Article JRIE

Journal of Research in

Determinants of participating
International Education
10(1) 58–70
© The Author(s) 2011
in Australian university student Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
exchange programs DOI: 10.1177/1475240910394979
jri.sagepub.com

Amanda Daly
University of South Australia, Australia

Abstract
Outbound mobility programs such as exchange programs are one of the many strategies implemented at
universities to develop graduates’ intercultural skills and international knowledge. Few Australian students
participate in exchange programs. This article presents a literature review and proposes a model of the
contextual and individual factors that may influence Australian students in their decision to participate in
an exchange program and their choice of host destination. Implications to expand student participation and
future areas of research are discussed.

Keywords
Australian universities, influencing factors, student exchange

Introduction
At a time of unprecedented global economic upheaval and within the current ‘knowledge economy’,
the need for individuals, institutions and countries to develop intercultural understanding and
competencies is more acute than ever before (Altbach, 2008). Policymakers in government and
universities around the world are responding to this call by internationalizing higher education
(Kishun, 2007; Li and Bray, 2007; Yonezawa et al., 2009). University outbound mobility programs
are one of many strategies for internationalizing higher education and equipping young people to
work and live effectively in an increasingly globally interconnected economy and society (Asoaka
and Yano, 2009; Norris and Gillespie, 2008; Wiers-Jenssen, 2008). In Australia, outbound student
mobility programs incorporate exchange and study abroad programs, which enable students to
study overseas for one or two semesters; short-term study of between two and eight weeks such as
cultural tours and language study; and internships and clinical placements.
In 2007, almost five percent of Australian university students had an overseas study experience
including student exchange programs, cultural tours, internships and language study visits (Olsen,
2008). Of these experiences, student exchange is the most popular form of outbound mobility with

Corresponding author:
Amanda Daly, Learning and Teaching Unit, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

Daly: Determinants of participating in Australian university exchange programs 59

over 2% of Australian undergraduate students participating in an exchange program by the time

they complete their studies (Daly and Barker, 2010).
Much of the student mobility literature in Australia has focused on the factors motivating inter-
national students, particularly those from Asia and the Middle East, to complete their qualification
in Australia and on their experiences adjusting to life in the host country (Leask, 2009; Mazzarol
and Soutar, 2002). The literature that addresses the factors affecting the decision of local students
to study abroad does so from the perspective of long-term sojourners such as international students
(Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002). While this work may give insight into the determinants of participat-
ing in a student exchange program, the push–pull model such as that proposed by Mazzarol and
Soutar is limited as it does not consider students’ personal characteristics and perceptions (Li and
Bray, 2007). Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) outlined factors from the home country which ‘push’ a
student to study abroad, such as a lack of access to higher education and perceptions of the quality
of the tertiary education system at home, and factors which ‘pull’ a student in their choice of host
destination including personal recommendations, geographic proximity and cost.
Given the paucity of work theoretically conceptualizing the student exchange decision-making
process, the aim of this article is to develop a better understanding of the sojourn decision made by
exchange students. Through reviewing literature relating to the factors influencing the decision to
study abroad, a model derived from Morgan (2003, cited in Sussex Centre for Migration Research
and Centre for Applied Population Research [Sussex Centres], 2004) will be developed outlining
the factors influencing the decision to participate in an exchange program and the choice of host
destination. Using the work by the Sussex Centres (2004) and the model of the student decision-
making process proposed by Morgan, both contextual and individual factors will be reviewed.
First, the international, national and institutional context will be considered as these represent the
environment in which a student will decide to study abroad. Next, while the international, national
and institutional settings may be conducive to overseas study, exchange students are a self-selecting
group (Cushner and Karim, 2004). Thus, it is necessary also to consider the individual factors
which may motivate or inhibit study abroad.

Contextual factors influencing the sojourn decision

International context
International education is being driven by three main factors: international trade and relations;
the increasing need for graduates with international skills; and shifts in public opinion of cross-
cultural interactions, overseas travel and study (Knight and Altbach, 2007; McLellan, 2008;
Mok, 2007). However, other factors such as cost and personal safety may influence students
when considering whether to participate in an exchange program and their choice of destination
country. For example, in the last decade the international geopolitical climate has changed as a
consequence of the ‘global financial crisis’; ‘9/11’; the war in Afghanistan; terrorist attacks in
Bali, London, Madrid and Mumbai; the war in Iraq; outbreaks of ‘Swine flu’, Sudden Acute
Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Avian Influenza (bird flu); and the Boxing Day Tsunami in
2004. Such events may influence a student’s inclination to study abroad.

