Toward Greater
Inclusion and Success
A NEW COMPACT FOR
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
Chris R. Glass, Kara A. Godwin, and Robin Matross Helms
ACE and the American Council on Education are registered marks of the American Council on Education and may not
be used or reproduced without the express written permission of ACE.
American Council on Education
One Dupont Circle NW
Washington, DC 20036
© 2021. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
American
Council on
Education
Toward Greater Inclusion and Success:
A New Compact for International Students
CHRIS R. GLASS
Associate Professor
Educational Foundations & Leadership
Old Dominion University
KARA A. GODWIN
Director of Internationalization
American Council on Education
ROBIN MATROSS HELMS
Assistant Vice President
American Council on Education
With contributions from:
Lucia Brajkovic
Education Specialist
The World Bank
Ilham Chelabi
International Education Consultant
Dexis/USAID
English Language Teacher, Algeria
Michelle Huang
International Student Support Specialist
University of Cincinnati
Sarah Spreitzer
Director, Government Relations
American Council on Education
Yingjia Zhang
Doctoral Student
University of Toronto
Yining “Sally” Zhu
Student Support Advisor
University of Nottingham Ningbo China
Contents
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1
e Foundation: Tenets of a New Compact ................................................................................................. 6
Sustainability ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Protect the planet and relationships .......................................................................................................... 8
Address global challenges .......................................................................................................................... 8
Responsiveness ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Center culture in the student experience ................................................................................................. 10
Address discrimination and racism .......................................................................................................... 10
Acknowledge the impact of national politics and policy .......................................................................... 11
Networked .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Mobilize new technologies ...................................................................................................................... 12
Provide portable credentials .................................................................................................................... 12
Prepare students for the future of work ................................................................................................... 12
Humanism .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Honor multidimensional identities and experiences ................................................................................ 13
Articulate multifaceted value and contributions ...................................................................................... 14
Equity ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Recognize nancial barriers..................................................................................................................... 15
Elevate access-focused institutions .......................................................................................................... 16
A Vision: Student, Institution, and Societal Outcomes .............................................................................17
Catalyze scientic collaboration .................................................................................................................. 19
Promote cultural diplomacy ........................................................................................................................ 19
Enhance alumni networks ........................................................................................................................... 20
Foster liberal learning .................................................................................................................................. 20
Advance economic development ................................................................................................................ 21
A Framework: Essential Elements of Inclusion and Success ......................................................................23
Interconnected networks ............................................................................................................................. 24
Interconnected networks on campus ....................................................................................................... 25
Interconnected networks beyond the campus ........................................................................................ 29
Sense of belonging ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Soft belonging ........................................................................................................................................ 33
Hard belonging ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Engaged learning ........................................................................................................................................ 35
Culturally engaging campus environments ............................................................................................ 35
Classroom practices ................................................................................................................................ 37
Support from professors .......................................................................................................................... 37
Life and career pathways ............................................................................................................................. 39
Sequenced experiences ............................................................................................................................ 40
Eective information delivery ................................................................................................................. 40
Career planning ...................................................................................................................................... 45
e Launch: Embarking on a Lifelong Relationship .................................................................................49
Enrollment planning ................................................................................................................................... 50
Student decision factors .............................................................................................................................. 52
Safety ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
Program quality ...................................................................................................................................... 52
Aordability ........................................................................................................................................... 53
Country reputation ................................................................................................................................ 53
Employment and internship opportunities ............................................................................................ 54
Finding t ................................................................................................................................................... 54
Family oriented ...................................................................................................................................... 54
Internet rst ........................................................................................................................................... 55
ird-party informed .............................................................................................................................. 56
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................58
References .................................................................................................................................................60
Introduction
- 2 -
Introduction
International student enrollment in the post-World War II era of U.S. higher education appears to be a
remarkable success story. In the 2018–19 academic year, 1,095,299 international students enrolled in U.S.
higher education institutions, doubling from 547,867 in 2000–01. e rise in international student enrollment
numbers has been largely driven by students from upper-middle income countries. at enrollment has
increased vefold in the last 20 years—from just under 50,000 in 2000–01 to almost 250,000 in 2012–13
(Ruiz 2014). In the same 20-year period, international students as a percentage of total U.S. student enrollment
has grown steadily, rising from 3.6 percent in 2000–01 to 5.5 percent in 2018–19. e U.S. remains the leading
destination for international students, who continue to rank its higher education system as the best in the world
(IDP Education 2019). e presence of international students on college and university campuses has connected
people, empowered individuals, brought together diverse cultural groups, and built diplomatic bridges between
the U.S. and other nations (Nye 2003).
It is no secret, however, that year-to-year international student enrollment growth began to stagnate in 2014–15,
and enrollment has been on a slow decline since 2016–17—a decline that would be even more dramatic if it
were not for growth in the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which surged 400 percent from 2008 to
2016, boosted by the 2012 STEM OPT extension (Ruiz and Budiman 2018). OPT accounted for just over 10
percent of total international student enrollment in 2012–13, and now accounts for over 25 percent (IIE 2020).
Recent enrollment declines have been attributed to U.S. higher education being viewed as increasingly less
aordable, less safe, and less welcoming, with more onerous visa requirements (IDP Education 2019).
Surveys reect ever-deepening anxiety among higher education leaders about the future of international
education and exchange in the U.S. International students account for four in 10 applicants to business schools
and over one-half of doctorates in computer science and economics, yet enrollments in these programs have
been at or on a steady decline in the past few years. English-language enrollment grew eight-fold from less than
20,000 students in 2000–01 to a peak of over 160,000 in 2014–15, but has since fallen 44 percent (IIE 2020).
International educators are asking, “Is the United States as competitive as it once was in attracting international
students?”
en the COVID-19 pandemic roiled U.S. higher education, and leaders scrambled to respond to temporary
exemptions for nonimmigrant students taking online classes (Castiello-Gutiérrez and Li 2020). Anxious
parents Skyped with international students as the U.S. led the world in the number of COVID-19 cases and
deaths (Rauhala 2020). A survey by the Institute of International Education (IIE) found that the total number
of international students studying at U.S. universities dropped by 16 percent in fall 2020 (IIE 2020), raising
existential questions about the extent to which the pandemic—and the uncertainty and uneven policy response
in the U.S.—would be a watershed for internationalization. Some leaders predict that the U.S. faces a minimum
30 percent decline in international enrollment, as surveys indicated that about one in two rst-year international
students intend to defer or delay the start of their academic program (QS 2020).
- 3 -
RESEARCH AND RESOURCES
POLICY RATIONALE AND CALL TO ACTION
Reacting to the dramatic43 percent(IIE 2020) decline in new international
student enrollment, ACE President Ted Mitchell and other U.S. higher education
leaders made an ardent call for President-elect Biden and the new Congress to
“move quickly” to preserve the “critical role international students play in creating
campus environments that facilitate global learning forallstudents—domestic and
internationalalike” and the United States’ status as the “destination of choice for
the world’s most talented international scholars and students” (ACE 2020).
e American Council on Education’s (ACE) 2012 Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses report
augured the precarious and unsustainable nature of international student enrollment on U.S. campuses. It
warned that “optimism about the progress of internationalization is not always grounded in reality” (ACE 2012,
23). e data showed “gains in some areas [of internationalization], but stagnation or even declines in others,
and that progress varies widely by institutional sector” (ACE 2012, 1). Top-line international enrollment trends
have tended to mask the underlying weakness in meaningful cultural and curricular change on U.S. campuses.
Indeed, ve years later, the 2017 Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses report noted that “recruiting
international students” ranked as a top priority for campus internationalization, second only to “increasing
study abroad for U.S. students.” Other aspects of internationalization, such as internationalizing the curric-
ulum and co-curriculum—practices that can produce deep intercultural learning for a far greater number of
students—“take a back seat to student mobility in terms of stated priorities for internationalization” (Helms and
Brajkovic 2017). Additionally, the data indicate that “the level of support international students receive once
they arrive on campus, while trending upward, remains a concern.”
To frame an agenda for international student inclusion and success, we must rst acknowledge that, too often,
there has been a gap between rhetoric and reality in the international student experience (Glass, Gómez, and
Urzúa 2014). e pervasive consumer-in-market approach to international student recruitment has treated
“internationalization as a marketing and revenue-generating strategy, limited internationalization of the curricu-
lum, and [created] gaps between internationalization policy and the experience of international students” (Guo
and Guo 2017, 851; cf. Deschamps and Lee 2015). International student success is not a return to the good
old days of the pre-2016–17 era. U.S. higher education institutions need a dierent kind of conversation about
international student success—a conversation that “opens up a space in which we can admit to ourselves and
each other that the problems we face are enormous, and in which we can ask earnestly how we got here” and
consider fundamentally new approaches to international student inclusion and success (Stein 2019, 12).
ACE welcomes and encourages this conversation because it believes the same trends heightening risks in the
near term also generate opportunities to produce better outcomes for international students in the long term.
Further, the conversation will benet all students, faculty, and sta by engendering global mindsets as well as
more equitable, inclusive campus communities. While the angst over international student enrollment declines
is understandable, there is an opportunity in this moment to deepen our resolve and recommit to core values
of comprehensive internationalization in the years to come. As Helms (2020, para. 7) argued, the COVID-19
global pandemic, “ironically enough, illustrates exactly why we need . . . students who understand global
phenomena, can see xenophobic and culture-bound reactions for what they are, and are prepared to work with
colleagues around the world to address global crises.”
- 4 -
e good news is that we know more now than ever before about international students: research on interna-
tional students has experienced unprecedented growth over the last 20 years. e number of journal articles
about international students has increased from roughly 25 per year in 2000 to over 350 per year today (Jing
et al. 2020). While research on traditional topics such as “acculturative stress, psychological adjustment, social
belonging, depression, and anxiety” remains common (Brunsting, Zachry, and Takeuchi 2018), there have also
been marked eorts in the eld to amplify students’ voices (Page and Chadboun 2019), develop anti-decit
perspectives on international students (Heng 2018), and spotlight new generations of middle-class and rst-
generation international students (Gesing and Glass 2018).
is is the time for a new compact for international students among U.S. higher education institutions,
organizations, and policymakers. e compact should focus on all three phases of the international student
lifecycle—before (international students come to the institution), during (their study in the institution),
and after (their graduation from the institution)—for both undergraduate and graduate students. In this
monograph, we adopt a meta-analysis of hundreds of research studies on international students. We propose a
vision for student success; outline a model for inclusion and equity; and emphasize a more sustainable, human-
centered approach to outcomes for students, institutions, and society. It begins and ends with a commitment
to building lifelong relationships between students and institutions from the rst point of contact to their
postgraduate careers.
is monograph is organized rst by articulating the critical tenets of a new compact for U.S. higher education
focused on international students. A vision for student, institution, and societal outcomes follows. To achieve
our vision and enact the new compact, the last two sections focus on the essential elements of inclusion and success
and then a launch plan for universities to embark on a lifelong relationship with international students that
spans their entire academic lifecycle with the institution. roughout the monograph, colored boxes highlight
perspectives from practice in the eld, insights from research and other resources, and critical questions to ignite
our thinking. e following model illustrates the foundation, vision, framework, and launch plan for lifelong
relationship building and international student inclusion and success.
- 5 -
FIGURE 1: ACE MODEL FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENT INCLUSION AND SUCCESS
FOUNDATION
Tenets of the
Compact
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
,
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
e
t
a
l
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
F
R
A
M
E
W
O
R
K
E
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
I
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
u
c
c
e
s
s
L
A
U
N
C
H
E
m
b
a
r
k
i
n
g
o
n
a
L
i
f
e
l
o
n
g
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
Sustainability • Responsiveness • Networked • Humanism • Equity
Catalyze scientific collaboration • Promote cultural diplomacy •
Enhance alumni networks • Foster liberal learning • Advance economic development
Interconnected networks • Sense of belonging • Engaged learning •
Life and career pathways
Enrollment planning • Student decision factors • Finding fit
The Foundation:
Tenets of a New
Compact
- 7 -
The Foundation: Tenets of
a New Compact
ACE denes comprehensive internationalization as “a strategic, coordinated framework that integrates policies,
programs, initiatives, and individuals to make colleges and universities more globally oriented and internation-
ally connected” (ACE 2021, para. 1). e model “recognizes that all constituents at a college or university—
students, faculty, and sta—are learners and central to the institution’s equitable, intercultural transformation”
(ACE 2021, para. 1). Comprehensive internationalization emphasizes the need for a collaborative, integrated
ethos across six target areas to foster international student success.
FIGURE 2: ACE MODEL FOR COMPREHENSIVE INTERNATIONALIZATION
Leadership & Structure
Mobility
Institutional
Commitment &
Policy
Faculty &
Staff Support
Curriculum &
Co-curriculum
C
O
M
P
R
E
H
E
N
S
I
V
E
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
Teaching
Research
Service
Partnerships
ACE Model for Comprehensive Internationalization
D
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
,
E
Q
U
I
T
Y
&
I
N
C
L
U
S
I
O
N
D
A
T
A
-
I
N
F
O
R
M
E
D
D
E
C
I
S
I
O
N
-
M
A
K
I
N
G
A
G
I
L
I
T
Y
&
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
- 8 -
e ACE Model recognizes that mobility is just one of six interconnected components of comprehensive
internationalization. e compact for international student inclusion and success is grounded by the same
holistic philosophy. It focuses on all phases of the international student lifecycle: before (prior to arriving at the
institution), during (studying at the institution), and after (following graduation from the institution). is
section outlines the compact’s critical tenets that underlie all phases of the international student lifecycle, includ-
ing eorts to reimagine international student mobility in a way that is more sustainable, culturally responsive,
networked, human-centered, and equity-minded.
Sustainability
A model for international student success must be sustainable in protecting the planet and addressing global
challenges.
Protect the planet and relationships
e United Nations denes sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present with-
out compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (Blessinger, Sengupta, and Makhanya
2018, para. 1). Sustainable development serves as a contrast to views of limitless growth conceived narrowly in
terms of short-term nancial benets. Like all elements of our new compact for inclusion and success, it directs
focus toward building lifelong relationships with international students, not short-term nancial gain. Further,
it recognizes that the exponential growth of physical cross-border mobility easily ignores the planet’s biophysical
limits (Shields 2019).
Address global challenges
Going forward, extreme weather, sea-level rise, public health crises, water shortages, and food insecurity will
disrupt societies and impact student ows and living patterns. Networks like the Climate Action Network
for International Educators have formed organically due to educators’ growing interest in understanding the
connection between student mobility and global climate change and the role of higher education systems in
sustainable development. Sustainable approaches to international student success include full recognition of the
ecological impact of ever-increasing global travel on the environment and the responsibility of universities to
address those impacts, which are “substantial and are rising faster than overall global emissions” (Shields 2019,
594). A sustainability-focused approach recognizes that these shared challenges also produce opportunities and
the vital role of international education and exchange to address global challenges as a central part of university
agendas (IAU 2014; Wright 2009). It recognizes that the benets of student mobility extend beyond the
boundaries of our campuses (Bhandari 2013) and the need to consider how “internationalization is not a goal
in itself, it is also not just for ourselves: its right of existence is dependent on its ability and willingness to serve
society outside the walls of higher education” (Brandenburg et al. 2020, para. 30).
- 9 -
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES (IAU) AIMING
HIGHER
The International Association of Universities (IAU) has assembled a set of
Aiming Higher case examples produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC) exploring how universities are contributing to sustainable development,
internationalization, and innovation. The series of video stories spans ve
continents and illustrates the fundamental values of higher education and the role
of universities in addressing global challenges. Click here to view the videos.
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
INTERNATIONALISATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR SOCIETY
(IHES)
The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) commissioned a report,
Internationalisation in Higher Education for Society (IHES): Concept, Current
Research, and Examples of Good Practice, that includes approaches and case
examples of how Erasmus+ higher education partnerships are addressing global
challenges (Brandenburg et al. 2020). The case examples emphasize the social
responsibility of universities toward local communities and international partners.
The report gives examples of refugee support projects, support for regional
economic development, and projects to enhance intercultural understanding. The
full report can be accessed here.
CRITICAL QUESTIONS
CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATORS
The Climate Action Network for International Educators asks international
educators to consider:
• How can faculty address sustainability through the curriculum and
co-curriculum?
• How can the internationalization of higher education more directly address
issues of economic inequity resulting from global climate change?
• What are the tensions and tradeoffs between global climate change and
international student and scholar mobility?
Learn more at https://www.can-ie.org.
- 10 -
Responsiveness
A model for international student inclusion and success must be culturally responsive, address discrimination
and racism, and acknowledge the impact of national politics and policy.
Center culture in the student experience
A culturally responsive approach is grounded in the belief that campus culture is dynamic and that it evolves
with the ever-changing composition of students and mutual adaptation of cultures (Glass, Glass, and Lynch
2016). is approach centers culture as an essential part of the student experience, viewing it as a permeating
feature of campus life for all students, not just one element of successful adaptation for international students.
It also requires full recognition of how our campuses fall short in creating inclusive environments. Nationalistic
rhetoric echoes in the academy, for example, when domestic students view international students in terms of
how “American” they are (Altbach and de Wit 2017; Perkins et al. 2020), or professors demand students only
speak English outside of class (Redden 2019).
Address discrimination and racism
A culturally responsive approach is needed for a more fundamental reason: we must recognize the discrimination
experienced by international students as not just a single act, but a feature of structures that imply Western
supremacy framed by noblesse oblige (Lee and Rice 2007; Lee 2015; Stein et al. 2016). Dramatic acts of discrim-
ination gain headlines (Redden 2012), but the most pervasive discrimination is more subtle and experienced
more widely when international students are excluded or avoided, ridiculed for their accents, ignored by profes-
sors or peers, rendered invisible, or viewed in terms of racial or cultural stereotypes (Houshmand, Spanierman,
and Tafarodi 2014; Loo 2019; Yeo et al. 2019).
Full recognition of neoracism experienced by international students means acknowledging the overwhelming
evidence that students from the Middle East/North Africa, Southern Asia, and Eastern/Southeastern Asia
are treated dierently and face constraints not experienced by their European counterparts, and that this has
implications for their overall well-being and academic success (Glass, Gómez, and Urzúa 2014). Furthermore,
U.S. higher education institutions must reect on whether eorts to help international students “adapt” and
“adjust” actually reinforce the need for international students to “adopt” U.S.-centric approaches to thinking,
relating, and interacting to be successful in the U.S. classroom (Zhao, Kuh, and Carini 2005).
- 11 -
Acknowledge the impact of national politics and
policy
At the European-hosted Reinventing Higher Education 2020 Conference, presidents from 32 leading institu-
tions around the world signed a joint statement on international academic mobility. Published by IE University,
the statement reads:
Although the impact of political and international agendas on higher educa-
tion institutions has been constant throughout time, in recent years, the sector
has witnessed increasing tension around mobility resulting from increasing
populism, nationalist tendencies, and strong public anti-immigration dis-
courses.
