I have 2 article for each one I want summary 300 word and 200-word evaluation this the example for the evaluation and what should include

contentserver.pdf

Home >English homework help >I have 2 article for each one I want summary 300 word and 200-word evaluation this the example for the evaluation and what should include

Article

Conceptualizing international education: From international student to international study

Clare Madge University of Leicester, UK

Parvati Raghuram The Open University, UK

Pat Noxolo The University of Sheffield, UK

Abstract In a rapidly changing transnational eduscape, it is timely to consider how best to conceptualize international education. Here we argue for a conceptual relocation from international student to international study as a means to bridge the diverse literatures on international education. International study also enables recog- nition of the multiple contributions (and resistances) of international students as agents of knowledge for- mation; it facilitates consideration of the mobility of students in terms of circulations of knowledge; and it is a means to acknowledge the complex spatialities of international education, in which students and educators are emotionally and politically networked together through knowledge contributions.

Keywords International study, mobile agents, circulations of knowledge, geographies of international education, emotions

I Introduction: thinking beyond ‘international student’ as a category

Recent decades have seen a considerable

increase in the volume of ‘international’ stu-

dents worldwide; 1

the number of students

enrolled outside their country of citizenship

has seen a five-fold increase from 0.8 million

in 1975 to 4.1 million in 2010 (OECD, 2012).

This is a global phenomenon – UNESCO sta-

tistics suggest that virtually every country in

the world has experienced an expansion in the

number of international students in the first

decade of the 21st century (http://stats.uis.unes-

co.org/unesco). For instance, from 2003 to

2010 the number of international students in

Egypt grew from 27,158 to 49,011; in the

Czech Republic from 10,338 to 34,992; and in

the Republic of Korea from 7,843 to 59,194

Corresponding author: Clare Madge, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK. Email: [email protected]

Progress in Human Geography 2015, Vol. 39(6) 681–701

ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0309132514526442

phg.sagepub.com

http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://phg.sagepub.com

(http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco, latest statis-

tics). However, it is the growth of international

students in the so-called major receiving coun-

tries (US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and

some European countries) that so far has

spurred most interest from the research commu-

nity – from scholars (Findlay et al., 2012; Waters

and Brooks, 2011), educational institutions (King

et al., 2010), think-tanks (Mulley and Sachrajda,

2011) and educational providers and policy-

makers (British Council, 2012; UKCISA, 2008).

This increase in international student num-

bers is part of a wider ‘transnationalization of

education’ achieved through a range of changes

to educational policy: the establishment of

higher education (HE) ‘partnerships’, satellites

and branches between universities in different

parts of the world (Looser, 2012); the develop-

ment of educational networks attempting to

‘globalize’ HE (Tadaki and Tremewan, 2013);

the proliferation of a variety of educational bro-

kers, consultants and agents involved in interna-

tional student recruitment (Hulme et al., 2013);

and the prioritization of ‘internationalization’

in the strategic plans of higher education insti-

tutions (HEIs), with the attendant ‘competitive-

ness agenda’ and status building (Knight, 2012).

Digital education, the opening of online courses

and free online universities (like Udacity and

Coursera), as well as a range of technologies for

ranking and choosing HE provision globally

(Robertson, 2012), have helped to embed these

policies of internationalization of education by

shifting pedagogic practices (Ryan, 2013).

At this juncture of a rapidly changing trans-

national eduscape, which has seen significant

increases in students crossing borders (both

physically and virtually) (OECD, 2012: 360),

it is timely to ‘take a step back’ to consider how

best to conceptualize international education. It

is also appropriate to begin the work of develop-

ing conceptual frameworks that can extend

across the diverse literatures that deal with

international education. For example, the bur-

geoning geographies of education literature has

opened up our understanding of the complex

spatialities of the internationalization of educa-

tion (Holloway et al., 2010, 2012; Thiem, 2009;

Waters and Leung, 2013a, 2013b), while the

academic literature on international student

mobility (ISM) has added richly to analysing the

mobility associated with these developments

(Brooks and Waters, 2011a; Brooks et al.,

2012a; Collins, 2012; King and Raghuram,

2013; King et al., 2011). Moreover, the pedago-

gies in education literature has focused on (glo-

bal) knowledge formations, revealing countless

accounts of international student experiences

and changing educator practices (Alberts and

Hazen, 2013; Mosneaga and Winther, 2013;

Sawir, 2013). However, despite increasing

overlaps and intellectual osmosis between the

geographies of education and international stu-

dent mobility literatures, there still exists only

a limited engagement between these and the

pedagogies in education strand. For instance,

the international student mobility literature

could usefully move beyond simply viewing

students in terms of their cultural capital and

explorations of how educational mobility is

involved in the social reproduction of class

advantage, towards consideration of the impli-

cations of student mobility for pedagogy. Simi-

larly, those who are interested in educational

pedagogy have not really attended to issues

of student mobility. This paper argues for the

use of international study as a concept that can

act as a bridge across these debates. Moreover,

these different literatures have broadly distinct

ways of considering international students: the

former as global elite in the making; the latter

as somehow implicitly lacking in (western)

knowledge and educational skills and therefore

more problematic to teach. In this paper, we

bring these literatures (geographies of educa-

tion/geographies of international student mobi-

lity and pedagogies in education) into dialogue

through the concept of international study, 2

order to present a more complex, differentiated

and agentic view of international students

682 Progress in Human Geography 39(6)

http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesc

which goes beyond these extremes of excess

and deficit.

Thus we aim to build on existing literature on

educational mobilities and pedagogic knowl-

edges – not only to explore ‘the ways in which

the relationship between international education

and (im)mobilities continues to be transformed’

(Waters, 2012: 131) and to understand the ever

more complex and emerging global landscapes

of education (Holloway and Jöns, 2012), but

also to unpack the categories of analysis that are

used in thinking about and conceptualizing

these complex dynamic global eduscapes.

Doing so now is of practical significance at a

time when the value placed on skills in the

global economy, alongside neoliberal changes

to education effected since the late 1990s,

have wrought significant changes to education

(Erikson, 2012; Hanke and Hearn, 2012; Lewis,

2011; O’Brien, 2012). This has made it easier

and more desirable for the growing number of

students in countries such as China, India and

more recently Brazil, Saudi Arabia and post-

Soviet Central Asia to acquire foreign exchange

and study abroad in a range of countries includ-

ing ‘emerging’ destinations such as Singapore,

Korea, Malaysia and Japan (Holloway et al.,

2012; Sidhu et al., 2011). Moreover, mobilities

are often not simply from one nation state to

another; they also occur within nation states,

as students study ‘in situ’ to gain international

accreditation through transnational education

via overseas branch and niche campuses, fran-

chising and accreditation (King and Raghuram,

2013; Matthews, 2012; Waters and Leung,

2012, 2013a, 2013b). At the same time, coun-

tries such as the UK, that have traditionally

‘received’ a large number of international stu-

dents, have paradoxical policies which on the

one hand involve an explicit drive to use inter-

national student fees as a mode for enhancing

income 3

(Mulley and Sachrajda, 2011), but on

the other hand have increasingly stringent visa

restrictions for international travel and greater

responsibilities for educational institutions to

keep track of their international students. 4

a result of these changes, international students

have become ever more problematized by

migration authorities, while simultaneously

being vital to the HE landscape and to sustain-

ing everyday academic life in many ‘receiving’

countries.

The picture becomes more complex as stu-

dents (often those with greater cultural capital)

from places usually seen as ‘destination coun-

tries’ are also enrolling (sometimes temporar-

ily) on degree programmes overseas (Brooks

and Waters, 2011b; Brooks et al., 2012b). This

is varyingly in response to a rise in domestic tui-

tion fees (Higgitt, 2012), to perceived economic

benefits of overseas qualifications in a compet-

itive graduate job market (Findlay et al., 2012)

or to more emotionally laden valuations such

as ‘the pursuit of happiness’ (Waters et al.,

2011). International university ranking schemes

also play an important role in shaping student

mobility, as high-ranking institutions become

desirable centres of education (Jöns and Hoyler,

2013). Additionally, predicted slow-downs in

the global growth of participation rates in HE

and shifts in the balance of education-related

mobility from the ‘West’ to the ‘East’ over

the next decade (British Council, 2012) are

liable to bring further transformations in both

the geographies of transnational education and

in the individuals categorized as international

students.

In light of these changes, and given the great

diversity of international students, 5

the multi-

ple and hybrid ways in which students are

involved in international education, and how

the global eduscape is also populated by the

varied mobility practices and policies of differ-

ent institutions and academics, it is timely to

problematize ‘the international student’ as a

singular category. However, it is not only rec-

ognition of their diversity and the complex spa-

tial vectors of ISM that give impetus to

question ‘international student’ as a category

of analysis. It is also important to scrutinize

Madge et al. 683

this socially and historically constructed (and

hence contingent) category, as increasingly

securitized migration policies in many places

require international students to be marked up

as the ‘radical other’. Thus heightened public

pressures to reduce immigration (Noxolo,

forthcoming; Tannock, 2013) are leading to the

filtering of inward student migration after a

period of rapid expansion during the 2000s

(Ewers and Lewis, 2008).

