Article

Policy Futures in Education

Internationalisation of higher 0(0) 1–20
! Author(s) 2016

education: Conceptualising the Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

antecedents and outcomes DOI: 10.1177/1478210316645017

pfe.sagepub.com

of cross-cultural adaptation
Azadeh Shafaei
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

Nordin Abd Razak

School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

Abstract
The increase in higher education internationalisation has called for finding possible ways to
understand and improve its related issues. Despite the financial, cultural, and social benefits
that international students bring to host countries’ educational institutions, the challenges they
encounter in a new environment are hard to deal with, especially acculturative stress and
adjustment problems in a new environment. As international students are at the heart of
education internationalisation, it is crucial to understand and address their adjustment issues
for a sustainable education management. Therefore, this study develops a conceptual
framework to portray international students’ adjustment issues in a host country from
perspectives of field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory. The proposed conceptual
model not only considers factors influencing international students’ cross-cultural adaptation in
a host country, but it also highlights the outcomes of such adaptation which can provide
managerial implications for sustaining higher education mobility growth.

Keywords
Conceptual framework, cross-cultural adaptation, internationalisation of higher education,
psychological adaptation, sociocultural adaptation, strategic institutional management of
internationalisation

Introduction: towards developing a conceptual framework

Internationalisation of higher education refers to the integration process of international/
intercultural dimension into the teaching, research, and service functions of an institution

Corresponding author:
Azadeh Shafaei, School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), 11800 Penang, Malaysia.
Email: Azadeh.shafaei@gmail.com

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

2 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

(Knight, 1993). This process among higher education services emerged in the early 1990s and
has dramatically increased till present (Terry, 2011). Higher education services have pushed
the territorial boundaries away with the advent of globalisation, advancement in
information technology, and increase in international travel (Arokiasamy, 2010). At the
heart of higher education internationalisation lies cross-border student movement, which
can foster global competition among educational institutions (Marginson and Van Der
Wende, 2007). The number of students pursuing their education in a country outside their
home country (i.e. international students) was 1.75 million in 1999 which raised to nearly 3
million in 2007, according to a report by World Trade Organization (2010). Additionally,
Gürüz (2008) reported that the overall number of students enrolled in various disciplines in
educational institutions outside their home country was about 3 million, which is expected to
increase to almost 6 million by 2020 and 8 million by 2025.
The trend shows that a substantial factor for higher education institutions’ success in the
global education competition is recruiting a growing number of foreign (or international)
students (Qiang, 2003). Universities and educational institutions around the world strive to
boost their reputation in order to attract more international students and increase their share
of education market (Mayo, 2009). As such, higher education globalisation has become a
prevalent market for both developed and developing countries especially in Asia
(Arokiasamy, 2010). It is worth noting that international movement of students to other
countries for the purpose of pursuing education can be a considerable source of business,
and economic growth for host countries (Marginson, 2006). For instance, international
students through their expenditures on food, housing, books, and tuition fees can bring
additional revenue for universities and local communities.
Along with the economic growth, higher education internationalisation can result in
social, and cultural benefits for host countries (Dobson and Hölttä, 2001; Terry, 2011).
By sharing a wide variety of perspectives and views, international students can contribute
to host countries’ social and cultural diversity (Zeszotarski, 2001). These benefits have
stimulated educational institutions around the world to compete for growing their
countries’ economy by focusing on producing knowledge and moving towards higher
education internationalisation (Arokiasamy, 2010; Wilkins, 2014). Although this is the
case, it is crucial to emphasise and consider the essential role of international students’
successful transition to a new cultural environment (or cross-cultural adaptation)
(Lamprianou and Sunker, 2014). This is the prerequisite for higher education institutions
in order to attract more international students, achieve prosperity, and remain reputable in
the global education market.
Transition to higher education in an unfamiliar cultural environment is an unavoidable
cause of anxiety and unease for international students irrespective of social class or other
categorisations (Clayton et al., 2009). As highlighted by Berry (2006), cultural differences
and rigorous academic work are the potential causes of pressure and frustration that
international students experience. Perhaps, insufficient knowledge and lack of
understanding about the values and norms of the new culture together with cultural gap
between international students’ ethnic and host countries could result in stress and anxiety
for international students (Yang and Clum, 1994). This can result in negative consequences
for both individuals and host society (Sumer, 2009). Apart from cultural, social, and
financial contributions of international students to host countries, challenges they face in
a host country might lead them towards frustration and social problems (Sumer, 2009).
Therefore, by overcoming their difficulties and problems, international students can

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

Shafaei and Abd Razak 3

experience ‘successful transition’ (i.e. adapt) to a new environment, which can prevent
adversity and its negative impacts from host societies (Earley and Ang, 2003; Molinsky,
2007). Since international students’ cross-cultural adaptation to a new environment can
directly influence their psychological and social well-being, it is essential to be prioritised.
To this end, the issue of cross-cultural adaptation has engaged many researchers from
various contexts (Berry and Sabatier, 2010; Demes and Geeraert, 2014; Jibeen and Khalid,
2010; Masgoret, 2006; Ward and Kennedy, 1994). Accordingly, several acculturation models
have been proposed in an attempt to portray individuals’ adaptation as well as the factors
contributing to this process. For instance, Ward et al. (2001) proposed the ABCs of the
acculturation process by emphasising stress and coping framework, cultural learning
approach, and social identification theories concerning with affective, behavioural, or
cognitive aspects of individuals’ adjustment. Berry (2006) first developed the stress and
coping framework to explain the factors influencing cross-cultural adaptation.
Furthermore, distinction between the two facets of adaptation (i.e. psychological and
sociocultural adaptations) was suggested by Ward and colleagues (Searle and Ward, 1990;
Ward and Kennedy, 1992). In their framework, the aspects of stress and coping, cultural
learning, and social identification from Berry’s (2006) framework were integrated along with
an emphasis on social and cultural specific skills, which help individuals in adjustment
process. Moreover, in line with the frameworks proposed by Berry (2006) and Ward et al.
(2001), Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver (2006) and Safdar et al. (2003) developed
comprehensive models where they incorporated the mentioned three theories to explain
individuals’ acculturation. In the model developed by Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver
(2006), and Safdar et al. (2003), the aspects of individuals’ characteristics, and host
society’s characteristics, as well as hassle predictors were highlighted; however, the
framework developed by Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver (2006) had an extra element of
the society of origin’s characteristics. Similarly, both of the mentioned models, focused on
psychological and sociocultural adaptations as the consequences of adjustment and
acculturation attitude as the predictor linking the antecedents and outcomes.
Although the above-mentioned models proposed some antecedents for cross-cultural
adaptation that might be relevant to international students, there is a necessity to focus
specifically on international students and consider factors with aspects of cognition,
behaviour and perception (Smith and Khawaja, 2011). Particularly, with the increase in
international mobility in higher education, there is not a specific conceptual framework to
understand and address international students’ needs in a new environment. Although the
extant literature suggests several individual (personal) factors and situational
(environmental) factors that assist individuals to achieve successful adaptation in a new
environment, still there is a need to identify situational (environmental) factors specifically
for the context of international students (Smith and Khawaja, 2011). This can enrich
understanding towards international students’ cross-cultural adaptation. Since the above-
mentioned models were not developed precisely for the context of international students, the
proposed outcomes of cross-cultural adaptation in these models are limited. This limitation
signals that further investigation is required to suggest specific outcomes in the context of
international students because they play crucial roles in sustaining higher education growth.
Additionally, the extant literature mainly considers the perspectives of organisations and
educational institutions in improving policies (e.g., Bartell, 2003; Knight, 2004; Qiang, 2003).
The uni-dimensional assessment for policy improvement, which is based on educational
institutions’ viewpoint, may not account for the needs of their main customers

