Research Brief: What is an ‘international student’ in transnational higher education?

A research brief by Jason Lane, Jessica Schueller, and Christine Farrugia

What is an ‘international student’? For most scholars and practitioners, the mainstream concept of an international student is defined by one’s nationality or visa status vis-a-vis their location of study. While there is no precise definition of ‘international student,’ they have been generally defined as those who leave their home country to pursue an education in a different country (Lane & Bhandari, 2014). A binary distinction was traditionally made between domestic students from the country where the university is situated, and international students who come from abroad (Brooks & Waters, 2022). This straightforward distinction helps to recognize students who study in familiar surroundings from those who navigate a new cultural setting.

This conceptualization of ‘international student’ developed during a period when institutions were largely immobile and did not account for students participating in transnational education (TNE) (Mittelmeier, 2023; Steyn & Gunter, 2023). For most of the 5 million students who study abroad each year, this definition remains fairly accurate (UNESCO, 2024). However, the rise of TNE means that both students and institutions are mobile, and this multi-modal mobility challenges traditional conceptions of ‘international student’. For students in TNE, such as the more than 180,000 students studying at over 300 international branch campuses (IBCs) worldwide, traditional binary distinctions do not apply (CBERT, 2023; Garrett et al., 2016). This can have significant implications for nations such as the UK, which enrolls nearly as many students in TNE as they do international students in UK-located programs (Universities UK, 2023). In this context, how do we conceptualize an ‘international student’ when both the student and the institution are mobile? 

Transnational Higher Education and International Students

Most definitions of international students do not account for students enrolled in TNE, which revolves around providing educational opportunities from one country who remain physically located in another country, often in the form of a locally established institution. As Stephenson and Gabay (2016) point out, IBCs “host a diverse body of students whose identities cannot be captured through the binary definitions of international or local” (p. 243). Since the institution is foreign, the question arises as to what the students should be defined as, especially if they are local to the country but studying at a foreign institution such as an IBC. 

An example would be an Emirati student attending the Dubai branch of Australia’s University of Wollongong (UW). This student remains in their home country but is enrolled in an institution rooted in a foreign educational system. The cultural surroundings are familiar, but the academic environment differs from a local Emirati university. Should this student be labeled as domestic or international? How does this compare to studying at the main UW campus in Australia or an Australian student attending the Dubai branch? Or, what if a student from Africa travels to Dubai to attend the branch? If both students and institutions are moving across borders, or the institution moves but the student does not, the traditional distinction between international and domestic students blurs quickly.

A TNE Student Typology

TNE students are often still not counted as international students, leaving them and their experience invisible (Waters & Leung, 2013). As TNE grows, how students are considered in research and practice will become increasingly relevant to the study and practice of international higher education. To address the nature of ‘international student’ within TNE, Lane and Farrugia (2022) developed a typology based on the perspective of the institution’s and the student’s country of origin (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1
Typology of International Branch Campus Students

	Domestic student  (IBC Perspective)	International student  (IBC perspective)
Domestic student (home campus perspective)	Boundary spanner Individuals with an association with both countries, either  through dual citizenship or family expat status such that they could be viewed as “domestic” by both campuses	Passthrough Students pursing an education in a foreign country and doing so in an educational context that is likely to be familiar
International student (home campus perspective)	Staycationer Students from the country where the IBC is located, but without formal association with the IBC’s home country; seeking a “foreign” educational experience without leaving the country	Explorer Students without a formal association with either the home or host country; pursuing a foreign educational experience

Source: Lane & Farrugia (2022, pp. 8-9). Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Group.

The vertical axis represents student type according to the home campus perspective, and the horizontal axis refers to the IBC perspective. A student is considered domestic if they have citizenship or a long-term residency permit in the country where the campus is located. Students without citizenship or long-term residence in the IBC-country are considered international. 

Boundary spanners are domestic students by the home campus and IBC perspectives. Examples include long-term expats, dual citizens, or students who have “an affiliation with both countries, and it may well be that these individuals have lived in both countries and are comfortable moving between the different countries” (Lane & Farrugia, 2022, p. 23). This includes students who grew up in the host country, with parents from a different country, which is sometimes but not always the IBC home country. 

Staycationers are considered international to the home campus and domestic by the IBC. Examples include citizens of the host country, long-term expats, and undocumented residents. These students have some affiliation with the host country, but none with the IBC’s home country. As such, these students “are taking an educational adventure while staying close to home” (Lane & Farrugia, 2022, p. 24). 

