Geographies of educational mobilities: exploring the uneven flows of international students

Abstract

A growing number of individuals are choosing to study abroad although, like other manifestations of globalisation, the sources and destinations of these migratory flows are highly uneven. Within the context of ongoing debates about the motives for overseas study, the reproduction of class advantage, and countries' competitive advantage for internationally mobile students, this paper seeks to improve understanding of these variations. We situate international student mobilities within a theoretical framework which connects recent work in geography, emphasising the differentiation advantage derived from foreign study, with insights more commonly applied to labour migration which emphasise costs and benefits. Our findings, based on a statistical analysis of a large sample of country pairs, call into question the central importance commonly ascribed to countries' university quality in shaping the mobilities of international students. Far more influential is income in destination countries, together with relational ties created by colonial linkages, common language and pre‐existing migrant stocks. Unique to the literature, we not only demonstrate important differences in the determinants of international student mobilities between developed and developing countries, but also between different sub‐groupings of developing countries. Indeed, an important insight from our study is that it may be useful to move beyond binary classifications, and to deploy more refined country categorisations in seeking to understand contemporary corporeal mobilities.

Academic attractiveness of countries; a possible benchmark strategy applied to the Netherlands

“…Unlike the data for the factual indicators, data for the perceptual indicators are not publically available, as they require a substantial study amongst a large sample of international students from different countries, because perceptions on the attractiveness of countries as study destinations can differ from country to country (Perkins and Neumayer 2013).…”

“…Political conditions in destination countries (civil and political freedoms), income levels in destination countries, distance to destination countries, common language, colonial linkage, pre-existing migrant stocks, and number of domestic universities in international rankings (Perkins and Neumayer 2013). .…”

“…The difference is that instead of quantitative indicators, questions to prospective international students to determine how they perceive certain aspects of possible destination countries are to be posed. Suggested questions are described in Table 3.Unlike the data for the factual indicators, data for the perceptual indicators are not publically available, as they require a substantial study amongst a large sample of international students from different countries, because perceptions on the attractiveness of countries as study destinations can differ from country to country (Perkins and Neumayer 2013).A dataset of how international students perceive different destination countries was not available for this study. Nevertheless, data on how international student perceive the Netherlands, which to some extent matches the data needs as outlines in Table 3, were available.…”

Internationally mobile students and their post-graduation migratory behaviour

“…At the same time both author groups acknowledged that cross-border student mobility should not be seen as an isolated event, but a decision in light of individual career plans. Perkins and Neumayer (2013) presented evidence that enrolment abroad is positively influenced by the income level in the host country -an indication for better labour market perspectives in a host country and thus possibly increasing benefits of studying abroad. Additionally, network effects have been identified, implying that costs of mobility could be mitigated by the presence of fellow nationals which could provide information and support.…”

“…Following a human capital approach, Perkins and Neumayer (2013) analysed degree mobility for a large set of source and destination countries, whilst accounting for distinct socio-political and economic features. They also supported findings of Findlay et al (2012) who stressed acquisition of social and cultural capital to be one of the driving forces behind the decision to study abroad.…”