A User-Centric Design Approach to Understand International Education in the Contemporary World: Motivations and Gender Preferences for Studying in Europe

Abstract

Education holds promise as a vehicle for sustainable global development and human capacity development, as reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations. International education has become a prominent feature in contemporary times on the educational landscape as students become increasingly mobile in pursuit of their right to education. This study investigates the key factors that motivate international students to undertake better quality education at higher education (university) level, particularly in Europe, and the underlying gender preferences for study destinations within the framework of push-pull factors. The study collected responses of 288 individuals from 84 countries who had undertaken some form of education in Europe through the European Commission-funded Erasmus Mundus (EM) Scholarship. Responses were collected through an online platform, Survey Monkey. Outcomes of the study revealed that Germany, United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands, and Spain are the most popular destinations for pursuing higher education in Europe. The United Kingdom is the most preferred destination for female students while Germany is the most preferred destination for male students, with slight changes for other countries. Key motivating factors for international education were found to be scholarship opportunity, better quality of education, and availability of the relevant study program. The least influencing factors were found to be the commonality of language, suitable environment (eg climate, temperature), geographical proximity, the scope of migration, and social cost.

Keywords

Erasmus Mundus Higher Education Policy International Mobility User-Experience Research Study Abroad Decision Dynamics UX in Education Design

Introduction

The right to education is enshrined as a universal human right. Thus, education features prominently in the erstwhile Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations (MDGs) as well as their successor Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Lomazzi et al, 2014). Also, education holds the promise of creating a world in which people can realize their innate potentials as encapsulated in the Human Development Index (HDI). Thus, the benefits of education include overcoming some of the pervasive challenges of the global community, such as breaking the cycle of poverty while building strong, resilient societies and sustainable development (McGillivray and White, 1993; Malyan and Jinda, 2014). The importance of investing in education cannot be overemphasized as the current world is shifting towards knowledge economy, technology and science. As such, people invest heavily in education, sometimes covering vast distances within countries and across continents to pursue higher education (university-level studies). In 2009, international higher/tertiary education enrolments registered 170 million students in four countries (China, India, United States and Russia) that represent 45% of the overall global population of international enrolments (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2019). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) buttresses this argument with findings that the number of students studying overseas has escalated from 2.1 million to 4.5 million, between 2000 and 2014 respectively (Lane, 2015). A hallmark of global tertiary education is the phenomenon of mobile students, which has burgeoned from 800,000 in the mid-1970s to 3.5 million in 2009 (British Council, 2012). The term ‘international education’ refers to a process that involves the promotion of international understanding, cooperation, and peace, which enable beneficiaries to think with an international or global perspective by linking them with different societies and belief systems, further promoting intercultural understanding and tolerance (Morentin de Goñi & Ignacio, 2004; Someshwar & Rusu, 2013; AIEC, 2015). Moreover, the term international student is used here to denote a student who pursues education entirely or partially in a foreign country and travels to that country for academic purposes (Choudaha, 2017). The phenomenon of international students has evolved into a quasi-hot global commodity in high demand (British Council, 2012). About 5.1 million internationally mobile students were registered in 2016 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2019). The increasing numbers of international students reshape global tertiary education, and the global platform for international students has become associated with fierce competition (British Council, 2011; Zheng, 2012; Balyasin et al, 2016).

Traditional destinations for studying abroad have been predominantly North America (the United States of America and Canada), Europe, and Australia (Lewin, 2009). However, in recent years other destinations have emerged with attractive offers that students find enticing. Emergent countries in Asia (including Japan, China, India, South Korea), South America (Brazil), and Africa (South Africa) have benefitted from the global education platform (British Council, 2012; Lane, 2015). Furthermore, several international educational programs have evolved that target the world’s youth who are future leaders of the world (Waite, 1922; Brooks, 2015). The Institute of International Education (IIE) was created to promote the USA as the pivot point of educational exchanges, which launched the Fulbright Scholarship Programme (Brooks, 2015). This mandate resonates similarly with other educational agencies that evolved about the same period, which sought to deepen scholarly cross-pollination and hence academic mobility across national frontiers (De Wit, 2002). These include Germany’s Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD), the United Kingdom’s Commonwealth Scholarship Programme, the European Union’s Erasmus Mundus programs, and similar programs offered by governments in Russia, Japan, China, India, Australia, and South Africa. Thus, aside from international trade and foreign direct investment (FDI), globalization enriches through international student mobility in higher education (Zammuto, 2008). These developments further shed light on the argument that, globally, governments and institutions of higher education have rolled out innovative measures to attract the brightest international students.

