Dr Sherrie Lee | Tag: policy

I’ve been reading the draft policy statement on high-value international education in New Zealand which aims to define what ‘high value’ means and minimise risks. Reading between the lines, the policy is responding to the growth of ‘low value’ and ‘high risk’ international education in the past decade or longer, most visible in the sub-degree courses with majority international student enrolments, marketed by off-shore agents as study pathways to residency. The message seems to be international education must not be seen as a ticket to residency, or some sort of back-door entry into the land of milk and honey.

Low value, high risk edu-migration

The international students who come through this promised study to residency route may not have optimal attitudes toward study as they have their eye on the prize of migration. But if they’ve been sold a dream, including the ‘package deal’ of work rights as a student, minimum wage, and jobs in demand, then study is really a means to an end – legitimised by a burgeoning edu-migration business and success stories.

The ‘low value’ of this type of international education translates into misaligned academic goals between the institution and student, but actually very high value in terms of international student fees earned, and the investment the student puts towards the edu-migration course of action, with immediate gains for agents. The ‘high risk’ is played out in the over-reliance of institutions on fee-paying students as a business model, blurred lines between legitimate academic programmes and programmes designed to encourage unrealistic study to residence pathways, but more alarmingly, the labour exploitation of international students.

A news report from 2016 illustrates the ‘low value’ and ‘high risk’ type of international education that I’m describing. The focus is on labour exploitation of an international student but the backstory of why and how the student gets to New Zealand, and the survival issues he is constantly facing, demonstrate the tragic consequences of market forces and policy loopholes. Only recently was there a Temporary Migrant Worker Exploitation review which was prompted in part by numerous cases of labour exploitation of international students. This has resulted in new measures of greater compliance and enforcement, but also a practical way-out for those caught in these situations (there’s a new visa to support migrants to leave exploitative situations quickly and remain lawfully in New Zealand).

The new draft policy statement

So it comes as no surprise that the draft policy now refutes the suggestion that international students can take low level courses as a way to gain residency as that ‘weakens the integrity of the immigration system’. Instead, international students should be coming to New Zealand for “high-quality programmes in New Zealand’s areas of excellence”, have sufficient academic ability to succeed, enjoy their educational experience, and then what? With the idea that guaranteed pathways to residency is somewhat reprehensible, we are left to assume that genuine international students who are focused on studying should be expected to leave New Zealand after they finish.

Putting aside the scenario of rogue agents selling the international education residency dream, this expectation seems unrealistic. As a former international student, and having done research in the area and moved in international education circles for several years, there is an implicit if not explicit hope among many students to at least entertain the possibility of making a new life in their destination country. In fact, it is the possibility of working and living in the destination country that makes the country an attractive study destination. The 2019 IDP international student survey results bear out these sentiments, revealing Canada as the most desired destination. This is no surprise given Canada’s immigration policy has been closely linked to international education for many years, with the latest news reiterating and strengthening that stance – a welcome signal for many prospective students across the globe.

Fortunately, the piece on high-value education does not drop the ball on study to residence pathways, but there are clearly favoured groups: i) those in in sub-degree programmes that are linked to domestic labour needs, and ii) post-graduate and professional degree students “who increase New Zealand’s long-term human capital and labour productivity”. So reading between the lines once again, if I’m doing an arts or some non-professional degree or a sub-degree in a subject that has not been classified as meeting domestic needs, I’m not valuable enough to be considered a potential worker or migrant. And I should go home once I’m done with my study.

Looking ahead: Challenges and opportunities

While specific criteria for ‘high-value’ international students may be justified, I wonder if we’re missing out on those ‘undefined’ categories of international students who may be pursuing various areas of interest and who may prove to be just as valuable human capital in the long run. If they are able to find meaningful work in New Zealand after graduation, what’s our attitude towards them? If our population stagnation stats and projections remain true (eg, two-thirds of the country’s regions would be in a state of population stagnation or decline by 2040), then perhaps we should expand our criteria for study to residence pathways, and actually be upfront about study to residence pathways..

More critically, however, international education policies, immigration policies, labour needs, and population trends are so intertwined that they need to work together to inform a robust international education vision and roadmap for the future. No doubt there has been ongoing research attempting to pull together these various strands. Some reports I’ve come across include:

i) Moving places: Destinations and earnings of international graduates published by the Ministry of Education in February 2017

ii) Immigration and Labour Market Outcomes of International Tertiary Students published in March 2018 by the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment

iii) What happens to international students who remain in New Zealand after getting a degree? published in August 2021 by Universities New Zealand

I look forward to reading more about how we can match up international education with growth industries and look further ahead rather than just meeting immediate labour shortage needs.

