Abstract
Institutional agents play a crucial role for international degree students in gaining social capital and boosting their likelihood of staying in Finland after graduation. This phenomenographic study explores how institutional agents understand support for the integration of international degree students into host communities. It is based on semi-structured interviews with 15 agents working in universities and municipalities. Four ways of understanding support were identified: (1) helping with practicalities, (2) coordinating studies, (3) coaching for working life, and (4) building social networks. The findings show that institutional agents perceive themselves as helpers with practical issues upon arrival, instructors for academic affairs, coaches for working life skills, and guides with expertise in facilitating student integration. The responsibility for integration is understood as shared among individuals, institutions, host communities, and the whole society. Our findings deepen our understanding of institutional agents’ roles in the integration process and highlight human-centered support that addresses international degree students’ needs.
Introduction
The growing number and diversity of international degree students (IDS) in higher education necessitate support systems to address the pressing needs of the international student population. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are considered the most essential source of support that shapes international students’ success in the host country (Perez-Encinas et al., 2021). Student success is often associated with metrics such as retention rate, graduation rates, grade point average, and exam scores predicted by institutional algorithms (Smithers, 2022). Such an association fails to recognize student success as a personal journey marked by unpredictability, humanity, and meaningful relationships with university staff that matter more than metrics (Smithers, 2022). Relying solely on academic predictions limits our understanding of success and fails to fully capture the diversity of the student population (Weatherton and Schussler, 2021). Additionally, it neglects social, cultural, and career aspects, thus potentially preventing international students from integrating into an environment that misaligns with their values, beliefs, and identities (Alyahyan and Düştegör, 2020).
Institutional support plays a significant role in international student experience in higher education. The quality of services is a key pull and push factor of IDS’ choice of HEIs and country to study abroad (Perez-Encinas et al., 2021). The provision of services and support in each stage of the international students’ life cycle (pre-arrival, on-arrival, during stay, pre-departure, and re-entry services at home) tailored to meet IDS´ expectations and needs impact IDS’ satisfaction and overall study experience in the host country (Ammigan and Jones, 2018; Perez-Encinas and Rodriguez-Pomeda, 2017). Social support is instrumental for the academic and psychological adjustment of IDS in the host institutions (Anwar-Lashari et al., 2018). In addition, social support from various sources (e.g., peers, faculty staff, networks, and support services) is associated with positive outcomes for international students, such as academic performance, increased self-esteem, better career choices, and psychological adjustment (Franco et al., 2019; San and Guo, 2023). Academic support that accommodates international students’ existing knowledge, skills, and competencies is an integral function of an HEI (Jeffery and Johnson, 2019; Martirosyan et al., 2019; Mimirinis et al., 2023).
Dynamic increases of IDS in Finland have affected the provision of support and services in Finnish HEIs. The number of IDS in Finland has tripled since 2001, now representing 10% of the student population (Education Statistics Finland, 2023). The current Finnish internationalization strategy aims to increase the stay rate of IDS to 75% by 2030 (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2021). While the number of enrolled IDS has risen to approximately 16,000 in 2023 (Education Statistics Finland, 2023), research indicates a decline in stay rates after graduation from 62% (Mathies and Karhunen, 2021) to nearly 50% (ETLA Economic Research, 2024; Pitkänen et al., 2023). Achieving the targets of the current international strategy seems quite challenging, especially when the trends in IDS’ stay rates after graduation show a decline. IDS have been supported by services common to all students, but they need customized services that have not previously existed in Finnish higher education (Plamper et al., 2023). HEIs’ academic support has helped IDS to succeed in their studies (Filippou and Jokila, 2024), but a lack of institutional support for social and cultural integration into campuses and local communities or for transitioning from studies to the labor market has been reported in many studies with IDS in Finland (Han et al., 2022; Korhonen 2016; Lu and Härkalä, 2024; Shumilova et al., 2012).
The term ‘institutional agent’ is commonly used to describe individuals who operate within institutions and provide key forms of institutional support that might impact international students’ success in HE. Stanton-Salazar (2011) described institutional agents as individuals who have relative authority within institutions and “directly transmit or negotiate the transmission of highly valued resources” (p. 1067). Besides their formal positions, institutional agents enact a variety of help-giving roles to provide direct or indirect support to minority students. In addition, Museus and Mueller (2018) referred to institutional agents as individuals who connect students with support networks or serve as a bridge between them and social networks. Nienhusser (2018) referred to institutional agents as individuals who work in system-level offices in public institutions, issue rules, and directives to implement a policy in a given context. Bensimon et al. (2019) expanded the description of institutional agents as individuals who have developed an understanding of institutionalized inequalities and use their knowledge to support minority students. Their various roles are not enacted independently of their professional identity or core professional duties, even though they may not recognize or label themselves as institutional agents (Bensimon et al., 2019; Nienhusser, 2018). Some studies have identified institutional agents as parents, siblings, extended family members, peers, faculty members, teachers, administrators, academic and support services personnel or policy implementers (Bensimon et al., 2019; Museus and Mueller, 2018; Musues and Neville, 2012; Myers et al., 2023; Nienhusser, 2018). In this study, we refer to institutional agents as individuals who have developed an understanding of international students’ educational journey, needs, and expectations; enact various help-giving roles aligned with their identity and core professional duties; and use their knowledge to support international students’ integration into host communities. We acknowledge, however, that institutional agents might not recognize or define themselves in these terms.
