Cultural Diversity, Relocation, and

the Security of International Students

at an Internationalised University

Helen Forbes-Mewett
Chris Nyland
The notion of security is an elusive concept that attracts varying interpretations. In
this article, the authors adopt a definition that views security as a broadly applicable
term that encompasses physical, social, and economic dimensions that relate to
human rights, cultural difference, and relocation. The approach embraces the com-
plexities of the security needs of international students in the context of a competitive
and volatile education market. As Australia’s largest international education
provider, Monash University is an ideal setting within which to explore the security
issues that arise for international students. Fifty-five interviewees including student
representatives, frontline staff, and senior management share their experiences of
working closely with Monash international students. The data is used to show that
there are complex cultural differences in the notion of security and that being in an
unfamiliar culture affects students’ sense and level of security. Understanding these
influences usefully translates into reflections on how well and by whom students’
security needs are met.

Keywords: international students; security needs; service provision

The notion of security is an elusive concept that attracts varying interpretations.

In some instances, the term is equated with the likelihood one will not become the
victim of crime. This application has been shown to be an important factor deter-
mining international students’ decisions concerning their choice of host nation
(Cohen, 2003; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). Despite a broadening of the notion to include
social and economic issues that threaten the well-being of international students
(Deumert, Marginson, Nyland, Ramia, & Sawir, 2005), the term has gone largely
undefined in most disciplines. In response and for the purposes of this article, an
adopted definition advances security as a broadly applicable term that encompasses
physical, social, and economic dimensions that relate to human rights, cultural

Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, Summer 2008 181-203

DOI:10.1177/1028315307308136
© 2008 Nuffic

181
182 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

difference, and relocation. The approach embraces the security of international

students in the context of a competitive and volatile education market in which
students have become more discerning and vocal about their perceived lack of security
in their host country. Monash University is Australia’s largest education provider to
international students and as such is an ideal setting within which to explore inter-
national student security. Fifty-five interviews are used to show there are complex
cultural differences in the notion of security and that being in an unfamiliar culture
affects students’ sense and level of security. It is anticipated that an understanding
of these influences will usefully translate into reflections on how well and by whom
students’ security needs are met and where responsibility should lie for dealing
with international student security needs.
The article has five main sections. The first considers the notion of security, which
is discussed in terms of human rights, cultural differences, and how relocating to
an unfamiliar culture is likely to affect students’ sense and level of security. An
overview of the security issues that arise for international students is presented in
the second section. In part three, the notion of security is contextualised within the
international education market and the legal structure established by the Australian
government. The fourth section examines the data generated by the interviews and
illustrates difficulties that can arise because of differences in the notion of security
within a framework of an unfamiliar culture. The final section presents a summary
and conclusions.

DEFINING SECURITY
Although scholars have advanced varied notions of what security involves, most
skirt the need to define the term by discussing the sources of security, and indeed
insecurity. For the purposes of this article, an abstract sense of the term security is
adopted by drawing on the work of Baldwin (1997) who defined security as “a low
probability of damage to acquired values [italics added]” (p. 13). This understanding
emphasises the preservation of acquired values and recognises that one can have
greater or lesser security depending on circumstances (Wolfers, 1952). Baldwin (1997)
suggested specification requires “at least some indication of how much security is
being sought for which values of which actors with respect to which threats” (p. 17).
Such specification points to the range of perspectives encompassed by the definition.
Apart from an international relations/security studies approach economic, human
security, psychology, and sociology standpoints all suggest humans need security
(Adler, Bell, Classen, & Sinfield, 1991; Alkire, 2003; Baldwin, 1997; Cameron &
McCormick, 1954; Clements, 1990; Commission on Human Security, 2003; Doyal
& Gough, 1991; King & Murray, 2001/2002; Maslow, 1943; Nesadurai, 2005;
Norwood, 2005; Scholte, 2000; Straub, 2003; Walt, 1991). Indeed, from a socio-
logical standpoint, Clements (1990) argued that without security “social life would
be both meaningless and relatively dangerous” (p. 2).
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 183

The Right to Security

Although many observers assert access to security is a human right, the limits of
this claim are problematic. It is not difficult to imagine individuals have a right to fun-
damental needs such as secure housing, nourishment, and physical safety. However, it
is more difficult to argue that people have a right to security beyond what is considered
necessary within given societies. This variance can be accommodated by assuming
humans have a right to have their needs satisfied to the “optimum” extent (Doyal
& Gough, 1991; Straub, 2003). This application fits with Doyal and Gough’s
(1991) assertion that “basic needs . . . are always universal but their satisfiers are
often relative” (p. 155). Milner, Poe, and Leblang (1999) supported this notion
when they note security, subsistence, and liberty are recognised as rights having
been “referenced in, and guaranteed under the provisions of the International Bill
of Human Rights” (p. 408). This document provides statements concerning various
rights ultimately supportive of the notion that security is indeed a human right. The
topics of “subsistence rights,” “security rights,” and “liberties” allow Milner et al.
to guide us through forms of security that are guaranteed in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, both components of the International Bill of Human Rights.
These include the basic needs of adequate food, clothing, housing, health care,
social services, the right to “the continuous improvement of living conditions,” and
the highest possible level of mental and physical health. Milner et al. also note the
UDHR recognises the right of freedom from violations, such as execution, torture,
or imprisonment arising from arbitrary, political, or religious vilification. Protection
from such extreme violation must necessarily be considered in relation to the
concept of security. However, violations of lesser severity that are nonetheless still
damaging to the person may also infringe one’s right to security. The example of
Muslim female students having their scarves pulled from their heads is an indica-
tion of a violation of personal/physical rights that directly relates to culture and
relocation (Deumert et al., 2005).