A ‘high-value international education’ will need to address a range of aspirations held by prospective students. While many international students may only be interested in an overseas education experience and no more, there are just as many, if not more, who are deeply invested in the possibility of study to residence pathways. In both cases, I think demonstrating strong links between a New Zealand education and meaningful work opportunities, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, is going to be critical. And if we are serious about having international students contribute to our current and future labour needs and population growth, then we need to be fully cognizant of push-pull factors, manage expectations, and think global and long term.

5 years ago, I took a leap of faith to start a new life in Aotearoa New Zealand. I had a vision of being part of a uniquely multicultural society – one which honours its indigenous culture and heritage, and offers hospitality and friendship to others from different backgrounds. It sounds hyperbolic and naively idealistic when I say it out loud to a sceptical audience, (my readers included). It seems far-fetched compared to my everyday interactions that categorise me as ‘international’, ‘foreign’, ‘migrant’, ‘ethnic’ and even ‘exotic’. Yet, it is this vision that gives me hope and a purpose for my new life. It prompts me to interrogate what these labels mean to me, to others doing the labelling, and experiment with what I can do with these labels. I share my journey as an academic, a migrant service provider, and a policy advisor, and conclude at a tentative destination called cultural intelligence.

The ‘International’

I stated my new life as a PhD student, but was also several other personas: an international student, a mid-career professional, a mother of school-going children, a partner to a stay-home parent, a novice scholar, a Southeast Asian Chinese. At times, it felt like I was living out the theory of intersectionality. I was predominantly concerned with being a ‘scholar’, but my other labels seemed more pertinent. While I was intent on proving my intellectual credentials in a passive-aggressive academic environment, I was mostly treated as an ‘international’. I was ‘international’ according to student records, orientation, welcome morning teas, and support groups. And although rarely articulated, embedded in being ‘international’ was also being ‘Chinese’ – I suppose my fair skin and black hair gave me away – but also that I was from a singular place of origin. One memory of being identified as Chinese sticks firmly in my mind: After introducing myself as ‘Sherrie’, I was asked, ‘But what is your real name?’ In this instance, the question came from a genuine regard for my cultural background, but similar questions from others have had a cumulative effect of ‘othering’ to which I have an ambivalent response till today.

But one wonders if all that was achieved was mild curiosity or polite indifference about these ‘foreign bodies’ floating about on campus – scholars, students, parents, professionals, women and men of some unfamiliar culture, colour and creed.
The ‘International’

Of course, the scholar in me was railing about (in silence but sometimes in more measured tones) the irony of the university as a critic and conscience of society, that is, to question prejudice and preconception. But one wonders if all that was achieved was mild curiosity or polite indifference about these ‘foreign bodies’ floating about on campus – scholars, students, parents, professionals, women and men of some unfamiliar culture, colour and creed. I was provoked enough to set aside my actual PhD research topic, and put together a presentation about international doctoral students as diaspora academics after reading Wendy Larner’s conceptual framing of diasporic academics (Geoforum, 2015) and Taha Kukutai and Arama Rata’s chapter ‘From mainstream to Manaaki: Indigenising our approach to immigration’ in Fair borders? Migration policy in the twenty-first century (BWB, 2017). This was presented to a crowd of curious onlookers at the 2017 NZARE (New Zealand Association for Research in Education) Conference, and received words of affirmation from a couple of respected Māori scholars. I was encouraged by the response, but also walked back into the world of troubling intersectionality.

The ‘Migrant’

Fast forward towards the end of my PhD journey and I was ready to start the next phase of my new life – being employed. My grand illusions about being an academic championing constructive discourses of cultural diversity were tested against the local academic job market. After a string of rejections, and numerous self-doubting reflections, my conclusion was that I simply did not have a research area in demand, nor did I have potential sponsors, and I was either not ready for academia on this side of the world, or they were not ready for me.

Just as one door closed, however, another opened. An opportunity to provide new migrants with work-ready skills came through a phone call just as I read yet another job application rejection email. I wasn’t ready to give up academia, but neither was I ready to be jobless. The offer of a fixed term role as a career development consultant with Work Connect was not just attractive as paid work, especially compared to those long hours of unpaid labour of academic writing! It was a privilege to be helping marginalised communities, and to put my cherished theories on brokering and culturally-embedded social interactions to the test.

