World class An investigation of globalisation, differenc.docx

World class? An investigation of globalisation, difference and
international student
mobility
Author(s): Allan M Findlay, Russell King, Fiona M Smith,
Alistair Geddes and Ronald
Skeldon
Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
New Series, Vol. 37, No. 1
(2012), pp. 118-131
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The Royal Geographical
Society (with the Institute of
British Geographers)
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41427932
Accessed: 27-08-2018 08:35 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British
Geographers), Wiley are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Mon, 27 Aug
2018 08:35:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
World class? An investigation of
globalisation, difference and international
student mobility
Allan M Findlay*, Russell King**, Fiona M Smith*,
Alistair Geddes* and Ronald Skeldon**
This paper explores the motivations and meanings of
international student mobility.
Central to the discussion are the results of a large questionnaire
survey and associated
in-depth interviews with UK students enrolled in universities in
six countries from
around the world. The results suggest, first, that several
different dimensions of social
and cultural capital are accrued through study abroad. It is
argued that the search for
'world class' education has taken on new significance. Second,
the paper argues that
analysis of student mobility should not be confined to a
framework that separates
study abroad from the wider life-course aspirations of students.
It is argued that these
insights go beyond existing theorisations of international

student mobility to incorpo-
rate recognition of diverse approaches to difference within
cultures of mobility, includ-
ing class reproduction of distinction, broader notions of
distinction within the life-plans
of individual students, and how 'reputations' associated with
educational destinations
are structured by individuals, institutions and states in a global
higher education
system that produces differentially mediated geographies of
mobility.
key words international students higher education universities
mobility
globalisation difference
^Geography, School of the Environment, University of Dundee,
Dundee DDI 4HN
email: [email protected]
**Sussex Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex,
Brighton BN1 9RH
revised manuscript received 25 January 2011
Introduction
Education has long been recognised as more than a
process that imparts formal knowledges. Some
argue that education is as much about social privi-
lege as it is about training the mind, and that edu-
cation results in the reproduction of social
difference (Bourdieu 1984; Jeffery et al. 2005). This
is especially true with regard to differential access
to higher education (HE). Hence, many social
democracies have sought to improve access to HE

through meritocratic means and widening partici-
pation strategies (David 2007; Morley and Lugg
2009). From this, one might argue that the increas-
ingly globalised provision of HE would reduce
differential access to universities by widening the
market. On the other hand the global increase in
the number of universities might imply a decline
in demand for opportunities to study internation-
ally, resulting in a reduction in international stu-
dent flows. And yet, student migration has
increased over recent decades1 and has become one
of the major forms of contemporary international
mobility (Bhandari and Blumenthal 2009).
Much research on international student mobility
has focused on short-term exchanges ('credit
mobility') within regions such as the EU (King
and Ruiz-Gelices 2003); the tendency has been to
Trans Inst Br Geogr NS 37 118-131 2012
ISSN 0020-2754 © 2011 The Authors.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers © 2011
Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British
Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
World class ? 119

see these two-way flows as transient and unpro-
blematic. This paper examines longer-term 'degree
mobility', defined as taking an entire degree at a
university outside one's country of usual residence
(Universities UK 2008). Although the current esti-
mated stock of 33 000 UK students studying in
HE institutions abroad (Higher Education Interna-
tional Unit 2010) is small compared with
the 370 000 foreign students studying in the UK,
the former number is not insignificant (equating
to the student population of two medium-sized
British universities). It is also an especially inter-
esting group, since one might ask why so many
UK citizens leave a country renowned for the
quality of its universities. We suggest that seeking
to understand this flow requires asking some very
fundamental social questions. Not only is this one
of many 'new mobilities' (Urry 2007) reshaping
contemporary (Western) society, but it could be
argued that international student mobility consti-
tutes a critical means of intensifying social differ-
ence within the globalising higher education
system (Marginson et al. 2007). Furthermore, treat-
ing the study of UK international students as an
empirical lens to look at a much wider phenome-
non (global student mobility) leads to questions
about how the internationalisation of HE is linked
to the reproduction of unevenness in the global
labour market.
The specific objectives of this paper are, first, to
investigate the differentiation of UK student migra-
tion trends; second, to interpret the motives for
and experiences of UK international student mobil-
ity; and third, to theorise international student

mobility in relation to the globalisation of higher
education.
We start by reviewing the literature on interna-
tional student mobility (ISM), with a specific focus
on how ISM relates to the differentiation of univer-
sities in a global hierarchy and discourses around
how an international education increases an indi-
vidual's cultural capital. New research results are
then reported, both in terms of the statistical con-
tours of UK ISM revealed by our surveys and from
analysis of in-depth interviews with UK students
living and studying in six principal destination
countries. Through this process, we aim to offer a
novel theorisation of key aspects of ISM, based on
diverse processes of distinction which mediate the
linkages between individual mobilities, the interna-
tionalisation of HE and the destinations of talent
flows in the global economy.
International student mobility in a
globally differentiated education system
Over the last 10 years the literature on international
student mobility (ISM) has increased markedly
(Gürüz 2008; Solimano 2008; Varghese 2008;
Williams and Balaz 2008). Extensive research has
been conducted on credit mobility such as the
European Erasmus scheme (Byram and Dervin
2008) but, overall, studies of degree mobility have
dominated. This literature reflects the interest of

education researchers in understanding how ISM is
embedded in the complex relations linking globali-
sation, pedagogy and society (Brooks and Waters
2010; Edwards and Usher 2007; Gulson and Syme
2007; de Wit 2008).
Some have interpreted student mobility as the
outcome of individual decisions reflecting personal
characteristics such as gender, socio-economic
background, language competence and personality
(Dreher and Putvaara 2005; HEFCE 2004). These
individual characteristics may be reinforced by pro-
pitious circumstances such as speaking a foreign
language or, conversely, be negatively affected by
inhibiting effects such as coming from a less privi-
leged social background (Christie 2007; Findlay
et al. 2006; Halsey 1993). In the UK, the effect of
selectivity by social background is exaggerated for
students seeking to study away from their parental
home (Holds worth 2006); one would expect this
effect to be magnified for international student
flows. Even where young people 'escape' their
social background and gain a university degree,
this achievement is often still insufficient to free
them from their class or caste origins (Jeffery et al.
2005).
ISM has been structured not only by social class
but also by the internationalisation of aspects of the
education system (Teichler 2004; Yang 2003), by the
rising economic competition for global talent
(Kuptsch 2006), and by the geographies of cultural
capital (Murphy-Lejeune 2002; Ong 1999; Waters
2006). In what follows we seek a better understand-

ing of what can be learned from analysing student
mobility as a process linking three life-stage arenas
(school, university and labour-market outcomes)
rather than as a one-off migration 'event'. Our
focus is on understanding the differentiation of
educational structures in relation to each of these
three spatial arenas in order to interpret the mean-
ings attached to ISM. By implication these 'spaces'
operate at different scales, with universities, for
Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
120 Allan M Findlay et al.
example, occupying institutional spaces nested
within the geopolitical territories of state and trans-
state systems (Gulson and Symes 2007). Nationally
differentiated HE systems have increasingly been
affected by political moves towards using common
templates in education provision such as the Bolo-
gna process (Papatsiba 2006), globalising labour
markets for codified high-level skills (Kuptsch
2006), and convergence in HE in many countries in
favour of delivering some (or all) teaching in Eng-

lish. These kinds of international (some would say
'global') forces have not only been powerful in pro-
ducing increasing similarities in HE around the
globe, but also in generating an ever-more complex
array of flows of people, knowledge and technol-
ogy in response to differences between institutions
and nations (Tapper and Palfreyman 2004).
'Globalisation' is of course a problematic term.
Used in relation to education, 'globalisation' is
too easily thought of as a discrete phenomenon
(Gulson and Symes 2007, 8), associated only with
embodied flows of students and teachers (Ackers
and Gill 2008). At a more profound level it can sig-
nify a more complex range of geopolitical and cul-
tural processes involved in transforming the spatial
organisation of educational and social relations
(Held and McGrew 2007; Singh et al. 2007). More
specifically, so-called 'globalisation' of higher edu-
cation has not only produced 'spatial practices'
(Lefebvre 1991) such as international mobility, it
has also been responsible for the changing cultural
representation of university education. This has fol-
lowed from neo-liberal state-driven policies that
have spotlighted the differentiating social effects of
unequal educational provision, not just nationally
but internationally (Gulson and Symes 2007). In
Lefebvre' s (1991) terms, these global engagements
have in turn been responsible for 'the contempo-
rary production of mobile identities in and through
international education' (Singh et al. 2007, 198).
Focusing on universities as institutions through
which these processes of differentiation have been
reproduced, Marginson and van der Wände (2007)
distinguish horizontal and vertical differences. Ver-

tical differences include institutional features such
as capacity (size and subject diversity), status (the
university's age or world ranking) and resources -
all significant in differentiating institutions within
the 'field of power' (Bourdieu 1984) that is higher
education. Horizontal differences include level of
specialisation, segmentation between private and
public sector universities, language of instruction
and academic culture. While these horizontal differ-
ences may not be a necessary reason for increased
differentiation within a hierarchical system, Margin-
son et al. note that 'under certain historical
circumstances horizontal differences have vertical
implications such as the advantage accruing to
English language nations in this era' (2007, 14).
Recent research has begun to shed light on these
contextual forces within which student mobility and
other exchanges take place (OECD 2004). It appears
that the internationalisation of higher education has
proceeded alongside increased global differentiation
of the university system resulting in greater value
being attached to particular degrees from particular
places (Yang 2003). Thus while in the past most uni-
versities within a nation-state were assumed to offer
degrees of similar quality underpinned by state
funding, with only a very small number of HE insti-
tutions being identified as elite places to study,
increasingly universities in Western democracies

