Global Migration and Social Protection Rights - Melbourne CSHE

A RT I C L E

Global Migration and Social Protection Rights

gsp

329

The Social and Economic Security of Cross-Border Students in Australia

A N A D E U M E R T, S I M O N M A R G I N S O N , C H R I S N Y L A N D , G A B Y R A M I A A N D E R L E N AWAT I S AW I R Monash University, Australia

a b s t r a c t A growing number of students cross national borders for their studies. An expanding global market in higher education has been created. Yet significant gaps exist in the governance of international students’ rights. As well as being educational service beneficiaries, cross-border students are migrants, workers, consumers and human beings. A broader view of students, as individuals deserving of ‘social and economic security’, is superior to that which treats them as social protection subjects. Recognizing this multiple status, and utilizing in-depth data from 200 interviews with international students in Australia, the article finds that the existing social protection regime falls significantly short of recognizing students’ rights. Problems are located in relation to language acquisition, social integration, finances, work and personal safety. The article argues that, as well as law and policy, a student security regime should incorporate better university practices and more integrated civil society networks and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and intergovernmental organization (IGO) coverage. k e y wo r d s foreign students, global education markets, migration, social protection, student security, temporary

Global Social Policy Copyright © 2005 1468-0181 vol. 5(3): 329–352; 057415 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, ca and New Delhi) DOI: 10.1177/1468018105057415

330

Global Social Policy 5(3)

Introduction Since the late 1980s the international higher education market has been expanding vigorously, with many universities becoming highly dependent on cross-border students for revenues. Between 1990 and 2001, the number of cross-border students studying in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations increased from 1.01m to 1.58m. At the end of this period cross-border students comprised 5.3% of all OECD tertiary enrolments (OECD, 2004a: 314–16). Despite this growth, the social governance of international education remains in a state of flux and existing formal social protection instruments fall significantly short of providing adequate coverage. Major gaps exist in the administration of cross-border students’ rights, with a notable lack of coordination between the various host country rights-enforcement agencies and among institutions at the global, regional and national levels. This lack of coordination results in the failure of social and economic institutions to recognize the multiple vulnerabilities of international students, constructing them mainly as consumers rather than individuals with a variety of social and economic rights. Stemming from the significant tuition and other fees students must pay for their education, those who cross borders are indeed consumers, but their position is complicated by their status simultaneously as migrants and human beings, and often as workers given that many need to supplement their incomes to support themselves. Recognizing students’ multiple rights-bearer status, this article utilizes data from 200 in-depth interviews with international students studying in Australia, the world’s third largest exporter of cross-border education services after the USA and the UK (Mazzarol et al., 2001; OECD, 2003). Though the data provide information on a variety of issues, they draw particular attention to problems relating to language acquisition and proficiency, social isolation and loneliness, inadequate finances and incomes, labour market and workplace discrimination, and experiences in relation to personal safety. Given that traditional understandings of the concept of social protection do not delve into some of these dimensions of disadvantage, the article argues that students are deserving of ‘social and economic security’ rather than mere protection; thus combining protection, which is formal, with less formal practices from universities and the civil society sector. A student security regime includes not merely the laws attached to welfare states and other protective programmes, but also recognition of social and economic rights channelled through the formal and ad hoc practices of host universities and colleges, and civil society networks and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and it begins to contemplate more direct roles for intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The first section of the article outlines the main indicators of growth in

Deumert et al.: Global Migration and Social Protection Rights

international education as a market. The second section reviews the common understanding of social protection at the global and national levels, noting the need for a broader perspective utilizing social and economic security. The third section outlines the article’s methodology and provides a first analysis of the main findings from the in-depth student interviews. The fourth and final section discusses the main implications of the analysis for social protection and education studies in the field of global social policy.

International Education and the Cross-Border Student Market Cross-border students are students who cross national borders to acquire an education, by studying outside their own country or accessing distance education programmes or branch campuses in their own nation provided by institutions from other nations. The most common form of cross-border education consists of students moving from emerging and developing nations to the nations in the OECD group, which educate 94% of all cross-border students. There is also significant student movement between OECD nations, especially within Western Europe, and into the USA, which is the primary global demand magnet (Marginson and McBurnie, 2004). Border crossing for study constitutes a form of temporary migration, and most nations of study provide student visas. Cross-border study often leads into other forms of migration, including temporary migration for work, and permanent residence (OECD, 2002a). The English-speaking nations, which together attract 55% of cross-border students and 73% of those from Asia (OECD, 2004a: 211), use preferential immigration policies to encourage cross-border graduates to migrate. Since the end of the 1980s the scale of the growth in the market has been significant; as noted, by 2001 cross-border students comprised 5.3% of all OECD tertiary enrolments. There was considerable variation by country, however, the percentage of enrolment being 17.0% in Switzerland, 13.9% in Australia, 10.9% in the UK, 3.5% in the USA, and just 0.1% in Korea (OECD, 2004a: 314–16). The growing demand for cross-border education is fed by the enhanced opportunities and status advantages at home and abroad that cross-border education creates (Marginson, forthcoming), especially in mobile occupations such as business, information and communications technologies (ICTs) and scientific research. It is enhanced also by the global utility of the English language skills acquired by living and studying in English-speaking nations, and by desires for migration. Reputable crossborder education confers some advantages whether local tertiary provision is adequate or not, but cross-border study has also been encouraged by inadequacies in the quantity and quality of tertiary education where the growth of the middle classes in expanding economies has outpaced educational

331

332

Global Social Policy 5(3) t a b l e 1 Principal exporters and importers of tertiary education, 2001 Cross-border students

Cross-border students

OECD* Proportion of all Nations importing export nations Number students (%) from OECD* Number USA UK Germany France Australia Japan Canada Spain Belgium Austria

475,169 225,722 199,132 147,402 110,789 63,637 40,667 39,944 38,150 31,682

3.5 10.9 9.6 7.3 13.9 1.6 4.6 2.2 10.6 12.0

China Korea India Greece Japan Germany France Turkey Morocco Italy

124,000 70,523 61,179 55,074 55,041 54,489 47,587 44,204 43,063 41,485

Proportion of all students (%) 1.0 2.3 0.7 11.5 1.4 2.6 2.3 2.8 n/a 2.3

Note: * 93.5% of all tertiary education exports were from OECD nations. Source: OECD, 2004b: 210, 314.