Given these problems associated with the

term ‘international student’, this paper ques-

tions whether its continued use as a modus of

differentiating some students from the wider

eduscape is still appropriate. Is it ‘an idea, a con-

cept that has historically served, and continues

to serve, as a polemic argument for the West’s

desperate desire to assert its difference from the

rest of the world’ (Mbembe, 2001: 2)? 6

Within

such a framing, the figure of the international

student can act as a metaphor of absence (lack-

ing the knowledge, failing in the classroom,

emblematic of the problem of immigration,

depicted as marginal victims) against which the

‘development’ and intellectual advances of

western education and knowledge can be pic-

tured. This is a troubling picture indeed, which

can recycle racist repertoires and clichés of

western presence and others’ absence, wait-

ing to enter the ‘light’ of the western ‘teach-

ing machine’. Thus critiquing the ‘marking’

of the international student, challenging nor-

malizing conceptions that present the interna-

tionalization 7

of HE in ways that objectify

and homogenize students and acknowledging

how ‘knowledge’ has itself altered because of

these educational agents, is an important

political project. In this paper we explore

how such a project might be operationalized

by a shift in conceptual focus from interna-

tional student to international study.

In the remainder of the paper we present three

(interconnected) steps in an argument to make

this conceptual relocation from international

student to international study. The paper is

correspondingly structured into three sections.

In section II, we place the spotlight on the

agency of mobile people (academics and stu-

dents) who are simultaneously implicated in the

co-construction of knowledge production activ-

ities. This moves us towards a modification

in thinking from (individualized) student to

(collective) study, a term which is more all-

encompassing and involves us all. Section III

analyses pedagogic spaces as focal points

through and within which these knowledge pro-

duction activities circulate. In so doing, we

highlight how intellectual knowledges are

always in formation (Raghuram, 2009), con-

stantly becoming reshaped owing to the agen-

tic and dialogical practices of both academics

and students. Thus the move to international

study facilitates a conceptual repositioning of

students in terms of circulations of knowledge

and not only as flows of people (Raghuram,

2013). In section IV, we unpack the concept

of the international to enable a more distribu-

ted, unsettled and decentred view of interna-

tional study. In adopting an approach which

recognizes the long history of global mobility,

that develops multi-centre, multi-scalar spatial

imaginations and unsettles commonly assumed

spatialities through a focus on student immobili-

ties, we start to reveal an expanded notion of the

international, moving from (largely unmarked)

European-American-Australian centres towards

a version that explicitly resituates itself as com-

ing out of multiple locations. The concluding

section V briefly considers the key implications

of this conceptual move from international stu-

dent to international study.

II International study: students and academics as mobile agents

In this section we explore what the literature on

student mobilities can learn from debates about

academic mobilities. In doing so, we place the

spotlight on the agency of mobile people and

argue that this enables a shift in thinking in two

684 Progress in Human Geography 39(6)

key ways. First, student mobility for interna-

tional study should not simply be thought of

as a movement occurring at a discrete point in

time, but rather as an ongoing process inherent

to ever-changing mobile lives (see, for example,

Findlay et al., 2012). Second, we focus not only

on the impact of mobility on students, but also

on the agency and resistance of international

students in transforming the institutions and

environments in which they are located.

Although there is a vibrant literature on

academic mobility (Chen and Koyama, 2013;

Dervin, 2011; Fahey and Kenway, 2010; Leung,

2013), research on student mobility has only

engaged to a limited extent with this literature

(see, for example, Hammett, 2012; Mavroudi

and Warren, 2013). Rather, in treating students

as distinct subjects of study, research on student

mobility has focused on the causes and effects

of individual moves of students and in the process

has over-valorized the migration of the indi-

vidual. However, while we acknowledge that

the motivations/drivers for migration might be

different for academics and students, there are

much larger debates on knowledge production

and the role of mobilities therein from which

the student migration literature can learn. For

instance, the role of academic mobility in pro-

ducing, reworking and sometimes erasing cir-

culations of knowledge (Leung, 2011) and the

ongoing and continuous role of mobility in the

building of academic lives (Jöns, 2007), partic-

ularly in the context of changes in employment

conditions, are clear-cut. Short-term contract

cultures have meant that academics (research-

ers, lecturers, administrators) are often mobile

over a large portion of their careers (Kim,

2010a). This moves the focus onto long-term

but dynamic transnational networks which are

embedded in mobility practices, rather than

stories of outward and return journeys centred

on a fixed notion of a ‘home’ institution. This

longer temporal focus also conceives individ-

ual academic careers as developing through

diverse international movements.

Extending this argument to students, we sug-

gest, along with Findlay et al. (2012), that the

mobility of students should be considered in the

context of mobile careers and mobile lives

rather than imagining travel for international

study as an isolated ‘moment’ in which students

develop the capital required for ‘employability’.

For instance, Findlay et al. (2012) argue that

mobility for education is, and should be recog-

nized as, part of wider life course mobilities.

They explore how mobility is a way of life and

a part of family formation and employment and

that international student mobility intersects

with, or is nested within, these mobilities. We

adopt a similar approach but locate these life

stories of mobility in the context of academic

cultures and the demands of knowledge produc-

tion, reproduction and circulation. If we take the

spaces of knowledge as an important, but often

neglected, aspect of international student mobi-

lity, then we can see academics and students as

inhabiting the shared space of knowledge, in

which both students and academics require and

depend on mobility. We thus extend Findlay

et al.’s (2012) arguments beyond the life course

to other (academic) mobility contexts.

Additionally, early research on ISM focused

on the impact of mobility on senders or recei-

vers, and only occasionally on those who were

actually mobile – the students themselves. It did

not explore their differentiated experiences,

motivations and aspirations (Carlson, 2013) and

tended to concentrate on students in isolation

from other external factors, thus presenting the

international market as ‘uniform and benign’,

which inadequately captured the ‘full complex-

ity and discursive nature of the phenomena of

global student mobility’ (Kell and Vogl, 2008:

viii). More recent scholarship on ISM has

extended beyond debates around ‘employabil-

ity’ and the relationship between overseas study

and labour market advantage to consider the

role of student mobility in reproducing social

advantage within families and the construc-

tion of ‘cosmopolitan’ identities. For instance,

Madge et al. 685

several papers in a special issue of Globaliza-

tion, Societies and Education (Waters and

Brooks, 2011) highlight the need to appreciate

the plurality of spaces (such as homes, work-

places, international/transnational space, cyber-

space) associated with international student life,

while others have focused on embodied and

emotional experiences of students (Collins,

2010a, 2012; Fincher, 2011), and indeed their

vulnerability in some settings (Park, 2010).

It is also increasingly recognized that students

are multiply positioned subjects who may simul-

taneously be students, workers, refugees and

family members (King and Raghuram, 2013)

who articulate varying degrees of social, eco-

nomic and political agency. Collins (2010b), for

example, explores the relationship between the

growth of international student numbers in Auck-

land, New Zealand, and processes of urban trans-

formation, suggesting it has had to significant

impacts on urban form, including the growth in

educational services such as language schools

and other private training establishments, new

residential geographies characterized by low-

cost and low-quality high-rise developments, and

new ethnic economies of food, service and enter-

tainment businesses that explicitly target interna-

tional students (see also Holloway et al., 2010).

In uncovering the connections between student

mobilities and changing urban form, Collins

(2010b) explores the role of international stu-

dents as urban agents in transforming urban

spaces, but also notes that their influence cannot

easily be separated from the contribution of a

range of other actors including educational busi-

nesses, property developers and transnational

migrants.

This agency of students extends to active

resistance and activism too. As Tikly (2001:

161) observes, education can ‘have a critical cor-

respondence with the global economy because of

its role in providing a focus and forum for the

development of resistance to the status quo’.

International students are a wonderfully fertile

marginal case, in relation to a range of national

and transnational education systems, that not

only produce global inequality but can also pro-

duce the knowledge, skills and personnel to

challenge it, raising the question ‘where and

with whom is there purchase for resistance?’

One example of such resistance is given by

Zeilig and Ansell (2008), who suggest that uni-

versity students in Africa have long engaged in

political activism, responding to changing

political, social and economic circumstances

through protest that has at times exerted con-

siderable influence on the national stage. Using

case studies from Senegal and Zimbabwe, they

show how African students have helped recon-

figure geographies of political domination and

of higher education. This is clearest in Senegal,

where student activism contributed to a change

of government and to the new government’s

agreement not to implement fully a World

Bank-funded plan for HE (Zeilig and Ansell,

2008).

However, although there is clearly some rec-

ognition of the economic, social and political

impacts of student mobility, there is much less

acknowledgement of international students’

role in knowledge production itself (but see

Williams and Baláž, 2008, for a discussion of

knowledge mobility in the context of the labour

market; and Kofman and Raghuram, 2013, for a

gendered analysis). International students are

often still depicted as subjects who are acted

upon in the context of study; rarely are they

envisaged as complex agents who alter the aca-

demic worlds around them through their knowl-

edge practices.