Culture, Relocation, and Security

The influences of culture and relocation affect security—together they present
a combination of cultural elements that interact to shape understanding of what
constitutes insecurity and who has responsibility for ensuring communities and
individuals are secure. Religious and secular influences, for example, can affect the
issues concerning security. All major religions have an understanding of what these
issues entail. Islam, for example, provides security through a system that strikes “a
balance that provides individual motivation, and emphasises co-operation and mutual
responsibility, social justice, and the equitable distribution of wealth” (Bouma,
Haidar, Nyland, & Smith, 2003, pp. 54-55). Liberal Christianity, on the other hand,
184 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

calls on the goodwill and charity of individuals, especially those in positions of

leadership to provide what is necessary for people’s security. Various streams within
religions ensure a diversity of perceptions of security that manifest in secular relations
within the family and gender relations.
Ideas relating to the provision of security are influenced by who is believed to
have responsibility for ensuring individuals are secure. Bénabou and Tirole (2005)
noted dominant views on this question differ across nations. In the United States,
individuals tend to be held responsible for their own security whereas Europeans are
more inclined to accept the community is a primary source of security. This equates
to the United States spending significantly less than Europeans on the security needs
of citizens. According to Bénabou and Tirole, this variance suggests attitudes shape
policy; however, they also note that policy and perceptions are mutually reinforcing.
Regardless, this diversity demonstrates the importance of national characteristics.
Communities that have been indoctrinated by neoliberal values, for instance, tend to
believe effort is the catalyst for bringing about security and that responsibility
rests with the individual. China presents a stark contrast. Sixty years of Marxism has
shaped Chinese cultural understanding of who has responsibility for people’s secu-
rity. Consequently, Chinese people maintain a relatively strong belief in the need for
the state to provide social protection. Wong and Lee (2000), for example, found that
even within market-oriented Shanghai there exists “a strong reliance on the state
. . . rather than on oneself or the family for meeting practical social needs such as
housing, health care, and retirement” (p. 114).
The significance of the fact that different cultures have divergent understandings
of what security entails comes to the surface when individuals relocate to a foreign
environment. People relocating are confronted with a new set of complex cultural
issues that affect their security. Likewise, the host country is also confronted with
a new set of complex cultural issues that may appear to be threatening. Consequently,
relocation compounds the need for security and illuminates the necessity for a
closer look at the implications for those who are relocating and the implications for
the host country, and in the case of international students, the host institution.
For most people, migration is a means of improving lives, and for many it is “vital
to protect and attain human security” (Commission on Human Security, 2003, p. 41).
However, it seems security cannot be assumed for all incoming groups. Regrettably,
many international agencies do not address the issue of student security. For instance,
the International Labour Organisation (ILO) specifically excludes students from its
definition of migrants (Deumert et al., 2005). According to Graham (2000), “the
problem for the security of some sections of diasporas is that of rejection by the host
because of racism, ethnic tension, economic jealousy, cultural friction or political
instability” (p. 196). Cultural security relates to being “one of us” and differences
relating to “physical appearance, language, religion, [and] cultural practices” can often
create mistrust (p. 197). This juxtaposed with the fact that those who relocate often
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 185

have fewer rights in a new locale, in addition to the loss of many rights they enjoyed
at home, means the incoming group may be seriously disadvantaged. The earlier
suggestion that the right to security is relative to cultural expectations becomes
complicated in circumstances that encompass more than one culture, thus raising the
question: Which cultural expectations apply? In the case of migrants or those who are
temporarily relocated in a host country as are international students, is it the cultural
expectations of a person’s originating country that apply when considering security
or is it the cultural expectations of the host country? Perhaps it is both.

SECURITY ISSUES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

International students encounter difficulties seldom experienced by domestic
students that relate to academic and social aspects of their stay in the host country
(Zhang, Sillitioe, & Webb, 2004). Not only do international students need to adapt to
a foreign education system and a foreign language and culture, like migrants, they also
need to adjust to being part of a social minority; that is, they encounter difficulties
associated with being different (Burke, 1994). Although some of the problems faced
by international students are related to adjustment in a foreign culture, “some of the
more serious challenges are due to inadequacies within the host society” (Lee & Rice,
2005, p. 1). With language and culture embedded in the social structures of the host
country, it is not surprising that Heggins and Jackson (2003) found Asian students
often place great importance on informal networks as opposed to utilising the host
country’s formal structural procedures when in need. Zhang et al. (2004) highlight
the importance of “being aware of the differences in language, culture, expectations
and teaching and learning approaches . . . in making a successful adjustment” (p. 7).
Lack of awareness of the implications of differences in learning styles can lead to
misinterpretations on the part of students and lecturers. For instance, students who
are unaccustomed to independent learning feel a lack of direction that is often viewed
from a staff perspective as unsatisfactory performance (Ballard & Clanchy, 1991).
Even becoming accustomed to the informal norms of addressing academic staff in
Australia can be a major hurdle for international students. For many, the initial
“honeymoon” stage of an international education experience is quickly consumed by
the demands of the academic course (Oberg, 1960).1 Although most students develop
coping strategies as they experience the inexplicit norms of the host society (Hofstede,
1991), others tend to fall through the cracks. The unfortunate circumstances of some
international students show that relocation has affected their sense and level of
security, thus highlighting the inadequacies of support systems and existing social
structures.
International students are required to make a major cultural shift, and though
underlying cultural factors are not always obvious, language differences clearly
pose great difficulties (Sawir, 2005; Zhang et al., 2004). In an examination of the
186 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

language difficulties experienced by international students, Sawir (2005) convinc-

ingly argued the scholastic approach that focuses on grammar and correct usage that
has been traditionally adopted by East and Southeast Asian nations is not adequately
preparing students for a global environment that is linguistically driven by the
English language. The lack of attention to communicative English language limits
students’ ability to understand spoken English and leads to staff dissatisfaction with
their articulation ability, particularly in relation to class presentations and written
work. Ideally, students’ “lack of confidence with English” (Sawir, 2005, pp. 568-569)
is something to be addressed by the English language teaching methods of the
country of origin (Hellsten, 2002; Hellsten & Prescott, 2004). However, the immediate
responsibility rests with the host universities who need to find ways to deal with the
problems associated with the phenomenon. The concept of a 1-year bridging
program in the country of origin is suggested as a possible solution to assist students
with English language skills, reduce the anxiety associated with the inability to com-
municate effectively, and reduce the overall sense of “culture shock.”
The concept of culture shock refers to a negative state generated by being in an
unfamiliar cultural environment (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001). International
students affected by this phenomenon may experience “confusion, anxiety, disorien-
tation, suspicion, bewilderment, perplexity and an intense desire to be somewhere
else” (Ward et al., 2001, p. 270). Varying degrees are attributed to individual person-
ality traits and the principle of cultural distance.2 The concept of culture shock can
be translated into change that is threatening to individual security, that is, a threat
to one’s acquired values. Insecurity has long been associated with students and
arises from many sources (Murphy & Ladd, 1944). Early studies (Cameron &
McCormick, 1954; Schmalhausen, 1929; Van der Hoop, 1939) point to our highly
competitive society to explain feelings of inferiority and insecurity. Schmalhausen
(1929) and Van der Hoop (1939) traced insecurity back to a lack of social support.
They explained that a lack of collective security support leads to deprivation, which
results in harsh competition and, ultimately, misery. Consequently, a lack of
collective security means a lack of individual security. Given that a sense of belonging
is one of the most important sources of security (Farnham, 1951), it is reasonable to
assume that clinging to family or indeed cultural values is part of the need for a sense
of belonging. For international students in particular, the need for a sense of belong-
ing and feelings of security apply beyond the boundaries of day-to-day campus life.
Sawir, Marginson, Deumert, Nyland, and Ramia (2008) captured the essence of
loneliness and what loneliness means to an international student. Loneliness can be
caused by biological and social influences. Regrettably, unchangeable personality
traits can dictate an individual’s level of loneliness; however, loneliness caused by
social influences such as relocation is more malleable. Sawir et al. (2008) identify
cultural loneliness as an important addition to Weiss’s (1973) categories of emotional
loneliness and social loneliness. Although giving due acknowledgment to the emotional
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 187

