International University Students in Thailand: Shifting from Universalistic Models to an Ethnicity Matters Approach

Abstract

Historically, much of the research on acculturation and adjustment was conducted on migrant and refugee populations. The start of the twenty first century has seen a surprising surge in a new immigrant class, mobile students, their characteristics differing from the social, political and economic refugees of the twentieth century. This article provides an overview of the literature related to the salient features of acculturation, adaptation and adjustment models as applied to international university students and the stressors they most frequently encounter. It recommends that future research transitions from universalistic mode-based inquiry to more nuanced approaches which emphasize an individual’s characteristics from country of origin or perceived ethnic identity. A social constructivist position which emphasizes the historical and ethnic relationships among the visiting students and the host nationals is most beneficial to understanding the contemporary international student adjustment paradigm.

Keywords

International Higher Education Adjustment Research International Students Ethnicity Thailand

Introduction

The academic community is currently witnessing a massive upheaval in international student enrollment. Globally, the number of students who migrate abroad to continue their university-level studies has increased dramatically. In 1995, there were 1.3 million students enrolled in either short term or long term overseas study programs (OECD, 2009). By the year 2000 it had risen to 2.1 million, quickly increasing to 3 million in 2007 and then to over 5 million in 2015 (OECD, 2016). By 2025, the number of students who have moved temporarily to another country to complete part but not all of their university studies could reach an estimated 8 million (Altbach, 2013). This is important to Asian nations because they have traditionally been exporters of internationally mobile students. These countries will see growing numbers of Asian students entering study abroad programs in Asia. The Global Education Digest, a branch of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) observed that Asian students enrolled in international programs within other Asian nations increased from 36% in 1999 to 42% in 2007 (De Wit, 2015). An example of this is the growth of Chinese students enrolled in Thai international higher education. As student mobility continues to grow year on year, further development of research approaches to international student adjustment is essential to improve the study experience, the provision of pre-departure training, arrival orientation sessions and the development of host institution services.

The first objective of this article is to clarify the terms necessary to conceptualize the current study abroad experience for most of the students who travel to Asia in general, and to Thailand in particular. The terms adjustment, acculturation and adaptation are often used interchangeably in academic research, resulting in possible confusion and ambiguity. This clarification of terms is followed by a discussion of the development of stage based or sequential models of overseas adjustment. The latter half of the article is a review of literature on the elements which impact the adjustment process, and asserts that academic research of this phenomenon should place greater emphasis on the identification of specific stressors. These include student ethnicity and country of origin in comparison to country of study, which impede proper international student adjustment or negatively influence the abroad experience. Rather than focus on one theoretical framework or approach, this article draws on concepts from the fields of education, psychology and sociology. This is not intended to test the reliability of adjustment models, but instead to expand on the conceptual approaches to international student adjustment research through the analysis of the impact of the international students’ self-identified ethnicity. The concept of identity is as complex as the study abroad experience. To clarify the role of ethnicity in international student adjustment, the first section of this article will define the terms used within this conceptual framework. As the particular focus of this study, reference will be made to the context of Thailand throughout.

Acculturation, Adaptation and Adjustment

Due to common misunderstandings and differing use of ‘acculturation’, ‘adaptation’ and ‘adjustment’, further refinement of terms is necessary. ‘Acculturation’ is defined as “the dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members” (Berry, 2005, p. 698). This cross-cultural contact involves many life changes for the sojourner and, when there is a negative impact, is referred to as ‘acculturative stress’ (Berry, 2006). ‘Acculturation’ is more broadly conceived of as an individual’s method of learning about and adapting to the new cultural norms and the degree to which people maintain their heritage and culture during this process (Kohatsu, 2005). The desired outcomes of stable acculturation are psychological and sociocultural adaptations. Acculturation occurs over time and impacts both the host culture and on the psychological level, the individual who is acculturating. Acculturation models developed by Arends-Toth and van de Vijver (2006) include predictor variables such as the society of origin, individual characteristics, length of stay and social support. Due to the decrease of the average length of stay abroad from years to a semester or two, acculturation should not be the focus of academic inquiry as most international studies are no longer sufficient in length to adequately acculturate or to adopt Thai cultural norms.

Adaptation generally carries implications of biological or evolutionary studies which lends to group survival; not the intent of this discussion. Adaptation, from the international student adjustment research perspective, is the long-term struggle to survive in the environment. Berry, who claimed adaptation was the long-term goal of sojourners, defined adaptation as “the relatively stable changes that take place in an individual or group in response to external demands” (Berry, 2006, p. 52). Ward and associates further distinguished the two types of adaptation; psychological and sociocultural (Ward & Kennedy, 1992, 1993a). Psychological adaptation refers to affective responses to the new setting and one’s emotional responses to interaction with host nationals, which impacts one’s sense of self and self-esteem (Ward et al., 2001), whereas sociocultural adaptation is the “ability to acquire and perform culturally appropriate social skills and behavioral competence to fit in the host culture” (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006, p. 423). Cross-cultural adaptation is the process of moving to an unfamiliar socio-cultural setting and trying to create and maintain a stable relationship with the people in that environment (Kim, 2001). This implies a long-term experience which includes the struggle to maintain the identity of the culture of origin as well as the culture of the host nation. The failure to establish or maintain the behavioral, social and relationship criteria as outlined above is theorized to contribute to the onset of culture shock. Sociocultural adaptation refers to the behavioral responses to the new environment; our ability to manage daily life and function competently in an intercultural setting. Importantly, both Ward et al. (2001) and Berry (2006) included cultural and social identity as predictor variables to sociocultural adaptation. The term adaptation, while often used in empirical investigations of international students, is not propagated in this article as it is a diachronic proposition which traces development over time and is thus not ideal for the investigation of short term study abroad.

Both adaptation and acculturation researchers have explored multiple aspects of the study abroad phenomenon, yet adjustment is a more apt term to the research on short-term international study. Ward (1996) argued that adjustment is best understood in terms of stress and coping frameworks, while adaptation is best understood within the framework of social skills and culture learning. While sociocultural adjustment is typically conceptualized as following a standardized curve (Ward and Kennedy, 1999), there is limited consensus on the stages of adjustment and there is no unified model of cultural adjustment. Adjustment is a process of coping with changes rather than a result or an isolated event. The problematic nature of adjustment is demonstrated by the substantial body of literature available regarding this phenomenon. The process of adjustment has been the topic of interest in various fields in the social sciences including education, psychology, sociology, anthropology and counselling studies. In much of the research, the authors use the terms ‘adjustment’, ‘acculturation’ and ‘adaptation’ synonymously. It is important to note that these are processes which individuals cope with. Culture shock is a negative state one finds oneself in as a result of failure to acculturate, adapt or adjust.

Adjustment is a response to change. Cross-cultural adjustment is a complex and repetitive, sometimes circular, process which requires travellers to overcome the stressors of their new environment and solve the problems which arise as a result of the unfamiliar; whereas adaptation is the process of “learning to live with change and difference, in this instance, a changed environment, different people, different norms and different customs” (Steele, 2008. p.34). Psychological adjustment refers to the “psychological and emotional well-being which can be measured by assessing self-reported psychological symptoms and perceived distress” (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006, p. 423). Adaptation is considered to involve many levels of behavior which include personal development, relationships with the host and, importantly, adjustment. Contemporary approaches continue to distinguish the psychological and sociocultural aspects of this process.

Adjustment in this context refers to the reduction of stress or satisfaction in one’s environment. It does not denote happiness or acceptance of the environment. In reality, one can adjust in many circumstances and yet not find happiness. Adjustment is the short-term pursuit of fitting in or making small changes to affective, behavioral and cognitive patterns to accommodate the new setting. This article argues that the exploration of adjustment as opposed to adaptation is increasingly important to the study of international student experiences in Asia, particularly when research models incorporate the reduced duration of the average study abroad time in the region. In order to understand the current need to place further prominence on student identity and ethnicity approaches to adjustment research, it is necessary to analyze previous methodological considerations of the sojourner experience which underscore the current exigency to shift from positivism to social constructivism.