Research has acknowledged the importance of institutional support in HEIs and explored how institutional agents support IDS. Several studies have shown a mismatch between international students’ prior expectations and their actual experiences with academic and support services at host HEIs (e.g., Schreiber et al., 2024; Tejero-Dakay et al., 2024; Çiftçi and Öktem, 2024). However, little is known about the nature of relationships and interactions with personnel in academic and support services, and how students benefit from these interactions (Bartram, 2018). Another limitation of higher education research is that it overlooks how institutional agents support the integration of IDS into host communities (Agostinelli and Albert, 2024; Mammadova and Allen, 2025; Museus and Neville, 2012). Even less attention is paid to the understanding of support for IDS’ integration in a non-native English-speaking country like Finland, where the number of IDS has rapidly increased (Jokila and Plamper, 2025).
This study phenomenographically explores institutional agents’ conceptions of support for the integration of IDS into host communities. It does so by exploring the overarching ways in which participants understand this phenomenon, answering the following research questions: (1) What are the qualitatively different ways in which institutional agents conceive support for integration of IDS into Finnish host communities? (2) What are the main distinguishing aspects between institutional agents’ concepts of support?
Our study contributes to the growing body of literature on the understanding of support for IDS’ integration into host communities in a non-native English-speaking country, namely Finland, which aims to attract talent (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2021). In addition, it contributes to a better understanding of support and services currently available to IDS in Finnish public institutions so that future improvements in this sector may better meet IDS’ needs.
The integration of international degree students into host communities
Integration has become a contested term in higher education and migration research with international students. This term has been interchangeably used with the concepts of sense of belonging, involvement, engagement, attachment, adaptation, or assimilation, without a clear definition or problematization in studies with international students (Mittelmeier, 2025). Migration researchers maintain that the term itself propagates colonial and racist discourses based on the idea of European hegemony over the distinction of who is welcomed and who welcomes, and the categorization of individuals as superior and inferior (Astolfo and Allsopp, 2023). Higher education researchers argue that just using the term itself reinforces the view that international students are inferior, and that it is their responsibility to change in order to meet the expectations of host communities (Mittelmeier, 2025; Lomer et al., 2024). Other terms and concepts to frame integration may exist, but further consideration is needed when we talk about international students moving to study and live abroad. We consider IDS equal partners and contributors in knowledge co-creation because they bring diverse expertise, perspectives, and cultural context to HEIs. Accordingly, we understand international student integration not as assimilation into existing structures but as a multidimensional and reciprocal process of engagement with academic, social, career, and cultural communities within and beyond campus environment. From this perspective, integration plays a critical role in shaping IDS’ success in higher education.
In this study, international student integration is framed based on Museus’s (2014) academic, social, and cultural aspects of campus environments. The nine indicators of cultural relevance and responsiveness in Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) represent optimally inclusive and equitable environments that impact international students’ success in HE. These indicators represent the key resources of institutional support at the disposal of institutional agents. Moreover, these indicators are considered tools to strengthen academic, social, and cultural integration into the campus environment. These indicators have previously been used to investigate university personnel’s perceptions of support for integration of IDS in different contexts (Agostinelli and Albert, 2024; Montgomery, 2017). Although Museus (2014) incorporated three major aspects of student integration into campus environment (i.e., academic, social, and cultural), it overlooked the aspect of integration outside the campus environment.
Pietilä (2010) looked at the integration of IDS through intercultural adaptation as a dialogic learning process between minority and dominant communities in the Finnish context. According to Pietilä (2010), adapting to a new culture is a multifaceted and nonlinear learning process where individual and social factors are interconnected, but sociocultural learning and dialogue are crucial for the adaptation of both communities. Pietilä (2010) argues that knowledge is co-created through human interaction, communication, and dialogue from which individuals gain reciprocal and authentic relationships and a profound understanding of both communities. Pietilä’s (2010) concept of mutual integration has been previously applied in research with IDS in Finland (Korhonen, 2016).
International student integration is an individual and institutional matter, as well as a community one. While there is no widely accepted definition of host communities, a host community may be conceptualized as an entity that an international student can interact or engage with (Marangell et al., 2018). Link et al. (2011) defined host communities from an international student perspective as non-monolithic entities that can easily be engaged with, but reciprocal dialogue and communication are important for mutual creation of knowledge. Fleischman et al. (2014) defined host communities from an institutional perspective as the local region where international students may develop personal and professional skills and establish formal and informal networks within the local society. From a co-creation value perspective, Fleischman et al. (2014) maintained that the university facilitates the engagement of international students in communities, which is beneficial to the mutual creation of knowledge, skills, and relationships among all stakeholders. From a community member perspective, Mu et al. (2025) asserted that grassroots, organic initiatives and efforts of wider local community members to engage international students would create a host culture that would allow international students and local members to thrive together. In this study, host communities are understood as heterogeneous entities where members (i.e., international students, university and local communities, and other stakeholders) engage within the notion of value co-creation to build knowledge, skills, and relationships via reciprocal dialogue, communication, and learning.
