“This volume explores important topics pertaining to international student

wellbeing, their learning, post-­study and socio-­cultural experiences, and

represents a fascinating contribution to the growing body of literature on
higher education internationalization.”
—­Maia Chankseliani, Associate Professor of Comparative and
International Education, University of Oxford, UK

“A comprehensive account of international student experiences and

backgrounds from multiple perspectives, this book fills a void in
articulating how higher education is strengthened and enriched by the
diversity and multiculturalism international students have brought to
campuses while addressing the actions needed to provide better services
to support, nurture, and ensure their success.”
—­Prof. Dr. Jun Liu, Vice Provost for Global Affairs, Stony Brook
University, USA

“This collection of original case studies offers a refined understanding

of the journeys and experiences of international students within the
complex social dynamics of living and learning from the classroom and
campus life to the local, national, and global communities. The insightful
analyses with academic rigor make these fascinating stories a compelling
reading. The book will be of interest to scholars, especially those in
comparative and international education, students, administrators, and
staff managing international student offices in different contexts.”
—­Prof. Dr. N’Dri Assié-­Lumumba, Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York, USA and President of the World Council of Comparative
Education Societies (WCCES)

“Global Perspectives on International Student Experiences in Higher

Education is timely and very relevant during such uncertain times for
our country and profession. As a senior international officer, I am often
researching model practices and varying perspectives at the intersection of
diversity and internationalization. Krishna and the contributing authors
do a great job addressing a spectrum of challenges and opportunities for
international students enrolled in higher education institutions across the
world.”
—­Dr. Jewell Winn, Executive Director for International Affairs and
Senior International Officer, Affairs Tennessee State University, USA

“The airport exit lounge is a proven gateway to excitement, adventure,

and learning the unexpected. In this impressive collection, Bista and
colleagues demonstrate why tackling the difficulties, satisfactions, and
surprises of learning about foreign cultures is usually a life-­changing
event.”
—­Prof. Dr. Roger Boshier, University of British Columbia, Canada

“An authoritative book that offers a detailed examination of the contextual

influences on international student identities and learning experiences.
The compelling empirical perspectives of international student wellbeing
and post-­study experiences make a scholarly and critical contribution to
furthering our understanding of the complexities faced by international
students in their educational journeys. An essential reading for anyone
concerned with and committed to enhancing international student
experience.”
—­Dr. Namrata Rao, Liverpool Hope University, UK

“Global Perspectives on International Student Experiences in Higher

Education: Tensions and Issues is the first book to systematically look
at the challenges and issues involved for both international students and
their hosts. The focus for universities has been on recruitment rather than
on structural and programmatic changes that would help both students
and hosts to prevent difficulties during their stay abroad.
—­Dr. Ratna Ghosh, Distinguished James McGill Professor and
W. C. Macdonald Professor of Education, McGill University,
Canada; Past-President, Comparative and International Education
Society (CIES)

“Important addition to empirical research on student experiences. Highly

recommended to international higher education practitioners.”
—­Markus Laitinen, President, European Association for
International Education (EAIE)
Global Perspectives on
International Student Experiences
in Higher Education

Global Perspectives on International Student Experiences in Higher

Education examines a wide range of international student experiences
empirically from multiple perspectives that include sociocultural identities,
contextual influences on students’ learning experiences, their wellbeing
experiences, and their post-­study experiences.
This collection sheds light on the more than five million students who
cross geographical, cultural, and educational borders for higher education
outside of their home countries. This book consists of nineteen chapters
spread across four parts. Throughout the book, contributors question
the existing assumptions and values of international student programs
and services, and reexamine and explore new perspectives to present the
emerging challenges and critical evaluations of student experiences and
their identities.
Offering a rich understanding of these students and their global college
experiences in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and the Americas, this
book offers research-­ based strategies to effectively recruit, engage,
support, and retain international students as they participate in higher
educational settings around the world. This book provides resource
material to benefit educators, policymakers, and staff who work closely
with international students in higher education.

Krishna Bista is Associate Professor in the Department of Advanced

Studies, Leadership and Policy at Morgan State University, Maryland.
Routledge Research in Higher Education

Graduate Careers in Context

Research, Policy and Practice
Fiona Christie and Ciaran Burke

Narratives of Marginalized Identities in Higher Education

Inside and Outside the Academy
Santosh Khadka, Joanna Davis-­McElligatt and Keith Dorwick

Counternarratives from Women of Color Academics

Bravery, Vulnerability, and Resistance
Manya C. Whitaker and Eric Anthony Grollman

The Importance of Equity in Writing Instruction

Critiquing the Community College Composition Classroom
Edited by Renee DeLong, Taiyon J. Coleman, Kathleen Sheerin DeVore,
Shannon Gibney, Michael C. Kuhne, and Valerie Déus

Conversations on Embodiment Across Higher Education

Teaching, Practice and Research
Edited by Jennifer Leigh

Virtue and the Quiet Art of Scholarship

Reclaiming the University
Anne Pirrie

Global Perspectives on International Student Experiences in Higher

Education
Tensions and Issues
Edited by Krishna Bista

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.

com/­Routledge-­Research-­in-­Higher-­Education/­book-­series/­RRHE
Global Perspectives on
International Student
Experiences in
Higher Education
Tensions and Issues

Edited by Krishna Bista

First published 2019
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an
informa business
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
The right of Krishna Bista to be identified as editor of this work
has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78
of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloguing-­in-­Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-­1-­138-­08050-­8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-­1-­315-­11345-­6 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents

About the Editorx

About the Contributorsxi
Acknowledgmentsxvii
Forewordxx
CHRIS R. GLASS, PHD

1 Exploring the Field: Understanding the International

Student Experience 1
KRISHNA BISTA

PART I
Sociocultural Experiences: Recognizing International
Student Identities 17

2 Seeing International Students as Students: Changing

Institutional Classification, Identity, and Stereotype 19
DAVID STARR-­G LASS

3 Examining Two Queer International Students’

Experiences of Culture Shock 33
ANTONIO DURAN AND JENNIFER THACH

4 Concepts of Friendship Among Chinese International

Students 47
AMANDA E. BRUNSON

5 ‘I Just Want to Be Equal With the Other Native

Students’: How International Students in England
Experience Routine Normalization 60
ANETA HAYES
viii Contents
6 Reconciling Multiple Identities: Experiences of
International Undergraduate Students in the United States 72
YI MENG, MARAKI KEBEDE, AND CHAO SU

7 Undergraduate Chinese International Students’

Perceptions About Their Classroom Identities,
Memberships, and Invisible Engagement 93
GABRIELA VALDEZ

8 An Analysis of Acculturative Stress, Sociocultural

Adaptation, and Satisfaction Among International
Students 108
HAJARA MAHMOOD AND MONICA GALLOWAY BURKE

PART II
Contextual Influences on International Student
Learning Experiences123

9 International Students’ Experiences Developing

Leadership Capacity on Host Campuses 125
DAVID H. K. NGUYEN

10 Is There a Difference? International Students in

Community Colleges 144
HUGO GARCIA, JON MCNAUGHTAN, DUSTIN EICKE,
XINYANG LI, AND MI-­C HELLE LEONG

11 International Undergraduates Reported for Academic

Integrity Violations: Is English Deficiency a Predictor
Variable? 157
BARRY FASS-­H OLMES AND ALLISON A. VAUGHN

12 The Study Abroad Motives of Australian University

Students 178
STEVE NERLICH

13 Headbump or Headway? American Students’

Engagement With Their International Peers on Campus 192
UTTAM GAULEE
 Contents ix
PART III
Rethinking International Student Wellbeing Experiences211

14 Rethinking Student Wellbeing Experiences: The Coping

Strategies of Black-­African International Students 213
DENIS HYAMS-­S SEKASI AND ELIZABETH FRANCES CALDWELL

15 International Students’ Mental Health: An Australian

Case Study of Singaporean Students’ Perceptions 228
JIAMIN GAN AND HELEN FORBES-­M EWETT

16 Determinants of Mental Health for Problematic Behaviors

Among International Students in the United States 243
AMIR BHOCHHIBHOYA AND PAUL BRANSCUM

PART IV
International Student Post-­Study Experiences257

17 Post-­Graduation Plans of International Students 259

HEIKE C. ALBERTS

18 International Students’ Experiences in the U.S. Workforce:

Gender Differences in Labor Market Outcomes 273
MARIA ADAMUTI-­T RACHE

19 International Students as a Vulnerable Army of Workers:

Work Experience and Workplace Treatment 289
LY TRAN AND SRI SOEJATMINAH

Index304
About the Editor

KRISHNA BISTA is Associate Professor in the Department of Advanced

Studies, Leadership and Policy at Morgan State University, Maryland.
His research focuses on college student experiences related to class-
room participation, faculty-­student relationships, and cross-­cultural
teaching and learning strategies in higher education. Previously, Dr.
Bista served as the director of Global Education at the University of
Louisiana at Monroe, where he was Chase Endowed Professor of Edu-
cation in the School of Education. Dr. Bista is the Founding Editor-­
in-­Chief of the Journal of International Students, a quarterly publi-
cation on international education. Dr. Bista serves on the editorial
review boards of several professional publications. He has reviewed
book projects related to educational research as well as international
and comparative education series for Routledge, Sage, Palgrave Mac-
millan, and Bloomsbury publications. He is the recipient of the 2017
best book award from the Comparative and International Education
Society Higher Education SIG. His recent books include (w/­Foster):
Campus Support Services, Programs, and Policies for International
Students, Exploring the Social and Academic Experiences of Inter-
national Students in Higher Education Institutions, and Global Per-
spectives and Local Challenges Surrounding International Students.
E-­mail: [email protected]
About the Contributors

MARIA ADAMUTI-­TRACHE is Professor in the Department of Edu-

cational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Texas at
Arlington. She has a PhD in higher education and extensive experience
in quantitative research. Her research area includes higher education,
sociology of education, economics of education, science education,
and immigration studies with a focus on social inequality generated by
gender, race/­ethnicity, immigrant status, social class, disability. E-­mail:
[email protected]
HEIKE C. ALBERTS is Professor of Geography at the University of
Wisconsin-­Oshkosh. She was an international student in Canada,
France, and the United States. Now that she is international faculty,
she researches the migration intentions of international students in the
United States. E-­mail: [email protected]
AMIR BHOCHHIBHOYA is Assistant Professor at Lander University.
He completed his Ph.D. in Health and Exercise Science and M.S.
in Health Promotion from the University of Oklahoma. He also
received his Masters of Business Administration from the Oklahoma
State University. His research interest includes understanding various
health behaviors and its impact among international students. E-­mail:
[email protected]
PAUL BRANSCUM is Associate Professor in the College of Education,
Health & Society at Miami University in Oxford, OH. He earned his
B.S. in Human Nutrition/­Dietetics and an M.S. in Nutrition from the
Ohio State University and his Ph.D. in Health Promotion and Educa-
tion from the University of Cincinnati. His main research focus is in
the area of nutrition and childhood obesity prevention. He has pub-
lished over sixty peer-­reviewed journal articles and co-­authored two
books. E-­mail: [email protected]
AMANDA E. BRUNSON holds a doctorate in higher education admin-
istration and a certificate in qualitative research methods from the Uni-
versity of Alabama. She also earned a master’s in English as a Second
xii About the Contributors
Language from the same institution. She is currently an instructor at
the University of Delaware. E-­mail: [email protected]
MONICA GALLOWAY BURKE, PhD, is Associate Professor in the
Department of Counseling and Student Affairs at Western Kentucky
University. Her research and teaching focus on topics related to stu-
dent affairs, diversity, counseling and helping concepts, self-­care,
student development, and professional development and practice in
student affairs. E-­mail: [email protected]
ELIZABETH FRANCES CALDWELL, PhD, FHEA, received her PhD
from University College London. She is currently an Academic Skills
Tutor at the University of Huddersfield, UK. Her research interests
center around the theory and practice of higher education, including the
experiences of international students. E-­mail: [email protected]
ANTONIO DURAN is a doctoral student in The Ohio State University’s
Higher Education and Student Affairs program. Antonio identifies as
a queer, Latinx cisgender man with experience working at LGBTQ
Centers at institutions with a large international student demographic.
His primary research interests center on queer identities in higher edu-
cation. E-­mail: [email protected]
DUSTIN EICKE is a second year PhD student in higher education at
Texas Tech University. E-­mail: [email protected]
BARRY FASS-­HOLMES, PhD, is the Analytical Studies Coordinator
for the International Students & Programs Office in the International
Center at the University of California, San Diego. He studies inter-
national students’ academic achievement. E-­mail: [email protected]
HELEN FORBES-­MEWETT is Senior Lecturer and Researcher in Soci-
ology in the School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Australia.
Her work focuses on human security, cultural diversity, and social
cohesion. She has published widely on issues relating to migration and
international education. Helen regularly publishes in leading interna-
tional refereed scholarly journals. Her books include International
Student Security (2010) and International Students and Crime (2015).
Her new book is The New Security: Individual, Community and Cul-
tural Experiences (2018). E-­mail: [email protected]
JIAMIN GAN completed her undergraduate degree at Monash Univer-
sity, majoring in Sociology (honors) and psychology. Her work focuses
primarily on mental health and supporting students-­at-­risk. As such,
she completed a qualitative study on perceptions of mental health
among international students for her honors thesis. She is currently
working as a research assistant in Singapore. E-­mail: jiamin_10@hot-
mail.com
 About the Contributors xiii
HUGO GARCÍA is Assistant Professor at Texas Tech University. He
obtained his BA in international relations from UC-­San Diego, M.Ed.
in higher education administration and student affairs from the
University of Southern California, and a PhD in Education with an
emphasis in higher education from Claremont Graduate University.
His research interests pertain to access and equity in higher education,
retention of underrepresented students at two and four year postsec-
ondary institutions, international higher education, diversity in higher
education, and P-­20 education pipeline. E-­mail: [email protected]
UTTAM GAULEE, PhD, is Assistant Professor and a scholar of inter-
national higher education at Morgan State University. His research
interests include community college systems, development education,
and diaspora studies along with interdisciplinary perspectives on edu-
cation policy, global citizenship, and cross-­cultural issues in interna-
tional development and geopolitics. E-­mail: Uttam.gaulee@morgan.
edu
ANETA HAYES is Lecturer in Education at Keele University, UK. She
has a PhD in Education, MA in English Philology, and BA in TESOL
and PGCE. She is also Fellow of HEA. Aneta researches international
students’ experiences and exclusion of international students through
policy discourses. She is also interested in international higher educa-
tion markets, international policy borrowing, and critical policy stud-
ies. E-­mail: [email protected]
DENIS HYAMS-­SSEKASI, EdD, SFHEA, is Lecturer and Research Coor-
dinator in Business Management at the University of Bolton, UK. His
research interests include the transitional experiences of international
students in higher education, as well as intercultural communication
and social impacts. E-­mail: D.Hyams-­[email protected]
MARAKI KEBEDE is a dual-­title PhD candidate in Educational Leader-
ship, and Comparative and International Education at The Pennsylva-
nia State University. Her research examines (non)immigrant education
experiences in the U.S. and the involvement of international organiza-
tions in education for development. E-­mail: [email protected]
MI-­CHELLE LEONG is Research Assistant for College of Education
at Texas Tech University. She received her B.Sc. in Psychology from
Upper Iowa University and is currently pursuing M.Ed. in Clinical
Mental Health Counseling at Texas Tech University. Her research
interest revolves mostly around international students, higher educa-
tion, LGBTQ, and cultural diversity in counseling. E-­mail: mi-­chelle.
[email protected]
XINYANG LI is a second year PhD student pursing his terminal degree
in educational psychology at Texas Tech University. He obtained his
xiv About the Contributors
BA in English Literature from Shandong University, China, and MAT
from Rockford University, IL. He is working and building his research
interest on the topic revolving around self-­regulated learning, goal ori-
entation, and internationalization/­globalization in higher educational
institutions. E-­mail: [email protected]
HAJARA MAHMOOD, EdD, is Associate Director for the Center of
Teaching and Learning Excellence and Biology Instructor at Embry-­
Riddle Aeronautical University. Her research area focuses on meeting
the learning needs for diverse student populations, effective pedagogi-
cal practices, STEM education, retention initiatives, and issues and
trends in higher education. E-­mail: [email protected]
JON MCNAUGHTAN, PhD, is Assistant Professor at Texas Tech Uni-
versity where his research focuses on leadership in higher education.
He completed a PhD at the University of Michigan where he worked
with education and business faculty. He also holds a master’s from
Stanford University and a BS from Southern Utah University, where he
served as the President’s Fellow working with the executive leadership
team to transform the university from a regional comprehensive insti-
tution to the state designated liberal arts and sciences college. E-­mail:
[email protected]
YI MENG is a PhD student in the Higher Education program in the
Department of Education Policy Studies at The Pennsylvania State
University. Her research interests involve the economics and sociol-
ogy of higher education, socioeconomic return to higher education,
and international student development and engagement. E-­ mail:
[email protected]
STEVE NERLICH is a PhD candidate at the Australian National Uni-
versity investigating ways to evaluate the return on investment arising
from Australian university students studying abroad. He is also the
director of a team overseeing the publication of Australia’s interna-
tional education data on behalf of the Australian Government Depart-
ment of Education and Training, as well as providing a range of
analytical services and publications related to the global phenomenon
of international student mobility. E-­mail: [email protected]
DAVID H. K. NGUYEN is Assistant Professor of Urban Education and
Policy Studies at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis.
Dr. Nguyen’s research focuses on the intersection of law and policy
with higher education to examine the policies and practices that
address inequities of access of education for underrepresented stu-
dents. Dr. Nguyen also studies the globalization and internationaliza-
tion of higher education, with specific emphasis on the international
student experience on host campuses. E-­mail: [email protected]
 About the Contributors xv
DAVID STARR-­GLASS is a mentor and undergraduate dissertation
supervisor with the International Programs (Prague) of SUNY Empire
State College. David has earned three master’s degrees: business
administration, organizational psychology, and education. His teach-
ing and research interests include mentoring, organizational culture,
and cross-­cultural management and over the last twenty years he has
published more than seventy peer-­reviewed articles and book chap-
ters. When not in Prague, David lives in Jerusalem where he teaches
economic and business-­related courses with a number of local col-
leges. E-­mail: [email protected]
SRI SOEJATMINAH, PhD, has published and presented papers on
various topics including international students in vocational educa-
tion, internationalization of the curriculum, international mobility of
teacher, internationalization of Indonesian higher education and Aus-
tralian rural education. Her research interest on internationalization
has been expanded to include international student mobility in the
ASEAN region. E-­mail: [email protected]
CHAO SU is a master’s student in Educational Theory and Policy Stud-
ies, dual-­titled in Comparative International Education at The Penn-
sylvania State University. Her research interests include international
student’s education and educational equality for students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds. E-­mail: [email protected]
JENNIFER THACH serves as the International Admissions Coordina-
tor in the Graduate School at Miami University. Jennifer has worked
closely with international students for the past five years through inter-
national student orientation, life within the residence halls on campus,
as well as in the classroom. E-­mail: [email protected]
LY TRAN is Associate Professor in the School of Education, Deakin
University, Australia and an Australian Research Council Future
Fellow. Her work focuses on internationalisation of education,
international student mobility and higher education in Vietnam and
China. Ly’s book, “Teaching international students in vocational
education: New pedagogical approaches,” won the International
Education Association of Australia (IEAA) Excellence Award for
Best Practice/­Innovation in International Education. E-­ mail: ly.
[email protected]
GABRIELA VALDEZ, PhD, is Program Manager at the Consortium
for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC)
based at the University of Arizona. She received a PhD in International
Education and Global Perspectives from The University of Arizona,
a master’s degree in Education with a focus in Human Development
from Northern Arizona University, and an MA in Language, Literature
xvi About the Contributors
and Culture in the Hispanic World from the Universidad de Alcalá de
Henares. E-­mail: [email protected]
ALLISON A. VAUGHN, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Psychol-
ogy Department at San Diego State University. Her research interests
include social relationships, stigma, health (mental and physical), and
student achievement. E-­mail: [email protected]
Acknowledgments

I am most grateful to my acquisitions editors at Routledge Publishing,

Matthew Friberg and Karen Adler, for their encouragement, coordina-
tion, and support through the project.
I would like to thank my colleagues and friends for their initial direc-
tions in constructing research on international student studies. I would
also like to acknowledge the help of all the scholars who were involved
in this project and, more specifically, the authors and reviewers that took
part in the review process. Without their support, this book would not
have become a reality. I also offer gratitude and thanks to the edito-
rial review members of the Journal of International Students, a quarterly
publication on international education, for their voluntary contribution
in reviewing the manuscripts that I received for this book project. At
Morgan State University, I would like to thank my colleagues for their
encouragement and support including graduate students and graduate
assistants in the Department of Advanced Studies, Leadership and Policy.
Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues Shyam Sharma and Uttam
Gaulee for their scholarly support throughout the development of this
project. I hope this book is a useful tool for scholars to explore issues and
directions in understanding international student experiences.
Special thanks to the following reviewers who assisted me in review-
ing fifty-­eight manuscripts received for this book, Global Perspectives
on International Student Experiences in Higher Education: Tensions and
Issues. It could not be possible to finalize the selected chapters without
their evaluations and constructive feedbacks.
Chapter Reviewers:

1. Alexis Croffie, Texas Tech University, USA

2. Alia Kamal Arafeh, University of Wisconsin, USA
3. Allison A. Vaughn, San Diego State University, USA
4. Amanda E. Brunson, University of Alabama, USA
5. Amir Alakaam, University of North Dakota, USA
6. Amir Bhochhibhoya, University of Oklahoma, USA
7. Amy L. Lewis, George Mason University, USA
xviii Acknowledgments
8. Aneta Hayes, Keele University, UK
9. Anh Le, University of Nebraska-­Lincoln, USA
10. Antonio Duran, The Ohio State University, USA
11. Azchary W. Taylor, The University of Texas at Austin, USA
12. Barry Fass-­Holmes, UC San Diego, USA
13. Bethany Peters, University of Minnesota, USA
14. Christine Fiorite, Joliet Junior College, USA
15. Christine Frank, Santa Fe College, USA
16. Christopher Sullivan, University of Missouri-­St. Louis, USA
17. Clayton Smith, University of Windsor, Canada
18. Cody J. Perry, University of Wyoming, USA
19. Crystal H. M. Machado, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA
20. Dannielle Davis, Saint Louis University, USA
21. David Lausch, University of Wyoming, USA
22. David Nguyen, University of Texas at San Antonio, USA
23. David Starr-­Glass, SUNY Empire State College, USA
24. Enakshi Sengupta, American University of Kurdistan, Iraq
25. Fujuan Tan, Morehead State University, USA
26. Ghulam Yahya Ahmadi, USWDP, Afghanistan
27. Gokce Bulgan, MEF University, Turkey
28. Haijing Tu, Illinois State University, USA
29. Hajara Mahmood, Embry-­Riddle Aeronautical University, USA
30. Helen Forbes-­Mewett, Monash University, Australia
31. Hugo Garcia, Texas Tech University, USA
32. Ian Lertora, Texas Tech University, USA
33. Inez Moore, Howard University, USA
34. Inna Redara, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan
35. Janet Isbell, Tennessee Technological University, USA
36. Jason Li, Wichita State University, USA
37. Jeevan Khanal, Chonbuk National University, South Korea
38. Jennifer Thach, Miami University, USA
39. Jennifer Weatherford, University of Wyoming, USA
40. Jing Hua, Troy University, USA
41. José Manuel Martínez, Michigan State University, USA
42. Ju Seong (John) Lee, University of Illinois at Urbana-­Champaign, USA
43. Kathleen Moore, University of Toronto, Canada
44. Kathryn Negrelli, Kennesaw State University, USA
45. Kristy K. Modrow, St. Cloud State University, USA
46. L. G. Michael Brown, University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA
47. Laura Johnson, University of Mississippi, USA
48. Linda Newsome, Arizona State University, USA
49. Lorraine N. Fleming, Howard University, USA
50. Lu (Wendy) Yan, Iowa State University, USA
51. Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh, University of Science Malaysia, Malaysia
52. Maraki Kebede, Penn State University, USA
 Acknowledgments xix
53. Maria Adamuti-­Trache, University of Texas at Arlington, USA
54. Matthew Birnbaum, University of Northern Colorado, USA
55. Mi-­Chelle Leong, Texas Tech University, USA
56. Monica Galloway Burke, Western Kentucky University, USA
57. Nancy Li Will, University of Washington, USA
58. Novella Goutama O’Sullivan, Liverpool Hope University, UK
59. Peace Nwokedi, University of Kwazulu-­Natal, South Africa
60. Prashanti Chennamsetti, Texas A&M University, USA
61. Ricardo González-­Carriedo, University of North Texas
62. Samuel Adeyemo, University of Pretoria, South Africa
63. Santiago Castiello, University of Arizona, USA
64. Sereana Naepi, University of British Columbia, Canada
65. Shabeer Amirali, Bradley University, USA
66. Susan Boafo-­Arthur, University of Scranton, USA
67. Suzan Kommers, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA
68. Sylvia Findlay, Illinois State University, USA
69. Tang Tang Heng, National Institute of Education, Singapore
70. Tanja Seifen-­Adkins, University of Mississippi, USA
71. Tara Madden-­Dent, Sierra Nevada College, USA
72. Teresa Chen, California State University, Long Beach, USA
73. Tsz Kwok, Drexel University, USA
74. Xi Yu, University of Minnesota, USA
75. Xuan Thu Dang, Deakin University, Australia
76. Yiying Xiong, Ohio University, USA
77. Yvonne Perez, Pima Community College, USA
78. Zi Yan, Merrimack College, USA
Foreword

In the past two decades, international educators, like myself, have seen
the drivers of global student mobility dramatically shift. We have seen the
“big picture” trends shaping global student mobility, as well as the “indi-
vidual stories” of how geopolitical trends affect the international student
experience. This book brings these two realities together to help serious-­
minded educators and scholars consider what lies ahead for the field of
international education. The richness of the multi-­perspectival focus of
the international scholars who have contributed to this edited volume
helps the reader weigh the implications of current geopolitical trends and
the international student experience as we navigate uncertain times.
The “big picture” of global student mobility tells us that migration
of students across borders in pursuit of higher education is not new, but
the drivers of global student mobility and the demographic characteris-
tics of international students have changed. The zeitgeist of the current
wave of international students is much different than one earlier this cen-
tury driven by the efforts of countries to recruit international students
to build research capacity. Demand for higher education shows no signs
of stalling; however, more prospective international students are opting
to study in their own country or at regional education hubs rather than
traditional destinations. A number of the major international student
destinations now face nationalistic movements that express ever-­louder
rhetorical resistance to migration and seek to limit the flow of interna-
tional students exchange and cooperation through national immigration
policy. Trumpism in the U.S., Brexit in the UK, and anti-­immigrant poli-
tics in Europe, as well as increased visa fees and resistance to English-­
taught academic programs around the world, threaten to stall or reverse
many of the trends that have shaped global student mobility over the past
twenty years.
Against this geopolitical backdrop is the lived experience of interna-
tional students once they arrive on a host country’s university campus.
The rich range of international authors explore the tensions and issues
that shape these experiences, including much needed attention to inter-
national students with marginalized identities, mental health issues,
 Foreword xxi
stereotype threat in the classroom, post-­ graduation plans, and labor
market outcomes. The authors explore these tensions and issues with
concrete examples and distinctive perspectives. The chapters give voice
to the international student experience from a wide range of institutional
types (e.g., community colleges, liberal arts colleges, and research uni-
versities), disciplines, and national contexts, and provide tangible and
concrete examples of effective practices.
The book marks a significant step forward as it marks a shift towards
a stronger emphasis on the quality of experiences of globally mobile stu-
dents. Each author is attuned to the need for a more inclusive form of
internationalization and the need to shift from the dominant emphasis
on quantity to the need to make a strong case for quality. They help
the reader explore important aspects of the quality of the international
student experience that is often lost within the mainstream literature on
the international students. Furthermore, the research-­based recommen-
dations for university leaders, academics, and policy are essential reading
for in-­depth understanding of today’s international students. Even read-
ers who are well-­versed in the international student literature will find the
accounts in this book fresh and compelling.
As a scholar and educator, I have learned that while many institutions
strive to create inclusive environments for international students, their
rhetoric does not often match the reality. Too many institutions struggle
to effectively integrate international students and leverage their knowl-
edge and experiences to advance cross-­cultural understanding and real-
ize the benefits of international educational exchange. It is crucial that
institutions recognize the tensions and issues highlighted in this book
and heed the call to ensure global student mobility produces the kinds
of benefits to students—­and home and host nations—­that we know are
possible.
Chris R. Glass, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Education Foundations & Leadership
Old Dominion University, USA
1 Exploring the Field
Understanding the International
Student Experience
Krishna Bista

Several blind men approached an elephant, and each touched the animal
in an effort to discover what the beast looked like. Each blind man, how-
ever, touched a different part of the large animal, and each concluded
that the elephant had the appearance of the part he had touched. Hence,
the blind man who felt the animal’s trunk concluded that an elephant
must be tall and slender, while the fellow who touched the beast’s ear
concluded that an elephant must be oblong and flat. Others of course
reached different conclusions. The total result was that no man arrived
at a very accurate description of the elephant. Yet each man had gained
enough evidence from his own experience to disbelieve his fellows and to
maintain a lively debate about the nature of the beast.
(Puchala, 1972, p. 267)

Although this universally known ancient Indian parable of “The Blind

Men and an Elephant” has appeared in sociocultural and political dis-
courses, this is also a powerful metaphor that helps explain the inter-
national student experience. In the story, the blind men describe their
partial experiences of the elephant as they touch and feel different parts
of the elephant. The story further illustrates that our subjective experi-
ences can be true, but that they are limited to each individual instance,
which presents a need for shared information concerning different per-
spectives of the international student experience.
The support for international students, which is well documented in
international education research, has certainly grown with increasing
institutional interest in improving revenue, diversity, and internationali-
zation. But, as in the parable of the blind men and the elephant, differ-
ent professionals specializing in different areas of support usually have
partial pictures of the students’ experiences, needs, and strengths. The
research commonly tends to view these students through a deficit per-
spective, only addressing student struggles with limited English language
proficiency, cultural adjustment, student dissatisfaction, social integra-
tion issues with domestic students, and a lack of preparation to meet
Western educational expectations (Brown & Jones, 2011; Heng, 2018;
2 Krishna Bista
Bista, Sharma, & Gaulee, 2018; Huang & Turner, 2018; Jones, 2017;
Marginson, 2013). For decades, colleges and universities have focused
on building English Language Centers, delivering week-­long orientation
seminars, lecturing on local cultures and university expectations, and
providing students with a list of dos and don’ts—­all designed with the
assumption that “they” need to learn about education “here” so they
too can be successful. Most institutions offer a number of services geared
towards developing language proficiency and helping social and aca-
demic transitions of international students. Jones (2017) explains:

It is important to recognize that fluency and language competence do

not relate directly to academic success. Training in academic writing,
in particular, would be of benefit to many native speakers, just as it
may be for some international students. While we may pay insuf-
ficient attention to heterogeneity among international students, we
can also fail to recognize commonalities between international and
domestic students. For example, just as we should not assume all
international students are studying in a foreign language, neither
should we imagine that all domestic students are native speakers.
(p. 935)

In substance, however, most institutions are barely scratching the surface,

and hence are far from forming a true picture of international students’
lived experiences from admission to post-­graduation.
International students (also called foreign or mobile students) often
move internationally to pursue a college degree. Many leave their coun-
tries of birth to escape the hard realities of life, and others study abroad
for a different perspective, while yet others do so in order to experi-
ence new places for fun and adventure. While the general trends show
that many international students simply seek upgrading to places with
less poverty, greater job prospects, low corruption, better infrastruc-
ture, increased safety, and an overall better quality of life, the scenario is
becoming more and more complex with the cultural and political changes
our world has been witnessing lately (Bryla, 2018). The journey of inter-
national students is riddled with a spectrum of both positive and nega-
tive experiences (some of them life changing and transformational). The
international student population is not a single, uniform group; rather it
is heterogeneous by nature, and that requires a greater nuance in service
delivery and a comprehensive approach towards diversity and sociocul-
tural inclusion (Jones, 2017). Thus, for any institution of higher learning
that attracts international students, it is important to understand these
experiences so that they are better able to serve the international student
population. Some fundamental questions to understand are: What does
it mean to be an international student? What are international students’
social, emotional, and academic experiences? What constitutes their
 Exploring the Field 3
successful stories of social and academic transition? What are their post-­
study experiences at home or abroad?
This chapter serves to introduce this book, which collectively answers
the aforementioned questions within four thematic areas of scholarship
about international student experiences—­social identities, academic
experiences, personal wellbeing, and post-­study experiences. Each con-
tributor explores unique issues and experiences of international students
from multiple perspectives. The book paints a holistic picture about dif-
ferent areas of student support vis-­à-­vis their needs, experiences, and
success while situating these issues in light of global/­local disruptions in
higher education and international education due to dramatically shifting
geopolitical and economic dynamics.

Numbers, Mobility, and Research

The enrollment trend of international students has been constantly
increasing—­led by the United States on top, then followed by the United
Kingdom, Australia, China, and Canada as leading countries among
many other emerging destinations. More than five million students have
become international students pursuing a degree program outside their
country of birth. According to the Institute of International Education
Project Atlas (2017), the top host destinations of international students
were the United States (24% of 4.6 million), the United Kingdom (11%),
China (10%), Australia (7%), France (7%), Canada (7%), Russia (6%),
Germany (6%), and other countries (23%). In the 2015–­2016 academic
year, 325,339 American students became “international students” par-
ticipating in credit-­bearing study abroad programs (Institute of Interna-
tional Education, 2017).
The United States alone hosts a record high of 1.08 million inter-
national students in various degree and/­or training programs, making
$39 billion in revenue. The majority of international students in the U.S.
live and pursue their studies in California, Texas, and New York. Nearly
9% of 1.8 million international students attended American community
colleges during the 2016–­2017 academic year. Since President Trump
was elected in 2016, the United States has become less attractive to inter-
national students because of his sharp political rhetoric, more restrictive
views on immigration, travel ban on some Muslim countries, and pro-
posals of stricter laws making it harder to stay and work after gradu-
ation (Bista, 2018; Sá & Sabzalieva, 2018; Saul, 2018). However, this
political atmosphere has given international students a second chance to
choose other higher education destinations including Canada, Australia,
and other English-­speaking countries (Bista, Sharma, & Gaulee, 2018).
Along with the global growth of international students and the chang-
ing global marketplace, colleges and universities are restructuring and
strengthening their support services. Institutions of higher education
4 Krishna Bista
proudly announce their “global vision” by promoting foreign student
recruitment, international faculty members, exchange programs, Ful-
bright programs, and other study abroad activities. These global ambi-
tions are primarily focused on recruiting students from nontraditional
destinations such as Saudi Arabia and Brazil, particularly to tap into
the scholarship programs offered by their governments. Non-­English-­
speaking countries including China, India, Japan, and South Korea have
also strategically aligned with this global ambition to recruit international
students from foreign countries. For instance, the fast-­growing Chinese
economy has transformed its higher education image into an “interna-
tional education hub” with an enrollment target of 500,000 international
students by 2020. China has strengthened its regional ties under its One
Belt, One Road initiative and has widened its visa policies to attract the
best and bright international students (Grove, 2017). Today, colleges and
universities have become more “international” both by choice and by
necessity (Cole, 2017).
A Google search currently pulls 13.6 million results in 0.50 seconds
while using the keywords “international students.” On average, every
month at least eight dissertations and theses, dozens of research arti-
cles, and 200 reports are published on international student issues (Bista,
2016). There are also approximately 12,000 journal articles and 1,400
dissertations related to international student topics. While there is a
plethora of research, the majority of these publications focus on inter-
national students’ cultural adjustment issues, their academic writing and
linguistic challenges, retention practices, counseling and mental health
issues, global engagements, social identities and discriminatory issues,
teaching assistant resources, and college choice and mobility trends
(Bista & Gaulee, 2017). Scholars have constantly re-­defined, re-­modeled,
and re-­theorized the stories, experiences, and challenges of international
students. There is research and resources, yet there is not enough innova-
tion and new ways to look at the bigger issues of international student
experience. “The Blind Men and the Elephant” parable also illustrates
the elusive nature of reality and the work of primary scholars, practition-
ers, and stakeholders of international education who have presented a
partial picture of the international student experience.

Student Experiences and Complexities

Regionally and/­or internationally, students have always moved across
borders—­physical, political, socioeconomic, cultural, and others—­and
their movement has been amplified by advancements in the means of
travel and communication (Bista, Sharma, & Gaulee, 2018). International
students move for survival, for opportunity, and for learning depending
on push and pull factors of mobility in higher education. Whether we call
it “study abroad” or “overseas study,” students are constantly pursuing
 Exploring the Field 5
their dreams of studying in a foreign country—­because of its culture, or
a scholarship or a relationship. International students and scholars are
real people with real life experiences that encounter issues and challenges
while staying and studying in another country whether they are of Asian
or European, African, or American origins. Studies suggest that despite
being real people who have a real impact on higher education in their
host countries, international students are still not given the same human
treatment as domestic students (Hayes, 2018 this volume; Marginson,
2013; Tran & Vu, 2017; Velez-­Gomez & Bell, 2018). Unequal treatment
of international students was intensified by national attitudes that situ-
ated international students in the eyes of the “host” communities as “def-
icits” who had “a set of identifiable and correctable problems” (Lee &
Rice, 2007, p. 338). Instead of considering this diverse group of students
as a valuable source of alternative knowledge, it was rather perceived as
a trait to be corrected by the host society (McKay, O’Neill, & Petrakieva,
2018). Marginson (2013) also presents a similar scenario in Australia of
the national prescription to correct “the foreign students”:

It is assumed that the host country culture normalized by this pre-

scription remains unchanged. The international student “adjusts” to
the host nation but not vice versa. Adjustment is “successful” to the
extent students discard their beliefs and adopt values and behaviors
of host-­country norms. The idea of one-­way adjustment implies the
host culture is superior, fitting popular prejudices.
(Marginson, 2013, p. 12)

Whether they are called “foreign students,” “alien non-­immigrants,”

“non-­resident aliens,” “mobile students,” “study abroad students,” or
“international students,” they are known as the “Other,” and the local
policies and programs are structured in such ways that they are “spe-
cial people” who need treatments for corrections—­in language learning,
adjustments, understanding campus values, and becoming “normal”
people. Few people in the host institution know that international stu-
dents pay exorbitant fees, undergo complex administrative processes,
may live in austere conditions, and still try to adopt the local values
while pursuing their dreams. There is no consistency in the way these stu-
dents are defined and evaluated, and hence the kinds of support services
they receive depend on how they are perceived in their host institutions.
Hence, there is a vast difference in the understanding and the support
services rendered to them from institution to institution. Any semblance
of consistency across the countries is just a far cry. The position of host
countries in the international education market usually dictates politi-
cal, economic, and educational approaches to international students
(Teichler, 2004). Such issues related to international student identities
and their sociocultural experiences are explored in the first eight chapters
6 Krishna Bista
of this book. In recent decades, the mobility of international students has
been perceived as one of the indicators of campus diversity, internation-
alization, and a prime source to boost the revenue of the institution of
higher education in major destinations. There are certainly complexities
in understanding international student experiences and their contribution
in higher education as the blind men were in understanding the elephant.
In the parable the blind men did not see the whole elephant, no one said
it was an elephant, no one asked the elephant, and they did not ask each
other’s views about the animal. While one uses a holistic approach in
understanding international students, these students also must be treated
fairly by the simple logic of reciprocity: international students are “inter-
national” in the host countries in the same way as study abroad students
will be “international” by default in the receiving countries.
The ratio of international students and the support services is never
balanced as the majority of campuses and universities have limited
resources; office personnel and faculty members are often busy with reg-
ular schedules; and most importantly the programs and resources are
structured from the perspectives of colleges and universities (what they
want to offer) rather than what international students would actually
need or benefit from in order to live, study, and work when they are over-
seas. As in the parable of “The Blind Men and the Elephant,” the partial
reality of understanding of the international student is reflected in the
limited resources and programs put in place aiming to address the much
larger and complex issues of international students (which are never fully
understood by the so-­called stewards in place). The magnitude of each
international student experience varies based on personal educational
differences, social integration, help-­seeking approaches, friendship devel-
opment, funding issues, different communication styles and customs,
career choices, and other soft skills. Most importantly, the human aspect
is often ignored, and what they bring to the table is minimized. Hence,
at the human level, international students should not be seen as being
different from their local counterparts—­as they are real humans, and
their college experiences are as real as their counterparts’ experiences are
(Jones, 2017).
However, international students are not only seen as different types of
learners, they are often perceived as “cash cows” because of the mon-
etary revenue they bring to campuses. Ironically, despite the revenue they
are expected to provide schools, international students may end up on
campuses where resources and support services are neither designed nor
allocated to address their often-­unique needs. More and more institu-
tions have strategic plans for increasing the international student popula-
tion. Often missing from such plans are thoughtful provisions of support
services for these students and ways of integrating all students to fos-
ter campus diversity and student success (Brown & Jones, 2011; Bryla,
2018; Bista, Sharma, & Gaulee, 2018, Jones, 2017; Marshall, 2018).
 Exploring the Field 7
Students struggle in writing, language and communication, and initial
adjustment, but the programs and services should not be looked at as an
isolated treatment to correct the issues. Focusing these issues, contribu-
tors in the second part of this book highlight the contextual influences
on international student learning such as academic expectations, leader-
ship development, study abroad motivation, and so forth. Similarly, the
contributors in the third part of the book present empirical evidences of
international student wellbeing experiences from Australia, the United
States, and the United Kingdom. They present the importance of under-
standing emotional and social wellbeing of international students and
coping strategies for the stress associated with adjusting and transition-
ing to new environments. Many existing services sometimes go unnoticed
or underutilized; sometimes students are not being made aware of such
programs, or faculty and staff may not recognize the needs of interna-
tional students. When existing programs and services such as the office of
international students, writing center, health center, career center, coun-
seling center, and other campus units collaborate and coordinate with
other departments across the campus, they may better address the larger
picture of the international student experience.
The global economy is in great need of highly skilled globally exposed
professionals; the best and brightest international students should be tar-
geted as critical human capital for the global labor force. Kearney and
Lincoln (2017) highlight the need of understanding international student
experience:

In this socio-­economic reality, the experience of studying abroad

has moved center stage, due to an exponentially increasing stu-
dent demand from emerging economies and to the global nature of
advanced knowledge. Universities, for their part, compete aggres-
sively to attract top talent and shore up their international rank-
ings. The international student experience lies at the Centre of
this dynamic. Today, internationalization is not just the exchange
of knowledge and academic excellence. It is part of the profound
changes in higher education systems worldwide, with important
links to wider and complex political and socio-­economic issues such
as graduate employability and the education and training needs of
migrants including refugees. . . . Clearly, earning international aca-
demic credentials is a global story in the making.
(pp. 823–­824)

In the U.S. alone, a large percentage of foreign-­born immigrants, par-

ticularly U.S.-­educated international students with highly specialized
training in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM), have
been promoting the innovation-­driven economy, pace of discovery, and
the social fabric (Cole, 2017; Jan, 2017; Ruiz & Krogstad, 2017). Reports
8 Krishna Bista
indicate that nearly half of all scientists and engineers in the United States
who have a doctorate are immigrants and accounted for 67% of the
increase in the U.S. workforce and job creation (American Immigration
Council, 2011; Kerr & Lincoln, 2008). As a quintessential example in
academia, there are more foreign-­born scholars (mostly former interna-
tional students) leading American universities as deans, provosts, and
presidents (Foderaro, 2011). These leaders and scientists bring their
energy and innovation and become Americans by choice. The number of
foreign-­born scholars (including faculty) rose to 124,861 in 2014–­2015
from 86,000 in 2001, and nearly 75% of them are in STEM fields, par-
ticularly from China, India, South Korea, and Germany (Foderaro, 2011;
Herget, 2016). As reported in the Institute of International Education
report (2017) in 2016–­2017, there were 134,014 international scholars
working in the United States—­Asia (76,319), Europe (33,356), Latin
America and Caribbean (9,565), Middle East (5,255), North America/­
Canada (5,018), and Sub Saharan Africa (2,219). Seventy-­six percent of
them were in the STEM field, 7.1% in social science, 3.5% in humani-
ties, 3.2% in business and management, 1.8% in education, 1.8 % in
fine and applied arts, 1.5% in legal studies, 0.8% in communication, and
4.3% in other fields. Past studies indicate that employment and earning
of international graduates, i.e., foreign-­born graduates (both with tempo-
rary status or permanent status), are higher than that of their American
counterparts (Campbell, Adamuti-­Trache, & Bista, 2018; Kartz & Netz,
2018). Today, universities around the world have been competing to host
international students and implement national strategies to attract them
and create top global talent to meet the demands of a global economy.
However, institutions of higher learning, as Huang and Turner (2018,
p. 175) suggest, have largely been parochial (e.g., UK-­centric) in their
focus, with limited attention paid to the employability needs of interna-
tional students. There is no question that students from other nations
have been a great source of intellectual energy and diversity in the United
States and beyond. It is, therefore, important to understand the issues
and challenges of internationals students while they live, study, integrate,
and prepare their careers as a potential source of human capital for the
21st century global workforce.
Globally ranked universities do aspire to provide meaningful interna-
tional experiences for their domestic students; their leaders are also com-
mitted to the mission of global engagement and are willing to persevere
in the face of challenges brought about by the current political rise in
anti-­immigration rhetoric (Bista et al., 2018; Marklein, 2017). And yet,
nation-­based framing of the discourse—­which further shapes perspec-
tives about language, culture, politics, economics, and other terms of
analysis—­continues to make some questions seem less significant than
others, some findings less meaningful, some realities less visible. Since
international students bring diverse backgrounds and academic context
 Exploring the Field 9
from their previous education system, it is important to recognize the
differences to enhance campus diversity and academically prepare both
domestic and international students. These students are the future mem-
bers and leaders as professors, doctors, engineers, business persons, scien-
tists, and other professionals of the 21st century. In spite of the anxieties
and uncertainties of our time, educators should not hesitate to aspire
for, plan, and create the ideal situation where the focus is on the success-
ful integration of international students and development of intercultural
competences for all students.

Structure and Themes of This Book

Global Perspectives on International Student Experiences in Higher Edu-
cation: Tensions and Issues is an empirical attempt to document a myr-
iad of international student experiences from multiple perspectives that
include sociocultural identities, contextual influences on learning expe-
riences, wellbeing experiences, as well as post-­study experiences. This
book allows well-­known scholars, international education practitioners,
and emerging scholars an opportunity to expand and reflect on existing
practices related to international student experiences in colleges and uni-
versities around the world.
Throughout this book, contributors question the existing assumptions
and values of international student programs and services, and reexamine
and explore new perspectives to present the emerging challenges and critical
evaluations of student experiences, their identities, wellbeing experiences,
and post-­study challenges and experiences. This book provides resource
material to benefit educators, policymakers, and staff who work closely
with international students in higher education. This book also presents a
set of critical views about international student experiences globally and
programs and policies setting the context for emerging voices. This book
consists of nineteen chapters spread across four parts. The contributors of
this volume bring many years of experience teaching and mentoring inter-
national and domestic students. In addition to the authors’ experiences as
mentors and teachers of international students, other chapter contributors
work as administrators in student affairs and international student services
and bring personal and professional voices to the chapters.

Part I: Sociocultural Experiences: Recognizing

International Student Identities
In Chapter 2, David Starr-­Glass writes that it is important to view inter-
national students as regular “students” instead of categorizing, labeling,
and creating stereotypes based on their sociocultural characteristics. He
adds that such sociocultural challenges negatively impact student devel-
opment and learning.
10 Krishna Bista
In Chapter 3, Antonio Duran and Jennifer Thach examine the lives of
queer international students and how they encounter stages of culture
shock: honeymoon, disillusionment, and multiple identity recognition.
They provide tips for faculty members and practitioners on how they
can support queer international students as they navigate new cultures to
reduce students’ anxiety, stress, and depression.
In Chapter 4, Amanda E. Brunson looks at how Chinese international
students form friendships with domestic students while studying in the
United States. Her study indicates that cultural difference is a barrier for
Chinese students to making friendships with American students. Partici-
pants of her study report that it takes a significant amount of time for
Chinese students to make friends. They also indicate that the importance
of gift giving, helping each other, and returning favors are the key aspects
of friendship development.
In Chapter 5, Aneta Hayes reveals the issues of subordination of inter-
national students’ perspectives in British university classrooms. This study
points out how nationally dominated contexts can corrode international
students’ learning. Viewed through a deficit perspective, international stu-
dents are never treated as equals and often receive remedial support with
a rhetoric of conditional equality—­that is, “others” can also be successful
once their deficits are “fixed.”
In Chapter 6, Yi Meng, Maraki Kebede, and Chao Su examine how
international undergraduate students make sense of their college experi-
ence. Findings of their study suggest that participants found formal path-
ways (i.e., university programs) through the international student office
engaging. But factors such as socioeconomic status, family background,
and access to other students from the same country highly influence
whether students have a positive college experience or not. Although stu-
dents report having friends from different nationalities, they seldom have
domestic students in their close circles.
In Chapter 7, Gabriela Valdez investigates the classroom identities of
Chinese international students and how such identities affect student
learning experiences. Results of her study suggest that students express
both a sense of non-­membership and non-­participation because of the
positions of power dynamics, faculty-­student relationships, and the unfa-
miliarity of classroom expectations in the United States. Valdez writes
that classroom exclusion, low language ability, inability to meet unfa-
miliar classroom expectations, and attribution of stereotypes are some
important factors related to low classroom engagement of international
Chinese students in the U.S.
In Chapter 8, Hajara Mahmood and Monica Galloway Burke find a
negative correlation between international students’ sociocultural adap-
tation and acculturative stress levels in their study. They also find that
students with a higher degree of sociocultural adaptation report a higher
degree of college satisfaction, while higher levels of acculturative stress
 Exploring the Field 11
indicate decreased levels of college satisfaction. These findings indicate
that institutions should offer quality academic and social support services
to meet the needs and challenges of international students on campus.

Part II: Contextual Influences on International Student

Learning Experiences
In Chapter 9, David H. K. Nguyen studies student involvement in co-­
curricular activities that have a positive effect on academic and social
outcomes. Using national data, his findings suggest that culturally engag-
ing campus activities have a greater influence on international student
success and leadership self-­efficacy rather than off campus activities. His
participants report that smaller and identity-­based, multi-­cultural, or
international-­friendly types of organizations positively impact interna-
tional students’ leadership efficacy and engagement on campus.
In Chapter 10, Hugo Garcia, Jon McNaughtan, Dustin Eicke, Xin-
yang Li, and Mi-­Chelle Leong examine international students who attend
American community college campuses. The results of their study sug-
gest international students are more engaged in academic activity and
faculty interactions than their local counterparts. Findings also indicate
that international students are more likely to initially participate in both
required and non-­required group study activities than domestic students.
In Chapter 11, Barry Fass-­Holmes and Allison A. Vaughn examine
the concepts of cheating and academic dishonesty as well as their conse-
quences among international students. The result suggests English defi-
ciency is a potential predictor variable for international undergraduate
students’ academic integrity violation.
In Chapter 12, Steve Nerlich reports on the motivation and experi-
ences of Australian students that participate in study abroad programs
as international students. His results suggest that the majority of survey
respondents identify personal development and a desire to experience
another culture as their most important motives to study abroad, rather
than an immediate relevance to academic advancement, such as gaining
credit points.
In Chapter 13, Uttam Gaulee describes American students' motiva-
tions towards cross-­national communication and interactions with their
international peers. The results indicated that domestic students do have
some motivations to engage with their international peers.

Part III: Rethinking International Student Wellbeing

Experiences
In Chapter 14, Denis Hyams-­Ssekasi and Elizabeth Frances Caldwell
examine how the experiences of Black-­African international students
impact their academic, economic, and social wellbeing while adapting
12 Krishna Bista
local culture and studying in the UK. This study reports that Black-­
African students encounter issues related to significant financial pressures
as well as prejudice and discrimination.
In Chapter 15, Jiamin Gan and Helen Forbes-­Mewett present new
insights to international students’ perceptions of mental wellbeing
through qualitative research in Australia. Their findings suggest that
mental health services are largely considered to be essential but not nec-
essarily useful for international students.
In Chapter 16, Amir Bhochhibhoya and Paul Branscum examine the
impact of mental wellbeing on health behaviors (smoking, drinking alco-
hol, and being physically active) of international students in the United
States.

Part IV: International Student Post-­Study Experiences

In Chapter 17, Heike C. Alberts examines how factors such as gender and
the types of institution attended, social connections, and motivations to
study in the United States play an important role in shaping international
students’ post-­graduation migration plans. In her study, participants indi-
cate a better quality of life, more diverse society, better job prospects,
more academic freedom, higher salary, and higher standard of living as
factors encouraging to stay in the U.S. Some discouraging factors are visa
difficulties, feelings of being alienated, cultural differences, experiencing
prejudice, and not feeling at home.
In Chapter 18, Maria Adamuti-­Trache studies the labor market out-
comes and experiences of international students who graduate from
American universities based on gender and residency status. Her findings
confirm that immigrant high-­skilled women are at disadvantage in the
U.S. segmented labor market. For instance, female temporary residents
(TRs) are at the bottom of the earning scale. Male TRs fare much better,
with an average annualized salary of $69,500, and a majority of them
hold degrees in engineering and computer sciences.
In Chapter 19, Ly Tran and Sri Soejatminah examine international
student rights related to work experience and employment in Australia.
The authors also offer suggestions on how the host communities and
institutions could provide effective support for international students in
getting access to work experience opportunities, protecting themselves at
the workplace, and enhancing their employability.
The target audience of this book includes professionals and research-
ers, including faculty and scholars who closely work with exchange stu-
dents, as well as international student populations. Also, college and
university offices that serve international students or prepare students
to study abroad may use the book as a resource tool. Policymakers,
academicians, researchers, advanced-­ level students, and government
officials may find this text useful in furthering their research exposure
 Exploring the Field 13
to pertinent topics in international student studies and assisting in fur-
thering their own research efforts in this field. This book may be used
as an academic text or additional resource for college courses such as
comparative education, academic affairs topics, and/­or higher educa-
tion administration programs. Although this volume does not capture
all aspects of international student experience, it certainly offers some
empirical perspectives and insights to look into some major challenges of
collegiate experience on how they live, study, and emerge into the work-
force. I hope this book will be a useful resource for ideas, resources, and
programs to understand holistic experiences of international students at
colleges and universities.

References
American Immigration Council. (2011). The U.S. economy still needs highly
skilled foreign workers. Retrieved from www.americanimmigrationcouncil.
org/­research/­us-­ economy-­still-­needs-­highly-­skilled-­foreign-­workers
Bista, K. (2016). (Re)examing the research on international students. Journal
of International Students, 6(2), i–­ix. Retrieved from https:/­/­jistudents.org/­6-­2/­
Bista, K. (2018). Exposed challenges, emerging opportunities. Journal of
International Students, 8(1), i–­iii. Retrieved from http:/­/­doi.org/­10.5281/­
zenodo.1154983
Bista, K., & Gaulee, U. (2017). Recurring themes across fractal issues facing inter-
national students: A thematic analysis of 2016 dissertations and theses. Journal
of International Students, 7(4), 1140–­1160. doi:10.5281/­zenodo.1035989
Bista, K., Sharma, G., & Gaulee, U. (2018). International student mobility:
Examining trends and tensions. In Bista, K. (Ed.), International student mobil-
ity and opportunities for growth in the global marketplace (pp. 1–­14). Her-
shey, PA: IGI Global.
Brown, L., & Jones, I. (2011). Encounters with racism and the international
student experience. Studies in Higher education, 38(7), 1004–­1019. doi:10.10
80/­03075079.2011.614940
Bryła, P. (2018). International student mobility and subsequent migration: The
case of Poland, Studies in Higher Education, 1–­14. Retrieved from www.tand
fonline.com/­doi/­full/­10.1080/­03075079.2018.1440383
Campbell, T. A., Adamuti-­Trache, M., & Bista, K. (2018). Employment and
earnings of international science and engineering graduates of U.S. universities:
A comparative perspective. Journal of International Students, 8(1), 409–­430.
doi:10.5281/­zenodo.1134319
Cole, J. R. (2017, March 7). Why American universities need immigrants. The
Atlantic. Retrieved from www.theatlantic.com/­education/­archive/­2017/­03/­
american-­universities-­need-­immigrants/­518814/­
Foderaro, L. W. (2011). More foreign-­born scholars lead U.S. universities. The
New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/­2011/­03/­10/­education/­
10presidents.html
Grove, J. (2017, December 19). China will teach 500,000 international students
by 2020. The Times Higher Education. Retrieved from www.timeshigheredu
cation.com/­news/­china-­will-­teach-­500000-­international-­students-­2020
14 Krishna Bista
Heng, T. T. (2018). Different is not deficient: Contradicting stereotypes of Chi-
nese international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Educa-
tion, 43(1), 22–­36. doi:10.1080/­03075079.2016.1152466
Herget, A. (2016, August 18). Foreign-­ born faculty face challenges. Higher
Ed Jobs. Retrieved from www.higheredjobs.com/­ articles/­ articleDisplay.cfm?
ID=1012
Huang, R., & Turner, R. (2018). International experience, universities support
and graduate employability: Perceptions of Chinese international students
studying in UK universities. Journal of Education and Work, 31(2), 175–­189.
doi:10.1080/­13639080.2018.1436751
Institute of International Education (2017). International scholars total by
place of origin. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.
Retrieved from www.iie.org/­opendoors
Jan, T. (2017, April 3) This one group gets 70 percent of high skilled foreign
workers visa. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.
com/­n ews/­w onk/­w p/­2 017/­0 4/­0 3/­t his-­o ne-­g roup-­g ets-­7 0-­p ercent-­o f-­h igh-­
skilled-­foreign-­worker-­visas/­?utm_term=.8807fa158a94
Jones, E. (2017). Problematizing and reimaging the notion of international stu-
dent experience. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 993–­943. doi:10.108
0/­03075079.2017.1293880
Kartz, F., & Netz, N. (2018). Which mechanisms explain monetary returns to
international student mobility? Studies in Higher Education, 43(2), 375–­400.
doi:10.1080/­03075079.2016.1172307
Kearney, M. L., & Lincoln, D. (2017). The international student experience:
Voices and perspectives. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 823–­824. doi:10.
1080/­03075079.2017.1286832
Kerr, W. R., & Lincoln, W. F. (2008). The study side of innovation: H-­1B visa
reforms and US ethnic invention. Harvard Business School. Retrieved from
www.hbs.edu/­f aculty/­P ublication%20Files/­0 9-­0 05_005359f2-­2 ee8-­4 d73-­
b248-­af492e44ecb4.pdf
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student percep-
tions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–­409.
Marklein, M. B. (2017). Achieving a globally engaged campus in testing times.
University World News. Retrieved from http:/­/­www.universityworldnews.com/­
Marginson, S. (2013). Equals or others? Mobile students in a nationally bordered
world. In S. Sovic & M. Blythman (Eds.), International students negotiating
higher education: Critical perspectives (pp. 7–­9). New York, NY: Routledge.
Marshall, S. (2018). Are New Zealand universities underperforming? An analysis
of international enrolments in Australian and New Zealand universities. Com-
pare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1–­10. Retrieved
from www.tandfonline.com/­doi/­full/­10.1080/­03057925.2018.1425608
McKay, J., O’Neill, D., & Petrakieva, L. (2018). CAKES (Cultural awareness and
knowledge exchange scheme): A holistic and inclusive approach to supporting
international students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(2), 276–­
288. doi:10.1080/­0309877X.2016.1261092
Puchala, D. (1972). Of blind men, elephants and international integration. Jour-
nal of Common Market Studies, 10(3), 267–­284.
Ruiz, N. G., & Krogstad, J. M. (2017). Salaries have risen for high-­skilled foreign
workers in U.S. on H-­1B visas. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from www.
 Exploring the Field 15
pewresearch.org/­fact-­tank/­2017/­08/­16/­salaries-­have-­risen-­for-­high-­skilled-­
foreign-­workers-­in-­u-­s-­on-­h-­1b-­visas/­
Sá, C. M., & Sabzalieva, E. (2018). The politics of the great brain race: Public
policy and international student recruitment in Australia, Canada, England and
the USA. Higher Education, 75(2), 231–­253. doi:10.1007/­s10734-­017-­0133-­1
Saul, S. (2018, January 2). As flow of foreign students wanes, U.S. universities
feel the sting. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/­2018/­
01/­02/­us/­international-­enrollment-­drop.html
Teichler, U. (2004). Temporary study abroad: The life of ERASMUS students.
European Journal of Education, 39(4), 395–­408. doi:10.1111/­j.1465-­3435.
2004.00193.x
Tran, L. T., & Vu, T. P. (2017). Mediating transnational spaces: International stu-
dents and intercultural responsibility. Intercultural Education, 28(3), 283–­303.
Velez-­Gomez, P., & Bell, N. J. (2018). Identity negotiations of Colombian inter-
national students. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research,
18(1), 1–­17. doi:10.1080/­15283488.2017.1410155
Part I

Sociocultural Experiences
Recognizing International
Student Identities
2 Seeing International
Students as Students
Changing Institutional
Classification, Identity, and
Stereotype
David Starr-­Glass

Once you label me you negate me.

—­Søren Kierkegaard

People decide to study abroad and become international students for

many reasons—­some framed in terms of future economic benefit, others
in terms of “becoming” and realizing personal dreams (Counsell, 2011;
Tran, 2016). By definition, international students are those who cross
national borders with the express intent to study; by contrast, “foreign
students” are non-­citizens of a country who have other migration inten-
tions, such as employment, but who subsequently enter the country’s
higher education system (OECD, 2008, p. 351).
Whatever their motivation, international students will face the prob-
lems and challenges common to most students: adjusting to unfamiliar
educational cultures, engaging in new learning experiences, and learning
to succeed in different educational systems. For many students, transition-
ing to higher education and coping with the challenges of socialization
and adjustment are daunting; however, for international students, these
adjustments can be particularly problematic, confusing, and stressful
(Gale & Parker, 2014). Many international students migrate to develop
richer national cultural understandings and to acquire novel perspectives;
indeed, for many, the most valuable aspect of the international learning
experience is the acquisition of cultural perspectives that are not avail-
able without personal displacement from the familiar (Bennett, 2012;
Montgomery, 2010).
In moving into new cultures and on reflecting on their own cultures,
international students encounter an inevitable obstacle: stereotypes.
Learning, functioning, and being accepted in a new culture require a
degree of openness from all concerned, an openness in which alternative
understandings can be developed and tested. Stereotyping closes down
openness. It blocks an understanding of “the other” by substituting
20 David Starr-­Glass
preconceived caricatures—­only partially recognized and never fully
articulated—­for the other. Stereotyping is an inevitable outcome of social
systems, but, for the international student, negative stereotyping—­by
local communities and by institutions, faculties, and fellow students—­
can be especially problematic (Jackson, 2016; Lee & Rice, 2007).
Changing negative stereotypes in the host country is difficult, but there is
another more accessible and manageable alternative: reducing stereotyp-
ing within institutions of higher education at the administrative, faculty,
and collegiate community levels (Heng, 2017; Rublea & Zhang, 2013;
Tran & Vu, 2016).
This chapter examines the prism of stereotype through which inter-
national students come to see their immediate world and through which
they, in turn, are viewed. The next section considers the cultural jour-
neys of international students in understanding their new culture, their
own cultures, and their self-­identities. This is followed by a considera-
tion of the stereotypes that students encounter, the stereotype threats
they confront, and the impact these have on performance. The section
after that argues that there are significant benefits for the community of
learning when all students are regarded as valuable, un-­differentiated,
and un-­stigmatized participants, and when international students are
viewed simply as students—­neither as designated “internationals” or
“domestics.”

International Students and Their Culture Explorations

Culture has proved particularly difficult to define for sociologists and
anthropologists alike. Reviewing their attempts, Spencer-­Oatey (2012)
offered her own definition: culture is a set of “assumptions and values,
orientations to life, beliefs, policies, procedures and behavioural conven-
tions that are shared by a group of people, and that influence (but do not
determine) each member’s behaviour and his/­her interpretations of the
‘meaning’ of other people’s behaviour” (p. 3). More succinctly, Hofstede
(1991) defined national culture as “the collective programming of the
mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of peo-
ple from another” (p. 5).
International students confront culture displacements, and not sur-
prisingly the early culture adaptation, conflict, and shock literature
is rooted in that experience (Brien & David, 1971; Church, 1982;
Sewell & Davidsen, 1956). Whatever their academic preoccupations,
existential concerns, and English language challenges, international
students must make sense of the new cultures in which they find
themselves. Given their situation, these students have an exceptional
opportunity to also make sense of themselves and to explore their own
culture—­a culture that might previously have been unrecognized and
unappreciated.
 Seeing International Students as Students 21
Cultural Exploration of the Other
International students must find and piece together the underlying
assumptions, beliefs, and values that moderate the social behavior and
national culture that surround them. They may have some informal
understanding of the new culture, but they will soon realize that national
culture attributions are statistical generalities at best and fail to represent
the diversity, variety, and personally bound ways in which a national cul-
ture is enacted and interpreted (Orr & Hauser, 2008; Schwartz, 2006).
In their sensemaking, international students must remain open, vigilant,
and inquisitive. They will develop their unique ethnographies to shed
light on that culture, to negotiate it, and to contribute to their growing
intercultural competency—­a competency often regarded as the hallmark
of successful international student experiences (Holmes & O’Neil, 2012;
Lee, 2012).
In this cultural exploration of “the other,” international students will
hope that those they encounter are authentically themselves, representing
themselves as neither spokespersons for the culture nor representations
of it. For international students, the goal is to gain an accurate, reliable,
and useful understanding of the host culture. In realizing that goal, it
would be disingenuous to reproduce conventional stereotypes or perpet-
uate convenient mythologies. Authenticity and openness of “the other”
are critical for international students, but they are neither inevitable nor
assured—­authenticity and openness are closed and distorted by the ways
in which the other perceives the international student.

Culture Exploration of the Self

It is critical to appreciate that cultural explorations of the other are inex-
tricable linked to explorations and projections of the questing self. Even
for trained anthropologists, observations are more subjective than objec-
tive, and “no matter how well . . . trained, will see something that no
other such observer can recognize, namely a kind of harmonic projection
of the observer’s own personality” (Leach, 1984, p. 22).
International students will have to examine their own culture assump-
tions. One of their key concerns is to culturally self-­identify in ways that
successfully integrate past and present; that is, in ways that make “sense”
in their new social and academic surroundings. They must recognize that
the self is defined in both individual-­based and group-­based terms. The
first perspective “give[s] meaning to personal identity and serve[s] as a
basis for organizing and coordinating (potentially) disparate behaviors”
(Haslam, van Knippenberg, & Platow, 2014, p. 51). The second “help[s]
to direct and give[s] meaning to shared social identity which is used as a
framework for coordinating and organizing the behavior of (potentially)
disparate individuals” (p. 51).
22 David Starr-­Glass
International students are challenged to reconstruct an identity that
allows them to function within the new parameters of their individual-­
based and group-­based social contexts. To accomplish this they must
interrogate their pre-­existing cultural values, beliefs, and assumptions.
Based on this, they might consider different courses of action: (a)
integration, in which they place equal value on their own culture and
on building social relationships with the “other”; (b) assimilation, in
which they reject or negate their own culture and focus on relation-
ships with the “other”; (c) separation, in which they value and main-
tain their own culture and disengage from social relationships with the
“other”; or (d) marginalization, in which they neither preserve their
own cultures nor seek social relationships (Berry, 1997; Berry & Sam,
1997).
Arriving at a decision is moderated by four contextual factors: (a) the
density and strengths of international students on campus, particularly
those who share the individual’s country of origin; (b) the individual’s
host country language competency and self-­confidence; (c) the length of
the intended stay; and (d) institutionally centered and organized efforts
to facilitate integration (Sakurai, McCall-­ Wolf, & Kashima, 2010;
Smith & Khawaja, 2011; Yu & Wang, 2011). Institutionally, integra-
tion and assimilation are considered the most favorable outcomes, and
these are often actively promoted. From an international student per-
spective, the preferred option is the one that brings the greatest personal
satisfaction, optimal academic outcomes, and the best contribution to
personal wholeness and wellbeing (Wang, 2011; Yao, 2015). The least
preferred option is that which leads to being “isolated, alienated, lonely,
or invisible” (Strayhorn, 2012, p. 10). For the international student, the
decision-­making process can sometimes be spontaneous and clear-­cut;
however, for most it is a processes characterized by hesitancy, underly-
ing stress, and anxiety (Berry, 2006; Sedikides, Wildschut, Routledge,
Arndt, & Zhou, 2009).
As noted earlier, in the culture exploration of self—­just as in the culture
exploration of the other—­international students hope that their search is
grounded in authentic representations. They would like to assume—­even
though they may not articulate that assumption—­that they are dealing
with identities and self-­identities rooted in authenticity. Identity, self,
and representations of self are largely socially constructed; however, in
exploring cultural identity, we feel on more comfortable ground if we
believe that these explorations involve and are led by authentic selves—­
that is, by what have called true selves (Schlegel, Hicks, King, & Arndt,
2011; Strohminger, Knobe, & Newman, 2017).
Put differently, it is hazardous to reflect on cultural identities and cul-
tural projections of self when the “self” in question is understood to be
determined, influenced, and shaped by forces that lie beyond or outside
it. Successful explorations of who we are—­especially within the context
 Seeing International Students as Students 23
of new cultures and international experiences—­depend on a truthful and
authentic understanding of self, in the sense of both “something we see
in our own selves and in other people” (Strohminger et al., 2017, p. 552).
A primary threat to the true self, and of how we see ourselves and are
seen by others, is stereotype.

The Refractive Prism of Stereotype

The construct of stereotype, as applied to human behavior, was intro-
duced by Lippman (1922), who used it to describe persistent and signifi-
cant “pictures in our heads” (p. 3). Allport (1954) later defined it as “an
exaggerated belief associated with a category. Its function is to justify
(rationalise) our conduct in relation to that category” (p. 191, emphasis
added). When first introduced, stereotypes are often innocently attrib-
uted with neither positive nor negative inference; however, in time, they
become entrenched into our social lexicon and serve to color and recon-
struct experience in ways that reinforce originally held prejudices, limit
present understanding, and impact performance (Brink & Nel, 2015;
Spencer, Logel, & Davies, 2016).

The Prevalence and Impact of Stereotype

Stereotypes are rooted in social group classification, and the group
boundaries are usually based on gender, race, ethnicity, or some such
discernable factor. A cluster of attributes, associations, and character-
istics is affixed to the labeled group, and these features serve to repre-
sent it. The group is considered homogenous, and group members lose
their individuality and uniqueness. Encounters with group members—­
real and symbolic interactions, or even mention of the group—­trigger a
stereotype response. Stereotypes are self-­reinforcing because, “when we
expect certain behaviors of others, we are likely to act in ways that make
the expected behavior more likely to occur” (Rosenthal & Babad, 1985,
p. 36).
Stereotypes provide heurist benefit because they provide a rapid way
of making sense of the encountered world and of arriving at decisions
under prevailing conditions of risk, uncertainty, and complexity. But ste-
reotypes also act as prisms: selectively refracting and distorting the real
image and providing a differently colored one that is simpler and more
striking.
For example, in situational testing—­in which participants were asked
to rate identical educational or work-­related material purportedly sub-
mitted by different people—­raters were likely to grade “Jamal” and
“Lakisha” (and other candidates with Afro-­American names) lower than
“Greg” and “Emily.” Raters were more likely to recommend “Brian”
than “Jennifer” for engineering and scientific positions and preferred
24 David Starr-­Glass
“Juanita” over “Javier” for caregiving jobs. Raters were more likely to
recommend hiring White felons than similarly qualified Black non-­felons.
In all of these situations, stereotype and stereotype reaction were trig-
gered only by names on a form. These outcomes demonstrate the conse-
quences of social categorization, the prevalence of stereotypes, and the
compounded bias at the intersectional overlaps of different stereotyped
classes (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Ghavami & Peplau, 2013;
Pager, 2003; Walby, Armstrong, & Strid, 2012).
Intuitive reliance on stereotypes is demonstrably real. Stereotypes
prime cognitive and affective responses, but do not inevitably result in
active prejudice or discriminatory behavior; indeed, when stereotype
users are made aware of their biases, they often disavow any prejudiced
agenda. Stereotypes provide a useful decision-­making heuristic, but they
also deprive the subject of the stereotype of their individuality, person-
hood, or true self.
Stereotypes are embedded in our cultural world, and international
students will confront them and realize that they too are the subject of
them. The cultural sensemaking of international students, and just as
importantly the sensemaking of those with whom they interact, does
not take place through a process of authentic engagement; instead, it
occurs through and is moderated by the prism of stereotype (Osland &
Bird, 2000). Within the academy, the additional and unnecessary crea-
tion of an “international student” class, with its associated stereotype
associations, only complicates authentic engagement between these stu-
dents and their peers, faculty, and institution (Gomes, 2015; Tran &
Gomes, 2015).

The Threat of Stereotype

Stereotypes are not simply projected onto targets. Targeted individuals,
who become aware of the stereotypic assumptions, react towards them
and behave in ways that are shaped by them (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn,
1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Stereotype threats arise in situations
where there is “a negative stereotype about a person’s group, and he or
she is concerned about being judged or treated negatively on the basis of
this stereotype” (Spencer et al., 2016, p. 416). Those who feel under ste-
reotype threat work hard to negate the stereotype, and not infrequently
that “extra pressure can undermine the targeted groups’ performance,
making it more difficult for them to succeed than it would be for a non-
stereotyped person in their position” (p. 417).
Those under stereotype threat are acutely aware of a negative percep-
tion about a particular activity, and when engaging in it they are con-
scious that their performance will be judged with the stereotype in mind.
They are concerned that by confirming the stereotype their social identity
will be diminished, or endangered, and feel pressured to respond in one
 Seeing International Students as Students 25
of two ways (Nussbaum & Steele, 2007; Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Bur-
naford, & Weaver, 2008):

• Disaffirming the Stereotype: That is, attempting to prove that the

negative stereotype is wrong or inapplicable through increased
effort. This is particularly common for tasks that might be most
directly associated with stereotypic deficiencies, even though “over”
performance is arduous, stressful, and often paradoxically results in
underperformance (Ben-­Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005).
• Avoiding the Stereotype: That is, retreating from the implied threat
by disengaging or retreating from the threat-­evoking activity. In time,
they may exhibit increased negativity towards the activity, and in
doing so they often recognize the avoidance strategy and suffer a
decrease in their sense of self-­efficacy, self-­confidence, and wellbeing
(Osborne & Walker, 2006).

Stereotype threat is regularly encountered in social contexts. It can sig-

nificantly impact performance if the domain of stereotyped activity is
regarded by the individual as important. In academic and learning con-
texts, stereotype threats and the strategies adopted to cope with them
can result in individuals confronting or circumventing the stigmatiz-
ing image. Both strategies, however, can ultimately lead to underper-
formance, academic disengagement, or dropping out of the academy
altogether. Although stereotype threat has been under-­ researched for
international students, there is evidence to show that many students rec-
ognize an “international student” stereotype and that this contributes
to increased stress and diminished academic tenacity (Misra & Castillo,
2004; Pelley, 2009).

Seeing International Students as Students

As they explore their new culture, international students will become
aware of its prevalent stereotypes. They will encounter gender, racial, and
ethnic stereotypes, some of which will be familiar even though they may
be nuanced in unfamiliar ways. Some stereotypes will be unexpected and
not previously experienced. In this process of discovery, they will come to
find that international students themselves are stereotyped. They will dis-
cover that their host country and local community use the classification
of “international student” to include academic sojourners who are per-
ceived to be racially and ethnically different, and perhaps economically
and intellectually privileged. They will discover that the stereotype also
includes poor language skills, a propensity to cheat and plagiarize, and
a desire to exploit and take advantage of the local community. They will
encounter prejudice, hostility, and—­depending on the host country—­
expressions of inward-­directed nationalism and xenophobia.
26 David Starr-­Glass
Encounters between international students and the host culture
take place through the prism of stereotype. This is inevitable, but it
can be reduced by not priming the stigmatization. The academy can
help itself, its international students, domestic students, and faculty to
engage more authentically and productively by eliminating the unneces-
sary classification and stereotype consequences of the “international”
designation. Of course, it makes pragmatic sense to classify students
as “international,” but classification boundaries exclude. Establishing
an institutional “international student” classification invites a sense
of difference, special identity, and inclusion for the in-­group, but that
very classification separates that group from those who lie outside its
boundary—­faculty, other students, and the community of learning. It is
within this institutionally created otherness and separateness that ste-
reotypes develop.
This is not to claim that negative stereotyping is solely a product of
the institution’s international student classification. Unfortunately, ste-
reotyping is pervasive in the community outside the academy. However,
the unnecessary and unwarranted imposition of a classification boundary
only contributes to the prevalence of stereotypes. To be classified as an
“international student” has consequences for the student, but it also has
consequences for faculty and for the whole student community because
it changes the ways in which “international students” are acknowledged
and approached (Safipour, Wenneberg, & Hadziabdic, 2017; Valdez,
2015). Although students from abroad will almost inevitably encounter
stereotyping outside the college, it is educationally and socially incum-
bent that the academy reduces the possibility of stereotypic difference
wherever possible. It should abandon the practice of institutionally gen-
erated classifications, boundaries, and difference when it comes to guest
students.
Eliminating the “international students” designation is important for
a number of reasons:

• There is much rhetoric about the internationalization of the acad-

emy. However, internationalization does not come from rewriting
of curricula or the presence of foreign students on campus. Regret-
tably, but perhaps understandably, this rhetoric often masks financial
concerns at a time when U.S. higher education receives lower state
funding but can charge international students higher fees (Branden-
burg & De Wit, 2011; Macrander, 2017). If the academy is genuinely
committed to internationalization for educational gain, it should
question why the essential element for internationalization (student
fenced by “international student” designations.
diversity) is ring-­
Internationalization is about engagement, interaction, and the com-
ing together of difference that is neither limited nor circumscribed.
On the campus, internationalization means reducing boundaries and
 Seeing International Students as Students 27
encouraging intellectual interaction, not demarcating difference by
institutional labels.
• Regarding all students as students, irrespective of their place of ori-
gin, resonates with the mission of higher education. The mission of
higher education is increasingly being questioned; however, most
acknowledge that students should graduate with a richness of experi-
ence, greater cultural awareness, and a heightened sense of curiosity.
For this to happen, undergraduates need to be introduced to dif-
ference and encouraged to sustain its exploration. The institutional
labeling of students as “international” places a barrier to meaning-
ful exploration of difference for all students whether they do, or do
not, carry a defining label. Removing that stigmatizing label would
promote collaborative efforts, encourage collective learning, and
stimulate synergistic engagement in an un-­partitioned community of
learning. In the present interconnected world and in an increasingly
internationalized future, all undergraduates should best consider
themselves “international,” by aspiration and commitment if not by
origin or designation.
• Classifications and labels lead to stereotypes that are inherently
problematic and that lead to stigmatization, stereotype threat, and
possible academic underperformance, withdrawal, and marginali-
zation. These are all very bad outcomes for the students involved,
their peers, and their institutions. Stereotypes are inevitable and will
be confronted in the broader host community; however, the role of
higher education is to move beyond stereotype. Its role is to expect
and encourage students to do the same. Not all of the stereotypes
that surround international students can be eliminated, but their
prevalence and impact cannot be reduced if institutions of education
acquiesce to the creation of stereotype through their own system of
internal classification.

Too many of our undergraduates are underperforming, failing, and with-

drawing because they are burdened by stereotypes. Institutional efforts
should focus on helping students recognize and respond with resilience
to these fractured expectations and illusionary demands. Seeing all stu-
dents as students—­actively bypassing the deleterious prisms of race, eth-
nicity, and gender stereotyping—­is surely something that the academy
can appreciate. It is appropriate that the academy should work towards
eliminating the unnecessary problems of international classification.

