臺灣往中國的高等教育學生流動：推拉因素 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學亞太研究英語碩士學位學程 International Master’s Program in Asia-Pacific Studies College of Social Sciences National Chengchi University 碩士論文 Master’s Thesis. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. 立臺灣往中國的高等教育學生流動：推拉因素 Student Flows from Taiwan to China in Higher Education: Push-Pull Factors. sit. y. Nat. er. io. Student: Caroline R. Fried. n. al Advisor: Dr. Ming Leei v Ch. n U engchi. 中華民國 108 年 6 月 June 2019. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(2) 臺灣往中國的高等教育學生流動：推拉因素 Student Flows from Taiwan to China in Higher Education: Push-Pull Factors 研究生：費凱琳 Student: Caroline R. Fried 指導教授：李明 Advisor: Dr. Ming Lee 國立政治大學亞太研究英語碩士學位學程. 立. 治碩士論文政大. ‧ 國. 學 ‧. A Thesis. sit. y. Nat. Submitted to International Master’s Program in Asia-Pacific Studies. er. io. National Chengchi University. n. In partiala lfulfillment of the Requirement iv. n U i e n ginc h For the degree of Master Asia-Pacific Studies. Ch. 中華民國 108 年 6 月 June 2019. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(3) Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor Dr. Ming Lee, whose knowledge on cross-strait relations, higher education, and research motivated me throughout the school year. I would also like to thank my thesis committee members, Dr. Chung-Min Tsai, Dr. Kao-Cheng Wang, and Dr. Hsin-wei Tang, whose feedback and support have helped me enormously in writing this thesis. My sincere thanks goes to Dr. Chun-liang Huang, who helped immensely in locating questionnaire respondents and providing insights that helped me understand my thesis topic. I would not be here today without the support of the Foundation for Scholarly. 政治大. Exchange (Fulbright Taiwan) and the Institute of International Education in the United States. Their support of my studies through the Fulbright program have made. 立. my experience in Taiwan an unforgettable part of my academic journey. I am proud to. ‧ 國. 學. call myself a Fulbrighter and NCCU alum.. My special thanks go to my parents Ted and Angela Fried for their support of. ‧. and enthusiasm toward my goals and journey over the past two years. I am also forever grateful to my partner Kuei-Feng Tung, who provided emotional, moral, and. Nat. sit. y. linguistic support over the course of writing this thesis.. io. er. Finally, I wish to dedicate this thesis to the memory of Professor Kimberly Jones, whose guidance and mentorship in my undergraduate years at Northeastern. n. al. i n U. v. University sparked my passion for understanding human conflict and connections across borders.. Ch. engchi. i. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(4) Abstract Cross-strait integration and cooperation between Taiwan and mainland China in recent years has been focused in economic, cultural, and academic spheres, while political relations between the governing authorities on either side of the Taiwan Strait remain strained. While the Taiwanese business community in mainland China is well-studied in the context of cross-strait integration, the communities formed by student migration from Taiwan to China is a relatively more recent phenomenon that has attracted relatively less academic interest. Drawing upon the. 政治大 through the linkage community 立 framework, and the marketization and “push-pull” theory of migration, integration across political systems. ‧ 國. 學. globalization of higher education, this thesis examines the factors contributing to Taiwanese students’ decisions to study in mainland. ‧. China’s universities in graduate programs. Open-ended questionnaires with Taiwanese students enrolled in Mainland graduate programs and. y. Nat. sit. semi-structured interviews revealed economic factors as well as. er. io. social/cultural factors that students considered in their choice to study in. n. a lthis thesis assesses the extent mainland China. Finally, i v to which. n U i Taiwanese students in Chinese universities to the formation of e n g c h contribute. Ch. linkage communities intertwining the two sides of the Taiwan Strait together.. Key words: International higher education, cross-strait relations, pushpull theory, integration theory, economic relations. ii. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(5) 摘要近年來，經濟，文化和學術是台灣與大陸兩岸統一及合作時所專注的三個領域，但是他們之間的政治關係仍然保持在緊張的狀態。當了解台灣與大陸的兩岸關係時，在大陸的台商已經被深入的研究了，而相對比較新的現象；選擇在大陸讀書的台灣學生們並他們形成的團體，還沒有得到充分的學術分析。借鑒 “推 - 拉”遷移理論，並通過聯繫群體結構而導致的政治體系整合，以及高等教育的市場化和全球化，本論文研究台灣學生決定遷移到大陸的大學去讀研究所時影響及考慮的因素。通過開放式的調查問卷和半結構化的訪問，調查顯示台灣學生們在選擇去大陸讀研究所時有考慮到經濟，社會與文化的因素。最後，本論文評估了台灣學生在中國的大學所形成的團體是否有助於台灣與大陸的連接並這些群體在何種程度上促成了兩岸交織在一起。. 立. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學 ‧. 關鍵詞：國際高等教育，台灣大陸兩岸關係，推拉理論，整合理論，經濟關係. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. iii. i n U. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... i Abstract ..........................................................................................................................ii 摘要.............................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables and Figures............................................................................................vii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. viii Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Research Motivation and Approach .................................................................... 2 1.3 Research Question and Objectives ....................................................................... 3. 治政大 1.5. Chapter Outline ................................................................................................... 6 立 1.6. Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 7 1.4. Research Methods ............................................................................................... 5. ‧ 國. 學. 1.7. Limitations .......................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2. Literature Review ....................................................................................... 10. ‧. 2.1. Expansion of Higher Education ........................................................................ 10 2.1.1. Expansion in Access and Demand.............................................................. 10. Nat. sit. y. 2.1.2 Diversification in Institutions ...................................................................... 12 2.2. Privatization and Marketization of Higher Education.......................................13. io. n. al. er. 2.2.1. Privatization of Higher Education .............................................................. 13. i n U. v. 2.2.2. Marketization of Higher Education ............................................................ 14. Ch. engchi. 2.3. Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education ............................16 2.3.1. Internationalization at the Institutional Level ............................................. 16 2.3.2. The Global Network of Higher Education ................................................. 17 2.3.3. International Student Flows ........................................................................ 18 2.4. Push-and-Pull Factors of Student Mobility ....................................................... 19 2.4.1. Explanation of the Push-Pull Framework ................................................... 20 2.4.2. Studies Applying the Push-Pull Framework .............................................. 23 Chapter 3. Cross-Taiwan Strait Relations in Retrospect ............................................. 27 3.1. Theories and Frameworks in Cross-Strait Integration ...................................... 27 3.1.1. The Divided Nations Framework ............................................................... 27 3.1.2 Integration Theory ....................................................................................... 30 3.1.3 The Linkage Community Framework in Cross-Strait Relations ................. 31. iv. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(7) 3.2 Political and Economic Development of Cross-Strait Relations ....................... 33 3.2.1 Political Relations between Taiwan and China: A Brief History ................ 34 3.2.2 Taiwanese Identity in Cross-Strait Relations .............................................. 36 3.3. Evidence of Cross-Strait Integration ................................................................. 38 3.3.1. Business and Economic Links .................................................................... 38 3.3.2. Tourism and Cultural Links ........................................................................ 