By contrast, the mobility of academics has

been written about for some time in terms of the

complexity of mobile intellectual subjectivities

(see Bauman, in Boyer and Lomnitz, 2005:

106), often firmly placed in the context of wider

institutional, geopolitical and cultural relation-

ships. Edward Said’s work on the exilic intellec-

tual, for example, focuses on the tension

between mobility and constraint – the intellec-

tual who is free to travel anywhere except to the

686 Progress in Human Geography 39(6)

place of desire – and its effects on academic

institutions, arguing that: ‘Exile for the intellec-

tual in this sense is restlessness, movement, con-

stantly being unsettled, and unsettling others’

(Said, quoted in Fahey and Kenway, 2010:

630). This ‘unsettling’ aspect of mobility, unset-

tling both the self and others, resonates with

Stuart Hall’s formulation of the ‘diasporic intel-

lectual’, in which one can never ‘go home’, but

lives always with ‘the enigma of an always-

postponed arrival’. This makes for a lived

hybridity that comes out of the specificity of the

historical moment: ‘out of very specific histories

and cultural repertoires of enunciation . . . we have to live this ensemble of identity-

positions in all its specificities’ (Hall and Chen,

1996: 490).

In Stuart Hall’s (Hall and Chen, 1996) narra-

tion of his academic life, travelling from

Jamaica to the UK as a student and becoming

an influential British academic, it is precisely

the dialogues that this hybrid identity generates

that unsettle the academic institutions surround-

ing him. For Hall, this was instrumental both in

his role in the establishment and in his eventual

movement away from the influential Centre for

Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. Similarly,

for Anna Yeatman, moving from Australia to

the USA to study, then to Australia and New

Zealand as an academic, her need to under-

stand the ‘ethics of place internal to the place’

(Massey, quoted in Fahey and Kenway, 2010:

636) led her to occupy both an insider and out-

sider position in relation to Women’s Studies in

New Zealand, with a sense that this dialogic

positioning was essential to the opening out of

the discipline to women from more diverse

backgrounds: ‘It is now accepted that for

all women to be a part of Women’s Studies a

dialogical process which is open to differently

positioned women . . . has to be opened up’ (Yeatman, quoted in Fahey and Kenway,

2010: 637). So academic mobilities are not only

shaped by global educational institutional poli-

cies and practices, and by the movements of

global capital and geopolitics; mobile academics

also shape academic institutions and knowl-

edges through the perspectives that their trans-

nationality provides them. Kim (2010a: 589)

calls this flexible capacity to see as a stranger

‘transnational identity capital’, and shows how

it is embedded within ‘the imperatives of aca-

demic capitalism’. Crucially, it is the clustering

of mobile academics and ideas which produces

these ‘global hubs of excellence’.

Considering international students through

the ‘lens’ of academic mobility requires that we

focus not only on the impact of mobility on stu-

dents, but also on their agency in transforming

the institutions and environments in which they

are placed. However, we are not simply arguing

that the ‘contribution’ of international students

(through their agency and resistance) to knowl-

edge formation ‘be acknowledged’. It is not sim-

ply a project of ‘flipping the coin’ because the

concept of contribution is itself flawed. It

‘implies the claim of deliberateness: that one

originally feels attracted by a sphere of life and

that one wants to prove to oneself and others the

right to be accepted into the new circle on

account of one’s accomplishment’ (Adorno,

2009: 160). For Adorno (2009), the right to move

and to study is not a gift, which requires giving

thanks, returning a ‘contribution’. Instead, when

mobility becomes seen as a necessary part of

intellectual production, then the mobile intel-

lectual is not an outsider who contributes to

pre-given knowledges which have territorial

affiliations; rather, mobile intellectuals are

inherent to that knowledge production itself

(Raghuram, 2013). The implication of this

critique is that it is not adequate for receiving

institutions and their HE cultures to simply

demand that international students conform to

pre-existing structures, knowledge formations

and curriculums, but their right to critique and

alter the receiving institutions and their systems

is also immanent. This is because ‘contribution

naively presupposes the merit of the order to

which one is supposed to contribute something.

Madge et al. 687

It is precisely the merit of the order that is to be

questioned’ (Adorno, 2009: 161). Thus recog-

nizing that knowledge formations are brought

together not only through academic mobility but

also through the circulation, mobility, agency

and resistance of international students places

the spotlight on the agency of mobile people

(academics and students) who are simulta-

neously implicated in the co-construction of

knowledge. This pushes towards a shift in think-

ing from (individualized) student to (collective)

study. But what implications does this shift to

international study have for thinking about the

mobility of students? This is explored below.

III International study routed through circulations of knowledge: pedagogic spaces in formation

This section considers international study as a

mobile spatial practice of knowledge production

and reveals pedagogic spaces as powerful focal

points through and within which these knowledge

production activities circulate. In so doing, it

highlights how intellectual knowledges are

always in formation, constantly becoming

reshaped owing to the agentic practices high-

lighted above. In other words, if international

study includes an appreciation of the mobile con-

ditions of knowledge production and the impor-

tance of the mobile bodies of both (but not

only) academics and students in that process, then

student mobility can start to be envisaged in terms

of circulation of knowledge rather than (largely)

through a migration lens (Raghuram, 2013).

Early literature on the pedagogic issues

raised by student mobility tended to interrogate

either educator practices or students themselves,

in order to explore how to improve student

experiences (Haigh, 2002; Scheyvens et al.,

2003). The focus was often on the individual

scale of analysis, set firmly within the class-

room walls, with individuals presented as pas-

sive participants in a global market setting.

Here the ‘international’ student was sometimes

portrayed as an exotic ‘other’ and at other times

as one who required pedagogic instruction to

‘fit’ the teaching requirements of particular

localities. In both cases the student was por-

trayed, in some ways, as the locus of ‘the prob-

lem’. More recently, this literature is moving

away from this instrumentalist notion of

pedagogy as instruction towards a more inter-

relational, emotionally embedded approach

(Anderson, 2012; Geddie, 2013; Ryan, 2013)

which recognizes the complexities of internatio-

nalization for the dyadic relationships between

staff and students (Klein et al., 2014; Sawir,

2013). For instance, Kell and Vogl (2008)

recognize the complexities of the embodied

nature of educator and classroom practices and

focus on the emotional well-being of students,

while Coate (2009: 271) argues that English

HEIs are ‘on ethically dubious grounds in terms

of their relations with international students’

because of the current failure of staff and stu-

dents in sharing responsibility for international

students’ educational experiences. Sidhu and

Dall’Alba (2012) pursue this line of thought in

exploring the disjuncture between the disembo-

died ‘brand identities’ of the international edu-

cation export industry and the actual embodied

experiences of international students, which,

they argue, ultimately undermines the cosmopo-

litan ethic that international education claims to

provide.

In this interrelational notion of pedagogy,

international students are relocated as part of a

long history of transversal and decentred knowl-

edge circulation. Once we get beyond seeing

students as clients, buying knowledge and

taking it home in the equivalent of lifelong

shopping bags, we begin to see that the global

knowledge economy is one that is founded pre-

cisely on the generative capacity of circulation:

mobility and encounter make knowledge

(Raghuram, 2013). International students do not

just take away knowledge – they bring it and

generate it (Singh, 2009). Both students and

academics teaching them draw on countless

688 Progress in Human Geography 39(6)

historical knowledge-making encounters both in

receiving countries and elsewhere (Raghuram,

2009). Knowledge is not simply passed on:

minds and meetings leave their mark. In this way

knowledge is always already decentred: the indi-

vidual subject does not generate knowledge

alone but through encounter, whether face-to-

face or through writing.

Literatures on globalized knowledge forma-

tions beyond the topic of international students

are often focused on the roles of mobile knowl-

edge agents, both in processes of knowledge

formation and on the kinds of knowledge pro-

duced. Many have pointed to the processes of

sifting, translation, linking and recombination

of information that characterize the agency of

key global knowledge brokers, such as NGOs

(Bach and Stark, 2004), while others point to the

increasing salience for global capital of knowl-

edge communities, in which knowledge flows

across space in increasingly frictionless ways,

managed through actor-networks of competent

personnel (Thrift, 2005). Similarly, Jöns (2009)

considers how the international mobilities of

German academics, sponsored by the German

state through the Humboldt Foundation, created

long-term networks of academic relationships

that made Germany a key post-war intellectual

hub. Folded into Germany’s post-war economic

success story there was an emphasis on capital

accumulation, both for institutions involved in

these networks and for the state, but Jöns

(2009) transfers attention from a focus on the

direct advantages for ‘senders’ and ‘receivers’

to what Faulconbridge (quoted in Jöns, 2009:

334) calls ‘globally stretched practices of knowl-

edge production and circulation’. In other words,

there is a shift from mapping mobile bodies

to understanding how knowledge is changed

through its mobile conditions of production.

Whether the emphasis is on knowledge agents

or knowledge circulations, the focus is on the

building of knowledge competencies (Kim,

2010a) the capacity to create, manage and deploy

knowledge as it circulates through space.

In considering international study in terms of

circulations of knowledge (rather than that of

people), pedagogic spaces (formal lecture

rooms and classrooms, but also the spatial pat-

terning of pedagogic encounters; see Holloway

et al., 2010) are key focal points through which

this knowledge circulates. One way of rethink-

ing ‘the porousness of the lecture room walls’

(Madge et al., 2009: 37) is to see knowledge

as circulating through and around these spaces,

creating a shared dialogic place in which differ-

ent mobile knowledge agents, institutions and

infrastructures of education play a role 8

(see

also Kraftl, 2013, on learning as a spatial prac-

tice). Moreover, recognizing knowledge as a set

of mobile spatial practices also pushes peda-

gogy towards more dialogic forms, with an

emphasis on developing transferable competen-

cies in relation to the evaluation and manage-

ment of ephemeral forms of knowledge, rather

than a Fordist emphasis on transmitting and

absorbing permanent information (Tabulawa,

2009). For example, Susan Mains (2004), her-

self a mobile academic who moved from Britain

to teach for a period in the Caribbean, chal-

lenges the way the Caribbean is constructed

by knowledge practitioners from outside the

Caribbean, and suggests more dialogic pedago-

gic practices in which Caribbean students ques-

tion the assumption that academics should be in

control of the curriculum. This more dialogic

practice begins from an acknowledgement that

spatial circulations of knowledge are always

embedded within complex power dynamics at

a variety of spatial scales.