National context
The Australian government’s international education policy framework is based on valuing interna-
tional education for the benefits it brings to individuals and communities; as well as recognizing the
long-term contribution of international education to intellectual, social and cultural development,

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

60 Journal of Research in International Education 10(1)

economic competitiveness, trade, foreign relations and national security (Gillard, 2009). In addition
to focusing on international students studying at Australian campuses, the Australian government
recognizes the importance of outbound mobility to develop students’ international knowledge
and intercultural competence. There are two key government student mobility initiatives. The
first initiative is the University Mobility in Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) program which was
established in 1993. The second program, University Mobility in the Indian Ocean Region (UMIOR)
commenced seven years later. UMAP members include countries on the Pacific Ocean Rim from
North and South America, Asia and the Pacific Islands. UMIOR incorporates nations in the Indian
Ocean region such as those from Africa, the Middle East and Asia (Department of Education
Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009a).
While UMIOR is not a funded project, the Australian government provides financial support
to outbound exchange students through UMAP. Currently under UMAP each university receives
AUS$5000 per student to subsidize the cost of a student’s participation in an eligible exchange
program (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008a). For the
2008/9 financial year, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations pro-
vided approximately AUS$2.9 million through UMAP. Additionally in 2004, an income-contin-
gent loan scheme entitled Overseas Study Higher Education Loan Program (OS HELP) was made
available to full-time undergraduate students to assist them to study abroad for one or two semes-
ters of their degree. Students can access a loan up to AUS$5500, which is contingent on them
having at least six months study remaining at the home university after their sojourn concludes
(Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009b). This financial assis-
tance may increase opportunities for students who would have been otherwise unable to fund
overseas travel during their studies.

Institutional context
The home institutional context incorporates factors such as the organizational culture, the com-
mitment and enthusiasm of staff, promotion of exchange opportunities, selection mechanisms and
criteria, a range of relevant and attractive agreements with host partners, recognition of overseas
study, financial support and a credit transfer system (Sussex Centres, 2004). The way in which the
exchange program is managed reflects both how the home institution interprets and implements
the government’s international education policy and the university’s culture (Brunetto and Farr-
Wharton, 2005). While the university’s philosophy of outbound mobility may be evident in the
organization’s strategic plan, the academic programs and services which support student mobil-
ity, and the organizational strategies that will help to integrate mobility into the university’s
administrative processes and structures, may more accurately demonstrate the institution’s atti-
tude towards mobility than described in the strategic plans (Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2005).
The content of government international education policies, level of resourcing and account-
ability of the home university to the government affect how university senior management imple-
ment and prioritize student mobility policies (Brunetto, 2000; Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2005).
This, in turn, may influence which students are able to participate and their experiences at home and
abroad. Excluding the work of Brunetto and colleagues (Brunetto, 2000; Brunetto and Farr-
Wharton, 2005), which investigated Australian academics’ responses to a new policy relating to the
quality agenda, there is limited research in the Australian context examining the implementation of
university policies. In particular, there is a paucity of published studies which have considered
policies relating to student mobility and exchange programs. One exception is Daly and Barker’s
(2010) study of Australian universities in which they found a significant relationship between the

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

Daly: Determinants of participating in Australian university exchange programs 61

presence of a strategic goal relating to student exchange and the number of outgoing exchange
students. However, as Daly and Barker noted, only two percent of Australian undergraduate students
participate in an exchange program, suggesting that the implementation process plays a greater
role in student participation in exchange programs than the mere presence of a specific policy or
strategic goal of student exchange.
Organizational culture mediates the implementation of policies in higher education (Brunetto
and Farr-Wharton, 2005) and within the Australian system there is great diversity of culture, with
different types of universities reflecting different origins and traditions, structures and programs
and missions and goals. Marginson (2000) argued that there are four major types of public univer-
sities in Australia. The first type of university, the sandstone, is aligned with the traditional
‘Oxford–Cambridge’ model, characterized by an elitist approach to education. The second type of
institution, the technical university or U-tech, refers to those universities with a tradition of techni-
cal training and focus on applied education. The third type of university is the new university.
These were formed after the 1987 Dawkins’ reforms and mainly comprise former Colleges of
Advanced Education. The final group of universities are the ‘wannabee sandstones’, that formed
before 1987 and aim to have the same social and academic standing as the sandstones. Daly (2007)
reported that sandstone universities were more likely to have proportionately greater numbers of
students participating in an exchange program than were new universities. This may reflect either
the educational focus of sandstone universities which emphasize meeting the social, cultural and
intellectual interests of students (Stanley and Reynolds, 2005) or the different cohorts of students.
Specifically, a greater proportion of students from higher-income families attend sandstone uni-
versities, while new universities tend to have a greater percentage of students from low socio-
economic backgrounds than do other types of institutions (Department of Education Employment
and Workplace Relations, 2009c). While tertiary education has been made more accessible to
students from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, affordability of educational activities such
as student exchange programs is an issue to be considered for students from lower socio-economic
backgrounds. This point will be discussed later.

