Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Amid storied, shared, and envisioned lives : a narrative inquiry of undergraduate exchange students in… Kang, Jeong-Ja 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2016_september_kang_jeongja.pdf [ 2.09MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0305723.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0305723-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0305723-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0305723-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0305723-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0305723-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0305723-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

AMID STORIED, SHARED, AND ENVISIONED LIVES: A NARRATIVE INQUIRY OF UNDERGRADUATE EXCHANGE STUDENTS IN AND BETWEEN CANADA AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA by JEONG-JA KANG B.A., Korea University, 1998 M.Ed., Korea University, 2010 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Educational Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) June 2016 ©  Jeong-Ja Kang, 2016   ii  Abstract Despite the growth in the number of participants in exchange programs, exchange students in and between Canada and the Republic of Korea (Korea) have received very little academic attention. To explore student motivations as well as their transnational experiences and their reflections on these experiences, I examined the lives of nine undergraduate exchange students between Canada and Korea, employing a narrative inquiry methodology. Idiosyncratic vignettes of these students’ disjunctures from their home country and multidirectional practices in their host country were analyzed through the theoretical lenses of global flows, cultural and neoliberal globalization, and social imaginaries in the Thirdspace (Soja, 1996, 2009). For the nine exchange students, embarking on an overseas exchange emerged from interactions between global flows and their localities. For these students, going on an exchange was an opportunity not only to be freed from their home country and its many stresses, but also to become equipped with a competitive edge as a global talent. Throughout these engagements with foreignness, they gradually enhanced their critical awareness of pedagogical, cultural, and spatial differences, even if their embrace of otherness was often limited due to their identity as temporary sojourners in the host country. Since exchange programs are based on official agreements between home and host universities, administrative terrains were examined and unequal relationships between universities in Anglophone countries and Korean universities emerged. Arguing that current exchange programs between Canadian and Korean universities have reinforced contemporary social inequality, this study recommends creating more inclusive exchange programs by interjecting diversity into the selection criteria and offering shared spaces where exchange students can interact with local students in their academic, relational, and cultural arenas. iii  Preface  This dissertation is original work attributable to the author, J. Kang. The findings of this study have not appeared in publication. This study was approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Certificate number H15-00543).  iv  Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... x Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1 1.1   Background to the Topic ............................................................................................... 1 1.2   Research Purpose and Questions................................................................................... 4 1.3   Theoretical Landscapes ................................................................................................. 7 1.4   Research Design ...........................................................................................................11 1.5   Clarification of Terms ................................................................................................. 12 1.6   Overview of the Dissertation....................................................................................... 15 Chapter 2: Theoretical Landscapes ........................................................................................... 18 2.1   Globalization ............................................................................................................... 18 2.1.1   Landscapes of global flows ............................................................................... 19 2.1.2   Neoliberal globalization .................................................................................... 25 2.1.3   Cultural globalization ........................................................................................ 30 2.2   Social Imaginaries ....................................................................................................... 33 2.3   Thirdspace ................................................................................................................... 38 2.4   Summary ..................................................................................................................... 44 Chapter 3: Reflections on Contexts and Literature ................................................................. 45 3.1   Internationalization and Exchange Programs in Canada and Korea ........................... 45 3.1.1   The internationalization of higher education in Canada and Korea .................. 46 v  3.1.2   Exchange programs of universities in Canada and Korea ................................. 52 3.2   Conditions and Motivations of International Students ................................................ 56 3.2.1   Who moves? ...................................................................................................... 56 3.2.2   Why move? ........................................................................................................ 59 3.3   Transnational Experiences and Performances of International Students .................... 63 3.3.1   How to territorialize? ......................................................................................... 63 3.3.2   What is achieved? .............................................................................................. 68 3.4   Gaps in the Literature on Exchange Students ............................................................. 73 3.5   Summary ..................................................................................................................... 76 Chapter 4: Methodological Approach ....................................................................................... 78 4.1   Narrative and the Narrative Inquirer ........................................................................... 78 4.1.1   What is a narrative? ........................................................................................... 79 4.1.2   What is my paradigmatic approach as a narrative inquirer? ............................. 80 4.1.3   How does narrative inquiry align with my research? ........................................ 84 4.2   Procedural Phases of Narrative Inquiry ...................................................................... 87 4.2.1   A journey into the field ...................................................................................... 87 4.2.2   Being among the narratives ............................................................................... 92 4.2.3   Interweaving narratives ..................................................................................... 95 4.3   Summary ................................................................................................................... 100 Chapter 5: Being on a Threshold of Storied Lives ................................................................. 101 5.1   Prelude: Shinbi’s Story .............................................................................................. 103 5.2   Idiosyncratic Local Terrains ...................................................................................... 106 5.2.1   Socio-economic and familial spheres .............................................................. 106 5.2.2   Academic and linguistic spheres ...................................................................... 111 5.2.3   Gendered and ethnic spheres ............................................................................116 5.2.4   Administrative spheres .....................................................................................119 5.3   A Torrent of Globalization ........................................................................................ 123 5.4   At the Intersection of the Local and the Global ........................................................ 132 5.4.1   Social imaginaries of an overseas exchange .................................................... 132 5.4.2   Social imaginaries of home and host countries ............................................... 137 vi  5.5   Summary ................................................................................................................... 147 Chapter 6: Shared Lives in the Academic Thirdspace .......................................................... 149 6.1   Prelude: Haram’s Story ............................................................................................. 151 6.2   Navigation in-between Strangeness and Familiarity ................................................. 156 6.3   Negotiating in-between Challenges and Advantages ................................................ 165 6.4   Exploration in-between Meaningfulness and Disappointment ................................. 174 6.5   Summary ................................................................................................................... 183 Chapter 7: Shared Lives in the Relational and Cultural Thirdspace .................................. 185 7.1   Prelude: The Stories of Gangin and Angela .............................................................. 187 7.2   In the Relational Thirdspace ..................................................................................... 191 7.2.1   Inclusion and exclusion ................................................................................... 191 7.2.2   Embracing otherness ........................................................................................ 205 7.3   In the Cultural Thirdspace ......................................................................................... 212 7.3.1   Embodied enunciations .................................................................................... 212 7.3.2   Culinary and apparel practices ........................................................................ 219 7.4   Summary ................................................................................................................... 230 Chapter 8: Lives Afterward ..................................................................................................... 232 8.1   Prelude: Erica’s Story ................................................................................................ 234 8.2   Values of the Exchange Experience .......................................................................... 238 8.3   Imaginaries of Lived Places and Places to Live ........................................................ 246 8.3.1   Canada and Korea as imagined and lived spaces ............................................ 247 8.3.2   Where to live and how to live .......................................................................... 258 8.4   Reflections on the Exchange Program ...................................................................... 264 8.5   Summary ................................................................................................................... 270 Chapter 9: Revisiting the Exchange Journey of Nine Narrators ......................................... 272 9.1   Summary of the Research ......................................................................................... 272 9.2   Discussion of the Findings ........................................................................................ 276 9.2.1   Theoretical considerations ............................................................................... 276 9.2.2   Contributions to the literature on international students ................................. 280 vii  9.2.3   Contributions to the narrative inquiry methodology ....................................... 286 9.3   Implications and Recommendations ......................................................................... 288 9.3.1   Recommendations for policy implementers .................................................... 288 9.3.2   Recommendations for future research ............................................................. 296 9.4   Epilogue .................................................................................................................... 298 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 302 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 332 Appendix A: Invitation letter for participants (English) ...................................................... 332 Appendix B: Invitation letter for participants (Korean) ....................................................... 333 Appendix C: Demographic form (English) .......................................................................... 334 Appendix D: Demographic form (Korean) .......................................................................... 335 Appendix E: Consent form for participants (English) ......................................................... 336 Appendix F: Consent form for participants (Korean) .......................................................... 338 Appendix G: Interview protocol for participants (English) ................................................. 340 Appendix H: Interview protocol for participants (Korean) .................................................. 342  viii  List of Tables  Table 1   Demographic Profile of the Nine Participants ............................................................ 91 Table 2   Motivation Profile of the Nine Participants .............................................................. 102 Table 3   Academic Thirdspace of the Nine Participants ......................................................... 150 Table 4   Relational and Cultural Thirdspace of the Nine Participants .................................... 186 Table 5   Reflections on the Exchange Experience .................................................................. 233    ix  List of Abbreviations CU Canada University (pseudonym) DU Daehan University (pseudonym) EMI English Medium Instruction EU European Union GPA Grade Point Average HU Hankuk University (pseudonym) IHE Internationalization of Higher Education IMF International Monetary Fund LGBTQ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer MU Minkuk University (pseudonym) OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PU Palhae University (pseudonym) SNSs Social Networking Services TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language WTO World Trade Organization   x  Acknowledgements I first would like to convey my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Amy Scott Metcalfe, and committee members, Dr. Thomas Sork and Dr. Michelle Stack. I especially thank Dr. Metcalfe for her continuous and strong support by providing me with an opportunity to learn under her supervision and by offering academic guidance and psychological encouragement at each phase of the doctoral journey. I also appreciate Dr. Sork and Dr. Stack for their insightful feedback and scholarly advice of my doctoral study. I am also grateful to Dr. Kiyong Byun, who has guided me from my master’s program at Korea University and promoted my intellectual potential throughout my doctoral sojourn from afar.  I am deeply indebted to the nine participants of this study, Angela, Bella, Erica, Gangin, Haram, Katy, Maru, Sarang, and Shinbi (pseudonyms). Without them, this study would not be possible. These nine students not only shared their rich and meaningful stories but also provided me with valuable chances to reflect on my own life as an international doctoral student in and between Canada and Korea.  My special thanks go to my study buddies, Hyera Byean and Hyejin Lee. These two smart Korean study mothers motivated me to pursue this challenging route, sharing common concerns, enlightenments, and aspirations as incoming researchers and as educational professionals. I appreciate Dr. Romee Lee and Dr. Ee-Seul Yoon for their academic advice and encouragement along this journey. I also thank Michaela Lee and Peter Yoon for their spiritual guidance. I appreciate the Volcano Meeting members for their warm support. I thank my lovely cohort members, Sharon, Claudia, Neila, Kari, Asheley, and Jennifer. While learning with them, I could trigger intellectual curiosity and nurture intercultural sentiment. I thank my dedicated editor Erin Williams for her sincere copyediting of my dissertation. xi  My heartfelt gratitude goes to my husband, Jeonghee Park, and my adorable children, Seonghyun, Jinhyung, and Supin. Thanks to their passionate love and ongoing emotional support, I could fulfill my lifelong dream. I deeply appreciate my mother, Jaesun Kim, and my father, Seongkwon Kang, for their affectionate encouragement and financial support, which allowed me to finish this doctoral journey without serious constraints. I am sincerely grateful to my mother-in-law, Seongrye Noh, for her sacrifice in helping with childcare in a foreign country. I thank my brother, Jinku, for his humour, which bolstered my transnational life with a sound mindset and relaxation. I also thank relatives, in-laws, and nephews for their unconditional love and support.   xii  Dedication For my family 특히, 늘 응원해주시고 사랑으로 감싸주시는 부모님께  1  Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 1.1   Background to the Topic  The mobility of students across borders has expanded dramatically in recent years. In 2011, more than 4.3 million students enrolled in education institutions outside of their countries of citizenship, more than twice as many as in 2000 (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2013). Moreover, student mobility is predicted to grow to 7.2 million international students by 2025 (Böhm, Davis, Mears, & Pearce, 2002). This increasing movement across borders merits deeper exploration because of its impact beyond just physical mobility, which includes the transformation of social norms, cultural values, and a sense of belonging (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).  International students and the universities that host them are some of the biggest promoters of global mobility. Higher education institutions have expanded their academic cross-border mobility programs with the twin imperatives of nurturing students’ global awareness and cultural competencies and equipping them for future careers as top-notch talents (The Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada [AUCC], 2014). Students who aspire to broaden their horizons and expand their future possibilities choose to experience a disparate space by participating in overseas programs when they have the financial resources (Daly, 2011; Papatsiba, 2005). To serve both university and student interests, student exchange programs have been promoted by universities as both an imperative and a privilege for undergraduate students (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002).  Canada and the Republic of Korea (hereafter referred to as Korea), which are emerging countries in the international education arena, are no exception to this trend. Canada ranked sixth 2  in the world as a destination for foreign tertiary students, with five percent of foreign students as of 2011 (OECD, 2013a). In addition, 92% of Canadian universities collaborated with foreign counterpart institutions through reciprocal student exchange programs during the 2012/13 academic year (AUCC, 2014). Meanwhile, the number of foreign students in Korea increased more than 17-fold between 2000 and 2011 (OECD, 2013a) and the number of outgoing Korean exchange students and incoming international exchange students in Korea increased from 27,897 to 32,196, and from 14,603 to 21,830, respectively, between 2011 and 2013 (S. Lee, 2013).  Canada and Korea have maintained close political and economic collaboration since they established an official relationship in 1963 (Government of Canada, 2015). This relationship is expected to strengthen since the signing of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement in 2014, which is expected to also boost people-to-people bonds between the two countries (Government of Canada, 2014, 2015). Indeed, Canada and Korea are significant counterparts in terms of human flows. As of 2012, Korea is the third-largest contributor to Canada’s international student population (Citizenship and Immigration Canada [CIC], 2012). Likewise, among the five main English-speaking Western countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and United States), Canadian tertiary students studying in Korea are the second-largest group of international students, following those from the United States (US) (Statistics Korea, 2013; Korean Educational Development Institute [KEDI], 2014). In addition, the number of undergraduate exchange students between Canada and Korea has increased. The number of Korean students studying in Canada through short-term exchange programs between 2007 and 2014 increased from 733 to 1,391, while the number of students from Canadian universities studying in Korea through similar short-term exchange programs increased from 114 to 595 (KEDI, 2015). The popularity of short-term programs, including 3  student exchange programs, is a worldwide phenomenon. In 2012/13, 97% of American students who went abroad to study did so for less than one year, while only 3% of those students stayed more than one academic year (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2013, 2014). Likewise, an exchange program is the most preferred mode for outbound Australian undergraduate students (Daly, 2011). Nonetheless, short-term international students have remained an under-researched realm. My study aims to address the discrepancy between actual practice of students who enrolled in short-term international programs and the scant scholarly attention it has received by studying short-term international students, focusing on exchange students in and between Canada and Korea, two significant countries in the internationalization of higher education.  