Gender preference informs the causes and consequences of movement as an individual’s gender can influence all phases of the migration experience. Gender impacts the reasons for migrating, who within a family migrates, the social networks migrants employ, migrants’ integration process and labor opportunities at the destination, as well as interactions with home nations (IOM, 2016). Hence, the expectations, relationships, and power dynamics associated with being male or female have the potential of considerably affecting all facets of the migration process. Consequently, individuals of different gender experience migration differently, with their own unique set of advantages and disadvantages (IOM, 2016). However, although education is largely regarded as a critical determinant of migration and a catalyst for socio-economic change (Williams, 2009), the pattern of academic migration along gender lines in prosperous and developed Europe is still unclear. This makes it imperative to draw further insights into the factors influencing students’ higher education movement in order to inform educational policy. Moreover, along with other socio-economic factors, gender preferences are essential in global student migration dynamics (IOM, 2016).

This study was initiated by a group of members of the Erasmus Mundus Association (EMA) Aisbl, Belgium, the authors of this paper, to gain insights on higher education in Europe (in general) and the Erasmus Mundus programs (in particular) (EMA, 2020). The Erasmus Mundus programs were chosen as an educational exchange program that involves academic mobility. This flagship program, sponsored by the European Union, is a cooperation and mobility program in the context of higher education. The program aims to improve the quality of European higher education and enhance dialogue, as well as mutual understanding across peoples and cultures embracing developed and developing nations. The Erasmus Mundus programs were launched in 2004 by the European Commission and ended in 2013. Since 2014, the program has been titled “Erasmus+” under a new EU initiative (Balyasin et al, 2016). More than 20,000 and 1,500 students have been awarded Masters and Doctoral degrees, respectively, from over 150 programs (EMA, 2020). In this study, 288 responses were collected through the Survey Monkey online platform from participants who were mostly studying in European universities through the Erasmus Mundus scholarship. The aim of the study was to learn about the potential influencing factors that should be taken into consideration for future improvement of Erasmus Mundus (Erasmus+) programs. Furthermore, the study obtained insights from participants who have had the experience of studying and living both in Europe and in other continents (through completing a Masters in Europe and a PhD on a different continent) and hence could make an informed comparison. The study outcomes are expected to serve as a guide for informing the development of international mobility programs such as Erasmus Mundus in the wider framework of international education.

The changing demands of students translate into the changing needs of these students. Hence it is necessary to gain insights into underlying influences so as to better tailor international education policies regarding programs such as Erasmus Mundus to the needs of prospective students, including enhancing their competitive edge. The nature of current programs can be modified on the basis of alumni input in order to better meet the needs of future students. We carried out the survey on which this study is based in order to better understand the push-pull factors that attract prospective students to Europe for higher education and, possibly also, careers.

A core aim of the study was to identify the reasons motivating students’ mobility to foreign countries, especially to Europe, as a destination for higher education. Choosing where to pursue higher education has always been a difficult decision based on many different factors which may vary from person to person and sometimes from country to country (Marginson, 2015). Students often prioritize their future prospects, conducive environment, and prevailing financial situation before contemplating moving to a particular institution or country. Other factors may also influence such a decision, including geographical location, languages, and culture (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Marginson, 2015). A number of theories have therefore been advanced to help capture and explain this dynamic scenario.

Theoretical Framework: Push-Pull Factors of International Mobility

Several factors come into play when international students contemplate the choice of host country for their studies. These factors can be classified into two main themes: push and pull factors. While economic and social forces within the home country may serve to “push” students abroad, the decision as to which host country to select is dependent on a variety of “pull” factors. The factors in a “push-pull” model motivate the student’s desire to seek overseas education and influence the decision process in the selection of a final study destination (Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002; Marginson, 2015).

Push factors relate to home country circumstances that motivate studying abroad, while pull factors connote the alluring conditions which cause a student to risk studying abroad. Consequently, a potential international student weighs the opportunities in the light of pull options compared to push options in deciding whether to sign on to international education. Such push factors include relative economic performance and the availability of scholarships; a friendly application framework such as visa and immigration issues; inadequate opportunities for education in home countries (McMahon, 1992), perceptions of foreign qualifications as prestigious; historical/colonial connections between host and home countries; and the anticipated benefits of studying abroad (Agarwal & Winkler, 1985). Furthermore, Mazzarol et al (1997) categorize the core pull factors into six main thematic areas, given as follows:

1. Knowledge and awareness: the availability and ease of accessing information concerning the study destination of interest as well as global repute of study destination as per the quality of its qualifications.

2. Recommendations or referral factor: the number of referrals (from parents, relatives, friends, inter alia) and quality appraisals that the study destination receives facilitates the process of choosing a study destination.

3. Cost factors: the decision to study abroad involves relocation costs, academic fees, subsistence costs, social costs inter alia.

4. Perception of the study destination’s environment as per its physical climate, lifestyle and culture, inter alia.

5. Geographic proximity regarding the relative closeness between the study destination of interest and the home country.

6. Social links: this refers to social capital as regards the student having relatives or friends in the study destination.

