Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The increase in higher education internationalisation has called for finding possible ways to understand and improve its related issues. Despite the financial, cultural, and social benefits that international students bring to host countries’ educational institutions, the challenges they encounter in a new environment are hard to deal with, especially acculturative stress and adjustment problems in a new environment. As international students are at the heart of education internationalisation, it is crucial to understand and address their adjustment issues for a sustainable education management. Therefore, this study develops a conceptual framework to portray international students’ adjustment issues in a host country from perspectives of field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory. The proposed conceptual model not only considers factors influencing international students’ cross-cultural adaptation in a host country, but it also highlights the outcomes of such adaptation which can provide managerial implications for sustaining higher education mobility growth.

Keywords

Conceptual framework cross-cultural adaptation internationalisation of higher education psychological adaptation sociocultural adaptation strategic institutional management of internationalisation

Introduction: towards developing a conceptual framework

Internationalisation of higher education refers to the integration process of international/intercultural dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of an institution (Knight, 1993). This process among higher education services emerged in the early 1990s and has dramatically increased till present (Terry, 2011). Higher education services have pushed the territorial boundaries away with the advent of globalisation, advancement in information technology, and increase in international travel (Arokiasamy, 2010). At the heart of higher education internationalisation lies cross-border student movement, which can foster global competition among educational institutions (Marginson and Van Der Wende, 2007). The number of students pursuing their education in a country outside their home country (i.e. international students) was 1.75 million in 1999 which raised to nearly 3 million in 2007, according to a report by World Trade Organization (2010). Additionally, Gürüz (2008) reported that the overall number of students enrolled in various disciplines in educational institutions outside their home country was about 3 million, which is expected to increase to almost 6 million by 2020 and 8 million by 2025.

The trend shows that a substantial factor for higher education institutions’ success in the global education competition is recruiting a growing number of foreign (or international) students (Qiang, 2003). Universities and educational institutions around the world strive to boost their reputation in order to attract more international students and increase their share of education market (Mayo, 2009). As such, higher education globalisation has become a prevalent market for both developed and developing countries especially in Asia (Arokiasamy, 2010). It is worth noting that international movement of students to other countries for the purpose of pursuing education can be a considerable source of business, and economic growth for host countries (Marginson, 2006). For instance, international students through their expenditures on food, housing, books, and tuition fees can bring additional revenue for universities and local communities.

Along with the economic growth, higher education internationalisation can result in social, and cultural benefits for host countries (Dobson and Hölttä, 2001; Terry, 2011). By sharing a wide variety of perspectives and views, international students can contribute to host countries’ social and cultural diversity (Zeszotarski, 2001). These benefits have stimulated educational institutions around the world to compete for growing their countries’ economy by focusing on producing knowledge and moving towards higher education internationalisation (Arokiasamy, 2010; Wilkins, 2014). Although this is the case, it is crucial to emphasise and consider the essential role of international students’ successful transition to a new cultural environment (or cross-cultural adaptation) (Lamprianou and Sunker, 2014). This is the prerequisite for higher education institutions in order to attract more international students, achieve prosperity, and remain reputable in the global education market.

Transition to higher education in an unfamiliar cultural environment is an unavoidable cause of anxiety and unease for international students irrespective of social class or other categorisations (Clayton et al., 2009). As highlighted by Berry (2006), cultural differences and rigorous academic work are the potential causes of pressure and frustration that international students experience. Perhaps, insufficient knowledge and lack of understanding about the values and norms of the new culture together with cultural gap between international students’ ethnic and host countries could result in stress and anxiety for international students (Yang and Clum, 1994). This can result in negative consequences for both individuals and host society (Sumer, 2009). Apart from cultural, social, and financial contributions of international students to host countries, challenges they face in a host country might lead them towards frustration and social problems (Sumer, 2009). Therefore, by overcoming their difficulties and problems, international students can experience ‘successful transition’ (i.e. adapt) to a new environment, which can prevent adversity and its negative impacts from host societies (Earley and Ang, 2003; Molinsky, 2007). Since international students’ cross-cultural adaptation to a new environment can directly influence their psychological and social well-being, it is essential to be prioritised.

To this end, the issue of cross-cultural adaptation has engaged many researchers from various contexts (Berry and Sabatier, 2010; Demes and Geeraert, 2014; Jibeen and Khalid, 2010; Masgoret, 2006; Ward and Kennedy, 1994). Accordingly, several acculturation models have been proposed in an attempt to portray individuals’ adaptation as well as the factors contributing to this process. For instance, Ward et al. (2001) proposed the ABCs of the acculturation process by emphasising stress and coping framework, cultural learning approach, and social identification theories concerning with affective, behavioural, or cognitive aspects of individuals’ adjustment. Berry (2006) first developed the stress and coping framework to explain the factors influencing cross-cultural adaptation.

Furthermore, distinction between the two facets of adaptation (i.e. psychological and sociocultural adaptations) was suggested by Ward and colleagues (Searle and Ward, 1990; Ward and Kennedy, 1992). In their framework, the aspects of stress and coping, cultural learning, and social identification from Berry’s (2006) framework were integrated along with an emphasis on social and cultural specific skills, which help individuals in adjustment process. Moreover, in line with the frameworks proposed by Berry (2006) and Ward et al. (2001), Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver (2006) and Safdar et al. (2003) developed comprehensive models where they incorporated the mentioned three theories to explain individuals’ acculturation. In the model developed by Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver (2006), and Safdar et al. (2003), the aspects of individuals’ characteristics, and host society’s characteristics, as well as hassle predictors were highlighted; however, the framework developed by Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver (2006) had an extra element of the society of origin’s characteristics. Similarly, both of the mentioned models, focused on psychological and sociocultural adaptations as the consequences of adjustment and acculturation attitude as the predictor linking the antecedents and outcomes.