Moreover, if knowledge requires, or results

from, dialogic processes then categories such

as ‘western knowledge’ and ‘southern theories’

also need nuancing. ‘Western’ knowledge has

always emanated from the engagements of

mobile people from many places. Carney

(2011), for example, highlights how the rice

farming systems and businesses of the southern

states of America were developed through the

transfers of knowledge from people forced

Madge et al. 689

from West Africa, while Brockway (2011)

shows how botanical knowledges located at

Kew Gardens in London originated from

numerous colonial botanical gardens through

the mobile ‘indigenous’ knowledge of people

living in those places. Knowledges are always

in formation, constantly borrowing from

diverse times and places, and enacted through

the mobility of knowledge agents.

But it is not just that knowledge located in the

western teaching machine (Spivak, 1988) has

long histories of global circulation: interna-

tional students, as knowledge agents, are also

interpreting long histories of global knowledge

circulation, in addition to ‘new’ knowledge that

they encounter when they move internationally.

Student minds/intellects have already had to

familiarize themselves with systems – immigra-

tion regulations, application systems, pedagogic

languages – in order to gain mobility. Indeed, a

detailed familiarity with this globalized knowl-

edge is necessary for becoming an international

student in the first place. These circulations of

knowledge are, however, also highly uneven.

For instance, educators generally do not need

to acquire knowledge of the systems from which

students come; they rarely know about the edu-

cation regimes or even of the immigration regu-

lations that the students have to negotiate to

become ‘international’. Moreover, although

knowledge circulation may be highly interde-

pendent, and enacted through various mobile

agents, it is certainly not equally valued: even

when the knowledge of international students

– indeed all students – is recognized pedagogi-

cally in the classroom through reflexive learn-

ing in everyday classroom encounters, (some)

international students are still sometimes seen

as in deficit – requiring more effort to teach. 9

Their educational background can be seen as a

hindrance, a problem to be overcome.

At best (some) international students may be

considered by educators in the classroom as pur-

veyors of pristine ‘southern knowledge’. How-

ever, recognition that knowledges are always

in formation and are always already decentred

questions the limits of situated ‘southern’

knowledges too (Jazeel and McFarlane, 2010).

If knowledge is a mobile spatial practice, which

is produced through encounter and dialogue,

then knowledge cannot easily be localized as

southern or western. Students are already

imbued with a mix of reference points and

knowledges, although these knowledges can

be held by mobile students in intensely loca-

lized and individualized ways. It is recognition

of this ‘back and forth’ movement that is

involved in knowledge production that is

more fruitful than asking students to apply

their own knowledge as if there is a ‘pure’

southern knowledge which can be mined.

This to-ing and fro-ing of knowledge from

mobile students formed, and continues to

form, a contribution in the shifting bound-

aries of what constitutes contemporary geo-

graphical knowledge. It enables recognition

of the multiple voices that have made a sup-

posedly pure Anglo-American geography

what it is today (Noxolo et al., 2008) and

helps us think critically about the knowledge

brought by, shaped and produced by mobile

students (see also Sawir, 2013, who demon-

strates how international students facilitate

the internationalization of the curriculum and

the intercultural learning of domestic students

in Australian classrooms).

One way to do this is to think about these

knowledges in terms of ‘topologies of [educa-

tional] practice’ (see McGregor in Mulcahy,

2006: 66), which focus on the ways in which

problem-based forms of learning push beyond

formal classroom walls, towards fieldwork

and experiential learning, but also towards the

pedagogic importance of proximal relations

between different groups of learners, enabling

the valorization of chance encounters and infor-

mal learning experiences. This relocation of

emphasis from the particularity of lecture rooms

as pedagogic spaces, to the ‘patterned forms and

locations of association and the meanings these

690 Progress in Human Geography 39(6)

have for people’ (McGregor in Mulcahy, 2006:

66), enables an understanding of networks of

learning that involve both academics and stu-

dents in relations of knowledge production, not

only when the international student physically

travels to an overseas university, but also in the

continued relationships and conversations that

happen before arrival and after graduation.

Such networks of learning can be seen in the

creation of indigenous universities (such as

the Universidad Intercultural de Chiapas in

Mexico and the Universidad Autónoma Indı́gena

Intercultural in Colombia) which aim to create

indigenously culturally and epistemologically

attuned modes of learning through intercul-

tural dialogue. Cupples and Glynn (2014), for

example, explores the University of the Auton-

omous Regions of the Nicaraguan Caribbean

Coast, showing how teaching and research

grounded in ancestral, embodied, experiential

and everyday knowledges and realities can

forge the basis for the construction of cultural

citizenship by learners located differently in

the ‘colonial matrix of power’. Through inter-

cultural communication in varied pedagogic

spaces, such as participatory community radio,

an indigenous television station and a trans-

American Arts alliance, indigenous knowl-

edges circulate and come to be seen as

‘dynamic, contested and heterogeneous, and

that like Eurocentric knowledges they continue

to develop, hybridize and function as sites of

productive disagreement’ (Cupples and Glynn,

2014: 65).

Moving towards a more interconnected

approach thus enables a variety of pedagogic

spaces to be seen as key focal points through

which knowledge circulates within dialogic rela-

tionships between linked mobile knowledge

agents. The shift to international study enables the

mobility of students to be conceptualized in terms

of circulations of knowledge rather than just flows

of people (Raghuram, 2013). However, these cir-

culations are not neutral processes of uninter-

rupted flow – the global terrain is uneven and

the contributions of knowledge agents are not val-

ued equally. Indeed, as we argue in the next sec-

tion, the agency of international students and

mobile academics in the creation of these internat-

ional pedagogic spaces must be theorized in all

their complex spatial manifestions, demanding

careful interrogation of ‘the international’.

IV Interrogating the international: decentring and unsettling the spatial imaginary of international study

In the two previous sections the international is

summoned as an outcome of circulation – of

people and of knowledge. In this section we

unpack the concept of the international, to

enable a more distributed, unsettled and

decentred view of international study that is

explicitly distributed across multiple locations.

Towards this, we deploy examples from

Africa, Asia, South America and the Caribbean

to counter the previously predominant focus in

the literature on Europe, America and Austra-

lia as student migrant destinations.

There is a long history of global mobility for

the purpose of HE so that the ‘international’ is

constituted differently across the globe and

involves mobilities beyond the circuits of west-

ern knowledge production (Mufti, 2005; see

also Fechter and Walsh, 2010, on the complex

postcolonial migration patterns of western pro-

fessionals). Centres, for example, in Ethiopia,

Jamaica or India have their own development

impetus with respect to HE, leading to an array

of education ‘providers’ with differing notions

and methods of pedagogy. These might include

a combination of pre-colonial state universities,

Islamic mosque universities, colonial HE estab-

lishments, post-independent national universi-

ties, institutions sponsored by multilateral

organizations such as UNESCO or the World

Bank or newly developed private universities

(Bascom et al., 2011; Cobbah, 2010; Lulat,

2003; Majgaard and Mingat, 2012). It is

Madge et al. 691

important to recognize the salience of such com-

plex global education networks, in order to go

beyond understandings of international study

that privilege Euro-America-Australia as the

only centres of global HE while other places, net-

works and connections remain obscured.

This more decentred (temporally contingent)

multi-polar vision of global education is

increasingly being recognized, driven by the

importance of new regional dynamics around

international mobility. For instance, intra-

regional mobility within Asia is growing as

Asian countries are becoming ‘hosts’ to interna-

tional students (Waters, 2012) and countries

such as Singapore, Malaysia and Korea

(Bhandari and Blumenthal, 2011; Huang and

Yeoh, 2011; Kim, 2010a) become ‘hubs’ for

English-medium education. However, the spa-

tial complexities of international study are not

simply about a transnational relocation from

Euro-America-Australia to other ‘global’ cen-

tres in Europe or East/Southeast Asia – there

is simultaneously a local, interregional and

intercontinental mobility occurring too. Thus

Haugen (2013) explores the recent interconti-

nental migration of African students to China

while Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (2010) discusses the

movement since the 1970s of thousands of

Middle Eastern and North African (MENA)

students to Cuba as recipients of free HE.

Intra-regional mobility is a constantly occurring

phenomenon too: for example, students from

the southern African region moving to South

Africa (Crush and Tawodzera, 2012; Vandeyar,

2012) or those from mainland China moving to

Hong Kong and Macau (Li and Bray, 2007) –

which highlights the importance of proximity

in student mobility. Local mobilities of students

from rural places to urban centres are also a

common feature of HE in many places 10

and are

a concern in national literatures in many coun-

tries (Corbett, 2013; Florinskaia and Roschina,

2006; Li et al., 2013).