41 Chapter 4. Higher Education Across the Taiwan Strait ............................................... 44 4.1. Development of Taiwan’s Higher Education System ....................................... 44 4.1.1. Historical Overview .................................................................................... 44 4.1.2. Challenges in Taiwan’s Higher Education System .................................... 46 4.2 Development of China’s Higher Education System .......................................... 49 4.2.1. Overview of Development and Challenges ................................................ 49. 政治大 4.3. The Legal Basis for 立 Cross-Strait Education Flows ........................................... 55 4.2.2. Internationalization in China’s Higher Education System ......................... 53. ‧ 國. 學. 4.4 Developments in Student Exchanges between China and Taiwan .................... 57 Chapter 5. Push-Pull Factors for Taiwanese Graduate School Applicants to China ... 62 5.1. The Questionnaire and Interview Respondents: An Overview ......................... 62. ‧. 5.1.1. Characteristics of Respondents ................................................................... 62. y. Nat. 5.1.2. Fields of Study ............................................................................................ 63. sit. 5.2 Push and Pull Factors: Results from Student Questionnaires ............................65. er. io. 5.2.1 Economic Factors ........................................................................................ 66. al. v i n 5.2.3. Reverse Push-Pull Factors: in China ................... 69 C h Drawbacks of Studying U i e h n gc 5.3. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 70 n. 5.2.2. Social and Cultural Factors......................................................................... 67. 5.4.1. Cross-Strait Economic Relations ................................................................ 71 5.4.2. Building Human Capital ............................................................................. 74 5.4.3. Desire for International Perspectives and Contacts .................................... 76 Chapter 6. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 82 6.1. Implications for Taiwan .................................................................................... 83 6.2. Potential Changes in China ............................................................................... 84 6.3. Prospects for Further Research ......................................................................... 85 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 88 I. Government and IGO Sources .............................................................................. 88 II. Books ................................................................................................................... 89 III. Journal Articles .................................................................................................. 90. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(8) IV. News Sources ..................................................................................................... 94 V. Web Sources ........................................................................................................ 95 VI. Interviews ........................................................................................................... 96 Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 97 Appendix 1. Blank Questionnaire ............................................................................ 97 Appendix 2. Questionnaire Respondent Summary Data ........................................ 100 Respondent Ages (in years) ................................................................................ 100 Universities represented ..................................................................................... 100 Fields and Levels of Study ................................................................................. 100 Prior Work Experience at time of Application to Graduate Programs ............... 100 Open-Ended Response Summaries ..................................................................... 101 Appendix 3. Interview Transcripts ......................................................................... 103. 政治大 Interview with an Anonymous 立 Professor in STEM............................................ 106 Interview with Dr. Chun-liang Huang ................................................................ 103. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. vi. i n U. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(9) List of Tables and Figures Figure 1: Push and Pull Factors in Student Mobility ................................................... 22 Figure 2: Reverse Push and Pull Factors ..................................................................... 22 Table 1: Student questionnaire responses by institution .............................................. 63 Table 2: Student questionnaire responses by field and level of study ......................... 63 Figure 3: Push and pull factors from student questionnaires ....................................... 69 Figure 4: Reverse push-pull factors from student questionnaires ................................ 70. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. vii. i n U. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(10) List of Abbreviations ARATS: Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits BRI: Belt and Road Initiative CCP/CPC: Chinese Communist Party/Communist Party of China CUCAS: China’s University and College Application System DPP: Democratic Progressive Party ECFA: Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement IIE: Institute of International Education KMT: Kuomintang/Guomindang, Chinese Nationalist Party MAC: Mainland Affairs Council. 政治大. NIE: Newly Industrialized Economy. OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 立. PRC: People’s Republic of China. ‧ 國. 學. QS: Quacquarelli Symonds ROC: Republic of China. ‧. SEF: Straits Exchange Foundation SOE: State-owned enterprise. Nat. sit. y. STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. io. er. TSAs: Taiwanese Student Associations. UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. n. al. WTO: World Trade Organization. Ch. engchi. viii. i n U. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(11) 臺灣往中國的高等教育學生流動：推拉因素 Student Flows from Taiwan to China in Higher Education: Push-Pull Factors Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. Introduction Since the 1949 retreat of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or Guomindang, hereafter KMT) to Taiwan at the end of the Chinese Civil War, the island of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland have been locked in political conflict characterized by little to no high-level interaction between the governments of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC). While the ROC government exercises de. 政治大 a much larger share of diplomatic partners internationally and power to prevent Taiwan 立. facto sovereignty over the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Matsu, and Jinmen, the PRC enjoys from pursuing de jure independence via a “One China Principle,” by which the PRC will. ‧ 國. 學. not tolerate an independent Taiwan and will strive for the island’s unification with the mainland.. ‧. While political relations between the two governing systems in Taiwan and. y. Nat. mainland China have remained cold and official contact between the two nonexistent,. sit. interaction and movement between the people of the two sides today has never been. er. io. easier. With the lifting of martial law in Taiwan came a lifting on a ban to travel to. al. n. v i n C h realms, such U Taiwan has been in social and economic e n g c h i as trade, investment, cultural links, mainland China; since then, both formal and informal cooperation between China and. and education exchange.. However, challenges still abound in the Taiwan-China relationship: a growing sense of Taiwanese national identity and a consolidating democracy in Taiwan contribute to preventing spillover of economic interdependence into policies that bring China and Taiwan closer together. Differences in size and development in the Taiwanese and Chinese economies stoke fears in Taiwan that economic dependence on China will result in the hollowing out of Taiwan’s economy or coercing Taiwan into unwanted unification. On the other hand, the rapidly growing Chinese economy provides many opportunities for Taiwanese businesspeople and professionals to gain more than on their home island. Integration with China’s economy is a phenomenon that Taiwan’s people recognize as politically sensitive but carrying many economic rewards. Despite changes in political. 1. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(12) leadership, political outlook, and national identification in Taiwan, the island’s relationship with China remains a salient issue in the minds of those who interact with the mainland. The focus of this thesis rests upon this increased integration despite perceived political risk in the China-Taiwan relationship. While much scholarly attention is paid to the perspectives of Taiwanese businesspeople in China and their effect on broader issues in cross-strait relations, much less research has focused on Taiwanese students who study in the Chinese mainland. While Mainland Chinese universities have been open to recruiting Taiwanese students since 1985, the volume of Taiwanese students enrolling in universities in China has increased over the 2010s.1 These cohorts of Taiwanese students in Mainland universities form a “linkage community” between the two sides of the. 治政大 process in choosing the trust between China and Taiwan. Understanding their decision 立 Mainland for study may reveal more about larger dynamics in the cross-strait relationship and the development of international student mobility.. ‧. 1.2. Research Motivation and Approach. 學. ‧ 國. Taiwan Strait. These communities have the potential to forge understanding and mutual. My motivation for choosing this topic and completing a thesis in this area are. y. Nat. sit. twofold. Firstly, my professional and academic interests in both cross-strait relations and. er. io. education stretch back many years to my time as an undergraduate student. Having. al. v i n international student myself, I am Cmotivated Ua thesis that combines my past h e n gtocpursue i h experiences and professional interests. This may allow me to bring a unique perspective n. researched topics in cross-strait relations, worked with international students, and been an. to the topic of education exchange in cross-strait relations and serve as a basis for further studies on the role and significance of cross-border student mobility. Secondly, studies of cross-strait movement and migration over the past several years tend to focus on Taiwanese businesspeople in China or cross-strait tourism and their role in cross-strait relations. These studies are especially important for understanding economic interdependence between China and Taiwan. However, I have found that little research has been done regarding the movement of students, whose motivations for traveling to the other side may differ from those of businesspeople and tourists. What can 1. William Yat Lai Lo, “The Political Economy of Cross-Border Higher Education: The Intra-National Flow of Students in Greater China,” in Misa Izuhara, ed. Handbook on East Asian Social Policy, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013, pp. 452-471.. 2. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(13) this cohort of Taiwanese students in the Mainland tell us about the larger state of crossstrait relations? Through document analysis, and interviews with professionals in the cross-strait education industry, and questionnaires with prospective graduate students, this study aims to glean a more complete picture of conditions in Taiwan and mainland China that drive cross-strait interactions, migration, and integration among the people of both sides. The research approach for this thesis is interdisciplinary by nature, drawing from the fields of demography, international relations, and political economy, education, and policy. This includes two main theoretical frameworks to conceptualize cross-border student mobility and cross-strait integration between China and Taiwan. The first framework involves theories of migration and individual decision-making processes.. 治政大 and Soutar’s work on migration. Building off the migration literature, Mazzarol 立 international student mobility forms the “push-pull” framework that operationalizes. Everett Lee’s theory on migration guides individual decision-making in the context of 2. ‧ 國. 學. student decision-making processes.3 These models are grounded in the marketization and liberalization of higher education that creates a higher education marketplace in which. ‧. students choose institutions to invest their financial and personal resources for future professional and social opportunity (see Chapter 2). The second framework involves the. y. Nat. sit. specific case of China-Taiwan relations, specifically frameworks of mobility and. er. io. integration between the people of the two sides in the absence of warm governmental relations. Yung Wei’s conception of multi-system nations and linkage communities. n. al. Ch. i n U. v. provides the theoretical context for the importance of people-to-people ties for the future. engchi. of cross-strait relations and integration (see Chapter 3, section 3.1.3).4 The cross-strait migration of students potentially creates a linkage community of Taiwanese students in China who understand and have a stake in the peaceful development of cross-strait relations.. 1.3 Research Question and Objectives This study aims to answer the following research question: what pull factors in mainland China and in push factors in Taiwan motivate Taiwanese students to migrate to Everett S. Lee, “A Theory of Migration,” Demography, vol. 3 no. 1, 1966, pp. 47-57 Tim Mazzarol and Geoffrey N. Soutar, “‘Push-Pull’ Factors Influencing International Student Destination Choice,” International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 16, no. 2, 2002, pp. 82-90. 4 Yung Wei, “From ‘Multi-System Nations’ to ‘Linkage Communities:’ A New Conceptual Scheme for the Integration of Divided Nations,” Issues and Studies vol. 33, no. 10 1997, pp. 1-19. 2 3. 3. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(14) China for higher education? Conversely, are there reverse push factors in China or positive pull factors in Taiwan that students weigh in their choice of graduate school location? The objectives of this research are twofold. Firstly, this study aims to identify and contextualize the social, economic, and/or personal factors Taiwanese students consider in their decision of whether to pursue graduate studies in mainland China. Secondly, this study attempts to tie these considerations into the larger body of work on cross-strait economic relations and the role of students in integrating the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. More specifically, this study frames these considerations in terms of the push-pull framework. Following frameworks of migration proposed by Everett S. Lee, Mazzarol and Soutar, and Li and Bray, this study defines both positive and negative push factors in. 治政大 this study examines the Regarding the “push” side of the push-pull framework, 立 push factors associated with Taiwan as well as with China. Following other literature on both Taiwan and China that may affect student choice in graduate school location.5. ‧ 國. 學. student mobility, push factors include conditions at home that motivate a person to move elsewhere. Push factors may also include negative conditions in the destination locale that. ‧. make that destination unwelcoming.6 For the purposes of this study, “push” factors will be characterized as the negative factors within Taiwan that make students feel the need to. y. Nat. sit. move somewhere else to pursue an advanced degree, which may include the. al. er. io. dissatisfaction with salary levels or opportunities for professional advancement in. n. Taiwan. Push factors can also work in the opposite direction, which in this case would. Ch. i n U. v. include negative aspects of life and studies in mainland China that Taiwanese students. engchi. consider that could also alter their decisions, such as perceptions of academic and social freedom in China or the quality of a Mainland graduate program as compared to a local Taiwanese one. On the other hand, “pull” factors make up the attractive traits or perceptions of the destination that draw a person there, or the positive aspects of home that may prevent a person from leaving. In this study, “pull” factors comprise of the benefits, both real and perceived, of mainland China as a destination for Taiwanese students. Conversely, pull factors operating in the opposite direction include the positive aspects of not migrating for 5. See Everett S. Lee, op. cit., pp. 47-57; Mazzarol and Soutar, op. cit., pp. 82-90, and Mei Li and Mark Bray, “Cross-Border flows of students for higher education: push-pull factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau,” Higher Education, vol. 53, 2007, pp. 791-818. 