From Broad to Specific: How One Survey Question Evolved to Improve My Research

-

When I designed the pilot survey for my PhD project in late 2024, one of the most important questions was also one of the simplest: Which Chinese Higher Education Exchange Program have you participated in or are you currently participating in? This was listed as Question 10 in the pilot and served a critical function—it allowed me to identify which program each participant had joined: the Chinese Government Scholarship Program (CGSP), Chinese Language Program (CLP), Public Sector Training Program (PSTP), or “Other.” At the time, it was a broad but essential tool to classify responses because all 30 invited participants received the same link. No group-specific links were used.

Question 10 from the pilot survey used broad program categories. Feedback from participants suggested the need for more specific distinctions to reflect the growing diversity of PNG-China education pathways.

 
While the structure seemed sufficient at first, feedback from the 20 participants who completed the pilot revealed an opportunity for improvement. One respondent contacted me directly and advised that the program categories could be better defined—suggesting a distinction between different scholarship types and training programs. They pointed out that collecting data from a broader range of participants—including those who were self-sponsored or supported by PNG’s district or national scholarship initiatives—would make the findings more meaningful. This advice highlighted the limitations of the original categories and encouraged a more inclusive and nuanced approach.

In the main survey, launched on April 2, 2025, Question 8 replaced the original with a detailed list of 13 distinct program types. These include subcategories within CGSP (e.g., Bilateral Program, MOFCOM Scholarship, Youth of Excellence Scheme), CLPs (e.g., UoG, UoT, Confucius Institute, and military-based programs), and PSTPs (e.g., in health, defense, or special economic zones). To avoid an overly long list, an “Other” option was retained, allowing participants to write in their specific program—particularly those who are self-sponsored, district-sponsored, or recipients of PNG’s STEM scholarships. This preserved clarity while ensuring broad coverage.

This redesign significantly improved the survey’s inclusiveness and usability. Participants can now select or describe the path that best reflects their experience, regardless of how they were supported. It acknowledges the growing complexity of educational exchanges—where PNG citizens engage with China’s education system through a variety of entry points, including formal diplomacy, national development strategies, and private sector partnerships.

To reflect these realities, the main survey was launched using seven group-specific links. The first group targeted PNG students currently studying in China, regardless of whether they are funded through the CGSP, the STEM program, district scholarships, or self-funding. The alumni group was designed to include all PNG citizens who had studied or trained under Chinese education initiatives—including those who completed degree programs at Chinese universities, as well as short-term training or professional development programs in China or PNG, offered through government ministries or private organizations such as Huawei. This comprehensive definition ensures the data reflects the full landscape of China-PNG educational cooperation.

While these tailored links helped to streamline participant entry, Question 8 continued to play a key internal verification role. If a participant accessed the wrong link, their selected program could be used during the data cleaning phase to accurately assign them to the appropriate group. This safeguards the integrity of the analysis without compromising access or participation. 

In response to pilot feedback, Question 8 in the main survey introduced detailed subcategories and an open “Other” field—capturing programs sponsored by China, PNG, districts, or private agencies.

This evolution of a single question has opened up more meaningful analytical possibilities. With this richer dataset, I will be able to explore whether perceptions and impacts differ between those who studied for degrees, those who underwent short-term training, and those sponsored through newer channels like PNG’s district development grants. This supports my research objective of understanding how China’s Higher Education Exchange Programs—broadly defined—are influencing both people-to-people ties and PNG’s foreign policy orientation.

The process also reinforced a broader lesson in research design: participant feedback is not just useful—it’s essential. A single thoughtful message from a pilot participant reshaped how I approached the survey’s structure. It reminded me that good research listens, adapts, and evolves—not only in theory, but in practice.

What began as a simple classification exercise has become a more powerful and inclusive tool for understanding PNG’s engagement with China’s education diplomacy. Question 8 now stands as one of the most important elements in my survey—not just for data cleaning, but for telling the full story of how educational cooperation is shaping PNG–China relations in all its complexity.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FPA: Organizational Process Model

-
This model centers on the fact that different bureaucracies have different standard operating procedures. These procedures are made in order to allow day to day operations to be carried out. Thus, a foreign policy decision is made based on these standard operating procedures. It is hard for a bureaucracy to make a decision or let alone function out of character or contrary to their standard operating procedure. The reading Chapter 4: Foreign policy shares a straight forward explanation of the OPM: "An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department everyday receives more than a thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a ...
Read more

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

-
Image
Liberal internationalism is defined by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, p.190) as a project to transform international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies. The same scholars go further by dividing liberalism into three distinct groups. They say these are the three ways to implement the project. The way they present liberal internationalism as a project makes their work interesting. Three distinct groups Firstly, commercial liberalism is about free trade between states. States bilaterally or multilaterally via a platform like APEC pursue the goal of trade liberalization. Griffiths, O'Callagahan and Roach (ibid.) argued that economic interdependence would decrease the likelihood of going to war. Republican liberalism is about democratic peace. The scholars argued that the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to their citizens makes it di...
Read more

Allison's rational actor model

-
There are 3 common models of foreign policy decision making according to Graham Allison: rational actor model organizational process mode government politics model.  We will discuss the 3 models and compare them with the 3 levels of analysis. However, I challenge you to use your own initiative to learn about the other models of decision making. This will help you as future decision makers or analysts to understand how decisions are made and the processes. When one wakes up from bed he or she decides whether or not to brush their teeth, comb their hair and have a shower. These decisions are paramount, they affect and influence how the individual interacts in a social setting. This highlights the fact that as human beings we make decisions every day. Decision making is defined as the thought process of selecting a logical choice from the available options. In the case of the ‘Kibung peles boy’ analogy; the male student had a choice of approaching the girl to ask he...
Read more