International education ‘here’ and ‘there’: geographies, materialities and differentiated mobilities within UK degrees

ABSTRACT

This paper explores how mobility is experienced differentially in international education, through a comparison of two ostensibly very distinct student groups. Both groups have non-UK citizenship and have studied, or are studying, for a British higher education degree – one in the UK, the other in Hong Kong. Through a dual focus on the materialities and mobilities within international higher education, we consider the extent to which physical mobility across borders is a defining feature of the experiences and outcomes of those engaging in international education. We argue that combining perspectives of mobilities and materialities challenges simplistic dichotomies of im/mobility amongst students and unsettles the boundaries between onshore and offshore international education. Our paper provides a more granular and nuanced understanding of the relationship between im/mobility, international higher education and social reproduction.

RESUMEN

Este artículo explora cómo la movilidad se experimenta de manera diferente en la educación internacional, a través de una comparación de dos grupos de estudiantes aparentemente muy diferentes. Ambos grupos no tienen ciudadanía del Reino Unido y han estudiado, o están estudiando, para obtener un título de educación superior británico, uno en el Reino Unido y el otro en Hong Kong. A través de un enfoque dual sobre las materialidades y las movilidades dentro de la educación superior internacional, consideramos hasta qué punto la movilidad física al otro lado de las fronteras es una característica definitiva de las experiencias y los resultados de quienes participan en la educación internacional. Argumentamos que la combinación de perspectivas de movilidades y materialidades desafía las dicotomías simplistas de inmovilidad/movilidad entre los estudiantes y altera los límites entre la educación internacional en el interior y en el extranjero. Nuestro artículo proporciona una comprensión más granular y matizada de la relación entre la inmovilidad, la educación superior internacional y la reproducción social.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article explore les diverses expériences de la mobilité dans l’enseignement supérieur international, au moyen d’une comparaison entre deux groupes d’étudiants apparemment très différents. Les deux groupes sont de nationalités autres que britanniques et ont étudié, ou étudient, dans le but d’obtenir un diplôme universitaire britannique: un groupe est au Royaume-Uni et l’autre à Hong Kong. Par le biais d’une focalisation double sur la matérialité et la mobilité au sein de l’enseignement supérieur international, nous examinons la mesure dans laquelle la mobilité physique à travers les frontières est une caractéristique intrinsèque des expériences et des résultats des personnes qui entreprennent des études internationales. Nous soutenons que la combinaison des perspectives de mobilité et de matérialité remet en question les dichotomies simplistes de mobilité/d’immobilité parmi les étudiants et bouscule les délimitations entre l’enseignement dans le pays et celui à l’étranger. Notre article offre une compréhension plus granulaire et plus nuancée des rapports entre la mobilité/l’immobilité, l’enseignement supérieur international et la reproduction sociale.

KEYWORDS:

• Materialities
• mobilities
• international higher education
• UK
• Hong Kong

PALABRAS CLAVE:

• materialidades
• movilidades
• educación superior internacional
• Reino Unido
• Hong Kong

MOTS CLEFS:

• matérialité 
• mobilité 
• enseignement supérieur international 
• Royaume-Uni 
• Hong Kong

Introduction

The continual process of internationalising higher education, worldwide, has drawn attention to the different types of international education now available to young people, including transnational education (TNE)¹ (Phan, 2016; Sin et al., 2017; Lee, 2017; Yang, 2018). Despite this diversification of international education provision, however, hierarchies remain: studying in (and physically relocating to) Western, Anglophone countries is still perceived by many students as the pinnacle, in the context of a global field of higher education (Collins et al., 2014; Lee, 2021b; Xiang & Shen, 2009; Yang, 2018). There is also a recognised and persistent ranking of institutions, where certain ‘world-class’ universities are revered above all others (Findlay et al., 2012; Lee, 2021a; Marginson, 2008). Moreover, most research underlines the socially and spatially differentiated flow of students across various modes of international education. For instance, the motivations and choices of those pursuing foreign academic qualifications in situ (i.e., at home) are often linked to their failure to secure a local university place and/or the lack of financial resources to go abroad for higher education (Waters & Leung, 2013a). On the other hand, those studying overseas and especially in Western, Anglophone countries are frequently portrayed as a privileged (i.e., well-resourced) group of individuals (Beech, 2015; Tannock, 2018; Tu & Xie, 2020). Consequently, international higher education would seem to be marked by differentiation, divisions and inequalities (Spangler & Adriansen, 2021).