have been affected by governments' espousal of
neo-liberal agendas as a pretext for greatly reducing
state funding and placing universities in competi-
tion with one another locally, nationally, and also
internationally (Gill 2009; Sadlak and Cai 2007). A
closer reading suggests that the so-called 'globalisa-
tion' of higher education, rather than proceeding
alongside differentiation of the system, is funda-
mentally implicated in its transformation through a
withdrawal of state funds and a shift to offering a
marketable international commodity to students
who are expected to perceive the value of education
as lying beyond the nation-state (Singh et al. 2007,
195). Indeed the state may no longer even be a rele-
vant starting point in analysing 'quality' and 'equal-
ity' in the provision of HE. Rather, it may 'no longer
[be] possible to draw political or even sociological-
conceptual boundaries between national and inter-
national in the matter of social inequalities' (Beck
2004, 149).
Over time increased participation levels in HE
have driven up demand for access to the 'best' uni-
versities within an imagined or rank-listed world
hierarchy. What is considered the 'best' university
is of course a complex issue (Deem et al. 2008).
Some might argue that the oldest elite universities
come closest to offering what is socially con-
structed as the best traditional training. Commer-
cial forces have seen other metrics (such as the
citation impact of staff research publications in top
journals) emerging and being used to construct
global university league tables. For some students

Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
World class? 121
conscious consideration of such hierarchies may be
less important than simply being able to claim that
their degree is distinctive from that of their peers
because it was achieved by attending an institution
outside their country of normal residence; this dis-
tinctiveness may be heightened if the location of
the university is well known as a global city or
world-renowned destination.
The unevenness of higher education has inevita-
bly meant that certain social practices are deployed
in an effort to reproduce social advantage through
the globalised education system. We see this as an
extension of Bourdieu and Passeront (1997) claim
that education is the major player in the transmis-
sion of 'cultural capital' (Bourdieu 1986) between
generations. Brown (1995) and Noble and Davies
(2009) have shown that cultural capital in the form
of education is often a key marker of social inclu-
sion and exclusion. According to Waters (2006), the
growing middle class in China are seeking to maxi-

mise the cultural capital of the next generation by
sending them to international elite universities. The
cultural capital model of student migration there-
fore differs from the conventional human capital
perspective in suggesting that it is the social bene-
fits of gaining new knowledge, skills and education
in another place that matter most. In particular the
advantages associated with international study are
thought to stretch beyond academic credentials and
include features such as the cosmopolitan identities
(Beck 2004) acquired as a result of international
experience. The significance of cultural capital var-
ies spatially and over time. For example, Waters
suggests that international academic credentials
have become ever-more valued by Chinese middle-
class families at a time when improved provision
has meant that the middle class no longer have
'exclusive ownership of the rewards accruing' from
local HE access (2008, 8).
Achieving advantage is not restricted to transna-
tional study opportunities, but extends throughout
different stages of the education system, including
sending children to international schools (Bunnell
2007) and to elite private institutions for their sec-
ondary education, where, as Bourdieu (1996, 79)
has argued, the 'state nobility' establish situated
experiences of education that produce 'symbolic
capital' that they can draw on later in life. The
most obvious example of social structures produc-
ing chains of influence might be the way that 'situ-
ated practices' in elite schools are important in the
social development of pupils including helping to
channel them into the top international universities
(Waters 2007, 477).

Some of these ideas are brought together sche-
matically in Figure 1, derived from extensive read-
Figure 1 Transnational and national student flows in relation to
the differentiation of higher education and
the global labour market
Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
ing of the literature on ISM (King et al. 2010) and
from analysis of the authors' recently completed
school and international student surveys (Findlay
et al. 2010b; King et al. 2011). At the heart of the
diagram are the 'world-class7 universities repre-
sented in relation to Marginson et al.' s (2007) verti-
cal and horizontal differentiation of the HE system.
Many state universities are, by contrast, 'undiffer-
entiated' or lack characteristics that are perceived
to add symbolic value to the degrees that they
offer. Yet others have some desirable characteristics
that might attract a selective flow of international

students because they offer, for example, English-
language instruction in disciplinary areas that
might be very hard to access in the UK (e.g. medi-
cine), or because they are located in what are per-
ceived to be desirable locations (e.g. for subsequent
settlement). The arrows represent flows of students
between differentiated school and university sys-
tems and between the world hierarchy of universi-
ties and the global labour market. The schema
therefore hints at the multiple border crossings
involved in international student mobility: not just
international political boundaries but other transla-
tions are also taking place. Social difference in the
school system privileges access to world-class
universities, while educational difference in a
globalising HE system seems to influence the prob-
ability of an individual accessing favoured posi-
tions in the global labour market. Chains of
influence might also be hypothesised in the flows
of students between first and second degrees (not
shown in the schema), with entry to top global
universities being more likely by graduate students
whose first degree is attained in a nationally lead-
ing institution.
Many other forces outside the HE sector have
also facilitated an increase in ISM. The most obvious
of these is increased transnationalism, producing
large expatriate communities and rising numbers of
transnational marriages. At a more conceptual level,
the emergence of a transnational capitalist class
(Sklair 2001) has created a demand for a HE system
geared to the needs of the children of this elite
group and capable of reproducing through the edu-

cation system the political and social advantages
that this groups enjoys, such as being comfortable
living and working in a diverse range of countries
(Mazlish and Mor ss 2005).
Figure 1 adds two other features. First, it
suggests a relation between student mobility and
subsequent mobility aspirations: the motivation for
international student mobility must at least in part
be related to subsequent mobility intentions relat-
ing to the rest of the life-course. Thus, as Li et al.
(1996) have noted, migrating to learn may be part
of the process of learning to migrate. The sugges-
tion here is that student mobility is not simply a
subset of youth mobility culture, but part of a
wider set of mobility cultures linked to a person's
outlook on their entire life-course (Brooks and
Everett 2008). In Figure 1 this is represented as
linked to a desire to engage in an international
career.
Second, Figure 1 locates ISM within a frame that
recognises the significance of other transnational,
cultural, socio-economic and political processes.
Figure 1 holds these as external to the main rela-
tionships that this paper seeks to investigate. We
do, however, acknowledge the importance of these
other dimensions of student mobility (such as
European integration, the IT revolution, the use of
English as the global academic language), as
evidenced by the findings of other researchers
(Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Mulder and Clark
2002; Varghese 2008).

The paper continues by asking how social differ-
ence may be influential in filtering access to inter-
national student mobility, before moving on to
explore how studying abroad may in itself repro-
duce social difference. Specific research questions
include:
• Is there evidence that private school education
in the UK is associated with privileged access
to international study opportunities?
• How do students perceive their moves and
how important is the conceptualisation of a
global hierarchy of universities in the choice of
study destination?
• Is there a link between international student
mobility and subsequent life-planning about
mobility strategies?
Answering these questions is a first step towards
extending theorisation of the relation between ISM
and the reproduction of social difference.
Methods
To tackle the questions listed above, two main
research tools were deployed. One involved a sur-
vey of application intentions of 1400 final-year
pupils in two counties of England (Leicestershire
and Sussex). The second was a study of 560 UK

Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
World class? 123
students currently enrolled for study in universities
in the USA, Australia, Ireland, France, Germany
and the Czech Republic. This paper draws mainly
on the latter survey. In addition to the question-
naire surveys, in-depth interviews were conducted
with 80 UK students studying abroad and with
international recruitment officers in 16 higher edu-
cation institutions from around the world, as well
as with a number of key gatekeepers in the interna-
tional student mobility system.
In the school survey the research design identified
a mix of state and private-sector schools. The ques-
tionnaire quota samples were equally divided by
type of school (700 state and 700 independent, 350 of
each in each county) and by respondent gender (700
males, 700 females, 350 in each county). In addition
to the pupil survey, interviews were conducted with
school guidance teachers in most schools.
The international student survey was targeted
on the five most important destinations for UK
degree-mobile students. Our estimates for the most
recent year for which data are available (2007-08)
places the UK degree-mobile student population

for the five most popular destinations at 8367 in
USA, 2270 in Ireland, 1805 in Australia, 1635 in
France and 445 in Germany (Findlay et al. 2010a).
In addition to these destinations, we included the
Czech Republic, listed as a top-10 destination for
UK students in 2007-08 (OECD 2009). This location
represents the new kinds of destination being cho-
sen by some degree-mobile students.
Our strategy was to concentrate the questionnaire
survey on the universities with the highest numbers
of UK students. It proved possible in advance of the
survey to determine these universities in USA, Ire-
land, Australia and the Czech Republic (HE 2007).
The research team visited 16 universities across the
six countries to conduct interviews. Once permission
and ethical approval were granted, the questionnaire
was e-mailed to the UK student population in each
university. In addition, electronic responses were
received from students in a further 18 universities in
the USA, Australia, France and Germany.
The final set of universities from which responses
were received included some of the best universities
in the world (at least in terms of the 2009 Times
Higher Education rankings), but there were also some
lower-ranked universities within our sample. Being
reflexive about our methods, we would note that it
is difficult, in the absence of any robust sampling