6 See Everett S. Lee, op. cit., pp. 47-57; Mazzarol and Soutar, op. cit., pp. 82-90, and Mei Li and Mark Bray, op. cit., pp. 791-818.. 4. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(15) graduate studies and staying in Taiwan, which may include proximity to friends and family or the general ease of staying in one’s home locale to study. Through open-ended questionnaires with Taiwanese graduate students currently studying in the Mainland as well as interviews with professionals familiar with cross-strait advanced studies, this thesis aims to identify and describe prevalent “push” and “pull” factors motivating Taiwanese students to study in China. After identifying the various factors pushing these students out of Taiwan and pulling them toward mainland China for higher education through this two-way push-pull framework, the second objective of this thesis is to evaluate whether these factors contribute to the formation of a “linkage community” of Taiwanese students in China, as formulated by Yung Wei and Shu Keng for gauging cross-strait integration.7 Do these. 治政大 after graduation their main with the other side, or are their economic and social prospects 立 concern? While current studies have focused largely on cross-strait business and tourism Taiwanese students choose to study in China out of a desire to understand and identify. ‧ 國. 學. flows to apply the linkage community framework, the same framework can apply to the movement of students, whose purpose for migration differs from both cross-strait. ‧. entrepreneurs and tourists.. y. Nat. sit. 1.4. Research Methods. er. io. This thesis focuses narrowly on economic, political, legal, and personal factors. al. v i n programs in the PRC and takes C a variety of qualitative methodological approaches to hengchi U examine this phenomenon. This study employs a document analysis of secondary source n. affecting the decision-making process of Taiwanese students enrolled in graduate. materials such as books, journal articles, and periodicals. Primary source documents for analysis include ROC and PRC law and government papers regarding Taiwan and China’s political relationship, economic interactions, and higher education systems. Because in-depth studies of Taiwanese students in mainland China are currently scarce, this study uses semi-structured interviews and open-ended questionnaires with higher education professionals and Taiwanese graduate students in mainland China to supplement the document analysis. Two semi-structured interviews occurred in Taipei. One interview was conducted with Dr. Chun-liang Huang, Secretary General of Chinese 7. See Yung Wei, op. cit., pp. 1-19; and Shu Keng, “Integrating from Below: Observing the ‘Linkage Communities’ across the Taiwan Strait,” European Research Center on Contemporary Taiwan Online Paper Series, no. 1, 2007, pp. 1-18.. 5. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(16) School of Future Education Society (中華未來學校教育學會), whose experience and expertise in the area of cross-strait education provided insight and context for the questionnaire responses. The second interview took place with a Taipei-based professor (who wished to remain anonymous) whose experience with graduate students in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields provides a counterpoint to evidence of increasing cross-strait student mobility. These interviews focused on the market for cross-strait education as well as their own perceptions of students’ motives to study in mainland China. With the interviewees’ permission, our conversations were recorded for my own playback and analysis purposes only. Recordings may be destroyed at the end of the study at the request of the interviewees. Dr. Huang Chun-liang assisted in locating willing participants for the open-ended. 政治大 graduate programs in China. Willing respondents received a virtual, open-ended 立 questionnaire in both English and Chinese in the form of a Microsoft Word document that questionnaire. Questionnaire respondents included students currently enrolled full-time in. ‧ 國. 學. was then sent back to me by email. Questionnaire items focused on factors that students consider when making the decision to go to mainland China for graduate studies.. ‧. Questionnaire items were framed in terms of students’ rationales for applying to graduate school (1) outside of Taiwan and (2) in mainland China. While upwards of 30. y. Nat. er. io. respondents remained anonymous in this study.. sit. questionnaires were sent, this study yielded eleven valid responses. Questionnaire. al. Because few studies have explored student flows from Taiwan to China, students’. n. v i n self-formulated responses served Cashprimary data and asUa starting point for analysis based e n g c hin ithe context of social and economic on secondary sources, placing student responses literature. Despite the small sample size that limits the applicability of the data to the larger population of Taiwanese students in China, the questionnaire response data uncovered directions in the analysis for which academic documentation is more plentiful. The analysis connects the micro-level rationales for cross-border graduate study from the student questionnaires with the macro-level trends and developments in cross-strait political, economic, and educational relations.. 1.5. Chapter Outline This thesis consists of six chapters examining the motivations and decisionmaking process of Taiwanese students considering attending universities in the Chinese. 6. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(17) mainland. Chapter 1 introduces the topic and themes of the thesis, including research approach and objectives, research methods and hypotheses, and limitations of the study. Chapter 2 provides a literature review covering the expansion of higher education, which includes its massification, marketization, and internationalization that has occurred in tandem with increased economic globalization and liberalization. Chapter 2 also presents the push-pull framework of student mobility and reviews previous studies that apply the framework to cross-border movement of students in higher education. Chapter 3 provides an overview of cross-Taiwan Strait relations between the PRC and ROC. This chapter includes theories and frameworks of cross-strait relations as they relate to this thesis particularly the divided nations framework, integration theory, and the linkage community framework. The chapter also provides a brief political and economic. 治政大China, respectively. Chapter 4 development of higher education systems in Taiwan and 立 also reviews interactions happening in higher education across the Taiwan Strait today history of China and Taiwan’s relationship. Chapter 4 explores the landscapes and. ‧ 國. 學. and conceptualizes China as a destination for foreign students rather than its historical role as a significant source of international students.. ‧. Chapter 5 presents the findings of this thesis, which are the specific economic, social, and personal factors students consider in their decision to pursue higher education. y. Nat. sit. in China. This chapter includes interview findings and questionnaire results that distill the. al. er. io. various factors into two themes. These findings are then discussed within the larger. n. literature of cross-strait economic relations, development of higher education, and the. Ch. i n U. v. linkage community framework. Chapter 6 concludes the thesis with implications of this. engchi. research on Taiwan and China. The chapter also discusses areas for further research on higher education links between China and Taiwan.. 1.6. Hypotheses This thesis focuses heavily on Taiwanese students’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of studying in Taiwan versus in China. Since the research objectives mentioned above for this study are twofold, two main hypotheses guide this thesis: Hypothesis 1. Taiwanese students consider economic and social challenges associated with life in Taiwan as well as the economic advantages of studying in China when deciding where to pursue and enroll in higher education.. 7. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(18) Hypothesis 2. While the cohort of Taiwanese students in China do fit the definition of a linkage community across the Taiwan strait, their individual reasons for studying in the Mainland are less related to their preferences for Taiwan and China’s political future than to their perceptions of professional and economic advancement after graduation. These hypotheses are based in existing frameworks, theories, and evidence of cross-border student mobility as well as the current state of relations between Taiwan and China. Several studies in recent years have shown that increased economic integration in trade and business openness between China and Taiwan has thus far failed to spill over into warmer political relations between the two sides’ governments. Considering evidence of cross-strait integration among the Taiwanese business community in mainland China,. 治政大 with Taiwanese higher similar pattern. Results from interviews and questionnaires 立 education professionals and graduate school applicants to Mainland Chinese graduate. this thesis hypothesizes that the flows of graduate students from Taiwan to China follow a. ‧ 國. 學. programs provide supplemental data needed to test these hypotheses and reveal which factors are common among this pool of students considering mainland China as a. ‧. destination for graduate study.. y. Nat. sit. 1.7. Limitations. er. io. While the purpose of this study strives to cover the topic of student flows from. al. v i n the qualitative nature of this research common factors among Taiwanese C h aims to identify U i e h n g c of the relative importance of each students driving their decision-making. Measurement n. Taiwan to China as thoroughly as possible, a few limitations may be identified. Firstly,. factor will not be included in this study. Moreover, the results obtained in the present study cannot be applied to the whole population of Taiwanese students in mainland China. Secondly, this study deals extensively with students’ perceptions rather than the reality of economic, social, and political conditions in Taiwan and China, since students’ decision-making process is based largely in their perceptions of macro-level conditions as well as personal factors. While current data and evidence on economic and political relations between Taiwan and China will be considered in this study to illustrate the relative quality of life between China and Taiwan, this thesis does not necessarily compare or evaluate whether students’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of studying in China are well-founded or match the reality of current cross-strait relations. Finally, the. 8. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(19) scope of respondent selection has been limited to Taiwanese students to Mainland graduate school programs rather than applicants to undergraduate or exchange programs. As graduate school applicants tend to be older, more experienced, and more independent than their high-school aged counterparts applying for undergraduate programs, their interview responses may better reflect their own perspectives of their opportunities in mainland China. Moreover, graduate-level applicants, in applying for long-term degree programs, consider a different set of factors than students seeking an exchange program experience of only one or two semesters.. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. 9. i n U. v. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(20) Chapter 2. Literature Review The international migration of students today takes place within widely expanded, marketized, and internationalized higher education systems. The current status of higher education systems today has followed many other changes in the global political economy since the end of World War II. This literature review covers the relevant scholarship on the expansion, marketization, and internationalization of higher education in the globalized economy, especially as these phenomena relate to the global mobility of students. This body of literature is then placed in the context of the wider scholarship on migration frameworks and theory. This chapter then presents the push-pull framework of international student mobility and concludes by reviewing relevant existing studies that. 政治大. have applied the framework globally and to the Asia Pacific Region.. 立. 2.1. Expansion of Higher Education. ‧ 國. 學. 2.1.1. Expansion in Access and Demand. While the concept of the university has survived since the middle ages, the. ‧. university’s form, function, and role in society has changed dramatically as more people have demanded and gained access to institutions of higher education, especially in the. Nat. sit. y. period following World War II.1 In terms of access, the Organization for Economic. al. er. io. Cooperation and Development (OECD) Higher Education Programme provides the. n. following data for 2015-2016 on the participation of young people in higher education:. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Based on current patterns of graduation, an average of 35% of today’s young people across OECD countries is expected to graduate from tertiary education at least once before the age of 30, some 57% are expected to enter a bachelor’s degree of equivalent programme, and 22% are expected to enter a master’s degree or equivalent programme over their lifetime. On average across OECD countries, 54% of new entrants into tertiary education are women, and 82% are under the age of 25. In addition some 13% of all entrants are international students.2. These data illustrate how higher education is becoming more widely attainable and, in some places, even becoming an expectation among young people. The OECD Sarah Guri-Rosenblit, Helena Šebková, and Ulrich Teichler, “Massification and Diversity of higher Education Systems: Interplay of Complex Dimensions,” Higher Education Policy, vol. 20, 2007, p. 373. 2 Cláudia Sarrico, “Chapter 1: Higher Education Today,” in Andrew McQueen and Shane Samuelson, eds., State of Higher Education: 2015-16 (Paris: OECD Higher Education Programme, 2017), 4. 1. 10. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(21) report further notes that in all but two OECD countries, “the share of younger adults (2534 year-olds) with tertiary qualifications is larger than that of older adults (55-64 yearolds) with that level of qualification.”3 This generational difference illustrates the rapid and recent nature of mass higher education participation and tertiary degree attainment. Martin Trow’s 1973 analysis of massification in higher education identified three forms of higher education: elite, mass, and universal.4 In the transition from an elite (15 percent or less of the relevant age cohort participating in higher education) to mass (15 to 50 percent) system of higher education, the role of tertiary education shifts from building up the character and minds of a small, elite class to transmitting skills to a larger proportion of the population in preparation for economic vocational roles. When reaching universal levels (over 50 percent relevant cohort participation), higher education encompasses. 治政大 individuals, even when not compulsory. 立 These trends of massification and expansion in higher education systems are not nearly all members of the relevant population and becomes viewed as an obligation for 5. ‧ 國. 學. limited to the developed and industrialized countries. Philip G. Altbach, one of the foremost scholars of comparative and international higher education, notes that since the. ‧. end of World War II, expansion in higher education accelerated across nearly all countries, regardless of level of economic development.6 In this process, higher education. y. Nat. sit. institutions have grown in size, number, and function to match the needs and demands of. al. er. io. industrializing economies. The massification of higher education has occurred in tandem. n. with economic globalization as economies in both the developed and developing world. Ch. i n U. v. have transitioned from manufacturing and industry-based economies to a larger emphasis. engchi. on services and the knowledge sector: Altbach notes that today’s interdependent service and knowledge economies increasingly rely on a highly-trained work force, which institutions of higher education are increasingly expected to provide.7 Shifting from the macro-economic level to the individual level, increased participation and demand for tertiary education may be explained through human capital. 