This study explores how exchange students maneuver, often in dynamic ways, between the various social geographies of Canada and Korea, where local, regional, national, and global ideas and practices co-reside. Exchange students’ individual personality, gender, ethnicity, academic circumstance, economic status, and cultural heritage inform every aspect of their daily involvements in their host country. Hence, their engagements in the customs, practices, and ideas of their foreign country result in nuanced and varied intercultural negotiations and performances. As such, the ways they navigate in and between their home and host countries should be examined as stages in a process of transformation, not as a static outcome of conformation or resistance to their foreign cultures, norms, and material logics. In this regard, this study focuses on exchange students’ individual instances of negotiation as well as their subsequent reflections on those negotiations in their current dwelling spaces and in their transnational spaces in order to present their hopes, joys, agonies, and insights while they insert and reinsert themselves in their unfamiliar and (supposedly) familiar spaces. Transcultural spaces are pivotal in offering exchange students new modes of making sense of not 4  only their host and home countries, but also themselves. Hence, after their foreign sojourn, exchange students not only shift their perspectives regarding Canada and Korea but also create new cultural selves, although their transformed identities are transient.  1.2   Research Purpose and Questions  In spite of the notable growth in the number of student exchange program participants, this educational practice is under-researched (Daly, 2011; Daly & Barker, 2010). Furthermore, international students are typically understood as long-term students who stay in the host country for more than one year to earn a foreign credential (Zappa-Hollman, 2007). As a result, an exchange student who stays in a host country for a period of shorter than six months (which sometimes does not require a student visa) is often excluded from official statistics. Given the increasing number of short-term international students, we need to investigate more deeply why these students move, what they experience, and what they expect from their temporary foreign sojourn. Short-term and long-term international students might perceive and experience their international mobility in similar ways. However, exchange students’ foreign sojourn should be explored from a different vantage point than that of long-term students because of the different level of institutional support they receive: an exchange program is officially organized at the institutional level, and thus provides certain types of administrative support to participating students (Altbach & Teichler, 2001), including accommodation, credit transfer, and tuition fees, which long-term students usually do not have (Doyle et al., 2010). Although Canada and Korea have both been important actors in the international education arena, the voices of Canadian international students in Korea and Korean international students in Canada have hardly been heard. In addition, transnational lives of Canadian students have been under-explored. During the 2012/13 academic year, approximately 21,000 full-time 5  Canadian undergraduate students participated in a for-credit program abroad (AUCC, 2014). A few studies offer portraits of Canadian international students through a survey (Trilokekar & Rasmi, 2011), through an investigation of internship program participants (Taraban, Trilokekar, & Fynbo, 2009), or through an exploration of participants of EU-Canada exchange program (Brodin, 2010). Thus, we still have only a partial sense of the motivations and experiences of Canadian students in foreign countries. Similarly, Korean students in Canada have not been sufficiently studied, even though there were more than 20,000 Korean students studying in Canada in 2012 (CIC, 2012; KEDI, 2015); much of the scholarship on Korean international students has focused on other Anglophone countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the US (M. Choi, 1997; F. Collins, 2010; Rhee, 2006). Some studies on Korean exchange students have looked only at one side of the experience rather than exploring both inbound and outbound exchange students (S. Ahn, 2011; H. Lee, 2012; S. Lee, 2013; S. Park, 2010).  Furthermore, in general, the literature on international students takes a quantitative approach that frequently uses factor analysis to understand what influences their motivations, what their experiences are, what impacts of their transnational experiences are, and what causal relationships exist among factors (Black & Duhon, 2006; Clarke, Flaherty, Wright, & McMillen, 2009; Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Lesjak, Juvan, Ineson, Yap, & Axelsson, 2015; Van Hoof & Verbeeten, 2005). However, this quantitative approach is limited in its ability to help us understand international students because it depicts them as “fixed, static notions of cultural difference” (Doherty & Singh, 2005, p. 1). In addition, students’ transnational experiences can be personally transformative: many students have described their foreign sojourns as memorable and life-changing (Nunan, 2006; Root & Ngampornchai, 2013). Nevertheless, exchange students are, at times, described as merely immature young adults or travelers who are wasting their time 6  doing “unfocused activities” (Tsoukalas, 2008, p. 145) and thus, their foreign experiences have been undervalued. However, while they are in their home countries, undergraduate exchange students are fraught with stresses and heavy obligations. These students may therefore need an outlet through which they can live freely and think about their futures. It is difficult to get at these complex and underlying perceptions quantitatively or through a simple question-answer investigation; rather, they must be captured in a ‘thick’ hermeneutic way. My study aims to address this gap between students’ practice and the attention paid to it in the research. I do so by focusing on the perceptual, conceptual, and embodied lives of exchange students in and between Canada and Korea. Firstly, I investigate the dialectic relationships between exchange students and globalization by examining the dynamic processes by which various dimensions of individual cultural, linguistic, academic, and socio-economic landscapes facilitate each student’s participation in the exchange program. Understanding the potential “drivers, forms, and consequences of global mobility” (Rizvi, 2007, p. 275) requires an investigation of personal lives because globalization starts “at home,” (Bhabha, 2004, p. xv) and thus we must scrutinize negotiations between individual landscapes and global flows at the local level to understand the impacts of global student mobility.  The second focus of my study is the distinctive ways exchange students navigate and negotiate with their academic, relational, and cultural geographies. Lastly, I explore the impacts of foreign sojourns by examining how students’ maneuvers in alien cultural settings inform how they envision and map out their futures within and beyond their home countries. Thus, the following questions guide my inquiry:  1) How do global forces interact with undergraduate students in Canada and Korea from diverse backgrounds in shaping their motivations for being an exchange student? 7  2) How do these students navigate and negotiate with academic, relational, and cultural space in the host country? 3) How do these students evaluate their exchange program and how does this experience influence the ways in which they envision their home and host countries? Through these guiding questions, this study portrays how exchange students from Canada and Korea navigate an unfamiliar transnational space while they configure similar and dissimilar interpretations of their foreign cultural logics, exerting singular and common strategies to leverage their overseas exchange as a meaningful chance in their future life. In the overlapping conceptual terrains and intertwined socio-economic territories in and between Canada and Korea, exchange students express common themes and feelings about overseas exchange. Indeed, in material, ideological, and cultural foreign spheres, students in both countries reflect on their familiar/unfamiliar life agendas and pedagogical, socio-cultural and relational spaces.  1.3   Theoretical Landscapes  I use three interrelated theoretical frameworks – globalization, imagination, and space – throughout the study. International students’ aspirations to cross borders are fed by images and narratives of global flows (Appadurai, 1996; Murphy-Lejeune, 2002); simultaneously, cross-border flows of students create global imaginations and practices (Rizvi, 2009). Moreover, exchange students’ disjuncture from their home countries requires them to spatially engage in a foreign country. Therefore, to examine their various perspectives and experiences in their home and host countries, I draw from spatial theories that interpret space as a socially constructed arrangement with multiscalar fields of imagined and lived space. 8  As a way to portray the vicissitudes of global cultural flows, Arjun Appadurai1 (1990, 1996) introduces the idea of five landscapes: individuals and groups of people on the move (ethnoscapes); technologies that enable previously impervious spaces to be connected (technoscapes); rapid and mysterious spheres and dispositions of global capital (financescapes); created images and representations, as well as electronic capacities to produce and disseminate them (mediascapes); and a concatenation of hegemonic ideologies and resistant narratives (ideoscapes). These realms are infused with cultural, ethnic, political, and linguistic contexts at both the personal and social levels (Appadurai, 1996). In other words, people interpret and experience these flows differently. Cosmopolitanism and employability are two pillars of globalization that influence students’ expectations of their exchange programs. John Tomlinson (1999) defines cosmopolitan dispositions as the awareness of the connected global world and the embrace of different cultures. When students engage with transcultural arrangements, they gradually become equipped with tools of cosmopolitanism such as tolerance of otherness and the ability to enhance mutual understanding (Calhoun, 2008). Simultaneously, students participate in overseas education as a “biographical solution” (U. Beck, 1992, p. 137; Doherty & Singh, 2005, p. 4) to enhance their employability by enriching their curriculum vitae and acquiring the skills associated with global talent. Accordingly, many students consider transnational experience as a rite of passage that will open up opportunities for them in highly competitive job markets (Brooks & Waters, 2011; Montgomery, 2010; S. Park, 2010).  Imagination enables us to make sense of our existence and material practices in broad historic and social dimensions (Mills, 1959). Various concepts of imagination, including “all                                            1 I used given names of scholars when I mention them at first. When there are different authors with the same last name, I used their first name whenever I mention them. 9  forms of agency,” “social fact,” and “new global order” (Appadurai, 1996, p. 31), allow us to portray students’ aspirations for their exchange experiences as laden with hopes, concerns, and purposes. Students’ imaginations of their host countries are embedded with images mediated by mediascapes, technoscapes, and ethnoscapes, and they visualize their transnational lives in ways that are associated with social imaginaries. A social imaginary is “a way of thinking” that is “shared in a society by ordinary people, the common understandings that make daily practices possible, giving them sense and legitimacy” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 34). Social imaginaries are useful in exploring students’ dynamic international lives in their academic, relational, and cultural settings in and between their home and host countries because their engagements with foreign terrains are not fixed, but rather constant negotiations between familiar practices and alien performances. In addition, social imaginaries allow people to feel affinity with a community that has a shared imagination, and also encourage people to displace from a group to which they belong (Taylor, 2004). A social imaginary is not merely a tool for making sense of current social practices; it extends our ability to relate to other times, spaces, and people (Taylor, 2004). Thus, through our social imaginaries we can maintain relationships and social lives with strangers (e.g., local, international, and co-ethnic students in the host country) (Rizvi, 2006).  Geographically sensitive perspectives that perceiving a region not as a static material but as a mutant process which is imbued with multiple histories and cultural practices offer broader and deeper interpretations of the experiences of international students (Brooks & Waters, 2011; Singh, Rizvi, & Shrestha, 2007). Edward Soja (1996, 2009) suggests the notion of “Thirdspace,” in which people experience real and imagined practices simultaneously. This idea is appropriate for examining transnational terrains that are constructed differently depending on individual students’ socio-cultural backgrounds, ethnicities, genders, and linguistic competencies. Before 10  students participate in exchange programs, they visualize their foreign lives, generating distinctive representations of space. However, there may be discrepancies between their imagined world and their experienced space, which results in diverse responses in how students cope with differences throughout their transcultural journeys. Some may try to narrow the gaps through constant negotiations; others may reinforce their former conceptions of the imagined space by resisting new spatial logics; and still others may create a new imagined space on the basis of their lived experiences. Canada and Korea as Thirdspace is an assemblage of “perceived”, “conceived”, and “lived” space (Soja, 1996, 2009). Furthermore, exchange students interact with their home and host countries in their own existential modes shaped by accumulated spatial images, social relations, and histories (Soja, 1996). As such, when they navigate new terrains, they encounter multiple spatial and temporal arrangements, and at the same time try to refashion foreign territories by associating them with other meanings, interpretations, and practices.  This study explores the different and similar ways that Canada and Korea as Thirdspace are interpreted, and how they are configured through the narratives of individual exchange students who perceive and respond to foreign material practices and cultural norms. In addition, this research also illustrates how social imaginaries lead to differentiated negotiations with students’ unfamiliar academic, relational, social, technological, and geographical arrangements. During and after the foreign sojourn, Canada and Korea as a home and host country emerge as Thirdspace in which comparable and dissimilar social apparatuses such as pedagogical practices and cultural norms dialectically meet, clash with, and are negotiated.  When exchange students navigate in and between their home and foreign countries, embedding and disembedding themselves repeatedly in their familiar and unknown territories, 11  they occasionally encounter challenges, disappointments, or despair in their attempts to better understand their foreign spaces. Nonetheless, some students do not stop trying to interject their own interpretations and unique practices in their host country, which may result in hybrid interpretations and multiple negotiations. This study unpacks exchange students’ transcultural engagements in and between Canada and Korea to discover how their overseas exchange experiences shape and guide them in understanding and maneuvering an uneven nexus of global and local terrains. 1.4   Research Design  In conducting this research, I drew on narrative inquiry, which is an exploration through storytelling, to explore students’ transnational experiences and conceptual trajectories (Bamberg, 2011; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Polkinghorne, 1988). A narrative reflects hermeneutic processes of self that are enmeshed with dialectic negotiations between socially circumscribed norms and individual ideologies (Holstein & Gubrium, 2000; Polkinghorne, 1988). As such, narrative inquiry allows researchers to portray dynamic vignettes of international students who are positioned between complicity, negotiation, and resistance of global socio-economic and cultural encounters in their home and host countries.  Methodologically, narrative inquiry is a form of qualitative research in which ordinary lives are contextualized and constituted, and researchers and participants are positioned within their own temporal and situational contexts (Holstein & Gubrium, 1994). It produces rich in-depth portraits of idiosyncratic cases rather than atemporal generalizations based on numeric investigations (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). In order to grasp holistic human experience, narrative inquirers use a discursive form as their primary data (Bruner, 1990; Chase, 2005). Accordingly, narrative inquiry is useful in investigating how individuals exert their agency amid social 12  constraints either in their localities or in transnational terrains (Bennett, Volet, & Fozdar, 2013; He, 1998, 2002; R. Lee, 2014; B. Park, 2010). As such, narrative inquiry has been used in many disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, linguistics, sociology, and education. Canadian scholars Jean Clandinin and Michael Connelly (2000) have defined the boundaries of narrative inquiry in studies of education, and have initiated the “three-dimensional narrative inquiry space” (p. 49), drawing on John Dewey’s (1938/1998) idea of a dual axis of “continuity” (p. 17) and “interaction” associated with “situation” (pp. 38-39). Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) three-dimensional framework includes “personal and social” (interaction), “past, present, and future” (continuity), and “internal” and “existential conditions” (situation) (p. 50). Their approach has been employed in the study of teaching and learning landscapes (He, 2002; Phillion, 2002; Yeom, 2009). In this study I drew from Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) three inquiry dimensions. In terms of personal interactions, I examined the familial and friendship relationships of individual participants. In relation to social interactions, I explored relationships in their academic, cultural, and spatial terrains. With respect to temporal continuity, I arranged each participant’s story chronologically, repeatedly looking backward and forward. Regarding situational conditions, I first delved into their inner perceptual domains to try to interpret their emotions and feelings. Then, I investigated the external contexts of their institutional, societal, and spatial spheres.  1.5   Clarification of Terms A student exchange program is an official reciprocal academic mobility arrangement initiated and managed by two higher education institutions. When a home university recommends eligible exchange students to a foreign counterpart university, the foreign university decides whether to accept those students or not (S. Lee, 2013). Exchange students usually pay 13  tuition fees to their home university and credits that they earn during their exchanges are transferred under certain conditions and based on an agreement between the two universities. The duration of the program and the courses available to participating students also depend on an agreement between the universities. Programs that last one semester or one academic year are relatively common, but some programs are shorter than one semester. Most exchange students are allowed to take regular courses in their host universities, but in some cases, they are allowed to take language courses or specific courses tailored to exchange students depending on each agreement between home and host universities (S. Lee, 2013). In general, the international office of the home university is in charge of setting up exchange programs. Nonetheless, individual departments also initiate exchange programs, sometimes incorporating language programs in addition to regular courses, as a way to generate revenue.  The terms “international” and “mobile students” refer to “those who left their country of origin and moved to another country for the purpose of study” (OECD, 2014a, p. 352). This includes both long- and short-term international students, which have differing definitions. For instance, in the US “short-term” is defined as less than 2 months; “mid-length” as one semester or two quarters; and “long-term” as more than one academic year (IIE, 2013). In this dissertation, I define study periods lasting longer than one year for the purpose of earning a foreign credential as “long-term,” and programs of less than one year (and not for the purpose of earning a foreign degree) as “short-term.” Also, I use the terms “exchange students” and “short-term students” interchangeably because exchange students study in the host institution less than a full year (Doyle et al., 2010).  