22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
(Inter)-national mobility in Swiss Higher Education: Bilingual policies, multilingual students, and ‘Englishization’
Anna Becker
University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Presenting Author: Becker, Anna
Despite its multilingual society and four national languages, Switzerland has for the longest time offered tertiary education in French and German only. Historically, universities have existed in the German-speaking part since the 15thcentury and in the French-speaking part since the 16th century. Ticino, the only officially monolingual Italian-speaking canton, founded the Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI) in 1995. To this day, the USI only offers six study programs. This implies that Italian-speaking students are forced to choose among not to study at all, choose a study program out of the limited offer, move to Italy or to a different linguistic region in Switzerland to study in either French or German.
The university attracting most Italian-speaking students is the French- and German-bilingual University of Fribourg (UNIFR). According to UNIFR (UNIFR, 2022a), approximately 10% of its students are Italian-speaking, either from the canton of Ticino, the Italian-speaking part of Grisons, or Italy. Although Italian is the L1 of the third largest language group of speakers after French (39%) and German (36%) and is a national language, there are no official language policies or offers to support Italian at university. The university language policy explicitly states that
- French and German are the languages used in teaching and administration.
- The faculties may permit other languages of instruction.
- The University favors and promotes understanding between persons from different linguistic and cultural areas; in particular, it encourages bilingual studies in French and German. (University law, Art. 6)
Rather, the strict emphasis on the two official languages can be seen to reinforce ideological language choices and create exclusion not only for Italian-speaking but also for any international students who do not speak French or German.
The present study investigates the lived experiences of language and the resulting challenges of Italian-speaking and international students at UNIFR by asking:
- What are students’ language practices and perspectives on the university’s language policies?
- What challenges do they face when starting university in a different linguistic region and/or national context?
- To what extent does English contribute to or impede language and identity development?
The study aims at raising awareness of hegemonic practices through linguistic homogenization and monolingual language policies when multilingual diversity is the social and university’s reality. A special focus is put on the global phenomenon of ‘Englishization' in the context of higher education describing the spread and common use of English as a medium of instruction without any official status as a national language in the local linguascape (Lanvers, 2018), which has been attested to be the case also in Switzerland (Studer & Siddiqa, 2021). In fact, in their study on English in Swiss higher education, Studer and Siddiqa (2021) conclude that
"the Swiss pragmatic way lack[s] a comprehensive and overarching commitment to national languages and national multilingualism as an expression of the nation’s culture and identity. English…is not only used as a welcome and efficient tool for communication but may, locally, be elevated to rank side-by-side with national languages." (p. 137)
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study is embedded in a qualitative research design and draws on the ethnography of multilingualism (Heller, 2008). Recently, critical approaches have been adopted to investigate institutional power structures to which this study will contribute by analyzing the space in which students meet every day and create experiences that positively and/or negatively shape their lived experiences of language.
According to Heller (2008), multilingualism must be understood as a social practice in which languages and their speakers cannot be subsumed under one closed entity or neatly separated from each other, but rather one in which the speakers actively negotiate and reproduce themselves and the social order. The focus then expands from multilingual people and the improvement of their language skills to critically examining practices and their interwovenness within institutions and other historical or socio-political contexts. Ethnography of multilingualism investigates linguistic practices, language hierarchies, inclusion and exclusion mechanisms, and other power relations transmitted through language (Blackledge & Creese, 2010).
The participant observations and interviews were conducted from 2020-2022 in three BA classes as well as a Diploma of Advanced Study (DAS) program and included 14 students (4 BA and 10 DAS). Students gave their explicit consent to participate in the study and for me to disseminate the data in academic publications. All of the students except for one followed a French-German bilingual program.