Conclusion
New research needs to assess the impact and repercussions of classifying
students as international. The classification may have pragmatic advan-
tages, but these are negated by the unintended problems that flow from
28 David Starr-­Glass
it. Student classification, especially of students who may be sensitive of
their own difference, often reinforces difference in ways that inhibit aca-
demic success, cultural explorations, development of self-­identity, and
affinity with the community of learning. Classifications, especially where
unnecessary, are unwelcome and self-­limiting.
In the present author’s experience and practice, recognizing stu-
dents as students—­without further qualification or imposed labels—­
seems to produce more vibrant and integrated learning communities
and result in more empowered and resilient individuals. For example,
in his work with students at an international branch of a U.S. col-
lege in Prague, no “international” stigmatization is in place. There,
all 550 undergraduates, drawn from sixty different countries (with
Czechs representing 30% of the total), are regarded as students—­
without further qualification or differentiation (Starr-­Glass, 2017).
Unburdened by labels, and unconcerned by stereotypes and stereotype
threats, all students can engage in lively and constructive explorations
to make sense of their individual differences in cultures, perspectives,
and worldviews. The full potential of internationalization seems to be
realized on campus.
Of course, this situation may be atypical and not readily translatable
to other contexts. Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the vibrancy
of this truly international community of learning, and it may serve as
an inspiration—­rather than as a model—­for other campuses. The ques-
tion is whether our incoming students from abroad are to be treated as
valuable assets in institutional internationalization, producing campuses
and learning experiences that are more adapted to the 21st century, or
whether those students are to be limited—­by us and from us—­by labels
that serve no purpose except to differentiate and distance.
Hopefully, higher education might come to a place where it is stu-
dents who matter, irrespective of their origins, and dispense with reflex-
ively applied but quite unnecessary labels. Hopefully, we might come to
a place where we accentuate the positive aspects of our visiting students
and make their experiences more valued, rather than add unnecessary
and unhelpful barriers to their success and to their contribution to our
places of learning.

References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-­Wesley.
Bennett, M. J. (2012). Paradigmatic assumptions and a developmental approach
to intercultural learning. In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige, & K. H. Lou (Eds.),
Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and
what we can do about it (pp. 90–­114). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Ben-­Zeev, T., Fein, S., & Inzlicht, M. (2005). Arousal and stereotype threat.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 174–­181. doi:10.1016/­j.
jesp.2003.11.007
 Seeing International Students as Students 29
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychol-
ogy: An International Review, 46(1), 5–­34. doi:10.1111/­j.1464–­0597.1997.
tb01087.x
Berry, J. W. (2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W.
Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 43–­
57). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/­CBO978051
1489891.007
Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. W. Berry,
M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-­cultural psychology,
Vol 3: Social behavior and applications (2nd ed. pp. 291–­326). New York, NY:
Pearson.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable
than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination.
The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–­1013. doi:10.2139/­ssrn.422902
Brandenburg, U., & De Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. Interna-
tional Higher Education, 62, 15–­17. doi:10.6017/­ihe.2011.62.8533
Brien, M., & David, K. H. (1971). Intercultural communication and the
adjustment of the sojourner. Psychological Bulletin, 76(3), 215–­230.
doi:10.1037/­h0031441
Brink, L., & Nel, J. A. (2015). Exploring the meaning and origin of stereotypes
amongst South African employees. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/­
SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 41(1), Article 1234. doi:10.4102/­ sajip.
v41i1.1234
Church, A. T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 540–­
572. doi:10.1037/­0033–­2909.91.3.540
Counsell, D. (2011). Chinese students abroad: Why they choose the UK and how
they see their future. China: An international journal, 9(1), 48–­71. doi:10.114
2/­S0219747211000045
Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2014). Navigating change: A typology of student transi-
tion in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 734–­753. doi:10
.1080/­03075079.2012.721351
Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. A. (2013). An intersectional analysis of gender and
ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
37(1), 113–­127. doi:10.1177/­0361684312464203
Gomes, C. (2015). Negotiating everyday life in Australia: Unpacking the parallel
society inhabited by Asian international students through their social networks
and entertainment media use. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(4), 515–­536. doi:1
0.1080/­13676261.2014.992316
Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Platow, M. J. (2014). Social identity at
work: Developing theory for organizational practice. London, UK: Psychology
Press.
Heng, T. T. (2017). Voices of Chinese international students in USA colleges:
“I want to tell them that  . . .  ” Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 833–­850.
doi:10.1080/­03075079.2017.1293873
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London,
UK: McGraw-­Hill.
Holmes, P., & O’Neil, G. (2012). Developing and evaluating intercultural com-
petence: Ethnographies of intercultural encounters. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 36(5), 707–­718. doi:10.1016/­j.ijintrel.2012.04.010
30 David Starr-­Glass
Jackson, J. (2016). Encountering ‘the West’ through academic mobility: Shift-
ing representations and reinforced stereotypes. In R. Machart, F. Dervin, &
M. Gao (Eds.), Intercultural masquerade: Encounters between East and West
(pp. 17–­32). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/­978-­3-­662-­47056-­5_2
Leach, E. (1984). Glimpses of the unmentionable in the history of British social
anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13(1), 1–­23. doi:10.1146/­
annurev.an.13.100184.000245
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International stu-
dent perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–­409.
doi:10.1007/­s10734-­005-­4508-­3
Lee, L. (2012). Engaging study abroad students in intercultural learning through
blogging and ethnographic interviews. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 7–­21.
doi:10.1111/­j.1944–­9720.2012.01164.x
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Harcourt-­Brace.
Macrander, A. (2017). An international solution to a national crisis: Trends in
student mobility to the United States post 2008. International Journal of Edu-
cation Research, 82(1), 1–­20. doi:10.1016/­j.ijer.2016.12.003
Misra, R., & Castillo, L. (2004). Academic stress among college students: Com-
parison of American and international students. International Journal of Stress
Management, 11(2), 132–­148. doi:10.1037/­1072–­5245.11.2.132
Montgomery, C. (2010). Research on the international student experience:
A cultural landscape. In C. Montgomery (Ed.), Understanding the interna-
tional student experience (pp. 19–­40). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
doi:10.1007/­978-­0-­230-­36500-­1_2
Nussbaum, A. D., & Steele, C. M. (2007). Situational disengagement and per-
sistence in the face of adversity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
43(1), 127–­134. doi:10.1016/­j.jesp.2005.12.007
OECD. (2008). Education at a glance 2008: OECD Indicators. Paris, France:
Author. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/­dataoecd/­23/­46/­41284038.pdf
Orr, L. M., & Hauser, W. J. (2008). A re-­inquiry of Hofstede’s cultural dimen-
sions: A call for 21st century cross-­cultural research. The Marketing Manage-
ment Journal, 18(2), 1–­19.
Osborne, J. W., & Walker, C. (2006). Stereotype threat, identification with aca-
demics, and withdrawal from school: Why the most successful students of
colour might be most likely to withdraw. Educational Psychology, 26(4), 563–­
577. doi:10.1080/­01443410500342518
Osland, J. S., & Bird, A. (2000). Beyond sophisticated stereotyping: Cultural
sensemaking in context. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 65–­77.
doi:10.5465/­AME.2000.2909840
Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology,
108(5), 937–­975. doi:10.1086/­374403
Pelley, M. (2009). The impact of stereotype threat on the academic performance
of international students studying in the United. University of Portland, Com-
munication Studies Undergraduate Publications, Presentations and Projects.
43. Retrieved from http:/­/­pilotscholars.up.edu/­cst_studpubs/­43
Rosenthal, R., & Babad, E. Y. (1985). Pygmalion in the gymnasium. Educational
Leadership, 43(1), 36–­39.
Rublea, R. A., & Zhang, Y. B. (2013). Stereotypes of Chinese international stu-
dents held by Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
37(2), 202–­211. doi:10.1016/­j.ijintrel.2012.12.004
 Seeing International Students as Students 31
Safipour, J., Wenneberg, S., & Hadziabdic, E. (2017). Experience of education in
the international classroom—­a systematic literature review. Journal of Interna-
tional Students, 7(3), 806–­824. doi:10.5281/­zenodo.570035
Sakurai, T., McCall-­Wolf, F., & Kashima, E. S. (2010). Building intercultural
links: The impact of a multicultural intervention programme on social ties of
international students in Australia. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
tions, 34(2), 176–­185. doi:10.1016/­j.ijintrel.2009.11.002
Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., King, L. A., & Arndt, J. (2011). Feeling like you know
who you are: Perceived true self-­knowledge and meaning in life. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 745–­756. doi:10.1177/­0146167211
400424
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explica-
tion and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2/­3), 137–­182. doi:10.116
3/­156913306778667357
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Routledge, C., Arndt, J., & Zhou, X. (2009). Buff-
ering acculturative stress and facilitating cultural adaptation: Nostalgia as a
psychological resource. In R. S. Wyer, C. Y. Chui, & Y. Y Hong (Eds.), Under-
standing culture: Theory, research, and application (pp. 351–­378). New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Sewell, W. H., & Davidsen, O. M. (1956). The adjustment of Scandinavian stu-
dents. Journal of Social Issues, 12(1), 9–­19. doi:10.1111/­j.1540–­4560.1956.
tb00351.x
Smith, R. A., & Khawaja, N. G. (2011). A review of the acculturation expe-
riences of international students. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
tions, 35(6), 699–­713. doi:10.1016/­j.ijintrel.2011.08.004
Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review
of Psychology, 67, 415–­437. doi:10.1146/­annurev-­psych-­073115–­103235
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and
women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Sociology, 35(4), 4–­28.
doi:10.1006/­jesp.1998.1373
Spencer-­Oatey, H. (2012). What is culture? A compilation of quotations. Warick,
UK: Global PAD Open House. Retrieved from www2.warwick.ac.uk/­fac/­soc/­
al/­globalpad /­openhouse/­interculturalskills/­global_pad_-­_what_is_culture.pdf
Starr-­Glass, D. (2017). Troubling metaphors and international student adjust-
ment: Reflections from a transnational place. Journal of International Stu-
dents, 7(4), 1126–­1134. doi:10.5281/­zenodo.1035979
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test
performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 69(5), 797–­811. doi:10.1037/­0022–­3514.69.5.797
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educa-
tional success for all students. New York, NY: Routledge.
Strohminger, N., Knobe, J., & Newman, G. (2017). The true self: A psychologi-
cal concept distinct from the self. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4),
551–­560. doi:10.1177/­1745691616689495
Tran, L. (2016). Mobility as “becoming”: A Bourdieuian analysis of the factors
shaping international student mobility. British Journal of Sociology of Educa-
tion, 37(8), 1268–­1289. doi:10.1080/­01425692.2015.1044070
Tran, L., & Gomes, C. (2015, May 1). Stereotyping international students is
unjust. University World News (365). Retrieved from www.universityworld-
news.com/­article.php?story=20150428141315340
32 David Starr-­Glass
Tran, L. T., & Vu, T. T. P. (2016). “I’m not like that, why treat me the same
way?” The impact of stereotyping international students on their learning,
employability and connectedness with the workplace. Australian Educational
Researcher, 43(2), 203–­220. doi:10.1007/­s13384-­015-­0198-­8
Valdez, G. (2015). U.S. higher education classroom experiences of undergradu-
ate Chinese international students. Journal of International Students, 5(2),
188–­200.
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R.
(2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
95(6), 1325–­1339.
Walby, S., Armstrong, J., & Strid, S. (2012). Intersectionality: Multiple inequalities
in social theory. Sociology, 46(2), 224–­240. doi:10.1177/­0038038511416164
Wang, Y. (2011). Transformation of Chinese international students understood
through a sense of wholeness. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(4), 359–­370.
doi:10.1080/­13562517.2011.641004
Yao, C. W. (2015). Sense of belonging in international students: Making the
case against integration to U.S. institutions of higher education. University of
Nebraska—­Lincoln, Faculty Publications in Educational Administration, Pub-
lication 45. Retrieved from http:/­/­digitalcommons.unl.edu/­cehsedadfacpub/­45
Yu, W., & Wang, S. (2011). An investigation into the acculturation strate-
gies of Chinese students in Germany. Intercultural Communication Studies,
XX(2), 190–­210. Retrieved from http:/­/­web.uri.edu/­iaics/­files/­15WeihuaYuShu
Wang.pdf
3 Examining Two Queer
International Students’
Experiences of Culture
Shock
Antonio Duran and Jennifer Thach

Introduction
As the number of international students attending higher education insti-
tutions in the United States continues to rise (Becker & Kolster, 2012),
an increased need exists to produce research on these collegians’ expe-
riences. Among a multitude of reasons, the possibility for high-­quality
academic experiences often ranks as the primary motivator in their
enrollment at foreign institutions (Akanwa, 2015; Bista & Dagley, 2015).
As Hegarty (2014) described, international students study in developed
countries because “they feel they can get a better education abroad which
will differentiate them from their peers upon returning home” (p. 228).
Though the positive effects of having students from various countries
learn alongside each other has been documented in higher education lit-
erature (Bevis & Lucas, 2007), institutions still encounter great difficulty
in supporting these individuals socially and personally.
In fact, the extant literature on international student identity largely
revolves around culture and the transition to a new environment (Kim,
2012). Moreover, although literature examining international student
adjustment has grown, a paucity of research exists concerning the experi-
ences of international collegians who hold other marginalized identities.
For example, no prominent empirical studies on queer international stu-
dents have emerged in U.S. higher education scholarship (Quach, Todd,
Willis Hepp, & Doneker Mancini, 2013); yet, the amount of research
on queer collegians in higher education has been rising over the past few
decades (Renn, 2010). For students exploring their queer identity in a
different country, tension may inherently arise due to cultural contexts
that influence how people view sexuality (Herdt, 1993). With a shortage
of research about these collegians, U.S. institutions can lack an under-
standing of how queer international students adjust to new norms and a
different queer culture.
Thus, the purpose of this research study is to expand our understand-
ing on queer international students enrolled at predominantly White
institutions in the United States by examining how they experience
34 Antonio Duran and Jennifer Thach
culture shock. In their stories, participants described how they adapted
to new cultures, explaining the challenges and areas of support they
found in belonging to queer communities away from their home
country.

Literature Review
To set the foundation for the present study, we find it necessary to estab-
lish common understanding around these two identities. The term queer
describes individuals within an “identity category including sexualities
and gender identities that are outside heterosexual and binary gender
categories” (Renn, 2010, p. 132). Additionally, international students are
defined as “students holding foreign nationality who [are] pursuing post-­
secondary education outside of his/­her[/­their] country of origin” (Abdul-
lah, Ismail Abd Aziz, & Latiff Mohd Ibrah, 2014, p. 236).
Entering a new environment far from home, international students
may often experience feelings of anxiety, stress, and depression (Han,
Han, Luo, Jacobs, & Jean-­Baptiste, 2013). These feelings may stem from
adjustment challenges that international students commonly encounter
upon arriving to the United States such as language difficulties, academic
performance, acquiring financial support, and social adjustment or inte-
gration (Lin & Yi, 1997; Mori, 2000). Furthermore, international stu-
dents are required to fill several different social roles that they may never
have encountered previously. Bochner (1972) claimed that international
students must adjust to four new roles: university student, young adult,
foreigner, and ambassador for their home country. While transitioning
into these new roles, these collegians may begin to question their identity
and worry about how others perceive them.
Researchers such as Lysgaard (1955) and Gullahorn and Gullahorn
(1963) offered a model of cross-­cultural adjustment throughout an indi-
vidual’s journey when navigating a new culture and environment. Oberg
(1960) expanded upon Lysgaard’s (1955) model providing the terminol-
ogy of “honeymoon,” “crisis,” “recovery,” and “adjustment” that is
now commonly utilized to reference the culture shock experience. Since
then, a handful of researchers have expanded upon the culture shock
model, applying the theory to individuals such as tourists (Cort & King,
1979) and students traveling abroad (Yang & Noels, 2013). However,
these applications of the culture shock model frequently utilize contexts
other than the United States and do not center higher education institu-
tions in their studies. Moreover, these models also fail to consider how
other social identities might influence the experiences of culture shock
for individuals.
A recent rise in literature focuses on multiple dimensions of identity
in college students (e.g., Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007; Jones & McE-
wen, 2000). It is worth noting that substantially more studies exist on
 Queer International Students’ Culture Shock 35
the queer student of color experience (e.g., Patton & Simmons, 2008;
Peña-­Talamantes, 2013) than those examining the lives of queer interna-
tional collegians. An important exception is Narui’s (2011) study on gay
Asian and Asian-­American collegians, but this research focused more on
the oppressive discourses in higher education that affected these students
as opposed to their development. While not all international students
identify as people of color, the literature on queer students of color expe-
riences lends itself to understanding the difficulty that results from navi-
gating multiple oppressed identities.
For example, Moradi, Parent, and DeBlaere (2013) spoke about an
intersectional approach to queer and racial/­ethnic identities. According
to Moradi et al., scholars whose research focuses on queer people of color
have used two different theoretical foundations. The first is an additive
framework, where one’s queerness and one’s racial/­ethnic identity exist
singularly. The other asserts that both identities intersect to produce one
holistic experience. Ultimately, both approaches have different uses in
research centering queer students of color, and they also have the possi-
bility to shape our work with queer international identities. Even if queer
international students identify as White, they may encounter similar chal-
lenges to queer students of color considering their encounters with mul-
tiple systems of oppression.

Conceptual Framework
To guide our study, we employed the concept of culture shock as our
conceptual framework. Adler (1975) described culture shock as a “set of
emotional reactions to the loss of perceptual reinforcements from one’s
own culture, to new cultural stimuli which have little or no meaning,
and to the misunderstanding of new and diverse experiences” (p. 13).
These emotional responses fluctuate as individuals spend more time in
their new environment, requiring different forms of support depending
on their stage. A model frequently used with international students com-
bines the perspectives of Adler (1975) and Lysgaard (1955); in this inte-
grative approach, culture shock appears in stages: honeymoon, distress,
reintegration, autonomy, and independence (Davidson, 2010). Though
individuals go through both positive and negative encounters while
adapting to a new culture, the ultimate goal becomes independence, a
position reached when an individual can do the following:

accept and draw nourishment from cultural differences and simi-

larities, is capable of giving as well as eliciting a high degree of trust
and sensitivity, and is able to view both him or herself [sic] and oth-
ers as individual human beings that are influenced by culture and
upbringing.
(Adler, 1975, p. 18)
36 Antonio Duran and Jennifer Thach
Independence is therefore a place where individuals can balance the values
of their different cultures, as opposed to seeing them as competing systems.
This framework challenges us to think about how queer international
students fit within this concept. For example, the literature regarding cul-
ture shock fails to acknowledge additional backgrounds one may also
have, specifically the intersections of queer and international identities.
In their conceptual work on gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) Chinese
international collegians, Quach et al. (2013) argued that higher educa-
tion needs perspectives that integrate intersectional approaches to under-
stand these students’ transition process. Therefore, we use culture shock
as a guiding framework, expanding upon the experiences of international
students with multiple marginalized identities.

Study Design
This study employed a constructive case study methodology to best
understand the participants’ experiences at a Midwestern predominantly
White institution, allowing us to see reality as relative and dependent on
the perspective of participants (Creswell, 2014). In addition, our choice
to utilize case study as our methodology stems from the fact that it devel-
ops “an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single unit or
bounded system” (Merriam, 1998, p. 12). This research design pushes us
to identify the structures, relationships, and environments present at the
predominantly White institution (the bounded system) influencing our
participants. Subsequently, we used a case study approach in the hopes of
extrapolating detailed results that will improve higher education profes-
sionals’ knowledge on queer international students.

Recruitment and Data Collection

Data were collected at Midwestern University (MU, a pseudonym), a
predominantly White, public research institution of roughly 19,000 stu-
dents. Over the past ten years, MU has also experienced a sharp increase
in its international student population amounting to approximately
2,000 (both undergraduate and graduate). Yet, both Midwestern Uni-
versity and the town it belongs to have a history of issues relating to
national origin, gender identity, and sexual orientation. In recent years,
multiple incidents have occurred on MU’s campus that reveal xenopho-
bic, homophobic, and transphobic attitudes. These events have targeted
Asian international students particularly; additionally, the campus has
had past instances of violence against gay men.
For the purposes of this study, we recruited possible participants
through purposeful sampling, attempting to find specific groups willing
to engage in the project (Creswell, 2014). Fliers and other recruitment
materials were distributed using the campus LGBTQ office, as well as
 Queer International Students’ Culture Shock 37
International Student Support Services. Once identified, participants were
asked to disclose demographic information and engage in two 90-­minute
semi-­structured interviews (Stake, 1995) (one in the fall and the other in
the spring semester). Two participants elected to take part in this study.
This small sample size might be due to the stigma that comes with being
a queer international student, hence leading to a sense of wariness to
participate in this type of research. Nevertheless, the two individuals who
participated shared important information that shaped our findings.

Participants
The two participants in this study represent people with diverse identities
and national origins. One participant, Jason (he/­him/­his) identifies as a cis-
gender, gay Chinese man. At the time of the study, Jason was a first-­year
International Business student, selecting Midwestern for its academic rank-
ing and for the different social experiences he would have at the institution.
Jason arrived on campus already having come out to his immediate fam-
ily. Although he described them as accepting, Jason also disclosed that his
family made him see a corrective psychologist. Jason stated, “They’re not
very accepted, but they can still accept me. But they still want me to find a
girlfriend.” In his interviews, Jason spoke a great deal about the friends he
made at Midwestern and his hope to find an “American boyfriend.”
The other participant, Judith (they/­them/­theirs), described themselves as
a genderqueer, polyamorous, queer female from a small country in West-
ern Europe. At the time of the study, Judith was a third-­year student at
Midwestern University pursuing a major in Individualized Studies. Judith
came into Midwestern with a strong passion for social justice and activ-
ism. While they explored their queer sexuality prior to attending MU, they
embraced their genderqueer identity in college. Judith was also vocal about
their struggle with mental illness, tied largely to tensions with family. In
reflecting upon their time at Midwestern, Judith noted, “It’s still that place
where . . . I have so much more access to that bright and bubbly, queer
rainbow life. And back home, most people don’t even know I’m queer.” In
their interviews, Judith described their strong relationship with their aca-
demic programs, difficult relationships with family, and their activist work.

Data Analysis
Consistent with our conceptual framework, we utilized pattern-­matching
logic (Yin, 2002) to construct our study results. This method of data
analysis asks researchers to “compare an empirically based pattern with
a predicted one (or with several alternative predictions)” (Yin, 2002,
p. 136). When examining the data gathered from interviews, we coded
points of connection with the five-­stage model of culture shock (David-
son, 2010) that integrates the work of Adler (1975) and Lysgaard (1955):
38 Antonio Duran and Jennifer Thach
honeymoon, distress, reintegration, autonomy, and independence. After
coding our data using pattern-­matching logic, we compared their themes
with one another. By comparing our results and engaging in analytic tri-
angulation (Stake, 2005), we were able to establish more trustworthiness
in our data analysis. Once we examined our codes, we homed in on the
points where our participants discussed having to navigate their mar-
ginalized identities. These moments allowed us to propose a model of
culture shock specific to queer international students.

Results
In reviewing the participants’ stories, there are several notable findings
concerning key differences in culture shock and systems of support for
queer international collegians. Although these students began their expe-
riences in the honeymoon stage, the presence of their multiple marginal-
ized identities significantly influenced their experiences following their
initial euphoria. Therefore, we explore these moments in this chapter,
proposing a model for queer international students’ experiences of cul-
ture shock (Figure 3.1).
In this model, queer international students start with a honeymoon
stage. Yet, because of their multiple identities, they experience a form of
disillusionment that causes them to think about their international identity
separately from their queerness (represented by two diverging lines). These
collegians then grapple with the fact that they hold two oppressed identi-
ties, characterizing the “Multiple Identity Recognition” position. With the
help of peers and administrators, they find places where they feel comfort-
able being both queer and international, known as “Identity Reintegra-
tion.” Unique to queer international students is their return to their home
country, where they must confront their queerness once again. This posi-
tion, “Returning and Renegotiating,” proves especially difficult because
students perceive that they are losing their newfound independence around

Identity Adaptation &

Reintegration Independence
Honeymoon
Level of Comfort

Disillusionment
Returning &
Renegotiating

Multiple Identity
Recognition

Time in a Foreign Country

Figure 3.1 A Model of Culture Shock for Queer International Students

 Queer International Students’ Culture Shock 39
their queer identity. Eventually they learn the skills necessary to balance
these cultures’ competing values, a position referred to as “Adaptation
and Independence.” In keeping true with the tradition of the case study to
provide in-­depth descriptions of the experiences in a bounded system, we
further explore these positions utilizing the participants’ voices.

Honeymoon
Both the participants experienced a sense of euphoria after leaving coun-
tries that negatively regard non-­heterosexuality. For Jason, after learning
that he would travel to the United States for school, he stated, “I’m very
excited and I think, ooh, maybe I can get married in America!” Further-
more, during a pre-­orientation program occurring a few days prior to his
first year of college, Jason shared his queer identity for the first time in
public at MU. Reflecting upon this moment, Jason shared, “when I stand
up, I feel very nervous. Because my friend ask to me, ‘are you kidding
me?’ I tell him, ‘no, I’m serious. I’m gay.’ Uh, and my friend goes like
this *claps hand*.” These early conceptualizations of life in the United
States and interactions that Jason encountered when he first arrived at
MU brought him to experience a euphoria similar to Adler’s (1975) con-
tact stage and Lysgaard’s (1955) honeymoon stage.

Disillusionment
Following their euphoric arrival in the United States, the participants
described a period when they felt “disillusionment,” finding faults in the
new culture. This position closely resembles the “distress” phase found in
Adler’s (1975) and Lysgaard (1955)’s models. The disillusionment posi-
tion of culture shock is characterized by a sudden recognition of cultural
behaviors that they deem negative to their personal wellbeing and suc-
cess. These experiences were usually tied to one of their two salient iden-
tities: queerness or international student status.
In describing their experience with disillusionment, Judith spoke about
the vapid nature of conversations that they had with domestic students at
Midwestern University after the newness of their environment wore off.
According to Judith, people from outside of the United States resembled
coconuts: “Generally, there’s this idea where people from other places
are like coconuts where friendships and relationships—­it’s a hard shell
to crack. But once you’re in, you’re in.” In contrast, Judith described
feelings of frustration when having discussions with domestic students:

I can’t carry a conversation that goes beyond, “Where are you from?
I’ve been there or I haven’t been there!” That’s all you want to talk
about, really? “Like what’s it like to be an international student?” It’s
something where those relationships turn out to be really superficial.
40 Antonio Duran and Jennifer Thach
Though Judith was initially excited for an academically enriching experi-
ence, they soon felt slighted by the social interactions present at Midwest-
ern University.
This disappointment also came through in their experiences with a
campus queer club. Although they initially joined to connect with other
queer students, Judith soon stopped going because the organization
didn’t speak to their experiences around their other identities. In con-
trast, Jason continued to attend this club due to the friends he had made
there. However, Jason progressed to this disillusionment position when
he realized the small number of queer individuals on campus. He also
started to understand that sexuality was a more private matter than he
initially thought, exemplified when he asked his writing tutor if he was
gay. The writing tutor did not confirm or deny this, but Jason reflected
on this by saying that the situation was uncomfortable. When asked
whether or not it was appropriate to outwardly ask about someone’s
sexuality, Jason stated, “Me, I think it’s not. But, people if they don’t,
or if they are not gay, I think it’s not very good.” This disillusionment
lead Judith and Jason to attempt to find spaces of comfort elsewhere,
which they successfully did after moving through “Multiple Identity
Recognition.”

Multiple Identity Recognition

For queer international students, disillusionment was followed by “Mul-
tiple Identity Recognition,” in which they noticed the disadvantages for
having both queer and international identities. Therefore, this position
precedes any ability to find places or people where they feel comfortable
being both. For Jason, this moment of “Multiple Identity Recognition”
appeared when he attempted to find romantic partners. Using social
media apps such as Grindr or Jack’ed, Jason began to notice that his
identity as a Chinese international student influenced interactions with
potential partners. Jason described this in the following way:

I feel so sad because I don’t know why some people talking with me
through the social apps . . . we’re talking to each other and they are
very happy and excited. But when people met me, they feel different
than the internet. I don’t know why.

When challenged to think more about this experience, Jason then stated,
“Because people don’t like other countries’ boys. Because I send pictures
to them and they think, ‘Oh, you are an Asian boy. And you are not
my type.’ ” For Jason, attempting to make romantic connections is more
difficult in the United States because he is an international student. This
reality existed on top of the fact that queer students on Midwestern’s
 Queer International Students’ Culture Shock 41
campus already had a difficult time forming relationships because of its
homophobic environment. He eventually turned to a gay residence hall
staff member to help him understand this personal trouble.
Similarly, Judith stayed away from student organizations and strug-
gled with classroom interactions because they realized that they were
always called upon to give the queer/­international student perspective. As
someone who lives under “different axes of oppression,” as articulated
by Judith, they were often read as angry by their peers at MU. These
moments reminded Judith of the need for spaces that not only identify
“moments of greatness,” but also seek to comprehend the “experiences
of trauma” tied to social identities, places “where people will be real
with me and where I can be real with people, and um, and we can be
serious and humorous at the same time. And we can just really connect.”
Searching for this led Judith to find comfort in their academic college, the
Eastern School of Individualized Study.

Identity Reintegration
After the participants described acknowledging their challenges as indi-
viduals who are both queer and international, they started to carve out
spaces where they felt comfortable in these two identities; this moment of
culture shock becomes a period of “Identity Reintegration,” most similar
to the “Autonomy” stage of Adler (1975) and Lysgaard (1955). These
experiences of identity reintegration often stemmed from making key
connections with peers, faculty, and staff.
Judith spoke about the academic department to which they belonged,
the Eastern School of Individualized Study. During moments when they
felt rejected by the larger MU campus, they began cultivating a strong
support network within this small college community, which had a large
number of like-­minded people who identified with various genders and
sexualities. Judith described this Identity Reintegration stage by stating,
“It’s my primary community here where I fit in and where I come back
to.” Likewise, when Jason described his friends, he stated:

They are a very good person. When I tell them that I am gay, they
don’t scare me. They do not judge me. And they accept me. And they
feel very happy and that they have a good friend. Because in their
life, before, they did not meet very good people. So this is a different
experience in their life.

For both Jason and Judith, although it is difficult at times to navigate

MU as both a queer and international student, surrounding themselves
with these communities allowed them to feel comfortable in these
identities.
42 Antonio Duran and Jennifer Thach
Returning and Renegotiating
A critical point in our participants’ lives occurred when they revisited
their home countries, a position termed “Returning and Renegotiat-
ing.” For example, while Jason was excited to return home, Jason also
described being sad that pieces of his new lifestyle in America could not
be accessed back in China. For example, Jason described:

I feel very sad because I cannot use the Facebook. Because I can-
not use my American number so I can’t contact with my American
friends if they do not use the app. So some people I must contact
them through the Facebook, but I can’t use the wifi in our country.

Although Jason had a new network of friends in America, firewall bar-

riers prevented communication abroad; therefore, he had to renegotiate
this part of his everyday lifestyle.
Additionally, when Judith returned with their family in Europe, they
had to learn key tactics to remain resilient and engage in necessary self-­
care. For example, Judith described how they adjusted their practices
following tense confrontations with family members at Christmas when
they tried to speak out against patriarchal cultural norms:

But for me like as an outsider, it is really hard for me to say some-

thing. Um, especially since like last year Christmas, I was really com-
plicated . . . and it was really a disaster and this year I decided I’m
going to be on my best behavior.

In this statement, Judith communicates their difficulty in returning back

home, a place where they were expected to fit in traditional gender roles
and where their sexuality was erased.

Adaptation and Independence

When Judith returned to Midwestern, they eventually displayed cop-
ing skills necessary to balance both cultures, a development known as
“Adaptation and Independence.” In this position, students have already
returned home and dealt with the differences in values. They are then
able to adapt depending on which environment they find themselves
in—­college or their home country. While Jason did not display this posi-
tion prominently, Judith—­as a third-­year student—­had the experience in
traveling back home after multiple semesters.
Over their time in college, Judith maintained a troubling relationship
with home and their family members who never left there. Yet, although
Judith still experienced verbal attacks from their family, Judith disclosed
how studying in the United States allowed them to start being their
true self. After their first year, they started to dress more masculine of
 Queer International Students’ Culture Shock 43
center and dyed their hair to symbolize change. In discussing this tension
between cultures, Judith said:

But the way I navigate that is to stay away from that [conflict] in
most cases, I have built this family of people [at MU] that is okay for
me to be and is encouraged for me to be.

This quote exemplifies the “Adaptation and Independence” position,

showing Judith reveling in their support at Midwestern University while
also knowing how to deal with more conservative values back home.
Judith has effectively learned from their previous experiences of culture
shock, knowing how to adapt in a way that allows them to be successful
as they move forward.

Discussion
Through a case study approach, this research greatly contributes to
higher education’s understanding of collegians who identify as both
queer and international. Specifically, two areas of discussion surface
that add to the extant literature on the multiple identity dimensions of
these students. Quach et al.’s (2013) conceptual piece on queer Chinese
international students acknowledged that higher education administra-
tors need research to inform their practices around this student demo-
graphic. In particular, Quach et al. (2013) underscored this demand by
stating that students could better describe their “experience, confusion,
and struggles with this process using a theoretical model that facilitates
an understanding of the two cultures” (p. 266). Though this research
uses a small sample size, it serves as an initial exploration of a popula-
tion previously rendered invisible in higher education scholarship. The
present study also stresses the significance of staff (in the case of the
residence life member who helped Jason), faculty, and peers in assisting
these students.
Second, the results also complicate siloed perspectives on culture
shock, challenging higher education administrators to bring a critical
eye to models that fail to specifically account for multiple identities.
For example, Jason needed to come to terms with the fact that he was
perceived differently than his peers for holding these multiple identities.
Moreover, his attempts to connect with potential romantic partners were
often thwarted due to his international status. Similarly, Judith also navi-
gated coming out as genderqueer to communities at Midwestern Uni-
versity as well as with family back home. These narratives showcase a
need to revisit prominent theories around social identities, questioning
their utility with students who come from multiple marginalized back-
grounds. Consequently, this present study extends the work on multiple
dimensions of identity (e.g., Abes et al., 2007; Jones & McEwen, 2000)
44 Antonio Duran and Jennifer Thach
by asking practitioners and faculty members to bring a critical lens when
relying upon past theories.

Directions for Future Research and Practice

The new perspectives on culture shock offered by the participants create
numerous implications for both research and practice. First, this research
proposes a preliminary framework that will allow future scholars to bet-
ter comprehend the lives of queer international collegians. The model
proposed in this chapter is based on the experiences shared by the two
participants, thus limiting its generalizability to other populations. How-
ever, since qualitative research instead strives for transferability (Creswell,
2014), it is our hope that scholars and practitioners can interpret these
results and apply them in their own contexts. Consequently, higher edu-
cation professionals should consider the unique individuals and environ-
ments present at their own institution when interpreting this model.
Researchers can also build upon these perspectives by studying the
experiences of students who come from similar/­different countries, as
well as queer international graduate students who have already com-
pleted their undergraduate degrees. Furthermore, scholarship would ben-
efit from more longitudinal perspectives, exploring how these individuals
utilize life skills on transitioning to new cultures post-­college. Finally,
while the extant literature acknowledges the difficulties in adapting to
new environments (e.g., Kim, 2012), stories such as Jason’s showcase the
need to assist students as they make social and romantic connections.
Higher education scholars and practitioners must hence come to know
queer international students from a holistic perspective.
Next, these study results function as an important foundation for prac-
titioners and faculty members working with queer international students.
Administrators should consider the different points in a queer interna-
tional student’s transition when they might be having difficulty (e.g., after
the novelty of the start of the school year wears off or when they pre-
pare to return home). In addition to informal conversations with these
individuals, institutions must also engage queer international students
through programmatic experiences. Services on campus that cater to
queer and international populations must advocate for the intersections
of these identities. Administrators must search for tangible ways to create
intersectional approaches in the form of student organizations, campus
events, and more.

Conclusion
By centering the narratives of two queer international students, this study
challenges faculty and higher education staff to consider the experiences
of a demographic often placed on the margins. As Becker and Kolster
 Queer International Students’ Culture Shock 45
(2012) noted, the United States “will remain one of the most important
study destinations worldwide for some time to come” (p. 37). Therefore,
higher education administrators must continue to think about how they
support international students both socially and academically, including
those collegians with more than one marginalized identity. Through this
model of culture shock specific to queer international students, higher
education professionals will be better equipped to engage in these discus-
sions with their students, assisting them in their transitions. The expe-
riences they have in higher education have a substantial potential to
influence their lives outside of the college gates, allowing them to find a
sense of independence valuable across cultures.

References
Abdullah, D., Ismail Abd Aziz, M., & Latiff Mohd Ibrah, A. (2014). A “research”
into international student-­related research: (Re)Visualising our stand? Higher
Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 67(3),
235–­253.
Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model
of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-­making capacity in the
construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development,
48(1), 1–­22.
Adler, P. S. (1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of culture
shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(4), 13–­23.
Akanwa, E. E. (2015). International students in Western developed countries:
History, challenges, and prospects. Journal of International Students, 5(3),
271–­284.
Becker, R., & Kolster, R. (2012). International student recruitment: Policies and
developments in selected countries. The Hague, Netherlands: Nuffic.
Bevis, T. B., & Lucas, C. J. (2007). International students in American colleges
and universities: A history. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bista, K., & Dagley, A. (2015). Higher education preparation and decision mak-
ing trends among international students. College & University, 90(3), 2–­11.
Bochner, S. (1972). Problems in cultural learning. In S. Bochner & P. Wicks
(Eds.), Overseas students in Australia (pp. 65–­81). Randwick, NSW: New
South Wales University Press.
Cort, D. A., & King, M. (1979). Some correlates of culture shock among Ameri-
can tourists in Africa. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3(2),
211–­225.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Davidson, M. (2010). Culture shock, learning shock and re-­entry shock. Retrieved
from www.nottingham.ac.uk/­pesl/­internationalisation/­teaching/­documents/­7/­
Gullahorn, J. T., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1963). An extension of the U-­curve hypoth-
esis. Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 33–­47.
Han, X., Han, X., Luo, Q., Jacobs, S., & Jean-­Baptiste, M. (2013). Report of a
mental health survey among Chinese international students at Yale University.
Journal of American College Health, 61(1), 1–­8.
46 Antonio Duran and Jennifer Thach
Hegarty, N. (2014). Where we are now-­the presence and importance of inter-
national students to universities in the United States. Journal of International
Students, 4(3), 223–­235.
Herdt, G. (Ed.). (1993). Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in
culture and history. New York, NY: Zone Books.
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimen-
sions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–­414.
Kim, E. (2012). An alternative theoretical model: Examining psychosocial iden-
tity development of international students in the United States. College Student
Journal, 46(1), 99–­113.
Lin, J. C. G., & Yi, J. K. (1997). Asian international students’ adjustment: Issues
and program suggestions. College Student Journal, 31(4), 473–­479.
Lysgaard, S. (1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright grant-
ees visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45–­51.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in educa-
tion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.
Moradi, B., Parent, M., & DeBlaere, C. (2013). Approaches to research on inter-
sectionality: Perspectives on gender, LGBT, and racial/­ethnic identities. Sex
Roles, 68(11–­12), 639–­645.
Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 137–­144.
Narui, M. (2011). Understanding Asian/­ American gay, lesbian, and bisexual
experiences from a poststructural perspective. Journal of Homosexuality,
58(9), 1211–­1234.
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock and the problem of adjustment to new cultural
environments. Practical Anthropologist, 7, 177–­182.
Patton, L. D., & Simmons, S. L. (2008). Exploring complexities of multiple iden-
tities of lesbians in a Black college environment. Negro Educational Review,
59(3/­4), 197–­215.
Peña-­Talamantes, A. E. (2013). Empowering the self, creating worlds: Lesbian
and gay Latina/­o college students identity negotiation in figured worlds. Jour-
nal of College Student Development, 54(3), 267–­282.
Quach, A., Todd, M. E., Willis Hepp, B., & Doneker Mancini, K. (2013). Con-
ceptualizing sexual identity development: Implications for LGB Chinese inter-
national students. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 9(3), 254–­272.
Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and
status of the field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132–­141.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed. pp. 443–­466).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Yang, R. P. J., & Noels, K. A. (2013). The possible selves of international stu-
dents and their cross-­cultural adjustment in Canada. International Journal of
Psychology, 48(3), 316–­323.
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
4 Concepts of Friendship
Among Chinese
International Students
Amanda E. Brunson

Introduction
Previous scholarship on international students in the United States has
shown the benefits of international students and domestic students being
friends with each other (Bochner, McLeod, & Lin, 1977; Kisang, 2010;
Li & Gasser, 2005; Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992; Olaniran, 1993; Ram-
say, Jones, & Barker, 2007; Surdam & Collins, 1984; Yeh & Inose,
2003). While there have been studies to establish friendship patterns
(Bochner, McLeod, & Lin, 1977; Brown, 2009; Chavajay, 2013; Tsai &
Wong, 2012) and studies that suggest having American friends helps with
the cultural adjustment process (Hirai, Frazier, & Syed, 2015; Lin, 2012;
Zhang & Goodson, 2011), at the time this present study took place there
were no studies that examined how international students conceptualize
friendship.
It is especially important to more closely examine friendships among
Chinese international students and domestic students. First, China is the
leading country of origin for international students in the United States
(Institute of International Education, 2017). Second, researchers have
noted that Asian international students tend to have a more difficult time
adjusting to the cultural differences in the U.S. than do international stu-
dents from other areas of the world (Bista, 2015; Cross, 1995). Third,
many researchers have concluded that it is beneficial for Chinese students
to have American friends because it helps with cultural adaptation and
overall satisfaction with life in the U.S. (Du & Wei, 2015; Wang, Hepp-
ner, Wang, & Zhu, 2015; Wang, Wei, & Chen, 2015).The purpose of
this qualitative study was to better understand how Chinese international
students, at one particular university, conceptualize friendship.

Literature Review
Pedersen (1991), Sovic (2009), and Yeh and Inose (2003) noted that one
of the reasons moving to and living in a foreign country are difficult is
because students leave behind their social network and support in their
48 Amanda E. Brunson
home country. According to one study, one of the most common com-
plaints from international students was that they did not have American
friends (Gareis, 1995), and, according to another study, one of their big-
gest fears was not being able to make friends (Kwon, 2009). Some stud-
ies have looked at whom international students are friends with and the
function those friendships play (Bochner, McLeod, & Lin, 1977; Brown,
2009; Chavajay, 2013). Others have pointed out that international stu-
dents tend to become friends with people from their same country or
region (Kusek, 2015; Neri & Ville, 2008; Razek & Coyner, 2013; Tsai &
Wong, 2012), and several have concluded that having American friends
is beneficial to international students because it leads to cultural adapta-
tion, which also can help them become successful students (Kisang, 2010;
Li & Gasser, 2005; Olaniran, 1993; Surdam & Collins, 1984).
One explanation for the difficulties Asian students often have when
trying to make friends might be cultural differences. One of these differ-
ences is that people from East Asian cultures tend to be interdependent,
while Americans tend to be independent (Cross, 1995; Hofstede, 2001;
Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida, 2007). Hofst-
ede; Markus and Kitayama; and Kitayama et al. describe the independ-
ent mode of being as individualistic and self-­centric. In contrast, people
in interdependent cultures tend to act in response to what is expected of
them by their family and by society. Of course, not every Asian student is
interdependent, but the predominant culture in Asian countries is inter-
dependent, which can make adjustment to American culture difficult.
Another way that researchers (Hofstede, 2001; Ho & Chiu, 1994)
have categorized cultural differences is by describing them as individu-
alistic or collectivist. Hofstede described collectivist cultures as societies
that place an emphasis on the group rather than the individual. Based
on their research findings, Hofstede (2001) and Ho and Chiu (1994)
concluded that the predominant culture of China was collectivist, but
they also warned against stereotyping every individual Chinese person
as collectivist.
There have also been studies on Chinese international students in the
U.S. in particular (Du & Wei, 2015; Liao & Wei, 2014; Lowinger, He,
Lin, & Chang, 2014; Wang et al., 2012; Wang, Heppner et al., 2015;
Wang, Wei et al., 2015; Valdez, 2015; Zhang & Goodson, 2011). In three
of these studies (Du & Wei, 2015; Wang, Heppner et al., 2015; Wang,
Wei et al., 2015), the researchers demonstrated that being connected to
the mainstream culture benefited Chinese international students in some
way: Du and Wei, for example, concluded that students who were more
acculturated felt more satisfied with life than students who were more
socially connected to other Chinese students. Similarly, Wang, Wei, and
Chen found that social connectedness to the mainstream culture was sta-
tistically significantly predictive of satisfaction with life, but that social
connectedness to Chinese culture was not significantly predictive. Wang,
 Concepts of Friendship Among Chinese International Students 49
Wei et al. concluded that Chinese students who have more interaction
and more friendships with American students have higher levels of sat-
isfaction and are better adjusted to American culture than Chinese stu-
dents who are not as connected to the mainstream culture.

Method
The study included thirty-­ three participants at one university in the
Southeastern United States. At the time the study took place, 1,817 inter-
national students were studying there, nearly 50% of whom came from
China. All thirty-­three participants were Chinese and had either an F-­1
or J-­1 visa. Eighteen were classified as graduate students, thirteen were
undergraduates, and two were visiting scholars. I received approval from
the Institutional Review Board, all participants signed informed consent
forms, and all names of people and towns have been changed to protect
confidentiality.

Data Collection
I conducted twenty semi-­ structured interviews, each of which lasted
approximately 60 minutes. The questions were open-­ended, and ideas
were pursued as participants brought them up. In order to triangulate
the data collection, I also conducted one focus group interview with five
additional participants, interviewed eight more participants informally,
and conducted observations at an on campus event called International
Coffee Hour. Those who were interviewed informally were approached
during Coffee Hour and asked a few questions.
Coffee Hour took place most Fridays from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM
throughout the fall and spring semesters. I attended five times in order to
observe and take jottings that were later written up as field-­notes. I paid
special attention to whether Chinese students and domestic students
interacted with each other and who initiated the interaction.

Data Analysis
After each interview, I transcribed and coded it. During the first cycle of
coding I used initial coding, meaning I read the transcripts and created
codes that defined what I was reading. For the second cycle of coding,
I used focused coding, meaning I categorized the initial codes. In order to
do this, I looked for patterns, “raised” (Charmaz, 2014) some codes to
focused codes, and categorized the initial codes under the focused codes.
In addition, I further categorized the focused codes into three overarch-
ing themes.
Throughout the entire data analysis I used the constant compara-
tive method (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), meaning
50 Amanda E. Brunson
I compared the data at every level. Thus, within each interview, state-
ments and incidents were compared, and what was said in one inter-
view was compared to what other participants said in their interviews.
Likewise, field-­notes from observations on one day were compared to
field-­notes from other days, and those were also compared to the inter-
view data.

Findings
Data analysis revealed three themes. In this section, I focus on the find-
ings that contribute to the existing literature on Chinese international
students and friendship.

Chinese Conceptualization of Friendship

A few participants directly stated that they believed the idea of what a
friend is and what friendship means differs for Chinese and American
students. Within this theme there are three subthemes that describe the
Chinese conceptualization of friendship.

Friendship Development Takes Time

Several participants mentioned that it takes a long time to establish a
friendship and that two people cannot act like friends, meaning they can-
not be friendly to one another or share details about their lives, until a
significant amount of time has passed. The participants contrasted this
with how they perceived Americans to make friends. They noticed that
Americans might meet by happenstance in class or at an on campus event
and immediately start talking. Lei said,

I will say Chinese need more time or experience to make friends. And
American, in my experience, just chance. If you have chance to talk
with them, or you can meet them somewhere, some activities, you
can make the friends.

Likewise, Jing stated, “Here is easy, but relatively easier. But in China
I think it really takes a lot of time.” She elaborated:

Here making friends [for Americans] is more easy. It’s easier. Like,
when you go to a bar probably you just see someone and you start
talking to them. . . . So I think here is more like casual, but there, in
China, it’s like you build on the relationship. You have to have some-
thing, like, is, for example, you go to class together, or you attend an
event together, or you knew a mutual friend, or you have, like, you
know, some sort of relationship.
 Concepts of Friendship Among Chinese International Students 51
Although the participants explained that it takes a long time to develop
friendships, they also said that once a friendship is established, it is a
strong relationship. Na said, “In China although it takes a longer time to
build friendship, but as soon as you build it, it is very hard to break it.
So the friendship maybe last for a long period.” Likewise, Yu explained,
“I think Chinese people don’t trust strangers easily. But once they make
good relationships they tend to you know hang out together more often.”
In addition, the participants said that Chinese people tend to have
fewer friends than Americans do, but that those relationships also tend
to be more intimate than Americans’ friendships. Fang said that she has
a small number of closely knit friends. Likewise, Lei said that he thinks
Americans use the term friend more loosely than Chinese people. By this
he meant that Americans might have a great number of friends, many of
which are not deep relationships, but Chinese people use the word friend
to describe only their closest relationships. Lei said, “I mean, the friend,
the word friend in America is not that special. Everything can be friends.
But in China we do usually mention friends as an important word. It
means sometimes responsibility.”

Friendship Maintenance Through Reciprocity

Several participants also spoke about the importance of gift giving, help-
ing each other, and returning favors as important aspects of develop-
ing and maintaining friendship. For example, Ying said, “You have to
give gifts to maintain friendship.” Similarly, Jing said, “You know, also
we exchange gifts, like during most important occasions, so that’s close
friend.”
The monetary value of the gifts was also important. Two participants
gave examples of needing to match the value of the gift. For instance, if
one person gave a friend a birthday gift that was worth $50, that per-
son would expect a gift with a value of $50 or more when it was their
birthday.
In addition, a few participants mentioned being offended by gifts
Americans had given them. For example, Na was shocked that Ameri-
cans would give gift cards, wine, or flowers, things she considered to be
impersonal. She contrasted this with gift giving in Chinese culture: “In
China it will take you longer time to think about what to send as a gift.
Choosing gift is also an art in China.” In addition, Wang told a story of
one of his Chinese friends feeling insulted when her American friend gave
her a bumper sticker for her birthday.
Helping was another thing that almost all of the participants men-
tioned. Jie said, “And [my friend] give me lots of help, I give him lots of
help.” Qiang said that a friend “may help you when you need. Hopefully.
Like family. I think that’s a friend.” Likewise, Jing also explained that
“Chinese people are more helpful with their friends.” She went on to
52 Amanda E. Brunson
say, “But you know for Chinese people it’s more like, hey, we’re friends.
It’s your obligation. It’s kind of part of the friendship pact. You have to
help me, right?” Na noted, “When you have trouble, when you need
help, and they are the person you can first think. You can ask help from.
And usually they can help you and give you some guidance, advice, or
something else.”
Related to the idea of helping was the concept that when a person is
helped by a friend, he or she should return the favor. Yang explained it
this way: “I think it’s very common that I was taught, like when I was
a little girl, so if someone do you a favor, trying to pay back in certain
ways. Not necessarily in the same way, but try to be as helpful as you
can.” She went on to say that “that’s like an important component” to
friendship. Jing explained it like this:

But for the Chinese people, it’s our um gratitude for you helping us.
Helping is not a one way traffic. It’s two way. You help me, I give you
something. So that’s how Chinese people always maintain friendship
with each other. It’s like the unspoken word of the friendship.

Another participant also emphasized helping and returning favors. He

stated,

Within your friendship or friends, that small circle, the small society.
They expect you to do more. And also you are expected to do more
for them, like, you know, you do some favor to them and they will
return the favor.

Group Mentality
The participants explained that among friends there should be a focus on
the group rather than the individual. Jie talked about how he views his
friendships: “We in the same situation. And you will close to each other.
We call that sitting in one boat. . . . If you fall, you fall together. If you
smoothly, you be smoothly together.” During the focus group interview,
Chen and Tang contrasted Chinese and American culture and explained,

Tang: Yeah, also, I think most of Americans more emphasize on their

rights, which is another reason for me, I don’t to talk with some
Americans. Yeah.
Chen: I think in China, focus on group.
Tang: Yeah, focus on group.
Chen: More than individual.

Because of the group mentality Chinese friends are closely involved in

each other’s lives. Wei told me a story of an interaction with two of his
 Concepts of Friendship Among Chinese International Students 53
closest American friends to explain one of the biggest differences between
the Chinese and American view of friendship.

For example, the other day I asked my American friends if I can run
on the street. And they told me that I can, but they won’t do it.
And I was like, that’s a pretty liberal approach to me. Like, “You
have the freedom to run, but then you run at your own risk. I have,
I am not involved in this, I have nothing to do with this. But for
me, I wouldn’t do it.” And in my mind, friends, as friends, or close
friends, you should tell your friends that you should not do it. You
need to give some suggestions or advice about that, instead of saying
you can run.

Wei also told a story about his two American roommates going out
of town for a few nights without telling him. His expectation was that
because they were friends, they should have told him where they were
going and when they would be back. Wei said,

So that’s something like I found it difficult to deal with. Without

being told earlier when they were going. But in general I think it is
this very, very democratic, very liberal way of dealing with things
that kind of makes me I can’t get used to that.

Wang had some similar things to say. He explained his understanding

of American friendship like this:

If I am a friend with you so I won’t go too much to your side. And

I don’t want you to bother me too much of this side. So that’s why
I understand about Americans and friendship. So we are friends, we
can care about each other, but I don’t want to bother you too much
about your personal stuff or something.

When I asked him to clarify what he meant, Wang said, “[Americans]

don’t want to get involved in your life too much. . . . [Chinese] will get
involved in others’ lives.” He then went on to give several examples of
personal questions Chinese people ask one another that, in his experi-
ence, tend to make Americans uncomfortable.

Challenges to Becoming Friends With Americans

Several participants said that it was difficult to make friends with Ameri-
cans. Yang said, “I feel like it’s hard for me to get more involved with my
Americans friends, or just my American classmates in general.” Likewise,
Chen noted, “I can make friends easier with, with international students
54 Amanda E. Brunson
than American.” “It’s very difficult to makes friends,” said Liu, during
an informal interview.

Cultural Differences
Several participants noted that cultural differences were a barrier to mak-
ing friends with Americans. For example, Na said, “So the main prob-
lem for me probably is the culture. So totally different culture between
the Western and the Eastern.” Zhao connected cultural differences with
difficulty becoming friends. He said, “Maybe they have a very different
understanding of being friends. Culture thing.”
The biggest cultural difference that participants mentioned was the
extreme friendliness of Americans at the university and the surrounding
area. Among the participants, there were two different reactions to Amer-
icans’ friendliness. First, some found the friendliness to be off-­putting:
several participants mentioned finding it strange that Americans whom
they did not know would greet them and ask them how they were doing.
Ying said, “It confuses me at the very beginning. Like, strangers said hi to
me. Really like, ‘Hey! How are you doing?’ Like that. I thought, ‘What’s
that all about?’ ” Another participant explained that sometimes he felt
like Americans were acting as though they were already at a deeper level
of friendship with him, even though they had just met. He told a story
about a time a new acquaintance offered to give him a ride somewhere:

And the first, “Hi, Jie! I know you don’t have car. I can drive you.”
But I think that’s very close friends do. . . . I’m confused about
that. . . . “That’s OK. You don’t need to drive me.” And I feel very so
weird. Why do you drive me? You want to take something from me?
I will feel uncomfortable.

Other participants interpreted the friendliness to mean that they had

formed a friendship, only to later discover that while the Americans were
acting friendly, they were not actually their friends. Tang gave a few
examples of American students saying that they should hang out, but
then nothing ever came of it. Wei shared a story about having a few peo-
ple over for dinner and then never hearing from them again. Na described
her experience like this: “Some people you meet every day and you say,
‘Hello! How are you doing?’ So it seems that you are very intimate, but
actually when you are in trouble, maybe not.” Similarly, Yang said, “Eve-
ryone will say, ‘Hey, how’s everything going?’ And then, I mean, it makes
you feel like you got some friends at the very beginning, but not really.”
And, Wang said he would tell newcomers from China, “[Americans] say
let’s do something together not actually means it. So you need to under-
stand that people sometimes are just saying it, not actually going to do it.
Don’t expect people to do it so much.”
 Concepts of Friendship Among Chinese International Students 55
Efforts to Overcome Challenges
Most of the participants expressed that they believed it was important
to have friends who were Americans while they were living in the United
States. As Min said,

I think it’s very important because like in my opinion I think Ameri-

can people is more friendly than Chinese people. And if you always
stay with them you can improve your English, and you can know
more things about the America. They will tell you something, some
American culture.

Xu said, “If I don’t make friends with Americans, I won’t meet my goal
of studying abroad because I have to get into Americans’ culture.” Simi-
larly Jun said that if he did not have American friends, he might as well
have stayed in China. He said, “Sure. It’s really [important]. Why? Oth-
erwise why we come here?” And, Zhu said, “I think why it’s important
to have American friends is they know much more than we know about
the America. Of course, language and the college. And other things. And
culture also. So they can teach me a lot.”

Put Themselves Out There

Many of the participants expressed that in order to make American
friends, Chinese students must take the initiative and put themselves out
there. For example, Min said, “You can’t wait them to ask you some-
thing. You should ask them first.” Likewise, Yang said, “Don’t be afraid
of stepping up. Like don’t be afraid of being the first one to start the
conversation.” Also, Na said,

So at first you need to open yourself. Not close your minded. So you
need to open minded. And you need to active. Don’t wait for others
come here to talk with you, to make friends with you. You need to
go out. Yeah. To try. Actively.

Some of the participants gave examples of how they actively sought

opportunities to meet and talk with Americans. For instance, Lei and
Wei said they were involved in community service. Wei said, “So through
those activities, like community service. Through those activities you can
get to know not just American students, but also locals.” He also said,
“Whenever I see locals I would try to be friendly.”

Distance Themselves From Other Chinese

A few participants made a point to tell me that they were different from the
majority of Chinese students. During our interview, Liang and I started
56 Amanda E. Brunson
talking about collectivism and individualism. “I don’t like [collectivism].
I don’t like it,” Liang said. “I like American culture.” Likewise, Jun also
expressed a preference for American culture. “I’m pretty like American
style [of communication]. Yeah. Prefer to the Chinese way,” Jun stated.
Similarly, Qiang also contrasted his behavior to that of other Chinese
students. He told me that most Chinese students, when they first arrive
here, will ask other Chinese people for advice. However, Qiang does not
do that. He explained, “Every time, say if I come to a new place I’ll ask
a local people, ‘What do you do here? What do you eat? Where do you
live? Where are the good places around here?’ ”
In addition, Wei talked about purposefully adjusting his definition of
friendship in order to adapt to the culture. In this way, he distanced him-
self from other Chinese students’ view of friendship. He said,

Yeah, I think here in the US. I think, whenever I come to visit a for-
eign country that the definition of friends kind of changes a little bit.
Because when I’m in a foreign country, I am not quite familiar with
the local customs and practices. And at this time I need the locals to
help me because they have more knowledge on certain things. So, for
the purpose of being, in order to survive, then I will try to make more
friends and then try to lose some of that definition of friendship.

Discussion
Based on what the participants in this study said, Chinese students focus
on the group more than the individual, and as a result they feel an obli-
gation to help their friends and return the favor after their friends have
helped them. Furthermore, the bonds of friendship are tight, once they
have been established; however, it may take some time for the friendship
to form in the first place. This tight bond is related to the group mentality.
When Chinese students are friends with someone, they consider that per-
son to be a part of their group. Thus, once a person is part of the group, as
long as the relationship is maintained, the friendship is not easily severed.
The fact that it takes a while for the friendship to begin is also related to
the group mentality. If a person is not a member of the group, the group is
suspicious of that person, and it needs time to warm up to them.
This group mentality that the Chinese students have is not surpris-
ing when one considers that China is a collectivist culture. As Hofstede
(2001) explained, in such a culture “people from birth onwards are inte-
grated into strong, cohesive in-­groups” (p. 225). In this study, however,
the in-­group had been left behind in China. Therefore the participants
had to establish their own friendships and in-­groups. Understandably,
they brought their expectations and assumptions of friendship to the
United States with them. Consequently they often had difficulty forming
friendships with American students.
 Concepts of Friendship Among Chinese International Students 57
This study has implications for higher education personnel, especially
those working with international students. By having a better under-
standing of how Chinese students conceptualize friendship, administra-
tors could gain a different perspective on friendship itself and friendship
development. This new perspective could potentially cause higher educa-
tion administrators to be more empathetic and understanding towards
Chinese students and other international students, who struggle to
become friends with Americans.
Furthermore, knowing both the difficulties Chinese students often have
when making friends as well as the strategies they sometimes employ to
overcome those difficulties, administrators could design programs to facili-
tate meaningful interaction between Chinese students and American stu-
dents. For example, perhaps rather than simply providing a venue—­as they
did at Coffee Hour—­and relying on students to take the initiative to intro-
duce themselves and start talking, more structured activities might be used.
Other possible implications include designing courses that teach stu-
dents, both international and American, about cultural differences and
intercultural communication. The purposes of such courses would be
to make students aware of cultural differences, not to coerce anyone to
adapt or assimilate. An example of one such course could be a seminar
on cultural differences regarding friendship. These courses could benefit
not only Chinese students, but also any other student, international or
American, who wants to engage in intercultural interaction.

References
Bista, K. (2015). Asian international students’ college experience: Relationship
between quality of personal contact and gains in learning. Journal of Interna-
tional and Global Studies, 6(2), 38–­54.
Bochner, S., McLeod, B. M., & Lin, A. (1977). Friendship patterns of overseas
students: A functional model. International Journal of Psychology, 12(4),
277–­294.
Brown, L. (2009). An ethnographic study of the friendship patterns of interna-
tional students in England: An attempt to recreate home through conational
interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 184–­193.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Chavajay, P. (2013). Perceived social support among international students at
a U.S. university. Psychological Reports: Sociocultural Issues in Psychology,
112(2), 667–­677.
Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-­construals, coping, and stress in cross-­cultural adapta-
tion. Journal of Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 26, 673–­697.
Du, Y., & Wei, M. (2015). Acculturation, enculturation, social connectedness,
and subjective well-­being among Chinese international students. The Coun-
seling Psychologist, 43(2), 229–­325.
Gareis, E. (1995). Intercultural friendship: A qualitative study. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
58 Amanda E. Brunson
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Hirai, R., Frazier, P., & Syed, M. (2015). Psychological and sociocultural adjust-
ment of first-­year international students: Trajectories and predictors. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 62(3), 438–­452.
Ho, D. Y. F., & Chiu, C. Y. (1994). Component ideas of individualism, collectiv-
ism, and social organization: An application in the study of Chinese culture. In
U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Ç. Kâğitçibaşi, S. C. Choi, & G. E. Yoon (Eds.), Indi-
vidualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 137–­156).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Institute of International Education. (2017). Open doors report. Retrieved from
www.iie.org/­opendoors.
Kisang, B. (2010). The role of social networks in the adjustment and academic
success of international students: A case study of a university in the Southwest.
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 759960698).
Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Self as cultural mode of being.
In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology
(pp. 136–­174). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kusek, W. A. (2015). Evaluating the struggles with international students
and local community participation. Journal of International Students, 5(2),
121–­131.
Kwon, Y. (2009). Factors affecting international students’ transition to higher
education institutions in the United States from the perspective of office of
international students. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1020–­1036.
Li, A., & Gasser, M. B. (2005). Predicting Asian international students’ socio-
cultural adjustment: A test of two mediation models. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29(5), 561–­576.
Liao, K. Y. H., & Wei, M. (2014). Academic stress and positive affect: Asian
value and self-­worth contingency as moderators among Chinese international
students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(1), 107–­115.
Lin, M. (2012). Students of different minds: Bridging the gaps of international
students studying in the US. US-­China Education Review, 3, 333–­344.
Lowinger, R. J., He, Z., Lin, M., & Chang, M. (2014). The impact of academic
self-­
efficacy, acculturation difficulties, and language abilities on procrasti-
nation behavior in Chinese international students. College Student Journal,
48(1), 141–­152.
Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. T. L. (1992). International graduate students,
stress, and social support. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 71–­78.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–­253.
Neri, F., & Ville, S. (2008). Social capital renewal and the academic performance
of international students in Australia. The Journal of Socio-­Economics, 37,
1515–­1538.
Olaniran, B. (1993). International students’ network patterns and cultural stress:
What really counts. Communication Research Reports, 10(1), 69–­83.
Pedersen, P. B. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psy-
chologist, 19(10), 10–­58.
 Concepts of Friendship Among Chinese International Students 59
Ramsay, S., Jones, E., & Barker, M. (2007). Relationship between adjustment
and support types: Young and mature-­aged local and international first year
university students. Higher Education, 54, 247–­265.
Razek, N. A., & Coyner, S. C. (2013). Cultural impacts on Saudi student at a
Mid-­Western American university. Academy of Educational Leadership Jour-
nal, 17(1), 103–­117.
Sovic, S. (2009). Hi-­bye friends and the herd instinct: International and home
students in the creative arts. Higher Education, 58, 747–­761.
Surdam, J. C., & Collins, J. R. (1984). Adaptation of international students:
A cause for concern. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(3), 240–­245.
Tsai, P. C., & Wong, Y. J. (2012). Chinese and Taiwanese international college
students’ participation in social organizations: Implications for college coun-
seling professionals. Journal of College Counseling, 15, 144–­156.
Valdez, G. (2015). U.S. higher education classroom experiences of undergradu-
ate Chinese international students. Journal of International Students, 5(2),
188–­200.
Wang, K. T., Heppner, P. P., Fu, C. C., Zhao, R., Li, F., & Chuang, C. C. (2012).
Profiles of acculturative adjustment patterns among Chinese international stu-
dents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 424–­436.
Wang, K. T., Heppner, P. P., Wang, L., & Zhu, F. (2015). Cultural intelligence
trajectories in new international students: Implications for the development of
cross-­cultural competence. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research,
Practice, Consultation, 4(1), 51–­56.
Wang, K. T., Wei, M., & Chen, H. H. (2015). Social factors in cross-­national
adjustment: Subjective well-­ being trajectories among Chinese international
students. The Counseling Psychologist, 43(2), 272–­298.
Wang, K. T., Wei, M., Zhao, R., Chuang, C. C., & Li, F. (2015). The cross-­
cultural loss scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Psychological
Assessment, 27(1), 42–­53.
Yeh, C. J., & Inose, M. (2003). International students’ reported English fluency,
social support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of accultura-
tive stress. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 15–­28.
Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Acculturation and psychological adjustment of
Chinese international students: Examining mediation and moderation effects.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 614–­627.
5 ‘I Just Want to Be Equal With
the Other Native Students’
How International Students in
England Experience Routine
Normalization
Aneta Hayes

Introduction
This chapter focuses on experiences of subordination of international
students in British higher education (HE). The first part of the chapter
develops a philosophical analysis, based on literature illustrating that
international students in Britain have traditionally been subordinated
in education contexts, through representations in national policies that
position them as beneficiaries of the prestigious education system. This
analysis is further supported by studies concluded on the topic of inter-
nationalization of the curriculum and cosmopolitan learning. The second
part of the chapter offers an analysis of empirical data from student inter-
views, which draws attention to additional ways in which international
students are subordinated in education. These ways are realized through
everyday actions at universities that position the British perspectives on
education and learning as normative. It is argued in this chapter that
because of these actions, the unique perspectives and voices of interna-
tional students are routinely normalized under the British view. Such a
situation has international implications, highlighting that when national
perspectives on education are positioned as normative, significant barri-
ers to internationalization of the curriculum are created.

Developments in Internationalization
of Education in England
Traditionally, expansion of education in England to other nations has
had a “developmental” character, which was motivated by imperialism
and the political need to “sell” British higher education abroad as an
asset (Williams, 1984). That is perhaps why many international students
arriving in the UK still want to acquire British education in its traditional
terms, as for them, having a British degree often means prestige and
higher social status at home (Grove, 2016). But this high status at home
often comes at the cost of their subordinated status in the country of
education, as differing fees status, immigration, study, and employment
 ‘I Want to Be Equal With Native Students’ 61
rules create conditions for their exclusion as “equals” (Marginson,
2015). Instead, international students are mainly perceived to be vectors
of income and people in educational deficit (Bolsmann & Miller, 2008;
Schartner & Cho, 2016).
It has been widely argued that such representations of international
students extend from old political and imperial echoes (Walker, 2014;
Lomer, 2016, Hayes, 2016). It has also been argued that this is why
universities operate based on the view that it is legitimate to submerge
the views and perspectives of international students under British under-
standings of “good” education (e.g., Pietsch, 2012). Such views permit
normalization of national perspectives, devalue diversity, and promote
assimilation. They also negatively impact internationalization of the cur-
riculum, in the sense of democratic and reciprocal engagement with inter-
national students’ identities (Hayes, 2016).
Histories of nation states and political rationales for expansion of
their education systems therefore play a significant role in how universi-
ties engage with identities of globally mobile people. These histories and
rationales are said to shape attitudes towards internationalization that
either include these identities or not (Knight, 2004). They have also been
said to be “the background against which institutions formulate policy
and academic staff do or do not engage in internationalization of the
curriculum” (Leask & Bridge, 2013, p. 89). It is perhaps not surprising
to find that in England, a country of significant imperial and colonial
past, there are persistent problems with internationalization, which lead
to concerns about unequal treatment of international students, mono-­
cultural curricula, and a steady denial of perspectives beyond Britain as
alternative sources of valuable knowledge (e.g., Harrison, 2015). The
presence of such concerns goes against the primary principles of cos-
mopolitan learning (Rizvi, 2009), which form the basis of the type of
internationalization that, through engagement with unique identities of
international students, promotes transformative learning experiences not
only for those students that come to Britain but also for those who were
born in Britain (Crowther et al., 2000).

Cosmopolitanism, Internationalization, and Nation States

Discourses surrounding cosmopolitanism in education and internation-
alization of the curriculum feed one another, in that they both emphasize
greater equivalence of perspectives beyond nation states (Rizvi, 2009;
Crowther et al., 2000; Leask & Bridge, 2013). Both cosmopolitan-
ism and internationalization of the curriculum aim to develop ways of
learning and teaching that are based on mutually respectful collabora-
tions and positioning of all students as equals (Caruana, 2014; Leask &
Carroll, 2011). They encourage progressive ways of engagement with
international students, which are not based on “highly entrenched
62 Aneta Hayes
traditions of educational policies and practices that remain largely
locally defined” (Rizvi, 2009, p. 263), but rather represent transforma-
tions that acknowledge new relationalities surrounding changes in host
communities that are caused by the presence of international people
(Rizvi, 2009).
Research from higher education contexts around the world, however,
suggests that despite being real people that have a real impact on HE in
their host countries, international students are still not given the same
equivalence as the home students (e.g., Charles-­Toussaint & Crowson,
2010; McCartney, 2016; Tran & Vu, 2017). Perspectives, for instance,
from American and Australian research, the two leading nations in inter-
national education alongside the UK, show this very clearly. Having
researched the American context, Lee & Rice (2007) concluded that sub-
ordination of international students in U.S. universities was motivated
by their foreign status. The authors explained that unequal treatment of
international students was intensified by national attitudes that situated
international students in the eyes of the “host” communities as “deficits”
who had “a set of identifiable and correctable problems” (Lee & Rice,
2007, p. 338). Thus, diversity of international students was not viewed as
a valuable source of alternative knowledge but rather as a characteristic
that needed to be corrected by the host society (Lee & Rice, 2007). Mar-
ginson (2013) arrived at similar conclusions in the Australian context,
arguing that the national prescription to correct “the foreign” was so
strong that:

It is assumed that the host country culture normalized by this pre-

scription remains unchanged. The international student “adjusts” to
the host nation but not vice versa. Adjustment is “successful” to the
extent students discard their beliefs and adopt values and behaviors
of host-­country norms. The idea of one way adjustment implies the
host culture is superior, fitting popular prejudices.
(Marginson, 2013, p. 12)

It has been argued elsewhere that the “popular prejudices” mentioned

by Marginson (2013) are shaped by the position of host countries in the
international education market, which dictate political, economic, and
educational approaches to international students (e.g., Teichler, 2004).
If these approaches bring economic success and competitive advantage
to universities, they are then officially legitimized, creating subordina-
tion of international students in ways that go unnoticed (Hayes, 2016).
And while there is some research sensitivity to issues of legitimization
of attitudes that may exclude international students, these issues are not
often discussed because the “politically correct” view is that universities
are neutral institutions that do not discriminate against students (Lee &
 ‘I Want to Be Equal With Native Students’ 63
Rice, 2007). The findings in this chapter, however, show that, through
tacit legitimization of perceptions of international students as foreign
people in educational deficit, universities do in fact discriminate against
international students. The findings also show that this discrimination
goes unnoticed in the political spectrum because the ways through which
discrimination is realized are subsumed in everyday actions at universi-
ties that normalize behaviors that are different from the “British norm.”
This process is called in the chapter routine normalization. The following
sections of the chapter evoke ways in which routine normalization goes
against cosmopolitanism in education and how it challenges ideologies of
inclusion that sit behind internationalization of the curriculum. But first,
a short description of methods is provided.

Method
This qualitative research was conducted with twenty students from fif-
teen nations, at two universities. The sample was made up of students
with mainly Asian and Arab ethnic backgrounds, although this was not
purposeful. The two universities were selected conveniently, but the selec-
tion of participants at each of those universities was random.
The participants were selected via invitation emails sent by the author.
The author has conducted one-­to-­one interviews with each participant
(one interview with each participant), each lasting approximately 60 min-
utes. The interviews were unstructured and focused on student academic
experiences in English universities. During the interviews, the students
were encouraged to reconstruct the entirety of their journeys through
university. Questions required students to recall situations in which they
felt their experiences in the classroom were positive and negative, focus-
ing on the degree to which the students felt those experiences were influ-
enced by their “foreign” status.
The analysis was focused on “critical events” (Webster & Mertova,
2007), i.e., events that significantly impacted student experiences in HE
and that were illustrative of the extent to which this experience might
have been caused by their “otherness.” The analysis focused on how stu-
dents as individuals experienced higher education, rather than trying to
identify common themes across the participants. The research did not
aim to make comparisons between universities and participants, due to
the heterogeneity of both, which otherwise would have affected the qual-
ity of the analysis (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Rather, the analysis was
focused on the meaning of the events that were recalled as a window onto
understanding the extent to which international students were treated as
“equals.” While only selected quotes are presented, they are consistent
with most responses. “S” represents student voices; “I” relates to the
interviewer’s questions.
64 Aneta Hayes
Findings

Normalizing the British Tradition

Students reported instances in which they felt their universities respected
their “otherness.” This happened mainly during informal conversations
with lecturers during breaks or at gatherings of members of specific cul-
tural clubs. For example:

S: Like during break time, we do talk about culture and we do talk

about ourselves. The group is really interesting because I mean even
the, our classmates, they would bring coffee and tea, and I was one
of those who would bring coffee or tea, and even our professors
wouldn’t leave the room to have their coffee outside.
(Omani, Creative Writing, University A)

In terms of academic experiences, however, student stories indicated the

dominance of British perspectives in the curriculum. Many interviewees
felt they were “outsiders” who were perceived to be incapable of making
valuable contributions to discussions in the classroom. They also felt that
their perspectives were not equally valued. The following excerpt illus-
trates how the views of the student cited were subordinated under the
mainstream perspective and how the teacher’s action blocked the interac-
tion between that student and the home students in their class. The quote
also indicates that the student was not always able to make contributions
(i.e., when they say they did not really know the answer) because the
discussions were always dominated by topics from the British context.

S: Sometimes, I feel like I want to say something but then I don’t really
have the chance to speak in the . . . Like, seminars and . . . Sometimes,
because I didn’t really know the answer. And then, I just felt like,
maybe others, they all know about it and I don’t really know about it.
And then, the teacher have to pick me about the question. . . . Because
most of the curriculums and policies we learn about is more UK-­based.
And then, I don’t really know about the, like . . . For example, one inci-
dent happened and then this policy came up. And then, how the whole
system works and . . . Yes . . . The teacher would be, like, “Oh just say
your opinion and it’s fine” [mimicking teacher’s dismissive attitude].
And then I was, like, “Oh I don’t really know what to say” but then
I would just say something and then the teacher would go on to the
next [student]. . . . I felt, like, they [home students] engaged more with
the teacher. Like, the teacher will be more. . . . Like, when the teacher
asked me questions, I felt like my answers are not really valuable. . . .
Yes, as much as [the home students].
(Chinese, International Relations, University B)
 ‘I Want to Be Equal With Native Students’ 65
The situation described here illustrates how nationally dominated con-
texts can corrode international students’ learning, pointing to connec-
tions with superiority of national perspectives that is realized through
unchanged (un-­internationalized) curricula. The preceding example also
supports research by, for instance, Kimmel and Volet (2012), who argue
that structured teacher support is needed during classroom interactions
to make international students be less anxious about presenting their own
perspectives. Many students in this research, however, felt they were not
supported in this way by their tutors. Their interviews instead suggested
that they accepted the broadly agreed “British” ways of learning, which
caused emotional distress for some international students and prompted
them to marginalize the status of the ways of learning developed in their
home countries. The following example is from a student who recalled
feeling that the newly imposed ways of learning contradicted their own
understandings of what good learning is. They, at the same time, did not
question the superiority of these new ways and made themselves respon-
sible to adapt to them. Later in the interview, the student also revealed
that they continued to negotiate their own understanding of learning
at the backdrop of the “British” traditions, until the very end of their
education.

S: My first lecturer, he didn’t teach, in my opinion, he didn’t teach, he

asked questions, again and again, and I said, and I thought that he
didn’t teach because in my country the teacher explained. Like a very
long explanation.
I: What were you feeling? Do you remember?
S: At that time I felt that I was afraid. I started to feel afraid. Of being
not able to, like keep up with the lectures and also I am, I was so
afraid that I cannot catch up with my peers. . . . But this is my own
problem. So, it’s only my problem I think. Because it is a different
academic background, culture and so it is me the one who has to
adjust with the culture here. So I think the way you study here, those
are things that I have to follow.
(Indonesian, Education, University A)

Lee & Rice (2007) explain that universities often “make excuses” for
expecting international students to adapt in ways explained by the
preceding student because those students need to meet the education
standards that are required from all students. But while it is reason-
able to expect international students to understand the teaching and
structural requirements of their tutors, as this ultimately affects their
progression, it is not acceptable to culturally dominate, leaving inter-
national students with false understandings that “other” ways of learn-
ing are not going to facilitate this progression (Hayes, 2017). Through
creating such understandings universities tacitly subordinate the unique
66 Aneta Hayes
perspectives on leaning of international students. This subordination is
agreed without being stated and becomes part of everyday actions at
universities.
Further examples of the tacit subordination are presented later. In the
following quotes, this subordination is reflected in routine positioning
of international students in remedial classes, based on false assumptions
that international students always need support with language and study
skills. Such “routines” fossilize the “inferior” status of international stu-
dents, but because they are generally accepted at universities, their dam-
aging effects on representations of international students are not raised.
Relevant insights from students are presented next.

Correcting the Deficit

International students in the study thought that it was unfair that they
were perceived to be in educational deficit. Their lack of educational suc-
cess was simplified by their universities as being the result of poor lan-
guage skills. Educational success was also perceived in very normalized
terms, based on the British understanding, which for many tutors meant
that students needed to actively participate in and contribute to semi-
nar discussions in order to be successful. The international student cited
in the following example questioned this normalization of educational
success and explained that their passive attitude in class should not be
equated with lack of educational success. The student also indicated that
the dominance of the British perspective was something that held them
back from contributing in class.

S: Inside I do feel I’m successful but from outside I think that like,
these instructors think that I am unsuccessful because I didn’t par-
ticipate in the class discussions. I mean because of like the, I don’t
want to make the other British people looking at me like, “What
are you talking about? I can’t understand you!.” I don’t want them
to think like that, that’s why I always prefer to remain silent in
the classes. . . . Yes because I feel that I know an answer, I have an
answer in my mind and like, even if I don’t share it, it’s with me and
I know that I can have some ideas about some topics. . . . I don’t
want to be evaluated by my non-­nativeness, I mean, I don’t want to
be. . . . I don’t want, that’s the point, I just want to be equal with
the other native students.
(Turkish, TESOL, University B)

The need for placing international students in remedial classes also

seemed to be normalized at the university of the student who is cited
in the next example. This student’s interview suggested that having to
take remedial classes had in fact corroded their learning, as they were
 ‘I Want to Be Equal With Native Students’ 67
repeatedly taught content that they already knew because they had been
placed in the same remedial class many times.