For example, the diculty of U.S. visa processes and tracking via the Student and Exchange Visitor Program
(SEVIS) by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while a practical issue that makes it more challenging
to enroll in U.S. institutions (IDP Education 2019), also contributes to a growing unease for many international
students, and a feeling that they are viewed as a “security threat” (Forbes-Mewett 2018, 2020). Further, right-
wing populist attitudes in the U.S., as well as the U.S. government’s moves to limit legal immigration, have led
to international students feeling they are viewed as a “jobs threat” to the economic security of the U.S. Hence,
many international students experience a contradiction as both “‘desired’ because of their internationalism and
fee contributions, and as ‘unwanted’ because of the politics of migration control” (King and Raghuram 2013,
127, cf. Lomer 2018). In order for international student inclusion and success to be fully realized, these injus-
tices must be acknowledged explicitly and addressed by the higher education community.
Networked
A model for international student inclusion and success must recognize the increasing role of networks in
migration. A networked approach focuses on mobilizing new technologies, providing portable credentials, and
preparing students for the future of work. Traditional models of adaptation and adjustment were developed
before widespread Internet access, social media, and other technologies that have blurred the distinction of
home and abroad for new generations of international students. Traditionally, migration has been framed as a
binary choice for international students to stay in the U.S. or return home, but in reality, international students’
postgraduate plans reect various conceptualizations of—and aspirations for—“home.” International students
might wish to migrate to the U.S., return to their ancestral homes, or live less geographically static, more cosmo-
politan lives (Wu and Wilkes 2017).
Networks aect the future of student mobility and the future in which international students will live and
work. e lives of internationally mobile students, “unfold through social networks, facilitating the forming and
reforming of connections people have with others, near and distant” (Urry 2012, 24). International students
anticipate staying “connected to the friends they make [on campus], who may be moving on at any time to
any place” (Bagnall 2015, 95). e resulting networks in which they participate impact their higher education
experience during their time studying abroad and the opportunities available to them after they earn their
degree. A network perspective is, therefore, essential to welcoming new international students to campus and
necessary for institutions to stay connected with their international alumni.
- 12 -
Mobilize new technologies
Higher education enrollment worldwide is projected to increase from 120 million students in 2015 to an
estimated 332 million by 2030, and international student enrollment is projected to increase from 2.3 million
students in 2015 to 6.9 million in 2030. e OCED denition of international students presents a view of
mobility where international students “crossed borders for the purpose of study” (OECD 2020). However, in a
networked world, international study does not always require physical cross-border mobility. e coronavirus
pandemic, the rise of “internationalization at a distance” (Mittelmeier et al. 2020), and evidence suggesting that
international students weigh culture and family on par with economic factors when deciding where to study
abroad (Kondakci, Bedenlier, and Zawacki-Richter 2018) mean U.S. higher education institutions will operate
in a multipolar world where international student engagement happens at multiple sites across the globe,
including branch campuses, microcampuses, or virtual environments.
While technology will cause disruptions to familiar approaches to education, it will also create new opportuni-
ties. A recent study found that 13 million students are enrolled in cross-border online programs—three times
the total number of globally mobile students (Choudaha and van Rest 2018). Digital-rst recruiting strategies
are becoming increasingly crucial to institution recruitment plans—especially those that involve networks of
education intermediaries brokering international student exchange via search platforms and nancial agree-
ments. Rather than viewing face-to-face and online delivery as competing approaches, colleges and universities
must employ a global delivery model that converges multiple instruction modalities and bundles microcreden-
tials into traditional degrees (Tsiligkiris 2020).
Provide portable credentials
Institutions increasingly recognize that meeting worldwide demand for higher education also involves portable
digital academic records, exible learning pathways (UNESCO 2019), and multiple instruction modalities
powered by digital technologies (e Economist Intelligence Unit 2020). In the future, traditional bachelor’s,
master’s, and doctoral degrees may exist among many other types of credentials that will be valued. New
technologies and credentials reect a fundamental shift in transnational education—from the traditional
cross-border, long-term degree-based migration to new forms of borderless telemigration.
Prepare students for the future of work
Trends in the workforce are reshaping the future, and the world that is emerging opens many new possibilities
but also presents many perils. Schwab (2016) describes how the future of work will shape education in the years
to come:
e acceleration of innovation and the velocity of disruption are hard to
comprehend or anticipate and . . . these drivers constitute a source of constant
surprise, even for the best connected and most well-informed.
Institutions must prepare domestic and international students for the types of jobs that are being created, as well
as provide the skills graduates need to move between jobs at multiple points in their lifetimes. Rapid changes
in industry are reshaping the future of work through automation and articial intelligence in what some call
“the fourth industrial revolution” (WEF 2018, 7). e future world of work and economic globalization brings
- 13 -
both opportunity and loss for those who belong in this new era of telemigration and those who are displaced
by it. According to e Future of Jobs Report 2018, “new technologies can drive business growth, job creation
and demand for specialist skills, but they can also displace entire roles when certain tasks become obsolete or
automated” (WEF 2018, 6). Factory and routine oce work accounted for almost 50 percent of all jobs in the
United States in 1980. In 2016, that proportion had shrunk to 15 percent. e fastest type of employment
growth is in so-called alternative work arrangements or the contingent workforce known as the gig economy.
e loss of these jobs has boomeranged into anti-immigrant sentiment in populist movements within the U.S.
and around the world. U.S. national security depends on immigration policy that makes the U.S. an attractive
destination for international students. It is estimated that by 2030, 75 percent of global STEM graduates will
graduate from universities in emerging hubs like Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, and South Africa, com-
pared with a mere 8 percent and 4 percent from U.S. and European universities, respectively (OECD 2015).
Current U.S. immigration policies leave far too many international students with no choice but to take their
innovation and creativity elsewhere (Wadhwa 2012). In a model of international student inclusion and success,
public policy advocacy by higher education organizations and university presidents has been and will continue
to be necessary to ensure that both the public and policymakers understand the value and contributions of
international students to our college campuses, local communities, and our nation.
Humanism
A model for international student inclusion and success must be human centered. A human-centered approach
honors multidimensional identities and experiences, and it articulates the multifaceted value and contributions
of international students. e four main rationales for internationalization have traditionally included academic,
political, economic, and sociocultural orientations (Altbach and Knight 2007). However, Streitwieser et al.
(2019) proposed adding a fth rationale: humanism, as a rising chorus of educators have called for more ethical
and equitable conceptions of higher education’s value beyond what can be a measured in a market (de Wit 2020;
Stein 2019) or as a strategy to exert soft power (Lee 2021).
Honor multidimensional identities and experiences
A human-centered approach recognizes the heterogeneity of international student experiences. Put simply: not
all international students are the same (Choudaha, Orosz, and Chang 2012). It is critical to avoid monolithic
views of a singular international student experience, or over-generalizations based on comparisons between
U.S. and international students, as if international students—or domestic students, for that matter—are one
homogenous group (Heng 2019). Equally problematic are decit views of international students, which tend to
emphasize struggles, hardships, challenges, and pressures that individual international students describe. Such
views fail to fully recognize the ways international students construct meaning from their experiences or how
systemic structures create these conditions in the rst place (Yao, George Mwangi, and Brown 2019).
e traditional denition of international students as individuals who choose to “cross borders for the purpose
of study” fails to capture that students maintain important roles in their families, as spouses, and as diaspora
community members (Teshome and Osei-Ko 2012). ey may be refugees, asylum-seekers, or undocumented
immigrants (Streitwieser et al. 2019). And their experience is marked by a “duality of ambition and anxiety”
as they “navigate the complications and confusions of their formative years” while bridging expectations of
- 14 -
multiple education systems and societies (Ma 2020, 229). Popular conceptions of international students as
globally mobile elites with reservoirs of academic, cultural, and social capital no longer hold. ese stereotypes
ignore well-documented variation in international students’ experiences shaped by demographic, socioeconomic,
sociocultural, and other characteristics.
Jones (2017) outlines a four-dimensional view of the international student experience that accounts for personal
(race/ethnicity, gender, and religion), familial (socioeconomic status, social class, kinship networks, and migra-
tion intentions), institutional (course of study, level of study, and compositional diversity of students at host
institution), and national dynamics (education systems, academic norms and practices, and language of instruc-
tion). International students draw on their diverse backgrounds in developing resilience within multicultural
learning environments (Khawaja, Moisuc, and Ramirez 2014). ese four dimensions are not challenges to be
overcome but capacities to be leveraged as international students pursue their personal and academic goals (Pan
2011).
Articulate multifaceted value and contributions
International education is part of a larger worldwide migration industry composed of a sprawling set of edu-
cational intermediaries (e.g., agents/brokers, typically from the private sector) and educational providers (e.g.,
public, private, and for-prot institutions). Consequently, the recruitment of international students has become
simultaneously “an industry, a source of revenue, and a means for enhanced reputation” (de Wit 2020, i). One
senior international ocer remarked, “ere is this recognition that international students are an important
component to our . . . I don’t want to say nancial survival . . . but in a way they are” (Deschamps and Lee
2015, 131). Public higher education institutions have recruited high-tuition-paying, out-of-state, and interna-
tional students to make up for shortfalls in state funding (Macrander 2017). International students have been
widely viewed as “cash cows” for institutions, “competitors” who may take well-paying jobs from qualied U.S.
students, and “charity” who benet from noblesse oblige of wealthy countries like the U.S. (Stein et al. 2016).
In advocating for international education and exchange, higher education leaders and policymakers cite
international students’ positive impact on the U.S. economy. ey bring over $40 billion to the U.S. economy
and support more than 450,000 jobs (NAFSA 2019). However, a sustainable model for international student
inclusion and success must recognize the need to move beyond narrow conceptions of international students
as consumers in a market whereby “value has become synonymous with economic return and institutional
accountability” (Tomlinson 2018, 711).
In the wake of COVID-19, it has become clear that public discussions about
international education recovery have positioned international students pre-
dominantly as customers of an export industry. Numerous headlines focusing
on lost revenues, shifts in market share and student recruitment diversication
have continued to expose how international students’ value is measured largely
in economic terms. e dominant discourse focusing on revenue losses facing
host universities appears to overshadow international students’ enormous
contributions and value to host countries’ universities, culture, and society
beyond nancial terms. (Tran 2020a, para. 2–3)
- 15 -
e dangers of unsustainable business models based on transactional relationships with international students
sparked Knight (2014) to portend that internationalization was at risk of “losing its way” from a process rooted
in the “values of cooperation, partnership, exchange, mutual benets, and capacity building to one that is
increasingly characterized by competition, commercialization, self-interest and status building” (76). A decade
ago, the International Association of Universities (2012) warned that a new set of values had crept into higher
education “characterized by competition for prestige, talent, and resources” where “commercial and other
interests sometimes overshadow higher education’s fundamental academic mission and values” (3). It is crucial to
recognize mutual benets—individually and collectively, market and non-market, short- and long-term, locally,
and globally—bringing to the forefront that international students are interested in more than employability
(Tran and Vu 2017, 572) and that the higher education community is interested in their holistic success, not
just the market value of their tuition and their impact on institutional proles.
Equity
A model for international student inclusion and success must be equity-minded. ACE (2020) noted that the
“urgent challenge shared worldwide” is to both increase “the total number of people with a college education”
and “make . . . sure marginalized and underserved populations can complete their education at an equitable
rate” (3). It is essential to recognize that the “mobility process is structured around multiple heterogeneities
rather than by a single one” and that “inequalities in opportunities and outcomes are intrinsically connected”
(Bilecen and Van Mol 2017, 1241). Equity-minded approaches recognize nancial barriers and elevate access-
focused institutions.
Recognize nancial barriers
e drivers of student mobility are changing (Gesing and Glass 2018; Hou and Du 2020). New generations of
middle-class students are more likely to be practical and employment-focused “bargain hunters” (Fischer 2020)
who carefully weigh the aordability of higher education and trade-os between regional, culturally proximate
options and more traditional destinations like the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia,
France, Russia, Germany, and Spain (Kondakci, Bedenlier, and Zawacki-Richter 2018).
An equity-minded approach to student success starts with the recognition that international student mobility
is not an unmitigated good. It can also reproduce social (dis)advantage, and “rewards associated with formal
education are unevenly distributed across space, as well as being dierentiated by social class” (Waters 2012,
123). Such an approach recognizes how the cash cow nancial model makes U.S. higher education simply
unaordable, and that the “lower availability of funding opportunities from universities and governments, as
well as tighter immigration and visa policies for nding work opportunities, is making it harder to recover the
cost of education” (Choudaha 2020, iii).
- 16 -
Elevate access-focused institutions
Equity-mindedness also recognizes the importance of community colleges and public regional universities
in providing access to international students (Viggiano et al. 2018). It is more likely that new generations of
budget-conscious, job-focused international students will consider regional public universities and community
colleges, rather than just the small subset of institutions that have accounted for over 70 percent of international
student enrollment growth (Fischer 2020).
In addition to cost considerations, the diversity in missions and student populations served by U.S. colleges and
universities means there are opportunities for international students with a wide range of academic preparation.
While reputation and perceived institutional quality remain major drivers for international students’ overall
decision-making, Choudaha, Orosz, and Chang (2012) found that these issues are less of a consideration for
students with relatively lower levels of academic preparedness compared with their peers. A smaller-scale study
conducted at two institutions that are not highly ranked or particularly academically selective found that “ease of
the admission and acceptance process” was a key decision factor for enrolled international students (Tan 2015,
8). With this evidence in mind, ensuring international student inclusion and success requires higher education
to elevate the options and opportunities made available through access-focused community colleges and public
regional universities.
CRITICAL QUESTIONS
EQUITY-MINDEDNESS
Stein (2019) poses three questions for anti-oppressive internationalization for
global solidarity:
• How can we recruit and retain more nationally, economically, and racially
diverse students and faculty?
• How can we address inequity across all areas of the institution (e.g.,
admissions, curriculum)?
• How can we ensure that other ways of being are not simply included in the
institution, but also valued, centered, and rewarded? (11)
A Vision: Student,
Institution, and
Societal Outcomes
- 18 -
A Vision: Student,
Institution, and Societal
Outcomes
is new compact focuses on the international student lifecycle, including what happens to students after they
graduate. Student inclusion and success begins with a vision for institutions inviting international students to
participate in opportunities that align with and are relevant to their future goals and aspirations. Each institu-
tion’s denition of international student success will be dierent—grounded in its unique history, mission, and
culture. Institutions do not need a monolithic vision for all international students, but a multifaceted framework
that allows for various outcomes—outcomes as diverse as the international students who attend and graduate
from U.S. institutions.
Student success means many things and is often viewed narrowly as completing a formal degree program.
Choudaha (2011) argues the need to move from a focus on inputs—increasing the number of students—to
outcomes—ensuring student success in line with institutional mission:
By only focusing on input metrics like recruitment goals rather than student
success, institutions run the risk of damaging their reputation and competitive
positioning. Institutions cannot take the academic and career success of their
international students for granted. (para. 18)
is section outlines a vision for student, institution, and societal outcomes. Student success is often framed as
a “what” question: what outcomes do we want to see? But a vision for international student success starts with
a “why” question: why does our institution need international students? (Sierra 2020). If the answer to why is
driven by revenue, then the focus will be on customer satisfaction. However, if the set of commitments outlined
in the last section—sustainability, responsiveness, networked, humanism, and equity—drives the answer as to
why, then the focus will be on inclusion and success.
International student success requires both vision and commitment. Vision is important because it focuses on a
possible reality not yet realized. It recognizes and elevates the gap between what is envisioned and the current
reality. Commitment is the dedication essential to making that vision a reality. A commitment to inclusion and
success begins and ends with a focus on building lifelong relationships between students and institutions from
the rst point of contact to their postgraduate careers. It synergizes the strategies for recruitment, the resources
institutions invest in encouraging international students’ active participation in campus life, and the approaches
used to build lifelong relationships with international alumni.
We believe higher education institutions can meet this moment with a more expansive vision for why they
want to invest in international student inclusion and success. To capture a more holistic vision, we outline a
multi-faceted framework of inclusion and success that includes the benets of international education for both
- 19 -
individuals and communities, a vision that consists of both market and non-market outcomes, and one that
focuses on short- and long-term benets. A lifecycle approach recognizes the need to continuously redirect
focus from counting inputs (increasing the number of international students) to equitable outcomes (creating
multiple pathways for international student success). A vision for international student success encompasses
bringing these outcomes to scale through scientic collaboration, cultural diplomacy, alumni engagement,
liberal learning, and economic development.
Catalyze scientic collaboration
International student success furthers scientic collaboration. is occurs when international students stay in
the U.S. to work in research labs with OPT or H1-B visas, return abroad and continue to partner with their
graduate adviser doing research, return to their home country to develop its national scientic capacity, or seek
a more advanced degree in a eld that advances scientic knowledge on global challenges like those outlined
in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Science and engineering elds accounted for nearly
half (46 percent) of the bachelor’s degrees earned by international students, the majority of master’s degrees (56
percent in 2017, up from 46 percent in 2012), and the majority of doctoral degrees (50 percent+) in engineer-
ing, computer science, economics, mathematics, and statistics (National Science Foundation 2020).
A recent study showed that “over the past ve years, U.S. research article publications would have declined
without co-authorship with China, whereas China’s publication rate would have risen without the USA” (Lee
and Haupt 2020, 57). And, as mentioned earlier, it is estimated that by 2030, 75 percent of global STEM
graduates will graduate from universities in Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, and South Africa (OECD
2015). As research spending grows in other countries, domestic and international graduates are likely to
encounter cross-cultural research collaborations in their future work. e presence of international students
on U.S. campuses creates multicultural communities in which both international and domestic students can
work together on scientic research, therein developing intercultural skills for work in scientic elds after they
graduate.
As our world collaborates across borders on urgent problems such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change,
food insecurity, and human rights, scientic collaboration is a global public good (Marginson 2018). Catalyzing
scientic collaboration and centering internationally mobile students as part of that eort needs to be an
intentional, thoughtful strategy at institutions and across U.S. higher education.
Promote cultural diplomacy
Institutions do not merely build relationships with individual international students; they build relationships
with those individuals’ families, cultures, and countries that create new community-to-community connec-
tions. International educational exchanges are a form of person-to-person diplomacy that leads to long-term
relationships. In the post-World War II era, higher education internationalization has been integral to cultural
diplomacy as the U.S. Department of State invested in programs to enhance U.S. soft power and its status with
strategic partners worldwide.