The interaction of these push/pull factors provides insights into the drivers of students’ decisions to study abroad or otherwise.

Enhancing The Push-Pull Theory: Continuation of Theory

The model shown in Figure 1 combines the principle behind the function of a pendulum as well as behind a standard traffic light. A simple pendulum involves a weight or mass (pendulum bob) suspended from a pivot so that it can swing about it freely, while the colour green signifies the free flow of traffic, yellow (or amber) suggests a preparatory phase, and red prohibits traffic movement.

Figure 1.

Push-Pull Pendulum.

We build on previous works in the context of push-pull factors to postulate that the decision to study abroad or otherwise can be interpreted in terms of a pendulum. The student can be considered the pendulum bob. Students assess the push-pull factors unique to their peculiar needs and environment, and if the anticipated benefits are found to be greater than the risks the students see international education as worthwhile and attractive. In this scenario the student sees the green light to pursue such educational goals as the results are projected to be positive. In the alternative scenario, if the anticipated benefits of studying abroad are seen as less than the option of studying in the home country, the student perceives the red light and hence aborts such ambitions to study abroad as the anticipated results are regarded as negative.

Challenges of The International Education Landscape

Despite the positive aspects of international education, there are many existing challenges. Moving to study in an overseas destination comes with socio-cultural, environmental, and psychological consequences, which may translate into stress in the form of loneliness, helplessness, and depression. Consequently, culture shock and adaptation challenges are encountered by international students as they interact with new social environments, needing fresh skills to successfully integrate or cope with the change this experience brings (Araiza & Kutugata, 2013). Moreover, in some contexts there has been immense scrutiny of, and fault-finding with, international students, especially after the 9/11 attack in the United States, as one of the suspects held a student visa (Hennessy, 2015). Others argue that international students are a negative influence on domestic students and worsen the brain drain phenomenon, as the cream of students remain in the host country after their studies, hence depriving their home countries of their skills and resources. There are also criticisms of international students for pursuing social benefits in host countries or stealing jobs of domestic graduates. Ultimately, internationalized higher education enhances a country’s socio-economic environment as well as boosting its cultural, political, and international relations (Marginson, 2010; Zheng, 2012). However, despite the socio-economic significance of international students, few studies have addressed international education in the context of globalization and the underlying motivations across gender (Marginson, 2010). This study helps bridge the gap and contributes to the debate on international mobility education. The research also samples the views of students from across the globe who have participated in a study abroad program with the European Union as the focus, hence providing a rich resource to contribute to the debate underpinning this area of research.

Methodology

The push-pull factors associated with choices in international higher education cannot be analysed without taking into account the individual perspectives of international students from different parts of the world who are already going/have already gone through this process. Thus our survey was designed to target mobile international students who have completed or are currently pursuing their graduate (Masters/PhD) studies in Europe. The survey consisted of 18 multiple-choice questions, and responses were collected through SurveyMonkey.com. The surveyed population had the following characteristics:

They were scholars of Erasmus Mundus Action 1 programs from various parts of the world.

They were a combination of Masters/PhD students and alumni.

Their career pathways were of three types: studied in Europe and (i) stayed back therein, (ii) moved back to their home country, (iii) moved to a different continent.

All had had mobility experiences in at least two universities in the European countries (due to the nature of the Erasmus Mundus program, where fellows must move to at least two universities within the consortium to gain their multiple/joint Masters/PhD degrees).

The survey was intended only for students of the Erasmus Mundus Action 1 program. What differentiates Action 1 from other Erasmus Mundus programs of mobility (eg EM Action 2 and 3) is the nature of mobility and the competition being restricted to a specific country or region. Erasmus Mundus Action 2 is a mobility program supported by the European Commission where a student spends a period between 3 months and 3 years in one European country as an exchange or full-time student. Unlike the call for Action 1, which is open to any prospective student from anywhere in the world, the Action 2 program is restricted to a specific country or region targeting different developing countries in different open calls. The Action 2 program mainly targeted the following countries/regions: India, ASEAN, Asia, European Neighbourhood countries such as Western Balkans, Turkey, and the Middle East. Within these specific windows, the total number of fellowships offered is subdivided into Targets 1, 2, and 3. Target 1 is for students/graduates of specific universities of these particular regions; Target 2 is open to all applicants from these specific regions, and Target 3 is for applicants in vulnerable conditions from these regions. Our survey targeted the students/graduates of Action 1 exclusively to ensure that all respondents:

a) were from a full-degree program (as opposed to an exchange/short-stay program)

b) had experience of studying in at least 2 universities of 2 European Countries (as opposed to a single university of one European country)

c) had received the fellowship by competing with other applicants in response to a call open to anyone from any corner of the world.