Little has been done, however, to explore the geographies of this ostensible diversity and hierarchy in any depth. For example, how might the value attributed to particular higher education institutions (HEIs) be linked to their spatial location? Discussions around offshore and satellite campuses are beginning to ignite such debates around where a higher education institution (HEI) is located (see Brooks & Waters, 2018; Wilkins, 2020, 2021). Notwithstanding, there has been little discussion in the literature to date on the relevance and significance of studying for a degree in-country (within the host institutions’ home nation) versus acquiring a similar degree from the same country-provider but overseas (through transnational educational delivery; cf., Robertson et al., 2011). In other words, how might we compare the experiences of international students pursuing a British degree in the UK and transnational students obtaining a British degree within their home country? What might this comparison tell us about the value of in-country as opposed to transnational study? The extant literature might suggest that a transnational degree will be inferior – UK degree programmes offered in Hong Kong and Malaysia reportedly fail to provide an ‘international’ experience and neither do they proffer specific skills and networks associated with a UK education (Sin, 2013; Waters & Leung, 2013a, 2013b). Nonetheless, considerably less attention has been paid to the extent to which the student experience differs in relation to degree acquisition from the same popular provider country, only in different locations.

In this paper, we present a more nuanced picture of those undertaking UK international education and how this might relate to the perceived ‘value’ of different educational experiences. Whilst it has often been assumed that mobility is (in and of itself) valuable to international students, in this paper we consider what a focus on the materialities of the educational experience might tell us about how such value is generated. This paper explores these issues through the two different – albeit interrelated – cases of students undertaking or having completed British degree programmes in the UK and Hong Kong, respectively. We argue that this approach not only problematises the monolithic binaries imposed upon those pursuing different provisions of international education (in terms of im/mobility) but also provides important contributions to a nascent literature addressing the impact of materialities on students’ mobilities around international education and vice versa (Breines et al., 2019; Fincher & Shaw, 2009; Gunter et al., 2020). We begin with a discussion of the concepts of mobilities and materialities in education before outlining the research contexts and methodological considerations. We then draw attention to some of the ways students’ experiences may not only differ but also converge. We conclude by highlighting the significance of materialities for understanding the experiences of those undertaking international higher education in different geographical contexts (both onshore and offshore).

Understanding international higher education through materialities and mobilities

The notion of mobility (or ‘mobilities’) has been regarded in existing empirical work as fundamental to the experiences and outcomes of international education. Studies have shown that a wide range of social capital (e.g., social networks) and cultural capital (e.g., language skills, comportment, degree certificates) can accrue to young people from studying physically overseas and that this capital can subsequently be exchanged for economic capital (e.g., jobs, incomes) in the labour market (Prazeres, 2017; Waters, 2008; Zhang & Xu, 2020). Mobility has even been conceptualised as a form of capital in and of itself (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002). Previous research has indicated that it can be deployed over the life course for personal, social or career enhancement, although it does not always confer distinct and tangible advantages in the short term or even when utilised in certain geographical contexts (Brooks et al., 2012; Tu & Nehring, 2020; Wiers‐Jenssen, 2011). This is juxtaposed with the relative disadvantages experienced by those undertaking overseas education in situ, who not only have limited social and cultural capital to draw upon but also suffer a lack of degree ‘recognition’ in the local labour market (Waters & Leung, 2012, 2017). A mobilities perspective can therefore shed light on contemporary issues relating to international education, including how the reproduction of social dis/advantage occurs in geographically specific contexts, within and across national borders.

Despite the salience of mobility in extant literature on international education, there is a dearth of research that deploys the concept of materialities and is attentive to non-human actors and artefacts as well as human bodies. A small number of studies have begun to explore materialities in international education. In their research on international students enrolled in distance education in Africa, Gunter et al. (2020) demonstrate how the lives and learning of these students are entangled with the aggregation and distribution of various materialities. Similarly, on the basis of her work on capacity building projects in African universities, Adriansen (2020) contends that the mobility of African scholars to Denmark is attributed to an uneven access to the materialities necessary for knowledge production (e.g., libraries, laboratories) in their home countries. Rather than emphasising the ‘agency’ or significance of material artefacts and human bodies, Lee (2020) brings to the fore the cultural – that is, racialised and classed – meaning of materialities created by both TNE students and international branch campuses in China. The focus on materialities and their geographies thus makes visible the ways in which a variety of material things can shape, and be shaped by, learning and other social processes within educational spaces such as universities.

In spite of the conceptual utility of mobilities or materialities in the extant literature, very little research in the field of international education has taken into account how both aspects may be intertwined. For example, mobility has been foregrounded in defining the experiences of mobile international students, although they are equally encumbered by various materialities. There is ample evidence that the mobility of international students is circumscribed by a range of embodied characteristics that sometimes manifest ‘materially’, such as age, gender, financial resources and passports amongst others (Choudaha et al., 2012; Kim, 2011; Lu et al., 2009). Likewise, existing academic literature on TNE students tends to emphasise the significance of materialities (e.g., buildings, bodies) in students’ experiences during and after their studies without giving equal attention to their mobility (Waters & Leung, 2013a, 2013b). Importantly, those pursuing an overseas education ‘at home’ are depicted as largely immobile, thereby discarding the possibility of students’ attendant mobilities through pursuing overseas degrees in situ. As Sheller and Urry (2006) note, it is nevertheless important to investigate mobilities ‘in their fluid interdependence and not in their separate spheres’ (p. 212).