provision, notably in China, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Marginson and McBurnie, 2004). The main importer and exporter nations are summarized in Table 1. Crossborder education is largely self-financed (OECD, 2004a), and on the demand side is readily understood as a global market where students and their families choose between provider nations and institutions. On the supply side, arrangements vary, from free tuition for cross-border students in certain European universities, for example in Germany, to the commercial market in much of the English-speaking world and in English-language programmes in Europe, Malaysia and Singapore. Cross-border education in Europe often takes the form of short-term student exchange, with foreign study frequently included in degrees. In the USA, which caters for almost one third of cross-border students worldwide, arrangements vary. Whereas 69.7% of cross-border students are financed by self and family, 23.4% are largely supported by the American college or university; including 40.4% of graduate students (Institute for International Education [IIE], 2004), who are crucial to research support and also provide teaching. Cross-border education is otherwise marginal to doctoral universities, where it is treated as a branch of foreign aid and cultural exchange, but can be a vital revenue source in two-year and four-year institutions where it is provided commercially. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, cross-border students pay full-price tuition fees and cross-border education is an expansionary commercial business, a principal source of institutional revenues and a growing part of national exports. Commercial foreign education is currently growing more rapidly than subsidized places.


Several factors affect student choice of destination, including price and living costs, travel distance, student security, language, degree quality, graduate opportunities and migration potential. Research on student choice suggests that apart from the world market in elite universities such as Harvard, Stanford and Oxford (Marginson, forthcoming), ‘national brand’ carries more weight than ‘institutional brand’. Universities in the USA and UK enjoy the most prestige, and those nations also provide favourable career opportunities. These markets are therefore the most preferred destinations, especially the USA (Mazzarol et al., 2001), though the US dollar and sterling appreciated in the 1990s, forcing many students elsewhere. Australia is placed third, after these two (Mazzarol et al., 2001; OECD, 2003), having benefited from the currency movements. As discussed further on in the article, national choice, and to some extent institution choice, is also affected by students’ sense of their overall security in the host country and in the sub-national region in which they reside. It is to the relationship between security and social protection that the analysis now turns.

Student Rights, Security and Social Protection: Institutions and Interpretation Cross-border students are a significant population, not only commercially but also as social protection subjects. Accordingly, there is an imperative for scholarly writing on student rights to be trans-disciplinary. Yet research on cross-border students has been driven narrowly by existing policy and business agendas, and for the most part it shares their limitations. A comprehensive bibliography of Australian research and scholarship on international education (Harman, 2003) shows that investigations of student rights are largely confined to discrete aspects of student welfare and pastoral care. Where the international business literature focuses on cross-border education it is concerned with marketing strategies and the economic factors determining student choice, often exploring the strategies which nation states, regional governments and universities utilize to expand market share, and the potential of global regulatory instrumentalities to become involved through inclusion in trade agreements (e.g. Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Mazzarol et al., 2001). There is an active discussion about the WTO/General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations on trade liberalization and the consequences for national educational provision (e.g. OECD, 2004a; Ziguras and McBurnie, 2004). But cross-border trade negotiations and the supporting policy discussion do not encompass the needs of students, and in all neither the business studies nor educational literatures have framed student rights holistically or mapped the global regulatory environment as it affects education. A significant role for traditional social policy and global social policy analysis is called for. Yet cross-border students’ rights are not featured

333

334


prominently in either of these domains. Work on the national dimension is particularly deficient when it is considered that, in their home nations students normally enjoy the rights attached to social citizenship as conceived by Marshall (1950). The detail of these rights may be contested, for example in relation to welfare entitlements, but the framework of citizen rights is still largely taken for granted. When people move from the nation of citizenship to nations where they enjoy few social citizenship rights, however, migrants permanent or temporary are in jeopardy. (Refugees lack rights in the nation of origin, but share with other migrants a less than citizen status in the nation of destination.) Non-citizens typically enjoy less access to government services, may be restricted as economic agents – for example in opening bank accounts, securing loans or owning property – and they may have less opportunity for redress in relation to maltreatment and injury. Temporary migrants typically form lower substrata of the workforce, they are paid less than citizens and are more likely to be subject to discriminatory or exploitative work practices. Global institutions also leave gaps. As discussed, in trade instruments student rights are absent. The ILO and the International Social Security Association (ISSA) include migration within their concerns in relation to labour rights and social security coverage respectively, and the United Nations (UN) has the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ILO, 2004; Paparella, 2004). However, these exclude students from their conception of migrants. Though the OECD’s research agenda encompasses cross-border students this is limited to questions of labour mobility, national capacitybuilding, ‘brain drain’ and ‘brain circulation’ (e.g. OECD, 2002a,b). Global social policy scholarship has yet to meet the challenge presented by this omission. The field of social policy still responds mainly to the operation of national institutions and national phenomena; stemming as inherently these do from the nation-state basis of welfare regimes (Mishra, 1995; Ramia, 2003: 81–5). This is despite the now well-established premise that the supranational and global institutions of social governance are evermore important in driving social policy analysis (Deacon et al., 1997; Yeates, 2001). It is also partly to be expected given that social policy’s heritage lies in a focus on recognition of and interplay between formal social protection institutions. This dates back to the earliest works constituting the roots of the social policy field (Polanyi, 1944; Webb and Webb, 1911) and those works that became key texts after the institutionalization of the welfare state in the 1950s (Titmuss, 1958, 1974). The dearth of writing on cross-border students in the global social policy literature also stems from a general shortage of systematic analysis of the integration between formal welfare institutions and less formal ones. The latter encompass the complex of global, supranational and national civil society networks and NGOs (e.g. Anheier et al., 2005). As demonstrated in


the remainder of the article, theorization of this lacuna may provide many of the keys to understanding international students’ perceptions of their security and protection. Such understanding may feed into more streamlined administration, policy and governance. This latter endeavour is far from simple, however, given that cross-border students are migrants, which as this volume highlights is a group too rarely the subject of formal social protection mechanisms, let alone informal ones. It is to a discussion of the mix between formal and informal in the regulation of international students’ experiences that the article turns, with a focus on the Australian context.