Passthrough students attend an IBC that is from their home country. They use their education to return to their home country or to move to another country. This may be because the ease of access to the IBC is higher than pursuing a similar route in the home country. These students see their time at the IBC as temporary and engage with local society and culture on a limited basis.  

Explorer students have no association with home or host country. An example of this would be an American student attending a British IBC in the UAE. Indeed, such student mobility is the goal of so-called “education hubs” that use IBCs to attract students (Knight, 2013). There is also likely to be situations where overlap occurs between the four types. 

Definitions Matter: Problematizing “International” When Students and Institutions Move

By exploring the muddy waters of defining an ‘international student’ in TNE and basing definitions not only on the student’s nationality but also on the institution’s origin, insight can be garnered into how current international student definitions may not capture the full lived experience of who is seeking and obtaining an international higher education. This brief establishes an understanding of the complexity of defining ‘international student’ using the example of students enrolled in TNE. It illustrates the need to move beyond traditional notions of mobility centered on the nation-state (Rose-Redwood & Rose-Redwood, 2023; Richters & Teichler, 2006). Understanding of international student definitions could be enriched by exploring what it means to be an ‘international student’ when it is the institution, not the student, moving. This is particularly the case when IBCs cater primarily to minority, expatriate, and mobile students.  Researchers, policymakers, universities, and practitioners should consider the complexities of who is counted and who is not in different forms of international student mobility. 

References

Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2022). Partial, hierarchical and stratified space? Understanding “the international” in studies of international student mobility. Oxford Review of Education, 48(4), 518–535.

Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT). (2023). List of International Campuses. Accessible at http://cbert.org/ 

Garrett, R., Kinser, K., Lane, J.E., & Merola, R. (2016). International branch campuses: Trends and developments, 2016. Observatory for Borderless Higher Education and Cross-Border Education Research Team. 

Knight, J. (2013). Education hubs: International, regional, and local dimensions of scale and scope. Comparative Education, 49(3), 374-387. 

Lane, J.E. & Bhandari, R. (2014). Measuring higher education internationalization. In J.E. Lane (Ed.), Building a smarter university: Data, big data, and analytics (pp. 239-262). State University of New York Press. 

Lane, J., & Farrugia, C. (2022). Which students are “international” at an international branch campus? Problematizing “international” when universities, and students, cross borders. In H. A. &. Sally (Ed.), International Student Mobility to and from the Middle East (pp. 13-32). Routledge.

Mittelmeier, J. (2023). International Students in Open, Distance, and Digital Higher Education. In O. Zawacki-Richter & I. Jung (Eds.), Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education (pp. 389-406). Springer Nature Singapore.

Richters, E., & Teichler, U. (2006). Student mobility data: Current methodological issues and future prospects. In M. Kelo, U. Teichler, & B. Wächter (Eds.), EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education (pp. 78–95). Lemmens.

Rose-Redwood, C., & Rose-Redwood, R. (2023). Containing the Multitudes: Critical Reflections on the Concept of the “International Student” Through a Pluriversal Lens. Journal of International Students, 14(2), 107-114.

Stephenson, G.K. & Gabay, D. (2016). Aren’t We All International Students?: Supporting Diverse Populations at University Branch-Campuses. In K. Bista & C. Foster (Eds.) Campus Support Services, Programs, and Policies for International Students (pp. 243-263). IGI Global. 

Steyn, C., & Gunter, A. (2023). When an international student stays at home: defining an international student in distance education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 47(1), 56–70.

UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS). (2024). Global Flow of Tertiary-Level Students. https://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow 

Universities UK. (2023). The scale of UK transnational education. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/universities-uk-international/insights-and-publications/uuki-insights/scale-uk-transnational-education Waters, J., & Leung, M. (2013). Immobile Transnationalisms? Young People and Their in situ Experiences of “International” Education in Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 50(3), 606–620.

About the Authors:

Prof. Dr. Jason Lane serves as the President of the National Association of Higher Education Systems (NASH) and as a special advisor to the President of the University of Illinois System. He is co-director of the Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT).

Jessica Schueller is a Ph.D. candidate in Educational Leadership at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, and is the project manager of the Cross-Border Education Research Team (C-BERT).

Dr. Christine Farrugia is the Assistant Provost of Institutional Effectiveness at Manhattanville College. She was previously research director at the Columbia University School of Professional Studies as well as at the Institute of International Education (IIE), where she led Open Doors, a large-scale annual survey of international educational exchange in the United States.