Besides the numerous benefits that IDS offer but also gain from the host communities, the experience of studying abroad can present both advantages and challenges. Research has identified specific obstacles, including language barriers, limited professional networks, feelings of isolation, confusion regarding cultural identity, and discrimination (Hajro et al., 2019; Lu and Härkälä, 2024). Similar challenges have been reported in studies of IDS in Finland (Jokila and Plamper, 2025; Korhonen, 2016; Li, 2019; Pitkänen et al., 2023; Plamper et al., 2023; Shumilova, 2017). Finland nonetheless remains an attractive destination for pursuing higher education rather than for living or working (Lu and Härkälä, 2024). Mathies and Karhunen (2021) found that employment opportunities, family ties, and policies increase or decrease the probability of IDS staying in Finland after graduation. As such, support for the integration of IDS into campuses, society, and the labor market is decisive as to whether they stay or not in Finland after graduation. Another factor that might influence IDS’ decision to stay in the host country after graduation is the campus environment. Campuses designed to promote socialization have positive effects on sense of belonging, civic commitment, learning, and development of international students (Glass, 2011; Jean-Francois, 2019).
Institutional agents enact various roles to support several aspects of IDS’ integration. Institutional agents, like faculty members and mentors, perceived their role as cultural guides that supported IDS’ cultural transitions into HEIs communities and strengthened their sense of cultural and institutional belonging (Myers et al., 2023). In another study, faculty professors acted as agents of integration to expand Latinx students’ social capital through network-integration activities within and beyond students’ own university (Bensimon et al., 2019). Further, institutional agents fostering cross-racial and ethnic relationships with minority students have been found to shape students’ academic, social, and cultural networks, as well as their sense of relatedness with their campus communities (Gao, 2024). On the other hand, decreased social support from career counselors contributed to poorer career outcomes and increased acculturative stress of international students in the host country (Franco et al., 2019).
Research design
Methodology
We chose phenomenography as a research methodology for this study, as its aim was to explore participants’ conceptions of support for the IDS’ integration into host communities in Finland. Phenomenography enables the examination of participants’ ways of experiencing, conceiving, perceiving or understanding a specific phenomenon at a collective level (Marton, 1986; Marton and Booth, 1997). Phenomenography operates within interpretative paradigm but has its own theoretical assumptions that guide the research process and the analysis.
The core assumption of phenomenographic epistemology is that people gain knowledge and understand the world through human experience. Knowledge is relational and lies between the subject and their experience of a phenomenon. Epistemologically, phenomenography investigates people’s ways of experiencing a phenomenon by analyzing the meanings that the phenomenon holds for them and the organizational structure of their awareness. These constitute different ways of experiencing the phenomenon. Further, phenomenography argues that human experience is inevitably partial and varies, but the phenomenon will always be experienced as a whole in terms of its meaning to the individual experiencing it (Åkerlind, 2024). Researchers adopt a second-order perspective focusing on how the world is experienced by individuals rather than on the world itself. As such, a researcher’s analytical focus is on uncovering the qualitatively different meanings and structures arising from participants’ experiencing the phenomenon to capture a collective structure of variation of the phenomenon under investigation.
The ontology of phenomenography is non-dualistic, assuming that there is no separation between the subject (person) and the object (world/phenomenon) as such; internal world of thoughts and external world of reality are interconnected and inseparable. Instead of an objective world, phenomenography focuses on the world as experienced by individuals and how different people experience the same phenomenon, thus making the relationship between awareness and reality the central ontological assumption. It assumes that individuals experience the same phenomenon in different ways arising from the awareness of different aspects of the phenomenon (Marton and Booth, 1997). This assumption provides an epistemological justification for the premise that different ways of experiencing the same phenomenon will be related through the object being experienced (Åkerlind, 2025). This leads to a search for relationships between the different ways of experiencing the phenomenon based on common areas of shared awareness of its different aspects. Such relationships are logically inclusive, whereby a way of experiencing a phenomenon becomes increasingly complex by incorporating a novel aspect, thus extending preceding less complex ways of experiencing (Åkerlind, 2025). This assumption typically produces a research outcome space, structured as a hierarchy of increasing complexity of awareness.
Phenomenography posits there are limited ways of understanding a phenomenon, and they are logically related to one another in a hierarchy of expanding awareness of different dimensions of the phenomenon (Åkerlind, 2012). The logical relationship is justified through a separation between categories of description (CDs) that describe the different ways of understanding the phenomenon, and the hierarchical structure of relationships among categories from the least to the most inclusive one (Åkerlind, 2024). The ordering of the categories is based on the degree of sophistication in understanding the phenomenon and indicates the way that human awareness of the phenomenon collectively expands (Åkerlind, 2024). According to Marton and Booth (1997), these categories should meet three quality criteria. First, each category should describe a distinct way of understanding the phenomenon. Second, the logical and inclusive relationships of the categories should be hierarchically represented. Third, the CDs and the variations across the sample should be concise and limited in number.