frame, to know how representative the final sample
of responses might be, especially in view of the
possibility of selectivity effects. We were, however,
encouraged by the similarity of our sample profile
on variables that could be compared with the school
survey. Our purpose here, however, is to use the
questionnaire results primarily to establish the con-
tours of how student mobility interfaces with the
globalisation of higher education, while turning to
our in-depth interviews to explore the meanings of
such moves in more detail.
The strengths of the study are that it is the largest
survey of its kind on UK degree-mobile students;
the sample size and the diversity of countries and
universities included in the survey add weight to
the findings. The focus on the UK is timely given
subsequent political events that have seen the UK
government, following the 2010 general election,
accelerate the neo-liberal agenda involving a very
significant rise in tuition fees that may drive more
UK students to study abroad. In general, however,
we see ISM from the UK as representing a spatial
practice observed widely in advanced economies
following neo-liberal education agendas favouring
accretive privatisation (Singh et al. 2007).
Just over half the responses came from under-
graduate students abroad (52%), the remainder were
on postgraduate taught courses (mostly one-year) or
doing research degrees. In testing the robustness of
our conclusions, we examined undergraduates and
postgraduates initially together and then separately.
Not surprisingly, differences were evident in rela-
tion to variables such as age and the funding of

international study. Critically, from the perspective
of this paper, there was no significant difference in
terms of the ranking of motivations for studying
abroad. The desire to attend a 'world-class' institu-
tion was the most frequently cited reason: 86.5 per
cent and 90.8 per cent of undergraduates and post-
graduates respectively reported this motive as very
important or of some importance. More detailed
analysis of the sample by course of study can be
found in Findlay et al. (2009, 16; 2010b, 26). The sur-
vey included 218 UK students at US universities, 200
in Ireland and 108 in Australia, with the remainder
in France, Germany and the Czech Republic.
Statistical contours of UK international
student mobility
The school survey confirmed the effect of social struc-
tures on international mobility choices. Amongst UK
nationals in English schools, 2.8 per cent of state and
Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC

5.5 per cent of independent sector pupils2 reported
that they had applied to universities outside the UK.
Thus, pupils in the independent sector are twice as
likely to apply to study abroad. Bearing in mind that
89 per cent of final-year pupils in England are in state
schools and only 11 per cent in independent schools,
the result of this selectivity is that independent
schools ended up accounting for 45 per cent of all
respondents to our international student survey,
reflecting the social power of this minority.
The comment of one of the guidance teachers is
revealing in relation to the emphasis on the 'make-
up' of pupils as Very international'. Asked about
whether her pupils considered studying abroad,
she noted:
We've had a fair number, obviously smaller than the
ones that go to British universities. I would say 5 or 6
every year [go to the United States] and we have had
girls go to Australia and Canada. I think it is partly the
make-up of the students we have, because they are all
very international. So the idea of going abroad is
already part of their make-up. (Guidance teacher, Inde-
pendent girls boarding school)
While international 'make-up' may in part reflect
the geographical mix of origins of pupils in this
school, the comment also hints at the social
construction of 'internationally' within this educa-
tional milieu. This kind of response was wide-
spread in independent-sector boarding schools,
emphasising the social and cultural linkages associ-

ated with having overseas pupils, as well as the
international orientation of the schools themselves
(King et al. 2011). The structuring of international
destination choices was also far from random. This
was reinforced by the results of the school
questionnaire survey, with 51 per cent of those
applying to international universities selecting one
in the USA as their top choice. This selectivity at
the level of country of destination supports the the-
sis that the globalisation of HE opportunities
results in an uneven geography of international
student flows.
Following previous research (Bourdieu 1996;
Waters 2007) pointing to the shaping of a 'common
culture' in elite schools, our survey also points to
the role of independent schools in the active struc-
turing of an international outlook supported by
information flows about international universities.
One way in which 'outward-oriented global rather
than inward-oriented local perspectives' (Sklair
2001, 4) are produced is through staff at indepen-
dent schools not only providing information about
international universities but also helping with the
evaluation of the information. They were four
times more likely to do so than was the case in
state schools.
Statistical differences3 between state and inde-
pendent schools were also evident in terms of how
international study was financed. The international

student survey revealed that 47 per cent of those
who had attended independent schools received
financial support from their parents to study
abroad compared with only 24 per cent of students
from state schools. The latter group was much
more likely to depend on winning scholarships or
grants from charitable bodies.
The distinction between independent and state
education was less evident in terms of students'
motivations for studying outside the UK (Table I).
Quantifying drivers of international mobility is of
course highly problematic, not only given the
socially and temporally embedded nature of all
mobility choices, but also given the multi-causal
nature of most migration decisions (Halfacree
2004). Nevertheless the results in Table I reinforce
Table I Student motivations to study outside the UK (% rating
factor as very important) in relation to their
previous education (state/independent schooling)3
Motivation State school Independent Statistically significant
Determined to attend a world-class university 50.4 60.7
Significant
Study outside the UK as an opportunity for a unique adventure
48.3 53.3 Not significant
The first step towards an international career 29.9 38.8
Significant
Limited course places at a UK university to study chosen
discipline 25.2 22.1 Not significant
Student fees in the UK 20.0 17.2 Not significant
Family encouragement to study outside UK 9.7 14.1 Not
significant

aStudents were asked to rate all variables listed in the table.
Thus percentages do not sum to 100%. N - 512
bChi-square test for cell frequencies for 2x2 tabulations for
each horizontal row in Table I versus all other outcomes.
Signifi-
cance reported at p = 0.05.
Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
World class? 125
the view that the globalisation of higher education
is a highly uneven process and that student movers
are very conscious of this in the choices they make.
Table I confirms that the single largest driver of
mobility is to access world-class universities; this
was even more important for students who had
attended independent schools. Similarly, respon-
dents from independent schools were much more
likely to claim that their decision to study abroad
could be seen as a first step towards an interna-
tional career. On all other mobility drivers
there was no statistical difference between the two

sectors.
Unpacking the meanings of international
mobility
In search of world-class education
The students we interviewed seemed very aware
not only of how education produced social
difference but of the way that the place of study
had a critical differentiating influence. Supporting
Table I, many alluded to the existence of a global
hierarchy of universities. They tended to rationalise
their choice of study location in terms of being at a
'world-class7 university. This often started from
identifying a self-imposed constraint that they
would only consider elite UK universities, followed
by a shortlist of universities in other countries.
In England I felt like that my only real options were
either to go to Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh or Dur-
ham. And I only got Edinburgh as an offer. (Anna,
undergraduate, Trinity College Dublin)4
This 'elite lisť was not simply a minor feature of
students' discursive consciousness but a key strate-
gic tool which they discussed at length in relation
to the concepts of educational 'value' and 'differ-
ence'. Consider Donna's interpretation:
You can go to so many universities to get a degree and
get a degree in so many different things. There is so
much talk in the newspapers of the devaluing of
degrees, so I think that this is a way of making your
CV stand out a little more. You didn't just get a degree,
you went half way round the world to get a degree
[laughs]. It's a different thing in a situation where you

are constantly hearing that degrees aren't worth any-
thing and everybody has a degree. And degrees are
being devalued by the second, so it's something differ-
ent I think. ... I suppose I looked at the Ivy League
universities in the US. If I was going to make the trek
over here and give up Cambridge, it needed to be
something that was equally enjoyable and taxing and
look[ed] good on my CV . . . (Donna, undergraduate,
Columbia University)
For Donna, not only had the wider intake to UK
universities devalued having a degree, but the
strategy for valorising her studies was to seek out
Ivy League locations so that the 'difference' in her
CV would be not just that she studied abroad, but
would be distinguished by her attending a univer-
sity whose social and academic status was hierar-
chically differentiated relative to the US university
system.
'Difference' was a necessary but not sufficient
condition for international mobility. For those seek-
ing a 'world-class' university, the institution had to
be 'recognised'. Students repeatedly referred to the
importance of selecting universities that were well-
known for their 'reputation'.
I wanted an MBA which people would not think [it] is
just from [some] tiny university in the middle of
nowhere, and which was actually recognized in the UK.
(Susan, postgraduate, Berkeley)
Some students revealed that going abroad was a
consequence of failing to get a place in the UK, but
it was more usual to study abroad despite having

already gained access to their preferred UK choice:
the Harvard website is pretty cool; I like[d] the look of
it. I guess that when I applied it was more like . . . I'll
give it a go and see what happens. I also applied to
Cambridge. Maybe when I started, it was like a back-up
in case I didn't get into Cambridge, but I got accepted
into Cambridge . . . (Ben, undergraduate, Harvard)
Amongst those explaining why attending a 'world-
class' university was very important, 79 per cent
commented that restrictions on places at UK uni-
versities had not been the reason for going abroad.
For most students, studying abroad was not there-
fore a response to failure to get a place (say at
Oxford or Cambridge) or a 'second chance' to
achieve the perceived success of studying at a top
university (Brooks and Waters 2009).
The main exception to this position was for
undergraduates set on obtaining a very specific dis-
ciplinary training, particularly on professionally
recognised courses with fierce competition for
places in the UK, such as medicine and veterinary
science. John and Brian, below, illustrate the aware-
ness of some students of international routes to
access restricted professions. Their experience also
reflects the globalisation of higher education
including the diffusion of English-language pro-

Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
grammes curricula to non-English-speaking coun-
tries.
I actually applied to a couple [of UK universities] . . .
Three times, I applied - once when I was eighteen, and
I got the offer but not the grades. Then I got the inter-
view, but not the place, so I got closer. [ . . . ] It was basi-
cally impossible. [ . . . ] It was just, as far as I can tell, the
last opportunity to get myself into any kind of medical
course. (Brian, undergraduate, Charles University, Pra-
gue)
I didn't apply to do medicine in England as I knew
I wouldn't get the grades. I applied to do biomedical
sciences [in the UK] and I got my places for that course
in my chosen universities but I was offered by my par-
ents to go to Prague and study medicine straight away
and I took the opportunity as I didn't want to waste the
time/money doing a random medically-related degree
. . . (John, undergraduate, Charles University, Prague)
There are other important points that emerge from
these quotes that deserve comment. First, it is clear
from Brian and John that not all international stu-
dents are set on 'world-class' universities; as indi-

cated in Figure 1, there are some students who see
international study as serving other goals (Table I).
Second, the fact that universities want to attract
international students for financial and other rea-
sons means that the international education 'busi-
ness' has to some extent been shaped to meet these
demands. This has interfaced not only with the
growth of English-language courses on campuses
in non- Anglophone countries but also with a differ-
entiated set of strategies to recruit international stu-
dents in relation to diverse student motives for
mobility (such as engaging in the 'adventure' of
studying abroad, accessing an international career
etc.) as listed in Table I.
Individualising cultural capital
The above analysis corresponds to the expectations
of a cultural capital model, whereby social class is
reproduced through international mobility in an
era of global higher education opportunities. Our
research goes further, suggesting the importance of
other dimensions of educational 'difference'.
In contrast to the student voices reported above,
many interviewees explained their decision to
study abroad, not so much in terms of attending a
world-class university, but in terms of avoiding
being the same as other UK students. Studying
somewhere 'different' was perceived to distinguish
them from 'stay-at-home' students. See how Emma
and Ed reference themselves relative to their peers,
as well as to their perceptions of taking 'one step

further' to find a place to study:
I went and stayed with some friends at [English city N]
and I applied to [university S] - this just wasn't me, it
just didn't seem to have that kind of vibe or buzz or
anything. No one seemed excited to be there, no one
seemed like proud that they were, you know it
wouldn't be like you were interviewed for a job at
home and be like. 'Oh I went to N' and someone would
be like, 'Oh, so did I, oh, you should have the job' kind
of thing. No, they would be like 'Oh, whatever'.
(Emma, undergraduate, University of South California)
the idea of studying abroad was one step further than
my friends were doing. All my friends were going to
Leeds or Durham or whatever. I quite liked the idea of
doing something different. Like I said, it was one step
further than what my friends were doing, which
I thought was kind of cool. (Ed, undergraduate, Trinity
College Dublin)
Both Emma and Calum (below) also linked their
thinking to ideas about what employers perceive as
distinctive. Calum reports his perception that cer-
tain 'tacit knowledges' (Williams and Balaz 2009)
gained from 'working outside' would add distinc-
tion in the eyes of an employer.
I think that just living abroad is something which gives
you a different perspective on life. [ . . . ] I also think that
studying abroad gives you an advantage in terms of
employers even if you want to work in the UK because
you have shown that you could live abroad, you are
showing, especially studying in Europe, within the

European Union, I think that's a very important part of
society and employers are looking for kind of that abil-
ity to work outside. (Calum, postgraduate, Free Univer-
sity of Berlin)
These student voices therefore illustrate the way
that social constructions of difference can add sym-
bolic capital even where the student is not seeking
a 'world-class' location. This is not a commentary
on the institutions in which Emma, Ed and Calum
were enrolled, but it points to the need to recognise
the complexity of forces that shape the pattern of
student flows.
Student migration and mobility across the
life-course
The emerging emphasis on differentiated mobility
cultures merits further investigation from the per-
spective of the students in our survey. The migra-
Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
World class? 127

Table II Country of study in relation to plans to
live outside UK after graduation (% of
undergraduates by country of study)
Country of study
Ireland Australia USA
Live outside UK (n = 200) (n = 108) (n = 218)
Definitely 32.9 71.4 49.2
Maybe 37.8 22.9 32.3
tion literature frequently creates false dichotomies
between, for example, labour migration and other
forms of mobility (King 2002). This false binary is
also found in literature on student migration. Stu-
dent mobility is often seen as discrete and discon-
nected from other mobilities. Instead our research
supports Brooks and Everett's (2008) finding that
some students engage in 'life planning', with deci-
sions on student mobility often being embedded in
an individual's life-course aspirations and plans for
mobility over the longer run.
Amongst UK students enrolled in foreign
universities, 42 per cent had previously lived
abroad at some point in their earlier life for a per-
iod of 6 months or longer, providing evidence of
previous transnational experiences and networks
( Verto vec 2009). This mobile group was statisti-
cally much more likely to want to attend a world-
class university,5 or to see their student mobility
as linked to an international career after gradua-

tion.6 Looking to the future, students in some
destinations were much more likely to declare an
intention to remain after graduation, thus
turning an educationally-motivated move into a
longer-term form of labour migration or even set-
tlement (Table II).7 This opens up the important
issue of the multiple scales that impinge on 'desti-
nation' decisions. While at one level, students may
select their study destination in terms of percep-
tions of the educational status and quality of an
individual institution, the location of a university
within a particular county may also be important,
particularly in relation to that state's policy on
immigration and citizenship that could open up
settlement possibilities after graduation. Equally, a
country's economic prospects could influence stu-
dents' interests in studying there, as a future
employment destination.
Table II explores one effect of these contrasts for
the three main study-abroad destinations in our
student survey. Less than a third of the respon-
dents in Ireland intended 'definitely' to remain
abroad after graduation, compared with half those
in the USA and 71 per cent in Australia. Some stu-
dents in Australia explained that their study plans
were part of an explicit strategy to qualify for
longer-term residence and citizenship.
While I was working somebody discussed going to
Australia and [ . . . ] so we went and travelled every-
where, loved it, yes, just adored it and tried to get back
and eventually got back. [ . . . ] I'd kind of fallen out
with the UK. So I threw all my energies into coming
back here. So I'm not going back to the UK. My plan is

definitely to stay here, absolutely. I'm not studying
because I want to, I'm studying because it is the only
way I can stay here really, at the moment. (James,
undergraduate, Macquarie, Australia)
With the exception of Australia, settler emigration
was not of great importance to most students.
Some, unsurprisingly, had yet to form clear plans
for the future. Where future plans had been
formed, there was a distinct range of expectations
linked to the character of the study destination.
The claim that all knowledge is situated may be a
truism, but in relation to globalisation of education
and the mobility of UK students there was strong
evidence that the meanings and interpretations of
mobility varied markedly with the context not only
of study but of future mobility intentions. Thus, for
most respondents in the USA their self-perception
was that their decision to study there was either
part of a strategy to enter an international career,
or that the experience of living in another culture
had opened their eyes to the possibility of working
abroad (often in a different country) and develop-
ing an internationally mobile trajectory. Amongst
UK students in the USA, only 11 per cent expected
to return to the UK to work immediately after
graduating, but this was not because most intended
to settle in the USA, but because they had other
plans for onward occupational mobility within
their specialism in the global labour market. Con-
sider the cases of Donna and Sarah.
I want to go back into [profession X] which is what
I was doing immediately before coming here. Being
here . . . originally part of what attracted me was the
[discipline A] school here which is arguably the best in

the world for [this subject]. I suppose longer, longer-
term ... I see myself going to London first and doing a
couple of years work in London and then hopefully
moving to work abroad, but for a London-based (com-
pany). (Donna, undergraduate, Columbia University)
Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
I will likely be working overseas, so if that's the case I
need(ed) to go to an institution that has an international
reputation. I had no interest of studying at Oxford or
Cambridge. (Sarah, postgraduate, Australian National
University)
Most students who had formed views of their
future therefore interpreted their decision to study
abroad as part of a progression (not as the litera-
ture might infer as a simple transition from the
parental home to independent living as an adult)
from a national to an international context, with
the 'international reputation' (Sarah) of the univer-

sity helping to trampoline the student into an inter-
nationally oriented career. And a studenťs return
to the UK was often seen as dependent on whether
or not an international career path happened to
pass through the UK (Donna).
In summary, the evidence presented suggests
that understanding the intended final labour-
market destination of students (Figure 1) is critical
to explaining the earlier 'choices' linking moves
from home/school to universities abroad.
Conclusions
Internationalisation of higher education has pro-
duced many profound changes in social and cul-
tural relations around the world. This paper has
focused on three features of the relation between
the globalisation of HE and student mobility. First,
it has argued that class seeks to reproduce itself
through educational advantage with pupils from
independent/private schools being more likely to
gain access to university education in other coun-
tries. Second, it has explored the meaning of seek-
ing a 'world-class' university, arguing that the
social construction of an outstanding international
university has resulted in a global hierarchy of
institutions and that the majority of international
students from the UK are concentrated in a few
countries and in elite or specialised institutions.
Third, globalisation of student flows cannot be iso-
lated from wider mobility trajectories both before
and after study. It appears that a 'world-class' edu-
cation for some is embedded in a mobility culture

that attaches symbolic capital to the very perfor-
mance of international living and that aspires to
engage in international career trajectories that some
might see as the hallmark of the transnational capi-
talist class (Sklair 2001).
The research findings presented in this paper
have therefore sought to redress the limited theori-
sation of international student mobility. Brooks and
Waters (2009 2011) and Waters (2006) are clear
exceptions to this generalisation. Our aim in this
paper has been to challenge the misperception that
student mobility is an unproblematic transient phe-
nomenon. Our analysis has also implied UK stu-
dents are not 'exceptional' international students,
but are part of much wider processes of social dif-
ferentiation at multiple levels that require further
research (Bhandari and Blumethal 2009). Interna-
tional student mobility is therefore not only about
gaining the kinds of formal knowledges that can be
imparted through high-quality university training
(that could arguably be offered by a leading
national university in a student's country of origin),
but also about other socially and culturally con-
structed knowledges. It seems probable that over
time the differentiation of HE at a global level will
only increase as social processes produce an ever
more distinctive global hierarchy of institutions in
relation to socially constructed 'reputations' and
increasingly sophisticated authenticity claims about
what constitutes a 'world-class' university (Deem et
al 2008; Sadlak and Cai 2007).