The Australian Study T H E E D U C AT I O N E X P O RT M A R K E T I N A U S T R A L I A

According to Australian government data, between 1990 and 2003 the number of cross-border students enrolled in Australian higher education institutions, nearly all in doctoral universities, jumped from 24,998 to 210,397. (This constituted more than 10% of the global market.)1 In total 154,578 were on-shore in Australia and 55,819 accessed branch campuses of Australian universities in importing nations or distance education programmes. Nearly all were enrolled at Bachelor or Masters levels with just 3.7% in research degrees, considerably less than in the USA and UK. Cross-border students constituted 22.6% of all students in Australian higher education in 2003.2 More than one third (14) of Australian universities enrolled over 6000 cross-border students (Department of Education, Science and Training [DEST], 2004). One consequence is that Australian higher education is now highly dependant on cross-border student fees, which provided 14.4% of revenues in 2003 (DEST, 2004). In some institutions, there is a much higher level of exposure. The foreign education market in Australia is highly commercialized, with less than 2% of cross-border students receiving official scholarships (DEST, 2004). Universities themselves determine tuition charges and cross-border student numbers, though government immigration policy controls the student visas issued to each importing nation. The growth of the market is driven partly by reductions in federal government funding per student (Marginson and Considine, 2000), which declined by 30% between 1995 and 2000, the largest such decline in the OECD. (There was a 17% decline in the UK; see OECD, 2004a: 255.) Revenues from cross-border students have come to function as a partial substitute for taxpayer funding of teaching and research. However, cross-border students also generate additional costs in marketing, recruitment, student servicing and other areas, and not all universities generate a surplus. Nevertheless, income from cross-border students has moved from being marginal to government funding, to a substitute and an essential component of the core costs of Australian universities.

335

336

Global Social Policy 5(3) METHODOLOGY AND COVERAGE

The problems faced by international students were investigated through 202 intensive semi-structured interviews at nine Australian institutions: the Universities of Ballarat, Melbourne, New South Wales, Sydney, and Central Queensland, Deakin, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), Swinburne and Victoria Universities. In terms of quantitative scope the study is somewhat smaller than the recent study of experiences of cross-border students in New Zealand (Ward and Masgoret, 2004), which included 535 cross-border students at tertiary institutions. However, whereas the New Zealand study used a written questionnaire to elicit ‘yes-no’ data from students, the study reported here is firmly grounded in a qualitative research paradigm and data was obtained through face-to-face, in-depth interviews. These gave participants an opportunity to expand and elaborate on topics and problems that were important to their student experience. The interview programme commenced in August 2003 and was completed in early 2005. Semi-structured interviews were of 30–60 minutes duration and conducted with cross-border students in at least their second semester of study. In most institutions interviews were arranged by staff in charge of international students. The staff contacted students and organized the time and venue for the interview. At one of the institutions all international students were contacted by email and students who were interested in participating contacted the interview coordinator. In addition, snowball sampling was used once initial contacts had been established. The interviewer was a former international student herself, which helped to create trust and empathy within the interview situation, and to elicit information on sensitive topics. The sample broadly resembles the demography of the total cross-border student population in Australia, except that older and postgraduate students were somewhat over-represented: 53% of interviewees were older than 25 years. The sample was balanced with respect to gender: 51% were female and 49% male (compared to 48% female, 52% male among all cross-border students; DEST, 2004). The interviewees included 74 (37%) at Bachelor level, 82 (41%) at Masters level and 46 (23%) in PhD programmes, compared to 57% at Bachelor level, 29% at Masters level and 3% in doctoral programmes in the total population of cross-border students. In terms of fields of study, the largest group was from Business, Management, Administration and Economics (henceforth ‘Business’) with 67 (33%), followed by Society and Culture (12%) and IT (11%). This compared to 45% Business, 8% Society and Culture and 15% IT among all cross-border students (DEST, 2004). Like Arts, Science and Education students were also somewhat over-represented in the interview group. Engineering and Health students were represented in proportions similar to those in the overall cross-border student population. The 202 students came from 36 different nations with 86% from East, South East or South Asia, a meta-region that constituted 85% of the overall

Deumert et al.: Global Migration and Social Protection Rights t a b l e 2 Nation of origin of cross-border students interviewed Nation of origin

Number interviewed

Indonesia 49 China 28 India 21 Other South Asia 19 (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal) Malaysia 18 Singapore 12 Other East Asia 9 Middle East/ 8 North Africa Other Africa 7 Europe 8 Other South East Asia 6 and Pacific Laos, Cambodia & 6 Vietnam Canada, USA 3 Hong Kong 5 Latin America 3 Total 202

Percentage of total interviewees

Percentage of cross-border students (2003)

24.3 13.9 10.4 9.4

5.6 12.8 5.3 4.5

8.9 5.9 4.5 4.0

13.0 14.2 5.8 2.1

3.5 4.0 3.0

2.7 5.3 5.0

3.0

1.7

1.5 2.5 1.5 100.0

6.9 13.9 1.0 100.0

cross-border student population in 2003. Compared to the total cross-border student population in Australia, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan were over-represented and Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and the USA underrepresented in the sample (Table 2). HEARING THE STUDENT VOICE: RESEARCH FINDINGS

Interviewees were asked a wide range of questions covering the social and economic experience of crossing borders for their studies. More specifically, responses provided insights into their knowledge of Australia before their arrival, their living and financial arrangements in Australia, problems in relation to academic English, their access to support networks, work arrangements, loneliness and isolation, instances of discrimination and personal safety. In the following overview of salient aspects of the data we provide a summary discussion of selected findings concerning the following themes: language, loneliness/isolation, work and money issues, discrimination and personal safety. (The data set is rich, particularly in relation to individual stories, and these issues and other aspects will be expanded upon in subsequent articles.) The focus will be on the qualitative nature of the data and the students’ voices, with no attempt to be representative of the entire crossborder student population.