S: [In the remedial workshop] they told me something I already knew,

like, you need to have introduction. And you need to have a main
body. And you need to have a conclusion. That is something every-
body kind of knows, before coming to Uni, already. . . . What they
offered wasn’t really helpful. Because I took one in my first year, and
I took another one in my second year. I actually expected I could
gain a little bit help from there. But then, the module context was
completely the same from first year to second year. It was just para-
phrasing, like, it was just . . . I remember, like, for both years, what
we learned, like, in the first lecture was the same thing and it was
the same Power Point. I didn’t learn . . . at the beginning, I felt like
maybe language is really the barrier. And then, I felt like it’s not . . .
And then, I just felt, like, what’s the point of taking it?
(Chinese, International Relations, University B)

It has already been observed elsewhere that remedial classes, although

well-­meaning, often marginalize the position of international students
as “equals” because attending them is automatically associated with
being “deficient” (e.g., Sutherland, Edgar, & Duncan, 2015). It has also
been observed that these classes seek to turn international students into
learners who can eventually display the same characteristics as the stu-
dents in the country of education (ibid). The findings in this research
support these observations, pointing out that the remedial classes the
students in this study attended were not based around efforts to cultur-
ally connect. They were rather designed to culturally dominate. Lack of
reciprocal engagement with international students in these classes, which
was revealed in many interviews, seemed to promote tacit dominance of
national attitudes and was motivated by objectives to teach international
students how to “get rid of” some of the characteristics that were making
them “foreign.” One student explained that such objectives made many
students ashamed of their learning backgrounds because they fit poorly
with normalized understandings of the best ways of learning. This stu-
dent confessed that they themselves worked hard to change their learning
identity and thought of it as a process of “perfecting” themselves.

S: Maybe it’s like, it’s much more to be afraid of what’s people say, you
know. We are much afraid of what people say and that’s why, we
have, we try to be perfect so that nobody can make fun of us.
(Turkish, Education, University A)

The examples from student interviews cited in this section reveal aspects
of power relations that, although they may not be planned or deliberate,
68 Aneta Hayes
privilege the national ways of learning developed in the countries of edu-
cation and set these ways as normative. Key implications of such obser-
vations are discussed in the conclusion.

Conclusion
The chapter has revealed familiar issues of subordination of international
students’ perspectives in university classrooms (e.g., Harrison & Pea-
cock, 2010: Xu, 2015; Guo & Guo, 2017). It has, however, additionally
highlighted, through the analysis of developments in internationalization
policies in the UK, that national contexts in which international students
have traditionally been positioned as “inferior” can be a barrier to reali-
zation of the internationalization of the curriculum through democratic
engagement with international students. The findings reviewed in this
chapter have shown that the imperial echoes that have subordinated
international students in Britain for many years, and that have also con-
structed them mainly as sources of income, have not been ironed out.
The chapter has shown how they still set in motion specific relationships
with international students, which point to their exclusion as equals and
highlight that remedial support is legitimized through a rhetoric of condi-
tional equality—­that is, “others” can also be successful once their deficits
are “fixed” (da Silva, 2015). Such rhetoric routinely reinforces represen-
tations of English ways of learning as superior and international students
as lacking moral and intellectual capacity. This situation has been termed
in the chapter as routine normalization.
The chapter has shown that routine normalization reflects a process of
subordination of international students that evolves under conditions of
inexplicit power relations, which are structured through remedial pro-
grams and domination of the British content and pedagogy in the curric-
ulum. Routine normalization therefore represents everyday positioning
of the British education tradition as superior, which is not deliberate but
rather stems from socially and politically entrenched attitudes towards
international students. This means that routine normalization is very
implicit in nature and cannot be officially verified. This, by extension,
also means that it goes unnoticed in the political debates, posing a real
danger to democratization of international students. The presence of rou-
tine normalization in higher education systems therefore undermines key
ideological principles of internationalization of the curriculum, which
encourage universities to hand in more power to international students
(Crowther et al., 2000; Leask & Carroll, 2011; Leask & Bridge, 2013).
Through their stories, the students revealed that their universities do
not yet juxtapose their perspectives with those held by home students. To
do so is a primary condition for internationalization of the curriculum
and cosmopolitan learning to take place. Thus, to create conditions for
equality of international students, teaching at universities needs to shift
 ‘I Want to Be Equal With Native Students’ 69
away from the national focus and encompass greater emphasis on the
relationalities that surround changes and transformations in host com-
munities due to the presence of international students (Rizvi, 2009). The
academic experiences of international students in this study were unre-
flectively national in nature. The stories of the students indicated that
they were subject to a nationally normalized education perspective. They
could not therefore experience higher education on a cosmopolitan basis.
Consequently, it is argued that a more structured approach to inter-
nationalization of the curriculum is needed—­one that will root out the
negative effects of politically entrenched attitudes towards international
students. Otherwise, international students will continue to be subordi-
nated, and the internationalization of the curriculum will not take place.
A structured approach should be taken to mean guided reciprocal inter-
action between home and international students, including, for instance,
coordinated tasks, guided questions, and discussions that will provide
opportunities for sharing cultural knowledge on a respectful and inclu-
sive basis (Spiro, 2014). It is very important that this interaction is car-
ried out on equal terms for home and international students.
The idea of structured approaches to internationalization of the cur-
riculum is of course not new. Research, particularly from Betty Leask and
colleagues (e.g., Leask & Carroll, 2011; Leask & Bridge, 2013) or Spiro
(2014), has already shown that, through “inviting and accommodating
new rationales, alternative paradigms and interpretations” (Leask &
Bridge, 2013, p. 97), universities can facilitate internationalization out-
comes. In the context of this research, however, structured approaches can
also take on a new dimension—­that of providing a scaffold for realizing
international students as “equals.” Through explicitly changing the scope
and nature of, for instance, remedial classes, universities can prevent ways
in which these classes, although well-­meaning, disadvantage international
students. But changing these classes (and other disadvantaging behaviors)
needs to be consciously and deliberately coordinated by universities; oth-
erwise routines based on national stereotypes will continue to dominate.

References
Bolsmann, C., & Miller, D. R. (2008). International student recruitment to uni-
versities in England: Discourse, rationales and globalisation. Globalisation,
Societies & Education, 6(1), 75–­88.
Caruana, V. (2014). Re-thinking global citizenship in higher education: From
cosmopolitanism and international mobility to cosmopolitanisation, resilience
and resilient thinking. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1), 85–­104.
Charles-­Toussaint, G. C., & Crowson, H. M. (2010). Prejudice against interna-
tional students: The role of threat perceptions and authoritarian dispositions in
US students. The Journal of psychology, 144(5), 413–­428.
Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (2000). Narrative Inquiry. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
70 Aneta Hayes
Crowther, P., Joris, M., Otten, M., Nilsson, B., Teekens, H., & Wächter, B. (2000).
Internationalisation at home: A position paper. Retrieved January 2016, from
http:/­/­citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/­viewdoc/­summary?
da Silva, D. F. (2015). Globality. Critical Ethnic Studies, 1(1), 33–­38.
Grove, J. (2016). Overseas students: New work visa rules make UK ‘challenging’.
Times Higher Education, 7 April, p. 9.
Guo, Y., & Guo, S. (2017). Internationalization of Canadian higher education:
Discrepancies between policies and international student experiences. Studies
in Higher Education, 42(5), 851–­868.
Harrison, N. (2015). Practice, problems and power in “Internationalization at
Home”: Critical reflections on recent research evidence. Teaching in Higher
Education, 20(4), 412–­430.
Harrison, N., & Peacock, N. (2010). Cultural distance, mindfulness and passive
xenophobia: Using Integrated Threat Theory to explore home higher educa-
tion students’ perspectives on ‘internationalisation at home’. British Educa-
tional Research Journal, 36(6), 877–­902.
Hayes, A. (2016). Why international students have been “TEF-­ed out”? Educa-
tional Review, 69(2), 218–­231.
Hayes, A. (2017). The teaching excellence framework in the United Kingdom: An
opportunity to include international students as “equals”? Journal of Studies
in International Education, 21(5), 483–­497.
Kimmel, K., & Volet, S. (2012). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes
towards culturally diverse group work: Does context matter? Journal of Stud-
ies in International Education, 16(2), 157–­181.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and
rationales. Journal of studies in international education, 8(1), 5–­31.
Leask, B., & Bridge, C. (2013). Comparing internationalization of the curricu-
lum in action across disciplines: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Com-
pare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(1), 79–­101.
Leask, B., & Carroll, J. (2011). Moving beyond ‘wishing and hoping’: Inter-
nationalization and student experiences of inclusion and engagement. Higher
Education Research & Development, 30(5), 647–­659.
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student percep-
tions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–­409.
Lomer, S. (2016). Soft power as a policy rationale for international education in
the UK: A critical analysis. Higher Education, 74(4), 581–­598.
Marginson, S. (2013). Equals or others? Mobile students in a nationally bordered
world. In S. Sovic & M. Blythman (Eds.), International students negotiating
higher education (pp. 9–­27). London, UK: Routledge.
Marginson, S. (2015, July 1–­3). UK international education: Global position and
national prospects. Paper presented at UK Council for International Students
Affairs Conference, University of Sussex
McCartney, D. M. (2016). Inventing international students: Exploring discourses
in international student policy talk, 1945–­75. Historical Studies in Education.
28(2), 1–­27.
Pietsch, T. (2012). Imperial echoes. Times Higher Education (2040), 41–­45. Edu-
cation Abstracts.
Rizvi, F. (2009). Towards cosmopolitan learning. Discourse: Studies in the Cul-
tural Politics of Education, 30, 253–­268.
 ‘I Want to Be Equal With Native Students’ 71
Schartner, A., & Cho, Y. (2016). ‘Empty signifiers’ and ‘dreamy ideals’: Percep-
tions of the ‘international univeristy’ among higher education students and staff
at a British University. Higher Education. doi:10.1007/­s10734-­016-­0057-­1
Spiro, J. (2014). Learning Interconnectedness: Internationalization through
engagement with one another. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1), 65–­84.
Sutherland, A., Edgar, D., & Duncan, P. (2015). International infusion in
practice—­From cultural awareness to cultural intelligence. Journal of Perspec-
tives in Applied Academic Practice, 3(30), 32–­40.
Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher educa-
tion. Higher education, 48(1), 5–­26.
Tran, L. T., & Vu, T. P. (2017). Mediating transnational spaces: International stu-
dents and intercultural responsibility. Intercultural Education, 28(3), 283–­303.
Walker, P. (2014). International student policies in UK higher education from
colonialism to the coalition: Developments and consequences. Journal of Stud-
ies in International Education, 18(4), 325–­344.
Webster, L., & Mertova, P. (2007). Using narrative inquiry as a research method:
An introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learn-
ing and teaching. London, UK: Routledge.
Williams, P. (1984). Britain’s full-­cost policy for overseas students. Comparative
Education Review, 28(2), 258–­278.
Xu, L. (2015). Transitional challenges faced by post-­ secondary international
students and approaches for their successful inclusion in classrooms. Inter-
national Journal for Leadership in Learning, 1(3). Retrieved from https:/­/­eric.
ed.gov/­?id=EJ1070720
6 Reconciling Multiple Identities
Experiences of International
Undergraduate Students in the
United States
Yi Meng, Maraki Kebede, and Chao Su

Introduction
In 2015/­2016, there were 1,043,839 international students studying at
U.S. colleges and universities (IIE, 2016). According to the U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, they contributed more than $35.8 billion to the
U.S. economy, and supported more than 400,812 jobs in the U.S. (IIE,
2016). In addition to their financial contribution, international students
bring rich and diverse perspectives that contribute to global competency.
Scholars have repeatedly found that meaningful interactions with diverse
populations encourage critical thinking, self-­ awareness, interpersonal
and leadership skills, aspirations, intellectual and civic engagement, and
cultural awareness (Hurtado, 2003; Quaye & Harper, 2014).
This chapter explores international students’ college experiences by
answering the following questions: (1) what pathways do international
undergraduate students in a large public university utilize to navigate the
institution? And (2) how do these international undergraduate students
reconcile their existing identities in this new setting?
Among the literature, generally, integration and engagement have all
been widely cited as important factors on students’ college experience and
success (Astin, 1985; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006; Pas-
carella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1993). Despite the similarities between
engagement and integration, student engagement focuses on “the inter-
section of students’ behaviors and institutional conditions”; where stu-
dents’ behaviors stand for time and effort that students devoted into their
academic and meaningful social life, and institutional conditions refer
to resources and practices that institutions provided to facilitate student
success (Kuh et.al, 2006, p. 8). Social and academic integration high-
lights the importance of institutional efforts on student satisfaction and
their persistence (Tinto, 1975, 1993). Integration is also often defined in
direct contrast to assimilation. Assimilation more commonly refers to the
minority groups’ acceptance of the dominant majority groups’ culture,
language, behavior, etc. (Gordon, 1964); while integration emphasizes
mutual acceptance and appreciation (Quaye & Harper, 2014).
 Reconciling Multiple Identities 73
Literature Review
Hanassab (2006) problematizes the use of the term international student
to delineate such a heterogeneous group. Not only will students from
different regions, countries, ethnicities, races, cultural backgrounds, and
customs experience a new context (in this study, the U.S.) differently,
but their experiences will vary further across different fields of study as
well. Scholars have primarily explored these disparities in experience
through an identity framework. As identity is socially constructed (Tor-
res, Jones, & Renn, 2009), international students, differing remarkably
in their existing identities before coming to the U.S., will consequently
have varying perspectives and experiences.
Choudaha and Schulmann (2014) found that institutional conditions
such as work opportunities, cost of living, and school funding are the
three primary reasons that cause international students to transfer or
leave their host institution. International students’ background char-
acteristics and their behaviors, such as gender, grades, aspirations, and
financial situations, have little impact on their satisfaction (Perrucci &
Hu, 1995, p. 491). In fact, international students “scored high on the
usual measures of engagement,” and “spend more time on campus and
in class than their domestic peers” (Krause, 2005, p. 11; Zhao, Kuh, &
Carini, 2005).
Other scholars have shed light on international students being vic-
tims of Neo-­racism (Balibar, 1991), and marginalization/­discrimination
based on their biological heredity and cultural difference. International
students’ negative encounters with their host institutions and their being
treated unfairly on the basis of their cultural, ethnic, and national back-
grounds have been extensively documented (Quaye & Harper, 2014; Lee,
2010, 2015; Lee & Rice, 2007). Scholars agree that this cannot, and
more importantly should not, be addressed solely through international
students’ effort to adjust (Quaye & Harper, 2014; Kuh, 2003; Lee, 2010,
2015; Lee & Rice, 2007). The misconception that assumes international
students should absorb the host culture’s values, beliefs, and behaviors,
and disregard their own, is problematic (Quaye & Harper, 2014). Host
institutions’ efforts and initiatives are crucial to promote international
students’ engagement and integration.

Theoretical Framework
This qualitative exploration uses Jones and Abe’s (2013) Multiple Dimen-
sions of Identity Development model (MMDI). MMDI first “distin-
guishes between social identities (e.g., race, class, gender, religion) and a
personal identity, depicted as a ‘core sense of self’ (personal characteris-
tics and attributes that the individual claims)” (Jones & McEwen, 2000,
p. 405). Some social identities are more salient than others as a result of the
74 Yi Meng, Maraki Kebede, and Chao Su
structures of inequality and systems of power and privilege in which they
are experienced. This is related to the experience of difference and feeling
of “otherness” (Jones & Abes, 2013, P. 10). Identities can become salient
due to background or social/­contextual circumstances. Some identities are
oppressed, while others are privileged. Jones and Abes (2013) went on to
introduce the idea of the prism: “Examining identity through a prism of
difference and privilege illuminates the influence of contextual factors that
both shape and press, or push and pull on multiple dimension of identity”
(p. 86). Therefore, the prism reflects the oppression and privilege in dif-
ferent social contexts. Social contexts interact with individuals’ existing
identities to create new experiences of these identities. For international
students, the shift in contextual factors (i.e., migrating to a new country)
would trigger shifts in the saliency of the social identities of these students.

Method
Data were collected from 30 to 120-­minute semi-­structured interviews
with a purposive and snowball sample of nineteen international under-
graduate students with at least one year of experience in one large public
university. Participants were from thirteen different countries, represent-
ing sixteen different academic majors (see Table 6.1 in Appendix A and
Table 6.1 in Appendix B—­all names are pseudonyms).
During some interviews, Jones and McEwen’s (2000) grounded theory
approach was employed to ask participants to rank ten salient identities
they would use to describe themselves today and ten they would have
used before coming to the U.S. In this way, their identities were explored
both as individuals, with different cultural backgrounds and experiences,
and as a group shaped by their broader context of U.S. higher education.
Various pathways that emerged from their reflections on their experi-
ence navigating their host institution were identified via a multi-­phase
thematic coding strategy, to ensure inter-­rater reliability.

Findings

Pathways to Navigate the University

Using the MMDI framework we tried to understand the interviewees’
identity reconciliation process by analyzing their pathways for integra-
tion. We explored their reported selections of pathways, changes in their
social identities (e.g., race, class, gender, religion), and how they recon-
ciled their various identities. Generally speaking, the participants utilized
several different pathways for integration (see Figure 6.2 in Appendix A).
One of the cross-­cutting themes was the impact of their families, which
primarily manifested itself in one of two ways: (1) many had already
established a sense of independence in working towards their goals that
 Reconciling Multiple Identities 75
they often credited to their upbringing; and (2) they sustained regular and
meaningful communication with their families back home, which argu-
ably provided them with their strongest source of support. Kaarim, for
example, calls home every day. The second cross-­cutting theme was that
those who had former ties within the university (such as friends or family
that are enrolled or employed at the institution or live in the area) tended
to rely most on these resources.
Most of the participants also utilized formal pathways (i.e., univer-
sity programs) through the international student office (although some
of these programs self-­select for students more likely to get integrated
on their own) and, to a much greater extent, student clubs (particularly
student associations by nationality). These were meaningful pathways
provided the students sustained their organization memberships and/­or
relationships with other members. Classmates and faculty were not com-
mon pathways for our participants, and few of these relationships were
sustained. The few who found themselves engaged usually pointed to
specific efforts put forth by their peers or professors.
Participants’ interaction with sports went one of two ways: either it
was a strong pathway for integration, or they found it to be a barrier, as
seen with our Brazilian participant, Arzan.

Sports is a big thing here and they always talk about it. So when that
topic comes [up], I just naturally [feel] left behind. That happened
[during] my internship this summer. If you want to be friends [with]
them, you have to be familiar with American sports culture.
—­Arzan, Brazil

Indicators of Engagement
Ten indicators of engagement were identified based on a combination of
the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2017) engagement
indicators and the data that emerged from the interviews. Table 6.2 (see
Appendix B) details these (marked with a “✓” for yes). It is important to
note that “✓” indicating “yes” can mean that they utilized this pathway
once or that they utilize it regularly. This table was merely a way to cap-
ture if our participants were utilizing these pathways at all. The last two
categories in Table 6.2 highlight participants’ general perceptions of the
school climate and whether or not they feel integrated. Note that some
participants, such as Kaarim and Sofea, are utilizing several pathways
but still report not feeling integrated.

Academic Support
This category of codes was split into three sub codes: (a) participants
making friends in class; (b) participants feeling comfortable with their
76 Yi Meng, Maraki Kebede, and Chao Su
relationships with professors (e.g., finding them approachable); and (c)
participants using learning support services. Making friends in class was
rare for our participants. Even students such as Kaarim—­a Pakistani stu-
dent who is extremely active in student organizations, residence life, and
the international student office—­were not making friends in class. When
asked, he couldn’t explain why, but Takara, a Japanese student, men-
tioned finding classrooms lonelier and less welcoming.
On the other hand, Bao, who is from Vietnam, attributed his limited
academic engagement to mere convenience. When he has trouble under-
standing material, he usually goes to his friend (not in his major), but
more often than not, he figures things out on his own, arguing that, “typ-
ically, you just go online. You Google it. Everything is on Google.” He
still finds his teachers approachable, but he just doesn’t utilize them even
though most of his classmates do. He shared, “If you gotta go in there,
you have to take [an] appointment and wait for office hour and it takes
a lot of time.” He is busy with class, dancing, soccer, and other hobbies.
This could also speak to the difference in academic processes in the
different countries, which Kuan-­Yin points out.

In China, your schedule is planned for you but here you have to have
your own schedule. In China, 18 out of 20 credits are planned for you.
—­Kuan-­Yin, China

The flexibility that the American higher education programs provide may
be attractive; however, for students who are coming to these institutions
without the experience of navigating such waters on their own, it can
also be overwhelming. Sofea, a sponsored student who claims to have a
good academic record in Malaysia, also shared that she felt a lot of anxi-
ety because she was not used to the education system.

My freshmen year was a mess. I was very close to failing my cal-

culus class. I was crying all the time because of that. I kind of have
an anxiety problem with exams because I was not used to [the]
American education system here. . . . All these online quizzes, online
homework, and everything is online. . . . I missed a lot of homework
because I did not remember to do them online. In Malaysia, it’s all
paper and pen.
—­Sofea, Malaysia

Later in her sophomore year, she managed to catch up by forming friend-

ships and study groups and utilizing learning assistance services.
However, Valerie, a Chinese student and communication major who
identified as very integrated, enjoyed her classes and her professors from
the beginning, and extended her classroom friendships past the class-
room by engaging in discussions beyond class-­related work.
 Reconciling Multiple Identities 77
Social Involvement
While many of our participants had friends with different nationalities
from their own, they seldom had domestic students in their close circles.
For some it was a preference, while for others, such as Kaarim, it wasn’t
for a lack of trying.

Domestic students don’t interact much; that’s something that has

bothered me and still bothers me. Like, I try my best to be friendly
with the domestic students but they just aren’t responsive. It really
bothers me.
—­Kaarim, Pakistan

Cho-­Hee, a transfer student from Korea, also felt this kind of distancing,
despite her strong desire to make American friends.

In my major, there are no international student, usually they are

girls and they are American. I think they didn’t mean it, but [if] not
excluded [I feel separated from] them . . . I had a hard time in taking
class or take part in discussion.
—­Cho-­Hee, Korea

Hajir comes from a family of seven, and one of his sisters is here with
him. He also has a brother who went to the university. Yet, all his close
friends were, like him, Omani.
Haidil, from Singapore, was different. She is well integrated and
regarded herself as a domestic or “third culture kid” (TCK) but not an
international student. Being actively involved in three student organiza-
tions and a sorority, she shared feeling a strong sense of belonging.

In my high school, all my classmates are from all over the world and
I guess that helps a lot. The greatest thing in my high school is that
[it] is an international school, everyone has a mutual understanding
of each other even though we are from different places, we all have
different backgrounds, but we all respect each other because we all
understand how difficult it is to move to a new place from your home
country because we have been through that.
—­Haidil, Singapore

Campus Participation
Campus participation also has three subcategories: (a) belonging to stu-
dent organizations; (b) engaging in activities or interest groups; and (c)
on campus employment. On campus volunteer/­paid participation, for
Kaarim, was an attempt at distraction; or in his words, “so that I don’t
78 Yi Meng, Maraki Kebede, and Chao Su
miss home.” On the other hand, Sofea said having a job made her more
motivated and focused.

Being thousands of miles away from home, I don’t really have any-
one that I know. I don’t have friends. I don’t have families. It basi-
cally left me very empty . . . doing something can make me feel truly
motivated and experiencing things that I can . . . that is what change
when I got here and I got my job.
—­Sofea, Malaysia

Maalik, a sophomore from Saudi Arabia, was the only international

student on the floor of his resident hall during his first year, but his cam-
pus participation introduced him to his now best friends. He would even
take the initiative to “meet someone new in every [photography club]
meeting.” Others, such as our Thai participant, Vidura, were fortunate
enough to be approached by the Thai Student Association.

Overall Wellbeing
Religion was often the primary cause of any discussions that came up
about school climate and our interviewees’ general sense of feeling unsafe.
Some of them were explicit about their fear and alienated experience as
a result of their religious identity on campus, while others, such as Maa-
lik from Saudi Arabia, said that even though President Trump’s executive
order on travel bans was scaring people elsewhere, he did not feel that way.

I feel very comfortable . . . being a student here [in the university].

For example, things like being able to practice my religion . . . other
than my place there is spiritual center that I can go to [pray].
—­Maalik, Saudi Arabia

Identity Formation and Reconciliation

There were several contradictions in the way in which the participants
understood the university was shaping their social identities, reflected
in the identity list they provided (see Table 6.3 in Appendix B and Fig-
ure 6.3 in Appendix A).

Gender
Gender stayed salient in both Valerie’s and Sofea’s interviews. Valerie,
a senior female student from China, and Sofea, a senior female student
from Malaysia, have both spoken out against gender inequality in the
U.S. society, especially in the workplace.

I think America [has] gender-­inequality . . . most of the time, I remind

myself or I am reminded by others that you are a girl. You have to act
 Reconciling Multiple Identities 79
like a girl. Sometimes you got [to] . . . because you are a girl. I read
an article about gender inequality [that] talks about salary and social
status. I [don’t] remember the specific data, but it’s like every single
dollar American men made,
American women can only make 80 percent or 60 percent.
—­Valerie, China

On the other hand, Maalik, a sophomore male Muslim student from the
Middle East, did not specifically mention gender but pointed out that the
co-­educational system is new to him. Back home, he studied with only other
male students. Living in a U.S. dorm and seeing intimate interactions between
male and female students triggered a curiosity and discomfort in him.

Religion
Religion was a salient identity for all the Muslim participants. This was
also something that many of them had already thought about.

I never really cared, like I’m brown and I’m Muslim and I’m Paki-
stani, when I was in Pakistan because some people looked pretty
much like me. I didn’t care. Coming over here, I’m very, very aware
of who I am, what I believe in.
—­Kaarim, Pakistan

Similarly, Hajir also felt that his religion became a more salient identity
upon coming to the U.S.

You’re in a different country and it’s not a predominant race or reli-

gion, you know? So you sort of stand out more when somebody asks
you that. Things are very different so that’s when you really think
about who you are, especially [religion and race].
—­Hajir, Oman

Sofea, from Malaysia, reflected not only on her identity as a Muslim but
on how this intersects with her gender identity as a woman who wears a
hijab (head scarf).

Coming from a country where Islam is the official religion to a coun-

try where Islam is under prejudice, it’s whole lot of different, and it
takes a long time to adjust. I have even been harassed a few times.
Just because I am visibly Muslim.
—­Sofea, Malaysia

Social Bonds
This category can be divided into three sub codes: family, friends, and
socioeconomic status. Friendship was not a common explicit discussion
80 Yi Meng, Maraki Kebede, and Chao Su
around identity except for students such as Adil, from Malaysia, who
was unable to re-­cultivate the strong bonds of friendship he had while
he was in his home country with the new friends he was making in the
U.S. He felt his core friends in Malaysia (and their collective values) were
a salient identity for him in high school, but his energy has now shifted
away from identifying with his friends in the U.S. in that way.
Many of the participants came from higher socioeconomic status except
Sofea from Malaysia. She was instead sponsored by her government and
transferred from a Malaysian University, where she used to feel out of
place due to the number of wealthy Malaysians she could not relate to.

Things got little bit weird because I have never [interacted with
wealthy Malaysians]. They are good and excellent students that [are]
really good at everything. . . . I think I am in the second class and
they’re the first class. All pretty, all rich, and all smart, and I am like,
I don’t have any of that.
—­Sofea, Malaysia

Upon coming to the U.S., she reported finding that the socioeconomic
gap between her and her Malaysian friends narrowed. Takara also men-
tioned that she realized not all American students are as “rich and fancy”
as she assumed when she was in Japan. She is now more aware of her
upper class family, and she is grateful that her parents can pay her tuition
after realizing a lot of American students are taking loans.

Yeah, I used to think all American girls are like Hollywood: . . . rich
and . . . more beautiful than Japanese, but now I know they are
almost the same. Japanese also admire Americans. . . . We celebrate
Christmas and Halloween and eat fast food, and use American
words, so we are westernized. So, I was kind of feeling inferior when
I was in japan but here I feel the same.
—­Takara, Japan

Geography
Geographic identities consisted of four sub codes: nationality, ethnicity,
regional identity, and international status. Participants’ identities as inter-
national students become pronounced in their discussions of their circle
of friends. Beyond making friends with individuals from their national
origin, they were more comfortable making friends with other interna-
tional students than with domestic ones. Kaarim, for instance, had very
few domestic friends.

One thing I didn’t like about the US is that people are not . . . mostly
domestic students, no offense or anything but they’re not very
 Reconciling Multiple Identities 81
approachable. They’re more distant. The only reason I get along with
international students is that we have a common ground.
—­Kaarim, Pakistan

This was not an uncommon sentiment among the participants. This

international identity was as much the cause of exclusion towards domes-
tic students or “Americanized” international students. Sometimes this
exclusionary practice also arises between students from the same country,
as Kaarim explained. He found some Pakistanis at the institution to be
too “Americanized” and that their mindsets were too different from his,
and that he therefore could not form “strong bonds” with them. Kuan-­
Yin, from China, had a much more nuanced understanding of this pro-
cess for herself. She enjoyed connecting with other international students.

We tried to fit in and we have some discomfort fitting in and we don’t

mind talking about those with another international student. Maybe
we can feel awkward talking about it with American students.
—­Kuan-­Yin, China

Interests
Interests is a very broad category that includes any description of
academic/­occupational identity (e.g., students who identified as “engi-
neers” or “tech geeks”) or other interests or hobbies (e.g., students who
identified as “basketball fans” such as Valerie).

I am a huge basketball fan, I mean I am a Lebron fan, I am not really

a fan of NCAA, but I like basketball.
—­Valerie, China

For some participants, their interests changed upon arriving in the U.S.
Elias, a male junior student from the Middle East, used to identify as an
anime and soccer fan back home but is now more of a video gamer and
American TV-­series fan. As mentioned earlier, interests aligned with U.S.
culture helped international students establish friendships.

Contradictions

Levels of Integration versus Perceptions of Integration

Participants sometimes identified as feeling integrated despite the negative
experiences that they shared that would say otherwise (this is reflected in
our “Self ID” category in Table 6.2 in Appendix B). Even though many of
our participants were engaging their host institution using several path-
ways, their levels of engagement were limited within several of the ten
82 Yi Meng, Maraki Kebede, and Chao Su
indicators we identified. Academic integration was often limited to very
few interactions with professors and classmates, social integration was
focused more around engaging other international students (particularly
those with similar backgrounds), and their perceptions of the university
as a safe environment often fell apart as we probed deeper into their sali-
ent identities; however, this did not align with their self-­reported levels of
integration because they gauged their engagement based on their desires
to integrate. For instance, if our participants had no interest in engag-
ing their classmates to form deeper bonds with them, then their lack of
integration on that indicator was not apparent to them. They still saw
themselves as academically integrated, despite their limited interactions
in class.

Assimilation versus Integration

Sometimes our participants were trying to distance themselves from their
international identity. Bao, for instance, conflated integrating to being
able to imitate domestic students and assimilate to U.S. culture, through-
out his interview.

For me, I don’t feel like an international. I have a lot of native friends.
Many international students are afraid to go out . . . and stay home
a lot. Like Chinese play with Chinese and Korean play with Korean.
I don’t know, for me, I just go out a lot.
—­Bao, Vietnam

Similarly, Samuru, who is from Japan, is very active in a social club of

mostly domestic students. He comes to the club and spends most of his
time there every day. He finds himself belonging to this club and regards
himself as well integrated, but when we inquired about his circle of
friends, we found he has very limited interaction with other international
students and doesn’t want to make Japanese friends.

Discussion
While the research questions and findings were segmented into separate
discussions of pathways of integration and salience of identities, it is emi-
nently clear that the two are heavily intertwined. Jones and McEwen’s
(2000) MMDI model was helpful in understanding the ways in which
our participants’ identities were shaping and shaped by their engagement
experiences.
The theoretical foundations of this study were further confirmed by
our findings; however, the participants’ reflections of their identities have
also exposed some limitations in existing literature. For instance, pre-
vious studies about international students assumes a shared experience
 Reconciling Multiple Identities 83
among international students, despite their acknowledgment of the het-
erogeneity of this population. In addition to this, studies that explore
identity often focus on closed codes of identity categories such as gender
and religion. This study highlights the importance of allowing students
to define their identities without these bounded notions of what classifies
as an identity. Furthermore, in doing so, it quickly becomes clear how
deeply connected identities can be and the nature of the interplay they
may have with one another. This brings new ways of exploring inter-
sectionality by highlighting the importance of exploring more grounded
theory approaches.
Socioeconomic status and family background were important factors
in participants’ experiences. In other instances, higher socioeconomic sta-
tus translated to the participants having gone to more international high
schools, which made their transition to the U.S. smoother and enhanced
their ability to enjoy a more diverse group of friends. Language did not
come up as a primary barrier to integration, which may speak to the more
globalized world in which we live or betray the better preparation tools that
countries afford their students with higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
In general, the most common pathways were dormitories, joining stu-
dent organizations or clubs and working on campus. Very few of the par-
ticipants implied that they formed friendships in class that then extended
past the classroom setting. Participants who lived on campus had a positive
relationship with their roommates and valued this pathway; however, they
found their relationships also ceased once they moved out as they seldom
had common interests beyond living together. It was students such as Hai-
dil, from Singapore, who utilized sororities and on campus activities who
formed stronger bonds with longevity. Participants similarly viewed work-
ing on campus as a good pathway to feeling socially involved.
Another way in which identity played a role in the way in which our
participants were selecting pathways was their sense of national, ethnic,
regional, and international identity. Most of the participants found it is
easier to make international friends despite different cultural backgrounds
and individual experiences than domestic students. This extended to the
various levels of geographic identity (national, regional, international) but
varied based on several factors. Students from smaller countries reported
having fewer opportunities to make friends with others from their country
and felt they were more exposed to friends who were different from them.
This led to them having more diverse sets of friends and identifying at the
“international” or “regional” level than the “national” one.
Participants’ selection of pathways was not always a result of pulls
but also a result of pushes. Most of our participants have encountered
unfriendly comments related to their appearance and religious wear,
and all Muslim participants described their religion as a salient social
identity. This is much in line with Jones and McEwen’s (2000) discus-
sions of privileged versus oppressed social identities, given the rise of
84 Yi Meng, Maraki Kebede, and Chao Su
islamophobia over the past decade and a half in the U.S. Islam is there-
fore an oppressed religious identity in this context, despite its privileged
status in Islamic countries that are home to many of our participants.
Some Muslim participants consequently sought out safe spaces by engag-
ing in conversations about their fears (such as Kaarim), while others val-
ued the resources at the institution for them to continue practicing their
religion and therefore felt that it was still respected (such as Maalik).
Finally, while some participants who utilized several pathways still did
not feel integrated (further highlighting the importance of institutional
support), the general consensus among the participants about their insti-
tution was very positive. Despite all the complex emotions they reported
feeling about some undesirable experiences they’ve had and continue to
have, they all reported a strong affinity to the institution. In this regard,
Vidura put it best when he said this about a large institution: “you can
make it big or you can make it small.” Our participants, to the best of
their abilities, shrunk their institution to the small pocket that is most
comfortable to them in an effort to find a way to feel connected.

Recommendations
There are some limitations to this study. The first is that the data are
dependent on participants’ accounts, instead of observations of how they
engage. The second is that the data did not reach saturation. Still, impor-
tant recommendations can be made towards the operation of higher edu-
cation institutions, including a need for further research to address these
limitations:

1. Identity research should be explored for other ways to capture the

diversity of experiences within international student populations,
especially with a grounded theory approach.
2. Institutions should consider offering more projects or themed bridg-
ing programs for both domestic and international students. One of
the recurring themes in this research is that international students
cannot sustain relationships with domestic students due to lack of
common interests or topics.
3. Faculty must be equipped with better knowledge of international
students’ integration experience and take initiative to facilitate their
academic engagement. Positive diverse cultural conversation should
be incorporated into instruction.

References
Astin, A. W. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change, 17(4),
35–­39.
Balibar, E. (1991). Is there a ‘neo-­racism’? In E. Balibar & I. Wallerstein (Eds.),
Race, nation, class: Ambigious identities (pp. 17–­28). New York, NY: Verso.
 Reconciling Multiple Identities 85
Choudaha, R., & Schulmann, P. (2014). Bridging the gap: Recruitment and reten-
tion to improve international student experiences. Washington, DC: NAFSA.
Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Hanassab, S. (2006). Diversity, international students, and perceived discrimina-
tion: Implications for educators and counselors. Journal of Studies in Interna-
tional Education, 10(2), 157–­172. doi:10.1177/­1028315305283051
Hurtado, S. (2003). Preparing college students for a diverse democracy. Retrieved
from https:/­/­scholar.google.com/­scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=Hurtad
o%2C+S.+%282003%29.+Preparing+college+students+for+a+diverse+democ
racy&btnG=
Institute of International Education (IIE). (2016). Open doors report on interna-
tional educational exchange. Retrieved from www.iie.org/­opendoors
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students:
Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-­Bass.
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimen-
sions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–­414.
Retrieved from http:/­/­ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/­login?url=http:/­/­search.pro-
quest.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/­docview/­195173169?accountid=13158
Krause, K. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in univer-
sity learning communities. Retrieved from http:/­/­melbourne-­cshe.unimelb.edu.
au/­__data/­assets/­pdf_file/­0007/­1761523/­Stud_eng.pdf
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE:
Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–­32.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. L., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006).
What matters to student success: A review of the literature (Vol. 8). Washing-
ton, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
Lee, J. (2015). International student experiences: Neo-­racism and discrimination.
International Higher Education, 2006(44), 3–­5. doi:10.6017/­ihe.2006.44.7916
Lee, J. J. (2010). International students’ experiences and attitudes at a US host
institution: Self-­reports and future recommendations. Journal of Research in
International Education, 9(1), 66–­84. doi:10.1177/­1475240909356382
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student per-
ceptions of discrimination. Higher education, 53(3), 381–­409. doi:10.1007/­
s10734-­005-­4508-­3
NSSE (2017). Engagement indicators. Retrieved from http:/­/­nsse.indiana.edu/­
html/­engagement_indicators.cfm#a10
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.
Perrucci, R., & Hu, H. (1995). Satisfaction with social and educational experi-
ences among international graduate students. Research in Higher Education,
36(4), 491–­508. doi:10.1007/­BF02207908
Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2014). Student engagement in higher education:
Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of
recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–­125.
86 Yi Meng, Maraki Kebede, and Chao Su
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Torres, V., Jones, S. R., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Identity development theories in student
affairs: Origins, current status, and new approaches. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(6), 577–­596. Retrieved from http:/­/­ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/­
login?url=http:/­/­search.proquest.com/­docview/­195183569?accountid=13158
Zhao, C., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international
student and american student engagement in effective educational practices.
The Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 209–­231. doi:10.1353/­jhe.2005.0018
Appendix A

First Second Third

Contact Contact Contact

Maalik*
Elias*
Samuru
Amina

Abdella*

Arzan Youra

Non-Participant Haidil
Contact from the
International
Student Office Kuan-Yin

Kaarim

Sofea*

Tajim

Vidura*

Adil*

Non-Participant
Bao
Personal Contact

Hajir

Takara Cho-Hee
*Sponsored
Valerie

Figure 6.1 Purposive and Snowball Sampling Framework

 Family in Former Ties
University Student Accademic
Country of with the Sports
Programs Association Relationships
Origin University

Classmates
Associations
Competence Friendship Orientation Participating
by nationality

Roommates

Other Other clubs

Support Familial support and Attending
programs associations
Faculty

Figure 6.2 Pathways for Integration

Gender

Interests
• Academic/Occupational Religion
• Other Interests/Hobbies

Personal Attributes

Geography
Social Bonds
• Nationality
• Family
• Ethnicity
• Friends
• Regional Identity
• Socioeconomic Status
• International Status

Figure 6.3 Categories of Social Identities

Appendix B

Table 6.1 Demographic Data

Student Gender Nationality Religion Major Class

Abdella* Male Middle Muslim Electrical Sophomore
Eastern** Engineering
Adil* Male Malaysian Muslim Biotechnology Senior
Arzan Male Brazilian N/­A Aerospace Junior
Engineering
Amina Female Indian Jainism Industrial Senior
Engineering
Bao Male Vietnamese Buddhist Electrical Senior
Engineering
Cho-­Hee Female Korean Christian Early Childhood Junior
Education (Transfer)
Elias* Male Middle Muslim Mechanical Sophomore
Eastern** Engineering
Hajir Male Omani Muslim Civil Engineering Junior
Haidil Female Singaporean N/­A Civil Engineering Junior
Kuan-­Yin Female Chinese N/­A Math Senior
Kaarim Male Pakistani Muslim Engineering Sophomore
Maalik* (undecided)
Male Saudi Muslim Petroleum & Sophomore
Arabian Natural Gas
Sofea* Female Malaysian Muslim Immunology Senior
Samuru Male Japanese N/­A History Sophomore
Takara Female Japanese N/­A Education & Senior
Public Policy (Transfer)
Tajim Male Indian Hindu Information Junior
Science
Technology
Valerie Female Chinese N/­A Communication Senior
Vidura* Male Thai Buddhist Sociology/­ Senior
Youra (Monk) Criminology
Female Korean N/­A Hotel Management Senior
* Sponsored
** This nationality has been concealed to protect the identity of the students as they are of
a handful of students from this country at the institution.
Table 6.2 Levels of Integration

Student Academic Engagement Social Engagement Other On Campus Engagement Safe Self
ID
Class Friend Prof. Service Different Friend Diverse Friend Org. Active Work

Valerie ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Takara ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Cho-Hee ✔ ✔
Adil ✔ ✔ ✔
Bao ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Hajir ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Elias ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Maalik ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Samuru ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Amina ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Abdella ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Arzan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Haidil ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Kuan-Yin ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Kaarim ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Sofea ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Tajim ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Vidura ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Youra ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Table 6.3 Salient Identities

Student Salient Identities in HS Salient Identities Now

Adil* 1. Religion (Muslim) 1. Social (mother)

2. Social (mother) 2. Hobby (rugby)
3. Social (friends) 3. Academic (lifelong learner)
4. Nationality (Malaysian)
5. Hobby (online/­video games)
6. Religion (Muslim)
Amina 1. Appearance (fair skin) 1. SES (middle class)
2. Attributes (adventurous) 2. Gender (female)
3. Appearance (fashionable) 3. Appearance (fair skin)
4. Academic (engineering)
5. Attributes (adventurous)
6. Attributes (inquisitive)
7. Attributes (aggressive)
8. Attributes (passive)
9. Appearance (fashionable)
10. Appearance (pretty)
Bao 1. Hobby (dancer) 1. Academic (engineering)
2. Attributes (funny) 2. Hobby (dancer)
3. Hobby (games) 3. Attributes (good friend)
4. Occupation (businessman)
Cho-­Hee 1. Religion (Christian) 1. Nationality (Korean)
2. Interest (children lover) 2. Religion (Christian)
3. Interest (foodie) 3. Attributes (friendly)
4. Interest (children)
5. Attributes (hard working)
6. Interest (foodie)
7. Interest (introverted)
8. Attributes (not ambitious)
9. Attributes (bad with money)
10. Attributes (indifferent)
Elias* 1. Interest (soccer player) 1. Religion (Muslim)
2. Attributes (less social) 2. Attributes (social)
3. Regional (Hadhrami) 3. Attributes (happy)
4. Attribute (“nerd”) 4. Interest (American TV)
5. Interest (Japanese anime) 5. Regional (Middle Eastern)
6. Academic (student)
7. Interest (video gamer)
8. Occupation (orientation leader)
9. Social (transition partner)
Hajir 1. Hobby (foodie) 1. Regional (Arab)
2. Interest (“tech geek”) 2. Nationality (Omani)
3. Hobby (soccer fan) 3. Religion (Muslim)
4. Academic (the institution)
5. Hobby (foodie)
6. Interest (“tech geek”)
7. Hobby (soccer fan)
8. Academic (engineering)

(Continued)
Table 6.3 (Continued)

Student Salient Identities in HS Salient Identities Now

Haidil 1. Attributes (conservative) 1. Attributes (independent)

2. Attributes (diversity-­aware) 2. Occupation (tour guide)
3. Attributes (responsible) 3. International (Third Culture Kid)
4. Academic (engineering)
5. Attributes (active)
6. Attributes (creative)
7. Hobby (photography)
8. Occupation (IT staff)
9. Attributes (role model)
10. Attributes (passionate)
Kaarim N/­A 1. Religion (Muslim)
2. Nationality & Regional
(Pakistani & South Asian)
3. Ethnicity (Punjabi, Eastern
Pakistani, or Western Indian)
4. SES (upper middle class)
5. Academic (educated)
6. Race (brown)
Maalik* N/­A 1. Regional (Middle Eastern)
2. Religion (Muslim)
3. Attributes (listener)
4. Interest (basketball)
5. Interest (photography)
Sofea* 1. Ethnicity (Malay) 1. Religion (Muslim)
2. Gender (female) 2. Gender (female)
3. Social (privileged) 3. Academic (student)
4. Occupation (student) 4. Social (daughter)
5. Attributes (procrastinator) 5. Social (friend)
6. Attributes (unmotivated) 6. Occupation (peer guide)
7. Gender (feminist) 7. Attributes (leader)
8. Social (sister) 8. Interest (social activist)
9. Social (daughter) 9. Interest (feminist)
10. Attributes (socially 10. Attributes (peaceful)
awkward)
Takara 1. Hobby (singing) 1. Religion (no specific faith)
2. Interest (animal lover) 2. Hobby (singing)
3. Attributes (adventurous) 3. Interest (animal lover)
4. Interest (doesn’t like children)
5. Attributes (adventurous)
6. Attributes (quiet)
7. Attributes (positive)
8. Attributes (friendly)
9. Attributes (intelligent)
10. Appearance (not beautiful)
Valerie N/­A 1. Regional (Asian)
2. Gender (female)
3. Academic (the institution)
4. Interest (LeBron James fan)
5. Attributes (hard worker)
6. Interest (dog lover)
7. Attributes (friend)
* Sponsored
Note. N/­A or “not applicable” for participants who did not explicitly list identities.
7 Undergraduate Chinese
International Students’
Perceptions About Their
Classroom Identities,
Memberships, and Invisible
Engagement
Gabriela Valdez

Introduction
Chinese international students are the largest group of international stu-
dents studying in the United States. The Open Doors report (Farrugia &
Bhandari, 2016) estimated that 328,547 Chinese international students
were enrolled in institutions of higher education in the United States in
the academic year of 2015–­2016. International student enrollment, espe-
cially Chinese international students who tend to be self-­funded (China
Education Online, 2012), has become an essential funding source for
U.S. institutions of higher education (Farrugia & Bhandari, 2016). Even
though Australia has become the most popular destination in the last few
years for Chinese students pursuing a higher education degree abroad
(Choudaha, Chang, &, Kono, 2013), the United States continues to be a
strong contender in attracting these students.
The Chinese international student population studying in the United
States has become very diverse compared to previous years. The under-
graduate Chinese international student population by itself increased
by 8.9% from the previous academic year with a total enrollment of
135,629 students; similarly, the graduate Chinese international student
population studying in the United States also increased by 2.4% with a
total enrollment of 123,250 students. This group of students is the larg-
est group of international students enrolled in U.S. universities, followed
by students from India and South Korea (Farrugia & Bhandari, 2016).

Literature Review
Despite the number of Chinese international students enrolled in insti-
tutions of higher education in the U.S., especially in the fields of busi-
ness and engineering, studies of their classroom experiences have been
limited. Some international studies have examined this population in
other countries such as New Zealand (Holmes, 2006), the UK (Wang &
Byram, 2011), and Canada (Zhou, Knoke, & Sakamoto, 2005), but only
94 Gabriela Valdez
a few have focused on the United States (Hsieh, 2007; Melton, 1990).
A limited number of studies have been published about Chinese inter-
national students’ classroom experiences (Heng, 2016; Valdez, 2015 &
2016; Will, 2016), but there is a gap in the literature specifically related
to the students’ identities as they are defined by others and their member-
ship in the U.S. higher education system. Exploring students’ identities
will allow for a better understanding of social structures in a classroom
setting; the ability of Chinese students to shape the meaning of a spe-
cific community of practice, in this case a classroom setting in a univer-
sity in the United States; and their perceived membership of this specific
community.
In this study, student identity is defined as a multi-­level construct based
on a sense of self and representation of self. According to Jung and Hecht
(2004) this construct has four dimensions: personal identity, mainly
based on self-­concept; enacted identity, represented by communicating
with others; relational identity, created by self and others through roles
and social interactions; and finally, communal identity, the identity of a
group.
The main purpose of this study is to explore how Jung and Hecht’s
(2004) four dimensions of identity are present in the classroom expe-
riences of Chinese international students, according to their own per-
ceptions and their effect on the students’ classroom experiences. The
students’ perceived membership level of the student community will also
be addressed through their perceived participation or non-­participation.
The following research questions guide this study:

• How are the four dimensions of the communication theory of iden-

tity manifested in the perceived classroom experiences of undergrad-
uate Chinese international students in the U.S.?
• How do perceived identities of Chinese international students affect
their classroom experiences?

Theoretical Framework
As the number of international students increases as well as the research
regarding their experience in the United States, applying a compre-
hensive identity theoretical framework would provide a better under-
standing of the international students’ experiences in higher education.
There are some challenges related to selecting a specific identity theory
to inform this study, as the number of identity theories continues to
grow and presents many different choices. Within the field of identity
research, there are many researchers who focus on different aspects of
identity; for example, Norton (1997) has written extensively about the
relation between identity and second language, West (1992), Cummins
(1996), and Weedon (1987) have written about identity and power,
 Chinese International Students’ Perceptions 95
and others such as Wenger (1998) and Hecht and colleagues (Hecht,
1993; Jung & Hecht, 2004) have focused on identity and communica-
tive processes.
The proposed theoretical framework in this chapter contributes to the
gap in the literature by using the four dimensions of the communication
theory of identity developed by Hecht and colleagues (Jung & Hecht,
2004). I specifically selected this theoretical framework, as it would help
illustrate the communicative interactions of Chinese international stu-
dents with other members of the classroom community.
Identity is a construct that is dense with multiple layers that contribute
to its complexity. The communication theory of identity developed by
Hecht and colleagues (2005) is appropriate for the exploration of iden-
tity of Chinese international students in a U.S. classroom setting as it will
help explore students’ identities through a multilayer perspective. Com-
munication theory of identity consists of four dimensions of identity that
can be in constant interaction at all times—­personal, enacted, relational,
and communal identities. Personal identity is based on self-­concept; in
this case, it will help analyze Chinese international students’ personal
identities including their ethnic identity in a classroom setting. Enacted
identity is mainly based on communication with others; in this case,
focusing on perceived communication of Chinese international students
with faculty. Similarly, relational identity will be explored according to
the perceived roles and social interactions that Chinese international stu-
dents have with American students and faculty. Finally, communal iden-
tity, the type of identity that bonds a group together, will be analyzed as
Chinese international students studying in the U.S. is identified as a group
(Hecht, 1993).

Method
An exploratory case study approach was selected to be the main meth-
odology for this study because it facilitates the exploration of percep-
tions of participants and it allows for an in-­depth data analysis in specific
subcategories. Benefits of this approach include: examination of the data
within the context of their use; the potential to allow future quantitative
and qualitative analysis of the data, in the case of a longitudinal study;
and the possibility to describe the data in complex real-­life environments
(Zainal, 2007).
Undergraduate participants were selected from a university in the U.S.
southwest. This university has around 40,000 undergraduate and gradu-
ate students enrolled. International students comprise about 8% of the
population campus-­wide and up to 10% of the population in certain
colleges such as business and engineering. The number of participants
interviewed constituted less than 1% of the estimated 1,613 Chinese
international students at that specific university.
96 Gabriela Valdez
Participants
Purposeful sampling was used to target Chinese international students.
Students from two Chinese student organizations were invited to vol-
untarily participate in semi-­ structured interviews. The students’ class
standing varied from freshmen to seniors in their undergraduate studies.
Their time since arrival to the United States also varied from one year for
the most recent arrival to six years for the student who had been in the
U.S. the longest. After the first ten students were interviewed, a snow-
ball sampling technique was used to recruit more participants. A total
of fifteen Chinese international students participated in 20-­to 30-­minute
interviews in English where they shared their classroom experiences in
a United States institution of higher education. The purpose of having
a small sample size for this study was not to lead to broader generaliza-
tions, but instead, to break ground in the study of the experiences of this
understudied group of students in the United States.
Thirteen participants were majoring in business, one was majoring in
engineering, and one was majoring in retail and consumer science at the
time of the interviews. This college major distribution is consistent with the
major distribution of international students studying in the United States,
where most Chinese students major in business (Farrugia & Bhandari,
2016). It is important to mention that the group of participants represented
a small percentage of the overall Chinese international student group. The
classroom perceptions of many of the students are still unknown.
Among the students interviewed, many attended private schools in
China, which specialized in preparing students to study abroad, as well
as boarding schools. Based on this information, it could be assumed that
many of the participants were privileged students in China with access
to some of the best education and educational resources in their country.
Interviews were conducted in English, which was both the participants’
and the interviewer’s second or third language. Participants’ English lan-
guage ability varied as they reported different TOEFL scores. TOEFL is a
test widely used as a requirement for university admission that measures
a person’s ability to speak, read, and listen in English (TOEFL, 2017).
The lowest score reported by participants was 68, and the highest was
98, with an average of 81.5 on a scale of 1–­120. It is important to men-
tion that these scores might not have been a fair representation of the
participants’ current language abilities at the time of the interviews since
many of them took the test years before and had improved their English
language while attending college in the United States.

Data Collection and Analysis

A list of sixteen questions (Appendix A) guided the voluntary interviews
with the students. These questions address the exploration of classroom
 Chinese International Students’ Perceptions 97
experiences, identification of positive and negative practices, and posi-
tionality of students within a U.S. higher education classroom setting.
Audio recorded interviews took place in different public spaces on cam-
pus that were accessible to students. The interviews were later transcribed,
and open coding was used during the data analysis phase to identify the
four dimensions of identity (Jung & Hecht, 2004) within the dataset.
Axial coding (Corbin & Straus, 2007) was also used to create a list of
subcategories within these dimensions after interpreting and reflecting on
the data analysis. Qualitative analysis software called ATLAS.ti was used
to facilitate data analysis.

Results

Communal Identity
The beliefs and characteristics attributed to a group of people play an
important part in bonding a group together. Throughout the interviews
with participants, different attributes were mentioned that contributed to
a classroom communal identity of Chinese international students study-
ing in the U.S. The communal identity mentioned had three dimensions:
a communal identity perceived by Chinese international students them-
selves; a communal identity perceived by American faculty, according
to participants; and finally, a communal identity perceived by American
students, according to participants.

Communal Identity Perceived by Chinese

International Students
Several characteristics attributed to being a Chinese international student
studying in the U.S. were mentioned during the interviews. One of these
characteristics referred to multiple times by different participants was
the fact that Chinese international students are “shy” and “quiet” in a
classroom setting in relation to other people who take part in such a set-
ting, for instance, faculty, American students, and other international stu-
dents. One participant, for example, said: “I think I am more active than
other Chinese students. Most Chinese students just don’t speak. They
don’t share their opinions with others but for my group I usually do.”
This fragment of one interview illustrates the perception of the major-
ity of the students interviewed about their own community and their
non-­participatory behavior in a classroom setting. At the same time, stu-
dents who disassociated themselves from being “shy” or “quiet” in a
classroom setting used the third person “they” instead of using the first-­
person plural “we.” They also referred to themselves using characteris-
tics associated with American students such as “being loud,” “active,” or
even “Americanized.”
98 Gabriela Valdez
Another characteristic that was attributed to the communal identity
of Chinese international students studying in the U.S. was a type of inse-
curity about their English language proficiency. This was also used as an
explanation of why Chinese international students are “shy” and “quiet”
in the classroom setting. For example, a student said: “They [Chinese stu-
dents] are shy; they don’t feel confident speak [sic] English, they will just
listen to American student.” Here, the participant portrays Chinese inter-
national students as passive and non-­participatory in the classroom set-
ting due to their low confidence in their English language level. Another
participant went into more details and stated:

At first they [Chinese students] will think they are not native speakers
so their English not so very good [sic], and also like maybe they’re,
they want to, they think like the opinions of them is not very, is not
enough [sic]. Is not very good and also want to get some help from
others to revise the, to get better the opinions, to be a statement instead
of just their opinion [sic]. I think that’s the reason, they will not want
to talk and discussing, the in-­class discussion is very important.

This participant illustrates an important point related to not only the stu-
dents’ English proficiency, but with their unfamiliarity of classroom discus-
sion structure in the U.S. The fact that this participant perceives that Chinese
international students think they need to prepare better to participate in
class, to not just have an opinion, but offer more concrete and researched
comments, does not reflect the typical classroom discussion structure in the
U.S. and prevents students from participating in discussions. The segment
“they think like the opinions of them is not very, is not enough” revealed the
low value that this Chinese international student has about his own opinion
and what he can potentially contribute to a class discussion.

Communal Identity Perceived by American Students

According to Chinese International Students
Participants had different opinions about the perceptions of American
students regarding Chinese international students in the classroom set-
ting. For example, one participant said that most American students were
nice and they were willing to help Chinese students, but he also acknowl-
edged that there are some groups of American students who reflect rac-
ist attitudes. The student said that he has not personally met a racist
American student, but that it is common to talk about the encounters
with them among Chinese international students. The student struggled
to make sense of stereotyped and prejudicial remarks directed towards
Chinese international students and added:

We [Chinese international students] haven’t done anything wrong,

we respect the [American] culture, we try to embrace, we try to
 Chinese International Students’ Perceptions 99
combine, we try to be Americanized, we have done everything we
could to accept a second culture and combine it into our own culture.

This quote reflects the student’s perception about the different efforts
made by Chinese international students. He later added: “. . . but some-
times American students just don’t understand and they don’t take any-
thing under consideration. They just think we are Chinese, we are Asians,
no good, like disgusting. . . . That is the fact.” The student reflects frus-
tration and a sense of hopelessness about the efforts of Chinese interna-
tional students to adapt and participate in the new culture. He recognized
that despite the efforts made, some Americans do not have favorable
perceptions of Chinese international students in the classroom setting.
Another participant said that American students had unpleasant expe-
riences with Chinese international students in classrooms, especially with
teamwork. She said:

If you notice, most of the Chinese students, especially first semester

average students, they try to avoid eye contact. Or maybe they don’t
have as good eye contact with the audience. So, that knocks points
off from their overall presentation. American students get a little bit
mad for that. Overall, it’s not even hardly their fault, but they do
have . . . The American students do complain about it.

The student attributes the inability of Chinese international students to

fully participate in teamwork to a general lack of experience and unfa-
miliarity with the U.S. classroom structure and expectations.

Communal Identity Perceived by American Faculty

According to Chinese International Students
The opinions of participants about faculty members’ perceptions about
Chinese international students in the classroom setting varied. Many par-
ticipants agreed that faculty members might have two extreme, opposite
perceptions of Chinese students: faculty members might think Chinese
international students are outstanding and engaged, or they might think
they are unengaged and constantly linked to issues of academic integrity.
The perception of participants that faculty members categorize hundreds
of Chinese international students into two very specific groups suggests
a perceived unfamiliarity faculty might have with this population. Even
though participants recognized both ends of the spectrum, they spent
more time providing examples of the negative perceptions that faculty
members have about Chinese international students.
When asked about faculty members’ perceptions of Chinese interna-
tional students, one participant shared an example of a faculty member
who specifically watches Chinese international students during exam
days, especially if they are seated together in large classes. The student
100 Gabriela Valdez
explained that even though the faculty member did not say “Chinese
international students” when providing the example, he used code words
such as “big groups seated together” to identify Chinese international
students. After providing this example the student said, “I feel like they
[faculty members] might have developed a profile of Chinese students,
especially in the cheating part.” This perception of the student shows
that she believes there is a systematic prejudice against Chinese interna-
tional students as she referred to all faculty members as having similar
perception.

Enacted Identity
According to Jung and Hecht (2004), identity can be experienced only
through communication and is enacted in social interactions. Commu-
nication with others contributes to the formation of an identity that,
at the same time, includes hierarchically ordered social roles. The ana-
lyzed interviews with participants suggested that a perceived identity was
formed when participants communicated with their professors in China
and the U.S. These communications seem to have formed two conflicting
classroom identities in students as they represented opposite classroom
expectations: an attentive listener and memorizer in a Chinese classroom
and an active vocal participant who provides opinions in the U.S.
Different participants provided examples of verbal or symbolic com-
munication with their professors in China, which seemed to be influential
in the formation of their classroom identity as well as their classroom
expectations. For example, a student said: “in China, it’s more like spoon
feeding. The teacher will be like, ‘OK, now take notes. It’s really impor-
tant. Make sure to take notes’ ” while she was describing her classroom
experience in China. It was clear that the student used this message from
her professor to create her identity in a Chinese classroom as a passive
student who was told what to do. Another student expressed:

In America, the student can ask the question whenever they want and
the professor will stop to answer the student’s question. In China,
you can’t. You just listen what the teacher says and right now, what
he said. That’s it.

Similar to this description, many students seemed to agree that there is

a common knowledge that has been created through verbal or symbolic
communications about how to behave in a classroom setting, especially
the understanding among Chinese students that they are not supposed to
interact with either professors or classmates during lectures in China. This
common belief inevitably affects the students’ experiences in the U.S.
Equally important was the lack of communication with professors
while they attended schools in China. One of the participants said:
“in China, I feel like generally, I don’t go to professor’s office hours or
 Chinese International Students’ Perceptions 101
teacher’s office hours, because they give you plenty of instructions, more
than you really need to know.” This suggests how the student felt he did
not need or was not expected to attend office hours. It also reveals his
perception of classroom instruction in China and the detailed informa-
tion professors provide, which, in turn, decreases the number of encoun-
ters and interactions with professors.

Personal Identity
A popular definition of identity is based on one of Jung and Hecht’s
(2004) dimensions, personal identity. Personal identity is based on self-­
concept and self-­image, but it is important to remember that these are
also constantly interacting with all dimensions of identity according to
Jung and Hecht (2004). Personal identity is also influential in the way we
define ourselves and how we position ourselves in social situations; there-
fore, personal identity is an important concept when addressing Chinese
international students’ experiences in U.S. classrooms. For these students,
their personal identities are a source of expectations and motivations
when they interact with others in a social setting such as a classroom.
During the interviews, a third of the participants identified themselves
as being actively engaged in classroom activities. These students consid-
ered themselves to be as active as many American students or to come
close. For example, one participant said the following when he was asked
about how much he talks and participates in class:

For me, I think, I’m kind of outgoing, so I’m very relaxed for [with]
all American students. Also, last year I was in Houston, Texas. There
are no Chinese students in there, I’m the only one, so I’m very com-
fortable with studying with all American, all foreign students.

One of the first things that this student recognized is that his outgoing
personality influences how engaged he is in a classroom setting. This
might be descriptive of the way he sees classroom practices in the U.S.
At the same time, the student mentioned that he was in Houston the
year before, attributing time and the lack of a Chinese international stu-
dent community there to his comfort level when studying with American
students.
Another third of the participants had conflicting student identities
related to how active they were in the classroom environment in the U.S.
For example, all five participants mentioned they talked during class
and were actively involved, but were not able to provide examples that
supported that self-­image. As an illustration one student identified him-
self as actively involved and “Americanized” as he explained: “I think
I understand all the rules here (U.S.) and why they’re here such as no
talking during class in basic rules and the need to follow your instructor,
your professor.” He perceived himself to be actively involved in class by
102 Gabriela Valdez
understanding the U.S. classroom protocol of following the instructor’s
direction and not talking, or interrupting, during class, all characteristics
highly influenced by his previous student identity from China. On the
other hand, he explained his struggles during class:

It’s just hard for me, I mean I’m following everything but I still can’t
write an essay and most of the time I can’t even understand the
instructions but I usually . . . I think the professors said clearly what
the instructions are but I just can’t understand it so I usually go to
her office hour even this schedule an extra one to ask questions. She
was so patient and she answered all of my questions and she revised
my essays every time before I hand in the final one.

Despite the student-­ perceived identity of being actively involved and

“Americanized,” the examples he provided portrayed a more passive-­self
struggling with classroom activities in the U.S.
The remaining third of participants had a self-­concept of deficiency and
identified themselves as not being actively involved in the classroom set-
ting. One of the main obstacles related to the lack of participation in the
classroom was the perceived low English language proficiency by the par-
ticipants. As a student mentioned, the fear that other students might not
understand you when you participate or the fear of speaking about some-
thing that is off topic is present during class. This fear prevented this and
other students from actively engaging in the classroom, a common U.S.
expectation, and therefore influenced the formation of an identity of infe-
riority as they perceived themselves not part of the classroom experience.

Relational Identity
The type of identity that might be associated with a person is always in
relation to the social environment in which that person interacts. Jung
and Hecht (2004) argue that identity is part of a group of hierarchically
ordered social roles and that these roles are mutually constructed. In the
case of Chinese international students’ classroom experiences, relational
identities are important, especially when talking about power relations in
a classroom setting and how these relations affect their experience.
Participants clearly identified faculty and American students to be in
a position of power in the classroom setting they described during the
interviews. Chinese international students agreed that faculty represents
power in the classroom setting that deserved their respect. They also
identified the extent of the faculty’s power during class as one participant
expressed:

The professor, even though know my name, for an example like that
because he knows that I’m an international student. He goes, “These
 Chinese International Students’ Perceptions 103
students, maybe she didn’t want to answer the question because of
she has an accent or she doesn’t know the answer. I don’t want to
make her embarrassing like that [sic].”

According to the participant this specific faculty member used his power
to provide a platform for participation to other students, but did the
opposite to the participant in hopes to create a comfortable environment
for this student and to not embarrass her in front of the class.
Participants identified American students as the students who partici-
pate the most during a classroom discussion, the students who usually
take the role of a leader in teamwork, and the students who influence
classroom discussions. As an example, one of the participants explained
her teamwork experience with American students:

Usually American students will say, “Okay you do this, this.” And
some Chinese students will do, “Okay I will do this,” especially for
the presentation most of the Chinese students will do the introduc-
tion because is more easy they will just say, “Hey this is our team.”
The most important part that will be American students’ job.

This example of teamwork from this specific participant provides insight

about the overall perception of the students interviewed for this study. It
also illustrates the position of powerlessness that many Chinese interna-
tional students identified in their examples, which is also consistent with
the communal identity previously discussed and prevented them from
fully participating in class. For example, when asked about why this par-
ticipant spoke very little in class as she stated, she mentioned:

I think it’s not confident for my speak [sic] . . . I think it’s not good
to speak English. I have confidence to take professors what he says,
so even I not very understand their idea. I can’t take what is my ques-
tion, so I can’t soon, so quickly to respond.

This student attributed her sense of deficiency or powerlessness to her

inability to understand the language and her inability to interact with
others in a timely manner. This position of powerlessness prevented her
from fully engaging in classroom activities and excluded her from an
inclusive classroom experience. This perception was consistent with that
of other participants.

Conclusion
The main purpose of this study was to explore how all four dimensions
of Jung and Hecht’s (2004) communication theory of identity manifested
themselves in the experience of Chinese international students in the U.S.
104 Gabriela Valdez
classroom and how these identities affected the students’ classroom expe-
rience. Examples provided by participants illustrated all four dimensions
of identity.
Communal identity, for example, reflected a sense of non-­belonging to
the classroom environment in the U.S. as students described themselves
as “quiet” and “shy,” adjectives that participants also thought Ameri-
can students and faculty used to describe Chinese international students.
These adjectives were opposite to the way participants described a class-
room setting in the U.S. Enacted identity highlighted the unfamiliarity
of many students about classroom expectations in the U.S. and the con-
flicting messages they received from faculty in China and faculty in the
U.S. about these expectations. For personal identity, most students pro-
vided examples considering themselves inactive or not fully engaged in
the mainstream classroom setting in the U.S. The positions of power of
American students and faculty as well as the positions of powerlessness
of Chinese international students, as they were perceived by participants,
were also discussed when exploring relational identity.
The type of membership most participants felt was a sense of non-­
membership or non-­belonging to the U.S. classroom environment. This
sense was mainly based on the students’ perceptions of classroom exclu-
sion, low language ability, inability to meet unfamiliar classroom expec-
tations in the U.S., and attribution of stereotypes. This suggests it may be
very difficult for these students to become fully engaged in mainstream
classroom practices if they do not feel part of the classroom community.
It is essential that faculty and administrators take a moment to evaluate
our current classroom practices and find a more inclusive pedagogy that
will be beneficial, not only to Chinese international students, but to all
students.
This analysis also highlighted the invisible engagement of Chinese
international students in the mainstream classroom setting. Contrary to
the disengagement that can be perceived due to the overall sense of non-­
membership or non-­belonging to the mainstream classroom community,
this group of students was highly engaged in ways that were invisible
within the mainstream classroom practices. For example, participants
reported studying 19.5 hours a week on average in order to prepare for
their classes. This number, according to students, was significantly higher
than that of their American counterparts. Similarly, these students often
relied on their conational peers to gain information about how to under-
stand and navigate the new educational cultural norms that were part
of the mainstream classroom setting. Generally, participants developed
highly effective skills that allowed them to constantly cross previously
set educational boundaries to explore new educational cultural norms in
the U.S.
Chinese international students should expect to encounter some
struggles when adapting to classrooms in the U.S. Students should also
 Chinese International Students’ Perceptions 105
anticipate classroom expectations in the U.S. to be very different from
what they are accustomed to in China. American faculty members should
be aware of issues that alienate and create an identity of inferiority among
international students in the classroom. The findings of this study sug-
gest that development and implementation of a new pedagogy can assist
faculty members in the prevention or awareness of such stereotypes and
assumptions of Chinese international students. The findings also high-
light the importance of successful peer collaboration between American
and Chinese international students. Future research should focus on
identifying the resources, pedagogies, and training needed to promote
inclusive classroom practices that benefit students in U.S. institutions of
higher education. Exploring the perceptions of American students about
Chinese international students is also recommended.

References
China Education Online (2012). China education online annual report. Retrieved
from www.eol.cn/­html/­lx/­report2012
Choudaha, R., Chang, L., & Kono, Y. (2013). International student mobility
trends 2013: Towards responsive recruitment strategies. New York, NY: World
Education Services. Retrieved from www.wes.org/­RAS
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a
diverse society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Farrugia, C., & Bhandari, R. (2016). Open doors 2016 report on international
educational exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Hecht, M. L. (1993). 2002: A research odyssey: toward the development of a
communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60, 76–­82.
Hecht, M. L., Warren, J., Jung, E., & Krieger, J. (2005). The communication
theory of identity. Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, 257–­278.
Heng, T. T. (2016). Different is not deficient: Contradicting stereotypes of Chi-
nese international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Educa-
tion. doi:10. 1080/­03075079.2016.1152466
Holmes, P. (2006). Problematising intercultural communication competence in
the pluricultural classroom: Chinese students in a New Zealand university.
Language and Intercultural Communication, 6(1), 18–­34.
Hsieh, M. (2007). Challenges for international students in higher education: One
student’s narrated story of invisibility and struggle. College Student Journal,
379–­391.
Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2004). Elaborating the communication theory of iden-
tity: Identity gaps and communication outcomes. Communication Quarterly,
52, 265–­283.
Melton, C. D. (1990). Bridging the cultural gap: A study of Chinese students’
learning style preferences. RELC Journal, 21(1), 29–­54.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL
quarterly, 31(3), 409–­429.
106 Gabriela Valdez
TOEFL (2017, October 17). Educational Testing Services. Retrieved from www.
ets.org/­toefl/­ibt/­about
Valdez, G. (2015). US higher education classroom experiences of undergradu-
ate Chinese international students. Journal of International Students, 5(2),
188–­200.
Valdez, G. (2016). International students classroom exclusion in US higher edu-
cation. In K. Bista & C. Foster (Eds.), Campus support services, programs, and
policies for international students (pp. 35–­56). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Wang, L., & Byram, M. (2011). ‘But when you are doing your exams it is the
same as in China’—­Chinese students adjusting to western approaches to teach-
ing and learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(4), 407–­424.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. London, UK:
Blackwell.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, identity. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
West, C. (1992, Summer). A matter of life and death. 61, 20.
Will, N. L. (2016). From isolation to inclusion: Learning of the experiences of
Chinese international students in U.S. Journal of International Students, 6(4),
1069–­1075. Retrieved from https:/­/­files.eric.ed.gov/­fulltext/­EJ1125550.pdf
Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Retrieved from http:/­ /­
psyking.net/­htmlobj-­3837/­case_study_as_a_research_method.pdf
Zhou, Y., Knoke, D., & Sakamoto, I. (2005). Rethinking silence in the classroom:
Chinese students’ experiences of sharing indigenous knowledge, International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 3, 287–­311. doi:10.1080/­13603110500075180
Appendix A
Interview Questions for
Chinese Students

• How would you describe an American classroom compared to

China?
• Do you talk in class?
• How much do you talk in class per week compared to U.S. students?
Why?
• What is your opinion about classroom discussion?
• Do you feel you get enough instructions and direction from your
professor? Can you give me an example?
• Do you go to your professors’ office hours? How often? What do you
talk about?
• Do you participate in class?
• Can you describe different classroom activities in which you
participate?
• Can you identify a classroom activity in which you feel the most
comfortable? Why?
• During classroom discussion, do you share examples from China or
your own experience? Can you give me an example?
• How would you describe your interaction with students when you
are working in small groups?
• Have you given an oral presentation? What is your opinion about
oral presentations?
• How do you think American students/­faculty view Chinese students
in a classroom setting? Can you give me an example?
• In your opinion, who are the students who get the most attention in
class? Why?
• Think of your favorite class so far; can you tell me why that was your
favorite class?
• How many hours per week, outside of the classroom, do you work
on homework or prepare for class? Can you give me some examples?
8 An Analysis of
Acculturative Stress,
Sociocultural Adaptation,
and Satisfaction Among
International Students
Hajara Mahmood and
Monica Galloway Burke

Introduction
College can be a transformative and adaptive process for any college
student. All students who begin college must adjust to the new environ-
ment to some extent, but international students face greater challenges
in adjusting and developing a sense of belonging on U.S. campuses often
due to difficulties in acclimating to a new social life, potential language
barriers, and limited knowledge of the new culture (Bentley, 2008). In
comparison to domestic U.S. college students, international students face
more difficulties in adapting to the university, particularly as they experi-
ence more distress during their initial transition to a new country and
cultural environment (Hechanova-­Alampay, Beehr, Christiansen, & Van-
Horn, 2002; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007; Rajapaska & Dundes, 2003;
Sherry, Thomas, & Chui, 2010; Wilton & Constantine, 2003). Muk-
minin (2012) indicated that living in a new and unfamiliar culture is a
multifaceted experience for international students coming to the United
States. Due to the many changes they encounter, many international stu-
dents also face various challenges in adapting to the academic and social
environment, which may include difficulty with the English language
and communication, difficulty with developing friendships, and a lack
of knowledge of the American culture in the United States (Andrade,
2006; Johnson & Sandhu, 2007; Misra, Crist, & Burant, 2003), along
with changes in food, finances, housing, and social support (Eustace,
2007). They must also learn to manage social interactions with Ameri-
cans, and to develop effective English language fluency to engage in social
and academic situations, meet their academic learning and career goals,
and maintain relationships with family and friends in their home country
(Chaney & Martin, 2005). In addition, international students often expe-
rience higher levels of discrimination and homesickness in comparison to
students from the host country (Poyrazli & Lopez, 2007).
Although international students come from diverse cultural back-
grounds and have differences in language, these individuals experience
 Analysis of Stress, Adaptation, and Satisfaction 109
similar acculturation challenges; “being an international student” repre-
sents a common minority identity in the United States (Schmitt, Spears, &
Branscombe, 2003). Prior research (Barratt & Huba, 1994; Charles &
Stewart, 1991; Pedersen, 1991) recognized that the various challenges
international students face when adapting to their new environment can
impact their academic success, psychological wellbeing, and the effec-
tiveness in higher education institutions retaining these students. Such
challenges can negatively impact the students’ satisfaction with the insti-
tution and higher education in general. In terms of acculturation and
satisfaction of international students, very few studies have compared
the factors of sociocultural adaptation and acculturative stress among
international students in the United States related to their satisfaction
and demographics.

International Students’ Acculturation and

Adaptation in the United States
When international students arrive in the United States, their expecta-
tions often are not easily met, and such experiences relate to the chal-
lenges and stresses involved during the acculturation process and in
adapting to a new culture (Eustace, 2007; Lacina, 2002). To obtain a suc-
cessful college outcome, it is important for students to become socially
and academically integrated in the environment (Tinto, 1993), leading
to satisfaction with the college experience during their acculturation
process. Wadsworth, Hecht, and Jung (2008) found that acculturation
strongly predicted educational satisfaction among international students,
as those with high levels of acculturation were more familiar with the
expectations and norms of the classroom in the United States; therefore,
acculturation positively related to international students’ educational sat-
isfaction. However, stress can delay the acculturation process. The term
acculturative stress encompasses different aspects related to the numer-
ous challenges faced by individuals while living in a new culture (Furn-
ham, 2004). This stress often stems from differences in social customs,
norms, and values, as well as standards in education and politics, among
other factors, between the host and original cultures (Yeh et al., 2005).
An extensive range of factors, known as acculturative stressors, influence
international students’ levels of stress that determine how these individu-
als adapt to the culture of the United States. Aponte and Johnson (2000)
grouped factors that influence international students’ stress into three
categories that include “macrosocial influences (e.g., legal constraints,
discrimination, degree of tolerance for diversity, academic pressure); an
individual’s background (e.g., worldview, cultural distance from U.S. cul-
ture); and individual factors (e.g., age, gender, English language profi-
ciency, coping skills, personality)” (p. 3). Wang and Mallinckrodt (2006)
indicated that one important dimension in examining acculturative stress
is the analysis of sociocultural adjustment difficulties related to adaptive
110 Hajara Mahmood and Monica Galloway Burke
skills affected by one’s language ability, length of stay in the country, and
acculturation strategies. Ultimately, the influence of sociocultural adapta-
tion in a new country significantly impacts the daily lives of individuals,
which can impact an international student’s satisfaction.

International Students’ Satisfaction

International students’ satisfaction with the college experience and insti-
tution is central to understanding how they adapt to their new cultural
and learning environment in the United States. Elliott and Shin (2002)
described student satisfaction as the “favorability of a student’s subjec-
tive evaluation of the various outcomes and experiences associated with
education. Student satisfaction is being shaped continually by repeated
experiences in campus life” (p. 198). As Wadsworth et al. (2008) con-
cluded, international students with high levels of educational satisfaction
not only enjoy being a student, but also experience greater satisfaction
when interacting with U.S. Americans, including their classmates and
instructors. Research has shown that students’ interactions with faculty
and/­or peers have been found to influence their satisfaction with the col-
lege experience (Bean & Bradley, 1986; Eimers & Pike, 1997; Pascarella,
Smart, & Ethington, 1986; Pike, 1991; Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005).
However, negative experiences, such as perceived discrimination, had a
negative relationship with students’ satisfaction. Thus, international stu-
dents’ satisfaction with the college experience and campus environment
is central to understanding how they adapt to their new cultural and
learning environment in the United States. Furthermore, the perception
of prejudice and discrimination from members of the host culture can
create stresses among foreign students and impede their acculturation
process, along with negatively impacting their educational satisfaction
(Eimers & Pike, 1997; Lee & Rice, 2007; Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Poy-
razli & Lopez, 2007). As Gruber, Fub, Voss, and Glaser-­Zikuda (2010)
conveyed, student satisfaction with the university is based on a relatively
stable person-­environment relationship; as a result, student satisfaction
reflects the quality of the services offered at the university and the con-
tentment with the wider environment. International students enrolled at
a university with a supportive campus environment, as it relates to the
quality of relationships, have higher levels of satisfaction with their edu-
cational experience and higher levels of academic success in comparison
to students who study at unsupportive environments (Korobova, 2012).
To gain a comprehensive perspective of the international student expe-
rience, this study attempted to fill the gap in acculturation research related
to sociocultural adaptation, acculturative stress, and student satisfaction
among international students at a nonmetropolitan university environ-
ment in the United States. The desire to understand the current status of
our international students’ acculturation experiences at U.S. universities
 Analysis of Stress, Adaptation, and Satisfaction 111
is imperative to determine whether institutions are meeting their needs
and, ultimately, ensuring that these students have a positive educational
experience to support their academic persistence.

