Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Internationalization and the concomitant flow of cultural diversity often associated with it are highly prized by universities; many tertiary institutions claim internationalization of the campus, the curriculum, research, and the student body as a major goal, a key performance indicator. However, in the current climate of global international education, overseas student integration and their adjustment difficulties into the life of the host country are often posited as personal failures, and international education scholarship focuses heavily on the failure of international students to integrate into host societies. We question the assumptions underpinning the tendency of universities to link internationalization to the development of interculturality across the campus through bringing together students from different national backgrounds. The belief is that students seek such interactions; internationalization could be achieved through such simplistic practices; this assumption needs empirical scrutiny. In this focused study, we report the motivations and experiences of 24 Chinese international students in an Australian university. A significant majority of the participants reported little interest in intercultural interactions with both host national students and other international students outside their own cultural groups. For those who have hopes of becoming some form of “global citizen,” the experiences of these Chinese students suggest that cross-cultural communication is not as successful as hoped in the spaces of encounters, including classrooms, university student accommodation, and social activities out of the classrooms. The voices of these students suggest the need for intervention in the realization of the internationalization vision held by most universities and a reframing of goals and practices to narrow the breach between lofty rhetoric and the practice of international education.

Keywords

Chinese international students internationalization Australia higher education interculturality cross-cultural competence

Introduction

In recent decades, internationalization has become an ever-increasing global concern in universities (de Wit, 2002; Montgomery, 2010; Stein, 2021). Though it has been defined by a few scholars (e.g., Knight, 2004), the meaning of internationalization remains elusive and commitment to internationalization rests on a “relatively fragile foundation” (Montgomery, 2010; Stone, 2006). In practice, internationalization is frequently reduced to collaborating with overseas institutions to enroll large numbers of students in the home institution (Montgomery, 2010). Mainstream resources are geared toward achieving the above-mentioned “successful internationalization” (Buckner & Stein, 2020); however, there is a paucity of explicit discussion of the reasons students leave their homeland to study, and the steps required of the host institution to ensure that the institutional goals of international students are met. This dilemma has been with us for decades now, as Edwards (2007, p. 373) pointed out some time ago, we are “still having the same conversation we were all having in the 1970s.”

This study addresses the paucity of research into the motivations and expectations that Chinese international students have before they go abroad as well as the lived experiences of students by hearing the often “unheard voices” of Chinese students. It seeks to explore the gap between the rhetoric and the lived realities of international education and aims to address questions about our understanding of internationalization in tertiary education and ways of achieving more accurate and productive enactments of the internationalization project. This study deals exclusively with Chinese students, and we have necessarily examined the experiences of only a small number among them. We see our findings as indicative rather than definitive, even with respect to the Chinese student community, further opening spaces for dialogue about this significant phenomenon.

Higher Education and the Rhetoric of Internationalization

An international outlook in higher education is often presented as a prerequisite for individuals to function effectively in a globalized economy (Pandit & Alderman, 2004). Therefore, the presence of international students is considered crucial to the internationalization of higher education, as they contribute to promoting cultural diversity on campus (Cameron, 2010). In Australia, the Vice-Chancellor of an Australian university recently commented that international students deliver diversity to the university environment, by “bring[ing] the world to our classrooms” (Sky News, 2021). In the UK, a 2014 British Council report proclaimed the inclusion of international students in communities and classes to be an essential part of global education and the integration of all students as “an elemental factor in the expanding concept of internationalization.” (British Council, 2014).

It is common to see universities and government reports emphasize the value of internationalization in their mission statements, with phrases such as “global understanding,”“cultural exchange,” and “cross-cultural competence.” For example, the Canadian Bureau for International Education (2015) declared a role for international students in promoting intercultural understanding: “International students create a high degree of exchange of ideas among different groups of people, [which] has the potential to improve scholarship and foster a culture of global understanding and forms an integral part of internationalization” (p. 1).

In Northern Europe, the Swedish Ministry of Education and Research stated, “Being exposed to a cultural situation that may be utterly different from that of the country of origin can be enriching and contribute to self-understanding and understanding of others” (Page & Chahboun, 2019; SOU, 2018). In Germany, the fourth-largest study destination for international students, a senior administrator in the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD, 2018) emphasized the importance of international student integration by facilitating cross-cultural encounters between international students and host students through language programs. An assistant US Secretary of State for educational and cultural affairs noted that international and global relationships are re-strengthened through interactions derived from international educational exchange. She emphasized that we can reap the benefits of international education-increased global competence, self-awareness, and the ability to compete in the 21st-century economy only by engaging international students and people from the host societies (American Immigration Council, 2014).

These mission statements emphasizing the values of internationalization through “being there” are ubiquitous in higher education. Government and university reports indicate that once international students are within their boundaries, it is assumed they will make friends with the host students as part of the process of being a global citizen, a mission carried when they go abroad. For example, it is believed that “the prospect of communicating and working with domestic students is one of the key factors drawing international students to Australian Universities” (Culture Bridge Institute, 2021). This could also explain the reasons for promoting interactions between international students and host nationals as one of the top agenda items in international education conferences and other institutional strategy documents (“DAAD Annual Report,” 2018). Policy documents and research show that the main way universities meet their goal of internationalizing the student body is by involving host-nation students and international students in common activities, and the job is considered done—internationalization by intermingling.

Internationalization as Meaningful Interaction?

The translation of international diversity to intercultural learning requires meaningful interactions between host-national students and international students. Studies in education and intercultural fields see cross-cultural interaction between international students and host-nation students as a necessary step in the process of successful adjustment to the requirements of the host universities and being like “host people” by acquiring local attributes. This paradigm has dominated international student research for decades. International students who interacted more with local students and staff had better overall adaptation to life in the host country, with improved communicative competence and fewer social difficulties (Ward & Kennedy, 1993). Tinto (1975) also points out the link between international students’ social integration with host-nation students and academic performance and retention. A study by Spencer-Oatey (2018) reports that students achieved learning gains when they made conscious endeavors to mingle with students of other nationalities. Their interaction with “different others” helped develop intercultural competence.