337

338


Language Issues: ‘I Think it is my Biggest Problem Here’ That limited proficiency in the language of instruction (and of the wider community) can create problems for students has long been recognized and a vast industry has emerged to address this issue, ranging from testing to bridging courses and foundation courses, support services and language centres. However, despite such wide-ranging efforts cross-border students experience ‘on-going problems at Australian universities because of inadequate or inappropriate oral, reading and writing communication skills’, and researchers have argued that considerably more and better assistance is necessary to address these problems (Pearson and Beasley, 1996). In the interviews students were asked ‘Does English create difficulties for you in your academic work?’ One third of the student sample replied ‘yes’ (n = 60). Not surprisingly, there were major variations by national origin. Only a few students from South Asia, where English is well established in the education system and often serves as a lingua franca, experienced problems. However, 19 of the 28 students from China reported serious language problems; and there were also higher than average response rates among students from other East Asian and South East Asian nations including Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Thailand. Interestingly spoken language communication was more difficult for many students than written communication, which generally allows for more planning and preparation. This is exemplified in comments from a Taiwanese student: I don’t know about the other students but for me I always think in Chinese first, in Mandarin, and then translate it into English. There is a delay in time . . . I don’t know, that is very difficult for us to write essays in English, because you can find a lot of resources and you can refer to the resources and then you can write in the academic format. I think my difficulty is just oral communication, daily language. (Female student, 29, Masters, Sydney, from Taiwan)

Among the ‘resources’ available to students for writing are language and learning services at various Australian institutions as well as tutors and graduate supervisors, who often provide extensive editorial assistance to international students. However, while support from supervisors was highly valued, language and learning services were often seen as providing only insufficient assistance given the extensive and complex language needs of Australia’s diverse cross-border student population (see also Lee and Salamon, 2004). (I = Interviewer, S = Student, female, 29, Masters, Sydney, from China). I: What about in writing . . . Do you need someone to assist you in your use of English in your written work? S: Yes, I do, but . . . SUPRA [Sydney University Postgraduate Association] . . . they offer somewhere to . . . they have some language experts, they can do proofreading for international students. I know the service, but I didn’t use it because it charges

Deumert et al.: Global Migration and Social Protection Rights some money. We should pay, depends who, how much . . . some PhD they charge lower price, some they charge higher price. No, it’s not SUPRA, it’s some other organizations. They like students association but only for post-graduate students. I: Do they have Language and Learning Services? S: Yes, they have. I go to there . . . yes, it’s free. But they ask general knowledge, not really help in details like SUPRA offers, but this service you have to pay something.

Language is not only a serious issue within the academic institution that the student attends, but also in everyday encounters with Australian society. Lack of linguistic fluency in English makes it difficult for students to establish friendship networks with domestic students and contributes to the formation of ethnically exclusive networks among the cross-border student population. Limited language proficiency can also limit access to those social protection services that are, in principle, available to cross-border students, but that are provided exclusively through the medium of English. The quoted student from China, for example, arrived in Australia in 2001 and struggled initially to obtain medical attention, not for lack of availability of medical services or helpfulness from the institution, but as she commented: ‘for language problem’, i.e. she simply could not follow verbal instructions of where to go and how to obtain help. Loneliness and Isolation: ‘I’ll Cry and Cry on the Phone’ One hundred and twenty-one (or 60% of) students expressed feelings of loneliness and isolation. The reflections of a 22-year-old Zimbabwean Masters student (provincial city) were emblematic. I:

Have you experienced periods of loneliness or isolation while in Australia?

S: Yes, yes, oh, especially right at the beginning when I first got here. I didn’t have anyone to talk to, that was the thing. Initially I came all by myself, so exactly who to approach, who to talk to, I had no clue. I used to be on the phone everyday with my Dad ‘I wanna go home’. It’s like every single day, I’ll cry and cry on the phone . . . there was a lot of loneliness.

Older students, students from smaller national groupings and students in regional cities in particular shared their experiences of loneliness and/or isolation. Among the larger national groupings, students from Indonesia frequently gave strong reactions to questions. Isolation was felt in institutional situations, as well as in students’ personal lives. In addition, the experience of being a temporary migrant set cross-border students apart form the local student cohort and created severe feelings of stress and alienation. I:

Have you experienced periods of loneliness or isolation?

S:

Yes. Not in often at university, but within my university life, especially when

339

340

Global Social Policy 5(3) I have to deal with Immigration. International Students [Office] or the School of Graduate Studies always refer you back to the Immigration office, and when you have to deal with Immigration office yourself, you feel like you are just a piece of paper. (Female, 29, PhD, Melbourne, from Indonesia)

Many students testified to the importance of ‘bonding’ networks: family, friends, and other affinity groups. Friendships with cross-border students from cultures other than their own were often important; though a number referred to an apparent segmentation of the cross-border student population, with a barrier between Asians on one hand and non-Asian students on the other. I would say in fact that most of my friends do come from other countries. I think you generally find that people in Sydney . . . most of the people who go to university here are already fairly entrenched in their social circles and circles of friends; and it’s generally people that are, say, feeling disenchanted or trapped, that are seeking out new friends from other places. So most of my friends here probably are from different countries. A wide array – but mostly European countries, South American countries or North American . . . I do have a few friends from, say, South East Asia, but most of them are people that I know say through my scholarship program, so that’s how we have been introduced to each other. I would say that when I’ve been in classes, even with the high mix of foreign students, there doesn’t seem to be any mixing between say – I mean basically you see almost two divisions, where you see students from Asia and then students from North America and Europe. I don’t feel like there is very much mixing, especially among people that you meet in academic settings. (Male, 24, Masters, Sydney, from USA)

In addition, there were few friendships with locals. Some of the students expressed strong disappointment about this, as noted in previous studies (e.g. Smart et al., 2000). Work and Money Issues: ‘One of the Reasons may be Cultural’ When asked, ‘Are you experiencing or have you ever experienced financial difficulties?’ while studying in Australia, 70 (35%) answered in the affirmative. Such difficulties increased with age and the probability that students were self-supporting. Of the 21 students with children, 14 (67%) acknowledged overall financial difficulties and others added references to financial problems of a specific nature. Financial problems affected 13 of the 25 PhD students, who were generally older and likely to be dependent on scholarships and/or their own earnings. Issues of money were more severe for students in provincial cities, where jobs were hard to find. Finding a job here especially in Ballarat . . . I’m finding it a bit difficult. I don’t know, maybe the reason may be that there are not enough jobs. One of the reasons may be cultural problems. (Female, 34, PhD, regional city, from Sri Lanka)


