

These findings have many implications for advisors and administrators seeking to improve the cultural responsiveness of their HEI’s advising. All the advisor participants had excellent intentions, and some were already incorporating some of the approaches suggested.

At the start of advising, advisors should set expectations for the advising relationship with students, especially international students or those with FGLI backgrounds. Conversations could cover the following: the role of an advisor and types of questions students can ask; background on the liberal arts approach and reasons advisors or faculty may encourage exploration; the student’s identity and type of discourse that works best for them (e.g., advisor-led vs. student-led); and other stakeholders involved in the student’s decision-making. Regardless of their satisfaction with advising, students across all three groups indicated that clear expectations would have improved the quality and effectiveness of advising. Many of these topics can be covered through an advising syllabus—a tool NACADA recommends that enables advisors to outline institutional expectations and their personal advising approach with students (McKamey, 2007; Trabant, 2006).

Additionally, approaching advising through a dichotomy of developmental versus prescriptivist or exploration versus no exploration does not appear to serve many Chinese diaspora students well. Culturally responsive advising requires modulating advice to meet students at their baseline, which may not always align with institutional (or advisor) expectations. For students like Haley, who felt uncomfortable directing her advising conversation, offering a menu of questions (i.e., From these questions, what do you want to discuss?) allows students to drive the discussion, while still receiving support. In terms of exploration, advisors can similarly modulate the recommended level for each student based on the student’s familiarity and comfort with exploration. For example, Chinese diaspora students unfamiliar with exploration could explore with one course that also fulfills a requirement or in a more low-stakes environment (e.g., extracurriculars), which may encourage students to begin the exploration process without feeling overwhelmed or alienated.

Relatedly, advisors should provide more scaffolding around major exploration (e.g., helping students navigate the course handbook, creating a shopping plan, providing students with questions they can ask to understand different majors). As Chinese international student Jennifer noted, advisors should “walk with [students] first to show [them] the way.” Many students who had limited experience with academic exploration or were discouraged from such exploration felt as if they were “rudderless” when encouraged to explore.

Advisors should also consider providing nonacademic support (to the extent they are comfortable), recognizing that the format of such support may differ for European American versus Chinese diaspora students. Socioemotional support is especially important to the academic success of international students, students of color, or FGLI students (Museus, 2021). Given the aforementioned finding that de-emphasizing grades was perceived as “advisor talk,” advisors should inquire more broadly about students’ lives outside of class, which could allow areas for support to surface more authentically.

Although costly, investments in professional advising staff (or well-trained volunteer staff) will likely improve advising’s cultural responsiveness. While a diverse staff appears ideal, this study suggests it is even more critical to prioritize advisors’ training and motivation when advising these student populations. Advisors should work to gain an understanding of students’ cultural backgrounds and how those backgrounds create knowledge gaps or shape students’ HEI experiences differently. This level of awareness requires time, training, and motivation, which is easiest to cultivate in professional staff or, alternatively, motivated volunteer staff who have undergone rigorous training on the norms and experiences of their students. Although some faculty, including study participants, may have a strong motivation to advise, the demands of their faculty role do not always allow for the time or training required to advise well. Regardless of the types of advisors currently present at an HEI, administrators can help all advisors improve by integrating resources and workshops on cultural responsiveness into advisors’ training. This professional development can either come from within the HEI or from external resources (e.g., NACADA).

The goal of this study was to determine if cultural mismatches exist between advisors and their Chinese diaspora students. This study finds that Chinese diaspora students may experience cultural mismatches in advising and offers suggestions for advisors to improve their practice. The findings and recommendations from this study do not discount an advisor’s critical role in supporting students. Rather, they further underscore an advisor’s importance. By taking steps toward culturally responsive advising, advisors and HEIs can make meaningful progress toward better student support. Culturally responsive advising does not entail shifting personal or institutional norms to align with the norms of advisees. It does entail providing additional support as needed to help students understand, successfully navigate, and modify the norms of their new institution to support their personal values and goals.

I thank Dr. Amado Padilla, Dr. Patricia Gumport, Dr. Anthony Antonio, and Dr. Johnathon Paape for their guidance and expertise. I would also like to thank the many students and advisors who participated in my study or shared my call for study participants, as this work would be impossible without them. This work was supported by Stanford University’s Diversity Dissertation Research fellowship and the NACADA Research Grant.