Integration aspiration

It is evident that weak integration among international students may be caused by a lack of integration aspiration. Aspiration can be seen as a form of ‘attitude’ (Carling, 2014). Eagly and Chaiken state that aspiration is ‘a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour’. Some literature also utilizes the term ‘motivation for integration’, as defined by Kim (2001), looking at the extent to which migrants are willing to make efforts to participate and adapt into the host environment.

In this research, aspiration for integration is defined as the drive to take the necessary action to become an active and competent member of the host society. This may occur through various activities, such as language learning, socializing with host nationals, finding job opportunities, and so on.

Based on this integration aspiration is conceptualized in several interrelated ways, which may be applicable to international student mobility. First, integration aspiration is seen as an interplay between the migrants’ own characteristics and the characteristics of the place. As mentioned by Carling and Schewel (2018), the value of living in a specific place depends on both the characteristics of that place, and its interplay with the individuals’ needs and preferences. The host society is an important part of the living environment, especially in relation to the local socio- cultural environment, living atmosphere, economic and political situations, and welcoming attitude towards migrants. Migrants’ spatial preferences and geographical imaginaries come into touch with reality when they arrive and begin to live in a new destination country. The interplay between the characteristics of that place and the

49

migrants’ own preferences will ultimately shape their wellbeing and impact on their aspirations for integration.

Second, integration aspiration can also be examined from life-course perspectives. The timing of migration may have effects for experiencing other events and how further life courses unfold (Wingens, Windzio, Valk, & Aybek, 2011). Migration not only carries instrumental values, such as personal security, work opportunities or family reunion, but can also be valued intrinsically, such as the experience, adventure, and independence that come with migration (Carling, 2014; Carling & Schewel, 2018). The question whether or not the migrants are in the life stages of planning to settle down, developing a stable relationship and building a family unit, or still of the age of preferring adventure, exploration and experience, has huge impacts on their integration aspiration. After arrival in the receiving country the outcomes of incorporation processes are closely linked to the various factors emphasized in the sociological life course approach, such as transitions, path- dependence, timing, sequencing, and so on. (Wingens et al., 2011) Integration aspiration is thus closely related to the timing of migration, since migrants who still accept and favor adventure, exploration and experience may have less aspiration to integration due to changes in their future plans. By contrast, those who prefer to settle down and favor personal security may have higher integration aspiration if the characteristics of places suit their own preferences.

Third, integration aspiration can be explored from the perspective of opportunity costs. Migrants have a choice of investing more time in certain aspects of integration over others, especially regarding the comparative socio-economic and socio-political opportunities that influence their personal and career prospects. The concept of ‘opportunity cost’ has been employed and explained by Samuelson (1951) as ‘some of the most important costs attributable to doing one thing rather than another stem from the foregone opportunities that have to be sacrificed in doing this one thing’. Similarly, migrants may, for instance, choose to improve their skills in the local language to integrate more, but realize that the cost of learning the local language can be thought of as time sacrificed that could be spent on learning other skills (e.g. computer programming) or doing other things that are deemed beneficial for their wellbeing, and personal and professional development. Comparion of opportunity cost is ultimately shaped by the migrants’ personal and professional aspirations that favors certain aspects of integration over other important matters.

Finally, integration aspiration may be understood as a comparison of places. People’s notions of their future prospects are largely dependent on a socio-culturally and economic existing entity that allows them to fulfill particular expectations. The

impact of the institutional contexts in the country of origin, destination, and other potential migration countries shapes the migrants’ integration and future migration aspirations. Migrants’ integration aspiration is also mediated and conditioned by integration infrastructure in the host country, which may be country or region specific. The socio-economic situation in one place as compared to others, shapes the migrants’ potential for making a living and building their future careers. If, for instance, the glass ceiling for career development is too strong for non-native populations, or the attitude against recruiting migrant background populations prevails within the mainstream society, it can have a potentially negative impact on the migrants’ future outlook, and subsequently, on their aspiration for integration.