Research Method
In this investigation, a quantitative research design, “inquiry that is
grounded in the assumption that features of the social environment con-
stitute an objective reality that is constant across time and settings” (Gall,
Gall, & Borg, 2007, p. 650), was used to gain a better perspective on key
factors influencing acculturation and adaptation of international students
as well as student satisfaction. The research study sought to determine
the current status of acculturative stress and sociocultural adaptation of
the international college student population through participants’ self-­
report to conclude whether acculturative stress, sociocultural adaptation
levels, and satisfaction are related by utilizing instruments that measure
these constructs.
The research incorporated a sociocultural adaptation questionnaire;
an acculturative stress questionnaire; a brief college satisfaction survey to
determine overall satisfaction levels; and a demographics survey to exam-
ine whether certain factors influence sociocultural adaptation and accul-
turative stress levels. Specifically, the research questions are as follows:

1. How do levels of overall sociocultural adaptation and acculturative

stress relate to levels of satisfaction with the overall college experi-
ence and satisfaction with the university among international stu-
dents studying at a nonmetropolitan university in the United States?
2. Do significant differences exist between international students’
selected demographic variables (gender, age, degree level, and English
language comfort) and the dependent variable of satisfaction with
the overall college experience, and satisfaction with the university?

Participants
The population for this study included all international students (N =
880) from two campuses of a four year public, large institution in the
south central United States. All international students were holding an F-­1
or J-­1 visa, with the exception of Canadian students, and were enrolled
as full-­time students at either the undergraduate or graduate level or
enrolled in an English language learning program, which includes the
English as a Second Language Institute (ESLI) and Navitas Program (Uni-
versity Pathway Program and pre-­master’s program designed to prepare
international students for university studies). Following IRB approval,
questionnaires were distributed using two methods—­paper and online
surveys. Paper surveys were administered to 285 international students,
112 Hajara Mahmood and Monica Galloway Burke
and online surveys were completed by 128 international students, with a
total of 413 international student participants.
For this study, there were more male respondents (N = 271, 66%) than
females (N = 142, 34%) with ages ranging from 16 to 44 and with 67% of
the international students of traditional age, particularly between the ages
of 18 to 24. Regarding the international students’ length of stay, the major-
ity reported living in the United States less than two years (85%), twenty
months on average. For the majority of students (N = 356, 86%), this was
the first time they were enrolled at a higher education institution in the
United States, and they did not attend another institution in the United
States prior to enrolling at the university in this study, with thirty-­three
reporting they were at another institution only for one to two semesters.
Pertaining to language, 91% identified English as their second language.

Instrumentation
Two instruments were utilized throughout this study, an Acculturative
Stress Scale for International Students (ASSIS) and the revised version of
the Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS-­R). The Acculturative Stress
Scale for International Students (ASSIS) developed by Sandhu and Asrab-
adi (1994) was designed to measure the difficulties encountered by inter-
national students with personal, social, and environmental changes upon
arrival to a new country, often known as the cultural shock or accultura-
tive stress experience. The identified major contributing factors included
perceived discrimination (eight items), homesickness (four items), per-
ceived hatred/­rejection (five items), fear (four items), guilt (two items),
stress due to change (three items), and non-­specific concerns (ten items).
The total scores ranged from 36 to 180, with higher scores representing
higher levels of acculturative stress.
A revised version of the Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (SCAS-­R) devel-
oped by Wilson (2012) examines “sociocultural adaptation as a measure
of behavioral adjustment through the use of new terminology concern-
ing an individual’s newly-­acquired competencies within a novel cultural
environment” (p. 144). Based on the factor loadings of the twenty-­one-­
item scale, five subscales were identified that included seven items on one’s
competency with interpersonal communication, four items on academic/­
work performance, four regarding one’s personal interests and community
involvement, four referring to ecological adaptation, and two referring to
one’s language proficiency while living in a different culture. The mean
scores range from 1 to 5, with lower scores indicating greater social dif-
ficulties and sociocultural adaptation problems; higher scores represent
greater competency (skills or behaviors) in a new cultural environment.
The college satisfaction survey queried the participants about their overall
college experience, which included academic experiences, campus experi-
ences, and interpersonal relationships with students, faculty, and staff, along
 Analysis of Stress, Adaptation, and Satisfaction 113
with their overall satisfaction with the university. In order to characterize the
overall college satisfaction rating, an open-­ended response was also included
to allow participants to provide further experiences and perceptions in terms
of their satisfaction as an international student at the university. The demo-
graphic survey asked respondents the following information: gender, age,
degree level, country of origin, length of time in the United States, length of
time at the higher education institution, and English language.

Data Analysis
An analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between levels of
sociocultural adaptation and acculturative stress among the international
students. The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) version 9.3 was utilized
for data analysis. The data analysis procedure for the first research ques-
tion was a comparison of means through one way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to explore whether differences were evident among the means
for selected demographic factors and students’ levels of sociocultural
adaptation, acculturative stress, and satisfaction. An alpha level of .05
was used for the statistical analyses. The data analysis procedure used to
answer the second research question was correlational statistical analysis
as items related to satisfaction were compared to overall college satisfac-
tion levels among international students by demographic variables.

Limitations
The primary limitation of this study was the narrow range of students
surveyed as all participants were international students from one institu-
tion located in the south central region of the United States; therefore, it
is difficult to generalize the results. Other higher education institutions,
particularly those located in varying geographical areas, may have differ-
ent international student representation, campus culture, and university
initiatives. International student experiences at the targeted institution
may vary in comparison to other institutions. For this reason, applicabil-
ity to other colleges and universities and geographical areas is limited. In
addition, as English was a second language to the majority of interna-
tional students, a language barrier with English language fluency could
have varied the interpretation of survey items and influenced the results.
Also, for this study, international students’ country of origin was quite
diverse in representation and in numbers, creating difficulties in making
inferences about the population based on nationality.

Findings
To examine the levels of overall sociocultural adaptation and accul-
turative stress relative to levels of satisfaction with the overall college
114 Hajara Mahmood and Monica Galloway Burke
experience and satisfaction (Research Question 1), a Pearson’s correla-
tion analysis was utilized to examine the relationships between levels of
overall satisfaction with the college experience and satisfaction with the
university among international students with their acculturative stress
and sociocultural adaptation levels. The data revealed a statistically
significant negative relationship between international students’ overall
satisfaction with the college experience and levels of acculturative stress
(r = −.20, p < 0.01), although the correlation is relatively weak. The corre-
lations between students’ overall satisfaction with the college experience
and overall levels of sociocultural adaptation also showed a significant
relationship (r = .28, p < 0.01); however, this correlation also was weak.
The next relationship was analyzed between levels of satisfaction with
the university and levels of acculturative stress and sociocultural adapta-
tion among international students. The data revealed that a significant
negative relationship exists between students’ satisfaction with the uni-
versity and acculturative stress levels (r = −.25, p < 0.01); a significant
correlation also is seen for students’ satisfaction with the university and
overall levels of sociocultural adaptation (r = .12, p < 0.01); however,
both correlations are weak. Table 8.1 depicts this relationship.
Of the 413 participants, 241 responded to the open-­ended question
about their satisfaction with the overall college experience at the univer-
sity, and 372 students responded to the open-­ended question regarding
factors that influenced their decision to select the university to pursue
their higher education. In terms of the open-­ended responses from stu-
dents as to their overall satisfaction with the college experience, the
findings were explained by seven primary themes: (1) faculty and staff
interactions, (2) peer interaction, (3) involvement on campus, (4) reputa-
tion of campus, (5) community interactions, (6) academics, and (7) other
factors such as financial/­tuition.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Accultura-

Table 8.1 
tive Stress, Sociocultural Adaptation Levels, and Student Satisfaction
Among International Students

Variable N Mean SD Pearson Correlations Coefficients

Acculturative Sociocultural
Stress Adaptation

Acculturative Stress 409 91.25 23.72 −0.23**

Sociocultural Adaptation 413 3.50 0.61 −0.23**
Overall Satisfaction With 401 7.21 1.85 −0.20** 0.28**
College Experience
Satisfaction With 402 6.78 2.41 −0.25** 0.12**
University
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01
 Analysis of Stress, Adaptation, and Satisfaction 115
For the second research question, one way ANOVA was utilized to
examine the differences of each of the demographic factors and the depend-
ent variable related to overall college satisfaction levels among interna-
tional students. Participants’ responses to the open-­ended questions were
also entered into Microsoft Excel and analyzed utilizing concept mapping
that included the identification, coding, and categorization of data into
invariant themes and patterns, as well as meaningful subcategories. These
themes and quotations were then used to elaborate on the survey findings.
An analysis was performed to test the differences between gender and
overall satisfaction with the college experience and satisfaction with the uni-
versity among the international students. Females had a significant, slightly
higher mean for overall satisfaction with the college experience (F = 4.91, 1,
399, p < 0.03), indicating they were slightly more satisfied with their college
experience in comparison to their male counterparts; however, no signifi-
cant difference was found for the level of satisfaction with the university.
Table 8.2 displays these findings on satisfaction by gender.
In terms of college satisfaction, an ANOVA was conducted to test the
differences between age and overall satisfaction with the college experi-
ence and satisfaction with the university among the international students.
A significant difference was evident for the variable of overall satisfaction
with the college experience (F = 4.59, 1.385, p < 0.03), as nontraditional
students indicated a slightly higher mean score. Traditional students had
a slightly higher mean for satisfaction with the university in comparison
to nontraditional students; however, a significant difference was not evi-
dent. Table 8.3 displays the findings on satisfaction by age.

Table 8.2 Means and Standard Deviations for Overall Satisfaction With College
Experience and Satisfaction With University by Gender

Male Female

N M SD N M SD

Overall Satisfaction With College Experience 261 7.06 1.88 140 7.49 1.74
Satisfaction With University 262 6.67 2.46 140 6.98 2.32

Table 8.3 Means and Standard Deviations for Overall Satisfaction With College
Experience and Satisfaction With University by Age (Traditional vs.
Nontraditional Students)

Traditional Nontraditional

N M SD N M SD

Overall Satisfaction With College Experience 261 7.08 1.85 126 7.50 1.71

Satisfaction With University 261 6.83 2.32 127 6.71 2.55

116 Hajara Mahmood and Monica Galloway Burke
For college satisfaction, an ANOVA was conducted to test the dif-
ferences between degree level and overall satisfaction with the college
experience and satisfaction with the university among the international
students. A significant difference was found for students’ overall satis-
faction with the college experience as graduate international students
exhibited a significant, slightly higher mean value in terms of overall sat-
isfaction with their college experience (F = 17.52, 1, 397, p < 0.0001).
No significant difference was found for the variable of satisfaction with
the university, although graduate students had a slightly higher mean.
Table 8.4 depicts the findings for college satisfaction by degree level.
An ANOVA was conducted to test the differences between English lan-
guage comfort and overall satisfaction with the college experience, along
with satisfaction with the university among the international students.
A significant difference was found for students’ overall satisfaction with
the college experience (F = 8.84, 2, 398, p < 0.0002) and satisfaction
with the university (F = 3.23, 2, 399, p < 0.04). Tukey’s post hoc analyses
showed a significant difference between students who were somewhat
comfortable and extremely comfortable, also indicating a large differ-
ence between students with lower levels of English language comfort and
those who had much higher comfort with the English language. Table 8.5
displays the results for college satisfaction by English language comfort.
Using correlations, analysis of variance, and concept mapping, pat-
terns and themes of international students’ sociocultural adaptation

Table 8.4 Means and Standard Deviations for Overall Satisfaction With College
Experience and Satisfaction With University by Degree Level (Under-
graduate vs. Graduate)

Undergraduate Graduate

N M SD N M SD

Overall Satisfaction With College Experience 245 6.90 1.89 154 7.68 1.67
Satisfaction With University 246 6.70 2.38 154 6.88 2.47

Table 8.5 Means and Standard Deviations for Overall Satisfaction With Col-
lege Experience and Satisfaction With University by English Language
Comfort

Somewhat Comfortable Extremely

Comfortable Comfortable

N M SD N M SD N M SD

Overall Satisfaction With College 89 6.60 1.86 156 7.16 1.79 156 7.60 1.81
Experience
Satisfaction With University 88 6.35 2.35 157 6.68 2.38 157 7.13 2.44
 Analysis of Stress, Adaptation, and Satisfaction 117
and acculturative stress levels were analyzed and compared with demo-
graphic factors and overall college satisfaction levels. Knowledge gained
from this study can function as a model for retention efforts and college
satisfaction of both international and domestic students at various cam-
puses and environments.

Discussion and Conclusion

In investigating the levels of overall sociocultural adaptation and accul-
turative stress and how these relate to levels of satisfaction with the over-
all college experience and satisfaction, there was a significant correlation
for students’ satisfaction with the university and overall levels of socio-
cultural adaptation. The results indicate significant differences across the
demographic factors of gender, age, degree level, and English language
comfort for the dependent variables investigated (international students’
levels of acculturative stress, overall sociocultural adaptation, five sub-
scales of sociocultural adaptation, student satisfaction with the college
experience, and student satisfaction with the university). In particular,
male students reported higher levels of acculturative stress, and females
reported higher levels of sociocultural adaptation. Additionally, students
of nontraditional age and graduate students had slightly higher levels
of satisfaction with their overall college experience than traditional and
undergraduate international students. Lastly, significant differences were
evident with English language comfort across all the dependent variables,
particularly between students who reported the highest levels of English
language comfort and those who reported lower levels of English lan-
guage comfort.
In addition, a significant difference between undergraduate and gradu-
ate students in terms of students’ overall satisfaction with the college
experience was found as graduate students had a slightly higher mean
value. Although significant differences did not result for the remaining
variables, graduate students had higher mean scores for overall sociocul-
tural adaptation levels and the five subscales of sociocultural adaptation
that included interpersonal communication, academic/­ work perfor-
mance, ecological adaptation, language proficiency, and satisfaction with
the university. In contrast, the undergraduate international students had
higher mean values for acculturative stress, indicating that these students
face greater challenges and difficulties during their stay at the university.
The findings relative to students’ degree level coincide with the demo-
graphic variable of age, as undergraduate students most often are of tra-
ditional age and graduate students are commonly of nontraditional age.
A significant difference was found between international students’ Eng-
lish language comfort and all dependent variables as the demographic
factor of English language comfort showed significant differences for all
dependent variables. Particularly, differences occurred between students
118 Hajara Mahmood and Monica Galloway Burke
who were somewhat comfortable and extremely comfortable, indicating
a large difference between students with lower levels of English language
comfort and those who had much higher comfort with the English lan-
guage. In terms of English language fluency, students with increased lan-
guage barriers experience greater difficulties adapting to the host culture
(Doa, Lee, & Chang, 2007). Therefore, lower language proficiency relates
to decreased levels of intercultural competence (Hismanoglu, 2011). As
Khatiwada (2010) reported, English language proficiency is a significant
predictor of sociocultural adaptation, as the development of language
skills helps international students to gain a better understanding of local
culture and sociocultural aspects of daily life. In general, this study pro-
vides evidence that significant relationships exist between international
students’ levels of acculturative stress and sociocultural adaptation and
that significant differences are evident among certain demographic fac-
tors, especially gender and English language comfort.
Higher education institutions in the United States recognize the impor-
tance of providing international student services on their campuses
(Mamiseishvili, 2012), and it is imperative for these institutions to aid
international students in their transition to college as trends indicate that
the number of globally mobile students is expected to triple to eight mil-
lion by 2025 (Altbach & Basset, 2004). Gaining an understanding of the
acculturation experiences and satisfaction among international students
can serve as guidance for higher education administrators, faculty, and
staff to adequately meet the needs of international students. Increasing
knowledge about the effects of acculturative stress and sociocultural adap-
tation of international students can assist higher education professionals
with providing appropriate support services to assist international students
with their transition to higher education in the United States as well as to
increase satisfaction with their educational experience. As Sumer (2009)
stated, “In order for U.S. colleges and universities to better accommodate
the significant number of international students and to recruit them in the
future, it is critical to identify factors that influence these students’ adjust-
ment” (p. 3). These findings suggest that higher education professionals
need to place an emphasis on ensuring that international students are pro-
vided a quality academic and social experience to prevent them from fac-
ing high levels of stress and difficulty adapting to the campus, leading to
satisfied students. As students gain sociocultural competency skills with
language proficiency, social interactions, and academic and work life, they
are better able to adapt to the new environment, which may reduce their
levels of stress and possibly improve their college satisfaction levels. Insti-
tutions of higher education should take an active role in incorporating pro-
fessional development opportunities as unsatisfied students often are not
retained or have lower academic success; therefore, aiding foreign students
in having a positive acculturation experience can improve their overall col-
lege experience both socially and academically.
 Analysis of Stress, Adaptation, and Satisfaction 119
References
Altbach, P. G., & Basset, R. M. (2004). The brain trade. Foreign Policy, 144,
30–­32. Retrieved from http:/­/­dx.doi.org/­10.2307/­4152974
Andrade, M. (2006). International students in English-­ speaking universities:
Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2),
131–­154. Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1177/­1475240906065589
Aponte, J. F., & Johnson, L. R. (2000). The impact of culture on the intervention
and treatment of ethnic populations. In J. F. Aponte & J. Wohl (Eds.), Psycho-
logical interventions and cultural diversity (2nd ed., pp. 18–­39). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Barratt, M. F., & Huba, M. E. (1994). Factors related to international undergrad-
uate student adjustment in an American community. College Student Journal,
28, 422–­435.
Bean, J. P., & Bradley, R. K. (1986). Untangling the satisfaction performance rela-
tionship for college students. Journal of Higher Education, 57(4), 393–­412.
Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1080/­00221546.1986.11778785
Bentley, J. M. (2008). Supporting international student adjustment. Central
Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI. Retrieved from www.cmich.edu/­office_
provost/­AcademicAffairs/­FYE/­Documents/­Supporting%20International%20
Student%20Adjustment.pdf
Chaney, L. H., & Martin, J. S. (2005). Intercultural communication: Bridg-
ing cultural difference. In J. C. Scott, C. Blaszcynski, & D. J. Green (Eds.),
Communication for a global society: National business education associa-
tion yearbook, No. 43 (pp. 100–­114). Reston, VA: National Business Educa-
tion Association.
Charles, H., & Stewart, M. (1991). Academic advising of international students.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19, 173–­180. Retrieved
from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1002/­j.2161-­1912.1991.tb00554.x
Doa, T. K., Lee, D. H., & Chang, H. L. (2007). Acculturation level, perceived
English fluency, perceived social support level, and depression among Taiwan-
ese international students. College Student Journal, 41(2), 287–­295.
Eimers, M. T., & Pike, G. R. (1997). Minority and nonminority adjustment to
college: Differences or similarities? Research in Higher Education, 38, 77–­97.
Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1023/­A:1024900812863
Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach
to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 24(2), 197–­209. Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1080/­13600
80022000013518
Eustace, R. W. (2007). Factors influencing acculturative stress among interna-
tional students in the United States. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3291368)
Furnham, A. (2004). Education and culture shock. Psychologist, 17(1), 16–­19.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduc-
tion. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Gruber, T., Fub, S., Voss, R., & Glaser-­Zikuda, M. (2010). Examining student
satisfaction with higher education services using a new measurement tool.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105–­123. Retrieved
from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1108/­09513551011022474
120 Hajara Mahmood and Monica Galloway Burke
Hechanova-­Alampay, R., Beehr, T. A., Christiansen, N. D., & VanHorn, R. K.
(2002). Adjustment and strain among domestic and international student
sojourners: A longitudinal study. School Psychology International, 23, 458–­475.
Retrieved from http:/­/­dx.doi.org/­10.1177/­0143034302234007
Hismanoglu, M. (2011). An investigation of ELT students’ intercultural com-
municative competence in relation to linguistic proficiency, overseas experience
and formal instruction. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35,
805–­817. Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1016/­j.ijintrel.2011.09.001
Johnson, L. R., & Sandhu, D. S. (2007). Isolation, adjustment, and acculturation
issues of international students: Interventions strategies for counselors. In H.
D. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling international
students in the United States (pp. 13–­36). Alexandria, VA: American Coun-
seling Association.
Khatiwada, S. (2010). Deciding to come to the U.S.: International students and
sociocultural adaptation. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3430479).
Korobova, N. (2012). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction,
and academic success among international and American students. (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3511608)
Lacina, J. G. (2002). Preparing international students for a successful social expe-
rience in higher education. New Directions for Higher Education, 117, 21–­28.
Retrieved from https:/­/­doi:10.1002/­he.43
Lee, J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student percep-
tions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–­409. Retrieved from
https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1007/­s10734-­005-­4508-­3
Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). International student persistence in U.S. postsecondary
institutions. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education
and Educational Planning, 64(1), 1–­17.
Misra, R., Crist, M., & Burant, C. J. (2003). Relationships among life stress, social
support, academic stressors, and reactions to stressors of international stu-
dents in the United States. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(2),
137–­157. Retrieved from http:/­/­dx.doi.org/­10.1037/­1072-­5245.10.2.137
Mukminin, A. (2012). Acculturative experiences among Indonesian graduate stu-
dents in US higher education: Academic shock, adjustment, crisis, and resolu-
tion. Excellence in Higher Education, 3(1), 14–­36. Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.
org/­10.5195/­EHE.2012.64
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions in prejudice and
discrimination and the adjustment of minority students to college. Journal
of Higher Education, 67, 119–­148. Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1080/­
00221546.1996.11780253
Pascarella, E. T., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1986). Long-­term persistence
of two-­year college students. Research in Higher Education, 24(1), 47–­71.
Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1007/­BF00973742
Pedersen, P. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psycholo-
gist, 19, 10–­58. Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1177/­0011000091191002
Pike, G. (1991). The effects of background, coursework and involvement on stu-
dent’s grades and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 32(1), 15–­31.
Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1007/­BF00992830
 Analysis of Stress, Adaptation, and Satisfaction 121
Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of inter-
national students within a semi-­urban campus community. Journal of Instruc-
tional Psychology, 34(1), 28–­45.
Poyrazli, S., & Lopez, M. (2007). An exploratory study of perceived discrimina-
tion and homesickness: A comparison of international students and American
students. Journal of Psychology, 141(3), 263–­280. Retrieved from http:/­/­dx.
doi.org/­10.3200/­JRLP.141.3.263-­280
Rajapaska, S., & Dundes, L. (2003). It’s a long way home: International student
adjustment to living in the United States. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(1),
15–­28. Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.2190/­5HCY-­U2Q9-­KVGL-­8M3K
Sandhu, D. S., & Asrabadi, B. R. (1994). Development of an acculturative stress
scale for international students: Preliminary findings. Psychological Reports,
75, 435–­448. Retrieved from http:/­/­dx.doi.org/­10.2466/­pr0.1994.75.1.435
Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minor-
ity group identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–­12. Retrieved from http:/­/­dx.
doi.org/­10.1002/­ejsp.131
Sherry, M., Thomas, P., & Chui, W. H. (2010). International students: A vul-
nerable student population. Higher Education, 60(1), 33–­46. Retrieved from
https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1007/­s10734-­009-­9284-­z
Sumer, S. (2009). International students’ psychological and sociocultural adapta-
tion in the Unites States. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dis-
sertations and Theses database. (Publication No. AAT 3401617)
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wadsworth, B. C., Hecht, M. L., & Jung, E. (2008). The role of identity gaps,
discrimination, and acculturation in international students’ educational sat-
isfaction in American classrooms. Communication Education, 57(1), 64–­87.
Retrieved from https:/­/­doi.org/­10.1080/­03634520701668407
Wang, C. D. C., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2006). Acculturation, attachment, psy-
chological adjustment of Chinese/­Taiwanese international students. Journal
of Counseling and Psychology, 53, 422–­433. Retrieved from http:/­/­dx.doi.
org/­10.1037/­0022-­0167.53.4.422
Wilson, J. (2012). Exploring the past, present and future of cultural competency
research: The revision and expansion of the sociocultural adaptation construct.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington, Wel-
lington, New Zealand.
Wilton, L., & Constantine, M. G. (2003). Length of residence, cultural adjust-
ment difficulties, and psychological distress in Asian and Latin-­ American
international college students. Journal of College Counseling, 6, 177–­186.
Retrieved from http:/­/­dx.doi.org/­10.1002/­j.2161-­1882.2003.tb00238.x
Yeh, G. J., Ma, P. W., Madan, A., Hunter, G. D., Jung, S., Kim, A., Akitaya, K, &
Sasaki, K. (2005). The cultural negotiations of Korean immigrant youth. Jour-
nal of Counseling and Development, 83, 172–­181. Retrieved from http:/­/­dx.
doi.org/­10.1002/­j.1556-­6678.2005.tb00594.x
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international
student and American student engagement in effective educational practices.
The Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 209–­231. Retrieved from http:/­/­dx.
doi.org/­10.1080/­00221546.2005.11778911
Part II

Contextual Influences
on International Student
Learning Experiences
9 International Students’
Experiences Developing
Leadership Capacity on
Host Campuses
David H. K. Nguyen

Introduction
Research on international students is new and expanding, but few
empirical studies have examined how student leadership theory impacts
the educational success of international students. Student involvement
(Kuh, 2001) and student leadership (Astin & Astin, 2000; Roberts,
2003) can have a positive effect on students’ academic and social out-
comes on campus. Leadership capacity and efficacy are linked to impor-
tant academic, career, and life benefits, such as career and leadership
aspirations, work performance, the ability to cope and overcome stere-
otypes, and the adaptation to and persistence in the face of challenging
situations (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009; Machida & Schaubroeck,
2011). As a result, increasing student involvement opportunities for
international students and engaging them in leadership opportunities
on campus may not only increase their educational success and career
aspirations, but it will also be critical to integrating them on campus
and developing their own diverse perspectives. Adding the interna-
tional student voice to the literature will help institutions understand
their experiences and how administrators and professionals can further
improve their collegiate experience.
International students have “remained one of the most quiet, invis-
ible, underserved groups on the American campus” (Mori, 2000,
p. 143). While research has found that student involvement and lead-
ership opportunities have an impact on student success and reten-
tion (Astin, 1993; Seidman, 2005), the research has concentrated on
domestic students. Research on the development of leadership capac-
ity in international students is absent from the national discourse in
higher education. As a result, the purpose of this study was to examine
leadership capacity and self-­efficacy among international students and
learn about those campus activities that promote positive leadership
self-­efficacy. In this study, I asked the primary research question: How
do campus environments influence the leadership self-­efficacy of inter-
national student populations?
126 David H. K. Nguyen
Student Leadership Development
The college environment is an optimal space to develop leaders through
organizational involvement and positional opportunities on campus.
Given that leadership is an integral purpose of higher education (Dugan &
Komives, 2007), it is important to understand how students fit into this
complex concept. Student leadership has been an area that has been reex-
amined and reassessed over the past decades due to the diverse needs
of students (Kezar, Carducci, & Contraras-­McGavin, 2006). Komives,
Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, and Osteen (2005) found that as students
entered college, their approach to leadership appeared to be consistent to
the industrial forms of the leader-­centric and personal abilities models.
As students developed throughout their years in higher education, their
understanding of leadership shifted to become more relational, similar
to the post-­industrial leadership model (Komives, Longerbeam, Owen,
Mainella, & Osteen, 2006). Students’ college experiences can change the
way they think about leadership, which can also shift their perceptions
of leadership efficacy.
Astin (1997) called for different kinds of campus student leaders
“who are actively engaged in making a positive difference in society . . .
as an effective social change agent” (p. 9). Instead of the traditional
view that leaders have innate traits or abilities, this view sees every
student as a potential leader (Astin, 1997). Astin, Astin, & Associates’s
(1996) Social Change Model is the most widely used of the student
leadership models (Kezar et al., 2006; Moriarty & Kezar, 2000), was
specifically designed for college students, and states that leadership is
tied to social responsibility to create change for the common good and
that its purpose is to increase individuals’ levels of self-­knowledge and
capacity to work collaboratively with others (HERI, 1996). This is
achieved by growth in the critical areas of consciousness of self, con-
gruence, commitment, collaboration, common purpose, controversy
with civility, and citizenship. These factors contribute to the common
good (HERI).

Leadership Self-­Efficacy
Leadership self-­efficacy is derived from the concept of self-­efficacy, which
is the belief that one has the capabilities and resources to perform a spe-
cific task and is grounded in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), but
it is better to understand self-­efficacy through a field such as leadership.
Among the theories that inform leadership research, self-­efficacy was one
of the top five credible theories as reported by scholars (Lee & Early,
1992). This personal belief can change based on different factors of func-
tion, such as self-­esteem, competency, and environment (McCormick,
Tanguma, & Lopez-­Forment, 2002). It can also be affected by how a
 Developing Leadership on Host Campuses 127
person learns behaviors throughout his or her development, which influ-
ences his or her judgment and decision-­making (Bandura, 1997).
Literature defines self-­efficacy of leadership as the belief in one’s ability
to engage in leadership practice by organizing and executing necessary
courses of action (Denzine, 1999). Chemers (2000) describes leadership
self-­efficacy as a basis from which to understand one’s leadership per-
formance and asserts that one’s confidence can help develop mastery to
become a better leader. In other words, self-­efficacy in leadership refers to
one’s confidence in his or her ability to lead, and this frequently impacts
whether or not one decides to lead (Komives & Dugan, 2010; Murphy,
2002; Paglis, 2010). Self-­efficacy is a critical factor to the leadership
development process (Komives et al., 2006). It has been found that self-­
efficacy is highly related to the frequency with which a person reports an
attempt to lead (McCormick et al., 2002).
Leadership self-­efficacy can be a predictor of leadership performance.
Personal and situational factors can impact leadership self-­efficacy, which
in turn influence students’ behavior and performance. In Chemers, Wat-
son, and May (2000), self-­rated leadership efficacy was connected to
evaluations of leadership by peers, instructors, and third-­party observ-
ers, and efficacy contributes to actual performance and not just the per-
ception of competency. However, efficacy is fluid and is influenced by
environmental factors that may either leverage or constrain an individ-
ual’s perceptions of his or her capacity for leadership (Bandura, 1997).
International students may have different leadership efficacies than their
domestic student peers depending on their learning environments and
the culture of their home countries and communities. Enhancing interna-
tional students’ efficacy for leadership may create positive environments
for positive academic success and career outcomes.

Collegiate Environments and Leadership Self-­Efficacy

There is a positive relationship between participation in college lead-
ership opportunities and leadership skills and abilities. A multitude of
co-­curricular experiences can contribute to the development of these
skills and abilities. Co-­curricular experiences are defined as member-
ship and participation in student clubs and organizations, such as stu-
dent government, debate teams, campus newspapers, and social fraternal
organizations, or academic programs, such as living-­learning programs
(Newcomb, 1962; Weidman, 1989), and many scholars have examined
how these activities and experiences influence leadership (Antonio, 2001;
Dugan, 2006; Thompson, 2006).
Students that participate in leadership programs have also showed
larger gains in leadership knowledge, skills, and abilities than those who
did not participate in these kinds of activities (Dugan & Haber, 2007;
128 David H. K. Nguyen
Zimmerman-­Oster & Burkhardt, 1999). Student involvement outside
of the classroom both on and off campus, including community service
and employment, has a positive relationship with leadership develop-
ment through skill building (Astin, 1993; Lambert, Terenzini, & Luttuca,
2006). Student involvement is particularly helpful to facilitate learn-
ing in ethnic students (Kezar & Moriarty, 2000). The development of
these skills contributes to an individual’s mastery experiences and builds
upon their confidence for leadership, and consequently, their leadership
self-­efficacy.

Cultural Differences
Culture can influence leadership concepts (House et al., 2004). Differ-
ences arise in how leadership is rooted within different systems of cul-
tural practices and values (Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House, 2013), and
even within a common continent, Ronen and Shenkar (1985) found that
clusters of European countries that share similar cultural values also
share similar leadership concepts. Countries that cluster together are
based on geographical proximity, common language or language groups,
religion, and economic, political, educational, and social development
(Hofstede, 1980; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985). Some of these determine cul-
tural values, such as individualism, impacting the dimensions of lead-
ership. These cultural dimensions are highly correlated with leadership
dimensions (Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996). Although this study
does not examine the differences of leadership self-­efficacy based on these
cultural clusters because of the limitations of the survey, it is important
to note the impact of culture on these differences in leadership capacity
and self-­efficacy.

Conceptual Framework
Astin’s (1993) Inputs-­ Environment-­ Outcome (IEO) college impact
model, which allows the researcher to “assess the impact of various
environmental experiences by determining whether students grow or
change differently under varying environmental conditions” (p. 7), is
the conceptual framework that influenced the Multi-­Institutional Study
of Leadership (MSL) instrument used in this study. While Astin’s (1991)
traditional IEO model assumes that data collection happens at a mini-
mum of two different points to capture change, the model was adapted
for the MSL from the pre-­/­post-­assessment to a design that collected
retrospective data at a single point. As a result, the MSL instrument
asks students to retroactively reflect upon their prior knowledge and
experiences. This then/­now approach provides a more accurate meas-
ure of self-­reported leadership development by reducing the amount
 Developing Leadership on Host Campuses 129
of response shift bias (Howard, 1980; Howard & Dailey, 1979; Rohs,
1999, 2002; Rohs & Langone, 1997). Therefore, while the participants
were in college, they answered questions that asked about their pre-­
collegiate activities and characteristics while also capturing environ-
mental data, such as their current college leadership, institutional type,
student status, racial group, perceptions of campus climate, and class
standing (Astin, 1993; Dugan & Komives, 2011; Pascarella & Teren-
zini, 2005). The purpose of this model is to allow researchers to modify
the inputs or students’ background characteristics to provide a more
representative estimate of the influences of different college environ-
ments on student outcomes (Astin, 1991). The independent variables in
this study are the inputs and environments, while the outcomes are the
dependent variables.
For example, as seen in Figure 9.1 inputs refer to student background
characteristics prior to enrolling in their current higher education insti-
tution. These variables can be either fixed characteristics (i.e., student
demographics) or variable characteristics that can change over time, such
as aptitude or values (Astin, 1991). In this study, these may include immi-
gration status, class level, family income, gender, etc. The pre-­tests (i.e.,
leadership self-­efficacy pre-­test) in this study can also serve as inputs for
the outcome measures. Environments, on the other hand, are the experi-
ences gained during college. The college environment includes everything
that a student encounters during the course of their studies that may
influence their education outcome (Astin, 1991), such as programming,
residential life, positional leadership, mentoring, etc. Lastly, outcomes are
the development in students that institutions aim to influence through the
college environment. Outcomes can be categorized as cognitive (knowl-
edge and reasoning) or affective (attitudes, values, beliefs, etc.). In this
study, one of the outcomes is leadership self-­efficacy. This framework is
appropriate for this study since it is the basis of the survey instrument
used to collect the data. In addition, to date, there are no theories or
frameworks that examine student leadership with a particular lens on
international students.

Research Method
This quantitative study was a secondary analysis of data collected by the
Multi-­Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL). This dataset provided a
national sample of self-­reported data from students at a variety of institu-
tions. The study used a comparative design to answer the research ques-
tion. In order to accurately assess the role of the college environment on
educational outcomes, covariates controlled for the pre-­college charac-
teristics and other confounding factors. For this study, data from students
who indicated their international student status were analyzed.
 INPUT ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOME
VARIABLES VARIABLES MEASURES
DEMOGRAPHICS
EXPERIENCES INTERMEDIATE LEADERSHIP-
QUASI-PRE-TEST DURING OUTCOMES RELATED
MEASURES COLLEGE OUTCOMES
PRE-COLLEGE
KNOWLEDGE
& EXPERIENCES

Figure 9.1 Multi-­Institutional Study of Leadership Conceptual Model (2012)

Source: Multi-­Institutional Study of Leadership, 2012
 Developing Leadership on Host Campuses 131
Multi-­Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL)
The MSL was designed to examine and understand college student lead-
ership development and the impact of college environments on leadership
outcomes (Dugan & Komives, 2007). The conceptual model is based
on Astin’s (1991) college impact model that controlled for pre-­collegiate
characteristics, inputs (I), while assessing the impact of college environ-
ments (E) on student outcomes (O). The IEO model uses a longitudinal
design with pre-­and post-­tests. The MSL, however, used an adapted ver-
sion of the IEO model and applied a one-­time post-­test design that incor-
porated a quasi-­pre-­test in the instrument.

Study Participants
The 2012 MSL sample consisted of 91,178 study participants from
eighty-­two enrolled institutions. There was a 33% response rate from
a total of 276,297 students who were sent surveys, which falls in the
acceptable rate of response for Internet surveys (Crawford, Couper, &
Lamia, 2001). From the total 91,178 students who responded to the sur-
vey, only 78,146 students responded to the question pertaining to their
citizenship and generational status, of which 3,430 students answered
positive as international students.

Data Analysis
Given the dependent and independent variables, I elected to conduct mul-
tiple regression analyses to answer the research question in this study and
examine how student demographics, their pre-­collegiate self-­efficacy of
leadership, pre-­collegiate student engagement experiences, and collegiate
student engagement experiences impact their leadership self-­efficacy.
The regression equation used for this analysis was:

LSE POST = β0 + β1 [DEMO] + β2 [PRE-COLL ] + β3LSE PRE

+ β 4 [COLL_EXP ] + ε,

where LSEpost is the leadership self-­efficacy post-­test rating; demo is a vec-

tor comprising student demographics; pre-­coll is a vector comprising
student pre-­collegiate engagement experiences; LSEpre is the leadership
self-­efficacy pre-­test; coll_exp is a vector of collegiate student engage-
ment; and ε is the error term. The predicted outcome of leadership self-­
efficacy from the post-­test equals the sum of the intercept, the coefficient
of the vector comprising student demographics, the coefficient of the
vector comprising student pre-­ collegiate engagement experiences, the
students’ leadership self-­efficacy pre-­test dummy variable, and the coef-
ficient of the vector of student collegiate experiences.
132 David H. K. Nguyen
Results
The first set of environmental variables examined the international stu-
dents’ experience with a wide variety of campus activities. For example,
results in Table 9.1 are expected and consistent with current research;
students who studied abroad and participated in a first year or freshman
seminar course had positive gains in leadership self-­efficacies. However,
those who worked off campus, engaged in community service, and had
practical experience reported negative gains in leadership self-­efficacy;
those international students who worked off campus reported much less
gain in leadership self-­efficacy than their peers.
Results in Table 9.2 illustrate that students who had experiences in
organizational leadership reported positive gains in their leadership self-­
efficacy. Students who had been involved in an organization and had held
a leadership position reported larger gains in their leadership self-­efficacy
than those who were involved only as a member and having a leadership

Table 9.1 Impact of Various Campus-­Wide Activities on International Students’

LSEPOST

Environmental Variables Unstandardized Unstandardized

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. B Std.
Error Error

Collegiate environments
ENV1: Are you currently working −0.128*** 0.005 −0.064*** 0.004
off campus in a position
unaffiliated with your school?
ENV3: In an average month, do −0.051*** 0.005 −0.034*** 0.004
you engage in any community
service?
ENV4A: Study abroad 0.021*** 0.006 0.027*** 0.005
ENV4B: Practicum, internship, field −0.064*** 0.005 −0.018*** 0.004
experience, co-­op experience, or
clinical experience
ENV4F: First year or freshman 0.041*** 0.004 0.026*** 0.004
seminar course
Student demographics X X
Pre-­collegiate environments X X
Leadership self-­efficacy pre-­test X X
(Constant) 2.780*** 0.049 1.306*** 0.046
Adj. R-­squared 0.201 0.402
Notes:
*** p < 0.01
(1) Student demographics included international student status, gender, race, academic
major, class standing, class GPA, interactions: gender * major, gender * race
(2) Pre-­
collegiate environments included variables PRE3A, PRE3B, PRE3C, PRE4A,
PRE4C, PRE4D, PRE4F, PRE4G
 Developing Leadership on Host Campuses 133
Impact of Organizational Leadership on International Students’
Table 9.2 
LSEPOST

Environmental Variables Unstandardized Unstandardized

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Error B Std. Error

Organizational leadership
Since starting college, how often
have you:
ENV6A: Been an involved member 0.029*** 0.002 0.017*** 0.002
in college organizations?
ENV6B: Held a leadership 0.054*** 0.002 0.033*** 0.002
position in a college
organization(s) (e.g., officer in
a club or organization, captain
of athletic team, first chair in
musical group, section editor
of newspaper, chairperson of
committee)?
ENV6C: Been an involved member 0.014*** 0.002 0.009*** 0.002
in an off campus community
organization(s) (e.g., Parent-­
Teacher Association, church
group, union)?
ENV6D: Held a leadership position 0.048*** 0.003 0.017*** 0.002
in an off campus community
organization(s) (e.g., officer in
a club or organization, officer
in a professional association,
chairperson of a committee)?
Student demographics X X
Pre-­collegiate environments X X
Leadership self-­efficacy pre-­test X X
(LSEPRE)
(Constant) 2.780*** 0.049 1.306*** 0.046
Adj. R-­squared 0.201 0.402
Notes:
*** p < 0.01
(1) Student demographics included international student status, gender, race, academic
major, class standing, class GPA, interactions: gender * major, gender * race
(2) Pre-­
collegiate environments included variables PRE3A, PRE3B, PRE3C, PRE4A,
PRE4C, PRE4D, PRE4F, PRE4G

position on campus has a larger effect than a leadership position in an off

campus community organization.
Student involvement is a critical aspect of the college experience. While
many student involvement activities have positive influences on leadership
self-­efficacy, others show negative gains. For example in Table 9.3, for
international students, the activities that show the largest positive effects
are art/­theater/­music, religious, intercollegiate athletics, and multi-­cultural
Table 9.3 Impact of Student Involvement Activities on International Students’ LSEPOST

Environmental Variables Unstandardized Unstandardized

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. Error B Std. Error

Student involvement
Have you been involved in the following kinds of student groups during college?
ENV7A: Academic/­Departmental/­Professional (e.g., Pre-­Law Society, an −0.020*** 0.005 −0.011*** 0.004
academic fraternity, Engineering Club)
ENV7B: Arts/­Theater/­Music (e.g., Theater Group, Marching Band, 0.055*** 0.006 0.033*** 0.005
Photography Club)
ENV7C: Campus-­Wide Programming (e.g., program board, film series board, −0.020*** 0.006 −0.014*** 0.006
multi-­cultural programming committee)
ENV7D: Identity-­Based (e.g., Black Student Union, LGBT Allies, Korean 0.060*** 0.006 0.011* 0.006
Student Association)
ENV7E: International Interest (e.g., German Club, Foreign Language Club) 0.030*** 0.006 0.013** 0.006
ENV7G: Media (e.g., Campus Radio, Student Newspaper) 0.004 0.007 0.013** 0.006
ENV7H: Military (e.g., ROTC, cadet corps) −0.138*** 0.012 −0.072*** 0.011
ENV7K: Peer Helper (e.g., resident assistants, peer health educators) −0.018*** 0.006 −0.018*** 0.005
ENV7M: Political (e.g., College Democrats, College Republicans, Libertarians) −0.054*** 0.008 −0.018** 0.007
ENV7N: Religious (e.g., Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Hillel) 0.065*** 0.006 0.037*** 0.005
ENV7O: Service (e.g., Circle K, Habitat for Humanity) 0.026*** 0.005 0.007 0.005
ENV7P: Multi-­Cultural Fraternities and Sororities (e.g., National Pan-­Hellenic 0.045*** 0.012 0.029*** 0.01
Council [NPHC] groups such as Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc., or Latino
Greek Council groups such as Lambda Theta Alpha)
ENV7Q: Social Fraternities or Sororities (e.g., Panhellenic or Interfraternity 0.011* 0.006 0.015*** 0.006
Council groups such as Sigma Phi Epsilon or Kappa Kappa Gamma)
ENV7R: Sports-­Intercollegiate or Varsity (e.g., NCAA Hockey, Varsity Soccer) −0.028*** 0.007 0.038*** 0.006
ENV7S: Sports-­Club (e.g., Club Volleyball, Club Hockey) −0.005 0.006 0.011** 0.005
ENV7T: Sports-­Intramural (e.g., Intramural Flag Football) −0.035*** 0.005 0.021*** 0.004
 ENV7V: Social/­Special Interest (e.g., Gardening Club, Sign Language Club, 0.039*** 0.006 0.013** 0.005
Chess Club)
ENV7W: Student Governance (e.g., Student Government Association, Residence −0.027*** 0.007 −0.015** 0.006
Hall Association, Interfraternity Council)
Student demographics X X
Pre-­collegiate environments X X
Leadership self-­efficacy pre-­test (LSEPRE) X X
(Constant) 2.780*** 0.049 1.306*** 0.046
Adj. R-­squared 0.201 0.402
Notes:
* p < 0.10
** p < 0.05
*** p < 0.01
(1) Student demographics included international student status, gender, race, academic major, class standing, class GPA, interactions: gender * major, gender
* race
(2) Pre-­collegiate environments included variables PRE3A, PRE3B, PRE3C, PRE4A, PRE4C, PRE4D, PRE4F, PRE4G
136 David H. K. Nguyen
fraternities and sororities. Activities that do not increase leadership self-­
efficacy are academic/­departmental/­professional, campus-­wide program-
ming, peer-­helper, political, student government, and military groups. The
contrasting results may be a result of the kind of environment that is cre-
ated in each of these types of activities.
Leadership training has been found to create a positive impact on
one’s leadership self-­efficacy. However as seen in Table 9.4, for interna-
tional students, organized leadership training at the campus-­level was
not found to have a positive impact. When accounting for covariates,
participating in a leadership training or education experience had a nega-
tive effect similar to an employer on the students’ leadership self-­efficacy.
This disjoint may be a result of the nature of the leadership training.
These trainings and activities are geared to the majority of the students
on campus—­domestic students—­which may have a contrasting effect on
international students.
Campus environments played an important role in the development of
international students’ leadership self-­efficacy. While various campus activ-
ities showed positive gains in self-­efficacy of leadership, others did not. In
the next section, the study will examine more closely how campus environ-
ments impact the diverse subgroup of international student populations.

Table 9.4 Impact of Leadership Training on International Students’ LSEPOST

Environmental Variables Unstandardized Unstandardized

Coefficients Coefficients

B Std. B Std.
Error Error

Leadership training
ENV10: Since starting college, have −0.056*** 0.005 −0.037*** 0.005
you ever participated in a leadership
training or leadership education
experience of any kind (e.g.,
leadership conference, alternative
spring break, leadership course, club
president’s retreat)?
Student demographics X X
Pre-­collegiate environments X X
Leadership self-­efficacy pre-­test (LSEPRE) X X
(Constant) 2.780*** 0.049 1.306*** 0.046
Adj. R-­squared 0.201 0.402
Notes:
*** p < 0.01
(1) Student demographics included international student status, gender, race, academic
major, class standing, class GPA, interactions: gender * major, gender * race
(2) Pre-­
collegiate environments included variables PRE3A, PRE3B, PRE3C, PRE4A,
PRE4C, PRE4D, PRE4F, PRE4G
 Developing Leadership on Host Campuses 137
Discussion of Results
The findings show that the campus environment impacts international
students differently compared to the literature on domestic students.
While others have found off campus employment and community ser-
vice to be positive predictors of leadership development (Astin, 1993;
Astin & Sax, 1998; Kezar & Moriarty, 2000; Lambert, Terenzini, & Lut-
tuca, 2006), results from this study were contrasting. For international
students, working off campus and community service appeared not to be
positive predictors on their LSE. Reasons for this could be, first of all,
because of immigration law. Most international students are unable to
seek employment off campus. In addition, international students seldom
participate in community service opportunities. Most international stu-
dents do not have the transportation necessary to participate.
As expected, first year or freshman seminar courses have a positive
effect on international students’ LSE as does study abroad. Practicums,
internships, and clinical experiences also do not have positive impacts.
This could be a result of navigating different systems, language barriers,
and discrimination outside of campus. It could also be a result of students
studying academic majors that may not require these experiences.
As expected and similar to previous research (Bardou et al., 2003;
Cooper, Healy, & Simpson, 1994; Komives et al., 2006; McCormick
et al., 2002; Romano, 1996), students who hold positional leadership
increase their self-­efficacy. This is also true for international students;
however, positional leadership off campus does not have as positive
of an impact as those on campus. It appears that off campus activi-
ties are less impactful for international students. Similarly, since very
few international students would engage in U.S. military training pro-
grams, this kind of activity did not appear to be a positive predictor
on their LSE. One could also make the same attributes to political
involvement. However, smaller group activities, such as arts/­theater/­
music, identity-­based organizations, international interest organiza-
tions, and multi-­cultural fraternity and sororities had very positive
impacts on their leadership self-­efficacy. The smaller nature of the
organization and the subjects of interest may attract more interna-
tional students and provide a welcoming and inviting atmosphere for
international students to participate. Since international students may
not understand the American style of governance, it is not a surprise
that student governance types of activities have a negative influence on
their LSE. To better provide a positive environment for international
students to engage in student governance and learn about governance
styles in their host countries, institutions could initiate international
student government-­type organizations. Not only would this be of
educational value, but also students would have a voice on campus to
address their concerns.
138 David H. K. Nguyen
While leadership education has been found to be a positive indicator of
positive self-­efficacy of leadership (Moriarty & Kezar, 2000), these pro-
grams are generally targeted at domestic students and engage large groups
of students. As a result, while it is likely that fewer international students
participate in this kind of activity, those who do have some experience
may be negatively impacted by the dominance of domestic students in
the program and the lack of understanding of leadership from different
cultures and customs. Lastly, it is not uncommon that students who feel
accepted and valued exhibit higher self-­efficacies than those who do not.
Leadership education and training should be organized and targeted with
international students in mind so that these programs can incorporate
cultural values that may not be apparent for domestic students.

Limitations
Common to any research study, there are limitations to this study. First
of all, the MSL survey was developed primarily for domestic students.
As a result, many of the survey questions could be misinterpreted or mis-
understood by international students. For example, questions regarding
pre-­collegiate experiences asking students to respond to participation in
specific high school activities may not apply to international students.
Many countries do not have high school varsity sports, nor do they have
after-­school extracurricular activities. Questions that do not have the same
application to international students as domestic students, such as study
abroad, could confuse student respondents and cause them to answer inac-
curately. As a result, the MSL survey is limited in its generalizability due
to the overrepresentation of domestic students over international students.

Implications for Practice

While campus administrators and professionals open all programs and
interventions to all students, including international students, the results
from this study illustrate those campus activities that administrators and
professionals should further expand and develop with particular atten-
tion to international students. College administrators should consider
developing leadership training and education programs specifically for
their international student population. This could be achieved by part-
nering with campus cultural centers or identity-­ based organizations,
which were reported to have a high impact on international students’
leadership self-­efficacy.
Campus-­wide, academic departmental programs were not found to be
as impactful on their leadership efficacy for international students. Cam-
pus administrators and faculty should make such programs smaller and
more intimate in nature. International students reported that smaller
and identity-­based, multi-­ cultural, or international-­friendly types of
 Developing Leadership on Host Campuses 139
organizations positively impacted their leadership efficacy and engagement
on campus. Purposefully designing these campus-­wide, departmental, aca-
demic programs to be targeted for international students may invite more
to participate. Overall, many campuses expect that international students
will take part in programming and activities available to all students on
campus; however, administrators, faculty, and student affairs profession-
als do not realize that such an approach may alienate many students who
are already struggling with the new academic system, cultural shock, and
instances of discrimination.
Lastly, positional leadership opportunities in campus student gov-
ernment have been found to positively impact students’ self-­efficacy of
leadership. However, for international students, these experiences had
a negative impact on their leadership efficacy. This could be a result of
language barriers, cultural differences, discrimination, and misunder-
standing of ways of governance that prevent international students from
positively engaging in these kinds of opportunities. College administra-
tors and institutions should create student government bodies specifically
geared for international students to address issues pertinent to interna-
tional students on campus. This opportunity would allow international
students to participate in positional leadership roles in an environment
inviting and empowering for international students with their cultural
norms incorporated, instead of them having to assimilate to the domi-
nate American cultural norms. Moreover, this would allow international
students to have a voice to address concerns on campus while learning
about governing and governance styles in their host country. The findings
from this study suggest that more attention needs to be given to interna-
tional students’ engagement and development of leadership capacity on
American host campuses. As a growing student constituent on American
host campuses, international students will provide a growing breadth of
alumni support and development for institutions while recruiting pro-
spective students to meet the demand of American higher education.

Conclusion
Examining the college student experience through the lens of the domi-
nant, traditional, domestic student experience is often the primary per-
spective for higher education and student affairs professionals seeking to
engage international students. The results and findings from this study
contribute to the understanding of the use of rational myths as justi-
fication for the application of existing domestic student programs for
international students (Pascarella, 2006). In order to better impact and
influence the international student experience on host campuses, pro-
grams and services should be targeted and modified to attract and engage
international students. Moreover, depending on the program or service,
student affairs practice should understand that the international student
140 David H. K. Nguyen
population is very diverse and heterogeneous, warranting the under-
standing of various involvement and development patterns of different
ethnic students within this diverse group. Similar to higher education’s
understanding of the diverse lived experiences of domestic students, our
international students are just as complex.
While this study focused on the leadership self-­efficacy of interna-
tional students, it also prompted the profession to examine ways to bet-
ter engage and develop leadership capacity in our international students.
Better understanding how international students are engaging with our
campuses and the community around them allows institutions and pro-
fessionals to reexamine how higher education and student affairs can
develop educational interventions and programs.

References
Antonio, A. L. (2001). The role of interracial interaction in the development of
the leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in
Higher Education, 42, 593–­617.
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence. New York, NY: American Coun-
cil of Education and Macmillan.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1997). Liberal education and democracy: The case for pragmatism.
Liberal Education, 83, 4–­15.
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (Eds.). (2000). Leadership considered: Engaging
higher education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service
participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251–­263.
Astin, H. S., Astin, A. W., Boatsman, K., Bonous-­Hammarth, M., Chambers,
T., & Goldberg, S. (1996). A social change model of leadership development:
Guidebook (Version III). Higher Education Research Institute, University of
California, Los Angeles. Retrieved from www.heri.ucla.edu/­PDFs/­pubs/­ASocial
ChangeModelofLeadershipDevelopment.pdf.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-­efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Free-
man. education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.
Bardou, K., Byrne, S., Pasternak, V., Perez, N., & Rainey, A. (2003). Self-­efficacy
and student leaders: The effects of gender, previous leadership experiences, and
institutional environment. Journal of the Indiana University Student Personnel
Association, 33–­48.
Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integra-
tion. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4, 27–­43.
Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and
leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-­esteem, optimism, and efficacy.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 267–­277.
Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (Eds.). (2013). Culture and lead-
ership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-­depth studies of 25 societies.
London, UK: Routledge.
 Developing Leadership on Host Campuses 141
Cooper, D. L., Healy, M. A., & Simpson, J. (1994). Student development through
involvement: Specific changes over time. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 35, 98–­102.
Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys: Percep-
tions of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 146–­162.
Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach
to leader development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Denzine, G. (1999). Personal and collective efficacy: Essential components of
college students’ leadership development. Concepts & Connections, 8(1), 3–­5.
Dugan, J. P. (2006). Involvement and leadership: A descriptive analysis of socially
responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 47(3), 335–­343.
Dugan, J. P., & Haber, P. (2007). Examining the influences of formal leadership
programs on student educational gains. Concepts & Connections, 15(3), 7–­10.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college
students: Findings from a national study. A report from the Multi-­Institutional
Study of Leadership. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leader-
ship Programs.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2011). Influences on college students’ capacity
for socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development,
51, 525–­549.
Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change model of leadership
development: Guidebook version III. College Park, MD: National Clearing-
house for Leadership Programs.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Man-
agement & Organization, 10(4), 15–­41.
Howard, G. S. (1980). Response shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions
with pre/­post self-­reports. Evaluation Review, 4, 93–­106.
Howard, G. S., & Dailey, P. R. (1979). Response-­shift bias: A source of contami-
nation in self report measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 114–­150.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.).
(2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62
Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kezar, A., Carducci, R., & Contraras-­McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L”
word in higher education: The revolution in research on leadership. ASHE
Higher Education Report (Vol. 31, No. 6). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.
Kezar, A., & Moriarty, D. (2000). Expanding our understanding of student lead-
ership development: A study exploring gender and ethnic identity. Journal of
College Student Development, 4(1), 55–­69.
Komives, S. R., & Dugan, J. P. (2010). Contemporary leadership theories. In R.
A. Couto (Ed.), The handbook of political and civil leadership (pp. 109–­125).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Komives, S. R., Longerbeam, S., Owen, J. O., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L.
(2006). A leadership identity development model: Applications from a
grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 401–­418.
Komives, S. R., Owen, J. O., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F., & Osteen, L.
(2005). Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of Col-
lege Student Development, 46(6), 593–­611.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the
National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–­17, 66.
142 David H. K. Nguyen
Lambert, A. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Luttuca, L. R. (2006). More than meets the
eye: Curricular and programmatic effects on student learning. Research in
Higher Education, 48, 141–­168.
Lee, C., & Early, P. S. (1992). Comparative peer evaluations of organizational
behavior theories. Organization Development Journal, 10(4), 37–­42.
Machida, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2011). The role of self-­efficacy beliefs in lead-
ership development. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4),
459–­468.
McCormick, M. J., Tanguma, J., & Lopez-­Forment, A. S. (2002). Extending self-­
efficacy theory to leadership: A review and empirical test. Journal of Leader-
ship Education, 1(2), 1–­15.
Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 137–­144.
Moriarty, D., & Kezar, A. (2000). The new leadership paradigm: Expanding
our notions of leadership development. NetResults, NASPA’s E-­Zine for Stu-
dent Affairs Professionals. Retrieved from www.naspa.org/­NetResults/­article.
cfm?ID=18.
Murphy, S. E. (2002). Leader self-­regulation: The role of self-­efficacy and mul-
tiple intelligences. In Kravis-­de Roulet Leadership Conference, 9th Apr, 1999,
Claremont McKenna Coll, Claremont, CA, US. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Newcomb, T. M. (1962). Student peer-­group influence. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The
American College (pp. 469–­488). New York, NY: Wiley.
Paglis, L. L. (2010). Leadership self-­efficacy: Research findings and practical
applications. Journal of Management Development, 29, 771–­782.
Pascarella, E. T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future
research. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 508–­520.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.
Roberts, D. C. (2003). Crossing the boundaries in leadership program design.
In C. Cherry, J. J. Gardiner, & N. Huber (Eds.), Building Leadership Bridges
2003 (pp. 137–­149). College Park, MD: International Leadership Association.
Rohs, F. R. (1999). Response shift bias: A problem in evaluating leadership
development with self-­report pretest-­posttest measures. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 40(4), 28–­37.
Rohs, F. R. (2002). Improving the evaluation of leadership programs: Control
response shift. Journal of Leadership Education, 1(2), 1–­12.
Rohs, F. R., & Langone, C. A. (1997). Increased accuracy in measuring leader-
ship impacts. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(1), 150–­158.
Romano, C. (1996). A qualitative study of women student leaders. Journal of
College Student Development, 37(6), 676–­683.
Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions:
A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 435–­454.
Seidman, A. (Ed.). (2005). College student retention: Formula for student suc-
cess. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values
of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Jour-
nal of Cross-­Cultural Psychology, 27(2), 231–­264.
 Developing Leadership on Host Campuses 143
Thompson, M. D. (2006). Student leadership process development: An assess-
ment of contributing college resources. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 47, 343–­350.
Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In
J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 5,
pp. 289–­322). New York, NY: Agathon.
Zimmerman-­Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. (1999). Leadership in the making: Impact
and insights from leadership development programs in U.S. colleges and uni-
versities. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
10 Is There a Difference?
International Students in
Community Colleges
Hugo Garcia, Jon McNaughtan,
Dustin Eicke, Xinyang Li, and
Mi-­Chelle Leong

Introduction
As the modern world grows ever more complex, the importance of post-
secondary education as a gateway for many prospective career paths can-
not be overstated. Complex amenities and services that are enjoyed in the
modern world require a diverse and highly educated workforce to bring
to fruition. American community colleges have a large role to play in this
process, and are better equipped than ever to perform in this capacity with
a growing international student body (Institute of International Education,
2017). Additionally, the larger corpus of academic work on tertiary educa-
tion, particularly international students, has been focused on four year insti-
tutions (Zhang, 2016). This is in part due to the nature of the community
college, wherein most community colleges were established to serve local
communities (Cohen, Brawer, & Kisker, 2014). There are more than 1,000
community colleges (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2016) in the United States that serve an ever-­growing
international student population. In this chapter, we will add to the limited,
but growing, body of literature on international students within community
colleges (Hagedorn & Lee, 2005). Zhang, 2016). The purpose of this effort
is to sketch a clearer picture of this population of international students,
and to explore how they differ from their domestic peers in the commu-
nity college context. Specifically, we utilize data derived from the Survey
of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE) to compare student engagement
and student services utilization rates between international and domestic
students. In addition, we use SENSE data to compare differences in class-
room engagement between these two student populations.

Literature Review
During the 2016–­2017 academic year, international student enrollment
reached a record high at American community colleges, with an overall
enrollment of 96,472 (Institute of International Education, 2017). This
number represents 8.9% of all community college enrollment (Institute
 Is There a Difference? 145
of International Education, 2017). As the number of international stu-
dents continues to grow, it is increasingly important to assess interna-
tional students’ engagement levels, as engagement is widely “considered
to be among the better predictors of learning and personal development”
(Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006, p. 2). However, there is limited research
available concerning the exploration of international students’ engage-
ment levels with community colleges.

Student Engagement
The importance of student engagement is highlighted by Astin’s (1999)
Theory of Involvement, in which higher levels of student involvement is
positively correlated to higher rates of retention and graduation. Astin
(1999) states that involvement is defined by five postulates. First, involve-
ment requires psychosocial and physical energy investment; secondly, it is
continuous, and invested energy varies among students; third, it has quan-
titative and qualitative aspects; fourth, student gains are proportional to
the quantity and quality of involvement; and finally, student involvement
is correlated to academic performance. According to Tinto (1999), involve-
ment is one of the pivotal conditions for student success in college. Higher
levels of involvement assist students, especially first year students, in build-
ing positive relationships within their respective college environments
(Tinto, 1999). Tinto (1999) further explains the importance of making col-
lege student involvement a top priority for first year students: most of the
first year students “experience education as isolated learners,” causing a
tenuous student experience and a lack of a sense of belonging (p. 6). Prin-
cipally, students’ engagement levels reveal a bilateral relationship between
both the time and energy that students spend on their education, as well
as the efforts that higher education institutions devote to utilizing accepted
educational practices to improve student success (Kuh, 2001, 2003).
Expanding on this work, Kuh et al. (2006) proposed a widely accepted
model (Saenz et al., 2011; Wood, 2014) in which student engagement
levels are seen as the amalgamation of both institutional conditions and
student behavior. Previously, Astin (1993) developed the concept that
student engagement is an environmental factor that is closely related to a
student’s choice in personal interactions. In his model, students’ personal
choices guide them in seeking out environmental characteristics that they
deem favorable, which varies among individual students. By assessing
how, and with whom, students interact, Astin (1993) would infer the
level of that student’s engagement.

Student Engagement in Community Colleges

Community colleges are an integral component of higher education in
the United States (Cohen, Brawer, & Kisker, 2014); they are host to
146 Garcia, McNaughtan, Eicke, Li, and Leong
students with a wide-­ranging set of academic goals and various levels of
personal preparedness for college (Nguyen, 2011). Due to this diverse
student population, community colleges have unique characteristics that
differentiate them from traditional four year institutions. These unique
characteristics make student engagement all the more important in the
diverse community college setting (McGlynn, 2015; Nguye, 2011; Wit-
kow, Gillen-­ O’Neel, & Fuligni, 2012). Tinto (2006) argued that for
first year students, nowhere else are involvement and engagement more
important than in the classroom. This is because the classroom is the
most common place for new students to interact with instructors and
peers (Tinto, 2006).
Since the majority of community college students commute to school
(Cohen, Brawer, & Kisker, 2014), it is even more paramount that stu-
dent engagement be fruitful in a community college setting (Complete
College America, 2011). Nguye (2011) pointed out that the lack of stu-
dent engagement is “a persistent cause for concern on community col-
lege campuses” (p. 59). The lack of student engagement at community
colleges partially stems from the part-­time nature of both the students
and the faculty (Nguye, 2011). Community colleges can be more acces-
sible than universities for those students who are employed, and have
a rigid schedule, but at the same time, these students are less likely to
have high levels of student engagement when compared to students who
attend college full-­time. In addition, community college students who
have part-­time or adjunct instructors are less likely to transition into their
sophomore years (Nguye, 2011). After controlling for confounding vari-
ables, community college students are less likely to engage in academic
activities with their friends when compared to their peers who attend tra-
ditional four year universities (Witkow et al., 2012). Moreover, Witkow
et al. (2012) examined demographic differences and engagement levels
in students, while controlling for college type. The authors noted that
European-­American students, when compared to both Asian-­American
and Latina/­o students, are more likely to have a higher proportion of
friends attending their school (Witkow et al., 2012). Thus these students
are more likely to engage in extracurricular activities with their friends
than are students attending college without their friends being accessible.
McGlynn (2015) also investigated students’ engagement levels in com-
munity college through a demographic lens with similar results.

International Students’ Engagement

The increasing trend of international student populations in American
community colleges has brought international students’ engagement
levels into researchers’ purview. As international students continue to
form an important component of diversity on college campuses in the
United States, several comparative studies of student engagement among
 Is There a Difference? 147
international and domestic students have been conducted (Korobova &
Starobin, 2015; Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). Zhao et al. (2005) found in
their study that in comparison to their American peers, first year interna-
tional students are more engaged in academic activities, student-­faculty
interactions, and technology services use. Despite this, international stu-
dents are less engaged in time spent relaxing and socializing, utilizing
active and collaborative learning, and community service (Zhao et al.,
2005). Zhao et al. (2005) also showed that among first year students,
Asians had the lowest levels of satisfaction in regard to the quality of the
campus environment. Additionally, Black international students had less
interaction with faculty members than did White international students
(Zhao et al., 2005). International students differed significantly from
domestic students in this study, but these differences varied based on the
region of the United States being examined (Zhao et al., 2005). However,
the authors indicate that during their senior years, international students
“generally do not differ from American seniors in their patterns of stu-
dent engagement” (Zhao et al., 2005, p. 224).
Results taken from Korobova and Starobin’s (2015) research further
support the work of Zhao et al. (2005), that there are no statistically sig-
nificant differences between international and domestic students in terms
of student engagement levels. The authors also added that international
students tend to have more frequent communication with those students
who share their “religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values”
(Korobova & Starobin, 2015, p. 82). Community colleges could poten-
tially improve international student engagement levels by recognizing the
demographic makeup of these students, and improve opportunities for
these students to engage with those persons who share their beliefs and
culture to some extent.

Data
The data for this chapter are taken from the Survey of Entering Student
Engagement (SENSE) conducted at American community colleges. These
data were selected for three reasons: First, SENSE focuses on student
engagement and provides researchers with many different ways to con-
ceptualize how students are engaging with their peers, faculty, and staff
on their respective campuses. Second, SENSE is widely utilized by many
institutions and provides us with a large, national sample of domestic
and international students. The national sample allows us to make more
generalized statements than single state or college level data. Finally,
these data offer a unique perspective for researchers and practitioners as
they are focused on the first three weeks after a student’s initial enroll-
ment in a college. This allows us to focus on how international student
awareness and engagement compared to that of their domestic peers with
regard to their initial college experience.
148 Garcia, McNaughtan, Eicke, Li, and Leong
It is important to note that the sample used for this descriptive analy-
sis is a 25% random sample drawn from a complete 2014 cohort. The
random sample was conducted at the classroom level, which would have
inherently biased our sample to full-­time students; however, a sampling
weight was applied to ensure broad representation (Personal Communi-
cation, 2015). Respondents are from 261 different colleges in thirty-­six
states, which allows for a broad national sample for a total sample size
of 26,203, of which 1,389 are international and 24,111 are domestic
students.

Method
For this chapter, we utilize a descriptive approach to answer three ques-
tions. First, how do international and domestic students differ by key
demographic variables? This question is asked to provide a baseline for
further research into analyzing the lived experiences of students while
considering the intersection of student identities and experiences. Second,
how do awareness and use of student services differ between domestic
and international students? With this question we seek to provide prac-
titioners with baseline data for how international student awareness of
services is connected with their use of those services within the first few
weeks of college. While there were many questions on the SENSE survey
about student experiences, we selected only a few of the services that we
believed students would have needed within their first few weeks of col-
lege (for a complete list of the services included in our analysis, please
see Table 10.2). Finally, how does classroom engagement differ between
domestic students and international students? This question has both
practical and research implications, as we seek to understand which areas
in the classroom that international students may be more comfortable
to engage in and also provide baseline information for how engagement
may differ between these two groups.

Results

How Do International Students Differ From

Their Domestic Peers?
Table 10.1 presents the descriptive statistics for all students, domestic
students, and international students. The two groups are strikingly simi-
lar in make up by sex, age, and goals. We do note, however, that interna-
tional students are substantively more diverse than their domestic student
peers. This is not surprising, but what is noteworthy is the magnitude
of the difference. International students include nearly twice as many
students of color as domestic students, with Hispanics being the largest
international group represented in this study.
 Is There a Difference? 149
Table 10.1 Descriptive Statistics for All Students, Domestic Students, and Inter-
national Students

All Students Domestic International

Sex Male 0.425 0.438 0.414

Female 0.532 0.546 0.564
missing 0.035 0.016 0.022
Race American Indian 0.019 0.020 0.022
Asian/­Pacific Islander 0.033 0.030 0.090
Native Hawaiian 0.001 0.001 0.004
Black 0.158 0.161 0.189
White 0.497 0.527 0.224
Hispanic 0.210 0.205 0.402
Other 0.042 0.042 0.056
missing 0.032 0.013 0.012
Age < 20 0.679 0.693 0.675
20–­29 0.210 0.212 0.255
30–­39 0.053 0.055 0.036
40–­50 0.026 0.027 0.015
> 50 0.012 0.012 0.014
missing 0.020 0.001 0.004
High Intent Certificate 0.022 0.022 0.026
Associates 0.178 0.182 0.171
Transfer 0.762 0.777 0.772
missing 0.038 0.019 0.030
Avg. HS GPA 4.0 0.064 0.064 0.075
3.5 0.294 0.298 0.322
3.0 0.232 0.238 0.214
2.5 0.263 0.267 0.270
2.0 0.088 0.090 0.078
< 2.0 0.034 0.035 0.022
missing 0.026 0.007 0.019
N 26,203 24,111 1,389

In addition to differences by race, we also find that international stu-

dents have higher GPAs on average. However, contrary to much of the
past research the magnitude of this difference is small. Said another way,
the academic achievement in high school by international students is only
slightly higher than that of their domestic peers.

How Do Awareness and Use of Student Services Differ

Between International and Domestic Students?
Student services are a large aspect of the college experience for many stu-
dents. Table 10.2 provides information for the awareness and use for all
students, domestic students, and international students of select student
services. It is notable that international students are more active than
their domestic counterparts in utilizing student services. This includes
150 Garcia, McNaughtan, Eicke, Li, and Leong
Table 10.2 Awareness and Use of Student Services for All Students, Domestic
Students, and International Students

All Students Domestic International

Orientation Attended 0.700 0.703 0.690

Financial Aid Applied 0.778 0.788* 0.646*
Received 0.522 0.528* 0.443*
Enrolled in Support Study Skills 0.343 0.339* 0.402*
Courses
Learning 0.057 0.052* 0.122*
Community
Awareness of Acad. Planning 0.777 0.789* 0.672*
Advising
Career Advising 0.514 0.516 0.536
Finance Advising 0.769 0.780* 0.706*
Awareness of Face-­to-­Face 0.773 0.784* 0.704*
Tutoring Tutoring
Online Tutoring 0.388 0.393* 0.340*
Awareness of Computer Lab 0.838 0.847 0.817
Student Services
Student Orgs. 0.601 0.613* 0.495*
Transfer Center 0.483 0.491* 0.415*
Disability 0.540 0.548* 0.487*
Services
Utilized Advising Acad. Planning 0.571 0.579 0.523
Career Advising 0.174 0.170* 0.258*
Finance Advising 0.469 0.476 0.449
Utilized Tutoring Face-­to-­Face 0.163 0.159* 0.226*
Tutoring
Online Tutoring 0.059 0.057* 0.096*
Utilized Student Computer Lab 0.525 0.527* 0.574*
Services
Student Orgs. 0.138 0.136* 0.190*
Transfer Center 0.118 0.119 0.042
Disability 0.061 0.058* 0.094*
Services
N 26,203 24,111 1,389
Note:
Statistical difference in proportions between domestic and international students denoted
by the asterisk (* p < 0.01).

study skills and learning community support courses, wherein interna-

tional students participate at greater rates than domestic students.
International students appear to be more active than domestic students
in utilizing student services, even while being less aware of these services
as a group. Table 10.2 shows that although domestic and international
students take part in orientation programs at similar rates (approximately
70%), international students are less likely to be aware of these student
services. Despite this disadvantage, international students are utilizing
these services at greater rates than domestic students are.
 Is There a Difference? 151
How Does Classroom Engagement Differ Between
Domestic and International Students?
Engaging within the classroom is a vital experience for college students.
It allows students to directly engage with the instructor, and to improve
their performance within the course. Table 10.3 demonstrates frequency
of student engagement in seven areas within the classroom for all stu-
dents, domestic students, and international students. Domestic students
lagged behind international students in most classroom engagement
measures, and in almost all frequency categories.
One illustration is seen where international students are more likely
than domestic students to ask questions in class. Even with this greater
likelihood of asking questions in class, most international students have
never asked a question in class (approximately 57%). Similarly, inter-
national students are more likely to participate in both a required and

Classroom Engagement for All Students, Domestic Students, and

Table 10.3 
International Students

Never One Time Two or Four or

Three Times More Times

Ask a Question All Students 0.625 0.188 0.128 0.049

Domestic 0.631 0.185 0.128 0.048
International 0.573 0.208 0.144 0.060
Participate in All Students 0.810 0.095 0.062 0.027
Required Group Domestic 0.820 0.091 0.059 0.026
Study International 0.712 0.143 0.093 0.043
Participate in All Students 0.798 0.103 0.061 0.027
Non-­Required Domestic 0.805 0.100 0.060 0.026
Group Study International 0.736 0.138 0.079 0.035
Discuss All Students 0.317 0.341 0.258 0.077
Assignment or Domestic 0.319 0.342 0.258 0.076
Grade With International 0.299 0.341 0.266 0.085
Instructor
Ask for All Students 0.225 0.308 0.336 0.124
Coursework Domestic 0.228 0.308 0.337 0.123
Help From an International 0.193 0.317 0.353 0.131
Instructor
Discuss Ideas All Students 0.369 0.218 0.259 0.139
From Readings Domestic 0.371 0.214 0.261 0.141
With Instructor International 0.343 0.273 0.243 0.123
Out of Class
Participate in All Students 0.668 0.165 0.114 0.047
Supplemental Domestic 0.677 0.161 0.111 0.046
Instruction Out International 0.559 0.225 0.139 0.067
of Class
Note:
The sample sizes for this study are as follows: all Students (N = 26,203), Domestic
(N = 24,111), and International (N = 1,389).
152 Garcia, McNaughtan, Eicke, Li, and Leong
non-­required group study than are domestic students. Even with this,
most students (approximately 80%) have not done either of these class-
room engagement activities within the first three weeks of class. In addi-
tion, Table 10.3 indicates that international students are more likely to
discuss grades, participate in supplemental instruction, and ask for help
when compared to domestic students. Discussing ideas from readings
with an instructor outside of class is the only area in which domestic stu-
dents showed greater classroom engagement than international students.

Discussion and Implications

As the population of international students continues to grow within
American community colleges (IEE, 2017), it is imperative that higher
education professionals understand how these students engage with the
community college environment. With this greater understanding of
international students’ engagement, community colleges may improve
services and utilize more efficient practices to amplify international stu-
dents’ college engagement levels. By analyzing SENSE data, it is possible
to uncover international students’ engagement levels during the initial
period of their enrollment in two year American community colleges.
There is a dearth of literature investigating these students’ engagement
levels in the community college context, for which this descriptive analy-
sis attempts to take the initial steps in remedying. The nature of SENSE
data limited our interpretation to the first three weeks of international
students’ engagement levels. Despite this, the commencement of the col-
lege experience is a critical period in developing college students’ identi-
ties and sense of belonging within the college community (Tinto, 1999).
Existing research indicates that there are no predominant differences
between international and domestics students’ engagement levels in their
senior years (Korobova, & Starobin, 2015; Zhao et al., 2005). These
findings further support concentrating on international students’ initial
college experiences and engagement levels.
This descriptive analysis reveals that first year international students
are more engaged within the community college environment than their
domestic peers. Despite this, overall engagement for both groups of stu-
dents is low. While international students are similar in many ways to
their domestic counterparts, it is crucial to keep in mind that this diverse
group of students faces unique needs and challenges that domestic stu-
dents do not. In addition to the typical difficulties encountered during the
transition to college, international students often face challenges associ-
ated with language barriers, cultural shock, bureaucratic navigation, and
other trials unique to the international student experience. As noted in
our results, international students include nearly twice as many students
of color than domestic community college student populations. The
diversity of the international student population warrants community
 Is There a Difference? 153
college practitioners to prepare subtle and differentiated programmatic
planning to meet their needs. In doing so, community colleges can refine
their understanding of these student populations from various regions
around the world. While international students as a group do have many
similar demographic characteristics, they also differ in significant ways.
As Korobova and Starobin’s (2015) work revealed, international students
tend to share regional characteristics that are unique to their respective
populations, while differing from the larger aggregate of international
students in whole. Having a thorough understanding of international stu-
dents’ provincial characteristics could empower community colleges to
optimize specific engagement practices for these groups. Future research
should attempt to disaggregate these students in data collection and anal-
ysis so that increased attention to the specific cultural needs of interna-
tional students can be satisfied to improve overall student engagement.
The results from this analysis indicate that international students are
less aware of the student services available to them than are domestic com-
munity college students. Despite this lesser awareness of student services,
international students utilize these same services at a greater rate than do
domestic students. Specifically, international students are less aware of
academic planning, financial advising, tutoring, computer labs, student
organizations, transfer centers, and disability services. These findings
suggest that community colleges should actively promote the advertising
of the services explicitly to international student populations on campus.
Considering that international students utilize student services at greater
rates, while also being less aware of these student services, even modest
improvements in awareness of student services may have a significant
positive impact on international student college engagement. Having
appropriate language specific to a campus’s international student popu-
lation in student services brochures and websites, while also planning
programmatic events that specifically target international students, may
improve awareness of student services amid these student populations.
Among all of the student services included in the SENSE survey data,
career advising is the lone student service that international students
(53.6%) are more aware of than their domestic peers (51.6%). There
are several potential explanations underpinning this phenomenon, but
we will explore two here: first, the international students included in the
SENSE data have a lower rate (44.3%) of receiving financial aid when
compared to domestic students (52.8%). The increased independent
financial pressure experienced by these students may embolden their
efforts to plan and obtain appropriate career counseling in pursuit of
income. Additional research would be needed to explore this hypothesis.
Second, finding employment after graduation is one of the methods in
which an international student may legally stay in the United States. For
international students who plan to stay in the United States, it is reason-
able for them to consider their career planning at an earlier stage and
154 Garcia, McNaughtan, Eicke, Li, and Leong
with more urgency than their domestic counterparts on average. As for
the utilization of services, international students utilize those services at
greater rates than do their domestic peers, with the exception of academic
planning, financial advising, and transfer centers. Although international
students have comparatively higher rates of utilizing student services at
their respective campuses than their domestic peers, the overall utiliza-
tion rates are surprisingly low. Therefore, practitioners should not only
promote the awareness of student services, but also encourage interna-
tional students to utilize these same services.
As community colleges offer these services to their students, it is
important that they eliminate as many barriers as possible that interna-
tional students encounter. Surveys could be administered to international
students during the enrollment process to ascertain their specific needs
in order to address these barriers for international student bodies. Such
surveys would provide data that are specific to the administering col-
lege’s campus to help customize solutions for specific subpopulations of
international students. The descriptive analysis also indicates that inter-
national students are more involved in study skills courses and within
learning communities than are domestic community college students.
An important direction for further analysis should include attempts to
determine if these higher rates of participation in study skills courses
and learning communities are the result of compulsory participation for
international students at their respective colleges.
International students also have higher levels of classroom engagement
when compared to their domestic peers, but engagement overall is still
low among both groups. In the classroom, international students are more
likely to ask a question, discuss assignments or grades with the instruc-
tor, and ask for coursework help from an instructor when compared to
domestic students. These results align with Zhao et al.’s (2005) work
showing that international students are more engaged in academic activ-
ity and students-­to-­faculty interactions. Additionally, our findings indicate
that international students are more likely to initially participate in both
required and non-­required group study activates than domestic commu-
nity college students. This in contrast to Zhao et al. (2005), who indicated
in their study that international students are less engaged in active and
collaborative learning than are domestic students. This discrepancy may
be the result of differences in population and methodology between the
two studies: Zhao et al. (2005) utilized data from the National Survey of
Student Engagement, which included 317 four year colleges and universi-
ties, while SENSE data are utilized in this descriptive analysis of two year
community college students’ initial engagement levels on campus.
One of the few areas in which international students are less likely to
be engaged is the discussion of ideas with faculty outside of the class-
room. Interestingly, the setting in which engagement occurs, inside or
outside of the classroom, seems to have an impact on international
 Is There a Difference? 155
students’ interaction levels with their instructors. This may be due to
cultural differences that make it socially uncomfortable for international
students to engage with faculty outside of the classroom. Future stud-
ies should strive to disentangle the possible factors that may cause this
phenomenon among international students. As for practitioners, future
initiatives that may be employed could include settings for international
students to communicate and professionally socialize with their instruc-
tors. Another noteworthy observation from our results is the low overall
rate for international students in terms of classroom engagement. For
example: more than 70% of all students surveyed had not completed
required or non-­required group study within the first three weeks, 57.3%
of international students never asked a question in the classroom during
the first three weeks, and 55.9% of international students never partici-
pated in any supplemental instruction outside of the classroom.