With a focus on materialities and how it relates to mobilities, this paper attempts to elucidate the complexities of students’ experiences of studying for a UK degree ‘onshore’ (in the UK) and ‘offshore’ (at home in Hong Kong). Calling for a convergence in the perspectives of mobilities and materialities in educational research in general, Brooks and Waters (2018a, pp. 102–103) write

Whilst there is much to be gained from focusing on the various mobilities attendant within formal education, and that the materialities of learning should be far more prominent within contemporary research on education, there is in fact even more to gain from a convergence between these two perspectives – from recognising the materialities inherent within mobilities and vice versa. Materialities and mobilities in education are co-constitutive, and engaging with them both in this way is a useful and highly productive exercise.

Building upon this argument, we seek to reflect explicitly upon the materialities of student mobilities. Specifically, this paper centres on the materialities of educational spaces (e.g., university buildings) and the human body (e.g., student and/or staff corporealities), as well as the mobilities of different students (e.g., embodied, mundane and everyday mobilities). In so doing, it sheds light on the way in which the mobilities of international students are nested in socio-material assemblages. In other words, we argue that the divergence in the experiences (and associated outcomes) of students between TNE and international study is one that largely rests on the materialities of their educational encounters, rather than there being something inherently valuable in the act of mobility in itself.

Research contexts, projects, and methods

UK universities are at the forefront of international higher education. The UK is one of the top destination countries alongside the United States and Australia for international students globally, hosting 452,000 students in 2018 (OECD, 2020). The vast majority (82%) of UK universities also offer TNE, enrolling international students on degree programmes located outside of the UK (UUKi, 2018). In 2015/16, over 700,000 students were studying for a UK degree overseas, which is 1.6 times the number of international students studying in the UK (ibid.). The financial contribution from international students to the UK economy is estimated at £13.4bn (for higher education as a whole) and £1.9bn (from TNE) in 2016, offsetting in part a considerable reduction over the past 20 years in state funding faced by many institutions in the UK (Department for Education, 2019). However, a recent outbreak of coronavirus (Covid-19) raises some critical questions about the future of UK international education and transnational student mobility in particular, potentially shifting students’ focus towards greater intra-regional mobility and transnational/distance education (Cheng, 2020; Mitchell, 2020; Sidhu et al., 2021; Stacey, 2020). This paper, which considers how students experience an international education delivered in different locations, potentially contributes to these debates around the role of mobilities in future educational delivery post-Covid-19.

The research findings presented here derive from two separate projects. The first project, carried out in 2018, is based on a doctoral thesis which draws on qualitative semi-structured interviews with 55 international postgraduate students from outside of European Union (non-EU), and three career staff at the following universities in the UK: University of Oxford (Oxford), University College London (UCL) and Oxford Brookes University (Oxford Brookes). Whilst the study explores non-EU international students’ choices of UK higher education, experiences in their studies, as well as their post-study aspirations and transitions, this paper focuses primarily on the interview data pertaining to students’ experiences during their studies in the UK. Participants were first recruited through personal contacts and then via contacts of the interviewees. Efforts were made to gather a more or less equivalent mix of participants in terms of age (29 for those who had recently² completed their postgraduate degrees and 27 for those studying at the time of the interview), gender (31 female and 24 male) and study/graduation status (24 recent graduates and 31 current students). Interviews, which lasted on average one hour, were conducted in English. They were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.

The second project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK and the Research Grants Council in Hong Kong, was conducted between 2009 and 2011. The project involved 70 in-depth interviews with students and graduates in Hong Kong, 18 interviews with UK educational providers,³ and 9 interviews with employers/recruiters (also in Hong Kong). In total, we examined 73 different UK TNE programmes (3 individuals had studied more than one programme). In terms of how the TNE programmes were administered: most of our sample were studying/had studied for a degree attached to a local university (the focus of this paper); a smaller number were studying/had studied at a quasi-government body (e.g., an institute of the Vocational Training Council). Students and graduates were recruited through an advertisement distributed on our behalf by the British Council, several different UK universities, and the Institute of Vocational Education (i.e., the Vocational Training Council) in Hong Kong. The median age of the graduate sample was 27 and for the student sample this was 24. Twenty-seven of our interviewees were male and 43 were female, 32 were graduates and 38 were current students. Most interviews with students and graduates were conducted in Cantonese and translated into English. All names used throughout the article are pseudonyms.