Individual factors influencing the sojourn decision

Personal characteristics
The typical Australian exchange student is a Caucasian female. In their study of exchange
students at four Australian universities, Clyne and Rizvi (1998) reported a strong bias in partici-
pants’ gender and ethnicity. More recent work by Daly and Barker (2005) and Olsen (2008)
identified that 60 percent of outbound Australian exchange students were female, and approxi-
mately 6 percent of participants in exchange programs in 2001 were from culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse (CALD) backgrounds. These findings do not reflect the gender and ethnic mix of the
university and broader community. Since over 25 percent of Australians were born overseas and
a further 25 percent of Australian university students are international students (Australian Bureau
of Statistics, 2009; Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009c), it is
unclear why more Australian students of CALD backgrounds do not choose to participate in the
exchange programs.
Within the literature there are two proposed reasons for the gender bias among exchange
students. First, Goldstein and Kim (2006) speculated that certain fields of study such as humanities
and social sciences are more suited to student exchange programs than are others. The female
domination of enrolments within these disciplines may provide an explanation for the higher

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

62 Journal of Research in International Education 10(1)

proportion of female students participating in exchange programs (Department of Education

Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008b). Second, Kling et al. (1999) proposed that female
students recognized that participating in student exchange programs would better prepare them
for challenging the ‘glass-ceiling’ within organizations, and enhance their success in gaining
employment and promotion. Certainly, as will be discussed below, one of the reasons students
may choose to participate in an exchange program is because they believe it will enhance their
employability upon graduation (Van Hoof and Verbeeten, 2005).
In order to participate in an Australian university exchange program, students must have com-
pleted at least one year at their home university. As a result of most students choosing to go abroad
in their third year of study, Australian exchange students are generally approximately 20 to 21
years of age (Clyne and Rizvi, 1998; Daly and Barker, 2005). At this age, students are moving
through the psychological phase of late adolescence to early adulthood that brings with it another
range of factors to influence any life decisions, including the decision to move away from family
and friends to an unknown environment (Costa and McCrae, 1989). This may provide an explana-
tion as to why, at this age, the input of family and friends is so important in the decision-making
process to study abroad (Cushner and Karim, 2004; Wiers-Jenssen, 2003).

Intercultural competencies
Dwyer (2004) suggested that, prior to their sojourn, students who study abroad are a more toler-
ant group than their peers. Goldstein and Kim’s (2006) longitudinal study examined student
expectations and participation in study abroad programs of 179 American undergraduates in their
first and final year at university. The results indicated that intercultural variables, such as low
levels of ethnocentrism and prejudice, predicted positive expectations of study abroad rather
than academic or career goals and higher levels of participation in exchange programs. Similarly,
Bakalis and Joiner (2004) found that students who were high on openness and had a high toler-
ance to ambiguity were more likely to study abroad than were others. Australian and New
Zealand exchange students reported significantly higher levels of open-mindedness towards dif-
ferent cultures and greater levels of flexibility than did non-exchange students (Daly et al., 2004).
Open individuals are more ready to accept difference between cultures (Bing and Lounsbury,
2000). In novel environments, sojourners who are able to tolerate ambiguity and are flexible are
able to adjust their behaviors, learn from their mistakes and adopt new approaches to tasks and
situations (Van der Zee and Van Oudenhoven, 2000). These competencies are essential for a suc-
cessful sojourn.
In their work, Daly et al. (2004) used the subscales of the Multicultural Personality
Questionnaire (MPQ) (Van Oudenhoven and Van der Zee, 2002) to predict whether a student was
an exchange student or non-exchange student. Those students in the study who reported higher
levels of cultural empathy and social initiative were more likely to be exchange students. If a
student were to participate in an exchange program, they would need to be able to empathize
with the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of people from the host culture. Without these skills,
the student’s psychosocial adjustment would be lower and thus the student would be less satis-
fied with the exchange experience (Ward and Kennedy, 1999). Searle and Ward (1990) argued
that social support is a major predictor in psychological adjustment. Moreover, when moving
into a new culture the sojourner needs to be able to approach the social situations in an active
way and to take initiative for this interaction. Exchange students who reported higher levels of
social initiative in Daly et al.’s (2004) study appeared to be more prepared for coping in their new
social setting.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

Daly: Determinants of participating in Australian university exchange programs 63

Travel interest and experience

There is a strong tendency for exchange students to be well-traveled (Brooks and Waters, 2009;
Clyne and Rizvi, 1998). Certainly, exchange students report strong aspirations to travel and expe-
rience other cultures (Clyne and Rizvi, 1998; Van Hoof and Verbeeten, 2005; Young and Harper,
2004). Van Hoof and Verbeeten (2005) studied the reasons both incoming and outgoing exchange
students at the Northern Arizona University participated in the exchange program. These authors
found the top two reasons cited by students were that the exchange program was a good opportu-
nity to live in another culture, and a good opportunity to travel. Outbound exchange students at
four Australian universities reported that they chose to study abroad because they wanted to see
the world and desired building relationships with people from different cultures (Clyne and Rizvi,
1998). However, the role of previous travel in the decision to study abroad is an inconsistent
one. While previous travel may enhance students’ interest in other cultures and provide them
with the necessary skills to be competent in the new culture, awareness of cultural differences and
problems with cross-cultural adjustment may decrease interest in future overseas experiences
such as student exchange (Goldstein and Kim, 2006).