Despite rhetoric-framing internationalization at the policy level and empirical evidence showing the educational benefits of diversity and interaction, mounting evidence shows a lack of interaction between international students and host-nation students (Bittencourt et al., 2019; Spencer-Oatey et al., 2017). A conclusion is that international students tend to interact more with their co-nationals than their host nationals, which tends to be construed negatively, as a phenomenon obstructing international students’ integration into the host country (Gomes, 2015; Montgomery, 2010). For example, Volet and Ang (2012) proposed that “one of the most disturbing aspects of the internationalization of Australian campuses is the lack of interaction between Australian and international students from Asian backgrounds.” This is followed by suggested strategies for international students to better integrate into the host culture such as encouraging international students to break out of their comfort zone, a call to action that carries subtle criticisms of the international students’ failure to integrate. These studies frame international students from a deficit perspective and assume the root of the problem to be the international students. The responsibilities of domestic students are left unclear (Tran & Vu, 2017). If international students fail to live up to a university’s expectations, they are regarded as deficient and inferior (Page & Chahboun, 2019). The value of the formation of co-national groups within host nations is often denied, despite several studies reporting that they provide international students with significant emotional and moral support; students can prefer to work with co-nationals because they share similar lifestyles and language, ways of thinking, values, and attitudes (Belford, 2017; Chen & Ross, 2015; Zhou, 2009). International students are often portrayed in accusatory ways as forming co-national enclaves and behaving in the way they prefer (e.g., Volet & Ang, 2012). In questioning who gets to decide how international students should engage with the campus, Buckner and Stein (2020, p. 263) argued that international students are mostly framed “as not the subjects but the objects of the internationalization.”

The Subjectification of International Students

A major reason international students are portrayed as passive agents is due to the dominant methodology, as studies into international students before the 2000s were characterized by large-scale quantitative surveys with little space for the participants to influence their content (Montgomery, 2010; Page & Chahboun, 2019). Just as significant though, are the many untested and unsupported claims about the benefits of diversity and intercultural interactions presented as taken-for-granted truisms, which, according to Page and Chahboun (2019), results in construing the lack of cross-cultural interaction between international and host-nation students as the main problem to be addressed. A de-muting of international students would shift the focus from students as passive objects in need of intercultural skills, to being active agents driven by a variety of motivations that are not necessarily consistent with the lofty ideals of the host institution (Page & Chahboun, 2019).

The assumption that international students share a commitment to the mission articulated through public policy documents and marketing strategies often fails to take into account the voices of international students. There is a need to create a space for the “unheard voices” of international students, and this remains a serious challenge to the universities’ move toward internationalization. A central challenge of internationalizing higher education is located in the need to “embrace the politics of difference,” which can allow movement toward culturally inclusive learning dialogues (Cadman, 2000). While this research reflects Cadman’s concerns to some extent, there is a need to be cautious of the expectations created in focusing on cultural inclusivity. Be it inclusive or not, student voices need to be heard on their own terms.

Study Design

Universe and Sample

The ethnographic fieldwork was conducted at an Australian university in 2020 when the international student cohort was 20% of the total student population and 50% of the international students were Chinese citizens. This study focuses on Chinese students as they are the largest international student population. It documents and analyses 24 Chinese international students before going to Australia to study and their actual lived experiences in an Australian university. We used the twin methods of participant observation and in-depth interviews to explore and capture the thoughts and understandings of the participants. Qualitative research methods such as participant observation as a mode of gathering and producing data remain marginal in educational research about international students in Anglophone countries. It is suggested that educational research about international students will benefit from scholars’ use of a more diverse set of qualitative research methods (Deuchar 2022).

Undergraduate students were targeted as they are the largest group of international students in Australia (University Rankings, 2021). Seeking to hear from people from a range of backgrounds and experiences, both first-year (N = 12) and third-year (N = 12) students from various majors were included, to present a range of backgrounds and experiences. The inclusion criteria were undergraduate students with a Chinese passport, who had not come to Australia before starting undergraduate studies and were aged 18 to 24 years. Table 1 shows basic information about these participants.

Table 1.

Participant Information.

Participants	Pseudonyms given	Sex	Age (years)	Year at university	Subject major
1	Luoluo	Female	20	First	Finance
2	Dio	Male	19	First	Civil engineering
3	Anji	Female	23	Third	Math
4	Furui	Male	19	First	History
5	Jingjing	Female	22	Third	Computer science
6	Misty	Female	22	Third	Environmental engineering
7	Xinxin	Female	18	First	Psychology
8	Anan	Male	22	Third	Software engineering
9	Youzhen	Male	22	Third	Software engineering
10	Keli	Female	19	First	Law
11	Tianxing	Male	21	First	Computer science
12	Huhu	Male	23	Third	Computer science
13	Bubu	Female	19	First	Finance
14	Pica	Female	18	First	Finance
15	JJ	Female	24	Third	Anthropology
16	Dawei	Male	21	First	Social media
17	Zhouying	Female	21	First	Finance
18	Chacha	Male	20	First	Marketing
19	Beila	Female	21	Third	Accounting
20	Cuixi	Female	22	Third	Accounting
21	Beibei	Female	21	First	Marketing and Media
22	Yaya	Male	22	Third	Chemical engineering
23	Manman	Female	23	Third	Chemistry
24	Leio	Male	22	Third	Software engineering

Research Questions and Data Collection

The research questions are: (1) What expectations and motivations do Chinese international students have before going abroad? (2) How do Chinese international students describe their social experiences in an Australian university?

To answer these questions, this study is designed as an ethnographic study with both data from semi-structured interviews and participant observation. In the hope of gaining a deeper understanding of the experience of Chinese students, the researcher had planned to immerse in both academic and social life and engage with them, including taking their classes, participating in weekly social events held by the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA) and occasional social gatherings. However, the outbreak of COVID-19 made it impossible to conduct this research as planned. Due to the COVID lockdown, all the classes were transferred online, and weekly social events were canceled. So, in the first semester, participant observation was carried out on Zoom by participating in three undergraduate units that contain a large number of Chinese students, two in level 1 business courses on finance and company law, and one in a social science course at level 3. In the second semester, participant observation was carried out in a variety of on and off-campus settings including classrooms, campus events, and weekly social events held by the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA) and occasional social gatherings. The primary purpose of participant observation is to closely examine students’ interactions with teachers and fellow classmates during class, as well as aspects such as classroom participation and their choice of seating in the classroom. These observations serve as valuable groundwork for the researcher in their subsequent interviews and ongoing interactions with the participants.