Given the predominance of qualitative research in single-country settings, we felt a need for comparative inquiry, using data from different case studies. To date, there have been surprisingly few comparative studies within research on international higher education (Waters & Brooks, 2021). As King and Raghuram (2013) have pointed out, cross-country comparisons have the potential to make an important contribution to the extant literature by highlighting the located nature of students’ experiences (p. 133). We are of course aware that some time has lapsed between the two data collection periods but, on reflection, we believe that a consistent focus of the UK government on international education and the recruitment of international students throughout these periods does not undermine the arguments that we make, on the basis of the comparison, here. Nevertheless , it is important to note that the characteristics of our samples and their experiences differ to a certain degree. Due to the unattainability of studying abroad for higher education and securing a place at a local university, the Hong Kong sample consists of a relatively less privileged group of students and graduates, compared to their UK counterparts with access to the necessary finances to afford overseas education. Moreover, we acknowledge distinctive differences in students’ experiences, as where they pursue their education inevitably affects the quality and level of material spaces and resources that they have exposure to. Despite notable variations, we believe that comparative perspectives are useful in throwing light on commonalities and differences between UK degrees obtained onshore and those acquired offshore, and in drawing implications for policy and practice in international higher education.

Locating ‘materialities’ in the mobilities of international students

In the case of our UK-located sample, students are and were internationally mobile. In other words, these were quintessential international students, i.e., ‘those who left their country of origin and moved to another country for the purpose of study’ (OECD, 2020, p. 235). Their mobilities are easily apparent. This contrasts with our TNE sample who, although also attaining a UK degree, were ostensibly immobile, studying within their home country. In fact, we suggest that both groups of students are mobile: their mobilities are simply differently conceived. Here, we attempt to tease out the similarities and differences in how students’ mobilities are envisaged by focussing on the materialities of their educational encounters.

Mobility and place

To begin with our internationally mobile students, the educational spaces of different universities have implications for the kinds of experiences that students have when studying in the UK. For instance, Oxford has a distinctive collegiate structure in which students and academics belong both to the central University and to a college or hall. There are 38 colleges and six permanent private halls which are financially independent and self-governing and nonetheless serve as a small, interdisciplinary academic community. Many participants commonly pointed out that this collegiate structure made it easier to interact with people from other academic disciplines through social events in a college/hall. This enables students to build extensive social networks across the university, which is not necessarily limited to cohort groups in their academic departments. Daisy’s (China, MSc Education, Oxford, UK) words encapsulated the perspectives of other participants at Oxford: ‘Oxford was, like, one life. Your study, your social activities, your friends are all in one bubble … beautiful bubble’. However, as underscored by several participants including Abigail (Singapore, MSc Geography, Oxford, UK), this had the effect of connecting solely with ‘people from Oxford’ and distinguishing them from those outside the university. Here there are clear parallels with previous studies of ‘studentification’ which underline the impact of spaces of student accommodation as well as teaching and learning on students’ spatial practices and their movements within the city (Fincher & Shaw, 2009; Finn & Holton, 2019; Hubbard, 2009; Smith & Hubbard, 2014).

One of the prominent features of Oxford Brookes, identified by our internationally mobile research participants, is its proximity to the University of Oxford. Most participants described this as hugely beneficial for their experiences, which somewhat chimes with the emphasis placed by the university on place of location, that is, being in the city of Oxford (Sidhu, 2006). The access to additional library resources is one of the advantages of being close to Oxford University, as illustrated by Mark (Ghana, PhD Entrepreneurship, Oxford Brookes, UK): ‘I have the [Bodleian] library card. I can go to the library and borrow books. I mean, if you are gonna be [do] a PhD [at Oxford Brookes] and have an opportunity to going to a place like Oxford [University], I think it’s a plus’. However, other benefits accrue directly from the infrastructure provided by Oxford Brookes. In particular, the availability of on-campus student accommodation at the university was contrasted with other universities in London which, according to Alice (USA, MA Publishing, Oxford Brookes, UK), ‘do not guarantee housing for [post]graduate students’. Similarly, Hannah (Hong Kong, MSc Applied Human Nutrition, Oxford Brookes, UK) pointed to the existence of specialised research centres such as Oxford Brookes Centre for Nutrition and Health as central to her study experience whereby she ‘can participate in lots of nutritional study’. These examples mirror Wainwright et al.’s (2019) argument that students’ experiences and capacities for success are deeply embedded in a range of material sites and resources available both within and beyond the university (see also, Robinson, 2018).