It was not difficult to identify the students/graduates of the Action 1 program, since only fellows of the Action 1 program are eligible to become members of the Erasmus Mundus Association (EMA), a non-profit association financed and supported by the Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture (DG EAC), under the auspices of the European Commission. The survey was distributed only to EMA Members.

Results

The 288 responses received were analysed to determine the characteristics of motivation for studying abroad. Outcomes are discussed in the following sections.

Prime Motivations for Studying in Europe

The availability of scholarship opportunity (75%), the better quality of education (68%), and availability of relevant study programs (55%) were found as the prime motivations to study in Europe. These factors were followed by cultural attraction, international economy and future job opportunities as well as a better lifestyle. Least motivating factors were found to be the commonality of language, suitable environment (eg climate, temperature), geographical proximity, the scope of migration, and social cost. Responses relating to the prime motivation for studying in Europe are summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Key factors that influence choice to study in Europe.

Choice Destinations for International Education in Europe

Generally, the first choice countries as study destinations in Europe favoured by respondents, as documented in Table 1, all perform highly on the HDI (McGillivray and White, 1993). This suggests that respondents see themselves as being better placed to realize their full potential and enjoy a better standard of living in these countries, compared to other destinations. This scenario is a pull factor that draws prospective students to the preferred study destinations. Aside from the healthy economy of these countries (Mazzarol et al, 1997; McMahon, 1992), their other positive attributes as per the HDI serve to pull students who choose such destinations over others as they perceive more of a green light than red (push-pull pendulum, see Figure 1). Study abroad fairs that target prospective students will, therefore, benefit from aligning the perceived socio-economic benefits or advantages of their study destination with their awareness activities.

Table 1.

Study Destination Preferences in Europe.

	First Choice (%)	Second Choice (%)
Germany	20.3	20.9
UK	18.0	10.5
Sweden	10.5	8.7
The Netherlands	7.6	12.2
Spain	7.0	6.4
France	6.4	5.8
Denmark	4.7	7.0
Norway	4.7	5.8
Belgium	3.5	6.4
Finland	2.9	1.2
Italy	2.9	2.9
Portugal	2.9	2.3
Czech Republic	2.3	2.3
Austria	1.2	2.3
Other European countries	5.2	5.2

The emergence of Germany as the most favoured destination (Table 1) supports the argument that a number of non-English speaking countries (including, in addition to Germany, South Korea, Russia, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, Brazil, Argentina and Chile) have developed their curricula to meet the needs of the international education market (Lane, 2015). In addition, the British Council (2012) acknowledges that the increase in postgraduate English-medium education in the Netherlands, Scandinavian and Baltic countries, Germany and France will result in high mobility to non-English speaking European countries. This factor suggests that these countries are successfully increasing their pull factors to become competitive study destinations, highlighting the need to increase awareness and a context-sensitive approach to improve the attractiveness of the study destinations, particularly the nations lagging behind in the international mobility education landscape. Moreover the UK, aside from competing with the United States, is now faced with intense rivalry from other English-speaking countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana, 2007; Zheng, 2012). Consequently, the UK’s market share of international students has seen a downward trend as it dwindled from 16% in 1998 to 13% in 2003, and nose-dived to 10% in 2009 (OECD, 2011; Zheng, 2012). Nonetheless, the UK is a major international education destination, which also benefits from the influx from its former colonies in a similar way to France and, to a lesser extent, the Netherlands. This is in sharp contrast to Germany and Sweden (Table 1).

These developments further shed light on the argument that, globally, governments and higher education institutions have rolled out innovative measures to attract the brightest international students (British Council, 2012; Brooks, 2015). As noted earlier, the Institute of International Education (IIE) was created to promote America as the pivot point of educational exchanges (Brooks, 2015), as expressed in the Fulbright Scholarship Programme, while parallel educational agencies developed in the same era aiming to enhance scholarly cross-pollination and thus academic mobility across national frontiers (De Wit, 2002), including initiatives in Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden and France – all of which have succeeded in making international students mostly see their countries through green lenses (Figure 1) when considering studying abroad compared to other EU countries. Furthermore, one can conjecture that the first five choice destination countries have comparatively higher referral factors than the other countries in the European Union (Mazzarol et al, 1997). The survey outcomes revealed that Germany (20.3%), United Kingdom (18.0%), Sweden (10.5%), Netherlands (7.6%), and Spain (7%) are the top five countries as the first destination for studying in Europe, as shown in Table 1. It can also be seen that these countries are dominant as the second choice study destination in Europe.

