UK policy discourses and international student mobility: the deterrence and subjectification of international students

Abstract

Policies on international student mobility (ISM) have the capacity to structure both flows of students and the representations of globally mobile students through discourse. This paper draws on a text-based analysis of British policy discourses and secondary analysis of published statistics. It uses problematisation analysis to examine how problems and students are represented as social subjects. Growth in student numbers, particularly in high ranking institutions, has coincided with proactive policies over the last 20 years, suggesting that policy discourses are linked to mobility. But policy targets were not met and growth has fallen since the 2010 tightening of migration policy. Nor was the target of diversifying source countries met, meaning the UK remains dependent on student demand from a few nations. This mixed success suggests that student mobility is easily deterred by migration policy, but other policies have little impact on the nature of demand. In interaction with multiple, contradictory media and institutional discourses, policy discourses construct international students as sources of income, immigrants of doubtful value, consumers, and 'other'. These representations may be internalised by students, who learn to subjectify themselves. I call for an approach to ISM which puts statistics in dialogue with discourse. ARTICLE HISTORY

Developing a framework for international students’ rationales for studying abroad, beyond economic factors

“…On the one hand, the macro economic rationale is widely viewed as serving the interests of host institutions and countries who benefit from recruiting high fee-paying international students (de Wit, 2020). On the other hand, at the micro level, students are positioned as consumers seeking education to enhance their labour market opportunities and economic contribution to society (Lomer, 2018).…”

“…The numbers of internationally mobile students have more than doubled from 2 million in 2000 to 5.3 million in 2017 (UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2019). International student mobility (ISM) thus remains the most visible aspect of the internationalisation of higher education, and it continues to attract the interest of policy makers and scholars (Bohm et al, 2004;Brooks and Waters, 2013;Ilieva et al, 2017;King and Sondhi, 2018;Lomer, 2018). Underscoring this interest, a British Council sponsored report by Ilieva et al (2017) highlighted findings from a comparative research on internationalisation across different countries (in Europe, the Americas, Australia, China and India) which found that ISM is the most well-developed category of national policy frameworks in all the 11 European countries studied (including the UK).…”

“…66-67) The quote above captures the normalisation of the global policy imaginary underlying a neoliberal and economic driven internationalisation agenda. In the current target-driven competitive international education 'market ' (de Wit, 2020;Lomer, 2018;Molla and Pham, 2019), neoliberalism is embedded in the 'process of education reform that is at work in countries in all continents, with very different cultural and political histories, with very few exceptions' (Ball, 2016(Ball, : 1046. In other words, neoliberalism has driven change in education discourse and policy linking education to skills, employment and economic productivity (Klees, 2020).…”

The Economics of International Student and Scholar Mobility: Directions for Research

“…Finally, although the motives of establishing international branch campuses are not clear, there is some anecdotal evidence that quotas on international student enrollments (Lomer, 2018) could encourage universities to open campuses abroad ("export controls jumping"). Quotas on international students are essentially export controls, as this is a restriction on export of higher education services.…”

Perceiving Eu Governance Inputs And Policy-Making In The Field Of Education

“…Moreover, studies have argued for the advantages of European integration with a particular focus on freedom of movement to national higher education as regards EU funding, in-coming students, in-coming teaching staff work force, and out-going students resources (Mayhew, 2017). Further studies analyzed the linkages between migration policies, international/European (higher) education policies and student mobility frameworks methodologically correlating statistics with discourse analysis (Lomer, 2018). Earlier studies suggested that social and economic factors frame both the EU and Member State education policies.…”