Although the above-mentioned models proposed some antecedents for cross-cultural adaptation that might be relevant to international students, there is a necessity to focus specifically on international students and consider factors with aspects of cognition, behaviour and perception (Smith and Khawaja, 2011). Particularly, with the increase in international mobility in higher education, there is not a specific conceptual framework to understand and address international students’ needs in a new environment. Although the extant literature suggests several individual (personal) factors and situational (environmental) factors that assist individuals to achieve successful adaptation in a new environment, still there is a need to identify situational (environmental) factors specifically for the context of international students (Smith and Khawaja, 2011). This can enrich understanding towards international students’ cross-cultural adaptation. Since the above-mentioned models were not developed precisely for the context of international students, the proposed outcomes of cross-cultural adaptation in these models are limited. This limitation signals that further investigation is required to suggest specific outcomes in the context of international students because they play crucial roles in sustaining higher education growth.

Additionally, the extant literature mainly considers the perspectives of organisations and educational institutions in improving policies (e.g., Bartell, 2003; Knight, 2004; Qiang, 2003). The uni-dimensional assessment for policy improvement, which is based on educational institutions’ viewpoint, may not account for the needs of their main customers (international students). Overlooking international students’ perspectives and requirements in designing and improving policies may impede educational institutions from reaching their goal of becoming reputable education service providers in the global education market. Since international students are at the core of international education mobility and considered as the main customers of global education sector, it is paramount to pay attention to their needs, and take into account their perspectives in improving policies and practices. This approach could benefit both educational institutions and international students to achieve prosperity and success. It is the aim of this paper to bridge this gap in the literature by proposing an alternative conceptual model which is based on international students’ cross-cultural adaptation needs.

Furthermore, prior acculturation models in the literature are rooted in three renowned theories: (a) stress and coping theory (SCT); (b) culture learning theory (CLT); and (c) social identification theories (SIT). These theories elaborate ‘Affective’, ‘Behavioural’ and ‘Cognitive’ aspects individuals’ adaptation process to a new cultural environment respectively (Zhou et al., 2008). However, despite providing insightful support, ‘field theory’ (Lewin, 1951) and ‘cross-cultural adaptation theory’ (Kim, 2001) have not been applied to explain individuals’ adaptive behaviours and cross-cultural adaptation to a new environment. The main rationale for integrating field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory and using them as the governing theories in this paper is that these two theories can explain the nexus of antecedents–adaptation–outcomes with the emphasis on cognition. Moreover, field theory by focusing on the equation of behaviour as the function of a person and the environment (B = P, E) makes it possible to divide the antecedents of cross-cultural adaptation into individual and situational factors. In addition, using cross-cultural adaptation theory offers support for investigation of the outcomes of cross-cultural adaptation that can provide managerial and practical contributions to education policymakers and authorities in higher education.

Thus, it is the aim of this study to present an alternative conceptual framework that considers both wide and narrow perspectives in explaining international students’ adaptation process based on field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory. Then, a conceptual model in consensus with the prior models, but extended from them is developed to be applied in exploring international students’ adaptation and its outcomes in a new cultural environment. This can be beneficial to higher education institutions. The proposed framework focuses on international students, those who pursue higher education in a country outside their home country. The framework also examines antecedents and outcomes of international students’ cross-cultural adaptation. The proposed model can be employed by emerging countries competing towards higher education internationalisation through attracting more international students. The following sub-sections elaborate the notion of cross-cultural adaptation from the lens of field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory.

Cross-cultural adaptation

Generally, the dynamic change process that happens to individuals upon their relocation to a new environment is defined as cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1988, 2001). Three main facets namely functional fitness, psychological health, and intercultural identity development are involved in cross-cultural adaptation. However, Kim (1990) only considered functional fitness and psychological health (Wang and Sun, 2009). In line with Kim’s definition, Beiser et al. (1988) defined cross-cultural adaptation as the changes that take place during acculturation. Two types of changes were outlined as ‘short-term’ and ‘long-term’ changes. Specifically, the former would be sometimes negative, whereas the latter would be mostly positive, resulting in adaptation. Berry (1997) in response to Beiser et al. (1988) claimed that the long-term changes could highly vary ranging from poorly adapted to well-adapted. In addition, Aycan and Berry (1995) proposed a similar definition for cross-cultural adaptation as Kim’s definition by focusing on the dynamic change process and the three facets of cross-cultural adaptation.

Meanwhile, Ward and colleagues proposed a definition for cross-cultural adaptation in line with Kim’s definition. They stated that when individuals move to a new environment, the dynamic process of change causes individuals to adapt both psychologically and socioculturally to the new society (Searle and Ward, 1990; Ward, 1996; Ward and Kennedy, 1993a). Therefore, they formulated the two key concepts of psychological adaptation and sociocultural adaptation into cross-cultural adaptation. In fact, the terms psychological adaptation and sociocultural adaptation concur respectively with psychological health, and functional fitness suggested by Kim (Wang and Sun, 2009).

Cross-cultural adaptation from the lens of field theory

Rooted in social psychology, field theory was developed by Lewin (1951) to overcome the limitations of traditional way of thinking through merely psychology (Atkinson, 1964). Through his broad system of topological concept, Lewin represented the idea of encompassing emotions, values, thoughts, social relationships, and behaviours through psychological situations (Chak, 2002). Therefore, he formulated his field theory to explain human’s behaviour from the perspective of social psychology by stating a person’s behaviour is related to his/her personal characteristics as well as the social situation in which he/she finds him/herself (Lewin, 1951).

In particular, field theory focuses on humans’ actions as a result of their behaviour, which occurs in a ‘force field’. Field is defined as mutually interdependent coexisting facts or forces which represent different aspects of an individual’s coexisting environment. In other words, humans are influenced by surrounding factors in the field. These factors could determine individuals’ behaviour. Thus, behaviours occur as the result of various interactions in the field and between the fields of other individuals (Neill, 2004). Every individual possesses a field and since individuals have a lot of differences, their fields are different from each other. As individuals gain more information and knowledge about the environment, their field changes to accommodate them (Cronshaw and McCulloch, 2008).