Participants and data generation
Our study consisted of 15 participants from six Finnish public universities (i.e., four Research Universities, two Universities of Applied Sciences) and two municipalities. We selected the HEIs based on their having the highest number of English-medium degree programs and number of IDS enrolled. The municipalities were selected based on their large number of international residents and the provision of services to IDS. We selected the participants based on their direct or indirect exposure to the phenomenon of support for IDS, while considering our definition of institutional agents. We thus included staff members in leadership and coordination roles because, although they may not provide direct support to IDS, they are key to policy design, implementation of internationalization strategies, or development of services for IDS. We additionally included participants from Finnish municipalities because, even though IDS are considered temporary residents of the cities they study and live in, they are eligible for the municipal services offered to them. Participant selection ensured a comprehensive coverage of individuals working in different public institutions across different positions and levels, from academic and administrative to management and leadership, offering support and services to IDS.
The participants, including ten females and five males, were all Finnish citizens and represented four different ethnic backgrounds. Nine of them worked in research universities, four in applied sciences universities, and two in municipalities. The participants consisted of six-degree program coordinators, two international faculty coordinators, two academic and support services staff members working in HEIs, and one specialist working in the international services in the municipality providing direct support to IDS. They further consisted of two heads of internationalization units, one head of academic services working in a research university, and one coordinator of international services in the municipality. Participants had between 3 and 20 years of experience in these positions. Consistent with phenomenography (Marton, 1986; Åkerlind, 2025), our aim was to capture a wide range of perspectives on the phenomenon and discover variations in participants’ understanding. Previous phenomenographic studies have shown that a sample size of 7–15 participants is sufficient for capturing variation in ways of understanding a phenomenon (Kettunen and Tynjälä, 2018; Täks et al., 2014). Accordingly, 15 participants were selected for our study.
We recruited participants by first sending an invitation to the internationalization unit of several HEIs and municipalities across Finland. This was followed by an individual invitation sent using participants’ contact information obtained from their institutions’ official websites. To those who agreed to be interviewed, we sent a research notification, a privacy notice, and a consent form before the interview. The data were collected through individual semi-structured interviews, which are typically used for obtaining phenomenographic data (Åkerlind, 2012). These interviews were conducted face-to-face and online between February and April 2023. Participants were provided with information about the study and signed a consent form before the interview. They voluntarily and anonymously participated in this study. Each interview lasted between 45 and 60 minutes, during which open-ended questions were asked to encourage interviewees to freely express their understanding of support for the integration of IDS into host communities (e.g., What does support for IDS in higher education mean to you? How do you understand integration for an international degree student? How do you understand the role of academic and support services for IDS?). Follow-up questions were asked to elucidate participants’ viewpoints (e.g., Can you give me an example of how you support IDS from your work?). Other follow-up questions concerned support for IDS at different stages of their life cycle (i.e., on pre-arrival, on arrival, during stay, before the graduation, prepare for the pre-departure or stay after the graduation in Finland). The interviews were conducted in English and recorded with each participant’s consent. The first author did a basic-level transcription of the audio-recorded data. The individual transcripts were collated (132 pages) and analyzed using phenomenography.
Data analysis
The phenomenographic analysis consisted of three main steps, following the guidelines outlined by Åkerlind (2025) and Bowden (2005). In the first step, we identified and described concepts of support for the integration of IDS in general terms. We started our analysis by reading the transcripts several times to familiarize ourselves with the data, which resulted in the selection of 76 key statements. We subsequently condensed the data into large chunks, summarizing the most significant statements from each transcript to make the data more manageable. Our focus was on comparing the statements, grouping, and delimiting them based on similarities and on differences in the meanings being expressed. This resulted in five initial categories of description. Afterword, we made a comparison of these five different categories to discern critical aspects that enabled differentiation of one way of understanding the phenomenon of support from others. We gradually summarized the data, developed a draft set of four descriptive categories, and discerned eight critical aspects (i.e., dimensions of variation in awareness of experiencing the phenomenon of support) by constantly checking the preliminary interpretations against the original transcripts. Following phenomenographic principles, the preliminary categories were not predetermined but developed from the data.
Institutional agents´ concepts of support for the integration of IDS into host communities.
The third and final step of the analysis focused on ensuring that the categories of description met Marton and Booth’s (1997) quality criteria. There were a limited number of four CDs, each of them describing a distinct way of experiencing the phenomenon of support, yet logically and inclusively related to the others. To ensure the robustness of the analysis, the data were first analyzed and ordered into preliminary categories by the first author and later discussed with the other co-authors to confirm their reliability. These discussions were supported by the second co-author at each step of the analysis. This process continued until all possible variation had been accounted for in the outcome space structure.