Conclusion
This descriptive study adds to the body of knowledge pertaining to stu-
dent engagement in the community college setting for both international
and domestic students. Our findings indicate that international students
are more likely to initially participate in both required and non-­required
group study activities than domestic community college students. While
this work does expose the reality of levels of engagement between these
two student populations, further rigorous research is needed to uncover
any possible casual explanations. The hope here is that this work will
act as a springboard for future studies into both international student
engagement and community colleges in general. The role that community
colleges play in educating a diverse and complex workforce cannot be
overstated. With this exploratory work, and future research, community
colleges can begin to take steps to improve engagement levels for interna-
tional students through improved awareness of services and connections
between faculty and students.

References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited (Vol.
1). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518–­529.
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student
learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–­32.
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2014). The American community
college (6th Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass. ISBN: 978-­1-­118-­44981-­3
Complete College America. (2011). Time is the enemy: The surprising truth about
why today’s college students aren’t graduating . . . and what needs to change.
Retrieved from http:/­/­completecollege.org/­docs/­Time_Is_the_Enemy.pdf
156 Garcia, McNaughtan, Eicke, Li, and Leong
Hagedorn, L. S., & Lee, M. C. (2005). International community college students:
The neglected minority? Retrieved from http:/­/­eric.ed.gov/­?id=ED490516
Institute of International Education, IIE. (2017). Open doors community college
data. Retrieved from www.iie.org/­Research-­and-­Insights/­Open-­Doors/­Data/­
Community-­College-­Data-­Resource
Korobova, N., & Starobin, S. (2015). A comparative study of student engage-
ment, satisfaction, and academic success among international and American
students. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 72–­85.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the
national survey of student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 33(3), 10–­17.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE:
Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–­32.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What
matters to student success: A review of the literature commissioned report for
the national symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a
dialog on student success. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Educa-
tion Cooperative.
McGlynn, A. P. (2015). Black males and Latinos: Aspiration, achievement, and
equity. The Education Digest, 80(5), 57.
Nguyen, C. P. (2011). Challenges of student engagement in community colleges.
The Vermont Connection, 32(1), 7.
Saenz, V. B., Hatch, D., Bukoski, B. E., Kim, S., Lee, K. H., & Valdez, P. (2011).
Community college student engagement patterns: A typology revealed through
exploratory cluster analysis. Community College Review, 39(3), 235–­267.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college.
NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5–­9.
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next?. Journal
of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1–­19.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016).
Digest of Education Statistics, 2015 (NCES 2016–­014), Table 105.50.
Witkow, M. R., Gillen-­O’Neel, C., & Fuligni, A. J. (2012). College social engage-
ment and school identification: Differences by college type and ethnicity. Jour-
nal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(5), 243–­251.
Wood, J. L. (2014). Apprehension to engagement in the classroom: Perceptions
of Black males in the community college. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 27(6), 785–­803.
Zhang, Y. (2016). An overlooked population in community college: International
students’ (in)validation experiences with academic advising. Community Col-
lege Review, 44(2), 153–­170. doi:10.1177/­0091552116633293
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international
student and American student engagement in effective educational practices.
The Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 209–­231.
11 International Undergraduates
Reported for Academic
Integrity Violations
Is English Deficiency a
Predictor Variable?
Barry Fass-­Holmes and Allison A. Vaughn

Introduction
International students attending American universities have a reputation
for cheating, which the present chapter is intended to challenge. This repu-
tation is due, at least in part, to media reports that their cheating is “perva-
sive” (Nylander, 2015). According to these reports, international students
cheat on their university applications, test scores, transcripts, and/­or letters
of recommendation (Lu & Hunt, 2015; Nylander, 2015; Redden, 2015).
They then allegedly continue to cheat—­including (but not limited to) pla-
giarizing, sharing answers to homework assignments or exams, and com-
mitting fraud (Bertram Gallant, Binkin, & Donohue, 2015)—­after gaining
entrance to American universities. The universities’ administrators have
reacted by suspending and/­or expelling international students who are
reported and held responsible for violating academic integrity standards
(e.g., Qi, 2015). However, suspensions and expulsions for cheating could
have negative impacts on the universities’ retention and graduation rates in
addition to the workloads of administrators, faculty, and staff.
The media’s reports of international applicants’ and enrolled interna-
tional students’ allegedly pervasive cheating have led to research studies
designed to determine its actual extent. For example, Bertram Gallant
et al. (2015) studied risk factors for cheating at an American West Coast
public university (hereafter referred to as “the University”) that has been
recognized for its excellence in academics and research (U.S. News and
World Report, 2017). Their study found that international students were
more than twice as likely to have an academic integrity violation (AIV)
as domestic counterparts. This finding led to the suggestion that inter-
national students were “particularly vulnerable” to cheating (Bertram
Gallant et al., 2015; p. 226); it additionally led to recommendations that
these students should be made more aware of what constituted cheating,
and should be educated about the consequences of cheating.
How does the finding reported by Bertram Gallant et al. (2015)—­
international students are more than twice as likely to have an AIV as
domestic counterparts—­translate into actual numbers? A follow-­ up
158 Barry Fass-­Holmes and Allison A. Vaughn
study (Fass-­Holmes, 2017) replicated the finding that the University’s
number of international undergraduates reported for AIVs increased
almost six-­fold from academic year (AY) 2009–­2010 (N = 32) to AY
2013–­2014 (N = 182). However, this increase was in part proportional
to the increase in the total number of enrolled international undergradu-
ates, and, importantly, it amounted to less than 10% of the total. These
new findings indicated that AIVs were reported to a lesser extent than
one would expect if international students were particularly vulnerable
to cheating and/­or their cheating was pervasive.
If international undergraduates collectively are vulnerable to cheat-
ing, what leads some to cheat versus international counterparts who do
not? Previous studies addressed this question with regard to cheating
among all students (including internationals) by focusing on the follow-
ing explanatory variables: individual motivations such as fear of failure,
desire to achieve a high grade, and nervousness (Carter, 1929); person-
ality variables including impulsivity, sensation seeking, empathetic per-
spective taking, guilt, and shame (McTernan, Love, & Rettinger, 2014);
internal forces including (but not limited to) laziness, stress, time man-
agement, and insufficient skill for the desired grade (Bertram Gallant,
Van Den Einde, Ouellette, & Lee, 2014); and external forces including
(but not limited to) family related pressures, peer pressures, and ambigu-
ous information from professors (Bertram Gallant et al., 2014).
The present study went in a different direction than the aforementioned
ones, instead addressing the research question of whether English defi-
ciency (as operationally defined later) could be a predictor variable for
cheating—­are English deficient international undergraduates more likely
to cheat than international counterparts who are not English deficient?
While other variables (in addition to the ones referenced earlier) could
play a role, this study was conducted to explicitly test the hypothesis
that the percentage of the University’s degree-­seeking (F-­1) international
undergraduates (F-­1 UNs; U.S. Department of State, n.d.) who had evi-
dence of English deficiency and were reported for AIVs should be larger
than the percentage of counterparts who had evidence of English defi-
ciency but were not reported. If this hypothesis were confirmed, it would
suggest that English deficiency (rather than international status per se) is
a predictor variable and/­or risk factor for reported AIVs. An additional
goal of the present study, using mandatory participation (after a stu-
dent failed a standardized English writing exam for entering freshmen)
in community college basic English classes (BEC) as the present study’s
operational definition of “English deficiency” (Fass-­Holmes & Vaughn,
2014), was to determine the temporal relationship between failure on the
exam and reported AIVs. If English deficiency was a predictor variable
for internationals’ reported AIVs, then the percentage of the University’s
F-­1 UNs whose failure preceded the AIV report should exceed the per-
centage of counterparts whose failure followed the AIV report.
 Academic Integrity Violations 159
Literature Review
The following is a summary and update of our recent literature review
about international students’ cheating (Fass-­Holmes, 2017). American
universities generally have increased their admissions and enrollment of
international students since 2008—­the year of the great recession. Spe-
cifically, international students’ total enrollment in the United States has
increased from 671,616 in AY 2008–­2009 to 1,043,839 in AY 2015–­
2016 (the most recent year for which data were available at the time
of this writing) (IIE, 2017). The latter enrollment number represents a
7% increase over the preceding AY. These students’ primary country of
origin is China. Chinese students have comprised increasing numbers of
internationals attending American universities, ranging from 98,235 in
AY 2008–­2009 to 328,547 in AY 2015–­2016 (IIE, 2016).
International students’ increasing enrollment in American universi-
ties is relevant to the present study because of the potential increase in
reported AIVs if these students’ cheating is, in fact, “pervasive” (Nylander,
2015). These students could be at greater risk of reported AIVs than
domestic counterparts (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015) due to their unique
challenges, which include (but are not limited to) acculturative stress, cul-
tural barriers, English language deficiency, mandatory compliance with
immigration regulations, and lack of familiarity with American academic
integrity standards and/­or teaching methods (Dorado & Fass-­Holmes,
2016; Hanassab & Tidwell, 2002; Sherry, Thomas, & Chui, 2010).
The educational research literature on students’ cheating has ref-
erenced various conditions that evidently play an important role. For
example, DiPietro’s (2010) literature review discussed deterrence theory
(the frequency of cheating is inversely related to the magnitude of its pun-
ishments), rational choice theory (students decide to cheat on the basis of
a logical cost-­benefit analysis), neutralization theory (cheating happens
when students conclude that it is morally inoffensive rather than wrong),
planned behavior theory (situations that provide an opportunity to cheat
without getting caught are what lead to cheating), and situational ethics
theory (students’ decision whether to cheat is based upon unique consid-
erations under circumstances that ordinarily do not apply). Psychological
concepts from self-­efficacy theory (students’ judgments about their abil-
ity to accomplish a desired outcome), goal theory (students’ constructed
notions about education’s purpose), expectancy value (a cost-­ benefit
analysis of achieving an educational goal guides students’ behavior),
and intrinsic motivation theory (a genuine desire to understand is a high
intrinsic value; performance and ego goals represent low intrinsic value)
were emphasized in a review by Murdock and Anderman (2006) of the
educational research literature on cheating.
The aforementioned theories would have difficulty accounting for
cheating by international students enrolled at American universities,
160 Barry Fass-­Holmes and Allison A. Vaughn
however, due (at least in part) to variables or characteristics that impact
these students but have little (if any) impact on domestic counterparts.
Such variables or characteristics include (but are not limited to) inter-
national students’ feelings of isolation and/­or alienation (Bista, 2011;
Hayes & Introna, 2005; Whitley, 1998), friendships and involvement
with groups of other students from the same country (Hayes & Introna,
2005), collectivist cultural backgrounds (McCabe, Feghali, & Abdal-
lah, 2008), and lack of familiarity with American educational standards
for academic integrity (Bista, 2011; Lupton, Chapman, & Weiss, 2000;
Mori, 2000).
Unlike the aforementioned theories, Bertram Gallant’s (2008) organi-
zational strategy focuses on teaching and learning rather than students’
cheating behavior and character. This strategy shifts universities’ efforts
to ensuring student learning instead of policing and deterring student
cheating. “Thus, rather than convincing students to stop cheating, the
goal of the teaching and learning strategy is to foster a learning-­oriented
environment that will motivate students to engage in the course mate-
rial” (Bertram Gallant, 2008, p. 89). Although the University that is the
subject of the present study embraces the teaching and learning organ-
izational strategy, it also uses suspensions and expulsions as deterring
punishments. Suspensions and expulsions have the added consequence
of interrupting and/­or preventing student retention and/­or graduation,
respectively (by definition), however.
The teaching and learning strategy leads to the testable prediction that
a steady-­state or declining prevalence of cheating should be exhibited by
international students over time. Our previous study tested this predic-
tion (Fass-­Holmes, 2017) and found instead that the University’s number
of international undergraduates and graduate students reported for AIVs
increased almost six-­fold from AY 2009–­2010 (N = 35) to AY 2013–­
2014 (N = 203). This increase possibly could have been due (at least in
part) to the University’s increase in total international student enrollment
and/­or these students’ English deficiency. The former possibility was con-
firmed in our previous study (Fass-­Holmes, 2017), but the latter was not
investigated. English deficiency could play an important role because it
might limit or prevent international students from effectively understand-
ing American educational standards for academic integrity.

Method

Objectives
The primary goal of the present research study was to test the hypothesis
that English deficiency is a potential predictor variable for cheating. The
study therefore addressed the following six research questions. (1) How
many and what percentage of F-­1 UNs demonstrated English deficiency,
 Academic Integrity Violations 161
i.e., failed the standardized English writing exam and were required to
participate in the BECs (English Composition; English as a Second Lan-
guage [ESL]; a failing grade in the former results in mandatory participa-
tion in the latter; a failing grade in the latter results in expulsion)? (2) For
the students who did participate in either BEC, what was their average
grade? (3) How many of these students were reported for AIVs? (4) For
these students who participated in either BEC and had a reported AIV, in
which order did they occur? (5) For these students who participated in
either BEC, are AIVs dependent on their average grades in the BECs? (6)
Does participation in the BECs predict AIVs?

Data Collection and Analyses

AIV data and student ID numbers from the University’s academic integ-
rity database were linked to demographic and academic achievement
data from the University’s student information system for all nondomes-
tic undergraduates who attended in the AYs following the great reces-
sion of 2008 (data for 2009–­2010 through 2015–­2016 inclusive were
available at the time of this writing). The demographic data included
(but were not limited to) each student’s unique ID number, visa type, and
citizenship country. The academic achievement data included whether
the student had been required to participate in the BECs due to hav-
ing failed a mandatory English writing proficiency exam as freshmen or
sophomores, the term and AY of the BEC(s), and the grade(s) earned.
Participants who failed BECs were expelled from the University prior
to their junior year. These methods complied with the University’s Insti-
tutional Review Board-­approved procedures to maintain confidentiality
(Fass-­Holmes, 2017).
All data records were subjected to quality control protocols, which
excluded duplicates. Duplicate records could occur due to students who
enrolled in more than one BEC and/­or had more than one AIV. The data
were analyzed using chi-­square (http:/­/­vassarstats.net/­newcs.html) and
binary logistic regression (SPSS), which have assumptions of independ-
ence; therefore, we limited the inclusion of students’ records to their first
BEC and their first reported AIV.

Participants
To provide context for this study, Figure 11.1 shows the numbers of non-
domestic undergraduates by visa—­degree-­seekers (F-­1 visa; U.S. Depart-
ment of State, n.d.), exchange visitors (J-­ 1), undocumented students
(other; OT), and permanent residents. Although permanent residents
(PRs) are relatively stable across AYs (ranging from 2,502 in FA09 to
2,102 in FA15), the F-­1 UNs increased exponentially by more than six-­
fold from FA09 (n = 659) to FA15 (n = 4,255). Figure 11.2 shows the
162 Barry Fass-­Holmes and Allison A. Vaughn

5,000
F-1
J-1
4,255
OT
PR
4,000

3,333

3,000
COUNTS

2,564
2,502 2,528
2,059
2,271
2,000 2,102
1,785 2,012 2,023

1,220

1,000 851
659

199 190 221 202 261

170 222

0 126 135 127 117 164 148 153

FA09 FA10 FA11 FA12 FA13 FA14 FA15

Figure 11.1 The numbers of non-­immigrant degree-­seeking (F1) and exchange

visitor (J1) undergraduates, and immigrant undocumented (OT) and
permanent resident (PR) undergraduates enrolled at the University
in each fall term from 2009 (FA09) to 2015 (FA15) inclusive. F1
counts have increased in each successive fall term, while PR counts
have declined and J1 and OT have remained stable.

numbers and percentages of nondomestic undergraduates by country of

citizenship. South Korean students remain stable across AYs from FA09
(n = 907) to FA15 (n = 914); however, Chinese students show a six-­fold
increase from FA09 (n = 528) to FA15 (n = 3,233), and they constitute the
overwhelming majority of the University’s international UN population.
Participants in this study’s data analyses were restricted to the F-­1 UNs
for the following reasons. First, these students (unlike the other nondo-
mestic undergraduate populations) increased dramatically across the fall
(FA) terms of the seven AYs for which data were available (as shown
in Figure 11.1) and thus were of particular interest. Second, American
regulations for non-­immigrant international students apply to F-­1 UNs
but not to immigrant counterparts (i.e., permanent residents and undoc-
umented ones). Third, the University’s population of degree-­ seeking
exchange visitors (J-­1 visa) was exceedingly small and would not affect
 Academic Integrity Violations 163

5,000
China
South Korea
India
Taiwan
4,000

3,233

3,000
COUNTS

2,459

2,000
1,787

1,226
907 961 924 948
916 901 914
1,000
679 918
528
297 271 247 241 241 252
299
141 181 221 279
0 159 136 168
FA09 FA10 FA11 FA12 FA13 FA14 FA15

Figure 11.2 The numbers of nondomestic undergraduates by citizenship country

enrolled at the University in each fall term from 2009 (FA09) to 2015
(FA15) inclusive. China counts have increased in each successive fall
term, while other citizenship countries’ counts have remained stable.

this study’s outcomes (data available from the authors upon request). An
additional consideration was that the majority of F-­1 UNs were from
China and therefore potentially experienced some degree of English defi-
ciency. Domestic UNs were excluded because of their lack of relevance
to this study’s goals.

Results

Descriptive Analyses—­Participation and Performance in BECs

Figures 11.3 and 11.4 show the numbers and percentages of degree-­
seeking international freshmen and sophomores (respectively) required
to take either BEC in FA09 through FA15 inclusive. In general, more
freshmen were required to take ESL than English Composition. ESL per-
centages for freshmen ranged from a low of 21.5% in FA11 to a high of
Figure 11.3 The percentages of degree-­seeking (F-­1) international freshmen required to take either of the University’s basic
English classes (English Composition, dark bars; English as a Second Language [ESL], light bars) in each fall
term from 2009 (FA09) to 2015 (FA15) inclusive. Values above each bar represent percentages, values at the
base of each bar represent counts.
Figure 11.4 The percentages of degree-­seeking (F-­1) international sophomores required to take either of the University’s
basic English classes (English Composition, dark bars; English as a Second Language [ESL], light bars) in each
fall term from 2009 (FA09) to 2015 (FA15) inclusive. Values above each bar represent percentages, values at the
base of each bar represent counts.
166 Barry Fass-­Holmes and Allison A. Vaughn
47.4% in FA12. English Composition percentages for freshmen ranged
from a low of 9.8% in FA15 to a high of 36.9% in FA11. In general,
more sophomores were required to take English Composition than ESL.
English Composition percentages for sophomores ranged from a low of
0% in FA10 to a high of 16.3% in FA13. ESL percentages for sopho-
mores ranged from 0% in FA10 to a high of 7.5% in FA12.
Figures 11.5 and 11.6 show the numbers and percentages of Chinese
freshmen and sophomores (respectively) required to take either BEC in
FA09 through FA15 inclusive. In general, more Chinese freshmen were
required to take ESL than English Composition. ESL percentages for Chi-
nese freshmen ranged from a low of 27.7% in FA11 to a high of 56.7% in
FA12. English Composition percentages for these students ranged from
a low of 7.1% in FA09 to a high of 34.9% in FA11. In general, more
Chinese sophomores were required to take English Composition than
ESL. English Composition percentages for Chinese sophomores ranged
from a low of 6.8% in FA10 to a high of 23% in FA13. ESL percentages
for these students ranged from 0% in FA09 and 10 to a high of 6.6%
in FA12.
The average grades for F-­1 UNs who were required to take either
BEC are shown in Table 11.1. In the English Composition class, average
grades ranged between a low of 1.6 (D in FA11) and a high of 2.6 (C in
FA15). In the ESL course, average grades similarly ranged between a low
of 1.7 (D in FA11) and a high of 2.6 (C in FA09). Chinese undergradu-
ates’ average grades ranged between a low of 1.5 (D in FA11) and a high
of 2.6 (C in FA15) in the English Composition class (data not shown;
available from the authors upon request). These students’ average grades
similarly ranged between a low of 1.8 (D+ in FA11) and a high of 2.5 (C
in FA15) in the ESL class.

Descriptive Analyses—­Reported AIVs

The numbers of the University’s F-­1 UNs reported for AIVs increased
almost eight-­fold from AY 2009–­2010 (n = 25) to AY 2015–­2016
(n = 196) (additional demographic details for these students are avail-
able from the authors upon request). The corresponding numbers and
percentages who were required to take either BEC and also were reported
for AIVs (n = 2,155) are shown in Table 11.2. Confirming this study’s
hypothesis, the percentage of these students who took a BEC before their
AIV report overwhelmingly exceeded the percentage of counterparts who
took a BEC after their AIV report.

Inferential Statistical Analyses

A total of 7,139 unique records for the University’s F-­1 UNs was used
in the following analyses. These records are broken down by AY from
Figure 11.5 The percentages of nondomestic freshmen from China required to take either of the University’s basic English
classes (English Composition, dark bars; English as a Second Language [ESL], light bars) in each fall term from
2009 (FA09) to 2015 (FA15) inclusive. Values above each bar represent percentages, values at the base of each
bar represent counts.
Figure 11.6 The percentages of nondomestic sophomores from China required to take either of the University’s basic English
classes (English Composition, dark bars; English as a Second Language [ESL], light bars) in each fall term from
2009 (FA09) to 2015 (FA15) inclusive. Values above each bar represent percentages, values at the base of each
bar represent counts.
Table 11.1 Average Grades for Degree-­Seeking International Undergraduates Required to Participate in Basic English Classes (ESL = Eng-
lish as a Second Language) in Seven Academic Years (AYs)

Basic English Class AY 2009–­2010 AY 2010–­2011 AY 2011–­2012 AY 2012–­2013 AY 2013–­2014 AY 2014–­2015 AY 2015–­2016

English Composition 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.6

ESL 2.6 2.4 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.5

Table 11.2 Total Numbers (N) and Percentages (%) of Degree-­Seeking International Undergraduates (F-­1 UN) Required to Participate
in Basic English Classes (BECs) and Reported for Academic Integrity Violations (AIVs) Versus Counterparts Who Were Not
Reported

F-­1 UN N BEC Participants % BEC Participants

AIV 348 16.1

no AIV 1,807 83.9
BEC after AIV 5 1.4
BEC before AIV 293 84.2
BEC same as AIV 50 14.4
170 Barry Fass-­Holmes and Allison A. Vaughn
2009–­2010 to 2015–­2016 and are unique both within any given AY and
between multiple AYs. In addition, a total of 2,155 unique participants
in BECs and a total of 796 unique AIVs (excluding repeat allegations)
between AY 2009–­2010 and 2015–­2016 inclusive were analyzed.

Chi-­Square Test of Independence

A chi-­square test of independence evaluated whether AIVs were depend-
ent on grades in BECs (defined here as below C [struggling academically]
vs. at or above C). The test’s results showed that AIVs were not depend-
ent on these grades, χ2(1) = 1.76, p = .185.
A second chi-­square test of independence showed that AIVs instead
were dependent on participation in the BECs, χ2(1) = 77.85, p < .001,
φ = .104 (Figure 11.7). From the overall sample of 7,139 unique cases,
11.2% were reported for an AIV compared to 88.8% who were not
reported. However, of the students who were in the BECs (2,155), 16.1%
were also reported for an AIV compared to 83.9% who were not. There
were more students in BECs who were reported for an AIV (16.1%) than
would have been expected (11.2%).

5,000
observed 4,536
expected
4,000
COUNTS

3,000

1,807 4,428
2,000

1,000 1,915
348 448
556
0 240
BEC; AIV no BEC; AIV BEC; no AIV no BEC; no AIV

Figure 11.7 For the 7 years of available data, the following groups of degree-­
seeking (F-­1) international undergraduates’ observed (values above
bars) and expected (values within bars) numbers are shown: BEC;
AIV—­required to participate in basic English classes after failing a
standardized English writing exam and also were reported for aca-
demic integrity violations; no BEC; AIV—­not required to partici-
pate in BEC but were reported for AIV; BEC; no AIV—­required to
participate in BEC but were not reported for AIVs; and no BEC; no
AIV—­not required to participate in BEC and were not reported for
AIVs. The expected values were calculated and the observed ones
were used in a chi-­square test of independence (http:/­/­vassarstats.
net/­newcs.html) which confirmed that AIVs were dependent on par-
ticipation in the BECs.
 Academic Integrity Violations 171
Logistic Regression
A binary logistic regression used AIVs (0 = no AIV, 1 = AIV) as the out-
come variable and participation in BECs (0 = no BEC, 1 = BEC) as the
predictor for data from 7,139 students in the analysis. A test of the full
model compared with a constant-­only (null) model was statistically sig-
nificant, χ2(1) = 73.51, p < .001. The strength of association between
BEC and AIV was relatively weak (Nagelkerke’s R2 = .020). Students
taking BECs were almost twice as likely to have an AIV (OR = 1.95; 95%
CI = 1.68 to 2.27) as counterparts not taking BECs (B = .067, SE = .077,
Wald = 75.85, p < .001).

Discussion
The present study was conducted to test the research hypothesis that
the percentage of the University’s F-­1 UNs who had evidence of English
deficiency and were reported for AIVs should be larger than the percent-
age of counterparts who had evidence of English deficiency but were not
reported for AIVs. An additional goal was to determine the temporal
relation between failure on the mandatory English writing exam and
reported AIVs.
To achieve these two goals, the following six research questions were
addressed. First, how many F-­1 UNs were required to participate in the
BECs? The University’s number of these students who participated in the
BECs increased by twenty-­fold from FA09 to FA15, with increases occur-
ring each AY. Our previous study (Vaughn, Bergman, & Fass-­Holmes,
2015) showed that this increase was in part proportional to the increase
in the University’s total number of enrolled international undergraduates.
Second, what was their average grade? In the English composition class,
the average grade ranged from 1.6 to 2.6 (Table 11.1). In the ESL class,
the range was 1.7 to 2.6. Our analyses additionally showed that one-­
third of the average grades for these two classes in the reported AYs were
below C and thus indicated that the participants struggled academically.
Third, how many F-­ 1 UNs were reported for AIVs? The number
reported for AIVs increased almost eight-­fold from AY 2009–­2010 to
AY 2015–­2016. Our previous study (Fass-­Holmes, 2017) found that this
increase amounted to less than 10% of the University’s total number of
enrolled international undergraduates. This finding indicated that AIVs
were reported to a lesser degree than what would be expected if cheating
were pervasive (Nylander, 2015).
Fourth, for students who participated in either BEC and had reported
AIVs, in which order did they occur? The percentage of the University’s
F-­1 UNs who took the BEC before the reported AIV overwhelmingly
exceeded the percentage of counterparts who took the BEC after, con-
firming our hypothesis.
172 Barry Fass-­Holmes and Allison A. Vaughn
Fifth, for students who participated in either BEC, are AIVs depend-
ent on their average grades? The present study showed that F-­1 UNs’
reported AIVs were not. This finding implies that the degree of English
deficiency, as reflected by average grades in the BECs after failing the
mandatory standardized English writing exam, does not predict AIVs.
Lastly, does participation in the BECs predict AIVs? The present results
suggest that F-­1 UNs’ BEC participation does predict AIVs. Specifically,
the results indicated that AIVs were dependent on participation in the
BECs, and that the participants were almost twice as likely to have an
AIV as non-­participant counterparts.
The present study supports the hypothesis that English deficiency is
a predictor variable for reported AIVs, and additionally replicates and
extends our previous findings (Fass-­Holmes, 2017). Two noteworthy
limitations must be kept in mind. First, the present study focuses on a sin-
gle university and consequently these findings’ generalizability and inter-
pretation are limited. Studies at additional universities will be necessary
to determine generalizability. Second, this study’s findings depend upon
teaching assistants’ and faculty members’ diligence in filing AIV reports.
The present findings could represent underestimates of cheating due to
underreporting (Keith-­Spiegel, Tabachnick, Whitley, & Washburn, 1998;
Schneider, 1999). If underreporting actually did happen at the University,
the percentage of F-­1 UNs with AIVs could be greater than reported here.

Implications
To our knowledge, the present study is the first to demonstrate that English
deficiency is a predictor variable for international undergraduates’ cheating.
These findings have implications for the following educational priorities.

English Test Scores

The University’s international applicants are required to demonstrate
English proficiency by attaining certain scores on various standardized
exams. Although some F-­1 UNs actually are English language learners
(ELLs) with limited proficiency in academic English due to various needs
and challenges (DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker, & Rivera, 2014), the Uni-
versity’s faculty, administrators, and staff routinely treat these students
as if they were English proficient. Despite the evidence that their writ-
ing in major classes and electives is not English fluent or proficient, they
have been assigned grades of B or above (Vaughn et al., 2015) without
deducting for English mistakes. Our previous research (Fass-­Holmes &
Vaughn, 2014) showed that up to two-­thirds of the University’s interna-
tional undergraduates are required to participate in BECs, with almost
half earning D or F grades. The ones who fail the BEC then are expelled
from the University, negatively affecting retention and graduation rates.
 Academic Integrity Violations 173
The findings’ implication is that treating F-­1 UNs like their domestic
counterparts—­speaking to them in conversation and lecture; assigning
grades to their papers and/­or exams—­could result in increased AIVs. To
the extent that they are ELLs rather than English proficient or fluent,
their education should take into account their actual English skills. Bilin-
gual education (i.e., educating them in their native language for a period
of time, then transitioning them to immersion English) potentially would
be more effective (Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005) and consistent with
the University’s accountability policy.

AIV Reports as Punishment

Punishment is defined in the literature as the removal of a positive condi-
tion with the intention of reducing or eliminating unwanted behavior(s).
AIV reports meet this definition of punishment because suspension or
expulsion (i.e., removal from the University) is a potential consequence
of the allegation. However, punishment’s effectiveness in reducing or
eliminating unwanted behavior(s) is not generalized to all conditions
(e.g., Solomon, 1964). Suspensions and expulsions as punishment (which
criminalize cheating) have been ineffective in reducing, eliminating, or
deterring cheating at the University as evidenced by the annual increase in
the number of reported AIVs (Fass-­Holmes, 2017). In addition, reported
AIVs that result in suspension or expulsion are counterproductive to the
University’s goals of increasing retention and graduation rates (Fass-­
Holmes, 2017). The present findings imply that addressing F-­1 UNs’
English deficiency could be a more effective and beneficial approach to
reducing or eliminating cheating.

English Deficiency and Cheating

Previous studies have suggested that international students’ cheat-
ing could be attributable (at least in part) to their lack of familiarity
with American academic integrity standards and/­or teaching methods
(Dorado & Fass-­ Holmes, 2016; Hanassab & Tidwell, 2002; Sherry
et al., 2010). However, an alternative explanation is that comprehension,
rather than familiarity, is the relevant factor. This alternative is consistent
with the present finding that English deficiency (as reflected by failure on
a mandatory English writing exam and subsequent struggling in BECs) is
a predictor for reported AIVs. Our finding suggests that the University’s
increased number of reported AIVs over AYs is attributable to these stu-
dents’ English deficiency rather than (or in addition to) lack of familiarity.
Reported AIVs and their consequences—­suspensions and expulsions—­
represent the University’s approach to holding students accountable
for cheating. If the goal of accountability is to promote student reten-
tion and success, it should be accompanied by appropriate education
174 Barry Fass-­Holmes and Allison A. Vaughn
that facilitates acquisition of English proficiency. Specifically, F-­1 UNs
should be graded as rigorously on English language in their major classes
and electives as they are graded in the BECs. The apparent discrepancy
between their grades in major classes and electives versus the BECs pos-
sibly is due to teaching assistants and faculty assigning grades without
accounting for English mistakes. If this possibility is correct, the present
findings together with our previous ones lead to the prediction that F-­1
UNs who achieve English proficiency will be less likely to cheat than
English deficient counterparts.

Additional Reasons for Cheating

Previous findings indicated that cheating in general could be attributable
to individual motivations (Carter, 1929), personality variables (McTer-
nan et al., 2014), internal forces (Bertram Gallant et al., 2014), and/­or
external forces (Bertram Gallant et al., 2014). International students,
however, could be at greater risk of reported AIVs than domestic coun-
terparts (Bertram Gallant et al., 2015) due to their unique challenges,
which include (but are not limited to) English deficiency and lack of
familiarity with American academic integrity standards and/­or teaching
methods (Dorado & Fass-­Holmes, 2016; Hanassab & Tidwell, 2002;
Sherry et al., 2010).
Additional factors that have received less attention in the literature
include (but are not limited to) competition, lack of accommodation, and
desperation. Competition (Kohn, 2007) gives native English-­speaking
students an advantage over international ELLs, which is supported by
American teaching methods and academic integrity standards. Accommo-
dations routinely are made for students with a vision or hearing disabil-
ity; they include note-­taking services for the former and closed captioning
for the latter. International ELLs, however, currently do not have access
to corresponding accommodations for their English deficiency. A poten-
tial accommodation for these students that could reduce their tempta-
tion to cheat is access to a translation service (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux,
Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006); alternatively, they could be surveyed for their
post-­graduation plans to remain in America (for which achieving English
proficiency could be warranted) versus to return to their home country
(for which achieving English proficiency could be unwarranted). Des-
peration might lead international ELLs to cheat as a last resort because
of having lost confidence in their own knowledge and/­or academic ability
(Carter, 1929).

Recommendation
A potentially efficient and effective path to addressing the aforementioned
factors that have been implicated in F-­1 UNs’ cheating is to provide an
 Academic Integrity Violations 175
option for bilingual education during their program of study’s first year.
A one year bilingual education option could consist of providing the fol-
lowing accommodations: access to technology that translates lectures
and discussion sections into the students’ native language, and permis-
sion to submit term papers and exams in their native language, which
could be evaluated using current or future technology (rather than or in
addition to multilingual instructors). These accommodations potentially
address at least some of the aforementioned factors that have been associ-
ated with cheating. For example, international ELLs would become more
competitive with native English-­ speaking counterparts (Kohn, 2007).
Bilingual education also could address these students’ lack of compre-
hension and/­or familiarity with American academic integrity standards
and teaching methods by informing them in their native language. This
recommendation is compelling because the educational research litera-
ture has documented bilingual education’s effectiveness (“bilingual edu-
cation is consistently superior to all-­English approaches . . . bilingual
education programs are effective in promoting academic achievement . . .
sound educational policy should permit and even encourage the devel-
opment and implementation of bilingual education programs” (Rolstad
et al., 2005, p. 572), whereas the current policies and practices have not
worked to reduce, eliminate, or deter cheating (Fass-­Holmes, 2017).

References
Bertram Gallant, T. (2008). Academic integrity in the twenty-­ first century:
A teaching and learning imperative. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(5),
1–­143.
Bertram Gallant, T., Binkin, N., & Donohue, M. (2015). Students at risk for
being reported for cheating. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13(3), 217–­228.
Bertram Gallant, T., Van Den Einde, L., Ouellette, S., & Lee, S. (2014). A sys-
temic analysis of cheating in an undergraduate engineering mechanics course.
Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 277–­298.
Bista, K. (2011). Academic dishonesty among international students in higher
education. In J. Miller & J. Groccia (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 30.
Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 159–­
172). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.
Carter, T. M. (1929). Cheating as seen by college students. International Journal
of Ethics, 39(3), 341–­355.
DiCerbo, P. A., Anstrom, K. A., Baker, L. L., & Rivera, C. (2014). A review of the
literature on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review
of Educational Research, 84(3), 446–­482.
DiPietro, M. (2010). Theoretical frameworks for academic dishonesty. In L. B.
Nilson & J. E. Miller (Eds.), To improve the academy: Vol. 28. Resources
for faculty, instructional, and organizational development (pp. 250–­262). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.
Dorado, D. A. L., & Fass-­Holmes, B. (2016). Academic achievement and demo-
graphics of international undergraduates. In K. Bista & C. Foster (Eds.),
176 Barry Fass-­Holmes and Allison A. Vaughn
Exploring the social and academic experiences of international students in
higher education institutions (pp. 227–­252). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Fass-­Holmes, B. (2017). International students reported for academic integrity
violations: Demographics, retention, and graduation. Journal of International
Students, 7(3), 644–­669.
Fass-­Holmes, B., & Vaughn, A. A. (2014). Are international undergraduates
struggling academically? Journal of International Students, 4(1), 60–­73.
Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practi-
cal guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-­based
recommendations for the use of accommodations in large-­scale assessments.
Retrieved from www.centeroninstruction.org/­files/­ELL3-­Assessments.pdf
Hanassab, S., & Tidwell, R. (2002). International students in higher education:
Identification of needs and implications for policy and practice. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 6(4), 305–­322.
Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When
plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics & Behavior, 15(3), 213–­231.
Institute of International Education. (2016). Open doors fact sheet: China.
Retrieved from www.iie.org/­Research-­and-­Insights/­Open-­Doors/­Fact-­Sheets-­
and-­Infographics/­Leading-­Places-­of-­Origin-­Fact-­Sheets/­2016
Institute of International Education. (2017). Enrollment trends. Retrieved from
www.iie.org/­Research-­and-­Insights/­Open-­Doors/­Data/­International-­Students/­
Enrollment-­Trends
Keith-­Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Washburn, J. (1998).
Why professors ignore cheating: Opinions of a national sample of Psychology
instructors. Ethics & Behavior, 8(3), 215–­227.
Kohn, A. (2007). Who’s cheating who? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 89–­97.
Lu, S., & Hunt, K. (2015). Fraud frenzy? Chinese seek U.S. college admission at any
price. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/­2015/­07/­12/­asia/­china-­education-­agencies/­
Lupton, R. A., Chapman, K. J., & Weiss, J. E. (2000). A cross-­national explora-
tion of business students’ attitudes, perceptions, and tendencies toward aca-
demic dishonesty. Journal of Education for Business, 75(4), 231–­235.
McCabe, D. L., Feghali, T., & Abdallah, H. (2008). Academic dishonesty in the
Middle East: Individual and contextual factors. Research in Higher Education,
49(5), 451–­467.
McTernan, M., Love, P., & Rettinger, D. (2014). The influence of personality on
the decision to cheat. Ethics & Behavior, 24(1), 53–­72.
Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(2), 137–­144.
Murdock, T. B., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). Motivational perspectives on stu-
dent cheating: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 41(3), 129–­145.
Nylander, J. (2015). How Chinese students are ‘cheating’ to get into U.S. uni-
versities. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/­sites/­jnylander/­2015/­07/­13/­how-­
chinese-­students-­are-­cheating-­to-­get-­into-­u-­s-­universities/­
Qi, L. (2015). U.S. schools expelled 8,000 Chinese students. Retrieved from
http:/­/­blogs.wsj.com/­chinarealtime/­2015/­05/­29/­u-­s-­schools-­expelled-­8000-­
chinese-­students-­for-­poor-­grades-­cheating/­
Redden, E. (2015). In China, no choice but to cheat? Retrieved from www.inside-
highered.com/­news/­2015/­07/­09/­admissions-­process-­broken-­chinese-­students
 Academic Integrity Violations 177
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-­
analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Edu-
cational Policy, 19(4), 572–­594.
Schneider, A. (1999). Why professors don’t do more to stop students who cheat.
Retrieved from http:/­/­chronicle.com/­article/­Why-­Professors-­Dont-­Do-­Mor/­
25673/­
Sherry, M., Thomas, P., & Chui, W. H. (2010). International students: A vulner-
able student population. Higher Education, 60(1), 33–­46.
Solomon, R. L. (1964). Punishment. The American Psychologist, 19(4), 239–­253.
U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). Directory of visa categories. Retrieved from
https:/­/­travel.state.gov/­content/­visas/­en/­general/­all-­visa-­categories.html
U.S. News & World Report. (2017). Top public schools national universities.
Retrieved from http:/­/­colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/­best-­colleges/­
rankings/­national-­universities/­top-­public
Vaughn, A. A., Bergman, M., & Fass-­Holmes, B. (2015). Nonresident under-
graduates’ performance in English writing classes—­hierarchical linear mod-
eling analysis. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 319–­333.
Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college stu-
dents: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 235–­274.
12 The Study Abroad Motives of
Australian University Students
Steve Nerlich

Introduction
In 2014, nearly 20% of Australia’s more than one million university stu-
dents were international students (Nerlich, 2016), and nearly 17% of
domestic undergraduates had studied abroad during their degree (Har-
rison & Potts, 2016). The latter statistic suggests Australian tertiary stu-
dents are one of the most mobile student populations in the world on a
per capita basis, ahead of the U.S. at 15% (Farrugia, 2015) and the UK
at 5% (Carbonell, 2017).
Much like the case with students from the U.S. (Belyavina & Bhandari,
2012) and Europe (De Wit, Ferencz, & Rumbley, 2013), there are two
distinct cohorts comprising Australian outgoing students. One cohort
comprises so-­called degree mobility students who enroll to complete
full degrees (or other qualifications) in a foreign country. The UNESCO
Institute of Statistics (UIS) identified more than 11,000 Australian degree
mobility students who were studying in other countries in 2014 (UIS,
2015). Their study destinations were most commonly the U.S., the UK,
and elsewhere in Europe. The other cohort comprises so-­called credit
mobility students, who generally study abroad for less than one year
while enrolled to complete a degree (or other qualification) in Australia.
Due to their shorter duration abroad, these 30,000 or more students are
largely invisible to UNESCO’s global data collection, which excludes
study abroad episodes of less than two years’ duration (UIS, 2012). Most
investigations into the study experience of outgoing Australian students
have generally focused on the lived experience of credit mobility stu-
dents via interviews or focus groups (Australian Council for Educational
Research, 2015; Lawrence, 2016). Similarly, any literature from the U.S.
employing the phrase study abroad is almost-­universally focused on the
context of U.S. credit mobility students (Belyavina & Bhandari, 2012).
Surveys of credit mobility students are common at an institutional level
(Dall’Alba & Sidhu, 2015), but national-­level surveys to investigate the
consistency of student experiences with national policy objectives have
been relatively rare (Potts, 2016). Research into the learning outcomes
 Study Abroad—­Australian University Students 179
achieved from studying abroad have generally relied on student feed-
back, purpose-­built assessment tools, or grade point averages (Twombly,
Salisbury, Tumanut, & Klute, 2012). However, with the exception of for-
eign language acquisition, learning outcomes are rarely embedded within
the curriculum of a degree program, but are instead supplementary in
nature, aiming to provide all students with generic skills such as inter-
cultural competence (Deardorff, 2006) and global citizenship (Morais &
Ogden, 2011).
Salisbury, Umbach, Paulsen, and Pascarella (2009) found that the
intent to study abroad was strongly influenced by socioeconomic sta-
tus and elements of social and cultural capital. For example, low socio-
economic status students were unlikely to study abroad even with full
financial assistance unless they received the encouragement of family and
friends. Nonetheless, Salisbury et al.’s research also showed that provid-
ing early academic encouragement improved participation by students
from diverse demographic backgrounds.
Other large-­scale studies in the U.S. have demonstrated statistically
significant skills enhancement in students who had studied abroad, when
compared to those who had not, including improved scores in tests spe-
cifically designed to measure intercultural competence (Salisbury, An, &
Pascarella, 2013) and global engagement (Paige, Fry, Stallman, Josic, &
Jon, 2009). Such large-­scale studies have sought to normalize for the
effects of demographic variables (such as socioeconomic status) in order
to strengthen the case that studying abroad directly enhances learning
outcomes, rather than just being incidentally correlated with them.
Nonetheless, Lokkesmoe, Kuchinke, and Ardichvili (2016) acknowl-
edge that many institutions can struggle to identify specific pedagogi-
cal approaches that can enhance cross-­cultural awareness in university
students. The authors argue that simply sending students on overseas
trips does not guarantee the development of such awareness, where their
research showed that studying abroad had no effect on scores in a test
designed to measure cross-­cultural awareness even though the students
involved reported that their awareness had been enhanced.
Norris and Gillespie (2009) conducted a survey of 17,000 U.S. alumni
who had studied abroad between 1950 and 1999. Asked about the impact
of studying abroad on their subsequent education pathways, careers, and
worldview, alumni most often selected areas of personal growth, followed
by intercultural skills development, ahead of any anticipated impact on
academic attainment or their later career (IES, 2016). Consistent with
this finding, the marketing of study abroad programs more commonly
incorporates messages about its building independence and personal
development, with minimal focus on the specific academic objectives of
different study programs (Forsey, Broomhall, & Davis, 2012).
There is a growing body of evidence that studying abroad may build
skills that are valued by employers and hence lead to better employment
180 Steve Nerlich
outcomes (Potts, 2015). However, Kowarski (2010) found that students
can struggle to articulate how the skills and experience they gain from
study abroad contribute to their employability. Similarly, Wong (2015)
recommended that education institutions provide more guidance to stu-
dents about articulating the utilitarian impact of their study abroad expe-
riences in terms that might engage the interest of potential employers.
However, the author disagreed with criticism that students’ inability to
express the benefits of studying abroad, beyond the clichéd phrase it was
great!, meant they had failed to learn anything of academic relevance.
Rather, the students’ enthusiasm demonstrated the transformational
nature of their study abroad experience.
Anderson and Lawton (2015) developed a Motivation to Study Abroad
instrument based on factor analysis from successive tests, where global
awareness, personal growth, career development, and entertainment
were found to be key dimensions that positively influence students to
study abroad. Global awareness and personal growth both ranked most
highly, and there was no statistically significant difference found between
the perceived importance of these two domains. Career development was
of significantly less importance than the preceding factors, but signifi-
cantly more important than entertainment-­related motives.

Expected Areas of Diversity in Motive to Study Abroad

The existing literature indicates there are generic benefits for all students
who study abroad, notably the acquisition of intercultural competence
and a global awareness (Rowan-­Kenyon & Niehaus, 2011), as well as
the likelihood of improved employment outcomes (Edelstein, 2014).
Nonetheless, research on the positive impact of studying abroad for dif-
ferent cohorts of students is also called for (Twombly et al., 2012), if
only to identify the relative effectiveness of different programs to deliver
generic benefits to different students.
The research project outlined in this chapter was designed to investi-
gate the degree of diversity in student motives to study abroad, by com-
paring survey responses of different Australian students. Although the
study abroad propensity of students from different demographic back-
grounds has received some attention (Nerlich, 2015), this study focuses
on the study abroad motives of students from different disciplines and
levels of study. It was expected that such research would inform better
alignment of study abroad programs with different students’ needs and
interests. Some expected areas of diversity in student motives, which have
framed the research methodology of this project, are:

• Field of study
• Study abroad destination
• Study abroad duration
 Study Abroad—­Australian University Students 181
Field of Study
Salisbury et al. (2009) undertook a large-­scale survey of study abroad
intent and found students’ degree majors did not have a specific effect
on the intent to study abroad. They noted a common view that students
in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, as well as various
professional degree programs, are less likely to undertake semester-­length
study abroad due to a risk of its slowing their progress through a pre-
scribed degree program, or of its otherwise impacting their grade point
average. However, such behavior was not apparent from the authors’
quantitative analysis of study abroad propensity, suggesting that most
alleged concerns about course progression can be avoided in practice.
Notwithstanding a growing number of options for short-­ term study
abroad during semester breaks, many universities in Australia and else-
where offer their students guidance on study exchange programs that will
enable them to complete compulsory course units and gain equivalent
credit from a foreign partner university (University of Sydney, 2013).
Relyea, Cocchiara, and Studdard (2008) reported that business stu-
dents had a low propensity to study abroad in the absence of compelling
evidence that a particular study abroad experience could lead to a better
career outcome. The authors suggested there was an onus on program
managers to promote contemporary examples of a growing demand
for employees with international experience, which should be prevalent
given growing globalization trends across many areas of business.
Perhaps the least-­contested potential benefit of studying abroad is
second language acquisition. This may represent a general benefit to
students in any field of study (Allen, 2010), but can also be a specific
development opportunity for students studying foreign languages (Nagle,
Morales-­Front, Moorman, & Sanz, 2016).
In summary, students across all major fields of education can partici-
pate in study abroad, but perceptions of the curricular-­related benefits
achievable may influence the degree to which different students pursue
those opportunities.

Study Destination
Souto-­Otero, Huisman, Beerkens, De Wit, and Vujic (2013) identified
spoken language as a significant influence over choice of a study abroad
destination, insofar as English-­speaking students were unlikely to favor a
destination where English was not readily understood.
From a survey of Australian students, Lawrence (2016) found that the
desire to study in a particular country was the primary motivation to
study abroad, with academics’ recommendations and perceived learn-
ing outcomes of the study program being of secondary importance.
Similarly, Nyaupane, Paris, and Teye (2010) found that study abroad
182 Steve Nerlich
destination selection was primarily influenced by social connections with
that country (including previous travel by the student or a recommenda-
tion from family or friends) ahead of seeking fulfillment of specific aca-
demic requirements. Nonetheless, study abroad statistics show a growing
trend in Australia towards undertaking study abroad in Asian countries
(Nerlich, 2016). This is likely to be the result of government funding
incentives, notably the New Colombo Plan, which is focused on the Indo-­
Pacific region (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2016).
In summary, English-­speaking students are more likely to study abroad
in other English-­speaking countries, partly for language convenience but
also because of established institutional partnership arrangements that
underlie student exchange programs. Students choosing non-­ English-­
speaking destinations are more likely to be seeking a shorter-­term cul-
tural experience that may not earn credit.

Study Duration
The proportion of Australian students who study abroad has been growing
over time, although much of that growth is in short-­duration experiences.
In 2007, more than 50% of Australian university students studied abroad
for more than one semester, while in 2014, only 29% did, even though the
total numbers of students studying abroad had tripled over this period.
Jamaludin, Sam, Sandal, and Adam (2016) argued that short-­term
study abroad students are more likely to be seeking a challenging cross-­
cultural experience, and long-­term international students are more likely
to be pursuing specific academic goals. Dewaele, Comanaru, and Far-
aco (2015) found that even short-­term study abroad experiences had a
strong effect on student motivation to learn a second language later in
life. Nonetheless, Dwyer (2004) found, from a longitudinal survey, that
a study abroad duration of more than one year had much more lasting
impact than shorter durations, with respect to intercultural development,
interest in other cultures, propensity to live and work overseas, long-­term
retention of international friendships, pursuit of language studies, and
likelihood of attending graduate school.
Australian postgraduate research students, who have a higher propen-
sity for studying abroad than undergraduate or postgraduate coursework
students (Nerlich, 2016), generally study abroad for only short dura-
tions, to attend international conferences or to undertake field research
(Australian Council for Educational Research, 2015).
In summary, coursework students undertaking short-­term study are
most often seeking to experience a different cultural environment, while
longer-­term students may be more focused on specific academic out-
comes, including credit-­earning student exchange programs. Conversely,
research students favor short-­term study abroad opportunities to achieve
specific research objectives.
 Study Abroad—­Australian University Students 183
Research Method
A survey of 576 current and former Australian university students who
were planning to study, or had studied, overseas was undertaken in 2014.
The survey was conducted online, contained twenty-­eight mostly multi-
ple choice questions, and was estimated to take no more than 20 min-
utes to complete. A first set of questions about participants’ demographic
background and study abroad program required selecting options from a
list, with a free text option also available. A second set of questions then
asked participants to rank their perceived importance of seven potential
benefits of studying abroad. The questionnaire was designed to investi-
gate the diversity of intent to study abroad across different demographic
groups of students. The survey responses were grouped into demographic
cohorts (e.g., field of study and study abroad destination), and differ-
ences were tested for statistical significance via a chi-­square analysis.
Students from fourteen Australian universities participated, albeit
19% of participants declined to identify their university. The most highly
represented universities in the survey sample were four members of the
Group of Eight, representing Australia’s most research-­intensive univer-
sities. Although a wide range of students and scholarship alumni were
encouraged to participate, more than 94% of those who responded fit
the profile of so-­called credit mobility students, with the remaining 6%
indicating they had enrolled to study a full degree in another country.

Results

Demographic Analysis
Table 12.1 compares the demographic characteristics of the survey sample
with national census data available on outgoing students from Australian
universities in 2014 (AUIDF, 2015). This comparison indicated the demo-
graphic spread of the survey sample and the total population of interest
were quite similar. On this basis, applying proportional weightings to the
survey data was not considered necessary prior to further analysis.
The survey also identified several features of the survey population that
were not available from the national study abroad census data. For exam-
ple, 86% of respondents were 19–­25 years old, and 12% of respondents
majored in a foreign language. Respondents reported that 68% received
a financial grant from their university; 7% received a scholarship or grant
from the Australian Government; 32% received a government loan; and
7% received no financial support while studying abroad. When asked to
estimate how much of their total study abroad expenses were subsidized
by such external funding sources, 43% said 0% to 25%; 26% said 26%
to 50%; 17% said 51% to 75%; and 14% said 76% to 100% of their
total expenses were subsidized.
184 Steve Nerlich
Table 12.1 Demographic Comparison of Survey Respondents and the Total Pop-
ulation of Interest

Demographic Group Survey Total Study Abroad

Sample Population 2014

Students 576 31,912

% female 64% 62%
% international 7% 13%
Top five destinations combined 48% 45%
(Individual top five) U.S. 16% 16%
China 5% 10%
UK 16% 9%
Canada 8% 5%
Japan 3% 4%
Fields of study
STEM* 24% 21%
AHSS# 30% 21%
Health 5% 19%
Management & Commerce 10% 15%
Law 6% 4%
Postgraduate research 3% 7%
All other fields 22% 13%
* Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
# Arts, humanities, and social sciences (including foreign languages)

In response to a question about university support services, 87% of

respondents reported being satisfied or very satisfied with services offered by
their overseas host university, while 83% were satisfied or very satisfied with
the relevant support services of their home university. As some reflection of
students’ overall experience, more than 99% of respondents indicated that
they would recommend a study abroad experience to other students.

Study Abroad Motives and Perceived Value

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance to them of seven
study abroad motives using options scaled from Extremely Important to
Unimportant. The proportions of all respondents identifying each motive
as either Extremely Important or Important are shown in Table 12.2.
The motives most-­often identified were “personal development” (91%
of respondents) and “interaction with people from a different culture”
(90%). The motives least often identified as either Extremely Important
or Important were “access to expertise and facilities that were not avail-
able in Australia” (50%); “completion of mandatory credit points for my
degree” (48%); and “making connections with professional colleagues
in another country” (46%). Motives considered important by a median
range of students were gaining “experience that will help me develop
an international career” (76%) and “exposure to different teaching or
research methods in my field of study” (67%).
 Study Abroad—­Australian University Students 185
Table 12.2 Relative Importance of Motives for Studying Abroad

Motives for Studying Abroad Proportion Reporting This Ranking of

Factor as Important or Importance
Extremely Important (%)

1. Personal development (e.g., 91 1

self-­confidence, independence)
2. Interaction with people from a 90 2
different culture
3. Experience that will help me 76 3
develop an international career
4. Exposure to different teaching 67 4
or research methods in my field
of study
5. Access to expertise and 50 5
facilities that were not
available in Australia
6. Completion of mandatory 48 6
credit points for my degree
7. Making connections with 46 7
professional colleagues in
another country

Comparison of the Importance of Motives Between Different

Cohorts of the Survey Population
A chi-­square analysis was applied to the survey results to determine any
statistical difference (at p > 0.01) between different cohorts of survey
respondents with respect to variations in the ranking of the seven fac-
tors shown in Table 12.3. Specific groups aggregated for this comparison
included those studying science, technology, engineering, and math-
ematics (n = 139, 24% of total) and arts, humanities, or social sciences
(n = 175, 30% of total). Students traveling to different destinations were
aggregated as either going to Asian countries (n = 106, 18% of total) or
going to English-­speaking countries (n = 253, 44% of total). Lastly, the
duration of studying abroad was also investigated by comparing students
studying for less than three months (n = 123, 21% of total) with students
studying for more than six months (n = 169, 29% of total).
Referring to the minor changes in ranking order shown in Table 12.3,
most changes were not statistically significant (at p > 0.01). For example,
although arts, humanities, and social sciences (AHSS) students ranked
foreign culture slightly above personal development, this difference was
not found to be statistically significant with respect to science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and mathematics students or to all non-­AHSS students.
Minor significance was found where students going to Asia ranked
the importance of personal development slightly below experiencing a
foreign culture. This difference was not statistically significant in com-
parison to all remaining respondents, but was significantly different
186 Steve Nerlich
Table 12.3 Ranking of the Importance of Motives for Studying Abroad by Dif-
ferent Student Cohorts

Cohorts Ranking Order of Motives 1 to 7 (Listed in Table 12.2)

Field of study
STEM 1 2 3 4 7 5 6
AHHS 2 1 3 4 5 7 6
Destination
Asian* 2 1 3 4 7 6 5
English-­speaking# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Duration
> six months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
< three months 1 2 3 4 6 5 7
Total students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
* Asian destinations incorporated China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, Sri
Lanka, Laos, Singapore, India, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
# English-­speaking destinations incorporated Canada, Ireland, South Africa, New Zea-
land, the U.S., and the UK.

(p = 0.006) when compared to the specific cohort of students going to

English-­speaking countries.
Variance across other smaller subgroups was also investigated, includ-
ing foreign language students (n = 70, 12% of total), temporary-­resident
(international) students (n = 42, 7% of total), students studying full
degrees at a foreign university (n = 36, 6% of total), and postgraduate
research students (n = 20, 3% of total). Although these cohorts were con-
sidered too small to enable robust statistical analysis, the general trends
seen in the larger population were also prevalent within these distinct
groups. The importance of exposure to different teaching and research
methods was ranked somewhat higher by both research students and by
students studying full degrees at a foreign institution. Research students
also favored making connections with professional colleagues over inter-
acting with a different culture, and they ranked gaining credit points as
being of very low importance to them. Nonetheless, all these cohorts iden-
tified personal development and interaction with another culture to be the
most important motives overall, consistent with the total survey cohort.
An optional section for any graduated students who were employed
at the time of the survey was answered by around 45% (n = 257) of
respondents. Of these:

• 47% reported their international study experience had been consid-

ered important or extremely important to their employer, while 27%
reported it was unimportant to their employer;
• 80% said their international study experience had helped them
develop skills they used in their current job;
 Study Abroad—­Australian University Students 187
• 65% were in a job related or closely related to their degree major;
and
• 62% retained contact with colleagues they had met during their
study abroad experience.

Discussion
This research was undertaken on the assumption that a comparison of
students across different fields of study, going to different study destina-
tions, and for different durations would reveal a diversity of motives for
studying abroad. That hypothesis was effectively nullified as the research
instead found almost no statistically significant differences in intent to
study abroad, irrespective of students’ domestic study programs or the
nature of their intended study abroad experience.
This finding supports views expressed in the literature that the benefits
of studying abroad seem largely generic and have more to do with being
abroad than with the specific study activity undertaken while abroad
(Nyaupane et al., 2010). Petzold and Moog’s (2017) investigation of stu-
dent intent to study abroad found students were not strongly motivated
by anticipated learning outcomes and that their decision-­making about
study abroad opportunities was largely determined by enabling factors,
such as financial support to travel and a welcoming host university at
their destination.
In this study, the large majority of survey respondents identified per-
sonal development and a desire to experience another culture as their
most important motives to study abroad, over and above any issues of
immediate relevance to academic advancement, such as gaining credit
points or accessing facilities and expertise not available in Australia.
It cannot be determined from this study whether student responses
may have reflected common promotional themes used to encourage par-
ticipation in studying abroad (Forsey et al., 2012) or whether all students
genuinely participated for largely identical reasons. The use of a struc-
tured questionnaire necessarily limited free expression and may have
influenced the strong consistency in student responses.
Of the issues ranked as moderately important, experience leading
towards an international career was ranked significantly higher than
exposure to different teaching or research methods by all subgroups. The
relatively low ranking given to gaining mandatory credit points seems
at odds with the fact that more than 80% of Australian study abroad
experiences accrued credit or academic recognition in 2014 (AUIDF,
2015). However, it is likely that in many cases, such accrued credit is not
absolutely mandatory, given that such a requirement would disadvantage
those students who are enrolled in the same degree program and do not
study abroad. In any case, it is clear that the pursuit of academic credit
was not in itself a primary motive for the students in this study.
188 Steve Nerlich
A comparison of students studying abroad over substantially different
time periods also found minimal differences in their motives or in the
benefits they anticipated. This finding supports views in the literature
that the value of studying abroad cannot be assumed to increase linearly
with respect to duration (Allen, 2010). While cultural immersion, foreign
language acquisition, and intercultural competence gained can undoubt-
edly be enhanced by duration (Engle & Engle, 2004), the first contact
with a foreign culture often has the most profound impact on students
(McKeown, 2009). Indeed, acknowledging that substantial benefit can be
gained from short-­term study abroad experiences may be vital to further
growing student participation insofar as short-­term experiences may be
the only option for many students with limited means, or with employ-
ment or career responsibilities at home (Nyaupane et al., 2010).
The findings of this research should not be taken to suggest that study-
ing abroad is a frivolous activity that lacks educational merit. The appar-
ent disconnection between study abroad activities and domestic course
curricula may be a necessary consequence of low participation—­for
example, where less than 20% of Australian university students currently
participate in any form of studying abroad. This means that any benefit
gained from studying abroad can be offered only as a supplement to the
core learning outcomes of the domestic curricula made available to all
students regardless of whether they study abroad or not. Also, low par-
ticipation may not make it commercially viable to offer a wide range of
discipline-­specific study abroad options. This then necessitates adopting
a more generic approach to meet the prevalent demand.
It is reasonable to propose that increasing the relevance of study
abroad programs to domestic curricula would make studying abroad a
more effective educational strategy. Furthermore, increasing its relevance
may well boost participation, where current students may not perceive
there is an adequate return on investment to justify the time and money
required to participate (Relyea et al., 2008).
The motives underlying institutions and governments financially sup-
porting study abroad programs in their current form are generally described
in macro-­economic terms, where the perceived benefits lie in enhancing
international collaboration through student mobility and in foreseeing the
need for a graduate workforce skilled in working with people from other
countries, as well as working within other countries that have different
work practices and regulatory constraints (Edelstein, 2014).
This study found the prospect of improved employment outcomes does
motivate students to study abroad, even if it is not their primary motive.
However, of the students in this study who had already graduated and
joined the workforce, only 47% reported that their international study
experience had been considered important by their employers. This was
despite the majority of students feeling they had acquired skills from
studying abroad that were useful in their job.
 Study Abroad—­Australian University Students 189
This finding supports views that students studying abroad may not
always return with the ability to communicate a narrative about the rel-
evant skills they have acquired (Kowarski, 2010; Wong, 2015). In this
context, it may be somewhat counterproductive to promote studying
abroad as delivering the same generic benefits to all students. Indeed,
creating a broader narrative about the diverse benefits and return on
investment available from studying abroad in different disciplines would
assist students to better articulate the skills they gained from their study
abroad experience. Further, expanding the narrative about what skills
studying abroad can develop, beyond just intercultural competency and
global awareness, may enable more effective marketing messages that
encourage greater student participation in the future.

References
Allen, H. W. (2010). What shapes short-­term study abroad experiences? A com-
parative case study of students’ motives and goals. Journal of Studies in Inter-
national Education, 14(5), 452–­470. doi:10.1177/­1028315309334739
Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (2015). The MSA: An instrument for measuring
motivation to study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad, 15, 53–­67.
Australian Council for Educational Research. (2015). Australian postgraduate
research student international mobility research report. Melbourne: ACER.
Retrieved from http:/­/­research.acer.edu.au/­higher_education/­46/­
AUIDF (2015). Students from Australian universities in learning abroad 2014.
Australian Universities International Directors Forum (AUIDF). Retrieved from
http:/­/­www.cisaustralia.com.au/­uploads/­files/­auidf-­students-­from-­australian-­
universities-­ in-­learning-­abroad-­2014.pdf
Belyavina, R., & Bhandari, R. (2012). US students in overseas degree programs:
Key destinations and fields of study. New York, NY: Institute of International
Education.
Carbonell, J. A. (2017). A path is made by walking: Analysis of UK Outward
student mobility in 2013–­2014 and 2014–­15. Retrieved from www.academia.
edu/­30997331/­
Dall’Alba, G., & Sidhu, R. (2015). Australian undergraduate students on the
move: Experiencing outbound mobility. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4),
721–­744. doi:10.1080/­03075079.2013.842212
de Wit, H., Ferencz, I., & Rumbley, L. E. (2013). International student mobil-
ity: European and US perspectives. Perspectives: Policy and practice in higher
education, 17(1), 17–­23. doi:10.1080/­13603108.2012.679752
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural compe-
tence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in Inter-
national Education, 10(3), 241–­266. doi:10.1177/­1028315306287002
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2016). About the new Colombo Plan.
Retrieved from http:/­/­dfat.gov.au/­people-­to-­people/­new-­colombo-­plan/­about/­
Pages/­about.aspx
Dewaele, J. M., Comanaru, R., &, Faraco, M. (2015). The affective benefits
of a pre-­ sessional course at the start of study abroad. In R. Mitchell, K.
190 Steve Nerlich
McManus, & N. Tracy Ventura (Eds.), Social interaction, identity and lan-
guage learning during residence abroad. Eurosla Monographs Series 4 Eurosla
(pp. 95–­114). Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association.
Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program dura-
tion. Frontiers: The interdisciplinary journal of study abroad, 10, 151–­163.
Edelstein, R. (2014). Globalization and student learning: A literature review and
call for greater conceptual rigor and cross-­institutional studies. Research &
Occasional Paper Series: CSHE. 6.14. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural
sensitivity development in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers:
The interdisciplinary journal of study abroad, 10, 219–­236.
Farrugia, C. A. (2015). Open doors 2015: Report on international educational
exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Forsey, M., Broomhall, S., & Davis, J. (2012). Broadening the mind? Australian
student reflections on the experience of overseas study. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 16(2), 128–­139. doi:10.1177/­1028315311407511
Harrison, L., & Potts, D. (2016). Learning abroad at Australian universities: The
current environment. Canberra: Universities Australia, IEAA.
IES (2016). 50-­ Year Alumni Survey results. Retrieved from www.iesabroad.
org/­study-­abroad/­why/­alumni-­survey-­results
Jamaludin, N. L., Sam, D. L., Sandal, G. M., & Adam, A. A. (2016). Personal
values, subjective well-­being and destination-­loyalty intention of international
students. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 720. doi:10.1186/­s40064-­016-­2439-­3
Kowarski, I. (2010). Colleges help students to translate the benefits of study
abroad. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http:/­/­cge.cua.
edu/­res/­docs/­Colleges-­Help-­Students.pdf
Lawrence, R. (2016). Report into student mobility. Canberra: Universities
Australia.
Lokkesmoe, K. J., Kuchinke, K. P., & Ardichvili, A. (2016). Developing
cross-­cultural awareness through foreign immersion programs: Implica-
tions of university study abroad research for global competency develop-
ment. European Journal of Training and Development, 40(3), 155–­170.
doi:10.1108/­EJTD-­07–­2014–­0048
McKeown, J. S. (2009). The first time effect: The impact of study abroad on col-
lege student intellectual development. Albany, NY: Suny Press.
Morais, D. B., & Ogden, A. C. (2011). Initial development and validation of the
global citizenship scale. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15(5),
445–­466. doi:10.1177/­1028315310375308
Nagle, C. Morales-­Front, A., Moorman, C., & Sanz, C.(2015). Disentangling
research on study abroad and pronunciation: Methodological and program-
matic consideration. In D. Velliaris & D. Coleman-­George (Eds.), Handbook
of research on study abroad programs and outward mobility (pp. 673–­669).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Nerlich, S. (2015). Students from Australian universities studying abroad:
A demographic profile. Australian Universities Review, 57(1), 52–­59.
Nerlich, S. (2016). Counting outward mobility: The data sources and their con-
straints. In D. Velliaris & D. Coleman-­George (Eds.), Handbook of research
on study abroad programs and outbound mobility (pp 40–­65). Hershey, PA:
IGI Global.
 Study Abroad—­Australian University Students 191
Norris, E. M., & Gillespie, J. (2009). How study abroad shapes global careers
evidence from the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education,
13(3), 382–­397. doi:10.1177/­1028315308319740
Nyaupane, G. P., Paris, C. M., & Teye, V. (2010). Study abroad motivations,
destination selection and pre-­trip attitude formation. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 13(3), 205–­217. doi:10.1002/­jtr.811
Paige, R. M., Fry, G. M., Stallman, E. M., Josic, J., & Jon, J. (2009). Study
abroad for global engagement: The long-­term impact of mobility experiences.
Intercultural Education, 20, 529–­544. doi:10.1080/­14675980903370847
Petzold, K., & Moog, P. (2017). What shapes the intention to study abroad? An exper-
imental approach. Higher Education, 1–­20. doi:10.1007/­s10734–­017–­0119-­z
Potts, D. (2015). Understanding the early career benefits of learning abroad
programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(5), 441–­459.
doi:10.1177/­1028315315579241
Potts, D. (2016). Leading the way for learning abroad. Vista, Summer 2016–­17,
26–­29. Retrieved from www.ieaa.org.au/­documents/­item/­1066
Relyea, C., Cocchiara, F. K., & Studdard, N. L. (2008). The effect of perceived value
in the decision to participate in study abroad programs. Journal of Teaching
in International Business, 19(4), 346–­361. doi:10.1080/­08975930802427551
Rowan-­Kenyon, H. T., & Niehaus, E. K. (2011). One year later: The influence
of short-­term study abroad experiences on students. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 48(2), 213–­228. doi:10.2202/­1949–­6605.6213
Salisbury, M. H., An, B. P., & Pascarella, E. T. (2013). The effect of study abroad on
intercultural competence among undergraduate college students. Journal of Stu-
dent Affairs Research and Practice, 50(1), 1–­20. doi:10.1515/­jsarp-­2013–­0001
Salisbury, M. H., Umbach, P. D., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2009).
Going global: Understanding the choice process of the intent to study abroad.
Research in higher education, 50(2), 119–­143. doi:10.1515/­jsarp-­2013–­0001
Souto-­Otero, M., Huisman, J., Beerkens, M., De Wit, H., & Vujic, S. (2013). Bar-
riers to international student mobility: Evidence from the Erasmus program.
Educational Researcher, 42(2), 70–­77. doi:10.3102/­0013189X12466696
Twombly, S. B., Salisbury, M. H., Tumanut, S. D., & Klute, P. (2012). Study
abroad in a new global century—­renewing the promise, refining the purpose.
ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(4), 1–­152.
UIS. (2012). International standard classification of education (pp. 48–­49).
Retrieved from www.uis.unesco.org/­Library/­Documents/­2011-­international-­
standard-­classification-­education-­isced-­2012-­en.pdf
UIS. (2015). Global flow of tertiary-­level students. Retrieved from http:/­/­uis.
unesco.org/­en/­uis-­student-­flow
University of Sydney. (2013). Engineering on exchange. Retrieved from http:/­
/­sydney.edu.au/­dam/­corporate/­documents/­study/­overseas-­exchange/­8_Engi-
neering.pdf
Wong, E. D. (2015). Beyond “it was great”? Not so fast. Frontiers: The interdis-
ciplinary journal of study abroad, 25, 121–­135.
13 Headbump or Headway?
American Students’ Engagement
With Their International Peers
on Campus
Uttam Gaulee

Introduction
International students bring with them a variety of experiences and skills, as
well as a level of knowledge about life and society in their home countries.
While this wealth of knowledge could be leveraged for the global aware-
ness of local students, the challenge lies in the fact that U.S. colleges and
universities essentially are missing on the opportunity by largely limiting
themselves to the rhetoric of institutional mission statements and insuffi-
cient gestures towards engagement (Bentao, 2011). It is imperative that U.S.
academe start to actively identify motivating versus inhibiting factors for
student engagement, facilitate the process of interaction and knowledge-­
sharing, and develop strategies and policies from the ground up.
By aiming to determine motivations or inhibitions towards cross-­
national interactions, this chapter explores the deeper (de)motivations of
local students that can be tapped into to inform intervention programs
on how to foster intercultural communication. Academic institutions
need to start by understanding how domestic students view the oppor-
tunity to learn and share knowledge and experience with their interna-
tional counterparts. What kinds of deliberate, resourceful, and organized
approaches are institutions adopting/­developing in order to help stu-
dents go beyond connections and learning by serendipity? Are curricula,
policies, and programs invoking domestic students’ agency and choice
towards interacting with their international counterparts as part of their
education? How are institutions aligning their mission statements and
goals with students’ needs and motivations towards such engagement?
Are faculty, administrators, and staff across campuses intellectually and
practically involved in putting ideas to action? What can institutions do
to build on the pathways and overcome the obstacles towards preparing
a globally competent and engaged next generation of professionals and
intellectuals?
Global understanding by U.S. institutions and their respective academic
departments has grown exceptionally fast in importance in all majors,
 Headbump or Headway? International Peers 193
from accounting to agriculture and from natural sciences to engineering.
First of all, entire categories of jobs were eliminated, and the new job
descriptions required more advanced skills, competencies, and abilities;
and these jobs placed more reliance on “soft” or “people” skills. Second,
companies pared costs by reducing training programs that would allow
workers to develop competencies on the job, and thus pushed skill devel-
opment back into the K-­12 and higher education systems. As a result
candidates for employment were expected to demonstrate abilities in key
skill areas even before they started their employment. While much of
the early attention was on older workers who lacked technical skills and
the repositioning of blue-­collared workers, the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology (ABET) standards made it clear that, for the
college-­educated workforce, employer expectations were for expanded
and enhanced skills at the entry level. Some twenty years later colleges
and universities can exchange high fives knowing that they met this chal-
lenge. The only problem is that new demands in the workplace have
shifted skill requirements again (Hanneman & Gardner, 2010, p. 2). The
main objective of this study is to contribute to the better understanding
of American students’ motivations or inhibitions towards cross-­national
communication. Towards that specific goal, this study explores local
students’ experiences, attitudes, and beliefs to identify the factors that
undergird such interactions by seeking to answer two specific research
questions:

1. What are perceived barriers (headbumps) for the U.S.-­national stu-

dents towards social engagements with their international peers?
2. What are the motivating factors (headways) for them to engage in
such cross-­national interactions on campus?

Literature Review
Current literature suggests two important themes regarding international
student engagement with domestic students at U.S. institutions. First,
academic programs such as international studies are not enough to raise
global awareness (e.g., De Soto, Hajalli, & Villarreal, 2016). What is
missing is meaningful interactions (Li & Zizzi, 2018; Lee & Rice, 2007;
Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). However, the mere presence of interna-
tional students on campus is an insufficient condition for meaningful
engagement to take place (Chang, 2002; Leask, 2009). Second, domes-
tic students generally lack motivation to engage with international peers
(Kashima & Loh, 2006; Ward & Masgoret, 2004; Zhang & Brunton,
2007). Moreover, international students end up hanging out with co-­
nationals or other international students for two reasons: (a) domestic
students usually do not reach out to them for social interactions, and
194 Uttam Gaulee
(b) some universities usually organize social programs “for international
students,” and such programs are advertised only among international
students (Jon, 2013).
While much research dwells on the adjustment of the international stu-
dents into the American culture, situating international students within
a “problem framework” (Lee & Rice, 2007, p. 388; Chen, 2017), litera-
ture is only tangential on the topic of cultural enrichment to U.S. students
on campus. Research is highly focused on either the “adjustment” of
international students or sending U.S. students abroad. One past study
geared to find out the influence of international peers on host students
indicated clear benefits to the local students. Drawing data from a com-
prehensive survey of more than 5,500 alumni from the 1985, 1995, and
2000 graduating classes of four highly selective private research univer-
sities, the study found that American students who interact more with
their international peers don’t just gain greater cultural awareness but
also develop skills that benefit them after graduation (Luo & Jamieson-­
Drake, 2013). In spite of the usual presence of international students on
campus, domestic students are not engaged in meaning interactions with
their peers from abroad to develop their own global competency skills.
For example, Williams and Johnson (2011) found in their study that the
majority of students (57% of participants) do not have any friendships
with international students. On the other hand, the results of the same
study showed that there are clear benefits to having international friends.
The participants with international friends had significantly higher scores
on open-­mindedness than those with no international friends. Also, stu-
dents with no international friendships had significantly higher ratings of
intercultural communication apprehension (Williams & Johnson, 2011).
However, the factors that facilitate meaningful engagement between the
host and international students, particularly those that motivate U.S. stu-
dents to reach out to their international peers, are not known. In this
context, the purpose of this study is to contribute to the better under-
standing of American students’ motivations or inhibitions towards such
cross-­national engagement.
This research project is innovative in three ways: in research perspec-
tive, in conceptualization, and in the shift of focus of the research para-
digm. First, this study uses a constructivism perspective (O’Donnell,
Reeve, & Smith, 2011) to understand the values, attitudes, and expe-
riences of American students that guide their decisions on whether or
not to engage with their international students. Constructivism provides
affordance to understand how a learner constructs knowledge via dif-
ferent concepts: complex, cognition, scaffolding, vicarious experiences,
modeling, and observational learning. This makes anyone or anything
else with which the student has interaction active participants in their
learning: students, teachers, and the large environment.
 Headbump or Headway? International Peers 195
Second, the idea of global engagement is uniquely conceptualized
in this research project. For the purpose of this study, I define global
engagement as sustained interaction between domestic students with
international students, particularly initiated by the domestic students
out of motivation to gain global competencies. I also differentiate global
engagement from global knowledge and/­or competency. Global engage-
ment is the prerequisite to develop global competencies, which include
knowing about the world. Global engagement is both before knowledge
and beyond knowledge. As the students learn to engage with their inter-
national peers, they will go beyond mere collection of facts or informa-
tion, which is out there on the Internet.
Third, this study is a departure from most of the available research,
which is focused on the “adjustment” of international students. Of
course, contact and social ties with local students help international stu-
dents adjust more (Westwood & Barker, 1990). However, this perspec-
tive to look at international students only as “needy” contributes to a
general dismissive stance on international students and tends to reject
outright what international students bring on the table, diluting the mis-
sion of mutual enrichment, which ironically would give local students a
reason and purpose to reach out to their international peers. When local
students can see the value in interacting with international peers, they
would see them as resource rather than nuisance.

Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

This study is an attempt to build a model of on campus global engage-
ment between the international and domestic students in a large U.S.
research institution in the South. Milton Bennett’s six stages of intercul-
tural sensitivity as described in the Developmental Model of Intercul-
tural Sensitivity (DMIS) provide a foundation to this study as the model
shows a progression of development from “ethnocentric” and intolerant
to “ethnorelative” mode, with students developing more tolerance along
the way (Bennet, 1993).

Research Method
Grounded theory is chosen to generate or discover a theory of abstract
analytical schema of a phenomenon of global engagement that relates
to a particular situation grounded in the experiences and perceptions of
the participants (Creswell, 2011). In-­depth interviews help explore the
beliefs, values, and experiences of local students from emic perspectives.
They also provide a postmodern theoretical lens with the epistemology
of constructionism, whereby knowledge is produced by both participants
and researcher.
196 Uttam Gaulee
This study employs a purposeful sampling procedure so that participant
feedback can inform the research as well (Creswell, 2011). Data were col-
lected from twenty-­five American undergraduate students regarding their
experience with their international counterparts. I have applied multiple
procedures for the trustworthiness and credibility of the study (Strauss &
Corbin, 2015). First, I work on a small team of three peer researchers who
serve as peer debriefers for the analytical process. The team sought feed-
back on evolving theory and interpretations of the data from colleagues
with diverse backgrounds to understand meaning. I used open, axial, and
selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 2015) to analyze the data because our
team is trained on this procedure. Through constant comparative analy-
sis, each participant’s response was compared and connected to others as
categories, properties, and dimensions emerged (Charmaz, 2006). NVivo
software was used as a supplement to analyze the interview transcripts.