3. Ibid. Martin Trow, Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education, (Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education Reprint, 1973), p. 2. 5 Martin Trow, “Reflections on the Transition from Elite to Mass to Universal Access: Forms and Phases of Higher Education in Modern Societies since WWII,” in James J.F. Forrest and Philip G. Altbach, eds., International Handbook of Higher Education, (Rotterdam, Netherlands: Springer, 2006), p. 243. 6 Philip G. Altbach, Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the University, and Development, (Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing, 1998), p. 7. 7 Altbach, op. cit., p. 8. 4. 11. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(22) theory. First articulated in the 1960s by American scholar Gary S. Becker, human capital theory posits that individuals who invest in the development of their own human capital by completing a university degree will have an advantage in the labor market, therefore earning more in their lifetime despite the immediate costs of pursuing higher education.8 Rather than the accumulation of physical capital through earning wages, higher education serves the purpose of enhancing one’s human resources. This theory has generally proven true; the aforementioned OECD report found that the average university graduate reaps many financial benefits, including increased earnings and decreased likelihood of unemployment.9 A recent review of private and social returns on investment in higher education attainment commissioned by the World Bank finds that the private return on investment (in the form of income) remained high over the past decade, with higher. 政治大. returns for people in low-income countries compared to middle and high income countries.. 10. 立. In today’s societies, tertiary education gives graduates the necessary certifications. ‧ 國. 學. for many high-level and powerful roles in both the public and private sectors of the economy, contributing to the common perspective that higher education is an investment. ‧. for one’s future private gains. Altbach and others have furthermore linked economic liberalization in many countries to the growth of a middle class which views higher. y. Nat. sit. education as the key to success and social mobility: these middle classes in industrialized. er. io. economies in turn demand better access to higher education, believing that tertiary education serves the purpose of providing training for relevant jobs.11. n. al. Ch. engchi. 2.1.2 Diversification in Institutions. i n U. v. While expansion has occurred in access for populations around the globe, expansion has also occurred in the of form, function, and level of higher education institutions. Ulrich Teichler views diversity in higher education systems in terms of four major areas of classification: (1) knowledge, addressing the substance of the material taught and researched, (2) processes and people by which knowledge is disseminated and. Gary S. Becker, “Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 70, no. 9, 1962, p. 9. 9 Cláudia Sarrico, op. cit., pp. 9-14. 10 George Psacharopoulos and Harry Antony Patrinos, Returns to Investment in Education: A Decennial Review of the Global Literature, Policy Research Working Paper, no. WPS 8402, Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2018, pp. 11-12. 11 Philip G. Altbach, op. cit., p. 9, 12. 8. 12. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(23) to whom, (3) organizational matters that involve macro-level supervision, control, and accountability issues, and (4) quantitative-structural issues, which refer to the size and shape of the overall higher education system.12 Tertiary-level vocational schools, research institutions, community colleges, junior colleges, liberal arts schools, and polytechnic institutions today may all fall within or outside higher education systems, depending on a variety of system boundaries that vary from country to country. Guri-Rosenblit et al speak of higher education systems defined by internal and external boundaries that give these systems horizontal and vertical structure, determining the types of institutions that a government considers as part of the system. External boundaries place limits from the outside on the system, such as laws that define the types of institutions included in the system, while internal boundaries reflect. 治政大systems worldwide has been degrees offered. This diversification in higher education 立 made possible by deep-cutting changes in the state’s role in providing and funding differences between institutions in dimensions such as types of programs or level of 13. ‧ 國. 學. tertiary education; the privatization of higher educational services and operations are explored in the following section.. ‧. 2.2. Privatization and Marketization of Higher Education. y. Nat. sit. The marketization and privatization of higher education are both linked to the. er. io. ongoing privatization of welfare in many countries. As the role of governments in higher. al. v i n turned to market-oriented strategies their own operations and meet C hand tactics to support U i e h n c section explores the relevant literature on increased demand for educational services.g This n. education diminish in direct oversight, higher education institutions have increasingly. the privatization and marketization of higher education globally.. 2.2.1. Privatization of Higher Education As government support and oversight of higher education services decreases over time, a private sector of tertiary-level educational institutions has developed in several countries. Privately funded for-profit and non-profit colleges and universities have emerged over the last several decades to meet increased demand for higher education. As demand for higher education has increased over the past several decades, a growing Ulrich Teichler, “Diversification? Trends and Explanations of the Shape and Size of Higher Education,” Higher Education, vol. 56, 2008, pp. 349-379. 13 Sarah Guri-Rosenblit, Helena Šebková, and Ulrich Teichler, op. cit., pp. 375-376. 12. 13. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(24) private sector of tertiary education institutions has developed to fill in gaps where governments have reduced their fiscal and regulatory responsibility over social welfare systems, including education systems. Governments with limited resources to support a growing demand for higher education thereby gave rise to the growth of private educational institutions, which largely set their own curricula, manage their own finances, and require students to pay for at least part of their education. Especially in the context of the United States’ higher education system, neoliberal economic logic applies free market principles to social and public goods, including research and teaching, turning them into businesses-like entities.14 Jandhyala Tilak in 1991 categorizes higher education privatization into two larger trends.15 The first being excess demand for higher education by populations that the. 治政大 can meet to differentiate different qualities of higher education, which private actors 立 themselves from public institutions. Of important note is that while some countries. private market of higher education institutions can meet. The second trend is demand for. ‧ 國. 學. exhibit a mix of public- and privately funded institutions, the mix is not always clearly differentiated. Tilak analyses privatization on a scale: on one end is “an extreme version. ‧. of privatization” in which colleges and universities operate and fund themselves completely privately. Further down the scale are strong and moderate privatization that. y. Nat. sit. uses a mix of public and private resources. Lastly, pseudo-privatization in which. er. io. institutions originally created by non-governmental bodies are financially supported nearly completely by the government.16 The variety of ways that higher education. n. al. Ch. i n U. v. institutions may be supported further illustrates contemporary trends in the organization. engchi. and structure of global higher education.. 2.2.2. Marketization of Higher Education Higher education over the past several decades has expanded at a faster rate than the expansion of resources to support them, leading to privatization as well as marketization in an expanding higher education “sector” of the economy. Kwong defines marketization in education as “the adoption of free market practices in running. 14. Richard Münch, Academic Capitalism: Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence, New York: Routledge, 2014, p. 128. 