- 20 -
As an extension of that phenomenon, many international students feel a sense of social responsibility to
represent their homeland in the U.S. and, if they feel welcomed and integrated into the U.S., they may feel a
responsibility to contribute to the local community (Tran and Vu 2017). On a local level, international students
on U.S. campuses bring money to the local economy that creates incentives to open new restaurants, businesses,
and community organizations that serve students and diversify the cultural activities and opportunities acces-
sible to local citizens. Promoting cultural diplomacy is not only within the purview of U.S. institutions, but it
is also an opportunity to contribute to both international student inclusivity and success and the cultural and
economic prosperity of the local community.
Enhance alumni networks
Many international students engage with uniquely American traditions that include college and university
sports, mascots, and merchandise (gear) that show pride and membership in the university community long
after graduation. is engagement builds a deep sense of commitment to graduate alma maters and can shape
lives and careers beyond students’ time at the institution (Glass and Gesing 2018). Alumni development is
widely viewed for its value in word-of-mouth recruitment through brand ambassadors, career networking and
professional development, and, to a growing extent, fundraising.
Large-scale surveys of international postgraduates indicate that only one in three international students have
alumni career support; only one in three have access to some type of alumni association in their home country;
and only 36 percent would recommend their university to future students (Dillon 2019). Most institutions
do not track international alumni after graduation and permanently lose contact with international graduates.
Alumni development does not need to be viewed solely in terms of how international students give back to
institutions through recruitment and fundraising, but should be enhanced as a global network that can provide
social support and connectivity to its members—including international graduates—over their lifetimes.
Foster liberal learning
Colleges and universities have a vital role in a democratic society as social institutions that promote the open
and free exchange of ideas (Murray 2018). Liberal education has the potential to develop habits of mind, engage
with diverse perspectives and ideas, and expand a person’s sense of freedom (Nussbaum 1997). Higher education
cultivates the values of critical self-examination and reasoned argument that protect society against charlatans
and despots. Deep and profound learning results from well-designed international and intercultural curricula
and programs that further engagement with otherness, promote cultural understanding, and ght radicalization
and xenophobia. International students—and all students—benet from the free exchange of ideas, engagement
with complex inquiry, and interaction with diverse perspectives.
In a global and contemporary context, liberal education is commonly viewed as a distinctly U.S. construct
(Nussbaum 1997). Requiring (especially undergraduate, but often graduate as well) students to engage with
disciplines outside their major is nearly ubiquitous across traditional two- and four-year institutions. is
contrasts with the more specialized, utilitarian curricula that are largely the norm outside the U.S. As such, the
- 21 -
U.S. is uniquely positioned to provide international students with opportunities to engage in at least multidisci-
plinary perspectives, and at best, interdisciplinary curricula that wrestle with real-world concerns that cannot be
addressed without critical perspective, interdisciplinary collaboration, and innovative thinking.
Advance economic development
Employment is often the highest priority consideration for international students, especially those from the
middle class who expect a good return on investment (Lu and Schulmann 2015). Multiple surveys illustrate
that international students rate employment and career opportunities as the number one reason they choose to
study abroad, followed by the opportunity to live in another country. Employment outcomes vary by course,
level of study, and an institution’s rank among prestige hierarchies (Van Mol, Caarls, and Souto-Otero 2020),
but four in ve international students do not have access to internships, less than half were satised with their
university’s career support, and two in three received no career guidance after graduation (Dillon 2019). A large-
scale analysis of employment outcomes of international alumni from ASEAN nations found that, on average,
students who had graduated from universities in Asia earned more ($2,865 per month) than their counterparts
who had studied in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K., the U.S., and Europe ($2,075 per month)
within three years of graduation (Dillon 2019).
Employment is intricately linked to health and well-being. It is not just nancially benecial to individuals;
employment benets the larger society through longer life expectancies and improvements in quality of life.
Popular rhetoric claims that international students take jobs from Americans, but there is overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. International students who remain in the U.S. do not harm Americans’ wages or job
opportunities (World Bank 2018).
A report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2020) indicated that two in three recipients of
H-1B visas work in technology and innovation. Major economic studies have found that for every highly skilled
foreign worker added to a city, three or four related jobs are created (Moretti 2010); immigrants have been
responsible for 30 percent of high-quality patents since 1976 with spillover eects to the rest of the economy
(Bernstein et al. 2018); and immigrants have accounted for one-third of U.S. aggregate productivity growth and
signicant wage gains for college-educated U.S. residents (Peri, Shih, and Sparber 2016).
Opposition to immigration is based on the simplistic idea that adding highly skilled workers to the economy
increases the labor supply and supersedes Americans’ employment opportunities. e opposite is true: college-
educated immigrants have a multiplier eect on the U.S. economy. ey create more job opportunities for
Americans and contribute to the growth of the U.S. economy, particularly in states facing a shortage of workers
due to population declines and an aging workforce. International STEM graduates foster entrepreneurship,
innovation, and economic growth in three major sectors: computer systems design, higher education, and
the medical professions (National Science Foundation 2020). International students create jobs because they
participate in the economy not just as workers, but also as consumers. Further, they sometimes launch business
ventures that stimulate international trade and investment. To truly embrace a new compact for international
student inclusion and success, U.S. higher education needs to take a leading role in reorienting the narrative—
and opportunity—for economic development and the positive role international students and alumni play in
the U.S.
- 22 -
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
THE ESSENTIAL ROLE OF H-1B VISA HOLDERS FOR HIGHER
EDUCATION AND BEYOND
On October 30, 2020, ACE and 23 other higher education associations led an
amicus brief supporting a pair of legal challenges to Trump administration rules
that would have restricted H-1B visas for highly skilled workers and drastically
increased the wage levels required for hiring H-1B employees. The proposed
Departments of Labor and Homeland Security rules were eventually struck down by
the U.S. District Court in California. In detail, the brief delineates the importance of
H-1B visa holders to U.S. higher education institutions and students, as well as the
economy and healthcare systems. It notes that the proposed rules would “inict
signicant harm, immediately,” and that harm would “be felt by faculty, researchers,
students, and healthcare patients, and it will hurt the critical work—and global
standing and reputation—of the country’s colleges and universities. It will affect
existing programs and research projects that can no longer be adequately staffed,
lead to limitations in or the discontinuance of certain courses of study, narrow the
pipeline for continued growth in high- and emerging-technology elds, and deter
foreign students from coming to study in the United States.”
1
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PERSONA DEVELOPMENT EXERCISE
Rather than crafting an abstract vision statement or drafting a list of success
metrics, we recommend using the ve outcomes envisioned in this new compact
to develop several student proles that capture authentic stories of what success
looks like for different international students who have taken a variety of desirable
postgraduate pathways. The proles might start as exemplar cases that can be
used to explore the gap between what makes these cases exceptional and the
commitment required to foster similar outcomes for all international students.
1 Brief of the American Council on Education and 23 Other Higher Education Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of the
Plainti’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. United States Department
of Homeland Security, Case No. 4:20-CV-7331, https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Amicus-brief-2-NDCa-H1B-visas.pdf.
A Framework:
Essential Elements
of Inclusion and
Success
- 24 -
A Framework: Essential
Elements of Inclusion and
Success
ACE developed a lifecycle model for international student inclusion and success based on lifelong relationships
between students and institutions from the rst point of contact to their postgraduate careers. For the lifecycle
period during which international students are on campus, colleges and universities are not merely sites where
students acquire knowledge; they are dynamic social environments teeming with possibilities and opportunities
for personal, interpersonal, and academic exploration.
is section outlines the essential elements of international student inclusion and success. We focus on these key
requirements with a robust base of empirical research. ese include interconnected networks (on and beyond
the campus), a sense of belonging, engaged learning, and life and career pathways.
Interconnected networks
Universities are “‘thickly’ networked institutions” (Marginson 2018, 20) where students encounter people
they might not otherwise meet—from peers in their courses from across the globe, to CEOs of Fortune 500
companies, to world-renowned professors. Colleges and universities are as much a physical place as they are a
nexus of overlapping relationships and interconnected networks (Tran and Soejatminah 2017). ey are rst
and foremost cultural institutions that have accumulated valuable social resources over an extended period of
time. International student success requires access to those social resources to ensure that engagement with U.S.
higher education is an inclusive, life-enriching opportunity (Arthur 2017).
Research about international students has emphasized the need for students to build social capital (Brunsting,
Zachry, and Takeuchi 2018; Glass and Gesing 2018; Jones 2017). Although the term “social capital” is widely
used, it is also widely misunderstood. Social capital is more than a “heartwarming network of social connec-
tions”; it is also the “cold reality of social inequality” (Gauntlett 2018, 128). It is a force that binds groups
together (inclusion) and creates boundaries (exclusion), which can reproduce social stratication for some and
facilitate social mobility for others (Naidoo 2004; Youkhana 2015).
Popular conceptions of international students as globally mobile elites with reservoirs of social capital no longer
hold. Such stereotypes ignore well-documented variation in international students’ experiences shaped by
demographic, socioeconomic, sociocultural, and other characteristics (Bilecen and Van Mol 2017). International
students acquire social capital through full participation in university life. Full participation and inclusion allow
- 25 -
them to develop long-lasting knowledge, skills, and relationships aligned with the social status they hope to
achieve. e more high-quality connections international students have, the easier it is for them to broaden their
network and ultimately improve their social position after graduation (Pham, Tomlinson, and ompson 2019).
Interconnected networks on campus
A new compact requires that international students have access to interconnected networks on campus. e
need to be immersed in vibrant on-campus networks is not unique to international students; indeed, developing
a constellation of relationships is important for all students. Domestic students, however, typically arrive on
campus with a greater number of existing ties and more of an inherent, culturally based understanding of how
to go about building relationships in the U.S. context. International students, however, arrive in a host country
without access to many of the relationships and social networks that may have contributed to the academic
success they experienced in their home country.
International students may also need a dierent conguration of network members, serving dierent purposes
than their domestic counterparts. ey adjust not only to the institution and college life, but to an entirely new
country, culture, and infrastructure. Network members—many of whom also are included in domestic students’
networks—need to be aware of international students’ particular needs and be well-equipped to fulll their role.
e development of social support networks needs to begin early—during the recruiting stage when prospective
international students meet with sta, current students, alumni, or other ambassadors of the institution.
Early connections form the rst strands in students’ networks and serve as a gateway to more connections and
relationships. Our model focuses on three key relationships on campus that are important throughout the entire
international student lifecycle: administrative support sta, faculty and academic administrators, and peers.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT STAFF
e international student and scholar services (ISSS) oce has always been the rst and most trusted point of
contact for international students. ISSS professionals provide critical advice about immigration compliance and
are usually equipped with cultural competencies for working with students of dierent nationalities. e ISSS
oce is typically international students’ rst stop and is charged with ensuring students’ safe arrival and initial
support.
roughout the student lifecycle, ISSS sta continue to play a critical role, particularly in ensuring that students
remain in compliance with visa regulations and procedures, are up to date on nancial aid paperwork, and
complete other enrollment administrative tasks. As the go-to contact for international students, and often the
network members with the most holistic view of their experiences, international oce sta also may be best
positioned to recognize imbalances between available support and challenges that students face. is might
include, for example, identifying when a student is struggling and needs more direction and resources, or when
she or he is too dependent on others’ assistance and needs encouragement to develop additional skills and
independence.
A robust support network, however, extends far beyond the programs and services of any single oce. As
students settle in, connections to other resources—including student aairs, residence life, the registrar, and the
health center, among others—are needed to help students manage housing issues and other day-to-day logistical
concerns as well as to ne-tune and adapt their routines to t their individual needs and preferences. Career
- 26 -
services sta are also important network members who provide information about career options; facilitate
connections with alumni and other contacts; and host networking events, mock interviews, and other opportu-
nities.
RESEARCH AND RESOURCES
PERCENTAGE OF U.S. INSTITUTIONS OFFERING CO-CURRICULAR
PROGRAMS AND OPPORTUNITIES (2017)
ACE’s Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses study (Helms and Brajkovic
2017) found that a number of activities designed specically to facilitate
international and domestic student interaction—such as buddy programs and
language partner programs—had notably increased across U.S. campuses over
the preceding ve years. Furthermore, the study found that a considerable number
of institutions offer meeting places for students interested in international topics,
as well as residence hall programs that facilitate the integration of U.S. and
international students. These offerings designed to facilitate leisure-time student
interactions can provide opportunities for more relaxed and informal interactions
between international and domestic students, leading to increased social
connectedness and successful campus integration.
FACULTY AND ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS
More than any other constituent, research points to the critical role faculty play in international student
inclusion and success, both as individual course instructors and as academic advisers and mentors. International
students who participate in classroom dialogue, multicultural coursework, leadership programs, and discussions
of current events are more likely to report more frequent interactions with faculty members (Glass, Buus, and
Braskamp 2013). And because faculty are in contact with students on a weekly or daily basis, they are well-
positioned to see when students are struggling (academically, personally, or otherwise) and connect them with
appropriate resources and support on campus.
As they support international students navigating their coursework and academic challenges, faculty are also
vital in establishing network connections. ey facilitate peer networking, for example, through classroom
collaborative exercises. As faculty build relationships with international students, they can introduce them to
academic and industry colleagues who may be able to provide career advice and perspective in the student’s eld
of interest. As members of the nearby community, faculty who are either from or have knowledge of similar
geographic and cultural backgrounds can connect international students to resources in the local community,
such as grocery stores, places of worship, and cultural events that might enrich and support an international
students’ daily living and sense of belonging.
Closely related to faculty, academic administrators also play an important role—indirectly and directly—in
international student inclusion and success. Faculty ecacy working with international students is often depen-
dent on their own intercultural and pedagogical skills. Indirectly, academic administrators often lead faculty
development programs and are responsible for policies that reward and require faculty to prioritize their connec-
- 27 -
tions with international students. Directly, academic administrators are key network members for international
students through their roles in writing centers, English language programs, and tutoring services. ey assist
international students as they acquire academic skills and learn to navigate U.S.-specic academic expectations,
including academic integrity policies and conventions.
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
THE WORLD STUDIES HERE
The University of Cincinnati International Services has recently launched a
comprehensive professional development program for staff and faculty who
work with international students called The World Studies Here. Faculty, advisers,
and staff of other student services ofces connect with international students
throughout the year. Making sure that those professionals have opportunities to
gain a comfortable level of intercultural competence and have access to up-to-date
information is vital for international student success.
This program offers two workshop tracks: one for faculty and educators and
a second for academic advisers and other staff who work with international
students. The training covers topics like immigration basics, building cross-cultural
understanding and skills, classroom strategies, and best advising practices. This
program is a way for staff and faculty to develop a global perspective, to gain
experience and comfort in assisting international students, and to be aware of the
network of support they have in their work.
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
RUTGERS ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM
The Rutgers Academic Support program focuses primarily on rst-year
international students based on the belief that it provides the foundation of future
academic success. The program has two phases. The rst phase is a pre-arrival
orientation, where university representatives travel to students’ home countries to
meet with incoming international students and their parents. Families learn about
Rutgers’ different schools, the concept of major and minors, campus facilities, and
academic integrity. In the second phase, when students arrive on campus, they
receive academic coaching from peer mentors. They learn how to use Blackboard,
understand syllabi, develop study skills, and plan for assignments and exams. They
learn about university services and facilities and meet staff from front ofces to
assist with their transition.
- 28 -
PEERS
When it comes to social connectedness and identication with an institutional community, fellow students are
front and center in terms of their impact on international students. No one has more credibility with students
than their peers. Peers are a fundamental source of information about campus life as well as support and
encouragement throughout the student lifecycle. Connection with both host country counterparts and fellow
international students—from their own country and others—is essential to international students’ success.
Research underscores the relationship between a sense of belonging and international and domestic student
cross-cultural interaction. Shu et al. (2020, 136) found that the presence of U.S. peers in an international stu-
dent’s socio-emotional support network was a signicant predictor of cross-cultural adjustment. A strong U.S.
peer network can be particularly useful in helping international students navigate the nuances of institutional
policies, identify resources and support structures beyond the formal channels provided by administrators, and
gain uency in U.S. academic culture.
e formation of friendships with other international students has a paradoxical eect—deepening students’
ethnic and national identity while simultaneously opening them to a global identity that is not exclusively
connected to a specic nation-state. International students from all countries provide insights and advice on
the international student experience overall, and peers from the same country are well positioned to assist with
culture-specic issues that arise.
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
SUPPORTING NETWORK-BUILDING
When students leave home to study abroad, they leave behind family and social
networks that offer personal, emotional, and academic support. While students
may stay connected to their previous networks through electronic communication,
they need different or expanded networks to support them through their higher
education studies and career planning.
Developing a new network is a daunting task for students living in a foreign
environment. Nevertheless, they should be empowered to create an individual
network—built on personal interests, needs, and relationships—and exercise their
choices. The role of campus leadership can be to create a structure in which
international students have exposure to potential network members, and to provide
opportunities for developing networking skills that will serve students throughout
their academic and professional lives. Rather than singling out international
students or any group, networking programs should facilitate interaction between
international and domestic students and potential network members.
Providing clear and consistent information about networking opportunities
organized by the institution or community can help students put their networking
skills to use. Institutions can also introduce students to faculty, alumni, board
members, parents, community leaders, and other potential network members.
- 29 -
Students can connect with members of their campus networks through brown bag
lunches, receptions, and other dedicated venues or social activities throughout the
academic year. This allows students to draw in new network members from time to
time and as new issues and support needs arise.
Alumni relations ofces typically organize frequent networking events, both on
campus and in other locations in the United States and abroad, and should be
attuned to the need to include international students. Alumni can be a valuable
resource at each step in developing and expanding international student support
networks. They can inform decisions about academic programs and alignment
with career goals and personal and nancial planning throughout their long-term
engagement with the institution and life experiences.
Interconnected networks beyond the campus
A new compact also requires international students’ access to interconnected networks beyond the campus.
Colleges and universities are communities that have built a reputation with other communities—local, national,
and global. Each university is unique in this regard, and no two universities have the same histories or sets of
external relationships. To ensure inclusion and success, our model focuses on ve key relationships to which
international students need access: city and community networks, academic and research networks, kinship and
diasporic networks, alumni networks, and employer networks.
CITY AND COMMUNITY NETWORKS
International students have relationships not just with their institutions, but with the local communities that
surround their campuses. A student’s decision to study in the U.S. is often inuenced by their image of the
cultural opportunities available in an institution’s city or region—its beauty, its scenery, and its diversity; the
people they expect to meet; and the experiences they hope to have while abroad (Cubillo, Sánchez, and Cervio
2006). A college or university’s location is a practical consideration as it denes the cost of living, the availability
of familiar linguistic and ethnic communities, and personal safety and security (Forbes-Mewett 2018).