Gender and Study Destination Preference

To assess gender preferences for study destinations, respondents were asked to indicate their first and second choice of preferred option. The results are summarized in Table 2. For female students, first-choice destinations in descending order were UK (24%), Germany (16%), Netherlands (9%), France (8%), Sweden (6%), and Spain (6%). For male students, first choice destinations in descending order were Germany (25%), UK (15%), Netherlands (11%), Sweden (11%), and France (7%). The first choice countries were repeated in the second choice destination as Germany remained the favourite of males and the UK that of females with slight changes in order for the other countries. For female students, second choice destinations in descending order were UK (14%), Germany (13%), Netherlands (11%), Sweden (10%) and France (8%). For male students, the second choice destinations in descending order were Germany (22%), Netherlands (14%), UK (10%), Sweden (8%), Spain (8%) and France (7%).

Table 2.

Gender and Choice Study Destination.

Country	UK	Germany	Netherlands	France	Sweden	Other European countries
First destination choice
Females	24.0%	16.0%	9.0%	8.0%	6.0%	37.0%
Males	15.0%	25.0%	11.0%	7.0%	11.0%	31.0%
Second destination choice
Females	14.0%	13.0%	11.0%	8.0%	10.0%	44.0%
Males	10.0%	22.0%	14.0%	7.0%	8.0%	39.0%

Germany emerged as the favourite destination for males, perhaps due to the predominance of STEM discipline courses offered such as mathematics, natural sciences, computer sciences and technology. Female respondents may have been drawn to the UK due to its comparatively more gender-sensitive policies, greater incentives, family or social ties, better remuneration and higher career prospects coupled with the availability of traditional female occupations post-study where care work is predominant (Foster, 2014). Erasmus students often bemoan the rigid and long class hours in Germany, which may be more of a deterrent to females who may prefer programmes in arts, languages and humanities compared to males who tend to gravitate towards courses such as mathematics, engineering and sciences (Agbola et al, 2012; Sojkin et al, 2012).

This scenario also carries implications for the goal of increasing female participation in mathematics, natural sciences, computer sciences and technology programs. Policymakers will need to make more concerted efforts to increase the proportion of women in such fields in order to address this gender gap. This indicates the need to understand the factors that serve as significant push-pull triggers in light of gender in order to tailor interventions. These findings lend credence to the argument that the decision-making process for the choice of study destination and course is multifaceted and longitudinal, given that it is mediated by varying factors at different phases of the decision-making process (Sojkin et al, 2012).

Given that Germany and the UK were consistently preferred by males and females, respectively, with fluctuations in preferences for the other study destinations, discussions largely focus on these two destinations in terms of gender and choice of study destinations. In light of the results relating to motivations for choosing a particular country, one can say that males more readily find scholarships for the programmes they want to study in Germany, while females find more opportunities for funding in the UK for their chosen programmes: this is because the “opportunity for fully funded scholarship” was mentioned as the first reason for choosing a country (Figure 3). Secondly, given that the “possibility to live and study in Europe” was given as the second prime reason for choosing a country, one can conjecture that the UK and Germany in particular have unique appeal to males and females (see Figure 3). Subsequently, Germany and the UK have a relatively high referral factor (Mazzarol et al, 1997; Sojkin et al, 2012) among males and females, respectively, as study choice destinations in comparison to other countries in the European Union.

Figure 3.

Reasons behind choosing study destination.

Furthermore, we explored the issue of women in power (in general) and academic positions (in particular), given the notion that women in positions of responsibility may encourage others to live in such places. There was, however, no conclusive or direct relation in each case, but rather mixed results. Most recent data available at the time of our study suggested that in the UK, women made up 29% of Parliament and occupied 32% of Cabinet posts (Keen, 2015). Germany meanwhile had 36% of women representatives in parliament whilst Netherlands had 37%, Sweden had 44% and France 26% (World Bank, 2016). Germany thus had comparatively more women in positions of power compared to the UK, with its Chancellor (Angela Merkel) often voted as the most powerful woman on Earth (Forbes, 2015). Moreover, both Sweden and the Netherlands had higher numbers of women in power. The hypothesis that female students were choosing to study in the UK due to a high representation of women in power is therefore not supported by our study.

In addition, we explored the proportion of women in academia for both Germany and the UK. A study by the Times Higher Education Supplement which was published in a report (Staff in Higher Education 2013-14) showed that 45% of the UK’s academic staff were women (Grove, 2015). However, in the German academic system the proportion of female professors across every discipline was around 20% (IGAD, 2016). The comparatively low representation of females in academia has been noted by German authorities, which have introduced more than 1,000 measures and initiatives with the aim of encouraging women to be more interested in mathematics, computer science, natural sciences and technology, coupled with careers in science and technology (Spiegel, 2013). These measures have been reported to have achieved poor results, however, as the majority of women opt for office jobs or sales, educational positions or work within the service industry (Spiegel, 2013). This suggests the need for further research on the particular motivating factors for the different genders in order better to address this problem. Family ties, subjective norms, job opportunities/security, social image and perceived difficulty of curriculum mediate students’ choices through gendered lenses.