15 Jandhyala B. G. Tilak, “The Privatization of Higher Education,” Prospects, vol. 21, no. 2, 1991, pp. 227239. 16 Jandhyala B. G. Tilak, op. cit., pp. 227-228, 239.. 14. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(25) schools.”17 These practices include “business practices of cutting production cost, abandoning goods not in demand, producing only popular products, and advertising products to increase sales and the profit margin.”18 These practices have had a significant effect on the role and purpose of higher education in today’s societies. Marketization has also fueled growing perceptions of students (and their families) as the “consumers” of higher education services for whom higher education institutions compete. Schuetze and Mendiola’s 2012 book State and Market in Higher Education Reforms outlines the general trends of marketization and the transformation of state governments from the sole provider of education into a regulatory body shaping the rules of competition.19 This process has thus turned students and families into “consumers” of educational services and universities into revenue-seeking organizations to support their. 治政大resulted in a global system in and attracting corporate sponsors for research. This has 立 which education is viewed as a private commodity that can be bought, sold, and. own operations, such as recruiting fee-paying students, competing for government grants, 20. ‧ 國. 學. marketed, even across borders.21 In this system, the purpose of the university and higher education in general has changed from its old role of shaping the minds and character of. ‧. the elite classes to a new one as a business-like entity selling its products (knowledge) to consumers (students). In the case of highly prestigious universities, their prestige in the. y. Nat. sit. form of social capital can be converted into economic capital when they establish branch. al. er. io. campuses in foreign countries.22. n. Debates abound on whether this change has been beneficial for societies and. Ch. i n U. v. parallel larger debates on the purpose and benefit of neoliberal economic practices of. engchi. global free trade and privatization of public goods. Les Levidow in 2002 criticized projects such as the World Bank Higher Education Reform Agenda as neoliberal strategies that “imposes greater exploitation upon human and natural resources” via Julia Kwong, “Introduction: Marketization and Privatization in Education,” International Journal of Educational Development, vol. 20, 2000, p. 89. 18 Ibid. 19 German Alvarez Mendiola, “State and Market in Higher Education Reforms: Overview of the Issues,” in Hans G. Schuetze and German Alvarex Mandiola, eds., State and Market in Higher Education Reforms, (Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2012), p. 8. 20 See German Alvarez Mendiola, op. cit., p. 8, and Inger Askehave, “The Impact of Marketization on Higher Education Genres – The International Student Prospectus as a Case in Point,” Discourse Studies, vol. 9, no. 6, 2007, p. 724. 21 Hans G. Schuetze and German Alvarex Mandiola, “Introduction,” in Hans G. Schuetze and German Alvarex Mandiola, eds., State and Market in Higher Education Reforms, (Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 2012), pp. 1-2. 22 Richard Münch, op. cit., p. 129. 17. 15. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(26) global market competition.23 Writing in 2003, Giroux argued that neoliberal capitalism and “corporate culture” in the American context of higher education is dangerous to the democratic and social function of the university through.24 Giroux also expressed concerns that private, corporate interests drive university research agendas, unfairly influencing and degrading the moral and civic purpose of the university.25 While diversification and expansion in the types of institutions in higher education systems provides populations with a greater variety of options, many higher education systems are now unequally stratified in terms of prestige, influence, and resources. In the United States, for instance, Richard Münch writes that competition between universities for students, especially at the undergraduate level, has intensified, not only raising tuition costs for students but also exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities. As universities. 治政大achievement in turn become less backgrounds who have fewer opportunities for academic 立 likely to gain entrance into top universities. Deregulation in England follows similar become more selective in their admissions criteria, students from lower socio-economic. ‧ 國. 學. trends: universities now compete for not only the best students, but also for the best professors, researchers, and funding opportunities in a “quasi-market.”26. ‧. Whether beneficial or not, marketization and privatization have already affected higher education systems around the world, including China and Taiwan. Market. y. Nat. sit. mechanisms have replaced strict government oversight in Taiwan, and efforts to balance. al. er. io. private and public initiatives to improve Mainland Chinese higher education are. n. underway. Chapter 4 more deeply explores the growth and marketization of China and. Ch. Taiwan’s higher education systems.. engchi. i n U. v. 2.3. Globalization and Internationalization of Higher Education 2.3.1. Internationalization at the Institutional Level In addition to massification and marketization within economies, higher education institutions themselves have pursued policies, curricula, and programs to embed themselves within the global economy. The term internationalization has emerged to. Les Levidow, “Marketizing Higher Education: Neoliberal Strategies and Counter-Strategies,” in Kevin Robins and Frank Webster, eds., The Virtual University?, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 228. 24 Henry A. Giroux, “Selling Out Higher Education,” Policy Futures in Education, vol. 1, no. 1, 2003, pp. 179-200. 25 Henry A. Giroux, op. cit., p. 181. 26 Richard Münch, op. cit., pp. 129, 133. 23. 16. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(27) describe these developments in higher education since the 1980s that integrate education systems with the globalized economy and aim to develop a more international outlook. As a scholar at the forefront of the discussion, Jane Knight defines internationalization in higher education as “…the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education.” This describes the active and continuous efforts of higher education institutions to incorporate an international or intercultural dimension into their policies, curricula, and services.27 While internationalization is related to economic globalization, Altbach and Knight in 2007 argue that these two concepts are not identical: while globalization is seen as an “unalterable” phenomenon that involves the emerging interconnectedness of economic and social systems, internationalization involves the many choices higher education. 治政 Traditionally, internationalization efforts at the 大 university campus level include 立 initiatives such as study abroad or foreign exchange programs, enhanced foreign language institutions make to and cope align themselves with the larger trends of globalization.. ‧ 國. 學. and international studies curricula, the establishment of satellite campuses abroad, and the recruitment and sponsorship of foreign students. In the early 21st century, Altbach and. ‧. Knight identify trends such as the cross-border movement of students and programs, the growth of international markets for highly-educated professionals, and the. y. Nat. sit. commercialization of higher education to summarize the landscape of. al. er. io. internationalization. Several factors motivate higher education institutions to pursue. n. internationalization, including revenue generation for the institution, access provision in. Ch. i n U. v. locales with high demand for higher education services, and curriculum enhancement. engchi. with international and cross-cultural perspectives for students. Altbach and Knight ultimately emphasize the role of individual students in driving international education markets: as largely self-funded, today’s international students number over 2 million and form the largest source of funding for internationalization in higher education.28. 2.3.2. The Global Network of Higher Education While contemporary universities and other institutions of higher education generally retain high levels of autonomy, they are hardly isolated or completely Jane Knight, “Updating the Definition of Internationalization,” International Higher Education, vol. 33, 2015, pp. 2-3. 