Education and discipline of study

Australian exchange students tend to be completing social sciences/humanities or business majors
(Daly and Barker, 2005). Very few students from the Faculties of Law, Science, Education and
Health participate in international exchange. Two explanations for the bias of field of study of
exchange students are proposed. First, the social sciences and business disciplines are generally
more popular within the university population. For example, in Australia 28.3 percent of students
are enrolled in business courses while 21.5 percent are studying in the field of humanities
(Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009c). Similar proportions of
exchange students enrolled in these disciplines were noted in both Clyne and Rizvi’s (1998) and
Daly and Barker’s (2005) studies. Goldstein and Kim (2006) argued that humanities and social
science majors are more flexible in their academic requirements than disciplines such as physical
science and mathematics. This flexibility increases students’ opportunities and variety of subjects
that may be studied while abroad and meet the degree requirements established by the home
university. However, students from science fields who participate in exchange programs are more
likely to be international collaborators later in their careers (Appelbaum et al., 2009). This research
suggests that universities should investigate opening pathways for non-traditional exchange
students such as those studying Science, Health and Technology to encourage study abroad and, in
turn, international collaboration, particularly in research.
The Sussex Centres (2004) noted that the relevance of the exchange program to the discipline
of study is a driver of mobility. In his investigation of the factors influencing Asian Americans to
study abroad, Van der Meld (2003) noted that students chose to remain at home because they had
specific curricular requirements on the home campus, or study abroad did not fit in their program.
For example, differences in the scheduling of the academic year may heighten concerns about
prolonging studies. Certainly, Australian students in Young and Harper’s (2004) study were con-
cerned with the impact the exchange program would have on their academic progress. Students
may choose to remain at home rather than study abroad because they are worried about recognition
of the courses studied abroad, or they perceive that their degree will take longer to complete.
Furthermore, a lack of awareness of mobility opportunities may prevent students from partici-
pating in the exchange program (Sussex Centres, 2004). In Malicki’s (2003) study, only 68 percent
of students indicated that they could easily obtain up-to-date information about the program.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

64 Journal of Research in International Education 10(1)

Similarly, students in Van Der Meld’s (2003) study did not participate in the exchange program
because they were unaware of the opportunities.

Career development
One of the most important reasons for studying at university, whether it is in the home country or
abroad, is to gain a qualification to enhance future job opportunities (Krause et al., 2005). Similarly,
in the context of university exchange programs, students believe that a period of study abroad will
strengthen their position in the marketplace, making them more attractive to future employers
(Clyne and Rizvi, 1998; Van Hoof and Verbeeten, 2005; Young and Harper, 2004). Ninety percent
of UK students participating in the European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University
Students (ERASMUS) program indicated that they felt that study abroad was worthwhile in relation
to developing an international career (Sussex Centres, 2004). In her study of Norwegian exchange
students studying abroad, Wiers-Jenssen (2003) found that three-quarters of respondents felt that
future employers would see study abroad as an advantage. American and Australian students also
proposed that, from the perspective of recruiters, the period of study abroad would give them an
advantage over their peers (Clyne and Rizvi, 1998; Van Hoof and Verbeeten, 2005).
It appears that employers do value an overseas experience. For example, Swedish employers
prefer to hire people who are partly trained abroad rather than those who have their entire educa-
tion from abroad or those who are entirely trained domestically (Zadeh 1999 cited in Wiers-Jenssen,
2003: 404). Similarly, Chinese employers prefer ‘Western-educated’ graduates (Waters, 2006,
cited in Brooks and Waters, 2009). However, British graduates who had studied their entire degree
overseas felt disadvantaged when compared to their peers who remained at home because their
qualification took longer to complete and employers were unaware of the quality of the overseas
institution (Brooks and Waters, 2009).
In their study of Australian Human Resource managers, the Queensland Education and Training
International (QETI) and International Education Association of Australia (IEAA) (2006) found
that an overseas experience was highly prized by 70 percent of employers in multinational corpora-
tions, with 55 percent of national employers viewing the overseas experience as a positive attribute
in a graduate’s resume. Employers perceive that graduates with overseas experience offer specific
skills and expertise which can enhance opportunities for business growth, particularly in the global
marketplace. Indeed, language skills and cultural competence are emphasized as important out-
comes of studying abroad rather than the educational course and academic achievements (QETI
and IEAA, 2006).
Unfortunately, there are few studies investigating the actual career outcomes of exchange
students. Teichler and Jahr (2001) examined the relationship between the exchange experience
and career and personal development. Former ERASMUS exchange students were surveyed at
three points in time: a few months after returning to the home country; three years after the
exchange period; and five years after studying abroad. Few students believed that the exchange
experience was worthwhile in relation to their income levels (Maiworm and Teichler, 1996, cited
in Teichler and Jahr, 2001). In contrast, after analyzing the careers of Norwegian graduates, Wiers-
Jenssen and Try (2005) noted that individuals who had studied abroad during their degree had
higher incomes in their current job than had non-mobile students. Certainly respondents in Teichler
and Jahr’s (2001) survey indicated that upon graduation, their study abroad experience stood out
as something interesting to interviewers. It would be beneficial for future research to examine the
careers of Australian graduates who participated in exchange programs to consider whether the
experience assists their job-seeking, income levels and professional progress.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