There are other similar terms used for international students, including “foreign,” “overseas,” “transnational,” and “mobile” students, and exchange programs are often referred to 14  as “study abroad.” In the US context, the term “study abroad” is often used to refer to US students who go abroad, whereas “exchange,” “foreign,” and “overseas” are used to describe “international” students in the US (Zappa-Hollman, 2007, p. 27). Meanwhile, “mobility” is the preferred term in European contexts (Findlay, King, Stam, & Ruiz-Gelices, 2006; Zappa-Hollman, 2007). With respect to the term “transnational,” Ulf Hannerz (1996) contends that “individuals, groups, [and] movements” (p. 6) are primary actors in a transnational realm. Aligning with Hannerz, Terri Kim (2007) differentiates “international” from “transnational” by identifying that international focuses on the “official inter-action between nations,” whereas transnational emphasizes “individuals and movements which are occurring in a ‘transnational space’” (p. 319). Meanwhile, Aihwa Ong (1999) denotes the specific meaning of ‘trans,’ explaining it as “both moving through space or across lines, as well as changing the nature of something” (p. 4). Ong’s approach is more comprehensive than the perspectives of Hannerz and Kim in that her notion of transnational embodies not only descriptions of mobile beings but also of transforming influences. Exchange students have both aspects of Kim’s (2007) definition of transnational: they are international students, since their participation in a foreign sojourn is initiated by an official program between their home and host universities; and they are transnational students because their experiences and narratives occur in the transnational space. Hence, I also use the terms “international” and “transnational” students interchangeably. In addition, exchange students have the potential to challenge and change previous normative practices in their home regions after they return from their international sojourn by trying to implant their new material engagements into their home country. This process may lead to tensions, new incitements, or transformative interpretations in relation to dominant socio-cultural values. Therefore, my use of the term 15  “exchange students” includes the notion of “transnational” in Ong’s definition.  Other complicated terms that are used frequently in this study are “Canadian,” “Korean,” “international students,” and “local students.” Originally, I defined Canadians and Koreans according to nationality, but some participants in Canada manifested their hybrid identities as either hyphenated Korean Canadian or as Korean. Thus, I have tried to illustrate each exchange student’s perceptions and transnational experiences from their own vantage point instead of generalizing about their motivations and international engagements according to their nationality. However, I sometimes identified common themes when certain national characteristics emerged in the research. Moreover, each exchange student envisions Canadians and Koreans in a different way, which transcends tidy explanations of national groups. Therefore, when I use the terms Canadian or Korean, it denotes differences in each participant’s perceptions and conceptions. The boundaries between international and local students are also porous because, as I demonstrate in subsequent chapters, exchange students are ‘double agents,’ as both incoming students and outgoing students. When I elaborate on Korean academic and socio-cultural circumstances, Korean students are depicted as local students, whereas students from Canada are portrayed as international students, and vice versa. Therefore, when I use the terms international students and local students, the exact meaning of each is contingent on the specific context of each participant.  1.6   Overview of the Dissertation  In Chapter 2, I introduce the theoretical framework for this research, globalization, imagination, and space. In relation to globalization, I introduce cultural global flows, a neoliberal globalization manifesto, and a cosmopolitan globalization ethos to identify how students’ aspirations to go abroad are shaped at the intersection of neoliberalism and cosmopolitanism, 16  while the motivations that are shaped by local terrains interact dialectically with global flows of people, media, technology, and ideology. Then, I present imagination theories focusing on social imaginaries and spatial theories in and around the notion of Thirdspace. In doing so, I discuss how these theories are appropriate for my research and how I use them in my study. In Chapter 3, I present a brief genealogy of the internationalization of higher education in Canada and Korea, followed by the landscapes of exchange programs in Canada University2 and in Korean universities, drawing attention to the uneven terrains of these exchange programs. Then, I present the relevant literature that allows us to show how motivations, transnational experiences, and achievements through overseas education are positioned within the current empirical literature.  In Chapter 4, I explain my positionality, locating my methodological approach. In addition, I show how narrative inquiry aligns with my research area after exploring multiple meanings of narrative. Specific research processes, from negotiating access of a research site to meeting each narrator to hear their stories, and the process of transforming field data into research texts, are detailed. I further discuss representation issues in my intercultural study and how I balanced the two languages of English and Korean. I present the findings of this study in Chapters 5 through 8, addressing the findings according to each research question. To answer the first research question, I describe the narrators’ local contexts in Chapter 5 to illuminate specific ways in which their singular localities are fused with multiscalar global flows in fueling their motivations for going on an exchange. In Chapters 6 through 7 I present answers in relation to the second research question, describing students’ differing navigations and engagements in the academic, relational, and cultural spheres                                            2 Canada University is a pseudonym and it is the primary research site of this study. 17  in and between Canada and Korea. Chapter 6 elaborates on each exchange student’s similar and dissimilar navigations in a foreign academic space, focusing on what and how each student notices different pedagogical ideas and practices. Chapter 7 investigates the specific ways in which each exchange student conceptualizes relational space in the host country. Chapter 7 also explores how exchange students interpret and negotiate with unfamiliar cultural assemblages in a foreign country.  In Chapter 8 I explore the responses to the third research question by taking a closer look at each exchange student’s reflections on their overseas exchange experience by exploring the value of the exchange program, administrative suggestions, and social imaginaries of Canada and Korea after the exchange. In the final chapter, I integrate findings from the previous four chapters. Then, I discuss the theoretical, literature, and methodological contributions of this research. I revisit the topic of exchange programs to explain how current programs are designed in uneven terrains, and how to reshape these programs with a more inclusive frame. I also address the limitations of this research, make recommendations for further research, and add a personal monologue in the final section.   18  Chapter 2: Theoretical Landscapes The local and transnational lives of exchange students are embedded in two types of globalization: cultural globalization, with its different historic, linguistic, ethnic, and environmental landscapes; and neoliberal globalization, with its emphasis on, and imposition of, competition and efficiency. These complex globalizing spheres are dynamic and multi-dimensional, and often subject to imaginations that direct people’s conduct in their daily lives. Since student flows across borders create different global imaginaries (Rizvi, 2009), we need to identify, looking through the lens of imagination, the underlying impetus, constraints, and negotiations that factor into their decision to go abroad, beyond simply surface-level observations of their everyday social engagements. Furthermore, understanding the potential agents, configurations, and impacts of global flows requires an investigation of the many attributes of transnational space (Rizvi, 2007), which is open, relational, linked and mediated by students’ lifelong trajectories and territorialization beyond borders. This chapter delineates the three realms of globalization, imagination, and space to demonstrate how these three theoretical lenses are employed in this research. 2.1   Globalization Roland Robertson (1992) first used the term globalization in a sociology article, defining it as “the compression of the world and the intensification of the consciousness of the world as a whole” (p. 8). Since then, approaches to globalization have diverged. Some focus on globalization as flows or mobility of people, ideas, and information (Appadurai, 1996; Castells, 2000; Urry, 2007), whereas others warn of its hazards because it subsumes social, cultural, and political matters under an economic logic (U. Beck, 1992; Harvey, 2005). There are still others who emphasize the enhanced interdependence and awareness of cultural differences across the 19  world (Hannerz, 1996; Tomlinson, 1999). After discussing global flows, I present two central economic- and culture-focused globalization discourses to illuminate how globalization phenomena interact dialectically in shaping exchange students’ motivations for overseas study. 2.1.1   Landscapes of global flows  The intensified global flows of people, media, ideas, finances and technologies have obscured the boundaries separating the tradition, social practice, material consumption, and normative ideologies of a home country from those of a foreign country. Appadurai (1990, 1996) suggests that we need to explore global disjunctures through the five contextual dimensions mentioned in the previous chapter: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideoscapes. He also explains that the term ‘scape’ embodies mutated and uneven configurations of individual engagements with and interpretations of global flows. These five landscapes are “perspectival constructs, inflected by the historical, linguistic, and political situatedness of different sorts of actors” (Appadurai, 1996, p. 33), and thus people interact with idiosyncratically constructed global flows and respond in their own unique ways. Among these five global flows, I elaborate on the interrelated spheres of ethno-, media-, and technoscapes to show how these global mobilities loosen the bonds of national affiliation, while simultaneously fueling the desire of exchange students for transitory or permanent foreign sojourn. Ethnoscapes are composed of people on the move, including international academics, migrant workers, refugees, and immigrants (Appadurai, 1996). In a globalizing era, more and more individuals perceive, imagine, and experience transnational lives beyond their country of origin. Positive images and narratives of a foreign country encourage local people to move and transcend their national demarcations. Although a mobile life is a known and established way of living for some, overseas experience is not available to everyone because it is unevenly 20  distributed as a classed phenomenon (Bauman, 1998; Cresswell & Uteng, 2008; Kenway & Fahey, 2008; Massey, 2005). Accordingly, “degree of mobility” (Bauman, 1998, p. 86) is what allows people to maintain or improve their cultural and economic status within a stratified society by becoming transnationally mobile “elites” (Castells, 2000, p. 446), who hold global power and wealth and are not rooted in specific local norms and practices. Thus, mobility is not merely a geographic disjuncture; it has the potential to serve as “capital” (Kaufmann, Bergman, & Joye, 2004, p. 745) and privilege in rearranging people’s socio-economic, spatial, and political terrains. Nonetheless, mobile lives do not always reflect a privileged position because some human flows are triggered by the lack of economic opportunity in one’s home country, the perceived need to improve one’s daily life, and political dispositions that put one at risk in the home country. For example refugees and exiles are forced to leave their countries (Appadurai, 1996; Hannerz, 1996). These “vagabonds,” who are “uprooted” and “pushed” from their homes, are different from “tourist[s],” who travel out of a desire to do so (Bauman, 1998, p. 92). Migrant workers, who move from economically deprived countries to global cities are not privileged, but rather exploited in the global labour sphere (Sassen, 1998; M. Waters, 2001).  Diasporic people connect with individuals from their countries of origin and create new ties with citizens in their new countries. By sharing alien narratives and unfamiliar practices in a foreign space, these mobile groups transfer their aspirations, anxieties, and imaginations between their home and host countries. Deterritorialized populations constitute new types of localities, which in turn, give rise to new types of social formations. Family, friends, and relatives who live abroad significantly influence students’ decision to study abroad (Forsey, Broomhall, & Davis, 2012; Haines, 2013). They become motivated by a sense of adventure, and then set out for an alien territory. Yet, to make their displacement less burdensome, they go to places where 21  diasporic acquaintances already reside (Forsey et al., 2013). Likewise, transient international individuals in the home country, including current exchange students, encourage these students to transcend their national borders (S. Park, 2010). These students are thus on the receiving end of stories and performances by foreigners who encourage them to imagine the foreign country positively. Mediascapes are representations in the form of images that are disseminated through songs, movies, daily and monthly publications, and electronic media (Appadurai, 1996). “The interactivity of media has changed the understanding of mediascapes to go beyond electronic medium” (M. Stack, personal communication, February 17, 2016). In addition, the repertoires that are perceived and conceived through mass media exist in and between factual and imaginary worlds. International mobilization mediated by the consumption of media encourages people to traverse national boundaries as a way to exercise their agency (Appadurai, 1996). People who were previously able to expand their conceptual horizons through imagination and fantasy can now experience things vicariously through mass media (Appadurai, 1996). Their real lives are now inextricably intertwined with virtual vignettes of the “deterritorialization of persons, images, and ideas” (Appadurai, 1996, p. 53).  Technoscapes, meanwhile, are fluid technological configurations that transcend boundaries that are otherwise impermeable (Appadurai, 1996). Mediascapes that are mediated by technoscapes create new neighbourhoods that in turn, create affinities with imaginary people, thus displacing them from their actual spatial localities (Appadurai, 1996). Portable electronic devices such as laptop computers and mobile phones have empowered mobile individuals by augmenting their ability to maneuver through technoscapes (Urry, 2007). The intersecting scapes of media and technology allow students to imagine and transgress previously impermeable 22  political, cultural, and economic spaces. Thus, students aspire to participate in transnational experiences and envision their lives in the host country based on the images conveyed through media-technoscapes (Tsukada, 2013).  New configurations of time and space, mediated by technological advancement, allow global flows to expand, deepen, and accelerate; simultaneously, globalization has reshaped traditional temporal and spatial terrains (Bauman, 2000; Castells, 2000; Giddens, 1990; Harvey, 1990; Massey, 1994; M. Waters, 2001). In Western countries, space and time were often conceived as opposite notions, with time prioritized over space by some scholars (Foucault, 1980; Massey, 1994, 2005). According to Michel Foucault (1980), this idea exists within the binary of time as “richness, fecundity, life, dialectic” and space as “the dead, the fixed, the undialectical, the immobile” (p. 70). However, contemporary scholars subscribe to the idea that time and space should be conceptualized within an integral frame with multiple spatial-temporal dimensions (Castells, 2000; Harvey, 1990; Massey, 1994). Since Marshall McLuhan (1964) introduced a conceptual map that showed our “planet reduced to a village size by new media” (p. 149), other scholars have developed this idea by focusing on the proximity of space and time. David Harvey (1990) initiates the idea of “time-space compression” (p. 147) that shrinking time and space shortens the time of individual and public decision-making processes, and those decisions spread immediately to other far-flung areas. Exploring the notion of “disembedding,” Anthony Giddens (1990) introduces “time-space distanciation,” which is “the severing of time from space” (p. 19). This time-space distanciation allows people to communicate simultaneously with others in different spaces. This new practice of flexibility mediated by technology frees people from local constraints by transforming vernacular practices (Giddens, 1990). Simultaneously, the digital divide constrains some people based on their economic and technological capability to utilize 23  technologies (M. Stack, personal communication, February 17, 2016). Therefore, this proximate configuration of time and space is the “power geometry” in relation to the transnational movement, demarcating who has power to “initiate[s] flows” and who is “imprisoned” (Massey, 1994, p. 149) by them due to the lack of mobility capital. Furthermore, the time-space compression in a capitalist society creates an uneven geographical development by rearranging labour and capital and destabilizing the labour market (Harvey, 1990; M. Waters, 2001).  Meanwhile, Manuel Castells (2000) expands upon the time-space dimension of a network society. A network society is a new type of contemporary society in which social practices are connected through electronic communication technologies. Distinguishing the “space of flows” (p. 408) from the “space of places” (p. 409), he asserts that elites live in the space of flows, whereas most local people live in the space of places. The space of flows in a network society dissolves and organizes time because electronic technology allows social actors to engage in “time-sharing” (p. 441) experiences across the world. Thus, the chronotope – the frame of time and space - of a network society causes “the constraints of geography on economic, political, social and cultural arrangements [to] recede” (M. Waters, 2001), and thus the world becomes a single setting, like a “unicity” (Robertson, 1992, p. 6; Tomlinson, 1999, p. 10). Although globalization is a macro phenomenon, it engages on a local level in divergent ways (Appadurai, 1990; Gargano, 2009; Phelps, 2013).  Students’ engagements with globalization are dialectic processes that take them beyond the territorial boundaries of their home and host countries, which are “part nationally based and part transnationally based” (Brown & Lauder, 2009, p. 144). Their international practices embody “dualities of national/global and local/global” (Sassen, 2007, p. 8); their “ambi-location” (Kelly, 2010, p. 98) is realized in the “space of flows” (Castells, 2000, p. 408) in which they exist 24  in one place while communicating with others in a different space. Students solidify their human networks through Internet-mediated interactions, sharing emotional burdens and receiving social support from family and friends at home, creating new relationships with local people, and finding local information. Thus, they connect with both the home and host cultures throughout their transnational journey (Kelly, 2010). They are involved in time-sharing practices with their families, friends, and relatives in their home country, which reflects their simultaneity in disparate locales. They communicate through global connectivity mediated by technological agglomerations (Castells, 2000, 2004). Financescapes are mysterious and rapid flows of global capital (Appadurai, 1996). Speculative capital movement across borders in the late 1990s engendered the Asian financial crisis, and Koreans who wanted to ensure broader future possibilities amid their pecuniary predicament emigrated from Korea to Anglophone countries during and after the International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout era (Rhee, 2002), which has accelerated Koreans’ aspiration for English capital accumulation and global movement. Attention to the financescapes of international students also permits greater understanding of the features of these global nomads because money transfer beyond national turnstiles enables academic mobility across borders. However, these financescapes surrounding mobile students and immobile students are uneven territories because only those who have sufficient financial resources are allowed to capture the opportunities of study abroad. In this regard, the term financescapes aligns with Soja’s (1996) notion of Thirdspace in that both notions embody unequal geographical terrains in terms of capital. Therefore, in this study, I employed Soja’s (1996) Thirdspace instead of the notion of financescapes because the former embodies more inclusive and comprehensive meaning of unequal soil, transcending mere financial inequality. 