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

4 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

(international students). Overlooking international students’ perspectives and requirements

in designing and improving policies may impede educational institutions from reaching their
goal of becoming reputable education service providers in the global education market. Since
international students are at the core of international education mobility and considered as
the main customers of global education sector, it is paramount to pay attention to their
needs, and take into account their perspectives in improving policies and practices. This
approach could benefit both educational institutions and international students to achieve
prosperity and success. It is the aim of this paper to bridge this gap in the literature by
proposing an alternative conceptual model which is based on international students’ cross-
cultural adaptation needs.
Furthermore, prior acculturation models in the literature are rooted in three renowned
theories: (a) stress and coping theory (SCT); (b) culture learning theory (CLT); and (c) social
identification theories (SIT). These theories elaborate ‘Affective’, ‘Behavioural’ and
‘Cognitive’ aspects individuals’ adaptation process to a new cultural environment
respectively (Zhou et al., 2008). However, despite providing insightful support, ‘field
theory’ (Lewin, 1951) and ‘cross-cultural adaptation theory’ (Kim, 2001) have not been
applied to explain individuals’ adaptive behaviours and cross-cultural adaptation to a new
environment. The main rationale for integrating field theory and cross-cultural adaptation
theory and using them as the governing theories in this paper is that these two theories can
explain the nexus of antecedents–adaptation–outcomes with the emphasis on cognition.
Moreover, field theory by focusing on the equation of behaviour as the function of a
person and the environment (B ¼ P, E) makes it possible to divide the antecedents of
cross-cultural adaptation into individual and situational factors. In addition, using cross-
cultural adaptation theory offers support for investigation of the outcomes of cross-cultural
adaptation that can provide managerial and practical contributions to education
policymakers and authorities in higher education.
Thus, it is the aim of this study to present an alternative conceptual framework that
considers both wide and narrow perspectives in explaining international students’
adaptation process based on field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory. Then, a
conceptual model in consensus with the prior models, but extended from them is
developed to be applied in exploring international students’ adaptation and its outcomes
in a new cultural environment. This can be beneficial to higher education institutions. The
proposed framework focuses on international students, those who pursue higher education
in a country outside their home country. The framework also examines antecedents and
outcomes of international students’ cross-cultural adaptation. The proposed model can be
employed by emerging countries competing towards higher education internationalisation
through attracting more international students. The following sub-sections elaborate the
notion of cross-cultural adaptation from the lens of field theory and cross-cultural
adaptation theory.

Cross-cultural adaptation
Generally, the dynamic change process that happens to individuals upon their relocation to a
new environment is defined as cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 1988, 2001). Three main
facets namely functional fitness, psychological health, and intercultural identity
development are involved in cross-cultural adaptation. However, Kim (1990) only
considered functional fitness and psychological health (Wang and Sun, 2009). In line with

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

Shafaei and Abd Razak 5

Kim’s definition, Beiser et al. (1988) defined cross-cultural adaptation as the changes that
take place during acculturation. Two types of changes were outlined as ‘short-term’ and
‘long-term’ changes. Specifically, the former would be sometimes negative, whereas the latter
would be mostly positive, resulting in adaptation. Berry (1997) in response to Beiser et al.
(1988) claimed that the long-term changes could highly vary ranging from poorly adapted to
well-adapted. In addition, Aycan and Berry (1995) proposed a similar definition for cross-
cultural adaptation as Kim’s definition by focusing on the dynamic change process and the
three facets of cross-cultural adaptation.
Meanwhile, Ward and colleagues proposed a definition for cross-cultural adaptation in
line with Kim’s definition. They stated that when individuals move to a new environment,
the dynamic process of change causes individuals to adapt both psychologically and
socioculturally to the new society (Searle and Ward, 1990; Ward, 1996; Ward and
Kennedy, 1993a). Therefore, they formulated the two key concepts of psychological
adaptation and sociocultural adaptation into cross-cultural adaptation. In fact, the terms
psychological adaptation and sociocultural adaptation concur respectively with
psychological health, and functional fitness suggested by Kim (Wang and Sun, 2009).