Located in the central London, UCL proffers distinctive student experiences that are different from those provided by the other two institutions. The way in which the university buildings are scattered around central London gives the impression that the city itself is part of the campus. This was evident in Naomi’s (Singapore, PhD Neuroscience, UCL, UK) perception on her university: ‘Um, I quite like the campus itself. I just like the feeling that, you know, different streets [in London] are different parts of UCL’. However, the distribution of learning spaces across London was not always received in a positive light. For example, finding a lecture room became part of a chaotic and disorganised routine for Ellen (Hong Kong, MSc Engineering, UCL, UK) who elaborated this ironically and humorously:

In Hong Kong, we have the fixed classrooms for a semester for the courses. But, here, every week [we change the venue] for the new lecture. It is becom[ing] an adventurous game! To join an adventurous game and find my classroom. Sometime[s], we have the lesson in mathematic buildings. Sometimes, in Russell Square. Sometime, in Warren Street. Sometimes, like, in [the] main campus. […] And sometimes, the lecture[s] don’t even provide any table [for us]. [And], for two hours, [we have to carry our] laptops and have to jot down notes … something like that. I think that is one of the thing[s] that I didn’t get used to it.

As noted by Ellen, the distributed spaces do not always translate into equal access to resources, for example, tables, desks and work spaces, for all students. The shortage of individual study spaces was particularly an issue of concern to those pursuing doctoral degrees like Richard (India, PhD Education, UCL, UK): ‘I’m unhappy about, sort of, infrastructure. Uh, for instance, we are doing PhD. I don’t even get a desk – forget [about] the room [office] – which I call my own’. The university seems partly to address this issue by sharing resources needed for study with other institutions in London, including Birkbeck and the School of Oriental and African Studies. A few participants highlighted that those provisions facilitate social networking with students from other institutions nearby. This bears some resemblance to work by Brooks and Waters (2018b) on the London-based satellite campuses of UK HEIs which demonstrates how the city of London is often being drawn upon and utilised by these universities to offset the lack of material resources (e.g., teaching facilities) provided to students due to higher rent fees.

The built environment within which learning takes place was also immeasurably important for our TNE students. UK TNE students in Hong Kong found themselves largely excluded from university buildings and a campus environment. This, several students argued, involved a level of ‘deception’ (or at least misleading) on the part of the UK university provider. Students were recruited on to TNE programmes through a local ‘host’ university/ HEI, and many were given the impression that they would be, in effect, a student at that university, hosted by that university (whilst studying for a British TNE programme). Although TNE programmes are run in partnership with local universities, local universities are not obliged to give TNE students the same access to resources, spaces and opportunities as their ‘own’, domestic students. What was notable amongst this group was the fact that classes often took place in downtown, rented office buildings, disconnected (symbolically and in actuality) from the university campus. Furthermore, there was no discernible material connection with the UK institution, other than the ‘flying faculty’ who occasionally made an appearance (discussed below). Consequently, TNE students felt invariably ‘out of place’ during their studies and ‘at home’ nowhere. Their ‘home’ institution was in the UK, and they were in Hong Kong. Their host institution is local to them but does not recognise them as one of ‘their’ students. These tensions came across strongly in the interviews that we conducted – students’ material interactions with the immediate learning environment were a source of frustration and discomfort.

According to a UK TNE student Florence Wong, those on her course had to pay (in addition to their university fees) for the privilege of accessing the library at the ‘host’ (Hong Kong) university, as opposed to the experience of Oxford Brookes’ students who were able to access the Bodleian library at the University of Oxford, described above. Other students similarly complained about the library facilities (specifically) and the general resources offered to them:

I did not feel that X [Hong Kong] University treated is as their students. Local degree students were their real ‘sons and daughters’. There was a feeling of hierarchy. How I felt this hierarchy was that local students could borrow ten books from the library, but we could only borrow five books. Local students could borrow for twenty days, we could only borrow it for ten day. The resources that they gave us were obviously less than the local degree students. We were treated differently. We were not even allowed to use the sports facilities. (Peter Chan, part-time UK TNE undergraduate degree in Business Information Technology, Hong Kong)

As illustrated in the above narrative, those on TNE courses found themselves unable to access a range of facilities offered to local Hong Kong students with whom they were ostensibly sharing a learning space (i.e., the host campus). They were also excluded from many campus spaces where friendships and ‘cohortness’ might develop. Consequently, students often complained that the UK university needed to provide them with ‘more support’, including ‘arranging more gathering or networking functions for us’ (Florence Wang, part-time Law conversion, Hong Kong). All of the issues raised by TNE participants throw light on a lack of space these students could call their own. Again, this came across in the interviews:

If you want to do a project, there was a problem as there was no place for us to do it. There were not enough computers, no wi-fi. This was difficult. So my classmates were very smart, and we went to McDonald’s or public libraries … The resources and the learning environment were not [good] enough. I did not have a very quiet place to work. (David Kwok, TNE undergraduate degree in Banking and Finance, Hong Kong)

The experience of having to go to a public library or MacDonald’s in order to find a ‘quiet space to work’ was, to some extent, echoed by that of internationally mobile students in the UK (particularly those studying at UCL) who had to look for other places to study due to ‘not enough [of one’s own] study space’. Overall, these examples point to how the built environment, that is, the distribution of university buildings and other facilities nearby is generative of the lived experiences of not only those in our ‘immobile’ TNE sample but also ‘mobile’ international students in the UK.

