Transnational Landscapes of Opportunity? Post-graduation Settlement and Career Strategies of International Students in Toronto, Canada and London, UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the emerging issue of cities and countries competing for international students as part of market and talent-based economic development strategies. Based on case studies in London, UK and Toronto, Canada, this research draws on interviews with senior policy-makers as well as international students completing their overseas studies to examine three issues. First, this thesis investigates the process by which similar policies to attract and retain greater numbers of international students have been developed and introduced in both countries. Arguing that these policies are “mobile,” this thesis demonstrates how the competitive interconnectedness of policy-making leads to the transfer of policy ideas from one jurisdiction to another, while also recognizing the mediating role of institutions for contributing to continued geographic differences in the policy landscape regarding international education. Second, it examines the decision-making process for international graduate students upon the moment of graduation with regard to their settlement and employment strategies. Through a comparison of international students finishing advanced degrees in science and engineering in both sites, it reveals the extent to which students’ plans involve the complex intermingling of personal, professional and (im)migration regulation factors. The confluence of these factors tend to pull students in different geographic directions, indicating that the conventional ‘stay or return’ construct is too simplistic as a framework for understanding students’ future movements. Moreover, the comparison of students’ strategies in the two sites illustrates the differential effect of multi-scalar institutional frameworks in constructing certain types of migrant subjects. Third, this thesis investigates how career development strategies of international students differ according to broad disciplinary differences. Contrasting the career plans of graduating students in science, engineering, and art and design programs, this research finds that there are key differences in the socio-spatial career strategies held by international students in line with the differentiated knowledge bases literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".