Cross-cultural adaptation from the lens of field theory

Rooted in social psychology, field theory was developed by Lewin (1951) to overcome the
limitations of traditional way of thinking through merely psychology (Atkinson, 1964).
Through his broad system of topological concept, Lewin represented the idea of
encompassing emotions, values, thoughts, social relationships, and behaviours through
psychological situations (Chak, 2002). Therefore, he formulated his field theory to explain
human’s behaviour from the perspective of social psychology by stating a person’s behaviour
is related to his/her personal characteristics as well as the social situation in which he/she
finds him/herself (Lewin, 1951).
In particular, field theory focuses on humans’ actions as a result of their behaviour, which
occurs in a ‘force field’. Field is defined as mutually interdependent coexisting facts or forces
which represent different aspects of an individual’s coexisting environment. In other words,
humans are influenced by surrounding factors in the field. These factors could determine
individuals’ behaviour. Thus, behaviours occur as the result of various interactions in the
field and between the fields of other individuals (Neill, 2004). Every individual possesses a
field and since individuals have a lot of differences, their fields are different from each other.
As individuals gain more information and knowledge about the environment, their field
changes to accommodate them (Cronshaw and McCulloch, 2008).
Moreover, Lewin stated that a person’s behaviours occur within a psychological field,
which is called ‘life-space’ (Schultz and Schultz, 2004). The term ‘life-space’ refers to every
force in the field both from inner and outer environment that shapes up an individual such as
the places an individual goes, the people an individual meets and the feelings an individual
has about the places or people (Lewin et al., 1944). As Lewin believed, understanding the
relations of all factors in one’s life-space is crucial because those are the elements which play
important roles in helping or blocking people from accommodating to a new environment
(Sorrentino, 2013). The equation for life-space is ‘B ¼ f (P, E)’, which indicates that
individuals’ behaviour (B) can be explained by considering both the person (P) and their
environment (E). The environment here does not refer to the physical environment, but
rather the psychological environment perceived by the person (Sorrentino, 2013).

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

6 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

Additionally, the person and environment are interdependent and that creates a dynamic
and complex field of interaction which help individuals learn more about themselves and
their environment (Daniels, 2003). Therefore, Lewin (1951) regarded field as a continuous
state of adaptation.
Field theory explains the influence of several individual and situational factors on
individuals’ behaviours; however, it lacks detailed explanations and operationalisation of
individuals’ cross-cultural adaptation in a new environment. Therefore, Kim’s cross-cultural
adaptation theory is needed to precisely operationalise this notion by proposing a clear
explanation for cross-cultural adaptation process of individuals in a new environment and
its relative outcomes.

Cross-cultural adaptation theory

Kim (2001) developed an integrative theory of communication and cross-cultural adaption,
which can be considered as one of the most detailed theoretical frameworks applied in
adaptation process. At the heart of this theory lies the notion of transformation process
when an individual relocates to a new and culturally unfamiliar environment. As such, cross-
cultural adaptation is defined as a dynamic process owing to individuals’ constant
interaction with their environment in this theory (Hamad and Lee, 2013). In other words,
as individuals have to face and accept the differences between their ethnic culture and that of
the host culture, they might face challenges when entering a new environment. In facing
challenges, dynamic human nature struggles for an internal balance through acquiring new
cultural communication practices, participating actively in the interpersonal and mass
communication processes of the local community and being competent in host
communication system (Hamad and Lee, 2013). The struggle for internal balance or
stability causes all individuals to go through a transformation process, which is called
cross-cultural adaptation (Kim, 2001).
In fact, individuals are open, complex, and evolving systems that constantly search for
stability through establishing, re-establishing, and maintaining relatively stable and
functional relationships with their new environment (Kim, 2005). In addition, Anderson
(1994) believed that the adaptation process is a continuum that can result in positive or
negative outcomes. It also involves building and rebuilding of identity since sense of self and
self-esteem of individuals can be shaken in a culturally unfamiliar environment.
Consequently, a gradual personal identity transformation occurs as a result of successful
adaptation. Although the old identity can never be completely replaced with the new one, it
can be transformed into something that will always contain some of the old and the new side
by side, to form a new perspective that allows more openness and acceptance of differences
in people (Kim, 1988, 2001).
As mentioned earlier, the two facets of cross-cultural adaptation proposed by Kim
correspond with the two notions of psychological (emotional/affective) adaptation and
sociocultural (behavioural) adaptation proposed by Ward and colleagues (e.g., Searle and
Ward, 1990; Ward, 1999; Ward and Kennedy, 1994). Kim’s theory can explain individuals’
adaptation phenomenon through psychological and sociocultural adaptations, and also
focus on outcomes of such adaptation (Kim, 2001). Therefore, it is applied in the
proposed conceptual framework in this paper. The integration of the two mentioned
theories can provide a better understanding of cross-cultural adaptation from a
theoretical perspective.

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

Shafaei and Abd Razak 7

The proposed conceptual framework

The proposed conceptual framework in this paper is mainly formulated based on field theory
and cross-cultural adaptation theory. Both of these theories provide support by emphasising
the important role of several individual and situational factors in facilitating international
students’ adaptive behaviours [field theory] and their constant search for achieving stability
or equilibrium [field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory] which results in cross-
cultural adaptation and its outcomes [cross-cultural adaptation theory]. As antecedents
and outcomes of adaptation are equally important, integration of field and cross-cultural
adaptation theories complement each other in providing a platform to explore the factors
contributing to international students’ cross-cultural adaptation, and its outcomes in a new
environment (i.e. the nexus of antecedents–adaptation–outcomes).
In particular, field theory emphasises on life-space as a perceived psychological
environment that involves both inner and outer factors influencing adaptive behaviours of
individuals. Inner and outer factors are conceptualised as the psychological environment
that international students perceive from their inner and outer environment in field theory.
Therefore, perception and cognition are crucial to shape up international students’ adaptive
behaviours in a new society (Sorrentino, 2013). Additionally, the inner and outer factors are
operationalised, respectively, as individual/personal and environmental/situational factors in
the field theory. Perception, cognition, and attitude play vital roles in individuals’ adaptation
process (Tajfel, 1981). Besides, it is essential to find out factors that take into account aspects
of cognition, behaviour, and psychology in the setting of international students (Smith and
Khawaja, 2011). As such, field theory can greatly contribute in designing and developing the
conceptual framework in this paper.
Since field theory incorporates the components of psychology, cognition, and
behaviour, it allows for identifying both individual (inner) and situational (outer) factors
contributing to international students’ adaptation from a theoretically sound perspective.
Although in the above-mentioned models both personal characteristics and society
characteristics (i.e. host and ethnic) have been considered as the antecedents of
adaptation process, the specification of these factors considering international students is
yet to be explored (Smith and Khawaja, 2011). Hence, the current conceptual framework
is proposed to address the existing gap in the literature of international students by
employing field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory to open up new directions
for further studies.
Although field theory provides support for developing the conceptual framework in this
paper, crucial role of cross-cultural adaptation theory is undeniable. In line with the prior
models, two key notions of psychological and sociocultural adaptations (Searle and Ward,
1990; Ward, 1999; Ward and Kennedy, 1994) assist to understand the process of
international students’ cross-cultural adaptation. According to cross-cultural adaptation
theory, successful cross-cultural adaptation can result in several outcomes (Wang and
Sun, 2009). This aspect of cross-cultural adaptation theory allows to identify several
outcomes relevant to the setting of international students and how the identified outcomes
could contribute to the sustainability and success of higher education. As outcomes of
international students’ adaptation are as important as the antecedents influencing this
process, cross-cultural adaptation theory is employed along with field theory to build the
proposed conceptual framework in this paper. Table 1 summarises the explanation of field
theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory as well as their contributions to the proposed
conceptual framework.

