Contested Meanings of International Student Mobility in Hong Kong and Taiwan

Abstract

This paper examines contested meanings of international student mobility in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The study tries to understand why policy makers and university managers find it difficult to diversify student bodies in these jurisdictions. In particular, problems with the conceptualisation of international student mobility are discussed. In practical terms, the paper delineates key boosters and barriers for inbound flows which received little attention in the previous literature that primarily focused on the outbound mobility. Finally, the researchers discuss important policy leverages that could enhance the value of engagement of international students in transcultural learning.

Full text

Educational Practice and Theory
© 2019 James Nicholas Publishers
Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019
pp. 51-69
ISSN 1323-577X (print) / 2201-0599 (online)
https://doi.org/10.7459/ept/41.1.04
Contested Meanings of International
Student Mobility in Hong Kong and
Taiwan
Keenan Manning
Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Mansurbek Kushnazarov
Anatoly Oleksiyenko
The University of Hong Kong
Abstract
This paper examines contested meanings of international student mobil-
ity in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The study tries to understand why policy
makers and university managers find it difficult to diversify student bod-
ies in these jurisdictions. In particular, problems with the conceptualisa-
tion of international student mobility are discussed. In practical terms,
the paper delineates key boosters and barriers for inbound flows which
received little attention in the previous literature that primarily focused
on the outbound mobility. Finally, the researchers discuss important pol-
icy leverages that could enhance the value of engagement of international
students in transcultural learning.
Keywords: International student mobility; Hong Kong; Taiwan
Introduction
Hong Kong and Taiwan represent an interesting case for analysis of
international student mobility as they have been in the epicentre of
the most significant shifts in global higher education for the last three
decades. Despite the growing influence of their universities, many of
which are relatively high in the major global ranking systems, they
tend to be sending out more students than receiving (Oleksiyenko,
Cheng & Yip 2013; Ministry of Education, 2017b). Their student bodies
have diversified over the last decades but not to the extent which they
might have desired. Questions remain about the challenges these ju-
Page Proofs

risdictions (and others in East Asia) continue to face in the wake of
competitive pressures from within the region (Chan, 2012a, 2012b) and
beyond (Collins, Sidhu, Lewis, & Yeoh, 2014).
The aim of this paper is to establish a basis of understanding of the
challenges faced by the two competitive entities – Hong Kong and Tai-
wan - in attracting international students. In particular we are paying
attention to the different policy approaches that are shaped by macro-
environmental forces. The paper first outlines some significant forces
that differentiate stakeholder interpretations and applications in the
two jurisdictions. Following this, we examine the current outcomes and
potential developments that necessitate further enquiry.
Conceptualisation Challenges, Policy Confusions
Hong Kong and Taiwan have garnered an outstanding record in con-
tributing to the global phenomenon of international student mobility.
For decades, they have been known as major senders of students
abroad. Since the 2000s, Hong Kong and Taiwan have strengthened
their capacities to host students from abroad (see Table 1). The quality
of the premier institutions in both jurisdictions has increased and
served as a pull factor for both markets through this process (Olek-
siyenko, Cheng, & Yip, 2013; Roberts, Chou, & Ching, 2010). Hong
Kong has performed remarkably in the global university ranking ta-
bles, while Taiwan has begun to see some of its more prestigious insti-
tutions enter and climb the same rankings (see Table 2). The two
jurisdictions have also drawn on impressive urban capacities to create
learning environments that appear enticing for international faculty
and students (Quacquarelli Symonds, 2018a, 2018b; Times Higher Ed-
ucation, 2018). Both Hong Kong (12) and Taipei (20) have ranked
highly on a number of categories in the QS Student Best Cities rank-
ings in recent years (Quacquarelli Symonds, 2018a).
Tab le 1 . In bou nd- Out bou nd F ull -Time Stu den t Mo bil ity in H ong
Kong and Taiwan, 2009/2010–2015/2016
Source: University Grants Committee (2017). Non-local student enrolment (headcount) of UGC-
funded programmes by institution, level of study, mode of study and broad academic programme cat-
egory. Retrieved June 24, 2017, from http://cdcf.ugc.edu.hk/cdcf/ searchStatSiteReport.do; United Na-
tions Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2017). Education: Outbound in-
ternationally mobile students by host region. Retrieved June 26, 2017, from
http://data.uis.unesco.org/Index.aspx?queryid=172; Ministry of Education, Republic of China (Tai-
wan). (2015). Non-citizen students in universities, colleges and junior colleges. Retrieved June 26,
2017, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem= 16422&ctNode= 11429&mp=1; Ministry of Edu-
2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016
Hong
Kong
Inbound 9,320 10,062 10,757 13,653 14,509 15,150 15,730
Outbound 33,129 32,767 31,287 30,749 31,993 33,681 34,542
Taiwan Inbound 7,764 8,801 10,059 11,554 12,597 14,063 15,792
Outbound 32,346 28,798 31,192 34,625 38,166
Educational Practice and Theory
52 Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019
Page Proofs