When asked how they had dealt or would deal with a financial crisis, some talked about asking their parents for help, and a few referred to friends, or the university. But more commonly students said they would ‘tough it out’ without help. I count every cent I have and spend and make my budget five times, six times, because I’m afraid that I would run out of money and not have enough to pay my bills . . . I try to live within my means to pay my bills as they come and not incur debt that I cannot afford to pay. [If I was in financial difficulties] I wouldn’t speak to anyone. I would just handle it myself because I think it is my responsibility to do that. I make my budget and live by my budget. (Female, 33, Masters, Melbourne, from Bangladesh)

When asked, ‘Are you working or have you worked while in Australia?’, 129 (64% of) interviewees said ‘yes’. They were also asked, ‘Have you ever experienced problems at work, such as abuse or exploitation?’, to which 27 (21% of those who had worked) said ‘yes’. These problems at work included such factors as exploitative rates of pay, excessive hours or other unreasonable demands, difficulties in performing the expected functions without proper training, and/or instances of sexual or other forms of harassment. In the sample problems at work were more common among female (17) than among male students (10). Discrimination: ‘It was not Happening to Anyone Else’ Students were asked if they had experienced discrimination or bad treatment while in Australia. The preamble to the question tied ‘bad treatment’ to discrimination and racism. A majority, 101 (50%) said ‘yes’. Work, and experiences in trying to obtain accommodation in the private rental market, were the two main sites of discrimination. Less discrimination was experienced on campus. A typical example of work discrimination was the problems of a Sikh student from India: I have no job now. I did work part-time before, but that was because my friend had already created the job . . . otherwise, you know, people are not very willing to give me a job because of my appearance. I can’t do most of the jobs, I can’t be an accountant, they don’t want me there, they don’t want me to be anywhere where I’m visible. And as for some other jobs, I’m not too comfortable doing them. (Male, 30, Masters, Sydney, from India)

Accommodation issues also at times appeared to involve discrimination based on appearance or perceived cultural background. When I was looking for a house I felt at the time we were treated differently compared with other people from other countries. We applied for many houses, but there was always somebody else that had taken them. All my friends from other countries had gone out from [the student accommodation] at the time; but only us

341

342

Global Social Policy 5(3) from Indonesia still stayed there, because we found it very, very difficult to find a house. Sometimes we thought that there was discrimination, especially for people from Indonesia. [However] in the campus, I never found any discrimination . . . (Male, 31, Masters, Melbourne, from Indonesia)

Some discrimination-related problems take the form of institutionalized disadvantage as a consequence of students’ temporary residence status. The absence of most citizenship rights for cross-border students can affect not only day-to-day living – for example, difficulties in opening a bank account or securing subsidized medicine or children’s education – but students’ career opportunities and academic development as well. I don’t know if you can consider it discrimination as such, or bad treatment either. But when you apply for things like internships or something, I found it is a problem. I’m doing my Masters in Banking and Finance. After my studies I intend to go back to my country, when the visa expires. But when I try to get an internship, which adds a lot to your degree – real hands on experience in banking and finance – they simply say that it is not open for people who have no permanent residence. I don’t want to apply for PR, because I intend to go back to my own country, but this means I’m not getting with my degree what other people are getting, either when they get back at home, or in the States or Canada. I have no opportunities at all to do an internship. All the places that I applied to, said they are looking for people with PR or citizenship. (Female, 22, Masters, Sydney, from India)

Women students were somewhat more likely to report experiences of discrimination than men (57% of female students vs. 43% of male students; the difference between the two groups is statistically significant, p = 0.05). In addition, a high proportion over the entire sample of students living in provincial cities outside Melbourne and Sydney reported experiences of discrimination. Safety and Personal Security: ‘Even though I give them Everything, they Start Hitting Me’ Students were asked if they felt ‘safe and secure in Australia’ 19 (9%) said ‘no’ outright and three (2%) a qualified ‘yes’. The ‘nos’ were concentrated in Sydney, where 27% answered ‘no’. Only 3% of Melbourne-based students did so. The three who qualified their ‘yes’ responses were from Melbourne or Ballarat. Of those in Sydney who did not feel safe and secure, all were either female Muslim students, males from India, or males and females from East Asia. I got bashed twice here. I got robbed twice, it was really a horrible experience. I was walking home after work, eight guys were there. They saw me and started hitting me all over my head. Everything . . . They took everything, my wallet, they even took my shirts, I had two shirts in my bag, they took them as well. My digicam, my wallet, my mobile phone, my watch . . . everything [. . .] so I called the police and

Deumert et al.: Global Migration and Social Protection Rights they took me to hospital. They put me there for the whole night, just to make sure I didn’t have any head injury . . . Actually the police took my bag. And I called them for the fingerprinting and DNA testing and they haven’t been sent to me. I called them three times and they haven’t even bothered to call me back. I didn’t mention anything here [at university], there was no need. They can’t do anything. And the police are not cooperating so what can you expect from [the university]? I went through the scans, the CT scans, x-rays, everything is fine. For 15 days I had a really bad headache, there was so much pain afterwards. (Male, 24, Masters, Sydney, from India)

Women studying in provincial cities face particular difficulties, more so if they are Muslim. The response from a Muslim student from Brunei illustrates that cultural differences, discrimination and feelings and experiences of loss of personal security often go hand in hand. S: I wear my headscarf back in Brunei, but now . . . when I first came here last year, I stayed at this bed and breakfast. I walked with my headscarf to school, and everybody was staring at me. I wore that headscarf for three days, and then I started telling myself that it’s not safe. I didn’t feel safe with people staring at me. I decided not to wear it. And then when I came back here this year, I decided I want to wear my headscarf again, until . . . well, we were in the class, and somebody threw some stones, to the window . . . It happened again three more times . . . So I told my teacher that I didn’t feel safe. ‘Is it because I’m wearing my scarf?’ And my teacher said ‘yes’. Well actually, the first time when they threw the stones, my teacher realized that was happening, and he was trying to catch those kids, but they ran off. I: It’s not the students? S: Yes, it’s some of the students there. The teacher even asked the security to make [special arrangements] because we have a night class until 7 o’clock.