Moreover, Lewin stated that a person’s behaviours occur within a psychological field, which is called ‘life-space’ (Schultz and Schultz, 2004). The term ‘life-space’ refers to every force in the field both from inner and outer environment that shapes up an individual such as the places an individual goes, the people an individual meets and the feelings an individual has about the places or people (Lewin et al., 1944). As Lewin believed, understanding the relations of all factors in one’s life-space is crucial because those are the elements which play important roles in helping or blocking people from accommodating to a new environment (Sorrentino, 2013). The equation for life-space is ‘B = f (P, E)’, which indicates that individuals’ behaviour (B) can be explained by considering both the person (P) and their environment (E). The environment here does not refer to the physical environment, but rather the psychological environment perceived by the person (Sorrentino, 2013). Additionally, the person and environment are interdependent and that creates a dynamic and complex field of interaction which help individuals learn more about themselves and their environment (Daniels, 2003). Therefore, Lewin (1951) regarded field as a continuous state of adaptation.

Field theory explains the influence of several individual and situational factors on individuals’ behaviours; however, it lacks detailed explanations and operationalisation of individuals’ cross-cultural adaptation in a new environment. Therefore, Kim’s cross-cultural adaptation theory is needed to precisely operationalise this notion by proposing a clear explanation for cross-cultural adaptation process of individuals in a new environment and its relative outcomes.

Cross-cultural adaptation theory

Kim (2001) developed an integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaption, which can be considered as one of the most detailed theoretical frameworks applied in adaptation process. At the heart of this theory lies the notion of transformation process when an individual relocates to a new and culturally unfamiliar environment. As such, cross-cultural adaptation is defined as a dynamic process owing to individuals’ constant interaction with their environment in this theory (Hamad and Lee, 2013). In other words, as individuals have to face and accept the differences between their ethnic culture and that of the host culture, they might face challenges when entering a new environment. In facing challenges, dynamic human nature struggles for an internal balance through acquiring new cultural communication practices, participating actively in the interpersonal and mass communication processes of the local community and being competent in host communication system (Hamad and Lee, 2013). The struggle for internal balance or stability causes all individuals to go through a transformation process, which is called cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 2001).

In fact, individuals are open, complex, and evolving systems that constantly search for stability through establishing, re-establishing, and maintaining relatively stable and functional relationships with their new environment (Kim, 2005). In addition, Anderson (1994) believed that the adaptation process is a continuum that can result in positive or negative outcomes. It also involves building and rebuilding of identity since sense of self and self-esteem of individuals can be shaken in a culturally unfamiliar environment. Consequently, a gradual personal identity transformation occurs as a result of successful adaptation. Although the old identity can never be completely replaced with the new one, it can be transformed into something that will always contain some of the old and the new side by side, to form a new perspective that allows more openness and acceptance of differences in people (Kim, 1988, 2001).

As mentioned earlier, the two facets of cross-cultural adaptation proposed by Kim correspond with the two notions of psychological (emotional/affective) adaptation and sociocultural (behavioural) adaptation proposed by Ward and colleagues (e.g., Searle and Ward, 1990; Ward, 1999; Ward and Kennedy, 1994). Kim’s theory can explain individuals’ adaptation phenomenon through psychological and sociocultural adaptations, and also focus on outcomes of such adaptation (Kim, 2001). Therefore, it is applied in the proposed conceptual framework in this paper. The integration of the two mentioned theories can provide a better understanding of cross-cultural adaptation from a theoretical perspective.

The proposed conceptual framework

The proposed conceptual framework in this paper is mainly formulated based on field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory. Both of these theories provide support by emphasising the important role of several individual and situational factors in facilitating international students’ adaptive behaviours [field theory] and their constant search for achieving stability or equilibrium [field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory] which results in cross-cultural adaptation and its outcomes [cross-cultural adaptation theory]. As antecedents and outcomes of adaptation are equally important, integration of field and cross-cultural adaptation theories complement each other in providing a platform to explore the factors contributing to international students’ cross-cultural adaptation, and its outcomes in a new environment (i.e. the nexus of antecedents–adaptation–outcomes).

In particular, field theory emphasises on life-space as a perceived psychological environment that involves both inner and outer factors influencing adaptive behaviours of individuals. Inner and outer factors are conceptualised as the psychological environment that international students perceive from their inner and outer environment in field theory. Therefore, perception and cognition are crucial to shape up international students’ adaptive behaviours in a new society (Sorrentino, 2013). Additionally, the inner and outer factors are operationalised, respectively, as individual/personal and environmental/situational factors in the field theory. Perception, cognition, and attitude play vital roles in individuals’ adaptation process (Tajfel, 1981). Besides, it is essential to find out factors that take into account aspects of cognition, behaviour, and psychology in the setting of international students (Smith and Khawaja, 2011). As such, field theory can greatly contribute in designing and developing the conceptual framework in this paper.

Since field theory incorporates the components of psychology, cognition, and behaviour, it allows for identifying both individual (inner) and situational (outer) factors contributing to international students’ adaptation from a theoretically sound perspective. Although in the above-mentioned models both personal characteristics and society characteristics (i.e. host and ethnic) have been considered as the antecedents of adaptation process, the specification of these factors considering international students is yet to be explored (Smith and Khawaja, 2011). Hence, the current conceptual framework is proposed to address the existing gap in the literature of international students by employing field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory to open up new directions for further studies.