Results
An interesting aspect of the findings was that most of the negative percep-
tions towards international students came up during the interviews and
positive attitudes during the focus groups. Interviews with participants
revealed their deeply ingrained ethnocentric fears and apprehensions
towards interactions with their international peers. Some local students
perceived their international peers as “needy,” who “may ask for a lot
of help” as they are “adjusting in our culture” and thus are neglected as
“others.” Some others were just afraid of them as “invasive,” while many
“did not even notice” any international students on campus.
Participants in the focus groups expressed general willingness to make
international friends. Although they acknowledged there exist some hard
to break barriers (e.g., language), they also had an inkling that making
international friends may be helpful in the long run. There was an agree-
ment in focus groups on what one participant said: “they don’t under-
stand my jokes and I hate to explain everything. So . . . I just hang out
with my American friends.”
The model shown in Figure 13.1 shows the headway factors (path-
ways or contributing elements) on the left side and headbump factors
(roadblocks or inhibiting elements) on the right side. This placement of
headways on the left and headbumps on the right reveals the undesirable
situation of global engagement on campus. Meaning, there is no logi-
cal or linear development from headbumps to headways. Rather, global
engagement is by serendipity, which happens to a precious few. Global
engagement results when students can bump up headway factors. While
the desired state would have headway factors on the right, they are listed
on the left because the apparent situation that exists on campus is that
headbump factors prevail.
 Headbump or Headway? International Peers 197

On Campus Global Engagement Model

High Work Ethic Positive

Shy/Humble
- Stereotypes
Cliquishness

New Ignorance - Overlook

Perspectives
- Curiosity

Specific
Potential Comfort Zone
Knowledge - Resource
“Others”
or Skills
Self-Awareness
Dorms Stereotypes -
- Engagement - Stigma
Clubs - Proximity
Fear
Classes

Rules/Regulations
Patronization
- Roots Traditions -
Exclusive Nature
Empathy of Clubs

Forced Yeah, but

Assignment
- Push Language - Not Really!

Headway Factors Headbump Factors

Figure 13.1 On Campus Global Engagement Model

Headbump Factors
These factors illustrate various ethnocentric stages of student develop-
ment as can be seen in Milton Bennet’s (1993) developmental model of
intercultural sensitivity.

Cliquishness
One of the most recurring themes that students mentioned about their
own on campus interactions was cliquishness. For instance, one of the
participants summarized the essence of those students who stick together
with other friends sharing similar backgrounds, which often excluded
international students.

I mean for the most part just high school, middle school, college, like
when girls find people that they are similar with, they just kind of
you know they wanna stay in the group that they feel comfortable. It
kind of spreads across every activity in organization that I see.
[Chemistry major second year student]
198 Uttam Gaulee
Ignorance
Students who are highly engaged with their international peers think that
those who are not engaged are “trapped in ignorance” and do not see the
value coming out of difference. I would have chosen to use the phrase
“lack of awareness” to represent this headbump factor to avoid possible
negative connotation. However, I am only respecting data here. Lack of
awareness of the existence of international students is a major theme
that came up. Structural analysis of campus demographics revealed that
students from more than 130 different countries were going to campus.
Notable is the fact, however, that because it is a huge campus, the num-
ber of international students may still be lower than a critical mass to
make up a visible presence. Many local students indicated that they never
came across international students. “I never saw an international student
on this campus. Are there many international students on this campus?”
asked a sorority leader of the interviewer. Another female junior’s state-
ment gives a better picture of this scenario:

To be honest, I met my first international student this year. Interna-

tional students, I’m sure that I met a few before but never made any
connection that much so I don’t remember that much.
[Mathematics major third year student]

An interesting point is brought up by the same student in what she said

further. It is hard to ascertain if international students are just overlooked
on this campus by the local students, or if they are not enough in number.

It’s hard to tell like international they are international like races,
international nationalities in the U.S. coz lot of people are technically
from the U.S. and not international coz it’s hard to tell as the campus
is so diverse.
[Mathematics major third year student]

This leads to a question if international students in some large research

universities constitute an invisible minority as suspected by Chen (2017).

Comfort Zone
Many students mentioned a tendency to stay within a comfort zone as
one of the barriers to international engagement.

One of the major problems is—­I think it’s endemic to most

everybody—­they wanna [sic] feel comfortable a lot of times to be
with people that are similar to them even if you have this diversity
and you see it all around you.
[Business major fourth year student]
 Headbump or Headway? International Peers 199
A student with Latin American roots, who is actively involved in the
community, expressed regret, attributing to the tendency to stick to one’s
comfort zone that too many of his fellow students are missing on the
opportunity to engage with the world in their backyard.

Um . . . I think I said it before, it just has to do with feeling com-

fortable. I don’t necessarily feel there’s any strong feeling against it
[international engagement], but it’s something you never [sigh] you
can stay in your department, you already have a group of friends.
Why go out of your way to.
[Business major third year student]

Stereotypes
Students identified stereotypes as one of the most important barriers.
“Stereotypes are definitely part of the barrier,” said a senior from the
animal science department. Stereotyping was found to be complex and
could be divided into three different categories: (a) students stereotyping
international students as “others,” (b) students stigmatizing other local
students who interacted with international students, and (c) local stu-
dents who understood the dynamics of stereotyping and demonstrated
much self-­awareness that stereotypes are common.
The first type of stereotyping, i.e., stereotyping of “others,” is evident
in the following quote, which speaks of their perception that interna-
tional students are cliquish:

I don’t wanna come out sounding racist but I’ve never had a bad
experience but I’ve definitely heard about how the Chinese students,
not necessary all Chinese, they stay with their own cliques. They
don’t really interact with other people.

The second type of stereotyping shows the lowest level of intercultural

development because these respondents not only stereotype international
students, but also go on to stigmatize and shun other local students who
interact with international students.

as he stated there is a hall where they host international students.

Lots of people take initiative and take an opportunity and experi-
ence, as American students, to live in this hall, and interact with
all these international students. But I have heard stereotypes about
this hall as well, people you know kind of look down upon “Oh
you are in that hall!” Things like that. So it’s definitely the minor-
ity, if not pretty much non-­existent, but I have heard it here and
there.
[Engineering major second year student]
200 Uttam Gaulee
The third type that came up in the focus group demonstrated students’
self-­awareness. They exhibited an understanding that stereotyping may
be both ways—­an indication of growth towards transitioning to eth-
norelativity. Many students demonstrated such a growth pattern, which
could be supplemented by subtle intervention strategies to nudge them to
the next level of developing intercultural sensitivity.

As we speak about these international people, if we put ourselves in

their shoes, or they put themselves in our shoes, they are speaking
about us, in their ways as well. I think it’s important to be open-­
minded in that aspect.
[Humanities second year student, with Greek-­life experience]

A special type of stereotype was associated with fear of difference.

Even if students would be willing to ask questions when they saw some-
thing different, they would not dare ask questions about sensitive topics
such as religion and culture. The following quote has a telling story:

I think being afraid honestly is part of it. Being afraid to ask the
questions that are like a little touchy. Like what are the bases of your
holidays or you know something as simple as a holiday. You know
when I was younger I didn’t know there was this kid I went to mid-
dle school with and he didn’t eat during the day at school and I’d ask
him like “do you have an eating disorder?” I was very ignorant like
that, but he was like “no, it’s Ramadan.” C’mon it’s like he was like
“I’m not starving myself. It’s Ramadan. You eat later.” And I just
didn’t get it and me and my friends would keep making fun of him.
We were in middle school then.
[Engineering major second year student,
with Greek-­life experience]

Clearly, even though all stereotypes are problematic, some positive

stereotypes also existed, and such positive stereotypes have been instru-
mental in bringing students together to some extent. Hence the reason
positive stereotype is listed as a headway factor (described in the next
section).

Traditions
One barrier identified by students, mostly students belonging to Greek
organizations (fraternities or sororities), was that most of their activi-
ties are exclusive in nature and do not easily allow them to interact with
groups not already in official relations with their groups. Even though the
Greek students and leaders who participated in this study mentioned that
their Greek organizations are willing to expand relationships “beyond
 Headbump or Headway? International Peers 201
the Panhellenic community,” the restrictions exist, and most of their
activities need to be approved by the national council. A sorority leader’s
quote captures this dilemma.

Hmm . . . in my opinion, national Pan-­Hellenic traditions, I would say,

hmm . . . it’s not really in the norm to hang out with the other ones
coz they have their like I don’t know what they call them “league” not
league, what’s the word for that? hm . . . overall organizations like
they have national Pan-­Hellenic is its own thing and I have seen it is
own thing . . . Panhellenic sororities and fraternities do the same thing
[interact with each other] coz fraternities and sororities are from the
same place and do the same thing they are similar. That’s what I guess
would be why I guess that’s as a hindrance because they are not really
branching out and . . . that’s based on traditions and how the rules
work in the national unless . . . so I don’t know how they go about.
[Political Science major, sorority leader]

Language/­Accent
Not surprisingly, language and accent were perceived as important bar-
riers for local students’ ways of interacting with international students.
While many students expressed their frustration about not understand-
ing their international TAs, there were some who didn’t think language
should be that big of a barrier if one is really open and willing to commu-
nicate. An interesting perspective on language was expressed by a chem-
istry senior, who also happened to be student leader:

You always find people that don’t like to hear your accent . . . you’ll
always find people who don’t like to repeat themselves, but I think
they’re just individuals.
[Chemistry major second year student]

What she meant to say by “they’re just individuals” is that such people
are few and far between and probably do not define the whole campus
environment. However, she was definite in saying that she has “seen both
types of girls.”

Headway Factors (Pathways)

Many students shared their good experiences with international students
regularly. Those who were happy with those interactions were asked
what factors might have contributed to their coming together with their
international peers (the headway factors). Six such elements contribut-
ing to international interactions and engagements were described by stu-
dents, which are listed next.
202 Uttam Gaulee
Positive Stereotypes About International Students
Some students already had good perceptions about their international peers
due to various reasons, e.g., they had heard or seen that international stu-
dents have high work ethics, that they are shy and humble and respect-
ful, and that they bring refreshing perspectives. “I definitely notice the
higher work ethics in international students,” said an engineering sopho-
more. While the Model Minority Myth seems to have been instrumental
in facilitating cross-­cultural interactions among students, researchers and
practitioners need to be careful about the problematic issue, which can be
dispelled as students develop more towards the ethno-­relative scale.

Curiosity
Many students mentioned that sheer curiosity drew them to their inter-
national peers. Curiosity and openness of learning have been identified
as basic elements in Deardorff’s (2009) pyramid model of intercultural
competence.

I think a biggest factor is probably curiosity and open mind. I was

like curious when I was really young. Just like being curious about
the world around you makes you explore and learn more about the
world around you I guess, ’coz one of my friends my best friend got
me into anime like four years ago because I’ve gone into anime, I got
to learn a lot about Japanese culture and I also really learn more
about Japanese language.
[Biology major first year student]

Potential Source
Some local students sought interactions with their international peers
because they became aware of specific skills or knowledge that their
international peers had that they immediately benefited from.

Hassan [name changed] is very, very good at calculus and he helps

me understand those hard to understand concepts. I find this rela-
tionship so blessed that I don’t care who says what. I know some of
my own American friends laugh at me for hanging out with a Paki-
stani guy but the more laugh at me, the more I know why I want him
and how great he is. So I don’t care.
[Computer Science major third year student]

Proximity
Most of the students (75% from the survey part of the larger study) who
had a number of international friends and enjoyed their relationships
 Headbump or Headway? International Peers 203
with their peers said that proximity and regular contact with interna-
tional peers helped them get to know about their international peers.
The student quoted next said that she met her international friends in the
international dorm where she lived.

My first encounter with the international student was in my first year

at a dorm kind of international. I wouldn’t say they were all interna-
tional but many were. My friend Kwan was from Vietnam. And then
I realize there was one girl from Cuba, one from Colombia and one
from Venezuela, one from Vietnam. Yea, it was just very interesting
and I usually pretty much get along with everyone so there wasn’t
anything getting in the way of that it was just interesting learning
about various places.
[Foreign Language and Literature major fourth year student]

Another student who met her international friends in her class also con-
firmed that proximity is what brought them together:

Actually, I was walking through [the residence hall] and I walk out
class and there were two women. One was wearing niqab is that
just the head cover? And the other was wearing the other one only
showing the eyes—­the burka. When you see those things, you want
to know about it. They might not be international they might have
grown up here their whole lives, that’s the kind of thing I wanna
be exposed to. I wanna walk around and see people from other
cultures.
[Geography major second year student]

Roots
Some students, who participated in the study by identifying themselves
as U.S. students, had a family connection to outside countries or cul-
tures. They were particularly attracted to international students from
those countries of origin. Here is someone who has experienced learning
English as a difficult endeavor for him, so he empathized with other stu-
dents from that region by befriending and communicating with them. He
reflects his own struggle of learning English:

I would speak with an instructor they’ll talk to me in Spanish, but

the shock was big—­a big shock, having to take my classes in Eng-
lish even though I was in United States for about four years at that
time. And I struggled a lot, it took me a very long time to get situ-
ated specially the English language as grammar is very different from
Spanish—­a big hurdle.
[Latin American Studies major fourth year student]
204 Uttam Gaulee
Similarly, a student with Brazilian roots empathized with and often
found it easy to relate to people who come from Brazil.

There’s a club and there are many Brazilians. I interact with them
here but not because of the club just because we know each other
I know a Brazilian just walk by and I know he’s Brazilian you know.
[Animal Science major third year student]

Push
The idea of push as a headway factor came up from students who took a
course offered by the university that required them to engage with inter-
national students as an assignment. A sorority leader said that “too many
students” originally didn’t like to engage in the activity at all. They tried
their best to avoid having to do it but did it anyway “dragging their feet,”
because this was a required assignment and formed a significant part of
their grades. But later on, many of them eventually found that the assign-
ment was worth-­doing, and those interactions helped them dispel some
misconceptions about their international peers. The sorority leader, who
wanted to see changes in the interaction patterns of her peers and wanted
more global engagement on campus, expressed her frustration that her
constituents like “hanging around within their own designated groups of
local students.”

I really don’t like the cliquishness of girls that was one thing that
kind of turned me off about it but I mean I joined because I have
familiarity and because I have similarity and I wanted to join the
leadership organizations that I’m in because I wanted to be involved
in something part of the school.
[Psychology major second year student, Greek leader]

Another sorority leader also expressed her concern that the interaction
patterns of the members of her organization had not changed for decades
even though the world has changed so much. She said there are students
who “don’t really care about what’s going on outside and I think a lot
of people in the South are very close-­minded, and they don’t wanna look
around.”

Significance and Implications of the Study

The vast body of knowledge that exists exploring and informing the
dynamics of interracial engagement may not be enough for the benefit of
American students because, as the world is changing and becoming more
and more interdependent, it is important for them to learn to engage them-
selves with international students (Mori, 2000; Sandhu, 1995; Smith &
 Headbump or Headway? International Peers 205
Schonfeld, 2000). While the focus of encouraging interracial engagement
seems to be on making students color-­blinded, a key motivation of this
study is increasing appreciation of diversity by understanding students’
self-­motivations to make a conscious endeavor to engage in an opportunity
for human-­touch towards the greater good for humanity. Hence, as this
research reports, the good news is that global engagement can be dramati-
cally increased, if universities choose to address the heart of the problem by
taking the students-­up approach, provide the incentives to break the barri-
ers, and invest some resources to promote their sense of agency and choice.
Current campus culture, as can be delineated from the findings, shows
that on campus global engagement is happening only by serendipity. Cli-
quishness, ignorance, apathy, tendency to stick to one’s comfort zone,
holding on to stereotypes, and just following established habits bog down
the chances of cross-­cultural engagement on campus. However, the good
news is that the headbump factors (which can be visualized in the form
of eggs) are malleable. These eggs, which are bogging down the balloon
of global engagement, can easily break, and the balloon of global engage-
ment can take off. The study found that domestic students do have a
modicum of motivations to engage with their international peers, which
can be enhanced and promoted with the types of incentives appealing to
local students (e.g., money, medals, credit, or fun).

Break the Barriers—­How?

During the interviews and focus groups, students not only revealed the
perceived barriers, but also went ahead and suggested possible barrier
breakers. As heard in the students’ suggestions, four motivators emerged,
which are shown in Figure 13.2. The figure also shows the indications
towards breaking the respective “headbump” factors that confine them
to their cliques. Breaking barriers is “a tricky job,” as one of the students
indicated. From the participants’ stories of “figuring this out,” the nature
of barriers can be visualized as eggs as metaphorically described by a par-
ticipant. Now the question is: How to break those eggs? The challenge
can be thought of as someone taking an egg in their hand and trying to
crush it. Because of the nature of the egg, it doesn’t break in that way. An
egg is more robust to the compression force (push from outside) than it is
to the tensile force (push from inside). The barriers to global engagement
work exactly in the same way. As has been shown in Figure 13.2, when
students are informed about the long-­term benefits of global engagement
and are given enough incentives to address their motivations, they can
crack the code from inside, and global engagement can happen. Many
students acknowledged that if the project was not compulsory, they
would not have volunteered to participate and thus would very likely not
have had the opportunity to engage in intercultural communication and
benefited from it as they did. This is indicating that institutions are failing
 Four possible motivators to “break” headbumps: medals, credit, money, fun

Medal Credit
Cr

“I want to be “Do I get credit

ed

the winner!” for doing it?”

it

“I would never do it if
Meda
l

“Helped build
if wasn’t a significant part
my resume!”
of my assignment”
Headbumps
“Who would pay
me to go to an “Is it fun?”
y
n

Indian restaurant?”
“Eating together in the “I never imagined
Fu

Mone

ethnic restaurant was the it would be so much fun!”

turning point for me”
Money Fun

Use the forces that drive students: Ask them “Why”? Show them “How.” | Give them the choice and
agency: They are here to be successful and they are smart enough to crack the code!

Figure 13.2 Barrier Breakers

 Headbump or Headway? International Peers 207
in communicating this idea in a way that makes sense to local students so
that the students can invoke their own agency to break barriers.

Conclusion
The study findings suggest that with all the “othering” (Lave & Wenger,
1991) in place, domestic students do have some motivations to engage
with their international peers. The possibility of becoming global citizens
without leaving home can be a reality (Leask, 2009; Lutz, 2010). But
the students need to know where to start, know how to do it, and, in
fact, learn why. While student leaders have created mechanisms to break
barriers, e.g., the Global Garden initiative started at the same univer-
sity (Gaulee, 2015), barriers do exist. Interestingly, however, those stu-
dents who enjoyed engagement found that those barriers are malleable
(Gaulee, 2016). As participants indicated in this study, communication
and social engagement are absolutely possible despite language barriers.
Overall, it appears like the opportunity is obscured by some barriers,
the most important one being lack of awareness of the benefits of such
engagements that accrue to local students. The overarching revelation of
this research is that perceived barriers of engagement are either false (e.g.,
Chen, 2017; Li & Zizzi, 2018; Wang, 2017; Zhao et al., 2005) or malle-
able. This means that the perceived barriers can be easily broken when-
ever students choose to do so. However, it was also revealed that despite
the institutional commitment to foster internationalization as often out-
lined in the mission statements or quality enhancement plans, the existing
level of institutional effort to communicate to local students the reason
to interact with their international friends was not sufficiently accessible.
A small number of American students, however, “willingly” associated
themselves in the living-­learning communities that hosted international
students. Some implications coming out of the study are: (a) design ample
programmatic interventions in such a way that the agency and choice are
on students, (b) involve U.S. students in programs organized for inter-
national students, and (c) most importantly, communicate the long-­term
benefits of interacting with international peers. One question emerged
at the end of this study that remained unanswered and hence merits fur-
ther investigation: Do forced or required activities facilitate more global
engagement, or would it be better to keep the activities optional?

References
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of inter-
cultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experi-
ence (pp. 21–­71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bentao, Y. (2011). Internationalization at home. Chinese Education & Society,
44(5), 84–­96.
208 Uttam Gaulee
Chang, M. J. (2002). Preservation or transformation: Who’s the real educational
discourse on diversity? Review of Higher Education, 25(2), 125–­140.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Chen, Y. (2017). The complexities of engagement: Chinese undergraduate stu-
dents encountering US higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University).
Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evalu-
ating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
De Soto, W., Tajalli, H., & Villarreal, A. (2016). Do international studies stu-
dents have a broader global awareness than other college students? Journal of
Political Science Education, 12(2), 216–­229.
Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural compe-
tence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Gaulee, U. (2015). Creating space for global engagement: 2015–­1064 resolution
to rename “North Lawn” to “Global Garden.” Retrieved from https:/­/­zenodo.
org/­record/­1186359#.Wsr8otPwY8Y
Gaulee, U. (2016). American students’ experiences with their international peers
on campus: Understanding roadblocks, enhancing pathways of global engage-
ment. (Order No. 10408887). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & The-
ses A&I. (1876889135).
Hanneman, L., & Gardner, P. (2010). Under the economic turmoil a skills gap
simmers. Collegiate Employment Research Institute. Retrieved from www.ceri.
msu.edu/­wp-­content/­uploads/­2010/­01/­skillsabrief1-­2010.pdf
Jon, J. (2013). Realizing internationalization at home in Korean higher educa-
tion: Promoting domestic students’ interaction with international students and
intercultural competence. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(4),
455–­470. doi:10.1177/­1028315312468329
Kashima, E. S., & Loh, E. (2006). International students’ acculturation: Effects
of international, co-­national, and local ties and need for closure. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 471–­485.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participa-
tion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leask, B. (2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions
between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 13(2), 205–­221.
Lee, J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student percep-
tions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381–­409.
Li, S., & Zizzi, S. (2018). A case study of international students’ social adjust-
ment, friendship development, and physical activity. Journal of International
Students, 8(1), 389–­408.
Luo, J., & Jamieson-­Drake, D. (2013). Examining the educational benefits of
interacting with international students. Journal of International Students, 3(2),
85–­102.
Lutz, J. A. D. (2010). Becoming global citizens without leaving home. Teaching
in Higher Education, 15(6), 715–­720. doi:10.1080/­13562517.2010.522085
Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 137–­144.
 Headbump or Headway? International Peers 209
O’Donnell, A. M., Reeve, J., & Smith, J. K. (2011). Educational psychology:
Reflection for action. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Sandhu, D. S. (1995). An examination of the psychological needs of the interna-
tional students: Implications for counseling and psychotherapy. International
Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 17, 229–­239.
Smith, D. G., & Schonfeld, N. B. (2000). The benefits of diversity: What the
research tells us. About Campus, 5(5), 16–­23.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Wang, R. (2017). A comparison of engagement and overall institutional satisfac-
tion between Chinese international and domestic students in the United States.
(Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University).
Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. M. (2004). The experience of international students
in New Zealand: Report on the results of the national survey, Centre for
Applied Cross-­cultural Research and School of Psychology, Victoria Univer-
sity of Wellington, Wellington, Retrieved from www.educationcounts.govt.
nz/­publications/­international/­14700.
Westwood, M. J., & Barker, M. (1990). Academic achievement and social
adaptation among international students: A comparison groups study of the
peer-­pairing program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(2),
251–­263.
Williams, C. T., & Johnson, L. R. (2011). Why can’t we be friends? Multicultural
attitudes and friendships with international students. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 35(1), 41–­48.
Zhang, Z., & Brunton, M. (2007). Differences in living and learning: Chinese
international students in New Zealand. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 11, 124–­140.
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international
student and American student engagement in effective educational practices.
The Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 209–­231.
Part III

Rethinking International
Student Wellbeing
Experiences
14 Rethinking Student
Wellbeing Experiences
The Coping Strategies of
Black-­African International
Students
Denis Hyams-­Ssekasi and
Elizabeth Frances Caldwell

Introduction
African students are the third largest group of international students in
the UK, although much less research has been conducted on their experi-
ences and wellbeing than on that of other groups of students. The small
number of studies that have been done with Black-­African students have
found that the challenges they face while studying abroad differ some-
what from those of other groups of international students. For example,
one important difference is that the majority of African students study-
ing in the UK come from Anglophone countries and thus are fluent in
English, and so language proficiency is not the most pressing problem
for these students. This is in contrast to other groups of international
students for whom language is a major barrier to adjustment. However,
many Black-­African students face other challenges, such as racism and
significant financial pressures, which are not felt as keenly by other groups
of international students. Studies have also shown that these issues can
have a significant effect on students’ wellbeing during their international
sojourn (see Warren & Constantine, 2007).
According to Dodge, Daly, Huyton, and Sanders (2012), wellbeing
centers “on a state of equilibrium or balance that can be affected by
life events or challenges” (p. 222), whereas Fraillon (2004) views well-
being as a pervasiveness of positive psychological characteristics. All
international students may face periods of loneliness and homesickness
during their time away from their home countries, and institutions have
designed orientation programs and services to support students during
their sojourn. However, many international students still face significant
challenges during their time abroad that affect both their wellbeing and
academic performance. The aim of this chapter is to explore the wellbe-
ing of Black-­African international students by examining their experi-
ences of adjusting to academic and social life in the UK.
214 Denis Hyams-­Ssekasi and Elizabeth Frances Caldwell
Literature Review
The period of adjustment that students face when they enroll in a higher
education institution (HEI) has received a large amount of attention in
the literature (see Gregory, 2014 for a review). This process is particu-
larly acute for international students, who must adjust to the new culture
of the country as well as the institution (Brown & Holloway, 2008).
The phenomenon known as “culture shock” (Oberg, 1960) and the
adjustment process have been divided into various phases by a number
of authors (Bridges, 2003; Schlossberg, Waters, & Goodman, 1995; Van
Gennep, 1960). Kennedy and Ward (1998) posited that there are two
types of adjustment to a new culture: psychological and sociocultural,
and in addition, international students must also adjust to the academic
practices of their new institution (Gregory, 2014). To gain a holistic over-
view of the factors that affect the wellbeing of Black-­African students,
this chapter will explore their experiences using Gregory’s (2014) holistic
model of the student sojourn (see also Caldwell & Gregory, 2016). The
model aims to encapsulate the range of factors that influence a student’s
life when studying abroad and comprises four domains that impact the
international student experience: adjusting, achieving, interacting, and
leaving (see Table 14.1).

Adjusting
For Black-­African students, there are many challenges in adjusting psy-
chologically, socioculturally, and academically to student life abroad.
Many of the challenges for these students stem from large differences
between their home countries and the West, little prior experience of inter-
national travel, and a lack of information about what to expect. While
many of the adjustments to academic life are common to other groups of
international students, one particular cause for concern for many Black-­
African students is the significant financial pressure they experience while
studying aboard (Ambrosio, Marques, Santos, & Doutor, 2017; Blake,
2006, Maringe & Carter, 2007; Warren & Constantine, 2007). These
concerns often impact their ability to find suitable accommodation and

Table 14.1 The Four Domains of Gregory’s (2014) Holistic Model of the Inter-
national Student Sojourn (see also Caldwell & Gregory, 2016)

Domain Adjusting Achieving Interacting Leaving

Factors Psychological/­ Language With staff Identity

emotional
Sociocultural Academic skills With students Re-­entry
Academic Internationalization In society Employability
 Rethinking Student Wellbeing Experiences 215
concentrate on their studies. Students in Hyams-­Ssekasi, Mushibwe, and
Caldwell’s (2014) study described the psychological impact of financial
worries, including feeling harassed by demands for payment and “break-
ing down” (p. 7) from the stress of needing to find money to pay fees and
repay loans to friends and family. Moreover, as Ambrosio et al. (2017)
point out, a lack of funds means that students are unable to join in social
activities with other students, and this also affects their wellbeing.
A number of authors have pointed out that international students, and
Black-­African students in particular, often do not consult university coun-
seling services to help deal with these problems (Blake, 2006; Boafo-­Arthur,
2014; Fischer, 2011; Hyams-­Ssekasi et al., 2014; Lee & Opio, 2011, Mwara,
2008), at least in part due to the stigma that mental health issues hold in
many African cultures (Irungu, 2013; Wallace & Constantine, 2005;).
Instead, students prefer practical solutions such as financial assistance and
better information (Ambrosio et al., 2017; Hyams-­Ssekasi et al., 2014).
Studies have found that African students may also choose to conceal
their problems (Constantine, Okazaki, & Utsey, 2004; Irungu, 2013;
Hyams-­Ssekasi et al., 2014; Lee & Opio, 2011), as that is normal prac-
tice in many African cultures (Constantine et al., 2004; Fischer, 2011).
Alternatively, Black-­African international students may confide in co-­
nationals, or other Africans (Beoku-­Betts, 2006; Blake, 2006; Irungu,
2013). Another source of support for many Black-­African students is
their religious beliefs and practices (Fischer, 2011). A large proportion of
Black-­African students report that they are religious and turn to prayer
or a member of the clergy when in crisis (Hyams-­Ssekasi, 2012; War-
ren & Constantine, 2007). Religious organizations, such as churches,
also provide an important way for Black-­African students to meet locals,
co-­nationals, and other Africans (Hyams-­Ssekasi & Caldwell, 2018a).

Achieving
There are a number of factors that may act as barriers to achievement
for international students, including the English language, particular
assessment practices, academic skills, and a curriculum that is not cul-
turally inclusive (see Gregory, 2014 for a review). In particular, many
new students are unprepared for the amount of independent learning
that is required in Western higher education, and the stress of adjusting
to a new educational system has been termed “academic shock” (Fraser,
Quan, & Smailes, 2013). Furthermore, international students may find
that the curriculum in their host universities is “almost exclusively Anglo-­
centric . . . and that this view is presented as if it were universal” (Ryan,
2000, p. 58), whereas students would prefer culturally relevant content
(Dunn & Wallace, 2004).
For many international students, English language proficiency is a
key barrier to achieving academic success. For example, one study of
216 Denis Hyams-­Ssekasi and Elizabeth Frances Caldwell
international students found that as little as 10% of participants had
previously been taught in English, and as a result had difficulties with
listening to lectures and speaking in class (Zhang & Mi, 2010). In con-
trast, the majority of Black-­African students who study in the UK are
highly proficient in English as they come from countries where English is
a lingua franca, or they have been educated in English. Instead, for Black-­
African students, barriers to academic achievement stem from delayed
arrivals (Ambrosio et al., 2017), a lack of experience with, or access to,
IT facilities (Hyams-­Ssekasi et al., 2014), and discomfort at the amount
of independent learning, groupwork, and coursework that is expected
(Hyams-­Ssekasi et al., 2014; Ashong & Commander, 2017).

Interacting
In Gregory’s (2014) model, the interacting domain concerns the com-
munication and collaboration that occur between staff and students in
the academic context, as well as how students interact with people off
campus. Host national friends are an important source of information
about the host culture, whereas conational friends serve as a reminder
of home (Bochner, McLeod, & Lin, 1977). However, international stu-
dents often find it difficult to establish close ties with the domestic pop-
ulation, diminishing their levels of wellbeing and engagement (Leask,
2007).
In terms of interacting with staff, Black-­African students are often
uncomfortable with the informality with which students address aca-
demic staff in the UK, as they feel that it does not demonstrate adequate
respect for elders (Ashong & Commander, 2017; Hyams-­Ssekasi et al.,
2014; Mwara, 2008). Despite Black-­African students being proficient
in English, a number of authors have also noted that these students can
find accents problematic, particularly in interacting with local people,
off campus (Fischer, 2011; Mwara, 2008). A Black-­African student in
Blake’s (2006) study felt uncomfortable speaking in class in case the
other students laughed at their accent. As Mwara (2008) points out,
for some students it is the first time that they are aware that they have
an accent, and that despite being fluent, they speak a variant of Eng-
lish that is different to that spoken in the UK (see also Hyams-­Ssekasi
et al., 2014).
Black-­African students in the UK and U.S. have reported that they have
experienced a “chilly . . . classroom climate” (p. 154), with little interest
shown towards them by both staff and domestic students (Beoku-­Betts,
2006). Black-­African students also face a generally cool reception from
local people, and may also have to contend with overt hostility and rac-
ism impacting their wellbeing (Boafo-­Arthur, 2014; Lee &Opio, 2011).
However, studies from the UK have found fewer examples of this than in
the U.S. (Hyams-­Ssekasi et al., 2014; Maringe & Carter, 2007).
 Rethinking Student Wellbeing Experiences 217
Leaving
Much of the literature on the international student experience discusses
the initial period of adjustment that students go through after arriving
at the host institution. Much less attention has been paid to what hap-
pens when students contemplate graduation and returning to their home
countries. Unlike migrants who settle permanently, international students
are transient migrants who undergo a temporary stay in the host country
(Brown, 2009). Maringe and Carter (2007) found that returning home
with enhanced employment prospects is one of the main motivations
for African students to choose to study abroad, and according to ICEF
Monitor (2012), 89% of Nigerian students in the UK intend to return
to Nigeria after graduation. The Ghanaian students in Fischer’s (2011)
study reported a strong desire to return to their home countries and share
their knowledge, and Amazan (2014) found that Ethiopian returnees
were strongly motivated by the desire to give back to their countries and
to contribute to national development.
The intention to return home shapes both students’ identity and experi-
ence while abroad. These are particularly acute for both mature students
and those who study in the UK for only one year, such as postgraduate
students studying for master’s degrees (see Hyams-­Ssekasi et al., 2014).
Students must decide how much adaptation to the host country is neces-
sary to survive, and how much of their culture they should keep intact
so that they can easily fit in once home again. Keteku (2007) claims that
returning home from studying in the U.S. with an American accent is
“frowned upon almost everywhere in Africa, with such people regarded
as sellouts” (p. 6). Lee and Opio (2011) have pointed out that many
Black-­African students feel a tension between wanting to fit in with the
host culture and losing their cultural identity, something many are reluc-
tant to do (Beoku-­Betts, 2006).

Method
Data for this chapter were collected from one university in the UK,
which has been described in detail elsewhere (see Caldwell & Hyams-­
Ssekasi, 2016; Hyams-­Ssekasi, 2012). The study was conducted using
grounded theory to determine the sampling and analysis (Harry,
Sturges, & Klingner, 2005). Ethics approval was obtained from the
institution, and the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants
were protected. Black-­African international students were invited by
email to participate in semi-­structured interviews, lasting up to 1 hour
(see Caldwell & Hyams-­Ssekasi, 2016; Hyams-­Ssekasi, 2012). Snow-
balling was then used to recruit additional participants until saturation
was reached, and in total fifty participants were recruited for the study
(see Table 14.2).
218 Denis Hyams-­Ssekasi and Elizabeth Frances Caldwell
Table 14.2 Demographic Information of Study Participants

Country of Origin Age Degree Gender TOTAL

< 21 > 21 UG PG Male Female

Angola 1 1 1 1
Cameroon 1 1 1 1
Democratic Republic of Congo 2 2 1 1 2
Gambia 4 4 3 1 4
Ghana 6 6 3 3 6
Kenya 2 1 1 2 2
Nigeria 1 12 12 1 6 7 13
South Africa 2 2 1 1 2
Sudan 1 3 4 1 3 4
Uganda 1 1 1 1
Zambia 6 6 1 5 6
Zimbabwe 3 5 8 5 3 8
TOTAL 7 43 48 2 22 28 50

Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify

recurring themes in the dataset (Braun & Clarke, 2006). A number of key
themes emerged, some of which have been discussed and published else-
where. The themes included: deciding to study abroad (Hyams-­Ssekasi &
Caldwell, 2018b); leaving home (Caldwell & Hyams-­Ssekasi, 2016); and
adjusting and adapting once in the UK. It is the latter theme that will be
discussed in this chapter.

Findings and Discussion

In the following section, the experiences of Black-­African international
students from our study will be presented and examined in terms of each
of the four domains of the holistic model of the student sojourn: adjust-
ing, achieving, interacting, and leaving (Gregory, 2014; Caldwell &
Gregory, 2016) (see Table 14.1).

Adjusting
For the students who participated in the study, the first few weeks in
the UK hold a number of practical challenges, including finding suitable
accommodation and food and keeping warm. As one of the students
explained:

I’m not an independent person, I have been living with my family; my

Mum does everything for me. I do not know how I am going to cope
living in the halls of residence where I have to do everything such as
buying food, cooking, washing et cetera.
[Student 34, Nigeria]
 Rethinking Student Wellbeing Experiences 219
Another student reported that they existed for the first two weeks on only
“a bottle of Sprite and biscuits” [Student 50, Cameroon], and others ate
only fast food as they did not know where to buy food or were too scared
to go out in case they got lost. Many students also described finding
the cold and damp weather in the UK difficult to cope with. A number
reported inadequate heating in their accommodation, and that they were
not told that their accommodation would not provide bedding: one stu-
dent described sleeping in his coat for the first night.
The many practical challenges, combined with culture shock and
homesickness that many Black-­African students report during the adjust-
ment period, can lead to isolation, loneliness, and depression. As one
student explained: “I knew something was wrong with me; I wasn’t read-
ing; all I did was watch telly to keep my mind off things. I couldn’t sleep
at night. I couldn’t handle it. I cried every day” [Student 29, Nigeria].
As mentioned in the literature review, previous studies have found that
Black-­African students rarely consult university counseling services for
support (Blake, 2006; Boafo-­Arthur, 2014; Fischer, 2011; Hyams-­Ssekasi
et al., 2014; Lee & Opio, 2011, Mwara, 2008). Instead, it is common
for students to “suffer in silence” (Irungu, 2013, p. 173) and conceal
their problems from university staff. Two students in the current study
explained why this was the case for them:

I always keep quiet even when I desperately want something. In my

culture we are not expected to ask or demand anything because we
all know the answer will be no—­hence we do not bother—­just let go
and assume there is nothing we really want.
[Student 26, Nigeria]

I would rather keep quiet or talk to my fellow countrymen than say-

ing something and others laughing at me.
[Student 4, Zambia]

As the last quote demonstrates, the students considered co-­nationals a

more suitable avenue for support than British students and university
staff. Those students who had not met any co-­nationals instead sought
support from other Africans and were often surprised about their com-
monalities of experience despite not being from the same country. One
student described their experience as follows:

One day, I met a lady from Nigeria and through her I met three other
people from Africa. Meeting these people from Africa has changed
my life completely. They came earlier than me and seem to know
more than I. I can talk to them about my problems and they have
helped me with sorting out my problems like accommodation.
[Student 7, Gambia]
220 Denis Hyams-­Ssekasi and Elizabeth Frances Caldwell
Achieving
In addition to adjusting socially and culturally, Black-­African students
must also adapt to a different academic environment. Students described
this as having to learn to operate in a new system, which was something
that they had to master in addition to studying their subject content. As
one student explained:

I have to work extra hard because in some of the subjects I have more
to learn as I am a foreigner . . . so I have to learn about the University
as well as the subject . . . it seems a different ball game here . . . most
of the system is done through assignments . . . with no examinations.
[Student 6, Zambia]

A common source of problems for a number of the Black-­African stu-

dents in the current study was a lack of experience with, or access to, IT
facilities. The following experiences from participants illustrate this:

But when you are from Africa you never had an opportunity to buy
or have a computer at home and even when you went to work it was
not even a white collar job. I probably had around 5% knowledge of
the computer, but it was, and still is, hard to use a computer.
[Student 23, Congo]

I go to the library but I still can’t get my way around accessing latest
journals, E-­books and the rest using the computer.
[Student 25, Uganda]

This lack of confidence and skills with the IT systems that students are
expected to use was also found in Hyams-­Ssekasi et al.’s (2014) study
of Black-­African students. However, in the current study an additional
worry for students was their lack of experience in typing:

We were not told that we have to type our coursework. However, a

friend told me about it and I was scared to death because my typing
skills are near to zero.
[Student 13, Sudan]

I cannot imagine myself typing my assignments. I had a secretary and

her role was to type my work.
[Student 7, Gambia]

To overcome hurdles such as these, students often explained they would

just have to work harder:

I want to do well and that is why I have to work harder, learn how
to use a computer . . . I know they don’t expect much from the
 Rethinking Student Wellbeing Experiences 221
international students, so I do feel the need to excel sometimes, just
to show them.
[Student 31, Nigeria]

Despite the initial academic adjustment, the students often came to

appreciate the intellectual independence fostered by the UK system;
however, some students criticized the institutions and the curriculum
for being too “White” and not including enough global and interna-
tional perspectives, a point also noted by Dunn and Wallace (2004).
They also commented that the lack of Black staff meant that they felt
there was a lack of representation for African students (see Hyams-­
Ssekasi et al., 2014).

Interacting
A prominent theme in the Black-­African students’ narratives was of a
difficulty connecting with British people, both on and off campus. Stu-
dents reported struggling with the common practice of calling faculty by
their first names. One student commented, “It is actually hard for me
to call them by their first names” [Students 14, Sudan]. Furthermore,
the students found that international students were not well integrated
with the domestic students. Many students reported that “the English
students sit on one side and the international students on the other side”
[Student 23, Congo]. One student summarized the situation as: “they
(British Students) really give us (African students) the cold shoulder, no
smiling, no relationship at all” [Student 32, Nigeria]. This included Black
British students, who were described as having “their own groups” and
“not interested” [Student 27, Nigeria] in befriending Black-­African inter-
national students.
One student pointed out that the lack of interest in talking to inter-
national students in class was due to a fear of getting “a lower mark if
they end up doing group work with them” [Student 25, Uganda]. The
students in the current study felt domestic students not only viewed them
as international students who are often less proficient in English, but
also discriminated against them for being Black-­African. As one student
explained:

I think there is a negative attitude towards African people. They don’t

see you as a person but just as someone poor and not intelligent.
[Student 46, Zimbabwe]

The rebuff that many students felt left them feeling isolated and lonely,
and one participant reported that their only social engagement outside
lectures was attending our research interview. This echoes the comments
made by a student in Beoku-­Betts (2006) that their “social life was almost
222 Denis Hyams-­Ssekasi and Elizabeth Frances Caldwell
zero” (p. 154). The inability to make friends also dented the confidence
of students, as one participant explains:

My friends back home think that I am an extrovert and easy to make

friends . . . But that perception is proved wrong. I find it very dif-
ficult to start a conversation or to be involved. I guess this has to do
with the fear of others not able to understand me when I speak in my
African accent or appreciate me as an African.
[Student 48, Zimbabwe]

Being treated as a foreigner led to many of the students having a feeling

of social demotion (Ambrosio et al., 2017; Hyams-­Ssekasi et al., 2014;
Mwara, 2008). Students reported feeling like a “second class citizen” and
being “looked down upon” [Student 23, Congo]. One student expressed
their frustration as follows:

My country helped build this country, but you are treated as not even
a second class citizen . . . here, they look at you like you are nothing,
and it annoys me.
[Student 29, Nigeria]

Black-­African students also had to contend with being conflated with the
negative media discourses around migration and refugees (Kyriakides,
2017):

Over here, because you are a foreigner, you are treated with a low
level of respect. And we come here for various reasons, but they
think we are all refugees.
[Student 49, Angola]

These negative experiences and the resulting exclusion and isolation of

Black-­African international students studying in both the UK and U.S.
have been reported in many of the previous studies of Black-­African
students (Beoku-­Betts, 2006; Boafo-­Arthur, 2014; Hyams-­Ssekasi et al.,
2014; Irungu, 2013; Lee & Opio, 2011; Maringe & Carter, 2007;
Mwara, 2008). This is clearly an area that requires more attention by
institutions, in order to enhance the integration of Black-­African students
and thus reduce their sense of isolation.

Leaving
Many students in the current study mentioned that they did not intend
to stay in the UK on a permanent basis, and intended either to return
to their home countries or to migrate elsewhere. Some students spoke
of wanting to return home to share the knowledge and skills they had
 Rethinking Student Wellbeing Experiences 223
gained during their sojourn, echoing the findings of Amazan (2014) and
Fischer (2011):

I always say take what you can from the University and then go
and help other people back in Africa who cannot get the same
opportunity.
[Student 31, Nigeria]

A number of students spoke of wanting to return home to ensure their

children had an African upbringing, founded on strong morals but com-
bined with more freedom that is possible than in the UK:

No, I can’t bring up my children in this country. They are not free
here, they can’t play in the street, they can’t do anything.
[Student 22, South Africa]

When contemplating the return home, students’ thoughts turned to

their employability. Having had so many of their expectations dashed by
the disappointments and challenges of studying abroad, some students
voiced doubts over the extent to which their international sojourn would
actually translate to their employment prospects. For example, two
students relayed the experiences of people they knew who had already
graduated:

I have a friend that graduated and got a degree from this school and
nobody is helping her. It (the university) should give opportunities
and tools for those who have paid a lot of money.
[Student 30, Nigeria]

He (husband) has finished his studies, he is a qualified chartered

accountant now, and he is looking for a job but most of the places
for jobs are in the South.
[Student 41, Nigeria]

The majority of students had found that their international sojourn had
not lived up to their hopes, and so, in the absence of a fulfilling social life
abroad, they adopted a strategy of concentrating on their academic work
and trusting in their religious faith to keep them going until the end of
their studies, when they could return home.

Conclusion
International students studying abroad face many challenges to adapt
and survive in the host culture. However, it is clear some of these chal-
lenges, such as racism, financial pressures, and a lack of IT experience,
224 Denis Hyams-­Ssekasi and Elizabeth Frances Caldwell
are particularly acute for some Black-­African students, impacting their
academic, economic, and social wellbeing. In contrast, although accents
may make it more difficult to connect with local people in the UK, Eng-
lish language proficiency is less of a concern for students from African
Anglophone countries than for students from China or the Middle East
(Zhang & Mi, 2010). Overall, it seems Black-­African students have
fewer concerns within the academy, but potentially more challenges out-
side of it.
To overcome these problems, Black-­African students have developed
a number of coping strategies to boost their wellbeing while studying
abroad, such as forming networks with other Africans and working
harder to overcome obstacles. Interestingly, these strategies all stem from
the students’ own resources and initiative and rarely involve the services
or facilities provided by universities such as counseling services, faith
groups, or even orientation events. As such, universities should approach
supporting Black-­African students with a more holistic view and provide
them with more support for life outside the lecture hall as well as better
enable them to develop supportive social networks and to promote their
wellbeing.
Universities could support international students and in particular
Black-­ African students by providing better information for students
about the practicalities of living in the UK such as assisting with accom-
modation, self-­catering, or bedding. On arrival, international students
should receive more practical support to enable them to navigate the
local community such as help to learn where to buy food and other essen-
tial items. Unlike some groups of international students who arrive as
cohorts from the same institution, Black-­African students often arrive
alone and are the only students from their country on their course. Uni-
versities could, however, do more to help these students to meet other
African students through social events and a contact service. Many stu-
dents suggested having a designated person at the university to contact
who understood the challenges they faced as African students and could
provide practical advice in the first few weeks as well as link them to
other African students. In addition, universities could provide better sign-
posting to faith groups and facilities for students on campus. It is hoped
that by examining the lived experiences of international students and
better understanding the challenges they face, universities may enhance
the services they provide so that Black-­African international students can
have more positive educational experiences abroad and a landscape that
promotes their wellbeing.

References
Amazan, R. (2014). When the diaspora returns: Analysis of Ethiopian returnees
and the need for highly skilled labour in Ethiopia. In B. Streitwieser (Ed.),
 Rethinking Student Wellbeing Experiences 225
Internationalisation of higher education and global mobility (pp. 169–­185).
Oxford: Symposium Books.
Ambrosio, S., Marques, J. F., Santos, L., & Doutor, C. (2017). Higher Education
Institutions and international students’ hindrances: A case of students from the
African Portuguese-­speaking countries at two European Portuguese universi-
ties. Journal of International Students, 7(2), 367–­394.
Ashong, C., & Commander, N. (2017). Brazilian and Nigerian international stu-
dents’ conceptions of learning in higher education. Journal of International
Students, 7(2), 163–­187.
Beoku-­Betts, J. (2006). African women pursuing graduate studies in the sciences:
Racism, gender bias, and third world marginality. In J. M. Bird & S. R. Bys-
tydzienski (Eds.), Removing barriers: Women in academic science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (pp. 142–­160). Bloomington, IN: Indiana Uni-
versity Press.
Blake, A. C. (2006). The experiences and adjustment problems of Africans at a
historically Black institution. College Student Journal, 40, 808–­813.
Boafo-­Arthur, S. (2014). Acculturative experiences of Black African international
students. International Journal of Advanced Counseling, 36, 115–­124.
Bochner, S., McLeod, B., & Lin, A. (1977). Friendship patterns of overseas stu-
dents, International Journal of Psychology, 12, 277–­294.
Bridges, W. (2003). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualita-
tive Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–­101. doi:10.1191/­1478088706qp063oa
Brown, L. (2009). The transformative power of the international sojourn: An
ethnographic study of the international student experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 36(3), 502–­521. doi:10.1016/­j.annals.2009.03.002
Brown, L., & Holloway, I. (2008). The adjustment journey of international postgrad-
uate students at an English university An ethnographic study. Journal of Research
in International Education, 7(2), 232–­249. doi:10.1177/­1475240908091306
Caldwell, E. F., & Gregory, J. (2016). Internationalizing the art school: What part
does the studio have to play? Art, Design & Communication in Higher Educa-
tion, 15(2), 117–­133. doi:10.1386/­adch.15.2.117_1
Caldwell, E. F., & Hyams-­Ssekasi, D. (2016). Leaving home: The challenges of
Black-­African international students prior to studying overseas. Journal of
International Students, 6(2), 588–­613.
Constantine, M. G., Okazaki, S., & Utsey, S. O. (2004). Selfconcealment, social
self-­efficacy, acculturative stress, and depression in African, Asian, and Latin
American international college students. American Journal of Orthopsychia-
try, 74, 230–­241.
Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. (2012). The challenge of defining
wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(3), 222–­235.
Dunn, L., & Wallace, M. (2004). Australian academics teaching in Singapore:
Striving for cultural empathy. Innovations in Education & Teaching Interna-
tional, 41(3), 291–­304.
Fischer, N. (2011). Pre-­and post-­migration attitudes among Ghanaian interna-
tional students living in the United States: A study of acculturation and psycho-
logical wellbeing. Virginia Commonwealth University Theses and Dissertations,
Paper 2551.Retrieved from http:/­/­scholarscompass.vcu.edu/­etd/­2551/­
226 Denis Hyams-­Ssekasi and Elizabeth Frances Caldwell
Fraillon, J. (2004). Measuring student well-­being in the context of Australian
schooling: Discussion paper. Retrieved from www.curriculum.edu.au/­verve/­_
resources/­Measuring_Student_Well-­Being_in_the_Context_of_Australian_
Schooling.pdf
Fraser, W., Quan, R., & Smailes, J. (2013). The transition experiences of direct
entrants from overseas higher education partners into UK universities. Teach-
ing in Higher Education, 18(4). doi:10.1080/­13562517.2012.752729
Gregory, J. (2014). Towards a holistic model of the international student sojourn,
MA dissertation, Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield. Retrieved from
https:/­/­huddersfieldinternational.files.wordpress.com/­2014/­08/­towards-­a-­
holistic-­model-­of-­the-­international-­student-­sojourn.pdf
Harry, B., Sturges, K. M., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Mapping the process: An
exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Researcher,
34, 3–­13.
Hyams—­Ssekasi, D., & Caldwell, E. F. (2018b). Should I stay or should I go?
The quandary for Black-­African International students studying in the UK. In
C. A. Rose-­Redwood & R. Rose-­Redwood (Eds.), International encounters:
Higher education and the international student experience. Rowman & Lit-
tlefield. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hyams-­Ssekasi, D. (2012). The transition of international Sub-­Saharan Afri-
can students into the UK University system with reference to a university in
the North of England. (Doctoral thesis). University of Huddersfield. Retrieved
from http:/­/­eprints.hud.ac.uk/­17493/­
Hyams-­Ssekasi, D., & Caldwell, E. F. (2018a). Staying connected: The impor-
tance of religion for Black-­African international students. Journal of Interna-
tional Students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hyams-­Ssekasi, D., Mushibwe, C. P., & Caldwell, E. F. (2014). International edu-
cation in the UK: The challenges of the golden opportunity for Black-­African
students. Sage Open, 4(4), 1–­13.
ICEF Monitor. (2012, April 11). Number of Nigerians studying in UK will nearly
double by 2015. Retrieved from http:/­/­monitor.icef.com/­2012/­04/­number-­of-­
nigerians-­studying-­inuk-­will-­nearly-­double-­by-­2015/­
Irungu, J. (2013). African students in the US higher education system: A win-
dow of opportunities and challenges. In H. C. Alberts & H. D. Hazen (Eds.),
International students and scholars in the United States: Coming from abroad
(pp. 163–­180). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
Kennedy, C., & Ward, A. (1998). The U-­curve on trial: A longitudinal study
of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-­cultural transition.
International Journal of intercultural Relations, 11(2), 166–­180.
Keteku, N. (2007). Africa’s push-­pull factors—­or it is pull-­push? Influences on Afri-
can students’ decisions to study in the United States. World Education News &
Reviews. Retrieved from http:/­/­wenr.wes.org/­2007/­08/­wenr-­august-­2007-­feature
Kyriakides, C. (2017). Words don’t come easy: Al Jazeera’s migrant—­refugee
distinction and the European culture of (mis)trust. Current Sociology, 65(7),
933–­952.
Leask, B (2007, September 10–­11). A Holistic Approach to Internationalisation—­
Connecting Institutional Policy and the Curriculum with the Everyday Reality
of Student Life, Education for Sustainable Development: Graduates as Global
Citizens, Conference held at Bournemouth University.
 Rethinking Student Wellbeing Experiences 227
Lee, J., & Opio, T. (2011). Coming to America: Challenges and difficulties faced
by African student athletes. Sport, Education and Society, 16, 629–­644.
Maringe, F., & Carter, S. (2007). International students’ motivations for studying
in UK HE: Insights into the choice and decision making of African students.
International Journal of Educational Management, 21, 459–­475.
Mwara, J. N. (2008). Non-­traditional age Black African international students’
experiences: Phenomenological heuristic inquiry. Adult Education Research
Conference Proceeding. Retrieved from www.adulterc.org/­Proceedings/­2008/­
Proceedings/­Mwaura.pdf
Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new environments. Practical
Anthropology, 7, 177–­182.
Ryan, J. (2000). A guide to teaching international students. Oxford: Oxford
Brookes University.
Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, N. J. (1995). Counseling adults
in transition: Linking practice with theory (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. London, UK. Routledge and Kegan.
Wallace, B. C., & Constantine, M. G. (2005). Africentric cultural values, psy-
chological help-­seeking attitudes, and self-­concealment in African American
college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 31, 369–­385.
Warren, K. A., & Constantine, M. G. (2007). Counseling African international
students. In D. H. Singaravelu & M. Pope (Eds.), A handbook for counseling
international students in the United States (pp. 211–­222). Alexandria, VA:
American Counseling Association.
Zhang, Y., & Mi, Y. (2010). Another Look at the Language Difficulties of Interna-
tional Students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 371–­388.
15 International Students’
Mental Health
An Australian Case Study
of Singaporean Students’
Perceptions
Jiamin Gan and Helen Forbes-­Mewett

Introduction
There can be “no health without mental health” (Prince, Patel, Saxena,
Maj, Maselko, Phillips, & Rahman, 2007, p. 859). Recently, Australian
university counseling services reported an increase in students with “seri-
ous psychological problems” and significantly higher emotional prob-
lems than previous cohorts (Forbes-­Mewett & Sawyer, 2016). This calls
for greater attention to be paid to the deteriorating mental health among
university students (Landstedt, Coffey, & Nygren, 2016). This concern-
ing social issue includes those with backgrounds who do not always
acknowledge the existence of mental health issues.
In Australia, mental health has been defined as “a state of emotional
and social well-­being in which the individual can cope with the normal
stresses of life and achieve his potential” (Australian Health Ministers,
2008, p. 5, as cited in Barkway (2009)), whereas mental illness is defined
as a health condition that has been diagnosed according to standardized
criteria. It affects an individual’s thinking, feelings, and/­or behavior and
causes distress and difficulty in daily functioning (Mental Health Foun-
dation of Australia, Victoria, 2016). The terms mental illness and men-
tal disorder (which include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major
depression) are used interchangeably in this chapter as there is no funda-
mental difference, and they are both subsets of illness or disorder (Kend-
ell, 1993; American Psychiatric Association, 1994).
Higher education institutions now encompass more culturally and
socially diverse student populations. The term international students
typically refers to those who have traveled to another country for ter-
tiary study (Ryan & Carroll, 2005). Australia, as a higher education hub,
continues to attract many international students (Urbanovič, Wilkins, &
Huisman, 2016). As of 2017 (June), there are 262,158 international
students in Australia’s higher education sector (Department of Educa-
tion and Training, 2017). In 2014–­2015, international education was
Australia’s third largest export (DET, 2016). This extensive economic
 International Students’ Mental Health 229
contribution calls for a focus on international students’ wellbeing and a
positive reputation for Australia’s education institutions (Sawir, 2005).
A specific group of international students was selected for this study to
consider how culture can influence individual perceptions (Jandt, 2015).
Narrowing to a single country will help to understand how people from
a similar culture approach mental health issues. Singapore was ranked in
the top ten nationalities for higher education international student enroll-
ments in 2015 (DET, 2015); yet, this group of students has yet to be
understood as a community in Australia.

Literature Review
International students have been identified as a group at high risk of men-
tal illness during their time at university (Mori, 2000). Research reported
that international students face higher risks of poor mental health than
domestic students (Rosenthal, Russell, & Thomson, 2008). Upon arrival,
they often face distress from challenges such as language and cultural bar-
riers, social isolation, loneliness, and financial pressures (Hyun, Quinn,
Madon, & Lustig, 2007; Sawir, Marginson, Deumert, Nyland, & Ramia,
2008). These challenges are often magnified by international students’
movement away from family, and adjustments in a foreign environment
can increase risks of mental health problems. Poor mental health can
affect students’ confidence, motivation, and concentration, which can
impact their ability to succeed in their education (Simpson & Ferguson,
2014). For this reason, it is important to understand international stu-
dents’ perceptions of mental health and further identify the challenges
they face in order to support their needs.
Research findings have mostly supported the fact that international stu-
dents face higher levels of anxiety and mental health problems compared
to domestic students (Khawaja & Dempsey, 2008; Forbes-­Mewett &
Sawyer, 2016). It has also been shown that international students were
generally associated with low help-­seeking behaviors (Aguiniga, Mad-
den, & Zellmann, 2016). Two basic trends were found. First, interna-
tional students tended to avoid or delay seeking professional help until
urgent attention was needed (Forbes-­Mewett & Sawyer, 2016). Second,
they preferred to seek help from informal sources such as friends and
family. This reluctance to seek help can be associated with the stigma
around mental health issues.
Although culture is of critical importance in understanding stigma,
few studies have examined the impact of culture on stigma (Abdullah &
Brown, 2011). Culture is used instead of ethnicity or race as there are
values that are often deeply embedded in one’s primary culture. In Chong
et al.’s (2007) study on Singaporeans, results suggested that out of the
three main racial groups, Chinese participants were more likely to hold
the belief of dangerousness with mentally ill people. “Face” or “image,”
230 Jiamin Gan and Helen Forbes-­Mewett
which is defined as the public self-­image that people wish to portray to
be approved by others (Ji, 2000), as well as the fear of being labeled were
identified as primary reasons for not seeking help (Forbes-­Mewett &
Sawyer, 2016).
This study focuses on international Singaporean university students in
Melbourne. It considers different understandings and influences of men-
tal health and mental illness; perceptions that are influenced by culture
and stigma; and mental health help-­seeking behaviors.

Method
Much of the literature relating to student mental health has relied on
surveys designed to measure mental health stigma and attitudes. How-
ever, quantitative data collection methods often poorly translate people’s
actual behavior and perceptions (Bryman, 2016). We take a qualitative
approach involving interviews that garnered information and meaning
through conversation. It pays heed to the notion that people are self-­
reflexive subjects with the ability to reflect on themselves and their sur-
roundings and allows a focus on understanding the social world by
examining and interpreting the participants’ insights (Bryman, 2016).
Participants were international undergraduate students from Singa-
pore who were studying in Melbourne. They included five males and five
females aged between 20 and 25 years. Both convenience and snowball
sampling methods were employed to recruit the participants through an
email that was sent to established contacts in the Melbourne Singaporean
student community.
The study involved a series of ten semi-­structured interviews, approxi-
mately 30 minutes each in duration. A set of fourteen questions guided
the face-­to-­face, semi-­structured interviews. Participants answered open-­
ended questions about their views on what constitutes mental health,
perceptions on help-­seeking, stigma attached to mental health and ill-
ness, awareness of mental health support services, and awareness of any
cultural influences or concerns Singaporeans may have towards mental
health and illness. The interviews were conducted in English, audiotaped,
and verbatim transcribed prior to data analysis.

Findings

Different Understandings and Influences of

Mental Health and Mental Illness
Different themes emerged in relation to the terms mental health and mental
illness. There were diverse explanations perceived by participants on what
they understood mental health to be. Mental health was commonly viewed
as “general well-­being,” “this basic level that you can sustain yourself,”
 International Students’ Mental Health 231
and “an aspect of health that everyone has.” On the other hand, mental
illness was commonly described as “not something you can see,” “clini-
cally proven,” “unsound mind,” “impairments,” along with psychiatric
conditions such as depression and anxiety. Most participants viewed men-
tal health as somewhat more positive than mental illness, although par-
ticipants were at times uncertain about differentiating between the terms.

Influences Behind Participants’ Understanding

of Mental Health
Several participants implied that their perceptions and knowledge of
mental health and mental illness were drawn from television shows and
other forms of media. For example:

I think a lot of the times, the ideas we get of mental health are from
dramas when we watch television and they start showing this person
who’s really crazy or really sad and they want to commit suicide . . .
When you expose the kids who are very impressionistic to all things
then we will automatically form a perception of it.
(Keith)

As noted by Aguiniga, Madden, and Zellmann (2016), students who

received their primary mental health education from the media were
more likely to believe that the content portrayed on television was real-
istic. Other participants had a similar reasoning for their lack of under-
standing towards mental health:

Normally you don’t see the problem, only on TV and stuff. Some-
times you think that they are exaggerating the issue. But when you
actually see it, you realize how easy it is to actually become depressed.
(Lauren)

These explanations are consistent with Diefenbach and West’s (2007)

study, which revealed how the media influences public perceptions
towards mental health issues by presenting the mentally ill as “crazy,”
“sad,” and “suicidal.” While the impact of media platforms was influen-
tial for some, others indicated that cultural influences played an impor-
tant role in forming views about mental health and mental illness. This
finding, however, was not representative of all in the current study. Some
participants stated that they were either unaware or unsure of where to
find on campus mental health services:

I wouldn’t call the local counselling hotline, at least for me. And
I don’t even know how to call the emergency hotline. I don’t even
know the number.
(Caleb)
232 Jiamin Gan and Helen Forbes-­Mewett
Most participants shared that their encounters with someone with a
mental health problem changed their perceptions. The following partici-
pant shared that two of her very “capable” and “perfect” friends were
suffering from an eating disorder and mild depression. Tiffany’s interac-
tions with her friends who struggled with mental illness made her realize
that it is often indiscriminate:

To me, it’s not like people who suffer from mental illnesses are weak
or any way inferior that they are subjected to like these mood swings
or whatever. Seriously, it can happen to the best of us and I suppose
the interaction with these two people who are so stellar in their aca-
demics and everything. It made me realise that it affects everyone.
(Tiffany)

Some participants also recognized that if they had not invested time
and as one put it, “journeyed with their friends,” they would not have
known that these people were actually suffering from mental illnesses. It
was commented that mental illness is not something that you can “visu-
ally notice” or “see on the surface.” One participant explained:

When you first meet them, actually the mentally ill don’t always
come across as though they are mentally unsound . . . it’s only [over]
an extended period of time and then you realise . . . you will not be
able to tell unless you live [with them] and hear the stories.
(Charles)

Prior to meeting people who struggled with mental health, some par-
ticipants had assumed that it was the individual’s “own issues,” “stub-
bornness,” or “finding an excuse.” As explained by Keith:

[Previously] my idea of mental health was that it must be the person.

But I realised that after meeting all of them . . . a lot of reasons why
they actually suffer from mental illness could be because of family
history, tough childhood . . . they don’t have a good family or social
support that they could turn to.
(Keith)

Before their encounters, participants admitted they had negative impres-

sions about the mentally ill. These interactions portrayed a change in par-
ticipants’ attitudes towards the mentally ill. Nonetheless, these findings
suggest that mental illness was generally still not understood well among
the participating Singaporean international students. A participant attrib-
uted their poor understanding as the reason for mental health stigma:

I think people don’t really know how to handle when someone says
“actually I am depressed.” Their initial reaction is to always down-
play it which makes their friends feel not understood . . . They’ll
 International Students’ Mental Health 233
either say “oh it’s not that bad” or they will get overly concern and
say “oh don’t kill yourself.” Generally for Singaporeans, we don’t
know how to react when people try to voice out their internal strug-
gles . . . The awareness to respond is not there.
(Tiffany)

Perceptions Deeply Tied With Culture:

Mental Health Stigma Persists
It seems that mental health stigma varies across culture. All participants
reported that young Singaporeans were not comfortable with talking to a
mental health professional about their mental health issues and found it
hard to express their feelings. Most responses were associated with how
culture has significantly affected participants’ perspectives about mental
health, leading to their decision in seeking professional help.
Relocation to a different culture and environment emerged as one of
the reasons for participants’ knowledge and understanding of mental
health. Some participants specifically attributed their time in Australia to
their increased knowledge of mental health.

Because Singaporeans don’t really seek counsellors . . . but down

here [Australia], everyone encourages you to go speak to someone if
you need help, so I just wanted to speak to someone. So I think that
perception changed when I moved from Singapore to here.
(Rachel)

“A Western Kind of Thing”

Some participants also mentioned that Australia has a more “open” cul-
ture when it comes to mental health and wellbeing. Being in such an envi-
ronment allowed them to experience the importance of mental health as
compared to back in Singapore, where mental health is seldom discussed:

Singaporeans don’t have a bit of this idea of reflection on one’s emo-

tional and mental well-­being. But the positive thing is people going
to university and for us coming to Australia, we realised that we have
not cared for things like our soul, health, emotional needs . . . I guess
there is some diffusion of that.
(Charles)

This perspective supports the work of Yeoh and Doan (2013, p. 31),
where participants indicated that “being educated in Australia had
enhanced their health knowledge and familiarity to Australian health
care system.”
Through their explanations, participants started to identify what they
thought was different between Singapore and Australia in relation to mental
234 Jiamin Gan and Helen Forbes-­Mewett
health. Several participants indicated that Singaporeans in general were not
accustomed to expressing their feelings due to the conservative culture and
“the whole mental well-­being thing being a very Western thing”:

In Asian culture, what is a mental problem? It’s a very Western thing,

like how are you feeling, your mental well-­being, it is non-­existent.
Especially in the older generations, they don’t care. For young Sin-
gaporeans, we are more open-­minded, but we are kind of stuck in
between the generation changings. We still have Asian roots but we
are more educated and aware of these sorts of things like mental
health and stuff. So I think it’s transitioning for us. We are in that
awkward in-­between zone.
(Tiffany)

It was interesting to hear that participants viewed Singapore as “very

Asian” despite its identification as a globalized country with a high Eng-
lish literacy rate (Chong et al., 2007). Participants shared that the Asian
“conservative” culture makes it harder for them to speak about their
mental health issues:

I don’t think my friends around me will be comfortable, they are not

really exposed to this idea of seeking help from counsellors.
(Rachel)

However, a positive point to draw attention to is the influence of study-

ing in a Western society such as Australia. As mentioned, the influence
of culture and environment has led to some participants realizing the
importance of mental health:

I think being here itself is already a good thing. By having greater

exposure of whatever messages, already improves the ideas that
international students have of mental health. So it makes us aware of
the condition in the first place.
(Theodore)

A Meritocratic Culture: Self-­Reliance

The influences of a meritocratic society and culture of self-­reliance are
reflected considerably in how young Singaporeans deal with mental
health issues. Meritocracy has been a key ideology in Singapore. The
approach is based on a practice of rewarding individual merit with jobs,
income, and prestige (Tan, 2008). The focus on efficiency and competi-
tion to secure individual rewards and future prospects has greatly influ-
enced young Singaporeans’ attitudes in life:

The culture places importance on academic qualifications and it adds

on more stress on young people to perform up to expectations.
(Theodore)
 International Students’ Mental Health 235
We don’t want to lose to others . . . There’s this motto of getting
number one.
(Charles)

These words capture how the fast pace of Singapore’s society has led
them to neglect their health:

When you are living in Singapore, it’s very fast paced. The general
attitude or atmosphere is that we don’t have time to sort out your
mental problems. . . . The thinking is that if they take time out to seek
a professional for help, it’s going to take too much time away from
whatever it is I’m doing. And in Singapore, the mind-­set is always “if
it doesn’t work, try or work harder.”
(Tiffany)

Tiffany asserted that the dependence on meritocracy for progress and

advancements in jobs adds to the stress and accumulation of poor mental
health. There was also a tendency to “downplay” the seriousness of the
illness:

Like oh, you are over reacting, you are being over emotional, there’s
nothing to be anxious about or depressed about.
(Tiffany)

Such responses were likely to suppress and shape future help-­ seeking
behaviors. Some participants revealed that they would try to solve their
own problems first before seeking help. This in turn fosters a culture where
people are “not allowed to have any weaknesses” and a strong desire to
appear self-­reliant (Fuller, Edwards, Procter, & Moss, 2000, p. 151; Simp-
son & Ferguson, 2014). With online sources through the Internet, partici-
pants mentioned that they could seek answers for themselves easily.

Stigmatized Attitudes Towards Speaking About Mental Health

Issues or Seeking Help
Despite living in a progressive society, admitting that one has a mental
health problem or seeking help was widely expressed as “something is
wrong” or incompetent in Singapore:

The idea that my peers will look down on me, the idea that the com-
munity around me gives me my sense of identity, it’s very hard for
them to say that I have a problem, especially a problem with the
mind. That’s why in Asian context, people don’t answer questions
when the teacher asks. . . . No one wants to be wrong. How much
more when you come out and say that “I think I have a mental health
problem.” . . . It’s still a bit of a taboo if you ask me.
(Charles)
236 Jiamin Gan and Helen Forbes-­Mewett
Another observation made was that participants valued the way they
were seen by their peers and “feared judgement” as their “image” was
important to them. Many had negative attitudes towards help-­seeking and
thought that it was “embarrassing,” “less capable,” “something wrong,”
“weak, and “lazy.” Almost every participant indicated that their commu-
nity back home had stereotypical perceptions of mental health or mental
illness and that Singaporeans constantly try to present a positive image:

You’re always competing so if I say that I have this mental condition,

it’s like saying that I can’t run the race as well as my fellow Singapo-
reans which is a stigma and a shame. So by confessing that I have a
mental problem is like saying I can’t be the success I want to be and
have that image driven thing.
(Charles)

There’s a lot of taboo associated with it. To have a mental health

problem or just problems is embarrassing and they may not even
want to share that they have got a problem or they may want to
cover it to show that they are actually okay when they are not.
(Nadia)

As identified in past studies (Chong et al., 2007; Eisenberg, Downs, Gol-

berstein, & Zivin, 2009), it seems like many of these negative attitudes
continue to be barriers towards seeking help. In Forbes-­Mewett and Saw-
yer’s (2016) study, most international students were willing to acknowl-
edge a physical illness, but it was harder for them to accept and admit
that they were struggling with poor mental health. Thus, they were less
inclined to use mental health services or seek professional help.

Help-­Seeking Behaviors and Perceptions of Mental Health

Services: Essential but Not Necessarily Helpful
Many participants had credited mental health services as essential and
“an outlet you can actually go to.” Although not definite, most partici-
pants had a fairly positive outlook on how mental health services can
provide support when needed:

If you don’t have a support circle then things like lifeline Australia
become really critical. If there is no one you can confide in, these
services are there to support you.
(Tiffany)

I think that it is a good avenue for people suffering from mental

health issues as professional guidance will be offered and you more
likely to be treated for it.
(Theodore)
 International Students’ Mental Health 237
While international students voiced the importance of having mental
health services widely available, many still preferred not to seek help
from a mental health professional:

It’s something I would not be too comfortable with because I don’t

really know the people. So I guess I may be a bit apprehensive of that.
But I know and think that there are some people who have gotten
good counselling out of mental health services and all. So it’s not too
bad, just that I won’t go for it.
(Simon)

This finding also supports Aguiniga, Madden, and Zellmann’s (2016)

claim that although young adults generally had more positive attitudes
towards seeking professional help, their attitudes were not mirrored in
their own help-­seeking behaviors. It emerged that most international stu-
dents preferred to seek help from friends, disregard their problems, or
keep them to themselves:

I think most of them suffer in silence actually. They try to live with it
and the human mind is a very strange thing . . . it can actually deny
its problem for a very long time. And the way we self-­justify and try
to say that we don’t have a problem even if it’s something that is
affecting us a lot, we can do it for years.
(Charles)

One participant explained that international students would usually seek

help from friends because international students are more comfortable
with the people and culture they are more familiar with. She also high-
lighted that seeking professional help might “be more common than we
think,” but just not frequently spoken of.
Although some were unsure if it was common to seek help from mental
health professionals back in their home country, the majority said that it
was uncommon unless the problem becomes serious or when they start
breaking down:

Yeah . . . unless you break down. Unless it’s something that affects
you to the point that it is very tangible and it stops you from achiev-
ing that success that you want and you have no choice.
(Charles)

Personal Support Is Better

Generally, the interviews indicated that most participants had negative
perceptions of seeking professional help from mental health services.
238 Jiamin Gan and Helen Forbes-­Mewett
First, most participants emphasized that people who knew them person-
ally could provide better help and support in times of need:

In my opinion, having personal support should be your first go

to. . . . For me, I will go to someone who understands me or rather
they know me, so in a sense they are more empathetic or rather they
know how to help me better compared to someone over the phone
who doesn’t know who I am.
(Tiffany)

Another participant shared about her encounter with a friend whose eat-
ing disorder worsened and who sought medical advice. However, she
believed and credited that the support provided by peers was what really
helped her friend overcome her struggle with mental illness:

It started off with her being health conscious . . . but when it started
to get worse, she couldn’t eat a meal without purging. That’s when
she went to the doctors and had counselling. And she slowly got bet-
ter. [But] I don’t think it was the meds that helped her. . . . She had a
lot of friends around her, people were supporting her and I think that
really helped her get over it.
(Tiffany)

Similar to past studies, international students preferred personal support

such as friends and family as their first point of help (Sawir et al., 2008;
Simpson & Ferguson, 2014). Jorm (2012) expressed his concern when
friends and family became a replacement instead of seeking professional
help. However, from the following viewpoint, it can be inferred that
international students do know when to turn to mental health profes-
sionals for help when needed:

But if you were seriously diagnosed with a mental illness then the per-
son that you are confiding in should recommend you to a professional
service. If it’s more than just a tough season in your life and it’s actually
a mental illness then you should consider seeking professional help.
(Tiffany)

Even though international students preferred personal support, they

would turn to professionals for help if “things got serious”:

If I had some sort of addiction or an eating disorder sort of thing,

I definitely want to seek help or want someone to push me to seek
help professionally because they know their stuff. And if not, I will
never improve. So I would seek help professionally.
(Nadia)
 International Students’ Mental Health 239
It was also reported that many Singaporeans and international students
(in general) did not see the need to go to a counselor:

My perception of it is like there’s something wrong with you kind

of thing.
(Lauren)

They don’t really see the need to go. . . . They think that it’s only for
someone who is having a severe problem or someone who is mentally
ill. Maybe their definition of mentally ill is like they behave abnor-
mally kind of thing . . . like very extreme cases.
(Rachel)

International students from Forbes-­Mewett and Sawyer’s (2016) study

had also expressed similar perceptions that mental health services were
only for the mentally ill.
In order to improve ways to promote help-­seeking, the study sought
suggestions from participants on their views of current mental health
services. This also provided insight into how international students per-
ceived the current on campus services. “It’s better to be preventive rather
than to be treating” (Keith). He explained that mental health services
should aim to reduce the amount of social isolation that international
students face and to prevent mental illnesses from developing. Some par-
ticipants suggested that mental health services should approach students
instead of “waiting” for them to seek help:

Because it’s difficult to talk to international students at this amount

of effort [mental health services] put in. I think for international stu-
dents, they need more than that amount of effort, so we can’t just
wait [for them to seek help].
(Caleb)

It’s important for school counselors to establish relationships with stu-

dents before a need arises. Therefore, when students need to seek help,
they already have this established relationship and source of professional
help to turn to. Rickwood, Deane, Wilson, and Ciarrochi (2005) also
stated that mental health services need to be taken to young people, mak-
ing help easily accessible as young people will not go out of their way to
seek professional help.
Confidentiality surfaced as a concern for a few participants. Students
hoped to remain anonymous while seeking professional help as they felt
that this would be less intimidating and that they would be able to dis-
close their issues more comfortably. The majority of the participants also
suggested that mental health services should have campaigns targeted
at international students to help them be more aware of the available
240 Jiamin Gan and Helen Forbes-­Mewett
services and the necessary knowledge to deal with mental illness. More
importantly, participants stressed that with diverse groups of students
from various cultural backgrounds, mental health services should con-
sider having counselors with similar language and culture for better
communication and understanding. In fact, a past finding suggested that
counseling staff were often unsure of how to care in a culturally appro-
priate way (Forbes-­Mewett & Nyland, 2008).

Conclusion
Many participants were quick to compare the difference between Aus-
tralians’ and Singaporeans’ views on mental health. This was the ben-
efit of choosing participants from a particular country, so as to examine
how mental health stigma and culture are closely intertwined among
international Singaporean students. Cultural traditions and beliefs of
each race are still exerting a substantial amount of influence on people’s
perceptions (Chong et al., 2007). However, the practices, attitudes, and
outcomes associated with mental health stigma within a cultural group
remain unclear (Abdullah & Brown, 2011).
This chapter has provided a new perspective on how environments can
either support or discriminate against people with poor mental health,
specifically within the community of international Singaporean univer-
sity students. It also reinforces how culture can have a great influence
on perceptions and possibly mental health stigma (Jandt, 2015). Despite
some participants claiming that there is lesser stigma nowadays with
young adults being more open, it is evident that mental health stigma
is still prevalent and continues to affect the way international students
express their feelings and approaches to seeking help.

