Senior Lecturer in Intercultural Education at The University of Manchester, Zhuomin Huang, reimagines an inclusive HE environment beyond the dichotomy of ‘home’ and ‘international’ students.
In UK higher education (HE), the categories of ‘home’ and ‘international’ students are often taken for granted. These labels, designed for economic, political, and admission purposes, reflect tuition fees and visa policies. But do they really make sense when applied to teaching, learning, and student support? More importantly, do they foster or hinder inclusion and student belonging in today’s HE environment? What does the term ‘international students’ actually mean? Is ‘international’ just another word for ‘different’, a label that reinforces a sense of ‘othering’?
How did these labels come to be?
The distinction between home and overseas students was introduced in 1967 when the UK government imposed differentiated fee rates, which was further reinforced in the 1980s with full tuition fees for international students (Hayes, 2017). The policies have created differing, othering conditions for international students, segregating them from home students within the uneven landscape of university internationalisation in the UK (ibid). Over time, these economically – and politically – driven categories became deeply embedded in university structures and the general perception of student bodies.
What started as a financial and political distinction has since influenced how universities think about students academically and socially. But should these economically-driven categories define learning, student belonging, and the higher education landscape?
The ‘Home’ vs. ‘International’ binary
The terms ‘home’ and ‘international’ suggest neat, separate groups. However, the reality is far more complex. ‘International’ students are not a homogenous group – some are fluent English speakers, some have studied in UK education systems before, and their goals for studying in the UK vary widely (Huang, 2022). Similarly, ‘home’ students come from diverse backgrounds, including new migrants, individuals from underrepresented groups, asylum seekers, neurodivergent learners, and those with diverse linguistic resources and cultural experiences.
Relying on the simplistic, rigid labels risks reducing students to their passport status rather than recognising the diverse ways they engage with learning. Instead of assuming that all ‘international’ students struggle with ‘UK academic culture’, or that all ‘home’ students feel naturally at home in it, universities might benefit from more flexible, inclusive approach.
The problem with pedagogical nationalism
A key challenge is the dominance of ‘pedagogical nationalism’, or what scholars critique as ‘methodological nationalism’ (e.g. Chernilo, 2011), which assumes that nationality or culture predominantly shapes student learning experiences. This leads to essentialist generalisations about the so-called ‘home’ and ‘international’ students, overlooking the diverse backgrounds and shared transitioning and learning experiences of both groups. It perpetuates problematic assumptions that international students struggle with academic skills, while home students do not; or that home students are monocultural and monolingual, lacking intercultural competence, while international students are the opposite.
Instead of focusing on where students are from, universities should consider inclusive frames that prioritise how students learn and contribute. For instance, viewing students as ‘HE dwellers‘ (Huang & Cockayne, 2023) highlights their ability to connect with and contribute to shared learning environments, regardless of origin. Emphasising ‘intercultural personhood’ (Huang, 2021) recognises the fluid, evolving, and hybrid nature of student identities beyond fixed labels, and their sense of belonging that transcends national/cultural boundaries. Additionally, developing a scholarship of ‘student knowledge’ (Huang and Cockayne, under review) positions students as agentive knowledge producers rather than just consumers, creating knowledge relevant to their own interests and experiences.
Final thoughts: reimagining inclusion and belonging in higher education
The prevailing narrative around ‘international’ students often frames them as outsiders needing to adapt to the norms of UK HE. But this raises a fundamental question: should the focus be on how they adapt to UK HE, or should we be reflecting on whether UK HE itself needs to evolve – its pedagogies, conceptualisations of students, and frames for belonging?
True inclusion requires more than just providing extra support to ‘international’ students – it requires reimagining how UK HE is structured to serve all students equitably, rather than reinforcing exclusion. This could involve:
- Recognising that all students, regardless of origin, face academic, social, and cultural transitions – not just those from abroad
- Moving beyond politically/economically-driven, essentialist categories to create a more fluid, agentive, inclusive vision of student identity
- Viewing all students as part of a dynamic, interconnected learning community, regardless of their passport status
- Moving away from using ‘international’ as shorthand for ‘different’ or ‘others’. In today’s global higher education landscape, isn’t every student, in some sense, ‘international’?
The current climate of UK HE has revealed the fragility of a system that heavily relies on international fees, raising questions about whether universities should rethink traditional labels and diversify how they conceptualise and structure student identities and experiences. This shift can enhance their resilience and relevance in the evolving global HE landscape. By moving from migration-centric to learning-centred models, categories like ‘home’ and ‘international’ students may no longer serve as dominant labels, instead becoming one of many influences that shape how we understand and support students.
What do you think? Should UK HE continue relying on the traditional categories of ‘home’ and ‘international’ students in pedagogy and student support, or is it time to decentre and unlearn these labels and to create more inclusive frameworks that truly support belonging for all students? How can universities move beyond outdated binaries in practice?
Zhuo Min Huang is a Senior Lecturer in Intercultural Education at The University of Manchester in England. Her research interests involve: intercultural education, intercultural ethics, epistemic injustice, intercultural mindfulness, intercultural personhood, and creative methods.
References:
- Chernilo, D. (2011). The critique of methodological nationalism: Theory and history. Thesis eleven, 106(1), 98-117.https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513611415789
- Hayes, A. (2017) Why international students have been “TEF-ed out”?,Educational Review, 69(2), 218-231.https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1197183
- Huang, Z. M. (2021). Intercultural personhood: A non-essentialist conception of individuals for intercultural research. Language and Intercultural Communication, 21(1), 83-101.https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2020.1833898
- Huang, Z. M. (2022). A critical understanding of students’ intercultural experience: non-essentialism and epistemic justice.Intercultural Education,33(3), 247-263.https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2022.2069393
- Huang, Z. M., & Cockayne, H. (2023). Searching for belonging: learning from students’ photographs about their higher education experiences. London Review of Education, 21(1), 27.https://doi.org/10.14324/LRE.21.1.27
- Huang, Z. M & Cockayne, H. (under-review) Photography as a methodological third-space: Student knowledge about their material and embodied place-making.