Daly: Determinants of participating in Australian university exchange programs 65

Foreign language competence

Foreign language competence may act as a barrier to mobility because, unless they choose to study
in an Anglophone country, Australian students will be concerned about their ability to succeed in
their studies and engage with others. While a lack of a second language is one of the top reasons
students do not study outside of the home country (Clyne and Rizvi, 1998; Mazzarol and Soutar,
2002; Sussex Centres, 2004), Teichler and Jahr (2001) found that students are motivated to study
abroad in order to develop their proficiency in a second language and learn about another culture.
Similarly, students who had an interest in learning another language are more likely to study abroad
(Goldstein and Kim, 2006). However, Australian university students are overwhelmingly monolin-
gual (Martin, 2005), which suggests that few students will participate in their university exchange
programs with a non English-speaking country, or students may choose to study in English-speaking
countries (Daly and Barker, 2005). Martin (2005) noted that none of Australia’s universities has
compulsory language study requirements, which is in great contrast to 90 percent of similar institu-
tions in the USA who have such study requirements. Thus, Australian universities may need to
consider the structure and requirements of qualifications to increase student awareness and oppor-
tunity for study abroad.
However, the issue of foreign language competence also must be considered at a national level.
When compared to most OECD countries, Australian students receive far less instruction in a
language other than English (LOTE) than do their overseas peers (Department of Education
Training & Youth Affairs, 2005). While LOTE education is one of the key learning goals in
Australia, the Australian LOTE review conducted in 2003 found that only 13.2 percent of year 12
students were engaged in LOTE programs in 2000 (Department of Education Training & Youth
Affairs, 2003), declining to less than five percent at the tertiary level of education (Martin, 2005).
Less than three percent of university students study an Asian language, which represents Australia’s
neighbors and key trading partners (Group of Eight, 2007). Interestingly, these figures do not
differentiate between native and non-native speakers.
Compared to their Australian peers, students from other countries start learning a second
language younger, spend more time per week on foreign language instruction and this continues
through all levels of education (Martin, 2005). For example, in all European countries and Canada,
it is compulsory for students to learn at least one foreign language (Group of Eight, 2007) with
countries such as Greece, Belgium, Ireland, Czech Republic and Korea offering up to 160 hours
per year for 9–14-year-old students. In Australia, similar-aged students are offered only 40 hours
per year (OECD, 2007). Thus, it may be hypothesized that Australian university students may be
less inclined to participate in an exchange program due to a lack of interest in other languages and
cultures than are students from other nations with more foreign language instruction.

Personal relationships
For international students enrolling in foreign universities, the decision to study overseas is a joint
family decision, with parents being involved in both the decision to study abroad and the choice
of host country and institution (Lim, 1992). Similarly, the recommendations of significant others
and their attitudes towards study abroad may influence a student’s decision to participate in an
exchange program. Students are more likely to participate in the exchange program if their family
or friends have recommended it (Cushner and Karim, 2004; Malicki, 2003; Wiers-Jenssen, 2003).
According to Mazzarol and Soutar’s (2002) model of the factors motivating students to seek an
overseas education, an international student will select his/her host country based upon personal

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

66 Journal of Research in International Education 10(1)

recommendations from their family and friends. At one Australian university there was a high
referral rate from friends, with 35 percent of exchange students reporting they participated in the
program because their friends recommended it (Malicki, 2003). Young and Harper (2004) reported
that friends and parents are most influential in the decision of Australian exchange students to
participate in the exchange program.
Students may be discouraged from studying abroad with concerns for relationships at home
and the host destination (Clyne and Rizvi, 1998; Sussex Centres, 2004). While these sojourners
worry about making new friends while abroad, concern about separation from family may prohibit
a student from choosing to engage in an exchange program. The Sussex Centres (2004) surveyed
UK students who had been abroad to determine problems with the exchange experience.
Twenty percent of respondents expressed a problem with being away from their boy/girlfriend
and 8.9 percent felt that being away from the family home was problematic.