Thus there is, and has always been, a com-

plex multi-centred character of student mobility

for international study at a variety of spatial

scales, including south–south transfers and cir-

culations between smaller regionally significant

places. This multi-sited, multi-scalar character

of international study challenges simplistic

dichotomies of here/there and unsettles the

spatial imagination away from thinking about

‘the international’ and about pedagogy solely

in relation to (largely unmarked) European-

American-Australian centres, and instead

explicitly locates itself as coming out of, and

to, multiple locations.

This unsettling of the international is furth-

ered by an understanding of the variegated

experiences of student immobility. The multi-

ply positioned ‘immobile’ domestic student

plays a part in shaping experiences of interna-

tional study. This includes students who do not

leave their country of origin and are educated at

‘home’ through international accreditation

(Hall and Appleyard, 2011; Leung and Waters,

2013; Song, 2013; Waters and Leung, 2013b)

and students who ‘stay on’ in the country of

migration after their educational course finishes

(Baas, 2006; Jackling, 2007; Wambua and

Robinson, 2012). Educational regimes of gov-

ernance including border control regulations

that are used more or less effectively to immobi-

lize certain bodies also shape international

study. For example, there are concerns that the

new immigration policies being promulgated

by the UK’s Coalition Government, including

changes to post-study work visas and more

stringent visa regulations (starting April 2013),

may deter international students from studying

in the country (Mulley, 2013; Taylor, 2013). 11

Indeed, educational mobility for many is only

achieved after negotiating a whole host of

immigration and admission processes designed

to restrict, filter and sometimes prevent mobility

(Mosneaga and Winther, 2013; Tannock, 2013).

Thus international study and its attendant peda-

gogic practices do not operate on a benign level

playing field but in a ruffled terrain replete with

inequalities, immobilities and differences. 12

692 Progress in Human Geography 39(6)

This recasting of the spatial imaginary of the

international derived from our reading of the

existing literature can be further extended by

considering how the spatiality of contemporary

ISM and immobility draws upon older histories

of migration. For example, many students tra-

velled along established colonial routes in post-

colonial contexts – for instance, from India to

the UK (Raghuram, 2009; Zheng, 2014). The

painful politics associated with colonialism and

its past spatial relations, inequities and injus-

tices are essential to shaping contemporary neo-

colonial relations of education (Madge et al.,

2009). Moreover, although historical records

of international education are always fractured,

with memories constantly being lost and

archives always only ever being partial (Clover,

2005), historical analyses highlight the constitu-

tive role that international students have played

in nationalist projects by becoming leaders and

producing knowledges and policies that have

shaped postcolonial spaces in the 20th century.

Clover (2005), for example, shows how many

future political leaders, judiciary and academia

of the Caribbean states had been previously edu-

cated in Britain and had occupied positions of

leadership in the West Indian students Union,

formed in 1945, which acted as a welfare, polit-

ical and social organization for newly arriving

students in London. Similarly, Lahiri (2000)

gives a compelling account of how Indian stu-

dents studying in Britain prior to the two world

wars both shaped the nationalist movement and

constructed policies in India after 1947. The

movement of international students as a part

of international relations is also evidenced by

Matusevich (2008). The author documents the

intercontinental movement of African students

to Russia prior to the Bolshevik takeover in

1917, but more especially in the 1950s during

the Khrushchev period through the provision

of generous educational scholarships, as the

Soviet Union sought to reaffirm its internation-

alist credentials and gain favour from newly

independent African states. This suggests the

need for the spatial imaginary of international

study to engage more directly with a historically

layered approach which recognizes the diverse

pedagogic practices that make up international

knowledge.

In sum, we have attempted to recognize the

complexity of ‘the international’ in relation to

study in three key ways: first, through its

multi-centre, multi-scalar spatial nature; sec-

ond, through the immobilities that it can

involve; third, through consideration of how

these (im)mobilities are routed through long

historical relationships. This moves us to argue

for an expanded notion of the international, one

in which spatial imaginaries can transmute

beyond provincial Euro-American-Australian

boundaries and ‘frames’ of understanding. This

decentring of international study forces an

acknowledgement that knowledges are always

in formation, constantly borrowing from other

times and places, and enacted through the mobi-

lity of knowledge agents. This enables a trans-

formed perspective in which pedagogy and

international study are seen as constituted

through, and an outcome of, the agency of inter-

national students. It thus encourages a move

away from approaches that objectify students

towards ones that recognize that the internatio-

nalization of HE is something in which all of

us, including all students and all educators, are

implicated. In the concluding section we briefly

consider the main implications that arise from

this conceptual shift from international student

to international study.

V Concluding implications

In responding to Holton and Riley’s (2013: 68)

suggestion that ‘the conceptual . . . approaches . . . opened up by the contemporary changes taking place in the HE sector’ require further

attention, this paper has sought to move the ana-

lytical focus from international students to inter-

national study. This relocation is important for

four main reasons. First, it places international

Madge et al. 693

students within wider academic concerns, push-

ing past the narrow focus on international stu-

dents as financial and human capital, and

working towards a sense of international study

as a broad-based and variegated process of

knowledge production that involves a wide

range of actors (students and those working in

educational institutions), mutualities, incom-

mensurabilities and circulations in a shared,

albeit uneven, global terrain. Second, the shift

to international study locates international stu-

dents within wider theoretical contexts, making

them part of broader debates about the meanings

of the international/national, the local/global

and knowledge/study, pushing beyond an

empirical focus on flows and mobilities. Third,

a focus on international study places interna-

tional students within wider temporal contexts,

both individually and collectively. Individually,

international students can be understood within

longer-term academic careers, passing through

a number of educational and spatial contexts

on their way to and from being students. Collec-

tively, international student mobilities can be

seen as part of a wide range of historical intel-

lectual movements that have constituted both

knowledge and ‘international space’ across cen-

turies. Finally, using the analytical focus of

international study can transcend the distinc-

tions between diverse sets of literatures, thus

offering new avenues for reshaping future

research directions in international student

mobilities, pedagogies of education and geogra-

phies of education, as detailed below.

Considering the mobility of students through

the lens of international study, rather than

through the category ‘international student’,

suggests that there are many actors implicated

in this mobility. In a rapidly changing global

eduscape, it is particularly important for aca-

demics to recognize our emotionally and politi-

cally embedded roles and relationships in

international study. This is because HE is not

a pure self-existing unit within which pedagogic

practices occur; rather it is constituted through

the flux of mobile bodies (including students

and educators), ideas and things (books,

money). As academics we are involved in mun-

dane (and often normalized) practices of inter-

national study and undergo intimate and

intricate relationships and encounters with

international students on a daily basis – as

teachers, supervisors, partners in knowledge

interactions, managers of their study, and,

increasingly, as people who have to police their

attendance, act as border regulators and report

their absence. 13

Acknowledging that knowl-

edge is produced through these encounters

between academics and students requires that

we all reflect the mirror back on ourselves, and

the cultures of our institutions, as active play-

ers in the ever-changing everyday practices

of international study. This is important, for

as Tadaki and Tremewan (2013: 367) demon-

strate, it opens up a space to consider the ways

in which international study might hold trans-

formative potential, and how we as academics

might have some (albeit circumscribed)

agency to alter and challenge certain ideas,

practices and norms of internationalization to

‘make the international differently’.

This focus on thinking about (and doing) the

international ‘differently’, of seeing universities

and all those present in them as active agents of

international study ‘in the making’ (Tadaki and

Tremewan, 2013), has implications for pedago-

gies of education. In this paper we highlight

how knowledge has always been made by

mobile students although this ‘making’ has

often been neglected or has been downplayed

as a ‘contribution’. This paper therefore sug-

gests the need for more attention to be paid to

the pedagogies of learning that such a view of

international students’ role in education

demands. For instance, this will involve an

engaged pedagogy that extends well beyond the

classroom walls (Madge et al., 2009) and a view

of learning spaces as both intersubjective and

interdiscursive (see Praeg, 2006); thus ‘peda-

gogy is removed from limited notions of

694 Progress in Human Geography 39(6)

instrumentalist values of instruction and didac-

tic relationships with students. Rather, peda-

gogy is considered as having political and

strategic intent, linking histories and biogra-

phies with issues of culture, power and politics’

(Lavia, 2007: 297). In this process of the aca-

demic ‘learning to learn’ there is the possibility

of creating space for an ethical relationship

where the ‘black box’ of the institutional knowl-

edge corporation can be opened up through con-

tinual questioning, reflexivity and dialogue by

the academic with respect to international study.

But this process will not be unproblematic

and is unlikely to be easy – there are no innocent

positions and the spaces and subjectivities of the

neoliberalizing university are multiple, unpre-

dictable, contradictory, contested and some-

times resisted (Cupples and Pawson, 2012;

Forbes-Mewett and Nyland, 2013; Larner and

Le Heron, 2005). However, narrating these

opportunities and challenges will place aca-

demics within debates on ISM and geogra-

phies/pedagogies of education, making these

bodies of work both more complete and emotion-

ally fertile (see also Cupples, 2012; Kenway and

Youdell, 2011; Waters et al., 2011; Zembylas,

2012). It will open opportunities for an imagina-

tive approach to international study embedded

within a robust and sensitive appreciation of our

(multiple) positions as academics in the pro-

cesses of internationalization. This is an issue

that is relevant to all of us (not just those inter-

ested in the geographies of education literature)

in our daily lives as academics (Berg, 2012;

Peake, 2011).