This non-academic service-oriented world also offered its own set of labels. ‘Migrant’ was the ‘official’ word for newcomers to the country seeking employment or business opportunities. Soon, I was introduced to other labels such as ‘diverse’, ‘ethnic’ and ‘inclusive’. A few months into the job, I was physically out of academia having cleared out my office and attended graduation. But there was little hope in taking the academic out from me. Thoughts about what those words meant to me, to those they seem to refer to, and to those who used them, started to stir up my restless mind.

One of the troubling thoughts I had was related to my own career progression. My fixed term role would have an end date and I needed to move on to something more permanent. As much as I loved the work I was doing, and the people I worked with and worked for, I knew career consulting was not the path for me. After talking to several contacts working in policy and government agencies, and getting positive feedback on a small policy-related project for work, I was convinced that policy was a respectable thing for a PhD graduate to do.

The personas I owned, and those placed upon me, didn’t seem to translate into a policy person. I wasn’t white, I wasn’t schooled in Wellington, I didn’t do the hard yards in Parliament, I had no inkling of the machinery of government.
The ‘Migrant’

But as I looked through the job descriptions and looked at profiles of policy folk on LinkedIn, my labels were starting to fail me. The personas I owned, and those placed upon me, didn’t seem to translate into a policy person. I wasn’t white, I wasn’t schooled in Wellington, I didn’t do the hard yards in Parliament, I had no inkling of the machinery of government. Some of my contacts suggested I look at work relating to supporting migrants. My first reaction was one of indignation. Did my ‘migrant’ label restrict me to ‘migrant’ work? When I shared my reaction with others, they assured me it was meant as a reference to my particular expertise.

I still hold on to my suspicion that ‘migrant’ / ‘ethnic’ / ‘diverse’ labels have a whole lot of baggage attached to it. And yet, I take those labels and wear them with pride, being unabashed for intersecting layers of who I am and who people make me out to be. The biggest challenge for me was to translate who I was and curate a novel persona that was worth hiring as a policy person.

The ‘Advisor’

Fast forward to where I am right now – a senior advisor in operational policy – a long label which belies my actual work of facilitating consensus building processes among different teams, levels and personalities. It is not a role that has any ‘migrant’ labels attached to it, and the one label which apparently trumped all others in the selection process was one which I had not even thought about – ‘connector’. This was both refreshing and concerning. I was delighted not to have the typical labels plastered all over me, but I seemed to be entering a new world of new words – and new expectations.

The initial period of ‘settling in’ was a roller coaster ride of feeling a loss of identity without my usual labels, and an uncertainty of what other labels to go by. I found myself wondering if I would have been happier with a ‘migrant’ role, and wondering if those convictions of doing policy work was another grand illusion waiting to disintegrate. The turning point for me came in the form of yet another set of labels called Clifton Strengths. Taking part in the individual Strengths Finder exercise and having a team workshop to examine each others’s strengths provided me a new vocabulary to make sense of people and labels. And true to the ‘connector’ label others placed on me, my number one Clifton Strength is connectedness. Knowing my #1 and other core strengths helped me clarify my life purpose. My vision was rekindled, and the labels I both cherished and loathed were refreshed.

As an advisor, fostering productive relationships and contributing to decision-making processes are key to putting policy into practice.
The ‘Advisor’

I now feel emboldened to take whatever labels are presented to me and test them out. For now, let’s call it cultural intelligence (CQ) or the ability to relate and work effectively with people from different social and cultural backgrounds. To me, this is the heart of policy work if policy is to have any positive benefit for its intended audience. As an advisor, fostering productive relationships and contributing to decision-making processes are key to putting policy into practice.

I’m also starting to realise that I have evolved, and will continue to evolve, in what labels I use, reuse and refuse. I know I haven’t even begun to question the use of labels in the first place. And honestly, I don’t even know where to begin since I have lived with labels all my life. But instead of being frustrated at inaccurate or incomplete labels, I’ll start by testing out new and more complex labels for myself.

Tag: policy

International education – Not just an experience but the possibility of a new life

Living and thriving with labels: A journey towards cultural intelligence

The ‘International’

The ‘Migrant’

The ‘Advisor’