Universities, too, have relationships with cities around the world where they have alumni, recruit at local high
schools, send students to study abroad, or have branch or microcampuses. e signicant points of exchange for
the global economy are not necessarily countries but cosmopolitan cities that make up a vast network of eco-
nomic, social, and cultural reciprocity (Trujillo and Parilla 2016). Many universities are situated at the heart of
these cities, fostering innovation that contributes to economic and cultural vitality (Marginson 2018). Because
cities are often hubs of global economic activity that foster a highly skilled workforce, cultural diversity and
tolerance, and employers oering in-demand jobs in science and technology (Hales et al. 2019), they are crucial
resources for institutions to not only attract international students, but also to nurture their success.
- 30 -
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
ONE TO WORLD IN NEW YORK CITY
One to World is a nonprot membership organization in New York City dedicated
to intercultural understanding by creating face-to-face experiences among local
communities, international students, and Fulbright scholars. More than 100,000
international students and scholars come to study at New York-area institutions
from more than 180 countries each year. One to World members are educational
institutions in the New York area and individuals interested in taking part in cultural
exchange.
One to World organizes various opportunities for New York-area residents and
international students and scholars to come together to share a Thanksgiving
meal, take a walk in Central Park, or attend a cultural event. The Global Classrooms
program brings international students and scholars into New York City public
schools to discuss their home countries and cultures. One to World also provides
career counseling to international students and assists with internships and job
placement.
When the organization was founded in 1977 by a group of international student
services professionals at several New York-area universities, the original idea was
to create a bridge between their isolated campuses and the broader community—in
other words, to help international students expand their academic, cultural, and
professional networks.
ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH NETWORKS
International students have relationships not just with universities, but the academic elds in which they choose
to engage—another important consideration when selecting a study destination. Prospective students compare
programs between institutions to nd the best t. ey consider program quality, international recognition,
nancial support, and entry requirements (Cubillo, Sánchez, and Cervio 2006). e reputation of university
faculty has a signicant inuence on international students’ future possibilities. Academic elds are a way for
international students to make global connections. Students consider whether faculty members are involved
in cross-border research collaborations or have colleagues at universities worldwide where they might pursue
further study through graduate programs or postdoctoral positions. In this way, faculty serve as connectors for
building international research networks, either in the U.S. or other countries after graduation.
Faculty-student interactions are one of the most important aspects of international students’ experience (Glass et
al. 2015), and the relationships among faculty within particular elds of study serve as catalysts and sources of
information about professional opportunities as well as valuable sources for graduate school and research center
recommendation letters as students build academic networks beyond the campus.
- 31 -
KINSHIP AND DIASPORIC NETWORKS
Family members have fundamental roles in international students’ lives before, during, and after their study
in the U.S. International students often make choices with obligations to families in mind. Friend and family
networks have a considerable inuence on a student’s decision to study abroad (Beech 2014, 2015). Extended
family networks—both local and virtual—oer practical and emotional support once students arrive on
campus. ey may be particularly inuential when it comes to students’ academic and career decision-making.
Family members provide connections and advice—and both material and moral support.
Many students may be the rst in their family to attend college, where higher education is undertaken to secure
social mobility for the whole family, not just the individual student. Middle-class parents and their extended
families often contribute many years of nancial investment—through private tutors, international school
primary or secondary education tuition, and test preparation services—to send their child abroad. For many
students, signicant sacrices have been made for them to study abroad to fulll a family dream (Brooks and
Waters 2015). Suárez-Orozco et al. (2011) emphasize the importance of kinship relations in the lives of interna-
tional students:
Below the surface, immigration’s enduring root is the family. Immigration
is an ethical act of, and for, the family. Immigration typically starts with the
family and family bonds sustain it. Immigration will profoundly change
families as well as the societies in which immigrants settle. (313)
In other words, it is essential to underscore that universities have a relationship, not only with international
students but also with international students’ families. Visa restrictions impact family members’ ability to visit
them in the U.S. and impede re-entry if they travel home. If the international student has a spouse residing
with them in the U.S., government policies also inuence their work status and ability to travel to/from their
home country. International students’ parents and families may be key inuencers in their decision-making
about where to attend college and obtain postgraduate opportunities. Further, families can be critical to network
international students with diaspora communities in their local community and connect them with jobs in their
home country after graduation.
ALUMNI NETWORKS
Colleges and universities have relationships with alumni scattered across the globe. ose relationships include
both international students who have returned home or to a third country, and U.S. students who have
relocated to other countries as part of their postgraduate careers, as well as increasing numbers of transnational
alumni who may live in one country but work remotely in another.
Most institutions recognize they need to do more when it comes to international alumni relations, and more
than half of institutions believe their approach is “not well-organized, well-resourced, well-planned, or consis-
tent” (Academic Assembly and International Education Advantage 2017, 5). It is essential to recognize that
international students’ U.S. peers will also be alumni one day, so the connections that international students
make while studying abroad may continue to be a postgraduation source of potential opportunities throughout
their careers.
- 32 -
It is important for institutions to incorporate international student alumni in the recruitment process. Alumni
can serve as ambassadors to connect with prospective international students and provide role models of what
graduates from the university do after graduation. ey also serve as critical gateways in university-to-work
transitions for international students (Popadiuk and Arthur 2014). As students graduate and transition to the
workforce, international alumni can be instrumental advisers on navigating visas and regulatory issues required
if they choose to stay in the U.S. International alumni peers may serve as local contacts for students returning to
their home countries.
Prospective students, seeking trusted information about potential universities, increasingly use websites that
aggregate alumni reviews and post data about alumni job placement rates (Gai, Xu, and Pelton 2016). ey use
measures such as Net Promoter Score that look at alumni loyalty based on organic word-of-mouth recommen-
dations to friends, family, and colleagues about their experience at the university (van Aart 2011). As former
students who have experienced all phases of the international student lifecycle, alumni can play an essential role
in providing in-depth information about the institution to prospective students.
EMPLOYER NETWORKS
Most colleges and universities have long-standing relationships with employers—locally, regionally, nationally,
and globally. ese relationships can serve as an important bridge between an international student’s university
education and future employment. ey can be leveraged to ensure that international students are directly
visible to potential employers through career fairs, civic engagement, internships, and online employment
platforms. Beyond businesses themselves, other organizations and members of the local community can be an
essential source of employment-related support and information. For example, a chamber of commerce can
provide connections to globally oriented local businesses looking to employ international students—as interns
or for the longer term.
It is in everyone’s interests to maintain and strengthen these relationships. Institutions build strong reputations
with employers by preparing students with the knowledge, mindset, skills, and social acumen necessary for suc-
cess. Students inherit the record of success (or dissatisfaction) established by their peers who came before them.
Ensuring that international students are well prepared for the work environment when they arrive will further
cement institution-employer relationships and create employment pathways for future graduates—domestic and
international alike.
Sense of belonging
As the total number of international migrants grew from 153 to 258 million people between 1990 and 2017,
the OECD’s Trends Shaping Education 2019 executive summary emphasized the need to belong as fundamental
to education in a networked society:
We seem to live in a more individualistic world, with a declining sense of
belonging to the traditional reference points of community, church, or
workplace. At the same time, the notion of a ‘network society’ suggests that
the sense of belonging is changing, not disappearing.
- 33 -
Belonging may be frequently discussed, but it is also frequently misunderstood. In our model, we emphasize
both the “soft” (relational) and “hard” (political) aspects of belonging, which together have a serious impact on
international student success and well-being.
Soft belonging
e soft aspects of belonging are relational and include feeling at home or feeling socially connected. Belonging,
in this sense, is often dened simply as “a sense of ease with oneself and one’s surroundings” (May 2011, 368).
At the heart of belonging is connectivity and the extent to which international students can establish ties—to a
variety of constituents, within and beyond the institution. ese ties provide an essential sense of community,
attachment, and aliation.
e soft aspects of belonging also include various forms of identity and experience that shape the international
student, including citizenship, nationhood, ethnicity, and gender (Moreno 2006), as well as the intersections
among these identities that shape how international students are perceived by U.S. peers, how they adjust to
campus life, and how they are treated by administrators within campus life (George Mwangi, Changamire, and
Mosselson 2019; Yao, George Mwangi, and Brown 2019). Belonging is intimately linked to a student’s evolving
identity and broad range of experiences. As a result, international students do not belong to one group, culture,
or place; they experience belonging across multiple contexts as they maintain social connections and negotiate
identities as they move from place to place. Institutions must be attuned to these multifaceted, intersectional
aspects of soft belonging. In doing so, they can elevate the wider community as a source of “social support from
family, local friends, and non-local friends” that would enhance the positive eects of integration and buer the
negative eects of marginalization experienced by many international students (Ng, Wang, and Chan 2017, 22).
Hard belonging
Belonging is more than just feeling socially connected. e hard aspects of belonging are political and can have
a grave impact on student well-being. ese aspects are shaped by the dynamics of identity power and the ability
of a student to participate in and shape the living traditions of a place (Yao, George Mwangi, and Brown 2019).
Belonging becomes politicized when it is threatened in some way. e subtext of the question “where are you
from?” for example, is often “why are you here?” (Selasi 2014).
Belonging is not merely international students feeling welcomed or connected to an institution (Wang et al.
2014). It is more than being tolerated or feeling accepted. It requires international students’ voice and partic-
ipation in campus life (Straker 2016). It necessitates full participation in—and recognition of—the vital role
of international students in shaping the university’s living tradition (May 2011; Page and Chahboun 2019).
Cvetkovska, Verkuyten, and Adelman (2020) argue that “being tolerated is dierent from experiencing discrimi-
nation against and being accepted, and its relation to well-being and group belonging often fall[s] between those
of discrimination and acceptance” (161). Tolerance may foster well-being, but it masks a lack of full acceptance
and participation in university life.
Hard belonging enhances the ability of international students to mobilize and collectively articulate and advance
their interests. May (2011) suggests “a sense of belonging is not built merely on the existence of a collectively
shared culture but requires also the right to participate in the development of the ‘living tradition’” (368).
One mechanism for this is through an international student advisory board composed entirely of international
students or occasionally with some domestic student representation. International student advisory boards give
- 34 -
international students a voice, create a meaningful campus leadership opportunity, and deliver valuable informa-
tion to guide campus services and programs. To be eective, however, campus leadership must respond to these
boards’ recommendations and show how their voices are informing programmatic decisions.
CRITICAL QUESTIONS
CONTESTED BELONGING: SPACES, PRACTICES, BIOGRAPHIES
Buckner and Stein (2020, 163) pose the following questions related to
international student inclusion that are valuable for international student advisory
boards and task forces to consider:
Voices
Who is at the table? Whose voices and experiences are
represented and whose are not (and who decides this)? Whose
voices might be present and represented, but still remain unheard?
Benets
Who is presumed to benet from internationalization? Who is the
presumed subject of internationalization efforts? In particular, is
the assumed target for internationalization on North American
campuses a white, citizen, middle-class individual who needs (and
is entitled to) exposure to the “rest of the world” for their personal
and political development?
Power
Who has the power, authority, and resources to shape the direction
of internationalization efforts?
Positionality
To what extent are the outcomes of internationalization framed
in terms of acquiring/consuming knowledge about places and
peoples, rather than questioning/deconstructing assumed
knowledge, and opening up new possibilities for relating to
ourselves and the world?
Legacies
What larger systems and histories is internationalization
embedded within?
- 35 -
Engaged learning
International students place signicant value on their academic experience while participating in U.S. higher
education. Academic program quality is a key driver of institution choice. International students arrive on cam-
pus with high expectations for what they will learn and accomplish in the classroom, which may be magnied
by pressure—real or perceived—from family, friends, and others to succeed. In this section, we explore the role
of culturally engaging campus environments, learning goals, classroom practices, and support from professors
and advisers.
Culturally engaging campus environments
Emphasis on culturally engaging campus environments highlights two critical aspects of the academic experience.
First, learning is profoundly shaped by culture—through educational socialization that occurs in the formative
primary and secondary years, but also through the norms of particular disciplines and elds. Second, valuable
learning happens as international students integrate knowledge from multiple experiences and contexts—
including internships, service-learning, the classroom, leadership programs, professional organizations, and
their engagement in everyday interactions with members of their neighborhoods, houses of worship, and local
communities. is is essential because we know that interdisciplinary, integrative, and internationalized expe-
riences across multiple contexts develop long-lasting skills, thoughts, perspectives, dispositions, habits of mind,
mental health, etc. (Sabic, Downey, and van Zoonen 2019).
ere are many approaches to understanding cultures of learning. Museus, Zhang, and Kim (2016) outlined
one framework, Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE), that highlights two interrelated aspects of
creating a campus culture for international students: relevance and responsiveness. Museus, Yi, and Saelua (2017)
describe cultural relevance as “the degree to which students’ campus environments are relevant to their cultural
backgrounds and identities” and cultural responsiveness as “the extent to which campus programs and practices
eectively respond to the needs of culturally diverse student populations” (192). e cultural relevance and
responsiveness of campus environments have a profound eect on international students’ sense of belonging,
persistence, and academic success (Glass and Westmont 2014).
CULTURALLY RELEVANT
Relevance focuses on the degree to which international students’ cultural backgrounds and identities are incorpo-
rated into the academic and social environment. International students’ motivations for studying abroad are not
easily reducible to economic rationales; it is often about pursuing new experiences and a process of self-discov-
ery. To aid in this discovery process, providing opportunities for international students to engage in meaningful
cultural exchange and culture-focused discussions—in and outside the classroom—is critical.
Of course, international students appreciate learning about American holidays such as anksgiving, but they
are also interested in understanding how celebrations like Diwali are expressed in local diasporic communities
adjacent to their college or university. Involvement in campus organizations, community-based service, and
social events in local neighborhoods presents opportunities for students to learn about the cultural communities
- 36 -
with which they identify, their history, and the various expressions and practices of those communities (Museus,
Zhang, and Kim 2016). Inviting members of these communities into the classroom to share experiences and
facilitate discussion benets both international and domestic students.
CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE
To be dynamic, learning environments must be responsive to students and reect culturally valued knowledge,
skills, and sensibilities of the rapidly changing world of work. In this view, the curriculum is more than a way of
organizing information for international students to acquire. It is a sequence of experiences that allows students
to build social capital and long-lasting knowledge, skills, and sensibilities that are aligned with the social
status they seek to achieve and the workplaces they seek to enter (Tomlinson 2017). International education
and exchange, furthermore, emphasize a form of cosmopolitanism that enables people to relate and act across
national and cultural boundaries (Landorf, Doscher, and Hardrick 2018; Marginson 2018). is is an education
that the American educational philosopher, author, and social activist Maxine Greene called for in e Dialectic
of Freedom over 30 years ago—an education built upon dialogue and that requires “a special form of critical
thinking . . . a powerful vision and reection born of an awareness of a world lived in common with others”
(2018, 4).
Responsiveness is not merely professors, advisers, sta, and peers responding to international students when
problems arise. It also involves proactive communication from faculty to students, and students to their peers,
encouraging international students to take advantage of learning opportunities and to regularly participate in
campus life (Museus, Yi, and Saelua 2017). It matters if international students have a person on campus who
can help answer a question, solve a problem, or assist with any challenges that might impede their academic
progress.
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN CULTURE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
Mary Baldwin University (VA)
Course content in any discipline can be laden with assumptions about students’
cultural experiences and prior knowledge. Most U.S. college students can quickly
call to mind culturally embedded terms such as Bill of Rights, Social Security, or
even Ben & Jerry’s. For international students, these and other terms may be brand
new and require some explanation. To help level these disparities in the learning
environment for new international students, Mary Baldwin University developed a
course covering various topics related to American history and culture. They invited
faculty from business, sociology, history, women’s studies, and other departments
to deliver guest lectures on issues such as the U.S. census, gender, media, and civil
rights. They discussed core national values and characteristics, such as Manifest
Destiny, individualism, and American exceptionalism. While no single class could
entirely replace an early lifetime of cultural immersion, the course provided a
conceptual frame for helping international students interpret their American
experience.
- 37 -
Classroom practices
It is important to recognize that there are signicant dierences between what international students may have
experienced in their home academic culture—classroom practices, expectations for independent learning, and
interaction between students and instructors, for example—and the academic customs, norms, and expectations
in the host country. e U.S. education system values problem-solving, analytical, and critical-thinking skills;
student participation; group work; and questioning, informality, equality, and even challenging what a professor
presents in class (Adrian-Taylor, Noels and Tischler 2007). Students are expected to compare knowledge,
synthesize information, develop essential questions, and work collaboratively with others (Lin and Scherz 2014).
Instructors encourage students to articulate their own learning goals and be actively engaged in the learning
process.
In contrast, some non-U.S. education systems may value tradition, authority, and hierarchy. Wu, Garza, and
Guzman (2015) describe, for example, a Korean international student who was surprised to learn she could
ask questions and express her opinions during her U.S. professor’s lesson. is is not commonly seen in Korea
because it is considered rude behavior if a student interrupts a professor while they are speaking. International
students also often report that American society and classrooms are more “individualistic” than their home
cultures (Glass, Gómez, and Urzúa 2014). Individualistic cultures tend to promote an individual’s self-interest,
personal autonomy, privacy, independence, and individual decision-making, while more collectivistic cultures
emphasize loyalty to the group, emotional dependence on groups and organizations, less personal privacy, and
the belief that group decisions are superior to individual decisions (Darwish and Huber 2003).
International student success requires that relevant classroom practices recognize these cultural contrasts. Inclusive
instructors accommodate diverse learning styles and adapt their own expectations and behaviors as a result of
diverse student populations. With this in mind, Tran (2020b) outlines a framework for teaching and learning
for international students with three areas of emphasis:
• Reciprocating: “extending beyond mutual understanding and respect for diversity, to validate and
reciprocally learn from diverse resources, experiences, and encounters of dierences that international
classrooms can oer” (p. xv);
• Inclusivity: “teaching and learning content and pedagogies are closely connected with de-Westernizing
the curriculum and moving away from Euro-centric content” (p. xv); and
• Empathy: “sense of belonging to the classroom and university community signicantly depends on the
empathy local teachers and students display toward them” (p. xvi).
Support from professors
Faculty mindset about international students matters. At one end, some faculty members may perceive interna-
tional students to be an unwelcome challenge—perhaps because of students’ language abilities, dierent learning
styles, or cultural norms. At the other end, faculty may welcome the diverse perspectives and life experiences
that international students bring to the classroom.
Even if classroom interactions with faculty members are reported to be positive, a high percentage of interna-
tional students do not feel that they have enough interactions with faculty during oce hours or outside of
class (Roy, Lu, and Loo 2016). To solve this problem, Heng (2018) suggests that faculty and institutions should
encourage open-door policies for international students and engage them in additional oce hour meetings.
- 38 -
By doing this, students could be better prepared for class and assignments, instructors could create a more wel-
coming environment, and together they could revisit the classroom expectations that best facilitate learning in
the U.S. academic environment. In addition, ACE’s 2017 Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses data
suggest some faculty take advantage of development opportunities, such as workshops on teaching and integrat-
ing international students, to better work with and support students from a variety of cultural backgrounds.
