Geoforum 80 (2017) 123–132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

International students’ post-graduation migration plans and the search

for home q
Cary Wu ⇑, Rima Wilkes
Department of Sociology, University of British Columbia, 6303 NW Marine Dr., Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z1, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Research on international student’s post migration plans treats migration as a binary stay-return cate-
Received 18 September 2016 gory and focuses on push-pull factors as the cause of this migration. In this paper we expand the defini-
Received in revised form 11 November 2016 tion of migration and consider the role of life experiences and aspirations, particularly the concept of
Accepted 30 January 2017
home. We ask, what are the different conceptualizations of home and how are these tied to differential
Available online 16 February 2017
migratory plans? We analyze data from 232 interviews with international students from more than 50
countries who attended a flagship public university in Canada from 2006–2013.We find that students
Keywords:
have four ways of thinking about home: as host, as ancestral, as cosmopolitan, and as nebulous. These
International students
Migration perceptions
understandings of home correspond to particular post-migration plans. While students who view home
Home as a host plan to stay, and those who view home as ancestral plan to return, those with cosmopolitan and
Canada nebulous conceptions of home have more open migration plans.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
More than 5 million students are currently enrolled in tertiary
education outside their country of citizenship, a number that is
estimated to increase to 7 million by 2020 (OECD, 2015). In the glo-
bal competition for talent, the skills of these highly educated inter-
national students are increasingly recognized as a key driver of
innovation and economic prosperity (Alberts and Hazen, 2013;
Bilecen and Faist, 2015; Gaule and Piacentini, 2013; Madge et al.,
2014). For this reason, many scholars have sought to understand
the motivations and experiences of students who study abroad
as well as the national/regional brain drain/gain consequences of
this migration (e.g. Baláž and Williams, 2004; Baruch et al., 2007;
Findlay, 2011; Findlay et al., 2012; Holton, 2015; Liu-Farrer,
2009; Van Mol and Timmerman, 2014; Peng, 2016; Tindal et al.,
2015). Increasingly, however, there is also a recognition that, in
addition to considering how and why students make the decision
to leave for education, there is also a need to consider whether they
q
We thank Amin Ghaziani, Wendy Roth, Lloyd Wong, Jing Zhao, Mabel Ho, Chloe
Sher, Nicole Malette, Tanvi Sirari, journal editor Wendy Shaw, and two anonymous
reviewers for their helpful comments and advice. An earlier version of this paper
was presented at the Canadian Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Ottawa,
2015 and the Pathways to Prosperity Junior Scholars Workshop in Migration,
Calgary, 2016.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: carywooruc@gmail.com (C. Wu).
return. International students are potential migrants insofar as, for
many, their educational stay is temporary.
The problem is that, not only is the post-graduate migration lit-
erature limited (Mosneaga and Winther, 2013; Van Mol and
Timmerman, 2014), but that this picture of return is complicated
by the conceptualization of migration and its causes. First, the
description of international students’ post-graduation migration
as a simple binary of ‘‘stay in host country” or ‘‘return to country
of origin” is limited (e.g. Alberts and Hazen, 2005; Arthur and
Nunes, 2014; Soon, 2014). International students have additional
migratory options including going to a third place or multiple
places that ought to be considered. Hence, studies of student
mobility should go beyond the ‘stay-return’ framework (Geddie,
2013; Tan and Hugo, 2016). Second, current push-pull models of
post-graduate migration tend not to work across contexts- the
push-pull factors that might matter in China are different in the
United States. Therefore, explanations of their migration need to
consider how these push-pull factors together lead to their migra-
tion plans after university. Rather than a one-time static individual
choice their migration decision is a long-term dynamic social pro-
cess (de Haas and Fokkema, 2011; de Haas, 2014; Lauster and Zhao,
forthcoming).
In this paper we expand the definition of student migration
beyond stay-return and we move the understanding of the causes
of this migration forward by considering the role of life experiences
and aspirations, particularly the concept of home. We ask, what are
the different conceptualizations of home and how are these tied to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.01.015
0016-7185/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
124 C. Wu, R. Wilkes / Geoforum 80 (2017) 123–132