We, therefore, posit that preference along gender lines may not necessarily be related to academics (such as quality of teaching, organization of administrative tasks) but may be more related to the general experience of living in those places such as lifestyle, tolerance of society, respect for women and their opinions, sense of safety or security, and perceived friendliness or level of sociability (Peeters, 2007) of the study destination. Studies from Latin America have highlighted barriers such as “cost, negative past relationships and family ties” (Foster, 2014), supporting the argument that the sense of a secure or congenial atmosphere may be a deciding factor while choosing to study in the United Kingdom (Foster, 2014). This highlights the need to increase awareness and a context-sensitive approach to improve the attractiveness of study destinations, particularly those nations lagging behind in the international mobility education landscape.

What Students Find Appealing About Study Destination Countries

Participants were quizzed about what they found appealing about the specific countries they chose for their study abroad experience, with the top answers being opportunity for a “fully-funded scholarship”, “possibility to live and study”, and the “strong economy of the country” (see Figure 4). International education is also perceived as a function of international relations as it affords the opportunity to better understand the peculiar challenges and opportunities of other cultures and vice versa, resulting in an ‘international mind’ (Butler, 1907:80) and Brooks (2015). This concept has gained global currency with increasing globalization and global citizenship initiatives, and international education can therefore be regarded as a medium for soft diplomacy. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Butler was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1931) who served as head of international education and communication at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The positions of Germany, the UK, Netherlands, Sweden, and France suggest they have succeeded in terms of international relations to market their geopolitical ideals of a state globally (in general) and awareness of what constitutes a conducive study environment (in particular). This is in consonance with the argument of Gramsci (2000) that “every relationship of hegemony is necessarily an educational relationship” as educational spaces provide a nurturing ground to inform and influence the wider society. These countries, in return, benefit in a number of ways by virtue of hosting international students.

Studies by the British Council indicate that 80% of a country’s research impact is due to its levels of research collaboration (British Council, 2012). Furthermore, their study highlighted the fact that Nobel prizes have, over the years, been significantly won by researchers working in a country other than their home nations (Li et al, 2019): for instance, more than 60% of Nobel Laureates in 2010 and 2011 studied or carried out research abroad (British Council, 2012). Moreover, the most highly cited research articles are traced to researchers who have experienced an international education; a positive relationship has also been found between the extent of international research collaboration and citations per document (Inhaber & Przednowek, 1976; Li et al, 2019). Furthermore, international collaboration at the institutional level results in excellence and quality which can enhance commercial activities and consequently boost future economic growth potential (Inhaber & Przednowek, 1976; Li et al, 2019). Such students are also argued to internationalise the academic ambiance and campus life of an institution as they provide a window into other cultures, thus affording alternative perspectives to the overall student experience. Moreover, peer to peer education complements traditional academic instruction (Brooks, 2015). The presence of a myriad of ideas and experiences stimulates innovation. Hence, domestic students stand to benefit from a stimulating multicultural academic environment, which helps in overcoming stereotypes as well as encourage open debate on otherwise "taboo" topics (Brooks, 2015). Such invaluable contributions, inter alia, have made international students attractive. Hence, several international educational programs have evolved over the years which target the world’s youth as future leaders of the world (Waite, 1922; Brooks, 2015). Study outcomes emphasize the need for educational institutions to introduce measures that will promote their campuses as preferred study destinations, considering gender and study options. In addition, policymakers need to become more knowledgeable about the dynamics of higher education.

Figure 4.

What students find attractive about their European study destinations.

Conclusion

Education is regarded as a cornerstone of meaningful social progress, hence its prominent feature in both the erstwhile Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the current Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Moreover, education is progressively regarded by governments as a vital contributor to national wealth and economic development. The burgeoning competitiveness in international education has necessitated regular enhancement of countries’ quality assurance standards and international dimensions of their education systems. To sustain international relevance and competitiveness, developing teaching and research to meet the global market has become an essential goal of several countries and associated higher education institutions. Consequently, international education has become popular in contemporary times as mobile students choose one study destination over another due to perceived benefits related to push-pull factors. Our study suggests that motivations for studying in Europe include incentives such as opportunities for scholarships (75%), better quality of education (68%), and availability of relevant study programs (55%). Other associated motivations relate to cultural attraction; international economy and future job opportunities, as well as better lifestyle. Least motivating factors were perceived to be the commonality of language; conducive or sustainable environment (climate, temperature); geographical proximity; scope of migration, and social cost. Countries perceived by respondents as most positive in terms of prospects for international students, and hence being the study choice destinations in Europe, were Germany (20.3%), United Kingdom (18.0%), Sweden (10.5%), Netherlands (7.6%), and Spain (7%). Our study, in addition to highlighting the critical motivations for studying in Europe, also portrays the gender elements in choice of study destinations. Germany is the most favoured destination for males, perhaps linked to the predominance of STEM discipline courses such as mathematics, natural sciences, computer sciences and technology. Female students meanwhile prefer the UK as a study destination, linked perhaps to its relatively more friendly gender-sensitive policies, higher incentives, family or social ties, better remuneration, and more top prospects coupled with the availability of traditional female occupations where care work is predominant. This highlights the need to increase awareness and a context-sensitive approach to improving the attractiveness of study destinations, particularly for those nations lagging in the international mobility education landscape. In addition, policymakers need to become more knowledgeable about the dynamics of higher education. Our study further builds on previous works relating to the push-pull theory to postulate the push-pull pendulum for international education in demonstrating the decision-making process in the context of students choosing to pursue this form of education or otherwise.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are immensely thankful to Erasmus Mundus Association (EMA) Aisbl, Belgium for the distribution of the survey questionnaire to its members and subscribers from over 130 countries across the world. They are equally thankful to the European Commission which invited all the authors to its headquarters in Brussels during the Liaison Group Meetings of EMA to discuss potential challenges, opportunities and strategies to improve the quality of Higher Education in Europe.