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

8 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

Table 1. Summary of the field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory.

Contribution to the
Theory Explanation proposed framework

Field Theory Every individual possesses a field (life - Several individual and situational
space) (Schultz and Schultz, 2004). factors influence a person’s
- The field is the perceived environment behaviour
of individuals (Sorrentino, 2013). - Constant interaction of individuals
- Co-existing forces in the field form with their environment
individual behaviours (Cronshaw and - Individuals’ continuous search for
McCulloch, 2008). equilibrium
- Life space equation is B ¼ F (P, E) - Behaviour is the function of the
which constitute all the inner and person and environment
outer forces in forming individuals’
behaviour (Sorrentino, 2013).
- Individual and situational factors
influence a person’s behaviour in the
environment (Chak, 2002).
-Individuals’ constant interaction with
the environment causes continuous
change in order to achieve
equilibrium (Daniels, 2003).
Cross-Cultural - Sojourners face challenges in a new - Sojourners face challenges in a new
Adaptation Theory environment (Kim, 2001). and culturally unfamiliar
- Sojourners try to overcome their environment.
difficulties by acquiring some skills - Sojourners’ search for stability leads
and interaction with their new them to adaptation.
environment (Hamad and Lee, - Influence of various factors on
2013). sojourners’ cross-cultural
- Several factors make individuals adaptation.
change while seeking for stability - Continuous interaction between the
(Kim and Gudykunst, 1988). individuals and their new
- Sojourners’ constant search for environment.
stability in a new environment leads - Cross-cultural adaptation consists of
them to cross-cultural adaptation psychological and sociocultural
(Kim, 2005). adaptation.
- Adaptation is a dynamic process and it - Positive outcomes of successful
has three facets which coincide with adaptation.
the two concepts of psychological
and sociocultural adaptation (Wang
and Sun, 2009).
- Positive results will be achieved by
successful adaptation (Kim, 2001).

The two mentioned theories explain international students’ cross-cultural adaptation to a

new environment, and the antecedents (i.e. individual and situational factors) and outcomes
of such adaptation. However, field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory do not
specify individual and situational factors in adaptation process. As such, to draw
potential individual and situational factors that influence psychological and sociocultural

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

Shafaei and Abd Razak 9

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual framework.

adaptations, this paper, similar to prior models in the literature, adopts stress and coping
theory (SCT), culture learning theory (CLT), and social identification theories (SIT). These
three theories can provide a comprehensive, broad and conceptual basis for intercultural
contact and change studies (Ward et al., 2001). Nonetheless, classification and identification
of the suggested factors by SCT, CLT, and SIT into individual and situational factors is
carried out from the perspective of field theory in this paper. Figure 1 depicts the proposed
conceptual framework.

The ‘‘ABC’’ theories

Stress and coping theory
In stress and coping theory, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) focus on the idea that various
phenomena can be understood through an organising concept of ‘stress’. Therefore,
psychological stress is defined as ‘a particular relationship between a person and the
environment that is appraised by the person as exceeding his or her resources and
endangering his or her well-being’ (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984: 19). In fact, appraisal
processes determine whether a situation is stressful or not (Schuster et al., 2003). In
particular, the stress process is shaped up by the relationship between stimulus and
individuals’ response where they try to evaluate and cope with it. In addition, difficulties
and challenges faced by individuals in a new environment cause a lot of stress for individuals
and the way they manage these challenges is defined as coping process (Decker and Borgen,
1993). Consequently, there is a need to engage people in cross-cultural encounters to make
them resilient, adapt, and develop coping strategies and tactics (Aldwin, 1994; Lazarus,
1990).

Culture learning theory

Culture learning theory emphasises the behavioural aspect of intercultural contact and
highlights the role of social interaction as a skilled behavioural performance (Argyle,
1969). Lack of social skills and having difficulties in dealing with daily life interactions
such as norms, rules, values, as well as verbal and non-verbal communication owing to

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

10 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

cross-cultural differences are the main causes of stress for individuals in a new environment
(Masgoret and Ward, 2006). Inasmuch as cultural differences make adaptation process
difficult, culture learning theory concentrates on finding ways to diminish intercultural
misunderstandings. Thus, having connections with host nationals is pivotal for individuals
according to this theory. This is because through interactions with host nationals,
individuals can learn a series of culturally relevant skills in order to enhance their
psychological and social success (Furnham, 2004).

