Openness towards diversity? Cultural homophily in student perceptions of teaching and learning provided by international and home academics

ABSTRACT

This article contributes new empirical findings and conceptual arguments to topical debates about internationalisation ‘at home’ through a comparative study on how undergraduate students experience and perceive university learning and teaching by international and home academics. Drawing on survey data from a research-intensive English university, the study shows that most UK home students prefer being taught by home academics, whereas international academics are appreciated for developing intercultural understanding and global outlook. As home students with previous international experiences and BAME backgrounds value international academics more than their less diverse home student peers, we argue that cultural homophily shapes students’ experiences, evaluations, and benefits of encounters with international and home academics.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education
• international academics
• home students
• international experience
• intercultural experience
• cultural homophily

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Higher Education Academy (HEA) for funding this research through a HEA Mike Baker Doctoral Programme Award (GEN386); to James Esson and Allan Watson for helpful comments on an earlier draft; and to all research participants.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The survey data is held by all three co-authors of this paper and can be made available upon request.

Notes

1 The share of all outgoing students from German universities in one year amounted to 5.5% in 2016 (DAAD and DZHW 2019, Figure 11), whereas the share of outgoing undergraduate students from UK universities reached a mere 1.7% in 2015–16 (Universities UK International 2017b, 4).

2 In Table 2, percentages are rounded. The percentages for ‘Yes, overseas’ (5.4%) and ‘Yes, both in the UK and overseas’ (2.2%) add up to 8%.

3 Pearson Chi-Square test [hereafter, X²] with degrees of freedom [hereafter, df] (1) = 2.732; probability value [hereafter, p] = 0.098; 0% of cells < 5 [valid tests have a maximum of 20% of cells with an expected count < 5]. If a Pearson Chi-Square test is invalid and if applicable (2x2 table), the p-value for Fisher's exact test for small sample sizes (1-sided) is displayed [hereafter, F-X²]. The usual level of statistical significance is α = 0.050, which corresponds to a confidence level of (1 – α) * 100% = 95%, but due to the small sample size and Oppenheim’s (1992, 43) predicted inaccuracy for samples with n  =  200 of plus-or-minus 6.5%, statistical trends are interpreted with α = 0.100, which corresponds to a confidence level of (1 – α) * 100% = 90%. Five-point Likert scales have been reduced to three categories and tested on statistical significance with the Linear-by-Linear Association, which is based on the Mantel-Haenszel trend test that identifies linear trends among ordinal categorial data for sample sizes of over 30 observations and is valid when the Pearson Chi-Square test is not (Bland 2015, 203).

4 X² df(1) = 4.270; p  =  0.039; 25% of cells < 5. F-X² (1-sided) p = 0.050.

5 X² df(1) = 0.383; p = 0.536; 0% of cells < 5.

6 X² df(1) = 8.127; p  =  0.004; 0% of cells < 5.

7 X² df(1) = 0.952; p = 0.329; 50% of cells < 5. F-X² (1-sided) p = 0.314.

8 Linear-by-Linear Association: X² df(1) = 0.874; p = 0.350; X² df(1) = 0.894; p = 0.344; X² df(1) = 1.102; p = 0.294; X² df(1) = 5.123; p = 0.024.

9 Linear-by-Linear Association: X2 df(1) = 0.874; p = 0.350; X2 df(1) = 0.894; p = 0.344; X2 df(1) = 0.874; p = 0.350; X2 df(1) = 5.123; p = 0.024.

10 X² df(4) = 16.269; p = 0.003; 56% of cells < 5.

11 Linear-by-Linear Association: X² df(1) = 7.662; p = 0.006. Only 2% of survey respondents prefer to be taught by international academic staff (3% of those with international experience). Yet, no preference was stated by 70% of BAME students compared to 26% of non-BAME students (X² df(1) = 12.374; p = 0.000), whereas 67% of BAME students without international experience, 17% of non-BAME students without international experience, and 40% of students with international experience had no preference.

12 X² df(4) = 13.572; p = 0.009; 56% of cells < 5; X² df(4) = 10.299; p = 0.036; 33% of cells < 5; X² df(4) = 10.629; p = 0.031; 33% of cells < 5.

13 X² df(3) = 11.374; p = 0.010; 0% of cells < 5; X² df(3) = 9.945; p = 0.019; 25% of cells < 5.

14 Linear-by-Linear Association: X² df(1) = 9.628; p = 0.002; X² df(1) = 0.785; p = 0.376.

15 Linear-by-Linear Association: X² df(1) = 3.186; p = 0.074; X² df(1) = 7.425; p = 0.006; X² df(1) = 4.908; p = 0.027.

16 Linear-by-Linear Association: X² df(1) = 0.611; p = 0.434; X² df(1) = 0.005; p = 0.942.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) through a HEA Mike Baker Doctoral Programme Award [Grant Number GEN386].