A second theoretical contribution has been to
explore Bourdieu's (1986) ideas of the middle class
building cultural capital through the education sys-
tem, with the particularity of international education
opportunities helping to reproduce advantage. In
some cases this may be a strategy to circumvent fail-
ure to get a place at one of the UK's elite universities,
but the survey showed that search for foreign study
opportunities was not always related to attending an
Ivy League or equivalent high status university.
Some of our interviewees argued for other aspects of
'distinctiveness' and 'difference' that would be used
on a world stage differentiating their employment
credentials from those of other graduates. Above all,
international student migration was seen to be about
symbolic capital. One of the uses of this symbolic
capital was to represent international study as a dis-
tinguishing identity marker. Students believed that
their international experience could be deployed
advantageously in their future career trajectories.
The spatial imaginaries of these students suggested
that international education and the resultant cos-
mopolitan identities associated with international
study (Beck 2004) would assist their international
careers rather than being applied in the labour mar-
kets of their country of origin.
Third, the in-depth interviews point to the ways
in which young people, generally from more

Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
World class ? 129
privileged backgrounds and with the best school
exam results, express a desire to act on their future
mobility and study plans in relation to their indi-
vidualistic goals (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002)
thus shaping distinctive educational and career tra-
jectories. Simply by being 'different' , they saw
themselves as achieving 'distinction' through
mobility. This arguably is a different form of cul-
tural capital that reaches beyond the traditional
national 'class' structures identified by Bourdieu
and Passeron (1997), pointing instead to the aspira-
tion to be 'world-class' or part of a transnational
elite where mobility is part of what provides 'dis-
tinction' (Sklair 2001). Furthermore the research
points to the need to situate knowledges of mobil-
ity not only geographically but also in relation to
different life-course trajectories. Indeed, there is an
important research agenda here that establishes
more clearly the links between student mobilities
and other mobilities. It is also important to estab-
lish to what extent international mobility (for edu-
cation or otherwise) acts to facilitate social

mobility, rather than just to reproduce difference.
Our research certainly confirms that mapping the
meanings of the geography of international student
mobility demands a more complex understanding
of how educational 'difference' mediates the rela-
tions between 'class' and 'world-class'.
Acknowledgements
We thank two academic referees and Johanna
Waters for very insightful comments on an earlier
draft of this paper. We also thank colleagues at the
International Population Conference, Dartmouth,
USA, August 2009 and at the IGU/RGS-IBG Popu-
lation Research Group Conference held in Brighton,
April 2009, for their very helpful suggestions. A
pivotal role was played by Charles Ritchie, Sue
Rolfe and Mary Gurteen of the Department of Busi-
ness Innovations and Skills (BIS) during the initial
research phase. We are also grateful to BIS for
funding the research. Finally we owe a huge debt
to Jill Ahrens, Alex Stam, Asayo Ohba and Matej
Blažek who helped extensively in conducting the
interviews and questionnaire surveys.
Notes
1 In the USA foreign students have more than doubled
since 1980 (HE 2009) reaching 672 000 in 2009, while
the number of foreign students in UK Higher Educa-
tion Institutes has more than quadrupled since 1980
(Findlay 2011).
2 The independent sector was taken to be fee-paying

schools including those taking day pupils as well as
boarding schools.
3 Although we do not interrupt the text with tables, all
claims of statistical difference are based on chi-square
tests at the 95 per cent or 99 per cent probability
levels.
4 All names are pseudonyms.
5 Significant 2x2 chi-square test, p = 0.05.
6 Significant 2x2 chi-square test, p = 0.001.
7 Significant 3x3 chi-square based on cell frequencies
for the categories shown in Table II plus an extra row
of responses of 'other', p = 0.001.
References
Ackers L and Gill В 2008 Moving people and knowledge
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Beck U 2004 Cosmopolitan realism Global Networks 4 131-
56
Beck U and Beck-Gernsheim E 2002 Individualization
Sage, London
Bhandari R and Blumethal P 2009 Global student mobil-
ity in International Institute for Education ed Higher
education on the move HE, New York 1-15
Bourdieu P 1984 Distinction Harvard UP, Cambridge MA
Bourdieu P 1986 The forms of capital in Richardson J G
ed Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of edu-

cation Greenwood, London 241-58
Bourdieu P 1996 The state nobility: elite schools in the field of
power Stanford UP, Stanford
Bourdieu P and Passeron J 1997 Reproduction in education,
society and culture Sage, London
Brooks R and Everett G 2008 The prevalence of life plan-
ning: evidence from UK graduates British Journal of Soci-
ology Education 29 325-37
Brooks R and Waters J 2009 A second chance at success
Sociology 43 1085-102
Brooks R and Waters J 2010 Social networks and educa-
tional mobility Globalisation, Societies and Education 10
143-57
Brown P 1995 Cultural capital and social exclusion Work,
Employment and Society 9 29-51
Bunnell T 2007 The international education industry Jour-
nal of Research in International Education 6 349-67
Byram M and Dervin 2008 eds Students, staff and academic
mobility in higher education Cambridge Scholars Publis-
hers, Newcastle.
Christie H 2007 Higher education and spatial (im)mobil-
ity Environment and Planning A 39 2445-63
David M E 2007 Equity and diversity: towards a sociology
of higher education for the 21st century? British Journal of
Sociology of Education 28 675-90

de Wit H 2008 Changing dynamics in international stu-
dent circulation in de Wit H, Agrawal P, Said M E,
Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
Sehoole M T and Sirozi M eds The dynamics of interna-
tional student circulation in a global context Sense Publish-
ers, Rotterdam 15-45
Deem R, Ho M and Lucas L 2008 Transforming higher
education in whose image? Exploring the concept of the
world class university in Europe and Asia Higher Educa-
tion Policy 21 83-97
Dreher A and Poutvaara P 2005 'Student flows and
migration' CESifo Working Paper 190, Konstanz
Edwards R and Usher R 2000 Globalisation and pedagogy
Routledge, London
Findlay A 2011 An assessment of supply and demand-
side theorizations of international student mobility
International Migration doi: 10.111/j.l468-2435.2010.

00643.x
Findlay A, King R, Ruiz-Gelices E and Stam A 2006 Ever
reluctant Europeans European Urban and Regional Studies
13 291-318
Findlay A, King R, Geddes A, Smith F, Stam A,
Skeldon R and Ahrens J 2009 Report on Survey
of UK students studying abroad DIUS, London July
2009
Findlay A, Geddes A and Smith F 2010a 'Motivations
and experiences of UK students studying abroad - sta-
tistical sources' BIS Research Paper 8a BIS, London
(http:/ /http://www.bis.gov.uk/ assets/biscore/ corpor
ate/ migratedD/publications/B/BIS-RP-008a) Accessed
3 June 2011
Findlay A, King R, Geddes A, Smith F, Stam A, Dunne
M, Skeldon R and Ahrens J 2010b 'Motivations and
experiences of UK students studying abroad' BIS
Research Paper 8 BIS, London (http://www.bis.go-
v.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedD/publica-
tions/B/BIS-RP-008) Accessed 3 June 2011
Gill J 2009 Fine-tuned data show UK challenging US
as top overseas draw Times Higher Education 21 May
6-7
Gulson К and Symes С 2007 Knowing one's place in
Gulson К and Symes С eds Spatial theories of education
Routledge, London 1-16
Gürüz К 2008 Higher education and international student
mobility in the global knowledge economy State University
of New York Press, Albany NY

Halfacree К 2004 A Utopian imagination in migra-
tions' terra incognita? Population , Space and Place 10
39-53
Halsey A H 1993 Trends in access and equity in higher
education Oxford Review of Education 19 129^0
HEFCE 2004 International student mobility Issues Paper
2004/30 HEFCE, London
Held D and McGrew A 2007 Globalization/ antiglobalization
2nd edn Polity, Bristol
Higher Education International Unit 2010 Motivating
outward mobility International Focus 50 1
Holdsworth С 2006 Don't you think you are missing out
living at home? Sociological Review 54 495-513
IIE 2007 Open doors 2007 International Institute of Educa-
tion, New York
IIE 2009 Open doors 2009 International Institute of Educa-
tion, New York
Jeffrey C, Jeffrey R and Jeffery P 2005 Reproducing dif-
ference? World Development 33 2085-101
King R 2002 Towards a new map of European migration
International Journal of Population Geography 8 89-108
King R and Ruiz-Gelices E 2003 International student
migration and the European 'year abroad' International
Journal of Population Geography 9 229-52