cation. (2015). International comparison of education statistical indicators, 2015. Retrieved June 26,
2017, from http://stats.moe.gov.tw/ files/ebook/International_Comparison/2015/i2015.pdf; Ministry of
Education. (2016). International comparison of education statistical indicators, 2016. Retrieved June
26, 2017, from http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/ebook/International_Comparison/ 2016/i2016.pdf
Tab le 2 . Nu mbe r of uni ver sit ies by j uri sdi cti on w hic h ap pea r in
the Top 1000 global universities by international rankings
Source: U.S. News & World Report LP. (2019). Best Global Universities Rankings. Retrieved from
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings?int=a27a09; Times Higher Edu-
cation. (2018). World University Rankings 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/world-ranking; Quacquarelli
Symonds. (2019). QS World University Rankings 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2019; Shang-
haiRanking Consultancy. (2017). Academic Ranking of World Universities 2018. Retrieved from
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2018.html
As Table 1 shows, Hong Kong and Taiwan often appear to succeed
more in sending students abroad than in receiving them, despite the
fact that the number of inbound students has doubled over the last
decade (Ma, 2014; Song & Tai, 2007). While the trend seemed to be
promising in terms of correcting the imbalance, the data on inbound
student mobility suggests that it was the growth of arriving Chinese
mainland students, who were often counted as non-local rather than
cross-border students (Oleksiyenko, Cheng, & Yip, 2013). Moreover,
Hong Kong lagged significantly behind Taiwan in attracting non-Chi-
nese students.
Reflecting on key policy debates in the region, the literature has paid
little attention to what the key challenges have been for inbound flows
of non-Chinese students in that regard. The confusion and ambiguity
about the term “international student mobility,” which could have had
an impact on how governmental policy makers, conceptualised and as-
sessed inbound and outbound flows in the two jurisdictions, seems to
have been of little concern to the researchers in the field. In fact, it
should be noted that across the two jurisdictions, the terminology con-
cerning international students varies significantly, and as such the
term requires careful definition if this paper is to provide any valid and
clear insight into the issue through comparative analysis. In Hong
Kong, the term most commonly used was “non-local,” an umbrella no-
tion used to describe all non-Hong Kong students, which included stu-
dents from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In the official
statistical data, these two groups are often separated for the purposes
of analysis, however, much of the reporting on international students
simply uses the term “non-local.” The literature on Taiwan, however,
separates its students into far more categories, including overseas Chi-
Times Higher
Education 2018
QS World
Ranking 2018
USNews Global
University Ranking 2018
Shanghai Jiaotong
University Ranking
Hong Kong 6 7 7 6
Taiwan 26 17 25 15
53Manning et al., International Student Mobility in Hong Kong & Taiwan
Page Proofs

nese/compatriot students, non-citizen students, foreign students, PRC
students, and others. In the official vernacular, “overseas Chinese” stu-
dents refers to those of Chinese ancestry (or those holders of Taiwanese
citizenship who have resided outside of Taiwan for more than six years)
who also hold foreign citizenship. These groups of students are each
treated differently in terms of their targeting by governmental and uni-
versity bodies, as well as in the way they are required to apply to
courses in Taiwanese universities (Ma, 2013, 2014).
Unlike in Hong Kong, until the 2011 academic year, students from
the PRC were prohibited from studying any significant degree pro-
grammes within Taiwan (which included all courses longer than six
months) (Ministry of Education, 2012). According to the figures from
the 2011 academic year, the number of students from the PRC stood
at only 928 out of a university student population of over 1.3 million
(Ministry of Education, 2017a). As a result, the proportion of the inter-
national student population in Taiwan was comprised (as of the 2011
academic year) almost entirely of students from outside the region; of-
ficial figures put the number of international students studying in Tai-
wan at 55,463 (Ministry of Education, 2012). If one excludes
non-degree-seeking students in Taiwan, this figure has risen sharply,
from 25,107 in 2011, to 51,741 in 2016 (Ministry of Education, 2017a).
This is as compared with the PRC’s student population of 8,936 out of
a total of 75,597 in Hong Kong in 2011, which rose to 12,037 out of
99,817 in 2017 (University Grants Committee, 2013, 2017).
As can be seen in Table 3, students in both Hong Kong and Taiwan
are drawn far more significantly from a few key regions. Bearing in
mind that the data in Table 3 for Hong Kong have been estimated to
overcome the fact that nation-of-origin statistics are not enumerated
if the figure is below five students because of legitimate privacy con-
cerns, these figures give an estimate of the breakdown by region of the
non-local student population in both jurisdictions. In Hong Kong, 42%,
21%, and 17% of students come from East, South-East, and South Asia,
respectively, while in Taiwan, these figures are 24%, 38%, and 4%. Both
jurisdictions have a heavy reliance on Asia as a feeder region for their
higher education, with 82% of international students in Hong Kong
coming from Asia, and 67% of Taiwanese international students. Tai-
wan has been able to attract a far higher proportion of its students
from traditional “host” regions, with North America and Europe com-
prising 10% and 12% of the international student population respec-
tively.
Educational Practice and Theory
54 Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019
Page Proofs

Tab le 3 . Th e Br eak dow n of Int ern ati ona l St ude nts in H ong
Kong and Taiwan by Region of Origin
* For Hong Kong data, states where there were fewer than five students, exact values were not
given. The above table was calculated using average figures in the place of these unavailable figures.
As such, these are estimates only.
Source: Ministry of Education. (2015c). Number of foreign students in R.O.C. (1954–2014). Retrieved
July 7, 20017, from http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=14530&ctNode=11432&mp=11; Univer-
sity Grants Committee. (2016). Customised data retrieval. Retrieved October 7, 2016, from
http://cdcf.ugc.edu.hk/cdcf/indepthAnalysis.do
The differentiated approach to student mobility in Taiwan, we
argue, has created more focused and deliberate policy-making for ad-
vancing inbound student mobility. This has allowed Taiwanese univer-
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Region
Hong Kong*
Taiwan
Hong Kong*
Taiwan
Hong Kong*
Taiwan
Hong Kong*
Taiwan
Hong Kong*
Taiwan
Hong Kong*
Taiwan
East Africa 944 674 798 696 7105 5114
Central Africa 051 263 266 263 280 077
North Africa 212 217 521 10 29 13 36 16 36
Southern Africa 5163 6162 5228 2291 8301 8455
West Africa 4271 4325 9359 20 378 35 330 49 359
other African
countries
18 114 11 22 18 21 11 24 16 26 18
Caribbean 0188 0238 0219 0265 0322 0357
Central America 9974 12 1,173 16 1,145 12 1,081 14 1,043 10 1,239
North America 91 2,898 115 3,221 126 3,029 142 2,859 160 2,777 151 3,335
South America 10 423 9445 13 434 11 404 9425 14 602
other Central &
South American
countries
11 41 13 56 12 58 13 71 10 94 6122
Central Asia 035 034 022 026 040 036
East Asia 374 4,306 577 5,166 952 5,436 1,221 6,705 1,444 7,023 1,629 8,317
South-East Asia 351 7,946 452 9,013 668 9,632 709 10,568 774 11,106 810 13,115
South Asia 209 529 307 585 472 638 543 716 592 901 644 1,219
West Asia 8202 7249 12 219 18 264 21 211 19 273
other Asian
countries
11 714 810 518 337 16 382 41 30
Eastern Europe 24 723 33 769 49 789 51 749 74 768 80 898
Northern Europe 71 485 78 552 86 503 83 567 76 586 79 663
Southern Europe 50 302 66 333 92 405 104 413 102 452 95 483
Western Europe 69 1,305 85 1,548 105 1,623 118 1,687 127 1,992 115 1,956
other countries
in European
Union (EU)
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
other European
countries not in
EU
2 1 7 3 11 110 2 7 4 7 4
Australia and
New Zealand
17 282 19 274 20 274 14 304 20 324 27 382
Melanesia 057 068 065 068 084 0117
Micronesia 090 0119 0124 0114 0144 0183
Polynesia 020 033 041 039 043 047
other Oceanian
countries
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0
total 1,346 21,356 1,829 24,539 2,696 25,452 3,135 28,107 3,540 29,589 3,836 34,437
55Manning et al., International Student Mobility in Hong Kong & Taiwan
Page Proofs