(personal) and social loneliness experienced by international students, Sawir et al.

(2008) identified “the absence of the preferred cultural and/or linguistic environ-
ment” (p. 24) as the trigger for cultural loneliness and the reason why access to social
networks and support does not always eliminate feelings of loneliness or isolation.
Sawir et al. (2008) found “Hofstede’s distinction between individual and collectivist
cultures [to be] powerful in explaining cultural loneliness” (p. 25) among interna-
tional students and noted that loneliness or isolation was strongly related to the
barriers encountered in making friends across cultures. Improving relations between
international students and local students needs to be addressed from a holistic
perspective where both cultures can adapt to a new set of circumstances—rather
than expecting international students to forgo their original culture to adopt the
unchanging culture of the host country.
Difficulties experienced by international students go well beyond the classroom. For
instance, they are confronted with organising their accommodation and employment in
an unfamiliar environment. As Lee and Rice (2005) suggested, “negotiating basic aca-
demic procedures and living arrangements are daunting tasks for some international
students” (p. 386). Issues identified as likely to “greatly hinder . . . social integration
as well as . . . academic progress” include “language, teaching and tutoring, finances,
housing accommodation, making friends, and homesickness” (Lee & Rice, p. 386). In
Australia in particular, language, tuition cost, and feelings of isolation and loneliness
have been reported as the problems most likely to affect international students
(Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000; Sawir, 2005; Sawir et al., 2008). Language
difficulties, for instance, have been shown to have a huge impact on student security
because of the inability to effectively communicate socially and academically (Sawir,
2005). Issues such as health, financial security, and the need to work also affect student
security significantly. Compounding these issues are the underlying dimensions of
discrimination and exploitation and the availability of suitable food (Hanassab, 2006;
Maggio, 1997; Sawir, Marginson, Nyland, Ramia, & Deumert, 2007).

THE INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

MARKET AND SECURITY
Government funding cuts in the 1990s saw Australian universities turn success-
fully to the international education market. Marginson and Considine (2000) asserted:
“Some elements of this ‘market,’ particularly the education of international students,
are driven by a frankly commercial and entrepreneurial spirit” (p. 4). However,
despite “proactive policies” bringing Australia recruiting success, “it appears unlikely
that foreign students will be able to prop up . . . our universities . . . indefinitely.
[Indeed], the bubble may have already ruptured” (de Wit, 2005, p. 193). This
suggestion coincides with a slowing in the growth of the enrolment of international
students studying in Australia (Australian Education International [AEI], 2005).
188 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

With fears that enrolment growth may further decline, universities are faced with a
heightened need to clarify the factors considered by students and parents when
deciding in which country they will study, and this includes the desire for security.
Recognising the benefits of international education and the expectation to provide
quality service to international students, Australian government requires education
providers to register on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for
Overseas Students (CRICOS) under the National Code of Practice for Registration
Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students (National
Code). The code was established under the federal Education Services for Overseas
Students (ESOS) Act 2000 and came into force in 2001. Originally dealing with the
“mechanics” of international education, this legislation recognised international stu-
dents’ rights as consumers of education but did not address international student
security in a general sense. However, the evaluation of the ESOS Act that began in
2004 culminated in a new National Code in July 2007. A broadening of the scope
of the original legislation is evidenced in sections 3.1 c. and d. of the objectives stated
in the Preamble the 2007 Code (Department of Immigration and Citizenship
[DIAC], 2007, p. 1):
The objectives of the National Code are to:

c. protect the interests of overseas students by:

i. ensuring that appropriate consumer protection mechanisms exist
ii. ensuring that student welfare and support services for overseas students meet
nationally consistent standards, and
iii. providing nationally consistent standards for dealing with student complaints
and appeals
d. support registered providers in monitoring student compliance with student visa
conditions and in reporting any student breaches to the Australian Government.

In 2005 Deumert et al. (2005) argued that Australia lacked a coordinated code
of practice for the security of international students, and it appears this argument
still holds. Reference in the new National Code (DIAC, 2007) to the welfare of inter-
national students is scant, and it is too early to assess if any benefits deriving from
the reference will make a significant difference. It stands to reason that without
overarching mandatory regulation that ensures student security is afforded due
attention, universities will be left to develop their own practices. These practices
are bound to be of varying quality and while a market focus continues to prevail in
the sector are likely to be underresourced.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT SECURITY AT MONASH

As a major provider of education to more than 15,000 international students,
Monash University is an ideal case to explore the security issues that concern this
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 189

community. The current study utilises data obtained through 55 in-depth semistruc-
tured interviews with informed Monash staff and student representatives (20 male,
35 female) conducted during the period September 2006 to January 2007. The
interviewees, chosen because of their interactions with international students or
with formulating university policy, were categorised within four groups: student
representatives (SR), university staff who provide a service to the students (SS;
e.g., counsellors and advisors), senior management (MGT), and academic staff
(A). Participants were coded with a number (P1 for Participant 1, P2 for Participant
2). The body of existing literature relating to the security of international students
provided the basis for the range of issues canvassed in the interviews, which
include health, cultural practices, exclusion, legal status, and housing. Elaborate
responses were obtained to interview questions concerning the security needs of
international students and how the university provides for those needs. The inter-
views were audiotaped and subsequently transcribed. From the interviews, quota-
tions that offer a “window” into the international student experience were extracted
and expanded on to clarify how Monash staff and student leaders cope with issues
that are seen to constitute a threat to acquired values. In brief, we offer “snapshots”
that convey a richer understanding of how university staff manages the difficulties
associated with international student insecurities than tends to be generated by the
many surveys researchers have undertaken to gain insight in the international student
experience. The snapshots highlight the complexity of cultural differences in notions
of security, how students’ sense and level of security is affected by relocation to
Australia, how well students’ security needs are met at Monash, and who tends to
bear responsibility for ensuring international student security.