Conflicts of Interest

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors in their individual capacity. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the organization and/or institution with which they are affiliated.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Felix Kwabena Donkor is a post-doctoral research fellow at the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (CAES), of the University of South Africa (UNISA). He is an alumnus of the Erasmus Mundus Joint European Masters in Environmental Sciences (JEMES) programme and served in several leadership positions in the Erasmus Mundus Students and Alumni (EMA), the Erasmus+ Student and Alumni Alliance, and the African Students and Alumni Forum (ASAF).

Ram Krishna Mazumder is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Earthquake Engineering Research, Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh, currently pursuing a PhD in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, USA. He is an Erasmus Mundus Fellow and an active member of the Erasmus Mundus Association, where he has served in various leadership roles, including as President of the EMA South Asian Chapter.

Saeed Hosseinzadeh is a Geotechnical and Vibration Specialist at Arcadis, the Netherlands. He holds a double Masters degree in Applied Earth Sciences (Delft University of Technology) and Minerals Resource Management (University of Exeter), specialising in Geotechnical Engineering. He is an alumnus of the Erasmus Mundus scholarship programme, and has served as the core Executive Board member of the Erasmus Mundus Association.

Someshwar Roy is Director of Product and User-Experience at Connect-In Ltd, UK for their flagship product, Xupo. He is a user-centered product and experience designer by training with a PhD in Interaction Design and a data-driven innovation strategist by passion with an MBA in Innovation Management. Previously he was a Research Scientist in the Next Billion Users (NBU) team at Google Inc that worked on redesigning and improving the User-Experience (UX) of three key products with over a billion users: Google Search, Google Assistant and Google Home. His academic career spanned six countries as an Erasmus Mundus and Marie Curie Fellow. During this period he has also served as the Executive Board Member of two EU non-profit organizations working as a policy think-tank for the European Commission in the field of Higher Education, Innovation and International Relations.

References

Agarwal

Winkler

(1985) Foreign demand for United States higher education: A study of developing countries in the eastern hemisphere. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33(3): 623–644.

AIEC (2015) What is ‘international education’? Available at: https://aiec.idp.com/intled (accessed 1 December 2019).

Araizaa

Kutugatabk

(2013) Understanding stress in international students of higher education in a Mexican private university. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 106: 3184–3194.

Balyasin

Carvalho

Mihut

(2016) Student experience: A new approach to evaluating the quality of Erasmus Mundus joint master degrees through survey research. Educational Studies. Moscow 2016(1): 110–134.

British Council (2011) New international student trend presents fresh challenges for universities. Available at: http://www.britishcouncil.org/organisation/press/new-internationalstudent-trend-presents-fresh-challenges (accessed 1 April 2015).

British Council (2012) The Shape of Things to Come: Higher Education Global Trends and Emerging Opportunities to 2020. London: British Council.

Brooks

(2015) The apostle of internationalism: Stephen Duggan and the geopolitics of international education. Political Geography 49: 64–73.

Butler

(1907) True and false democracy. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Choudaha

(2017) Three waves of international student mobility (1999–2020). Studies in Higher Education 42(5): 825–832.

10.

De Wit

(2002) Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A historical, comparative, and conceptual analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

11.

Department for Education and Skills (2007) Gender and education: The evidence on pupils in England. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/6616 (accessed 1 September 2016).

12.

EACEA (2015) About Erasmus Mundus 2009–2013. Available at: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/erasmus_mundus/programme/about_erasmus_mundus_en.php (accessed 1 September 2016).

13.

EMA (2020) Erasmus Mundus Association. Available at: https://www.em-a.eu/en/erasmus-mundus.html (accessed 9 April 2020).

14.

