Moving beyond the “international” label: A call for the inclusion of the (in)visible international engineering students

Abstract

Engineering programs worldwide have seen a rise in the number of international students enrolling since the last century (Gürüz & Zimpher, 2011). As of 2020, the percentage of international students pursuing engineering degrees in Germany, Russia, and the United States has reached 27%, 22%, and 21%, respectively (IIE, 2020). In the United States, for instance, which is the top host destination for international engineering students (IESs), 11.2% of bachelor's degrees, 53.2% of master's degrees, and 58.8% of doctorate degrees in engineering were awarded to international students (ASEE, 2021). IESs contribute to the intellectual engagement of university research laboratories, industry R&D departments, and other key areas that drive global technological advancement, in addition to making a significant contribution to the host country's economy (Chellaraj et al., 2008; NAFSA, n.d.; Conlon et al., 2019).

Furthermore, IESs bring unique values, attitudes, and knowledge to enrich the pool of information, skills, and heuristics when collaborating to solve engineering problems (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Wulf (2002) suggested that engineering teams with diverse life experiences have a better chance of developing creative and optimal engineering solutions while meeting various constraints. Only by recognizing and leveraging the strengths of IESs can engineering teams take advantage of such complementary and diverse assets (Page, 2019; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). However, despite the significant contribution and high numbers of IESs, the engineering education community pays inadequate attention to their experiences, and there is a dearth of literature about IESs. Faced with many similar difficulties as other marginalized populations, IESs are rarely included in the discussion of advocacy efforts.

As former and current IESs, we are deeply concerned that the engineering workforce and engineering education community undervalue this population. Therefore, in this article, we aim to shed light on the challenges that marginalized IESs face and propose potential actions that the engineering community can take to promote inclusion and support for this group.

IESs are a vastly diverse group but are often homogenized under the label of “International” in most contexts. This legal status is so powerful that it defines who IESs are and overshadows other identities they may possess. Under this label, IESs face complex sociopolitical situations that impact various aspects of their education journey. They could be perceived concurrently with benefits (e.g., revenues, research labor, and international goodwill) and threats (e.g., global competition and threats to national security) by the host country (Adnett, 2010; Allen & Bista, 2022). Their academic and career plans are vulnerable to changes in the host country's foreign affairs and higher education policies and are further complicated by legal regulations on potential employment opportunities (Bollag, 2006; Gürüz & Zimpher, 2011; Lomer, 2018). This uncertainty leads to IESs being Othered under a constantly changing sociopolitical context throughout their studies, where they are often treated as “visitors” who are welcomed, but not seen as equivalent counterparts to domestic students (Marginson, 2012). This Othered situation may present itself in various forms, such as difficulty integrating with domestic students in class project teams, discrimination by companies when looking for internships, exclusion from many merit-based fellowships, and fewer opportunities to practice cultural customs.

The view of IESs solely characterized by their legally-defined international identity is problematic as it oversimplifies IESs as a homogeneous group and could further marginalize those with other types of oppressed identities (Malcolm & Mendoza, 2014; Sloan et al., 2018). IESs may face further stigmatization due to the intersection of their “minoritized” identities associated with gender, race, ethnicity, age, religion, social class, language proficiency, personality, cultural practice, and more, relative to those perceived by the host countries (Lee & Rice, 2007; Liu, 2017; Sparks et al., 2019). To understand IESs' experiences, we need to holistically consider factors such as their experiences of discrimination and microaggressions, years of study abroad, family expectations, definition of success, types of degree pursued, fields of study, perceived career opportunities, and more—the engineering education research community can help build out this understanding. Those who do not have relevant firsthand experience tend not to recognize the profound impact of and interactions between these factors. In this awkwardly invisible position, many IESs silently fall through the cracks of the higher education system, feeling lost while finding little guidance (Laufer & Gorup, 2019).

Supporting IESs requires a systematic collaboration of many units across campus due to complex factors influencing IESs. However, the responsibility of supporting IESs usually falls under only one or two offices or even just a few staff. Those specialists rarely have enough resources to provide holistic support for IESs. The lack of institutional support for IESs is exacerbated by the fact that Othering international students has become a common, unconscious practice within the current higher education system. Despite the strong presence of IESs in classes and research labs, many faculty and staff have only limited understanding of the daily struggles and concerns IESs may face. This lack of awareness and intention to create an inclusive and welcoming learning and working environment for IESs is concerning. For example, some faculty may not understand how the changing political atmosphere can lead to high levels of anxiety among IESs, who worry about their visa status, internship and job opportunities, relationships with peers and advisors, physical and psychological safety, and more. These concerns can profoundly influence IESs' academic and professional performance. IESs may feel dismissed when trying to articulate their concerns and may become silent about their struggles, which could result in less systematic attention and interventions to support them. It is crucial for faculty and staff to recognize and acknowledge the challenges that IESs face and to take proactive steps to create a supportive and inclusive environment.

There are certainly some constructive research and programming efforts that focus on helping international students adjust to the host country (e.g., Wu et al., 2015). However, these efforts may have limited effectiveness if IESs' other identities are ignored, and could even implicitly position international students as inferior. To bridge this gap, we need research and practices that approach this population from an asset-based perspective, rather than viewing IESs as deficient due to their immigration status or other marginalized identities.

Othering IESs is not only a matter of ethics and social justice, but it also limits the ability of the entire engineering community to solve complex problems effectively. Therefore, we advocate for the genuine inclusion of IESs, which entails legitimate and sufficient research and inclusive practices. Without interrupting the current status quo of social stigma and systemic oppression of disadvantaged IESs, achieving social justice and maximizing the potential of this population would be challenging. To genuinely include and value IESs, researchers and practitioners need to consider the inherent power difference between IESs and other groups (Minda, 1995; Nash, 2008). Here, we propose research and practice agendas to transform the current engineering education community and workforce toward more inclusive practices.