Health: “We Don’t Know How to Treat Them”

Cultural differences were highlighted as a matter of concern by staff involved in
the provision of health services. Interviewees suggested more information about
health care needed to be provided to students prior to arriving in Australia, and the
university needs more information about students before they arrive. There are
often difficulties encountered when students from a different culture need medical
treatment. According to one interviewee:

medical services can be so different . . . we hear some strange stories, and we don’t really
know what’s happened before. They often don’t know the names of their medication, which
is fair enough because it would be in Chinese [for example], but not in English. . . .
They’ll often say, “Oh, I had Chinese herbs there, in my home country” so we don’t know
how to treat them. (P25 female SS)

Although it was recognised that medical services vary from culture to culture, it was
often not known in exactly what ways they are different, and as a consequence the
190 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

information given by international students is sometimes interpreted as “strange.”

Adding to this complexity, without knowledge of Australian medical care, it is likely
students expect the medical service provider to know what treatment is required. The
interviewee suggested that these difficulties could be avoided and appropriate care
given if, prior to arriving in Australia, students obtained a confidential report on their
health, particularly “anyone who’s had a previous operation or an illness or ongoing
treatment of any sort.” It was further suggested the report should come from the stu-
dent’s doctor in his or her home country directly to the university doctor for the pur-
poses of ensuring other formalities such as visas would not be affected. It was
thought that a health report would also assist in decisions relating to health insurance
coverage. The advice given was that the standard health coverage for international
students was adequate if they were “relatively healthy, fit young people”; however,
those with preexisting illness may need additional coverage (P25 female SS).
The notion of providing a confidential health report with information about
preexisting illnesses is problematic given that students in these circumstances are
required to provide the information when applying for a visa. It appears that an
increasing number of students are not declaring prior illness and as a consequence
are undermining their own and others’ security. The university’s reliance on these
government processes is demonstrated by the absence of backup procedures such as
a confidential medical report. Nonetheless, there would be inherent health security
risks for students and universities if confidential medical information that has visa
implications was not declared. It is concerning that it has been suggested that prior
psychological illness “may be one of the reasons why they came away to make a new
start here” (P25 female SS). Even more concerning is an apparent escalation of
students arriving to study at Monash with preexisting illness. Several accounts,
including the following, affirm that there has been an increase in the numbers of
students who are unwell: “We’ve had more difficulties, we’re finding more students
that aren’t coping—severe emotional problems . . . there is a lot of preexisting
illness” (P6 male MGT). The interviewee told of circumstances in 2004 when a
student had to be escorted back to the student’s home country because of severe
mental illness. It later became known to Monash staff that the student had previously
been returned home from a university in the United States but had subsequently
managed to enter Australia without declaring this preexisting illness as required by
visa conditions. The responsibility for dealing with students who arrive with preexisting
illness tends to fall on frontline university staff. This outcome suggests government
processes are failing to identify those who are medically unfit to study in Australia.
Compounding the situation for universities is the government’s failure to monitor
students’ requirement to maintain medical insurance for the duration of their stay.
Universities are being encouraged to undertake this administrative task, and Monash
is in the process of so doing. In one sense, this is to the credit of Monash and to the
benefit of Monash international students. However, the development appears to be
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 191

aiding a trend for governments to shift responsibility for providing security for inter-
national students to education providers.
Students purchase health insurance in accordance with visa requirements; however,
they are often unaware of the security it provides, and many neglect to renew it
after the 1st year, or they take it out and then cancel it. According to one interviewee,
“Students . . . take health cover out and then cash it in . . . and if we find some-
body gets in a bad car accident or somebody needs hospitalisation—they don’t
have health coverage” (P9 male MGT). Having health insurance coverage is an
expense students often do not fully understand. This is particularly so if they come
from a culture where health care is automatically provided. Health care providers,
on the other hand, are looking for means to reduce costs of services provided
to international students who use the system in ways not intended. For example,
anecdotal evidence suggests that the practice of terminating pregnancies as a form
of contraception is a relatively common practice among international students
(Healy & Bond, 2006; Wu, 2004). Given the practice appears to be accepted in
some Asian countries from which Australia attracts students, medical practitioners
have advised there is a need to provide education in more appropriate methods of
birth control. One interviewee shared her experience of assisting a young Indian
woman in difficult circumstances:

We hear everything . . . bloody pregnancy and having spent all your tutorial money
on an abortion. . . . Because if you’re a young Indian woman you can’t tell your
parents you are pregnant by your Australian boyfriend, and you don’t really want the
child, [and] there’s no money to procure an abortion is there. . . . So they had to use
their tutorial money. (P19 female SS)

The above account highlights how cultural differences in the notion of security
can play out when a young woman finds herself in circumstances that she is unable
to explain to her parents. The fact that she relinquished the security of her familiar
culture and family support network is likely to have contributed to these complicated
circumstances that encompass two cultures. As a consequence, her level and sense
of security has clearly been affected by the temporary relocation in an unfamiliar
culture. Yet it is within this unfamiliarity she seeks and receives support to deal
with her dilemma, while not wishing to be seen to shun the expectations of her
original culture. This example reflects on how well students’ security needs are met
in two opposing ways. First, the circumstances suggest the student’s security needs
may not have been properly met in regard to health education and advice about
relationships and contraception in Australia. This fits with the Marginson, Nyland,
Ramia, and Sawir (2007) observation that the Australian government focuses on the
financial access to health services rather than the provision of the services them-
selves, and that “the services are seen as the responsibility of the educational insti-
tutions and the public and private health sector between them” (p. 1). Regardless,
it is reasonable to expect government or institutional agencies to impart knowledge
192 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

before students’ arrival in Australia or, at a minimum, on arrival, that would assist
with avoiding the unfortunate circumstances described above. Second, and to the
contrary, frontline staff at Monash were found to be providing well for the student’s
security needs by showing understanding and giving as much support as possible
within their means, both measures contributing to the young woman’s ability to
successfully complete her studies. Previous research has revealed students seeking
terminations tend to approach medical practitioners outside the university (Healy
& Bond, 2006; Wu, 2004); and therefore, universities are often unaware of the
extent of the problem. This unawareness may explain why there is not a greater
focus on sex education for international students.
A less traumatic but nonetheless important concern demonstrating cultural
differences in the notion of health security is the use, or overuse, of health services by
international students for the purposes of seeking medical certificates for academic
assessment extensions. It was reported that,