sities to be more accurate in planning and accounting for the inbound
flows. Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s bundled approach was more confusing
and disarming in the attraction of international students. Below, we
explain the validity of this argument by looking into how the problems
of conceptualisation of international student mobility were emerging
out of different legacies and aspirations of internationalisation in the
two jurisdictions.
Internationalisation Impetuses: Different Legacies, Different
Aspirations
Despite the shared Chinese cultural context, both Hong Kong and
Taiwan have had significantly different experiences in terms of politi-
cal, social, and cultural development (Wong & Yuen, 2012). This has
coloured each jurisdiction’s approach to attracting international stu-
dents, shaping both the rationale and strategy for undertaking the
process of internationalisation of their respective student bodies.
From a historical perspective, Hong Kong has, to some extent, had
internationalisation in mind from the inception of its higher education
sector, with the University of Hong Kong (1911) being established to
train foreign nationals employed in colonial service in the region, and
to train local Chinese in “Western values” (Fok, 2007). Conversely, how-
ever, the Taiwanese higher education system comprises older indige-
nous institutions which were established by the Japanese colonial
government (1895–1945; Ma, 2014) to train locals in fields deemed nec-
essary for the running of the colony (Altbach, 1989; Ma, 2014; Man-
thorpe, 2005). It also includes the higher education institutions that
were brought to the island at the end of the Chinese civil war by the
then Republic of China government (later to become the government
of Taiwan).
The post-colonial Taiwanese system, due to the close political rela-
tionship, has been largely based on that found in the United States of
America, which has also imparted to the island a sense of an “interna-
tionalised” higher education model (Chou & Ching, 2012). Ma (2013)
breaks down Taiwanese higher education development, particularly
with relation to its attraction of international students, into three main
periods: (1) 1950–1986: the focus on attracting overseas Chinese to
study in Taiwan; (2) 1987–1999: the equalising of trends in enrolment
between the overseas Chinese population and other international stu-
dent groups; and (3) 2000–2011: government and university focus given
to both overseas Chinese and international populations.
From these beginnings, both Hong Kong and Taiwan have begun to
include internationalisation as a central tenet of their efforts to im-
Educational Practice and Theory
56 Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019
Page Proofs

prove their local higher education systems, but for different reasons.
After the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to the PRC, Hong Kong’s aims
have been to supplement the local higher education with intercultural
experience, through meaningful interactions between local and inter-
national students at local higher education institutions as a way to es-
tablish an enhanced and prestigious higher education system with
competitive universities and an internationalised student population
(Fok, 2007). Taiwan, however, has been more focused on attracting sci-
entific talent, and enhancing quality of higher education programmes
in order to support the local economy as a competitive and attractive
export environment (Song & Tai, 2007).
While being able to primarily attract applicants from the PRC, the
universities in Hong Kong, in recent years, have been encouraged by
the government to look for opportunities to hire foreign academics who
could in their turn attract a more diverse body of PhD students from
overseas (Oleksiyenko et al., 2013). Anthony Cheung, the fifth presi-
dent of the Hong Kong Institute of Education (now the Education Uni-
versity of Hong Kong), remarked that the Special Administrative
Region of Hong Kong was competitive enough in education markets,
and had ‘the full credentials for being a regional education hub’ (China
Daily, 2009, September 25, para. 8). Indeed, the Education Bureau (for-
merly the Education and Manpower Bureau) of Hong Kong has aspired
to turn the city into a powerful education exporter by enabling gener-
ous scholarship programmes, fiscal assistance, flexible immigration
policies, and appropriate accommodation for international students
(Legislative Council Panel on Education 2005, 2006). The government
has placed an emphasis on attracting the ‘brightest foreign talents’ and
differentiated itself from other education systems such as Australia,
the UK, and the US, that have primarily emphasised higher education
as a source of revenue (Fok, 2007). Taiwan, meanwhile, has shifted
from a focus on using education to develop and project political soft
power towards using education to develop its competitiveness (Ma,
2014).
Following the Chief Executive’s 2004 statement about ‘promoting
Hong Kong as Asia’s world city, on par with the role that New York
plays in North America and London in Europe’ (Tung, 2004, para. 7),
the University Grants Committee (UGC), as the main higher education
support organisation, rolled out a strategy of developing an education
hub that could synergise local economic, political, and cultural
strengths for regional and global impact (Ng, 2011). Among the initial
strategic steps taken in Hong Kong, the admission limit for interna-
tional students at UGC-funded universities was increased from 10%
to 20% while more funds were provided to offer scholarships for both
57Manning et al., International Student Mobility in Hong Kong & Taiwan
Page Proofs