Moreover, focusing on international study

produces perspectives that are more fully appre-

ciative of the contextualized, complex stories of

HE emanating from multiple centres in which the

enduring achievements and agency of varied

international students comes to the fore. In dis-

rupting and destabilizing the spatial fixities of

much of the international education literature,

we are advocating that more attention be paid

to the complex and historically layered multi-

scalar and multi-polar circulations that character-

ize the changing and uneven terrain of interna-

tional study. In other words, we are calling for

the need to decentre spatial imaginaries through

complex understandings of the geographical

multiplicities of international study. However,

developing approaches that can envisage that

international study is simultaneously as much

about multi-scalar circularity and mobility from

historically contingent multiple locations as

it is about place-based immobilities is important

because the latter can produce exclusions and

marginalizations which have consequences on

the ground for people in different places at differ-

ent times. So it is important to recognize the lim-

its to international study – many places and

people are marginal to, or completely absent

from, dominant imaginations (and realities) of

‘global’ HE. This matters because perceptions

of international study not only reflect the world,

but also shape it, which can have powerful con-

sequences, because international study is bound

up tightly with questions about (in)equality,

‘aspiration’ and ‘development’. In this paper

we move towards challenging the spatial terrain

of international education to enable us to build

towards an approach that is more malleable, flex-

ible and contingent – one that thinks through

the unsettling unevenness of international study.

To conclude, this paper argues for the need for

reflection by those working in international study

to consider our ‘place’ in the world of HE and our

role in challenging, resisting or replicating cur-

rent inequalities in ‘global’ HE; to show that our

mobility and that of students is intertwined and

that knowledge, the stuff of academic life, impli-

cates us all in international study.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the generous and insightful comments

made by the reviewers. Clare Madge and Pat Noxolo

would like to acknowledge the support given by the

University of Leicester and the University of Shef-

field respectively, in granting study leave to enable

their contribution to the paper.

Madge et al. 695

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any

funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-

for-profit sectors.

Notes

1. Broadly speaking, students are classified as ‘interna-

tional students’ if they have left their country of

origin and moved to another country for the purpose

of study (OECD, 2012: 371). While this definition of

‘international student’ varies both institutionally

and nationally, in this paper we primarily focus on

students from beyond the global North. In the UK,

EU students are largely accorded the same status as

UK students with similar fee regimes, visa and work

regulations (http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/International-

Students/Fees–finance/Home-or-Overseas-fees). How-

ever, students from beyond the global North are

generally racialized, securitized and ‘marked up’ in

different ways, particularly in the post-9/11 scenario

when scrutiny over student migration has heightened.

The specificities of the historical postcolonial rout-

ings of student movement to the UK give further

impetus for the focus on students beyond the global

North. So, given the lack of space, and as a counter

to the spatial focus of much previous literature, we

have decided to focus more on examples and case

studies from beyond the global North.

2. This bridging dialogue has also been encouraged by

the International Network for Learning and Teaching

in Geography (INLT), with the aim of facilitating

exchange of materials, ideas and experiences about

learning and teaching geography and stimulating

international dialogue (see also Klein et al., 2014).

3. According to Universities UK (2012), HE as an export

industry provided around £7.9 billion annually to the

UK economy in 2009 and has the potential to provide

almost £17 billion by 2025. International students also

contribute in other ways, including the development of

professional networks, contribution of cutting-edge

skills and knowledge, and cultural interchange which

facilitates potential longer-term international under-

standing and cooperation.

4. The case of London Metropolitan University in 2012

is apposite here (Grove, 2012).

5. Students differ according to level of study, subject of

study, period for which they move, country of origin

and destination, social positionality, etc. Then there

are different regulatory policies around registering

students as migrants. For example, see the

various criteria used to categorize home and internat-

ional students in the UK (http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/

International-Students/Fees–finance/Home-or-Overseas-

fees/). So the category ‘international student’ includes

a range of students with different immigration statuses

and nationalities. These regulations are reviewed regu-

larly with rights to extension of stay, employment

and housing altering depending on political con-

siderations. Analytically this suggests that the

boundaries of the category ‘international are por-

ous, change with time and extend far beyond any

simple racial or national boundary’ (Madge et al.,

2009: 35); there are shifting inclusions and exclu-

sions to who might be considered an international

student.

6. Here Mbembe (2001) was referring, broadly speaking,

to the concept of Africa, but we have transposed his

idea to the concept of international students.

7. In this paper we employ the term internationali-

zation rather than globalization because education

is often seen as a national good. In this regard we

are following the ISM literature, which tends to

use the former term. While we recognize that there

are many globalizing influences on education (cf.

Sidhu, 2004), we adopt internationalization for con-

venience and consistency.

8. Moving to the language of international study also

helps to get past the divide between supply-side (insti-

tution-based) and demand-side (student-based) analy-

sis by placing students and educational institutions

and brokers as occupying a shared space of learning

(Raghuram, 2013).

9. This is precisely because learning and teaching are

intersubjective, racialized encounters, sometimes

based on inaccurate assumptions about certain stu-

dents from particular places.

10. Although it must be noted that such local mobilities

are often associated with (in)equality issues which

complicate simplistic neoliberal notions of ‘educa-

tional choice’.

11. This includes reducing the time non-EU students may

spend studying in the UK, restricting the amount of

paid employment they can do during their studies and

limiting their ability to bring spouses or children with

them unless enrolled in a postgraduate course lasting

696 Progress in Human Geography 39(6)

http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/International-Students/Fees--finance/Home-or-Overseas-fees

(http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/International-Students/Fees--finance/Home-or-Overseas-fees/)

more than one year (http://www.migrationinforma-

tion.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID¼922). 12. See Jöns and Hoyler (2013) who explore these uneven

global geographies of HE through a critical analysis of

world university rankings. Also see Forbes-Mewett

and Nyland (2013) who illustrate such inequalities

through the case of an Australian institution heavily

reliant on international student income that did not

provide adequate funds for international student sup-

port services.

13. Not forgetting that international students may become

colleagues too through staff appointments.

References

Adorno TW (2009) Questions on intellectual emigration.

Social Text 27: 159–164.

Alberts HC and Hazen HD (2013) International Students

and Scholars in the United States: Coming from

Abroad. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Anderson VR (2012) ‘Homes’ and being ‘at home’ in

New Zealand: Women’s place-making in internatio-

nalised higher education. Gender, Place and Culture:

A Journal of Feminist Geography 19: 327–343.

Baas M (2006) Students of migration: Indian overseas

students and the question of permanent residency.

People and Place 14: 8–24.

Bach J and Stark D (2004) Link, search, interact: The

co-evolution of NGOs and interactive technology.

Theory, Culture and Society 21: 101–117.

Bascom J, Wanab T, GebreEgziabhearc T and Mahiterned

Y (2011) The surprising ‘terrain’ of university-level

geography in Ethiopia. African Geographical Review

30: 19–34.

Berg L (2012) Geographies of identity I: Geography –

(neo)liberalism – white supremacy. Progress in Human

Geography 36: 508–517.

Bhandari R and Blumenthal P (eds) (2011) International

Students and Global Mobility in Higher Education:

National Trends and New Directions. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Boyer D and Lomnitz C (2005) Intellectuals and national-

ism: Anthropological engagements. Annual Review of

Anthropology 34: 105–120.

British Council (2012) The Shape of Things to Come:

Higher Education Global Trends and Emerging

Opportunities to 2020. London: British Council.

Brockway L (2011) Science and colonial expansion: The

role of the British Royal Botanic gardens. In: Harding

S (ed.) The Postcolonial Science and Technologies

Study Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press,

127–139.

Brooks R and Waters J (2011a) Student Mobilities, Migra-

tion and the Internationalisation of Higher Education.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brooks R and Waters J (2011b) Fees, funding and overseas

study: Mobile UK students and educational inequal-

ities. Sociological Research Online 16: 1–9.

Brooks R, Fuller A and Waters J (eds) (2012a) Changing

Spaces of Education: New Perspectives on the Nature

of Learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

Brooks R, Waters J and Pimlott-Wilson H (2012b)

International education and the employability of

UK students. British Educational Research Journal

38: 281–298.

Carlson S (2013) Becoming a mobile student – a proces-

sual perspective on German degree student mobility.

Population, Space and Place 19: 168–180.

Carney J (2011) Out of Africa: Colonial rice history in the

Black Atlantic. In: Harding S (ed.) The Postcolonial

Science and Technologies Study Reader. Durham,

NC: Duke University Press, 140–150.

Chen O and Koyama JP (2013) Reconceptualising diasporic

intellectual networks: Mobile scholars in transnational

space. Globalisation, Societies and Education 11: 23–38.

Clover D (2005) Dispersed or destroyed: Archives,

the West Indian Students Union and public memory.

The Society for Caribbean Studies Annual Conference

Papers, volume 6. Available at: http://www.caribbean-

studies.org.uk/papers/2005/olvol6p10.PDF.

Coate K (2009) Exploring the unknown: Levinas and inter-

national students in English higher education. Journal

of Education Policy 24: 271–282.

Cobbah JAM (2010) The development of corporate and

private universities in Ghana: Effects on curriculum,

faculty, access and equity. In: Lazin F, Evans M and

Jayaram M (eds) Higher Education and Equality of

Opportunity: Cross-National Perspectives. Plymouth:

Lexington Books, 231–252.