Although field theory provides support for developing the conceptual framework in this paper, crucial role of cross-cultural adaptation theory is undeniable. In line with the prior models, two key notions of psychological and sociocultural adaptations (Searle and Ward, 1990; Ward, 1999; Ward and Kennedy, 1994) assist to understand the process of international students’ cross-cultural adaptation. According to cross-cultural adaptation theory, successful cross-cultural adaptation can result in several outcomes (Wang and Sun, 2009). This aspect of cross-cultural adaptation theory allows to identify several outcomes relevant to the setting of international students and how the identified outcomes could contribute to the sustainability and success of higher education. As outcomes of international students’ adaptation are as important as the antecedents influencing this process, cross-cultural adaptation theory is employed along with field theory to build the proposed conceptual framework in this paper. Table 1 summarises the explanation of field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory as well as their contributions to the proposed conceptual framework.

Table 1.

Summary of the field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory.

Theory	Explanation	Contribution to the proposed framework
Field Theory	Every individual possesses a field (life space) (Schultz and Schultz, 2004). - The field is the perceived environment of individuals (Sorrentino, 2013). - Co-existing forces in the field form individual behaviours (Cronshaw and McCulloch, 2008). - Life space equation is B = F (P, E) which constitute all the inner and outer forces in forming individuals’ behaviour (Sorrentino, 2013). - Individual and situational factors influence a person’s behaviour in the environment (Chak, 2002). -Individuals’ constant interaction with the environment causes continuous change in order to achieve equilibrium (Daniels, 2003).	- Several individual and situational factors influence a person’s behaviour - Constant interaction of individuals with their environment - Individuals’ continuous search for equilibrium - Behaviour is the function of the person and environment
Cross-Cultural Adaptation Theory	- Sojourners face challenges in a new environment (Kim, 2001). - Sojourners try to overcome their difficulties by acquiring some skills and interaction with their new environment (Hamad and Lee, 2013). - Several factors make individuals change while seeking for stability (Kim and Gudykunst, 1988). - Sojourners’ constant search for stability in a new environment leads them to cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 2005). - Adaptation is a dynamic process and it has three facets which coincide with the two concepts of psychological and sociocultural adaptation (Wang and Sun, 2009). - Positive results will be achieved by successful adaptation (Kim, 2001).	- Sojourners face challenges in a new and culturally unfamiliar environment. - Sojourners’ search for stability leads them to adaptation. - Influence of various factors on sojourners’ cross-cultural adaptation. - Continuous interaction between the individuals and their new environment. - Cross-cultural adaptation consists of psychological and sociocultural adaptation. - Positive outcomes of successful adaptation.

The two mentioned theories explain international students’ cross-cultural adaptation to a new environment, and the antecedents (i.e. individual and situational factors) and outcomes of such adaptation. However, field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory do not specify individual and situational factors in adaptation process. As such, to draw potential individual and situational factors that influence psychological and sociocultural adaptations, this paper, similar to prior models in the literature, adopts stress and coping theory (SCT), culture learning theory (CLT), and social identification theories (SIT). These three theories can provide a comprehensive, broad and conceptual basis for intercultural contact and change studies (Ward et al., 2001). Nonetheless, classification and identification of the suggested factors by SCT, CLT, and SIT into individual and situational factors is carried out from the perspective of field theory in this paper. Figure 1 depicts the proposed conceptual framework.

Figure 1.

Proposed conceptual framework.

The “ABC” theories

Stress and coping theory

In stress and coping theory, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) focus on the idea that various phenomena can be understood through an organising concept of ‘stress’. Therefore, psychological stress is defined as ‘a particular relationship between a person and the environment that is appraised by the person as exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being’ (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984: 19). In fact, appraisal processes determine whether a situation is stressful or not (Schuster et al., 2003). In particular, the stress process is shaped up by the relationship between stimulus and individuals’ response where they try to evaluate and cope with it. In addition, difficulties and challenges faced by individuals in a new environment cause a lot of stress for individuals and the way they manage these challenges is defined as coping process (Decker and Borgen, 1993). Consequently, there is a need to engage people in cross-cultural encounters to make them resilient, adapt, and develop coping strategies and tactics (Aldwin, 1994; Lazarus, 1990).

Culture learning theory

Culture learning theory emphasises the behavioural aspect of intercultural contact and highlights the role of social interaction as a skilled behavioural performance (Argyle, 1969). Lack of social skills and having difficulties in dealing with daily life interactions such as norms, rules, values, as well as verbal and non-verbal communication owing to cross-cultural differences are the main causes of stress for individuals in a new environment (Masgoret and Ward, 2006). Inasmuch as cultural differences make adaptation process difficult, culture learning theory concentrates on finding ways to diminish intercultural misunderstandings. Thus, having connections with host nationals is pivotal for individuals according to this theory. This is because through interactions with host nationals, individuals can learn a series of culturally relevant skills in order to enhance their psychological and social success (Furnham, 2004).

Social identification theories

Based on theories of social cognition and social identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), the cognitive aspect of intercultural contact is mainly focused. In particular, individuals’ ethnical and cultural identification of themselves and the ways they interact with in and out groups is crucial. The ways individuals perceive their cultural identity and the relationships they have with co-nationals and host nationals can significantly impact their adaptation process. The notions of cognitive, mental and internal processes such as attitudes, perceptions, expectations, and values (Ward et al., 2001) are the core elements of this theory. Hence, two major concepts, namely acculturation and social identity theory, are associated with social identification theories (Phinney, 1990).

Overall, the detailed investigation and examination of the individual and situational factors that influence psychological and sociocultural adaptations of international students require incorporation of SCT, CLT, and SIT since they offer a comprehensive, longitudinal, dynamic, and systemic domain for examination of the influence of different variables on cross-cultural adaptation (Zhou et al., 2008). Table 2 illustrates the factors proposed by SCT, CLT and SIT in the literature. These factors have been grouped as individual and situational factors in this paper.

Table 2.

Proposed factors by SCT, CLT and SIT.