local and international students (Cheng et al., 2009; Cheung, Yuen,
Yuen, & Cheng, 2011). However, all the incoming students were
broadly defined as non-local students, and the 20% target was prima-
rily achieved by a focus on PRC students. While the first cohorts of
such students primarily came from high-income families and were able
to cover the high living costs in the city, the situation began to change
with a large inflow of middle-income students. Immigration policies
and employment requirements for foreign students in Hong Kong have
been modified to fit the disparate conditions and needs of applicants
(Cheng et al., 2009; Stoker, 2013). Most importantly, in a decentralised
system of higher education such as Hong Kong, the major responsibil-
ity for creation of international student scholarships or on-campus jobs
was delegated to individual universities and even more so to individual
faculties and their faculty members.
In Taiwan, much of the change in the higher education system could
be said to stem from “the shift in state controls from regulation to su-
pervision” (Song & Tai, 2007, p. 323). Improvements in higher educa-
tion in Taiwan have been driven by a series of “plans” instigated by the
Taiwanese government which ha ve in tro duc ed regulatory frameworks,
injected large amounts of capital, and provided institutional support
for growing the size, scope and quality of local higher learning
providers (Chang, Nyeu, & Chang, 2014; Chou & Ching, 2012; Mok &
Wei, 2008; Song & Tai, 2007). The Top Universities Plan ( 2011) and the
Higher Education for Excellence Plan (2005) have both contained sig-
nificant emphasis on the international competitiveness of Taiwanese
higher education institutions, as well as an emphasis on attracting for-
eign students and staff (Chang et al., 2014, Chou & Ching, 2012; Mok
& Wei, 2008; Song & Tai, 2007).
Boosters and Barriers of Inbound Mobility
Over the last decade, policy-makers in Hong Kong and Taiwan have
been facing different boosters and barriers to inbound student mobility.
Ng (2011) has classified Hong Kong’s international image, financial
centre status, and multi-layered connections with the PRC as signifi-
cant pull factors for students from Asia. Ng (2012) added that political
stability, available career and further study opportunities, freedom of
expression, a desire to immigrate, and ‘the Chinese Mainland factor’
as a growing economy urged arriving students to remain in Hong Kong
after completion of their degree programmes. In terms of higher edu-
cation provision, the universities in Hong Kong were internationally
recognised for their quality degree programmes. The latter were of-
fered in English and were perceived as good value for money since local
tuition fees were significantly lower than in the USA, the UK, and Aus-
tralia (Cheng et al., 2009; Ng, 2011, 2012).
Educational Practice and Theory
58 Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019
Page Proofs

In the Taiwanese context, Ma (2014) found that the factors which
influenced international students’ decision varied quite significantly.
Their choices depended on the ethnic origin of the students, in partic-
ular whether or not the student qualified as “overseas Chinese.” Non-
Chinese students experienced many more barriers to integrate into
Taiwanese society, stemming from linguistic and cultural differences
between the students and their hosts (Ma, 2014).
Local universities are often the first point of contact for foreign stu-
dents studying in Hong Kong or Taiwan. They serve as a conduit
through which students engage with the local culture on a daily basis.
In this respect, foreign students in Taiwan appeared to be somewhat
fortunate that both the government and universities seemed to be over-
estimating the amount of difficulty experienced by international stu-
dents. The key barriers often related to studying in non-English
environment and programmes (Jenkins & Galloway, 2009). The decline
in the English proficiency in the traditionally English-speaking Hong
Kong (Jeon, 2016) has been also causing concern among non-Chinese
students who sought to build stronger connections with the local envi-
ronment. Local stakeholders in both Hong Kong and Taiwan seemed
to have a distinct lack of will to fully incorporate the foreign cohort into
the local context (McClure, 2007; Ng, 2011, 2012). McClure (2007) ar-
gued that such an attitude could generate a feeling of marginalisation
among international students.
This could certainly have a lasting effect of distraction. Ma (2014)
has identified the social support a student receives, or expects to re-
ceive, to be a significant factor in both their decision to study abroad,
and their perception of their experience. Whether perceptions become
positive or negative can depend on existing ties in the host country, ties
to students of the same or similar nationality, ties to other interna-
tional students, and ties to locals (Ma, 2014). Huang, Shih, and Huang
(2010) also pointed to such factors as students’ disposable income, liv-
ing conditions (renting, homestay, etc.), knowledge of, or exposure to,
Chinese culture prior to travelling to Taiwan. Ma (2014) also noted that
the ability to gain employment helped international students to gain a
more authentic sense of the local culture and engage in a more effective
way with the local population. Meanwhile, immigration law in Hong
Kong allowed international students to work part-time but only on
campus, up to 20 hours weekly. Some foreign students found such con-
ditions disturbing as they could cover their study expenses only if they
worked longer hours (Ng, 2011, 2012). Living and tuition costs and
work permissions remained the most consequential barriers for foreign
students from low-to-middle income families (Ng, 2012).
59Manning et al., International Student Mobility in Hong Kong & Taiwan
Page Proofs