The data are comprised of field notes, informal conversations, and semi-structured interviews. The interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes, were conducted in Italian, French, or German, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. The field notes and transcripts were analyzed in MaxQDA using a qualitative, ethnographic codebook (LeCompte & Schensul, 2013), resulting in the following themes, which will be presented in the following section:
• Challenges when starting university in non-L1 and/or international context
• Multilingual repertoires in mono-/bilingual instructional contexts
• Advantages and disadvantages of the Englishization at UNIFR
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsGiven Switzerland’s self-attributed identity as Willensnation [nation united by the will of the people], a nation not founded on one ethnicity or language compared to its neighboring countries, but on multiculturalism and multilingualism, including (at least) all three national languages seems to be the more equitable solution, as argued by this study. English, on the other hand, is included as lingua franca adopting a semi-official status through readings, classroom activities, presentations, and most obviously, language policy promoting its necessity in academic settings. As advertised on its website, “some study programs are even [offered] entirely in English” (UNIFR, 2022b). This corresponds with most of the participants’ perspectives on English, too. It is often uncritically recognized as the only acceptable academic language, which is "[legitimized]…through meritocratic rhetoric" (Carlucci, 2017, p. 134). Problematically, the uncritical adoption of English as an academic language not only obfuscates underlying power relations mobilized through language (Heller & Duchêne, 2012) but also contributes to the dispossession of individuals' L1 linguistic capital. That said, English proficiency in academia is beneficial; it improves intercultural communication, enables cooperation and research projects, and increases academic/professional opportunities globally. Van Parijs (2021, p. 355) sharply asks, “is the Englishization of Europe’s higher education a problem?”
This contribution has argued that it would only be a problem if English were to hegemonize the local linguistic landscape and impede identity and language development in students' L1s and Switzerland's local languages. Establishing English as an additional language while being critical of underlying power relations, language hierarchies, and commodification processes of languages but also higher education more generally, can be a resource for students and faculty members. As Van Parijs (2021, p. 366) summarized it, multilingual local or international students can be “go-betweens,…bridge builders between the irreversibly internationalized and Englishized academic community and our stubbornly distinctive local communities.”
ReferencesBlackledge, A. & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. Continuum.
Carlucci, A. (2017). Language, education and European unification: Perceptions and reality of global English in Italy. In N. Pizzolato & J. D. Holst (Eds.), Antonio Gramsci: A pedagogy to change the world (pp. 127-148). Springer.
Heller, M. (2008). Doing ethnography. In L. Wei & M. G. Moyer (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 249-262). Blackwell.
Heller, M. & Duchêne, A. (2012). Pride and Profit: Changing Discourses of Language, Capital and Nation-State. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller (Eds.), Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit (pp. 1-21). Routledge.
Lanvers, U. (2018). Public debates of the Englishization of education in Germany: A critical discourse analysis. European Journal of Language Policy 10(1), 37-75.
LeCompte, M. & Schensul, J. J. (2013). Analysis & interpretation of ethnographic data: A mixed methods approach. Altamira Press.
Studer, P. & Siddiqa, A. (2021). English in Swiss higher education: The pragmatic way. In R. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.), The Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 121-141). Amsterdam University Press.
University of Fribourg (UNIFR) (2022a). Zahlen & Statistiken. Retrieved on 7 August, 2022, from https://www.unifr.ch/uni/de/portrait/statistiken.html
University of Fribourg (UNIFR) (2022b). Studiensprachen. Retrieved on 7 August, 2022, from https://www.unifr.ch/studies/de/studienorganisation/studienbeginn/studiensprachen.html
Van Parijs, P. (2021). Englishization as trap and lifeline. In R. Wilkinson & R. Gabriëls (Eds.), The Englishization of higher education in Europe (pp. 355-368). Amsterdam University Press.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
What Does the Wide Use of Education Agents Mean? The Doxa of Chinese International Students’ University Application Experiences
Ying Yang
The University of Manchester, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Yang, Ying
Education agents are organisations and/or individuals who provide a range of services in exchange for a fee from their service users, including overseas higher education institutions and/or students who will study or are studying abroad (Nikula & Kivistö, 2018; Krasocki, 2002). In the marketized international higher education sector, education agents appear to play an increasingly important role in the fierce international student recruitment campaign (BUILA, 2021). Accordingly, there are an increasing number of studies on education agents such as the role of education agents in international students’ decision-making (Feng & Horta, 2021; Robinson-Pant & Magyar, 2018; Hagedorn & Zhang, 2011) and the relationship between agents and overseas universities (Nikula, 2022; Huang et al., 2020). However, there remains a significant gap in our knowledge of the underlying meaning of the wide use of education agents to international students, universities, policymakers, and other stakeholders. Therefore, this article aims to understand the meaning of using education agents widely by exploring the collective