They [international students] frequently need extensions to get the work done. At exam
time we do large numbers of special considerations for students, and 98% of those
would be for the overseas students, but very rarely for a local student. If they are for a
local student it’s usually for something else . . . it’s usually something [like] a parent
has died or in a serious car accident or something. The international students certainly
believe, and it’s probably right, that minor illnesses will affect their performance. . . .
Fifty percent of the people we see at exam time will be wanting “special consideration”
[relating to their academic assessment] . . . 30 to 40 a day. . . . The bulk of this
would be in . . . the middle 2 weeks of the exam period. . . . And this is just on one
campus. (P25 female SS)

The notion of allowing “special consideration” is normally reserved for serious

ailments or circumstances. However, it needs to be acknowledged that for the interna-
tional student under enormous parental and/or cultural pressure to succeed, any cir-
cumstance that reduces academic achievement is considered serious. The above
interviewee suggested that “it could be stress, they probably get more sick than our
other students do.” As a consequence, the use of university medical services is stretch-
ing already-scarce resources. The practice does not upset the government’s focus on
financial access to medical services as the consultations are free of charge; however, it
does indicate that there needs to be another way for students’ special consideration
applications to be assessed without placing inappropriate and excessive demands on
university medical service providers or denying students who are in need.

Culture: “Why Would You Want to Take

Your Clothes Off and Shower?”
A personal or cultural sense of security can relate to something as simple as dif-
ferent bathing techniques. One interviewee provided an example of cultural differ-
ence that needed explanation and understanding to avoid personal levels of security
being undermined:
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 193

I had an issue where I had a Muslim guy staying with a local person, and they came and
complained that their bathroom was flooded many times a day because of the washing
that they do. She said it’s like he has a jug in there, and he splishes and splashes around,
and then he won’t shower for days and days; and I said to her “Oh it might be part
of the religious year where they don’t wash, I don’t know I’ll get back to you, I’ll find
out.” . . . I know a whole heap of Muslim students, so I said to [another one] “Is there
a whole thing about the washing? Does it have to be messy?” He said “no, no that’s just
the person.” He said there’s a way of doing it and there’s never a mess, he just needs to
be spoken to so he offered to do it for me. (P22 female SS)

Aware that the bathing method may have been related to different cultural practices
that she was unaware of, the interviewee chose to obtain more information before
dealing with the issue. Her strategy of speaking with another Muslim student showed
initiative and a level of acceptance and understanding necessary when dealing with
international student notions of security. However, the fact that staff working closely
with international students from many and varied cultural backgrounds need to acquire
information relating to cultural practices after an issue is raised suggests that
cultural awareness training is required. Monash has recently begun to train staff on
how to be more culturally aware. The incident described above, however, suggests
the training is not broad enough to include everyday living practices or is not
sufficiently widespread to reach staff in all areas. The incident is also demonstrative
of the understanding that small-scale issues are dealt with case by case. This inter-
pretation was supported by an interviewee who indicated that training was “not on
a systematic basis, [it’s] just ad hoc” (P14 male SS). Regardless, the responsible
actions of the interviewee were typical of frontline staff who consistently assumed
responsibility for the welfare of international students, and in this case, that of the
landlady as well:

When I asked the guy why he didn’t shower (I politely asked) . . . he said he couldn’t
shower because it was too cold, which made perfectly good sense if you come from a
tropical climate. Why would you want to take your clothes off and shower? So he didn’t
see any need to take his clothes off . . . because he said when he was a child he was
prone to getting chest infections, so he was scared he was going to get sick so he didn’t
shower. I said to him well no, we talked about how to overcome [this], like have the hot
water running and get in there quick. After that [the landlady] phoned me and said
everything’s fine. If you just say I’m doing this because I’m looking out for you, I don’t
want someone saying that you’re a grub and kicking you out of the house. It could be
just a misunderstanding which it normally is. (P22 female SS)

The importance of the interviewee taking responsibility for sorting out this issue
relates to the preservation of security on a number of fronts. First, the issues relat-
ing to the student’s bathing practices were quickly sorted avoiding a problem with
his landlady. Without the intervention of the interviewee, the situation could have
easily escalated, and the student may have found himself looking for alternative
194 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

accommodation. Second, the concerns of the landlady indicate her level of security
was also affected by the student’s bathing methods that were used to secure his
notion of personal security, which in this case was to keep warm and not get sick.
Third, finding an early solution to the problem most likely meant the landlady would
continue to offer accommodation to students, and with even greater understanding
of differing cultural notions of security.

Exclusion: “They Get This Branding of

Terrorist So People Shun Them”
The following extract from a student representative relates to another male Muslim
student. The extract was chosen, not because it is representative of the general view,
indeed it was an isolated perception, but because it provides a clear indication of
cultural differences in the notion of security. In this particular example, local and
international students’ levels of security appear to be affected by relocation.

The Muslim group [experience more difficulty] and right now because of the bad pub-
licity on Islam and terrorism I think that Islamic students are treated poorly and . . .
maybe even targeted within recruitment and that kind of thing. I think they’re treated
poorly by almost everybody. I think they’re treated poorly by fellow students, . . . if
you look around you certainly don’t see a lot of Islamic students hanging out with other
non-Islamic students. . . . [A] good friend of mine . . . from . . . Saudi Arabia,
very devout Muslim and he was a great friend, we really enjoyed spending time
together, and we even talked religion and discussed his faith, and it was great, . . . he
was really disappointed that he didn’t get to talk to more people, that other people
wouldn’t talk to him. . . . There is really that desire but I think that they get this brand-
ing of terrorist so people shun them so . . . that is probably one of the biggest things
going on right now. (P32 male SR)

The interviewee is suggesting fear is the catalyst for a perceived tendency of locals
to “shun” Muslim students. This instance suggests that local students’ levels of security
are under threat with the presence of Muslim students and, as a consequence,
Muslim students’ security levels are affected because they are denied the opportunity
to mix with those outside their group. This may be true; however, there was no other
evidence in the Monash interviews suggesting that the phenomena was specific to
Muslim students. There is much evidence in the literature (Ward, 2006) and indeed
in the Monash interviews that international students from all cultural backgrounds
would like more opportunities to mix with local students, and that local students do
not make much effort to accommodate this desire. In a contrasting view, another
student representative refers to his Muslim community:

When they [do] not have any information about the society and the people, local peo-
ple, communities, they [Muslims] will not mix and then it will be difficult. . . .
Because of the media . . . some [of us] feel bad . . . they are worried that they
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 195

won’t be accepted too and some cultural differences, language, they are also a cause
of not mixing with the locals. (P21 male SR)

The above perspective indicates that some Muslims choose not to mix because of
fear of rejection. The perspective points to the need for the students to have prior
knowledge of the local community and opportunities to overcome damage caused by
the media. Responsibility for providing for these needs should be shared between the
university and government agencies. That the media is contributing to a lowering of
the students’ level of security is a concern that needs to be addressed. In addition, it
should be noted that Muslim students’ security levels appear to be affected signifi-
cantly by a lack of service provision such as the availability of appropriate food (P21
male SR). The two preceding discussions show security, culture, and relocation
encompassing religious dimensions, all of which relate to the following example that
has the added secular influence of sexual orientation.

Sexuality: “In This Society [Gays] Are Well Accepted”

The need for cultural awareness and understanding in an internationalised
university cannot be underestimated. The diversity of the student population appears
to have no boundaries and, therefore, culturally related incidences are expected to be
as diverse as the population itself. It was surprising, however, that in a university
where many thousands of international students are of an age where they discover
their sexuality, only one interviewee mentioned cultural issues relating to sexual
orientation. The interviewee identified “the gay community” within the international
student group as likely to experience more difficulty than others, despite believing
the incidence was not high.

Some international students discover their sexuality here, and they have a preference for
homosexual relationships, for example, and that is a big one for them because they will
find it hard to explain that to their parents. . . . [For] a lot of them it goes against their
religion or their culture . . . they have to hide it and not be themselves. . . . Part of
them are very secret right, so they don’t really tell [their parents] unless they are really
serious. But I’m aware they do struggle with the political fact. In this society they are
well accepted. (P14 male SS)

Within a student cohort of more than 15,000 individuals it is to be expected that some
would discover they have a preference for gay relationships. As Australian culture
is likely to provide a more accepting environment for those in these circumstances
(Kelley, 2001), students’ level of security may be greater than what might have
been experienced in their original culture. General acceptance of diverse relation-
ships in Australia means that international students are not under pressure to keep
their sexual orientation private. That they appear to choose to do this seems to
be related to their home culture, particularly in relation to religious beliefs and
196 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

concerns of nonacceptance by parents. That the incidence of gay international

students experiencing difficulty is reported as “not high” could mean that most are
coping in the unfamiliar culture. Alternatively, it may mean that greater effort needs
to be made by the university to help this group understand their right not to be dis-
criminated against because of their sexual orientation. It is proper to suggest that
this responsibility should be shared with the government; however, this seems
unrealistic particularly because legislation concerning gay rights remains discrim-
inatory in some instances. These conflicting influences are likely to cause confusion
and affect students’ sense and level of security because they are unaware of what is
accepted behaviour. What constitutes expected behaviour is likely to be related to
a number of influences, perhaps none less than the influence of the family.

Legal Status: “Until You Get Married You’re Pretty Much a Kid”
The interviews reveal students frequently experience legal difficulties because
they commonly sign documents without understanding the significance of their
signature. One interviewee suggested that this tendency was related to the fact that
the students had previously been under their parents’ control, and that once this was
no longer the case the students’ level of security diminished:

A lot of students, with a lot of Asians, until you get married you’re pretty much a kid
. . . where parents tell them what to do. But when they come to Australia, they do
not realise how legally binding that signature is. (P16 female SS)

The above extract suggests Asian students’ security is based on parental guidance
before marriage, and that the level of security is diminished when the student relocates
to an unfamiliar culture. Further evidence of how relocation affects students’ level of
security is manifest in circumstances when “some students hire a car and then some-
one else drives it and if they have an accident they are in trouble and need legal advice”
(P22 female SS). Students often unwittingly sign a contract or a lease—for cars,
accommodation, phones, Internet connection, and gas and/or electricity—and often do
not know the consequences of breaking the contract or lease. One participant from stu-
dent services was able to assist the students with the legalities of signing an accom-
modation lease: “I go along when they sign their leases so that every single sentence
is explained” (P22 female SS). In this case, responsibility was taken by the student
service employee who was able to do so because the employee was situated in the
smaller regional campus, where a greater level of security was afforded to international
students because the staff student ratio was lower.
These examples exemplify the need for students to be aware of their legal rights
and responsibilities and support the students’ call for information to be provided in
introductory documentation so they have this information before they arrive in Australia
(Dempsey & Associates, 2004). Families and indeed the students themselves
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 197

should take some responsibility for the transition from being “a kid” to having a
significant degree of independence. However, the provision of information regarding
signing legal documents and other legal responsibilities must necessarily rest with
government agencies and education institutions.

Housing: “One of the Landlords,

He Only Got Female Students”
Accommodation in the private market has emerged as an area that in some
instances seriously affects students’ level of security. The difficulties identified by
the interviewees ranged from problems with corenters, to problems with a landlord
or landlady. A number of reports suggest students are being abused and exploited
by others from their own culture. Most interviewees were of the opinion that inter-
national students would be well advised to live on campus for their first semester.
The following view is representative:

[More on-campus accommodation] would be just fantastic because some of those

things that they are missing, that family environment, caring environment, and some-
one to watch over them, and all that sort of stuff would be catered for to an extent in
on-campus accommodation. . . . So many of our students will end up in houses
with other new students who might not be very worldly and be quite isolated in a
sense. . . . I can’t imagine letting your 1st year just out of year 12 person—if they
communicate as well with their parents as my teenagers do, it is with a series of
grunts and groans. (P13 male SS)

Because accommodation security has emerged as one of the most concerning elements
of the Monash international student sojourn there is a need for an increase in the
availability of on-campus accommodation and greater dissemination of useful
information as well as assistance to help students with their decisions relating to
the type of accommodation that will best provide for their needs. The interviews
revealed shocking reports relating to private accommodation over which Monash
has no jurisdiction.