Findings
Data analysis showed that institutional agents understood support for the integration of IDS into host communities in four distinct ways. Participants’ ways of understanding support were categorized as helping with practicalities (CD1), coordinating studies (CD2),
Description of the categories
Category 1: Support as helping with practicalities
In the first category, participants’ understanding of support for integrating IDS into host communities was conceived as practicality oriented. The participants’ focus of support was on helping with practical matters related to living and studying throughout the entire process of relocating to Finland. Their purpose was to facilitate IDS’ smooth arrival in Finland and to help IDS commence their studies. Support for very practical things like accepting their study place, starting their studies, taking care of the whole moving to Finland, and getting residence permits, etc.… (Focus of support) I think oftentimes, the support that is targeted for internationals, is linked with this early stage […] So, it is designed for a smooth arrival to Finland. (Purpose of support)
Participants perceived the provision of services for IDS as separate from domestic ones, mainly based on the specific needs that they might have. The design of the services was described as on demand, where IDS play an active role in identifying services that are most helpful to them. Institutions still provide kind of you could call them separate international student services so that they are maybe a standalone unit within the Student Academic Services, providing specifically foreign-born students specific services. (Provision of services) I think, we don’t want the existing services to be enforced on them (to students). If they need a service, they will approach us, ask for it, and we can offer it. (Design of services)
In academic integration, the role of institutional agents was perceived as a helper, initially creating a welcoming environment in the host country and the host institution. Participants viewed social integration as a process that begins at the university, and their task to support in this process was to create contacts between IDS and the domestic student community. Finally, participants conceived integration as a process invisible from the outside. They perceived integration as an individual student’s responsibility, based on personal experience and student’s own perception of being integrated. It is a problem that international students normally don’t get so many contacts to Finnish students […] and we could concentrate actually on creating contacts, which is really nice that we had the chance to do that. (Institutional agent’s role in social integration) There’s a lot of conversation as you know about this term integration, at least in Finnish, because there are a lot of different terms that are being used. There is this kotouttaminen, which means that you’re doing it for someone else, and then there’s this kotoutuminen, which is something that you do for yourself. And I think that’s summarizing nicely the concept, how difficult it is to understand integration, like, who is integrating to where, and whose task it is. So, perhaps how I understand is that integration means something that someone has to do kind of themselves. (Responsibility for the integration process)
Category 2: Support as coordinating studies
In this category, participants conceived support for IDS’ integration as study oriented. The focus of support was on coordinating the studies, and institutional agents perceived their role as instructors planning the study paths for degree completion. The purpose of this type of support was perceived to facilitate studies and ensure that the rest of the experience is positive and successful. Well, if we think about international students, I think clearly is to help with your studies. So, support that you can plan your degree and what you can study. (Focus of support) I think, it is integral in making sure that the rest of the stay is positive. (Purpose of support) And when they have actually been selected for the program, we start giving them a lot of instructions […] study-related instructions. (Role of institutional agents in academic integration)
The provision of services in this category was perceived as unified for all students regardless of the study program’s language, which would ensure that international and domestic students can study together. The design of services was perceived as specified due to the unique needs of IDS, who were believed to require additional services to overcome language barriers in order to have social and cultural access to the host communities. But I still understand, and I do believe that international degree students specifically require specific services, because they don’t have that kind of linguistic or cultural access to our community. (Design of services)
The interaction between Finnish and IDS was considered difficult, and the participants perceived their task in social integration as increasing the interaction between international and domestic students from studying to attending activities together. The integration process was perceived as not measurable from the outside but occurring when IDS feel comfortable enjoying their lives in Finland in addition to their studies. In this category, the responsibility for integration lied with the institutions that provide the necessary mechanisms needed for the integration process. I think that’s a difficult one in the university, in the sense that I hope we would be more able to give the possibilities to interact with Finnish students. (Task in social integration) But when they actually, feel comfortable in Finland in general, having their life in Finland, I think they are integrated into it. (Aim of emotional support)
Category 3: Support as coaching for working life
In this category, participants understood support for the integration of IDS in a career-oriented way, focused on students transitioning from studies to working life, and developing labor market competencies. Participants perceived the purpose of support as alleviating stress so that students would be able to cope with a fast-paced life. The institutional agent´s role in academic integration was conceived as that of a coach during studies to help students connect their studies with future careers and prepare them for the Finnish job market. The task of institutional agents in social integration was perceived as helping to establish connections with the local communities that would help build social circles and relationships, as well as work opportunities. so that we understand why they are studying, and what they are maybe aiming for career-wise, what we bring up in connection to the studies, and also, if possible, sort of offering work-life competency skills. (Focus of support) At least try to alleviate their stress in some way that they can cope with that fast-paced life. (Purpose of support) And then if they wish to stay in means also that they need to integrate somehow, at least to the extent that they will be able to find work so, […] And this is definitely one of our focus areas… kind of coaching. (Role of institutional agent in academic integration) I’ve been thinking about for years how to support students to build more connections and build in an active way, which they can utilize in this context they have. (Task in social integration)