Forbes (2015) The World’s Most Powerful Women 2015. Available at: http://www.forbes.com (accessed 15 August 2016).

15.

Foster

(2014) Student destination choices in higher education: Exploring attitudes of Brazilian students to study in the United Kingdom. Journal of Research in International Education 13(2): 149–162.

16.

Gramsci

(2000) Language, languages, common sense. In Forgacs

(ed.) The Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings, 1916–1935. New York, pp 348–351.

17.

Grove

(2015, February 28) Proportion of female professors up, but still below a quarter. Times Higher Education. Available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/why-are-there-so-few-female-vice-chancellors/2006576.article

18.

Hemsley-Brown

Goonawardana

(2007) Brand harmonization in the international higher education market. Journal of Business Research 60(9): 942–948.

19.

Hennessy

(2015) Why Foreign Students Are So Important, Security is crucial, but we must also be welcoming. Available at: https://alumni.stanford.edu (accessed 15 November 2015).

20.

IGAD (2016) Female Professors Program of the Federal Government and the States. Available at: http://www.igad.rwthaachen.de/cms/IGAD (accessed 9 January 2016).

21.

Inhaber

Przednowek

(1976) Quality of research and the Nobel prizes. Social Studies of Science 6(1): 33–50.

22.

IOM (2016) Gender and Migration-Overview. Available at: https://www.iom.int/gender-and-migration (accessed 12 January 2016).

23.

Keen

(2015) Women in Parliament and Government Briefing Paper Number SN01250. Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk (accessed 9 November 2015).

24.

Lane

(2015) US losing its dominance in global higher education market. Available at: http://theconversation.com/ (accessed 9 November 2015).

25.

Lewin

(ed.) (2010) The handbook of practice and research in study abroad: Higher education and the quest for global citizenship. Abingdon: Routledge.

26.

Yin

Fortunato

, et al. (2019) A dataset of publication records for Nobel laureates. Scientific Data 6(1): 1–10.

27.

Lomazzi

Borisch

Laaser

(2014) The Millennium Development Goals: Experiences, achievements and what’s next. Global Health Action 7(1): 23695.

28.

Lunnemann

Jensen

Jauffred

(2019) Gender bias in Nobel prizes. Palgrave Communications 5(1): 1–4.

29.

Mallapaty

(2018) The Nobel gender gap is worse than you think. Available at: https://www.natureindex.com/ (accessed 9 November 2015).

30.

Malyan

Jindal

(2014) Capacity building in education sector: An exploratory study on Indian and African relations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 157: 296–306.

31.

Marginson

(2010) Higher education in the global knowledge economy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2(5): 6962–6980.

32.

Marginson

(2014) Globalization, knowledge and competition in higher education, Center for the Study of Higher Education. Available at: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au (accessed 21 December 2014).

33.

Mazzarol

Soutar

(2002) “Push-pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management 16(2): 82–90.

34.

Mazzarol

Savery

Kemp

(eds) (1996) International students who choose not to study in Australia: An examination of Taiwan and Indonesia. AEIF Policy, Research and Analysis Section.

35.

McGillivray

White

(1993) Measuring development? The UNDP’s human development index. Journal of International Development 5(2): 183–192.

36.

McMahon

(1992) Higher education in a world market. Higher Education 24(4): 465–482.

37.

Morentin

Goñi

Ignacio

(2004) What is International Education? UNESCO Answers. Spain: Centro UNESCO de San Sebastián.

38.

OECD (2011) Education at a glance 2011: Highlights OECD Paris. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/edu/ (accessed 12 January 2016).

39.

Peeters

(2007) Including men in early childhood education: Insights from the European experience. New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education 10: 15–14.

40.

Someshwar

Rusu

(2013) Beyond Borders. EMAnate 10: 8–10.

41.

Sojkin

Bartkowiak

Skuza

(2012) Determinants of higher education choices and student satisfaction: The case of Poland. Higher Education 63(5): 565–581.

42.

Spiegel Online (2013) Lab Equality: Sciences Struggle to Attract Young Women. Available at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/ (accessed 18 January 2016).

43.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2019) Inbound internationally mobile students by continent of origin. Available at: http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=169 (accessed 17 January 2016).

44.

United Nations (2015) Putting education first key to unlocking progress across new UN development agenda. Available at: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (accessed 19 February 2016).

45.

Waite

(1922) Notes and news on international educational affairs. The Journal of International Relations 12(4): 558–569.

46.

Williams

(2009) Education, gender, and migration in the context of social change. Social Science Research 38(4): 883–896.

47.

World Bank (2016) Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%). Available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ (accessed 9 January 2016).

48.

Zammuto

(2008) Accreditation and the globalization of business. Academy of Management Learning & Education 7(2): 256–268.

49.

Zheng

(2014) Antecedents to international student inflows to UK higher education: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research 67(2): 136–143.