King R, Findlay A and Ahrens J 2010 International student
mobility literature review Higher Education Funding
Council for England, Bristol
King R, Findlay A, Ahrens J and Dunne M 2011 Repro-
ducing advantage: the perspective of English school-lea-
vers on studying abroad Globalisation , Societies and
Education 9 243-63
Kuptsch С 2006 Students and talent flow - the case of
Europe in Kuptsch С and Pang E eds Competing for glo-
bal talent ILO, Geneva 33-62
Lefebvre H 1991 The production of space Blackwell, Oxford
Li L, Findlay A, Jowett A and Skeldon R 1996 Migrating
to learn and learning to migrate International Journal of
Population Geography 2 51-67
Maiworm F and Teichler U 1996 Study abroad and early
careers: experiences of former Erasmus students Jessica
Kingsley, London
Marginson S and van der Wände M 2007 'Globalisation
and higher education' Education Working Group Paper
8 OECD, Paris
Mazlish В and Morss E 2005 A global elite? in Chandler
A and Mazlish В eds Eeviathans Cambridge UP, Cam-
bridge 167-86
Morley L and Lugg R 2009 Mapping meritocracy Higher
Education Policy 22 37-60
Mulder С and Clark W 2002 Leaving home for college
and gaining independence Environment and Planning A

34 981-99
Murphy-Le jeune E 2002 Student mobility and narrative in
Europe Routledge, London
Noble J and Davies P 2009 Cultural capital as an
explanation of variation in participation in higher
education British Journal of Sociology of Education 30
591-605
OECD 2004 Internationalisation and trade in higher education
OECD, Paris
OECD 2009 Education at a glance 2007 OECD, Paris
Ong A 1999 Flexible citizenship Duke UP, Durham NC
Papatsiba V 2006 Making higher education more Euro-
pean through student mobility? Comparative Education
42 93-111
Sadlak J and Cai L eds 2007 The world class university and
ranking: aiming beyond status Unesco-Cepes, Bucharest
Singh M, Rizvi F and Shrestha M 2007 Student mobility
and the production of cosmopolitan identities in
Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC

World class ? 131
Gulson К and Symes С eds Spatial theories of education
Routledge, London 195-214
Sklair L 2001 The transnational capitalist class Blackwell,
Oxford
Solimano A ed 2008 The international mobility of talent
Oxford UP, Oxford
Tapper T and Palfreyman D eds 2004 Understanding mass
education Routledge, London
Teichler U 2004 The changing debate on internationalisa-
tion of higher education Higher Education 48 2-26
Universities UK 2008 The future of UK student mobility
Europe Unit Report, Universities UK, London
Urry J 2007 Mobilities Polity, Cambridge
Varghese N 2008 Globalization of higher education and cross-
border student mobility International Institute for Educa-
tion Planning, Paris
Vertovec S 2009 Transnationalism Routledge, Abingdon
Waters J 2006 Geographies of cultural capital: education,
international migration and family strategies between
Hong Kong and Canada Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 31 179-92

Waters J 2007 Roundabout routes and sanctuary schools
Global Networks 7 477-97
Waters J 2008 Education , migration and cultural capital in the
Chinese diaspora Cambria, New York
Waters J and Brooks R 2010 Accidental achievers British
Journal of Sociology of Education 31 217-28
Waters J and Brooks R 2011 'Vive la différence?' The
international experiences of UK students overseas Popu-
lation , Space and Place doi: 10.1002/psp.613
Williams A and Balaz M 2009 International migration and
knowledge Routledge, London
Yang R 2003 Globalisation and higher education Interna-
tional Review of Higher Education 49 269-91
Geographers)
2018 08:35:47 UTC
Contentsp. [118]p. 119p. 120p. 121p. 122p. 123p. 124p. 125p.
126p. 127p. 128p. 129p. 130p. 131Issue Table of
ContentsTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
Vol. 37, No. 1 (2012) pp. 1-176Front MatterBoundary
CrossingsSecurity of geography/geography of security [pp. 1-
7]Mixed methods in land change research: towards integration

[pp. 8-12]Human geography without time-space [pp. 13-
27]Affect and biopower: towards a politics of life [pp. 28-
43]Distant feelings: telepathy and the problem of affect transfer
over distance [pp. 44-59]Spiders, Sartre and 'magical
geographies': the emotional transformation of space [pp. 60-
74]The local universality of veterinary expertise and the
geography of animal disease [pp. 75-88]Post-political spatial
planning in England: a crisis of consensus? [pp. 89-
103]Rethinking the sovereign in sovereign wealth funds [pp.
104-117]World class? An investigation of globalisation,
difference and international student mobility [pp. 118-
131]Humanism, race and the colonial frontier [pp. 132-148]The
life and death of great hotels: a building biography of Sydney's
'The Australia' [pp. 149-163]Value, gleaning and the archive at
Maxwell Street, Chicago [pp. 164-176]Back Matter
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalC
ode=ctat20
Teachers and Teaching
theory and practice
ISSN: 1354-0602 (Print) 1470-1278 (Online) Journal homepage:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20
Theorizing student mobility in an era of
globalization
Fazal Rizvi
To cite this article: Fazal Rizvi (2011) Theorizing student
mobility in an era of globalization,
Teachers and Teaching, 17:6, 693-701, DOI:

10.1080/13540602.2011.625145
To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.625145
Published online: 26 Oct 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1556
Citing articles: 31 View citing articles
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalC
ode=ctat20
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.108
0/13540602.2011.625145
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.625145
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCo
de=ctat20&show=instructions
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCo
de=ctat20&show=instructions
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/13540602.201
1.625145#tabModule
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/13540602.201
1.625145#tabModule
Theorizing student mobility in an era of globalization
Fazal Rizvi*
Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia

(Received 11 February 2011; final version received 25 February
2011)
Over the past two decades, considerable importance has been
attached around the
world to international student mobility as a way of
internationalization of higher
education. A whole range of institutional strategies have been
employed to
encourage students to consider education abroad, either on a
short term basis, on
a study tour or educational exchange, or enrolling for a longer
period in degree
awarding programs. At the same time, in many ways,
international mobility for
education has become a marker of success and social status. As
a result, the num-
ber of students studying in higher educational institutions
outside their national
borders has increased from less than half a million in mid-1980s
to almost three
million now. In this paper, I want to discuss this historical
phenomenon both as
an expression of and response to the contemporary processes of
globalization. I
want to argue that the growing student interest in international
mobility cannot be
adequately understood without paying attention to the ways in
which institutional
strategies for the recruitment of international students articulate
with the shifting
social imaginaries of people, broadly linked to the processes of
globalization. In
developing my argument, I want to use the illustrated case of
Australian higher
education and the manner in which it has been enormously

successful in captur-
ing the changing cultural and political dynamics of
globalization.
Shifting historical rationales
International mobility of students has, of course, always been an
important feature
of higher education. From their very beginning, universities
have attracted scholars
from abroad, stressing the importance of intellectual exchange
of information and
ideas. Historical evidence suggests that foreigners traveled long
distances to study
at ancient universities in India, China, and the Middle East
(Guruz, 2008). In the
seventh and eighth centuries, for example, students flocked to
Indian universities
such as Nalanda, Takshila, and Sarnath not only to study art,
architecture, and reli-
gion but also the sciences and mathematics. Alexandria, Fez,
and Baghdad housed
major centers of learning, hosting a large number of scholars
and students from
Greece and Rome. In turn, medieval European universities, such
as Bologna and
Padua, attracted students from Asia and the Middle East. There
is thus nothing new
about international student mobility.
The notion of exchange of ideas and intercultural learning has
always been a
part of the mission of higher education. But beyond these broad
objectives, student
motivations for mobility, on the one hand, and the guiding
principles and institu-

*Email: [email protected]
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practiceAquatic Insects
Vol. 17, No. 6, December 2011, 693–701
ISSN 1354-0602 print/ISSN 1470-1278 online
� 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.625145
http://www.tandfonline.com
tional forms around mobility, on the other, have varied greatly
over the years.
Rationales underlying international mobility of students and
scholars have been
historically situated, located within a broader understanding of
the global dynamics
relevant to the particular and shifting historical circumstances.
Indeed the
phenomenon of mobility does not only express broader
historical shifts it also
sometimes drives them. Mobility gives shape to institutional
forms and has the
potential of transforming social identities.
This can clearly be shown by pointing to the ways in which
during the colonial
period, from the eighteenth century, international student
mobility was linked mostly
to various colonial arrangements designed to develop a local
elite that was sympa-
thetic to the economic and political interests of the colonial
powers. While these
unidirectional and asymmetrical arrangements were often
justified in terms of ‘the

civilizing mission of education,’ they also masked a deeper
imperial logic. From the
perspective of the colonizing powers, the rationale for
international student mobility
largely resided in the fact that the empires needed an educated
administrative class
able to manage local populations. To perform this task, the
development of
‘western’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes among the indigenous
elite was consid-
ered essential. International education was designed at least in
part to impart such
attributes.
Graduates of European universities, it was assumed, would
return to the colonies,
not only appropriately socialized in western modernist
dispositions but also indebted
to their colonial masters. In this way, the western idea of
modernity was fundamental
to the role universities were asked to play in meeting the
political needs of the
empires. The local elites within the colonies, on the other hand,
viewed education at a
leading European university, such as Oxford, Cambridge and
London in England, or
Sorbonne in France, as a kind of ‘finishing’ school, enabling
them to ‘mimic’ the col-
onizers (Bhabha, 1994) and thus maintain their position of
power, by marking them-
selves apart from the rest of their fellow citizens. In this way,
international education
serves as a social technology, designed to differentiate classes
of people.
After independence, in the post-colonial era, international