Non-Chinese students rarely felt fully or properly integrated on cam-
puses in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Hong Kong’s culture was often per-
ceived as “impenetrable,” and integration into Taiwanese society was
reported in the literature as being a rarity (Ng, 2011; Pan, Wong, Jou-
bert, & Chan, 2007). International students reported feeling secluded
and separated from their local classmates in terms of socialisation and
integration (Ng & Tang, 2008; University Grants Committee, 2010;
Oleksiyenko, 2018). International students also had difficulties using
English as a means of communication both within and outside the
classroom where the primary language spoken was Cantonese in Hong
Kong and Mandarin in Taiwan (Cheng et al., 2009; Ma, 2014; Mahboob,
2014; Ng 2011).
Predominantly, international students in Taiwan tended to study
courses that were comprised largely of other international students
and were therefore given few opportunities to interact with locals, ac-
quaint themselves with local fellow students, or get a genuine sense of
the local educational environment (Ma, 2014). In 2009, there were ap-
proximately 35 universities in Taiwan that offered degree-awarding
programmes tailored to the needs of international students, which
were primarily taught entirely in English (Jenkins & Galloway, 2009).
According to the government portal for international students (Study
in Taiwan), this figure had increased to 93 institutions by 2014
(FICHET, 2014). Whilst many international students reported a warm
reception and friendly interactions with locals in Taiwan, this rarely
resulted in any long-term relationship (Ma, 2014). Paradoxically, Jenk-
ins and Galloway (2009) reported that in all but one of their measure-
ment criteria (financial aid, placement services, English language,
academic advising, admissions and selection, Chinese language, living
and dining, socio-personal, health services, orientation services, stu-
dent services, and religious services), non-ethnic-Chinese international
students outperformed those who came from Chinese-heritage back-
grounds in acclimatisation to the local situation. The one metric in
which this was not the case was comfort level with the Chinese lan-
guage. Jenkins and Galloway (2009) hypothesised that this might have
been due in part to the degree to which overseas Chinese students were
mentally and emotionally prepared for the “culture shock” of Taiwan.
Apparently, these students were more shocked when they expected Tai-
wan to match their diasporic imaginations.
Removing Barriers to Inbound Student Mobility
Hong Kong and Taiwan are still struggling with multiple barriers to
inbound student mobility (see a summary in Table 4 below) while the
subject of international student mobility is under-conceptualised and
underequipped with proper policy solutions. Both governmental and in-
Educational Practice and Theory
60 Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019
Page Proofs

stitutional instruments remain unrefined while students are left on their
own to solicit help. Unsurprisingly, immigrants tend to form small insu-
lar communities that can shield the recent arrivals from the threats, real
and imagined, that may exist within an unfamiliar and larger commu-
nity of learners (Ma, 2014). This allows them to collectively position
themselves to strengthen their position with hosts who may appear to
have little desire to accommodate foreign ideas (Jiang, 2002). Moreover,
problems tend to accumulate for some international students who have
unresolved financial issues, such as payment of school fees, living ex-
penses, and access to scholarships (Cheng et al., 2009; Cheong Cheng,
Cheung, & Yuen, 2011; Cheung, Yuen, Yuen, & Cheng, 2010; Cheung et
al., 2011; Jenkins & Galloway 2009; Ng, 2011, 2012). Many students do
seek university support or government financial aid.
Tab le 4 . Ho ng K ong –Tai wan Dif fer enc es i n Att rac tin g an d
Retaining International Students
Factor Hong Kong Taiwan
Impetus for attracting
international students
Education services have been
identified as a major growth industry
for Hong Kong (Cheong Cheng et al.,
2011);
The Taiwanese government
stated its aims to be: “fully
exploiting global exchange,
solidifying diplomatic relations,
providing high-tech human
resources, filling the population
deficit, making education a
service industry, and promoting
economic development” (Ma, 2013,
p. 133);
Employment
restrictions
The government of Hong Kong
relaxed employment restrictions
placed upon international students
and allowed for 20 hours per week of
on-campus work (Education
Commission, 2011, p. 9);
Taiwan’s legislation has been
prohibitive for international
students. Students must
separately apply for a “work
permit” which is limited to 16
hours per week (Ministry of
Education, 2006);
Encouragement of
students to remain
after study is complete
The government of Hong Kong has
recently introduced schemes to
encourage international students to
remain in the jurisdiction after
completing their studies to work and
utilise the skills and knowledge they
have acquired (Education
Commission, 2011);
Taiwan’s focus has been on
attracting students to study on
the island, with little or no
consideration to their remaining
in the country after the
completion of their studies
(Ministry of Education, 2014);
Expenditure on R&D The Hong Kong government invested
relatively little in R&D, compared to
other developed economies,
amounting to 0.79% of total GDP in
2005 (Cheung et al., 2011; Ng, 2011,
2012);
Taiwanese government
expenditure on R&D significantly
outstripped that of Hong Kong,
reaching over 3% of GDP in 2012
(Huang & Huang, 2014);
61Manning et al., International Student Mobility in Hong Kong & Taiwan
Page Proofs

* FICHET (Foundation for International Cooperation in Higher Education of Taiwan), represents
116 universities in internationalisation efforts. See FICHET. (2016). Who we are. Retrieved July 24,
2017, from http://www.fichet.org.tw/?post_type=about&p=596&hl=en
Hong Kong’s and Taiwan’s attractiveness to inbound students is
likely to be challenged, as local universities are often more preoccupied
with geopolitical competition rather than with support for interna-
tional students or with opportunities to engage them for more intensive
transcultural learning (Mok, 2003; Mok & Bodycott, 2014; Olek-
siyenko, 2018). While both Hong Kong and Taiwan are prolific in rhet-
oric about the importance of international students in their
jurisdictions (Cheng et al., 2009; Chang et al., 2014; Chou & Ching,
2012; Mok, 2003, Ng, 2011, 2012; Education Bureau, 2007, 2013), their
attention to the needs of the students who do not speak Chinese, or
come outside the Chinese cultural sphere, is insufficient. This is in-
creasingly worrying as the two jurisdictions continued to expand the
number of programmes targeting international students (at least 20
degree-awarding institutions in Hong Kong and 93 institutions in Tai-
wan offered such programmes) (Cheng et al., 2009; Ng, 2012; Jenkins
& Galloway, 2009), without giving higher regard to quality (Jenkins &
Galloway, 2009).
As much as the latter is concerned, quality is often understood as
improved infrastructure, such as accommodation (Cheng et al., 2009;
Khawaja & Dempsey, 2008; Ng, 2012; Santos, Rita, & Guerreiro, 2018).
In Taiwan, the 2005 Higher Education for Excellence Plan outlined a
budgetary allocation of US$1.6 billion towards the improvement of
higher education facilities to reach the standards expected by the in-
ternational community, and incoming international students (Chang
et al., 2014; Chou & Ching 2012; Mok, 2003). Hong Kong also talks
Public/ private
institutions
The Hong Kong system is dominated
by the UGC-funded institutions with
little internationally-focused private
interest in higher education (Chan,
D. K. K., 2012);
The Taiwanese government has
decentralised control over the
higher education market, and a
significant number of private
institutions were established to
compete with the public sector in
higher education (Chang et al.,
2014);
Promotion of higher
education overseas
Hong Kong institutions are tasked
with promoting themselves on an
individual basis to international
students (Ng, 2012);
Some institutions are able to
benefit from coordinating efforts
and financial support from
FICHET*, and similar
organisations (Chang et al., 2014);
Provision of financial
assistance
The Hong Kong government, through
the UGC, provides endowments and
scholarships to “outstanding”
international students (Ng, 2011).
Multiple scholarships provided by
various government departments
targeted at students seeking
different programmes of study,
such as language programmes,
postgraduate research
programmes, etc. (Roberts et al.,
2010).
Educational Practice and Theory
62 Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019
Page Proofs