Glass et al. (2017) add an emphasis on the importance of interactions with professors as “bridges of belonging”
to out-of-class co-curricular engagement, especially for rst-generation international students. Research suggests
that satisfaction declines as the proportion of international students from families where no parent has an earned
college degree increases due to the lack of support services commensurate with the needs of rst-generation
international students (Garrett 2015).
Promoting an institution-wide sense of shared responsibility to help international students succeed will reinforce
the sense of connection, belonging, and opportunities for success. Incentives (e.g., stipends for faculty to
participate in professional development opportunities focused on supporting international students or develop-
ing their own intercultural competence); awards (e.g., International Student Mentor of the Year); and policies
that promote campus inclusivity are useful mechanisms to acknowledge and celebrate meaningful contributions
to international student success.
RESEARCH AND RESOURCES
EAIE PATHWAYS TO PRACTICE: SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL
DOCTORAL STUDENTS
Key information to be included in a partnership agreement with international
graduate student advisees:
• Length of contract and benets
• Rights and responsibilities of the doctoral student, supervisor(s), and the
institution
• Expected student workload and quality standards
• Milestone plan and timeline (research proposal, data collection, draft
chapters, etc.)
• Feedback style and frequency
• Research ethics and integrity
• Intellectual property ownership
• Conference and workshop attendance and funding
• Publication arrangements, co-authoring practices, and publication costs
• Options for potential conict mediation
(EAIE 2020)
- 39 -
CRITICAL QUESTIONS
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN ONLINE EDUCATION
COVID-19 and long-term trends in online education mean universities will have
to adapt to new virtual mobilities with innovative approaches to education
(Choudaha and van Rest 2018). Universities need to not just focus on how to
bring back international students after the pandemic, but also how to reach out to
new generations of students through a seamless and well-designed combination
of online and face-to-face education. Tran (2020a) posed these and other critical
questions as universities pursue new forms of online education:
• “How do we integrate and capitalize on international students’ diverse
transnational knowledge, cultural, professional, and language resources in
enriching the curriculum and pedagogy in online delivery?” (para. 29)
• “To what extent has international education become more inclusive for
non-mobile students and those from more disadvantaged backgrounds in an
increasingly virtual world?” (para. 32)
Life and career pathways
A focus on life and career pathways highlights that belonging is about the routes students take through the
university, not just the roots they plant at the university (Youkhana 2015). is subtle, but signicant emphasis
reframes notions that belonging is just about helping international students adjust to campus life or build
friendships with host students. Indeed, this might be true if universities were a destination, but they are, in fact,
gateways to future opportunities.
e challenge, however, is that higher education worldwide straties the opportunities aorded to globally
mobile students (Glass, Streitwieser, and Gopal 2019; Marginson 2018), which results in stratied private
economic benets for graduates. e hierarchy of opportunity is codied in increasing reliance on and the
inuence of university rankings for elite student mobility (Hazelkorn 2018). e evidence of this hierarchy is
clear in the persistent access gap between students in the top and bottom family income quartiles at the world’s
most prestigious institutions.
Bilecen and Van Mol (2017) state the issue clearly: “inequalities in opportunities and outcomes are intrinsically
connected” (1241). Higher education scholars assert that the worldwide university system is structured to
produce and reproduce inequality, not just in outcome, but also and more importantly, in opportunity. Too often,
international students do not have the same opportunities as U.S. students, so colleges and universities must oer
a well-organized sequence of experiences that create ever-deepening knowledge, eective information delivery
throughout the student lifecycle, and culturally relevant and responsive career planning that helps international
students improve their social position after graduation.
- 40 -
Sequenced experiences
ere are multiple routes to cross-cultural adaptation and goal attainment (Yang, Noels, and Saumure 2006).
e word opportunity is dened as “a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something” (Oxford
University Press 2020). Like the well-worn footpaths on campus, pathways of opportunities are how interna-
tional students get to where they are going; they oer a sense of purpose and progression. International students
are interested in programs that oer a strong promise of employability, and a digital academic record that is
portable, reective of their achievements, and instantly veriable. Pathways may include qualications, creden-
tials, portfolios, awards, memberships, résumé achievements, connections, and experiences that contribute to
those ends.
A large-scale analysis of International Student Barometer (ISB) data indicate the ve elements for pathways of
opportunity that are most strongly associated with postgraduate goal achievement:
• Making good contacts for the future (social connections)
• Learning what will help me to get a good job (employability)
• Organized and smooth-running courses (course organization)
• Accommodation features and amenities (social facilities)
• Design and quality of the campus buildings (campus buildings) (ICEF Monitor 2019)
e top three elements highlight the importance of employability skills, future job prospects, and the learning
experience. However, no two international students will follow the same pathway. International students should
be provided resources to map their individual trajectories to fulll their educational purposes and life transforma-
tion (Tran 2016).
Effective information delivery
Institutions must provide information and resources that allow international students to navigate complex insti-
tutions and make informed choices about opportunities that aect their future. ey also need markers to help
them know when they have reached milestones, whether it be through awards, specialized credentials, or other
means. A comprehensive approach ensures that academic, career, and nancial planning are part of the same
process to help students achieve their international study goals. Multiple forms of delivery are needed—from
websites, printed information sheets, social media, personalized emails, information sessions, and in-person
conversations. At all stages of the international student lifecycle, clear and easily accessible information is key to
students’ adaptation, success, and decision-making.
- 41 -
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
FOUR TYPES OF INFORMATION
Four types of information provide a well-rounded foundation for international
students as they gain a foothold on life on a U.S. campus:
Type 1: Facts, lists, rules, and procedures.
Typically, these are presented in written documents and manuals and serve as
useful points of reference—initially and on an as-needed basis.
Type 2: Instructions and “how-tos” (i.e., what to do with the facts, lists, rules, and
procedures).
How-tos might be presented in concert with the relevant Type 1 information in
written documents, but may also be complex enough to require discussion and
multiple contact points.
Type 3: Insights on culture.
When it comes to their application, concrete facts and information are often
embedded in a web of culturally specic nuances that are key to international
students gaining a full understanding of their implications. Group conversations
around these issues, involving both international and domestic students, can
provide learning opportunities for everyone involved.
Type 4: Sources of support.
Students need to know where to turn when information of Types 1–3 is not enough
to provide clarity, or when they encounter roadblocks or challenges. Making
students aware of the availability of support through various venues—printed,
online, and in-person—will help ensure that it is readily available when students
need it. More is better, and repetition and reinforcement are benecial.
An integrated approach means attending to the international student lifecycle before, during, and after enroll-
ment—including active engagement as alumni. It matters not just what information is provided but also when
it is provided, how it is provided, and who is involved in the process. Online connections through social media
and sites dedicated to matriculating students are an increasingly important source of information for prospective
international students (Sin and Kim 2013). Just-in-time information is delivered when students are likely to be
dealing with issues. Providing information in multiple communication channels—websites, webinars, print, live
presentations—ensures that students can access it when and how they need it. A single repository of information
is especially helpful for students to reference on demand. Finally, institutions should consider involving inter-
national students in developing and designing orientation materials, providing online orientation sessions, or
delivering on-campus workshops about special topics they feel are essential.
- 42 -
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
ESSENTIAL INFORMATION
Institutional characteristics and statistics
• Location characteristics (e.g., urban/rural/suburban)
• Accessibility
• Facilities
• Ranking
• Graduation rates
• Alumni employment rates
Admissions procedures
• Required information
• Minimum test scores
• Acceptance rates
• Application deadlines
• When notication of application status will be received
• Whom to contact with questions
Visas
• How to apply for a visa
• What needs to be done to maintain visa status
Academics
• What academic programs are available?
• Do academic programs require a special application?
• How grades are determined and GPAs are calculated
• How to declare a major and minor
• Prerequisites, general education requirements and how to fulll them
• Research opportunities
• Faculty proles and qualications
• Role of academic advisers
• How to access support (e.g., English language instruction, writing help,
presentations, and public speaking)
In the classroom
• Active learning, (e.g., how to contribute effectively to class discussions, use
of Socratic method)
• Attendance expectations
• Expectations for out-of-class preparation (e.g., how thoroughly to read
material versus skimming)
• Student-faculty relationships (e.g., level of formality)
• How to contest a grade
- 43 -
Student life
• Co-curricular programs
• Student organizations
• How to participate and join co-curricular programs and student organizations
• Cultural expectations and guidelines for peer interactions (e.g., dating, sexual
harassment, hate speech, discrimination)
• Role of student affairs professionals
• Where to report problems and incidents (e.g., with discrimination, sexual
harassment)
Financing
• Tuition
• Room and board
• Other fees
• When fees need to be paid
• Other expected expenses (e.g., books, living expenses, insurance)
• Financial aid policies and availability
• How to apply for nancial aid
• Availability of external grants
• Possibility of working (on and off campus)
• Tax requirements and how to pay taxes, if applicable
Health and safety
• Crime information for the surrounding area
• Where to report an incident
• Where to obtain medical care (mental and physical)
• How to purchase and use insurance
• How to ll a prescription
• Cultural expectations for the doctor/patient relationship
Logistics and procedures
• Housing options and what to consider in choosing where to live
• Transportation
• Options for food
• Where to shop (on and off campus)
• Registering for classes
• How to obtain a transcript
• Setting up a bank account
• Where to purchase or borrow textbooks
- 44 -
Work and career
• Visa requirements and application process in the U.S. and other countries
• How to decide on a career path (e.g., use of interest inventories)
• Opportunities for internships and how to apply for them
• Academic requirements for particular professions
• When and how to apply to graduate school
• How to apply for a job (e.g., cover letter and resume format, interview
process, negotiating salary)
• Workplace culture and expectations
• Community resources and relationships
• Cultural organizations
• Faith communities
• How to access or join faith communities
• Institutionally sponsored programs (e.g., homestay programs)
• Opportunities for community service
• Key characteristics of U.S./local culture
Alumni engagement
• How to access the alumni database and how to engage with alumni (e.g., for
informational interviews)
• Role of the alumni and development ofces
• How to provide updated contact information to the institution after
graduation
• Opportunities to engage with the institution and other alumni (e.g., local
alumni association chapters and events, on-campus events, reunions)
• How to contribute to annual giving and other fundraising campaigns
- 45 -
Career planning
International students’ decision to study abroad is often viewed as a nancial investment to improve career
prospects (Choudaha and Hu 2017). e up-front investment in higher education is signicant for international
students and their families, and the return-on-investment matters. But employment is just one part of an
ongoing life project shaped by international students’ aspirations, social responsibilities, and ethical commit-
ments (Pham 2020; Tran 2016). erefore, career planning is about more than nding a job; it is a process for
“international students to realize their aspiration to become more advanced in their profession and enhance their
future social and economic positioning” as a “designer of their own professional life” (Tran 2016, 14).
International students often need signicant on-campus career and professional development support. e
career decision-making process, in general, is often more complicated for international students than for their
U.S. peers. It can involve weighing and comparing career and lifestyle opportunities in both home and host,
or third, countries and cultures—and potentially making dicult trade-os (Arthur and Flynn 2011). Family
members and a sense of family obligation add insight and complexity to international students’ career trajectory
(Singaravelu, White, and Bringaze 2005), and the desire to contribute to one’s community often factors heavily
in students’ decisions (Wu and Wilkes 2017).
Career services can help international students identify professional interests and life design goals, weigh deci-
sion factors, explore undergraduate majors/minors and graduate specialties or research opportunities, develop
skills needed for job and graduate school applications, and connect them to career pathways. Institutions must
invest in career advising to assist international students in securing employment or researching opportunities
after graduation—recognizing that the skills and knowledge career advising professionals need may extend
beyond their training to support domestic students.
Faculty and academic mentors are also vital for facilitating contact with potential employers, graduate schools,
and research centers. Faculty provide information and connections to professionals in their disciplines, while
academic advisers can help students map out a course plan that positions them to pursue desired professions.
Both faculty and advisers can help students reect on and frame their curricular and co-curricular experiences
for interviews, applications, and life design.
e job search process itself presents an array of challenges, including managing expectations, a need for pur-
poseful planning, and navigating country-specic immigration policies. Clear goals and a road map for achiev-
ing them can help international students take advantage of available opportunities and resources, maximize the
benet of their time on campus, ensure they are devoting energy to the activities that will help them reach their
goals, and make anxieties and future unknowns feel more manageable.
- 46 -
MANAGING EXPECTATIONS
International students often arrive with high hopes of obtaining on- or o-campus jobs and accessing intern-
ships through curricular practical training (CPT) during their studies, or optional practical training (OPT) and
academic training programs after graduation. Success, or lack thereof, in this area can color a student’s entire
educational experience; indeed, international students consistently cite the lack of access to jobs and internships
as the number one reason for dissatisfaction with their institutions (Schulte and Choudaha 2014). Yet career
services professionals report that international students often have unrealistic assumptions about how enrolling
in a U.S. institution will aect their access to jobs and internships (Loo 2016). To manage expectations for all
parties, institutions need to be transparent and consistent in communicating requirements and goals among
international students, faculty, academic advisers, international advisers, and career counselors.
PURPOSEFUL PLANNING
It is important to proactively plan a course of study that fosters international students’ success. However, a
dening characteristic—and strength—of U.S. higher education is the opportunity for students to explore
academic, co-curricular, and career interests. In some cases, international students may arrive on campus with
very set plans about what they intend to study, and career paths that may have been dictated by family or
previous experiences. Over-planning may cause them to miss opportunities to explore other interests—whether
alternatives to what they expected to focus on academically or professionally, or co-curricular activities and
personal interests before and after graduation.
Overall, a balance is needed between planning that sets students on a path to achieve their long-term goals and
allowing for exibility to explore other areas and interests that may contribute to their process of self-discovery
and identity formation. Adaptability is also essential, helping students learn to re-calibrate when things do not
go as planned, e.g., a course is full, or a schedule conict occurs.
COUNTRY-SPECIFIC EMPLOYMENT IN THE U.S. AND BEYOND
Multiple layers of knowledge and skills are required to obtain employment in dierent countries successfully.
In a study of international postgraduate employment, Pham, Tomlinson, and ompson (2019) found that,
“graduate migrants faced various challenges in the target labor market, and to successfully secure employment it
was important for them to develop key forms of capital—i.e., excellent technical knowledge, relationships with
‘signicant others,’ strong career identity and psychological resilience, and exercise agency in interlinking these
capitals so that they could make use of their strengths and weaknesses” (394).
Research shows that (1) working in the U.S. using OPT or academic training and then returning home, (2)
pursuing further education in the U.S., and (3) staying and working in the U.S. as long as possible are the top
three options international students pursue after graduation (Loo, Lu, and Ye 2017). International students
considering careers in the U.S. need to develop an understanding of overall labor market dynamics, the types of
internships and opportunities available in their elds, how to establish professional connections and networks,
what to include on a résumé, how interviews are conducted, and a variety of other aspects of the application
process.
Institutions also need to prepare international students for inclusion-related challenges they may face. U.S.
employers may be reticent about hiring international graduates because of legal complexities. U.S.-based
- 47 -
employers also cited work authorization and visa regulations as signicant barriers to hiring international
students for either internships or full-time jobs. Although international students are lauded as exemplars of
entrepreneurial success, they also need to be prepared to enter a U.S. corporate world where they may encounter
racial and ethnic inequalities that inhibit upward mobility (Chin 2020).
RESEARCH AND RESOURCES
ADVOCACY FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY
College and university presidents were critical to advocacy successes during the
Trump administration, and will continue to be important in the Biden administration
and with the 117th Congress. One example is the public statements and advocacy
carried out by presidents and chancellors with congressional delegations in
response to the July 6, 2020 Immigration and Customs Enforcement guidance
regarding international students during the COVID-19 pandemic, which ultimately
helped prompt the withdrawal of that guidance.
2
Statements, letters, and advocacy
activities by national higher education associations such as ACE and NAFSA:
Association of International Educators can provide a resource for presidents and
chancellors seeking to amplify and advance national advocacy efforts around
international students and policies. Presidential and institutional statements are
critical ways universities can advocate for international student success.
ACE launched the Remember the Dreamers website in early 2020 to help amplify
campus stories of Dreamers, share resources with campuses, and advance
higher education community advocacy efforts on behalf of Dreamers. The
#YouAreWelcomeHere campaign, which began in 2016 at Temple University,has
drawn participationfrommore than 300U.S.higher educationinstitutions. These
are just two examples ofpublic awarenessinitiativesthatdemonstrateassociation
and institutional advocacy and cross-campus collaboration in action.
2 ACE community letter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding July 6 Immigration and Customs Enforcement
guidance on international students and the 2020–21 academic year, July 10, 2020 (https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Letter-
DHS-ICE-Fall-2020-Guidance-071020.pdf).
- 48 -
PRACTICE PERSPECTIVES
ENGAGING INTERNATIONAL ALUMNI
As international students graduate and pursue careers in the U.S. and other
parts of the world, they carry with them the institution’s core values and often a
sense of institutional loyalty. The alumni ofce can create opportunities for them
to engage with one another, and with current students and faculty at the home
campus, in order to form a robust network for their own and the institution’s lifelong
advancement.
Tracking Alumni: University of California, Irvine (UCI)
In 2016–18, the UCI Alumni Association focused on three core strategies that it
believes will be crucial to impacting the alumni community’s desire to share their
time, talent, and treasure. Strategy 1 is to bridge local, national, and international
alumni with the UCI community. Strategy 2 is to build a culture of alumni
engagement across UCI that begins before a student’s rst days on campus.
Strategy 3 is to support the careers of UCI alumni and students.
Volunteers: University of Michigan Ann Arbor
International alumni work for the Alumni Association as volunteers. They play a
vital role in connecting with prospective and admitted international students in their
countries. Alumni volunteers provide guidance on what to expect from the campus
culture, help students get answers to their questions quickly, and address students’
concerns about moving to—and living in—the United States.
New Student Send-Offs: New York University (NYU)
New Student Send-Offs are a series of casual gatherings held in students' home
countries to make friends and build community before international students arrive
on campus. Send-Offs are hosted by local NYU families and alumni. Parents and
new students hear about the NYU experiences of alumni and have a chance to ask
questions.
Ambassadors: The University of Rhode Island (URI)
Global Alumni Ambassadors serve as contacts for URI alumni, faculty, and
students who are traveling or living in their regions. Ambassadors plan networking
events, exhibit at college fairs, and communicate with prospective students and
their families.
University of Minnesota
The Ofce of International Student and Scholar Services provides current
international students with international alumni job search stories. A list of
suggestions for things international students and graduates should do while
looking for a job is also included.
University of California, Berkeley
The Berkeley Career Center provides current international students with
international alumni success stories.