28 Philip G. Altbach and Jane Knight, “The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motives and Realities,” Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 11, no. 3, 2007, pp. 291-294. 27. 17. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(28) independent from regulatory oversight. Guri-Rosenblit et al. view higher education institutions as “embedded in in common frameworks of societal expectations, regulatory frameworks, and cooperative or competitive linkages.”29 In this context, we may speak of higher education systems as networks of institutions falling under a common set of regulations, rather than governments overseeing or applying laws to individual institutions.30 The changing role of state as a regulatory actor in higher education systems is linked to the marketization and diversification of higher education institutions, allowing them to act more like private businesses than public institutions. The concurrent massification and internationalization efforts of higher education institutions and systems have created a highly uniform global network of institutions and universities based on the Western European and American models, with few exceptions.31. 治政大 research, and knowledge standards in accordance to western conceptions of learning, 立 creation and dissemination. In this international system of higher education, the academic Universities around the world by and large follow similar accreditation and curriculum. ‧ 國. 學. credit serves as the “currency” with which students can accumulate credentials and transfer them between institutions, even across international borders.32 This global credit-. ‧. transfer system highlights the flexibility with which higher education systems can operate. Additionally, English serves as the universally necessary language for not only. Nat. sit. y. scholars and researchers but also students in the global higher education system.33 This. al. er. io. flexibility within a relatively uniform global network forms the foundation upon which. n. international student recruitment and exchanges may take place between higher education institutions.. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 2.3.3. International Student Flows Analyses of international student flows often highlight the general trend of students from developing countries migrating to Western Europe and North America. Chen and Barnett’s macro-level analysis of international student exchange networks in the later part of the 20th century found that international student flows followed this general pattern between 1985, 1989, and 1995.34 The industrialized, Western countries 29. Sarah Guri-Rosenblit et al., op. cit., p. 375. Ibid. 31 Philip G. Altbach, op. cit., p. 5. 32 Sarah Guri-Rosenblit et al., op. cit., p. 382. 33 Philip G. Altbach, op. cit., p. 6. 34 Tse-Mei Chen and George A. Barnett, “Research on International Student Flows from a Macro Perspective: A Network Analysis of 1985, 1989, and 1995,” Higher Education, vol. 39, 2000, p.435. 30. 18. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(29) such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Canada formed the center of international exchange networks as the most popular destinations for students. Tying student flows to relative economic development, Chen and Barnett noted that economically powerful countries hold a concentration of educational resources and remain at the center of international student flows, while less developed countries have remained on the periphery, attracting fewer international students.35 Countries experiencing recent strides in economic development, such as the newly-industrialized economies (NIEs) of Asia, the newly-independent (at that time) post-Soviet states, and Eastern European countries with recent economic and political reforms had started to “catch up” in terms of attracting international students and becoming embedded in networks of international student flows.36. 治政大 disparities that have flow of international student exchanges mirror global economic 立 developed under globalization. Altbach also spoke of the global higher education network In this regard, the global configuration of higher education institutions and the. ‧ 國. 學. as one of a center and periphery, to borrow terms from World Systems Theory of the international relations discipline.37 Former colonial relationships also impact the flow of. ‧. international students, with students from former colonies forming a significant share of international students in the former metropole.38 Therefore, today’s networks of higher. Nat. sit. y. education not only reflect changes in individual institutions’ policies to recruit more. er. io. foreign students but also reflect geo-political relations and inequalities between countries.. n. a. l Cof Student Mobilityn 2.4. Push-and-Pull Factors. hengchi U. iv. Within discussions of higher education in the globalized world, the cross-border mobility of students stands out as a defining feature of internationalized higher education central to this current study. As borders become more permeable and university systems work to promote international connections and recruit international students, consumers now have more destinations and institutions to choose outside their home country. Studies that examine the cross-border experiences of students and their motivations for pursuing international education are numerous, and many draw upon the push-pull framework of student mobility in their analysis. Using a variety of methods and analysis strategies,. 35. Tse-Mei Chen and George A. Barnett, op. cit., p. 451. Ibid. 37 See Philip G. Altbach, op. cit., p 148; and Tse-Mei Chen and George A. Barnett, op. cit., p. 436. 38 Philip G. Altbach, op. cit., p 147. 36. 19. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(30) these studies all attempt to identify and explain the factors affecting students’ decisionmaking 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. 政治大 of both positive and negative factors associated with the origin and the destination, which 立 Lee denotes with pluses (+) and minuses (-), factors into an individual’s decision to. the place of origin, the destination, and personal factors related to the individual. The mix. ‧ 國. 學. 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. y. Nat. sit. perceptions and imperfect knowledge of the destination: what may constitute as a benefit. er. al. n. for someone else.39. io. of a destination for one person may constitute a drawback or neutral aspect of the local. Ch. i n U. v. The push-pull framework applies Lee’s basic theory of migration to the. engchi. 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. Philip G. Altbach, op. cit., p. 156. 41 Ibid. 40. 20. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(31) 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. 治政大 the traditional logic that choice (choosing a host country and institution). Following 立 higher education serves as a function of enhancing one’s social and economic status and of Mazzarol and Soutar’s three-stage characterization of international student mobility. ‧ 國. 學. 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. y. Nat. sit. economic power, its level of involvement in the global economy, state priority on. al. er. io. education, and availability (or lack thereof) of educational opportunities.43. n. Among pull factors, Mazzarol et al. in 1997 identified six factors that influence an. Ch. i n U. v. individual student’s choice of destination for study: (1) cost issues, (2) knowledge and. engchi. 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. 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. 43. 21. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.

(32) 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. 政治大 for study appealing. Li and Bray call these factors that may prevent students from 立. access and the positive pull factors of the origin that make staying in one’s home country migrating “reverse push-pull factors, as illustrated in Figure 2.” Li and Bray used this. ‧ 國. 學. 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,. sit. y. Nat. informed the decisions of students and their families.. n. al. er. io. Figure 2: Reverse Push and Pull Factors. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 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. 22. DOI:10.6814/NCCU201900263.