student mobility was
still highly prized, but now had to assume a new rationale,
driven largely by the
ideologies of nationalism and ‘developmentalism.’ Programs
such as the Colombo
and Fulbright Plans – and also similar plans in the Soviet Union
– were created to
provide opportunities for talented students in the newly
independent countries to
acquire advanced, technical, scientific, and administrative
training. Designed primar-
ily as a foreign aid program, the Colombo Plan, for example,
represented a commit-
ment by the richer Commonwealth countries to provide
education that was
considered necessary for the development of the new nations
(Oakman, 2005).
The focus of this education under these aid programs was on
transfer of knowl-
edge and skills, and local capacity building, the elements of
which were selected
largely to meet the nationalist aspirations of industrialization
and economic develop-
ment. These programs were not however crafted solely in
support of these develop-
ment aspirations: it was also linked to the strategic interests of
the West within the
broader ‘cold war’ politics. An ‘aid’ program was viewed as a
key instrument in
public diplomacy, designed to make it less likely for the newly
independent nations
to fall into the communist block. This line of thinking was
perhaps most clearly
evident in the Fulbright Plan, created by the United States as an
exercise in ‘soft

power’ (Nye, 2005), leading Soviet bloc to develop similar
programs.
694 F. Rizvi
By the mid-1980s, however, the ‘developmentalist’ assumptions
underlying such
educational aid programs were no longer popular. Not only was
the cold war
coming to an end – making the programs of educational aid
arguably unnecessary,
but the discourse of development itself was also increasingly
treated as ideologically
suspect. It was argued, for example, that the ideology of
development represented a
new form of colonial practice that effectively institutionalized
global inequalities of
power, and that notions such as knowledge transfer served the
interests of the
economically developed countries more so than they helped the
poorer nations
(Escobar, 1991). It was pointed out, moreover, that a large
proportion of interna-
tional students did not return to their countries of origin to take
up the developmen-
tal roles that had been envisaged for them, contributing to what
became known as
the phenomenon of ‘brain drain’ (Rizvi, 2005).
At the same time, under the financial pressures of their own,
universities in the
developed countries felt they could no longer continue to
support international stu-
dents, especially with a declining number of scholarships

provided by governments.
They noted moreover that many of these students came from
elite families who
could easily afford to pay tuition. In Australia, debates around
these issues were
rehearsed in two major government reports, prepared by
Golding (1985) and
Jackson (1986). These reports presented two somewhat
contrasting views of interna-
tional student mobility: in terms of ‘aid’, as had traditionally
been the case, on the
one hand, and ‘trade’, as it was strongly suggested by Jackson,
on the other.
Against the backdrop of a shifting set of historical conditions,
Australia became
one of the first countries to recognize the potential of a new
discourse of interna-
tional student mobility that did not entirely abandon the
development aspirations of
the Colombo Plan but supplemented it with the language of
educational markets. It
was widely believed that the legacy of the Colombo Plan, which
had helped forge a
powerful elite in Asia well disposed toward Australian
education, could be used to
create an educational market in higher education, recruiting
initially fee-paying
students from the fast developing countries such as Singapore,
Malaysia, and Hong
Kong, where the demand for Australian education appeared
considerable. Similar
sentiments existed in the UK, whose universities were able due
to their colonial
legacy to begin treating international students as a source of
revenue, within the

context of declining public funds.
The Australian policy shift from ‘aid’ to ‘trade’ turned out to be
relatively seam-
less (Harman, 2004), leading to the emergence of a new
‘markets’ perspective on
international education that is now widely celebrated. It would
be wrong however
to characterize this perspective as totally market-driven. Instead
it had a hybrid form
that did not entirely abandon the older ‘development’ rationales
for international
student mobility, as it continued not only to stress the
traditional values of educa-
tion but also the notions of modernization, social and cultural
development, capac-
ity-building, and the role of education in promoting
international relations.
However, superimposed upon these sentiments emerged a newer
discourse of
educational markets and institutional reform linked to the
concerns of revenue gen-
eration for universities, building institutional profile and
reputation, diversifying the
campus, and the development of human resources for a fast
globalizing economy.
As Jane Knight (2004) has pointed out, this view of
contained a range of competing ideas and practices, focused, on
the one hand, upon
the need to integrate an international perspective into the
primary functions of
teaching, research and service, and to promote international
activities for ‘mutually

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 695
beneficial relationship’, and the opportunities to develop a
robust set of market
practices, enabling higher education to become ‘an export
industry’ in which
universities competed for students and funds, on the other.
In Australia, this hybrid formation was institutionalized in 1988
by the so-called
Dawkins reforms, which not only introduced the higher
education contribution
scheme (HECS) for domestic students but also allowed
universities to charge
international students full cost-recovery tuition fees. Yet while
the introduction of
HECS was politically contested to some extent, the policy on
fees was embraced by most universities in Australia with great
enthusiasm, unleash-
ing a culture of entrepreneurialism that had been inconceivable
earlier in the decade.
This entrepreneurialism did not however reject the importance
of international rela-
tions through which the Australian government had promoted its
strategic interests
within the Asia-Pacific region (Beazley, 1992). Instead, it
sought to re-define the
ways in which universities could now relate to Australia’s
regional neighbors, and
how they needed to engage with the emerging dynamics of
globalization that had
unleashed various commercial opportunities in services. It
encouraged a new kind

of knowledge about international relations and programs based
on a particular inter-
pretation of the changing nature of the global economy in which
knowledge was
increasingly viewed as a commodity, and in which national
development itself was
believed to require a new set of globally transferable skills.
Technologies of recruitment
Against this perspective relating to the commercial value of
knowledge, an empha-
sis upon student recruitment became an increasingly dominant
feature of Australian
higher education, with activities of international education
filtered through the lens
of marketing. During the 1990s, large bureaucracies were
created at all Australian
universities to recruit international students and meet their
needs as clients. Market-
ing initiatives of international offices at universities came to
occupy a central place
within the administrative structure of Australian universities.
While other aspects of
internationalization, such as teaching and learning, were not
entirely overlooked,
market concerns disproportionally attracted the attention of
senior university admin-
istrators, as they struggled to balance their budgets within the
context of declining
public funds. The success of universities was now measured in
terms of the number
of fee-paying international students, and celebrated by
government agencies, as in
the case of the annual Export of Education Award. Each year
universities and the

media noted the spectacular increase in the number of students,
often sidelining the
critical issues of quality and the capacity of universities to
provide them with the
promised educational experiences.
Within less than 10 years, most Australians began to view
international educa-
tion as an industry, with its own administrative technology. As
with other industries,
this technology created its own rules of operation based on an
expertise that incor-
porated knowledge of market segments and specificities as well
as a symbolic lan-
guage about the distinctive benefits of internationalization.
Developed also were
highly specialized structures and functions responsible for
global operations, as, for
example, in well-developed advertising and marketing programs
conducted not only
through the media but also through educational Expos and
market-orientated confer-
ences. Complex articulation arrangements with overseas
educational providers were
negotiated to ensure a steady flow of students. A highly
innovative system was
forged for the use of recruitment agents, who were often the
first point of contact
696 F. Rizvi
between potential students and the university. Also established
was a vast array of
transnational programs, to teach in which Australian academics

and support staff
traveled far and wide (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2005).
The spectacular rise in the number of international students now
attending
Australian higher education – from around 40,000 in 1989 to
more than half a
million in 2010 – could not have however been achieved
without the role played
by the Australian government, whose policy settings were
highly supportive of
entrepreneurial activities, allowing recruitment practices to take
place through its
diplomatic missions. The work of Austrade in casting higher
education in trade
terms was also crucial. Australia also provided leadership in
steering international
organizations, such as the Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development
(OECD), toward a discourse of global markets in education,
beyond a view of edu-
cational mobility that was already familiar to Europeans
through EU programs such
as Erasmus. It actively participated in many of the negotiations
over a General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) at the World Trade
Organization, aimed at
determining a globally agreed set of rules for trade in
educational services. It also
forged a nexus between its education and immigration policies.
Through its ‘points’
system, Australia’s immigration policy permitted potential
students in many fields
of study an easier path to permanent residence.
As important as these specific initiatives of the Australian

government and uni-
versities were, the development of a market-oriented view of
mobility cannot however be fully comprehended without an
understanding of the
dynamics of globalization within which it became possible for
Australia to capture
higher education’s commercial potential. This dynamics is
clearly embodied within
the language of GATS, but relates more broadly to a social
imaginary of globaliza-
tion (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).
Student mobility and shifting imaginaries
The concept of globalization has of course been defined in many
different ways,
but common to most definitions is the idea of social processes
that describe the
rapid movement of ideas, goods, and people around the globe,
radically transform-
ing relations among people and communities across national
borders (Cohen &
Kennedy, 2007). Driven largely by developments in information
and communication
technologies, globalization has given rise to new forms of
transnational interconnec-
tivity. It has implied that while people continue to live in
particular localities, these
localities are increasingly integrated into larger systems of
global networks.
Crucially, however, it needs to be noted that globalization
involves both an
objective and a subjective dimension. It seeks to represent an
objective account of

the ways in which geographical constraints on economic,
political, and cultural
activities are receding; but on a more subjective level, it
suggests that people
around the world are becoming increasingly aware of this fact
and are re-shaping
their lives accordingly. As people – as well as governments and
institutions such as
universities – experience on a daily basis the realities of
transnational economic
relations, technological and media innovations, and cultural
flows that cut across
national borders, with greater speed and intensity than ever
before, they increasingly
use these experiences to make strategic calculations of their
futures, and how they
might take advantage of the opportunities global
interconnectivity now offers.
These calculations are not however made in a void, but within
an imaginary of
global conditions and possibilities. Appadurai (1996) has
argued that while we live
in a world that offers a multiplicity of social imaginaries of the
ways in which the
world is now interconnected, a particular imaginary has become
globally dominant
This imaginary is informed by the various assumptions of neo-
liberalism,
influencing not only the processes of state and institutional
decision-making but also
the strategic calculations individuals make. As a range of