‘Misplaced’ staff and fellow students

Both the UK and Hong Kong students reported similar experiences when it comes to the ability to develop social capital as part of their degree programme. Social capital, we found, was very much linked to the bodies of students and staff. We concur with arguments that bodies are ‘material’ in nature (Evans et al., 2021), since ‘the shape, size and colour of our bodies (fundamental aspects of their materiality) can all affect how we engage with others and experience education, and how others respond to us within educational settings’ (Brooks & Waters, 2018a, p. 10). The abundance of opportunities to interact with international academic staff and fellow students is typically associated with the benefits of studying overseas. However, this was not always the case for some participants such as Matthew (China, MSc Engineering, UCL, UK). He explained that the larger class size of his programme – 40 students in total – militated against interacting frequently with teaching staff or developing the close relationships with his cohort at the university:

I think the university accepts too many students. For example, for our course, there are 40 [students] in total. I think it’s, uh, very huge. This course requires us to do, uh, group [work], and each group contains about nine or 10 students. I think it is too hard for 10 people to finish a 2,000 word essay. […] And the teachers cannot pay their attention to everyone, yeah. I think the teachers have less [time] for, uh, connections and collaborations with students. Maybe they are so busy. Because when I want to ask some questions about my coursework or about my exams, they cannot sometimes reply [to] us immediately or provide the useful information.

TNE students also complained of large class sizes, but here they evoked classes of around 200 students in some cases. Large class sizes prevented a sense of a coherent ‘cohortness’ for TNE students (Brown & Kraftl, 2019). As was recounted by one participant, the student cohort was quite ‘scattered’ (Sammy Tsang, UK Masters over 3 years in Hong Kong). The socially fragmenting impact of large class sizes was compounded by the part-time nature of their study – fitting in learning around work commitments meant often unsociable hours and learning ‘off campus’. Unlike the UK-based sample studying full-time, many TNE students were part-time. As Florence Wong said:

Most of us have jobs and need to study after work. Some of us are able to form a group and play together in our free time, but I did not join any groups … We didn’t find new friends in the class actively. Some of them make friends with other students, but some had already dropped out of the class [referring to high dropout rate]. Maybe the class size is too large, and there is no organiser for the class. […] We all worked on our study individually. I think that because of the nature of the study – part-time programmes are different from full time programmes. Besides, the class size is much bigger.

As indicated in the above quote, TNE students reported a high ‘dropout rate’ amongst fellow classmates. For example, Benny Chung (Law conversion) claimed that the year started with 200 students and they were left with only 100 by end of year. Although the UK-based students alluded to similar problems with large class sizes, none of them spoke of a general failure to stay the course and complete their programme of studies.

In addition, whilst TNE students habitually complained about their lack of contact with international staff and how they were often taught by local, contracted lecturers, students in the UK described ‘unexpected’ encounters with international staff members. For the UK-based sample, these concerns were also extended to the international student body, as the following attest. For example, the 'high' number of faculty members who turned out to be non-white and non-British were a surprise for Simon (Thailand, MSc Business Administration, Oxford Brookes, UK): ‘I expected to have a [white] British teacher in every subject. But, in fact, I have a Chinese [teacher] and [an] Indian teacher. It’s not that bad but, um, sometimes I just don’t understand their accent[s], and it’s mainly confused [confusing]. So that is the downside’. Simon’s narrative offers a glimpse of the way in which international students perceive the UK population as predominantly white, which reflects the historical and current majority of the people living in the UK despite the increasing ethnic diversity over recent years (ONS, 2019). Ellen went further, reflecting upon the implications that the diverse student body at her university had for the value of her degree:

The reason why I want[ed] to study in [the] UK is because I want[ed] to meet more foreign students, uh, to learn the culture from other countries. […] 90 per cent of students in my programme is from mainland China. I think that is not really what I really think [expected] before I got here. I thought I can have a lot of foreign, uh, classmate and improve my English. But, um, after [all], I just improved my Mandarin [laughs]. […] If you choose the course with a lot of Hong Kong people or a lot of Chinese people, then why [did] I come to UK to study?

As evident in Ellen’s narrative, the lack of presence of native English speakers in her programme – which she was not aware of when applying – limits (in her eyes) her exposure to valued linguistic cultural capital that could have been converted into personal development opportunities. This also prevents her from building valuable social capital and having a ‘truly’ international experience (her expectations of studying in the UK; see Spangler & Adriansen, 2021). However, these interpretations need to be treated with caution, given that exposure to diversity is equally seen by many participants as beneficial for their careers and that engineering and business usually have a higher proportion of international students than other programmes of study (UKCISA, 2019).

