Philological Education as A Driver for Cross-cultural Collaboration in the Russian-Chinese Educational Context
Aida R. Nurutdinova （ Department of Contrastive Linguistics, Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan 420008, Russia ）
Ding Siyu （ 2 nd- year PhD Student, Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan 420008, Russia ）
Qiu Ciai （ 1 st-year MA Student, Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan 420008, Russia ）
https://doi.org/10.37155/2972-4856-0402-3Abstract
The deepening strategic partnership between Russia and China has intensified the need for educational models that foster genuine cross-cultural competence beyond surface-level linguistic proficiency. This paper argues that philological education (an integrated discipline of language, literature, and cultural interpretation) serves as a powerful yet underexplored driver for cross-cultural collaboration in the Russian-Chinese educational context. Employing a qualitative multiple-case study design, the research examines three bilateral educational initiatives involving philological curricula, faculty exchange, and joint research projects. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 24 educators and administrators, supplemented by document analysis of curricular frameworks and institutional agreements. The findings reveal that philologically grounded programs cultivate deeper intercultural empathy, create sustainable collaborative networks, and transform language learning into relational practice. Notably, such collaboration also demonstrated resilience as a form of “soft diplomacy”, sustaining institutional ties during periods of geopolitical tension. However, structural barriers (including divergent pedagogical traditions, asymmetrical language policies favoring English, and limited institutional flexibility) continue to hinder full integration. The study concludes that integrating philological approaches into international education strategies can transform language learning from transactional skill acquisition into a foundation for long-term cross-cultural partnership. Practical recommendations for curriculum design, institutional strategy, and educator development are discussed.
Keywords
Philological education; cross-cultural collaboration; Russian-Chinese educational cooperation; international education; intercultural competenceFull Text
PDFReferences
[2]．Chen L. The development of Sino-Russian joint universities: a case study of Shenzhen MSU-BIT University. Int High Educ. 2020;(102):44–6.
[3]．Safonova V. V. Philological education in the context of dialogue of cultures. J Lang Educ. 2018;4(2):47–58.
[4]．Wu H. From language to culture: reorienting Chinese–foreign educational exchange. Front Educ China. 2022;17(3):341–59.
[5]．Petrova E, Ivanov S. Language policy and international student mobility in Russian-Chinese educational cooperation. Eur J High Educ. 2023;13(1):72–88.
[6]．Gao J. Cross cultural adaptation of Chinese students in Russia: challenges and coping strategies. J Int Stud. 2019;9(4):108–25.
[7]．Tregubova E, Krylova N. Intercultural competence development in Russian-Chinese educational programs: a critical assessment. Cult Hist Psychol. 2022;18(3):85–93.
[8]．Byram M. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters; 1997.
[9]．Leontiev A. A. The concept of philology in Russian educational tradition. Moscow: Moscow State University Press; 2003.
[10]．Zhou X. The revival of philology in Chinese humanities education. Mod Chin Lit Cult. 2018;30(2):198–223.
[11]．Yin R. K. Case study research and applications: design and methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2018.
[12]．Stake R. E. Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2006.
[13]．Merriam S. B, Tisdell E. J. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. 4th ed. San Francisco (CA): Jossey Bass; 2016.
[14]．Patton M. Q. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2015.
[15]．Flyvbjerg B. Case study. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2011. p. 301–16.
[16]．Noy C. Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2008;11(4):327–44.
[17]．Kvale S, Brinkmann S. InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2015.
[18]．Brislin RW. The wording and translation of research instruments. In: Lonner WJ, Berry JW, editors. Field methods in cross cultural research. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage; 1986. p. 137–64.
[19]．Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J. 2009;9(2):27–40.
[20]．Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
[21]．Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 4th ed. London: Sage; 2021.
[22]．Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2018.
[23]．Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage; 1985.
[24]．Finlay L. “Outing” the researcher: the provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qual Health Res. 2002;12(4):531–45.
[25]．Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In: Richardson J, editor. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press; 1986. p. 241–58.
[26]．Dervin F. Interculturality in education: a theoretical and methodological toolbox. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016.
[27]．Bakhtin M.M. The dialogic imagination: four essays. Emerson C, Holquist M, translators. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press; 1981.
[28]．Gadamer H. G. Truth and method. Weinsheimer J, Marshall DG, translators. 2nd ed. London: Continuum; 2004.
[29]. Deardorff D. K. Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. J Stud Int Educ. 2006;10(3):241–66.
Copyright © 2026 Aida R. Nurutdinova, Ding Siyu, Qiu Ciai
Publishing time:2026-04-28
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License