Theory	Individual factors	Situational factors	Individual and situational factors proposed in the study
Stress and Coping Theory (SCT)	Degree of life change (Lin et al., 1979), personality factors, coping strategies (Bardi and Ryff, 2007; Ward and Kennedy, 1994)	Social support (Adelman, 1988; Lewis Hall et al., 2006)	Situational Factors -Social support
Culture Learning Theory (CLT)	General knowledge about a new culture (Ward and Searle, 1991), length of residence in the host culture (Ward, et al. 1998), language or communication competence (Furnham, 1993), quantity and quality of contact with host nationals (Bochner, 1982), friendship networks (Bochner et al., 1977), temporary versus permanent residence in a new country (Ward and Kennedy, 1993a)	Cultural distance (Ward and Kennedy, 1993a, 1993b), especially cultural differences of norms, values, verbal and non-verbal communication (Masgoret and Ward, 2006)	Individual Factors: - Language Proficiency - Media Usage - Intention to Stay in a Country outside the Home Country after Graduation Situational Factors: - Perceived complexity
Social Identification Theories (SIT)	Cultural identity, intergroup attitudes (Ward and Searle, 1991), and acculturation modes (Ward and Kennedy, 1994)	Existence of prejudice and discrimination, and cultural diversity in a society (Ward et al., 2001), perceived prejudice and discrimination during their interaction with host nationals (Sodowsky and Plake, 1992) which forms a negative inter-group stereotypes over time (Stroebe et al.,1988)	Individual Factors: - Acculturation attitude Situational Factors: - Perceived stereotype image

Figure 2 shows the proposed conceptual model in the context of international students which has the potential to be explored and studied to shed some light on the issue of international students’ cross-cultural adaptation and its outcomes.

Figure 2.

Conceptual model.

The proposed conceptual model incorporates two governing theories, namely field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory in order to explain the nexus of antecedents–adaptation–outcomes. For the variables derivation, SCT, CLT, and SIT are employed. Specifically, the proposed framework aims to make a connection between individual and situational factors with cross-cultural adaptation of international students. It also intends to link international students’ cross-cultural adaptation to their perceived academic satisfaction. As satisfaction is an important outcome of the balance between characteristics of a person and the environment (i.e. adaptation), in the context of international students, academic satisfaction, which refers to how satisfied international students are with their overall academic performance in a host country, is pivotal to be considered (Goštautaitė and Bučiūnienė, 2010). Moreover, the evidence shows that positive word of mouth resulted from good academic experience can increase the number of international students in host countries (Cheng et al., 2013).

Concluding remarks

As international students are at the core of international mobility in higher education, it is crucial to understand the issues they encounter in a new environment. This could pave the way for higher education institutions to achieve success and attract more international students. The main reason is when international students are able to accommodate themselves in a host country, the possibility of achieving academic satisfaction would be higher (Kulik et al., 1987) that can lead to positive word of mouth in promoting higher education institutions to others. As mentioned by Rust and Oliver (2000) satisfaction is a remarkable motivator for speaking well about services. Therefore, students’ satisfaction should be at the centre of every education policy (Mark, 2013).

Despite the profound properties of field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory, literature has provided little insights into the area of cross-cultural adaptation through these two theoretical perspectives. Therefore, the current paper built on the existing lacuna by designing a conceptual framework on the basis of field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory that can explain international students’ cross-cultural adaptation, its antecedents, and outcomes in a new context.

The conceptual framework developed in this paper proposed a model in the area of cross-cultural adaptation of international students. The conceptual model is consistent, but extended from the prior models (Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver, 2006; Berry, 2006; Safdar et al., 2003; Ward et al., 2001) with specific focus on international students. Similar to the earlier models, SCT, CLT, and SIT are applied in the proposed conceptual framework. In contrast with the earlier models that were mainly developed to tackle the issues of migrants’ and refugees’ acculturation process, the current paper proposed a conceptual framework and model to target international students and look at their cross-cultural adaptation’ antecedents and outcomes from the lens of field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory. Furthermore, the previous models in the literature considered psychological and sociocultural adaptations as the outcomes of acculturation. However, in the proposed conceptual model in this paper, outcomes of adaptation refer to the other factors resulting from successful achievement of psychological and sociocultural adaptations. Hence, the implications of this paper that make it distinguishable from the previous studies are outlined as the following.

Implications to theory

Building upon field theory helps to view the individual (inner) and situational (outer) factors influencing international students’ adaptive behaviours in a new environment from different viewpoints. Moreover, field theory makes it possible to identify antecedents of cross-cultural adaptation with cognitive aspects since the key role of perception is emphasised in this theory. As cognition plays a vital role in adjustment process (Tajfel, 1981), international students’ perceptions of their new psychological environment in a new culture is essential to understand their adaptation. This is a missing link in the extant literature. Field theory’s contribution to the proposed conceptual framework in this paper led to identifying some important factors to bridge the existing gap in the literature on international students’ cross-cultural adaptation. Moreover, by integrating field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory both antecedents and outcomes of cross-cultural adaptation are taken into account. Unlike the previous models, employing cross-cultural adaptation theory in this paper helps to go beyond the existing models by suggesting several outcomes rather than merely focusing on psychological and sociocultural adaptations as the outcomes.

Thus, the conceptual framework proposed in this study takes a different approach and looks at internationalisation of higher education from a new angle by placing international students at the heart of this phenomenon and suggests a channel through which both international students and host countries’ educational institutions can prosper and benefit.

Overall, this study is distinctive owing to several reasons: first, systematic classification of the antecedents into individual and situational factors is in accordance with field theory which emphasises the role of perception and cognition. Second, since international students are the target group for developing the conceptual framework, more context-specific outcomes (i.e. perceived academic satisfaction and positive word of mouth) related to this group are suggested. Last, the conceptual framework developed in this paper has the potential to be studied and examined empirically in relation with international students’ cross-cultural adaptation and it can open up new horizons in the area of higher education mobility.