beliefs and practices of prospective Chinese international students who used an education agent (Chinese agent-user applicants) over the course of their application for UK postgraduate taught (PGT) programmes. This article draws on longitudinal semi-structured interviews with 10 Chinese agent-user applicants from November 2020 to June 2021 and uses Bourdieu’s concept of doxa to analyse the data. Doxa refers to the collective beliefs, opinions, assumptions, and norms about the appropriate practices that everyone in the field is conscious of yet does not question (Bourdieu, 1977). In Bourdieu’s terms, doxa is a form of recognition of legitimacy through the ‘misrecognition of arbitrariness’ (1977, p. 168). That is, part of the rules that do not serve to usefully function within the field, are misrecognised as common sense of the field (Williams & Choudry, 2016). In this study, my initial analysis suggests that the practice of using an education agent becomes many Chinese agent-user applicants’ ‘pre-reflexive intuitive knowledge’ (Deer, 2008, p.120), When forming their intention to study abroad, many Chinese students tend to glean related information through different channels including education agents, recommendations from families and alumni, social media, university websites, online forum/academic community, specific mobile applications, and online search engines. These channels all routed them towards using an education agent (Yang, 2021). Their routine practices thus led me to employ Bourdieu’s concept of doxa to explore what Chinese agent-user applicants learned and did in the application process.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis article emanated from a project (Yang et al., 2023) exploring Chinese international students’ application experiences to UK PGT programmes via education agents. The project used a longitudinal interpretative phenomenological analysis approach (Smith et al., 2009), to understand Chinese international students’ application experiences with education agents, the meaning of the experiences to individual students, and to explore how the individuals make sense of these experiences.
The criteria for participation are that the participants need: 1. to be Chinese students who pursued their undergraduate programme in China or other countries and applied to UK PGT programme(s) commencing in September 2021; 2. to have used or be currently using or considering using an agent (including any-scale agent or any business-model agent). Ultimately, the purposive sample of ten participants was generated.
I conducted four rounds of semi-structured interviews, corresponding to the four key stages of application suggested in the findings of an earlier study (Yang et al., 2020), with each participant in Chinese online and recorded them, as outlined in table 2. Each interview took around 2 hours. Overall, there are 40 interviews and around 80 hours. The first interview questions focused on education background, socio-economic background, motivation for studying abroad, choice of countries, agents, and programmes, time, expectations of education agents, agents’ services and so on. The follow-up interview questions were unstructured and based on participants’ ongoing application process and were tailored to individuals.
The project used six-step IPA data analysis (Smith et al., 2009). I firstly read through each transcript whilst listening to recordings and watching videos, along with making notes and comments. The transcripts were then further annotated in the subsequent readings before developing emergent themes by uploading transcripts into NVivo, creating nodes based on the earlier notes and comments, as well as merging or segregating the initial nodes. Subsequently, I identified differences, similarities and connections across the four interviews of the case. Based on the analysis for the project (Yang et al., 2023), I took the above two research questions and went back to the transcripts again, teased out each participant’s quotes associated with taken-for-granted assumptions/beliefs/practices for further analysis, and then developed three themes discussed further in the following section. Finally, I conducted member checking to confirm the meanings of data are consistent with participants’ interpretations.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings suggest that education agents are collectively regarded as having their established routine procedure of application, which serves to formulate Chinese students’ “successful” application trajectory that succeeds the position of prior applicants over time. Shui courses, “watered-down” courses, analogous to “Easy A courses” in American slang, in the minds of my participants, clearly represent courses having little to do with interests or expertise but more with obtaining satisfying grades without much effort (Chen, 2018). Chinese agent-user applicants take it for granted that they should choose an education agent, and boost scores by (re)taking Shui courses with their agents’ guidance. In parallel, UK universities are collectively perceived to open some Shui programmes at the PGT level. Those are PGT courses that are less competitive but provided by high-ranked universities. In the application game, many Chinese applicants are ineligible for some programmes at top-ranked universities in the UK (basically referring to the universities ranked top 100 on QS rankings) due to the relatively low ranking of their undergraduate universities. Notwithstanding, getting into prestigious UK universities is still possible with the help of an agent by applying for overseas Shui programmes. Those are PGT courses that are less competitive but provided by high-ranked universities. This article implies that education agents who play as a symbolic dominant in the application game to overseas programmes, ostensibly work for Chinese agent-user applicants to facilitate their applications and advance their position in the game, but in fact, serve to consolidate the hierarchies of UK universities by stimulating application numbers through doxa.
ReferencesBourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BUILA (2021). A route to a UK Quality Framework with Education Agents. https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/uploads/files/1/Policy%20and%20lobbying/BUILA%20UKCISA%20Research%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
Chen, G.D. (2018). Manage “Shui ke”, Construct “Golden classes” (治理 “水课” 打造 “金课”). China University Teaching, 9(23), 1005-0450. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JXCY201809008.htm
Feng, S., & Horta, H. (2021). Brokers of international student mobility: The roles and processes of education agents in China. European Journal of Education, 56(2), 248-264.
Hagedorn, L.S. & Zhang, L.Y. (2011). The use of agents in recruiting Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Studies in International Education, 15 (2), 186-202.
Huang, I. Y., Williamson, D., Lynch-Wood, G., Raimo, V., Rayner, C., Addington, L., & West, E. (2020). Governance of agents in the recruitment of international students: a typology of contractual management approaches in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1-21.
Krasocki, J. (2002). Education UK: Developing the UK’s International Agent Network. Promotions and Partnerships (ECS). London: The British Council.
Nikula, P. T. (2022). Education agent standards in Australia and New Zealand–government’s role in agent-based international student recruitment. Studies in Higher Education, 47(4), 831-846.
Nikula, P. T. & Kivistö, J. (2018). Hiring Education Agents for International Student Recruitment: Perspectives from Agency Theory. Higher Education Policy, 31(4), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0070-8
Robinson-Pant, A. & Magyar, A. (2018). The recruitment agent in internationalized higher education: Commercial broker and cultural Mediator. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(3), 225-241.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Williams, J., & Choudry, S. (2016). Mathematics capital in the educational field: Bourdieu and beyond. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(1), 3-21.
Yang, Y., Lomer, S., Mittelmeier, J. & Lim, M.A. (In press, expected 2023). Giving voice to Chinese international students using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): the application experiences to UK universities via education agents in uncertain times. In P. Nikula, I. Y. Huang, V. Raimo & E. West (Eds.). Student Recruitment Agents in International Higher Education: A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Challenges and Best Practices, Internationalization in Higher Education book series. Routledge.
Yang, Y., Mittelmeier, J., Lim, M.A. and Lomer, S. (2020). Chinese international student recruitment during the COVID-19 crisis: education agents' practices and reflections. HERE@Manchester. https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/chinese-international-student-recruitment-during-the-covid19-crisis(be489a37-107c-480e-82c4-4583bc3dfeeb).html
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Post-Brexit International Student Mobilities: An Analysis of the UK’s Turing Scheme
Rachel Brooks1, Johanna Waters2
1University of Surrey, United Kingdom; 2UCL
Presenting Author: Brooks, Rachel
For over 35 years, many thousands of young people have experienced outward mobility as part of their UK university undergraduate degree programmes. Since 1987, UK-based students have had the opportunity to take part in an educational mobility initiative known as the Erasmus programme. The UK was involved in this programme from its inception, along with 10 other countries; it has subsequently enabled students’ short term international educational mobility, providing students with a grant and waiving tuition fees for study in another member country. In addition, the UK has accepted thousands of students to study, annually, as part of the exchange agreements built into this programme. Erasmus+ has become a central feature of UK universities’ increasingly popular ‘study abroad’ initiatives.