To recruit participants, study information flyers (in Chinese) were sent to WeChat (a Chinese social media platform) groups of Chinese international students, including the “New Students Group 2020,”“Student Accommodation Group,”“Students Group 2019,” and “Students Group 2018.” Each group has 400 to 500 members. Flyers were also sent to >1,000 Chinese students who subscribe to the CSSA official account via the Chinese Students and Scholars Association’s (CSSA) official WeChat account. Research participants were incentivized with small tokens of appreciation for their voluntary participation. “snowballing” recruitment strategy was also employed, which involved requesting every interviewee to send study information flyers to friends or colleagues who might be interested. Once the students responded to the flyer, they were given agreed pseudonyms and asked questions regarding their major, level of studies, gender, and age, to ensure the inclusion of first-year and third-year students of both genders from a wide range of majors. Some participants were friends or colleagues of the participants.

Two waves of semi-structured interviews (N = 24) were conducted, one in each semester of the university’s 2020 academic year. This allowed a longitudinal picture of the participants’ changing attitudes and feelings. The first wave of interviews was conducted online via WeChat video because of the social distancing rules during COVID-19. The second wave of interviews was conducted face-to-face on campus in a variety of locations (e.g., library, dining hall). All the interviews were conducted in Mandarin, the common native language between the researcher and the interviewees. The interview questions addressed their expectations and experiences before going abroad, learning and social experiences in Australia, curriculum, teaching and learning practices, academic difficulties, transnational relationships, co-national groups, future plans, and recommendations for the university to improve its services for international students. For example, participants were asked “Can you tell me about the reasons why you chose to study abroad?” and “how do you describe your interaction with host national students and other international students.” Interviews typically lasted 40 to 50 min in both rounds and were translated by the first author. It should be noted that the data in this article are part of this longitudinal ethnographic study. Findings touch on a range of topics too wide for a single paper.

Data Analysis

The audio records of the interviews were transcribed by the researcher. The researcher also reviewed the field notes taken during participant observation and the interviews. Thematic analysis was employed for this research, and it is both exploratory and inductive. This is a method of enabling the systematic “identifying, organizing, and offering insight into patterns of meaning (themes) across a data set,” which allowed researchers to make sense of the participants’ experiences and meanings, with each theme working together to create a larger narrative about the data (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Transcripts were initially coded through a close reading of the text. Descriptive coding was used to generate a set of codes that are words or phrases that could be summative of what was being said. We also used emotional coding to label feeling participants may have experienced or are inferred by the researcher about the participant. This is an ideal method to uncover interpersonal experiences and actions (Saldana, 2012). For example, “embarrassed in intercultural interaction” was labeled as a code when a participant described the experience of being ignored by her host classmates when having group discussions. The next step is grouping codes into categories based on similarities and differences to ensure precise and accurate analysis. These categories were then further grouped into major themes answering research questions.

Trustworthiness

We employed three modes of verification to better establish the validity and reliability of the analysis: reflexivity; prolonged involvement in the study; and member checking.

Reflexivity: Researcher positionality is a crucial aspect of qualitative research. As “Knowledge cannot be separated from the knower” (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000, p. 1), thus, it is important to acknowledge the role of subjectivity and personal interpretation in research. Ethnographic research aims at capturing the complexity of the world and the multiple relationships that create this world and the researcher must be viewed as part of that complexity (Montgomery, 2010).

The research team includes two individuals: one doctoral student and one established research scholar. The fact that the principal researcher identifies as a member of the Chinese national community offered more advantages when reaching out to the Chinese student community. It is possible that her identity and experiences helped her to build rapport with participants quickly. In some ways, she shared similarities to the students regarding her race and overseas study experiences. However, it should be noted that the first researcher did document her feelings about the participants’ responses as well as our similarities and differences in the fieldnotes, in order to create a multi-voiced narration, which offers more “factual evidence” (Ellis et al., 2011 p. 282) to “tell it as it is” to the readers (Jootun et al., 2009, p. 44). This is also a way of avoiding researchers’ perceptions being clouded by their own personal experiences, because as a member of the researched cohort the researcher may have difficulty separating their perceptions from that of the participants (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). The research team also worked to ensure the trustworthiness of our data by engaging in reflexive dialogue about our interpretations of the data throughout the study and during the data analysis to reduce potential researcher biases.

Prolonged involvement in the study: The first researcher spent a great deal of time with participants in the Chinese student community. The first researcher, along with the participants, engaged in the classes (comprising three classes over one semester) as well as a multitude of social activities (intercultural programs organized by the university and the weekly gathering hosted by the Chinese Students and Scholars Association [CSSA]). Throughout this journey, the researcher and participants in this study fostered strong interpersonal connections. As familiarity grew, some participants became increasingly willing to express their authentic thoughts and ideas. This prolonged engagement with the participants increases common trust, potentially reducing respondent bias.

Member checking. The interpretation of the data was discussed with several key informants who paid close attention to the well-being of Chinese international students. During the interview process, the researcher inquired whether the participants would be willing to engage in member checking after the completion of the data analysis. Five of the participants expressed their willingness to participate in this validation process. Consequently, following the completion of the data analysis, the researcher presented the interview transcripts, along with the researchers’ interpretation and the emerging themes to these participants. This allowed them to provide feedback and comments on the researchers’ interpretation of all the quotes. Subsequently, these five participants confirmed on the researchers’ understanding while suggesting minor adjustment.

Ethics

The study was conducted with regulations for ethical research approval by the university Human Ethics Committee. For permission to be in the classroom/zoom class for participant observation, study information flyers, and consent forms were sent to unit coordinators to ask for permission to be in the class. Unit coordinators also sent study information forms and consent forms to students so that informed verbal consent from students could be obtained.

For participating in the weekly social events held by the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA) and occasional social gatherings, the researcher contacted the leader of this organization for permission to be present in their activity.

For those who agreed to participate in the interview, all participants received a participant information sheet describing details of aims, objectives, ethical concerns, and researchers’ contact information and a consent form in electronic form. Involvement in the research was voluntary, allowing participants to withdraw at any stage of the study. All participants have been given pseudonyms to ensure anonymity.