The Emergence of Models of Adjustment

The curve models of adjustment lack comprehensive applicability, particularly to the experience of students within the Asian university context who are enrolled in short study-abroad programs and rarely spend more than six months abroad. While many students may enroll in Western universities for full degree programs (four years), the vast majority of visiting students in Thailand, in particular, are only in country for one semester. However, research regarding international mobility often emphasized the formation of models to conceptualize the stages of sojourner adjustment from the Western, or more specifically, North American perspective. This is exemplified by the first group of models in cross-cultural adjustment research which was based on the concept of culture shock. In 1951, Cora DuBois coined the phrase ‘culture shock’ (DuBois, 1951). While many articles on cross-cultural adjustment give credit to Oberg, DuBois first used the term in reference to the experience of anthropologists in the field. In 1954, Oberg used this phrase to describe the stages of adjustment all sojourners experience when residing in a new culture. Shortly thereafter, two cross-cultural adjustment researchers produced models of adjustment which had an impact on this field of research for decades. Lysgaard (1955) was initially responsible for the emergence of cross-cultural models of adjustment. In 1955, he described three stages of adjustment, namely stage 1 (the initial phase), stage 2 (the crisis phase, which he said was between 6-18 months in country) and stage 3 (the adjustment phase). Yet, Oberg received the lion’s share of the recognition both for borrowing the term ‘culture shock’ and for creating the 4 stage model (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Stages of cross-cultural adjustment as described by Oberg (1960), in Black and Mendenhall (1990).

The work of Oberg quickly expanded the concept of ‘culture shock’ from anthropology to be included in psychology and cross-cultural studies. His conceptualization and description of culture shock as a medical condition with signs and symptoms was befitting of the medical model of the era (Oberg, 1960). Oberg’s model was designed to account for the emotional experiences which many sojourners experience and thus, by design, was intended to be predictive. The strength of Oberg’s model lies in the intuitive nature of this conceptualization of the adaptation process. The model explains the emotional adaptation that travellers can easily relate to, and allows the traveller to recall experiences of great cultural variance and describe the visceral reaction to the experienced ‘shock’.

However, not all sojourners go through these stages sequentially, and even Oberg went on in further research to list characteristics of culture shock which were associated with the failure to adjust (Oberg, 1960). An additional criticism is the lack of any comprehensive explanation regarding the adaptation process and the justification for each stage. The acceptance of Oberg’s model was based on its simplicity and generalized applicability across multiple settings, yet it does not allow for rich, detailed or unique experiences which travellers encounter that are not within this four stage model. Some of these sojourners also do not go through these stages in order, many do not go through all four stages, many never experience a crisis, and some never adjust (Adler, 1975). Human behavior is too complex and unpredictable to articulate in a universalistic four step model.

Soon after the development of the U-curve, researchers Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) proposed a W-curve model which includes a final stage when travellers return home. The W-curve model followed the multi-stage theory of adjustment as proposed by Oberg and Lysgaard. This marked the onset of theoretical stage-based models focussing on repatriation adjustment. The W-curve model is an extension of the previous models in that it repeats the U-curve during the repatriation process. Thus this re-acculturation, by duplicating the U, becomes a W (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Stages of cross-cultural adjustment and repatriation as described by Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963), in Onwumechilia et al. (2003).

Following in the sequence-based models of cultural adjustment, Adler (1975) suggested a 5- stage process; contact; disintegration; reintegration; autonomy and independence. This process differed from Gullahorn and Gullahorn in that the final stage outlines the establishment of a multicultural identity whereby sojourners find comfort in their homeland as well as in the new culture they are experiencing. Essentially, this approach views the adaptation sequence as a learning process. Rather than ascending or descending along the slope of adjustment or shock, Adler envisioned a learning-curve of adjustment. The inclusion of stage 5, independence, is an acknowledgement of an almost existential state where one has transcended any one specific culture. Adler’s work is also noteworthy in that while most of the previous work on acculturation was characterized by the negative aspects of culture shock, his work outlines the beneficial outcomes of expatriate experiences abroad which include self-development, personal growth, development of cross-cultural awareness, development of empathy and the breakdown of the insular mentality of blind cultural adherence and conformity. Adler’s inclusion of personal growth and identity formation led to the work of a second group of researchers (discussed later in this article) who often viewed cross-cultural adaptation as a learning process.

Alternatives to the U-curve, W-curve or Adler’s 5-stage sequential models of adjustment are exemplified by the research of Berry and associates (Berry et al. 1989) who proposed the concept of psychological acculturation as two dimensional: maintenance of original culture and maintenance of relationships with new groups. Berry further divided these dimensional responses and identified four acculturative strategies: integration, separation, assimilation, and marginalization (see Table 1). Those who implement an integration-based strategy value both maintenance of original culture and maintenance of intergroup relationships. Travellers who apply a separatist position choose to value cultural maintenance but not intergroup relationships. Those who value intergroup relations but are somewhat uninterested in cultural maintenance experience assimilation, whole those who do not value cultural maintenance or intergroup relations are seen as marginalized. Researchers involved in adjustment studies identified other factors involved and analyzed macrosociopolitical indicators, yet Berry’s complex categorical or multidimensional model of acculturation gradually redefined views of this process and explored the influence of individual personality traits on cultural adjustment. This conceptualization allowed individuals multiple cultural affiliations with the host culture without necessarily limiting or reducing any identification with their culture of origin (Swagler & Jome, 2005).

Table 1.

Berry’s Acculturation Attitudes (Berry et al., 1989).

Acculturation attitudes		Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural identity and characteristics?
Acculturation attitudes		Yes	No
Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with other groups?	Yes	Integrated	Assimilated
	No	Separated	Marginalized

A criticism of Berry’s work is that it does not go far enough to explain the variations of acculturative stress regarding differences in ethnicity, context and individual variables on participants within the model. It is these individual differences which make adjustment a subjective phenomenon.

A second group of researchers led by the work of Ward and Searle (1990) explored the specific elements of culture on business travellers and others who choose to live abroad, as opposed to soldiers, refugees or victims of forced migration. Searle and Ward posited that sociocultural adaptation was the natural outcome of acculturation. Later, Ward and Kennedy grounded much of their early work on acculturation in the understanding that it is the “psychological and behavioral changes that an individual experiences as a result of sustained contact with members of other cultural groups” (Ward & Kennedy, 1994, p. 330). They approached sociocultural adaptation from the perspective that it is best measured by how one performs daily tasks in the new host culture (Searle & Ward, 1990). They separated the psychological element of adjustment as the satisfaction in the new culture and ability to deal with stress, whereas the sociocultural adjustment refers to fitting in or learning the social rules of the host culture (Ward, Bochner & Furnham 2001). Sociocultural and psychological adjustment to cross-cultural transition is varied and can have a profound influence on experiences abroad regardless of the traveller’s role as an employee, student or refugee. While psychological adjustment is far more complicated as there are many variables which influence an individual’s adjustment, sociocultural adjustment can be measured by how individuals live and function within the daily events in a new culture (Searle & Ward, 1990) (see Figure 3). Accordingly, through a series of studies, Ward and Kennedy created the Sociocultural Adaptation Scale which measured the sequence of adaptation as well as specific variables which impacted this process.

Figure 3.

Sociocultural Adjustment Scale as described by Searle & Ward (1990).

Much of the research in the decades that followed was based on the models proposed by the researchers described above. Work by Torbion (1994) and Mohamed (1997) continued to explore adjustment as a series of stages, as did the Townsend and Wan (2007) research on international student adaptation which supported the U-curve model. However, just a year later Brown & Holloway (2008) implemented similar ethnographic research models and found that the U-curve model of adjustment did not adequately describe the experience of the participants; instead, negative psychological factors were seen to be more influential and emphasis was placed on nervousness, anxiety, stress, uncertainty, and a feeling of being adrift. Other sequential models of adjustment have been explored (for example, see the J-curve model of Ward et. al. (1998)), yet these universalistic approaches focus on how one group of people reacts to an environment as opposed to how individuals relate to one another, and are thus not ideal for the study of international student adjustment which is a distinctly sociocultural process.