The Launch:
Embarking on a
Lifelong
Relationship
- 50 -
The Launch: Embarking
on a Lifelong Relationship
is section outlines a launch plan for colleges and universities to embark on a lifelong relationship with
international students that spans their entire academic lifecycle with the institution. It comes at the end of this
monograph for two reasons. First, recruiting international students is often an institution’s key internationaliza-
tion focus. We wanted to illustrate, however, that international student recruitment and enrollment is but one
part of the engagement U.S. higher education has with students from abroad. To achieve sustainable, responsive,
humanistic, and equitable international student success, institutions must devote more attention, resources, and
commitment to the broader outcomes and essential elements articulated by this compact. Second, the launch,
coming at the end of this monograph, signies not only the conclusion, but also the beginning and ongoing
nature of learning, dialogue, and action that centers international students. Our lifecycle model begins and
ends with a focus on building lifelong relationships that colleges and universities can use as the framework for
inclusion and success in their planning and recruitment eorts.
A focus on building lifelong relationships involves full recognition of how many international students the
institution can support; it focuses on the composition of the entire student body, so that ethnic and cultural
diversity contributes to the institution’s learning mission; it requires domestic students, faculty, and sta to
develop inclusive intercultural competence; and it requires a commitment to lifelong relationship-building with
international students, their families, and their communities. e launch part of the model focuses on three
essential elements of building lifelong relationships with international students: enrollment planning, student
decision factors, and facilitating t.
Enrollment planning
Going forward, institutions will need to geographically diversify their international student recruitment pro-
les—both to increase equitable global diversity on campus and to account for shifts in global student mobility
trends. For example, the international enrollment boom of the last 20 years has been driven overwhelmingly by
growth in students from China who are seeking an on-campus U.S. experience. For years, China has lacked a
sucient number of universities to meet the demand of middle-class families seeking a college education. But
that capacity is growing, reducing the need for students to leave home in order to pursue a degree. Further, data
now illustrate that Chinese students who study in the U.S. struggle to nd jobs when they return home. If wage
disparities continue to indicate that Chinese students earn a premium if they attend universities in ASEAN
countries over traditional Western destinations (Dillon 2019), pressures to diversify U.S. international student
enrollment will persist and intensify.
Institutions need to be agile as they adapt their enrollment plans. ey must recruit international students from
a wider range of countries while developing innovative academic programs (majors and minors) that will appeal
- 51 -
to new generations of more budget-focused, career-oriented international students (Fischer 2020). It is critical to
revisit assumptions about factors that have driven enrollment in the past, compared with the factors inuencing
enrollment patterns for new generations of international students. New generations of international students
are asking: What new opportunities are available to me here? What life and career pathways are possible? With
which communities can I engage during my time on campus and beyond? Are international students involved?
Do they have a voice here? Are they heard? Is this a community where I will belong?
RESEARCH AND RESOURCES
PREDICTORS OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ RECOMMENDATION OF
THEIR COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY
Ammigan (2019) analyzed data from 45,000 international students at 96 different
institutions globally who completed the International Student Barometer (ISB)
on four dimensions of satisfaction variables as predictors of institutional
recommendation. The results show that, while academic achievement and career
development often take center stage when it comes to international students’
goals and intentions for studying abroad, the practice of establishing a sense of
belonging is the foundation for international students’ overall adjustment and
success.
ARRIVAL VARIABLES (RANKED IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE):
• Accommodation ofce
• Social activities
LIVING VARIABLES (RANKED IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE):
• Making friends from this country
• Networking
• Quality of the external campus environment
• Immigration and visa advice
• Transport links
• Availability of nancial support
LEARNING VARIABLES (RANKED IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE):
• Studying with people across cultures
• Organization of course
• Leading to a good job
• Opportunities for work experience
• Teaching ability of lecturers
• Academic content
• Quality of lectures
• Physical library facilities
• Career guidance from academic staff
• Access to academic staff
• Improve English language skills
- 52 -
Student decision factors
On the whole, issues of academic quality, reputation, and career prospects predominate the decision factors most
important to new generations of international students. Studies underscore the importance of these factors with
variations that include rankings, quality of sta, variety of degree programs, availability of internship opportu-
nities, and alumni job placement rates (Falcone 2019; Gai, Xu, and Pelton 2016; Mazzarol and Soutar 2002).
Taking these factors into account on par with the framework of inclusion and success outlined previously, we
suggest ve key decision factors that international students consider when they select a country and institution
to pursue their studies: safety, program quality, aordability, country reputation, and employment opportunities.
Safety
A sense of safety and security is a basic human need (Maslow 1943). Students seek institutional settings where
they feel welcomed and where they are comfortable participating in activities on campus and in the surrounding
community. Safety, however, is a growing priority for international students—particularly for those from Africa,
South Asia, and Southeast Asia, who are four times more likely to cite safety concerns than students from
Europe (Chow 2011).
e U.S. is considered far less safe than alternative destinations like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the
United Kingdom (IDP Education 2019). Perceptions of safety—on and beyond the campus—may be shaped
as students scroll through social media feeds and see news stories about American gun culture, political unrest,
and school shootings. Many students are perplexed by the right to bear arms codied in the Second Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, especially if their home country has strict gun control laws, and may see this as a
signicant threat to their safety.
Often, international students have been drawn to institutions in cities with a vibrant social life, various cultures
and languages, and travel opportunities (Tran and Pham 2016). However, safety concerns have sparked a
growing interest in colleges and universities in rural areas with low crime rates and that are far away from large,
urban metroplexes that have received media attention for gun violence and civil unrest.
Program quality
General university reputations matter, but the quality of individual academic programs is also a crucial factor in
the international student decision-making process (Hobsons 2014). New generations of students are gravitating
toward more specialized majors and graduate programs that oer a strong promise of employability. Institution
rankings remain a vital part of the equation for many students, as well as insights from friends and family
(Hazelkorn 2018; Pusser and Marginson 2011). However, subject rankings often outweigh institution rankings
when prospective students are deciding between institutions.
A major survey by World Education Services highlights the value prospective international students place on
academic programs that lead to employment. e “availability of a desired program” was the top deciding factor
for both bachelor’s and master’s students for international students from all regions, followed by “institutional
reputation,” and then “earning potential after graduation,” although students from China weighted institutional
- 53 -
ranking more highly than students from other countries (Roy, Lu, and Loo 2016, 8). Teaching quality is often
the most important deciding factor once internationals students narrow their choices to two institutions, with
nine in 10 international students citing it as most important in their nal decision (Hobsons 2014).
Affordability
U.S. higher education costs remain a perennial challenge in attracting international students (Choudaha 2020).
Fifty-ve percent of institutions cite cost as one of the reasons for decreasing new student enrollment (Baer
2018); tuition is the number one reason international students decline admission oers (Hobsons 2014). e
value-for-money calculus weighs the reasonableness of cost against its perceived quality (Choudaha 2020).
Given relatively high-cost U.S. universities versus emerging educational hubs in other locations, the availability
of aordable health care, scholarships, fellowships, work-study opportunities, discounts, and other forms of
nancial support matter a great deal to international students. Creating further challenges, currencies in some
key emerging economies have devalued against the U.S. dollar. For example, for Indian undergraduates, the cost
of attendance in 2018–19 increased by at least 30 percent as compared with 2014–15 (Choudaha 2020).
e stakes (both real and perceived) of nding a good nancial t are high; enrolling at an institution abroad
entails substantial “sunk costs”—money, time, and emotion—and the “switching costs” of leaving an institution
and enrolling elsewhere are considerable. Aware of this reality, students often embark on the selection process
with a relatively high anxiety level. International students may not qualify for U.S. federal nancial aid, but
that does not mean they are not borrowing from relatives or family friends to nance living costs, tuition fees,
and health care. ere has been a marked uptick in both the number of borrowers and the amount of money
borrowed.
While cost may not be a top driver of institution choice for all international students, it is, by necessity, a heavier
consideration for new generations of students with limited nancial means who often consider their decision in
terms of value-for-money. In a sign of increasing focus on investment return, “when students are asked to make
decisions and choose the most important attribute that could inuence their perception of teaching quality,
they choose tuition fees” (Hobsons 2014, 34). In addition to favoring institutions with lower tuition rates, less
wealthy students are more apt to factor availability of scholarships and other nancial aid into their decisions; in
some cases, relative geographic proximity may come into play to minimize travel costs (Tan 2015).
Country reputation
Beyond individual institutions, the reputation of the overall higher education system certainly inuences deci-
sion-making. However, other factors beyond education also shape an international student’s image of a country.
Large-scale surveys indicate that the U.S. is considered the highest-quality educational system but also the least
aordable and the least safe—with the most complicated visa process—compared with major destinations such
as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (IDP Education 2019). Current issues impacting
the reputation of the U.S. include onerousness and uncertainty of visa requirements; anti-immigrant politics;
currency exchange rates and aordability; hopes and doubts about job prospects; and concerns about race
relations, gun violence, and fears of civil unrest. Recent surveys from the Institute of International Education
(IIE) indicate that international student concerns about U.S. visa delays and denials, as well as safety and the
American political environment, have increased in recent years (Baer 2018; Sanger and Baer 2019).
- 54 -
Employment and internship opportunities
International students are guided by the opportunity to participate in internships, as well as by long-term U.S.
employability prospects after graduation. is is especially true when they compare the U.S. with alternative
destinations like Canada that have more generous postgraduation immigration and employment options.
Further, international students’ “motivation to engage in intercultural connectedness is linked to not only their
desire for respect and recognition for intellectual, cultural, and linguistic capacities and diversities, but also
for employment aspirations . . . intercultural engagement is seen to encompass not only empathy, sociability,
and equity but also employability” (Tran and Pham 2016, 560). us the nuanced reasons that international
students consider their study abroad experiences valuable go beyond acquiring internships and employment;
they also reect students’ desire to develop an intercultural skillset that may inuence their future employability.
Finding t
Finding a mutual t is the primary goal of the admissions process, and it is the rst step in the international
student lifecycle. Students need to nd a college or university that oers academic programs that will improve
their social position and allow them opportunities for personal learning and development. Institutions seek a
diverse and balanced class composed of students they can support and who are likely to succeed.
While the objective of nding the right t is the same, the process of selecting an institution often plays out
quite dierently for international students than for their U.S. peers. e decision process for prospective
international students is inuenced by a robust migration industry that comprises international student recruit-
ment teams, international education agents, and other institutions selling higher education overseas. e policies
that impact international student recruitment span “multiple government agencies or ministries, encompassing
dierent policy elds. is requires greater policy coordination, which remains elusive for the most part” (Sá
and Sabzalieva 2018, 231). All of this is increasingly challenging for students and families to navigate; deliberate
and well-planned recruiting approaches are necessary on the part of institutions to ensure mutual t. Here we
emphasize the need for a recruitment process that is family oriented, Internet rst, and third-party informed.
Family oriented
Education migration is often a family decision, not just an individual choice. Because regular communication
with family is part of international student life, institutions need to form relationships with extended families
(parents, siblings, cousins, grandparents, spouses, and children), not just individuals. International students “do
not operate within a vacuum but rather draw upon extended networks of individuals who have chosen to do so
themselves or advocate studying abroad” (Beech 2015, 332). International students ultimately make a decision
about where to study in conjunction with family and friends who may hold dierent views of the desirability of
dierent destinations. eir choice is shaped by images from the media, news reports, and rsthand experiences
students hear from networks of extended family members and friends (Beech 2014; Tan 2015).
- 55 -
Beine, Noël, and Ragot (2014) found a signicant network eect overlooked in the literature:
As for other migration ows (like economic migrations), the factors measuring
the costs of migration are statistically signicant and economically meaning-
ful. In particular, we nd a strong network eect. e presence of country
nationals at the destination tends to act as a magnet for international students.
Interestingly, this eect is found to increase with the level of education of
the network at the destination. e higher the level of education of migrants
already present in the host country, the higher the ow of students of the same
nationality. e eects of diaspora outweigh the traditional role of previous
colonial ties. Students tend to move more to the former colonizer, not explic-
itly because of these direct colonial ties, but because they can rely on people
from their origin country. (51)
A country’s location and social heritage particularly matters to families in culturally conservative parts of the
world who want their children to maintain their cultural values. Hence, cultural and geographical proximity
have become increasingly inuential forces reshaping global migratory ows, pulling students away from
traditional destinations toward emerging regional hubs (Gesing and Glass 2018; Kondakci, Bedenlier, and
Zawacki-Richter 2018). A large-scale analysis of international student migration patterns indicated that
“relational ties created by colonial linkages, common language, and preexisting migrant stocks” (Perkins and
Neumayer 2014, 246) were far more inuential than countries’ university quality.
Family concerns are particularly important for graduate students. Graduate students with spouses need to think
of their partner’s well-being and career, and they also may be responsible for the caretaking of children. For
students with families, decisions about where to study often involve long conversations and negotiations of
shared compromise and sacrice (Anderson 2013). e entire family bears the costs of—and stands to benet
from—international study, and thus is often heavily invested in all aspects of the decision and outcome. Visa
restrictions might mean a well-educated spouse puts their career on hold only to later return to the labor market
after a prolonged absence. Spouses also add complexity to career planning, since one partner may secure a job
while the other partner may have an uncertain job outlook or better job prospects in another country. Choices
for a students’ child dependents (primary/secondary education, childcare, health care, etc.) can have signicant
inuence on the challenges they navigate while studying in the U.S.
Ultimately, students themselves need to weigh the unique constellation of these variables inherent in their own
families and experiences. Institutions, however, can help prospective students by including family members in
information sessions and activities, and providing clear information about opportunities for families on campus
and in the surrounding community.
Internet rst
Domestic and international students dier considerably in terms of how they learn about and select an
institution. Domestic students often visit the institutions they are considering in-person—perhaps multiple
times—to talk directly with admissions sta, faculty, and current students about institutional characteristics
and generally get a feel for the campus. ey are also likely to have access to family, friends, and community
members—including alumni—who have direct experience with the institution and can answer questions and
provide additional perspectives on its strengths and weaknesses.
- 56 -
International students, however, often choose an institution sight unseen. Without the benet of an immersive
visit to campus, they typically must cobble together various types of information from multiple sources to
form an overall impression of the institution. A recent study of international students (hailing from a range of
countries, but studying in the U.K.) found, for example, the most often-accessed source of information about
international study was the institutional website and/or school representatives (32 percent) followed by educa-
tional counselor/agent (27 percent) (Dillon 2019).
Social media also plays a critical role. With good reason, 85 percent of international students use it to research
and compare universities (QS 2019). Social media allows communication in a prospective student’s preferred
language, can adapt to students’ communication styles, and enables faster interaction across geographic bound-
aries (Sleeman, Lang, and Lemon 2016). Research conducted by Gai, Xu, and Pelton (2016) indicates that
many Chinese international students, for example, use ChaseDream, a social forum popular among students
who plan to apply for business programs in U.S. institutions. ey use the platform as a resource hub for
preparing applications, studying for exams, and sharing experiences related to housing and job searches. e
forum is an online community that links applicant peers, current students in the programs, and alumni.
Relying on multiple sources of information, however, may mean that prospective international students do not
have the comprehensive details needed to assess t. As they plan recruitment strategies, institutions can assuage
this challenge by using an intentional, human-centered Internet-rst strategy. Surveys show, for example, that
live videos from faculty, sta, alumni, and students are especially inuential in international students’ decision
process. Social media is not just a way to share information, manage inquiries, and build a brand; it is also a
powerful tool to listen and engage in conversations with prospective students. International sta can listen for
and start conversations around issues of safety, program quality, aordability, and internship opportunities. An
Internet-rst strategy can be used to help prospective students and their families experience campus life and
assess t without ever stepping foot on the campus.
International sta should also keep abreast of the third-party websites international students are using to eval-
uate and compare universities. ey can monitor organic word-of-mouth recommendations of alumni through
Net Promoter Score and other aggregators to understand what graduates are sharing about their university’s
safety, program quality, aordability, and pathways to employment.
Third-party informed
International education has become a big business. It is part of a worldwide migration industry composed of
a sprawling set of third-party educational intermediaries. ese include traditional information providers like
EducationUSA, but also recruitment agents and for-prot companies that host online search platforms.
Ideally, agents act as cultural mediators who provide and lter information and facilitate ethical decision-making
processes (Robinson-Pant and Magyar 2018). However, concerns have been raised about their eectiveness,
communication, ethics, and quality (Huang, Raimo, and Humfrey 2016). For example, Dillon (2019) reports
that 62 percent of international students receive unreliable advice from international student agents; simulta-
neously, prospective students often lack information to determine whether the agent has provided appropriate
services (Zhang and Hagedorn 2011).
Even when agents have contact with institution representatives (e.g., recruiting sta), the information they
relay to prospective international students may be generic and untailored to the specic needs and priorities of
dierent audiences. is may mean that international students lack access to information about the institutional
characteristics that are most important to them. For instance, respondents to a World Education Services survey
- 57 -
indicated that students from Africa were much more likely to be interested in information about nancial aid
than respondents from other regions; respondents from the Middle East were the most likely to express interest
in student services, including campus safety; and respondents from Asia and Oceania were most interested in
information about career prospects after graduation. Recruiting mechanisms that fail to provide such nuanced
information may ultimately hinder institutions’ eorts to attract international students (Choudaha, Orosz,
Chang 2012).
Institutions that choose to use agents should think carefully about the return on investment, as well as the
quality of service and information they can provide to prospective international students (Huang, Raimo,
and Humfrey 2016). For institutions, maintaining close contact with agents is critical, as are carefully dened
strategies for collaboration and recruitment that align with the institution’s values and this new compact.
RESEARCH AND RESOURCES
ROLE OF SENIOR INTERNATIONAL OFFICER (SIO) FOR VISION
SETTING
The SIO or the equivalent campus leader may not oversee every element of the
international student experience. Still, they have a vital role as chief advocate
and facilitator, ensuring that many ofces and units work together to deliver
information, strengthen networks, and help international students plan for their
education and beyond.
The SIO or director of the international students ofce is typically the lynchpin and
organizer of such a campus-wide support network. A key function of this work is
to identify and engage colleagues to underscore the importance of their roles in
international students’ networks. Coordination by the international student and
scholar services director or internationalization leader helps ensure intentionality
in how colleagues across the campus approach their work with international
students. Some institutions achieve strong coordination by forming a committee
of representatives from units across campus who work together to map out the
pathways that international students travel after arriving on campus.