Social identification theories

Based on theories of social cognition and social identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), the
cognitive aspect of intercultural contact is mainly focused. In particular, individuals’
ethnical and cultural identification of themselves and the ways they interact with in and
out groups is crucial. The ways individuals perceive their cultural identity and the
relationships they have with co-nationals and host nationals can significantly impact their
adaptation process. The notions of cognitive, mental and internal processes such as
attitudes, perceptions, expectations, and values (Ward et al., 2001) are the core elements
of this theory. Hence, two major concepts, namely acculturation and social identity theory,
are associated with social identification theories (Phinney, 1990).
Overall, the detailed investigation and examination of the individual and situational
factors that influence psychological and sociocultural adaptations of international
students require incorporation of SCT, CLT, and SIT since they offer a comprehensive,
longitudinal, dynamic, and systemic domain for examination of the influence of different
variables on cross-cultural adaptation (Zhou et al., 2008). Table 2 illustrates the factors
proposed by SCT, CLT and SIT in the literature. These factors have been grouped as
individual and situational factors in this paper.
Figure 2 shows the proposed conceptual model in the context of international students
which has the potential to be explored and studied to shed some light on the issue of
international students’ cross-cultural adaptation and its outcomes.
The proposed conceptual model incorporates two governing theories, namely field theory
and cross-cultural adaptation theory in order to explain the nexus of antecedents–
adaptation–outcomes. For the variables derivation, SCT, CLT, and SIT are employed.
Specifically, the proposed framework aims to make a connection between individual and
situational factors with cross-cultural adaptation of international students. It also intends to
link international students’ cross-cultural adaptation to their perceived academic
satisfaction. As satisfaction is an important outcome of the balance between
characteristics of a person and the environment (i.e. adaptation), in the context of
international students, academic satisfaction, which refers to how satisfied international
students are with their overall academic performance in a host country, is pivotal to be
considered (Goštautaite_ and Bučiuniene_, 2010). Moreover, the evidence shows that positive
word of mouth resulted from good academic experience can increase the number of
international students in host countries (Cheng et al., 2013).

Concluding remarks
As international students are at the core of international mobility in higher education, it is
crucial to understand the issues they encounter in a new environment. This could pave the

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

 Table 2. Proposed factors by SCT, CLT and SIT.
Theory
Stress and Coping Theory (SCT)
Culture Learning Theory (CLT)
Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016
Social Identification Theories (SIT)
Individual factors
Degree of life change (Lin et al., 1979),
personality factors, coping strategies
(Bardi and Ryff, 2007; Ward and
Kennedy, 1994)
General knowledge about a new culture
(Ward and Searle, 1991), length of
residence in the host culture (Ward,
et al. 1998), language or
communication competence (Furnham,
1993), quantity and quality of contact
with host nationals (Bochner, 1982),
friendship networks (Bochner et al.,
1977), temporary versus permanent
residence in a new country (Ward and
Kennedy, 1993a)
Cultural identity, intergroup attitudes
(Ward and Searle, 1991), and
acculturation modes (Ward and
Kennedy, 1994)
Individual and situational factors
Shafaei and Abd Razak
Situational factors proposed in the study
Social support (Adelman, 1988; Lewis Situational Factors
Hall et al., 2006) -Social support
Cultural distance (Ward and Kennedy, Individual Factors:
1993a, 1993b), especially cultural - Language Proficiency
differences of norms, values, verbal and - Media Usage
non-verbal communication (Masgoret - Intention to Stay in a Country
and Ward, 2006) outside the Home Country
after Graduation
Situational Factors:
- Perceived complexity
Existence of prejudice and discrimination, Individual Factors:
and cultural diversity in a society (Ward - Acculturation attitude
et al., 2001), perceived prejudice and Situational Factors:
discrimination during their interaction - Perceived stereotype image
with host nationals (Sodowsky and
Plake, 1992) which forms a negative
inter-group stereotypes over time
(Stroebe et al.,1988)
11
12 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

Figure 2. Conceptual model.

way for higher education institutions to achieve success and attract more international
students. The main reason is when international students are able to accommodate
themselves in a host country, the possibility of achieving academic satisfaction would be
higher (Kulik et al., 1987) that can lead to positive word of mouth in promoting higher
education institutions to others. As mentioned by Rust and Oliver (2000) satisfaction is a
remarkable motivator for speaking well about services. Therefore, students’ satisfaction
should be at the centre of every education policy (Mark, 2013).
Despite the profound properties of field theory and cross-cultural adaptation theory,
literature has provided little insights into the area of cross-cultural adaptation through
these two theoretical perspectives. Therefore, the current paper built on the existing
lacuna by designing a conceptual framework on the basis of field theory and cross-
cultural adaptation theory that can explain international students’ cross-cultural
adaptation, its antecedents, and outcomes in a new context.
The conceptual framework developed in this paper proposed a model in the area of cross-
cultural adaptation of international students. The conceptual model is consistent, but
extended from the prior models (Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver, 2006; Berry, 2006;
Safdar et al., 2003; Ward et al., 2001) with specific focus on international students.
Similar to the earlier models, SCT, CLT, and SIT are applied in the proposed conceptual
framework. In contrast with the earlier models that were mainly developed to tackle the
issues of migrants’ and refugees’ acculturation process, the current paper proposed a
conceptual framework and model to target international students and look at their cross-
cultural adaptation’ antecedents and outcomes from the lens of field theory and cross-
cultural adaptation theory. Furthermore, the previous models in the literature considered
psychological and sociocultural adaptations as the outcomes of acculturation. However, in
the proposed conceptual model in this paper, outcomes of adaptation refer to the other
factors resulting from successful achievement of psychological and sociocultural

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

Shafaei and Abd Razak 13

adaptations. Hence, the implications of this paper that make it distinguishable from the
previous studies are outlined as the following.

Implications to theory
Building upon field theory helps to view the individual (inner) and situational (outer) factors
influencing international students’ adaptive behaviours in a new environment from different
viewpoints. Moreover, field theory makes it possible to identify antecedents of cross-cultural
adaptation with cognitive aspects since the key role of perception is emphasised in this
theory. As cognition plays a vital role in adjustment process (Tajfel, 1981), international
students’ perceptions of their new psychological environment in a new culture is essential to
understand their adaptation. This is a missing link in the extant literature. Field theory’s
contribution to the proposed conceptual framework in this paper led to identifying some
important factors to bridge the existing gap in the literature on international students’ cross-
cultural adaptation. Moreover, by integrating field theory and cross-cultural adaptation
theory both antecedents and outcomes of cross-cultural adaptation are taken into
account. Unlike the previous models, employing cross-cultural adaptation theory in this
paper helps to go beyond the existing models by suggesting several outcomes rather than
merely focusing on psychological and sociocultural adaptations as the outcomes.
Thus, the conceptual framework proposed in this study takes a different approach and
looks at internationalisation of higher education from a new angle by placing international
students at the heart of this phenomenon and suggests a channel through which both
international students and host countries’ educational institutions can prosper and benefit.
Overall, this study is distinctive owing to several reasons: first, systematic classification of
the antecedents into individual and situational factors is in accordance with field theory
which emphasises the role of perception and cognition. Second, since international
students are the target group for developing the conceptual framework, more context-
specific outcomes (i.e. perceived academic satisfaction and positive word of mouth)
related to this group are suggested. Last, the conceptual framework developed in this
paper has the potential to be studied and examined empirically in relation with
international students’ cross-cultural adaptation and it can open up new horizons in the
area of higher education mobility.