The general assumptions about the acceptance and gradual implementation of sequential models that patterns of adjustment were universally fixed based on duration of exposure were further supported by research. However, skepticism remained and criticism continued based on the variations in these models, the affective, behavior and cognitive demands of the psychology of acculturation, and the reductionist nature of the concept of universalistic stages of adjustment. These models have often lacked important issues within cross-cultural adjustment such as the absence of culture shock or the role of student ethnicity and cultural background. In some investigations no culture shock was reported (Lundstedt, 1963) and in another only “general irritation” was documented during the adjustment process (Torbion, 1982, p.62). Despite this criticism, the curve model of cultural adjustment is still in use today (see Ahmad, et al., 2015; An & Chiang, 2015 for recent examples), and while few researchers have claimed an absolute static adjustment-based curve, it continues to dominate the investigation of the international student adjustment phenomenon. Thus the concept of cross-cultural adjustment continues to remain problematic.

International Student Sociocultural Adjustment

In regard to international student adjustment issues, Furnham and Bochner (1982) examined the four types of problems most commonly faced and created a classification system which separated two sets of difficulties exclusive to international students: 1) difficulties common to cross-cultural travellers such as language issues, homesickness and loneliness and 2) problems associated with their role as the cultural ambassadors of their homeland. Other types of complications that are faced by all young people are the issues common in adolescent development such as identity formation versus role confusion, and the academic struggles that are evidenced by teens globally. This process of identity formation can become more complex if it takes place in a foreign culture where one is faced with additional challenges associated with the adjustment process. The work of Furnham and Bochner concluded that “the implication is that although it may be strange and possibly difficult, sojourning makes a person more adaptable, flexible and insightful” (1982, p. 47).

Sociocultural adjustment is often characterised by the degree of comfort and familiarity an individual has within the host culture (Black, 1988) and can be broadly separated into two categories. The first category includes the intrinsic factors individual characteristics (micro) and the second category includes the external factors (macro), the degree of difference in the new environment or organization (Lee, 2007). Both the micro and the macro factors impact students’ experience and adjustment in the host country. Vital to this process is the motivation or goal-oriented behavior pattern to overcome the obstacle. Obstacles in the Thai context can be climate, language, socialization, loneliness, cultural norms or the ability to form friendships with the hosts.

The sociocultural aspect is based on the behavioral responses required to adapt to the new environment such as ordering food, accessing finances and managing the public transportation system (Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999). As discussed, there has been a tendency in earlier conceptualization of cross-cultural adjustment research to establish a universalistic process or sequence model of adjustment. However, this preference to approach complex psychological phenomena with an emphasis on universality has eliminated some of the subjective aspects of the adjustment phenomenon. A fundamental aspect of this subjectivity is a sojourner’s sense of ethnic identity. The analysis of Wilson (2011) of the role of ethnicity concludes that their sense of ethnicity can have a negative impact on US students. Wilson’s research found that students from Asia and Africa had more difficulty adjusting than did students from Europe. The use of ethnicity as a variable of adjustment is important as the relationship between an individual’s unique characteristics and ethnic identity. The host culture will have an impact on the adjustment process.

An important aspect of the student abroad experience within the Asian context is language, which can play a role in international student adjustment. English is an important element for consideration, particularly for international students in Asia where international programs use English as the lingua prima. Yet most of the students enrolled in these programs speak English as a second language. This includes the majority of international students in Thailand who do not speak the local dialect and are proficient in English. Fritz et al. (2008) analyzed different groups of international students in North America and addressed which stressors affected each group, as well as the linguistic and financial influences on the groups. European students were compared to Asian students regarding academic, acculturative and linguistic challenges. As with other research examples, Asians reported more problems with language whereas Europeans experienced more problems in regard to homesickness. Asian students also scored significantly higher in anxiety measures. Asian students were less likely to seek help for their adjustment troubles, but there was no significant difference in Asian and European students regarding overall adjustment. Most research on this area of international students conducted in Western universities concludes that Asians and other minorities experience more stress than do others upon their arrival to the host country (Berry & Sam, 1997). The over-generalization of ‘Asian’ is, however, problematic. While many Asian nations share similarities in culture such as a high degree of collectivism and high power distance, Asia is not a homogenous continent; there are dramatic differences in culture, history, religion, language, climate, food and ethnicity. The same observation can be made of the visiting European students who are often characterized as one specific entity. This homogenization of students from a variety of cultures, histories, religions, languages, climates, culinary backgrounds and ethnicities is problematic. In Asian adjustment research paradigms, this homogenization of international students can lead to unreliable and inaccurate research outcomes arising from the overgeneralization of participants from Asia as sharing the same experiences.

Ethnicity and language proficiency are not the only variables which impact international student adjustment. Given the lack of familiarity with the new environment, international students have a greater need for support than do the local student populace (Andrade, 2006). Several studies examined the role of social support (Chirkov et al., 2008; Jung et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2004; Sumer et al., 2008; Toyokawa & Toyokawa, 2002) and self-efficacy (e.g., Li & Gasser, 2005) as crucial factors in international students’ adjustment research. Research not implementing models or stages such as studies by Pantelidou and Craig (2006) concluded that social support is highly correlated with adjustment – as is gender. Further analysis of international student retention reveals that men are more likely than women to experience a positive sociocultural adjustment, as are the extroverted (Fritz, Chin, & DeMarinis, 2008; Pantelidou & Craig, 2006). Women also scored higher in culture shock and distress than do men. This outcome was seen again in Rosenthal, Russell & Thomson (2007), who claimed that adjustment was influenced by many factors such as self-esteem, age, gender and previous international exposure. Greater emphasis on individual identity and ethnicity and the impact of these variables on the adjustment experience in Asia would clarify the stressors each group faces, and allow higher education programs to develop pre-departure training and perhaps address their own implicit biases and prejudices from a more knowledgeable perspective.

The development of a robust connection to the host country culture and the relationships with host nationals is important as international students typically experience more psychological distress than do local students. Burns (1991) demonstrated that international students experienced more sociocultural adjustment problems than local students in his study of business majors in Australia. Given that Asian cultures are typically collectivist, studies in the West have often concluded that Asian students have experienced more difficulty making friends when compared to Europeans (Triandis, 1999). According to the research done by Williams et al. (2008) on university students in the United States, the most commonly identified concern was anxiety, followed by stress and depression. Much of the research on international student adjustment has supported the work of Furnham and Bochner (1982) who discussed the problematic nature of loneliness (Robertson, Jones & Thomas, 2000) while studying abroad, and the importance of international students’ interactions with the host community (Trice, 2003). These studies were done in Australia, the EU, the United States and Canada. Other research suggests that international students who display a strong connection with the host country also display less stress, and experience more positive effects of studying abroad (Russell et al., 2010). International students are often not satisfied with the multicultural relationships they develop while abroad (Choi, 1997), and many have acknowledged the need for local assistance for their sociocultural adjustment (Nesdale & Todd, 1997). For example, Zhang and Brunton (2007) reported that 55% of the Chinese international students in New Zealand were not satisfied with their opportunities to create relationships with the host community. Those students who have difficulties adjusting to the host culture can develop psychological issues associated with loneliness, isolation and sociocultural dissatisfaction (Ward & Rana-Deuba, 2000), as well as educational struggles such as failing coursework or the inability to develop proper language skills necessary to continue in that learning environment.

