Mapping the Landscape: How Literature Informs My Study on China–PNG Higher Education Relations

A well-developed literature review is the foundation of any research project. In my study, which investigates how China’s Higher Education Exchange Programs (HEEPs) influence Sino-PNG relations, the literature serves a dual purpose. First, it provides the theoretical grounding—mainly soft power and education diplomacy—to frame the research. Second, it identifies empirical and policy gaps that justify the study. The literature not only supports my main research question but also helps address each of the three supporting questions. This review draws on academic literature and regional case studies spanning diplomatic theory, international education, and PNG’s foreign policy.

Photo courtesy of Lake Media, showing me concluding my PhD confirmation seminar and taking notes of audience questions and comments, alongside Professor Maretta Kula-Semos, Professor of Humanities and Director of Higher Degrees.
 
The first category of literature addresses soft power and educational diplomacy, which anchors the theoretical framework of the study. Joseph Nye’s seminal work on soft power (1990, 2012) defines it as the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce. He emphasizes the role of culture, political values, and foreign policies in influencing other states. Education diplomacy is identified in the literature as a key soft power tool, allowing countries like China to cultivate goodwill through scholarships, training programs, and cultural exchanges (Ostashova, 2020; Liu & Hutt, 2021). These works inform the overall objective of my research by highlighting the conceptual links between education and foreign policy influence.

The second category deals with the internationalization of Chinese higher education, particularly how it has evolved into a deliberate foreign policy strategy. Scholars like Lo and Pan (2021) and Wu (2024) argue that China’s global expansion in higher education—through scholarships, Confucius Institutes, and bilateral agreements—is part of a broader state-led push to enhance international visibility and legitimacy. These insights are crucial to answering my first supporting question on the nature and scope of HEEPs by explaining the origins, logic, and expansion of the Chinese Government Scholarship Programs (CGSPs), Chinese Language Programs (CLPs), and Public Sector Training Programs (PSTPs).

Next, regional and country-specific case studies—including those from the Pacific and beyond—add empirical depth. For instance, Gauttam et al. (2021) examine how China used education diplomacy to build influence in Nepal, while Zhang and Marinaccio (2019) map out CGSP allocation across the Pacific, confirming PNG’s leading position. These case studies demonstrate how China tailors its programs to regional contexts, which is critical in analyzing the political and cultural effects of HEEPs on PNG, as raised in my second supporting question about their influence on PNG’s foreign policy.

A fourth category includes PNG-specific literature on foreign policy and higher education. Mitna (2018), Wolfers and Dihm (2009), and Hayes (2024) offer a historical overview of PNG’s diplomatic positioning, from Universalism to Active and Selective Engagement. Lawihin (2022), Hualupmomi (2015), and Baird and Kula-Semos (2018) examine the internationalization of higher education in PNG, providing a local context for understanding how Chinese education diplomacy fits into the national agenda. This literature directly supports both the main question and the third supporting question on the overall impact of HEEPs on bilateral relations.

The fifth body of work covers China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and how it incorporates education as a tool of influence. Peters and Zhu (2021) and Perez-Garcia and Nierga (2021) discuss how the BRI includes higher education partnerships as part of its multidimensional engagement strategy. These sources reveal how China integrates education with economic and diplomatic goals, enhancing the explanatory power of soft power theory in a globalized context. This helps contextualize why China invests so heavily in education diplomacy in countries like PNG.

Some literature also touches on participant perceptions and program effectiveness, which will guide the analysis of my survey and interview data. For example, Han and Tong (2021) explore the transformative effect of education on foreign students' views of China. Ye and Xia (2020) assess policy trends in China’s international education strategy, while Zhao et al. (2023) provide insights into student adaptation to Chinese culture. These studies are relevant to my exploration of how HEEPs shape PNG participants' attitudes toward China and how these in turn influence bilateral ties.

Gaps in the literature are also clear. Few studies offer a systematic assessment of how HEEPs affect PNG's diplomatic positioning or explore variations across participant types—such as self-sponsored students, district scholarship recipients, or PSTP alumni. This is precisely the contribution my research seeks to make. By combining survey and interview data from various participant groups, my study will help bridge the empirical gap between soft power theory and on-the-ground realities in the PNG context.

In sum, the literature provides a strong foundation for answering the main research question and all three supporting questions. It frames HEEPs as tools of Chinese soft power, contextualizes their operation within both China’s international strategy and PNG’s foreign policy, and offers relevant case comparisons. At the same time, it reveals a lack of research on how diverse PNG participant experiences shape these dynamics, underscoring the significance of my study.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

FPA: Organizational Process Model

Allison's rational actor model