Chapter 2. Literature Review
2.4. Push-and-Pull Factors of Student Mobility
2.4.1. Explanation of the Push-Pull Framework
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
these studies all attempt to identify and explain the factors affecting students’ decision-making process, which in turn can inform the future strategies and policies of university recruitment and national-level migration policy.
2.4.1. Explanation of the Push-Pull Framework
The push-pull framework draws upon theories of migration regarding the perceived benefits and costs in a person’s choice to migrate. Everett Lee defined
migration in 1966 simply as “a permanent or semi-permanent change in residence…No matter how short or long [the distance], every act of migration involves an origin, a destination, and an intervening set of obstacles.” These obstacles constitute a larger set of factors influencing a person’s decision to migrate in addition to factors associated with the place of origin, the destination, and personal factors related to the individual. The mix of both positive and negative factors associated with the origin and the destination, which Lee denotes with pluses (+) and minuses (-), factors into an individual’s decision to migrate. The decision to migrate must involve not only a favorable ratio of positive to negative factors in the destination but also a mix of intervening obstacles and personal factors that can override the natural inertia to stay in one’s place of origin. Furthermore, the mix of pluses and minuses is specific to each individual and is limited by their own perceptions and imperfect knowledge of the destination: what may constitute as a benefit of a destination for one person may constitute a drawback or neutral aspect of the local for someone else.39
The push-pull framework applies Lee’s basic theory of migration to the
phenomenon of the international movement of students. By applying this theory to the cross-border mobility of students, Altbach described the movement of students in terms of a push-pull phenomenon, where “push” factors in developing countries motivate students to look outside one’s home for study and “pull” factors abroad draw them to the developed world for education.40 More specifically, Altbach argued for the further study of foreign students not as an undifferentiated group, but as individuals for whom several factors impact their decision and satisfaction with studying abroad.41
Mazzarol and Soutar further developed the “push-pull” model to define the external factors that influence students’ decisions to migrate for higher education. They
39 Everett S. Lee, op. cit., pp. 49-51.
40 Philip G. Altbach, op. cit., p. 156.
41 Ibid.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
characterized the decision-making process in three stages: in stage one, the student makes the decision to migrate abroad instead of staying in their home country. In stage two, the student chooses a host country. In stage three, the student chooses a host institution.
Mazzarol and Soutar defined “push factors” as those within the place of origin that
“initiate a student’s decision to undertake international study,” corresponding with stage one of the decision-making process to pursue education outside of one’s home country.
These push factors would correspond to the “minuses” in the origin locale of Lee’s theory of migration.
Conversely, “pull factors” are those that make a destination relatively attractive for a student, corresponding to the “pluses” in the destination of Lee’s theory, as
illustrated in Figure 1.42 These pull factors, therefore, correspond to stages two and three of Mazzarol and Soutar’s three-stage characterization of international student mobility choice (choosing a host country and institution). Following the traditional logic that higher education serves as a function of enhancing one’s social and economic status and the commonly observed flow of students from developing economies to developed economies, past studies using the push-pull model emphasize relative economic relations between sending and receiving countries of international students. In this vein, McMahon in 1992 identified macroeconomic push factors in a country of origin such as its relative economic power, its level of involvement in the global economy, state priority on education, and availability (or lack thereof) of educational opportunities.43
Among pull factors, Mazzarol et al. in 1997 identified six factors that influence an individual student’s choice of destination for study: (1) cost issues, (2) knowledge and awareness of the destination, (3) the environment (both physical and social), (4) personal recommendations for the destination, (5) social links in the form of family or friends in the destination, and (6) geographical proximity.44 On the macroeconomic level,
McMahon identified factors such as the relative size of the destination country, existing economic links between the sending and receiving countries, the host country’s political interest in the sending country, and the host country’s support of international students.45
42 Mazzarol and Soutar, op. cit., pp. 82-90.
43 Mary E. McMahon, “Higher Education in a World Market: An historical look at the global context of international study,” Higher Education, vol. 24, 1992, pp. 468-69.
44 Tim Mazzarol, Steven Kemp, and Lawson Savery, International Students who Choose not to Study in Australia: An Examination of Taiwan and Indonesia, (Perth, Western Australia: Institute for Research into International Competitiveness (IRIC), 1997), p. 37-38.
45 McMahon, op. cit., p. 469.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Figure 1: Push and Pull Factors in Student Mobility
A 2007 study by Li and Bray Applied and expanded the push-pull framework to include factors that work against a student’s decision to undertake international study;
that is, the negative push factors in the destination that make it unappealing or difficult to access and the positive pull factors of the origin that make staying in one’s home country for study appealing. Li and Bray call these factors that may prevent students from
migrating “reverse push-pull factors, as illustrated in Figure 2.” Li and Bray used this two-way push-pull framework to examine the motivations of Mainland Chinese students studying in Hong Kong and Macau. They found that the push factors and pull factors both at home and in the host location, combined with personal characteristics and perceptions, informed the decisions of students and their families.
Figure 2: Reverse Push and Pull Factors
The mix of pluses and minuses, or push and pull factors, is specific to an
individual’s experience and perceptions of their home versus their destination choice, as well as personal factors affecting a student’s ultimate decision. Li and Bray defined these as “internal” and “external” factors, wherein external factors are associated with a place itself and internal factors associated with a person’s own personal background and
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
characteristics.46 For students, external factors may include the relative strength of the economy or education system at home that make leaving an option, or the policies and scholarship opportunities in a destination that make it an attractive option. Internal factors may include a student’s competitiveness in the education systems they seek to enter, personal contacts in the destination country, and familiarity with the destination. While historically we have seen that the industrialized countries of North America and Western Europe have dominated in international student recruitment, several studies have applied the push-pull framework to student mobility around the Asia Pacific region.