differential migratory plans? We analyze data from 232 interviews et al., 2011), Canada (Arthur and Nunes, 2014), the UK (Baláž and
with international students from more than 50 countries who Williams, 2004; Sage et al., 2013), the Netherlands (Bijwaard and
attended a flagship public university in Canada from 2006–2013. Wang, 2016), Denmark (Mosneaga and Winther, 2013), Norway
We find that students have four ways of thinking about home, as (Basford and Riemsdijk, 2015), Australia (Baas, 2006; Tan and
host, as ancestral, as cosmopolitan, and as nebulous. These under- Hugo, 2016), and New Zealand (Soon, 2010, 2012, 2014). There
standings of home correspond to particular post-migration plans. has also been increased attention given to specific groups of inter-
While students who view home as host plan to stay, and those national students including overseas Chinese students (Wang et al.,
who view home as ancestral plan to return, those with cosmopoli- 2015), overseas British students (Harvey, 2009), and overseas
tan and nebulous conceptions of home have more open migration Indian students (Baas, 2006). In terms of research methods and
plans. Our analysis demonstrates the multi-dimensional nature of data, scholars have used qualitative interviews (Basford and
‘‘home” for international students and that how students consti- Riemsdijk, 2015; Geddie, 2013), focus group discussion (Alberts
tute their ‘‘home(s)” works in conjunction with push-pull factors and Hazen, 2005; Hazen and Alberts, 2006), statistical analysis
to shape where they intend to go upon completing their degrees. (Bijwaard and Wang, 2016; Kim, 2015), as well as mixed methods
that combine qualitative and quantitative approaches (Van Mol
and Timmerman, 2014; Wang et al., 2015).
2. Post-graduate migration – beyond stay-return as the
Although major inroads have been made, most studies confine
outcome
international students’ migratory intention as a stay-return binary.
As a result, a significant number of studies contain this dichotomy:
The astounding growth in the number of international students,
‘‘Onwards or homewards?” (Sage et al., 2013); ‘‘Return migration
from 1.3 million in 1990, to 2.1 million in 2000, to more than 5 mil-
of foreign student” (Bijwaard and Wang, 2016); ‘‘Educated in
lion today (ICEF, 2015), has trigged a growing concern about where
New Zealand and staying on?” (Soon, 2014); ‘‘Should I stay or
this young, and creative class will go upon graduation. Interna-
should I go?” (Van Mol and Timmerman, 2014); ‘‘Brain drain, incli-
tional students are ‘‘highly achieved”, ‘‘skilled”, ‘‘preferred”, and
nation to stay abroad after studies” (Baruch et al., 2007); ‘‘To return
‘‘professional” potential migrants (King and Ruiz-Gelices, 2003;
or not to return” (Zweig, 1997). Table 1 presents a selection of
King and Raghuram, 2013; Hazen and Alberts, 2006; Kim, 2015;
many of the titles of post-graduate migration studies.
Mosneaga and Winther, 2013; Wang et al., 2015). As such, their
In contrast to this portrayal of migration as a binary, a compar-
post-graduation migration decisions have major impacts for coun-
ative study of foreign students in London and Toronto shows that
tries engaged in the global competition for talent (Mosneaga and
there are multiple geographic directions in which students feel
Winther, 2013; Findlay, 2011).
pulled upon graduation (Geddie, 2013). Many international stu-
China, Taiwan, India, South Korea, and many other source coun-
dents have no future migrations plans- it is open (e.g. Musumba
tries of international students have long suffered from the brain
et al., 2011). A recent British survey examining the motivations
drain problem (Huang, 1988; Docquier and Rapoport, 2012).1
and aspirations of international students found that approximately
China, for example, has been the leading source of international stu-
20% plan to live in a third country immediately after graduation
dents for many decades. Since the start of the 1978 reforms and
and that about 40% see their future in a third country in five years’
opening up policy, the total number of Chinese students who have
time (Packwood et al., 2015). Indeed, a key issue with the stay-or-
studied abroad is over 4 million. However, only about half of these
return portrayal of post-graduate migration is that, as Geddie
overseas Chinese talents have returned (Chinese Ministry of
(2013) points out, international students are not ‘‘free agents”.
Education, 2015). Given this context, early studies of post-graduate
Their migration and career strategies are not simply shaped by
migration have predominantly focused on explaining why interna-
their personal preferences (Geddie, 2013). Hence, there is a strong
tional students have not returned to their country of origin (e.g.
need to consider the lifetime mobility aspirations of international
Baruch et al., 2007; Zweig and Changgui, 1995; Zweig, 1997;
students and their mobility beyond the ‘stay-return’ framework
Zweig et al., 2008). In their book China’s Brain Drain to the United
(Tan and Hugo, 2016).
States, Zweig and Changgui (1995) identify better economic opportu-
nities in the U.S. as a pull factor and political instability in China as a
push factor that explain the widespread non-return among oversea
3. Post-graduate migration, beyond push-pull factors as the
Chinese students. Similarly, Bratsberg (1995) highlights both eco-
cause
nomic and political factors in explaining international students’
propensity to remain in the United States in his analyses of interna-
Much of the current literature on international students’ post-
tional students from 69 source countries. Li et al. (1996) study Hong
graduate migration intentions/decisions emphasizes the role of
Kong students in the UK and evaluated whether they came to the UK
macro-level push-pull factors such the state and its institutions,
mainly for educational reasons or whether their migration was part
and micro-level push-pull factors such as social ties, as well as per-
of a conscious strategy to leave after the mid 1997 return of Hong
sonal, economic, and professional factors (e.g. Alberts and Hazen,
Kong to Chinese rule.
2005; Bijwaard and Wang, 2016; Hazen and Alberts, 2006; Kim,
Indeed, over the last decade, there has been a significant growth
2015; Mosneaga and Winther, 2013; Musumba et al., 2011; Soon,
in the study of post-graduate migration (e.g. Alberts and Hazen,
2012; Wang et al., 2015). Zweig and Changgui (1995) identify bet-
2005; Arthur and Nunes, 2014; Baas, 2006; Bijwaard and Wang,
ter economic opportunities in the U.S. as a pull factor and political
2016; Basford and Riemsdijk, 2015; Collins et al., 2016; Kim,
instability in China as a push factor that explain why so many Chi-
2015; Lu et al., 2009; Musumba et al., 2011; Mosneaga and
nese students stay overseas (see also Bratsberg, 1995). Also focus-
Winther, 2013; Sage et al., 2013; Tan and Hugo, 2016). Some of this
ing on large number of international students in the United States,
research considers the major recipient countries including, for
Alberts and Hazen (2005) have investigated the factors that moti-
example, the United States (Hazen and Alberts, 2006; Musumba
vate them to stay or return upon completion of their degrees. They
classify a wide variety of factors into professional, societal, and
1
More than half (53%) of all students currently studying abroad are from Asian personal ones and suggest that, while international students often
countries and, in particular, China (17%) (ICEF, 2015). The brain drain happens when
students from less developed countries studying in North American, European, and
choose to stay for professional reasons, for societal and personal
other Western countries choose not to return after they have completed their studies reasons they tend to return. Most recently, Bijwaard and Wang
(Baruch et al., 2007; Zweig and Changgui, 1995). (2016) have explored how individual labour market changes and
 C. Wu, R. Wilkes / Geoforum 80 (2017) 123–132 125

Table 1
A selection of ‘‘Binary Titles” of the post-graduate migration literature on international students.

Year Author (s) Title

1995 Bratsberg The incidence of non-return among foreign students in the United States
1997 Zweig To return or not to return?
2005 Alberts & Hazen ‘‘There are always two voices. . .”: International students’ intentions to stay in the United States or return to their home countries
2006 Hazen & Alberts Visitors or immigrants? International students in the United States
2006 Baas Students of migration: Indian overseas students and the question of permanent residency
2007 Baruch et al. Brain drain: Inclination to stay abroad after studies
2009 Harvey British and Indian scientists in Boston considering returning to their home countries
2010 Soon The determinants of students’ return intentions
2011 de Haas & Fokkema The effects of integration and transnational ties on international return migration intentions
2013 Sage et al. Onwards or homewards?
2014 Soon Educated in New Zealand and staying on?
2014 Van Mol & Timmerman Should I stay or should I go?
2014 Wang et al. Return migration of the highly skilled in higher education institutions
2014 Arthur & Nunes Should I stay or should I go home? Career guidance with international students
2015 Tai & Truex Public opinion towards return migration
2015 Kim The influence of social relationships on international students’ intentions to remain abroad
2016 Bijwaard & Wang Return migration of foreign students