Findings

Through data analysis, we identified six major motivations and expectations that attract Chinese international students to study abroad: (1) an easy option, (2) employability at home, (3) family influence, (4) new possibilities, (5) going global through the local, and (6) going global through the global. The second part of the results illustrates participants’ social experiences in different settings: (1) classroom and group work and (2) accommodation and university student organizations.

Motivations of Chinese International Students for Overseas Study

An Easy Option

The participants’ reasons for choosing Australia as a study destination can be divided into several categories. Most of the participants identified their main motivation to be an Australian university degree that would give them an advantage in the domestic Chinese employment market. Pursuing a degree that is accessible to the majority of students in China may not secure a job in China’s job market, making the symbolic capital of overseas higher education a strategic choice in the pursuit of distinction. Most of the research participants (>80%) admitted that they did not qualify for Project 211/985 universities (highest-ranking universities) in China. However, they could be accepted into the world’s top 100 overseas universities with guided assistance from education agencies in China.

Several participants described the difficulties of being accepted into Project 211/985 universities in China. Although they were reluctant to leave China, they felt they had little choice, expressing both instrumental and pragmatic reasons for choosing to study overseas. Interestingly, getting into overseas universities is presented as the easier option:

I quit the national higher education entrance examination. Too much pressure, too hard for me. Going abroad is easier. It just costs more money. (Dawei, Social Media, First-Year)

I come from Henan Province, and the population there is over 100 million. You know how competitive it is for us to get into the first-tier university. I just want to choose a relatively easier path to my future career. (Jingjing, Computer Science, Third-Year)

It was a quick decision. I didn’t even get into Sanben (lowest-tier universities; accessible to 70% of students) after the college entrance examination… I wanted to choose the US; the education agency told me it might be easier to get into Australian universities… I don’t care much about where to go, as long as the ranking is not bad. (Anan, Software Engineering, Third-Year)

Employability at Home

Nearly all the participants expressed a desire to return home and find a job, with career prospects at home being the most prevalent reason given:

My career development will be better in China. There is no doubt that it is a rising country with plenty of opportunities. (Dio, Civil Engineering, First-Year)

I will go back to China after graduation. I am more confident in my career development in China…more hopes. (Manman, Chemistry, Third-Year)

A degree awarded from a “Western” Anglophone country, often has a considerably higher status within the labor markets of many Eastern countries compared to equivalent domestic qualifications (Zhai et al., 2019). Some students are fully aware of the advantage they have in the job market at home:

Whether it’s government recruitment or enterprise recruitment, people who graduated from foreign universities are favored; and they have a separate job application process for those from foreign universities. (Jingjing, Computer Science, Third-Year)

This is the government’s formal endorsement of the worth of returnees, which has created a positive external environment for their return. A section in the National Plan for Medium- and Long-term Human Resources Development (2010–2020) emphasizes the importance of international professionals and recruitment of returnees (Hao & Welch, 2012). Therefore, it is not hard to understand that the primary objective of many Chinese students who go to universities in the “Global,” even ones located further South than their normal place of residence, is the focus on attaining a well-recognized qualification that enables them to secure a good job on their return home.

Family Influence

A traditional sense of family obligation, often described as filial piety, creates a responsibility for students to show obedience and loyalty to their parents (Wang, 2016). Some participants reflected on their desire to please their parents when making their decisions. For example, Misty and Bubu explained that their parents had friends with children overseas, and it was never a question whether they should go abroad. Zhouying mentioned that she went to an international school in her hometown from age 12 (years). Her mother had groomed her to go abroad. Zhouying tells her story:

My mother made this decision when I was young. She was so convinced that the educational resources in these developed countries could benefit me in the future. She wanted me to bring an overseas degree home… (Zhouying, Finance, First-Year)

An overseas qualification is normatively narrated as a pragmatic choice by both parties, in the hope of a promising career upon returning to China. When I asked Zhouying whether she wanted to go abroad, she said, “Not so much; but this degree may guarantee me a better job, and make them [the parents] happy.”

Family support made it possible for these Chinese students to study overseas. This generation is mostly the only child in the family; therefore, they receive the full devotion of parents and/or grandparents. One participant specifically mentioned that she received financial support from her grandparents, “My grandparents pay my tuition fees and monthly allowance.” Often parents or grandparents wish their children/grandchildren to return home after their studies.

New Possibilities

Some students consider relocation to a foreign country leads to new possibilities and uncertainties, which are presented as desirable and alluring. Going overseas opens up ways and means for them to encounter different people and do new things in new institutional and cultural settings. The most enchanting part for them is that they do not know what will happen until they get to this new place. Some students expressed concern that staying in China would significantly limit their life experience. Other individuals reflected upon how staying in China would have felt like having their lives “decided for them.” Going overseas offers a chance to “leave the nest” and to distance themselves from restrictive social roles at home:

One of the reasons I came to Australia is that I know how my life would be if I stayed in China. My parents will find me a steady job. I will live the way they wish. If I go abroad, my life will have more possibilities. (Furui, History, First-Year)

Going abroad is good for girls… I want to see if new life experiences can bring me more different opportunities. (Cuixi, Accounting, Third-Year)

I don’t exactly know what I will do with my life. Maybe I will figure it out by experiencing new things. (Keli, Law, First-Year)

Participants perceived that life for non-mobile people was mostly fixed and predetermined. They described going abroad as a way to achieve greater agency in determining their life course. Phrases such as “make a difference in my life” or “decide my own life” are recurrent. Most of them are pursuing the greater opportunities and possibilities promised by their educational sojourn.

Going Global Through the Local

When asked why they went abroad, a third of the participants expected to mix with both, local and international students of other nationalities. They gave answers that aligned with internationalizing rhetoric. Comments including “to expand my world view,”“experience a new lifestyle,”“learning English well,” and “it’s good to go out and know more about the world” were heard. Globalization exposes people to images of alternative lifestyles (often of the West) and engenders a desire to experience them (Yamashita, 2008). Some students were eager to connect to other parts of the world, beyond local ties, and the constraints of national boundaries. They were curious about the “outside world” and eager to have opportunities to experience the uncertainties and cultural differences in different places, before eventually, settling down:

Going abroad means experiencing new things and learning how to live your life. You meet more people, people from different parts of the world. You understand how to interact with them and develop a sense of empathy rather than being self-absorbed in your own world. (Misty, Environmental Engineering, Third-Year)

I had to choose a developed country, not some Asian countries, to take a look at what people in other parts of the world were like, to learn different knowledge, and to get international exposure. (Furui, History, First-Year)

Staying in Heze [a third-tier city in China’s annual classification of cities, her hometown) shut down my window to see the ‘outside world’. I want to see what’s out there. (Anji, Math, Third-Year)

Other comments included, “I want to meet local friends,”“I want to experience cultural differences rather than only knowing them.” These students considered their educational sojourn in Australia as a way of attaining a cosmopolitan experience, and intercultural exchange is re-presented as a necessary way of achieving that goal.