loosely connected ideas,
the neo-liberal imaginary of globalization implies the extension
of market relations
through which people, communities, institutions, and states are
now assumed to be
globally interconnected (Steger, 2009).
In policy terms, this view replaces an earlier imaginary that had
assumed the
importance of state provision of goods and services as a way of
ensuing the social
well-being of a national population, and as a way of forging
social and national
cohesion. In contrast, the neo-liberal imaginary advocates a
minimalist state, con-
cerned with the promotion of the instrumental values of
competition and choice
across national boundaries. It rests on a pervasive naturalization
of the logic of the
markets, justifying it on the grounds of both individual
autonomy and social effi-
ciency. It preaches the principle of global ‘free trade’, applying
it equally to both
goods and services, including education, which had once been
marked by its largely
national character.
The neo-liberalism imaginary thus encourages a particular way
of interpreting
global interconnectivity, as an objective set of social processes,
the logic of which
is designed to steer people and institutions alike toward a
particular subjective
awareness of recent changes in global economy and culture. It
thus promotes not
only a specific way of interpreting the ‘facts’ of global

interconnectivity but also
the values attached to that interpretation. In this way, neo-
liberalism is highly nor-
mative, and directs us toward a collective consciousness of the
world as an inter-
connected space, in which new commercial opportunities exist
for global trade in
areas that had once been regarded as public goods. Australia
was one of the first
countries to seize upon these opportunities, with its higher
education institutions
recognizing how the global knowledge economy had created a
class of students
who were prepared to invest in global mobility for higher
education, and who con-
sidered the value of international knowledge networks in largely
economic terms.
Australian policies and institutional practices on student
mobility were arguably
developed within this neo-liberal imaginary and involved a set
of assumptions about
the calculations students and their parents make with respect to
educational invest-
ment, and returns on international education. International
students had traditionally
been motivated by such factors as lack of opportunities at home;
perceptions of bet-
ter curriculum and pedagogy; prestige associated with
international education; fol-
lowing family tradition and social networks; interest in travel
and a more
cosmopolitan life; and greater freedom and independence
abroad, possibilities of
immigration or permanent residence, and so on. However, what
the Australian

universities recognized early was that a new set of factors
linked to the neo-liberal
imaginary, such as assumptions about returns on educational
investment and better
employment prospects in transnational corporations, as well as
beliefs about the
value of international education in the global labor market, were
also becoming
important.
Through the 1990s, Australia became a global trend setter in
developing policies
and practices around this insight. Other systems of higher
education viewed the
698 F. Rizvi
Australian case with a great deal of interest, and soon embraced
a similar discourse
about the importance of global mobility of students, developing
and following a
similar set of industrial practices. The commercial opportunities
in international
trade in higher education from which Australia had benefited
are now pursued by
most countries. In one sense, this vindicates Australian
universities, but, in the
another sense, it poses new challenges for them. While the
demand for international
education continues to grow, so does the competition.
Over the past decade, for example, the annual global rate of
growth in interna-
tional student mobility has been around 4.8%, driven by not

only China and India but
also other countries around the world. On the other hand, most
established systems of
higher education have developed their own policies to attract
fee-paying international
students, with considerable success. Regional mobility has been
growing steadily, as
countries such as Egypt, South Africa, and Singapore become
major hubs for interna-
tional education (de Wit, Agarwal, Said, Sehoole, & Sirozi,
2008). In Europe, univer-
sities are increasingly offering courses in English in order to
attract international
students, convinced that English is now the lingua franca of the
global economy.
At the same time, however, and especially after the Global
Financial Crisis in
2008, a range of concerns have emerged about the neo-liberal
imaginary, and the mar-
ket model of higher education to which it had given rise. These
concerns apply to all
systems of education but are particularly relevant to Australia
higher education, given
its heavier reliance on international students as a source of
revenue. To begin with,
there are some legitimate concerns about issues of quality,
capacity, and support
provided to international students in Australian universities
(Marginson, Nyland,
Sawir, & Forbes-Mewatt, 2010). There is now considerable
evidence of exploitative
practices within the educational markets that have been
inadequately regulated.
It is also clear that the fields of Business Studies, Engineering,

and Computer
Education remain dominant in international student mobility,
with more than 70%
students enrolled in these disciplinary areas; and that English
appears to have
become institutionalized as the language of international
education. In one sense,
given the neo-liberal imaginary of globalization this is not
surprising, yet in another
sense the knowledge asymmetry that this represents is unhelpful
to higher educa-
tion’s broader mission, which cannot afford to be driven more
by the profit motive
than by its traditional cultural and educational concerns.
Problematic therefore is
the fact that international mobility in higher education has
largely become a private
good, available mostly to the transnational elite.
The philosopher, Taylor (2004), has noted that social
imaginaries are always
dynamics: they contain within them the seeds of resistance and
opposition, and the
potential for change. If this is so then the neo-liberal imaginary,
upon which the
Australian commercial success in international education is
largely based, cannot
persist for ever. If contradictions of their approach to
are becoming apparent then Australian universities need to
renew their thinking,
and develop new discourses and practices of internationalization
of higher educa-
tion, consistent with the emerging dynamics and possibilities of
transnationality. It
is now increasingly clear that the global context within which

student mobility takes
place is now characterized by multiple ties and interactions
linking people and insti-
tutions across the borders of nation-states – not always
mediated by international
relations, but defined by systems of ties, interactions,
exchanges, and mobilities that
demand reciprocity and mutual benefit. As higher education
systems around the
world embrace mobility, there is a growing awareness of the
new demands and
possibilities of collaboration and networking among institutions
dealing with
knowledge production and dissemination (Vertovec, 2008).
This new ‘transnational’ context of higher education can no
longer assume
asymmetrical power relations that had in the past resulted in
uni-directional flow of
students – from the rest to the West. With the changing political
architecture of the
world, there are now numerous challenges to this asymmetry of
global power
relations, as well as an erosion of the market fundamentalism
that defines the neo-
liberal imaginary of globalization. There is now a confident
assertion of knowledge
traditions other than western scientific rationalism, together
with the recognition of
non-economic values. At the same time, the developments in
technology have

eroded the distinction between knowledge production and
dissemination, and have
given rise to new pedagogic possibilities of the ubiquitous
social media and com-
munication technologies, such as the Open Source and Open
Access Movement.
Major shifts in youth cultures are accompanied by new practices
of global network-
ing, transforming the ways in which international student
mobility is now envisaged
and experienced.
Conclusion
These and other developments have highlighted the importance
of transnational col-
laborations in higher education, ahead of a focus on educational
markets and their
commercial possibilities. They suggest regularized, on-going,
and symmetrical trans-
national links inherent in the emerging distributive systems of
knowledge develop-
ment and dissemination. They indicate the need to create
transnational bilateral and
multilateral teaching and research networks among both
universities and industries,
as a way of developing new modes of sharing income,
resources, and effort.
If the neo-liberal market view of international education was
largely about
recruiting students, enabling them to experience international
education, then the
emphasis on transnational collaborations implies rethinking the
nature and scope of
that education itself. Emerging in the new context is the need to

re-examine the tra-
ditional curriculum, challenged now by the claims of ‘other’
knowledge traditions,
and to develop new pedagogies that are more responsive to
recent innovations in
social media and the ubiquitous technologies of communication.
Beyond the focus
on educational markets, it is indeed possible for universities
around the world to
work toward a new social imaginary that views transnational
collaborations in
higher education as not only socially and culturally productive
but are also
economically efficient.
References
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimension of
globalization. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Beazley. (1992). Ministerial statement on internationalization of
education. Canberra: Aus-
tralian Government Printing Office.
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Cohen, R., & Kennedy, P. (2007). Global sociology (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: University of
New York Press.
de Wit, H., Agarwal, P., Said, M., Sehoole, M., & Sirozi, M.
(2008). The dynamics of inter-
national student circulation in a global context. Rotterdam:
Sense.
Escobar, A. (1991). Encountering development. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.
700 F. Rizvi
Golding Report. (1985). Overseas students in Australia.
Canberra: Australian Government
Printing Service.
Guruz, K. (2008). Higher education and international student
mobility in the global knowl-
edge economy. Albany, NY: University of New York Press.
Harman, G. (2004). New directions in internationalising higher
education: Australia’s develop-
ment as an exporter of higher education services. Higher
Education Policy, 17(1), 101–
120.
Jackson Report. (1986). Australia’s Overseas Aid. Canberra:
Australian Government Printing
Service.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions,
approaches and rationales.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31.
Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Sawir, E., & Forbes-Mewatt, H.
(2010). International student
security. London: Cambridge University Press.
McBurnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2005). Transnational education:
Issues and trends in offshore
higher education. London: Routledge.

Nye, J. (2005). Soft power: The means to success in world
success. New York, NY: Perseus
Books Group.
Oakman, D. (2005). Facing Asia: A history of the Colombo
Plan. Canberra: ANU Press.
Rizvi, F. (2005). Rethinking brain drain in the era of
globalization. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Education, 25(2), 173–195.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy.
London: Routledge.
Steger, M. (2009). The rise of the global imaginary: Political
ideologies from the French
revolutions to the global war on terror. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Vertovec, S. (2008). Transnationalism. London: Routledge.

World class An investigation of globalisation, differenc.docx

More Related Content

Similar to World class An investigation of globalisation, differenc.docx (20)

More from AASTHA76 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

World class An investigation of globalisation, differenc.docx