Commercially, questions of student security can affect market choices and are thus of interest to the Australian tertiary sector. A logistic regression analysis of choice-making by Chinese students (Mazzarol et al., 2001) demonstrated that a safe environment was the most significant predictor (p < 0.001) of intentions to choose Australia over competitor nations. Similarly, focus groups in Indonesia and Taiwan found that many parents sent their children to Australia not the USA because Australia was deemed safer (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002). Overall, there exist differences between the experiences of the largest national groupings in the sample. Language problems and work place problems were particularly common among Chinese students, while Malaysian students reported above average experiences of financial difficulties, loneliness and discrimination. Lack of safety was a concern, in particular for Indian and Chinese students.

343

344


International and Global Implications and Significance THE AUSTRALIAN REGIME

Feedback provided in our in-depth interviews leaves little doubt that the lives of cross-border students in Australia are strongly affected by a wide range of social and economic security problems. There are two issues which dominate the data, however, affecting students’ lives on a daily basis: finances, and the necessity of English as lingua franca. More students than expected reported discrimination, and there were less data concerning problems at work and in the labour market than might be expected.3 While our sample cannot be representative in the technical sense, the data are significant in a qualitative sense: not merely for Australia, but elsewhere as well, given that Australia is one of the world’s top education exporter economies. It is apparent that security coverage is uneven by institution, region and category of student. Security is also heavily dependent on uneven informal networks, and problems originating within universities have generated significant lacunae. This is largely because universities and governments at both the State and Federal levels have adopted a commercial approach to delivery of foreign education based on expanding market share, full cost recovery and maximum surplus (Marginson, 2003). Universities are positioned as quasi-independent firms with the government providing a rights framework that is minimal in character, being geared towards citizens rather than cross-border students, who hold only temporary visas. The policy focus is almost exclusively on cross-border students as consumers, with little attention given to their social rights. The Australian approach contrasts with the regulatory framework provided in another exporting nation, New Zealand. The ‘New Zealand code of practice for the pastoral care of cross-border students’ (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2004) covers the educational and linguistic preparation of students; cultural sensitivity in recruitment; ‘assistance to students facing difficulties in adapting to the new cultural environment’; supervision of temporary student accommodation; advice in relation to accommodation, travel, health and welfare; ‘information and advice on addressing harassment and discrimination’; the monitoring of student attendance and course progress, and mandatory communication with the families of students at risk. All university staff and agents, including offshore agents, are subject to the code, which also specifies staff training. New Zealand has also established an independent public agency, the International Education Appeals Authority (IEAA), with the power ‘to receive and adjudicate on complaints received from cross-border students and their authorised agents/representatives’ concerning breaches of the code (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2004).4 The New Zealand model highlights the limitations of the Australian experience. In Australia the growth of the cross-border student market has thus far produced a greater scrambling for student numbers as revenue


sources by most universities, which have yet to extend comprehensive pastoral care to students in return for their dollar. This is despite the potential longerterm commercial pay-offs from a more care-focused approach. Amid the scrambling, alarm bells for universities were sounded in the late 1980s, when the Australian government was forced to respond to the collapse of several revenue-reliant English-language colleges, whose cross-border student ‘customer’ populations were left without education or the return of their fees. The negative impact on the reputation of all education providers compelled legislative changes, culminating in the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000, whereby institutions must secure registration, comply with a national code of behaviour and contribute to an Assurance Fund that guarantees student fees. Yet the Fund represents commercial riskmanagement rather than pastoral care. The code of behaviour enforced by ESOS focuses on such matters as fair advertising, and properly informing students before binding contracts are signed. It does not spell out pastoral or social responsibilities. To the contrary, among the purposes of the ESOS Act are obligations on education providers to police aspects of student behaviour on behalf of government. This militates against the implied pastoral role of universities. The fact that pastoral care and rights-enforcement responsibilities are not codified reveals several regulatory gaps, which are instructive for other nations and suggest innovations are needed at the level of global governance. First, under a highly marketized regime there is scope for variation between different universities in the coverage of security matters; hence national and/ or international standards are needed. Second, given that foreign education is a profit-seeking business, universities have a vested interest in unit cost minimization, which may be incompatible with a consistent rights framework universal to all students. Third, particular difficulties are created when security problems originate in the university itself. There is no point of accountability or appeal external to the university whereby students might seek redress, unless a model like that of New Zealand is followed. Fourth, there are gaps in security coverage beyond the university. This was seen in our interview data, particularly in student dealings with immigration authorities and potential and actual employers. N AT I O N A L A N D G L O B A L G O V E R N A N C E I M P L I C AT I O N S

The lacunae identified here suggest a lack of institutional streamlining between the national and global levels of governance. They also suggest that the role of civil society within the governance of cross-border education is highly uncertain, though certainly less formal than it should be. This is symptomatic of broader contemporary understandings of globalization both within and outside the fields of education studies and global social policy (Ramia, 2003). Theorists have not elaborated on the substantive linkage points between the national and global levels of governance. It is also

345

346


symptomatic of notions of government and policy space that remain overly dependent on formal legal boundaries and notions of sovereignty, and are unable to fully encompass the subtlety of contemporary relations between government, civil society, and the sphere of home/family. This latter lacuna becomes more significant in relation to cross-border people mobility, precisely because of the lack of streamlining and fit between national and global governance, and the central role of civil and private institutions in providing for security. In the analysis of cross-border education and the provision of student security, an appropriate pattern of coordination between the national and global levels engages: the individual student; the university or other education provider; governments and their agencies at both the national and sub-nation regional levels; civil society groups at all levels which represent students as well as those acting as intermediaries between the state and the market (increasingly in the form of public–private partnerships); global regulatory bodies like the ILO (for students’ labour and social welfare concerns); and, economic institutions such as the World Bank (providing an interface between education and the needs of the developing economies from which students often originate). In addition, given that education has become a major international trade commodity, the WTO needs to engage with education services more fully than it has in order to ensure minimum protection and security standards underpin cross-border student regulation. Global social policy analysts can make major contributions to the analysis of such possibilities as part of their pursuit of social democratic global governance. That social considerations can and should underpin the global education market is suggested by the current analysis. Education is complex to regulate globally, because if globalization is understood as ‘the widening, deepening and speeding up of all kinds of worldwide interconnectedness’ (Held et al., 1999: 14), then cross-border education is both a function and a driver of globalization in cultural, educational and economic life. Global interdependency fosters demand for globally mobile people, and mobile students and graduates extend and intensify global interconnectedness. Questions of the social and economic security of temporary migrants highlight the transformative effects of globalization, in the domains of regulation and political and human rights. They invoke problems of national and international law, policy and governance that have immediate practical importance for many people but are inherently difficult to address because they push beyond nation-state frameworks (Held, 2004; Held et al., 1999). There is a ‘jurisdictional gap’ standing in the way of attempts to harmonize protection and security at the various levels; a ‘discrepancy between a globalised world and national, separate units of policy-making’ (Kaul et al., 1999: xxvi). Precisely because issues of crossborder student security are generated in cross-border movement, single national governments do not ‘own’ those issues and are not under the normal