Implications to research

As mentioned by Smith and Khawaja (2011), there is a need to develop a model specifically for the context of international students because the current models primarily concentrate on refugees and migrants. Besides, there is a gap in the literature regarding the identification of individual and situational factors contributing to international students’ adaptation with cognition, psychology, and behaviour components. Therefore, the proposed conceptual model in this paper requires further empirical scrutiny concerning international students. Future research should test each identified antecedents proposed in the model in relation with psychological and sociocultural adaptations. The proposed model should be empirically tested in various contexts on international students who move to a new country for the purpose of pursuing their higher education. In particular, the relationships among the variables in the proposed conceptual framework can be tested quantitatively using questionnaires in order to get insights from a large number of international students. It is suggested that Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) technique could be applied for data analysis since SEM provides an appropriate and the most efficient estimation technique for a series of separate multiple regression equations to be estimated simultaneously. Moreover, SEM incorporates multi-item scales in the analysis and accounts for the measurement error associated with each of the scales (Hair et al., 2010). SEM as a second generation data analysis technique provides a platform to model multiple independent and dependent constructs’ relationships simultaneously and enables researchers to answer interrelated research questions through a comprehensive, systematic, and single analysis (Gefen et al., 2000). Since the proposed model in this paper is exploratory in nature (i.e. the relationships among the variables in the model have not been tested before), Partial Least Squares technique (PLS-SEM) is deemed appropriate to be employed.

The proposed conceptual model could be tested in various contexts using sample of international students from different backgrounds. Owing to social, cultural, and educational discrepancies that exist among international students, it would be insightful to empirically examine the model in different contexts. It could also be informative to separate international students based on geographical regions they come from and identify specific factors which could facilitate their cross-cultural adaptation. Additionally, length of stay in a host country, friendship network, and field of study could be assessed in the proposed conceptual model to portray a detailed picture of international students’ needs in a host country. It is also suggested to test the model for both private and public educational institutions in order to compare and contrast their effective policies and practices concerning international students. Through employing various statistical tests, more interpretation of the relationships in the proposed model could be achieved.

Furthermore, with the strong support from theories mentioned in this paper, more antecedents of psychological and sociocultural adaptations can be explored and incorporated into the proposed model with regards to international students. It is also crucial to identify and examine other outcomes of psychological and sociocultural adaptations in the context of international students, since it could contribute to the growth of higher education mobility.

Implications to higher education

This paper provides strategic managerial insights for academicians, education policymakers, and university administrators of the emerging countries that compete to attract more international students. Given the impact of internationalisation of higher education and the competition among new players in the global education market to attract more international students, positive word of mouth is essential to bring more international students to host country’s educational institutions. Mainly for the new players in the market that are competing with well-established educational institutions, it is substantial to build a good reputation which can convey a positive image to customers and stakeholders of an organisation. Positive reputation can be a basis for competitive advantage that can help an organisation attract and retain customers (Thomaz, 2010). As such, it is timely for emerging countries to boost their educational institutions’ good reputation in order to remain competitive in the global education market. Higher education institutions should prioritise international students’ adaptation issues. This not only ensures successful transition of international students, but also assists new players to attract more international students through their existing customers’ positive word of mouth.

Since most of the conceptual frameworks in the area of education internationalisation consider educational institutions and organisations’ perspectives in handling and addressing the issues involved in international students’ mobility, this study helps higher education authorities to view the phenomenon of higher education internationalisation from a different angle. This proposed approach offers new path through which international students’ psychological and sociocultural needs are taken into consideration as well as their positive outcomes which could contribute to higher education management and improvement in host countries. In particular, international students’ successful cross-cultural adaptation can lead to higher academic satisfaction which would result in positive word of mouth in promoting host countries’ educational institutions to others. In addition, by empirically implementing the proposed model, higher education institutions especially the new players in the global education market can devise suitable human capital management strategies tailored for meeting specific needs of international students. Figure 3 depicts the implications of this study to higher education.

Figure 3.

Managerial contribution of the proposed conceptual model.

This is an alternative marketing strategy for emerging countries. By meeting and addressing international students’ needs, higher education institutions can enhance their international students’ academic satisfaction and willingness to promote host country’s educational institutions to others through positive word of mouth. In the process of marketing education services, it is essential to consider the receivers’ wants and needs (Schofield et al., 2013). Given that the process of internationalisation is cyclical (Qiang, 2003), further planning and reforming of the existing programmes and policies contribute to the refinement of higher education internationalisation cycle and ensure sustainability of higher education mobility.

In moving towards internationalisation of higher education and its growth, the issue of cross-cultural adaptation, which is the main source of stress and anxiety for the international students, should be understood and addressed well by education policymakers and academicians. As proposed in this paper, international students’ successful cross-cultural adaptation, known as ‘successful transition’, can lead to satisfaction with their academic performance which can ultimately result in positive word of mouth in promoting host country’s educational institutions to others. As such, it is suggested to higher education institutions to apply the proposed model for their existing students in order to find out the areas which require more attention and refinement. The results can then be translated into tactics and strategies for prospective students. In fact, this is a never ending process which can stimulate higher education institutions’ progressive transformation towards excellence. By developing a conceptual model, this paper offers an alternative path to propel competing countries towards education internationalisation, and transforming their higher education to a centre of excellence through attracting more international students. The alternative channel suggested in this paper not only tackles the issues of international students’ adaptation, but it also helps competing countries grow and sustain their higher education market.

This paper is not being considered concurrently for publication elsewhere nor has it been published in any language before. All the authors have contributed significantly and are in agreement with the content of the manuscript.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The first author is a recipient of USM Global Fellowship. The authors also acknowledge the support of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) through Research University Grant (Grant Number: 1001/PGURU/816267).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Azadeh Shafaei is a PhD research fellow at School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). She is a recipient of USM Global Fellowship. Her current research interests include cross-cultural adaptation among international students, education mobility, and education internationalisation.