25  Ideoscapes are flows of ideas in and out of regions (Appadurai, 1996). Hegemonic ideologies in specific countries are composed of “a chain of ideas, terms, and images” (Appadurai, 1996, p. 36). Although global permeation of ideologies reduces previously ‘local’ ideas to be loosely rooted in specific regions, some ideas are still strongly ingrained in particular terrains. For instance, for many Koreans, Confucian concepts, such as harmonious collaboration with others, are cardinal values that guide daily conduct (Appadurai, 1996). Since the concept of ideoscapes resonates with Taylor’s (2004) notion of social imaginaries, as the latter denotes both concepts of material practices and underlying norms in relation to those quotidian practices, in this study I mainly drew on the concept of social imaginaries instead of the notion of ideoscapes.  2.1.2   Neoliberal globalization In his 2005 book, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Harvey identifies the following ethos of neoliberalism: “human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade” (p. 2). Many countries experiencing fiscal crises since the late 1970s have started to withdraw their sovereign power to a minimal level, based on the assumption that private realms empowered through privatization, deregulation, and commodification guarantee economic growth and individual autonomy (Burbules & Torres, 2000; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Under this neoliberal rubric, it is assumed that competition between individuals, institutions, regions, and countries is ‘fair’ and their involvement in markets is ‘free’ (i.e., consensual), which is espoused as the cardinal values for acquiring assets and properties (Harvey, 2005).  Neoliberal globalization pulls the labour market into a precarious condition that is characterized by temporary, part-time, and subcontracted jobs (U. Beck, 1992; Castells, 2000). 26  The new logic of the contemporary labour market does not guarantee future employment, replacing stable jobs with flexible work (Bauman, 1998; Burbules & Torres, 2000; Castells, 2000; Harvey, 1990; Sassen, 1991). Companies and employers are focused on identifying “a cadre of high flyers” (Brown, Lauder, & Ashton, 2011, p. 9), which encourages students and skilled academics to join the globally mobile workforce to hedge against and advance their job prospects in a destabilized labour market (Favell, Feldblum, & Smith, 2008).  Feeling insecure and anxious in the domestic labour market, job seekers move to other regions. Some countries actively beckon global talent. For example, emerging economies such as China provide expanded opportunities for such job seekers. The OECD countries, which face impending shortages of trained workers due to low birthrates, expect to fill these labour market gaps with globally mobile talent (Brown & Tannock, 2009), which promotes the global movement of students and academics in the pursuit of enhanced job opportunities. Capital movements also encourage labour mobility (Sassen, 1988, 1991). Metropolitan areas, which are the central sphere of capital, absorb talented people (Sassen, 1991), who are categorized according to their ability to perform “capital-intensive, high value-adding” tasks, whereas workers in peripheral regions are categorized according to their performance of “labour-intensive, low value-adding production” (M. Waters, 2001, p. 44). Multinational enterprises act as a vehicle accelerating this bifurcated labour flow (Castells, 2000; M. Waters, 2001).  In this era of ceaseless competition, people suffer from chronic anxiety and fear, and thus try to protect themselves so as to not have to surrender to “a predatory neoliberal capitalism” (Harvey, 2003, p. 188), and they do so by pursuing global mobility. As a bridging notion between geographical and social mobility, Vincent Kaufmann, Manfred Bergman, and Dominique Joye (2004) contest the term “motility”, which “incorporates structural and cultural dimensions of 27  movement and action in that the actual or potential capacity for spatio-social mobility may be realized differently or have different consequences across varying socio-cultural contexts” (p. 750). Three trialectic components – “access,” “competence,” and “appropriation” (p. 750) – constitute motility. Individuals have different extents and types of mobility, and this differentiated access is contingent on specific temporal, spatial, and other contextual conditions such as social and economic circumstances. Also, people have differing abilities to identify and take advantage of opportunities for mobility, based on their physical, intellectual, and cognitive capacities. Their decisions reflect how much or whether they value this specific mobility capital.  Meanwhile, neoliberal rhetoric presumes that an expansion of welfare, mediated by governmental intervention, is a legacy of the Keynesian era (Peck & Tickle, 2002). The spread of neoliberal logics around the world, which has curtailed governments’ role in social welfare provision, has meant uneven distribution of wealth; thus, the imposition of neoliberal globalization, rather than leveling the global sphere for marginalized people to obtain equal opportunities, has actually destabilized social equity and practices (Harvey, 2009; Sassen, 2007). The withdrawal of government from its role in securing social infrastructure has left individuals responsible for their own security in their social, economic, and job arenas (Harvey, 2005). Hence, pensions and health care, which were previously provided by employers or governments, are now the responsibility of individuals themselves, and thus only the comparatively well-off are able to preserve their safety in this precarious society (Harvey, 2005). The assumption is that individuals have the power and ability to freely choose their own social welfare options, which transforms them from being collective members of a society to an atomized group of individuals exercising their right to choose among “marketed options” (Rose, 1999, p. 230). Indeed, unlike industrial producer-oriented societies, the contemporary neoliberal regime encourages 28  consumerism and people are therefore obliged to exert their power as consumers (Bauman, 1998).  These ostensibly “benevolent mask[s]” of free and liberal choice conceal the harsh reality of class divisions that are reinforced in the pursuit of entrepreneurship (Harvey, 2005, p. 119). This era of global capital allows only the strongest, fittest, and fastest to obtain more opportunities; similarly, the deteriorating conditions for the underprivileged classes are explained as resulting from their lack of rigorous work and discipline, while their lack of equal access to opportunities to develop competitive strengths is overlooked (Harvey, 2005). Being poor in a consumer-oriented society means a lack of consumer choice (Bauman, 2005), so people must strive not to be reduced to a destitute situation. Contemporary consumer society has shored up its members’ willingness to join a cadre of consumers by promoting fantasies associated with new commodities, which fuels their longing for new experiences (Bauman, 2005).  In this consumer era, aspirations and motivations for global mobility are geared toward immediate gratification and the continual generation of further global mobility opportunities because a “consumer’s satisfaction ought to be instant” (Bauman, 1998, p. 81, emphasis in original). Likewise, people want to display their capacity as capable consumers by taking advantage of a variety of opportunities that many people desire because happiness is defined as acquiring opportunities that most others long for in a consumer society (Bauman, 2000). People who want to advance their life beyond their local terrains want to choose their temporary or permanent territory by crossing borders. Nonetheless, not all can be choosers because not everyone has the resources to move beyond their liminal space (Bauman, 1998). Global mobility is an “unequally distributed commodity” (Bauman, 1998, p. 2), and thus transnational mobility in the university sphere exists in the unevenly stratified geometries of linguistic, intellectual, and other types of commodified power (Kenway & Fahey, 2008). Nevertheless, people assume 29  responsibility for their discretionary choices, and the assumption is that their failures in social and economic spheres should not be attributed to systemic issues beyond their control, but rather to themselves as individuals (Harvey, 2005). Individual students are also expected to behave as entrepreneurs and to pursue challenges with an indomitable will (Rose, 1999). Since neoliberal rhetoric is irrevocably embedded in people’s daily lives, they discipline themselves to align their daily lives with criteria associated with success and the moral imperatives of the neoliberal era, such as “self-inspection, self-problematization, self-monitoring” (Rose, 1999, p. 11). Although people govern their souls and bodies through mind re-sets and the accumulation of multiple types of capital so that they are in tune with normative standards assigned to them by others, ironically they believe that they are liberal agents exercising their freedoms (Rose, 1999).  In particular, women face a double burden of a debilitating labour market and a material-oriented consumer society. Women are expected to manifest their “entrepreneurial virtues” (Harvey, 2005, p. 65) by having a competitive edge in a job market in which many careers are still undergirded by patriarchal logics. They are also pressured to compete with others through “possessive individualism” and the ostentation of material possessions to maintain their physical appearances (Harvey, 2005, p. 170). Zygmunt Bauman (2006) argues that this unstable society engenders a “derivative fear” (p. 3), and that this sense of vulnerability to dangers is based on weakening faith in externally-provided safety, not on real and immanent threats.  The idea of self-governing individuals is promoted and reinforced by self-help books and the broader self-help industry (McGee, 2005). People are expected to demonstrate that they are autonomous individuals because they are believed to have overcome challenges through their inner power. Similarly, any misfortune they suffer is not a result of their external societal 30  circumstances, but rather a result of their weak sprit (McGee, 2005). As long as people are instilled with the idea that they are pursuing valuable pleasure, they consider these experiences worthwhile and train themselves relentlessly for new aspirations, hone their intellectual and career-oriented capabilities, and regulate their behaviours (Rose, 1999). 2.1.3   Cultural globalization Despite the dominant discourses on neoliberal globalization, some scholars aver that the cultural dimension is really what is fundamental to globalization, and that once globalization becomes more advanced, this dimension has greater potential than do the economic and political domains (Giddens, 1990; Robertson, 1992; Tomlinson, 1999; M. Waters, 2001). In a similar vein, some scholars maintain that it is necessary to examine the complex globalization terrain beyond the neoliberal logic, expounding upon the dialectic processes of deparochialization and hybridization beyond the territorial boundaries of nation-states (Appadurai, 1996, 2000; Hannerz, 1996). Tomlinson (1999) contends that the deterritorialization of culture – that is, the moving of cultures between geographical demarcations – connotes a local appropriation of “interpretation, translation, mutation, adaptation, and ‘indigenization’” (p. 84). Hannerz (1996) underlines that cultural globalization is not a zero-sum scenario of the “triumphant march of modernity” (p. 24) and loss of aboriginal cultures, but a constructive process in which a “new culture” and a hybrid “symbolic form” (p. 25) emerge.  In a similar vein, Appadurai (2000) notes that “grassroots globalization” – “globalization from below” (p. 3) –shows how globalization can be inflected by vernacular histories, cultures, genealogies, and politics as it takes on a local form. However, the question of how to define culture is somewhat controversial; while some define it broadly as the “mundane practices that directly contribute to people’s ongoing ‘life-narratives’” (Tomlinson, 1999, p. 20), others define 31  it as religions, languages, customs, or traditions (Frisby, 1997). Still others limit their definition of culture to representations in “aesthetic forms” (Said, 1993, p. xii). Appadurai (1996), meanwhile, underscores the “contextual, heuristic, and comparative dimensions” (p. 13) of culture to highlight the differences within an ethnicity that is assumed to be homogenous. Following his approach, I use the notion of ‘cultural,’ and sometimes ‘culture(s),’ as a comprehensive and multi-layered term to denote diverse, singular, and contentious features embedded in supposedly common and homogeneous national, regional, and local cultures. Cosmopolitanism is commonly situated within cultural globalization in relation to global mobility. Tomlinson (1999) suggests that cosmopolitans have three dispositions: an “awareness of the wider world”; a “sense of connection with other cultures”; and an “increasing openness to cultural difference” (p. 200). Similarly, Craig Calhoun (2008) articulates that cosmopolitanism should be interpreted in terms of global connections. Thomas Popkewitz (2009) understands it as a “cultural thesis” (p. 252) of global awareness that transcends local sensitivities and practices. In a similar vein, Hannerz (1996) presents dual aspects of cosmopolitans: an “orientation” (p. 103) to be involved in divergent cultural occurrences; and the “competence” (p. 103) to maneuver in an alien culture in one’s own way, walking the fine line between surrendering to it and disengaging from it.  From a more philosophical perspective, Martha Nussbaum (1996) constructs a normative cosmopolitan ethos of an allegiance to humanity as a whole, which is inculcated in pedagogical landscapes that inject moral codes into education to produce mature global citizens. However, Harvey (2009) points out that Nussbaum’s research does not specify the ways in which spatial and social apparatuses are unequally arranged and how it is that they perpetuate inequalities based on ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic conditions. He suggests instead three ways of 32  enacting an alternative cosmopolitanism in response to “cosmopolitan neoliberalism” (p. 94): by taking a philosophical approach like Nussbaum’s; by examining, in a practical sense, the minimum human requirements; and by actively engaging to transform the world. Thus, for Harvey, the roles of intellectuals in establishing a new paradigm of cosmopolitanism is not to “speak for” underprivileged people under a neoliberal regime, but rather “amplify [their] voice” (p. 95) . Similarly, Ulrich Beck (2014) locates cosmopolitanism within a philosophical realm, suggesting that empirical social phenomena be referred to as a “cosmopolitization” (p. 171). Beck (2014) subscribes to the idea of cosmopolitization that only those with sufficient financial, social, and cultural resources are eligible to become cosmopolitans, which helps unpack the circumstances that individuals confront in their daily lives. Some scholars criticize the notion of cosmopolitanism, interpreting it as a naïve ethical approach that masks uneven global and local terrains under the pretense of Western-oriented “universal humanism” (Blank, 2014, p. 66). However, Beck rejects the view that cosmopolitanism is interpreted as a utopian notion, yet acknowledges the unequal presence of opportunities to obtain socio-economic prestige in global, national, local, capital, and cultural realms. Hence, cosmopolitanism is significant in two respects: it calls for open engagements with the broader world and all its differences; and it makes a normative political and academic argument for transcending localities for the sake of universal achievements that will create a more even and equal society (Calhoun, 2008). Since cosmopolitanism is a quintessential notion in cultural globalization, I employ cultural globalization and cosmopolitan globalization interchangeably in this dissertation. Travel is another notion commonly associated with cultural globalization. Scholars note people’s desire to accumulate unique experiences through overseas journeys. They want to 33  “consume the planet in the fullest sense” (M. Waters, 2001, p. 206) through the worldwide currency of tourist attractions and exotic experiences (Urry, 2007). Yet, some view culture not as sedentary, but as something that is moving and in flux (Clifford, 1992; Tomlinson, 1999). James Clifford (1992) introduces a nomadic concept of culture, calling it “traveling-in-dwelling, dwelling-in-traveling” (p. 108) to capture the ambivalent facets of culture that dwell in and travel across the porous boundaries. Tomlinson (1999) also urges us to unleash the “ties with spatially defined culture” to allow a “broader global re-territorialization” (p. 199).  Some types of travel may be associated with adventure. For example, Georg Simmel (1997) describes two conditions required for an experience to be considered an adventure: it is a significant episode with an inception and a denouement; and it is “extra-territoriality” (p. 224) in the continuum of the life trajectory. As such, an international exchange student is an adventurer as “the student as traveler and the traveler as student” (Haines, 2013, p. 19), who enjoys a foreign journey away from her or his mundane life, which is fraught with concerns and stresses. Global mobility not only dismantles individuals’ otherwise solid connections with localities but also provides them with a wider perspective on their local terrains (Tomlinson, 1999). 2.2   Social Imaginaries   The diverse global landscapes mentioned above transform our imaginations (Rizvi, 2006). Imagination enables us to make sense of our existence and our material practices within their broad historic and social dimensions (Mills, 1959). Extrapolating from our temporal-spatial experiential connections, we interpret and generate meanings and images, which become assembled into our imagination (Norton, 2001). Etienne Wenger (1998) contends that imagination is “a process of expanding our self by transcending our time and space and creating new images of the world and ourselves” (p. 176). According to him, imagination is a creative 34  process that includes circumstances beyond our direct engagement in the world. Consequently, imagination allows people to envisage the future possibilities associated with their historic biography (Mills, 1959). Furthermore, based on their imaginations, people realign themselves, balancing between their individual values and hegemonic ideas imposed by their communities (Norton, 2001; Wenger, 1998; Yoon, 2013). Appadurai (1996) underscores the three characteristics of imagination in the global society: it is daily practices across diverse social realms; it is the stimuli for action in a collective sense; and it is the collective forms of imagination that allow people to feel solidarity as members of a community.  Imagination has divergent implications. It is an individual’s sense-making process, as well as a set of collective actions in a social realm (Rizvi, 2006; Salazar, 2011). It is also a cognitive arena in which people shape and restructure their histories, current existence, and future plans. Cornelius Castoriadis (1987) contends that the imaginary is not “an image of” but the “unceasing and essentially undetermined (social-historical and psychical) creation of figures/forms/images” (p. 3, emphasis in original). Thus, the imaginary is not unchanging, nor does it simply mirror what already exists; rather, it is “the capacity to see in a thing what it is not, to see it other than [what] it is” (Castoriadis, 1987, p. 127). This idea resonates with Wenger’s (1998) notion of imagination in that both conceptions include the possibility of transcending previous experience and a dominant ideology. Castoriadis (1987) highlights the role of imaginary in “hold[ing] a society together” (p. 359). Therefore, a social imaginary enables a society to be created, to maintain its coherence, and to be transformed (Rizvi, 2006).  Underscoring the symbolic dimension of the social-historical world, Castoriadis articulates that social symbols cannot be wholly understood through the logics of reality and rationality, but rather with a social imaginary that is inextricably intertwined with realities. As 35  such, social imaginaries provide us with lucid answers to the fundamental questions of collective and individual identities in every society (Castoriadis, 1987). Traditionally, imagination was seen as an ancillary reflection of reality, and it was assumed to be a distorted interpretation of the actual truth (Rizvi, 2006). However, Castoriadis evolved the notion of imagination from a derivative of reality into a creative and constitutive element of societal symbolic meanings.  Charles Taylor’s (2004) notion of a social imaginary aligns with Castoriadis’s perspective in that he understands it as a “generative matrix” (Gaonkar, 2002, p.10; Rizvi, 2006, p. 196) that constitutes the entirety of a society. Since the social imaginary is “the way we collectively imagine … our social life” (Taylor, 2004, p. 50), it enables us to make sense of social practices and underpins the legitimacy of these practices. Taylor (2004) focuses on the function of a social imaginary as the promoter of daily practices by enabling ordinary people to grasp their existential modes from a holistic perspective. We can initiate and maintain our relationships with others because a social imaginary provides us with an understanding of “how [we] fit together with others” and “how things go on between [us] and [our] fellows” (p. 23). While we grasp the norms that underpin social practices, these normative ideologies infiltrate and transform our social imaginaries. Hence, a social imaginary is not only “a set of ideas” (p. 2) but also a “moral order” (p. 28) that offers descriptive illustrations of social logics and imposes prescriptions in relation to specific values and performances. Taylor (2004) distinguishes a social imaginary from a social theory. Like a collective sense of imagination, a social imaginary is “a widely shared sense of legitimacy” by “large groups of [ordinary] people” (p. 23). Conversely, a “social theory” is possessed by only “a small minority” (p. 23). Innovative ideas which were imagined by a small number of people are gradually transformed from theories into social imaginaries after common people give their 36  consent to those new ideas. As such, a social imaginary that reflects our existential arrangements enables us to behave as a member of society. This flexible and transformative feature of a social imaginary entails a new set of practices and an expanded sense of self that allows us to displace ourselves from the communities to which we once belonged. In earlier societies, we could not imagine ourselves having an “extended membership of that society” (Taylor, 2004, p. 55). Taylor argues that social embeddedness is related to identity issues, and explains that “the inability to imagine oneself outside a certain matrix” limits “our sense of self” (p. 55).  