Implications to research
As mentioned by Smith and Khawaja (2011), there is a need to develop a model specifically
for the context of international students because the current models primarily concentrate on
refugees and migrants. Besides, there is a gap in the literature regarding the identification of
individual and situational factors contributing to international students’ adaptation with
cognition, psychology, and behaviour components. Therefore, the proposed conceptual
model in this paper requires further empirical scrutiny concerning international students.
Future research should test each identified antecedents proposed in the model in relation
with psychological and sociocultural adaptations. The proposed model should be empirically
tested in various contexts on international students who move to a new country for the
purpose of pursuing their higher education. In particular, the relationships among the
variables in the proposed conceptual framework can be tested quantitatively using
questionnaires in order to get insights from a large number of international students. It is

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

14 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

suggested that Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) technique could be applied for data
analysis since SEM provides an appropriate and the most efficient estimation technique for a
series of separate multiple regression equations to be estimated simultaneously. Moreover,
SEM incorporates multi-item scales in the analysis and accounts for the measurement error
associated with each of the scales (Hair et al., 2010). SEM as a second generation data
analysis technique provides a platform to model multiple independent and dependent
constructs’ relationships simultaneously and enables researchers to answer interrelated
research questions through a comprehensive, systematic, and single analysis (Gefen et al.,
2000). Since the proposed model in this paper is exploratory in nature (i.e. the relationships
among the variables in the model have not been tested before), Partial Least Squares
technique (PLS-SEM) is deemed appropriate to be employed.
The proposed conceptual model could be tested in various contexts using sample of
international students from different backgrounds. Owing to social, cultural, and
educational discrepancies that exist among international students, it would be insightful to
empirically examine the model in different contexts. It could also be informative to separate
international students based on geographical regions they come from and identify specific
factors which could facilitate their cross-cultural adaptation. Additionally, length of stay in a
host country, friendship network, and field of study could be assessed in the proposed
conceptual model to portray a detailed picture of international students’ needs in a host
country. It is also suggested to test the model for both private and public educational
institutions in order to compare and contrast their effective policies and practices
concerning international students. Through employing various statistical tests, more
interpretation of the relationships in the proposed model could be achieved.
Furthermore, with the strong support from theories mentioned in this paper, more
antecedents of psychological and sociocultural adaptations can be explored and
incorporated into the proposed model with regards to international students. It is also
crucial to identify and examine other outcomes of psychological and sociocultural
adaptations in the context of international students, since it could contribute to the
growth of higher education mobility.

Implications to higher education

This paper provides strategic managerial insights for academicians, education policymakers,
and university administrators of the emerging countries that compete to attract more
international students. Given the impact of internationalisation of higher education and
the competition among new players in the global education market to attract more
international students, positive word of mouth is essential to bring more international
students to host country’s educational institutions. Mainly for the new players in the
market that are competing with well-established educational institutions, it is substantial
to build a good reputation which can convey a positive image to customers and stakeholders
of an organisation. Positive reputation can be a basis for competitive advantage that can
help an organisation attract and retain customers (Thomaz, 2010). As such, it is timely for
emerging countries to boost their educational institutions’ good reputation in order to
remain competitive in the global education market. Higher education institutions should
prioritise international students’ adaptation issues. This not only ensures successful
transition of international students, but also assists new players to attract more
international students through their existing customers’ positive word of mouth.

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

Shafaei and Abd Razak 15

International
Students' Cross-
Individual Factors Cultural Situational Factors
Adaptation

Increase in the Perceived

Number of Academic
International Satisfaction
Students

Positive Word
of Mouth in
Recommending
Host Countries'
Educationsl
Institutions

Figure 3. Managerial contribution of the proposed conceptual model.

Since most of the conceptual frameworks in the area of education internationalisation

consider educational institutions and organisations’ perspectives in handling and addressing
the issues involved in international students’ mobility, this study helps higher education
authorities to view the phenomenon of higher education internationalisation from a
different angle. This proposed approach offers new path through which international
students’ psychological and sociocultural needs are taken into consideration as well as
their positive outcomes which could contribute to higher education management and
improvement in host countries. In particular, international students’ successful cross-
cultural adaptation can lead to higher academic satisfaction which would result in positive
word of mouth in promoting host countries’ educational institutions to others. In addition,
by empirically implementing the proposed model, higher education institutions especially the
new players in the global education market can devise suitable human capital management
strategies tailored for meeting specific needs of international students. Figure 3 depicts the
implications of this study to higher education.
This is an alternative marketing strategy for emerging countries. By meeting and
addressing international students’ needs, higher education institutions can enhance their
international students’ academic satisfaction and willingness to promote host country’s
educational institutions to others through positive word of mouth. In the process of
marketing education services, it is essential to consider the receivers’ wants and needs
(Schofield et al., 2013). Given that the process of internationalisation is cyclical (Qiang,
2003), further planning and reforming of the existing programmes and policies contribute
to the refinement of higher education internationalisation cycle and ensure sustainability of
higher education mobility.
In moving towards internationalisation of higher education and its growth, the issue of
cross-cultural adaptation, which is the main source of stress and anxiety for the international
students, should be understood and addressed well by education policymakers and

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

16 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

academicians. As proposed in this paper, international students’ successful cross-cultural

adaptation, known as ‘successful transition’, can lead to satisfaction with their academic
performance which can ultimately result in positive word of mouth in promoting host
country’s educational institutions to others. As such, it is suggested to higher education
institutions to apply the proposed model for their existing students in order to find out
the areas which require more attention and refinement. The results can then be translated
into tactics and strategies for prospective students. In fact, this is a never ending process
which can stimulate higher education institutions’ progressive transformation towards
excellence. By developing a conceptual model, this paper offers an alternative path to
propel competing countries towards education internationalisation, and transforming their
higher education to a centre of excellence through attracting more international students.
The alternative channel suggested in this paper not only tackles the issues of international
students’ adaptation, but it also helps competing countries grow and sustain their higher
education market.