And the landlord I heard, one of the landlords, he only got female students, and he
charged them much less money, but they had to sleep with him. This person is living
just outside Monash. . . . I think, if these students, I don’t know, there is two sides
. . . maybe some that want to save money. This is a continuous case, and I am sure
that is not the only one. (P30 female A)

Another report tells of students being exploited by private property owners near the
Clayton campus:

I’m just horrified to hear how some students are being exploited by people putting two
students in one room and charging them both full price. . . . I’ve heard of students
198 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

being holed up in a three-bedroom house and there’s seven or eight students living
there, and they just put some sort of a curtain up for a petition, they make one room
like this, and I suppose they know that—you don’t have to be Einstein to work out that
in their home countries sometimes what we live in, five families could live in that, so
they think they’re used to that there. The students don’t want to make waves because
often they’re threatened with “you know we know people in immigration, we can get
your visas cancelled” and things like that. This one lady, all she did was came there
once a day with bowls of rice and stir fried vegetables and left them all on the break-
fast bar, didn’t even have a fridge in the place and that’s what the students had to eat
and that’s what they paid large amounts of money for. (P22 female SS)

These disturbing circumstances were reportedly cases of students being exploited

and abused by members of their own cultural community. It is reasonable to
assume that the students would have believed that renting accommodation off a
member from their own community would be a safe option. The reality, however,
was quite the contrary, thus suggesting that the students need to exercise extreme
care when choosing where they will live during their stay in Australia. Although
international student service staff try to alleviate accommodation problems that are
brought to their attention, overseeing all international students’ private accommodation
arrangements is not managed on larger campuses. At smaller regional campuses
where international student numbers are much smaller, student accommodation can
be monitored to prevent such circumstances from arising. Regrettably, the univer-
sity does not provide anywhere near enough accommodation for students, and
it is an issue that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Also, the students
consider the cost of on-campus accommodation too high, and as a consequence
they are attracted to the private rental market. Responsibility for student accom-
modation needs to be proportioned across all involved parties, the student, families,
the university and government agencies, and property holders. Given the extent and
seriousness of the problems relating to accommodation, a call for overarching
legislation concerning this issue is well overdue.

CONCLUSION
Accepting that security means a low probability of damage to acquired values that
encompasses physical, social, and economic dimensions, we have related this broadly
applicable concept to the dimensions of human rights, cultural difference, and relo-
cation. Human rights literature was used to support our assertion that security is a
basic human right that cuts across culture and location. The discussion showed how
these dimensions encompass religious influences such as those relating to Islam
and Christianity, and secular influences such as the family and gender. Two main
streams of thought relating to the provision of security were considered. One view was
shown to hold individuals responsible for providing their own security, the other
held that the state should take responsibility. It was noted that attitudes relating to
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 199

who should be held responsible for individuals’ security varied greatly between
different countries and that redistributive policies vary accordingly. Students’ relo-
cation in an unfamiliar culture was discussed in terms of migration and a desire to
improve life; however, it was noted that international students are excluded by
many global agencies such as the ILO. Different notions of security were discussed in
terms of cultural expectations and a loss of rights through relocation. These elements
constituted the first of the five sections of the article. The approach taken embraced
the security of international students, and a number of main issues that concern this
group were discussed in the second section. These included the difficulties associated
with language, and adaptation to academic and social elements. The third section
contextualised international student security within the competitive and volatile
education market and discussed elements of Australia’s ESOS Act 2000 and
National Code 2007. We acknowledge that the National Code 2007 now includes
mention of standards for the welfare of international students. However, the standard
is not stipulated, and the legislation remains provider focussed, and it is unknown
if the inclusion of the welfare clauses will benefit students. The fourth section contains
empirical information on the perception of security. The data from the 55 Monash
interviews provided a rich source of information. Discussion was based on a number
of interview extracts to show that there are cultural differences in the notion of
security, and that relocation to an unfamiliar culture affects students’ sense and
level of security. The issues raised canvassed topics such as health and health
services, personal, behavioural and religious practices, exclusion, sexuality, family
influences, abuse, and exploitation in relation to accommodation. It appears the
government has successfully passed responsibility for the provision of health
services and health insurance to the university. If the university is to cope with tasks
of this magnitude, new procedures will need to be developed. Those providing
medical services appeared to be taking the brunt of this handing down of responsi-
bility. The issues relating to the personal and behavioural practices show Monash
needs to ensure there is increased training of staff and students to ensure expectations
coincide with actual behaviour. The information included in the training needs to
extend to the practice of informing students about the local population and to give
reassurance when media reports affect negatively international students’ sense and
level of security. We acknowledge that cultural awareness training does take place;
however, the suggestion that it is “ad hoc” appears accurate. This assertion is based
on the observations that training is not broad enough in content to include students’
off-campus experiences and/or it is not yet widespread. Regardless, the examples
demonstrate that frontline staff take responsibility by trying to maintain the students’
security. The university needs to take responsibility for promoting the fact that the
gay community is generally accepted in Australia and that this group must be afforded
the same security rights as other students. It is thought unlikely the government would
share this responsibility. For the students who do seek support regarding problems
200 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

relating to their sexual orientation, it is once again the frontline staff who are there
to provide it. Because of the extent and seriousness of the issues raised in relation
to accommodation, we argue that the responsibility for providing safe and suitable
accommodation must rest with all involved parties—the student, the student’s family,
the university, government agencies, and property holders. Currently, as much as
possible frontline staff assist students with housing issues. We suggest that legislation
is required to ensure all those attributed with responsibility fulfil their duty.
We maintain that there are cultural differences in the notion of security and that
the international students’ experience of relocating to an unfamiliar culture inevitably
affects their sense and level of security. These influences have usefully translated into
reflections on how well and by whom students’ security needs were met. The
findings support our argument that Monash frontline staff working closely with
international students take responsibility for providing for the security needs of this
vulnerable group. In numerous instances, it was shown that government and institutional
processes failed to provide this assistance. We suspect the picture painted in this
article is a norm across Australian universities and, perhaps, internationally.

NOTES
1. Oberg (1960) discussed four emotional stages of culture shock associated with cross-cultural
sojourns: the euphoric “honeymoon” stage, followed by the crisis, recovery, and adjustment stages.
2. The principle of cultural distance refers to “the adjustment and coping difficulties of sojourners
[that] increase with the distance between their culture of origin and that of the host society” (Ward,
Bochner, & Furnham, 2001, p. 169).