Nordin Abd Razak is currently an associate professor at School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia. He is a member of Malaysian Psychometric Association and a member of Research Committee for TIMSS and PISA by the Curriculum Development Division, Ministry of Education. His areas of interest are in measurement, scale development and validation, multivariate and multilevel analysis, large-scale assessment secondary data analysis (TIMSS and PISA), as well as investigating organisational behaviour from the socio-psychological perspective.

References

Adelman

(1988) Cross-cultural adjustment: A theoretical perspective on social support. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 12(3): 183–204.

Aldwin

(1994) Stress, Coping and Development, New York: Guilford Press.

Anderson

(1994) A new look at an old construct: Cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18(3): 293–328.

Arends-Toth

Van de Vijver

FJR

(2006) Issues in the conceptualization and assessment of acculturation. In: Bornstein

Cote

(eds) Acculturation and Parent–Child Relationships: Measurement and Development, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 33–62.

Argyle

(1969) Social Interaction, London: Methuen.

Arokiasamy

ARA

(2010) The impact of globalization on higher education in Malaysia. Available at: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/waoe/aroka.pdf (accessed 20 January 2015).

Atkinson

(1964) An Introduction to Motivation, Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Aycan

Berry

(1995) Cross-cultural adaptation as a multifaceted phenomenon. In: 4th European congress of psychology, Athens: Greece.

Bardi

Ryff

(2007) Interactive effects of traits on adjustment to a life transition. Journal of Personality 75(5): 955–984.

10.

Bartell

(2003) Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education 45(1): 43–70.

11.

Beiser

Barwick

Berry

(1988) Menial Health Issues Affecting Immigrants and Refugees, Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada.

12.

Berry

(1997) Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology 46(1): 5–34.

13.

Berry

(2006) Stress perspectives on acculturation. In: Sam

Berry

(eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–57.

14.

Berry

Sabatier

(2010) Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34(3): 191–207.

15.

Bochner

(1982) Cultures in contact: Studies in Cross-Cultural Interaction, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

16.

Bochner

McLeod

Lin

(1977) Friendship patterns of overseas students: A functional model 1. International Journal of Psychology 12(4): 277–294.

17.

Chak

(2002) Understanding children's curiosity and exploration through the lenses of Lewin's field theory: on developing an appraisal framework. Early Child Development and Care 172(1): 77–87.

18.

Cheng

Mahmood

Yeap

(2013) Malaysia as a regional education hub: a demand-side analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35(5): 523–536.

19.

Clayton

Crozier

Reay

(2009) Home and away: risk, familiarity and the multiple geographies of the higher education experience. International Studies in Sociology of Education 19(3-4): 157–174.

20.

Cronshaw

McCulloch

(2008) Reinstating the Lewinian vision: From force field analysis to organization field assessment. Organization Development Journal 26(4): 89–103.

21.

Daniels V (2003) Kurt Lewin notes. Available at: http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/lewinnotes.html (accessed 20 September 2013).

22.

Decker

Borgen

(1993) Dimensions of work appraisal: Stress, strain, coping, job satisfaction, and negative affectivity. Journal of Counseling Psychology 40(4): 470–478.

23.

Demes

Geeraert

(2014) Measures matter scales for adaptation, cultural distance, and acculturation orientation revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 45(1): 91–109.

24.

Dobson

Hölttä

(2001) The internationalisation of university education: Australia and Finland compared. Tertiary Education & Management 7(3): 243–254.

25.

Earley

Ang

(2003) Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

26.

Furnham

(1993) Communicating in foreign lands: The cause, consequences and cures of culture shock. Language, Culture and Curriculum 6(1): 91–109.

27.

Furnham

(2004) Education and culture shock. Psychologist 17(1): 16–19.

28.

Gefen

Straub

Boudreau

M-C

(2000) Structural equation modeling techniques and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 4(1): 2–77.

29.

Goštautaitė

Bučiūnienė

(2010) Integrating job characteristics model into the person-environment fit framework. Economics & Management 2010(15): 505–511.

30.

Gürüz

(2008) Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy, Albany: State University of: New York Press.

31.

Hair

Black

Babin

(2010) Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall Inc.

32.

Hamad

Lee

(2013) An assessment of how length of study-abroad programs influences cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 23(5): 661–674.

33.

Jibeen

Khalid

(2010) Predictors of psychological well-being of Pakistani immigrants in Toronto, Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34(5): 452–464.

34.

Kim

(1988) Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation: An Integrative Theory, Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.

35.

Kim

(1990) Communication and adaptation: The case of Asian Pacific refugees in the United States. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 1(1): 191–207.

36.

Kim

(2001) Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Kim

(2005) Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory. In: Gudykunst

(ed.) Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 375–400.

38.

Kim

Gudykunst

(1988) Cross-Cultural Adaptation: Current Approaches, London: Sage Publications, Inc.

39.

Knight

(1993) Internationalization: management strategies and issues. International Education Magazine 9: 6–22.

40.

Knight

(2004) Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education 8(1): 5–31.

41.

Kulik

Oldham

Hackman

(1987) Work design as an approach to person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior 31(3): 278–296.

42.

Lamprianou

Sunker

(2014) Transition to higher education: Social and political perspectives. Policy Futures in Education 2: 629–632.

43.

Lazarus

(1990) Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry 1(1): 3–13.

44.

Lazarus

Folkman

(1984) Stress, Coping and Appraisal, New York: Springer.

45.

Lewin K (1951) In: Dorwin Cartwright D (ed). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Brothers.

46.

Lewin

Dembo

Festinger

(1944) Level of aspiration. In: Hunt

(ed.) Personality and the Behavior Disorders, Oxford: Ronald Press, pp. 333–378.

47.