The development of friendships with host nationals is often problematic due to culture distance and ethnic misunderstandings. Previous research on international student sociocultural adjustment and culture distance emphasized the positive influence of socializing with host nationals (Swami et al., 2010). Socialization can also be distressing and may impact academic achievement (Greenland & Brown, 2005). This impact on the academic aspects of studying abroad can similarly impact sociocultural adjustment (Chataway & Berry, 1989). As international students have been seen to benefit from the development and maintenance of social as well as academic relationships, further research has led to the exploration of academic cultural differences (Ward et al., 2001).

The perceived cultural distance between the host culture and the student’s home culture has been associated with problematic sociocultural adjustment issues. The larger the perceived differences in culture, the greater the likelihood of adjustment difficulties (Ward & Kennedy, 1993). In Asia, there is a history of ethnic rivalry and conflict which may impact the experience of certain ethnic groups within specific nations; Thailand and Burma, or Japan and Korea, are examples of nations which share historical, cultural and well known rivalries. While this problematic adjustment may be due to perceived discrimination, it runs in opposition to theories of ‘cultural fit’ (Searle and Ward, 1990). This is important as it establishes the existence of sub-group discrimination among international students. Therefore, it is important to analyze the adjustment demands placed on international students in Asian programs as this may lead to a more stable and positive experience for students, assist international programs in student retention and lead to a more positive learning experience.

Attending to sociocultural adjustment issues in international students may have implications for several related issues of concern to host institutions. For example, a recent study (Rujipak & Limprasert, 2016) on the sociocultural adjustment of international students in Thailand included the aforementioned sociocultural adjustment scale and the psychological adjustment scale. The authors concluded that there was a positive correlation between these two measures as well as a correlation between adjustment and academic performance, mental health, interpersonal relationships and satisfaction with their life in Thailand. There was no relationship between sociocultural adjustment and gender, no relationship regarding adjustment and length of stay which conflicts with previous research (Trice, 2003), and indicates time in country as a salient factor in respect to student adjustment. Rujipak & Limprasert (2016) did report that sociocultural adjustment level varied across different countries. They concluded that the country of origin was statistically significant in that international students from Western countries more frequently reported positive sociocultural adjustment than those from Asian countries. They further concluded that the role of cultural fit or culture distance was not supported. Thus, even though many Asian nations have cultural similarities, this does not have a positive impact on the adjustment experiences of visiting students. The authors attributed the Western students’ ability to adjust to pre-departure training and their ability to prepare to face the cultural differences prior to departure. Finally, the authors concluded that sociocultural adjustment was influenced by the students’ living environment, academic environment and physical health.

Summary of Adjustment Research

The study of cultural adjustment has roots in anthropology, the colonial system and the need to properly understand and prepare for sociocultural adjustment (Somekh & Lewin, 2005). In the 1950s there was greater focus on the psychological issues associated with living abroad, and the adjustment problems experienced by students (Ward, Bochner & Furnham, 2001) and in corporate contexts (Black & Mendenhall, 1991). Much of the work done in this period focused on the detrimental effects of exposure to a new culture i.e. models of culture shock as developed by Oberg, Lysgaard and Gullahorn & Gullahorn which described a trajectory of experiences and predicted problematic cultural experiences. This was in line with the medical model of the same period. These models of adjustment have achieved an iconic status among cross-cultural researchers as they provided a theoretical framework, yet were not supported by empirical research. Ward, Bochner and Furnham (2001) provided an in-depth review of the U-curve model which supported Ward’s earlier claim that “The U-curve has been on trial for now for almost 40 years, and the time is long overdue to render a verdict. Despite its popular and intuitive appeal, the U-curve model of sojourner adjustment should be rejected.” (Ward et al., 1998, p. 290).

The second wave of international research reflected larger shifts in cognitive paradigms away from the positivist medical model towards an interpretivist approach which included analysis of culture learning and developing coping skills. This period also reflected changes in psychological theory which incorporated the ABC Triad (affect, behavior and cognition) of cultural adjustment (Zhou et al. 2008). This new perspective saw individuals gradually adjusting to and learning about a culture as opposed to being subjected to the rules of the culture and experiencing culture shock. In this model, adjustment is proactive and responsive as opposed to reactive or passive. This culture learning model led to training and preparing individuals prior to departure abroad. While its origins may lie in social psychology, culture learning frameworks primarily focus on the behavioral aspects of intercultural communication, socialization, and adjustment.

It was within this culture learning model that many of the variables in the Ward and Kennedy Sociocultural Adjustment Scale were studied in further detail. The effects of culture distance (Ward & Kennedy, 1993) and language competence (Furnham, 1993), friendship networks (Bochner, McLeod & Lin, 1977), cultural distance (Ward & Kennedy, 1993) and cultural identity (Ward & Searle, 1991b) are of particular interest to the study of international student adjustment and exemplify variable analysis and validity in adjustment research. Contemporary research on international student adjustment has concluded that only a small proportion of individuals found the overall experience to be disadvantageous (Rosenthal et al., 2008). As international study in Asia becomes increasingly common, more parties (such as universities, international relations administrators and recruitment agencies) will necessarily become interested and find value in this area of research.

This article has discussed the approaches to international student adjustment which have gradually transitioned from the medical model to the psychological adjustment approach. This transition in approaches represents a change in adjustment research from a reactive subjugation to a process of actively learning to live in a new culture (Rosenthal, Russell, & Thomson, 2007). Many of the differences in patterns of student adjustment are attributed to recognisable characteristics of the sojourners. Three areas of importance to this attribution are the sojourner’s race, ethnicity and culture of origin. Therefore, the impact of ethnicity and culture on the sociocultural adjustment of students will now be addressed.

Race, Ethnicity and Culture

Racial and ethnic identity has an impact on the adjustment experiences of international students. Previous research on Asian Americans and Asian visiting or exchange students in the American higher education system revealed that identity status had deleterious impacts on well-being (Mossakowski, 2003; Wong & Halgin, 2006). Different races and ethnicities are subjected to different types of judgements, prejudices and biases depending on the specific ethnicity and the society where learning takes place.

Thus far this discussion has traced the development of cross-cultural adjustment theory. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, along with the gradual rising popularity of cognitive psychology, another theoretical approach to study cross-cultural contact was introduced; social identity theories. It was theorized that during cross-cultural contact and overseas experiences, travellers began to perceive of themselves in a different context and this new concept of self and identity created anxiety (Zhou et al., 2008). Identity is critical to the essential motivation of belonging (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Both humanistic and psychosocial research have long emphasized the importance of the human motivation to belong to a group. Therefore, one’s identity, whether it be an ethnic, social or racial sense of belonging, performs a valuable and necessary psychological and social function.

Social identity theory as conceptualized by Tajfel (1981) includes two major facets. The first is the social category and resulting social comparisons which impact self-esteem, in-group favouritism and out-group derogation (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This facet of social identity can act as a buffer and possibly ameliorate the psychological impact of racism and increase the sense of wellbeing (Yip, Gee & Takeuchi, 2008). The second feature of social identity theory relates to the impact of cross-cultural transition and cultural variety in regard to a sojourner’s sense of self, group membership and perception (Brown et al., 1992). The transition from an individualist culture to a collectivist culture or from a culture of high power distance to low power distance can be confusing, and result in both anxiety and the inability to adjust.

The terms race, ethnicity and culture are often used as categorical concepts to frame social science and medical research. The differentiation of these terms is necessary although problematic as race and ethnicity have no widely accepted definitions. Some studies use race and ethnicity interchangeably as a single variable labelling such as ‘race or ethnicity’ or ‘race and ethnicity’ or ‘race/ethnicity’ (Lin & Kelsey, 2000, p.22). There are concerns when these labels are not defined or interpreted separately, such as the possibility that these terms are not accurate classifications of race or ethnicity or that the participants were not labelled with an objective measurement used to guide the classification. This is particularly problematic as many definitions of race include biological or genetic characteristics which are inaccurate. Some studies have used self-report data for the classification of race and ethnicity, which is potentially problematic to findings as evidence shows that an individual’s perception of their own race is not static (Hahn et al., 1996). An additional concern with the use of such terms is the possibility of inaccurately attributing ethnic or race differences as the primary reason for failure to adjustment to a new environment. Research which emphasizes the impact of race can fail to recognize other possible causes of maladjustment such as culture, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, language and historical differences.