marriage formation affect international students’ post graduate
migration decisions in the Netherlands. Using administrative panel
data, they find that, while finding a job has varying effects on inter-
national students from different countries, marriage in the Nether-
lands makes all graduates more prone to stay regardless of their
country of birth. The push-pull model is, however, subject to two
key limitations.
First, as migration is a complex process with many drivers,
there are many push-pull factors, or constraints and opportunities,
to consider. These, in turn, are often context-specific, depending on
the country of residence and of origin. For example, focusing on
international students studying at universities in New Zealand,
Soon (2012, 147) finds that ‘‘the initial return intention, family
support, length of stay in New Zealand, work experience, and level
and discipline of study”, as well as ‘‘students’ perceptions of their
home country, including those of the work environment, the
opportunities to use their acquired skills, the lifestyle and their
family ties” determine which country the students intend to go
after their studies. Similarly, in explaining why international stu-
dents in the United Kingdom and the United States choose to stay,
Baruch et al. (2007: 99) list that ‘‘students’ perceptions of ethnic
differences and labor markets, their adjustment process to the host
country, and their family ties in host and home countries” all influ-
ence their inclination to stay. Indeed, there are many factors that
can be connected to students’ migration plans. What is needed is
a larger concept that can be used to encompass or bring these fac-
tors together, one that might apply across contexts (Baláž et al.,
2014; de Haas, 2014; Gilmartin, 2008).
Second, because much of this literature is quantitative, the
assumption is that there is a link between a given push-pull factor
or set of factors and the migration outcome. There may be a corre-
lation but it may also be the case that students themselves are not
making these linkages in the way assumed by the researcher. Cer-
tainly it seems likely that, as students complete the course of their
studies, there is also significant personal growth that complicates
their migration plans (Basford and Riemsdijk, 2015; Collins et al.,
2016; Geddie, 2013; Sage et al., 2013). Ambitions and life goals
change in response to personal development, and therefore ‘‘mo-
bility decisions are socially and biographically embedded”
(Basford and Riemsdijk, 2015; Coulter et al., 2016; Marcu, 2015;
Van Mol and Timmerman, 2014:465). With the push-pull model
it is assumed that students might stay because of a job but, without
specific acknowledgment on their part that this is the case, and evi-
dence that they make this linkage, it is still unclear if this is the
root cause. For example, it is very likely that many international
students would engage less with the host country if they perceive
it as no more than a temporary rung on the educational ladder. As a
result, they would have focused on more the opportunities avail-
able in the places where they intend to move. There is an external
assumption about motivation that may not reflect the internal
reality. Overall, in explaining where international students go upon
graduation, it is also important to understand the specific pro-
cesses that turn push-pull factors into a force that affects migration
plans.
4. The search for home?
Beyond their role as students per se, international students
often undertake or develop multiple roles during their course of
study. As King and Raghuram (2013:127) point out, this could
include roles as ‘‘family members, actual or potential workers, or
even refugees and asylum-seekers”. Student’s ambitions and life
goals change throughout the course of their studies and hence,
international students’ perception of where to go after university
is a complicated and dynamic process (de Haas, 2014; Findlay
et al., 2012). A larger framework is needed to situate why push-
pull factors might apply (or not) in any given case.
Humans are a migratory species. No matter how factors change,
migration has always been and will remain an inevitable part of
the human experience (Tucker, 1994; de Haas, 2014). Humans
have always migrated in search of something called home, ‘‘an
emotional environment, a culture, a geographical location, a polit-
ical system, a historical time and place, or a combination of all the
above” (Tucker, 1994:184). Hence, migration is fundamentally a
home-searching process (Tucker, 1994; Kochan, 2016). Home, in
this sense, offers a means to synthesize migrants’ life aspirations
and experiences by shaping their migration directions.
Certainly the concept of home is often implicit in the migration
literature. For example, scholars often use going back home to por-
tray migrants’ return to their country of origin (e.g. Baldassar,
2001; Hirvonen and Helene, 2015; McLeod and Burrows, 2014)
and to depict migrants’ country of origin as a home country (e.g.
Christou and King, 2010; Noble, 2013; Teo, 2011). Home is a place,
but more than this, is also a set of feelings, social relations, or cul-
tural meanings, an idea or an imaginary. It is a complex, multidi-
mensional, and moveable concept (Al-Ali and Koser, 2003; Blunt,
2005; Blunt and Dowling, 2006; Brickell, 2012; Mallett, 2004;
Moskal, 2015; Tucker, 1994). Migrants constitute and experience
home in many different ways, and the idea of, and the longing
for home structures their experience of migration (Kochan, 2016;
Nowicka, 2006; Liu, 2014; Taylor, 2015; Wiles, 2008).
126 C. Wu, R. Wilkes / Geoforum 80 (2017) 123–132
In recognizing the complexities and functions of home, a grow-
ing body of migration research challenges the traditional imagina-
tion of home as a fixed place or a particular sense of identity,
instead conceptualizing it as a dynamic individual construction
through multiple, lived or imagined relationships with people
and places (e.g. Ahmed, 1999; Al-Ali and Koser, 2003; Buffel,
2015; Dudley, 2011; Lucas and Purkayastha, 2007; Nititham,
2017; Nowicka, 2007; Kochan, 2016; Mueller, 2015; Ralph and
Staeheli, 2011; Staeheli and Nagel, 2006; Suda, 2016; Taylor,
2015; Wiles, 2008). For example, Dudley (2011) has studied how,
even in Thai refugee camps, the everyday production and con-
sumption of food and textiles helps Karenni refugees create a sense
of home. Similarly, Nowicka (2007) shows how a group of mobile
transnational professionals constitute their homes under condi-
tions of extensive mobility. With an analysis of qualitative inter-
views with college graduates in Guangzhou (China), Suda (2016)
demonstrates how they use diverse strategies to create home in
urban villages. Whereas some graduates create a feeling of belong-
ing by focusing on local relations and familiar space others create
an urban home by accepting their transient status while they
acquire cultural, economic, and social capital.
Still, little is known about how migrants’ construction of home
in turn shapes their future migration plans. Most recently, Kochan
(2016) has demonstrated that, in the context of China’s internal
migration, Chinese migrants have three conceptualizations of
home, namely, the ancestral home, the city home, and the material
home. This variation in migrants’ conceptualization of home comes
not only from their stay in the host place or from a change in their
economic situation but also from the process of identity formation
and from their engagement with social groups in urban China
(Kochan, 2016:30). These three different home conceptualizations
not only reflect the complexity of migrants’ identity construction
process, but also provide an indication of migrants’ long-term
migration plans. An example from interviews with internal
migrants in China illustrates that the lived and present experiences
of home might then shape future migration plans (Kochan,
2016:25), ‘‘I sometimes think about going back, but for me home is
the place where I feel comfortable. Now it is here with my friends,
but in the future maybe all my friends will go to other places, and I will
go to look for another home. There might be a different home for every
time in life.” This individual clearly connects home as a place
related to particular people (which might be a push or pull factor)
that will lead to migration if others also move. It suggests that
home is how we connect to migration plans.
Accordingly, it should be fruitful to investigate how interna-
tional students constitute, experience, make, or practice their
homes in different ways and how their construction of home
shapes their post-study migration plans. For some international
students, a temporary educational stay in a new country provides
the opportunity to develop their local social networks and to
potentially have a family. By building up local social networks as
well as maintaining their home-based networks through social
media, international students are able to create a new home away
from their original home. Many studies have shown that immi-
grants are more likely to consider the host society ‘‘home” if they
have developed extensive social and family ties (e.g. Geddie,
2013; Soon, 2014) and this contributing factor often leads to their
eventual decision to settle in the host country. For example, mar-
riage formation in the host country makes international students
more prone to stay (Bijwaard and Wang, 2016; Kim, 2015).
It is also the case that, for many international students, home is
the place where they originally come from. Studies of return
migration have shown that migrants’ desires to return relates to
patriotic and social ties to their origin society and to a lack of such
bonds in the host society (King and Ruiz-Gelices, 2003; Waldorf,
1995). It is the ‘‘balance between their degree of integration in
the host country and their level of attachment to the country of ori-
gin” that makes returnees return (Anniste and Tammaru,
2014:377). On the one hand, studies have shown that international
students’ positive perceptions of their country of origin including
the opportunities to use their acquired skills, the lifestyle, and their
familial ties have significant impacts on their intention to return
(Hazen and Alberts, 2006; Soon, 2014). On the other hand, the
experience in the host society also matters. Feelings of alienation
from a culture experienced as foreign and difficulties with integra-
tion are also recognized as common reasons why students return
(Hazen and Alberts, 2006; Soon, 2014).
Thus, when living in one culture, people always dream of another.
This could be the impetus behind the initial move from one place to
another for education. However, dreams of a better home might be
broken by a strange, newfound reality. Losing the comforts of their
own culture, international students start to miss home (Teo, 2011).
This line of research provides an understanding of home as a location
that represents a spatial and relational realm from which people
venture into the world and to which they generally hope to return.
In addition place of origin, home can also be considered as mul-
tiple places occupied over the course of an individual’s life. Taking
a dynamic perspective, Carlson (2013) argues that students’ expe-
riences of mobility, social relations, and life events play a decisive
role in forming their motivations around migration. It is clear that
students who have traveled abroad prior to studying in a host
country may have different views on migration than those who
do not have such experience. International students who have
more exposure to international contexts are more likely to pursue
an international career (Bozionelos et al., 2015). This illustrates
that for some international students home is neither the country
where they originally came from, nor the place they currently stay.
These earlier migration ‘‘choices” could simply be part of their pro-
gression to a third place (see also Findlay et al., 2012).
Globalization and mobility has also undermined some people’s
attachment to place (Giddens, 1991). The places we occupy are no
more than temporary stations, which prevent us from developing
strong affection for any particular place (Bauman, 1992). Therefore,
the concept of home can be ambiguous including for migrants who
face an uncertainty of belongingness. This may especially be the case
for ‘‘third culture kids”: these are students who grew up living and
travelling multiple places (Fail et al., 2004). A more recent study of
young adults away from their country of origin shows that they
are strongly imbued with a sense of ‘‘being neither here, nor there”,
or ‘‘not really any longer belongs anywhere” (McLeod and Burrows,
2014:380). Young mobile international students encounter differ-
ence, negotiate identities, and fabricate their being (Rizvi et al.,
2010). What is home and where home is may still be an unknown.
Indeed, international students’ decision on where to go upon
graduation is a dynamic process and it involves many considera-
tions that are deeply embedded in cultural, economic, political,
and social contexts as well as their biographical differences
(Basford and Riemsdijk, 2015; Van Mol and Timmerman, 2014;
and see Baláž et al., 2014 for similar discussion on general migra-
tion). What is home for them, and how they experience and consti-
tute their home provides a means of summarizing their life course
aspirations and migrating experiences (Findlay et al., 2015). Our
goals in this paper are twofold: first, to reveal the varying under-
standings of home for international students; second, to explore
how different home experiences specifically structure interna-
tional students’ post-degree migration intentions.
5. Data and methods
The data come from the International Students Study (ISS) pro-
ject conducted at a flagship public university in Canada, the
 C. Wu, R. Wilkes / Geoforum 80 (2017) 123–132 127