Lewis Hall

Edwards

Hall

(2006) The role of spiritual and psychological development in the cross-cultural adjustment of missionaries. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 9(2): 193–208.

48.

Lin

K-M

Tazuma

Masuda

(1979) Adaptational problems of Vietnamese refugees: I. Health and mental health status. Archives of General Psychiatry 36(9): 955–961.

49.

Marginson

(2006) Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education 52(1): 1–39.

50.

Marginson

Van Der Wende

(2007) Globalisation and higher education, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 8. OECD Publishing (NJ1).

51.

Mark

(2013) Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35(1): 2–10.

52.

Masgoret

(2006) Examining the role of language attitudes and motivation on the sociocultural adjustment and the job performance of sojourners in Spain. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30(3): 311–331.

53.

Masgoret

Ward

(2006) Culture learning approach to acculturation. In: Sam

Berry

(eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 58–77.

54.

Mayo

(2009) Competitiveness, diversification and the international higher education cash flow: the EU's higher education discourse amidst the challenges of globalisation. International Studies in Sociology of Education 19(2): 87–103.

55.

Molinsky

(2007) Cross-cultural code-switching: The psychological challenges of adapting behavior in foreign cultural interactions. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 622–640.

56.

Neill J (2004) Kurt Lewin field theory. Available at http://wilderdom.com/theory/FieldTheory.html (accessed 15 September 2013).

57.

Phinney

(1990) Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: review of research. Psychological Bulletin 108(3): 499–514.

58.

Qiang

(2003) Internationalization of higher education: towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education 1(2): 248–270.

59.

Rust

Oliver

(2000) Should we delight the customer? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28(1): 86–94.

60.

Safdar

Lay

Struthers

(2003) The process of acculturation and basic goals: Testing a multidimensional individual difference acculturation model with Iranian immigrants in Canada. Applied Psychology 52(4): 555–579.

61.

Schofield

Cotton

Gresty

(2013) Higher education provision in a crowded marketplace. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35(2): 193–205.

62.

Schultz

(2004) A History of Modern Psychology, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

63.

Schuster

Hammitt

Moore

(2003) A theoretical model to measure the appraisal and coping response to hassles in outdoor recreation settings. Leisure Sciences 25(2-3): 277–299.

64.

Searle

Ward

(1990) The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 14(4): 449–464.

65.

Smith

Khawaja

(2011) A review of the acculturation experiences of international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35(6): 699–713.

66.

Sodowsky

Plake

(1992) A Study of Acculturation Differences Among International People and Suggestions for Sensitivity to Within-Group Differences. Journal of Counseling & Development 71(1): 53–59.

67.

Sorrentino

(2013) Looking for B = f (P, E): The exception still forms the rule. Motivation and Emotion 37(1): 4–13.

68.

Stroebe

Lenkert

Jonas

(1988) Familiarity may breed contempt: The impact of student exchange on national stereotypes and attitudes. In: Stroebe

Bar-Tal

Hewstone

(eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, New York: Springer, pp. 167–187.

69.

Sumer

(2009) International students' psychological and sociocultural adaptation in the United States. Counseling and Psychological Services Dissertations. Paper 34.

70.

Tajfel

(1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

71.

Tajfel

Turner

(1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In: Austin

Worchel

(eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.

72.

Terry

(2011) International initiatives that facilitate global mobility in higher education. Michigan State Law Review 2012(1): 305–356.

73.

Thomaz

(2010) Identification, reputation, and performance: Communication mediation. Latin American Business Review 11(2): 171–197.

74.

Wang

Sun

(2009) Examining Chinese students’ Internet use and cross-cultural adaptation: Does loneliness speak much? Asian Journal of Communication 19(1): 80–96.

75.

Ward

(1996) Acculturation. In: Landis

Bennett

(eds) Handbook of Intercultural Training, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 124–147.

76.

Ward

(1999) Models and measurements of acculturation. In: Lonner

Dinner

Forgays

(eds) Merging Past, Present and Future in Cross Cultural Psychology, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger, pp. 221–230.

77.

Ward

Bochner

Furnham

(2001) The Psychology of Culture Shock, Hove: Routledge, Psychology Press.

78.

Ward

Kennedy

(1992) Locus of control, mood disturbance, and social difficulty during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 16(2): 175–194.

79.

Ward

Kennedy

(1993a) Acculturation and cross-cultural adaptation of British residents in Hong Kong. Journal of Social Psychology 133(3): 395–397.

80.

Ward

Kennedy

(1993b) Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home. International Journal of Psychology 28(2): 129–147.

81.

Ward

Kennedy

(1994) Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18(3): 329–343.

82.

Ward

Okura

Kennedy

(1998) The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transition. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 22(3): 277–291.

83.

Ward

Searle

(1991) The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 15(2): 209–224.

84.

Wilkins

(2014) Internationalization of higher education in East Asia: trends of student mobility and impact on education governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 34(3): 384–387.

85.

World Trade Organization (2010) Secretariat Report, supra note 3.

86.

Yang

Clum

(1994) Life stress, social support, and problem-solving skills predictive of depressive symptoms, hopelessness, and suicide ideation in an Asian student population: A test of a model. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 24(2): 127–139.

87.

Zeszotarski

(2001) ERIC review: Issues in global education initiatives in the community college. Community College Review 29(1): 65–78.

88.

Zhou

Jindal-Snape

Topping

(2008) Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 33(1): 63–75.

Internationalisation of higher education: Conceptualising the antecedents and outcomes of cross-cultural adaptation

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction: towards developing a conceptual framework

Cross-cultural adaptation

Cross-cultural adaptation from the lens of field theory

Cross-cultural adaptation theory

The proposed conceptual framework

The “ABC” theories

Stress and coping theory

Culture learning theory

Social identification theories

Concluding remarks

Implications to theory

Implications to research

Implications to higher education

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

References