References
Abdullah, T., & Brown, T. (2011). Mental illness stigma and ethnocultural
beliefs, values, and norms: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review,
31, 934–­948.
Aguiniga, D., Madden, E., & Zellmann, K. (2016). An exploratory analysis of
students’ perceptions of mental health in the media. Social Work in Mental
Health, 1–­17. doi:10.1080/­15332985.2015.1118002
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1994). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (DSM-­IV) (4th ed.). Washington, DC: APA.
Barkway, P. (2009). Theories on mental health and illness. In R. Elder, K.
Evans, & D. Nizette (Eds.), Psychiatric and mental health nursing (pp. 119–­
133). Chatsworth, NSW: Elsevier Australia.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). United Kingdom, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Chong, S., Verma, S., Vaingankar, J., Chan, Y. H., Wong, L. Y., & Heng, B. H.
(2007). Perception of the public towards the mentally ill in a developed Asian
country. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatry Epidemiology, 42(9), 734–­739.
 International Students’ Mental Health 241
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2015). International student
enrolment data. Retrieved from https:/­/­internationaleducation.gov.au/­research/­
International-­Student-­Data/­Pages/­InternationalStudentData2015.aspx
DET. (2016). The value of international education to Australia. Retrieved from
https:/­/­internationaleducation.gov.au/­research/­research-­papers/­Documents/­
ValueInternationalEd.pdf
DET. (2017). International student enrolment data. Table 3. Monthly time series
of stock, flow and year to date of student enrolments—­Higher education.
Retrieved from https:/­/­internationaleducation.gov.au/­research/­International-­
Student-­Data/­PublishingImages/­IST_2017/­2017Graph_Table3.png
Diefenbach, D., & West, M. (2007). Television and attitudes toward mental
health issues: Cultivation analysis and the third-­person effect. Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 35(2), 181–­195.
Eisenberg, D., Downs, M., Golberstein, E., & Zivin, K. (2009). Stigma and help
seeking for mental health among college students. Medical Care Research and
Review, 66(5), 522–­541. doi:10.1177/­1077558709335173
Forbes-­Mewett, H., & Nyland, C. (2008). Cultural diversity, relocation and the
security of international students at an internationalised university. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 12(2), 181–­203.
Forbes-­Mewett, H., & Sawyer, A. M. (2016). International students and mental
health. Journal of International Students, 6(3), 661–­677.
Fuller, J., Edwards, J., Procter, N., & Moss, J. (2000). How definition of mental
health problems can influence help seeking in rural and remote communities.
Australian Journal of Rural Health, 8(3), 148–­153.
Hyun, J., Quinn, B., Madon, T., & Lustig, S. (2007). Mental health need, awareness,
and use of counseling services among international graduate students. Journal of
American College Health, 56(2), 109–­118. doi:10.3200/­JACH.56.2.109–­118
Jandt, F. E. (2015). An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in
a global community. Lewiston: Sage Publications Inc.
Ji, S. J. (2000). ‘Face’ and polite verbal behaviours in Chinese culture. Journal of
Pragmatics, 32, 1059–­1062. doi:10.1016/­S0378–­2166(99)00068–­5
Jorm, A. F. (2012). Mental health literacy: Empowering the community to take
action for better mental health. American Psychologist, 67(3), 231–­243.
doi:10.1037/­a0025957
Kendell, R. E. (1993). The nature of psychiatric disorders. In R. E. Kendell, & A.
K. Zealley (Eds.), Companion to psychiatric disorders, Edinburgh: Churchill
Livingstone.
Khawaja, N. G., & Dempsey, J. (2008). A comparison of international students
and domestic tertiary students in Australia. Australian Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 18(1), 30–­46.
Landstedt, E., Coffey, J., & Nygren, M. (2016). Mental health in young Austral-
ians: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(1), 74–­86. doi:10.108
0/­13676261.2015.1048205
Mental Health Foundation of Australia, Victoria. (2016). Mental health topics.
Retrieved from www.mentalhealthvic.org.au/­index.php?id=131
Mori, S. C. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international stu-
dents. Journal of counselling & development, 78(2), 137–­144.
Prince, M., Patel, V., Saxena, S., Maj, M., Maselko, J., Phillips, M. R., & Rahman,
A. (2007). No health without mental health. The Lancet, 370(9590), 859–­877.
242 Jiamin Gan and Helen Forbes-­Mewett
Rickwood, D., Deane, F. P., Wilson, C. P., & Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Young peo-
ple’s help-­seeking for mental health problems. Australian e-­Journal for the
Advancement of Mental Health, 4(3), 218–­251.
Rosenthal, D. A., Russell, J., & Thomson, G. (2008). The health and wellbeing
of international students at an Australian university. Higher Education, 55(1),
51–­67.
Ryan, J., & Carroll, J. (2005). ‘Canaries in the coalmine’: International students
in Western universities. In J Ryan & J Carroll (Eds.), Teaching international
students: Improving learning for all (pp. 3–­10).
Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The
effects of prior learning experiences. International Education Journal, 6(5),
567–­580.
Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Lone-
liness and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 12(2), 148–­180. doi:10.1177/­1028315307299699
Simpson, A., & Ferguson, K. (2014). The role of university support services on
academic outcomes for students with mental illness. Education Research Inter-
national, 1–­6. doi:10.1155/­2014/­295814
Tan, K. P. (2008). Meritocracy and elitism in a global city: Ideological shifts in
Singapore. International Political Science Review, 29(1), 7–­27.
Urbanovič, J., Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2016). Issues and challenges for
small countries in attracting and hosting international students: The case
of Lithuania. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 491–­507. doi:10.108
0/­03075079.2014.942267
Yeoh, J., & Doan, T. (2013). A study on the perceptions of international students
on health literacy in an Australian University context. Language, Society and
Culture, 1(36), 28–­33.
16 Determinants of Mental Health
for Problematic Behaviors
Among International Students
in the United States
Amir Bhochhibhoya and Paul Branscum

Introduction
International students constitute a unique and diverse group that con-
tributes to the cultural diversity in American universities. To illustrate,
in 2001, a total of 110,000 international students were reported, while
in 2015, this number increased to 1,184,735 (Department of Homeland
Security, 2017). International students enrich the cultural environment
of the universities they attend and bring diverse perspectives to enhance
the overall learning experiences in the classroom. Furthermore, they also
contribute economically, as more than $35 billion of revenue in the U.S.
economy in 2015 is generated from their tuition and living expenses
(Institute for International Education, 2016). Despite their significant
presence, the unique health concerns of international students have been
traditionally overlooked.
Previous studies regarding international students’ health have docu-
mented that they suffer from high levels of psychological stress (Poyra-
zli & Grahame, 2007; Berry, 2006). In addition to the normal concerns
of non-­international college students, international students also face
the need to acclimate to a new social setting and educational environ-
ment (Andrade, 2006; Berry, 2006). Also, stress and other mental health
problems among international students can arise from additional factors
such as having a language barrier, financial issues, lack of interpersonal
relationships, and racial discrimination (Mori, 2000; Myers-­Walls, Frias,
Kwon, Ko, & Lu, 2011; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). Beside chronic
psychological distress, other problems related to mental health that have
been reported among international students include anxiety, depression,
feelings of homesickness, helplessness, and self-­disappointment (Ying,
Lee, & Tsai, 2007; Mori, 2000). These chronic stressors can further
manifest into physical health-­related problems such as headaches, sleep
deprivation, loss of appetite, fatigue, respiratory disorders, and gastroin-
testinal problems (Selye, 2013).
Magid, Maclean, and Colder (2007) suggested that a number of per-
sonality aspects and traits can impact risky behaviors such as sensation
seeking and impulsivity, which in turn have been identified as strong pre-
dictors of alcohol consumption. A personality dimension that is gaining
244 Amir Bhochhibhoya and Paul Branscum
attention in the area of the health domain is Type D personality (Bruce,
Curren, & Williams, 2013; Branscum, Bhochhibhoya, & Sharma, 2013).
Type D personality is the joint tendency towards social inhibition and
negative affectivity. Social inhibition (SI) refers to an individual’s tendency
to inhibit the expression of behaviors and emotions in social situations,
such as lack of self-­assurance and reticence. Similarly, negative affectivity
(NA) refers to an individual’s tendency towards experiencing negative
emotions, such as irritability, gloom, and worry in a range of situations
(Denollet, 2005). Past studies have associated Type D personality with
unhealthy behaviors (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, and lack of
physical activity) and chronic health issues (e.g., cardiovascular diseases)
(Emons, Meijer, & Denollet, 2007; Gilmour & Williams, 2012; Mols &
Denollet, 2010; Williams et al., 2008). In addition to Type D personality,
stress has also been found to be highly associated with substance, alco-
hol, and nicotine abuse among adolescents (Berndt et al., 2000).
Regarding the availability of the evidence for these relationships, the
impact stress and mental health status have on health-­related behaviors
of international students has never been explored. Therefore, the purpose
of this study was to explore how determinants of mental health, includ-
ing stress and Type D personality, are associated with maladaptive health
behaviors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical inactivity
among international students.

Method
This study applied a cross-­sectional design with a convenience sample of
international students (n = 328) attending a large, Southwestern univer-
sity. The survey was administered online through mass email (N = 1,889).
The email included a brief introduction to the study and the link to the
survey. Upon visiting the link, participants read the consent form, and
only those who agreed to participate completed the survey. Students who
completed the survey were also given an opportunity to win a $50 gift
card from a raffle at the end of the study. This study was approved by the
Institutional Review Board of its sponsoring university. The response rate
for the survey was 17.36%.

Instrumentation
Using a single instrument for assessing overall mental health limits the
ability of researchers to accurately measure overall mental health sta-
tus. Thus, for this study mental health status was evaluated using the
Perceived Stress Scale (Mitchell, Crane, & Kim, 2008), the Kessler Psy-
chological Distress Scale (Pratt, Dey, & Cohen, 2007), and Denollet’s
Type D Personality Scale (Denollet, 2005). Similarly, three maladaptive
health behaviors were evaluated using the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine
 Mental Health and Problematic Behaviors 245
Dependence (Etter, 2005), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test
(Babor, Higgins-­Biddle, Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001), and the Interna-
tional Physical Activity Questionnaire (Craig et al., 2003). The following
sections provide information about each scale and how the instrument
was scored and interpreted.

(a) Perceived Stress Scale

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) measures “the degree to which situations
in one’s life are appraised as stressful” (Mitchell, Crane, & Kim, 2008).
The PSS has ten items, and scores range from 10 to 50, with higher scores
indicating a greater level of stress (Roberti, Harrington, & Storch, 2006).
An individual with scores between 10 and 30 can be categorized as stress-­
free to low stress, and individuals with scores between 31 and 50 can be
categorized as having medium to high stress.

(b) The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale

The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-­6 Scale) is a widely used
instrument to assess risk for serious mental illness (SMI) (Pratt, Dey, &
Cohen, 2007). The scale includes six items, and scores for the scale range
from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating a lower risk for mental dis-
turbances. Scores greater than 19 are considered low or no risk for SMI,
and scores between 6 and 18 are considered high-­risk for SMI (National
Comorbidity Survey, 2005).

(c) Type D Personality: Type D Scale

Type D personality was assessed by using Denollet’s Type D Personality
Scale (DS14) (Denollet, 2005). The DS14 Personality Scale consists of
fourteen items; scores for each scale could range from 7 to 35. Higher
scores indicate a higher risk for experiencing either trait (SI or NA). Par-
ticipants with a score of 17 or higher are considered Type D/­SI personal-
ity or Type D/­NA personality.

(d) The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence

The Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) questionnaire is
widely used to assess the intensity of nicotine addiction related to smoking
(Etter, 2005). The test contains six items, with the score ranging from 0
to 10 (higher scores indicate greater nicotine dependence). Furthermore, a
score between 1 and 2 is categorized as low dependence, a score between 3
and 4 is considered low to moderate dependence, a score between 5 and 7
is considered moderate dependence, and a score higher than 8 is considered
high dependence (Heatherton, Kozlowski, Frecker, & Fagerstrom, 1991).
246 Amir Bhochhibhoya and Paul Branscum
(e) Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test
The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) assesses risk for
alcohol abuse and related problems. The AUDIT has ten multiple choice
items, with score ranging from 0 to 40 (higher scores indicate a greater
level of alcohol dependence). Participants who score less than 8 need no
intervention, those who score 8–­15 may need simple advice to reduce
drinking, those who score 16–­19 may need an intervention in the form
of a brief counseling session and continued monitoring, and those with
scores greater than 19 need further diagnostic evaluations for alcohol
dependence and appropriate clinical intervention (Babor, Higgins-­Biddle,
Saunders, & Monteiro, 2001).

(f) International Physical Activity Questionnaire

The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) assesses an
individual’s physical activity level for the past seven days (Craig et al.,
2003). For data analysis, time for each activity was converted to total
MET-­minutes/­week, and participants were categorized as such: “active
group” (higher than 1,500 MET-­ minutes/­
week), “minimally active”
(600–­1,500 MET-­ minutes/­week), and inactive (less than 600 MET-­
minutes/­week) (IPAQ Research Committee, 2005).
Other demographic items included in the study were age, gender, year
in college, major, approximate GPA, nationality, and the length of stay
in the U.S.

Data Analysis
All data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 22.00. Descriptive sta-
tistics were reported to summarize all variables. An independent sample
t-­test was utilized to explore mean differences of mental health status
(high-­risk vs. low-­risk for SMI); level of stress (free to low vs. medium to
high stress); Type D (Type D/­NA vs. Non-­Type D/­NA and Type D/­SI vs
Non-­Type D/­SI) among participants for each problematic health behav-
ior. The level of significance was set at 0.05 for all statistical analysis.
Furthermore, an effect size (Cohen’s d) for variables showing significance
was calculated and interpreted as: 0.2 as a “small” effect size, 0.5 as a
“medium” effect size, and 0.8 as a “large” effect size (Cohen, 1988).
G*Power version 3.1.7 was used to calculate an a priori power analysis.
An a priori power analysis indicated requirement of a sample size of 128
to detect medium effects for the mean difference (α = 0.05, Power (1-­
β) = 0.80, Cohen’s d = 0.5, 2-­tail, and an allocation ratio of 1).

Results
Demographic and categorical information of the sample is reported in
Table 16.1. The study sample contained slightly more females (54.9%).
 Mental Health and Problematic Behaviors 247
Table 16.1 Information about Gender, Year in College, Mental Health Status,
Stress, Type D Personality, Alcohol-­Related Risk, Nicotine Depend-
ence, and Level of Physical Activity

Variables Total (n) (%)

Gender n (328)
Male 148 (45.1)
Female 180 (54.9)
Year in College n (328)
1st Year (Freshman) 20 (6.1)
2nd Year (Sophomore) 26 (7.9)
3rd Year (Junior) 43 (13.1)
4th or Later Years (Senior) 53 (16.2)
Masters 93 (28.4)
PhD 83 (25.3)
Other 10 (3)
At Risk for Serious Mental Illness (from K-­6 Scale) n (328)
Low-­Risk 228(69.5)
High-­Risk 100 (30.5)
Stress n (318)
Relatively Stress-­Free to Low Stress 164 (51.6)
Medium to High Stress 154 (48.4)
Type D Personality n (328)
Negative Affectivity (No) 160 (48.8)
Negative Affectivity (Yes) 168 (51.2)
Social Inhibition (No) 140 (42.7)
Social Inhibition (Yes) 188 (57.3)
AUDIT (Alcohol-­Related Risk) n (328)
No Dependence 281 (85.7)
Simple Advice 37 (11.3)
Brief Counseling 7 (2.1)
Alcohol Dependence 3 (.9)
Smoking Status (Yes/­No) n (327)
Yes 57 (17.4)
No 270 (82.3)
Smoking Dependence Score n (44)
Low Dependence 24 (54.5)
Low to Moderate Dependence 11 (25)
Moderate Dependence 9 (20.5)
High Dependence 0 (0)
Total MET-­Min classifications n = 328
Inactive 145 (44.2)
Minimally Active 149 (45.4)
HEPA Active 34 (10.4)

The age of the participants ranged from 17 to 56 years old, and the aver-
age age was 25.38 years (±5.48). Participants represented seventy-­two
nations, with a majority of participants from China (18.9%). Most par-
ticipants were graduate students (PhD = 25.3%; Masters = 28.4%). Par-
ticipant’s length of stay in the U.S. ranged from one to seventeen years,
248 Amir Bhochhibhoya and Paul Branscum
with an average stay of 3.66 years (±2.95 years). The average cumulative
GPA reported was 3.59 (±0.574) out of 4.0.
With regards to Serious Mental Illness (SMI), 30.5% were catego-
rized as high-­risk for mental disturbances. Similarly, for perceived stress,
48.4% of the participants were categorized as perceiving a medium to
high stress. For Type D personality, 57.3% were categorized with Type
D/­SI, and 51.2% were categorized with Type D/­NI. Similarly, 39.9%
were categorized as being both Type D/­NA and Type D/­SI, while 31.4%
were neither Type D/­NA nor Type D/­SI.
In relation to smoking, only 17.4% of participants reported themselves
as smokers, of which 54.5% were categorized as low nicotine dependence,
25.5% were categorized as low to moderate nicotine dependence, 20.5%
were categorized as moderate nicotine dependence, and none was catego-
rized as high dependence on nicotine. For alcohol-­related risk, 85.7% of
participants were found to have no dependence, 11.3% to have alcohol
problems that need simple advice, 2.1% to have alcohol problems that
need brief counseling, and 0.9% to have alcohol problems that require
clinical intervention. Based on the reported MET-­minutes/­week for physi-
cal activity level, 44.2% of participants were found to be inactive, 45.4%
as minimally active, and 10.4% as Health Enhancing Physically Active.
Data indicated a significant difference between the low-­and high-­risk
group for SMI for smoking (p = 0.001, d = 1.15) and physical activity (MET-­
Min/­week) (p = 0.001, d = 0.42), with international students at low-­risk for
SMI, reporting less use of cigarettes and engaging in more physical activity.
The effect sizes for both variables ranged from medium to high (Table 16.2).
No difference between groups was found for alcohol use (p = 0.953).
Data indicated a significant difference between participants in the
stress-­free to low stress group and medium to high stress group for physi-
cal activity (MET-­Min/­week) (p = 0.009, d = 0.29); however, the observed
effect size was small (Table 16.3).
Finally, significant differences between Type D/­ NA and Non-­ Type
D/­NA were found for smoking (p = 0.008, d = 0.41) and alcohol
(p = 0.023, d = 0.25), with Non-­Type D/­NA students reporting lower

Table 16.2 Differences in Various Health Behaviors between Groups of Risk for

Serious Mental Illness (SMI)

Variables (Used) Low-­Risk for SMI High-­Risk for SMI P-­ Effect Size
(n = 228) m(SD) (n = 100) m(SD) Value (Cohen’s d)

Smoking 1.81 (1.20) 3.67 (1.94) .001* 1.15

Alcohol 13.55 (4.44) 13.52 (4.94) .953 —­
Physical activity 1,274.18 (1,323.82) 777.22 (997.50) .001* 0.42
(MET-­Min/­week)
* p < 0.05; “—­” effect size not reported for non-­significant results
 Mental Health and Problematic Behaviors 249
Table 16.3 Differences in Various Health Behaviors Between Stress-­Free to Low
Stress and Medium to High Stress Group

Variables Stress Free to Low Medium to High P-­ Effect Size

Stress (n = 164) Stress (n = 154) Value (Cohen’s d)
m(SD) m(SD)

Smoking 2.09 (1.51) 3.00 (1.93) .093 —­

Alcohol 13.24(3.99) 13.90 (5.13) .205 —­
Physical activity 1,316.82 (1,321.79) 948.89 (1163.16) .009* 0.29
(MET-­min/­week)
* p < 0.05; “—­” effect size not reported for non-­significant results

Table 16.4 Differences in Various Health Behaviors between Type D/­NA and

Non-­Type D/­NA Groups

Variables Non-­Type D/­NA Type D/­NA P-­ Effect Size

(n = 160) m(SD) (n = 168) m(SD) Value (Cohen’s d)

Smoking 1.80 (1.40) 3.21 (1.84) .008* 0.86

Alcohol 12.96 (3.63) 14.10 (5.30) .023* 0.25
Physical activity 1,357.58 (1,306.44) 898.94 (1160.40) .001* 0.37
(MET-­min/­week)
NA = Negative Affectivity
* p < 0.05

Table 16.5 Differences in Various Health Behaviors Between Type D/­SI and Non-­
Type D/­SI Groups

Variables Non-­Type D/­SI Type D/­SI P-­ Effect Size

(n = 140) m(SD) (n = 188)m(SD) Value (Cohen’s d)

Smoking 2.00 (1.50) 2.96(1.89) .078 —­

Alcohol 13.48 (4.01) 13.59 (4.99) .847 —­
Total physical activity 1,391.07 (1,262.93) 922.80 (1,210.89) .001* 0.37
(MET-­Min/­week)
SI = Social Inhibition
* p < 0.05; “—­” effect size not reported for non-­significant results

smoking and alcohol rates. Similarly, significant differences between

Type D/­NA and Non-­Type D/­NA were reported for physical activity
(MET-­min/­week) (p = 0.001, d = 0.37), as Non-­Type D/­NA reported par-
ticipating in more physical activity. The effect sizes ranged from medium
to high (Table 16.4). For Type D/­SI, group differences were not found for
smoking (p = 0.067) or alcohol consumption (p = 0.847). However, par-
ticipants in the Non-­Type D/­SI group reported a significantly higher level
of physical activity (p = 0.001, d = 0.37) compared to participants in the
Type D/­SI groups. The effect sizes were medium (Table 16.5).
250 Amir Bhochhibhoya and Paul Branscum
Discussion
A majority of studies conducted among international students have
focused on documenting acculturative stress and mental health; however,
less work has been done with this population to highlight the associa-
tions between mental health and problematic health behaviors. In this
regard, the purpose of this study was to explore how determinants of the
mental health of international students were associated with risky health
behaviors.
In this study, 30.5% of the overall sample, and 28.2% of the under-
graduate subset, of international students reported high-­risk for Seri-
ous Mental Illness (SMI). Previous studies conducted among indigenous
undergraduates at the same university reported only 11.7% as high-­risk
for SMI (Branscum, Bhochhibhoya, & Sharma, 2013). The lower rate
for high-­risk for SMI among the general student population is consistent
with findings from other studies. For example, two other studies found
that 8.9%–­19.2% of indigenous students are at high-­risk for SMI (Stall-
man & Shochet, 2009; Stallman, 2010). This suggests that international
students are at higher risk for SMI compared to indigenous students, and
therefore may need additional mental health services and resources.
The current study found 48.4% of participants self-­reported having a
medium to high level of stress. In general, college life is stressful for many
students. Studies suggested it may be even more stressful for international
students, as they may have additional strains due to language and cultural
issues (Mori, 2000). However, while few studies have compared these two
populations, reports indicate that American college students experience a
higher level of stress than their international counterparts. For example,
a study conducted by Leppink, Odlaug, Lust, Christenson, and Grant
(2016) reported that 63.6% of American college students experience a
moderate to severe level of stress. When one compares results from this
study, American students appear to report a higher prevalence of moder-
ate to severe stress compared to their international student counterparts.
Further, another study that compared levels of academic stress between
international and indigenous college students reported that international
students experience lower academic stress compared to their American
counterparts. However, these differences may not necessarily indicate
that international students have lower levels of academic stress. Rather,
international students may rate their stress lower due to higher levels of
stigmatization for admitting stress that exist in some cultures (Misra &
Castillo, 2004). This suggests that the sources of stress affect people dif-
ferently, and how indigenous and international students acknowledge,
experience, and cope with stress would be expected to be different as
well. Additionally, even if international students experience more stress,
it could be largely underreported.
 Mental Health and Problematic Behaviors 251
Results from this study found that 51.2% of international students
were classified with Type D/­NA personality, and 57.3% were classified
as having Type D/­SI personality. In a previous study that was conducted
among indigenous undergraduates at the same university rates were
much lower for both Type D/­NA and Type D/­SI (31% had Type D/­NA
and 38% had Type D/­SI). The higher proportion of Type D/­SI for inter-
national students compared to indigenous students could be expected
from the lack of social support and reluctance to develop and manage
relationships in the new socio-­environment (Williams et al., 2008). Simi-
larly, a higher proportion of Type D/­NA among international students
could be due to the presence of acculturative stress and anxiety (Polman,
Borkoles, & Nicholls, 2010).
Results from this study suggest that nicotine dependence was higher
among the high-­risk for SMI group, medium to high stress group, and
Type D/­NA and Type D/­SI groups, even though it was only statistically
significant for the Type D/­NA group. In a study using the secondary data
from a 2007 US National Health Interview Survey and Australian Survey
of Mental Health, it was reported that adults with a mental disorder
smoke twice as much compared to adults without mental disorders (Law-
rence, Mitrou, & Zubrick, 2009). Similarly, in another study conducted
in Australia, 54% of women and 68% of men with mental illness were
daily smokers, which is significantly higher than the national average for
Australian women (20%) and men (24%). Additionally, in the study a
majority of the smokers with mental illness were heavy smokers (54%)
(i.e., smoked more than twenty cigarettes per day) (Greenhalgh, Bayly, &
Winstanley, 2015). Overall, increasing level of smoking with increasing
level of mental illness is consistent with the previous studies.
Results from this study found that international students who were at
high-­risk for SMI had medium to high stress, and those who were Type
D/­NA and Type D/­SI reported significantly lower levels of physical activ-
ity compared to those who were not. However, other studies have shown
mixed results for the relationship between mental health and physical
activity. For example, Stults-­Kolehmainen and Sinha (2014) reviewed
168 studies that explored the relationship between stress and physical
activity. In this review, 58% of the studies reported an inverse relation-
ship, 21.8% reported a positive relationship, and 20.2% reported no
relationship between stress and physical activity. Similarly, in a review
by Ng and Jeffery (2003), out of ten studies, six reported an inverse rela-
tionship, one reported a positive relationship, and the remaining three
showed no relationship between physical activity levels and stress. This
inconsistent relationship could be due to individuals’ coping style. Not
everyone exercises to deal with stress. In fact, for some people, structured
exercise could be inconvenient (“one more thing to do”), which could
add to one’s stress (Ng & Jeffery, 2003; Larson, 2006).
252 Amir Bhochhibhoya and Paul Branscum
In this study, alcohol intake was significantly higher only among indi-
viduals classified as being Type D/­NA, compared to individuals in the
Non-­Type D group, and was not significantly different for any other
mental health condition. In a review by Ng and Jeffery (2003), only four
out of eight studies that explored the relationship between stress and
alcohol intake reported a positive relationship, while the remaining four
reported an inverse or no relationship between alcohol and stress. These
inconsistencies could be due to the nature of alcohol consumption. The
negative and positive effects of alcohol may highly depend upon the level
of consumption. In these studies, excessive drinking was associated with
higher levels of short-­term as well as long-­term risks for health and safety
(Boffetta & Hashibe, 2006; National Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-
tration, 2008), whereas moderate intake was linked to lower blood tri-
glycerides, lipoprotein profiles, and blood pressure (Djousse et al., 2004)
as well as a reduction in oxidative stress (Zima et al., 2001).
After exploring the relationship between various determinants of mental
health and problematic health-­related behaviors such as smoking, alcohol
consumption, and physical inactivity, the current study provides insight into
health-­related matters that have not been well explored with international
college students. The issue of mental health for international students is not
a new phenomenon for American universities. After having a long history
of hosting international students, several American universities have devel-
oped and implemented various programs, which include international and
American students’ “buddy project” that helps spark friendships between
international and indigenous students (Campbell, 2012). Despite these
advancements, studies also show that these services are oftentimes underu-
tilized (Brisset, Safdar, Lewis, & Sabatier, 2010). International students also
tend to not seek help until their mental health status significantly deterio-
rates. Thus, the urgency to understand mental health needs of international
students is high, as mental health issues can be prevented and treated but
also are highly related with overall health and problematic health behaviors.

Limitations
Despite the contributions of this study, there are several limitations to be
noted. The current study was limited due to convenience sampling as par-
ticipants were drawn from a single large university in the Southwestern
region of the United States. This could have led to a sampling bias. The
second limitation includes the use of a self-­reported questionnaire. The
possibility of participants reporting false information or reporting sub-
stantially overlapping optimism in the self-­reported questionnaire can be
common, especially in surveys about one’s mental health. The third limi-
tation of the study was the cross-­sectional nature of the study design. The
causality relationship between mental health status and different health
behaviors is not possible to explore based on this research design.
 Mental Health and Problematic Behaviors 253
Conclusion
The current study explored the relationship between mental health issues
and problematic health behaviors. After exploring these relationships,
the current study provided additional evidence and made an argument
for further investigation in this area of health. Future research should
evaluate additional problematic health behaviors including nutrition and
sleeping patterns, which have also been shown to be associated with men-
tal health. Finally, future studies should consider the perspective from
other key informants such as mental health providers for international
students, college staff, and faculty members who deal with international
students.

References
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-­speaking universities.
Journal of Research in International Education, 5, 131–­154.
Babor, T. F., Higgins-­Biddle, J. C., Saunders, J. B., & Monteiro, M. G. (2001).
The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): Guidelines for use in
primary care (2nd ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Berndt, E. R., Koran, L. M., Finkelstein, S. N., Gelenberg, A. J., Kornstein, S.
G., Miller, I. M., . . . Keller, M. B. (2000). Lost human capital from early-­
onset chronic depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(6), 940–­947.
doi:10.1176/­appi.ajp.157.6.940
Berry, J. W. (2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W.
Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 43–­
57). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Boffetta, P., & Hashibe, M. (2006). Alcohol and cancer. The Lancet Oncology,
7(2), 149–­156. doi:10.1016/­S1470–­2045(06)70577–­0
Branscum, P., Bhochhibhoya, A., & Sharma, M. (2013). The role of emotional
intelligence in mental health and Type D personality among young adults.
International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 34(4), 351–­365.
doi:10.2190/­IQ.34.4.e
Brisset, C., Safdar, S., Lewis, J. R., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Psychological and soci-
ocultural adaptation of university students in France: The case of Vietnamese
international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(4),
413–­426. doi:10.1016/­j.ijintrel.2010.02.009
Bruce, G., Curren, C., & Williams, L. (2013). Type D personality, alcohol
dependence, and drinking motives in the general population. Journal of Stud-
ies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74(1), 120–­124.
Campbell, N. (2012). Promoting intercultural contact on campus: A project to
connect and engage international and host students. Journal of Studies in Inter-
national Education, 16(3), 205–­227.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Craig, C. L., Marshall, A. L., Sjöström, M., Bauman, A. E., Booth, M. L., Ains-
worth, B. E., . . . Oja, P. (2003). The IPAQ consensus group and the IPAQ reli-
ability and validity study group. International Physical Activity Questionnaire
254 Amir Bhochhibhoya and Paul Branscum
(IPAQ): 12-­country reliability and validity. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 35(13), 81–­95. doi:10.1249/­01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB
Denollet, J. (2005). DS14: Standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhi-
bition, and Type D personality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67(1), 89–­97.
Department of Homeland Security (2017). Mapping SEVIS by the Numbers.
Retrieved from https:/­/­studyinthestates.dhs.gov/­sevis-­by-­the-­numbers
Djoussé, L., Arnett, D. K., Eckfeldt, J. H., Province, M. A., Singer, M. R., &
Ellison, R. C. (2004). Alcohol consumption and metabolic syndrome:
Does the type of beverage matter? Obesity Research, 12(9), 1375–­1385.
doi:10.1038/­oby.2004.174
Emons, W. H., Meijer, R. R., & Denollet, J. (2007). Negative affectivity and
social inhibition in cardiovascular disease: Evaluating type-­D personality and
its assessment using item response theory. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,
63(1), 27–­39.
Etter, J. F. (2005). A comparison of the content-­, construct-­and predictive valid-
ity of the cigarette dependence scale and the Fagerstrom test for nicotine
dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 77(3), 259–­268. doi:10.1016/­j.
drugalcdep.2004.08.015
Gilmour, J., & Williams, L. (2012). Type D personality is associated with
maladaptive health-­related behaviors. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(4),
471–­478.
Greenhalgh, E. M., Bayly, M, & Winstanley, M. H. 1.3 Prevalence of
smoking—­adults (2015). In M. M. Scollo & M. H. Winstanley. Tobacco in
Australia: Facts and issues. Melbourne, Australia: Cancer Council Victoria.
Retrieved from www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/­chapter-­1-­prevalence/­1-­3-­
prevalence-­of-­smoking-­adults.
Heatherton, T. F., Kozlowski, L. T., Frecker, R. C., & Fagerstrom, K. O. (1991).
The Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence: A revision of the Fagerstrom
tolerance questionnaire. British Journal of Addiction, 86(9), 1119–­1127.
doi:10.1111/­j.1360–­0443.1991.tb01879.x
Institute for International Education (2016). Open doors 2016 executive summary.
Retrieved from www.iie.org/­Why-­IIE/­Announcements/­2016-­11-­14-­Open-­Doors-­
Executive-­Summary
IPAQ Research Committee (2005). Guidelines for data processing and analysis
of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)—­short and long
forms. Retrieved from www.ipaq.ki.se/­scoring.htm.
Larson, E. A. (2006). Stress in the lives of college women: “Lots to do and
not much time.” Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(6), 579–­606. doi:10.
1177/­0743558406293965
Lawrence, D., Mitrou, F., & Zubrick, S. R. (2009). Smoking and mental illness:
Results from population surveys in Australia and the United States. BioMed
Central Public Health, 9(1), 1. doi:10.1186/­1471-­2458-­9-­285
Leppink, E., Odlaug, B., Lust, K., Christenson, G., & Grant, J. (2016). The
young and the stressed: Stress, impulse control, and health in college students.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 204(12), 931–­938.
Magid, V., MacLean, M. G., & Colder, C. R. (2007). Differentiating
between sensation seeking and impulsivity through their mediated rela-
tions with alcohol use and problems. Addictive Behaviors, 32(10),
2046–­2061.
 Mental Health and Problematic Behaviors 255
Misra, R., & Castillo, L. G. (2004). Academic stress among college students:
Comparison of American and international students. International Journal of
Stress Management, 11(2), 132–­148. doi:10.1037/­1072–­5245.11.2.132
Mitchell, A. M., Crane, P. A., & Kim, Y. (2008). Perceived stress in survivors of
suicide: Psychometric properties of the perceived stress scale. Research in Nurs-
ing & Health, 31(6), 576–­585. doi:10.1002/­nur.20284
Mols, F., & Denollet, J. (2010). Type D personality in the general population:
A systematic review of health status, mechanisms of disease, and work-­related
problems. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 9.
Mori, S. C. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international stu-
dents. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(2), 137–­144. doi:10.1002/­
j.1556–­6676.2000.tb02571.x
Myers-­Walls, J. A., Frias, L. V., Kwon, K. A., Meryl Ko, M. J., & Lu, T. (2011).
Living life in two worlds: Acculturative stress among Asian international
graduate student parents and spouses. Journal of Comparative Family Studies,
42(4), 455–­478.
National Comorbidity Survey (2005). Instruments. Retrieved from www.hcp.
med.harvard.edu/­ncs/­instruments.php.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2006). Traffic safety facts
2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics & Analysis.
DOT HS 810 818, 2008.
Ng, D. M., & Jeffery, R. W. (2003). Relationships between perceived stress and
health behaviors in a sample of working adults. Health Psychology, 22(6),
638–­642. doi:10.1037/­0278–­6133.22.6.638
Polman, R., Borkoles, E., & Nicholls, A. R. (2010). Type D personality,
stress, and symptoms of burnout: The influence of avoidance coping and
social support. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15(3), 681–­696.
doi:10.1348/­135910709X479069
Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of inter-
national students within a semi-­urban campus community. Journal of Instruc-
tional Psychology, 34(1), 28–­45.
Pratt, L. A., Dey, A. N., & Cohen, A. J. (2007). Characteristics of adults with seri-
ous psychological distress as measured by the K6 scale, United States, 2001–­
04. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2007. (Advance
data from vital health and statistics 382).
Roberti, J. W., Harrington, L. N., & Storch, E. A. (2006). Further psychometric
support for the 10-item version of the perceived stress scale. Journal of College
Counseling, 9(2), 135–­147. doi:10.1002/­j.2161–­1882.2006.tb00100.x
Selye, H. (2013). Stress in health and disease. Boston, MA: Butterworth-­Heinemann.
Stallman, H. M. (2010). Psychological distress in university students: A compari-
son with general population data. Australian Psychologist, 45(4), 249–­257.
doi:10.1080/­00050067.2010.482109
Stallman, H. M., & Shochet, I. A. N. (2009). Prevalence of mental health prob-
lems in Australian university health services. Australian Psychologist, 44(2),
122–­127. doi:10.1080/­00050060902733727
Stults-­Kolehmainen, M. A., & Sinha, R. (2014). The effects of stress on physical
activity and exercise. Sports Medicine, 44(1), 81–­121. doi:10.1007/­s40279-­
013-­0090-­5
256 Amir Bhochhibhoya and Paul Branscum
Williams, L., O’Connor, R. C., Howard, S., Hughes, B. M., Johnston, D. W., Hay,
J. L., . . . O’Carroll, R. E. (2008). Type-­D personality mechanisms of effect:
The role of health-­related behavior and social support. Journal of Psychoso-
matic Research, 64(1), 63–­69. doi:10.1016/­j.jpsychores.2007.06.008
Ying, Y., Allen Lee, P., & Tsai, J. (2007). Predictors of depressive symptoms in
Chinese American college students: Parent and peer attachment, college chal-
lenges and sense of coherence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(2),
316–­323.
Zima, T. A. S., Fialová, L., Mestek, O., Janebová, M., Crkovská, J., Malbo-
han, I., . . . Popov, P. (2001). Oxidative stress, metabolism of ethanol and
alcohol-­related diseases. Journal of Biomedical Science, 8(1), 59–­70.
doi:10.1159/­000054014
Part IV

International Student
Post-­Study Experiences
17 Post-­Graduation Plans of
International Students
Heike C. Alberts

Introduction
For several decades now countries have been competing with one another
to attract the best and brightest from around the world. Attracting inter-
national students is one part of this global race for talent, as they bring
a wide variety of benefits to their host countries. Retaining international
students after they complete their university degrees is another impor-
tant part of this, as these students not only possess professional skills,
but have already adapted to their host country. It is therefore critical to
understand which factors are likely to encourage international students
to stay in a host country such as the United States after their gradua-
tion, and which factors discourage them from staying. It is important to
remember, however, that while students can weigh the benefits of stay-
ing or leaving, their decisions are also shaped by external contexts (e.g.,
immigration policies) that may constrain or facilitate their choices (e.g.,
Hazen & Alberts, 2006; 2013).
While several studies have been conducted that examine international
students’ migration intentions after graduation (see the “Background”
section for more information), some gaps remain in the literature. Most
critically, many studies about students’ return migration intentions,
including my own previous work, were carried out at a single univer-
sity. Little is known about to what degree the type of institution and
the experiences they had at this institution and in their host community
shape international students’ future migration plans. Gaining a better
understanding of what factors encourage and discourage international
students from staying in the United States and how these vary by type
of institution is not just an academic exercise, but can also have policy
implications. If the United States wants to retain a large percentage of
international students after graduation, universities have to do their part
in making sure that these students have experiences that encourage them
to stay. While the main goal of this study is to extend previous work
on international students’ migration intentions after graduation, it also
aims at alerting universities and other policymakers to some concerns
260 Heike C. Alberts
of international students that should be addressed to make them more
comfortable at the host institution and increase the chances of retaining
these talented people in the United States.

Background
International students’ post-­graduation plans can be studied from dif-
ferent perspectives, most notably the perspective of the countries (or
institutions) that compete for global talent, and from the perspective
of the students themselves. Much has been written about the financial,
cultural, educational, political, and intellectual contributions interna-
tional students make to the United States and the continuing benefits the
United States enjoys when they stay in the country after graduation (e.g.,
Bhandari & Blumenthal, 2011; Kim, Bankart, & Isdell, 2011). Scholars
examining the issue from the perspective of the host country have also
explored the concerns that the United States may be losing its competi-
tive edge at attracting international students, through both internal fac-
tors such as stricter immigration policies and external factors such as the
increasing competition from other host countries (e.g., NAFSA, 2007).
Now that scholars are in agreement that international student migra-
tions are not uni-­directional movements from one country to another
and should be better described as a brain circulation or brain exchange
(Bhandari & Blumenthal, 2011; Brooks & Waters, 2011), scholars are no
longer just interested in the initial migration of international students but
also in their post-­graduation plans.
A substantial body of literature studies international student migra-
tions from the perspective of the students. Numerous studies have iden-
tified the reasons why students want to obtain their degrees abroad.
Motivations include broad factors such as wanting to improve foreign
language skills, experience another culture, or gain international experi-
ences; professional factors such as the quality and reputation of a for-
eign degree or the availability of funding; and personal factors such as
wanting to have fun (e.g., Brooks & Waters, 2011; Hazen & Alberts,
2013; King, Findlay, Ahrens, & Geddes, 2013; Waters & Brooks, 2010).
Despite increased recent attention to the issue, less has been written about
their post-­graduation plans. Some authors (e.g., Hazen & Alberts, 2006;
2013) identify a wide range of factors that international students consider
in their return migration plans and the political, economic, and social
contexts in which these students are embedded. Other authors examine
a subset of factors in more depth, such as academic performance, experi-
ence while abroad, the financial situation (Lu, Zong, & Schissel, 2009),
family relations such as the wish to care for aging parents or to be with
a partner (Geddie, 2013; King & Raghuram, 2013), the overall strength
of the bond the student has formed with the host country (Mosneaga &
Winther, 2013), discipline of study and opportunities to use acquired
 Post-­Graduation Plans of International Students 261
skills (Soon, 2012), initial return migration intentions (Kim, Bankart, &
Isdell, 2011), and perceptions of what constitutes home (Wu & Wilkes,
2017). Some authors have also identified motivations specific to particu-
lar countries, such as Chinese students’ obligation to return to take care
of parents or incentives provided for returnees (Yu, 2013), or the expec-
tation of return for the welfare of the family for South Koreans (Lee &
Kim, 2010). Most of the studies examining return migrations of inter-
national students look at intentions rather than actual migrations, and
studies about actual returnees remain scarce. Several authors, however,
found that many returnees suffered from reverse culture shock and found
reintegrating into their home countries and families surprisingly difficult
(e.g., Butcher, 2004; Haines, 2013; Le & LaCost, 2017).
This chapter seeks to contribute to the literature examining post-­
graduation plans of international students. This study examines a wide
range of factors international students consider in their post-­graduation
planning. It extends previous work in several different ways with more
recently collected data following the gaps in the literature identified in
the book Coming from Abroad: International Students and Scholars in
the United States (Alberts & Hazen, 2013). First, this chapter not only
investigates which factors students consider in their post-­ graduation
plans, but also looks at whether perceptions of the United States, initial
migration motivations, and social connections in the host country shape
their plans. Second, it distinguishes among different subsets of interna-
tional students (males and females, as well as those attending different
types of institutions). Third, many previous studies focused on prestig-
ious research institutions and looked primarily at graduate students. This
study explicitly includes undergraduate students at teaching universities.

Research Method
This project seeks to answer three main research questions. (1) Which
factors do international students consider when they ponder staying in
the United States or leaving after graduation? (2) To what degree do
other factors, such as initial plans for migration or social contacts in the
host country, shape these intentions? (3) How do the main factors influ-
encing international students’ post-­graduation migration intentions vary
by gender and type of institution attended?
To answer these research questions it was important to survey inter-
national students at different types of institutions. Eight comprehensive
universities within the University of Wisconsin system agreed to send
information about my project to their international students in spring
2014. A total of 124 students completed the survey. Due to the restric-
tions imposed by the gatekeepers at the various universities, it was impos-
sible to send reminders to increase the response rate or to target specific
subsets of international students (e.g., graduate vs. undergraduate),
262 Heike C. Alberts
resulting in some obvious limitations of this study. Most importantly, the
relatively small number of respondents prevents a sophisticated statistical
analysis. Second, most, but not all, respondents from the research institu-
tions were graduate students, and the vast majority of respondents from
the teaching institutions were undergraduates, complicating the compari-
son. However, while undergraduate/­graduate status mattered on some
dimensions (such as job prospects after graduation), differences among
institutions were actually larger, so these data are reported in this study.
Nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged that not being able to control for
both type of institution and student status is a shortcoming of this study.
Despite these limitations, the responses provide important indications of
which factors international students consider in their post-­graduation
plans and how these vary according to gender and type of institution.
The online survey, administered through Qualtrics, consisted of three
main parts. The first part of the survey elicited background information
about the student respondents. The survey was completed by a good
cross-­section of international students, with respondents of different
ages, fields of study, levels of English proficiency, family status, and pre-
vious experiences in the United States represented. Most important for
this study, the sample was almost evenly split between men and women,
and those studying at research universities (defined as universities offer-
ing a wide range of doctoral degrees) and teaching universities (defined
as four year institutions that predominantly educate undergraduate stu-
dents). Student respondents hailed from all major world regions except
Oceania, with close to half of the respondents coming from Asia. Almost
two-­thirds of the respondents were undergraduate students.
The second part of the survey focused on international students’ rea-
sons for coming to the United States, whether they had thought about
other countries as possible destinations, and their social networks in the
United States. As in the remainder of the survey, most questions were
closed questions, with many asking students to mark the answer that best
described their situation. The third part of the survey asked students to
identify the factors they contemplated in regard to staying in the United
States or returning to their home countries. Most of the questions in this
part of the survey requested that students mark all answers that applied
to them; the list of responses was derived from previous studies. All data
were downloaded from Qualtrics and processed in SPSS. All percent-
ages reported here were calculated based on the number of students that
responded to each individual question.

Previous Experience With the United States and Original

Destination Preferences
It has been argued that making up one’s mind about what to do after
graduation—­staying in the United States or leaving (either to return
 Post-­Graduation Plans of International Students 263
to the home country or to migrate to a third county)—­is often more
complex than the initial decision to study abroad as students now have
more information about the host society and life circumstances may
have changed (for example, they may have married in the host country)
(Alberts, 2017). This is reflected in the spread of responses among the
international students in my study, with a similar percentage of respond-
ents wanting to leave the United States after completing their degrees
(39.2%) as wanting to stay (41.7%); 19.2% are undecided.
While experiences in the United States and changed contexts play an
important role in shaping their plans, it is also reasonable to assume that
students’ initial thinking about the United States as a host country, as
well as their motivations for studying abroad in the first place, may still
have an influence on their considerations. Almost half of the students in
my sample (49.2%) had no previous personal experience with the United
States before deciding to move there. About a third (32.5%) had previ-
ously studied or worked in the United States, and a further 18.3% had
visited as a tourist, so had at least limited personal exposure to their
host country. Even though future plans varied widely for both groups,
those with no previous experience of the country stated their desire to
leave after graduation at higher rates than those with previous exposure
(43.3% versus 35.0%). As with the other data reported in this chapter,
the sample is too small to form any firm conclusions, but nevertheless
the results suggest that those who already knew the United States before
coming to study were positively pre-­disposed towards the United States,
and as a result also more likely to want to stay in the country for a longer
time period.
While previous experiences with the United States seem to influence
post-­graduation migration intentions, it mattered even more whether
the international students considered only the United States as a destina-
tion (44.6% of all respondents), an indication of a clear preference, or
whether they contemplated (41.3%) or even preferred (14.1%) another
host country. Among those who had originally considered only the
United States as a host country, slightly more than half (51.9%) plan to
stay, while among those who had originally considered or even preferred
other host countries, only a third (32.3%) want to stay. Clearly qualita-
tive research is necessary to further explore how and to what degree pre-­
migration experiences with, and opinions of, host countries continue to
play a role in future plans.

Initial Motivations to Study Abroad

While previous exposure to the United States and original preferences
for a destination country shape post-­graduation migration intentions,
students’ initial motivations to study abroad may also matter. The most
important reasons why students in my sample chose to study in the
264 Heike C. Alberts
United States were the quality of a U.S. education (marked by 73.4%
of respondents), desire to improve English skills (64.5%), desire to gain
international experiences (64.5%), desire to experience another culture
(62.9%), and reputation of a U.S. degree (52.4%). Of these answer
choices, two specifically refer to the advantages of studying in the United
States (quality and reputation) and three more broadly to the advantages
of studying abroad (language, culture, international experience) that
could also be attained in other host countries. This broad distinction in
motivation is reflected in future plans of international students.
Those who came to specifically benefit from what the United States has
to offer are more likely to want to stay than those who came for other
reasons. For example, among those who marked the reputation of a U.S.
degree as a motivation, 53.8% want to stay, as do 46.2% of those who
listed the quality of a U.S. education as important. Among those who
primarily came to gain international experiences or experience another
culture, only 38.3% and 37.2% respectively want to stay. The percentage
of those who are currently undecided as to whether to stay in the U.S.
or leave is lowest among those who came because of the reputation of a
U.S. degree and highest among those who wanted to gain international
experiences and experience another culture. It appears that a few years
in the United States fulfilled the desire of many of those who wanted to
gain experiences (whether cultural or academic) abroad, while those who
more specifically came to take advantage of a U.S. education are more
likely to want to use their degree to stay in the United States. However,
it has to be pointed out that the differences among the various categories
are not large (for example, roughly a third want to leave regardless of
initial motivation), as a large number of other factors play a role as well.
I will now turn to social connections as another possible factor.

Social Connections
The role of family connections in shaping post-­graduation plans has been
discussed in numerous other studies. For example, it has been shown that
marrying a person from the host country provides a strong incentive for
staying in the host country, and family connections or obligations in the
home country favor a return home (e.g., Lee & Kim, 2010; Lu, Zong, &
Schissel, 2009). Family connections constitute what has been termed
strong ties, but weak ties (with fellow international students, colleagues,
or the broader community) may also play a role. Since the importance
of strong ties in shaping migration decisions is well documented in the
literature, I present the data for weak ties in this chapter.
Several authors have observed that international students are more
likely to interact with other students from their home country (or region)
or other international students than with American students or the
broader community beyond the university (e.g., Zhou & Cole, 2017).
 Post-­Graduation Plans of International Students 265
These weak ties could influence their post-­graduation plans, as students
who feel that they have a “home away from home” through interaction
with fellow countrymen and countrywomen may find it more desirable to
stay in the United States than those who do not. Among the students in my
sample, 8.3% believed that they were the only student from their home
country at their university. Most, however, had access to fellow coun-
trymen and countrywomen—­more than half of all respondents (54.5%)
reported having at least one other student from their home country on
campus, and a third (33.9%) stated that there were many fellow country-
men and countrywomen. Those who had many compatriots on campus
were most likely to report that they favored staying in the United States:
52.5% of those who have many countrymen and countrywomen, 37.9%
with a few, and only 30.0% of those who do not have any students from
home on campus want to remain. These data refer only to the presence
of compatriots on campus, however; actual interactions through student
associations and friendship networks are likely even more important, but
could not be investigated in this study.
While the presence of compatriots seems important in shaping post-­
graduation plans, the composition of an international student’s friends
appears to play a smaller role. Only 15.7% in my sample reported that
they have mostly American friends, almost half (47.9%) have mostly
friends from their home country, and 36.7% have friends from a variety
of different countries. The percentage of international students who plan
to stay in the United States after graduation is similar across all three
groups (ranging from 40.4% to 44.4%), but those with mostly Ameri-
can friends are somewhat less likely to want to leave the United States
(33.3% marked this option, compared to 40.0% or more for the other
two groups), probably because they formed bonds that tie them to the
United States. The role of compatriots (whether as friends on campus,
community members in the host country, or abroad) and friends more
generally in shaping experiences in the host nation and influencing post-­
graduation plans warrants further study.

Factors Considered in Post-­Graduation Plans

Once they have been in the United States for some time, many interna-
tional students weigh the pros and cons of staying in their host country
or returning to their home country (or, in some cases, migrating to a third
country). One way to examine this is to ask students to mark the fac-
tors that encourage and discourage each of these options. Of the factors
presented as answer choices to the respondents, six were marked by at
least a third of the students as speaking in favor of staying in the United
States: a better quality of life (41.9%), more diverse society (39.5%), bet-
ter job prospects (38.7%), more academic freedom (37.9%), higher sal-
ary (35.5%), and higher standard of living (34.7%). While professional
266 Heike C. Alberts
factors such as job prospects and salary are important, it is important to
note that the two most popular choices refer to how pleasant life is in
the United States and how important many students consider living in a
diverse environment.
In this chapter I examine how these factors vary for certain subgroups
of international students, namely males and females (an already well-­
established factor in shaping migration intentions; see, for example, Lu,
Zong, & Schissel, 2009) and type of institution attended (a characteristic
related to experience in the host country previously identified as a gap in
the literature; see Alberts & Hazen, 2013). I use spider graphs to allow
an easy visual comparison of men and women and types of institutions.
A spider graph makes it possible to get an overall impression of the dif-
ferences by the size and shape of the polygons, but also allows different
factors to be compared individually.
As Figure 17.1 shows, standard of living was equally important for
men and women in my sample, while quality of life, a diverse society, and
job prospects were marked at higher rates by men than women as fac-
tors encouraging a stay in the United States. Women more often marked
a higher salary as a factor speaking in favor of remaining in the United
States, and more often considered academic freedom as an important
factor than men (47.5% of women versus 29.0% of men marked aca-
demic freedom as a consideration). A likely explanation is that women
still face significant obstacles in professional employment and are paid
less than men in many countries, so the United States offers them oppor-
tunities that they do not have at home. Why more women consider aca-
demic freedom an important factor is harder to explain. It is possible
that respondents interpreted the term more broadly than intended, and
understood the term as referring to professional freedom more generally.

Quality of Life
60
50
Standard of 40 Diverse
Living 30 Society
20
10 Male
0
Female

Higher Salary Job Prospects

Academic
Freedom

Figure 17.1 Factors Encouraging Staying in the United States and Gender
 Post-­Graduation Plans of International Students 267
The type of university students attended while they were in the United
States also shapes international students’ experiences (Figure 17.2). For
example, it may influence the experience in the classroom, how diverse
the student body is, and what opportunities students have. (It may also
reflect their initial motivation for coming abroad—­for example, a student
attending a research university may have come to use specific research
facilities or be part of a specific team, while a student at a teaching uni-
versity may have come mostly to experience another culture.) The present
study suggests that the type of university attended and the experiences
students had may have an influence on post-­graduation plans. For exam-
ple, it is interesting to observe that a higher salary is much less of a draw
to the United States for students at a teaching university (25.0%) than
for those at a research university (49.2%), while a more diverse society
is a more commonly cited factor among those at a teaching university
(45.2%) than among those at a research institution (32.8%).
Differences according to gender and type of institution are difficult to
explain for factors encouraging a stay in the United States after graduation;
in regard to factors discouraging a stay in the United States, however, the
picture is much clearer. The most important factor discouraging a stay in
the United States is not feeling at home, marked by 47.6% of respondents.
Roughly a third (34.7%) fear difficulties in obtaining a visa, a quarter are
lonely (27.4%) or struggle with different cultural priorities, and a fifth are
concerned about prejudice (21.8%) and feel alienated from U.S. culture
(21.0%). Loneliness, isolation due to language or cultural barriers, or lack
of family support in the host countries have been frequently discussed in
the literature on international students as factors that make them uncom-
fortable in the host country. Students who come from very different cul-
tural backgrounds and have poorer English skills have been found to be
particularly affected (Zhou & Cole, 2017), but gender matters as well.

Quality of
Life
60
50
Standard of 40 Diverse
Living 30 Society
20
10 Research University
0
Teaching University
Higher Job
Salary Prospects

Academic
Freedom

Factors Encouraging Staying in the United States and Type of

Figure 17.2 
Institution
268 Heike C. Alberts
As Figure 17.3 shows, women report discouraging factors at higher
rates than men. The differences are most visible in regard to not feeling
at home (52.5% of women versus 43.5% of men), feeling alienated from
U.S. culture (26.2% versus 16.1%), and struggling with different cul-
tural priorities (34.4% versus 19.4%). The data do not tell us, however,
whether women care more about these issues than men and therefore
report them more, or whether their actual experiences vary substantially
from men’s. This clearly warrants further study.
Figure 17.4, distinguishing among students at different types of uni-
versities, shows a clear pattern as well. With the exception of fearing
difficulties in obtaining a U.S. visa, all of the major factors indicated by
students as discouraging a stay in the United States are marked at higher

Not Feeling at
Home
60
50
Feeling 40 Visa
Alienated 30 Difficules
20
10 Male
0
Female

Experiencing
Feeling Lonely
Prejudice

Different
Culture

Figure 17.3 Factors Discouraging Staying in the United States and Gender

Not Feeling
at Home
60
50
Feeling 40 Visa
Alienated 30 Difficules
20
10 Research University
0
Teaching University
Experiencing Feeling
Prejudice Lonely

Different
Culture

Factors Discouraging Staying in the United States and Type of

Figure 17.4 
Institution
 Post-­Graduation Plans of International Students 269
rates by students at teaching universities. In particular, the percentage
of students at teaching universities who are concerned about prejudice
(25.0%), alienated from U.S. culture (25.0%), and feel lonely (35.9%) is
cause for concern. Part of the explanation may be that students at teach-
ing universities, which tend to be much less diverse, have fewer connec-
tions with compatriots and therefore may lack the social networks that
could help them overcome loneliness. The lower level of diversity could
also be an explanation for their concern about prejudice.
International students weigh up the pros and cons not only of staying
in the United States, but also of returning to their home country. By far
the most important factor encouraging a return home is the desire to be
with friends and family, marked by 82.3% of respondents. For about
half feeling more comfortable at home (50.8%) and family obligations
(46.0%) are important considerations. Other factors such as a better
quality of life, better job prospects, and higher salary were considerations
for only small numbers of students, presumably because few home coun-
tries can outshine the United States on these issues. Differences according
to gender were much less pronounced here, with the notable exception
of family obligations, which was listed by men at higher rates (51.6%)
than women (41.0%). This may be because in some cultures, especially
in parts of Asia, the obligation to take care of aging parents rests with
sons. In regard to differences according to type of university attended, the
most noteworthy finding is that people at teaching universities cite feeling
more comfortable at home at higher rates (57.8%) than those at research
universities (42.6%), confirming the earlier observation that interna-
tional students at teaching universities are less comfortable than those at
larger institutions. In my sample, the research universities are located in
larger, more diverse cities, which may further compound the difference,
as larger cities typically offer larger ethnic communities, ethnic grocery
stores, diverse places of worship, etc., which might make international
students feel more at home.
Finally, some factors also discourage a return home; 41.1% of respond-
ents marked limited job prospects as a deterrent to returning home, but
other factors such as poorer standard of living (34.7%), poorer quality
of life (33.9%), economic situation (30.6%), political situation (25.0%),
and lack of political freedom (24.2%) were listed by fewer students. For
males, standard of living and quality of life (personal factors) were some-
what more important, while more females expressed concern about the
political and economic situation and lack of political freedom (contextual
factors). A similar difference is visible among students attending different
types of universities. Those at teaching universities more often marked
standard of living and quality of life, while more students at research
universities expressed concern about the political and economic situa-
tion. Students at teaching universities were more concerned about job
prospects at home than those at research universities, probably because
270 Heike C. Alberts
the undergraduate degrees awarded at teaching universities offer fewer
avenues to good jobs in the home country than advanced degrees.
Looking across all factors considered here (six each pro and con in
regard to the home and host countries for a total of twenty-­four), it is
noteworthy that the three that were marked most often are all connected
to family and not feeling comfortable in the United States: four-­fifths of the
students said that family at home encouraged them to return, and about
half said that not feeling at home in the United States and feeling more
comfortable at home were important factors. This is important because
all these factors are personal or cultural factors that are the direct result of
living outside the home country. They are also difficult to address.
The second important observation is that almost all major factors
encouraging a stay in the United States are connected to characteristics of
the country (e.g., offering a high standard of living, providing graduates
with good job opportunities, having a diverse society). They are there-
fore contextual factors largely beyond the control of the universities. By
contrast, some of the factors discouraging students from remaining in
the United States can at least in part be addressed by universities. For
example, universities can design programs and support services that help
international students learn about American culture (to help address the
struggles of living in a different culture), offer opportunities for mean-
ingful interactions with compatriots and Americans (to help overcome
loneliness and isolation), and train others to positively interact with peo-
ple who are different from them (to reduce incidences of prejudice and
discrimination).

Conclusion
This chapter assumes that international students have significant agency
in making their decisions, but that their plans are circumscribed by their
personal characteristics and the contexts in which they are embedded. It
follows the tradition of examining a fairly wide range of factors inter-
national students may consider when pondering their plans after gradu-
ation and investigating whether and how the weighing of these factors
varies among different subgroups of international students.
The first part of the chapter provided some insight into several factors
that have received little academic attention so far. It showed that previ-
ous experiences with the host country as well as the initial motivation to
study abroad have some influence on post-­graduation migration plans,
and that weak links (with compatriots and friends) may play a role in the
decision-­making as well. More detailed research is needed to gain a better
understanding of the role of these factors.
Building on earlier work (Hazen and Alberts 2006; 2013), the sec-
ond part of the study examined a large number of factors that encour-
age and discourage international students to stay in the United States
 Post-­Graduation Plans of International Students 271
or return to their home countries. Two main conclusions can be drawn
from the results: first, while most factors encouraging students to remain
in the United States are tied to characteristics of the country itself, sev-
eral of those discouraging a stay can be tackled by universities. It is dif-
ficult to help students adjust (as international students themselves are
a diverse group and have different needs) and address discrimination,
but well-­designed programming can go a long way in making interna-
tional students feel more comfortable. Second, while differences accord-
ing to gender and type of institution attended in the United States are
overall moderate, the study showed that women and those at teaching
institutions report factors discouraging staying in the United States at
higher rates. This is cause for concern and means that teaching universi-
ties (which tend to be less diverse) have to find ways to provide support
to their often only small groups of international students. This is even
more important when they are located in cities where students do not
have access to a support structure of compatriots in the wider commu-
nity. Working towards making international students more comfortable
in the United States is not only important in itself, but ultimately helps
the United States and its higher education institutions to remain competi-
tive in the global competition for talent.

References
Alberts, H. (2017). Complex decisions: Factors determining international stu-
dents’ migrations. In M. van Riemsdijk & Q. Wang (Eds.), Rethinking interna-
tional skilled migration (pp. 36–­53). New York, NY: Routledge.
Alberts, H., & Hazen, H. (Eds.). (2013). International students and scholars in
the United States. Coming from abroad. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bhandari, R., & Blumenthal, P. (Eds.). (2011). International students and global
mobility in higher education. National trends and new directions. New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration, and the interna-
tionalization of higher education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Butcher, A. (2004). Departures and arrivals: International students returning to
the countries of origin. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 13, 275–­303.
Geddie, K. (2013). The transnational ties that bind: Relationship considerations
for graduating international science and engineering research students. Popula-
tion, Space and Place, 19, 196–­208.
Haines, D. (2013). ‘More aware of everything’: Exploring the returnee experi-
ence in American higher education. Journal of Studies in International Educa-
tion, 17, 19–­38.
Hazen, H., & Alberts, H. (2006). Visitors or immigrants? International students
in the United States. Population, Space and Place, 12, 201–­216.
Hazen, H., & Alberts, H. (2013). ‘Too many things pull me back and forth’.
Return intentions and transnationalism among international students. In H.
Alberts & H. Hazen (Eds.), International students and scholars in the United
States: Coming from abroad (pp. 65–­87). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
272 Heike C. Alberts
Kim, D., Bankart, C., & Isdell, L. (2011). International doctorates: Trends analy-
sis on their decision to stay in US. Higher Education, 62, 141–­161.
King, R., Findlay, A., Ahrens, J., & Geddes, A. (2013). British students in
the United States: Motivations, experiences, and career aspirations. In H.
Alberts & H. Hazen (Eds.), International students and scholars in the United
States: Coming from abroad (pp. 25–­45). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
King, R., & Raghuram, P. (2013). International student migration: Mapping the
field and new research agendas. Population, Space and Place, 19, 127–­137.
Le, A., & LaCost, B. (2017). Vietnamese graduate international student repatri-
ates: Reverse adjustment. Journal of International Students, 7, 449–­466.
Lee, J., & Kim, D. (2010). Brain gain or brain circulation? U.S. doctoral recipi-
ents returning to South Korea. Higher Education, 59, 627–­643.
Lu, Y., Zong, L., & Schissel, B. (2009). To stay or return: Migration intentions of
students from People’s Republic of China in Saskatchewan, Canada. Interna-
tional Migration & Integration, 10, 283–­310.
Mosneaga, A., & Winther, L. (2013). Emerging talents? International students
before and after their career start in Denmark. Population, Space and Place,
19, 181–­195.
NAFSA. (2007). An international education policy for U.S. leadership, com-
petitiveness, and Security. Retrieved from www.nafsa.org/­ public_policy.
sec/­united_states_international/­toward_an_international/­.
Soon, J. J. (2012). Home is where the heart is? Factors determining international
students’ destination country upon completion of studies abroad. Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38, 147–­162.
Waters, J., & Brooks, R. (2010). Accidental achievers? International higher edu-
cation, class reproduction and privilege in the experiences of UK students over-
seas. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31, 217–­228.
Wu, C., & Wilkes, R. (2017). International students’ post-­graduation plans and
the search for home. Geoforum, March, 123–­132.
Yu, W. (2013). The emerging brain circulation between China and the US. In H.
Alberts & H. Hazen (Eds), International students and scholars in the United
States: Coming from abroad (pp. 47–­64). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zhou, J., & Cole, D. (2017). Comparing international and American students:
Involvement in college life and overall satisfaction. Higher Education, 73,
655–­672.
18 International Students’
Experiences in the U.S.
Workforce
Gender Differences in Labor
Market Outcomes
Maria Adamuti-­Trache

Introduction
The internationalization of American higher education led to the diver-
sification of campuses by attracting talented foreign-­born students who
contribute to the robust exchange of ideas in the classrooms, expand
social networks, and bring new cultural perspectives. A recent report
(Institute of International Education, 2016) shows the number of inter-
national students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities reached
1,043,839 students in 2015/­2016. They represent more than 5% of the
twenty million students enrolled in U.S. higher education. The share of
international students is about 40% for undergraduate studies and 40%
for graduate studies, with an additional 20% pursuing non-­degree studies
and training (Zong & Batalova, 2016). More than 40% pursue science
and engineering (S&E) degrees. The quality of U.S. graduate education,
better funding opportunities, improved job opportunities (if going back
home), interest to experience a new culture, and academic freedom are
motivating factors for international students coming to study in the U.S.,
especially in S&E fields (Hazen & Alberts, 2006).
Many international students choose to stay in the United States after
graduation (Han & Appelbaum, 2016; Hazen & Alberts, 2006; Ugwu &
Adamuti-­Trache, 2017) and eventually become part of the U.S. college-­
educated immigrant sub-­ population that represents now 29% of the
about thirty-­seven million U.S. foreign-­born population aged twenty-­five
and over (Zong & Batalova, 2016). The career and life success of these
individuals depend on policies and practices specific to three areas: higher
education institutions that shape their human and social capital, immi-
gration policies that legalize their right to build a life in the U.S., and
employers that facilitate their stay by offering jobs and career rewards.
Most international students in the United States come as temporary
residents (e.g., F-­1 or J-­1 visas) and have to maintain a legal status during
their studies, especially if they intend to be in good standing, stay after
graduation, and become immigrants to the United States (Finn, 2014;
Hazen & Alberts, 2006). As Finn’s (2014) report indicates, between
274 Maria Adamuti-­Trache
1997 and 2011, the percentages of foreign-­born doctoral recipients of
S&E degrees awarded by U.S. universities fluctuated from a lowest 36%
in 1999 to a highest 46% in 2007. On average, about two-­thirds of the
foreign-­born S&E doctorate recipients were still in the U.S. within five to
ten years after graduation. The stay rates were higher for women: among
S&E doctorates in 1995, 66% of females and 60% of males were still
in the U.S. in 2011. Over time, permanent residency status has become
harder to obtain, since in 1997 about 76.7% of foreign-­born S&E doc-
torates had a temporary visa compared to 88.7% in 2011.
U.S. employers are crucial in facilitating a path to permanent resi-
dency for foreign-­born college-­educated individuals by offering skilled
jobs and supporting visa applications (Shih, 2016). Foreign-­born interna-
tional graduates compete with other high-­skilled professionals, directly
recruited by employers or admitted by the immigrant-­receiving country
through merit-­based immigration policies (Boucher & Cerna, 2014). U.S.
employers strive to recruit and sponsor most talented people from around
the world often in competition with other immigrant-­receiving countries
(Adamuti-­Trache, 2011; Li & Lo, 2012). For instance, it was estimated
the U.S. workforce requires 2.3 million scientists and engineers between
2012 and 2022 to meet both growth and net replacement (Sargent Jr.,
2014), which makes vital the recruitment and retention of foreign-­born
college-­educated people with S&E background.
Since stay rates are higher for female international students than
for their male counterparts (Finn, 2014), it would be useful to better
understand their journeys through immigration and employment in the
United States. In addition, it is important to understand whether gen-
der intersects with residency status (Lowell & Avato, 2014) in creating
systemic disadvantages for foreign-­born high-­skilled workers in the U.S.
segmented labor market (Hegewisch, Liepmann, Hayes, & Hartmann,
2010; Umbach, 2007). The notion of gendered skilled migration pro-
posed about fifteen years ago (Boyd & Grieco, 2003) draws attention to
the notion that highly educated women should be now considered a part
of the human capital mobility trend.
The purpose of this chapter is to present a comparative analysis of
data from the 2013 National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG) to
examine differences at the intersection of gender and residency status
(i.e., permanent residents/­naturalized citizens or temporary residents),
among the foreign-­ born college-­educated individuals who obtained
their highest degree in the United States. The study addressed two
research questions:

1. Are there significant differences among gender-­residency groups with

respect to demographic (i.e., age, time in the U.S., marital status/­
parenthood) and human capital (i.e., level of education, field of
study) characteristics?
 International Students in U.S. Workforce 275
2. Are there significant differences among gender-­ residency groups
with respect to labor market outcomes (i.e., employment status,
sector of employment, work arrangement, salary) and perceptions
of job match quality (i.e., job-­degree relatedness, job expectations
mismatch)?

Theoretical Perspectives
Human capital theory is the most influential framework to examine labor
market outcomes in modern knowledge economies (Becker, 2002), mak-
ing the framework relevant to the study of college-­educated workers.
High-­skilled workers are in great demand by employers to boost innova-
tion and technology and maintain the nation’s global competitiveness,
especially in science and engineering. In an era of knowledge globaliza-
tion (Freeman, 2013), knowledge and human capital flow across bor-
ders in both directions through labor migration. Although developed
countries have net advantages in attracting skilled workers to create
high technology goods and services, developing countries also benefit
in boosting their higher education systems, which contributes to “brain
circulation” when some immigrants return to their countries of origin
with greater skills, professional connections, and economic capital (Sax-
enian, 2005). In the United States in particular, international students are
a major source of supply for immigrant scientists and engineers (Sargent,
2014). As stated by Altbach (2004), “International students don’t just
fill seats—­they also contribute to the nation’s global competitiveness by
swelling the numbers of highly trained people in key disciplines. In some
graduate specialties such as engineering, computer sciences, and a few
others, foreign students constitute a majority of students at the doctoral
level” (p. 2).
Immigration policies create various barriers to the free circulation of
human capital. Compared to other immigrant-­receiving countries with
immigration policies based on a “human capital” model (e.g., Canada’s
point system to select permanent residents) or a “neo-­corporatist” model
(e.g., Australia’s point system with extensive business participation), the
United States employs a “market-­oriented, demand-­driven model based
on employer selection of migrants” (Koslovski, 2014, p. 27). Studies
focused on U.S. immigration policies in the era of knowledge globali-
zation emphasize potential barriers experienced by the international
students and skilled migrants who are part of the “brain circulation”
phenomenon, with supply increasing faster than demand in recent years
and employers-­sponsored H-­1B visas being the primary way high-­skilled
migrants obtain U.S. residency (Finn, 2014; Han & Appelbaum, 2016).
However, the labor market outcomes of high-­skilled migrants (many
of whom are former international students) who manage to navigate
the residency and immigration process in the United States are overall
276 Maria Adamuti-­Trache
promising, particularly in S&E fields (Campbell, Adamuti-­Trache, &
Bista, 2018), which shows that human capital theory tenets apply to
skilled migrant workers in the United States. Yet, migrant high-­skilled
workers enter a segmented labor market (Hudson, 2007), in which job
opportunities and quality of employment (i.e., polarization between
good and bad jobs) are associated with workers’ characteristics (e.g.,
age, gender, race/­ethnicity) and are affected by adverse economic circum-
stances (e.g., recession periods). Market segmentation theories are used
to explain gender differences in outcomes attributed to the underrepre-
sentation of women in better-­rewarded occupations (Charles & Grusky,
2004; Hegewisch et al., 2010).
The current study on high-­skilled migrant women’s labor market out-
comes is built around the concept of gendered skilled migration that
combines elements of human capital, migration, and segmented labor
market theories. As Boyd and Grieco (2003) asserted, the notion of
gendered skilled migration could open new avenues for incorporating
gender in migration theory. Other researchers noticed the little attention
received in the literature by the gender dimension of international migra-
tion (Docquier, Lowell, & Marfouk, 2009), in which women were mostly
viewed as dependents (i.e., mothers, wives, daughters of male migrants)
not equal contributors to the immigration process, and thus called for
a “gendered assessment of highly skilled migration” (p. 299). Similarly,
Kofman (2014) recommends gender-­based and intersectional assessments
of European immigration policies directed towards the recruitment of
high-­skilled workers, concluding that “men and women with the same
qualifications and experience should be treated equally in the immigra-
tion process” (p. 125). High-­skilled immigrant women are likely to con-
tinue to accumulate disadvantages when they enter the U.S. segmented
labor market (Hegewisch et al., 2010).
In this study, an intersectional approach (Crenshaw, 1991; Davis,
2008) that combines gender and immigrant residency status provides an
appropriate methodology for the gendered skilled migration framework.
As asserted by Davis (2008), “Intersectionality refers to the interaction
between gender, race, and other categories of difference in individual
lives, social practices, institutional arrangements, and cultural ideologies
and the outcomes of these interactions in terms of power” (p. 68), so
it allows exploring how high-­skilled immigrant women and men have
different experiences and outcomes in the U.S. segmented labor market.

Method

Data
The study employed the 2013 National Survey of College Graduates
(NSCG) public-­use dataset based on information from the Scientists and
 International Students in U.S. Workforce 277
Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT) (NSF, n.d.). SESTAT collects
information on employment, education, and demographic characteristics
of U.S. scientists and engineers, defined as individuals who either received
degrees in S&E or S&E-­related fields or work in such occupations, and
have at least a bachelor’s degree or higher. The 2013 NSCG dataset was
collected from 100,000 respondents who represent about fifty-­five mil-
lion college graduates.

Research Sample
The research sample included those who obtained their highest degree
in the United States (i.e., more than 92% of the 2013 NSCG file) as an
indicator of human capital (the highest degree represents the most recent
degree for 99.9% of respondents). The most important sample selection
criterion was to identify those who had been international students and
obtained their highest degree in the United States. One of the variables
(FNVSATP) differentiated the status of foreign-­born respondents enter-
ing the U.S. with a permanent resident visa (informally known as a green
card), with a temporary visa for work, as dependents, or with a tem-
porary visa for study/­training. The latter are identified as international
students for this study. The research sample consists of N = 5,397 former
international students who obtained their highest degree in the U.S. and
are now part of the U.S. immigrant group. They have in 2013 differ-
ent residency status: they either became permanent residents (some being
already naturalized citizens) or are still on temporary visas.

Variables and Constructs

The design variable for the study is a gender-­residency variable that takes
into account the intersectional effect of two demographic factors. Both
factors create advantages and disadvantages documented in the litera-
ture. Gender is often placing women at a disadvantage in a segmented
labor market (Blossfeld et al., 2015) in which highly educated women are
often affected by horizontal segregation due to field of study and occupa-
tional wage gaps. Temporary residency (TR) is also creating restrictions
in terms of employment choices and job mobility (Lowell & Avato, 2014)
that add to the work stress due to job insecurity (Bhagat, Segovis, & Nel-
son, 2012). Immigrant women experience a double-­disadvantage due to
both gender and citizenship status (Donato, Piya, & Jacobs, 2014) as first
articulated by Boyd (1984) about immigrant women in Canada. Reach-
ing permanent residency (PR) status depends on the time since arrival,
and the longer immigrants stay in the U.S., the higher their chances to
resolve the residency problems, enrich their human and social capital,
and obtain better employment. Other demographic variables that may
affect differently the career advancement of women and men are age and
278 Maria Adamuti-­Trache
family obligations. For the latter, marital status and parenthood were
combined (i.e., not married and no children; married and no children;
children and either married or not).
Two variables describe immigrants’ human capital: level of college
degree completed (i.e., bachelor’s, master’s, PhD) and field of study (i.e.,
computer and math sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences, social
sciences, engineering, S&E-­related fields, non-­S&E fields).
Finally, variables that describe labor market outcomes include
employment status (i.e., employed; unemployed; not in the labor force);
employment sector (i.e., educational institutions; business/­industry and
government); work arrangement (i.e., part-­time/­full-­time; working full
year or less); and salary. These are objective indicators of immigrants’ suc-
cess in the segmented labor market, typically used in examining returns to
educational investment (Heslin, 2005). Other measures are indicative of
workers’ perceptions of job match quality such as job-­degree relatedness
(i.e., closely related; somewhat related; not related) that signify possible
mismatch in terms of level or field of degree (Robst, 2007). Similarly, the
importance they assign to certain job quality factors (e.g., salary, benefits,
job security, opportunities for advancement, intellectual challenge, level
of responsibility, degrees of independence, contribution to society, job
location) indicates possible mismatch between workers’ expectations and
current job. The latter variables are measured on an importance scale
interval from 1 (not important at all) to 4 (very important).

Statistical Analyses
In a comparative design, bivariate analyses are used to compare gender-­
residency groups on demographics, human capital, and labor market
outcomes and experiences. ANOVA tests are used to compare means of
continuous variables (e.g., age, time in the U.S., salary, and job quality
factors) and chi-­square tests to assess associations between the gender-­
residency variable and all categorical variables. Normalized weights
based on the survey weights (WTSURVY) are used in the analysis to
preserve the sample size but estimate the population proportions.

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of this exploratory study are related to its purpose and
data availability. One limitation was to focus the study only on gender
issues without taking into account factors such as race/­ethnicity that
often intersect with gender in amplifying inequalities in the labor market.
Another limitation was to include in the study the entire international
student NSCG sample regardless of the graduation year to ensure a large
sample. Finally, to avoid small cell size, I combined categories for vari-
ables such as marital-­children status and employment sector.
 International Students in U.S. Workforce 279
Findings

Demographic and Human Capital Profiles

The sample of foreign-­born college graduates with U.S. degrees is about
63% male and 37% female (Table 18.1). The majority of them (80%) are
PRs (or even naturalized), are older (i.e., males 49 years old and women

Demographic and Human Capital Factors by Gender-­

Table 18.1  Residency
Status

N Gender-­Residency Status p-­value

Testsa
Male-­Perm Male-­Temp Female-­Perm Female-­
Res Res Res Temp Res
(M-­PR) (M-­TR) (F-­PR) (F-­TR)

2,734 645 1,600 418

Demographics
Age (mean) 49.3 30.9 46.0 30.0 <.001
Time in U.S. (mean) 26.2 30.9 24.9 8.5 <.001
Marital-­children <.001
status (column %)
Not married, no 11.7 60.7 17.1 56.2
children
Married, no children 27.6 25.4 29.3 22.5
Children (married or 60.7 22.9 53.6 21.3
not)b
Human capital
Level of college <.001
education
(column %)
Undergraduate 29.4 12.4 39.1 29.2
Master’s 47.5 68.3 47.1 55.0
PhD 23.1 19.3 13.8 15.8
Field of study <.001
(column %)
Computer/­math sc. 15.7 20.5 10.0 9.1
Biological sc. 6.0 5.9 9.9 8.9
Physical sc. 4.9 4.3 2.5 4.1
Social and related sc. 5.7 5.6 11.9 9.1
Engineering 25.5 40.7 7.1 11.2
S&E-­related fields 8.7 8.9 13.0 13.4
Non-­S&E fields 33.6 14.1 45.7 44.3
a ANOVA tests of statistically significant differences among gender-­residency group means
(i.e., age, time in U.S. variables); chi-­square tests of association between gender-­residency
status and categorical variables (i.e., marital-­children status, level of college education,
field of study)
b Categories combined to avoid small cell size (< 5) for some groups (e.g., male TR unmar-
ried with children)
280 Maria Adamuti-­Trache
46 years old), and have been in the U.S. for about twenty-­five years.
Those still on temporary visa are in their 30s and have been in the U.S.
for less than ten years. The two residency groups are almost one gen-
eration apart, displaying two immigrant phases. Age differences are not
prominent within each residency group, although women are somehow
younger. The ANOVA tests are statistically significant.
Table 18.1 shows a statistically significant association between gender-­
residency groups and familial status. About 60.7% of male PRs compared
to 53.6% of women PRs have children. Within the same residency group,
a higher percentage of women (17.1%) are unmarried with no children.
Among the TRs, a comparable percentage of men and women (22.9%
of men and 21.3% of women) have children, but a higher percentage of
women (56.2%) are unmarried with no children. Research shows that
American college-­ educated women choose to delay or forgo marriage
(Cherlin, 2005), a trend also visible among these recent female TRs.
In terms of human capital characteristics, both level of education and
field of study variables are significantly associated with gender-­residency
status. We first notice the gender differences within the PRs (who overall
are older and have stayed longer in the U.S.), with men being more likely
to have a higher level of education (23.1% of men vs. 13.8% of women
with PhD). This difference is not as pronounced for the TRs (who are
younger and more recent arrivals), for whom 15.8% of women already
have a PhD (higher than the percentage of female PRs). At the under-
graduate level, we also notice larger percentages among PRs than TRs,
which suggests an increase in the level of higher education among recent
immigrants who came to the U.S. on international student temporary
visas. One reason could be that universities focus on recruiting graduate
rather than undergraduate international students because in some fields,
such as S&E, “those who complete S&E undergraduate work outside the
United States are more knowledgeable and better prepared” (National
Academy of Sciences, 2005, p. 41). Another reason could be the focus of
immigration legislation on granting temporary visas to students obtain-
ing advanced degrees (Haddal, 2008).
When one examines Table 18.1, a visible goal of higher education insti-
tutions appears to be the recruitment of S&E international students (i.e.,
computer/­math sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences, engineer-
ing, and social sciences) as classified by the National Science Foundation
(n.d.). Among recent immigrants, S&E fields are more prevalent, particu-
larly among male TRs, with 77% S&E degrees, more than 70% of them
actually in traditional S&E fields that exclude social sciences. Only 57.7%
of male PRs have S&E degrees, and both women groups have about 40%
degrees in S&E fields. Among men, there is a clear difference between the
percentages with degrees in computer sciences (20.5% of male TRs vs.
15.7% of male PRs) and engineering (40.7% of male TRs vs. 25.5% of
male PRs). The distribution across fields of study is more similar for the
 International Students in U.S. Workforce 281
two women groups, with a slight difference between engineering and phys-
ical sciences among female TRs. When combining academic level and field
of study, recent immigrants (currently TRs) appear to have a human capital
advantage in the labor market within each gender group.