Participants perceived that services provided for the transition from studies to work life were confined within the university due to the limited connections of HEIs with the labor market and the emphasis on the academic path rather than work life. Participants perceived the design of career services as customized to meet IDS’ needs concerning their careers and future employment. In my opinion, this is one of the aspects that makes it (career services) to be in a bubble in some way because the connections to working life, might be a bit limited in lots of higher education institutions. And these may, of course, be because a lot more emphasis has been paid to the academic path. (Provision of services)
The perceived aim of emotional support was based on the feeling of acceptance in IDS’ different student, academic, and language communities. Participants believed that the responsibility for the integration process lied within the communities that IDS are a part of and are fostered through relationships with members of these communities. I cannot say when it is successful (the integration), more than when a person themselves feels accepted in the environment that they have chosen to live in. (Aim of emotional support) Maybe seeing the international students as less of a separate group from the other students would help them integrate into the student community and the academic community and also would broaden their perspective. (Responsibility of the integration process)
Category 4: Support as building social networks
In the last category, participants’ understanding of support for the integration of IDS was conceived as socially oriented. Participants perceived that the focus of support was to help with wider societal structures, with the purpose of easing everyday challenges so that IDS could rather concentrate on their studies. I think when we look at degree students, then we really have to concentrate also on the wider aspect of really settling into Finland and getting to know the country, besides the campus and the university and the city, but the wider societal kind of structure as well. (Focus of support) On a broader level, it will be trying to ease the lives of students so they can concentrate on their studies. (Purpose of support)
According to the participants, institutional agents played a key role as skilled guides who shared their expertise in various areas, such as academic affairs, social interactions, and career planning. They perceived institutional agent’s task in social integration as that of supporting the creation of networks. They perceived finding, building, and making these available networks inside and outside the academic environment as crucial to IDS’ social life, future careers, and employment in the host country. International students need more guidance not only with studies but also with navigating future employment and creating social networks. (Role of institutional agent in academic integration) So, providing students with opportunities to gain networks beyond the university community, you know, opportunities to network with possible employers or other types of professional networks. (Task in social integration)
The provision of services was understood as not integrated into services available at a national level, and the service design was perceived as human centered. That is, the participants perceived human contact as essential in their interactions with IDS but also noted how services should be available to IDS on a broader scale. I think about our students and the majority of at least those students whom I’ve met in person, they seem to appreciate this kind of personal touch and this human contact, especially when we are talking about our international students. If we kind of remove even this sort of last human contact that they have with the university then this sort of service that they have with the university personnel is via online platforms. So, I’m a little bit worried about this tendency that we seem to have […] because it’s making people and the services very faceless, very anonymous, very, very impersonal. (Design of services)
In this category, integration was perceived as a fluid process tackling academic, social, and career aspects, where there are no obstacles to feeling included in host communities. In this process, participants found institutional agents’ involvement to be vital in facilitating the integration process, whereby IDS are made to feel included in the host society. The participants reported helping establish extensive networks that contributed to the integration process, but it was implied that the responsibility for integration lies with the entire society, which offers tools and support mechanisms to ensure successful integration. to support the internationals who live here, and whatever it takes to make them feel included in the society they live in. (Aim of emotional support) to be integrated into society, they can do a lot themselves. However, we as a society can do a lot to give you the tools to do so. But I guess, like, who is the primary actor in all of this, it’s the person, but society can and should help in creating these support mechanisms to ensure that integration actually can happen. (Responsibility for the integration process)
Relationships and awareness between categories
The CDs were delineated and organized based on logical and hierarchical relationships, revealing the expansion from the simplest to the most complex concepts of support for integrating IDS into host communities (Åkerlind, 2012).
Helping with practicalities (CD1) represented the simplest conception of understanding support focused on the practicalities of adjustment and arrival in the host country and host HEIs. The role of institutional agents was simply perceived as helpers with a minor involvement in social integration that did not extend beyond connecting IDS with domestic students. Service provision for IDS was identified as separate from domestic students based on the language study program and designed on a demand-driven basis at IDS’ initiative. Integration was perceived as an emotional process where institutional agents aimed to make IDS feel welcomed in the early stages. The key distinction between CD1 and other categories was the individual’s responsibility for integrating into the host country based on the student’s personal perception of being integrated.
Coordinating studies (CD2) represents a more complex understanding of support in relation to CD1. While it recognizes that helping with practical matters facilitates the early stages, CD2 has an additional focus on coordinating the study pathway. The purpose of support is focused on ameliorating the stay stage of the IDS study abroad life cycle. The role of institutional agents in academic support is more intricate than helpers in CD1, acting as instructors for planning the degree competition. A further perception of the service provision for IDS unified for all students regardless of the program language was identified in CD2. Support for social integration would increase the interaction between IDS and domestic students beyond just making contacts as in CD1, though this support remains somewhat limited. While acknowledging that making students feel welcomed upon arrival in CD1 is essential on arrival, CD2 emphasized making IDS feel comfortable not only with their studies but also with their life off campus. Responsibility for integration shifted from individuals (CD1) to institutions for providing resources and services to ensure the IDS integration process.