Going Global Through the Global

It’s not like I want to be part of Australia. I want to be part of the world. (Xinxin, Psychology, First-Year)

With a few notable exceptions, the more internationally-inclined students are not so much interested in the broadening experience offered through the university they chose to enroll in, rather they tend to be more interested in being connected to a broader, more abstract, internationalization project. These particular students are not motivated to integrate into Australian culture, which they disparaged as limited or lacking in ambition. As JJ (Anthropology, Third-Year) put it, “I kind of regret coming here. I still don’t know what Australian culture is, nothing attracts me.” Cuixi (Accounting, Third-Year) commented, “I don’t think Australia has their own culture except for beaches.” These globalizers are looking to build cross-cultural communicative skills for their future mobility:

I want to learn English well. It is the stepping stone to going global. This is the reason why I want to talk with other people; not because I’m interested in them or their culture. (Zhouying, Finance, First-Year)

Dio has a broader plan, pointing out that “Australia is only my first stop. Experiencing the uniqueness of each place and going to my next stop is my goal.” He mentioned a viral saying from the Chinese internet community, “the world is so big; I want to check it out!” (translation).

The Realities of the Chinese International Student Experience

Classes and Group Work

“We have three-hour lectures and one-hour tutorials. Students come in and sit down. When the class is over, they go. You don’t know where they are going, you just don’t know about their life.” (Dawei, Social Media, First-Year)

Though classrooms can act as a “melting pot” because they have students from various nationalities within them, most of the participants in this project observed that they had very few opportunities for making friends with other international students:

We, Asian people, sit together. White people sit together. There is a clear dividing line. (Keli, Law, First-Year)

Most students come to classes to learn knowledge, not to make friends. (Beibei, Marketing & Media, First-Year)

Intercultural interaction does not simply develop naturally by putting students into multicultural groups (De Vita & Case, 2003). The participants described group work as the only chance to communicate with classmates of other nationalities. When asked to describe their relationship with participants in the small groups created in the classrooms, the participants responded using vague generalizations, including “superficial” or “nothing personal.” Yaya (Chemical Engineering, Third-Year) mentioned having Facebook chat rooms, which were limited to discussions about work progress: “Sometimes I want to know more about my classmates, but I don’t know what to do.”

Youzhen (Software engineering, Third-Year) reported, “When we have a group discussion in the Zoom class, other international students, including local students, do not speak up either. The conversation fell into silence.” A number of students even described group-based learning as a source of anxiety and discomfort. JJ took a unit that was mainly for local students. She felt awkward during a group discussion:

It is not like they were ignoring me on purpose. I guess they sometimes felt I couldn’t follow, so they had discussions by themselves. But still, this was uncomfortable. (JJ, Anthropology, Third-Year)

However, some students were satisfied with the superficial interaction with domestic students or other international students and showed no interest in having further meaningful engagement. Beibei explicated:

I form groups with those locals just for higher grades. I mean, that’s why I’m here. I do not want to be internationalized…I have my own Chinese friends, we hang out, and throw parties. Why force me to integrate into their activities. I learn for knowledge; I play for fun. (Beibei, Marketing & Media, First-Year)

Some Chinese students report that they consciously choose to form groups with co-nationals, rather than local students or other international students, which is how they exercise their agency in passing the exam and obtaining higher grades. For example, Leio (Software engineering, Third-Year) said, “I am a xuezha [a struggling student]. I always stay with other Chinese students. They could carry me."

Some participants specifically mentioned academic goals as being too important to risk collaboration with local students or other international students in group work. They preferred working alongside co-nationals for several reasons, including language. Tianxing poignantly described his dilemmas about group work:

It takes me so much time and energy to learn the knowledge. My English is not that flawless. If I form a group with those local students, speaking English and the pressure to socialize with them consumes much more of my energy. It is also a source of mental stress. I don’t want to socialize too much with those locals. Learning knowledge and achieving higher grades is my main goal. If I’ve got more free time, I’d do more part-time work. (Tianxing, computer science, First-Year)

In addition, some participants reported domestic students as lazy and ill-mannered, which they suggested interfered with their academic goals. Reflecting on these perceptions, Keli described her first in-class presentation as a disaster:

My teammate did not show up! Can you believe it? Maybe they do not care about their grades, because it’s cheaper for them to go to university. If they fail, they do this unit again. But for me, I wasted both my time and money. (Bubu, Fiance, First-Year)

Luoluo (Finance, First-Year) stated that some of the domestic students were not good students, and not all of them had high grades. “When we do projects together, I can tell some are not smart. The only advantage they have is their English proficiency. Forming group work with them does not improve my study performance.”

For some participants, the high family expectations for them to succeed at university, combined with the various linguistic and cultural adjustments they have to make in an Australian classroom, created pressure and anxiety. Intercultural interactions with persons from the host nation or other international students are not a high priority for them: “I will return to China anyway. Forming superficial relationships with Australian students is useless” (Chacha, Marketing, First-Year)

Taking online classes in 2020, when the pressures created by the uncertainties of the global pandemic with all of its impacts on learning and teaching created a great deal of uncertainty, triggering concerns about their academic standing, and significantly increasing their fear of failing their course. Partnerships with “reliable” co-nationals felt like a safer option in these circumstances.

Accommodation and University Student Organizations

Before going abroad, some participants saw student accommodation as one of the best places to meet students from other countries. However, two participants, living in a university residential college, reported that their rooms were allocated according to their nationalities. Co-national students were on the same floor. Zhouying (Finance, First-Year) described: “I do not know why they put us together. I had a neighbor who is from Finland living next door, but she got moved to the Finland Area.”