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of international students (n = 232).

Variable Mean Percent (%) Min Max

Age 22 / 17 45
Female / 66 0 1
Degree (Undergraduate) / 74 0 1
Native English Speaker / 34 0 1
Overseas Experience / 49 0 1
Have Family in Canada / 35 0 1
Source Country
United States / 19 0 1
China / 15 0 1
Japan / 8 0 1
United Kingdom / 5 0 1
India / 4 0 1
All others / 180 0 1
Asia total / 41 0 1

Table 3
Post-graduate migration intentions of international students (n = 232).

Return Stay Open Total

Source Country
United States 13 6 26 45
China 13 7 15 35
Japan 9 0 9 18
United Kingdom 2 3 7 12
India 2 1 7 10
Other Countries 23 21 68 112
Total Asia only 34 12 48 94
Total all countries 62 38 132 232

Note: Cell numbers are count data for each category.

University of British Columbia (see also Kenyon et al., 2012).2
Canada is ideal for a study of international students as it is one of
the top global recipients of international students. As of 2015 there
were 356,574 international students in Canada, the vast majority
from China, India, France, and South Korea (Canadian Magazine of
Immigration, 2015). The ISS project comprises 232 qualitative inter-
views from a convenience sample with international students (who
hold student visas) from more than 50 different countries between
2006–2013 on topics such as educational background, social net-
works, social activities, experiences of discrimination, and future
plans.3 All interviews were tape-recorded and analyzed using Altas.ti.
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the sample. The aver-
age age of the respondents was 22 and the majority – 74% – were
undergraduate and 66% were female. The percentages of intervie-
wees who have families in Canada and those who have English
as their mother tongue are similar at 34%. The largest number of
students come from the United States (19%) followed by China
(15%), Japan (7%) and India (4%) (Asian countries account for 41%
of the sample). Notably, nearly half of the interviewees (49%) have
lived in more than three countries, including their birth country
2
As the university is research-intensive and located in Canada this might filter the
kinds of responses that are reported. This could occur because of who gets into
Canada and because of who gains admission to this kind of university. For example, it
might be that there are wealthier respondents in the sample than in another
university that is less well-known. It might also be that there are international
students who cannot obtain a VISA to come to Canada or afford to do so. This might be
the case, for example, for some international students who go from one African
country to another. While the omission of such students might lead to a different
distribution of answers, we do not expect that it will alter the basic typology and
framework that we develop.
3
We very gratefully acknowledge and extend our thanks to Dr. Wendy Roth for
sharing the data with us (the full details of the study are available at -http://soci.ubc.
ca/study-of-international-student-integration-at-ubc/).
and Canada, illustrating the complexity of their migration experi-
ences. In terms of post-migration plans 26.7% planned to return,
16.3% said they would stay in Canada and the remainder (56.8%)
had open plans including being not sure or open to multiple places
(see Table 3).
Our focus in this paper are two major inductive codes -home
and migration intention. Other codes that relate to students’ migra-
tion intentions were also identified including social and family ties
in Canada, overseas experience before coming to Canada, living expe-
rience in Canada, as well as future education/career move. These
codes were first identified based on 45 interviews conducted in
2013 (about 20% of the interviews) and were then applied to all
232 interviews. There were multiple coders of this data and, there-
fore, to ensure inter-coder reliability (Campbell et al., 2013) a
research assistant recoded five randomly selected interviews. The
inter-coder reliability for each code ð1  XiÞ refers to the total dis-
agreement for each code divided by the total instances for the code
P
ðXiÞ and equals ð1  XiÞ=i: The final inter-coder agreement aver-
ages 94% which is reliable according to Miles and Huberman’s
(1984) 90% overall inter-coder agreement for qualitative data anal-
ysis. To analyze these interviews, we considered how international
students make sense of their homes in relating to their social and
family ties, life aspirations, positive and negative experiences in
Canada and how together these shape their post-graduation migra-
tion plans.
6. Findings
6.1. Home: The host home – and the migration plan is to stay
When asked where home is many international students
focused on Canada. Having built families and established social
128 C. Wu, R. Wilkes / Geoforum 80 (2017) 123–132
connections, young and mobile international students felt at home
in Canada after only a few years and were not necessarily eager to
return to their country of origin. Neema,4 a female undergraduate
student from Tanzania shared her feelings about home,
A lot of the times I tell people this, that I spend more time here than
I actually do at home. So this is home again. And I mean it is reality
and I think it is where you choose to build home. It’s where you feel
like you’re at home. And I feel like I’m at home when I’m at home
but I also feel like the life that I’ve been able to get here, the things
I’m working on now and the people I’ve met so far it has made it
feel like this could be home.
For Neema, home was a place where she had spent most of her
time, a place where she felt she fit in and therefore, where she saw
her long-term future. Neema did not confine ‘‘home” to one partic-
ular place but rather to places where she felt comfortable and
desired to stay. For Neema the concept of home was about emo-
tional attachment. Moreover, local interpersonal relationships also
played a role in Neema’s consideration of ‘‘home”. In this instance
home is related to spending time building up relationships in the
host country in order to feel right and happy, in other words, to feel
at home.
Many of the students who have expressed a willingness to stay
are living in Canada with their partner, with their children, or have
plans to bring their families to Canada in the near future. In fact,
some international students had already taken ‘‘home” with them
when they migrated to Canada. As indicated by Ricardo, a Mexican
graduate student,
It is not just a personal project. We see that (coming to Canada) as
a family project.
Ricardo had already decided that Canada was home even prior
to arrival and that it was about family. And, as students such as
Ricardo spend longer in Canada and become more accustomed to
everyday activities, build up their family relationships, make new
friends they come to see the host country as home.
Others want to make Canada their new home because they are
unhappy with their country of origin. Several Chinese students
expressed their unwillingness to return to China after graduation
because they were concerned about the political, social and natural
environment in China. They expressed their desire to work hard
so they could stay, build a home, and eventually bring their fami-
lies to Canada. Several students from Sudan, Iran and Burma also
said they wanted to stay because they were concerned about the
political environment where they came from. Therefore, for some
international students, political unrest in the country of origin is
a strong push to make Canada home after graduation.
6.2. Home: The ancestral home and the migration plan is to return
Despite having moved away from their country of origin for
many years, some international students do consider home in
terms of ancestry5. These students often emphasized the importance
of social ties where they came from. This tended to be intertwined
with a desire to return. Da-Xia, a student from China who has been
4
All student names are pseudonyms. For this category we elected to use the term