Coaching for working life (CD3) is next in the complexity of understanding support because it extended beyond practicalities (CD1) and academic paths (CD2) by focusing on support for the transition from studies to the labor market. This support aimed to develop working-life competency skills from students’ arrival onwards and throughout their studies. The role of institutional agents is more complex than CD2; it required additional expertise in coaching to facilitate the transition from education to the labor market. The participants perceived that support in building working-life connections at local and national levels was crucial for IDS careers, though this support was confined to the university’s contacts due to the limited links with prospective employers. The conception of emotional support in CD3 shifted from institutional agents, making students feel welcomed (CD1) and comfortable (CD2) to students feeling accepted within their academic, professional, or cultural communities. Although IDS were deemed responsible for their own integration process (CD1) and institutional support remained essential (CD2) in their doing so, the responsibility for integration extended across the different communities that IDS engaged with.
Building social networks (CD4) represents the most complex way of understanding support because it encompasses all aspects of its preceding concepts of support while including aspects of social structures of the host country. Support was perceived as building social networks that would ease the integration of IDS into the host country. The role of institutional agent as a guide with a holistic approach to all facets of integration is perceived to be far more complex than the earlier roles of helper (CD1), coordinator (CD2), and coach (CD3). The additional aspect of support concerning the integration of IDS services into national ones to offer inclusivity within the social structures of the host country was identified in CD4. The most notable distinction of CD4 in relation to the other categories was seen in the design of services. It recognized that designing services on a demand-driven basis (CD1) that would be specific (CD2) and customized (CD3) should maintain a human-centered approach despite ongoing digitalization trends. The most inclusive perception of emotional support was the feeling of being included in social structures, placing the responsibility for providing equal resources and rights for IDS on the whole society.
Discussion
This phenomenographic study examined institutional agents’ concepts of support for the integration of IDS into Finnish host communities. The findings suggested that institutional agents conceived support in four main ways distinguished by eight dimensions of variation. The findings showed that institutional agents’ main concepts of support focused on the main aspects of academic, social, and career integration. These concepts appeared to be related to different stages of IDS´ study abroad life cycle and the role that institutional agents assume in these stages. Further, the findings indicated that participants perceived their help-giving roles as intertwined, rather than separate from, their core professional duties (see also Bensimon et al., 2019; Nienhusser, 2018; Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
The concepts of helping with practicalities (CD1) and coordinating studies (CD2) were linked to early and during the stay stages of the IDS study abroad life cycle. This can be explained by most of the support for IDS being concentrated in these stages (Perez-Encinas et al., 2021). However, the concepts of support in the more complex categories of coaching for working life (CD3) and building social networks (CD4) were linked with all the stages of IDS’ study abroad life cycle. The findings indicated that regardless of the position institutional agents occupied, they enacted a variety of informal roles, such as helpers in pre- and on-arrival stages, instructors during the stay, coaches, and guides during all the stages until graduation. This finding aligns with research arguing that institutional agents assume various help-giving roles for academic success and acquisition of social capital by students from diverse cultural backgrounds (Sachpasidi et al., 2024; Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
Participants’ understanding of support as centered on practical help (CD1) stressed IDS’ pre-arrival and arrival stages. Their conception of support concerned living and study practicalities aimed at facilitating the adjustment into the host country and HEIs, such as orientation, accommodation, and course registration. This finding aligns with many studies on support for IDS in the initial stages, arguing that university support and services are instrumental in facilitating academic adjustment (Schreiber et al., 2024; Tejero-Dakay et al., 2024; Çiftçi and Öktem, 2024). However, besides help with living and study practicalities, the findings didn’t indicate support for psychological and sociocultural adjustment that are critical to international students entering a new cultural environment (Franco et al., 2019; San and Guo, 2023).
The phenomenographic analysis showed that institutional agents conceived of support as coordinating studies (CD2), and this understanding was related to the duration of IDS’ study period. This primarily concerned institutional support for academic adjustment (see also Anwar Lashari et al., 2018; Franco et al., 2019; San and Guo, 2023), giving academic instructions for study pathways (see also Martirosyan et al., 2019), and study planning to ensure timely degree completion. IDS’ timely graduation is often a metric of success highly prized by HEIs, but it does not translate into IDS staying or living in Finland after graduation (Mathies and Karhunen, 2021). Participants emphasized support for study coordination as crucial to IDS’ academic integration, whereas the concepts of support for the IDS’ transition into the working life, predominantly targeted at IDS who wished to stay in Finland.
The phenomenographic analysis further showed that institutional agents conceived of support as coaching for working life (CD3), which concerned the transition from studies to working life. This finding resonates with many studies about support for the employability of IDS in Finland (Korhonen, 2016; Shumilova, 2017; Lu and Härkalä, 2024), which show that career support since IDS’ arrival in Finland is crucial to their future employment. This understanding of support reflects participants’ awareness of this essential aspect of IDS’ career integration into the Finnish labor market. The restriction of this awareness to the Finnish labor market may be due to career services having limited connections with diverse employment sectors (Shumilova et al., 2012).