Financial constraints
Financial reasons are most commonly cited for non-mobility (Cushner and Karim, 2004; Doyle
et al., 2009). As indicated earlier, student participation in exchange programs at Australian univer-
sities differs according to university type. A greater proportion of Australian exchange students
attend sandstone universities, which are represented by a greater proportion of students from
families of high socio-economic status. The ability of specific student groups to participate in
extra-curricular activities may decrease in proportion to increasing enrolments, especially in the
context of the recent Bradley review of Australian higher education (Bradley et al., 2008), in which
it was proposed that participation by students from low socio-economic groups should increase by
20 percent by 2020. Affordability of extra-curricular educational activities such as the student
exchange program is an issue to be considered. Clyne and Rizvi’s (1998) findings that Victorian
university exchange students tended to be private-school educated, and to self-fund their sojourn,
suggest the influence of socio-economic status in regards to who is financially capable of undertak-
ing the opportunity of study abroad.
Research suggests that financial issues include travel costs, living costs in the host culture and
loss of earnings at home (Van Der Meld, 2003). The cost of a six-month period of study abroad
exceeds AUS$10,000 (Clyne and Rizvi, 1998). Furthermore, students may be concerned with the
costs of moving away from the parental home (Sussex Centres, 2004) or loss of employment at
home and an inability to work while abroad. When combined with loss of income at home and the
inability to work while on exchange, the study experience could represent a significant financial
burden to students. Certainly, non-exchange students in Van der Meld’s (2003) study did not
participate in the exchange program because they could not afford to lose regular income from
their employers at home.

Conclusion
A review of the literature has shown contextual and individual factors that influence a student’s
decision to participate in an exchange program. These are summarized in Figure 1. The interna-
tional context impacts on a student’s decision making in two ways. First, cost and travel safety
influence whether students go abroad and their choice of host destination. Second, global market
forces and community expectations influence the home nation’s international education policies
and programs. In turn at the national level, government international education policies influence
the home universities’ student mobility policies and programs. The national policies can include

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

Daly: Determinants of participating in Australian university exchange programs 67

International Context

Travel
Personal Personal
interest &
characteristics relationships
experience
Institutional Context

National Context
Decision to
Career Financial
Development participate in the constraints
exchange program

Foreign Education
language and
competence discipline of
study

Figure 1.  The decision to participate in an exchange program

those beyond international education such as second language learning at secondary schools.
The ways in which institutions implement government student mobility policies reflects the
accountability, resources and leadership from the government and university and the university’s
organizational culture.
The report by McInnis et al. (2004) discussed industrial countries’ government policies of
student mobility. However, the authors did not consider the impact of such policies at the institu-
tional level nor on students’ decision to participate in exchange programs. Thus, it would be
worthwhile for future studies to consider the impact of university student exchange policies on
participation in outbound programs. Possible research projects could include a qualitative inves-
tigation of university characteristics and how this relates to the management of mobility programs
and, in turn, student involvement in exchange programs.
There seems to be a bias in the Australian exchange student population in terms of gender,
socio-economic status, ethnicity, previous mobility and discipline of study. An Australian exchange
student is likely to be a 20-year old Caucasian female from a family with a high household income,
to have previously traveled and to be studying either business or humanities/social sciences. Few
studies have examined why there are differences in the personal characteristics of exchange and
non-exchange students. Since the study abroad and student exchange literature does not provide
justification for why this ‘typical’ student would choose to study abroad, further empirical research
is warranted to examine the ways in which demographic factors such as age, gender, socio-
economic status and discipline influence the decision to participate in exchange programs.
It seems that sojourning students require specific intercultural competencies for effectiveness
and satisfaction in the host culture. Yet, it is unclear whether these are learned competencies devel-
oped through pre-departure training or whether exchange students differ in terms of intercultural
competencies from those who remain at home. Future research should investigate the drivers and
barriers of student mobility specific to the higher education context. Specifically, studies could

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

68 Journal of Research in International Education 10(1)

examine how students’ personal characteristics and other individual factors identified in Figure 1
may influence the decision to participate in exchange programs and how exchange students differ
from their peers who remain at the home institution.