Collins FL (2010a) Negotiating un/familiar embodiments:

Investigating the corporeal dimensions of South Kor-

ean international student mobilities in Auckland, New

Zealand. Population, Space and Place 16: 51–62.

Collins FL (2010b) International students as urban

agents: International education and urban transforma-

tion in Auckland, New Zealand. Geoforum 41:

940–950.

Madge et al. 697

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=922

http://www.caribbeanstudies.org.uk/papers/2005/olvol6p10.PDF

Collins FL (2012) Researching mobility and emplacement:

Examining transience and transnationality in interna-

tional student lives. Area 44: 296–304.

Corbett M (2013) I’m going to make sure I’m ready before

I leave: The complexity of educational and mobility

decision-making in a Canadian coastal community.

Journal of Rural Studies 32: 275–282.

Crush J and Tawodzera G (2012) Right to the classroom:

Educational barriers for Zimbabweans in South Africa.

Migration Policy Series 56. Southern African Migration

Programme. Available at: http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/

jspui/bitstream/123456789/32628/1/SAMP%20-%20Ri

ght%20to%20the%20Classroom.pdf?1.

Cupples J (2012) Boundary crossings and new stria-

tions: When disaster hits a neoliberalising campus.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers

37: 337–341.

Cupples J and Glynn K (2014) Indigenizing and decoloniz-

ing higher education on Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast. Sin-

gapore Journal of Tropical Geography 35: 57–72.

Cupples J and Pawson E (2012) Giving an account of one-

self: The PBRF and the neoliberal university. New

Zealand Geographer 68: 14–23.

Dervin F (ed.) (2011) Analysing the Consequences of Aca-

demic Mobility and Migration. Newcastle upon Tyne:

Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Erikson RA (2012) Geography and the changing landscape

of Higher Education. Journal of Geography in Higher

Education 36: 9–24.

Ewers M and Lewis J (2008) Risk and the securitisation of

student migration to the United States. Tijdschrift voor

Economische en Sociale Geografie 99: 470–482.

Fahey J and Kenway J (2010) Thinking in a ‘worldly’ way:

Mobility, knowledge, power and geography. Dis-

course: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education

31: 627–640.

Fechter AM and Walsh K (2010) Examining ‘expatriate’

continuities: Postcolonial approaches to mobile profes-

sionals. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36:

1197–1210.

Fiddian-Qasmiyeh E (2010) Education, migration and

internationalism: Situating Muslim Middle Eastern and

North African students in Cuba. The Journal of North

African Studies 15: 137–155.

Fincher R (2011) Cosmopolitan or ethically identified

selves? Institutional expectations and the negotiated

identities of international students. Social and Cultural

Geography 12: 905–927.

Findlay A, King R, Findlay AM, Ahrens J and Dunne M

(2012) World class? An investigation of globalisation,

difference and international student mobility. Transac-

tions of the Institute of British Geographers 37: 118–131.

Florinskaia U and Roschina T (2006) The migration plans

of upper-grade students in small towns of Russia. Rus-

sian Education and Society 47: 44–62.

Forbes-Mewett H and Nyland C (2013) Funding interna-

tional student support services: Tension and power in

the university. Higher Education 65: 181–192.

Geddie K (2013) The transnational ties that bind: Relation-

ship considerations for graduating international science

and engineering research students. Population, Space

and Place 19: 196–208.

Grove J (2012) London Met banned from enrolling inter-

national students. Times Higher Education 30 August.

Available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/

story.asp?storycode¼420993. Haigh M (2002) Internationalisation of the curriculum:

Designing inclusive education for a small world. Journal

of Geography in Higher Education 26: 49–56.

Hall S and Appleyard L (2011) Trans-local academic

credentials and the (re)production of financial elites.

Globalisation, Societies and Education 9: 247–264.

Hall S and Chen K-H (1996) The formation of a dia-

sporic intellectual: An interview with Stuart Hall

by Kuan-Hsing Chen. In: Morley D and Chen K-H

(eds) Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues. London:

Routledge, 484–503.

Hammett D (2012) Negotiating the academic periphery:

Critical reflections on early career mobility. Singapore

Journal of Tropical Geography 33: 286–290.

Hanke B and Hearn A (2012) Introduction: Out of the

ruins, the university to come. Topia 28, Fall 2012.

Available at: http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/

topia/article/viewFile/36195/32825.

Haugen HO (2013) China’s recruitment of African univer-

sity students: Policy efficacy and unintended outcomes.

Globalisation, Societies and Education 11: 315–334.

Higgitt D (2012) Global education for global challenges.

Journal of Geography in Higher Education 36: 1–7.

Holloway SL and Jöns H (2012) Geographies of education

and learning. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 37: 482–488.

Holloway SL, Hubbard P, Jöns H and Pimlott-Wilson H

(2010) Geographies of education and the significance

of children, youth and families. Progress in Human

Geography 34: 583–600.

698 Progress in Human Geography 39(6)

http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/32628/1/SAMP&percnt;20-&percnt;20Right&percnt;20to&percnt;20the&percnt;20Classroom.pdf?1

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=420993

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/topia/article/viewFile/36195/32825

Holloway SL, O’Hara SL and Pimlott-Wilson H (2012)

Educational mobility and the gendered geography of

cultural capital: The case of international student flows

between Central Asia and the UK. Environment and

Planning A 44: 2278–2294.

Holton M and Riley M (2013) Student geographies:

Exploring the diverse geographies of students and

Higher Education. Geography Compass 7: 61–74.

Huang S and Yeoh B (2011) Navigating the terrains of

transnational education: Children of Chinese ‘study

mothers’ in Singapore. Geoforum 42: 394–403.

Hulme M, Thomson A, Hulme R and Doughty G (2013)

Trading places: The role of agents in international

student recruitment from Africa. Journal of Further and

Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2013.

778965.

Jackling B (2007) The lure of permanent residency and the

aspirations and expectations of international students

studying accounting in Australia. People and Place

15: 31–41.

Jazeel T and McFarlane C (2010) The limits of responsi-

bility: A postcolonial politics of academic knowledge

production. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers 35: 109–124.

Jöns H (2007) Transnational mobility and the spaces of

knowledge production: A comparison of global

patterns, motivations and collaborations in different

academic fields. Social Geography 2: 97–114.

Jöns H (2009) Brain circulation and transnational knowl-

edge networks: Studying long-term effects of academic

mobility to Germany, 1954–2000. Global Networks 9:

315–338.

Jöns H and Hoyler M (2013) Global geographies of higher

education: The perspective of world university rank-

ings. Geoforum 46: 45–59.

Kell P and Vogl G (2008) Perspectives on mobility, migra-

tion and well-being of international students in the Asia

Pacific. International Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies

4: v–xviii.

Kenway J and Youdell D (2011) The emotional geogra-

phies of education: Beginning a conversation. Emotion,

Space and Society 4: 131–136.

Kim T (2010a) Transnational academic mobility, knowl-

edge and identity capital. Discourse: Studies in the

Cultural Politics of Education 31: 577–591.

King R and Raghuram P (2013) International student

migration: Mapping the field and new research agen-

das. Population, Space and Place 19: 127–137.

King R, Findlay A and Ahrens J (2010) International student

mobility literature review. Report to HEFCE, and co-

funded by the British Council, UK National Agency for

Erasmus. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/

hefce/content/pubs/2010/rd2010/rd20_10.pdf.

King R, Findlay AM, Ahrens J and Dunne M (2011)

Reproducing advantage: The perspective of English

school leavers on studying abroad. Globalisation, Soci-

eties and Education 9: 161–181.

Klein P, Pawson E, Solem M and Ray W (2014) Geogra-

phy education for ‘An Attainable Global Perspective’.

Journal of Geography in Higher Education 38: 17–27.

Knight J (2012) Student mobility and internationalisation:

Trends and tribulations. Research in Comparative and

International Education 7: 20–33.

Kofman E and Raghuram P (2013) Changing mobility

regimes, knowledge and gender equalities in Eur-

ope: In: Ilcan S (ed.) Mobilities, Knowledge, and

Social Justice. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University

Press, 59–75.

Kraftl P (2013) Towards geographies of ‘alternative’ educa-

tion: A case study of UK home schooling families. Trans-

actions of the Institute of British Geographers 38:

436–450.

Lahiri S (2000) Indians in Britain: Anglo-Indian Encoun-

ters, Race and Identity. London: Frank Cass.

Larner W and Le Heron R (2005) Neo-liberalizing spaces

and subjectivities: Reinventing New Zealand Universi-

ties. Organization 12: 843–862.

Lavia J (2007) Repositioning pedagogies and postcolonial-

ism: Theories, contradictions and possibilities. Interna-

tional Journal of Inclusive Education 1: 283–300.

Leung MWH (2011) Of corridors and chains: Translocal

developmental impact of academic mobility between

China and Germany. International Development Plan-

ning Review 33: 475–489.

Leung MWH (2013) ‘Read ten thousand books, walk ten

thousand miles’: Geographical mobility and capital

accumulation among Chinese scholars. Transactions

of the Institute of British Geographers 38: 311–324.

Leung MWH and Waters JL (2013) British degrees made

in Hong Kong: An enquiry into the role of space and

place in transnational education. Asia Pacific Educa-

tion Review 14: 43–53.