From 2022, however, UK students are no longer to participate in this scheme, just as students in other European countries are unable to attend UK universities under Erasmus+. Replacing this programme, as part of the development of what the government has called ‘Global Britain’, is the Turing Scheme. To date, there has been virtually no academic analysis of the implications of this change. This paper constitutes an early examination of these implications by focussing on the messages conveyed about the scheme – to current and prospective students – by higher education institutions.
The Turing Scheme clearly sits within a broader landscape of short-term international mobility. Moving abroad to undertake so-called ‘credit mobility’ has become increasingly popular, and encouraged by HEIs, governments and even, in the case of Europe, by regional bodies. Although such mobility has typically been arranged through study exchanges, where students move to another country for an entire semester or year and follow degree-level courses in the host institution, over the past decade it has broadened to include international work placements (Cranston et al., 2020); faculty-led programmes (Tran et al., 2021); and the emergence of ‘gap year’-like programmes, where there is little attempt to ‘match’ academic content of courses between institutions (Courtois, 2018). As a consequence of this diversification of opportunities, the time spent abroad has also, often, been reduced.
Analyses of the purposes and impact of short-term student mobility have focussed heavily on employment and perceived employability, potentially appealing to less privileged students (Deakin, 2014). Indeed, in their study of international work placements offered to students in UK higher education, Cranston et al. (2020) show how, despite an emphasis on fun and personal development, their participants understood their experience primarily in terms of securing an experience that would allow them to ‘stand out’ from others within a congested graduate labour market. Such placements were seen as an effective means of demonstrating ‘an individual’s employability, but also their “global mindset” and ability to work in different national contexts’ (p.141). Research on the perspectives of universities has also, in some cases, evidenced a strong focus on employability (Tran et al., 2021), sometimes to the near exclusion of academic learning (Sidhu and Dell’Alba, 2017). However, Miller-Idriss and colleagues (2019) demonstrate how, in the US at least, messages about the purpose of study abroad propagated by HEIs tend to focus not on employability, but on having fun, maturing, and developing and transforming personally. In this way, they contend, these messages closely align with expectations of elite US higher education more generally – and may serve to exclude historically marginalised students who often view higher education in more instrumental terms. Such messages also tend to also position host countries in very limited ways – and primarily as places for US students’ ‘consumption, entertainment, and personal edification’ (p.1104). These images may serve to discourage less privileged students from considering short term study abroad opportunities.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe draw on a content analysis of the websites of UK HEIs to examine what messages are being conveyed externally about the Turing Scheme – because webpages constitute a key means of communication between HEIs and their student communities (as well as with the public more generally).
In total, we analysed for content the relevant pages of 100 HEIs . The institutions were chosen randomly, out of a list of all 165 UK HEIs produced by the Higher Education Statistics Agency. Our sample was sufficiently large to include institutions of differing ages and statuses; it was also diverse geographically, including institutions in all four home nations of the UK. For each HEI, we analysed the webpages devoted to ‘international opportunities’/study abroad for outgoing students (i.e. individuals who were already students at the HEI). The number and length of such pages differed considerably between institutions – with some having only one page devoted to this topic, while others had a large number of pages, providing a very significant amount of information. We completed a grid for each institution, recording what was said, if anything, about the following:
• How international opportunities are presented to students;
• The geographical spread of opportunities;
• The type of opportunities available;
• The Turing Scheme, specifically;
• The availability of opportunities to students who are traditionally under-represented in higher education and/or within international student mobility.
Our analysis focussed primarily on text rather than the layout or visual representation as we were interested in what universities communicated via words, although we sometimes noted the visual representation of text when it was particularly striking. We also searched each HEI’s website for any mention of the Turing Scheme that was outside of the international opportunities pages, noting, for example, where HEIs had provided in a news item information about the amount of funding they had been awarded under the scheme. (This was evident in only 11 of the 100 cases.) Finally, where various third parties were mentioned (see discussion below), we examined their websites, too. We now turn to consider our findings in the light of the discussion above, focussing on geopolitical positioning through ‘Global Britain’, the perceived importance of socio-economic diversification through ‘widening participation’, and the underexplored role played by third parties in the provision and administration of the Turing Scheme (and study abroad more broadly).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur website analysis provides an early indication of how HEIs are responding to the Turing Scheme and how their activities map on to the scheme’s key objectives.