domestic political pressures to address them. For nations sending students abroad, the problems of their citizen-students have been moved outside their jurisdiction, and are only addressed in exceptional circumstances by their foreign missions; and/or through bilateral negotiation with the nation(s) of education. For nations that receive students for the purposes of education, these are not their own citizens. Typically, their rights are understood as consumer rights, or second class pastoral rights, not human and civil rights – even though cross-border students often contribute to society and culture, working cross-border students pay taxes, and many cross-border students later become citizens.

Concluding Comments Security issues have become more pressing worldwide since the 11 September 2001 attacks on civilian and military targets in the USA. American authorities have tightened visa requirements and more closely scrutinize incoming students, changes that have fallen disproportionately on non-white applicants and students from Muslim nations. At the same time American civil society has become less friendly to Muslims. Thus, amid heightened attention to the security of Americans, the security of cross-border students has been reduced. In both 2002–3 and 2003–4 there were sharp falls in students entering the USA from the Middle East and from other Muslim nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan. In 2003–4 there was also a 4.6% drop in Chinese students entering the USA. These data suggest that questions of student security will be significant, and probably very significant, in determining the future trajectory of the cross-border student market in the USA, with likely flow-on effects to other nations of study including Australia. The conjuncture that drove the rapid growth of Australian education exports has now altered. A comparative analysis in 2004 indicated that Australia’s cost advantage relative to American public universities had largely disappeared, due to US dollar depreciation and rising living costs, particularly accommodation, in Australian cities; and the cost advantage relative to UK universities had been eroded (IDP Education Australia, 2004). This suggests that future student numbers will be increasingly determined by factors other than cost, such as the academic reputation of Australian universities; perceptions of the quality of the learning experience as relayed by foreign graduates; and extra-curricular factors including climate, inter-cultural relations; and generally the social and economic security of cross-border students. Issues of cross-border student security extend beyond physical safety to include health and welfare, ease of passage through social and economic institutions, cultural acceptance, protection from maltreatment and exploitation, and assistance in difficulty and crisis. It is unlikely that in the context of the possible downturn in the US share of

347

348


the education market, nations like Australia will increase their market share while universities and governments continue to neglect their social and moral responsibilities to cross-border students. More than this, nations need to coordinate with institutions and civil society at the global level to ensure that students can make their choice of study destination based on factors like the quality of the education, rather than questions over their security. a c k n ow l e d g e m e n t s The authors have collaborated on this project as part of a programme of research on ‘Global People Movement and Social Protection’ supported by the cross-faculty Monash Institute for the Study of Global Movements, Monash University, Australia. This article forms part of a broader project entitled, ‘The Social and Economic Security of International Students in the Global Education Market’, funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant over 2005 to 2007. notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

Foreign student numbers in other sectors of education also increased. In 2002 there were 385,000 foreign students studying in Australian education in all sectors, including schools, vocational training institutions and specialist English language learning colleges, with 49% of these students in higher education (Australian Education International [AEI], 2003). This proportion is higher than the OECD’s datum for 2001 (13.9%): the difference in the figures indicates both a different basis of calculation (the inclusion of the full number of off-shore students) and the rapid growth of foreign student numbers, which rose by 13.7% between 2002 and 2003 alone. There may have been under-reporting here. Given that students who work more than 20 hours in a week are in breach of visa conditions, despite guarantees of anonymity, some students may have been reluctant to talk in detail about work experiences. The IEAA has published a summary of cases accumulated since 1996 (IEAA, 2004).

references Anheier, H., Glasius, M. and Kaldor (eds) (2005) Global Civil Society 2004/5. London: Sage. Australian Education International (AEI) (2003) ‘Data on Cross-Border Students’, accessed 1 December 2004, http://aei.dest.gov.au/AEI/PublicationsAndResearch/ ResearchDatabase/Default.htm Deacon, B. with Hulse, M. and Stubbs, P. (1997) Global Social Policy: International Organizations and the Future of the Welfare State. London: Sage. Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2004) Selected Higher Education Statistics, accessed 1 December 2004, http://www.dest.gov.au Education Services for Overseas Students Act (2000) ‘Education Services for Overseas Students Act’ and ‘National Code of Practice’, http://www.dest.gov.au/esos/ default.htm

Deumert et al.: Global Migration and Social Protection Rights Harman, G. (2003) Bibliography on International Education Prepared for OECD. Armadale: University of New England. Held, D. (2004) Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative to the Washington Consensus. Cambridge: Polity. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. IDP Education Australia (2004) ‘Data on the Comparative Costs of Courses’, accessed 1 December 2004, http://www.idp.com.au Institute for International Education (IIE) (2004) ‘Data on US Foreign Students’, accessed 1 December 2004, http://www.iie.org/ International Education Appeals Authority (IEAA) (2004) ‘Cases October 1996–October 2001’, accessed 1 December 2004, http://www.minedu.govt.nz International Labour Organisation (2004) Towards a Fair Deal for Migrant Workers in the Global Economy. Geneva: ILO. Kaul, I., Grunberg I. and Stern, M. (1999) Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century. New York: Oxford University Press. Lee, J. and Salamon, W. (2004) ‘Communications Breakdown: Comment (A Personal Perspective on the Everyday Dilemmas of International Students at Australia’s Tertiarz Institutions)’, Meanjin 63: 160–7. Marginson, S. (forthcoming) ‘Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher Education in Higher Education’, Higher Education (accepted for publication 15 December 2004). Marginson, S. and Considine, M. (2000) The Enterprise University. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marginson, S. and McBurnie, G. (2004) ‘Cross-Border Post-Secondary Education in the Asia-Pacific Region’, in OECD (ed.) Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education (pp. 137–204). Paris: OECD. Marshall, T.H. (1950) ‘Citizenship and Social Class’, in T.H. Marshall (ed.) Citizenship and Social Class (pp. 1–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mazzarol, T. and Soutar, G. (2002) ‘“Push-Pull” Factors Influencing Foreign Student Destination Choice’, The International Journal of Educational Management 16(2–3): 82–91. Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G., Smart, D. and Choo, S. (2001) Perceptions, Information and Choice: Understanding how Chinese Students Select a Country for Overseas Study. Canberra: Australian Education International. Mishra, R. (1995) ‘Social Policy an the Challenge of Globalization’, in P. Saunders and S. Shaver (eds) Social Policy and the Challenges of Social Change: Proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference, 5–7 July, Social Policy Research Centre (pp. 15–34). Sydney: UNSW. New Zealand Ministry of Education (2004) ‘Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of Foreign Students’, accessed 1 December 2004, http://www.minedu.govt.nz Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002a) International Mobility of the Highly Skilled. Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002b) Migration and the Labour Market in Asia. Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2003) Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004a) Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education. Paris: OECD.