Moreover, the perception of diverse student and staff bodies varied greatly by the institution. Whilst mixed opinions were found across the case universities, Oxford (and to a lesser extent UCL) participants tended to consider such diversity within the university to be enriching – rather than hindering – the ‘international’ nature of study experiences in the UK. Importantly, with a few notable exceptions, neither race/ethnicity nor nationality was explicitly used to define their peers or university staff; instead, the terms ‘smart’, ‘the best’, ‘incredibly thoughtful and inspiring’ were deployed to flatten out and obscure social differences between them. Nonetheless, this did not eliminate some of the tensions experienced by several participants during their studies at Oxford. Take an example of Abigail (Singapore, MSc Geography, Oxford, UK) who looked back her study experience with some bitterness:

Before I came to Oxford, I was expecting people [at Oxford University] to be more cosmopolitan and more open to different cultures and things. But after I came here, it was a little bit disappointing in a sense that I’m facing students who are not as open to different cultures and who are a little bit, um, discriminating sometimes? […] So what happened was that one of my coursemate[s] from the European countries was like, “Oh, you Asian people from China, Japan and Korea always congregate [sit] together”. And then, he was going out to my other coursemates and he would be like, “Look at them – our Asian friends!” So I was, like, [offended] in a way, and we felt like, “Why do you always have to call us, like, Asian people, the Asian friends!”. So that was something a little bit weird, yeah. […] But I think it depends on individuals. Cos there are some coursemates where we can integrate well with them. And there are [others who are] just less enthusiastic in mingling, I guess.

Whilst cross-cultural experiences are often weighted with subjective interpretations and hence potential cultural misperceptions on the part of students (see, for example, Lee & Rice, 2007), it was not uncommon to find experiences akin to Abigail’s in the narrative of other participants – especially those from ‘non-white’, non-English speaking countries. Not only did this sense of otherness and alienation increase the propensity to socialise mainly with co-nationals or those with similar cultural backgrounds, but in so doing it made participants question themselves whether their experiences of a UK education were truly ‘international’. This resonates with Montgomery’s (2010) research on international students at a UK university which throws light on students’ tendency to stay within an international student community during their studies (see, also Beech, 2019; Harrison, 2015). As shown in the above example, this international student community is clearly marked by race/ethnicity and nationality rather than implying a singular, normative category. Notably, this separation again influences the kinds of social networks available to students, providing a more nuanced understanding of social and cultural capital accumulation that is made possible through a UK education.

For students on the UK TNE programmes, misplaced bodies were described in other ways. Most UK TNE programmes used some form of ‘flying faculty’. This refers to the idea that UK staff ‘fly in’ to teach on the programme. In reality, however, they did so only rarely (once or maybe twice a term) and when they did, they taught for only a few days at a time. Consequently, students’ experience of UK-based international staff was intense, quick and often unsatisfactory. UK staff would teach a lot of material in a short time ‘because they need to give you lecture of two month’s contents in two lectures … So they would give lots of things for us to absorb in a short period of time’ (Joannie Liu, UK undergraduate TNE degree in Banking and Finance, Hong Kong). Once they left, as Aaron Lee (UK TNE Law Conversion, Hong Kong) explained, students were missing a crucial aspect of academic support: ‘We have nobody to ask about things we don’t understand’. Other students talked about needing to attend lectures in the evenings and at weekends when the UK staff were in town. Peter Chan (part-time UK TNE undergraduate degree in Business Information Technology) elaborated in more detail the shortcomings of this model of teaching (long hours with students who were already tired from working full time to fund their studies)

The UK professors like to ask students questions. However, the students were usually very tired already and did not quite want to, or were not interested in, answering those questions. So this made the UK professors not ask, because of [the] poor feedback or ask less. The impression of [teaching in the] UK, for me, is more interactive, and more discussions. The UK professors wanted to make an atmosphere for discussion, but Hong Kong students – particularly part-time students – were already very tired, so could not match with the UK professor. I also thought that those UK professors come to the Hong Kong – the main purpose is to make money. They are not monitored, so they can teach loosely. After the class, we just say “Bye, bye” and, like the wind, they just blow away.

The metaphor that Peter used to close his description indicates the ways in which much TNE teaching was perceived by students – that is, a money-making activity with reduced quality control and superficial and brief input by UK academic staff. This, of course, differed by programme of study and was not a view universally shared by all students in our sample, but it was a very common trope. Some TNE students even suggested that the local lecturers contracted to teach on TNE programmes for the remaining time were ‘better placed’ to deliver these programmes, not least because of their local understanding and expertise, and their ability to revert to speaking in Cantonese when tired students with limited English ability were unable to concentrate in a foreign language anymore. Although ‘less qualified’ than the ‘prestigious’ UK staff, they nevertheless provided an enhanced and contextually sensitive learning experience for TNE students. The narratives from both groups of participants suggest that different bodies of students and staff are central to students’ experiences during their studies and that the limited exposure to, or interaction with, these bodies have important implications for the accumulation of valuable social and cultural capital regardless of the location of their studies.