As mentioned in the previous chapter, Fazal Rizvi and Bob Lingard (2010), drawing on Taylor’s approach, suggest an expanded idea of a social imaginary of globalization. They contend that an alternative collective social imaginary is needed to replace the contemporary dominant social imaginary of neoliberal globalization, and they underline that there are ambivalent aspects of a social imaginary: it is an ideology entrenched in people’s material and discursive existence; and it is a vehicle through which people interpret and transform their identities and positions. They assert that nation-states and institutions are built on the basis of a shared social imaginary.  The prerequisite of a nation-state, “popular consent” (p. 13) to national authority, resonates with Benedict Anderson’s (1991) idea of an imagined community. Focusing on the diffusion of nationalism, Anderson (1991) teaches us that a modern nation is an imagined community. A nation is “imagined,” he says, because “the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion” (p. 6). Hence, all modern communities, other than primordial communities, are imagined. As such, communities are differentiated by the way in which they are imagined rather than the degree to which they are authentic. In other words, a 37  nation as an imagined community is not fixed in people’s imagination, but “once imagined,” is further “modeled, adapted and transformed” (p. 141). A social imaginary is also akin to Pierre Bourdieu’s (1986) notion of habitus in that both have normative conceptions within which social imaginaries are confined (Gaonkar, 2002; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). However, a social imaginary transcends the idea of habitus because “a social imaginary is not simply inherited and already determined for us, [but] is rather in a constant state of flux” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 35). Thus, we make sense of our current existence and imagine our future possibilities according to the hegemonic discourses that have permeated the contemporary global arena; simultaneously, we think and act beyond the confinement of dominant beliefs and practices, which opens a new space for opportunities. Indeed, globalization permits alternative social imaginaries and evolving “identities and [senses of] belonging” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 34) by allowing us to understand different cultural logics through repeated global displacement. Appadurai’s (1996) emphasis on social imaginaries being diffused across the world and influenced by the flows of people, media, money, technology, and ideology aligns with Rizvi and Lingard’s approach to global social imaginaries. These flows make every country more diverse and more of a hybrid as people engage in global relations (Rizvi, 2006). A social imaginary authenticates certain ideologies and makes sense of certain social practices. In addition, it is as an ideology entrenched in people’s daily lives and as a vehicle by which they transform their existence (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). People live amid multiple social imaginaries that are constructed by their different life histories, socio-economic conditions, cultural relationships, and the communities to which they once belonged (Gaonkar, 2002; Rizvi, 2006). Therefore, social imaginaries help us examine exchange students’ underlying perceptions and conceptions as they 38  navigate in and between familiar social traditions and new cultural arrangements, taking into consideration what they see as a desirable and valuable life. Social imaginaries are also useful to investigate relationships in a transnational space, namely, the affinities these students feel with specific groups of people who share their imaginations.  2.3   Thirdspace  Edward Soja defines Thirdspace as “an-Other way of understanding and acting to change the spatiality of human life, a distinct mode of critical spatial awareness that is appropriate to the new scope and significance being brought about in the rebalanced trialectics of spatiality-historicality-sociality” (p. 10). Drawing on Henry Lefebvre’s spatial approach, Soja (1996) suggests the notion of “Thirdspace” to challenge binary ideas, including material/conceptual spaces and historic/social aspects, by combining ideas of otherness such as ‘lived’ and ‘spatial’ in between the otherwise juxtaposed notions. Lefebvre’s (1991) influential book, The Production of Space, invites us to explore the complex nexus of temporal, spatial, and social existence in order to show how space is produced through three interconnected spatialization processes. He identifies three types of space: “spatial practice,” “representations of space,” and “representational spaces” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 33). Spatial practice refers to social relationships within the “perceived” (p. 38) sphere of one’s personal life. It is the space where daily routines occur and material practices are empirically performed (Singh et al., 2007; Soja, 1996). The place mediated by performative routines is materially perceived, and this perception, in conjunction with social practices, helps one make sense of a certain space (Harvey, 2009). Representations of space are “conceptualized space” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 38) in which social orders are assigned to social relations. These conceptually normalized spaces reproduce space by imposing legitimacy on particular material existences; however, they also contest and 39  challenge particular spatial logics (Singh et al., 2007). This conceived world is the “imagined” space, in contrast to the “real” spatial practice (Soja, 1996, p. 10). However, it is not a fictional or ancillary sphere. Rather, it is the “dominant” realm in every society, linking the “lived” and “perceived” worlds (Lefebvre, 1991, pp. 38-39). People experience this space both physically and emotionally (Harvey, 2009).  Representational spaces are “lived” spaces embedded with “images and symbols,” and these lived spaces are flexible and can be transformed through imagination (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 39). These spaces are where people navigate their future possibilities while negotiating with their aspirations and available resources (Singh et al., 2007). However, they are not neutral arenas, but rather imbued with ideological, political, and socio-economic substances of spatial practices and representations of space (Singh et al., 2007; Soja, 1996). Lefebvre’s spatial theory allows us to understand our relational existence on the spatially and socially inscribed horizon (Soja, 1996). Aligning with Lefebvre’s lived space, Soja’s (1996) Thirdspace is the cartography of power in association with class, race, and gender. Also, it is a “real-and-imagined” world (p. 11) where perceived customs and practices as well as conceived norms and performances coexist. As Soja (1996) admits, “Firstspace” and “Secondspace” (p. 6) (other terms that he coined) are homologous with Lefebvre’s perceived and conceived space, respectively. As such, Soja’s Firstspace, Secondspace and Thirdspace exist simultaneously, which breaks the “Firstspace-Secondspace dualism” (p. 11) by including another form of space to evoke spatial awareness. Soja (1996) defines Thirdspace rather comprehensively, as “a lived space of radical openness and unlimited scope, where all histories and geographies, all times and places, are immanently presented and represented, a strategic space of power and domination, empowerment and resistance” (p. 311). He requires researchers to have sensitive views of place, home, and location. 40  His critical view is useful to investigate uneven global and regional territories in which exchange students maneuver in a more comprehensive and insightful way because in Thirdspace, power is inherent in daily lives. Thirdspace is not a fixed place but a shifting landscape of incidents, ideologies, and translations, which is open to alternative interpretations and engagements (Soja, 1996). The  endless possibilities of temporal, spatial, and relational apparatuses in the Thirdspace situate Soja alongside feminist geographer Doreen Massey (1994), who interprets the space-time dimension as “social relations” (p. 3) that are instilled with power and symbolism. For her, the social and the spatial are inextricably interwoven and both construct each other as a space that is multiple, open, and relational (Massey, 1994, 2005). There are multiple interpretations of the space because the meanings of a specific space are contingent on and intertwined with people’s different positions and histories. Space exists as an open arena because it is always “in process,” and hence it is the “genuine openness of the future” (Massey, 2005, p. 11).  A space is also constructed through the negotiations of relations embedded with socio-cultural practices and “stories-so-far” (Massey, 2005, p. 9) such as diverse historic narratives from manifold social relations. The radical openness of Thirdspace, intertwined with social relations and power constellations, resonates with Massey’s (1994) articulation of “power geometry of time-space compression” (p. 149). She argues that unequal power dynamics are embedded in global mobilities, in particular who it is that gets to take advantage of shrinking global space and the time-sharing practices with people who live afar. Elucidating space through the lens of imagination is another important aspect of Massey’s approach. Rejecting the “aspatial view of globalisation” (p. 82, emphasis in original), Massey (2005) contends that cultures, societies, and nations should be imagined as integral to the unbounded space in which diverse 41  stories prosper and which is inhabited by a multitude of practices and relations. Her contention is strikingly resonant with Soja’s ontological rebalancing as a being among social, historic, and spatial assemblages in the Thirdspace. Soja (1996) explains the possibilities of Thirdspace as follows: Everything comes together in Thirdspace: subjectivity and objectivity, the abstract and the concrete, the real and the imagined, the knowable and the unimaginable, the repetitive and the differential, structure and agency, mind and body, consciousness and the unconsciousness, the disciplined and the transdisciplinary, everyday life and unending history. (pp. 56-57, emphasis in original) The existential modes of Thirdspace are possible when we introduce a new form of Othering into the “original pairing” (Soja, 1996, p. 60), which is referred to as “thirding-as-Othering” (p. 61). However, this synthesis is not just a dialectical process; this ongoing thirding-as-Othering interjection produces “a cumulative trialectics” (p. 61) of conceived, perceived, and lived worlds.  This thirding process is critical in exchange students’ transcultural engagement in their home and host countries. In the moment that cultures of home and host countries meet, an-Other set of ideas, practices, and apparatuses will interject in the Thirdspace. Through this creative process, students realign, restructure, and reshape their previous norms, ideologies, modes of existence, and plans. Canada and Korea as a home and host country for these exchange students are a “lived space as a strategic location” (Soja, 1996, p. 68), an all-encompassing Thirdspace, in these students’ tactical choice of different ideologies and practices between their home and host cultural modes. Soja’s (1996) notion of Thirdspace transcends the “interpretive dualism” based on historic and social imaginaries by interjecting “a critical spatial imagination” (p. 5), which exists as a trialectic assemblage of spatial representations, relational translations, and historic 42  interpretations. Soja’s spatial imagination is appropriate to investigate these students’ idiosyncratic involvements in, and interpretations of, unfamiliar routines in their host country. Soja’s Thirdspace also aligns with Homi Bhabha’s (1990, 2004) Third Space in resisting essentialism and challenging binary conceptions. Whereas Soja (1996) employs a strategy of “interjecting an-Other set of choices” (p. 5) into the two opposing sets of ideas to challenge the binary logic, Bhabha (1990) posits “hybridity” as an inclusive framework that embraces different cultures and “new structures of authority, new political initiatives” (p. 211). For Bhabha (2004), culture is situated in “the realm of the beyond” (p. 1, emphasis in original) in order to “touch the future on its hither side” (p. 7). This in-between space where culture resides is a place of “permanent movement” and is constantly shifting; this in-between space allows marginalized people to “build a community of resistance,” to have a voice and to be a visible group in the local/global power geometry (Kalscheuer, 2009, p. 37). Thus, Bhabha’s (2004) Third Space is the intervening location that enables us not only to “redescribe our cultural contemporaneity” but also to “reinscribe our human, historic commonality” (p. 7). Both notions are also similar in that both embody ambivalent meanings, seemingly contrasting conceptions of power and resistance against authority. As I said before, Soja’s (1996) Thirdspace is a site of “power and domination” as well as “empowerment and resistance” (p. 311). Similarly, Bhabha’s (2004) Third Space empowers colonized or underprivileged people to disavow their cultural subjugation to the imperial cultural manifesto. Nonetheless, there is a nuanced difference between both scholars’ notions. Soja’s (1996) Thirdspace presumes unequal terrains in terms of gender, class, race, and regions, whereas Bhabha’s (2004) Third Space negates the hierarchical imposition of the social strata in the Third Space, and argues that this Third Space is a place where cultural hybridity emerges. Bhabha (2004) assumes that “a cultural 43  supremacy…is itself produced only in the moment of differentiation” (p. 50). In the cultural differentiation process, culture loses its unique articulation amid hierarchical norms of “classes, genders, races, nations” (p. 50). Bhabha (2004) suggests that we use the term “cultural difference” to imply “the process of the enunciation of culture as ‘knowledgeable’” (p. 50, emphasis in original) instead of the notion of “cultural diversity” that understands “culture as an object” (p. 49). To re-state, although cultural hierarchy exists in the cultural differentiation process, hybridity in the Third Space mobilizes and disrupts authority, questioning the binary approach of colonizer and colonized, where there is “no fixed hierarchy of political values and effects” (p. 41). In addition, as a postmodern geographer, Soja (1996) articulates Thirdspace as multiple places in which a diverse “‘real’ material world” is intertwined with multi-dimensional “‘imagined’ representations of spatiality” (p. 6). But as a postcolonial scholar, Bhabha (1990) positions Third Space as a cognitively enunciated place where “liminality opens up the possibility of articulating different, even incommensurable cultural practices and priorities” (pp. 210-211). While Soja’s (1996) Thirdspace embodies material and geographical aspects (although it also includes “mental images of space” [p. 79]), Bhabha’s Third Space is “the non-place of no-fixed abode” (Young, 2009, p. 82) which transcends the physical territories of different cultures (Soja, 1996).  In this study, I mainly employed Soja’s Thirdspace rather than Bhabha’s Third Space. Firstly, I wanted to delve into discrepancies between imagined and lived spaces in relation to exchange students’ ideas and imaginations of their host countries. Secondly, one of my foci in this study was multiple interpretations and diverse translations revolving around seemingly similar academic practices and cultural codes in Canada and Korea, which could be more 44  adroitly delineated by Soja’s notion of Thirdspace. Thirdly, I wanted to explore uneven terrains surrounding exchange students in terms of race, language, region, and class and Soja’s notion seemed to be more appropriate to portray these unequal geographical cartographies.  2.4   Summary  The three theoretical frameworks of globalization, imagination, and space are not exclusive but trialectical. The term globalization implies spatiality (Massey, 2005). People’s imaginations are informed by global flows (Appadurai, 1990, 1996). The transnational space is an imaginary space of international students (Singh et al., 2007). Accordingly, globalization is an influential macro landscape that interacts dialectically with students’ perceptual, conceptual, and experiential existence; imagination is a composite of fluid and complex personal, national, and global ideologies and social practices; and space is a physical, interactional, and intercultural territory within which students are placed.  Theories of globalization may help us examine exchange students’ motivations and transnational experiences because in the era of globalization students’ daily performances and engagements occur in a hybrid space of local and global. Theories of Thirdspace and social imaginaries would be appropriate to examine the discrepancies between exchange students’ imagined and lived spaces in relation to their home and host countries and to investigate underlying ideologies that underpin these students’ daily navigations in and between their supposedly inherited and newly experienced cultures and ethics. The three frames of globalization, imagination, and space are closely intertwined, and it is therefore hard to disentangle them clearly. As such, these three theories will complement each other throughout this study as I delve into each student’s motives and practices.  45  Chapter 3: Reflections on Contexts and Literature Student transnational mobility has been practiced since the birth of medieval universities (T. Kim, 2007; Krzaklewska, 2008; Musselin, 2004; Teichler, 1996). Nonetheless, the recent expansion in the number of participants, in conjunction with the process of neoliberal globalization, merits a further investigation (Rizvi, 2000). While countries and post-secondary institutions in pursuit of global competitiveness often tout this accelerating mobility trend as developing students’ “global understanding,” some scholars denounce it as a perilous example of “turbo-capitalism” (Teichler, 2004, p. 5) and for reinforcing social inequality. Yet, higher education institutions’ academic transnational mobility programs have been under a spotlight in relation to their internationalization (Rhee, 2009; Rivza & Teichler, 2007; Teichler, 2004).  Canada and Korea are no exception. As I addressed before, 92 percent of Canadian universities operate exchange programs, and most Korean universities collaborate with foreign universities in offering exchange programs (AUCC, 2014; S. Lee, 2013). In fact, a student exchange program has become “a normal option” (Altbach & Teichler, 2001, p. 8) for students who aspire to experience a foreign space. In this section, I introduce the histories of the internationalization of higher education in both countries, and then explore how exchange programs are operating between Canada and Korea. Then, I examine the literature that looks into the motivations, transnational experiences, and achievements of exchange students.  3.1   Internationalization and Exchange Programs in Canada and Korea In the midst of globalization, the internationalization of higher education (IHE) has been implemented in many countries as a response to social, economic, and labour market demands (van der Wende, 2007). Jane Knight (2003) defines IHE as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-46  secondary education” (p. 2). Student exchange programs are an example of the internationalization strategies that have been initiated by universities to facilitate transnational collaboration and to nurture the transcultural competency of students (Altbach & Teichler, 2001; Knight, 2007). In this section, I illuminate the IHE policy landscapes, starting from a brief genealogical investigation of the social contexts of Canada and Korea before examining exchange programs in both countries. 3.1.1   The internationalization of higher education in Canada and Korea Canadian internationalization policy started in the 1950s as a frame for providing official development assistance to help economically underdeveloped South and Southeast Asian countries (Morrison, 1998; Trilokekar & Kizilbash, 2013). However, when confronted with complicated political circumstances and financial difficulties, Canada reduced its contribution to helping them (M. Stack, personal communication, February 17, 2016). Furthermore, in 1984, the Commission on Canadian Studies encouraged the Canadian federal government to take on a coordinating role in dealing with international student matters, suggesting “a full fee-paying model” for international students in Canada (Symons, 1984; as cited in Trilokekar & Kizilbash, 2013, p. 3). This recommendation was broadly adopted among the country’s provinces and grants that had previously been offered to Canadian universities for the purpose of supporting international students were eliminated.  