349

350

Global Social Policy 5(3) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004b) Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD. Paparella, D. (2004) ‘Social Security Coverage for Migrants: Critical Aspects’, paper presented at ISSA European Regional Meeting, Oslo, 21–3 April. Pearson, C.L. and Beasley, C.J. (1996) ‘Reducing Learning Barriers Amongst International Students: A Longitudinal Developmental Study’, Australian Educational Researcher 23(2): 79–96. Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economical Origins of our Time. Boston, MA: Beacon. Ramia, G. (2003) ‘Global Social Policy, NGOs and the Importance of Strategic Management’, Global Social Policy 3(1): 79–101. Smart, D., Volet, S. and Ang, G. (2000) Fostering Social Cohesion in Universities. Canberra: DEST. Titmuss, R.M. (1958) ‘The Social Division of Welfare: Some Reflections on the Search for Equity’, in R.M. Titmuss (ed.) Essays on the Welfare State (pp. 34–55). London: Unwin University Books. Titmuss, R.M. (1974) Social Policy: An Introduction, edited by B. Abel-Smith and K. Titmuss. London: George Allen and Unwin. Ward, C. and Masgoret, A.-M. (2004) ‘The Experiences of International Students in New Zealand’, Report on the Results of a National Survey. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Webb, S. and Webb, B. (1911) The Prevention of Destitution. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Yeates, N. (2001) Globalization and Social Policy. London: Sage. Ziguras, C. and McBurnie, G. (2004) ‘Comments on the Impact of the Proposed Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United States of America on Higher Education’, submission to the Senate Select Committee on the Free Trade Agreement Between Australia and the United States of America, Canberra, April, accessed 4 July 2005, http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/freetrade_ctte/ index.htm

résumé

Migration Globale et Droits de Protection Social: La Sécurité Sociale et Économique des Étudiants Migrants en Australie Un nombre croissant d’étudiants franchissent les frontières internationales afin de réaliser leurs études. Un marché global d’éducation supérieure, qui est en expansion, a été créé. Il existe toutefois des insuffisances importantes dans la gouvernance des droits des étudiants internationaux. Tout en étant bénéficiaires de services d’éducation, les étudiants qui franchissent des frontières sont des migrants, des travailleurs, des consommateurs et des êtres humains. Une vision plus ample des étudiants, qui les considère comme individus ayant droit à une sécurité sociale et économique, est préférable à celle qui les traite comme de simples sujets couverts par la sécurité sociale. En reconnaissant ce statut multiple et en utilisant les informations de 200 entretiens approfondis réalisés avec des étudiants internationaux en Australie, cet article en conclut que le régime de protection sociale existant ne reconnaît pas pleinement les droits des étudiants. Les problèmes sont liés a l’acquisition de la langue, à l’intégration

Deumert et al.: Global Migration and Social Protection Rights sociale, aux finances, au travail et à la sécurité personnelle. L’article soutient, ainsi que le fait la loi et les politiques, qu’un régime de sécurité étudiante doit inclure de meilleures pratiques universitaires et des réseaux plus resserrés au niveau de la société civile, de même que des ONG et une couverture OIG. resumen

Migración Global y Derechos de Protección Social: La Seguridad Social y Económica de los Estudiantes Internacionales en Australia Un número cada vez mayor de estudiantes atraviesa fronteras para realizar sus estudios. Sin embargo, existen brechas significativas en la administración de los derechos de tales alumnos que son tanto beneficiarios de un servicio educativo como migrantes, trabajadores, consumidores y seres humanos. Estos estudiantes deben ser considerados desde una perspectiva más amplia, en tanto individuos que merecen seguridad económica y social, y no solamente como sujetos de protección social. El reconocimiento de esta condición múltiple se aborda en este artículo que utiliza datos de 200 entrevistas exhaustivas con estudiantes extranjeros residentes en Australia. El estudio permitió determinar que el régimen actual de protección social dista mucho de reconocer los derechos de los estudiantes. El documento sostiene que un régimen de seguridad para los estudiantes debe incluir tanto leyes y políticas como mejores prácticas en las universidades y una cobertura más integrada de las redes de la sociedad civil y de las Organizaciones No-Gubernamentales e Intergubernamentales. biographical notes A N A D E U M E RT is a sociolinguist who works in the Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Australia. Her research covers language planning/policy, language and migration, language contact and second language acquisition. Please address correspondence to: Dr Ana Deumert, Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia. [email: [email protected]] S I M O N M A R G I N S O N is an Australian Professorial Fellow who works on comparative and international higher education in the context of globalization, in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. He is Director of the Monash Centre for Research in International Education. Please address correspondence to: Professor Simon Marginson, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia. [email: [email protected]]

works on international business and the history of economic and management thought in the Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Australia. Please address correspondence to: Professor Chris Nyland, Department of Management, Monash University, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia. [email: [email protected]] CHRIS NYLAND

351

352

Global Social Policy 5(3) G A B Y R A M I A works on international business and social policy in the Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Australia. Please address correspondence to: Dr Gaby Ramia, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia. [email: [email protected]]

is an Indonesian national and a sociolinguist who works on inter-cultural communication, globalization and international education as a Research Fellow in the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. Please address correspondence to: Dr Erlenawati Sawir, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia. [email: [email protected]]

E R L E N AWAT I S AW I R