‘‘host” as opposed to another term such as ‘‘adopted” so as to keep the terminology
consistent with previous literature.
5
We argue that international students’ decision to return is often a result of the
balance between integration in the host country and attachment to the country of
origin. We use ancestral home over, for example, family home, parental home, or
origin home, to denote the international background of international students. While
many international students have an initial country of origin, they might grow up in
multiple countries, and therefore their country of origin is more of an ‘‘ancestral” than
a ‘‘family” or ‘‘parental” home.
in Canada for more than four years expressed her intention to go
back,
The reason I want to go back is my parents and my grandma. I
really want to take care of them. Especially my grandma, she is
92 years old. So there won’t be too much time for me to take care
of her so I really want to spend more time to be with her. I grew up
with my grandma so she is very special to me. So when I have the
ability, I want to return the favor.
Students from countries such as the United States, France, and
Australia also expressed similar views. Being close with families
and friends from the county of origin is one of the major reasons
why students plan to return. For these students, home is the place
where their social and family ties are. Although some may not
return immediately after university, they intend to return in the
future.
Besides familial consideration, a sizable portion of international
students want to return primarily because they ‘‘don’t feel right” in
their host countries. Many of them experience culture shock
because the way of life in Canada is significantly different from
their country of origin. Some students also experience language dif-
ficulties and hence find it challenging to fit in and adapt to the envi-
ronment in Canada. Meili, a second-year undergraduate student
from China described her struggles in Canada,
I don’t know how to be a part of the Canadian culture or Western
culture. Like adapt. I think that’s a problem for most international
student(s). Unless they came here before maybe, before high school,
like for example before age of 12, they can really adapt to the local
culture. But for international student(s) who arrive later than that
it’s really hard for them to be a part of the culture. Like they can try
to adapt but, it’s still hard.
Yang Jing, another Chinese graduate student, who is conscious
of her cultural differences from her Canadian acquaintances,
echoed the challenges of adapting to the environment in Canada,
I think of course Canada is good and chances here are good, and
there are many great people here. But anyhow, I am not from here,
am different from local people I think. In China, you feel you are
home.
Despite seeing tremendous opportunities in Canada, interna-
tional students such as Yang Jing prefer to return to their country
of origin as they could not fit into the local culture. This illustrates
that students’ ability to adapt to the local culture significantly
affects their perception of ‘‘home” and, consequently, their migra-
tion decisions. In other words, ‘‘feeling at home” in Canada is one of
the most important elements in student’s migration decisions.
Many international students did not ‘‘feel at home” in Canada
because they not only faced difficulties making friends but in some
cases they also encountered discrimination. For example, Yuto, a
male undergraduate student from Japan shared his experiences
of discrimination,
Well, you know, from time to time you just walk down the street
and a bunch of drunken bastards would drive up and be like
‘‘You Asians, get the fuck out from our country” and throw a beer
bottle to us. You know, you get racial comments like you guys
are yellow, you guys can’t take alcohol, what are you guys doing
here, just stick with your group and whatever your language you
are speaking. Speak English god damn it.
Not only do these discriminatory remarks make students such
as Yuto feel unaccepted, it reinforces their feelings of isolation
and helplessness, thereby discouraging them from staying
after graduation. Discrimination is especially distressing to
students who may have already faced difficulties making friends,
 C. Wu, R. Wilkes / Geoforum 80 (2017) 123–132
overcoming language barriers, and fulfilling academic require-
ments. Consequently, these students prefer to return to their coun-
try of origin where they feel accepted. The original country is home
for them where they have a sense of belonging and safety, and
therefore they are more likely to return after graduation.6
6.3. Home: The cosmopolitan home and the migration plan is open
While some students want to return to their country of origin
and some plan to stay, there are also other voices. There are people
who feel like they could fit in anywhere. When asked whether
there is a place to settle permanently, Paige, a female graduate stu-
dent from the United States who aspired to be an artist said,
I have no idea. I really don’t. I mean, Boston definitely feels like a
home to me. And I certainly wouldn’t be unhappy to move back
to Boston. Um, but I am also open to other places becoming a home,
and so- yeah I mean, there is always the practical consideration of
what kind of places have funding for the arts.
Many international students are eager to pursue a global career.
With strong educational backgrounds and rich overseas experi-
ences, they are eager to travel around the world, exploring their
potential and developing their self-identity. They tend to have a
global vision in which they do not perceive home as a particular
place but rather as multiple places. A female undergraduate stu-
dent from Yemen Ania stated,
I get bored of countries really easily ’cause I move a lot, so in two
years being in-- I’m always hitting the two year mark, and I get
really bored after two years. I just feel like-- ’cause I go all out
and I really discover the city, and then by then I’m just like ‘‘oh I
want to discover a new place.
Ania’s desire to explore new places is echoed by another under-
graduate student from Spain who has lived in Peru, London and
Dubai before coming to Canada. She explained what home is for
her,
Spain is home, but Dubai is home (laugh). Spain is like, where my
family is. But Dubai is where I’ve grown up, and I consider it home.
All my friends are there. Well they’re not there now, but we all met
there. My most recent but maybe in a few years, Vancouver is
home. Who knows?
Perceiving home in multiple places, international students often
let the future decide their migration directions. They are open to
possibilities to return, to stay, and to go to some other places. Still,
these students often select their post-graduate destinations based
on where they could have economic, cultural and social resources.
Place utility including climate, environment, as well as lifestyle and
culture are important factors that students take into consideration
when deciding where to go after graduation. These international
students have a clear perception of their home(s) which is likely
to be the ideal place or places that they desire to go.
6.4. Home: The nebulous home and the migration plan is open
International students are more likely to return when they per-
ceive their country of origin as home, more likely to stay if they are
building a home in the host country, and often keep it open when
they understand that home could be multiple places. In a context
of transnational migration, a sizeable percentage of international
students have the experience of migrating from one country to
6
There are also international students who, because of politics, policy and
immigration regulations either in the host or sending country, do not have any
choice but to return even though they may hold other migration plans as ideal.
129
another. Many have multiple citizenships. As with the cosmopoli-
tans, they are ‘‘third”, or ‘‘multiple culture” kids. However, while