Race

During the eighteenth and nineteenth century race and concepts of pseudo-biological classification systems became commonplace. Specific phenotypes became indicators of the civilised and the barbaric. It was argued that racially superior men have a duty to their fellow man. Kipling’s poem “White Man’s Burden” exemplifies this perceived obligation of the West (Europeans and Americans) to civilize the South and the East. In the early 20^th century, race was used to explain the behavior of different groups of people around the world. The blending of race (biology), ethnicity and culture in previous research has led to some dubious and immoral acts, as the work of eugenics theorists clearly demonstrates. Use of the word racism is also varying in meaning and acceptance. The words race and racism vary based on the user’s background and their society’s use of these terms. In Germany the word race is a social taboo. In France using the word ‘race’ implies the speaker harbours prejudicial feelings about that group. In the United States the word is commonly accepted and used in academic discourse, such as Critical Race Theory. Given the sensitivity of using such words, however, and the plethora of connotations and stigmatizations surrounded their use, finding meaning can be elusive.

Memmi (1992) argued racism was the “generalized and absolute evaluation of real or fictitious differences that is advantageous to the accuser and detrimental to his or her victim” (p. 103). Memmi’s definition is too broad, in the sense that these differences can be of any kind and are not limited to somatotype or physical appearance. The focal point of this criticism is based on the notion of securing an economic, social or biological advantage over other groups. Using this definition one could argue that religion is race. Thus, following Memmi’s definition, the understood meaning and use of the word is lost. Essed (1991) claimed “racism must be understood as ideology, structure and process in which inequalities inherent in the wider social structure are related, in a deterministic way, to biological and cultural factors attributed to those who are seen as a different ‘race or ethnic group’” (p.43). While these biological and cultural factors which contribute to difference may be fictitious, the act of attributing meaning creates the significant differentiating characteristics between users. However, in many societies the act of racism is not coherent or systematic and is often portrayed as the repetition of prejudicial clichés and illogical arguments.

Race and ethnicity are often used as variables in education research, yet these categories are frequently not defined or the definitions and uses of the terms are lacking in uniformity. Race is often used synonymously with ethnicity or culture yet, although erroneous, race often has more biological connotations. Ethnicity and culture tend to be used more by social theorists and, as such, carry more social and political undertones. Thus, many participants in research are placed into racial or ethnic categories based on an arbitrary construct. A common source of confusion in previous research on race was the derivation of biological conclusions when either ethnicity or culture was used as a variable. Biology does not determine culture or ethnicity (McKenzie & Crowcroft, 1994). Race is a social construction, not a genetic or biological concept. When used in reference to different types of people it has nothing to do with biology (Jacquard, 1996). From the functional perspective, concepts of race have been used as an ideological tool to legitimize the oppression and exploitation of people. Yet race carried no specific somatic criteria to justify such oppression.

Race has far more social and historical significance than biological influence. Zuckerman (1990) found that racial groups are more similar than they are different, and the genetic differences between members of a particular nation (84% variance) are greater than the genetic differences between the racial groups (10% variance). Race, as a biological or social construct, is ill defined, invalid and in need of further academic criticism. Although ill defined, race continues to be used as a social construct based on specific physical indicators which are assumed to be racial characteristics. These characteristics vary at different points in history and in different cultures. Yet genetics confirms the non-existence of racial groupings based on biological characteristics. Using race as a variable in academic research on international students is inherently problematic as it is a concept without biological or social merit. Yet when one experiences a perceived slight or racially biased mistreatment, this can call further attention to the individual’s racial identity (Hornsey, 2008). As an individual identifies with a specific set of characteristics which signify that group, then that individual becomes more sensitive to speech and behavior which isolates or targets those characteristics. These experiences act as a reinforcement of one’s racial identity. In such situations, the stronger the racial identity, the more likely one is to report racial discrimination (Sellers & Shelton, 2003). This strong identification with a group which has experienced racism is also correlated with psychological distress among students from Southeast Asia (Noh et al., 1999). Throughout three centuries and multiple characterizations and classifications of race, none have stood the test of time. Nevertheless some continue to make fallacious assumptions about an individual’s temperament based on physical features such as the quantity of melanin one’s body produces. Greater academic attention should be given to concepts of ethnicity and culture.

The Case for Ethnicity

Given that the biological contribution of group differences is minimal in comparison to the social and cultural, the concept of ethnicity, while also problematic, is less so than race. Ethnicity is also, broadly, associated with race and culture. At the turn of the 20^th century the term was used to describe those who were not European Christians and thus any large group which was considered barbaric, uncivilized, and impolite, or feral. Its origins carry connotations of territories and histories in an attempt to make culture and social institutions congruent (Gellner, 1983). In literature available from the 1950s and 1960s the term ethnicity was based on the minority groups in a society. This was calculated numerically and cultural minorities were termed ‘ethnic’. Prior to this, some groups of anthropologists and sociologists refused to use the word ‘ethnic’ due to possible implications of nonconformity. This is no longer the case. While the term is still problematic from an operational perspective, it no longer carries the same anachronistic connotations.

Erickson’s (1968) exploration of the psychosocial stages of development helped further the discussion of ego identity and ethnicity whereby Erickson argued that individuals explore their environments and seek novel experiences to learn about who and what they are, and often accept the identity which was discovered during this exploration process. Phinney, Cantu and Kurtz (1997) described ethnicity as a self-identification of belonging to a group as well as a social construct which involves the behaviors, attitudes and beliefs of that particular social group. Sheets (1999) posited that the development of ethnic identity was found when individuals share common features of identification which are distinctive from other groups. In all of these approaches, the creation, identification and internalization of an ethnic identity is a social psychological endeavor which can be impacted by the study-abroad experience. When one finds oneself to be an ethnic minority, the opportunity to reflect on one’s own ethnicity and differences between that ethnicity and the host’s ethnicity presents itself. It is through this comparison with others that ethnic identity is formed. In this sense, ethnic identity is a multidimensional concept which is based on an individual’s identification with a group’s behavior, history, culture, belief system and tradition (Lee, 2005) with little importance being placed on national identity or country of birth.

Ethnic identity is often determined by the individual based on their development, parental and societal influences, their culture and their sense of belonging to that particular group of people. While race is often determined by visual cues, ethnicity is determined by an individual based on their socialization, environment and experiences in life. A core distinguishing feature of ethnicity is that it often refers to groups of people who associate themselves with a particular unifying nationality, culture and language (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993). While the foundation of the word also finds its roots in ancient Greece, ethnicity is far more related to the nation, group or language with which one affiliates. In this sense, ethnicity is experienced as our ascribed identity. Once an individual has an identity linked to an ‘us’ and a ‘them’ solidarity among intragroup members grows, a network of social relationships among the ‘us’ grows and social bonds reinforce the perceived identity. This often results in exclusion, alienation and the creation of boundaries (ether physical or metaphysical) to separate ‘us’ and ‘them’. Often when groups begin the social comparisons implicit stereotyped assumptions are created and then disseminated. The result may be subjugation, alienation or intentional/unintentional micro-aggressions.

The human need to classify, categorize and otherwise organize our environment and community is exemplified by the acronym in ethnicity studies ‘VREG’ which stands for visibly recognized ethnicity groups. The mind conceptualizes new information, assimilating and accommodating this new information into pre-existing schemas. The characteristics which one uses to define one’s ethnicity are not fixed and are not based on biology or observable phenotype characteristics. The choice of the term ‘ethnic group’ or ‘ethnicity’, while problematic due to the connotations mentioned above, is more practical than the use of ‘Asian’ as a construct which appears in some literature on sociocultural student adjustment. The use of Asian as a variable for adjustment research becomes problematic in the sense that it carries near monolithic connotations of a homogenized and pan-ethnic group which must be parsed throughout the literature, thus rendering the results overgeneralized.