Conclusion
- 59 -
Conclusion
is monograph has outlined a new compact for international student inclusion and success. To move forward,
we must acknowledge that, too often, there has been a gap between rhetoric and reality in the international
student experience. A new compact begins and ends with a focus on building lifelong relationships between
students and institutions from the rst point of contact to their postgraduate careers.
e lifecycle approach aims to move beyond the consumer-in-market view with key tenets grounded in creating
a more sustainable, culturally responsive, networked, human-centered, and equity-minded way to engage
international students. Our vision recognizes benets of international education and exchange for students,
institutions, and society, including scientic collaboration, cultural diplomacy, alumni development, liberal
learning, and economic development. e vision is supported by a framework for international student inclu-
sion and success in all three phases of the international student lifecycle: before international students come to
the institution, during their period of study, and after they graduate.
e future requires a dierent kind of conversation about international student inclusion and success: a new
compact that recognizes that the same trends heightening risks in the near term also generate opportunities to
produce better outcomes for international students in the long term. We believe colleges and universities can
meet this moment with a more expansive vision for why they want to invest in international student inclusion
and success with outcomes that benet students, institutions, and society.
References
- 61 -
References
Academic Assembly and International Education Advantage. 2017. Global Alumni Management for U.S.
Institutions: e State of the Field in 2017: Realizing the Potential for Recruitment, Brand Awareness, and More.
New York: Academic Assembly and International Education Advantage. https://info.intead.com/hubfs/
Global Alumni Management, e State of the Field in 2017.pdf.
ACE (American Council on Education). 2020. “Statement by ACE President Ted Mitchell on the Institute
of International Education’s 2020 Fall International Enrollment Survey.” November 16, 2020. https://
www.acenet.edu/News-Room/Pages/Statement-by-ACE-President-Ted-Mitchell-on-the-Institute-of-
International-Educations-2020-Fall-International-Enrollment.aspx.
ACE (American Council on Education). 2021. “Comprehensive Internationalization Framework.” Accessed on
January 15, 2021. https://www.acenet.edu/Research-Insights/Pages/Internationalization/CIGE-Model-for-
Comprehensive-Internationalization.aspx.
Adrian-Taylor, Shelley Rose, Kimberly A. Noels, and Kurt Tischler. 2007. “Conict between
International Graduate Students and Faculty Supervisors: Toward Eective Conict Prevention and
Management Strategies.” Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (1): 90–117. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1028315306286313.
Altbach, Philip G, and Hans de Wit. 2017. “e New Nationalism and Internationalisation of HE.” University
World News September 15, 2017. http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/les/research_sites/cihe/pdf/UWN_
Phil_Nationalism.pdf.
Altbach, Philip G., and Jane Knight. 2007. “e Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations
and Realities.” Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3–4): 290–305. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1028315307303542.
Ammigan, Ravichandran. 2019. “Institutional Satisfaction and Recommendation: What Really Matters
to International Students?” Journal of International Students 9, no. 1 (2019): 262–281. https://doi.
org/10.32674/jis.v9i1.260.
Anderson, R. Kirk. 2013. “International Graduate Study and Kinship Networks: A Relational Analysis of the
International Student Market” Master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Arthur, Nancy. 2017. “Supporting International Students through Strengthening eir Social Resources.”
Studies in Higher Education 42 (5): 887–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293876.
Arthur, Nancy, and Sarah Flynn. 2011. “Career Development Inuences of International Students Who Pursue
Permanent Immigration to Canada.” International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance 11 (3):
221–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-011-9212-5.
Baer, Julie. 2018. Fall 2018 International Student Enrollment Hot Topics Survey. New York: IIE Center for
Academic Mobility Research and Impact.
Bagnall, Nigel. 2015. “Making Sense of Belonging and Global Identity.” In Global Identity in Multicultural and
International Educational Contexts: Student Identity Formation in International Schools, 95–109. New York:
Routledge.
- 62 -
Beech, Suzanne E. 2014. “Why Place Matters: Imaginative Geography and International Student Mobility.”
Area 46, no. 2 (April): 170–177. https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/area.12096.
Beech, Suzanne E. 2015. “International Student Mobility: e Role of Social Networks.” Social and Cultural
Geography 16 (3): 332–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2014.983961.
Beine, Michel, Romain Noël, and Lionel Ragot. 2014. “Determinants of the International Mobility
of Students.” Economics of Education Review 41 (August): 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
econedurev.2014.03.003.
Bernstein, Shai, Rebecca Diamond, Timothy James McQuade, and Beatriz Pousada. 2018. “e Contribution
of High-Skilled Immigrants to Innovation in the United States.” Stanford Graduate School of Business
Working Paper No. 3748. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-
research/working-papers/contribution-high-skilled-immigrants-innovation-united-states.
Bhandari, Rajika. 2013. “Re-envisioning Internationalization: International Education for What?” IIE
Perspectives from the IIE Blog. IIE Networker, 2013 (Spring): 49.
Bilecen, Başak, and Christof Van Mol. 2017. “Introduction: International Academic Mobility and
Inequalities.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43 (8): 1241–1255. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691
83X.2017.1300225.
Blessinger, Patrick, Enakshi Sengupta, and Mandla Makhanya. 2018. “Higher Education’s Key Role in
Sustainable Development.” University World News, September 7, 2018. https://www.universityworldnews.
com/post.php?story=20180905082834986.
Brandenburg, Uwe, Hans De Wit, Elspeth Jones, Betty Leask, and Antje Drobner. 2020. Internationalisation
in Higher Education for Society (IHES): Concept, Current Research, and Examples of Good Practice.” DAAD
Studies. Bonn, Germany: DAAD. https://static.daad.de/media/daad_de/pdfs_nicht_barrierefrei/der-daad/
analysen-studien/daad_s15_studien_ihes_web.pdf.
Brooks, Rachel, and Johanna Waters. 2015. “e Hidden Internationalism of Elite English Schools.” Sociology
49 (2): 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514525517.
Brown, Lorraine, and Ian Jones. 2013. “Encounters with Racism and the International Student Experience.”
Studies in Higher Education 38 (7): 1004–1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.614940.
Brunsting, Nelson C., Corinne Zachry, and Risa Takeuchi. 2018. “Predictors of Undergraduate International
Student Psychosocial Adjustment to U.S. Universities: A Systematic Review from 2009–2018.” International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 66 (September): 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.06.002.
Buckner, Elizabeth, and Sharon Stein. 2020. “What Counts as Internationalization? Deconstructing the
Internationalization Imperative.” Journal of Studies in International Education 24 (2):151–166. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1028315319829878.
Castiello-Gutiérrez, Santiago, and Xiaojie Li. 2020. “We Are More than Your Paycheck: e Dehumanization of
International Students in the United States.” Journal of International Students 10 (3): i–iv.
Chin, Margaret M. 2020. Stuck: Why Asian Americans Don’t Reach the Top of the Corporate Ladder. New York:
New York University Press.
Choudaha, Rahul. 2011. “Drivers of Mobility of Chinese and Indian Students.” International Higher Education
no. 62 (Winter): 26–28. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2011.62.8526.
Choudaha, Rahul. 2020. “Addressing the Aordability Crisis for International Students.” Journal of International
Students 10 (2): iii–v.
- 63 -
Choudaha, Rahul, and Di Hu. 2017. “Strategies for Building a Capacity for International Graduate Student
Career Success.” NAGAP Perspectives 29, no. 1 (Spring): 5–8.
Choudaha, Rahul, and Edwin van Rest. 2018. Envisioning Pathways to 2030: Megatrends Shaping the Future of
Global Higher Education and International Student Mobility. Eindhoven, Netherlands: Studyportals.
Choudaha, Rahul, Kata Orosz, and Li Chang. 2012. Not All International Students Are the Same: Understanding
Segments, Mapping Behavior. New York: World Education Services.
Chow, Patricia. 2011. What International Students ink About U.S. Higher Education: Attitudes and Perceptions
of Prospective Students in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Washington, DC: Institute of International
Education.
Cubillo, José María, Joaquín Sánchez, and Julio Cerviño. 2006. “International Students’ Decision-
Making Process.” International Journal of Educational Management 20 (2): 101–115. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09513540610646091.
Cvetkovska, Sara, Maykel Verkuyten, and Levi Adelman. 2020. “Being Tolerated and Minority Well-Being:
e Role of Group Identications.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 74 (January): 161–173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.10.010.
Darwish, Abdel-Fattah E., and Günter L. Huber. 2003. “Individualism vs. Collectivism in Dierent Cultures: A
Cross-Cultural Study.” Intercultural Education 14 (1): 47–56.
de Wit, Hans. 2020. “Internationalization of Higher Education: e Need for a More Ethical and Qualitative
Approach.” Journal of International Students 10 (1): i–iv. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v10i1.1893.
Deschamps, Eric, and Jenny J. Lee. 2015. “Internationalization as Mergers and Acquisitions: Senior
International Ocers’ Entrepreneurial Strategies and Activities in Public Universities.” Journal of Studies in
International Education 19 (2): 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314538284.
Dillon, Shane. 2019. “Sea Turtles or Seaweed? Does International Education Have an Employability Problem?”
LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sea-turtles-seaweed-does-international-education-have-shane-
dillon.
EAIE (European Association for International Education). 2020. “Pathways to Practice: Supporting
International Doctoral Students.” Pathways to Practice. Amsterdam, Netherlands: EAIE. https://www.eaie.
org/our-resources/library/publication/Pathways-to-practice/pathways-to-practice-supporting-international-
doctoral-students.html.
e Economist Intelligence Unit. 2020. New Schools of ought: Innovative Models for Delivering Higher
Education. London: e Economist Intelligence Unit.
Egron-Polak, Eva. 2012. “Arming Academic Values in Internationalization of Higher Education: A Call for
Action.” GlobalHigherEd (blog), edited by Kris Olds and Susan Robertson. April 19, 2012.
Falcone, Santa. 2019. “International Student Recruitment: Trends and Challenges.” Journal of International
Students 7 (2): 246–256.
Fischer, Karin. 2020. “Meet the New International Student.” e Chronicle of Higher Education, January 12,
2020. https://www.chronicle.com/article/meet-the-new-international-student/.
Forbes-Mewett, Helen. 2018. e New Security: Individual, Community and Cultural Experiences. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Forbes-Mewett, Helen. 2020. “Vulnerability and Resilience in a Mobile World.” Journal of International Students
10 (3): ix–xi.
- 64 -
Gai, Lili, Chunhao Xu, and Lou E. Pelton. 2016. “A Netnographic Analysis of Prospective International
Students’ Decision-Making Process: Implications for Institutional Branding of American Universities in the
Emerging Markets.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 26 (2): 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/08
841241.2016.1245233.
Garrett, Richard. 2015. “Explaining International Student Satisfaction: Reections on i-Graduate Data.”
Presented at the SERU Symposium, June 8–9, 2015.
Gauntlett, David. 2018. “e Value of Connecting: Personal Happiness and Social Capital.” In Making Is
Connecting, 2nd ed., 112–145. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
George Mwangi, Chrystal A., Nyaradzai Changamire, and Jacqueline Mosselson. 2019. “An Intersectional
Understanding of African International Graduate Students’ Experiences in U.S. Higher Education.” Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education 12 (1): 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000076.
Gerhards, Jürgen, Silke Hans, and Daniel Drewski. 2018. “Global Inequality in the Academic System: Eects of
National and University Symbolic Capital on International Academic Mobility.” Higher Education 76 (4):
669–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0231-8.
Gesing, Peggy, and Chris R. Glass. 2018. “First Generation International Students and the 4Ds Shaping
the Future of Global Student Mobility: A Comparative Report Analysis.” Journal of Comparative and
International Higher Education 10 (Fall): 24–27.
Glass, Chris R, Stephanie Buus, and Larry A. Braskamp. 2013. Uneven Experiences: What’s Missing and What
Matters for Today’s International Students. Chicago, IL: Global Perspective Institute.
Glass, Chris R., and Peggy Gesing. 2018. “e Development of Social Capital rough International Students’
Involvement in Campus Organizations.” Journal of International Students 8 (3): 1274–1292. https://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.1254580.
Glass, Chris R., Peggy Gesing, Angela Hales, and Cong Cong. 2017. “Faculty as Bridges to Co-Curricular
Engagement and Community for First-Generation International Students.” Studies in Higher Education 42
(5): 895–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293877.
Glass, Chris R., Edwin Gómez, and Alfredo Urzúa. 2014. “Recreation, Intercultural Friendship, and
International Students’ Adaptation to College by Region of Origin.” International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 42: 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.05.007.
Glass, Chris R., Elizabeth Kociolek, Rachawan Wongtrirat, R. Jason Lynch, and Summer Cong. 2015. “Uneven
Experiences: e Impact of Student-Faculty Interactions on International Students’ Sense of Belonging.”
Journal of International Students 5 (4): 353–367.
Glass, Chris R., Bernhard Streitwieser, and Anita Gopal. 2019. “Inequities of Global Mobility: Socioeconomic
Stratication in the Meanings of a University Education for International Students.” Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education 51 (1): 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1590180.
Glass, Chris R., and Christina M. Westmont. 2014. “Comparative Eects of Belongingness on the Academic
Success and Cross-Cultural Interactions of Domestic and International Students.” International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 38 (January): 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.04.004.
Glass, Kimberly R., Chris R. Glass, and R. Jason Lynch. 2016. “Student Engagement and Aordances for
Interaction with Diverse Peers: A Network Analysis.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 9 (2):
170–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039726.
Greene, Maxine. 1988. e Dialectic of Freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
- 65 -
Guo, Yan, and Shibao Guo. 2017. “Internationalization of Canadian Higher Education: Discrepancies Between
Policies and International Student Experiences.” Studies in Higher Education 42 (5): 851–868. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293874.
Hales, Mike, Erik R. Peterson, Andrés Mendoza Peña, and Nicole Dessibourg-Freer. 2019. A Question of Talent:
How Human Capital Will Determine the next Global Leaders: 2019 Global Cities Report. Arlington, VA:
Kearney. https://www.kearney.com/global-cities/2019.
Hazelkorn, Ellen. 2018. “Reshaping the World Order of Higher Education: e Role and Impact of Rankings
on National and Global Systems.” Policy Reviews in Higher Education 2 (1): 4–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/2
3322969.2018.1424562.
Helms, Robin Matross. 2020. “Can Internationalization Survive Coronavirus? You Need to See My
Data.” Higher Education Today (blog), American Council on Education. March 4, 2020. https://www.
higheredtoday.org/2020/03/04/can-internationalization-survive-coronavirus-need-see-data/.
Helms, Robin Matross and Lucia Brajkovic. 2017. Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses: 2017
Edition. With Brice Struthers. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Heng, Tang T. 2018. “Dierent Is Not Decient: Contradicting Stereotypes of Chinese International Students
in U.S. Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education 43 (1): 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2
016.1152466.
Heng, Tang T. 2019. “Understanding the Heterogeneity of International Students’ Experiences: A Case Study
of Chinese International Students in U.S. Universities.” Journal of Studies in International Education 23 (5):
607–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319829880.
Hobsons. 2014. Beyond the Data: Inuencing International Student Decision Making. Arlington, VA: Hobsons.
Hofstede, Geert, and Michael Minkov. 2010. “Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation: New Perspectives.” Asia
Pacic Business Review 16 (4): 493–504.
Hou, Chunguang, and Debin Du. 2020. “e Changing Patterns of International Student Mobility: A
Network Perspective.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691
83X.2020.1797476.
Houshmand, Sara, Lisa B. Spanierman, and Romin W. Tafarodi. 2014. “Excluded and Avoided: Racial
Microaggressions Targeting Asian International Students in Canada.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology 20 (3): 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035404.
Huang, Iona Yuelu, Vincenzo Raimo, and Christine Humfrey. 2016. “Power and Control: Managing Agents for
International Student Recruitment in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education 41 (8): 1333–1354.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.968543.
IAU (International Association of Universities). 2014. “IAU Iquitos Statement on Higher Education
for Sustainable Development.” https://iau-aiu.net/IMG/pdf/policy-statement_hesd_declaration_
iquitos_2014-en-2.pdf.
ICEF Monitor. 2019. “2019 Agent Barometer: Optimism for Year Ahead and Insights on Destination
Preferences,” ICEF Monitor, November 5, 2019. https://monitor.icef.com/2019/11/2019-agent-barometer-
optimism-for-year-ahead-and-insights-on-destination-preferences/.
IDP Education. 2019. “International Student and Parent Buyer Behaviour Research 2019.” Infographic.
Melbourne, Australia: IDP.
- 66 -
IE University. 2020. “Mobility in Higher Education as a Catalyst for Resilience and Renewal.” https://www.
ie.edu/university/about/international-academic-mobility-joint-statement/.
IIE (Institute for International Education). 2020. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Aairs and IIE.
Jing, Xiaoli, Ratna Ghosh, Zhaohui Sun, and Qiang Liu. 2020. “Mapping Global Research Related to
International Students: A Scientometric Review.” Higher Education 80 (3): 415–433. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10734-019-00489-y.
Jones, Elspeth. 2017. “Problematising and Reimagining the Notion of ‘International Student Experience.’”
Studies in Higher Education 42 (5): 933–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1293880.
Khawaja, Nigar G., Olga Moisuc, and Elvia Ramirez. 2014. “Developing an Acculturation and Resilience Scale
for Use with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations.” Australian Psychologist 49 (3): 171–180.
King, Russell, and Parvati Raghuram. 2013. “International Student Migration: Mapping the Field and New
Research Agendas.” Population, Space and Place 19, no. 2 (March/April): 127–137.
Knight, Jane. 2014. “Is Internationalisation of Higher Education Having an Identity Crisis?” In e Forefront
of International Higher Education: A Festschrift in Honor of Philip G. Altbach, Higher Education Dynamics
vol. 42, edited by Alma Maldonado-Maldonado and Roberta Malee Bassett, 75–87. New York: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7085-0_5.
Kondakci, Yasar, Svenja Bedenlier, and Olaf Zawacki-Richter. 2018. “Social Network Analysis of International
Student Mobility: Uncovering the Rise of Regional Hubs.” Higher Education 75 (3): 517–535. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10734-017-0154-9.
Landorf, Hilary, Stephanie Doscher, and Jaus Hardrick. 2018. Making Global Learning Universal: Promoting
Inclusion and Success for All Students. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Lee, Jenny. 2015. “International Student Experiences: Neo-Racism and Discrimination.” International Higher
Education, no. 44: 3–5. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2006.44.7916.
Lee, Jenny J., ed. 2021. U.S. Power in International Higher Education. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Lee, Jenny J., and John P. Haupt. 2020. “Winners and Losers in U.S.-China Scientic Research Collaborations.”
Higher Education 80 (1): 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00464-7.
Lee, Jenny J., and Charles Rice. 2007. “Welcome to America? International Student Perceptions of
Discrimination.” Higher Education 53 (3): 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-4508-3.
Lin, Shu-Yuan, and Susan Day Scherz. 2014. “Challenges Facing Asian International Graduate Students in the
U.S.: Pedagogical Considerations in Higher Education.” Journal of International Students 4 (1): 16–33.