about quality primarily implying a more reputable group of graduates
who can “internationalise” the local student body (Bodycott, Mak, &
Ramburuth, 2014; Lai & Maclean, 2011; University Grants Committee,
2017) by providing an environment where local students have access
to international students within their own home context. At the same
time, Taiwan seems to be concerned with the development of its local
student population and the quality of the output of its institutions, but
in fact separates international students from local students, the rea-
sons for which are not always clear. Taiwan’s policies seem to be more
‘outwardly’ focussed, aiming to boost its name in the international com-
munity at a time when it has been marginalised by the political archi-
tecture and global diplomacy of a more economically and politically
powerful PRC (Chang, 2015; Ma, 2013).
As much as Hong Kong, Taiwan looks for opportunities to improve
the standing of its institutions in the broader global public perception,
as well as in international rankings tables. The Hong Kong govern-
ment, however, has appeared to be more ‘inwardly’ focused, attracting
talented researchers and professionals to study and then stay in the
territory to contribute to its global competitiveness. Yet, Hong Kong
has not considered thoroughly the dependencies between talent reten-
tion and investment in R&D as a base for the strengthening of the local
knowledge economy. From our observations, more institutional re-
search is needed to understand differences in organisational cultures
and performance targets in different universities and colleges in Hong
Kong and Taiwan. While institutions of higher learning seem to be in-
terested in an increased quality of learning outcomes, the tension be-
tween revenue generation, an issue of concern in many other
jurisdictions, and institutional support of international student expe-
riences, is disconcerting. The differentiation tactics and strategies, if
any, in handling inbound overseas and cross-border Chinese and non-
Chinese students remain vague, while references are overgeneralised.
The institutional research on these issues may reveal many insights
into how the jurisdictions foresee the institutional roles in the balanced
internationalisation of their own learning environments.
The lack of an effective concept and strategy for integrating inter-
national students into the general population in both Hong Kong and
Taiwanese higher education has hampered the ability of each jurisdic-
tion to successfully achieve their internationalisation strategies. This
is particularly true for Hong Kong, where the stated primary aim of
internationalisation has been to internationalise the local student body
and higher educational system as a whole. Given that the goal of in-
ternationalisation requires local students to benefit from interaction
with a more internationalised student body, the lack of genuine en-
63Manning et al., International Student Mobility in Hong Kong & Taiwan
Page Proofs

gagement between these two bodies suggests a significant failure of
this approach. Taiwan’s goals, meanwhile, appear to have been more
effectively planned for, and aligned with, the approach of the govern-
ment, through the Ministry of Education.
Nevertheless, there should be more analytical and policy-related
work done with regard to the learning outcomes of international stu-
dents in Hong Kong and Taiwan. It is unclear how expectations and
achievements correlate and what the two jurisdictions indeed provide
that others in their neighbourhood cannot. For example, some studies
point to the attractiveness of more liberal and open-minded learning
environments that these two jurisdictions have been providing in Asia
over the decades, and particularly in recent years (Lee, 2014; Huang,
Shih & Huang, 2010). However, if freedom of learning is a significant
point of attraction, what is the evidence that the inbound students do
indeed learn to freely pursue their subjects and themes of study, or ex-
press their ideas freely through various scholarly venues? The quality
of inbound mobility outcomes in that regard has yet to be explored.
Finally, as concerns about disparities regarding access to mobility
begin to grow, it would be important to investigate the issue of public
and private cost-sharing in higher education programmes. It may ap-
pear to be more important in the case of Hong Kong, where many in-
ternational students, regardless of their socioeconomic status, speak
of high costs of living as well as of the necessity to secure financing in
their home country prior to commencing their sojourn abroad (whether
in the form of government loans, or loans from financial institutions,
etc.; Cheng et al., 2009; Cheong Cheng et al., 2011; Cheung et al., 2010,
2011; Ng, 2011, 2012). The issue of unequal socioeconomic statuses re-
mains under-explored in relation to international students in Taiwan.
This is potentially because of the prevalence and ease-of-access of pub-
lic funding from the host government. However, as policies change, this
situation may also change. Likewise, as Taiwan’s higher education sec-
tor continues to grow and develop, there may be a greater inflow of stu-
dents enrolling in self-financed programmes of study, which may
present an opportunity for the Taiwanese government to provide state-
backed loans to foreign nationals to support their studies, provided
they are undertaken in Taiwan. Cheung et al. (2011) describe a similar
system in place in Singapore, whereby the government has been suc-
cessful in attracting students from South Asia, on a par with Euro-
peans and Americans, while providing wider access to low-interest loan
financing.
As local and foreign stakeholders’ understanding of the international
student needs appears to be scant, we argued that it is increasingly
Educational Practice and Theory
64 Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019
Page Proofs