While ethnicity is difficult to measure, it is not historically fixed and is often based on individuals’ perception of themselves which is equally fluid. Ethnicity is a clear indicator of the group an individual identifies. Given that much of the international student adjustment research is conducted among college students – a group experimenting with and often searching for identity – and the resulting meaning of that identity, ethnicity can be chosen as an operating variable so as to elucidate the participants’ impressions of their adjustment experience from a more intimately personalized and thus inherently nuanced perspective. It is precisely because ethnicity is based on individual perceptions of belonging that it should be implemented in adjustment research. Essentially, due to the inherent fluidity of ethnicity, this self-identification of ethnicity is appropriate in the context of international student adjustment. Erickson’s (1968) research on identity formation discusses how environment influences the development of identity. Given that students’ sense of identity is often not fully developed during college (Arnett, 2000), the university environment can have an impact on the development of identity and sense of ethnic identity, particularly in prejudicial or racialized environments. The selection of ethnicity as an important dimension will provide for a more complete and accurate understanding of the dynamics which influence students’ sociocultural adjustment. Within the context of this article, international higher education in Thailand, the ethnic identity of international students as ethnic minorities deserves greater attention. Exploration of the role of ethnicity can lend to the understanding of group-specific and group-general processes and contribute to greater knowledge. Yet these terms can cloud the field of adjustment research with ambiguity as to the specific groups of people we are describing or attributing specific attitude, behavior or cognition sets to. It is the position of this article that the concept of ethnicity is best suited to function as the main focal area for intergroup comparison of the psychological phenomenon of sociocultural adjustment within the Asian, and more specifically Thai, setting.

Culture

Culture plays a significant role in human behavior both at the individual level and at the national level. This fact has been recognized by scholars as far back as Hippocrates (Dona, 1991). Yet, for all its history, the definition of culture still preoccupies cross-cultural psychologists, sociologists and many other areas of scholarly research. This is often because researchers who study culture fail to identify specific culture-related variables which predict behavior. Yet culture, race and ethnicity are often used to explain some psychological phenomena. Given the problematic nature of using terms such as race and ethnicity in research, culture became an alternative. This is particularly useful as race does not explain behavior, and ethnicity does not explain appearance or behavior.

There are many ways in which the word ‘culture’ is used, some of the most common being:

Descriptive: focusing on types of activities and behaviors associated with a group

Historical: refers to heritage and tradition associated with a group of people

Normative: rules and norms associated with a group of people

Psychological: focus on learning, problem solving and behavior

Structural: focus on societal and organizational elements of culture

Genetic: refers to origins of culture

Zapf (1991) proposed that culture “can be understood as a network of shared meanings that are taken for granted as reality by those interacting within the network” (p.105). The ‘shared meanings’ are the byproduct of the enculturation process which creates models for behavior. People behave in certain predicable patterns based on the agents of socialization within the culture they live in. These agents, be they religion, media, family education systems or government, shape the understanding of the people within that territory. Over time, patterns of thought, behavior, perception and basic ways of knowing and doing become normalized. This is not, though, a complete picture of culture. There has long been confusion regarding the definition of culture (Triandis et al., 1980). The argument that culture is taken for granted is problematic in that modern social theory acknowledges the agents of enculturation, and since the onset of globalization there has been regular public outcry regarding the erosion of culture, the influence of western culture and the impact of social media on traditional culture. Culture is created, taught in schools, reinforced in our social practices and workplace, and normed by laws and practices which become the standard of thought and behavior within the very domain which was responsible for its creation. From this perspective, individuals do not take culture for granted.

Pollock (2008) provided a definition along these lines which stated that culture is the pattern of behavior in an organization which describes the conduct of everyday life. Through this definition we can conceptualize culture as patterns of practices or norms which describe human behavior and interpretations of behavior. Pollock’s definition of culture meets the criteria for a corporate culture, organizational culture and perhaps familial culture. Several studies which have used Western-generated theories in non-Western settings have not succeeded in replicating the findings in the context of cross-national cultures. Hofstede theorized that these cultural differences could be broken down into dimensions which would help to predict behavior patterns among these groups. Further analysis of Hofstede’s work will be discussed in the next section.

Culture can also be seen as our schema for social behavior and interpretation. In this sense culture provides us with a cognitive schema. As we develop in our community we learn to assimilate and accommodate new situations into our schema and we adapt. As we learn and use culture it also becomes part of us in our habits and our cognitions. In this sense culture is difficult to comprehend as it is both within us and outside of our reflective awareness. The cross-cultural contact which is essential to any international student experience creates a collision of phenomenologies between the existing students and the visiting students. Culture is a construct but it constructs us and we construct it. While many people from a shared culture interpret the meanings of symbols or certain behaviors similarly, this is not the sole indicator of culture. A statue, flag, greeting or clothing style are elements of culture, but the behavioral aspect of culture is of primary interest in this study.

Used as variables, race, ethnicity and culture can lead to the understanding of group-specific and group-general processes and contribute to greater knowledge. Yet these terms, when used as variables, also cloud the study with ambiguity as to the specific groups of people to whom we are describing or attributing specific behavior sets. It is the position in this research that the concept of ethnicity is best suited to function as the main variable for intergroup comparison of the psychological phenomenon of sociocultural adjustment – in general, and given the focus of this article, within the Thai context in particular.

Ethnicity, Cultural Identity and Adjustment

A review of literature reveals that Asian international students encounter problems with adjusting to Western cultural norms and teaching styles, yet the scholarly literature available on the process of Asian students and African American students adjusting to the international student experience in Asia has not been addressed in sufficient detail. Social context and international student ethnicity are important variables in the adjustment experiences. Different ethnicities experience varying treatment depending on the culture and the history of the host nation with that group of people. An individual’s identity is dynamic by nature, yet two characteristics or aspects of our identity are our nationality and our ethnicity. While not all people identify themselves by their ethnicity, adolescence and early adulthood are an important time for identity formation, particularly for students of an ethnic minority group (Phinney & Ong, 2007). Individuals are often conceptualized and defined by others based on characteristics such as race, gender, language use, nationality and background. In much of the academic literature this can be seen in the participants’ demographics sections (Gargano, 2012). Therefore, avoiding the use of race as a construct for measurement, the inclusion of ethnic identity should be examined in relation to the participant’s sociocultural adjustment to Thailand. Given the problems currently facing Thai international higher education (Rhein, 2017) and that internationalization and globalization are two of the most important topics in educational administration, methods to recruit and maintain international students in these programs are of great value.

Summary

During the 20^th century researchers in the field of international education and student adjustment saw the rise of culture shock theory to the gradual development of multiple stage-based theories. From the U-curve model in 1960 to the W-curve in 1963 to the work of Adler in 1975, the conceptualization of cross-cultural adjustment was based on models which predicted a typical trajectory that sojourners would encounter. While the concept of culture shock continues to be a conceptual and explanatory reality of the experiences of many international students, these models of adjustment have not proven to be as accurate when subjected to empirical testing and research. The approaches to international student adjustment have gradually transitioned from the medical model to the psychological adaptation approach, which is more comprehensive and assumes acculturation is a process that gradually occurs over time as opposed to a shocking state in which travelers suddenly find themselves. It analyzes the process of actively learning to live in a culture as opposed to reactive subjugation. Early work by Bandura (1977) introduced social learning theory and Hofstede’s (1984) work on culture distance began the studies of cultural novelty and adjustment, where the greater the difference of culture between the country of origin and the host country, the more difficult adjustment becomes (Black & Mendenhall, 1991). The dissimilarity between social behavior deemed appropriate at home and in the host country is further support for the extent to which international students experience sociocultural adjustment anxiety and can become an impediment to proper adjustment. However, there is still no single theory which synthesizes relevant research on student adjustment processes. Therefore, educational institutions and researchers within this area would benefit if research were to proceed to identify the influence of specific variables on individuals’ adjustment and to actively address them when possible.