Lomer, Sylvie. 2018. “U.K. Policy Discourses and International Student Mobility: e Deterrence and
Subjectication of International Students.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 16 (3): 308–324. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2017.1414584.
Loo, Bryce. 2019. “International Students and Experiences with Race in the United States.” World Education
News & Reviews, March 26, 2019.
Loo, Bryce, Ning Luo, and Ziyi Ye. 2017. Career Prospects and Outcomes of U.S.-Educated International Students:
Improving Services, Bolstering Success. New York: World Education Services.
Lu, Zhengrong, and Paul Schulmann. 2015. “How Master’s Students Choose Institutions: Research on
International Student Segmentation.” SSRN Electronic Journal, October 5, 2015. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.2686876.
- 67 -
Ma, Yingyi. 2020. Ambitious and Anxious: How Chinese College Students Succeed and Struggle in American Higher
Education. New York: Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/ma--18458.
Macrander, Ashley. 2017. “An International Solution to a National Crisis: Trends in Student Mobility to the
United States Post 2008.” International Journal of Educational Research 82: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijer.2016.12.003.
Marginson, Simon. 2018. “e New Geo-Politics of Higher Education: Global Cooperation, National
Competition and Social Inequality in the World-Class University (WCU) Sector.” Working Paper 43.
London: Centre for Global Development.
Maslow, Abraham H. 1943. “A eory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50 (4): 370–396. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0054346.
May, Vanessa. 2011. “Self, Belonging, and Social Change.” Sociology 45 (3): 363–378. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0038038511399624.
Mazzarol, Tim, and Georey N. Soutar. 2002. “‘Push-Pull’ Factors Inuencing International Student
Destination Choice.” International Journal of Educational Management 16 (2): 82–90. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09513540210418403.
Mittelmeier, Jenna, Bart Rienties, Ashley Gunter, and Parvati Raghuram. 2020. “Conceptualizing
Internationalization at a Distance: A ‘ird Category’ of University Internationalization.” Journal of Studies
in International Education (February). https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315320906176.
Moreno, Melissa Chávez. 2006. “Globalization and Belonging: e Politics of Identity in a Changing World.”
Politics and Policy 34 (1): 220–223.
Moretti, Enrico. 2010. “Local Multipliers.” American Economic Review 100 (2): 373–377. https://doi.
org/10.1257/aer.100.2.373.
Murray, Dennis. 2018. “Living in a World Dierent from the One in Which We ink.” Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management 40 (6): 520–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2018.1529132.
Museus, Samuel D., Duan Zhang, and Mee Joo Kim. 2016. “Developing and Evaluating the Culturally
Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Scale: An Examination of Content and Construct Validity.”
Research in Higher Education 57 (6): 768–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9405-8.
Museus, Samuel D., Varaxy Yi, and Natasha Saelua. 2017. “e Impact of Culturally Engaging Campus
Environments on Sense of Belonging.” e Review of Higher Education 40 (2): 187–215. https://doi.
org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0001.
NAFSA. 2019. “New NAFSA Data: Despite Stagnant Enrollment, International Students Contribute Nearly
$41 Billion to the U.S. Economy.” Press release, November 18, 2019. https://www.nafsa.org/about/about-
nafsa/new-nafsa-data-despite-stagnant-enrollment.
Naidoo, Rajani. 2004. “Fields and Institutional Strategy: Bourdieu on the Relationship between Higher
Education, Inequality, and Society.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 25 (4): 457–471. https://doi.org
/10.1080/0142569042000236952.
National Science Foundation. 2020. “Survey of Earned Doctorates.” Last updated December 2020. https://
www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/.
Ng, Ting Kin, Kitty Wan Ching Wang, and Wai Chan. 2017. “Acculturation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation:
e Moderating Role of Social Support.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 59 (July): 19–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.04.012.
- 68 -
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1997. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjghth8.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr. 2003. e Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195161106.001.0001.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2015. “How Is the Global Talent Pool
Changing (2013, 2030)?” Education Indicators in Focus 2015 (April): 1–4. https://www.oecd.org/education/
EDIF%2031%20(2015)--ENG--Final.pdf.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2019. “Trends Shaping Education 2019:
OECD Says Countries Should Use Global Mega-Trends to Prepare the Future of Education.” Press release,
January 21, 2019. http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/trends-shaping-education-2019-oecd-says-countries-
should-use-global-mega-trends-to-prepare-the-future-of-education.htm.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2020. “International Student Mobility
(Indicator).” OECD Data. https://data.oecd.org/students/international-student-mobility.htm.
Oxford University Press. 2020. “Opportunity.” Accessed January 15, 2021. https://www.lexico.com/denition/
opportunity.
Page, Alexander Gamst, and Sobh Chahboun. 2019. “Emerging Empowerment of International Students: How
International Student Literature Has Shifted to Include the Students’ Voices.” Higher Education 78 (5):
871–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00375-7.
Pan, Jia-Yan. 2011. “A Resilience-Based and Meaning-Oriented Model of Acculturation: A Sample of Mainland
Chinese Postgraduate Students in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35, no. 5
(September): 592–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.009.
Peri, Giovanni, Kevin Shih, and Chad Sparber. 2016. “STEM Workers, H-1B Visas, and Productivity in U.S.
Cities.” In e Economics of International Migration, World Scientic Studies in International Economics,
vol. 49, by Giovanni Peri, 277–307. https://doi.org/10.1142/9781.
Perkins, Krystal M., Tuğçe Kurtiş, and Luis Velazquez. 2020. “What It Means to Be ‘One of Us’: Discourses
of National Identity in the United States.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 78 (September):
43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.12.003.
Perkins, Richard, and Eric Neumayer. 2014. “Geographies of Educational Mobilities: Exploring the Uneven
Flows of International Students.” e Geographical Journal 180, no. 3 (September): 246–259.
Pham, Lien. 2020. “Capabilities and the ‘Value’ Flows of International Graduate Returnees and eir
Networks.” Journal of International Students 10 (2): xii–xv.
Pham, anh, Michael Tomlinson, and Chris ompson. 2019. “Forms of Capital and Agency as Mediations
in Negotiating Employability of International Graduate Migrants.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 17
(3): 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2019.1583091.
Popadiuk, Natalee Elizabeth, and Nancy Marie Arthur. 2014. “Key Relationships for International
Student University-to-Work Transitions.” Journal of Career Development 41 (2): 122–140. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0894845313481851.
Pusser, Brian, and Simon Marginson. 2011. “e Elephant in the Room: Power, Global Rankings, and the
Study of Higher Education Organizations.” In Organizing Higher Education: Managing Colleges for a New
Era, edited by Michael N. Bastedo, 86–117. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- 69 -
QS. 2019. International Student Survey: Growing Global Education: Rising to the International Recruitment
Challenge.” London: QS. http://www.qs-enrolmentsolutions.com/whitepapers/growing-global-education/.
QS. 2020. What COVID-19 Means for International Students Interested in the U.S. London: QS. https://www.
qs.com/portfolio-items/what-covid-19-means-for-international-students-interested-in-the-us/.
Rauhala, Emily. 2020. “Education, Interrupted.” e Washington Post, August 14, 2020. https://www.
washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/coronavirus-chinese-students-us/.
Redden, Elizabeth. 2012. “I’m Not Racist, But.” Inside Higher Ed, October 16, 2012. https://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/16/tensions-simmer-between-american-and-international-
students#ixzz29Tf0MVqO.
Redden, Elizabeth. 2019. “Not an Isolated Incident.” Inside Higher Ed,February 5, 2019. https://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2019/02/05/weighing-duke-case-experts-discuss-discrimination-against-
international-students-and.
Robinson-Pant, Anna, and Anna Magyar. 2018. “e Recruitment Agent in Internationalized Higher
Education: Commercial Broker and Cultural Mediator.” Journal of Studies in International Education 22 (3):
225–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318762485.
Roy, Megha, Zhengrong Lu, and Bryce Loo. 2016. Improving the International Student Experience: Implications
for Recruitment and Support. New York: World Education Services.
Ruiz, Neil G. 2014. e Geography of Foreign Students in U.S. Higher Education: Origins and Destinations.
Global Cities Initiative. Washington, DC: Brookings. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/les/
reports/2014/08/foreign-students/foreign_students_nal.pdf.
Ruiz, Neil G., and Abby Budiman. 2018. Number of Foreign College Students Staying and Working in U.S. After
Graduation Surges. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Sá, Creso M., and Emma Sabzalieva. 2018. “e Politics of the Great Brain Race: Public Policy and
International Student Recruitment in Australia, Canada, England and the U.S.A.” Higher Education 75 (1):
231–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0133-1.
Sabic, Norbert, John Downey, and Liesbet van Zoonen. 2019. “Internationalisation in Practice: Examples from
the Graduate SPIRIT Project.” Internationalisation of Higher Education 4 (36): 5–19.
Sanger, Jodi, and Julie Baer. 2019. Fall 2019 International Student Enrollment Snapshot Survey. Washington,
DC: Institute of International Education. https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Open-Doors/Data/
Fall-International-Enrollments-Snapshot-Reports.
Schulte, Sheila, and Rahul Choudaha. 2014. “Improving the Experiences of International Students.” Change:
e Magazine of Higher Learning 46 (6): 52–58.
Schwab, Klaus. 2016. “e Fourth Industrial Revolution: What It Means, How to Respond.” World Economic
Forum, January 14, 2016 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-
what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/.
Selasi, Taiye. 2014. “Don’t Ask Where I’m From, Ask Where I’m a Local.” 2014. Filmed at TEDGlobal 2014
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 6–10, 2014. TED video, 15:56. https://www.ted.com/talks/taiye_selasi_
don_t_ask_where_i_m_from_ask_where_i_m_a_local/transcript.
Shields, Robin. 2013. “Globalization and International Student Mobility: A Network Analysis.” Comparative
Education Review 57 (4): 609–636. https://doi.org/10.1086/671752.
- 70 -
Shields, Robin. 2019. “e Sustainability of International Higher Education: Student Mobility and Global
Climate Change.” Journal of Cleaner Production 217 (April): 594–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.01.291.
Shu, Frank, Shujaat F. Ahmed, Meghan L. Pickett, Roya Ayman, and Samuel T. McAbee. 2020. “Social Support
Perceptions, Network Characteristics, and International Student Adjustment.” International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 74 (8): 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.11.002.
Sierra, Gabrielle. 2020. “Why We Need International Students.”Why It Matters (podcast), Council on Foreign
Relations. August 12, 2020. https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/why-we-need-international-students?utm_
medium=social_share&utm_source=tw.
Sin, Sei Ching Joanna, and Kyung-Sun Kim. 2013. “International Students’ Everyday Life Information Seeking:
e Informational Value of Social Networking Sites.” Library and Information Science Research 35 (2):
107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2012.11.006.
Singaravelu, Hemla D., Lyle J. White, and Tammy B. Bringaze. 2005. “Factors Inuencing International
Students’ Career Choice: A Comparative Study.” Journal of Career Development 32 (1): 46–59.
Sleeman, Jade, Catherine Lang, and Narelle Lemon. 2016. “Social Media Challenges and Aordances for
International Students: Bridges, Boundaries, and Hybrid Spaces.” Journal of Studies in International
Education 20 (5): 391–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316662975.
Stein, Sharon. 2019. “Critical Internationalization Studies at an Impasse: Making Space for Complexity,
Uncertainty, and Complicity in a Time of Global Challenges.” Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/03075079.2019.1704722.
Stein, Sharon, Vanessa Andreotti, Judy Bruce, and Rene Suša. 2016. “Towards Dierent Conversations about
the Internationalization of Higher Education.” Comparative and International Education 45 (1): 2–20.
Straker, John. 2016. “International Student Participation in Higher Education: Changing the Focus from
‘International Students’ to ‘Participation.’” Journal of Studies in International Education 20 (4): 299–318.
Streitwieser, Bernhard, Bryce Loo, Mara Ohorodnik, and Jisun Jeong. 2019. “Access for Refugees into Higher
Education: A Review of Interventions in North America and Europe.” Journal of Studies in International
Education 23 (4): 473–496.
Suárez-Orozco, Marcelo M., Tasha Darbes, Sandra Isabel Dias, and Matt Sutin. 2011. “Migrations
and Schooling.” Annual Review of Anthropology 40: 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
anthro-111009-115928.
Tan, Anil. 2015. “College Choice Behaviors of International Students.” SAGE Open 5 (4): 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2158244015618995.
Teshome, Yalem, and Nana Osei-Ko. 2012. “Critical Issues in International Education: Narratives of Spouses
of International Students.” Journal of Studies in International Education 16 (1): 62–74. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1028315311403486.
Tomlinson, Michael. 2017. “Forms of Graduate Capital and eir Relationship to Graduate Employability.”
Education +Training 59 (4): 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2016-0090.
Tomlinson, Michael. 2018. “Conceptions of the Value of Higher Education in a Measured Market.” Higher
Education 75 (4): 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0165-6.
Tran, Ly. 2020a. “Understanding the Full Value of International Students.” University World News, August 20,
2020. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200820103708349.
- 71 -
Tran, Ly i. 2016. “Mobility as ‘Becoming’: A Bourdieuian Analysis of the Factors Shaping International
Student Mobility.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 37 (8): 1268–1289. https://doi.org/10.1080/014
25692.2015.1044070.
Tran, Ly i. 2020b. “Teaching and Engaging International Students: People-to-People Empathy and People-to-
People Connections.” Journal of International Students 10 (3): xii–xvii. https://www.ojed.org/index.php/jis/
article/view/2005.
Tran, Ly i, and Lien Pham. 2016. “International Students in Transnational Mobility: Intercultural
Connectedness with Domestic and International Peers, Institutions, and the Wider Community.” Compare:
A Journal of Comparative and International Education 46 (4): 560–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.
2015.1057479.
Tran, Ly i, and Sri Soejatminah. 2017. “Integration of Work Experience and Learning for International
Students: From Harmony to Inequality.” Journal of Studies in International Education 21 (3): 261–277.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315316687012.
Tran, Ly i, and ao i Phuong Vu. 2017. “‘Responsibility in Mobility’: International Students and Social
Responsibility.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 15 (5): 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.
2016.1195729.
Trujillo, Jesus Leal, and Joseph Parilla. 2016. Redening Global Cities. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/redening-global-cities/.
Tsiligkiris, Vangelis. 2020. “Towards a Global Delivery Model for International Higher Education.” University
World News, August 21, 2020. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2020082111264620.
UNESCO. 2019. “Progress Report on the Preparation of the Draft Global Convention on the Recognition of
Qualications Concerning Higher Education.” UNESCO General Conference, 40th Session, Paris, France,
September 3, 2019. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370155.
Urry, John. 2012. “Social Networks, Mobile Lives and Social Inequalities.” Journal of Transport Geography 21
(March): 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.10.003.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2020. Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers Fiscal Year
2019 Annual Report to Congress October 1, 2018–September 30, 2019. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/
les/document/reports/Characteristics_of_Specialty_Occupation_Workers_H-1B_Fiscal_Year_2019.pdf.
Van Aart, Joran. 2011. Key Inuencers of International Student Satisfaction in Europe. Eindhoven, Netherlands:
Studyportals.
Van Mol, Christof, Kim Caarls, and Manuel Souto-Otero. 2020. “International Student Mobility and Labour
Market Outcomes: An Investigation of the Role of Level of Study, Type of Mobility, and International
Prestige Hierarchies.” Higher Education (April). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00532-3.
Viggiano, Tiany, Ariadna I. López Damián, Evelyn Morales Vázquez, and John S. Levin. 2018. “e Others:
Equitable Access, International Students, and the Community College.” Journal of Studies in International
Education 22 (1): 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315317725883.
Wadhwa, Vivek. 2012. e Immigrant Exodus: Why America Is Losing the Global Race to Capture Entrepreneurial
Talent. With Alex Salkever. Philadelphia: Wharton School Press.
Wang, Kenneth T., Feihan Li, Yuting Wang, Elizabeth N. Hunt, Grace C. Yan, and David E. Currey. 2014.
“e International Friendly Campus Scale: Development and Psychometric Evaluation.” International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 42 (September): 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.05.004.
- 72 -
Waters, Johanna L. 2012. “Geographies of International Education: Mobilities and the Reproduction of Social
(Dis)advantage.” Geography Compass 6 (3): 123–136. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/
j.1749-8198.2011.00473.x.
World Bank. 2018. Moving for Prosperity: Global Migration and Labor Markets. Moving for Prosperity: Global
Migration and Labor Markets. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/29806.
WEF (World Economic Forum). 2018. e Future of Jobs Report 2018. Geneva, Switzerland: WEF. http://
www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf.
Wright, Tarah S. A. 2009. “Sustainability, Internationalization, and Higher Education.” New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 2009, no. 118 (Summer): 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.357.
Wu, Cary, and Rima Wilkes. 2017. “International Students’ Post-Graduation Migration Plans and the Search
for Home.” Geoforum 80 (March): 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2017.01.015.
Wu, Hsiao-ping, Esther Garza, and Norma Guzman. 2015. “International Student’s Challenge and Adjustment
to College.” Education Research International 2015 (20): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/202753.
Yang, Peidong. 2020. “Toward a Framework for (Re)inking the Ethics and Politics of International
Student Mobility.” Journal of Studies in International Education 24 (5): 518–534. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1028315319889891.
Yang, Ruby Pi Ju, Kimberly A. Noels, and Kristie D. Saumure. 2006. “Multiple Routes to Cross-Cultural
Adaptation for International Students: Mapping the Paths Between Self-Construals, English Language
Condence, and Adjustment.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (4): 487–506. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.11.010.
Yao, Christina W., Chrystal A. George Mwangi, and Victoria K. Malaney Brown. 2019. “Exploring the
Intersection of Transnationalism and Critical Race eory: A Critical Race Analysis of International Student
Experiences in the United States.” Race Ethnicity and Education 22 (1): 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/136
13324.2018.1497968.
Yeo, HyeJin Tina, Ruby Mendenhall, Stacy Anne Harwood, and Margaret Browne Huntt. 2019. “Asian
International Student and Asian American Student: Mistaken Identity and Racial Microaggressions.”
Journal of International Students 9 (1): 39–65. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i1.278.
Youkhana, Eva. 2015. “A Conceptual Shift in Studies of Belonging and the Politics of Belonging.” Social
Inclusion 3 (4): 10–24. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v3i4.150.
Zhao, Chun-Mei, George D. Kuh, and Robert M. Carini. 2005. “A Comparison of International Student and
American Student Engagement in Eective Educational Practices.” e Journal of Higher Education 76 (2):
209–231. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0018.
Zhang, Yi “Leaf,” and Hagedorn, Linda Serra. 2011. “College Application with or Without Assistance of an
Education Agent: Experience of International Chinese Undergraduates in the U.S.” Journal of College
Admission (Summer): 6–16.