Conclusions

With a focus on the experiences of two groups of students studying for a British higher education degree in Hong Kong and the UK, this paper offers a unique vantage point from which to extend the focus of existing scholarship on international education. First, the article brings into question clear divisions between international im/mobility and dis/advantage. Previous studies have stressed that ‘mobility’ (or mobilities) is a defining feature that differentiates those studying for foreign academic qualifications at home from their internationally mobile counterparts: one largely devoid of cultural and social capital and the other replete with it (Sin et al., 2017; Tran, 2016). This article, by contrast, provides a more fine-grained analysis of mobilities through the examination of materialities of different provisions of international education. For example, the built environment of Oxford makes its participants relatively immobile compared to those studying at UCL or Oxford Brookes, where institutional space is often extended beyond its campus to other places (e.g., Bodleian libraries, other London institutions). Similarly, the heightened mobility of TNE students in everyday life – partly due to the distributions of material resources – unsettles the depiction of their experiences as largely immobile (see also, Finn, 2017; Finn & Holton, 2019). Whilst learning experiences accompanied by international mobility are qualitatively different from those obtained in situ, we contend that conceptualising the university as a space for the assemblage of multiple materialities enables us to understand better the experiences of students and provides an important contribution to our understandings of the meaning and value of international education.

Given the continued emphasis placed by the UK government on international student numbers and education exports (Department for Education, 2021), the findings of this research will carry implications for UK international education in present and post-pandemic times. With the shift to online and hybrid forms of teaching and learning, many international students – like their TNE counterparts – are stuck in limbo, and quality learning experiences that rest on embodied learning encounters become no longer readily available to them (Sidhu et al., 2021). This has led international students to question the value of international study and demand compensation or refunds for their tuition fees (Stacey, 2021). While offering an alternative to international education under travel restrictions and growing health concerns, transnational education similarly faces challenges that predate the Covid-19 pandemic. Studies have thus far suggested that those in TNE programmes do not enjoy the same level of access and exposure to the knowledge, networks and experiences that would be made possible through pursuing their degrees in the UK (Waters & Leung, 2013a, 2013b). Without the provision of resources and opportunities comparable to UK onshore education, the promotion of transnational education serves only to reproduce social disadvantage. Maintaining the reputation of transnational education and student flows requires policy and practice in the delivery of UK international education to be sensitive to embodied and experiential dimensions of learning across different international education provisions.

Overall, the article speaks to broader debates about ethics, care and responsibility of universities for students engaging in international education (Madge et al., 2009, 2015; Sidhu et al., 2021; Waters, 2018; Waters & Brooks, 2021; Yang, 2019). This paper reveals some of the problems attendant with the materialities and mobilities of international education. The kinds of experiences students came to expect of a UK degree – whether it is onshore or offshore – do not always sit comfortably with the reality of both the place of study and people they encounter. For instance, the dominant framing of international students in the UK as socio-economic elites stands in stark contrast to disruptive or negative experiences that they sometimes have to negotiate at the everyday level (see, also Gilmartin et al., 2020). We argue that there is a vital need to render this discrepancy explicit in order for institutions to adopt a broader understanding of responsibility towards students pursuing UK education both ‘here’ and ‘there’. Furthermore, despite noticeable differences in students’ experiences, making connections between students engaging in different provisions of UK education helps us to shift our focus away from individuals to HEIs. In other words, the reproduction of social dis/advantage within and across national borders is largely mediated by the materialities of universities that intersect with the mobilities of students. We suggest that it is by recognising this relationship that what Madge et al. (2015) call ‘engaged pedagogy’ can emerge and a sense of responsibility towards individual students can be renewed.

Author contributions

Dr Jihyun Lee and Professor Johanna Waters shared the data collection, analysis and writing up equally between them.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all those who kindly gave up their time to be interviewed, and Professor Maggi Leung who was a co-Investigator on the TNE project and kindly let us use the data from this project to make the arguments presented in this paper. Yutin Ki was an excellent research assistant to the TNE project. The latter project was funded by the ESRC in the UK and the RGC in Hong Kong.

Funding

The second project was funded by the Economic Social Research Council in the UK and the Research Grants Council in Hong Kong.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1. TNE is usually defined as qualifications provided to students ‘at home’ by/through an overseas or international ‘provider’.

2. Recent graduates were those who had graduated within five years at the time of the interviews.

3. Across the whole sample, 15 different UK universities and five Hong Kong educational institutions are represented.