Much of the research on international student adjustment between 1996 and 2005 occurred in English-speaking universities in the United States, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand (Andrade, 2006). Knowledge and information regarding the variables which impact adjustment to international education in Asia, and Thailand in particular, is limited, yet teachers and service support staff within higher education institutions need to understand what factors are involved in international student perception of and reaction to Thailand, including student stress, anxiety, adjustment and their overall impression. Given the current scholarship available regarding the international student adjustment phenomena, it is imperative that alternative methodological frameworks consider the complexity of ethnicity and the resulting adjustment experience. Previous attempts at reaching conclusive findings regarding the process of adjustment, the unique causal or correlational relationships, have proven to be problematic. Attempts should be made to avoid the promulgation of one-size-fits-all policies and practices affecting these students. The curve models of adjustment lack support and have been dismissed by many of the leading scholars in adjustment research. These models do not reflect the reality of the sojourner experience and are limited in applicability, particularly in regard to short-term study experiences in Asia. Therefore, this article suggests a model which focuses on the impact of international students’ ethnic identity, cultural background, and social expectations of appropriate behavior, and the interaction with host nationals which results in the overall adjustment experience and perceptions of the host society and culture.

There remains insufficient attention to the full array of factors involved in international student adjustment to study in Asia. Therefore, the primary purpose of this article has been to explore an area of education where limited knowledge exists, namely, international students’ adjustment to Thailand. As most international students spend between 3-4 months in Thailand, research should seek to understand the high degree of variability among these international students. Given the wide range of international students Thailand recruits, and taking care to avoid the homogenization of all international student experiences and adjustment, further research would benefit from the inclusion of ethnic identity as a measure of consideration. Improving educational environments for international students and decreasing cross-cultural educational adjustment issues will benefit multiple stakeholders including students, international relations departments and university programs recruiting international students. An investigative analysis of student sociocultural adjustment experience can be utilized in many areas within the host country as well as in orientation sessions prior to student departure from their home country. Additionally, the process of eliminating or decreasing stressors should create a more positive learning and travel experience for international students within this context.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biography

Assistant Professor Douglas Rhein teaches psychology and media at Mahidol University International College in Nakhon Pathom, Thailand. He currently serves as chair of the social science division. Born in the United States, he attended university in the USA, Thailand, England and Australia, majoring in psychology and communications. He has lived in Thailand for over twenty years.

References

Adler

(1975). The transitional experience: An alternative view of cultural shock. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 15(4), 13–23.

Ahmad

A. L.

Noh

M. N. M.

Mohamad

E. M. W.

Mohd

R. H.

Salman

(2015). The Exploration of the Intercultural Adaptation of Malay Students in Australia and the United Kingdom. Jurnal Komunikasi, Malaysian Journal of Communication, 31(2), 389–403.

Altbach

P. G.

(2013). The Asian higher education century? The international imperative in higher education (pp. 143–147). SensePublishers, Rotterdam.

Chiang

S. Y.

(2015). International students’ culture learning and cultural adaptation in China. Journal of multilingual and multicultural development, 36(7), 661–676.

Andrade

(2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131–154.

Arends-Toth

J. V.

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2006). Issues in conceptualization and assessment of acculturation. In Bornstein

M. H.

Cote

L. R.

(Eds.), Acculturation and parent–child relationships: Measurement and development. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Berry

J. W.

(2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 697–712.

10.

Berry

J. W.

(2006). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In Sam

D. L.

Berry

J. W.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 43–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; UK

11.

Berry

J. W.

Kim

Power

Young

Bujaki

(1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38(2), 185–206.

12.

Berry

Sam

(1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In Berry

Segall

Kagitcibasi

(Eds.) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 3: Social Behavior and Applications (pp. 291–326). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

13.

Betancourt

López

S. R

. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48(6), 629.

14.

Black

J.S.

(1988). Work role transitions: a study of American expatriate managers in Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(2), 277–294.

15.

Black

J.S.

Mendenhall

(1991) The U-curve adjustment hypothesis revisited: A review and theoretical framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(2), 225–247.

16.

Bochner

McLeod

B. M.

Lin

(1977). Friendship patterns of overseas students: A functional model. International journal of psychology, 12(4), 277–294.

17.

Brown

Hinkle

Ely

P. G.

Fox-Cardamone

Maras

Taylor

L. A.

(1992). Recognizing group diversity: Individualist-collectivist and autonomous-relational social orientations and their implications for intergroup processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 327–342.

18.

Brown

Holloway

(2008). The initial stage of the international sojourn: Excitement or culture shock? British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 36(1), 33–49.

19.

Burns

R. B.

(1991). Study and stress among first year overseas students in an Australian university. Higher Education Research and Development, 10(1), 61–77.

20.

Chataway

C. J.

Berry

J. W.

(1989). Acculturation experiences, appraisal, coping, and adaption: A comparison of Hong Kong Chinese, French, and English students in Canada. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21(3), 295–309.

21.

Chirkov

V. I.

Safdar

de Guzman

Playford

(2008). Further examining the role motivation to study abroad plays in the adaptation of international students in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(5), 427–440.

22.

Choi

(1997). Korean students in Australian universities: Intercultural issues. Higher Education Research and Development, 16(3), 263–282.

23.

De Wit

. (2015). Recent trends and issues in international student mobility. International Higher Education, (59).

24.

Dona

(1991). Cross-cultural psychology as presaged by Hippocrates. Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 25(2).

25.

DuBois

“Culture shock” panel discussion; First Midwest Regional Meeting of the Institute of Internal Education;

1951 Nov 28; Chicago.

26.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

27.

Essed

Philomena

. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary Theory. London: Sage.

28.

Fritz

Chin

DeMarinis

(2008). Stressors, anxiety, acculturation and adjustment among international and North American students. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 244–259.

29.

Furnham

Bochner

(1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction, 1, 161–198.

30.

Furnham

(1993). Communicating in foreign lands: The cause, consequences and cures of culture shock. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 6(1), 91–109.

31.

Gargano

(2012). Grounded identities, transient lives: The emergence of international student voices in an era of cosmopolitan learning. Journal of International Students, 2(2), 144–156.

32.

Gellner

(1983). Nationals and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

33.

Greenland

Brown

(2005). Acculturation and contact in Japanese students studying in the United Kingdom. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(4), 373–390.

34.

Gullahorn

(1963). An extension of the U-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), 33–47.

35.

Hahn

R. A.

Truman

B. I.

Barker

N. D.

(1996). Identifying ancestry: the reliability of ancestral identification in the United States by self, proxy, interviewer, and funeral director. Epidemiology, 75–80.

36.

Hofstede

(1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(2), 81–99.

37.

Hornsey

M. J.

(2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222.

38.

Jacquard

(1996). Ein unwissenschaftlicher Begriff. Unesco-Kurier, 3, 18–21. as cited in Wodak

Reisigl

. (1999). Discourse and racism: European perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28(1), 175–199.

39.

Jung

Hecht

M. L.

Wadsworth

B. C.

(2007). The role of identity in international students psychological well-being in the United States: A model of depression level, identity gaps, discrimination and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(1), 605–624.

40.

Kim

(2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and crosscultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Knight

(2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of studies in international education, 8(1), 5–31.

42.

Kohatsu

E. L.

(2005). Acculturation: Current and future directions. In Carter

R. T.

(Ed.), Handbook of racial-cultural psychology and counseling: Theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 207–231). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

43.

Lee

R. M.

(2005). Resilience against discrimination: Ethnic identity and other-group orientation as protective factors for Korean Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 36–44.

44.

Lee

J. S.

Koeske

G. F.

Sales

(2004). Social support buffering of acculturative stress: A study of mental health symptoms among Korean international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(5), 399–414.

45.

Lee

P. C.

(2007). Family support as a factor in cultural adjustment. Journal of Business Systems, Governance, and Ethics, 2(2), 29–35.