Labor Market Outcomes and Experiences

There is much variability in the labor force status by gender-­residency
(Table 18.2). The most active working group is male TRs with 92.2%

Table 18.2 Labor Market Factors by Gender-­Residency Status

Gender-­Residency Status p-­

value
Male-­Perm Male-­Temp Female-­Perm Female-­ Testsa
Res (M-­PR) Res (M-­TR) Res (F-­PR) Temp Res
(F-­TR)

Labor market outcomes

Labor force statusc <.001
(column %)
Employed 87.3 92.2 81.9 72.5
Unemployed 3.6 0.9 5.4 3.6
Not in the labor 9.0 6.8 12.7 23.9
force
Sector of <.001
employmentd
(column %)
Educational 13.3 28.9 26.2 47.0
institutions
Business/­industry or 86.7 71.0 73.8 53.0
governmentb
Work arrangement <.001
(weekly)d (column
%)
Full-­time 95.1 84.2 78.2 85.5
Part-­time 4.9 15.8 21.8 14.5
Work arrangement <.001
(yearly)d (column
%)
Full-­year (52 weeks) 91.5 91.1 78.9 82.2
Less than 52 weeks 8.5 8.9 21.1 17.8
Salary (annualized)d 99,740 69,500 72,090 53,920 <.001
(means, $)
Labor market experiences
Job-­degree <.001
relatednessd
(column %)
Not related 11.9 5.9 10.1 1.7

(Continued)
282 Maria Adamuti-­Trache
Table 18.2 (Continued)

Gender-­Residency Status p-­

value
Male-­Perm Male-­Temp Female-­Perm Female-­ Testsa
Res (M-­PR) Res (M-­TR) Res (F-­PR) Temp Res
(F-­TR)

Somewhat related 24.5 10.9 28.7 20.1

Closely related 63.6 83.2 61.3 78.2
Importance of factors
for jobe (means)
Salary 3.65 3.76 3.68 3.67 <.001
Benefits 3.61 3.61 3.64 3.72 <.010
Job security 3.61 3.73 3.67 3.67 <.001
Job location 3.49 3.29 3.66 3.31 <.001
Opportunities for 3.47 3.77 3.49 3.80 <.001
advancement
Intellectual challenge 3.59 3.71 3.61 3.76 <.001
Level of 3.48 3.51 3.43 3.59 <.001
responsibility
Degrees of 3.58 3.55 3.57 3.44 <.001
independence
Contribution to 3.43 3.44 3.53 3.40 <.001
society
a ANOVA tests of statistically significant differences among gender-­residency group means
(i.e., salary, importance of factors for job); chi-­square tests of association between gender-­
residency and categorical variables
b Categories combined to avoid small cell size (< 5) for some groups (e.g., female TR
employed in government sector)
c All N = 5,397 respondents
d Only N = 4,598 respondents currently employed
e Only respondents who ever worked (N = 5,308 out of 5,397)

employed, only 0.9% unemployed, but 6.8% not in the labor force.
Respondents who did not have a job provided a variety of reasons (not
shown in the table). Among male TRs, reasons for being out of the labor
force are mostly for attending school (84%) or not finding a suitable job
(33%). Female TRs are 72.5% employed, and 23.9% are not in the labor
force, for reasons such as being students (61%), having family obliga-
tions (33%), and not finding a suitable job (32%). Among PRs, who are
also older, large percentages of those not working are retired (64% of
men and 37% of women), others do not find suitable jobs (19% of men
and 22% of women), and relatively many are on layoff from a job (20%
of men and 17% of women). Clearly, not all college-­educated immi-
grants fare well in the labor market; but TRs may depend on employers
or higher education institutions to maintain their visa status, so have
fewer job choices.
Although employment patterns are gendered, it is difficult to claim
that highly educated women are at disadvantage in the labor market
 International Students in U.S. Workforce 283
since many could have opted out of it voluntarily for various reasons. As
noted by Kofman and Raghuram (2006), “increasing numbers of women
are migrating independently as skilled labour migrants and students or
as principal applicants”; however, many “continue to migrate as family
migrants” (p. 296), and thus assume additional obligations.
Each gender-­residency group of workers follows a different pattern
with respect to employment sector. Female TRs are more likely to be
supported by educational institutions (47%) while male TRs by business/­
industry (and few by government) (71%). Meanwhile, the permanent res-
idents are largely employed by business/­industry or government (86.7%
of men and 73.8% of women), and less present in the educational sector.
Men have more advantageous employment than women as regards
work arrangement (whether working full year and holding full-­ time
jobs), although non-­standard work arrangements are increasingly val-
ued. Among the male PRs, 91.5% work full year, and 95.1% have full-­
time jobs; meanwhile, 91.1% of the male TRs work full year, but only
84.2% have full-­time jobs. Employment seems more “precarious” for
women, although there is no information if this is the result of lack of
opportunities or preference. Female TRs are more likely than female PRs
to work full year (82.2% vs. 78.9%) and hold full-­time jobs (85.5% vs.
78.2%). The two female groups have different familial status that may
affect availability for sustained employment. Only 21.3% of female TRs
have children compared to 53.6% of female PRs. On the other hand,
56.2% of female TRs who are not married and have no children are on
their own with respect to becoming PRs.
Overall, female TRs are at the bottom of the earning scale, with an
average annualized salary (i.e., adjusted for part-­time arrangements) of
$53,920, earning about $20,000 less than female PRs. They are more
educated that female PRs, but they are younger and lack both work
experience and sufficient exposure to the U.S. labor market and their
professional community. Some could still be in school and working
part-­time, and hold jobs in educational institutions that pay less than
business/­industry or government. Male TRs fare much better, with an
average annualized salary of $69,500; although they have similar demo-
graphic profiles as female TRs, a vast majority completed engineering
and computer sciences degrees, and are in much higher proportions hired
by business/­industry companies, which could partially explain their wage
advantage. At the top of the earning scale are male PRs with an annual-
ized salary of $99,740, who accumulate multiple advantages in terms of
level of education, field of study, and employment sector. They are older
and have more work experience, but also have a permanent residency
status that allows them make career path choices.
I finally looked at some subjective measures of career success based on
workers’ views regarding the quality of their employment. These views
are shaped by personal beliefs and values about what is important in life
284 Maria Adamuti-­Trache
and by one’s career expectations, but also reflect workers’ labor mar-
ket experiences, barriers, and life circumstances encountered. A constant
concern about the usefulness of college degrees is whether they serve
workers’ career development and are matching their jobs (Robst, 2007).
The job-­degree relatedness question is answered very differently by the
four groups, with a positive response from 83.2% of male TRs to 78.2%
of female TRs who believe their jobs and degrees are closely related. One
explanation of the good job-­degree matching could be that, TR visas
being sponsored by employers, TRs are hired on jobs specifically match-
ing their skills and knowledge. The negative side is that, a temporary
visa being associated with the sponsoring organization, the worker has
limited opportunities for career advancement, job mobility, and search
of better employment. It is possible that PRs who report that their job
and degree are somewhat, or not, related, but have better earnings, went
through many job changes searching for jobs or occupations that offered
the best rewards.
Respondents who have been employed in the U.S. labor market evalu-
ated the importance of certain job attributes. Measured on a scale from 1
to 4, answers show high average scores, between 3 (somewhat important)
and 4 (very important) on most questions. Although ANOVA tests are
all statistically significant, slight differences reflect preferences by gender-­
residency group. Male PRs scored lower than other groups in valuing sal-
ary, job security, career advancement, and intellectual challenge because
they probably have been rewarded for these things. On the contrary, male
TRs scored higher in valuing the same four job features, because they
have just engaged with their career. Female PRs value job location more
than all other groups, give importance to how much the job contributes to
society, but care less about level of responsibility. Female TRs value more
than others job benefits, opportunities for advancement, intellectual chal-
lenge, and level of responsibility. Both male and female TRs place little
value on job location, either because they are younger and did not settle
yet, or because they cannot afford to choose much being dependent on
employers’ visa sponsoring. Overall, salary and job security have higher
value for immigrants, while job contribution to society and even level of
responsibility are somehow lower on the list. These responses confirm
that immigrants adopt a pragmatic approach when trying to integrate
in the host country, and differences are not large when contrasting the
gender-­residency groups.

Discussion
In this chapter, I adopted an intersectional perspective of gender and
immigrant residency status, rooted in the concept of gendered skilled
migration (Boyd & Grieco, 2003; Crenshaw, 1991; Davis, 2008; Doc-
quier et al., 2009; Kofman, 2014), to examine differences in the labor
 International Students in U.S. Workforce 285
market outcomes and experiences of foreign-­born men and women who
completed U.S. degrees as international students (i.e., came on tempo-
rary visas for education/­training purposes). Since their arrival and then
graduation, some were successful in changing to a PR status (or even
obtained naturalization), while others still have TR visas. The argument
of this study is that gender and current residency status (as of 2013) have
a combined effect on immigrants’ outcomes and experiences in the U.S.
workforce.
The two residency groups in the study (i.e., PRs or still TRs) are almost
twenty years apart in terms of age (i.e., 48 years old vs. 31 years old)
and time spent in the U.S. (i.e., twenty-­six years vs. eight years), so to
some extent, they represent two stages of international students’ journeys
towards U.S. immigration. On average, both residency groups in the study
arrived over a twenty years period starting in the late 1980s until the
mid-­2000s, during which the number of U.S. international students dou-
bled, with large proportions coming from Asia (Institute of International
Education, 2016). At least among men, the most recent immigrants (TRs)
are more likely to have advanced degrees, in fields such as computer sci-
ences and engineering. Their presence in the U.S. labor market reflects
the call for more high-­skilled S&E workers (Han & Appelbaum, 2016;
Li & Lo, 2012; Sargent, 2014). Although younger female immigrants in
the study have higher levels of education compared to their older coun-
terparts, there is only a slight increase in their representation within male-­
traditional fields (e.g., physical sciences, engineering) for this group.
It would not be surprising if the older immigrants fared better in the
labor market. Not only level of education and field of study but also U.S.
work experience contribute to earnings. As demonstrated by Lowell and
Avato (2014), foreign workers’ salaries are expected to be lower at the
beginning until they gain U.S. work experience, and eventually reach the
level earned by the native-­born. However, temporary visa sponsorship
might have additional conditions on both salary and the right to change
jobs that further limit workers’ choices. For instance, TRs in the study
report closely related jobs and degrees because they are hired to perform
specific jobs for which they are highly qualified, while PRs who were
allowed to change jobs because of their residency status had the opportu-
nity to find better-­rewarded jobs. In addition, “foreign workers may also
accept lower wages to improve their chance of being sponsored on the
H-­1B visa which they view as a pathway to permanent residency” (Low-
ell & Avato, 2014 p. 87). In the current study, temporary residents within
each gender group are more likely to work in educational institutions
that are often better situated in sponsoring temporary visas, but offer
lower earnings than business/­industry or government. Yet, within each
residency group, there are visible gender wage gaps that could be related
to differences in field of study, employment sector, work arrangement, or
just gender inequity (Umbach, 2007).
286 Maria Adamuti-­Trache
Research on labor market outcomes of highly skilled migrants to the
United States continues to show the double jeopardy experienced by
migrant women in the labor market as suggested by Boyd (1984) and
confirmed in this current study. If thirty years ago, the combined immi-
grant and gender wage gap could have been attributed to differences in
human capital (Donato et al., 2014), the increase in educational attain-
ment by women and the independent migration status they often assume
do not support the old human capital gap assumption anymore. Research-
ers have to understand why international migration often damages the
careers of high-­skilled migrant women, who may experience unemploy-
ment or under-­employment, part-­time jobs, a shift from career pathways,
or complete career transformation through re-­training (Meares, 2010).
Although such drastic changes should not be the case of female interna-
tional students who hold American degrees and enter the labor market
as high-­skilled workers, this study confirms that women experience some
disadvantage in the workforce.

Conclusion and Implications

Research shows that temporary residents who obtain U.S. college degrees
and enter the labor market may experience a period of job insecurity
and frustration dealing with visa sponsorship restrictions and hoping to
gain legal PR status. High-­skilled TRs are former international students,
so for employers to be able to continue recruiting this talent pool (Alt-
bach, 2004), the workers need a clear path to PR status. The United
States should explore immigration models that offer alternative ways of
screening rapidly highly educated immigrants. The federal and state gov-
ernments should cooperate with employers and higher education institu-
tions as to remain in the game for recruiting talented skilled workers and
international students. Moreover, the gendered skilled migration should
be recognized as a trend of the 21st century, and talented foreign-­born
women should be equally targeted to be part of the “brain circulation”
phenomenon.

References
Adamuti-­Trache, M. (2011). First 4 years in Canada: Post-­secondary education
pathways of highly-­educated immigrants. Journal of International Migration
and Integration, 12(1), 61–­82.
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States
remain the top destination for foreign students? Change, 36(2), 18–­24.
Becker, G. S. (2002). The age of human capital. In E. P. Lazear (Ed.), Education
in the twenty-­first century (pp. 3–­8). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Bhagat, R. S., Segovis, J. C., & Nelson, T. A. (2012). Work stress and coping in
the era of globalization. New York, NY: Routledge.
 International Students in U.S. Workforce 287
Blossfeld, H.-­P., Buchholz, S., Dämmrich, J., Kilpi-­Jakonen, E., Kosyakova, Y.,
Skopek, J., Triventi, M., & Vono de Vilhena, D. (2015). Gender differences
at labor market entry—­the effect of changing educational pathways and insti-
tutional structures. In H. P. Blossfeld, J. Skopek, M. Triventi & S. Buchholz
(Eds.), Gender, education and employment: An international comparison of
school-­to-­work transitions (pp. 3–­34). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Boucher, A., & Cerna, L. (2014). Current policy trends in skilled immigration
policy. International Migration, 52(3), 21–­25.
Boyd, M. (1984). At a disadvantage: The occupational attainments of foreign
born women in Canada. International Migration Review, 18(4), 1091–­1119.
Boyd, M., & Grieco, E. (2003, March 1). Women and migration: Incorporat-
ing gender into international migration theory. Washington, DC: Migration
Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.migrationinformation.org/­Feature/­print.
cfm?ID=106.
Campbell, T., Adamuti-­Trache, M., & Bista, K. (2018). Employment and earn-
ings of international science and engineering graduates of U.S. universities:
A comparative perspective. Journal of International Students, 8(1), 409–­430.
Charles, M., & Grusky, D. B. (2004). Occupational ghettos: The worldwide seg-
regation of women and men. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cherlin, A. J. (2005). American marriage in the early twenty-­first century. The
Future of Children, 15(2), 33–­55.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,
and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–­1299.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspec-
tive on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist theory, 9(1), 67–­85.
Docquier, F., Lowell, B. L., & Marfouk, A. (2009). A gendered assessment
of highly skilled emigration. Population and Development Review, 35(2),
297–­321.
Donato, K. M., Piya, B., & Jacobs, A. (2014). The double disadvantage reconsid-
ered: Gender, immigration, marital status, and global labor force participation
in the 21st century. International Migration Review, 48(S1), S335–­S376.
Finn, M. G. (2014). Stay rates of foreign doctorate recipients from U.S. universi-
ties, 2011. Washington, DC: NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics.
Freeman, R. B. (2013). One ring to rule them all? Globalization of knowledge
and knowledge creation. Nordic Economic Policy Review, 1, 11–­33.
Haddal, C. C. (2008). Foreign students in the United States: Policies and leg-
islation. CRS Report to Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Services. Retrieved from https:/­/­pdfs.semanticscholar.org/­f838/­6a237906a635
caa58c5f7f31124b86edac4c.pdf
Han, X., & Appelbaum, R. P. (2016). Will they stay or will they go? International
STEM students are up for grabs. Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Founda-
tion. Retrieved from www.kauffman.org/­newsroom/­2016/­07/­stay-­or-­go-­home
Hazen, H. D., & Alberts, H. C. (2006). Visitors or immigrants? International
students in the United States. Population, Space and Place, 12, 201–­216.
Hegewisch, A., Liepmann, H., Hayes, J., & Hartmann, H. (2010). Separate and not
equal? Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap. Brief-
ing Paper. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved
from http:/­/­ tools4valuechains.org/­sites/­default/­files/­documents/­Hegewish%
20et%20al%202010.pdf
288 Maria Adamuti-­Trache
Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 113–­136.
Hudson, K. (2007). The new labor market segmentation: Labor market dualism
in the new economy. Social Science Research, 36(1), 286–­312.
Institute of International Education (2016). Open doors, 2016: Executive summary.
Retrieved from www.iie.org/­Why-­IIE/­Announcements/­2016-­11-­14-­Open-­Doors-
­Executive-­Summary
Kofman, E. (2014). Towards a gendered evaluation of (highly) skilled immigra-
tion policies in Europe. International Migration, 52(3), 116–­128.
Kofman, E., & Raghuram, P. (2006). Gender and global labour migrations:
Incorporating skilled workers. Antipode, 38(2), 282–­303.
Koslovski, R. (2014). Selective migration policy models and changing realities of
implementation. International Migration, 52(3), 26–­39.
Li, W., & Lo, L. (2012). New geographies of migration? A Canada-­U.S. compari-
son of highly skilled Chinese and Indian migration. Journal of Asian American
Studies, 15(1), 1–­34.
Lowell, B. L., & Avato, J. (2014). The wages of skilled temporary migrants:
Effects of visa pathways and job portability. International Migration, 52(3),
85–­98.
Meares, C. (2010). A fine balance: Women, work and skilled migration. Women’s
Studies International Forum, 33, 473–­481.
National Science Foundation (n.d.). SESTAT. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/­statis
tics/­sestat/­#sestat-­landing
National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Policy implications of international gradu-
ate students and postdoctoral scholars in the United States. Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from www.nap.edu/­catalog/­11289.html
Robst, J. (2007). Education and job match: The relatedness of college major and
work. Economics of Education Review, 26, 397–­407.
Sargent, J. F. (2014). The U.S. science and engineering workforce: Recent, cur-
rent, and projected employment, wages, and unemployment. Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https:/­/­fas.org/­sgp/­crs/­misc/
R43061.pdf
Saxenian, A. (2005). From brain drain to brain circulation: Transnational com-
munities and regional upgrading in India and China. Studies in Comparative
International Development, 40(2), 35–­61.
Shih, K. (2016). Labor market openness, H-1B visa policy, and the scale of inter-
national student enrollment in the United States. Economic Inquiry, 54(1),
121–­138.
Ugwu, D., & Adamuti-­Trache, M. (2017). Post-­graduation plans of international
science and engineering doctoral students attending U.S. universities. Journal
of International Students, 7(1), 1–­21.
Umbach, P. (2007). Gender equity in the academic labor market: An analysis of
academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education, 48, 169–­192.
Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2016, February 3). College-­educated immigrants in the United
States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved September 5, 2017,
from www.migrationpolicy.org/­article/­college-­educated-­immigrants-­united-­states
19 International Students as a
Vulnerable Army of Workers
Work Experience and
Workplace Treatment
Ly Tran and Sri Soejatminah

Introduction
The youth labor markets in Australia, Canada, the U.S., and UK have
undergone some changes in recent years when increasing proportions of
international students combine working with study. The majority of lit-
erature devoted to students’ participation in the workforce has, however,
focused on domestic students. The main themes are centered on students’
motivations to seek employment, their views of working in a specific
industry, their job-­seeking strategies, the number of working hours, the
employment relationship between employers and full-­time students, and
the relationship between part-­time work and their study and their life
(Manthei & Gilmore, 2005; Curtis & Lucas, 2001; Broadbridge, Max-
well, & Ogden, 2007). An emergent line of literature in the U.S., UK,
Canada, and Australia has begun to discuss issues related to the inter-
national student labor force and their workplace experience (Gribble,
Blackmore, & Rahimi, 2015; Lee, 2007; Lee & Rice, 2007; Nyland
et al., 2009; Tran & Soejatminah, 2016, 2017, Wall, Tran, & Soejatmi-
nah, 2016).
The provision of work experience for international students and their
employability have become primary concerns for institutions in the host
countries including the U.S., UK, Canada, and Australia. These coun-
tries have increasingly focused their efforts on improving work oppor-
tunities during and post-­study for international students. Employment
opportunity and employability have been actively used by governments
and institutions as key factors for promoting themselves as an attractive
destination to international students (Tran & Soejatminah, 2016, 2017).
Employability and employment outcomes are rated higher than research
reputation by international students in their decision to select institu-
tions for study. Despite their growing importance, the issues of work
experience and employability for international students are still largely
under-­researched and under-­theorized, especially as compared to aspects
of international students’ academic, cultural, and social adaptation and
English language competency. Research into international students’
290 Ly Tran and Sri Soejatminah
voices of their right with regard to work experience and employment
opportunities in the host countries is even scarcer.
This chapter responds to the paucity in the literature on international
students by examining different aspects of international student rights
related to work experience and employment. It draws on a national four
year study funded by the Australian Research Council that includes field-
work and 155 semi-­ structured interviews with international students
and staff from vocational education institutions in Australia, which is
an under-­researched sector of international education across the world
as the majority of research in this field tends to concentrate on inter-
national education in higher education. It uses Bourdieu’s concepts of
field and doxa to unpack the complexities and tensions underpinning
international student rights in three domains: the access to information
about work experience opportunities, the provision of work-­based learn-
ing, and equality at the workplace. The research finds that international
student rights to get access to work opportunities and as workers are not
safeguarded because the demand for part-­time employment among inter-
national and domestic students exceeds the supply. This is coupled with a
lack of a holistic and coherent mechanism from the institutions and host
governments in facilitating work experience for international students
and international students’ lack of bargaining power and of knowledge
about the employment market as well as workplace regulations in the
country. The chapter concludes with some suggestions on how the host
communities and institutions could provide effective support for interna-
tional students in getting access to work experience opportunities, pro-
tecting themselves at the workplace, and enhancing their employability.

Background
Research in the U.S. has claimed that international students’ being
excluded from employment and losing jobs are evidence of discrimina-
tion against international students, which the authors refer to as forms
of neo-­racism (Lee, 2007; Lee & Rice, 2007). Lee and Rice conducted a
case study with twenty-­four international students from fifteen countries
studying at a U.S. university. Participants in this study found the institu-
tionalized policy of prohibiting international students working off cam-
pus and for more than 20 hours per week unfair. The study found that
due to this work policy, which restricts international students to a limited
range of occupations, they had to compete for low-­paying retail or food
service jobs on campus, and some admitted to work paid cash on hand.
A similar situation has been found in Nyland et al.’s (2009) study about
international student-­workers in Australia and Takeda’s reflection on her
own work situation as an international student. Even though interna-
tional students in Australia do not have to be regulated by the institution-
alized policy of not allowing them to work off campus like those in Lee
 International Students as Vulnerable Workers 291
and Rice’s U.S. study, they also reported to be restricted to a narrower
range of jobs as compared with their domestic peers.
Nyland et al.’s research, based on in-­depth interviews with 200 inter-
national students in different Australian higher education institutions,
reveals the images of international students as being vulnerable in the
workforce. International students’ work-­related disadvantages have been
pointed out to be centered on their deficiency of the English language and
cultural skills, and their lack of awareness of workplace rights (Nyland
et al., 2009; Gribble et al., 2015). As a result, international student-­
workers are not in the same position to be able to develop and make use
of the bargaining capacity as the local student-­workers and have been
found to accept very poor conditions of employment. This view is in line
with the refection from international students in Lee and Rice’s (2007)
study that even when working for the faculty, the Americans can work
at a negotiated price, but most often international students, who are
described as being treated like “the scum of the earth,” accept the offered
salary without any negotiation.
The acknowledgment of international students as increasingly vulner-
able workers in the Australian labor market is evidenced in Australia’s
Fair Work Ombudsman’s new strategy and campaign to combat work-
place exploitation of international students. The campaign demonstrates
a coordinated effort between the Fair Work Ombudsman and Depart-
ment of Immigration and Border Protection to prevent students from
being exploited within the workplace by raising their awareness of their
rights and encouraging students currently in exploitative work situations
to come forward with the safeguard that the Department of Immigra-
tion and Border Protection will not cancel their student visa (Fair Work
Ombudsman, 2017; The PIE news, 2017).

Conceptual Framework
This chapter aims to understand issues related to provision of work expe-
rience among international students undertaking vocational education
in Australia using Bourdieu’s concepts of field and doxa. For Bourdieu
education is a field comprising “identifiable interconnecting relations”
(Grenfell et al., 1998, p. 20) and consisting of various subfields including
the higher education sector.
Comprising specific structures and rules, the working of the field is
described as a game involving rules or regulations, which also refers to
strategy on how to play the game (Nolan, 2012). To participate in a
game, an individual needs to accept and follow the rules. The continua-
tion of playing in a game means “the rules seem natural and unquestion-
able by the players, resulting in ‘a feel for the game’ which no longer
requires deliberately act of thinking carefully about each and every move
before acting” (Nolan, 2012, p. 204). Moreover, required to both achieve
292 Ly Tran and Sri Soejatminah
a position in a field and determine an access to capital, cultural capital
is regarded as “the power granted to those who have obtained sufficient
recognition to be in a position to impose recognition” (Nolan, 2012,
p. 204). Thus, it preserves and reproduces existing relationships among
agents (Nolan, 2012).
Drawing on Bourdieu, inequality can be disclosed by understanding
the relationships between objective social structures (international voca-
tional education) and everyday practices including positions of agents
in a field (Bathmaker, 2015; Bowman, 2010). As explained by Ferrare
and Apple (2015), the field concept enables us to “more fully explore
the structural and phenomenological qualities of educational practice as
a distinct whole” by scrutinizing relations of power, which enables us to
identify “the deficits and contradictions inherent in the social structures
that organize the daily lives of students and educators” (p. 55).
Doxa refers to “the set of core values and discourses of a social prac-
tice field that have come to be viewed as natural, normal, and inher-
ently necessary, thus working to ensure that the arbitrary and contingent
nature of these discourses are not questioned nor even recognized”
(Nolan, p. 205). In other words, doxa represents “a constructed view of
the world that is so natural and self-­evident that is seen as the only view
in existence,” whereas “orthodox or heterodox belief [implies] aware-
ness and recognition of the possibility of different or antagonistic beliefs”
(Nolan p. 205). Nolan (2012) explains that “orthodoxy is the recogni-
tion of multiple version or possible constructions of reality, with only one
version being the correct or ‘right’ one, whereas heterodoxy is the recog-
nition of multiple correct versions and possible constructions of reality.”
For Bourdieu (1997, p. 168) doxa can be “only ever fully revealed when
negatively constituted by the constitution of a field of opinion, the locus
of the confrontation of competing discourses.”

Doxa: Various Regulations as the Rules of the Game of

the International Vocational Education Field in Australia
Previous studies (e.g., Davey, 2012, p. 512) apply institutional habitus,
which is referred to as “educational status, organisational practices and
the expressive order,” to capture institutional effects on agents. However
Davey (2012) argues that it does not explore the detail of how the insti-
tution influences agents and suggests employing the concept of institu-
tional doxa to comprehend the relationships between field and agents. In
this regard agents participate in a game adhering to predetermined rules
that reflect the logic of practice of the game (Thomson, 2014). In other
words, “the game is rationalised by field-­specific doxa and is played for
field-­specific social, cultural and symbolic capitals—­in schooling, quali-
fications and particular form of knowledge and networks” (Thomson,
2014, p. 90). Hence recognition of the doxa of vocational international
 International Students as Vulnerable Workers 293
education will enhance our understanding of the rules of the game in the
field.
Like in other education export countries, international students in
Australia are regarded as consumers with consumer rights, and education
providers are responsible to fulfill customers’ needs (Marginson, 2014;
Robertson, 2011). In this regard, providers of vocational education for
international students have to register with the Commonwealth Regis-
ter of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) and the
Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)—­both federal bodies—­and
in the state of Victoria registration is conducted through the Victorian
Registration Qualification Authority (VRQA). Registration with CRI-
COS ensures the compliance of providers with the Education Services
for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act that establishes legislative require-
ments and standards to protect the interests of international students and
enhance Australia’s reputation for quality education. Moreover, regis-
tration with the ASQA aims to guarantee the achievement of the VET
Quality Framework and meet the licensing requirements. In particular
it comprises the “Standard for Registered Training Organisation 2015
including Quality Standard” to ensure the achievement of “nationally
consistent, high-­quality training and assessment across Australia’s VET
system” (ASQA, 2017). Therefore this chapter considers compliance
with the ESOS Act and the VET Quality Framework as the doxa of the
international education field.
Furthermore Marginson (2014, p. 502) suggests the protection of
international students’ human rights. He argues that as international stu-
dents are consumers of international education, a consumer protection
right for them is insufficient since “consumer protection only addresses
some aspects of human rights and security” (p. 502). This is because
ESOS affects students’ life only inside and not outside the university/­
campus. Compliance towards the protection of human or citizen rights
can be considered as doxa for the field of international education as it
is the umbrella for issues on protection of rights as civilians for interna-
tional students outside campus.

Research Design
This chapter arises from a four year study funded by the Australian
Research Council, which includes interviews with 105 international stu-
dents and fifty staff members and fieldwork conducted in dual-­sector and
VET institutions in three states of Australia: New South Wales (NSW),
Queensland (QLD), and Victoria (VIC). In addition, fieldwork and obser-
vation notes were undertaken to complement the interview data.
International students and teachers were recruited through an invita-
tion circulated by the Director of the International Program or Interna-
tional Coordinator of a VET institute. International student participants
294 Ly Tran and Sri Soejatminah
in this study were undertaking Certificate III or IV, Diploma, or Advanced
Diploma programs at a VET or dual-­sector institution. As these students
are expected to graduate from diploma and advanced diploma programs
and work in trade and service areas, most aspire to have some work
experience related to their area of study in order to position them well on
the labor market.
Each student interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. The inter-
views were semi-­structured and employed open-­ended questions. This
chapter focuses primarily on the semi-­structured interview with 105 inter-
national students since these data offered rich and vivid insights into the
learning and work experience of this group. To protect the confidentiality
of the participants, their names and institutions are kept anonymous.
A small number of excerpts that are typical of the dataset were used
in the chapter due to the scope of the chapter. The key themes and the
relevant quotes were identified through a thorough process of coding
using NVivo software version 10. As discussed in the previous section,
Bourdieu’s “thinking tools” (e.g., field and doxa) were used to interpret
and conceptualize themes related to international students’ work-­based
learning and workplace experience.
The students’ national origins and courses are summarized in Table 19.1.

Table 19.1 Demographic Variables of Participants’ Origins and Courses

Nation of Origin Number of VET Course Number of

Interviewees Interviewees

South Asia Food & hospitality 40

India 22 Management & 10
commerce
Other 2 Building & 16
carpentry
Northeast Asia Information 9
technology
China 18 Hairdressing 8
Korea 10 Community welfare 5
work
Japan 2 Automotive 4
Southeast Asia and Others 13
the Pacific
Vietnam 18 Total 105
Other (Malaysia, 7
Philippines,
Thailand)
Mauritius 5
Europe and the UK 12
South America 3
Others 6
Total 105
 International Students as Vulnerable Workers 295
Various Orthodoxic Realities Against the Compliance of
ESOS and Student Right Protections
Bourdieu (1997, p. 20) explains that field/­subfield consists of mecha-
nism and has “its own orthodoxy, its own way of doing things, rules,
assumptions and beliefs; in sum its own legitimate means.” Moreover,
“the defining principles are only ever partially articulated, and much of
the orthodox way of thinking and acting passes in implicit, tacit man-
ner.” The term legitimate referring to “majority” is also hardly overt.
Hence, “many of the rules and principles of the game go on in a way
that is not consciously held in the heads of those playing it” (Bourdieu,
1997, p. 20). In this case field can represent arenas of struggle that are
“riven with tensions, debates, oppositions and alternative doxa” includ-
ing “about what the rules of the game should and could be” (Thomson,
2014, pp. 90–­91). Recognition of the doxa regulating the field enables for
the visibility of orthodoxic field experiences. The following are students’
experiences that contradict the doxa. The previous section mentioning
the requirements for providers to register with the CRICOS to guarantee
Australia’s reputation for quality education and the ASQA to ensure high
quality of vocational education means that international students can
trust that they will get a quality education for their money. In particular,
according to the ESOS Act, as consumers international students must be
provided with “information about the course, fees, facilities, services and
resources offered by the registered provider prior to enrolment” (Mar-
ginson, 2014, p. 502). In this case the National Code emphasizes that
marketing should provide information of a high standard that is clear
and unambiguous, so that intending students and their parents can make
informed decisions about their preferred provider and course. Moreover,
academic staff must be “adequate and have the capabilities as required
by the quality assurance framework applying to the course” (Marginson,
2014, p. 503).

The Right to Get Access to Adequate

Work-­Related Information
The following excerpts reveal the indications of providers’ inabil-
ity to meet their obligations resulting in breaching of students’ rights
to get access to adequate information and to relevant or quality work
experience.

Well, arrangement for industry exposure I think they should have

some links with work places where you can do your training. If not,
they should have at least much more support in finding that. I do
think they should have more support for international students in
particular because as I said, if you’re new to the country you don’t
296 Ly Tran and Sri Soejatminah
know where to go looking for the placement and no one knows you
either. So it would really help if you had someone to put you in touch
with agencies. Telling you what these different roles, etc.
[Indian, Community Welfare, private college]

We can be more supported if they are providing us the more knowledge

and if the teachers are helping us to work on the sites rather than in the
workshops. If they can give us the contacts of some builders so that we
can go to them and work in the same field and get the more experience
rather than in the workshops. Because in the workshops we are doing
the mistakes and sometimes we don’t get what we have done wrong.
But at the building site, we can catch up mistakes what we have done.
[Mauritian, Hospitality Management, private college]

There can be many levels of finding jobs, they can, at least, provide
us a list of fine restaurants in the city or in the area around or at least
they can give us with reference letter or something like that so that
we can get it in our resume. And more for the counselling about the
job and also the pay/­wage.
[Korean, Cookery, public college]

All excerpts show that students understood their needs and tried to look
for the answers. Failure in getting the relevant information means that
they cannot maximize their learning experience. Hence, lack of access
to adequate and relevant information results in low satisfaction in their
study programs.

The Right to Get Access to Work-­Based Learning

The students shared their views about access to work placements:

Actually, I haven’t been provided. I haven’t reached it. I have to

check. No internship was provided, there was going to be like one
of the biggest restaurants in the city but there did actually call lost
(28:27) because I don’t why but they wanted to meet more experi-
enced staffs, I reckon. But it’s okay.
[Korean, Cookery, public college]

This is the requirement of this course and that in two years, now for
400 hours you have to be in the community and you have to work
with the community people. . . . The private colleges are not able
to provide the fit placement which has happened with the Austral-
ian college, the same. And this is the scenario of all the private col-
leges, the college which is running this community welfare course
because the private institutions are only in the purpose of making
 International Students as Vulnerable Workers 297
the money. They don’t have any strategic partnerships with the com-
munity which the government sectors do have, like, relation with the
councils or migration centres or other youth centres . . . how are they
going to put the students in that community? . . . I have spent one
and a half year over here and I don’t have any connection with the
local community though I am studying the community welfare work.
[Indian, Community Welfare, private college]

Nowadays we can’t find a job it’s very hard. It’s too hard. So if they
provide work place it would be very good for us. We have to do
900 hours experience in this industry but now it is too hard to find.
So I really strongly want that our TAFE should give work place to
the students.
[Korean, Hospitality Management, public college]

Yeah, I want to work in my field, right? So I don’t have my driv-

ing license. So the college should help me to find some place, yeah,
like the just traineeship or apprentice or something. So it would be
helpful for me. . . . The first right, yeah, I think that right is the col-
lege should give us work, find work for us. . . . My right, the college
should give us the opportunity to do some work placement and gain
some work experience.
[Indian, Community Welfare, private college]

These students consider it the responsibility of vocational institutions to

find or provide them with work placements. The students are also aware
of the consequences of not getting work placements.
Work placement is a core component for international vocational
education, where under the competency-­based approach courses must
include assessment in the actual workplace (Simons et al., 2006). There-
fore, these students who are enrolled in vocational education and train-
ing courses see the provision of work placement as a fundamental
domain of their educational right. Yet, arranging work placements for
international students is often regarded to be much more challenging
than for domestic students. This challenge mainly stems from employ-
ers’ hesitation in accepting international students into their workplaces,
a lack of recognition of international students’ potential contributions to
their organizations, and the complexities around the international stu-
dent visa regulations (Tran, 2013). Some colleges have their own work-
shops, garages, restaurants, and salons that offer international students
the opportunity to be exposed to authentic working environments within
their institute. Some others, as the students reported, have strong connec-
tions with the industry and liaise with various organizations to arrange
work placement for international students. However, the student’s educa-
tional right is subordinated in cases where work placement is articulated
298 Ly Tran and Sri Soejatminah
in the handbook as being provided as an essential part of VET courses but
students are left to find work placements for themselves. In some dodgy
private colleges, students revealed they are not even provided with any
practical lessons during their Diploma course, let alone work placements.

The Right for Equality in the Workplace

I still think a lot of them are exploited here. A lot. Because everyone wants
to make a living, so they’ll do anything. And because there’s now so many
students. So if you don’t want to do it, fine. I’ll get somebody else. I’ll pay
you five dollars. And then the student says, no, I don’t want five dollars.
Oh fine, I’ll get somebody else who was willing to work for four dollars. So
our rights are not so, as international students, we don’t have much rights
but maybe we become permanent resident, we have better rights. . . . They
don’t pay you, I think they still don’t pay me a minimum wage here. They
just pay me apprentice rate but I’m clearly not an apprentice. Yeah, but
I can’t argue that because for them I’m new in Australia.
[Malaysian, Bakery, private college]

Oh, rights. First they should like every, I think every single employer, the
cafe, like a company, treat us same. And We are not only international
students, we are human as well. We are the same as the other guys. but
because sometimes I feel, like I heard about it from my friend as well.
Like she works and then one of her manager or owner told her, because
she gets like a lower pay than local staff. Then, for me why I got a lower
payment, because I’m trainer, I teach the other guys. I should get a higher
than other guys or at least the same as the other guys. And they say, any-
way you need a job, right? because you are an international student and
you need a job obviously because it’s harder to live without money. Yeah,
but I think that’s our right. They should like think about us and should
just treat us the same as other people.
[North Korean, Cookery, private college]

Also, most 98% of international students get pay lower wage. For me,
I am actually lucky it because I’ve actually gone through the restaurants
that have signed the PAYG and taxation form and everything. Many of
the students just do the cash job. Maybe, we can do nothing for those
kinds of students because it is out of the law, right? Yeah, heaps. I haven’t
seen any students except for one Japanese students and the other one, he
is not the student but he gets paid a lot because he has been a chef for
20 years. And other than that, the rest of them, they are being exploited.
[Korean, Cookery, public college]

I think we’re protected, like really, really well protected but still there is
some stuff like guys I heard, like the Indians got problems, like it’s pretty
bad. But yeah, I think we are good. We are quite good protected, yeah,
well protected I mean.
[Mauritian, Hospitality Management, private college]
 International Students as Vulnerable Workers 299
The excerpts reveal that as in many cases, students’ rights are not pro-
tected while working at workplaces outside campus. Violations of their
rights include a lower rate of pay than other workers get and bad treat-
ment at the workplace.
There are certain gaps on the job market that can lead to international
students being exploited. First, their right as workers is not safeguarded
because the demand for part-­ time employment among international
and domestic students exceeds the supply, and some employers take
advantage of this situation. As a result, international students who are
desperate for a job to make ends meet in the host country can be paid
significantly below the minimum wage level. Their lack of bargaining
power and lack of knowledge about the employment market as well as
workplace regulations in the country of education make them vulnerable.
Furthermore, many international students may have to work longer than
they are allowed in accordance with their visa conditions, to provide for
their living. This situation makes them more likely to become victims
of workplace abuse, unscrupulous exploitation, and sexual harassment
while less likely to report these issues to concerned authorities for fears
of their visa being canceled.
Indeed many international students are discriminated against at the
workplace in the sense that they do not get adequate pay in accordance
with the nature of the job for which they are responsible. For exam-
ple, they may get less pay than their local counterparts for a job that
demands higher skills. In addition, international students in VET who are
more than 18 years old and not an apprentice get paid as an apprentice
at a wage much lower than the minimum wage level. Apparently, some
employers purposefully ignore the rule and exploit international students,
especially those who may be new to the country. This reinforces the view
that their temporary non-­citizen resident status and lack of knowledge
about the local system make them vulnerable to exploitation. Third,
international students perceive that their employment opportunities may
be restricted because local employers may prefer a 17-­year-­old apprentice
to a qualified international student due to the gap in minimum wage for
these two groups. All these situations along with racial discrimination as
discussed previously have created a barrier for international students to
access the employment market and led to their negative experience at the
workplace.

The Right for Equality Regarding Working Hours

International students expressed the following views about the 20 hour
per week limit as part of their visa condition:

What are my rights as an international student? I’m only allowed to

work twenty hours a week. I’m allowed to work only twenty hours
300 Ly Tran and Sri Soejatminah
and I’m not, I don’t have the same rights as an Australian student,
I know that.
[Indian, Hospitality Management, public college]

Well, when I came here the immigration people they have to come to
uni to stamp the working thing, the working visa thing. The working
permit, sorry. And they told me that I’m only allowed to work for
20 hours per week. If it’s holidays I can work full time. That’s pretty
much it. That’s what they have told me.
[Indian, IT, public college]

We have many things. Like the rights are alright but sometimes the
working hours, twenty hours, sometimes it’s not enough because like
the fees are high for internationals so maybe they can give us more
hours to work.
[Lebanese, Hairdressing, private college]

I think students should get that entitlement like local students because
the government limit the working time to 20 hours a week. Some-
times we need, we currently find more money or cannot work more
than 20 hours a week and somebody like come from the family that
they cannot afford or expending for money here. Like leaving course,
a study course some students needs to find themselves all the expense
cover. And I think concession is really important for all students. It’s
not just only local students.
[Thai, Hospitality Management, private college]

Even for university students if the spouse comes here in Australia

to do Masters the immigration gives permission for their spouse to
work full time and for TAFE our spouse can’t work full time, they
have to work 20 hours the same as the student.
[Thai, Cookery, public college]

All excerpts suggest that international students argue that the 20 hours
work limit per week during the semester reflects a violation of their right
as human beings. They identify it as being treated officially inferior to
local students, who have unlimited working hours.
While the intention underpinning the government’s rule of restricting
work to 20 hours per week during the semester is to ensure international
students have sufficient time to focus on their study, this regulations raises
several issues. This may represent discrimination against international
students on the basis on their non-­citizen status as domestic students
have an unrestricted right to work. As some international students put it,
such a regulation makes them feel they are not treated with respect and
equity. More significantly, singling out international students as a group
 International Students as Vulnerable Workers 301
who can work at the maximum of 20 hours per week risks the implied
assumption about their academic deficit and need for more study time
as compared to domestic students, who do not face restriction on their
work time. In essence, this difference indicates international students are
less entitled to rights in terms of working hours than domestic students.

Conclusion
As pointed out by Curtis and Lucas (2001), students as a “silent army of
workers” in general tend to be tolerant of the low pay and exploitation
commonly imposed upon them by employers and accept this as part of
the price of their degree. As evidenced in this empirical study, interna-
tional students appear to be more vulnerable and compelled to accept
poor working conditions, and this is the more so as these students can
be deported for transgressing work rules that do not apply to domestic
students.
The injustices to which international students may be subjected need
to be documented in order to provide the base data needed to develop
policies that can provide for the wellbeing of this growing workforce. But
there is an added dimension to the international student-­worker issue that
renders their work experience a topic in serious need of detailed analysis.
This stems from the fact that it has been shown that internationals take
employment prospects into consideration when making their decisions
regarding country and university selection. Indeed, international students
place substantially greater weight on the availability of employment than
they do on fees, travel costs, or living expenses when deciding on their
study destination (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Sanders, 2002). Conse-
quently, it has become ever more challenging for universities in areas with
poor employment opportunities to recruit international students as they
are more dependent on paid work to cover the living expenses and tuition
fees (Sanders, 2002). In Canada, the institutions argue that the govern-
ment’s decision in summer 2006 to abandon the regulation that does not
allow students to work off campus contributes to marketing efforts of
Canadian institutions in the international education market.
The inadequate institutional support for international students in
relation to employment opportunities may also adversely affect the uni-
versity’s capacities and potential to attract international students. Thus
supporting international students’ employment rights and opportuni-
ties should become an institutional responsibility, and this should be
integrated into existing institutional programs aiming at promoting a
positive experience and enhancing the learning of international students
while studying in Australia. Strategies to help international students jug-
gle the competing demands of work and study can be addressed more
adequately in the orientation programs, study skills workshops, or time
management workshops. A study of U.S. students reveals that students
302 Ly Tran and Sri Soejatminah
who experienced the lowest levels of work-­ university conflict were
those who acknowledged the university as providing effective support
for student-­workers. Most importantly, the coordinated effort between
related stakeholders and the government is crucial in facilitating work
placements for international students as well as protecting them from
being exploited at the workplace. A welcoming initiative is the new cam-
paign by Australia’s Fair Work Ombudsman in collaboration with the
Department of Immigration and Border Protection to raise international
students’ awareness of their work rights and encourage them to report
exploitation with the safeguard that the Department of Immigration and
Border Protection will not cancel their student visa if they have violated
its terms during an instance of workplace exploitation.

References
ASQA (Australian Skills Quality Authority) (2017). VET quality framework.
Retrieved from www.asqa.gov.au/­about/­about-­national-­vet-­regulation/­vet-­
quality-­framework.html.
Bathmaker, A. M. (2015). Thinking with Bourdieu: Thinking after Bourdieu.
Using ‘field’ to consider in/­equalities in the changing field of English higher
education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(1), 61–­80.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power: Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bowman, D. (2010). Sen and Bourdieu: Understanding inequality. Retrieved
from http:/­/­library.bsl.org.au/­jspui/­bitstream/­1/­2131/­1/­Bowman_Sen_and_
Bourdieu_understanding_inequality_2010.pdf
Broadbridge, A., Maxwell, G., & Ogden, S. (2007). Students’ views of retail
employment—­key findings from Genarations Ys. International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, 12(35), 982–­992.
Curtis, S., & Lucas, R. (2001). A coincidence of needs? Employers and full-­time
students. Employee Relations, 23(1), 38–­54.
Davey, G. (2012). Using Bourdieu’s concept of doxa to illuminate classed prac-
tices in an English fee-­paying school. British Journal of Sociology of Educa-
tion, 33(4), 507–­525.
Fair Work Ombudsman (2017). Open letter to international students. Retrieved from
www.fairwork.gov.au/­about-­us/­our-­role/­corporate/­open-­letter-­to-­international-­
students
Ferrare, J. J., & Apple, M. W. (2015). Field theory and educational practice:
Bourdieu and the pedagogic qualities of local field positions in educational
contexts. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(1), 43–­59.
Grenfell, M., & James, D. (1998). Theory, practice and pedagogic research. In M.
Grenfell & D. James (Eds.), Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory
(pp. 6–­26). London, UK: Palmer Press.
Gribble, C., Blackmore, J., & Rahimi, M. (2015). Challenges to providing work
integrated learning to international business students at Australian universities.
Higher Education, Skills and Work-­Based Learning, 5(4), 401–­416.
Lee, J. (2007). Neo-­racism toward international students: A critical need for
change. About Campus, 28–­30.
 International Students as Vulnerable Workers 303
Lee, J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student percep-
tions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381–­409.
Manthei, R., & Gilmore, A. (2005). The effect of paid employment on university
students’ lives. Education & Training, 47(3), 202–­215.
Marginson, S. (2014). Student self-­formation in international education. Journal
of Studies in International Education, 18(1), 6–­22.
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, N. G. (2002). “Push-­pull” factors influencing interna-
tional student destination choice. The International Journal of Educational
Management, 16(2), 82–­90.
Nolan, K. (2012). Dispositions in the field: Viewing mathematics teacher educa-
tion through the lens of Bourdieu’s social field theory. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 80(1–­2), 201–­215.
Nyland, C., Forbes-Mewett, H., Marginson, S., Ramia, G., Sawir, E., & Smith,
S. (2009). International student-workers in Australia: A new vulnerable work-
force. Journal of Education and Work, 22(1), 1–­14.
The PIE news (2017). Fair Work strikes deal to prevent automatic study visa can-
cellation. Retrieved from https:/­/­thepienews.com/­news/­work-­rights/­fair-­work-­
strikes-­deal-­to-­prevent-­automatic-­visa-­cancellation/­
Robertson, S. (2011). Cash cows, backdoor migrants, or activist citizens? Inter-
national students, citizenship, and rights in Australia. Ethnic and Racial Stud-
ies, 34(12), 2192–­2211.
Sanders, C. (2002). International students increasingly evaluating employ-
ment prospects. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25, 5–­28. doi:
10.1080/­08841241.2014.969798
Simons, M., Harris, R., & Smith, E. (2006). The certificate IV in assessment and
workplace learning: Understanding learners and learning. Adelaide: National
Centre for Vocational Education Research.
Thomson, P. (2014). ‘Scaling up’ educational change: Some musings on misrecog-
nition and doxic challenges. Critical Studies in Education, 55(2), 87–­103.
Tran, L. (2013). Teaching international students in vocational education: New
pedagogical approaches. Camberwell: ACER Press.
Tran, L. T., & Soejatminah, S. (2016). Get foot in the door: International stu-
dents’ perceptions of work-­integrated learning. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 64(3), 337–­355.
Tran, L. T., & Soejatminah, S. (2017). Work-­integrated learning for international
students: From harmony to inequality. Journal of Studies in International Edu-
cation, 21(3), 261–­277.
Wall, T., Tran, L. T., & Soejatminah, S. (2016). Inequalities and agencies in work-
place learning experiences: International student perspectives. Vocations and
Learning, 10(2), 141–­156.
Index

Note: Page numbers in italics denote references to figures and page numbers in
bold denote references to tables.

Abe, E.S. 73 – 74 214 – 217; psychological impact

academic engagement 75 – 76, 90 of financial worries 215. See also
academic integration 72, 82 culture shock
academic integrity violation (AIV) Adler, P.S. 35, 39
157 – 158, 166, 169, 172 See also age: college experience and 115;
cheating college satisfaction and 115, 115
academic shock 215 – 216 Aguiniga, D. 231, 237
academic success 2 alcohol-related risk 252
Accreditation Board for Engineering Alcohol Use Disorders Identification
and Technology (ABET) 193 Test (AUDIT) 244 – 245
acculturation and adaptation Allport, G.W. 23
48 – 49, 109 – 110, 112. See also Altbach, P.G. 275
acculturation research study Amazan, R. 217, 223
acculturation research study: college American friends. See friends/
satisfaction surveys 112 – 113; data friendship
analysis 113; demographic factors American students global engagement
115; discussion and conclusion with international students:
117 – 118; findings 113 – 117; awareness, lack of 198; breaking
instrumentation 112 – 113; barriers 205 – 207; cliquishness
limitations 113; participants 197; comfort zone 198 – 199;
of 111 – 112; research methods curiosity and 202; definition of
111 – 113; sociocultural adaptation 195; family connection to outside
questionnaire 111 countries 203 – 204; focus groups
acculturative stress 109, 113 – 117, 114 196; ignorance, trapped in 198;
Acculturative Stress Scale for language/accent 201; literature
International Students (ASSIS) 112 review 193 – 195; model 197;
Adam, A.A. 182 pathways for 196, 201 – 204; peer
adaptation. See acculturation and relationships due to proximity
adaptation 202 – 203; potential source of
Adaptation and Independence 39, knowledge 202; push, as headway
42 – 43 factor 204; research method
adjustment process: barrier to 195 – 196; results 196; roadblocks
achievement 215 – 216; Black- to 196, 197 – 201; significance
African students and 214 – 215, of 204 – 207; stereotyping others
218 – 219; concealing problems and 199 – 200; theoretical framework
215; English language proficiency 195; traditions 200 – 201. See also
and 215 – 216; literature review global engagement
 Index 305
analysis of variance (ANOVA) 113, coping strategies 224; difficulty
115 – 116 connecting with British people 221;
Anderman, E.M. 159 employability of 223; feelings of
Anderson, P.H. 180 social demotion 222; interacting
Aponte, J.F. 109 with staff 216; IT facilities 220;
Apple, M.W. 292 losing cultural identity 217;
Ardichvili, A. 179 overcoming hurdles by working
Asian international students 47, 147. harder 220 – 221; returning home
See also Chinese International 217, 222 – 223; social life 221 – 222;
Students support/counseling services 219;
Asrabadi, B.R. 112 typing experience 220. See also
assimilation: definition of 22, 72; Black-African students, wellbeing
integration vs. 82; submerging study
views of international students for Black-African students, wellbeing
61 study: based on grounded theory
Astin, A.W. 126, 128, 145 217; demographic information 218;
Australia: consumer rights of findings and discussions 218 – 223;
international students 293; method 217 – 218; snowball
correcting foreign students 5; credit sampling technique 217
mobility students 178 – 179; degree black international students 147
mobility students 178; as host Blake, A.C. 216
designation 3; mental health and “Blind Men and an Elephant, The”
233 – 234. See also work experience parable 1, 6
opportunities study Bochner, S. 34
Australian international students, Bourdieu’s concepts of field and doxa
funding source for U.S. institutions 290, 291
93 Boyd, M. 276, 277, 286
Australian Research Council 293 brain circulation phenomenon 260,
Australian Skills Quality Authority 275, 286
(ASQA) 293 breaking barriers 205 – 207, 206
authenticity 21, 22 British education: expansion of
autonomy 41 education to other nations 60 – 61;
Avato, J. 285 internationalization of curriculum
60 – 61, 64, 68 – 69; normalizing
Barkway, P. 228 British tradition 64 – 66; power
barrier breakers 205 – 207, 206 relations 67 – 68; as superior
basic English class (BEC) 163 – 166, 68; teaching and structural
164, 169, 172 requirements of tutors 65. See also
Becker, R. 44 – 45 routine normalization study
Beerkens, M. 181 buddy project 252
Bennett, Milton 195
Beoku-Betts, J. 221 – 222 Caldwell, E.F. 215
Bertram Gallant, T. 157, 160 campus environment 110, 125,
bilingual education 174 – 175 136 – 137, 147, 201
Black-African students: accents campus participation 77 – 78
and 216; adapting to academic Canada, as host designation 3
environment 220 – 221; adjusting career advising 153 – 154. See also
to student life abroad 214 – 215; student services
adjustment period 218 – 219; career success 283 – 284
barriers to academic achievement Carter, S. 217
216; challenges for 223 – 224; cheating: accommodations and 174;
challenges studying abroad 213; competition and 174; desperation
consulting counseling services 174; deterring punishments for
219; cool reception toward 216; 160; English deficiency and 158;
306 Index
international students’ reputation participation 99; theoretical
for 157; motivations for 158, 174; framework 94 – 95. See also student
personality variables 158; risk identity
factors for 157; theories related to Cocchiara, F.K. 181
159. See also English deficiency as co-curricular experiences 127
predictor of cheating study Colder, C.R. 243
Chemers, M.M. 127 collectivist cultures 48, 55 – 56
Chen, H.H. 48 – 49 college environment 126, 129, 131,
Chen, Y. 198 145, 152. See also community
China: as host designation 3; colleges; universities
promoting foreign student college experience: age and 115;
recruitment 4 degree level and 116, 116, 117;
Chinese international students: developing students’ identities
communal identity perceived 152; English language comfort
by 97 – 100; funding source for and 116; gender and 115, 115;
U.S. institutions 93; invisible improving 118; leadership and 126;
engagement of 104; percentage satisfaction survey 112 – 113, 114;
of nondomestic undergraduates satisfaction with 109 – 110; student
162; position of powerlessness involvement activities and 133;
of 103. See also classroom student services as part of 149
experiences of Chinese international college satisfaction: age and 115, 115;
students; friendship study, Chinese definition of 110; degree level and
international students 116, 117; English language comfort
Chinese international students, and 116, 117 – 118; gender and 115,
classroom experiences study, 115; survey instrument 112 – 113
student identity 94 collegiate environments, leadership
chi-square test of independence 170, self-efficacy and 127 – 128
185 Comanaru, R. 182
Chiu, C.Y. 48 Commonwealth Register of
Chong, S. 229 Institutions and Courses for
Choudaha, R. 73 Overseas Students (CRICOS) 293
Christenson, G. 250 communal identity 94, 95, 97 – 100,
chronic stress 243 104
Ciarrochi, J. 239 communication, identity and
classroom engagement 151 – 152, 100 – 101. See also enacted identity
151, 154 – 155. See also student communication theory of identity 95
engagement community colleges: Asian
classroom experiences of Chinese students 147; international
international students: American student enrollment in 144 – 145;
faculty perception of Chinese international students’ engagement
students 99 – 100; American in 146 – 147; student engagement in
students perception of Chinese 145 – 146. See also universities
students 98 – 99; communal confidentiality 239
identity 97 – 100, 104; data constructivism 194
collection and analysis 96 – 97, contact stage of culture shock 39
107; enacted identity 100 – 101, coping strategies 224
104; faculty representing power cosmopolitanism in education 61 – 62
102 – 103; insecurity of English counseling services 215, 219. See also
language proficiency 98; interview student services; support services
questions 107; method 95 – 97; credit mobility students 178 – 179
non-participatory behavior 97; cross-cultural adjustment model 34
participants of 96; personal identity cross-national interactions 192
101 – 102, 104; positions of power cultural sensemaking 24
104; results 97 – 103; teamwork culture, definition of 20
 Index 307
culture displacements 20 English as a Second Language. See
culture exploration 21 – 23 ESL (English as a Second Language)
culture shock: description of 35; English composition 163 – 166, 164,
disillusionment position of 39 – 40; 165, 167, 168
factors of 112; five-stage model English deficiency, cheating and 158
of 34, 35, 37 – 38, 38; phases of English deficiency as predictor
214; reverse culture shock 261; of cheating study: academic
siloed perspectives on 43. See also achievement data 161;
acculturation and adaptation; accountability 173 – 174; AIV
queer international students (case reports as punishment 173; BEC
study) and 163 – 166; chi-square test of
Curtis, S. 301 independence 170; data collection
and analysis 161; demographic data
Daly, A. 213 161; discussion 171 – 172; ESL and
Davey, G. 292 163 – 166; implications for practice
Davis, K. 276 172 – 174; inferential statistical
Deane, F.P. 239 analyses 166 – 170; logistic
Deardorff, D.K. 202 regression 171; method 160 – 163;
degree level 116, 116, 117 objectives 160 – 161; participants
degree mobility students 178 161 – 163, 162; recommendations
Denollet’s Type D Personality Scale 174 – 175; results 163 – 171;
(DS14) 244, 245 suspensions/expulsions 173. See
Developmental Model of Intercultural also basic English class (BEC);
Sensitivity (DMIS) 195 cheating; English composition; ESL
Dewaele, J.M. 182 (English as a Second Language)
De Wit, H. 181 English language comfort 116, 116,
Diefenbach, D. 231 117 – 118
DiPietro, M. 159 English language learners (ELLs) 172
disillusionment position of culture English language proficiency 98, 102,
shock 39 – 40 118, 215 – 216, 224
distress phase of culture shock 39 ESL (English as a Second Language)
Doan, T. 233 163 – 166, 164, 165, 167, 168
Dodge, R. 213 expectancy value 159
Du, Y. 48
Dunn, L. 221 Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine
Dwyer, M.M. 182 Dependence (FTND) questionnaire
244 – 245
educational satisfaction 110 Faraco, M. 182
Education Services for Overseas Ferrare, J.J. 292
Students (ESOS) Act 293, 295 Finn, M.G. 273 – 274
Elliot, K.M. 110 Fischer, N. 217, 223
employability 289 Forbes-Mewett, H. 236, 239
employment: availability 301; foreign-born scholars 7 – 8
discrimination against international foreign students, definition of 19. See
students 290 – 291; double jeopardy also international students
286; gender wage gaps 285 – 286; foreign workers’ salaries 285
opportunities for 301; skill-building Fraillon, J. 213
179 – 180. See also gendered skilled France, as host designation 3
migration study; off campus friends/friendship: adjusting definition
employment; work experience of 56; benefits to international
opportunities study 194; bonds of 79 – 80; challenges to
employment patterns 282 – 283 becoming friends with Americans
enacted identity 94, 95, 100 – 101, 104 53 – 54; Chinese conceptualization
engagement. See student engagement of 50 – 53; cultural differences 54;
308 Index
gift giving 51; group mentality also post-graduation migration
52 – 53, 56; helping each other intentions
51 – 52; identity formation and gender inequality 78 – 79
reconciliation 79 – 80; maintenance gender wage gaps 285 – 286
51 – 52; perception of 50 – 51; geographic identities 80 – 81
returning favors 52; shaping Germany, as host designation 3
post-graduation plans 265. See gift giving 51
also friendship study, Chinese Gillespie, J. 179
international students Glaser-Zikuda, M. 110
friendship study, Chinese international global engagement 205. See
students: acculturation 48 – 49; also American students global
American friends as beneficial 48; engagement with international
challenges to becoming friends students
with Americans 53 – 54; Chinese goal theory 159
students distance themselves from Grant, J. 250
other Chinese 55 – 56; Chinese Gregory’s holistic model of the student
students put themselves out there sojourn 214, 214, 216, 218 – 223
55; collectivist cultures and 48; Grieco, E. 276
constant comparative method grounded theory 74, 195, 217
49 – 50; data analysis 49 – 50; data group boundaries 23
collection 49; findings 50 – 56; group mentality 52 – 53, 56
focused coding 49; friendship Gruber, T. 110
development 50 – 51; gift giving 51; Gullahorn, J.E. 34
group mentality 52 – 53, 56; helping Gullahorn, J.T. 34
each other 51 – 52; higher education
personnel implications 57; initial Hanassab, S. 73
coding 49; interdependent cultures Hecht, M.L. 94, 95, 102, 109
and 48; interpreting friendliness 54; Hegarty, N. 33
literature review 47 – 49; method helping each other 51 – 52
49 – 50; overcoming challenges help-seeking behaviors 229, 236 – 240
55 – 56. See also friends/friendship higher education, mission of 27
Fub, S. 110 higher learning institutions. See
universities
gender, college satisfaction and 115, Ho, D.Y.F. 48
115 Hofstede, G. 48, 56
gendered skilled migration study: holistic model of student sojourn.
annualized salary 283; career See Gregory’s holistic model of the
success 283 – 284; data analysis student sojourn
276 – 277; demographic data 279; honeymoon stage of culture shock
discussion 284 – 286; employment 38, 39
patterns 282 – 283; findings host countries: attracting international
279 – 284; gender-residency students 259; changing negative
status 281 – 282; human capital stereotypes 20; unequal treatment
characteristics 280; human of international students 5, 62
capital factors 279; labor market host culture: cultural exploration
outcomes and experiences of 21; discrimination from 110;
281 – 284; limitations of 278; English language comfort 118;
method 276 – 278; research sample fitting in with 217; one-way
277; skilled migrant workers and adjustments and 5, 62; stereotypes
276; statistical analysis 278; stay and 26
rates 274; theoretical perspectives host institutions 73 – 74, 81, 217,
275 – 276; variables and constructs 259 – 260. See also universities
277 – 278; women and 274. See Huang, R. 8
 Index 309
Huisman, J. 181 82, 90; socioeconomic status and
human capital theory 275, 276 83; types of 72. See also identity/
Huyton, J. 213 identities
Hyams-Ssekasi, D. 215 intercultural competence model 202
intercultural sensitivity 195
ICEF Monitor 217 interdependent cultures 48
identity formation and reconciliation: interdependent mode of being 48
gender 78 – 79; geography and internationalization: of the academy
80 – 81; interests 81; religion 79; 26 – 27; of British education
social bonds 79 – 80 curriculum 60 – 61, 64, 68 – 69;
identity/identities: communication definition of 7; realized on campus
with others and 100; 28
communicative process and 95; International Physical Activity
definition of 94; dimensions Questionnaire (IPAQ) 245, 246
of 94, 95; geographic 80 – 81; international student classification
hierarchically ordered social roles 25 – 27
and 102; intention to return home international student learning,
shaping 217; losing cultural 217; contextual influences on 7
marginalized 45; power and 94 – 95; international students: adapting to
second language and 94 – 95; social U.S. academic/social environment
73 – 74, 88; as socially constructed 108; adjustment challenges 34;
73. See also classroom experiences attracting 259; as “cash cows”
of Chinese international students; 6; classifying 25 – 27; cultural
communal identity; enacted sensemaking of 24; definition of
identity; identity formation 19, 228; diversity of 152 – 153;
and reconciliation; integration; economic contributions of
multiple identities, reconciling (case 243; employability needs of 8;
study); personal identity; queer enrollment trend of 3; financial
international students (case study); contributions of 72; foreign
relational identity; student identity students vs. 19; host designations
identity reconciliation process 74 – 75 3; as invisible minorities 198;
identity reintegration 38, 41 population of 2; retaining 259; as
immigrant women 277 students 25 – 27; unequal treatment
immigration policies, barriers to free of 5. See also queer international
circulation 275 students (case study)
independent mode of being 48 interracial engagement 204 – 205
India 93 intersectionality 276
individualism 55 – 56 intrinsic motivation theory 159
Inose, M. 47 – 48
Inputs-Environment-Outcome (IEO) Jamaludin, N.L. 182
college impact model 128 Jeffery, R.W. 251, 252
Institute of International Education job mobility 277
Project Atlas 3, 8 Johnson, L.R. 109, 193
institutional conditions, causing Jones, E. 2
students to leave host institution 73 Jones, S.R. 73 – 74, 82
institutional labeling of international Jorm, A.F. 238
students 25 – 27 Jung, E. 94, 102, 109
integration: academic 72, 82;
academic engagement 90; barriers Kearney, M.L. 7
to 83; definition of 22, 72; family Kennedy, C. 214
impact on 74 – 75, 83; levels of 90; Kessler Psychological Distress Scale
levels of vs. perceptions of 81 – 82; (K-6 Scale) 244, 245
pathways for 83, 88; social 72, Keteku, N. 217
310 Index
Khatiwada, S. 118 Mallinckrodt, B. 109 – 110
Kimmel, K. 65 marginalization 22, 27, 45, 73
Kitayama, S. 48 Marginson, S. 5, 62, 293
Kofman, E. 276, 283 Maringe, F. 217
Kolster, R. 44 – 45 market segmentation theories 276
Komives, S.R. 126 Markus, H.R. 48
Korobova, N. 147, 153 McEwen, M.K. 74, 82
Kowarski, I. 180 McGlynn, A.P. 146
Kuchinke, K.P. 179 mental health: in Australia 233 –234;
Kuh, G.D. 145 confidentiality and 239; definition
of 228; fearing judgement 236; help-
labor market factors by gender- seeking behaviors 236 – 240; media
residency status 281 – 282 influencing public perception of 231;
language competence 2 mental illness vs. 230 –233; personal
language fluency 2 support for 237 – 239; problematic
Lawrence, R. 181 health behaviors and 250; seeking
Lawton, L. 180 professional help 237 –239; stigma
leadership capacity 125. See also of 233–236; stigmatized attitude
student leadership development toward speaking of 235 –236;
study student’s perception of 231 – 232;
leadership education 138 taboo associated with 236; tied with
leadership self-efficacy: campus culture 233–236
environments and 136; campus mental health, health-related
student government and 139; behaviors study: alcohol-related risk
campus-wide activities, impact 248, 249, 252; data analysis 246;
of 132; collegiate environments demographic data 247; discussion
and 127 – 128; community service 250 – 252; instrumentation
and 137; culture influencing 128; 244 – 246; limitations 252; method
definition of 126 – 127; leadership 244 – 246; nicotine dependence 248,
training and 136, 136; off campus 249, 251; physical activity and
employment 137; organizational 248, 251; results 246 – 249; serious
leadership impact 133; as predictor mental illness, risk for 248, 248;
of leadership performance 127; stress levels 249; Type D personality
student involvement activities 248 – 249, 249, 251
on 134 – 135. See also student mental health education 231
leadership development study mental health services 237, 239 – 240
leadership training 136 meritocracy 234 – 235
Leask, Betty 69 migration intentions after graduation.
Lee, J.J. 62, 65, 217, 290 – 291 See post-graduation migration
Leppink, E. 250 intentions
Lincoln, D. 7 Moog, P. 187
Lippman, W. 23 Motivation to Study Abroad
Lokkesmoe, K.J. 179 instrument 180
Longerbeam, S.D. 126 Mukminin, A. 108
Lowell, B.L. 285 Multi-Institutional Study of
Lucas, R. 301 Leadership (MSL) instrument
Lust, K. 250 128 – 129, 130, 131. See also
Lysgaard, S. 34, 39 student leadership development
study
Maclean, M.G. 243 Multiple Dimensions of Identity
Madden, E. 231, 237 Development model (MMDI)
Magid, V. 243 73 – 74, 82
Mainella, F. 126 multiple identities, reconciling (case
maladative health behaviors 244 study): contradictions 81 – 82;
 Index 311
demographic data 89; discussion peer collaboration 105. See also
82 – 84; family impact 74 – 75; teamwork experience
findings 74 – 82; identity formation Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) 244, 245
and reconciliation 78 – 81; literature permanent residency (PR) status 277
review 73; method 74; pathways personal identity 94, 95, 101 – 102,
to navigate the university 74 – 75; 104
purposive and snowball sampling Petzold, K. 187
74, 87; recommendations 84; planned behavior theory 159
salient identities 91 – 92; theoretical popular prejudices 62
framework 73 – 74. See also identity/ positions of power 102 – 104
identities; student engagement post-graduation migration intentions:
Multiple Identity Recognition 38, background 260 – 261; discouraging
40 – 41 a stay 267 – 269, 268; encouraging
Murdock, T.B. 159 a stay 265 – 267, 270; exposure
Mushibwe, C.P. 215 to host country 263; factors
Mwara, J.N. 216 considered in 265 – 270; family
connections and 264; by gender
national culture, definition of 20 266, 266, 268; initial motivations to
National Survey of Student study abroad 263 – 264; institution
Engagement (NSSE) 75 type shaping 267, 267, 268;
negative affectivity (NA) 244 literature review 260; motivations
neo-corporatist model 275 for 260; previous experiences
neo-racism 73, 290 influencing 263; research method
neutralization theory 159 261 – 262; returning home
New Colombo Plan 182 260 – 261, 269; social connections
Ng, D.M. 251, 252 and 264 – 265; standard of living
Nguyen, C.P. 146 and 266; stay rates 274; students’
nicotine abuse 244 initial thinking 262 – 263; weak ties
Nolan, K. 292 shaping 264 – 265. See also gendered
nondomestic undergraduates skilled migration study
161 – 163, 162, 163, 167, 168 psychological stress: chronic stressors
Norris, E.M. 179 243; levels of 250; nicotine abuse
Norton, B. 94 and 244; substance/alcohol abuse
Nyaupane, G.P. 181 – 182 and 244. See also mental health;
Nyland, C. 290 – 291 mental health, health-related
behaviors study
Oberg, K. 34 purposeful sampling 36, 96, 196
Odlaug, B. 250 purposive and snowball sampling
off campus employment 137, 301 framework 74, 87
one way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) 113, 115 – 116 Quach, A. 36, 43
open-mindedness 194 queer, description of 34
Opio, T. 217 queer international students
Osteen, L. 126 (case study): Adaptation and
other, the, cultural exploration of 21 Independence 42 – 43; adjustment
Owen, J.O. 126 challenges 34; conceptual
framework 35 – 36; data analysis
Paris, C.M. 181 – 182 37 – 38; discussion 43 – 44;
Pascarella, E.T. 179 disillusionment 39 – 40; forming
pattern-matching logic 37 relationships 40 – 41; future research
Paulsen, M.B. 179 44; honeymoon stage 38, 39;
Pearson’s correlation analysis 114, identity reintegration 41; literature
114 review 34 – 35; Multiple Identity
Pederson, P.B. 47 – 48 Recognition 40 – 41; participants
312 Index
of 37; pattern-matching logic 37; Science, Technology, Engineering, and
recruitment and data collection Math (STEM) 7 – 8
36 – 37; results 38 – 43; Returning science and engineering (S&E) degrees
and Renegotiating 38 – 39, 42; staff, 273, 274
faculty and peers, significance of 43; Scientists and Engineers Statistical
students of color and 35; studies Data System (SESTAT) 276 – 277
of 35; study design 36 – 38. See second language acquisition 181
also culture shock; international self, the: culture exploration of 21 – 23;
students definition of 21
queer students of color 35 self-awareness 200
self-efficacy 126. See also leadership
Raghuram, P. 283 self-efficacy
reconciling multiple identities. See self-efficacy theory 159
multiple identities, reconciling (case self-reliance 234
study) separation 22
relational identity 94, 95, 102 – 103 Serious Mental Illness (SMI) 248, 248,
religion, identity formation and 79, 250
83 – 84 Shenkar, O. 128
Relyea, C. 181 Shin, D. 110
remedial classes 66 – 67 Singapore: mental health views in
Returning and Renegotiating stage of 233 – 234; as meritocratic society
culture shock 38 – 39, 42 234 – 235
return migration plans 260 – 261, Sinha, R. 251
267 – 269, 268 situational ethics 159
reverse culture shock 261 smoking/nicotine dependence 248,
Rice, C. 62, 65, 290 – 291 249, 251
Rickwood, D. 239 snowball sampling technique 74, 87,
Ronen, S. 128 96, 217, 230
routine normalization study: British social bonds, identity formation and
education tradition as superior 79 – 80
68; correcting the deficit 66 – 68; social categorization 24
critical events 63; description of Social Change Model 126
63, 68; findings 64 – 68; imposing social connectedness to mainstream
ways of learning 64 – 65; method culture 48 – 49
63; requiring remedial classes social identities 73 – 74, 83 – 84, 88
66. See also British education; social inhibition (SI) 244
subordination of international social integration 72, 82, 90
students sociocultural adaptation 109 – 110,
Russia, as host designation 3 113 – 117, 114, 118
Sociocultural Adaptation Scale
Salisbury, M.H. 179, 181 (SCAS-R) 112
Sam, D.L. 182 South Korea 93
sampling methods. See purposeful South Korean students 162
sampling; snowball sampling Souto-Otero, M. 181
technique Sovic, S. 47 – 48
Sandal, G.M. 182 Spencer-Oatey, H. 20
Sanders, L. 213 Spiro, J. 69
Sandhu, D.S. 112 Starobin, S. 147, 153
satisfaction. See student satisfaction Statistical Analysis System (SAS) 113
Sawyer, A.M. 236, 239 stereotypes/stereotyping: avoiding
Schulmann, P. 73 25; in campus global engagement
science, technology, engineering, and 199 – 200; classification and
mathematics (STEM) 185 labels leading to 27; closing
 Index 313
down openness 19 – 20; definition student motives to study abroad. See
of 23; disaffirming 25; fear of studying abroad, student motives
difference and 200; international research project
student classification 25 – 27; student recruitment 3 – 4
positive 202; prevalence of 23 – 24; student satisfaction 110 – 111,
self-awareness and 200; as self- 113 – 117, 114
reinforcing 23; threat of 24 – 25; student services: awareness of
worth ethics of international 149 – 150, 150, 153; career advising
students 202 153 – 154; importance of 118;
stereotype threats 24 – 25 utilization rates 144. See also
stress. See psychological stress counseling services; support services
structured teacher support 65 studying abroad: Black-African
Studdard, N.L. 181 students 213; destination selection
student classification 25 – 28 181 – 182; employability and
student engagement: academic support 179 – 180; governments’ financial
75 – 76; campus participation support for 188; impact of 179;
77 – 78; in community colleges motivations for 184, 187 – 188;
145 – 146; definition of 72; with socioeconomic status influencing
domestic students 193; importance 179. See also credit mobility
of 145; indicators of 75 – 78; lack students; studying abroad, student
of 146; overall wellbeing 78; social motives research project
involvement 77; Survey of Entering studying abroad, student motives
Student Engagement (SENSE) 147. research project: demographic
See also classroom engagement analysis 183 – 184; demographic
student engagement study: data data 184; desire to experience
for 147 – 148; demographic another culture 187; destination
characteristics 153; descriptive selection 181 – 182; discussion
statistics 149; discussion and 187 – 188; diversity areas of 180;
implications 152 – 155; domestic field of study 181; improving
peers differing from international employment outcomes 188; motives
students 148 – 149; method 148; for studying abroad 184, 185 – 187,
results 148 – 152; student services, 185, 186; personal development
use of 149 – 150, 150 187; research method 183;
student identity. See identity/identities results 183 – 187; second language
student involvement, facilitating acquisition 181; study duration
learning 128 182, 188. See also studying abroad
student leadership development study: Stults-Kolehmainen, M.A. 251
conceptual framework 128 – 129; subordination of international
cultural differences 128; data students: motivated by foreign
analysis 131; discussion of results status 62; remedial classes and
137 – 138; implications for practice 66 – 67
138 – 139; leadership self-efficacy Sumer, S. 118
126 – 128; limitations 138; Multi- support services, limited resources
Institutional Study of Leadership for 6
(MSL) instrument designed for 131; Survey of Entering Student
multiple regression analyses 131; Engagement (SENSE) 147, 152
research method 129 – 131; results symbolic communication 100
132 – 136; study participants 131
student mental health study: findings teamwork experience 99, 103, 105
230 – 240; literature review temporary residency (TR) 277
229 – 230; mental health vs. mental Teye, V. 181 – 182
illness 230 – 233; method 230. See Theory of Involvement 145
also mental health Tinto, V. 145, 146
314 Index
TOEFL 96 Wang, K.T. 48 – 49
Trump, Donald 3 Ward, A. 214
Turner, R. 8 Weedon, C. 94 – 95
Type D personality 244, 245, Wei, M. 48 – 49
248 – 249, 249, 251 wellbeing of students 78, 213, 215.
See also adjustment process; Black-
Umbach, P.D. 179 African students, wellbeing study
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS) West, C.J. 94 – 95
178 West, M. 231
United Kingdom, as host designation 3 white international students 147
United States: Department of Williams, C.T. 193
Commerce 72; extreme friendliness Wilson, C.P. 239
of Americans 54; as host Wilson, J. 112
designation 3; immigration policies Witkow, M.R. 146
275; international students’ total work-based learning 296 – 297
enrollment in 93; subordination of work experience opportunities study:
international students 62 background 291 – 292; research
universities: cross-cultural awareness in design 293 – 294; student right
students 179; discriminating against protections 295; students’ national
international students 63; economic origins and courses 294; work-
contributions of international based learning access 296 – 297;
students 243; promoting foreign working hours 299 – 301; work
student recruitment 3; respecting placements 296 – 298; work-related
student otherness 64; support information access 295 – 296
services 184. See also community workforce, college-educated, employer
colleges; host institutions expectations 193
working hours, equality in 299 – 301
verbal communication 100 workplace: discrimination at 299;
Victorian Registration Qualification equality 298 – 299; exploitation in
Authority (VRQA) 293 299. See also employment
Volet, S. 65 work placements 296 – 298
Voss, R. 110 work stress 277
Vujic, S. 181
Yeh, C.J. 47 – 48
Wadsworth, B.C. 109, 110 Yeoh, J. 233
wage gaps 285 – 286
Wallace, M. 221 Zellmann, K. 231, 237
Wang, C.D.C. 109 – 110 Zhao, C.M. 147, 154