Under the neoliberal globalization regime, reduced government funding and a demand for market efficiency have constrained Canadian universities and forced them to seek other revenue sources (Levin, 1999). As Amy Scott Metcalfe (2010) observed, “Canada has decreased its proportional share of local public (provincial) funding on higher education, and has increased reliance upon private sources of income, namely through tuition, the sales of goods and services, 47  and industrial partnerships” (p. 509). Furthermore, with its low birthrate and a concomitant decrease in the number of Canadian post-secondary students, Canada increasingly relied on international students and has redoubled its efforts to attract them to Canada as a way to boost Canadian higher education. In addition, facing the retirement of skilled baby boomers, international students are seen as a partial solution to labour shortages. For these reasons, Canada has approached IHE more aggressively, and the number of international students in higher education institutions in Canada has increased from 62,260 to 153,790 between the years 2000 and 2010 (Kunin & Associates, 2012).  While Canadian universities have implemented internationalization strategies (OECD, 2004; Shubert, Jones, & Trilokekar, 2009), the Canadian federal government also has a vested interest in attracting international students to boost the domestic economy and fill job vacancies (Advisory Panel on Canada’s International Education Strategy [APCIES], 2012; Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada [DFATD], 2014). In the same vein, the federal government has set a target of doubling the total number of international students from 239,131 in 2011 to 450,000 by 2022 (DFATD, 2014). Recent IHE policies in Canada reveal a strong neoliberal hue, positioning IHE strategies as a tool to boost Canadian economic prosperity. The strategy of the APCIES (2012) reiterates the economic impact of international students on the Canadian economy, while identifying international education as “a pipeline to the Canadian labour market” (p. x) and comparing the spending by international students with the export of commodities. Canadian federal and provincial IHE initiatives align with the federal government’s global markets plans or job plans promoting the commercialization of international education as a marketable product (DFATD, 2014). International students are cast as a source of Canadian economic prosperity: they are consumers who spend money to boost the Canadian economy, and 48  they are skilled workers who can fill job vacancies. In addition, they are taxpayers who contribute to Canadian economic growth. Canada highlights the commercial benefits of having international students, such as the increased consumption of Canadian goods, job creation, and additional tax revenues (DFATD, 2014).  In Korea, the internationalization of higher education by the Korean government began only a quarter of a century ago. After Korea hosted the Olympic Games in 1988, it liberated overseas travel, allowing ordinary Korean citizens to go abroad freely. Before this reform, the Korean government had focused primarily on sending elites to developed countries with the expectation that they would return to Korea having obtained skills and knowledge that could be put to use in the development of Korea (Byun & Kim, 2011). Because of tumultuous flows of speculative capital beyond borders, Asian countries, including Korea, suffered from the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. The fallout urged Korea to be more aggressive in its adoption of the neoliberal idea of marketization of higher education, even though Korea had already inserted itself into neoliberal structures since its entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 (Byun & Kim, 2011).  While Korea struggled with receiving a bail-out from the IMF, massive firms went bankrupt and an enormous number of employees lost their jobs (Harvey, 2005). Koreans, whose career security was threatened by an increase in contract workers and unemployed workers, have heightened their interest in enhancing their global linguistic capital, mainly English, to ensure their ability to get jobs (J. Park, 2011). Under the turmoil of neoliberalism, the traditional Confucian values of harmony, altruistic dedication, and collaboration have surrendered to efficiency, productivity, and competition (E. Kim, 2010). Koreans started to reshape their mindsets, positioning industriousness and individualism at the foreground in honing their global 49  competitiveness. Meanwhile, some Koreans left their home country to seek better job prospects elsewhere and to allow their children to be educated in an Anglophone country so that they could be equipped with the attributes of global competitiveness. During this era, emigration to Anglophone countries, including the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, was popular among Koreans seeking alternative chances through transnational lives (Rhee, 2002). In contrast with Canada, where IHE was initiated by universities, Korean internationalization policies were initiated by the federal government as a strategy to improve the quality of higher education and enhance the global competitiveness of Korean universities and Korean students (Byun & Kim, 2011). Since the Asian financial crisis, the Korean government has changed its policy priority from sending talented students to developed countries to luring top-notch international students to Korea to compensate for its educational trade deficit (Byun & Kim, 2011). This new strategy underscores the need to improve the standards of Korean universities in order to attract foreign students, which has developed into scholarships for talented foreign students. Korea also launched a university student exchange program among Korea, China and Japan, complete with credit transfer and degree conferment, as a way to position itself as a regional hub of internationalization among Asian countries (Jon, Lee, & Byun, 2014).  Canada and Korea differ not only in their IHE histories, but also in terms of the propensity for mobility of domestic students. Canadian students are not mobile and the growth in the number of outbound students is very slow. During 2012/13, 2.6% of full-time Canadian undergraduate students went abroad to participate in a for-credit program, which was a slight increase from 2.2% in 2006 (AUCC, 2014). On the other hand, according to the OECD statistics (2014) Korean students are highly mobile. As of 2012, Korean students accounted for 4.2% of all 50  international students enrolled in higher education in the OECD countries, the third-largest proportion of international students in the OECD countries following the much more populous China (22%) and India (5.8%). Despite these different contexts and histories, Canada and Korea, share some similarities in their IHE policy shifts. Both countries suffer from a low birthrate, which results in a declining domestic population of traditional college students. To deal with the decreasing rate of enrolment, they both sought a new solution by relying on revenues from international students. Also, after they were incorporated into the global arena by joining organizations such as the WTO, they came to see education as a commodity to be traded in the market. Indeed, commercially-driven strategies have been facilitated by universities across the world within the framework of international trade (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Byun & Kim, 2011; Rizvi & Lingard, 2006). Universities endeavour to restructure themselves so as to be positioned favourably in global league tables (Mok, 2007; Mok, & Cheung, 2011). Media coverage of global rankings does not fully convey the richness of a university’s educational capacity; nevertheless, universities still feel at the mercy of this Westernized “education excellence” (Stack, 2013, p. 579). Furthermore, supranational entities including the World Bank, the OECD, and the EU have exerted great leverage over national economic, political, and educational landscapes (Ball, 2006; Burbules & Torres, 2000; Sassen, 2007). The premise that underpins these multinational entities and their attention to education is that “education is a commodified service, in which trade is not only possible but desirable” (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 171), a premise that encourages countries to eliminate barriers to economic trade and student mobility. In tandem with the neoliberal ethos that imbues IHE policies, neocolonialism is another underlying rubric that appears in Canada’s and Korea’s IHE policies. Neocolonialism 51  refers to how “the imperial and colonial past continues to shape political life in the overdeveloped-but-no-longer-imperial countries” (Gilroy, 2005, p. 2). Canadian policy articulates the significance of international students as potential immigrants who will become part of its skilled workforce. However, the labour market in Canada is not equal; it reinforces and maintains gender and racial inequalities because of a “colonial legacy that downgrades education, training and credentials from non-Western societies” (Ng & Shan, 2010, p. 81). Moreover, as Kumari Beck (2009) cautiously noted, since “international education may run the risk of reproducing and maintaining those power relations through the dependency noted by post colonial scholars” (p. 316), the pervasive domination of Western imperial ideology promotes perceptions that Western culture is ‘educated’ and ‘developed’ and thus above Other cultures of former colonial regions, including Asian countries.  The prevalence of English-medium instruction (EMI) in Korea reflects a neocolonial phenomenon. EMI policy has been adopted as a measure to attract talented international students and enhance local Korean students’ English competency since the mid-2000s (Byun et al., 2011). However, most international students in Korea are students from Asian countries who do not use English as their first language. Some Asian students who want to learn Korean do not welcome the EMI because they cannot use Korean during classes, and thus cannot improve their Korean language skills as much as they would like. As such, these Asian students criticize Korea for overemphasizing English, arguing that if they wanted to learn English, they would have chosen to go to English-speaking countries (Jon et al., 2014). Furthermore, according to the study of Kwang-Hyun Lee and Ji-young Hong, about 75% of local Korean students who participated in the Korean Education Longitudinal Study answered that they did not think their English had improved through EMI. Among Korean students who took EMI, only 27.4% replied that they 52  understood more than 80% of the EMI course content and 37.1% of students said that they understood less than 60% (Lee & Hong, 2015). Yet despite these limitations of EMI for both international students and local students in Korea, EMI is increasing significantly in Korea, influenced by federal governmental funding to universities to increase their EMI (Byun & Kim, 2011), and by a Korean media conglomerate’s incorporation of EMI as a criterion for evaluating universities (Lee & Hong, 2015). ‘English fever,’ which has been fueled since the IMF bailout era, coupled with a legacy of US imperialism in Korea since the end of Japanese colonialism (J. Park, 2015; Rhee, 2002), also spurred English-medium courses as a strategic pursuit of Korean universities.  3.1.2   Exchange programs of universities in Canada and Korea Korean universities have made efforts to enhance their internationalization by inviting top-notch professors from overseas, facilitating student exchange programs, and building education infrastructure that is familiar to foreign students, such as EMI courses. Korean universities began to expand their exchange programs as a way to enhance their global prestige, namely, by using human flows to maintain scholarly relationships with prestigious universities around the world. However, there appears to be a strong neocolonial aspect to Korean exchange programs. Since universities in Anglophone countries, including Canada, are highly preferred among Korean universities, the numbers of outbound Korean exchange students to the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia was somewhere between two to five times as large as the number of inbound international exchange students from these same countries between 2007 and 2014. During that same time period, the numbers of Korean outbound exchange students to the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK were 48,622, 8,297, 8,304, and 5,730, respectively, whereas the numbers of exchange students from these four countries to Korea were 22,294, 2,494, 1,565, and 53  1,141, respectively (KEDI, 2015). When I examined exchange programs in the home and host universities of the participants of this study – Canada University (CU), Hankuk University (HU), Daehan University (DU), Minkuk University (MU), and Palhae University (PU)3 – the unequal relationship described above was clearly present. The data I used were from publicized information that appeared on official websites of each university, statistics obtained through official routes from each institution, or from Korean statistics institutions. Given the fact that exact numbers of exchange students in each Korean university are available through an official Korean website (, I only showed the exchange contexts of Korean universities as ratio instead of revealing the exact numbers, and did so in order to avoid identifying any individual university. According to the AUCC (2014), the most popular host countries for Canadian outbound students were either other Western Anglophone countries or European countries, including the UK, Australia, Germany, France, and the US. Among Asian countries, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, China and Singapore were identified as in the top 15 study destinations. Partner universities of Canada University through exchange programs are consistent with this skewed pattern. Canada University collaborates with more than 50 countries around the world, yet, it has comparatively more counterpart institutions with the popular study destinations mentioned above. Among Western Anglophone and European countries, Canada University is collaborating with more than 10 foreign counterpart universities in each country, whereas it has fewer exchange programs with the above Asian countries.  The number of inbound and outbound exchange students between Canada University and                                            3 The names of home and host universities of participants are all pseudonyms. 54  Korean universities increased from just over 20 students in 2003 to more than 100 students in 2014, a more than four-fold increase. However, there was an interesting trend in relation to exchange students from Canada University to Korean universities. In 2012, among outbound Canada University exchange students, about 60% students were Canadian citizenship holders and 30% students were Korean international students in Canada. However, in 2014, the number of Canadian citizenship holders decreased by 35%, whereas the number of Korean international students increased by 45% and students from other Asian countries accounted for 20%.  When I examined exchange students between Canada University and Korean universities by discipline from 2003 to 2014, 58% were from the arts, humanities, and social sciences and 30% were from commerce. Only 12% were from science and engineering. In terms of gender, more than 60% were female students during the same period. Female predominance was apparent in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, with 80% of those students being female. Among the Korean participants, there was a strong female bias as well, due to Korean male students’ mandatory military service. Recently, the predominance of female participants became more apparent. In the academic year of 2013/14, among outbound students of Canada University to Korea, about 70% were female and around 85% from counterpart Korean universities to Canada University were female.  Hankuk University has exchange programs with more than 40 countries. This includes more than 20 programs each with the US, Japan, and France, as well as active collaborations with China, Germany, the UK, and Australia. Unequal collaboration between Western Anglophone countries and Korean universities was reaffirmed in the case of Hankuk University. As of 2014, the number of outgoing Hankuk University students to Canada was more than double the number of incoming students from Canadian universities. Conversely, the number of 55  incoming students from China and Japan was far greater than the number of outgoing Korean students to both countries. In the case of France, one of the popular host countries among Hankuk University students, the number of exchange students from both universities was similar. The unequal relationship between Hankuk University and other foreign universities was mostly apparent with Canadian or American universities. In the cases of Daehan University and Minkuk University, there were similarly uneven relationships with the US or Canadian universities. In the case of Palhae University, which is located in rural Korea, the unevenness is more serious. As of 2012, it had some exchange programs with US and Canadian universities. Nonetheless, it sent Palhae University students to the US or Canadian universities, but received no inbound exchange students from either country. As of 2014, Palhae University expanded its number of counterpart universities in the US and Canada, but this has not resulted in an increase in incoming exchange students.  Canada University does not seem to impose additional requirements in relation to an exchange student’s eligibility, except for a minimum grade point average (GPA). Canada University students who have a 70% average in their most recent academic semester are eligible to apply to be an exchange student. They must complete at least one full year at Canada University before going on an exchange and enroll in at least one term after they complete their exchange. Canada University seems to encourage students to participate in exchange programs through awards and other financial support.  In contrast with Canada University’s rather lenient standards in choosing exchange students, Korean universities appear to have a more rigorous selection process. Most universities require students to provide a Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) score when they apply for an exchange program at a university in an English-speaking country, and some 56  universities even require an interview in English. Some also ask students who go to non-English speaking countries to pass the minimum criteria in their host-country language. Moreover, most Korean universities require students to submit reports on their academic, cultural, and environmental conditions in their host institution after exchange. Typically, neither Canada University nor the Korean universities counted the grades obtained from the host university toward the GPA at the home university. I will discuss these different selection processes at Canada University and Korean universities in more detail in Chapter 5. 3.2   Conditions and Motivations of International Students Elizabeth Murphy-Lejeune (2002) argues that motivation is composed of three components: “latent” landscapes (desires or personalities), “active” aspects (influences or objectives), and “resulting” elements (future plans or wishes) (pp. 78-79). Following her description, I seek in this part of the chapter to answer the following questions. Who desires to go abroad? Why do they go abroad? What influenced them, and what expectations fueled their desire? Given the paucity of literature relevant to these questions of exchange students, I also review the literature on long-term international students to provide a broader purview.  3.2.1   Who moves? Most international students are from middle-class socio-economic backgrounds (Van Mol, 2014). Rachel Brooks and Johanna Waters (2009) demonstrate that a majority of British international students were from a privileged group in terms of the incomes and professions of their parents. Jie Zheng (2010) points out the unfairness of the situation in which the majority of Chinese students studying at a Canadian university were funded by that host university, even though most of them were from the middle-class. Likewise, 65% of American international 57  students (81% of undergraduates) relied heavily on personal and familial financial support to pay for their studies (IIE, 2014), which underscores that it is primarily students with access to  private funding who are able to take advantage of overseas opportunities. This advantaged position of international students is reaffirmed when identifying the elements that prevent students from engaging in overseas studies. Students’ financial conditions are frequently cited as the reason for their non-mobility (Daly, 2011; Doyle et al., 2010). Some governments provide funding opportunities to encourage students from low socio-economic backgrounds to join overseas study opportunities (Daly, 2011). Nevertheless, non-participants are more concerned about “costs” than “financial aid” (Van Der Meid, 2003, p. 86). Thus “socially, financially and linguistically” marginalized students were excluded in this “buoyant” (Findlay et al., 2006, p. 313) global mobility.  