Perhaps the administrators of the accommodation buildings in making decisions about where to place students recognized that they tend to coalesce with fellow nationals. In circumstances where students had people of other nationalities living in proximity, sharing a kitchen in some instances, some commented on having chances to build connections with their neighbors. However, they felt they had few commonalities: “Staying close does not mean we are close. We do not hang out or talk about personal stuff.” Some participants commented on the superficiality of such relationships. They felt this contact was not sufficient for them to be familiar with each other or form close relationships. As Furui described:

Sometimes we have social activities in the student accommodation building … We consciously choose to be with our co-nationals. Other international students do this too. We only say greeting words like hi, see ya. (Furui, History, First-Year)

University-based organizations also provide a space for cross-cultural encounters. Some students spoke of orientation week, which was organized by the university in conjunction with the student representative body. During this week, they were encouraged to join students from other nations to make international friends. Beila (Accounting, Third-Year) recalled a road trip with people from a variety of national backgrounds, including host-nation students. She was shocked and annoyed by the host-nation students’ consumption of alcohol and marijuana: “It seems to be normal for them. I think I’m open-minded but not in this way.”

Most participants only have infrequent contact with local people or other international students. Although the university holds regular gatherings to promote intermingling, participants commented on the limited success of these events. For example, several participants mentioned that the university offers a program named “Connect with Unimentor.” However, this program was regarded by some host students as a mere resume booster rather than an opportunity to learn different cultures, “unimentors have the obligation of engaging in regular meetings with their mentees. However, I can tell from my mentor’s facial expression that she wants to finish as soon as possible.”

Some participants were initially motivated to participate and meet more international students and Australian students; however, they ended up feeling disappointed. For example, Zhouying reported attending an expensive party aimed at bringing together students throughout the Business School:

I was the only Chinese there. Other people were drinking and talking with each other. I felt awkward. Like I didn’t belong there. I did not make any friends there. (Zhouying, Finance, First-Year)

International students prefer to join activities organized by co-national student bodies, which are an important social outlet and a source of useful information and significant emotional support (Chen & Ross, 2015). Half of the students interviewed for this project are members of the CSSA, which provides a significant support system for them. Through the CSSA, new students seek to form bonds with senior students who can provide insights and suggestions about how to start a life in Australia. As Dawei (Social Media, First-Year) put it, they [senior students] are experienced. “They told us what to do and how to do it.”

When asked whether it is problematic to stay in the co-national groups rather than integrating into Australian culture and interacting with local students, an emphatic “No!” was the most common response. “Problematic to whom?” Luoluo (Finance, First-Year) asked. She further reflected, “This happens to other national groups as well. My classmates from other countries also stick together with their co-nationals. The reason why Chinese students are always the target is that we are the largest group among international students. We are everywhere.” several participants acknowledged that co-national groups limit the opportunities for interactions with others. Leio, one of the leaders of the CSSA, confirmed this observation:

We do not have cooperation with other university student groups. We hold events or parties occasionally. Only Chinese students take part in it. This is the case for most of the student groups. (Leio, Software Engineering, Third-Year)

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of this study show that Chinese international students study abroad for several reasons; however, the goals of many of the participants did not always align with the above-mentioned expectations expressed by government reports and university administrators that international students go abroad for international interactions. Many of the students pursue instrumental goals, focused on gaining a good degree from a sufficiently prestigious university to increase their cultural and symbolic capital in their home settings. Some are motivated by the alluring unknown opportunities evident in other parts of the world. Some students offered quite trivial answers to their motivations, including “the weather in Australia is great”; “it is so crowded in China I just want to go somewhere quiet.” The findings of this study support Page and Chahboun’s (2019) argument that there is a mismatch between the rhetoric expressed by universities about the significance of internationalization and the goals of international students. The assumption that international students go abroad for intercultural interaction and internationalization is highly questionable. If the perceptions and attitudes of the Chinese international students in this study are generalized among international student groups, it is doubtful whether the internationalization of higher education in Australia can be achieved, as it is believed that internationalization depends upon intercultural encounters among students from different ethnic backgrounds.

From the results of this study, it is evident that students possess a strong sense of autonomy and agency/freedom to determine their own goals when choosing to study abroad. This stands in contrast to previous research in education and intercultural fields, which often frames the experiences of international students as a process of “adjusting” to the requirements and norms of host country (e.g., Marginson, 2014). Within this framework, international students were subjected to a process of “other forming,” where they were compelled to conform to institutional expectations. Any failure to meet these expectations rendered them, in the eyes of program designers and administrators, as deficient and in need of correction (Marginson, 2014, p. 8). The findings of this study reveal a misalignment between the goals of individuals and those of educational institutions, highlighting the need to revise the prevailing paradigm that has historically dominated research on international student experiences. Chinese international students in this study express and show their own opinions and concerns regarding their experiences, expressing a strong desire for their voices to be heard. The decision they made with regard to their going-abroad plan serves as a site of agency for self-formation (Deuel, 2023). This corresponds with Crossley and Tikly (2004) assertion that the portrayal of international students should not be as weak or passive agents, mere pawns in the processes of a neo-colonial political economy, or as unwitting subjects caught up in their own subjugation” (Kettle, 2017, p. 39).

Furthermore, it seems unclear whether the significance of internationalization and the benefits of on-campus diversity can be realized without significant pedagogical intervention by those concerned about the realization of the earlier stated rhetoric. The experiences of the Chinese students in this study suggest that even in a place with high international student numbers, cross-cultural communication is not as successful as hoped in the spaces of encounters, including classrooms, university student accommodation, and social activities out of the classrooms. For example, some participants shunned group work with local students and other international students for fear of failing the unit. Some participants were initially hopeful of making friends with international students and Australian students, but then they realized it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. The failure of some of these students to develop genuinely international communities on campus raises questions about which cohorts of students are not integrating. In reality “the locals” have little interest in meeting international students in any real way. If integration is a desirable outcome of internationalization, and we are certainly not arguing it is, it is important to recognize the roles and responsibilities of host-nation students in enhancing the “internationalization project.”