References
Altbach PG (2008) The ‘subprime’ market and international higher education. International Higher Education
51: 2–3.
Appelbaum P, Friedler LM, Ortiz CE and Wolff EF (2009) Internationalizing the university mathematics
curriculum. Journal of Studies in International Education 13(3): 365–381.
Asoaka T and Yano J (2009) The contribution of ‘study abroad’ programs to Japanese internationalization.
Journal of Studies in International Education 13(2): 174–188.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009) 3412.0 – Migration, Australia, 2007–08. Available at: http://www.
ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/33A138F3B3CD34C7CA25760000175284/$File/
34120_2007–08.pdf (accessed 26 November 2009)
Bakalis S and Joiner TA (2004) Participation in tertiary study abroad programs: the role of personality.
International Journal of Educational Management 18(4/5): 286–291.
Bing M and Lounsbury J (2000) Openness and job performance in US based Japanese manufacturing companies.
Journal of Business and Psychology 14: 515–522.
Bradley D, Noonan P, Nugent H and Scales BS (2008) Review of Australian Higher Education Canberra:
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Brooks R and Waters J (2009) International higher education and the mobility of UK students Journal of
Research in International Education 8(2): 191–209.
Brunetto Y (2000) Management of policy implementation within Australian universities. Asia Pacific Journal
of Human Resources 38(1): 50–66.
Brunetto Y and Farr-Wharton R (2005) Academics’ responses to the implementation of the quality agenda.
Quality in Higher Education 11(2): 161–180.
Clyne F and Rizvi F (1998) Outcomes of student exchange. In Davis D and Olsen A (eds) Outcomes of
International Education. Sydney: IDP Education Australia, 35–49.
Costa PT Jr and McCrae RR (1989) Personality continuity and the changes of adult life. In: Storandt M and
VandenBos G (eds) The Adult Years: Continuity and Change. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association, 45–77.
Cushner K and Karim A (2004) Study abroad at the university level. In: Landis D, Bennett JM and Bennett
MJ (eds) Handbook of Intercultural Training. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 289–308.
Daly AJ (2007) Outbound student exchange at Australian and New Zealand universities: the effects of
pre-departure decision-making, in-country experiences and post-sojourn outcomes. Unpublished PhD
dissertation, Brisbane: Griffith University.
Daly AJ and Barker MC (2005) Australian and New Zealand university students’ participation in international
exchange programs. Journal of Studies in International Education 9(1): 26–41.
Daly AJ and Barker MC (2010) Australian universities’ strategic goals of student exchange and participa-
tion rates in outbound exchange programs. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32(4),
333–342.
Daly AJ, Troth A, Barker MC and Jones L (2004) Comparative predictions of international orientations across
Australian and New Zealand University students. Paper presented at the Third Biennial International
Conference on Intercultural Research, Harmonizations between within-cultural diversities and cross-
cultural commonalities, Taipei, Taiwan: 21–24 May.
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (2008a) Australian University Mobility in
Asia and the Pacific (UMAP) student exchange program. Available at: http://www.endeavour.deewr.gov.
au/student_exchanges_new/australian_umap.htm (accessed 6 March 2009).
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (2008b) Award course completions 2007:
selected higher education statistics. Australian Government. Available at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

Daly: Determinants of participating in Australian university exchange programs 69

higher_education/publications_resources/statistics/publications_higher_education_statistics_collections.
htm (accessed 26 November 2009).
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (2009a) Australian outbound mobility:
current trends. Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (2009b) OS-Help. Available at: http://www.
goingtouni.gov.au/Main/Quickfind/StudyOverseas/OSHELP.htm (accessed 26 November 2009).
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (2009c) Students 2008 [full year]: selected
higher education statistics. Australian Government. Available at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_
education/publications_resources/profiles/Students/2008_full_year.htm (accessed 26 November 2009)
Department of Education Training & Youth Affairs (2003) LOTE review report. Available at: http://www.
dest.gov.au/schools/publications/2003/LOTE/reviewreport.pdf (accessed 23 April 2005).
Department of Education Training & Youth Affairs (2005) The historical context of Commonwealth LOTE
programmes in Australia. Available at: http://www.detya.gov.au/schools/publications/2003/lote/historical.
htm (accessed 23 April 2005).
Doyle S, Gendall P, Meyer L, Hoek J, Tait C, McKenzie L and Loorpang A (2010) An investigation
of factors associated with student participation in study abroad. Journal of Studies in International
Education 14(5): 471–490.
Dwyer MM (2004) More is better: the impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary
Journal of Study Abroad X: 151–163.
Gillard J (2009) International education – its contribution to Australia. Available at: http://www.deewr.gov.au/
Ministers/Gillard/Media/Speeches/Pages/Article_090527_093411.aspx (accessed 7 January 2010).
Goldstein SB and Kim RI (2006) Predictors of US college students’ participation in study abroad programs: a
longitudinal study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30(4): 507–521.
Group of Eight (2007) Languages in crisis: a rescue plan for Australia. Available at: http://www.go8.edu.au/
storage/go8statements/2007/Go8_languages_in_crisis_discussion_paper.pdf (accessed 4 December 2009).
Kishun R (2007) The internationalisation of higher education in South Africa: progress and challenges.
Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3/4): 455–469.
Kling ND, Alexander JF, McCorkle DE and Martinez R (1999) Preparing for careers in global business:
strategies for U.S. female students. American Business Review 17(2): 34–42.
Knight J and Altbach PG (2007) The internationalization of higher education: motivations and realities.
Journal of Studies in International Education 11(3–4): 290–305.
Krause K-L, Hartley R, James R and McInnis C (2005) The first year experience in Australian universities:
findings from a decade of national studies. Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra.
Available at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/first_year_
experience.htm (accessed 29 October 2005)
Leask B (2009) Beside me is an empty chair – the student experience of internationalization. In: Jones E (ed.)
Internationalisation: The Student Voice. Abingdon: Routledge, 3–17.
Li M and Bray M (2007) Cross-border flows of students for higher education: push–pull factors and
motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education 53: 791–818.
Lim RB (1992) Purchasing an overseas education: an exploratory study. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Griffith University.
Malicki R (2003) Exchange and study abroad: perceptions, facts and fiction. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
Macquarie University.
Marginson S (2000) Competition in Australian higher education since 1987: intended and unintended effects.
In: Teather CB (ed.) Higher Education in a Post Binary Era. London: Jessica Kingsley, 23–47.
Martin MD (2005) Permanent crisis, tenuous persistence: foreign language in Australian universities. Arts
and Humanities in Higher Education 4(1): 53–75.
Mazzarol T and Soutar G, N (2002) ‘Push–pull’ factors influencing international student destination choices.
International Journal of Educational Management 16(2): 82–90.
McInnis C, Coates H, Hooper C, Jensz F and Vu T (2004) Study Abroad and Study Exchange Systems in
Industrial Countries. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training, Australian Government.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015