Familial cultural factors such as parental educational backgrounds and perceptions of foreign experience also influence students’ mobility prospects (Findlay et al., 2006; Messer & Wolter, 2007; Weenink, 2008). It was empirically shown that students who receive social and emotional support from those who view study abroad as valuable are more motivated to go abroad (Trilokekar & Rasmi, 2011). Familial background is also significant in making students into cosmopolitans. Studying Dutch parents’ perceptions of cosmopolitanism, Don Weenink (2008) demonstrates that parents, who believed that the “world is my home” encouraged their children to explore the world beyond their immediate borders (p. 1094). He classifies those parents as “dedicated cosmopolitan parents,” differentiating them from “pragmatic cosmopolitans” (p. 1089). Dedicated cosmopolitans imparted in their children a positive propensity toward different cultures by exposing them to “cultural shocks” (p. 1095) and willingly arranging opportunities for them to engage with foreigners. For them, transnational 58  lives were “normal” (p. 1094) and thus should be promoted. Conversely, pragmatic cosmopolitans approach globalizing procedures from a practical perspective as opportunities to endow their children with “a competitive edge” (p. 1097) for their future jobs or studies. Although pragmatic cosmopolitan parents had global backgrounds, some were still reluctant to encourage their children to pursue long-term overseas opportunities.  Across the world, female predominance among international students is common. In the US, women students comprised 65% of study abroad participants in 2012/13 (IIE, 2014); in Australia, 60.8 % of outbound exchange students were female in 2001 (Daly & Barker, 2005). Based on the fact that a majority of overseas study participants are from social sciences, arts, humanities, business, and commerce (Daly, 2011; IIE, 2014), some attribute this skewed trend to the student’s major, pointing out that more female students than male students enroll in the social sciences, arts or humanities (Goldstein & Kim, 2006). Yet, other scholars interpret this as a strategy of female students to help them compensate for the unequal labour market (Faggian, McCann, & Sheppard, 2007; Van Hoof & Verbeeten, 2005).  Anxiety related to getting a job was more prevalent among Korean female students. A Korean female student reported that “most female students should get a better score than male students because they are more disadvantaged than male students in Korean job market” (S. Park, 2010, p. 246). Another female student said that “women cannot live liberally in Korea” (p. 251). These strong concerns partially explain the phenomenon of female predominance among exchange participants, as does the unique Korean situation of male students’ compulsory military service. Although the experience of mobility does not guarantee their subsequent success, Korean students expect their international experiences to help them prevail in an intensely competitive job market (H. Lee, 2012; S. Lee, 2013; S. Park, 2010).  59  The mobility trends of women students have some ambiguities, such as “voluntary” and “mandatory” participation (Gonzalez Ramos & Vergés Bosch, 2013, p. 613). On the one hand, they go abroad willingly to enrich their personal and professional lives; on the other hand, they are “forced” (Ackers, 2008, p. 429) or “pushed” (Habu, 2000, p. 43) to cross borders to better position themselves in an unequal domestic labour market. For instance, female Japanese students go abroad to circumvent domestic structural disadvantages in Japan where the culture is ostensibly egalitarian but in reality is still quite androcentric (Habu, 2000; Ono & Piper, 2004). Women have to cope with the reality of “having to move” and their aspirations of “wanting to move” (Appadurai, 1996, p. 34), developing “a sense of multi-belongings” (T. Kim, 2010, p. 585) through their displacements and disjunctures in transnational terrains. 3.2.2   Why move? Recurrent themes in the relevant literature on students’ rationales for studying abroad include language acquisition, enhancement of cosmopolitan capacity, and improvement of employability prospects (S. Park, 2010). However, exchange program participants have two basic characteristics: they are highly motivated individuals who take the initiative to go abroad; or they are regular students who would not embark on an overseas study unless an institutional program is provided (Jahr & Teichler, 2002; Krzaklewska, 2008). As such, some students expressed somewhat passive reasons, such as utilizing institutional opportunities and being pressured by other students who joined an exchange program (H. Lee, 2012; S. Park, 2010). Students report the desire to enhance their foreign language skills as an overwhelming reason for their overseas study (S. Park, 2010). Being proficient in a foreign language through immersion in that language has considerable significance beyond just technical foreign language proficiency. Language reflects the idiosyncrasies of a culture, its social values, ideologies, and 60  practices. The motivation to learn a new language thus subsumes the motive of being a cosmopolitan through “cultural discovery” (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002, p. 80). Also, being proficient in a foreign language is a prerequisite for employment potential in the global arena. Empirical studies demonstrate that students’ adaptability to and performances in their foreign lives are contingent on their language skills (Sawir, Marginson, Forbes-Mewett, Nyland, & Ramia, 2012; Yang, Noels, & Saumure, 2006). Sawir et al. (2012) substantiated that language proficiency was closely related with “the capacity for active human agency” (p. 434). In their study, language proficiency was also important in one’s psychological adjustment and thus they encouraged students to engage with diverse intercultural communications beyond their classroom situations. Students who were proficient in a local language preferred to meet local students, which furthered their self-confidence. This “cyclical effect” contributed to enhancing their “prospects of academic success” (Sawir et al., 2012, p. 439).  Among foreign languages, English is generally considered a lingua franca, since global flows of finances, people, media, and technologies are mediated in English (Doherty & Singh, 2005). In particular, English is considered “a conduit for economic and social advancement” (J. Park, 2011, p. 443) due to its “symbolic value as an index” (Park & Abelmann, 2004, p. 646), and many Korean students go abroad for this reason, even though they do not have an explicit plan in relation to their job, study, and future life. These students believe “the promise of English” (J. Park, 2011, p. 446): that if they have English proficiency, they will get good jobs and gain a higher social status. In Korea, English is not only “a means of gaining entry to a global community” (Montgomery, 2010, p. 101) but also “a key to material success” (J. Park, 2011, p. 443), which explains the predominance of Korean students in Anglophone countries. Therefore, some Korean students are lured by a “mobility fetishism” (Fahey & Kenway, 2010, p. 565) and 61  decide to join a global cadre of international students because remaining as a mere local student is a sign of “degradation” (Bauman, 1998, p. 2), which cannot secure a bright future for them. In Roopa Desai Trilokekar and Sarah Rasmi’s survey (2011), conducted with York University students in Canada, 94% of respondents answered that they assumed that foreign language learning was quintessential in post-secondary education, and 75% replied that they thought overseas education was pivotal in improving foreign language skills. However, for Canadian students, learning Korean may have different meanings depending on their purposes. Given that Canadian students who want to get a job in a foreign country endeavour to learn a foreign language (Taraban et al., 2009), Canadian students who plan to work in Korea would cite honing their Korean language skills as a primary reason to go to Korea. Yet, like American short-term students who went to Europe and did not learn a foreign language in advance and instead just focused on ‘“survival’ language skills such as ordering food in restaurants and navigating public transportation” (Root & Ngampornchai, 2013, p. 520), Canadian students who just want to experience Korea temporarily will not identify learning Korean as their main aim.  Students imagine and aspire to engage with new narratives, repertoires, and experiences through which they can cultivate intercultural competencies to become a cosmopolitan. Darla Deardorff (2006) identifies salient features of intercultural abilities such as communication and interaction with unfamiliar situations, the adaptation to new surroundings, and cultural awareness and sensitivity. Students expect to engage in personal growth through experiencing independent lives and nurturing cultural sensitivity (Doyle et al., 2010). Also, they dream of future lives as nomads rooted in places where they can expand their opportunities (Phelps, 2013; Tsukada, 2013). They also want to broaden their human networks by making friends with people from diverse backgrounds in terms of ethnicity, culture, and language (S. Park, 2010).  62  Experiencing different cultures, people, and lifestyles were often identified as Korean students’ motivations; they want to experience a foreign university and to make friends with people from diverse cultural backgrounds (S. Park, 2010). Being a cosmopolitan means not only having cultural sensitivity but also being “footloose, on the move in the world” (Hannerz, 1990, p. 104). An exchange program is the perfect outlet for some students who are overwhelmed with academic burdens and the encumbrances of job preparation. During their stay in the foreign country, these students contemplate their lives, journey on new trails, try an array of unfamiliar modalities, and fully enjoy living beyond their previous regulations and uniformities (S. Lee, 2013; S. Park, 2010). International students in Korea also reported that they wanted to experience “cultural travel” (M. Kim, 2012, p. 190) through learning Korean and Korean culture, which reflects that being a cosmopolitan is a prevailing reason to go to Korea.  International students expect that their transnational experience will be conducive to enriching their life portfolios through “construct[ing] autobiographies and careers” (Krzaklewska, 2008, p. 83). Students want to design their biographic plans to broaden their prospects (Brooks & Waters, 2010; Doherty & Singh, 2008). Thus, their foreign sojourn becomes not their “ultimate goal” per se, but rather as a “stopover en route” (Doherty & Singh, 2005, p. 10) along a continuum of their life trajectory, which will allow them to occupy pivotal positions in their future careers (Papatsiba, 2005). For some students, overseas study appears to be mandatory for their future work. Knut Petzold and Tamara Peter (2015) examined how study abroad was strongly pronounced as normative by students of economics. In their empirical study, overseas education did not seem to guarantee broader job opportunities. Nonetheless students want to study abroad because “they believe that they have to” (Petzold & Peter, 2015, p. 897).  Korean exchange students want to enrich their curriculum vitae (S. Park, 2010). However, 63  there are nuanced differences among students depending on their positions. Students from prestigious universities joined their exchange program because other students had already participated in it; a female student reported that an exchange program is considered a rite of passage before graduation (S. Park, 2010). Meanwhile, students from a university of average rank showed a different motivation. These Korean students were from a university in a rural area and wanted to compensate for deficiencies in terms of academic prestige through participation in an exchange program (S. Park, 2010). As I could not find explicit Canadian exchange students’ motivations in the extant literature, I posit that they may adopt strategies similar to those of Korean students in order to get ahead in the global job market based on their enhanced intercultural competency. Most international students assume their host country is a stopover in their life trajectory (M. Kim, 2012; Phelps, 2013; Tsukada, 2013), so Canadian students may consider Korea not as a permanent destination but as a temporary harbour where they imagine themselves living, studying, and working before moving on to other places across the world.  3.3   Transnational Experiences and Performances of International Students Students’ mobility, from their disjuncture from their home country to inserting themselves into a new space, is experienced in different ways. The vignettes of students’ varied practices and achievements throughout their overseas education will be examined below, with a focus on their different navigations, negotiations, and explorations in the host country. 3.3.1   How to territorialize? International students are “temporary strangers, mobile and moving, young, capable of adapting and changing” (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002, p. 38). Some students are like pioneers in the foreign territory on the basis of their “immersion in a foreign language setting” (Root & 64  Ngampornchai, 2013, p. 520), including learning the foreign language before departure and immersing themselves in that setting during their sojourn. Some territorialize a new arena by setting an explicit goal. For example, in Hiroyuki Nemoto’s (2011) study, a female Japanese exchange student in Australia who originally focused on socializing, expanded her goal to the improvement of her English after realizing that she could not fully participate in the host academic community without enhancing her English proficiency.  Although most Korean students pointed to improving foreign language as their primary goal, most who went to the US reported that their English did not improve as much as they had expected (S. Park, 2010). A Korean female student said, “I will recommend an exchange program to my friends on the condition that improving English is not the only goal” (S. Park, 2010, p. 232). Some international students struggle in daily communication situations. Although they do not have any problems with academic communication, they are “embarrass[ed]” and “frustrated” when they realize that they cannot converse with local people “smoothly,” owing to their misunderstanding of “jokes and idioms” (Zheng, 2010, p. 232). Even very determined students who had learned a foreign language in advance also encountered challenging situations because colloquial expressions were applied and interpreted differently from what they had learned (Root & Ngampornchai, 2013). Limited achievement in building linguistic ability can be a sign of narrow relational spaces, and the narrow relationship space reflects who they spend time with while in the foreign country. Most international students say that one of their goals is extending their human networks (S. Park, 2010; Rahikainen & Hakkarainen, 2013). Nonetheless, So-Jin Park (2010) observed that Korean students mingled mainly with co-nationals, which is consistent with other studies that showed Asian students predominantly interacting with co-ethnics (K. Beck, 2008; 65  Gareis, 2012; Nemoto, 2011). While in a foreign country, Asian students seek out a social niche, with their first choice being to interact with people of the same ethnicity. Korean students reported that it was not easy to make foreign friends due to cultural differences; they described interactions with foreign students as “not pleasant” (S. Park, 2010, p. 239). Some non-English speaking international students in Canada also pointed to feeling “uncomfortable” (Myles & Cheng, 2003, p. 258) as the reason they were not close to local students. Regarding these limited relationships, international students ascribe the following reasons to their scant interaction with host nationals: cultural differences between Western and Eastern cultures; a deficiency of institutional support for social gatherings; personal reasons, such as low levels of English proficiency and introverted personalities; and local students’ lack of interest in international students (Gareis, 2012). Some researchers cite the lack of interaction between local and international students as the reason that both groups are deficient in their efforts to become closer to each other (K. Beck, 2008; Montgomery, 2010; Nemoto, 2011). In Nemoto’s (2011) study, a Japanese exchange student who lacked social and academic affiliations with the host community reshaped his identity as a temporary “visiting student” (p. 122), who would return to Japan soon and did not need to adapt to a new space. Some international students pointed out that the insufficient willingness of local students to network with international students is the primary reason for the absence of mutual communication, describing local students as not kind and cold (K. Beck, 2008; Montgomery, 2010), whereas local students blame international students as passive and shy (Dervin & Dirba, 2008; Montgomery, 2010). In Kumari Beck’s doctoral study (2008), international students in Canada do not feel that the campus is a good site to interact with domestic Canadian students because “[d]omestic students go back to their homes, families and established friendship networks and don’t include newcomers in those networks” (p. 219). 66  Given international students’ difficulties relating to local students, institutional efforts to facilitate networking between both groups of students seem to be necessary. In the study of Martin Forsey, Susan Broomhall, and Jane Davis (2012), a Japanese university was divided into two campuses, one for local Japanese students and the other for international students. Consequently, international students had more chances to meet and interact with other international students, mainly from North America and Europe, than they did with local Japanese. Although this limited opportunity contributed to “their sense of being ‘global,’” (Forsey et al., 2012, p. 133) it did not enhance their understanding of local culture and society. Some Korean students who studied in the US as exchange students complained that their lack of interaction with local students was partly a systemic issue because their home institution sent many students to the same host institution, and thus they had more chances to hang out with Korean students (S. Park, 2010).  Some suggest that universities should create a bond between international and local students to enhance their intercultural awareness (Bennett et al., 2013; Campbell, 2012). Rebecca Bennett, Simone Volet, and Farida Fozdar (2013) paired an international student from Vietnam with a local Australian student and tracked the trajectory of their relationship, including the “emergence, maintenance, and evolution” (p. 533) of that relationship. They discovered that the positive relationship had contributed to the students’ “intercultural learning, and academic, emotional, and behavioral support” (p. 547). In a similar vein, Nittaya Campbell (2012) initiated a “buddy project” (p. 205), which matched local students with international students. Participants in her study agreed that the project was valuable; one student reported that it was “a good grounding for [my] entry into today’s multicultural workforce” (Campbell, 2012, p. 222). While most Korean students get along with other students of Korean cohorts exchange 67  students or Korean Americans, some were determined not to be ‘besieged’ by other Koreans. A female Korean student went to an American university located in a rural area where few Koreans lived; consequently, she interacted with local students a lot and improved her English substantially (S. Park, 2010). Similarly, some students, who went to a university attended by many Korean students, went to great lengths to meet foreign students instead of Koreans, even though they knew these attitudes would be criticized by other Korean students (S. Park, 2010).  The perceptual and conceptual interpretations of the foreign space are subject to one’s capacity to speak the local language and to overcome challenges as well as to developing and using social skills. These interpretations are also subject to individual demographic features including gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. In general, students, who are from Anglophone countries, are proficient in a foreign language, and are extroverted or at least can summon the courage to be proactive about meeting locals, evaluate themselves as full participants in the host country (Lee & Rice, 2007; Nemoto, 2011; S. Park, 2010; Xu, 2011). Some Asian students who endeavoured to approach local students at first and engaged in class activities actively recounted that they succeeded in making a lot of international friends, including local students (H. Lee, 2012; S. Lee, 2013; Nemoto, 2011; Xu, 2011).  However, what some students interpret as an open space others see as a bounded sphere. Students are confused by different cultural arrangements in a foreign country. Canadian exchange students who went to India or Zimbabwe reported “disorientation and anxiety” due to the different expectations and meanings of “time and punctuality” (Razack, 2002, p. 258). Although most Canadian students were sometimes frustrated by a “lack of feedback” and “slow process[es]” in these foreign countries, their approaches to dealing with these cultural difference diverged: some tried to adapt to local customs, whereas others tried to “enforce and impose 68  Western standards on different soil” (p. 258).  Racism, coupled with language issues, is also a dominant factor in a student’s negative experience in a foreign country. Many Asian students in the UK experience racism, such as “swearing,” “physical assault,” or “pejorative comments about the home country” (Brown & Jones, 2013, p. 1010). While international students as visible minorities in the US reported “considerable discrimination,” “White” students from Europe or Anglophone countries did not experience any racism (Lee & Rice, 2007, p. 393). Racism occurs not only through physical and emotional harassment by the host country nationals but also in the media landscapes. Francis Collins (2006) illustrated how media coverage of Asian students in New Zealand was biased, labeling them as “economic objects” (p. 223) or “social problems” (p. 226), which promoted negative attitudes toward them. Asian students are discriminated against even in other Asian countries where White students are warmly received (Jon, 2012; Tsukada, 2013). 