necessary to keep investigating and communicating local conceptuali-
sations and comprehensions of international student mobility. Presum-
ably, the improved understanding would have a significant impact on
financial support of local donors. More importantly though, an im-
proved relationship between the local people and international stu-
dents would reduce concerns and complaints about the visitors’ ability
to engage more authentically with the local culture as well as to en-
hance and replicate the value of transcultural comprehension, compas-
sion and succour.
References
Altbach, P. G. (1989). Twisted roots: The Western impact on Asian higher
education. Higher Education. 18(1), 9-29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138959
Bodycott, P., Mak, A. S. & Ramburuth, P. (2014). Utilising an internationalised
curriculum to enhance students’ intercultural interaction, engagement and
adaptation. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 23(3), 635-643.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0136-3
Chan, D. K. K. (2012a). A comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong on their
strategies for developing regional education hubs. Sociolinguistic Studies.
2(1), 2-26.
Chan, S-J. (2012b). Shifting patterns of student mobility in Asia. Higher
Education Policy. 25(2), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2012.3
Chang, D-F., Nyeu, F-Y. & Chang, H-C. (2014). Balancing quality and quantity
to build research universities in Taiwan. Higher Education. 70(2), 251-263.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9841-y
Chang, D-F. (2015). Implementing internationalization policy in higher
education explained by regulatory control in neoliberal times. Asia Pacific
Education Review. 16(4), 603-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9407-4
Cheng, Y. C. et al. (2009). A technical research report on the development of Hong
Kong as aregional education hub. Retrieved July 7, 2017, from
https://home.ied.edu.hk/~yccheng/doc/articles/TechnicalReportonEdHub-final-09.pdf
Cheong Cheng, Y., Cheung, A. C. K. & Yuen, T. W. W. (2011). Development of a
regional education hub: The case of Hong Kong. International Journal of
Educational Management. 25(5), 474-493.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111146378
Cheung, A. C. K., Yuen, T. W. W., Yuen, C. Y. M. & Cheng, Y. C. (2010).
Promoting Hong Kong’s higher education to Asian markets. International
Journal of Educational Management. 24(5), 427-447.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011055992
Cheung, A. C. K., Yuen, T. W. W., Yuen, C. Y. M. & Cheng, Y. C. (2011). Strategies
and policies for Hong Kong’s higher education in Asian markets.
International Journal of Educational Management. 25(2), 144-163.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111107579
China Daily. (2009, September 25). Building an education hub. Retrieved July
7, 2017,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/eduonline/2009-09/25/content_8742418.htm
Chou, C. P. & Ching, G. (2012). Taiwan education at the crossroad: When
globalization meets localization. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
65Manning et al., International Student Mobility in Hong Kong & Taiwan
Page Proofs

Collins, F. L., Sidhu, R., Lewis, N. & Yeoh, B. S. A. (2014). Mobility and desire:
International students and Asian regionalism in aspirational Singapore.
Discourse (Abingdon). 35(5), 661-676.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.921996
Education Bureau. (2007). Legislative council brief: Developing Hong Kong as a
regional education hub. Retrieved February 19, 2015, from
http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/about-edb/press/legco/others/legcobrief-e.pdf
Education Bureau. (2013). Policy objectives. Retrieved February 19, 2015, from
http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/postsecondary/policy-objectives/index.html
Education Commission. (2011). Report on the development of education services
in Hong Kong. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from http://www.e-c.edu.hk/doc/en/
publications_and_related_documents/education_reports/Report_Dev_Edu_Service_
Eng.pdf
FICHET. (2014). Study in Taiwan. Accessed 12 September, 2018, from
https://www.studyintaiwan.org/university
Fok, P. W-K. (2007). Internationalisation of higher education in Hong Kong.
International Education Journal. 8(1), 184-193.
Huang, C-W. & Huang, F. (2014). Taiwan’s R&D spending surpasses 3% of GDP
in 2012. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from
http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aeco/201407150012.aspx
Huang, H-W., Shih, H-Y. & Huang, Y-J. (2010). Internationalization in higher
education: International student’s Chinese learning as serious leisure in
Taiwan. Cross-Cultural Communication. 6(4), 28-39 .
Jenkins, J. R. & Galloway, F. (2009). The adjustment problems faced by
international and overseas Chinese students studying in Taiwan
universities: A comparison of student and faculty/staff perceptions. Asia
Pacific Education Review. 10(2), 159-168.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9020-5
Jeon, M. (2016). English language education policy and the Native-Speaking
English Teacher (NET) Scheme in Hong Kong. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.),
English language education policy in Asia (pp. 91–111). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer.
Jiang, X. Q. (2002). Hong Kong’s university see the mainland as fertile ground
for recruiting students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 48(22), A41-A42.
Available at
https://chronicle.com/article/Hong-Kong-s-Universities-See/17059. Accessed
July 23, 2017.
Khawaja, N. G. & Dempsey, J. (2008). A comparison of international and
domestic tertiary students in Australia. Australian Journal of Guidance &
Counselling. 18(1), 30-46. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.18.1.30
Lai, A. & Maclean, R. (2011). Managing human capital in world cities : The
development of Hong Kong into an education hub. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education. 31(3), 249-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2011.594418
Lee, J. T. (2014). Education hubs and talent development: Policymaking and
implementation challenges. Higher Education. 68(6), 807-823.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9745-x
Legislative Council Panel on Education. (2005). Policy initiatives on education
in the policy agenda for the 2005–06 policy address. Retrieved July 12, 2017,
from http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr05-06/english/panels/ed/papers/ed1020cb2-48-1e.pdf
Educational Practice and Theory
66 Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019
Page Proofs