There are numerous studies (e.g., Belford, 2017; Luo & Jamieson-Drake, 2013; Wright & Schartner, 2013) recommending universities provide more opportunities to bring international students and host students together for intercultural interactions. However, these efforts have shown limited effectiveness, not only in the current study but also in other research studies. Merely adding more intercultural activities does not serve as a remedy for the lack of intercultural interaction. As has been mentioned before, the host university at the heart of this study offers programs like “Connect with Unimentor” with the aim of increasing student engagement and facilitating better integration. However, in reality, these initiatives are intent on “helping” international students understand host students and the university; they fail to promote a mutual exchange of cultural understanding. Organizing these programs, including orientation week to promote intercultural interaction, undermines their essence and significance, as they tend to become somewhat mechanized and ritualistic.

The role of co-national groups should also not be underestimated. The findings of this study are in line with previous international student literature that highlights the co-national enclave as the center of international students’ social lives. Transformations can be achieved through co-national groups without cultivating significant social bonds with people from the host country (Bittencourt et al., 2019). The findings from this study show that Chinese students engage with campus life in their own way, if not “fitting in” with host nationals. It is important to find additional answers to whether international students are missing out on important outcomes by not interacting with the host-nation students (Montgomery, 2010; Page & Chahboun, 2019).

This study suggests important implications for higher education administrators and policymakers. Universities and students would benefit from a more nuanced understanding of lived experiences, rather than sticking to unrealistic or even empty rhetoric regarding the experiences of internationalization. Lofty mission statements risk treating international students as a collective entity, ignoring the heterogeneity of this group. Educators and policymakers seem to overlook the diverse motivations and agendas of the individual student for their Australian education experience, or the lived realities of OS students in many a nation-state. Homogenizing international students by claiming their educational purpose is to develop global understanding will lead to inadequate attention to their real needs. For example, some participants complained about high tuition fees but the poor quality of teaching and management. It is also a necessity for the universities and the government to conduct a deeper analysis to understand the needs of each international student. This could also help universities and the government reframe goals and practices of international education in their reports. At the outbreak of COVID-19, Chinese international students from mainland China were denied entry to Australia. These students (more than 50) who were going through an unsettling period started an appeal to the student administrative office. Yet they received no response. These political issues harmed students’ perceptions of the universities and the government and had a lasting negative impression of Australian higher education. According to several participants in this study, these issues also pushed them to co-national enclaves and lessened their interest in participating in the “internationalization project.”

This study indicates that international students’ ideas and concepts are profoundly misunderstood and misinterpreted by university administrators, which means that, educational institutions tend to fall short of understanding the needs of international students. This highlights the importance of establishing an improved communication channel between universities and international students. In the hierarchical relationship between institutions and international students, it is often the case that universities impose unidirectional requirements and expectations on students. In a setting that is pursuing increased, and diverse, international student enrolment, it is paramount to foster open communication and create platforms where students feel comfortable expressing their thoughts and concerns. The communication of international students’ thoughts can promote the synchronization of the goals of individuals and organizations.

Furthermore, in the context of governmental and institutional marketing documents, it is paramount to underscore the pivotal role that educational institutions play in nurturing a dynamic and empowering environment for students, one that facilitates their active and meaningful engagement in shaping internationalization initiatives in their own way. For example, when selecting student accommodations, students possess some autonomy to exercise their personal preferences, whether they lean toward living with their co-nationals or opt for a more diverse, intercultural living arrangement. This choice is unequivocally voluntary and should not be construed as an obligatory criterion. The absence of such intercultural interactions should not be deemed a failure on the part of these international students. This is particularly salient because international students in this study increasingly seek a university experience not only imparts knowledge but also fosters a sense of empowerment, positioning the university as a catalyst for their personal growth and development.

Moreover, if universities are serious about reaping the benefits of internationalization, more problems should be considered when implementing internationalization strategies. Developing a pedagogy of internationalization, underpinned by a commitment to genuine dialogue across differences, to the creation of globalization knowledge is of paramount importance. It is probably feasible to invite international students to be the co-creators of university culture and internationalization projects, together with host students and staff within the university. If we consider carefully, international students as a core part of what makes internationalization possible. There may not be a fixed form of internationalization. The internationalization strategy of each educational institute may differ significantly, especially if these efforts are collaboratively established by all agents within the university. As Brandenburg and de Wit (2011, p. 17) argued, “we have to move away from dogmatic and idealist concepts of internationalization and globalization and rather invest a lot more time into questions of rationales and outcomes.” They also suggested, “Ask ourselves: why do we do certain things, what do they help in achieving the goal of quality education?” (Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011, p. 17). Therefore, our focus should shift toward assessing students’ learning outcomes resulting from such intercultural activities. The key question is: what is the outcome of having intercultural activities? Rather than making the act of bringing students together the ultimate goal of internationalization, it should be viewed as a means to achieve specific educational outcomes.

This study makes three contributions to the literature on internationalization. First, it critically challenges the paradigm that requires the integration of international students into the host university and highlights international students’ agency in the negotiation of their social life, Volet and Jones (2012) point to, a scholarly literature failing to offer adequate attention to the self-determining role that students play as agents in their own adaptation and learning. In shifting the focus from students as passive agents in need of reformation to being active agents participating in internationalization, this study suggests new alternative ways of thinking about way of achieving more effective and inclusive forms of internationalization. Second, this study challenges a taken-for granted altruism in the mission statements linking the movement of international students to intercultural interactions. It questions the assumptions underpinning the tendency of universities to link internationalization to the development of interculturality simply through the action of bringing together students from different national backgrounds. Through listening to the student experiences of international education, this study highlights the complex and differential experiences of international students.

Third, research has found that university strategies often fail to take the heterogeneity of international students into consideration and, as a consequence, the efficacy of these university strategies is limited (Welikala, 2015). Of particular relevance to this study is that the literature reporting on the experiences of Chinese international education typically fails to acknowledge the diversity within the Chinese international student cohort and labels them in totality, which has been described as the “Chinese student syndrome” (Song, 2020). Therefore, this study emphasizes the need for a more effective and inclusive institutional approach. Such an approach can only be informed by research that meaningfully takes students' voices into account and considers individual needs.