46.

Gasser

M. B.

(2005). Predicting Asian international students’ sociocultural adjustment: A test of two mediation models. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(5), 561–576.

47.

Lin

S. S.

Kelsey

J. L.

(2000). Use of race and ethnicity in epidemiologic research: concepts, methodological issues, and suggestions for research. Epidemiologic reviews, 22(2), 187–202.

48.

Lundstedt

(1963). An introduction to some evolving problems in cross-cultural research. Journal of Social Issues, 19(3), l–9.

49.

Lysgaard

(1955). Adjustment in a foreign society: Norwegian Fulbright grantees visiting the United States. International Social Science Bulletin, 7, 45–51.

50.

McKenzie

K. J.

Crowcroft

N. S.

(1994). Race, ethnicity, culture, and science. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 309, 286–287.

51.

Memmi

. (1992). Rassismus. Hamburg: Eur. Verlagsanstalt. 227 pp. as cited in Wodak

Reisigl

. (1999). Discourse and racism: European perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28(1), 175–199.

52.

Mohamed

(1997). Counselling for excellence: Adjustment development of Southeast Asian students. In McNamara

Harris

(Eds.), Overseas students in higher education: Issues in teaching and learning. London: Routledge.

53.

Mossakowski

K. N.

(2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic identity protect mental health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 318–331.

54.

Nesdale

Todd

(1997). Promoting international contact between Australian and international university students. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 18(1), 61–76.

55.

Noh

Beiser

Kaspar

Hou

Rummens

(1999). Perceived racial discrimination, depression, and coping: A study of Southeast Asian refugees in Canada. Journal of health and social behavior, 193–207.

56.

Oberg

(1960). Culture shock: Adjustments to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7(4), 177–182.

57.

Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC). (2011). Foreign students in Thai higher education in 2010. Bangkok, Thailand: Office of the Higher Education Commission.

58.

Onwumechilia

Nwosub

Jackson

James-Hughes

(2003). In the deep valley with mountains to climb: Exploring identity and multiple reacculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(1), 41–62.

59.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), (2009). Education at a glance 2009. from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/25/43636332.pdf.

60.

OECD, (2016). PISA 201: Results in Focus. OECD Publications. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/PISA-2018-draft-frameworks.pdf on October 13, 2017.

61.

Pantelidou

Craig

(2006). Culture shock and social support: A survey of Greek migrant students. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41(10), 777–781.

62.

Phinney

J. S.

Cantu

C. L.

Kurtz

D. A.

(1997). Ethnic and American identity as predictors of self-esteem among African American, Latino, and White adolescents. Journal of Youth and adolescence, 26(2), 165–185.

63.

Phinney

J. S.

Ong

A. D.

(2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 271.

64.

Pollock

(Ed.). (2008). Everyday antiracism: Getting real about race in school. The New Press.

65.

Poyrazli

Lopez

M. D.

(2007). An exploratory study of perceived discrimination and homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. The Journal of Psychology, 141(3),263–280.

66.

Rhein

(2017). International higher education in Thailand: Challenges within a changing context. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 8(3), 281–298.

67.

Robertson

Line

Jones

Thomas

(2000). International students, learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 89–102.

68.

Rosenthal

Russell

Thomson

(2007). Social connectedness among international students at an Australian university. Social Indicators Research, 84(1), 71–82.

69.

Rujipak

Limprasert

(2016). International Students’ Adjustment in Thailand. ABAC Journal, 36(1), 34–46.

70.

Russell

Rosenthal

Thomson

(2010). The international student experience: Three styles of adaptation. Higher Education, 60(2), 235–249.

71.

Searle

Ward

(1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(4), 449–464.

72.

Sellers

R. M.

Shelton

J. N.

(2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(5), 1079.

73.

Sheets

R. H.

(1999). Human development and ethnic identity. Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human development, 91–101.

74.

Smith

R. A.

Khawaja

N. G.

(2011). A review of the acculturation experiences of international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(6), 699–713.

75.

Somekh

Lewin

(2005). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications.

76.

Steele

(2008). Perceptions of Chinese international students in Singapore: Adjustment issues and support (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

77.

Sumer

Poyrazli

Grahame

(2008). Predictors of depression and anxiety among international students. Journal of Counselling and Development, 86(4), 429–437.

78.

Swagler

Jome

(2005). The effects of personality and acculturation on the adjustment of North American sojourners in Taiwan. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 527–536.

79.

Swami

Arteche

Chamorro-Premuzic

Furnham

(2010). Sociocultural adjustment among sojourning Malaysian students in Britain: A replication and path analytic extension. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 45(1), 57–65.

80.

Tajfel

(1981), Human Groups and Social Categories, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

81.

Tajfel

Turner

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson–Hall.

82.

Torbiorn

(1982). Living abroad: Personal adjustment and personnel policy in the overseas setting. New York: Wiley.

83.

Townsend

Wan

(2007). The impact of multicultural experience in the development of sociocultural adaptation for international business students, International Journal of Educational Management. 21, (3), 194–212.

84.

Toyokawa

(2002). Extracurricular activities and the adjustment of Asian international students: A study of Japanese students. International journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(4), 363–379.

85.

Triandis

Lambert

Berry

Lonner

Heron

Brislin

Draguns

(1980). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vols. 1–6. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

86.

Triandis

H. C.

(1999). Cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 127–143.

87.

Trice

(2003). Faculty perceptions of graduate international students: The benefits and challenges. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(4), 379–403.

88.

United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization UNESCO (2009). Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution. A Report for the World Conference on Higher Education

89.

Wang

C. C. D.

Mallinckrodt

(2006). Acculturation, attachment, and psychosocial adjustment of Chinese/Taiwanese international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(4), 422–433.

90.

Ward

(1996). Acculturation. In Landis

Bhagat

R. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 124–147). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

91.

Ward

Bocher

Furnham

(2001). The psychology of culture shock (2nd ed.). Hove, East Sussex, UK: Routledge.

92.

Ward

Kennedy

(1992). Locus of control, mood disturbance and social difficulty during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 175–194.

93.

Ward

Kennedy

(1993). Where’s the “culture” in cross-cultural transition? Comparative studies of sojourner adjustment. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 24(2), 221–249.

94.

Ward

Kennedy

(1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 329–344.

95.

Ward

Kennedy

(1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 659–677.

96.

Ward

Okura

Kennedy

Kojima

(1998). The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transition. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(3), 277–291.

97.

Ward

Searle

(1991b). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15(2), 209–224.

98.

Ward

Rana-Deuba

(1999). Acculturation and adaptation revisited. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 30(4), 422–442.

99.

Ward

Rana-Deuba

(2000). Home and host culture influences on sojourner adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(3), 291–306.

100.

Williams

C. B.

Galanter

Dermatis

Schwartz

(2008). The importance of hopelessness among university students seeking psychiatric counseling. Psychiatric Quarterly, 79(4), 311–319.

101.

Wilson

, (2011). Fitting-in: Sociocultural Adaptation of International Graduate Students. Johnson & Wales University.

102.

Wong

Halgin

(2006). The “Model Minority”: Bane or blessing for Asian Americans? Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 34, 38–49.

103.

Yip

Gee

G. C.

Takeuchi

D. T.

(2008). Racial discrimination and psychological distress: the impact of ethnic identity and age among immigrant and United States-born Asian adults. Developmental psychology, 44(3), 787.

104.

Zapf

M. K.

(1991). Cross-cultural transitions and wellness: Dealing with culture shock. International journal for the advancement of counselling, 14(2), 105–119.

105.

Zhang

Brunton

(2007). Differences in living and learning: Chinese international students in New Zealand. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 124–140.

106.

Zhou

Jindal-Snape

Topping

Todman

(2008). Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 63–75.

107.

Zuckerman

(1990). Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial differences: Scientific, social, and ethical issues. American psychologist, 45(12), 1297.