This paper is not being considered concurrently for publication elsewhere nor has it been
published in any language before. All the authors have contributed significantly and are in
agreement with the content of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements
The first author is a recipient of USM Global Fellowship. The authors also acknowledge the support of
Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) through Research University Grant (Grant Number: 1001/PGURU/
816267).

References
Adelman MB (1988) Cross-cultural adjustment: A theoretical perspective on social support.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 12(3): 183–204.
Aldwin C (1994) Stress, Coping and Development. New York: Guilford Press.
Anderson LE (1994) A new look at an old construct: Cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations 18(3): 293–328.
Arends-Toth J and Van de Vijver FJR (2006) Issues in the conceptualization and assessment of
acculturation. In: Bornstein MH and Cote LR (eds) Acculturation and Parent–Child
Relationships: Measurement and Development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
pp.33–62.
Argyle M (1969) Social Interaction. London: Methuen.
Arokiasamy ARA (2010) The impact of globalization on higher education in Malaysia. Available at:
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/waoe/aroka.pdf (accessed 20 January 2015).
Atkinson JW (1964) An Introduction to Motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Aycan Z and Berry JW (1995) Cross-cultural adaptation as a multifaceted phenomenon. In: 4th
European congress of psychology. Athens: Greece.
Bardi A and Ryff CD (2007) Interactive effects of traits on adjustment to a life transition. Journal of
Personality 75(5): 955–984.
Bartell M (2003) Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher
Education 45(1): 43–70.
Beiser M, Barwick C, Berry JW, et al. (1988) Menial Health Issues Affecting Immigrants and Refugees.
Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada.
Berry JW (1997) Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology 46(1): 5–34.

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

Shafaei and Abd Razak 17

Berry JW (2006) Stress perspectives on acculturation. In: Sam DL and Berry JW (eds) The Cambridge
Handbook of Acculturation Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.43–57.
Berry JW and Sabatier C (2010) Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among second
generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 34(3): 191–207.
Bochner S (1982) Cultures in contact: Studies in Cross-Cultural Interaction. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bochner S, McLeod BM and Lin A (1977) Friendship patterns of overseas students: A functional
model 1. International Journal of Psychology 12(4): 277–294.
Chak A (2002) Understanding children’s curiosity and exploration through the lenses of Lewin’s field
theory: on developing an appraisal framework. Early Child Development and Care 172(1): 77–87.
Cheng MY, Mahmood A and Yeap PF (2013) Malaysia as a regional education hub: a demand-side
analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35(5): 523–536.
Clayton J, Crozier G and Reay D (2009) Home and away: risk, familiarity and the multiple
geographies of the higher education experience. International Studies in Sociology of Education
19(3-4): 157–174.
Cronshaw SF and McCulloch AN (2008) Reinstating the Lewinian vision: From force field analysis to
organization field assessment. Organization Development Journal 26(4): 89–103.
Daniels V (2003) Kurt Lewin notes. Available at: http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/
lewinnotes.html (accessed 20 September 2013).
Decker PJ and Borgen FH (1993) Dimensions of work appraisal: Stress, strain, coping, job
satisfaction, and negative affectivity. Journal of Counseling Psychology 40(4): 470–478.
Demes KA and Geeraert N (2014) Measures matter scales for adaptation, cultural distance, and
acculturation orientation revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 45(1): 91–109.
Dobson IR and Hölttä S (2001) The internationalisation of university education: Australia and
Finland compared. Tertiary Education & Management 7(3): 243–254.
Earley PC and Ang S (2003) Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Palo Alto,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Furnham A (1993) Communicating in foreign lands: The cause, consequences and cures of culture
shock. Language, Culture and Curriculum 6(1): 91–109.
Furnham A (2004) Education and culture shock. Psychologist 17(1): 16–19.
Gefen D, Straub DW and Boudreau M-C (2000) Structural equation modeling techniques and
regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems 4(1): 2–77.
Goštautaite_ B and Bučiuniene_ I (2010) Integrating job characteristics model into the person-
environment fit framework. Economics & Management 2010(15): 505–511.
Gürüz K (2008) Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge
Economy. Albany: State University of: New York Press.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall Inc.
Hamad R and Lee CM (2013) An assessment of how length of study-abroad programs influences
cross-cultural adaptation. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 23(5): 661–674.
Jibeen T and Khalid R (2010) Predictors of psychological well-being of Pakistani immigrants in
Toronto, Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34(5): 452–464.
Kim YY (1988) Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation: An Integrative Theory. Clevedon,
United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
Kim YY (1990) Communication and adaptation: The case of Asian Pacific refugees in the United
States. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 1(1): 191–207.
Kim YY (2001) Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural
Adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim YY (2005) Adapting to a new culture: An integrative communication theory. In: Gudykunst WB
(ed.) Theorizing about Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.375–400.