the cosmopolitans feel that they fit in anywhere (and it should
be noted that this is part of their privilege) another large group
do not feel like they fit in anywhere.
Indeed, while frequent geographical relocation enriches the life
experience and aspirations of some students, for others this expe-
rience has a long-lasting negative effect on their identity and sense
of belonging. This latter group experiences identity confusion, dis-
placement, and rootlessness. They have no self-concept of home
and where home is for them. Saya, a student from Yemen discussed
her understanding of home,
Home is the world. I just, I feel like I identify with so many different
countries and so many different places that I can’t call one place
home. Home is where I have a bed to sleep on, for me. I don’t
ever-- because the term home is a huge dilemma for me because
I say home because that’s how I can get people to identify with
where I’m from and what I relate closely to, but I don’t know if
I’ve ever felt at home anywhere.
Cross-cultural adaption plays an essential role here. While some
students are able to adjust to regular moves, others struggle with
cultural identification with cultural change. They often end up feel-
ing placeless or stateless, though again it should be recognized that
this is a feeling rather than a reality. Where is home is still largely
unknown. Lily, a female undergraduate with an Indian background
illustrates this issue,
Having a place one considers ‘home’ is a common aspect of most
people’s lives; a place where one feels they belong and where one
can identify with the rest of the people within the society. However,
this does not apply to me and is a personal trouble of mine.
Throughout my life I have moved around from one country to
another due to the globalized company my father works for. I am
originally from India however I have never lived there nor was born
there and have moved to different countries five times in my life so
far. Whenever my family and I visit my grandparents in India I feel
excluded or like an outsider as I cannot even speak the language.
Moreover, although I do not consider India to be home, even
though it is where I am originally from, I do not consider any other
country I have lived in as ‘home’ as I have not stayed in one country
for more than around three to five years. Additionally, this causes a
major confusion in forming my identity.
As Lily’s case illustrates, some students who have acquired a
multicultural identity from living and studying abroad struggle
to identify a particular place as ‘‘home”. Without knowing a place
they can call home, these students are not emotionally attached to
any particular country. As a result, they are still the process of
identifying what home is. Since their migratory plans were either
unknown or unimportant these students could not decide on their
future settlement plans. Therefore, for these students struggling to
define ‘‘home”, ‘‘home” is the nebulous category denoting
nowhere.
7. Conclusion
The literature on international students migration/mobility
(ISM) has primarily focused on students’ initial move from their
country of origin to universities abroad, considering the sources
and destinations of these moves (e.g. Beine et al., 2014; Findlay
et al., 2012; King and Raghuram, 2013; Naidoo, 2007; Perkins
and Neumayer, 2014). This literature has also considered the net
brain drain or brain gain consequences of such moves (e.g.
Baruch et al., 2007; Parey and Waldinger, 2011; Zweig and
130 C. Wu, R. Wilkes / Geoforum 80 (2017) 123–132
Fig. 1. A model of post-graduate migration plans.
Wang, 2013). Less well-understood is where international students
intend to go after completing their tertiary-level studies (cf. Dreher
and Poutvaara, 2011; Geddie, 2013; Hazen and Alberts, 2006; Soon,
2012; Tai and Truex, 2015). The growing number of international
students has made the study of their post-graduation migratory
movements an especially timely issue.
Using the concept of home to understand students’ post-
graduation migration decisions, we found that the mix of home
perceptions and mobility experiences significantly affects interna-
tional students’ future migratory intentions. Interviews with 232
international students studying at a flagship public university in
Canada show that there are four ‘‘types” of home - ancestral, host,
cosmopolitan, and nebulous. These conceptualizations are linked,
respectively, to specific migration plans – staying, returning, and
open. Based on these results we conclude by proposing a concep-
tual model, pictured below in Fig. 1, that summarizes these
relationships.
In this model the four ways of perceiving ‘‘home” identified in
the interviews - home as ancestral, host, cosmopolitan, and nebu-
lous are depicted. The arrows link these concepts of home to post-
graduation migration plans among international students. Ulti-
mately, the model provides a means of synthesizing the fact that
international students perceive home in complex and different
ways and that their varying constructions of home largely link to
their post-university migration intentions.
As the results show, dreams of a better home might be broken
by reality as the experience of discrimination and the loss of cul-
tural comforts leads to a longing for the ancestral home (Teo,
2011). In terms of the host home, many studies have shown that
immigrants are more likely to consider the host society ‘‘home”
if they can form a family, make friends or establish community
networks (e.g. Geddie, 2013; Soon, 2014) and this contributing fac-
tor often leads to their eventual decision to settle in the host coun-
try. In the cosmopolitan home, home can be considered as multiple
places occupied over the course of an individual’s life. Some of
these places may be ‘‘occupied temporally, connected through tra-
vel, time, memory and transition” (Damery, 2014:2) It is clear that
students who have traveled abroad prior to studying in a host
country may have different views on migration than those who
do not have this experience. In the nebulous home, young adults
away from their country of origin are strongly imbued with a sense
of ‘‘being neither here, nor there”, or ‘‘not really any longer belongs
anywhere” (McLeod and Burrows, 2014:380). Therefore, the con-
cept of nebulous home describes the experience of migrants who
face this uncertainty of belongingness.
The assumed duality between international students’ place of
origin and their host country obscures the complexity of post-
graduation migration patterns. With varying experiences of home,
international students’ post migration perceptions consist of mul-
tiple outcomes- returning to their home country, staying in the
host country, and keeping it open. As we demonstrated, how stu-
dents define their home affects their decision of where to go after
university. Thus, researchers who focus on the topic of interna-
tional students’ migration should not overlook this diversity in
migratory categories. An examination of the differences in stu-
dent’s definitions of ‘‘home” is therefore instrumental for the
understanding and even predictability of international students’
migratory behaviors.
The utility of the concept of home is that it encompasses and
synthesizes context-specific push-pull factors. The specific combi-
nation of many personal and societal push-pull factor leads to dif-
ferent perceptions of home, which, in turn, result in different
migration outcomes. However, it is also important to acknowledge
that sometimes international students simply cannot go ‘‘home”.
Home confines but does not determine migration behavior.
Students may have an ideal perception of home linked to a partic-
ular place but are prevented from making this particular migratory
decision because of social, economic, and political barriers. For
example, many international students perceive the host country
as their host home and want to stay, but have to return in light
of immigration and visa issues. Nevertheless, the power of the
home model of post-graduate migration is that it connects interna-