This study brings several issues to the attention which can be further explored in future studies. This study revealed that Chinese international students have varied social experiences; some stay in co-national groups and others are more international. It is advisable to conduct a longitudinal study to make comparisons among international students to find out the benefits and drawbacks of different social experiences in the long run. As has been pointed out, it is significant to find out whether international students are missing out by not having intercultural interactions with host national students and other international students. Another interesting study could be exploring students’ global learning outcomes. As this study indicated, bringing students together for intermingling does not necessarily lead to significant success in achieving effective intercultural interaction. Future efforts are needed in creating intercultural interactions for high impact and measuring the ultimate impact of universities’ programs and activities on students to fully understand the impact that activities to promote international diversity have on students.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None.

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.

ORCID iD

Mingxin Qu

Data Availability Statement

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the ressearch supporting data is not available.

References

Alvesson

Sköldberg

(2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Sage.

American Immigration Council. (2014). How international students add billions to the U.S. Economy.

Belford

(2017). International students from Melbourne describing their cross-cultural transitions experiences: Culture shock, social interaction, and friendship development. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 499–521.

Bittencourt

Johnstone

Adjei

Seithers

(2019). “We see the world different now”: Remapping assumptions about international student adaptation. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(1), 35–50.

Brandenburg

de Wit

(2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62, 15–17.

Braun

Clarke

(2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association.

British Council. (2014). Integration of international students: A UK perspective.

Buckner

Stein

(2020). What counts as internationalization? Deconstructing the internationalization imperative. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(2), 151–166.

Cadman

(2000). ‘Voices in the air’: Evaluations of the learning experiences of international postgraduates and their supervisors. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(4), 475–491.

10.

Cameron

(2010) International students: In our best interests. ABC News.

11.

Canadian Bureau for International Education. (2015). The integration challenge: Connecting international students with their Canadian peers.

12.

Chen

Ross

(2015). “Creating a home away from home”: Chinese undergraduate student enclaves in US higher education. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 44(3), 155–181.

13.

Crossley

Tikly

(2004). Postcolonial perspectives and comparative and international research in education: A critical introduction. Comparative education, 40(2), 147–156.

14.

Culture Bridge Institute. (2021). Cultural integration in Australian Universities why should we care and how to address it?http://www.culturebridge.com.au/blog3

15.

DAAD. (2018). DAAD annual report.

16.

De Vita

Case

(2003). Rethinking the internationalization agenda in UK higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(4), 383–398.

17.

de Wit

(2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe. Greenwood.

18.

Deuel

R. P.

(2023). International education as an ethical practice: Cultivating a care of the self. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 44(4), 579–594.

19.

Dwyer

S. C.

Buckle

J. L.

(2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54–63.

20.

Edwards

(2007). Challenges and opportunities for the internationalization of higher education in the coming decade: Planned and opportunistic initiatives in American institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 373–381.

21.

Ellis

Adams

T. E.

Bochner

A. P.

(2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273–290.

22.

Gomes

(2015). Negotiating everyday life in Australia: Unpacking the parallel society inhabited by Asian international students through their social networks and entertainment media use. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(4), 515–536.

23.

Hao

Welch

(2012). A tale of sea turtles: Job-seeking experiences of Hai Gui (high-skilled returnees) in China. Higher Education Policy, 25(2), 243–260.

24.

Jootun

McGhee

Marland

G. R.

(2009). Reflexivity: Promoting Rigour in qualitative research. Nursing Standard, 23(23), 42–47.

25.

Kettle

(2017). International student engagement in higher education: Transforming practices, pedagogies and participation. Multilingual Matters.

26.

Knight

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

27.

Luo

Jamieson-Drake

(2013). Examining the educational benefits of interacting with international students. Journal of International Students, 3(2), 85–101.

28.

Marginson

(2014). Student self-formation in international education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 18(1), 6–22.

29.

Montgomery

(2010). Understanding the international student experience. Macmillan International Higher Education.

30.

Page

A. G.

Chahboun

(2019). Emerging empowerment of international students: How international student literature has shifted to include the students’ voices. Higher Education, 78(5), 871–885.

31.

Pandit

Alderman

(2004). Border crossings in the classroom: The international student interview as a strategy for promoting intercultural understanding. Journal of Geography, 103(3), 127–136.

32.

Saldana

J. M.

(2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

33.

Sky News. (2021). International students important for ‘creating diversity’ in universities.

34.

Song

(2020). ‘Chinese students syndrome’ in Australia: Colonial modernity and the possibilities of alternative framing. Higher Education, 79(4), 605–618.

35.

SOU. (2018). Internationalization of Swedish higher education and research: A strategic agenda.

36.

Spencer-Oatey

(2018). Transformative learning for social integration: Overcoming the challenge of greetings. Intercultural Education, 29(2), 301–315.

37.

Spencer-Oatey

Dauber

Jing

Lifei

(2017). Chinese students’ social integration into the university community: Hearing the students’ voices. Higher Education, 74(5), 739–756.

38.

Stein

(2021). Critical internationalization studies at an impasse: Making space for complexity, uncertainty, and complicity in a time of global challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 46(9), 1771–1784.

39.

Stone

(2006). Conceptualizing intercultural effectiveness for university teaching. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 334–356.

40.

Tinto

(1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.

41.

Tran

L. T.

T. T. P.

(2017). Mediating transnational spaces: International students and intercultural responsibility. Intercultural Education, 28(3), 283–303.

42.

University Rankings. (2021). International student university enrolment numbers. https://www.universityrankings.com.au/international-student-numbers/

43.

Volet

S. E.

Ang

(2012). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An opportunity for inter-cultural learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(1), 21–37.

44.

Volet

Jones

(2012). Cultural transitions in higher education: Individual adaptation, transformation and engagement. In Transitions across schools and cultures (Vol. 17, pp. 241–284). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

45.

Wang

(2016). The impact of cultural values on Chinese students in American higher education. Qualitative Report, 21(4), 611–628.

46.

Ward

Kennedy

(1993). Where’s the “culture” in cross-cultural transition? Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24(2), 221–249.

47.

Welikala

(2015). Universities don’t understand how international students learn. The Guardian.

48.

Wright

Schartner

(2013). ‘I can’t… I won’t?’ International students at the threshold of social interaction. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(2), 113–128.

49.

Yamashita

(2008). Transnational migration of women: Changing boundaries of contemporary Japan. In Graburn

N. H. H.

Ertl

Tierney

R. K.

(Eds.), Multiculturalism in the new Japan: Crossing the boundaries within (pp. 101–116). Berghahn Books.

50.

Zhai

Gao