Lewis N (2011) Political projects and micro-practices of

globalizing education: Building an international educa-

tion industry in New Zealand. Globalisation, Societies

and Education 9: 225–246.

Madge et al. 699

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2010/rd2010/rd20_10.pdf

Li H, Loyalka P, Rozelle S, Wu B and Xie J (2013) Unequal

access to college in China: How far have poor, rural stu-

dents been left behind? Working Paper 263. Available at:

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/24338/Unequal_Access_

to_College_in_China.pdf.

Li M and Bray M (2007) Cross-border flows of students for

higher education: Push–pull factors and motivations for

mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau.

Higher Education 53: 791–818.

Looser T (2012) The global university, area studies and the

world citizen: Neoliberal geography’s redistribution of

the ‘world’. Cultural Anthropology 27: 97–117.

Lulat YGM (2003) The development of higher education in

Africa: A historical survey. In: Teferra D and Altbach

PG (eds) African Higher Education: An International

Reference Handbook. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univer-

sity Press, 15–31.

Madge C, Raghuram P and Noxolo P (2009) Engaged

pedagogy and responsibility: A postcolonial analysis

of international students. Geoforum 40: 34–45.

Mains SP (2004) Teaching transnationalism in the Carib-

bean: Toward an understanding of representation and

neo-colonialism in human geography. Journal of Geo-

graphy in Higher Education 28: 317–332.

Majgaard K and Mingat A (2012) Education in Sub-

Saharan Africa: A Comparative Analysis. Washington,

DC: World Bank.

Matthews D (2012) Empires and allies. Times Higher Edu-

cation 18 October. Available at: http://www.timeshigh-

ereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode¼421485. Matusevich M (2008) Journeys of hope: African diaspora

and the Soviet society. African Diaspora 1: 53–85.

Mavroudi E and Warren A (2013) Highly skilled migration

and the negotiation of immigration policy: Non-EEA

postgraduate students and academic staff at English

universities. Geoforum 44: 261–270.

Mbembe A (2001) On the Postcolony. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

Mosneaga A and Winther L (2013) Emerging talents?

International students before and after their career start

in Denmark. Population, Space and Place 19: 181–195.

Mufti A (2005) Global comparativism. Critical Inquiry 31:

472–489.

Mulcahy D (2006) The salience of space for pedagogy and

identity in teacher education: Problem-based learning as

a case in point. Pedagogy, Culture and Society 14: 55–69.

Mulley S (2013) The UK’s immigration crackdown will

lead to a loss of international talent. The Guardian 24

May. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/com-

mentisfree/2013/may/24/uk-immigration-crackdown-

loss-international-talent.

Mulley S and Sachrajda A (2011) Student Migration in the

UK. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Noxolo P (forthcoming) Towards an embodied securitys-

cape: Brian Chikwava’s ‘Harare North’ and the asylum

seeking body as site of articulation. Social and Cultural

Geography.

Noxolo P, Raghuram P and Madge C (2008) ‘Geography

is pregnant’ and ‘Geography’s milk is flowing’: Meta-

phors for a postcolonial discipline? Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space 26: 146–168.

O’Brien S (2012) Cultural regulation and the reshaping of

the university. Globalisation, Societies and Education

10: 539–562.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-

ment (OECD) (2012) Education at a Glance 2012:

OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD. Available at: http://

www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.htm#press.

Park H (2010) The stranger that is welcomed: Female for-

eign students from Asia, the English language indus-

try, and the ambivalence of ‘Asia rising’ in British

Columbia, Canada. Gender, Place and Culture 17:

337–355.

Peake L (2011) In, out and unspeakably about: Taking

social geography beyond an Anglo-American position-

ality. Social and Cultural Geography 12: 757–773.

Praeg L (2006) Teaching as justice. Politikon 33: 341–359.

Raghuram P (2009) Caring about the brain drain in a post-

colonial world. Geoforum 40: 25–33.

Raghuram P (2013) Theorising the spaces of student

migration. Population, Space and Place 19: 138–154.

Robertson S (2012) World-class higher education (for

whom). Prospects 42: 237–245.

Ryan J (2013) Cross Cultural Teaching and Learning for

Home and International Students: Internationalisation,

Pedagogy and Curriculum in Higher Education.

Abingdon: Routledge.

Sawir E (2013) Internationalisation of higher education

curriculum: The contribution of international students.

Globalisation, Societies and Education 11: 359–378.

Scheyvens T, Wild K and Overton J (2003) International

students pursuing postgraduate study in geography:

Impediments to their learning experience. Journal of

Geography in Higher Education 27: 309–323.

Sidhu R (2004) Governing international education in Aus-

tralia. Globalisation, Societies and Education 2: 1–33.

700 Progress in Human Geography 39(6)

http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/24338/Unequal_Access_to_College_in_China.pdf

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=421485

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/uk-immigration-crackdown-loss-international-talent

http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.htm#press

Sidhu RK and Dall’Alba G (2012) International education

and (dis)embodied cosmopolitanisms. Educational

Philosophy and Theory 44: 413–431.

Sidhu R, Ho K-C and Yeoh B (2011) Emerging education

hubs: The case of Singapore. Higher Education 61:

23–40.

Singh M (2009) Using Chinese knowledge in internationa-

lising research education: Jacques Rancière, an ignorant

supervisor and doctoral students from China. Globalisa-

tion, Societies and Education 7: 185–201.

Song JJ (2013) For whom the bell tolls: Globalisation, social

class and South Korea’s international

schools. Globalisation, Societies and Education 11:

136–159.

Spivak G (1988) Can the subaltern speak? In: Grossberg L

and Nelson C (eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of

Culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 271–313.

Tabulawa RT (2009) Education reform in Botswana:

Reflections on policy contradictions and paradoxes.

Comparative Education 45: 87–107.

Tadaki M and Tremewan C (2013) Reimagining inter-

nationalization in higher education: International con-

sortia as a transformative space? Studies in Higher

Education 38: 367–387.

Tannock S (2013) When the demand for educational

equality stops at the border: Wealthy students, inter-

national students and the restructuring of higher

education in the UK. Journal of Education Policy

28: 449–464.

Taylor M (2013) Immigration crackdown deterring foreign

students, says universities chief. The Guardian 9 Janu-

ary. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/

2013/jan/08/immigration-foreign-students-universities.

Thiem C H (2009) Thinking through education: The geo-

graphies of contemporary educational restructuring.

Progress in Human Geography 33: 154–173.

Thrift N (2005) Knowing Capitalism. London: SAGE.

Tikly L (2001) Globalisation and education in the post-

colonial world: Towards a conceptual framework.

Comparative Education 37: 51–171.

UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA)

(2008) Mobility Matters: Forty years of international

students, forty years of UKCISA. London: UKCISA.

Available at: http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/resources/29/

Mobility-matters-40-years-of-international-students-

40-years-of-UKCISA.

Universities UK (2012) Patterns and Trends in UK

Higher Education 2012. London: Universities UK.

Available at: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/higher-

education/Documents/2012/PatternsAndTrendsinUK

HigherEducation2012.pdf.

Vandeyar S (2012) Immigrant students’ shifting

identifications in South African schools. Interna-

tional Journal of Educational Development 32:

232–240.

Wambua JM and Robinson C (2012) Possible selves

and goal orientations of East-African undergraduate

students in the United States. In: Bekerman Z and

Geisen T (eds) International Handbook of Migra-

tion, Minorities and Education. Dordrecht: Springer,

462–479.

Waters JL (2012) Geographies of international edu-

cation: Mobilities and the reproduction of social

(dis)advantage. Geography Compass 6: 123–136.

Waters J and Brooks R (2011) Introduction: International/

transnational spaces of education. Globalisation, Soci-

eties and Education 9: 155–160.

Waters J and Leung M (2012) Young people and the repro-

duction of disadvantage through transnational higher

education in Hong Kong. Sociological Research Online

17(3): 6. Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/

17/3/6.html.

Waters J and Leung M (2013a) A colourful university life?

Transnational higher education and the spatial dimen-

sions of institutional social capital in Hong Kong. Popu-

lation, Space and Place 19: 155–167.

Waters J and Leung M (2013b) ‘International’ education

in Hong Kong immobile transnationalisms? Young

people and their in situ experiences. Urban Studies

50: 606–620.

Waters J, Brooks R and Pimlott-Wilson H (2011) Youthful

escapes? British students, overseas education and the

pursuit of happiness. Social and Cultural Geography

12: 455–469.

Williams AM and Baláž V (2008) International Migration

and Knowledge. Abingdon: Routledge.

Zeilig L and Ansell N (2008) Spaces and scales of Afri-

can student activism: Senegalese and Zimbabwean

university students at the intersection of campus,

nation and globe. Antipode 40: 31–54.

Zembylas M (2012) Transnationalism, migration and emo-

tions: Implications for education. Globalisation, Soci-

eties and Education 10: 163–179.

Zheng P (2014) Antecedents to international student

inflows to UK higher education: A comparative analy-

sis. Journal of Business Research 67: 136–143.

Madge et al. 701

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jan/08/immigration-foreign-students-universities

http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/resources/29/Mobility-matters-40-years-of-international-students-40-years-of-UKCISA

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2012/PatternsAndTrendsinUKHigherEducation2012.pdf

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/3/6.html

Copyright of Progress in Human Geography is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.