tional students’ perception of home with their preferred migratory
destination.
References
Ahmed, S., 1999. Home and away narratives of migration and estrangement. Int. J.
Cult. Stud. 2 (3), 329–347.
Al-Ali, N., Koser, K., 2003. New Approaches to migration? Transnational
Communities and the Transformation of Home. Routledge, Abingdon.
Alberts, H.C., Hazen, H.D., 2005. ‘‘There are always two voices. . .”: international
students’ intentions to stay in the United States or Return to their Home
Countries. Int. Migrat. 43 (3), 131–154.
Alberts, H., Hazen, H. (Eds.), 2013. International Students and Scholars in the United
States: Coming from Abroad, Springer.
Anniste, K., Tammaru, T., 2014. Ethnic differences in integration levels and return
migration intentions: a study of Estonian migrants in Finland. Demogr. Res. 30
(13), 377–412.
 C. Wu, R. Wilkes / Geoforum 80 (2017) 123–132
Arthur, N., Nunes, S., 2014. Should I stay or should I go home? Career guidance with
international students. In: Handbook of Career Development. Springer, New
York, pp. 587–606.
Baldassar, L., 2001. Visits Home, Migration Experiences between Italy and Australia.
Melbourne University Press.
Baruch, Y., Budhwar, P.S., Khatri, N., 2007. Brain drain, inclination to stay abroad
after studies. J. World Bus. 42 (1), 99–112.
Baas, M., 2006. Students of migration, Indian overseas students and the question of
permanent residency. People Place 14 (1), 8.
Baláž, V., Williams, A.M., 2004. ‘Been there, done that’, international student
migration and human capital transfers from the UK to Slovakia. Popul., Space
Place 10 (3), 217–237.
Baláž, Vladimir, Williams, Allan M., Fifeková, Elena, 2014. Migration decision
making as complex choice: eliciting decision weights under conditions of
imperfect and complex information through experimental methods. Popul.
Space and Place.
Basford, S., Riemsdijk, M., 2015. The role of institutions in the student migrant
experience, Norway’s Quota Scheme. Popul., Space Place. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/psp.2005.
Bauman, Z., 1992. Soil, blood and identity. Sociol. Rev. 40 (4), 675–701.
Beine, M., Noël, R., Ragot, L., 2014. Determinants of the international mobility of
students. Econ. Educ. Rev. 41, 40–54.
Bilecen, B., Faist, T., 2015. International doctoral students as knowledge brokers:
reciprocity, trust and solidarity in transnational networks. Glob. Networks 15
(2), 217–235.
Bijwaard, G.E., Wang, Q., 2016. Return migration of foreign students. Eur. J. Popul.
32 (1), 31–54.
Blunt, A., 2005. Cultural geography, cultural geographies of home. Prog. Hum.
Geogr. 29 (4), 505–515.
Blunt, A., Dowling, R., 2006. Home (Key Ideas in Geography). Routledge, Abingdon.
Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Kostopoulos, K., Shyong, C.H., Baruch, Y., Zhou, W.,
2015. International graduate students’ perceptions and interest in international
careers. Int. J. Human Resource Manage. 26 (11), 1428–1451.
Bratsberg, B., 1995. The incidence of non-return among foreign students in the
United States. Econ. Educ. Rev. 14 (4), 373–384.
Brickell, K., 2012. ‘Mapping’ and ‘doing’ critical geographies of home. Prog. Hum.
Geogr. 36 (2), 225–244.
Buffel, T., 2015. Ageing migrants and the creation of home. Popul., Space Place.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/psp.2005.
Campbell, J.L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., Pedersen, O.K., 2013. Coding in-depth
semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability
and agreement. Sociol. Methods Res. 42 (3), 294–320.
Canadian Magazine of Immigration, 2015. Canada International Students by
Country (2015). <http://canadaimmigrants.com/canada-international-
students-by-country-2015/>.
Carlson, S., 2013. Becoming a mobile student–a processual perspective on German
degree student mobility. Popul., Space Place 19 (2), 168–180.
Christou, A., King, R., 2010. Imagining ‘home’, diasporic landscapes of the Greek-
German second generation. Geoforum 41 (4), 638–646.
Collins, F.L., Ho, K.C., Ishikawa, M., Ma, A.H.S., 2016. International student mobility
and after-study Lives: the portability and prospects of overseas education in
Asia. Popul., Space Place. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/psp.2029.
Coulter, R., Van Ham, M., Findlay, A.M., 2016. Re-thinking residential mobility:
linking lives through time and space. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 40 (3), 352–374.
Chinese Ministry of Education, 2015. More Chinese students study abroad in 2015.
Available from: <http://english.gov.cn/state_council/ministries/2016/03/
17/content_281475309293312.htm> (Accessed February 2, 2017).
Damery, S. 2014. ‘Going home’: migrants’ imagined connections and home creation.
Integrim onlinepapers. Available from: <http://www.integrim.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2014/02/Damery-Going-home-Migrants-imagined-connections2.pdf>.
de Haas, H., Fokkema, T., 2011. The effects of integration and transnational ties on
international return migration intentions. Demogr. Res. 25, 755–778.
de Haas, H., 2014. What drives human migration? In: Anderson, B., Keith, M. (Eds.),
Migration, A COMPAS Anthology. COMPAS, Oxford.
Docquier, Frédéric, Rapoport, Hillel, 2012. Globalization, brain drain, and
development. J. Econ. Lit. 50 (3), 681–730.
Dreher, A., Poutvaara, P., 2011. Foreign students and migration to the United States.
World Dev. 39 (8), 1294–1307.
Dudley, S., 2011. Feeling at home, producing and consuming things in Karenni
refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border. Popul., Space Place 17 (6), 742–755.
Fail, H., Thompson, J., Walker, G., 2004. Belonging, identity and Third Culture Kids:
life histories of former international school students. J. Res. Int. Educ. 3 (3), 319–
338.
Findlay, A.M., 2011. An assessment of supply and demand-side theorizations of
international student mobility. Int. Migrat. 49 (2), 162–190.
Findlay, A.M., King, R., Smith, F.M., Geddes, A., Skeldon, R., 2012. World class? An
investigation of globalisation, difference and international student mobility.
Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 37 (1), 118–131.
Findlay, A.M., McCollum, D., Coulter, R., Gayle, V., 2015. New mobilities across the
life course, a framework for analysing demographically linked drivers of
migration. Popul., Space Place 21 (4), 390–402.
Gaule, P., Piacentini, M., 2013. Chinese graduate students and US scientific
productivity. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95 (2), 698–701.
Geddie, K., 2013. The transnational ties that bind, relationship considerations for
graduating international science and engineering research students. Popul.
Space Place 19 (2), 196–208.
131
Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and Self-identity, Self and Identity in the Late Modern
Age. Polity, Cambridge.
Gilmartin, Mary, 2008. Migration, identity and belonging. Geogr. Compass 2 (6),
1837–1852.
Harvey, W.S., 2009. British and Indian scientists in Boston considering returning to
their home countries. Popul., Space Place 15 (6), 493–508.
Hazen, H.D., Alberts, H.C., 2006. Visitors or immigrants? International students in
the United States. Popul., Space Place 12 (3), 201–216.
Hirvonen, K., Helene, B.L., 2015. Going back home, internal return migration in Rural
Tanzania. World Dev. 70, 186–202.
Holton, M., 2015. Adapting relationships with place: investigating the evolving
place attachment and ‘sense of place’ of UK higher education students during a
period of intense transition. Geoforum 59, 21–29.
Huang, W.C., 1988. An empirical analysis of foreign student brain drain to the
United States. Econ. Educ. Rev. 7 (2), 231–243.
ICEF, 2015. The state of international student mobility in 2015. Accessed on August
22 from <http://monitor.icef.com/2015/11/the-state-of-international-student-
mobility-in-2015/>.
Kenyon, K., Frohard-Dourlent, H., Roth, W.D., 2012. Falling between the cracks,
ambiguities of international student status in Canada. Can. J. Higher Educ. 42
(1), 1–24.