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

18 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

Kim YY and Gudykunst WB (1988) Cross-Cultural Adaptation: Current Approaches. London: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Knight J (1993) Internationalization: management strategies and issues. International Education
Magazine 9: 6–22.
Knight J (2004) Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of
Studies in International Education 8(1): 5–31.
Kulik CT, Oldham GR and Hackman JR (1987) Work design as an approach to person-environment
fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior 31(3): 278–296.
Lamprianou I and Sunker H (2014) Transition to higher education: Social and political perspectives.
Policy Futures in Education 2: 629–632.
Lazarus RS (1990) Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry 1(1): 3–13.
Lazarus RS and Folkman S (1984) Stress, Coping and Appraisal. New York: Springer.
Lewin K (1951) In: Dorwin Cartwright D (ed). Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and
Brothers.
Lewin K, Dembo T, Festinger L, et al. (1944) Level of aspiration. In: Hunt JM (ed.) Personality and
the Behavior Disorders. Oxford: Ronald Press, pp.333–378.
Lewis Hall ME, Edwards KJ and Hall TW (2006) The role of spiritual and psychological development
in the cross-cultural adjustment of missionaries. Mental Health, Religion & Culture 9(2): 193–208.
Lin K-M, Tazuma L and Masuda M (1979) Adaptational problems of Vietnamese refugees: I. Health
and mental health status. Archives of General Psychiatry 36(9): 955–961.
Marginson S (2006) Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher
Education 52(1): 1–39.
Marginson S and Van Der Wende M (2007) Globalisation and higher education. OECD Education
Working Papers, No. 8. OECD Publishing (NJ1).
Mark E (2013) Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management 35(1): 2–10.
Masgoret A (2006) Examining the role of language attitudes and motivation on the sociocultural
adjustment and the job performance of sojourners in Spain. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 30(3): 311–331.
Masgoret A and Ward C (2006) Culture learning approach to acculturation. In: Sam DL and Berry
JW (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp.58–77.
Mayo P (2009) Competitiveness, diversification and the international higher education cash flow: the
EU’s higher education discourse amidst the challenges of globalisation. International Studies in
Sociology of Education 19(2): 87–103.
Molinsky A (2007) Cross-cultural code-switching: The psychological challenges of adapting behavior
in foreign cultural interactions. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 622–640.
Neill J (2004) Kurt Lewin field theory. Available at http://wilderdom.com/theory/FieldTheory.html
(accessed 15 September 2013).
Phinney JS (1990) Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: review of research. Psychological Bulletin
108(3): 499–514.
Qiang Z (2003) Internationalization of higher education: towards a conceptual framework. Policy
Futures in Education 1(2): 248–270.
Rust RT and Oliver RL (2000) Should we delight the customer? Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 28(1): 86–94.
Safdar S, Lay C and Struthers W (2003) The process of acculturation and basic goals: Testing a
multidimensional individual difference acculturation model with Iranian immigrants in Canada.
Applied Psychology 52(4): 555–579.
Schofield C, Cotton D, Gresty K, et al. (2013) Higher education provision in a crowded marketplace.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35(2): 193–205.
Schultz D and Schultz S (2004) A History of Modern Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

Shafaei and Abd Razak 19

Schuster RM, Hammitt WE and Moore D (2003) A theoretical model to measure the appraisal and
coping response to hassles in outdoor recreation settings. Leisure Sciences 25(2-3): 277–299.
Searle W and Ward C (1990) The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during
cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 14(4): 449–464.
Smith RA and Khawaja NG (2011) A review of the acculturation experiences of international students.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35(6): 699–713.
Sodowsky GR and Plake BS (1992) A Study of Acculturation Differences Among International People
and Suggestions for Sensitivity to Within-Group Differences. Journal of Counseling & Development
71(1): 53–59.
Sorrentino RM (2013) Looking for B ¼ f (P, E): The exception still forms the rule. Motivation and
Emotion 37(1): 4–13.
Stroebe W, Lenkert A and Jonas K (1988) Familiarity may breed contempt: The impact of student
exchange on national stereotypes and attitudes. In: Stroebe W, Bar-Tal D and Hewstone M (eds)
The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. New York: Springer, pp.167–187.
Sumer S (2009) International students’ psychological and sociocultural adaptation in the United
States. Counseling and Psychological Services Dissertations. Paper 34.
Tajfel H (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel H and Turner J (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In: Austin W and
Worchel S (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp.7–24.
Terry L (2011) International initiatives that facilitate global mobility in higher education. Michigan
State Law Review 2012(1): 305–356.
Thomaz JC (2010) Identification, reputation, and performance: Communication mediation. Latin
American Business Review 11(2): 171–197.
Wang Y and Sun S (2009) Examining Chinese students’ Internet use and cross-cultural adaptation:
Does loneliness speak much? Asian Journal of Communication 19(1): 80–96.
Ward C (1996) Acculturation. In: Landis D, Bennett J and Bennett M (eds) Handbook of Intercultural
Training, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.124–147.
Ward C (1999) Models and measurements of acculturation. In: Lonner WI, Dinner DL, Forgays DK,
et al. (eds) Merging Past, Present and Future in Cross Cultural Psychology. Netherlands: Swets and
Zeitlinger, pp.221–230.
Ward C, Bochner S and Furnham A (2001) The Psychology of Culture Shock. Hove: Routledge,
Psychology Press.
Ward C and Kennedy A (1992) Locus of control, mood disturbance, and social difficulty during cross-
cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 16(2): 175–194.
Ward C and Kennedy A (1993a) Acculturation and cross-cultural adaptation of British residents in
Hong Kong. Journal of Social Psychology 133(3): 395–397.
Ward C and Kennedy A (1993b) Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-cultural
transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home. International Journal of
Psychology 28(2): 129–147.
Ward C and Kennedy A (1994) Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural
competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18(3):
329–343.
Ward C, Okura Y, Kennedy A, et al. (1998) The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of
psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transition. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations 22(3): 277–291.
Ward C and Searle W (1991) The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological
and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 15(2):
209–224.
Wilkins S (2014) Internationalization of higher education in East Asia: trends of student mobility and
impact on education governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 34(3): 384–387.

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016

20 Policy Futures in Education 0(0)

World Trade Organization (2010) Secretariat Report, supra note 3.

Yang B and Clum GA (1994) Life stress, social support, and problem-solving skills predictive of
depressive symptoms, hopelessness, and suicide ideation in an Asian student population: A test
of a model. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 24(2): 127–139.
Zeszotarski P (2001) ERIC review: Issues in global education initiatives in the community college.
Community College Review 29(1): 65–78.
Zhou Y, Jindal-Snape D, Topping K, et al. (2008) Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation
in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 33(1): 63–75.

Azadeh Shafaei is a PhD research fellow at School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains
Malaysia (USM). She is a recipient of USM Global Fellowship. Her current research
interests include cross-cultural adaptation among international students, education
mobility, and education internationalisation.

Nordin Abd Razak is currently an Associate Professor at School of Educational Studies,

Universiti Sains Malaysia. He is a member of Malaysian Psychometric Association and a
member of Research Committee for TIMSS and PISA by the Curriculum Development
Division, Ministry of Education. His areas of interest are in measurement, scale
development and validation, multivariate and multilevel analysis, large-scale assessment
secondary data analysis (TIMSS and PISA), as well as investigating organisational
behaviour from the socio-psychological perspective.

Downloaded from pfe.sagepub.com by guest on April 28, 2016