Legislative Council Panel on Education. (2006). Policy initiatives on education
in the 2006–07 policy agenda. Retrieved July 12, 2017, from
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/english/panels/ed/papers/ed1019cb2-28-1-e.pdf
Ma, A-H. S. (2013). The development of international student recruitment
policies in Taiwan: A 60-year trajectory. Journal of Studies in International
Education. 18(2), 120-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315312473781
Ma, A-H. S. (2014). Social networks, cultural capital and attachment to the host
city: Comparing overseas Chinese students and foreign students in Taipei.
Asia Pacific Viewpoint. 55(2), 226-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12053
Mahboob, A. (2014). Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher
education in Hong Kong. International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching. 52(2), 183-203. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0008
Manthorpe, J. (2005). Forbidden nation: A history of Taiwan. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
McClure, J. W. (2007). International graduates’ cross-cultural adjustment:
Experiences, coping strategies, and suggested programmatic responses.
Teaching in Higher Education. 12(2), 199-217.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701191976
Ministry of Education. (2006). Working in Taiwan. Retrieved July 26, 2017,
from http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=622&ctNode=3008&mp=1
Ministry of Education. (2012). Summary of education at all levels in SY 2011.
Retrieved July 6, 2017, from
http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=14487&ctNode=11429&mp=1
Ministry of Education. (2014). Ministry of Education objectives for 2015
(January–December). Retrieved May 23, 2015, from
http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=16072&ctNode =11410&mp=1
Ministry of Education. (2017a). Non-citizen students in universities, colleges and
junior colleges. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from
http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=16422&ctNode =11429&mp=1
Ministry of Education. (2017b). International Comparison of Education
Statistical Indicators, 2017. Taipei. Retrieved from
https://english.moe.gov.tw/cp-29-17194-B71B6-1.html
Mok, K. H. (2003). Globalisation and higher education restructuring in Hong
Kong, Taiwan and mainland China. Higher Education Research &
Development. 22(2), 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360304111
Mok, K. H. & Wei, I. P. (2008). Contested concepts, similar practices: The quest
for the global university. Higher Education Policy. 21(4), 429-438.
https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2008.23
Mok, K. H. & Bodycott, P. (2014). Hong Kong: The quest for regional education
hub status. In J. Knight (Ed.), International education hubs: Student, talent,
knowledge-innovation models (pp. 81–99). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Ng, S. W. (2011). Can Hong Kong export its higher education services to the
Asian markets? Educational Research for Policy and Practice. 10(2), 115-131.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-011-9099-4
Ng, S. W. (2012). The challenges of attracting Asian students to study higher
education in Hong Kong. Higher Education Quarterly. 66(3), 272-292.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2012.00524.x
67Manning et al., International Student Mobility in Hong Kong & Taiwan
Page Proofs

Ng, S. W. & Tang, Y. F. S. (2008). The challenges and strategies of internationalizing
Hong Kong’s higher education in a globalized world. International Journal of
Educational Reform. 17(3), 251-269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105678790801700304
Oleksiyenko, A., Cheng, K-M. & Yip, H-K. (2013). International student
mobility in Hong Kong: Private good, public good, or trade in services?
Studies in Higher Education. 38(7), 1079-1101.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.630726
Oleksiyenko, A. (2018). Global mobility and higher learning. London and New
York: Routledge.
Pan, J-Y., Wong, D. F. K., Joubert, L. & Chan, C. L. W. (2007). Acculturative
stressor and meaning of life as predictors of negative affect in acculturation:
Across-cultural comparative study between Chinese international students
in Australia and Hong Kong. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry. 41(9), 740-750. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048670701517942
Quacquarelli Symonds. (2018a). QS best student cities 2018. Retrieved
September 11, 2018, from
https://www.topuniversities.com/city-rankings/2018
Quacquarelli Symonds. (2018b). QS world university rankings2014/15.
Retrieved January 10, 2014, from
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014
Roberts, A., Chou, P. & Ching, G. (2010). Contemporary trends in East Asian
higher education: Dispositions of international students in a Taiwan
university. Higher Education. 59(2), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-
009-9239-4
Santos, C. L., Rita, P. & Guerreiro, J. (2018). Improving international
attractiveness of higher education institutions based on text mining and
sentiment analysis. International Journal of Educational Management.
32(3), 431-447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2017-0027
Song, M-M. & Tai, H-H. (2007). Taiwan’s responses to globalisation:
Internationalisation and questing for world class universities. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education. 27(3), 323-340.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790701594067
Stoker, S. M. I. (2013). “Education.” In S. M. I. Stoker (Ed.). Hong Kong yearbook
2013 (pp. 122–138). Hong Kong, China: Information Services Department of
the Hong Kong SAR Government. Retrieved July 14, 2017,from
http://www.yearbook.gov.hk/2013/en/pdf/E07.pdf
Times Higher Education. (2018). World university rankings 2018. Retrieved
September 11, 2018, from
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/world-
ranking#!/page/0/length/-1/locations/HK/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
Tung, C. H. (2004). 2004 policy address by Chief Executive. Retrieved July 14,
2017, from http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200401/07/0107001.htm
University Grants Committee. (2010). Aspirations for the higher education
system in Hong Kong: Report of the University Grants Committee. Retrieved
July 23, 2017, from
http://www.ugc.edu.hk/doc/eng/ugc/publication/report/her2010/her2010-rpt.pdf
University Grants Committee. (2013). UGC annual report 2012–13. Retrieved
July 6, 2017, from
http://www.ugc.edu.hk/doc/eng/ugc/publication/report/AnnualRpt1213/full.pdf
Educational Practice and Theory
68 Vol. 41, No. 1, 2019
Page Proofs

University Grants Committee. (2017). UGC Annual Report 2016-17. Retrieved
12 September, 2018, from
https://www.ugc.edu.hk/doc/eng/ugc/publication/report/AnnualRpt1617/full.pdf
Wong, S. W. & Yuen, M. (2012). Work values of university students in Chinese
mainland, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. International Journal for the
Advancement of Counseling. 34(4), 269-285.
69Manning et al., International Student Mobility in Hong Kong & Taiwan
Page Proofs