Kim, S., 2015. The influence of social relationships on international students’
intentions to remain abroad, multi-group analysis by marital status. Int. J. Hum.
Resource Manage. 26 (14), 1848–1864.
King, R., Raghuram, P., 2013. International student migration, mapping the field and
new research agendas. Popul., Space Place 19 (2), 127–137.
King, R., Ruiz-Gelices, E., 2003. International student migration and the European
‘year abroad’, effects on European identity and subsequent migration
behaviour. Int. J. Popul. Geogr. 9 (3), 229–252.
Kochan, D., 2016. Home is where I lay down my hat? The complexities and
functions of home for internal migrants in contemporary China. Geoforum 71,
21–32.
Lauster, N., Zhao, J., 2016. Labor Migration and the Missing Work of Home-making:
Three Forms of Settling for Chinese-Canadian Migrants. Social Problems
(forthcoming.)
Li, F.L.N., Findlay, A.M., Jowett, A.J., Skeldon, R., 1996. Migrating to learn and
learning to migrate, a study of the experiences and intentions of international
student migrants. Int. J. Popul. Geogr. 2 (1), 51–67.
Liu, L.S., 2014. A search for a place to call home: negotiation of home, identity and
senses of belonging among new migrants from the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) to New Zealand. Emot., Space Soc. 10, 18–26.
Liu-Farrer, G., 2009. Educationally channeled international labor mobility:
contemporary student migration from China to Japan. Int. Migrat. Rev. 43 (1),
178–204.
Lu, Y., Zong, L., Schissel, B., 2009. To stay or return, migration intentions of students
from People’s Republic of China in Saskatchewan, Canada. J. Int. Migrat. Integr.
10 (3), 283–310.
Lucas, S., Purkayastha, B., 2007. ‘‘Where is home?” Here and there, transnational
experiences of home among Canadian migrants in the United States. GeoJournal
68 (2–3), 243–251.
Madge, C., Raghuram, P., Noxolo, P., 2014. Conceptualizing international education
from international student to international study. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 39 (6),
681–702.
Mallett, S., 2004. Understanding home, a critical review of the literature. Sociol. Rev.
52 (1), 62–89.
Marcu, S., 2015. Uneven mobility experiences: life-strategy expectations among
Eastern European undergraduate students in the UK and Spain. Geoforum 58,
68–75.
McLeod, D., Burrows, R., 2014. Home and away: family matters in the lives of young
transnational couples. J. Sociol. 50 (3), 368–382.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis, A Sourcebook of New
Methods. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California.
Moskal, M., 2015. ‘When I think home I think family here and there’, translocal and
social ideas of home in narratives of migrant children and young people.
Geoforum 58, 143–152.
Mosneaga, A., Winther, L., 2013. Emerging talents? International students
before and after their career start in Denmark. Popul., Space Place 19 (2),
181–195.
Mueller, D., 2015. Young Germans in England visiting Germany, translocal
subjectivities and ambivalent views of ‘home’. Popul., Space Place 21 (7),
625–639.
Musumba, M., Jin, Y.H., Mjelde, J.W., 2011. Factors influencing career location
preferences of international graduate students in the United States. Educ. Econ.
19 (5), 501–517.
Naidoo, V., 2007. Research on the flow of international students to UK universities:
determinants and implications. J. Res. Int. Educ. 6 (3), 287–307.
Nititham, D.S., 2017. Making Home in Diasporic Communities: Transnational
Belonging Amongst Filipina Migrants. Routledge, New York.
Noble, G., 2013. ‘It is home but it is not home’, habitus, field and the migrant. J.
Sociol. 49 (2–3), 341–356.
Nowicka, M. 2006. Transnational Professionals and their Cosmopolitan Universes.
Campus Verlag Gmbh.
Nowicka, M., 2007. Mobile locations, construction of home in a group of mobile
transnational professionals. Global Networks 7 (1), 69–86.
OECD, 2015. Who Studies abroad and Where?, in Education at a Glance 2014, OECD
Indicators. OECD.
132 C. Wu, R. Wilkes / Geoforum 80 (2017) 123–132
Packwood, H., Findlay, A., McCollum, D., 2015. International study for an
international career, a survey of the motivations and aspirations of
international students in the UK. Southampton, GB, University of
Southampton (ESRC Centre for Population Change Working Papers, 27).
Parey, M., Waldinger, F., 2011. Studying abroad and the effect on international
labour market mobility: evidence from the introduction of ERASMUS. Econ. J.
121 (551), 194–222.
Peng, Y., 2016. Student migration and polymedia: mainland Chinese students’
communication media use in Hong Kong. J. Ethnic Migrat. Stud. 42 (14), 1–18.
Perkins, R., Neumayer, E., 2014. Geographies of educational mobilities, exploring the
uneven flows of international students. Geogr. J. 180 (3), 246–259.
Ralph, D., Staeheli, L.A., 2011. Home and migration, mobilities, belongings and
identities. Geogr. Compass 5 (7), 517–530.
Rizvi, F., Walker, M., Thomson, P., 2010. International students and doctoral studies
in transnational spaces. The Routledge doctoral supervisor’s
companion, Supporting Effective Research in Education and the Social
Sciences, 158–170.
Sage, J., Evandrou, M., Falkingham, J., 2013. Onwards or homewards? Complex
graduate Migration pathways, well-being, and the ‘Parental Safety Net’. Popul.,
Space Place 19 (6), 738–755.
Soon, J.J., 2010. The determinants of students’ return intentions, a partial
proportional odds model. J. Choice Model. 3 (2), 89–112.
Soon, J.J., 2012. Home is where the heart Is? Factors determining international
students’ destination country upon completion of studies abroad. J. Ethnic
Migrat. Stud. 38 (1), 147–162.
Soon, J.J., 2014. Educated in New Zealand and staying on? A parameter simulation
analysis. Migrat. Lett. 11 (2), 229–244.
Staeheli, L.A., Nagel, C.R., 2006. Topographies of home and citizenship: Arab-
American activists in the United States. Environ. Plan. A 38 (9), 1599–1614.
Suda, K., 2016. A room of one’s own, highly educated migrants’ strategies for
creating a home in Guangzhou. Popul., Space Place 22 (2), 146–157.
Tai, Q., Truex, R., 2015. Public opinion towards return migration, a survey
experiment of Chinese netizens. China Quart. 223, 770–786.
Tan, G., Hugo, G., 2016. The transnational migration strategies of Chinese and Indian
students in Australia. Popul., Space Place. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/psp.2038.
Taylor, S., 2015. ‘Home is never fullyachieved. . . Even when we are in it’, migration,
belonging and social exclusion within Punjabi transnational mobility.
Mobilities 10 (2), 193–210.
Teo, S.Y., 2011. ‘The Moon Back Home is Brighter’?, Return migration and the
cultural politics of belonging. J. Ethnic Migrat. Stud. 37 (5), 805–820.
Tindal, S., Packwood, H., Findlay, A.M., Leahy, S., McCollum, D., 2015. In what sense
‘distinctive’? The search for distinction amongst cross-border student migrants
in the UK. Geoforum 64, 90–99.
Tucker, A., 1994. In search of home. J. Appl. Philos. 11 (2), 181–187.
Waldorf, B., 1995. Determinants of International Return Migration Intentions. Prof.
Geogr. 47 (2), 125–136.
Van Mol, C., Timmerman, C., 2014. Should I stay or should I go? An analysis of
thedeterminants of intra-European student mobility. Popul., Space Place 20 (5),
465–479.
Wang, Q., Tang, L., Li, H., 2015. Return migration of the highly skilled in higher
education institutions, a Chinese university case. Popul., Space Place 21 (8),
771–787.
Wiles, J., 2008. Sense of home in a transnational social space. New Zealanders in
London. Glob. Networks 8 (1), 116–137.
Zweig, D., Changgui, C., 1995. China’s Brain Drain to the United States. University of
California, Berkeley, Institute of East Asian Studies.
Zweig, D., 1997. To return or not to return? Politics vs. economics in China’s brain
drain. Stud. Comp. Int. Develop. 32 (1), 92–125.
Zweig, D., Wang, H., 2013. Can China bring back the best? The Communist Party
organizes China’s search for talent. China Quart. 2 (15), 590–615.
Zweig et al., 2008. Redefining the brain drain: China’s ‘diaspora option’. Sci.,
Technol. Soc. 13 (1), 1–33.