Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to take a reflexive look at the cultural experiences of a group of overseas students studying at a business school in the North East of England. The paper uses Baudrillard's work on simulacra and simulation to challenge notions of second culture contact. Design/methodology/approach Using primary (i.e. interviews with 14 students and four staff) and secondary sources the paper investigates second culture contact truths associated with English higher education for a group of overseas students. To capture the richness of individual cultural experiences for these students and staff a qualitative approach in gathering empirical data is adopted. Findings First, it seems the mainstream literature that posits cultures as definable, distinct and measurable entities that can be acquired does not capture the complexity of cultural experiences as revealed by the individuals involved in this study. Second, the findings surface questions about the validity of what educators and students take for granted or perceive as “real” in regards to what it means to “be an English student” and the processes of “becoming an English student”. Third, the findings raise provocative questions about the process, content and context of curriculum to those responsible for developing and marketing international programmes. Practical implications Education as an international business means strategists, marketers and educators alike need to look closer at the way international programmes are developed, marketed and delivered both for viability and ethical reasons. Originality/value Engagement with Baudrillard's work on simulacra and simulation is a playful attempt to see higher education as third‐order simulacra. As an alternative lens in challenging second culture contact it offers interesting and novel insights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".