First, with respect to the objective of promoting ‘Global Britain’, we show how the language used by HEIs reflects this discourse. However, we also argue that opportunities for mobility remain significantly geographically circumscribed – with a strong focus on the US and other Anglophone nations of the Global North as well as, interestingly, ‘older’ relationships within mainland Europe. ‘Global’ is also understood in largely individualistic terms, with an emphasis on the benefits to individuals rather than wider communities, nations or ‘global society’.
Second, despite the clear governmental emphasis on increasing the participation of disadvantaged groups, this objective was reflected much less obviously in the HEI websites. While practice within institutions may be different, the targeting of disadvantaged groups was not presented as a key aspect of the scheme on websites, while the enhanced Turing grants available to disadvantaged groups were mentioned only rarely. This may constitute a lost opportunity to market the scheme to traditionally non-internationally mobile groups.
Third, we also contend that the Turing Scheme appears to be extending ‘migration infrastructures’ (Xiang and Lindquist, 2014) by increasing the number of ‘third parties’ involved in short-term mobility programmes (e.g. non-profit organisations providing volunteering and study abroad opportunities). While they may increase opportunities for students who are able to spend only a short time abroad (such as those with caring or work commitments), the lack of academic content and oversight from the host HEI suggests that these experiences may be of a lesser quality. Moreover, the shorter duration of many trips may prove insufficient to develop the skills central to the Turing Scheme’s objectives – let alone a broader understanding of other cultures.
ReferencesBaas, M. (2019) The education-migration industry: international students, migration policy and the question of skills, International Migration, 57(3), 222-234.
Beech, S. (2018) Adapting to change in the higher education system: international student mobility as a migration industry, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44, 610-635.
Cardwell, P. (2021) Erasmus and the Turing Scheme: A metaphor for Brexit?, The Parliament Magazine.
Courtois, A. (2018) ‘It doesn’t really matter which university you attend or which subject you study while abroad.’ The massification of student mobility programmes and its implications for equality in higher education, European Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 99-114.
Cranston, S., Pimlott-Wilson, H. and Bates, A. (2020) International work placements and hierarchies of distinction, Geoforum, 108, 139-147.
Deakin, H. (2014) The drivers to Erasmus work placement mobility for UK students, Children's Geographies, 12(1), 25-39.
Findlay, A. (2010) An assessment of supply and demand-side theorizations of international student mobility, International Migration, 49(2), 162-190.
James, C. (2021) From Erasmus to Turing: What Now for Study Mobility between the UK and the EU? Damage Limitation and New Opportunities, Pecs Journal of International and European Law, 2021, 1, 9-22.
Lewin-Jones, J. (2019) Discourses of ‘internationalisation’: a multimodal critical discourse analysis of university marketing webpages, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 24, 2-3, 208-230.
Lipura, S. and Collins, F. (2020) Towards an integrative understanding of contemporary educational mobilities, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 18(3), 343-359.
Miller-Idriss, C., Friedman, J. and Auerbach, J. (2019) Jumping, horizon gazing, and arms wide: marketing imagery and the meaning of study abroad in the USA, Higher Education, 78, 1091-1107.
Resitaino, M., Vitale, M. and Primerano, I. (2020) Analysing international student mobility flows in higher education: a comparative study on European countries, Social Indicators Research, 149(3), 947-965.
Schnepf, S. and Colagrossi, M. (2020) Is unequal uptake of Erasmus mobility really only due to students’ choices? The role of selection into universities and fields of study, Journal of European Social Policy, 30(4), 436-451.
Sidhu, R. and Dall’Alba, G. (2017) ‘A strategy of distinction’ unfolds: unsettling the undergraduate outbound mobility experience, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 468-484.
Van Mol, C. (2014). Intra-European Student Mobility in International Higher Education Circuits. Europe on the Move, Basingstoke, Palgrave.
Waters, J. and Brooks, R. (2021) Student Migrants and Contemporary Educational Mobilities London, Palgrave.
Xiang, B. and Lindquist, J. (2014) Migration infrastructure, International Migration Review, 48, S122-S148.
|