REFERENCES
Adler, A., Bell, C., Classen, J., & Sinfield, A. (Eds.). (1991). The sociology of social
security. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Alkire, S. (2003). Concepts of human security. In S. F.-P. a. E. S. Lincoln Chen
(Ed.), Human insecurity in a global world (pp. 15-39). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Australian Education International. (2005). Student enrolment and visa statistics.
Retrieved October 10, 2005, from http://aei.dest.gov.au/AEI/MIP/Statistics/
StudentEnrolmentAndVisaStatistics/RecentData_pdf.pdf
Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies,
23(1), 5-26.
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Teaching students from overseas: A brief guide
for lecturers and supervisors. Melbourne, Australia: Longman Cheshire.
Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2005). Belief in a just world and redistributive politics
(Working paper). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bouma, G., Haidar, A., Nyland, C., & Smith, W. (2003). Work, religious diversity and
Islam. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Relations, 41(1), 51-61.
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 201

Burke, B. (1994). Similar but different: The challenge of providing appropriate and
effective services for international students. Paper presented at the NLC
National Education Seminar, Canberra, Australia.
Cameron, W. B., & McCormick, T. C. (1954). Concepts of security and insecurity.
American Journal of Sociology, 59(6), 556-564.
Clements, K. (1990). Toward a sociology of security (Working Paper 90-4). Boulder:
University of Colorado.
Cohen, D. (2003). Australia has become the academic destination for much of Asia.
Can it handle the influx? Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(21), 1-40.
Commission on Human Security. (2003). Human security now. New York: Author.
Dempsey & Associates. (2004). Monash International: Student information needs.
Melbourne, Australia: Monash International.
Deumert, A., Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Ramia, G., & Sawir, E. (2005). Global
migration and social protection rights: The social and economic security of
cross-border students in Australia. Global Social Policy, 5(3), 329-352.
de Wit, H. (2005). Editorial. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(3), 191-195.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2007). National code of practice for
registration authorities and providers of education and training to overseas
students. Canberra: Australian Government, Department of Education Science
and Training.
Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. Houndmills, UK: Macmillan.
Farnham, M. (1951). The adolescent. New York: Collier Books.
Graham, D. T. (2000). The people paradox: Human movements and human security
in a globalising world. In D. T. Graham & N. K. Poku (Eds.), Migration, global-
isation and human security (pp. 186-216). London and New York: Routledge.
Hanassab, S. (2006, Summer). Diversity, international students, and perceived dis-
crimination: Implications for educators and counselors. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 10, 157-172.
Healy, C., & Bond, R. (2006). International students: Sexual health, contraception
and terminations. Paper presented at the ISANA 8th Victorian State Conference,
North Melbourne, Australia.
Heggins, W. J., III, & Jackson, J. F. L. (2003). Understanding the collegiate experi-
ence for Asian international students at a midwestern research university. College
Student Journal, 37(3), 379-392.
Hellsten, M. (2002). Students in transition: Needs and experience of international
students in Australia. Paper presented at the 16th Australian International
Education Conference, Hobart, Tasmania. Retrieved June 25, 2006, from
http://www/idp.com/16aiecpaper/program/wednesday/teaching/Hellsten_p.pdf
Hellsten, M., & Prescott, A. (2004). Learning at university: The international students
experience. International Education Journal, 5(3), 344-355.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
202 Journal of Studies in International Education Summer 2008

Kelley, J. (2001). Attitudes towards homosexuality in 29 nations. Australian Social

Monitor, 4(1), 15-22.
King, G., & Murray, C. (2001/2002). Rethinking human security. Political Science
Quarterly, 116(4), 585-610.
Lee, J., & Rice, C. (2005). Welcome to America? International student perceptions
of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381-409.
Maggio, M. (1997). In our strange land, understanding the needs of Muslim students.
Retrieved February 22, 2006, from http://www.nafsa.org/nafsa/ie/winter97/
strange.html
Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, gover-
nance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Ramia, G., & Sawir, E. (2007). Health problems and
health services. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,
370-396.
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). “Push–pull” factors influencing foreign stu-
dents’ destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management,
16(2/3), 82-91.
Milner, W. T., Poe, S. C., & Leblang, D. (1999). Security rights, subsistence rights,
and liberties: A theoretical survey of the empirical landscape. Human Rights
Quarterly, 21(2), 403-443.
Murphy, L. B., & Ladd, H. (1944). Emotional factors in learning. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Nesadurai, H. E. S. (2005). Conceptualising economic security in an era of global-
isation: What does the East Asian experience reveal? Coventry, UK: University
of Warwick, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation.
Norwood, G. (2005). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Retrieved January 24, 2005,
from http://www.deepermind.com/20maslow.htm
Oberg, K. (1960). Culture shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments.
Practical Anthropology, 7, 177-182.
Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students,
learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique.
Higher Education Research & Development, 19(1), 89-102.
Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The
effects of prior learning experience. International Education Journal, 6(5), 567-580.
Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness
and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 12, 148-180.
Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Ramia, G., & Deumert, A. (2007). International
students and language difficulties: An Australian study. Unpublished manuscript,
Melbourne University.
 Forbes-Mewett, Nyland / Cultural Diversity, Relocation 203

Schmalhausen, S. D. (1929). Our changing human nature. New York: Macaulay Co.
Scholte, J. A. (2000). Globalisation: A critical introduction. New York: St. Martin’s.
Straub, E. (2003). Notes on cultures of violence, cultures of caring and peace, and
fulfillment of basic human needs. Political Psychology, 24(1), 1-19.
Van der Hoop, J. H. (1939). Conscious orientation (L. Hutton, Trans.). New York:
Harcourt, Brace.
Walt, S. M. (1991). The renaissance of security studies. International Studies
Quarterly, 35(2), 211-239.
Ward, C. (2006). Acculturation, identity and adaptation in dual heritage adolescents.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(2), 243-259.
Ward, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock
(2nd ed.). East Sussex, UK: Routledge.
Weiss, R. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wolfers, A. (1952). “National security” as an ambiguous symbol. Political Science
Quarterly, 67(4), 481-502.
Wong, C. K., & Lee, N. S. (2000). Popular belief in state intervention for social
protection in China. Journal of Social Policy, 29(1), 109-116.
Wu, D. (2004). Cross cultural health care: Foreign Chinese students in New
Zealand. New Zealand Family Physician, 31(5), 297-298.
Zhang, C., Sillitioe, J., & Webb, J. (2004, October 5-8). Positive model:
Facilitating cultural diversity in the first year international business students’
learning at Victoria University. Paper presented at the 18th IDP Australian
International Education Conference, Sydney, Australia.

Helen Forbes-Mewett is completing a dissertation on the management of the social

protection needs of international students at Monash University in Australia. She has
continuing interest in gender participation and labour organisation.

Chris Nyland is professor of international business in the Faculty of Business and

Economics, Monash University, Australia, and researches the relationship between
globalisation and human security.