Support was additionally conceived as building social networks (CD4) and concerned IDS’ integration into the social structures of the host country. Institutional agents responded to their task of IDS’ social integration with network-oriented actions, such as creating contacts, increasing interactions with domestic students, or building connections with local and professional communities (see also Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Providing opportunities to interact with domestic students, peers, and members in the wider local community is considered a form of social support that institutional agents provide directly to IDS to help them gain social capital in the host county (Museus and Neville 2012; Museus and Mullier 2018). Participants perceived IDS’ social interaction with domestic students as difficult in practice. This might indicate a division within the campus culture or a monolithic campus culture that limits the opportunity to interact, communicate, or build meaningful intercultural relationships on campus (Gao, 2024). This is problematic because a campus culture that is less responsive to IDS’ cultural needs or irrelevant to their cultural backgrounds may fail to foster a sense of belonging and ultimately IDS’ success in higher education (Agostinelli and Albert, 2024; Museus, 2014). Moreover, the findings didn’t indicate that building cross-racial or ethnic relationships with IDS is key to acquiring intercultural social capital. It has been previously argued that such relationships would have enabled them to not only broaden and diversify their networks but also benefit their social and cultural integration (Gao, 2024). We argue that meaningful relationships are not built only by physically putting IDS and domestic students together, but by designing heterogeneous, inclusive, multilingual, and culturally diverse campuses that impact the success of all students.
The hierarchical structure of the findings can help institutional agents to deepen their understanding of support for IDS and the different aspects of integration into host communities. At the same time, however, it demonstrates how difficult it is to frame the concept of integration in conjunction with such concepts. We framed IDS integration using Museus’s (2014) cultural responsiveness and cultural relevance indicators of campus environment and additionally drew on Pietilä’s (2010) intercultural adaptation as a dialogic learning process in the Finnish context. This framing enabled an examination of support for IDS integration inside and outside campus environments. The findings of this study resonate with Museus’s (2014) cultural relevance indicator of meaningful cross-cultural engagement. According to Museus (2014), opportunities provided by institutional agents to interact with domestic students, peers, and members of the wider local community from disparate cultural origins lead to IDS’ higher levels of satisfaction, sense of belonging, cultural awareness, and overall integration into host communities. The findings also resonate with Pietilä’s (2010) concept of mutual integration, according to which social interactions, communication, and dialogue are key to the integration of both dominant and minority communities in the Finnish context.
Participants recognized the emotional aspect of integration associating their provision of support with IDS’ feelings of being welcomed, comfortable, accepted, and included in the host communities. Emotional support has been recognized as a valuable resource of social support that institutional agents provide directly to IDS (Stanton-Salazar, 2011; Myers et al., 2023; Museus and Mullier, 2018). Although integration at the early stages may be perceived as an individual student responsibility, we argue it can be achieved more efficiently when involving institutions and communities responsible for providing IDS resources equal to those provided to the national student body in the host country. IDS are not outsiders that need to be integrated, but equal contributors, partners, and members of host communities they engage in or are part of.
The data collected from institutional agents of this study may not capture all aspects of support provided by individuals working with IDS in several institutions in Finland. However, the analysis demonstrated that institutional agents perceived informal roles (i.e., helper, instructor, coach, guide) and assumed responsibilities that fell outside their formal duties (see also Museus and Neville, 2012; Museus and Mueller, 2018). Through such roles and responsibilities, they mobilized personal and institutional resources to support IDS. As the term ‘institutional agent’ implies an agentic orientation towards one’s work, future research could explore themes of professional agency and identity in relation to supporting internationalization and IDS in Finland. Future research on institutional agents’ concepts of support could additionally address personal, international, or cross-cultural perspectives by including institutional agents and stakeholders from other HEIs, agencies, or NGOs. The phenomenographic approach adopted in this study could be complemented by qualitative or quantitative methods that synthesize the understanding of support and the provision of services in each stage of IDS’ life cycle. Finally, research on institutional agents would benefit from including the perspectives of policymakers at local and national levels, within and outside higher education settings.
Conclusion
This study provides insights into how institutional agents understand support for the integration of IDS into Finnish host communities by examining the hierarchical relationships among participants’ various conceptions using phenomenography. Our framing of IDS integration pointed out the specific context of Finnish integration and the role of wider communities outside the campus environment that often are overlooked in IDS’ integration. The focus of phenomenographic research is on collective rather than individual experience, as the former is more stable and transferable than the latter in response to different settings. The outcome space reported in this study suggests that support is needed at different stages of the IDS educational journey and highlights international agents’ concepts of support as a tool to improve the provision and design of services for IDS. The latter draws attention to the need for designing and developing support services in a holistic manner that considers IDS both as students and as individuals undergoing personal growth and development. The outcome space further demonstrates how different aspects of IDS integration are linked to the diverse roles and expertise institutional agents perceive when to facilitate the overall success of IDS in higher education. By raising awareness among institutional agents about these varying roles, the findings encourage reflection on their current practices that may reveal areas previously overlooked in providing support. We argue it is important to develop training that supports the existing expertise of staff working with IDS, not only in HEIs but also in municipalities, to facilitate ways of coordinating and integrating support structures for IDS.
Footnotes
Ethical consideration
Ethical principles, data protection, and written informed consent from the participants of this study comply with guidelines of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK) and the Ethics Committee of the University of Jyväskylä.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first author received financial support for this article from the Finnish Cultural Foundation (Keski-Suomen rahasto) Grant 30221813. The third author received financial support for this article from the Ella and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.