70 Journal of Research in International Education 10(1)

McLellan CE (2008) Speaking of internationalisation: an analysis policy of discourses on internationalisation

of higher education in post-apartheid South Africa. Journal of Studies in International Education 12(2):
131–147.
Mok KH (2007) Questing for internationalization of universities in Asia: critical reflections. Journal of
Studies in International Education 11(3/4): 433–454.
Norris EM and Gillespie J (2008) How study abroad shapes global careers: evidence from the United States.
Journal of Studies in International Education 13(4): 382–397.
OECD (2007) Education at a glance 2007. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/55/39313286.pdf
(accessed 19 May 2008).
Olsen A (2008) Outgoing international mobility of Australian university students 2007. Paper presented at
the Australian International Education Conference: Global Citizens, Global Impact, Brisbane.
QETI and IEAA (2006) The attitudes and perceptions of Australian employers towards an overseas study
experience. Available at: http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/Key_activities_information_and_services/
International_students/Industry_update/Research_on_Outward_Mobility/ (accessed 22 June 2007).
Searle W and Ward C (1990) The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-
cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 14: 449–464.
Stanley G and Reynolds P (2005) Similarity grouping of Australian universities. Higher Education 27(3):
359–366.
Sussex Centre for Migration Research and Centre for Applied Population Research (2004) International
student mobility. University of Sussex and University of Dundee. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/
pubs/hefce/2004/04_30/04_30.pdf (accessed 23 January 2007).
Teichler U and Jahr V (2001) Mobility during the course of study and after graduation. European Journal of
Education 36(4): 443–458.
Van Der Meld JS (2003) Asian Americans: factors influencing the decision to study abroad. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad IX: 71–110.
Van der Zee KI and Van Oudenhoven JP (2000) The multicultural personality questionnaire: a multidimen-
sional instrument of multicultural effectiveness. European Journal of Personality 14(4): 291–309.
Van Hoof HB and Verbeeten MJ (2005) Wine is for drinking, water is for washing: student opinions about
international exchange programs. Journal of Studies in International Education 9(1): 42–61.
Van Oudenhoven JP and Van der Zee KI (2002) Predicting multicultural effectiveness of international students:
the multicultural personality questionnaire. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26: 679–694.
Ward C and Kennedy A (1999) The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 23(4): 659–677.
Wiers-Jenssen J (2003) Norwegian students abroad: experiences of students from a linguistically and
geographically peripheral European country. Studies in Higher Education 28(4): 391–411.
Wiers-Jenssen J (2008) Does higher education attained abroad lead to international jobs? Journal of Studies
in International Education 12(2): 101–130.
Wiers-Jenssen J and Try S (2005) Labour market outcomes of higher education undertaken abroad. Studies in
Higher Education 30(6): 681–705.
Yonezawa A, Akiba H and Hirouchi D (2009) Japanese university leaders’ perceptions of internationalization:
the role of government in review and support. Journal of Studies in International Education 13(2): 125–142.
Young B and Harper C (2004) Australian student mobility through exchange: a Universitas 21 case study.
Paper presented at the 18th IDP Australian International Education Conference, Sydney, 5–8 October.

Biographical note
Amanda Daly, PhD, is a lecturer in Academic Development at the University of South Australia.
Her primary research focus is international education, in particular the development of students’
intercultural competence and the adjustment experiences of sojourning students. Amanda is a
qualified speech-language pathologist and has previously acted as an international student sup-
port coordinator in a New Zealand tertiary institution.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on March 15, 2015