3.3.2   What is achieved? Overall, the extant literature has conveyed the value and impact of mobility experiences in a positive way. After a transnational experience, students perceive themselves as being “more mature” (Van Hoof & Verbeeten, 2005, p. 56) and better equipped with “independence” and “confidence” (Nunan, 2006, p. 7). Most students claim that they can nurture their cosmopolitan qualities through their experience. Intercultural learning, widened and deepened relationships and career development are also mentioned as valuable assets (Bennett et al., 2013; Black & Duhon, 2006; Keogh & Russel-Roberts, 2009). Transnational experiences are highly appreciated in the labour market. East Asian students who had obtained a Western credential were heavily preferred over their local peers (who did not have such a credential) because domestic employers assumed they were superior in language skills and global lifestyles; a lot of employers 69  themselves had already experienced international education and culture and therefore were more favourable to overseas study returnees (J. Waters, 2006).  Exploring the reflections of exchange students who participated in the EU-Canada exchange program, Jane Brodin (2010) shared that Canadian students had positive evaluations of the program’s ability to improve their intercultural awareness. It also, they said, facilitated the making of new friends and promoted their “grow[th] as human beings” (p. 578). However, Canadian students in Sweden recollected that it was challenging to cope with daily engagements such as grocery shopping because they could not fully understand Swedish labels due to their lack of Swedish language skills (Brodin, 2010). They also found the different teaching styles in Sweden frustrating, at least at the beginning (Brodin, 2010). When HeeYoung Lee (2012) examined the transnational experiences of Korean exchange students in China and Japan, she found that although most exchange students reflected positively on their exchange in terms of their personal growth through deepening and expanding their transcultural sensitivity, some students regretted that they were not more disciplined about their academic activities. Those students who wished to focus more on academic pursuits were concerned that their exchange would merely have the value of cross-border travel (H. Lee, 2012). Enhancing employability was a frequently cited motivation for international students, although accounts differed regarding their employability after their transnational experience. British stakeholders in the labour market did not recognize or accredit the value of foreign academic experiences (Brooks & Waters, 2009). Japanese employers were also reluctant to hire returnee students from abroad because those students are assumed to be too liberal and thus unable to adapt to hierarchical Japanese organizational culture (Nemoto, 2011). Song-ee Ahn (2014) indicated contrasting perceptions of Swedish exchange students in relation to future job 70  relevance. In her study, some students from the law faculty valued their exchange studies as an advantage to their future work, whereas some students from engineering thought that their overseas study would not be valued in their field of work. Ahn (2014) explained that these contrasting perspectives were contingent on exchange students’ experiences and what kinds of prospective employers they met at career fairs. Students who experienced transnational lives earlier are more mobile, and their mobility engenders subsequent international travel opportunities (Brooks & Waters, 2009; Hoffman, 2009; Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005). In Pauline Nunan’s (2006) study, the majority of exchange students, about 94% of the respondents, had undertaken another international travel experience since their overseas study, and around 71% of respondents had revisited their host country. Although students encountered challenging situations, they evaluated their transnational experiences as valuable enough to compensate for some difficulties. Even exchange students who experienced a relatively short stay were also fully satisfied with their foreign sojourn (Van Hoof & Verbeeten, 2005). They felt that their international education led them to become “more mature and worldly adults” (Van Hoof & Verbeeten, 2005, p. 56). Most Korean exchange students recounted that after their exchange they expanded their cultural horizons and thus broke their prejudices and understood different cultures with a more open mind (H. Lee, 2012; S. Lee, 2013; S. Park, 2010). Similarly, Canadian students recollected that they came to problematize their “fixed ideas about countries, regions and groups of people” and developed “a more complex and nuanced understanding of local places” (Taraban et al., 2009, p. 225) after experiencing diverse facets of a foreign country.  However, some scholars doubt the genuine impacts of international experiences. Although Forsey et al. (2012) acknowledge the effect of international education in improving 71  students’ independence and confidence, they are more skeptical of the effects on students’ development, pointing out that there is a discrepancy between the rhetoric of study abroad touted by universities and students’ actual experiences. Although universities aim to “prepare [their] graduates to be active and critical participants in society” (p. 129), the students provided accounts of the superficiality and shallowness of these experiences, with a focus more on “food,” “the cost of transport,” and the “weather” (p. 133), rather than much more “lofty” (p. 129) aims promoted by their university. They argue that students’ replies were mere observations of their personal experiences outside of pedagogical settings and that these observations lacked profound insights and were thus provided no evidence of profound understandings of cultural and academic similarities and differences between their home and host countries.   Despite this critique, many international students seem to experience oscillating identities in intercultural spaces (Dolby, 2007; Marginson, 2014; S. Park, 2010; Zheng, 2010). Some international students reflected on their identity only after they left their home, where they had not previously done so because they were undistinguished as part of the “norm” (Dolby, 2004, p. 162). In addition, after returning to their home countries, they saw things that were once familiar as otherness (Kelly, 2010). This ambivalent ontology of returnee students is described as “being insiders and outsiders” (Singh et al., 2007, p. 196), that is, even though they were home they were still reflecting on their host country. Most Canadian and Korean international students were affected by diverse cultural stimuli and they imagined themselves living in a future world with “less ethnocentric world-views” (Taraban et al., 2009, p. 233).  Once they have been exposed to so many instances of otherness, they constantly weigh whether to be complicit or resistant to that otherness. With respect to this issue, some students are ambivalent about assimilating into the host culture as well as taking affirmative stances 72  toward their home country. In Zheng’s (2010) study, some Chinese students who did not feel favourably toward their home country nonetheless did not always assimilate uniformly into the hegemonic ideologies and practices of the foreign country, and instead negotiated with their fluid identities. Thus, they sometimes became advocates of their motherland while still criticizing some aspects of their home country, especially as compared to the advantages of their host country. In this way, international students constantly negotiate with their multiple identities between a “‘thin’ cosmopolitan” self and a “‘thick’ ethnocentric” (Dolby, 2007, p. 145) self. Living in a different space causes Canadian and Korean students’ national identities to emerge, even though these identities had not really been salient while they were in their home countries (S. Lee, 2013; S. Park, 2010; Taraban et al., 2009). As identity is not fixed but fluid and changing, the national identities of international students are not static but mutant and idiosyncratic and contingent on gender and ethnicity (Taraban et al., 2009). For instance, an African-Canadian female student experienced “discrimination and negative attitudes” by the local people because her facial complexion was different than what local people imagined as “Canadian-ness,” with “whiteness as one of the defining features” (p. 227). In contrast, an Anglo-Canadian male student comfortably enjoyed his foreign life thanks to his ‘Western’ appearance, which was perceived as “exotic” (p. 227). Given the mono-ethnicity of Korean students, they may experience national identity somewhat differently. Rather than reflecting on their racial identity, Korean students reflect on what are presented as Korean values and dominant cultural ideologies, which they took for granted before. Some reported that they came to have a pride in and accept more responsibility for behaving as a Korean; others acknowledged the relative strengths and limitations of Korea, while mulling over chronic issues in Korea such as ‘lookism,’ an extreme emphasis on reputation, 73  a competitive atmosphere, and standardized thoughts on life and success (S. Lee, 2013; S. Park, 2010). Meditating on oneself includes examining one’s career plans, and thus some Korean students reaffirmed or shifted their future plans after their foreign sojourn (S. Lee, 2013).  3.4   Gaps in the Literature on Exchange Students Despite the growing body of literature on international students, to date, exchange students have been under-researched. Short-term and long-term international students seem to perceive and experience their foreign sojourns similarly. However, as an exchange program is “organized,” and “temporary” and provides “administrative services” (Altbach & Teichler, 2001, p. 12) such as accommodation, credit transfer, and tuition fees (Doyle et al., 2010), the relatively short foreign sojourns of exchange students need to be explored from a different angle (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002). Exchange students’ double-edged motivations – as proactive seekers and as passive nomads who will not go on an exchange without an official program – also need to be examined in more detail. Although there is some literature on exchange students, most is focused on two English-speaking countries, the US (Covert, 2014; Robbins, Orr, & Phavaphutanon, 2004; Sowa, 2002) and Australia (Daly, 2011; Daly & Barker, 2005), or on European contexts associated with the ERASMUS program (Keogh & Russel-Roberts, 2008; Lesjak et al., 2015; Van Mol, 2014). Moreover, studies that present exchange students’ voices reveal one-sided experiences of inbound or outbound students rather than exploring the experiences of both, making it difficult to get a balanced view of these students. Studies on Korean exchange students, which sketched only Korean students’ narratives, are no exception (Ahn, 2011; H. Lee, 2012; S. Lee, 2013; S. Park, 2010). Student mobility should be examined from both sides given that international students act 74  as “double agent[s]”: she or he is an outgoing student from their home country but simultaneously an incoming student in their host country (Murphy-Lejeune, 2008, p. 16). There is some literature that focuses on both sides; however, all of them have limited application to my study. For example, some have homogeneous participants in that they are all majoring in the same field (Baernholdt, Drake, Maron, & Neymark, 2013; Robbins et al., 2004), and others are constrained methodologically by their quantitative approach, which eschews dynamic narratives (Robbins et al., 2004; Van Hoof & Verbeeten, 2005). There is a small body of scholarship on Korean international students, yet this research mainly studies Korean students in other Anglophone countries, such as the US (Rhee, 2006), Australia (M. Choi, 1997) and New Zealand (F. Collins, 2010). These studies cannot be employed to understand the motivations and transnational experiences of Korean exchange students in Canada because to interpret Korean students’ experiences in Canada through the lens of Korean students’ experiences in other Anglophone countries will entail “homogenizing and generalizing the negotiations of international students when great dimensions of difference actually exist” (Gargano, 2009, p. 331). I could not find any literature on Korean undergraduate students in Canada except for one master’s thesis (S. Lee, 2013). This thesis by Suji Lee (2013) interpreted students’ voices through the perspective of the student development; hence, she focused more on students’ performances rather than their dynamic motivations and experiences. With respect to Canadian students, I found only a few relevant studies (Brodin, 2010; Razack, 2002; Taraban et al., 2009; Trilokekar & Rasmi, 2011). With her critical look at international student exchange, Narda Razack (2002) focused on analysis of the exchange program per se based on her experience as a supervisor of international placements, but her study did not include the multiple voices of Canadian students. Brodin (2010) focused on the 75  experiences of outgoing Canadian students in Sweden and incoming Swedish students in Canada who participated in an exchange program from 2003 to 2006, yet her study only conveyed these students’ brief evaluations of their exchange program. Although there were vivid voices presented in the study of Svitlana Taraban, Roopa Desai Trilokekar, and Tove Fynbo (2009), the participants in their research were international internship program participants a decade ago and those students’ experiences were more focused on career development and their analysis foci were the role of the internship program and students’ learning. To recap, we have only a vague glimpse of Canadian students’ motivations and experiences in an Asian country.  Given the regular age of exchange students in their early to mid-20s in psychological development they are somewhere between adolescence and adulthood if these students are not independent in terms of economic conditions (Daly, 2011; Daly & Barker, 2005; Krzaklewska, 2008). Because these students are standing at the threshold of the competitive labour market, their foreign sojourn allows them to prolong “the transition into adulthood” (Krzaklewska, 2008, p. 84), which is fraught with stresses, fierce competition, and heavy obligations. Hence, they want to fulfill their binary “hidden agenda” of having “fun” and preparing for “competition for the future” (Mørch, 2003, p. 60). These complicated perceptual and conceptual terrains should be explored in an in-depth hermeneutic way to unpack their underlying motivations and nuanced transcultural reverberations. However, as I addressed earlier, a range of literature on international students took a quantitative approach to identifying important factors in relation to motivations or transnational experiences (Black & Duhon, 2006; Clarke et al., 2009; Goldstein & Kim, 2006; Lesjak et al., 2015; Van Hoof & Verbeeten, 2005).   76  3.5   Summary Canada and Korea are emerging as important countries in the realm of internationalization of higher education in that Canada is the sixth country in the world in terms of the number of international students it hosts, and the number of international students in Korea has significantly increased since 2000 (OECD, 2013a). In spite of both countries’ vested interests in attracting international students, outbound and inbound exchange students in both countries have received scant attention by both federal governments except for a couple of regional-level collaboration programs. In addition, exchange students as double agents – as both incoming students and outgoing students – in and between Canada and Korea has been unexplored academically.  Canada and Korea are also pioneer countries in that more than 50 percent of their 25-to-34-year-olds enter the labour market with a university or college degree (Brown et al., 2011; OECD, 2008). Embroiled in an intensive job race in their domestic arena, Canadian and Korean students join the cadre of international students to leverage transnational experience to get ahead and to enrich their future life trajectories. Hence, for Canadian and Korean undergraduate students, experiencing a foreign country becomes both compulsory and a privilege because overseas education for these students is imagined as a vital element that bestows tangible and potential benefits for their entire lives.  Exchange students desire transnational experience because they believe that it will fulfill their individual, socio-cultural, and career enhancement by disembedding them from their banal local lives and injecting them into a new relational-temporal-spatial sphere. However, the terrains each student encounters are singular, and thus each one has to map out her or his own unique cartography. Some students sufficiently integrate themselves into the foreign country by 77  relocating and interweaving themselves into the new space. However, others struggle, speculating on the meaning of unfamiliar territories and their challenging plurality. Despite these disparate repertoires, students try to exert their agency, reflecting on their multiple, fluid, and amorphous identities. At the final stage of their temporary foreign sojourn, exchange students appreciate their embodied experiences as value-added in relation to their future academic, relational, and career trajectories.  78  Chapter 4: Methodological Approach Stories are the touchstone of human lives, linking the realms of experience and consciousness by presenting the underlying agency and context (Bruner, 1986). However, a story, as a narrated compilation of behaviour and intentions, is not merely a retrospective discourse of previous occurrences; it is, rather, a creative and hermeneutic process of retrieving and bridging our past, present, and future (Ricoeur, 1981). A narrative allows a researcher to scrutinize a dynamic repository of personal performative, perceptual, and conceptual involvements in material practices (Polkinghorne, 1995; Riessman, 2008). Accordingly, narrative inquiry is an appropriate tool for exploring the complicated existential modes of exchange students in and between Canada and Korea because it allows us to map out their individual milieu in-depth.  This chapter is organized into two sections. In the first section, I describe narrative inquiry as a research method, including by examining its contentious terrain. In addition, I present my positionality as a narrative inquirer in relation to the paradigmatic landscapes of narrative inquiry. Then, I provide rationales for using this methodological approach in my research. In the second section, I illustrate the procedural phases of my research, following the narrative inquiry process. Finally, I elaborate on the issues of representation and trustworthiness.  4.1   Narrative and the Narrative Inquirer  Narrative inquiry is an “inquiry into narrative” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990, p. 2), which explores modes of human existence, including experiences, identities, and psychological trajectories (Bamberg, 2011; Connelly & Clandinin, 1990; Polkinghorne, 1988). Despite its broad application in a wide range of disciplines, the term ‘narrative’ is potentially ambiguous, and hence, a deeper investigation into the multiple configurations of narrative is needed. 79  4.1.1   What is a narrative?  A narrative is a sphere in which various strata of experience are arranged in a plausible way (Ricoeur, 1981; Widdershoven, 1993). It is also a particular method to confer meaning on texts and practices (Bamberg, 2012; Bruner, 1990). In general, narrative refers to textual data as prose (Chase, 2005; Gubrium & Holstein, 2009; Polkinghorne, 1995). Nonetheless, perspectives on what counts as data in narrative inquiry vary, ranging from small utterances in daily lives, interviews during field work, extended forms of speech regarding crucial incidents, and an entire life story (Holstein & Gubrium, 2012; Riessman, 2008). For linguists, a line in a text, an unedited segment, pauses, and nonlexical utterances in daily conversations are the main data and unit of analysis (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008). For others, the main data in narrative inquiry are the verbatim transcripts from narrators’ oral stories and supplementary data, including field notes on the observation; journal records and memoirs; institutional and personal artifacts; memory boxes, photographs, and pictures; archival documents; and epistolary stories based on a collection of letters (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994, 2000; Riessman, 2008).  Among the many types of narrative, a story – what we recount about our temporal, relational, and spatial existence – is generally used to identify data in narrative inquiry, even though the term ‘story’ sometimes has the connotation of fabrication (Gubrium & Holstein, 2009; Polkinghorne, 1995). As such, it is commonly used interchangeably with narrative. A life story is written in “person’s own words” about one’s own “epiphanal” incidents through the ideographic approach to interpreting the meaning of a specific incident within a person’s entire life trajectory (Chase, 2005, p. 652). Time is a quintessential dimension in any story, and temporality and narrative are inextricably interwoven and mediated by a plot (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Ricoeur, 1981). Donald Polkinghorne (1995) argues that narrative inquiry draws on “diachronic 80  data” – events are arrayed sequentially from a beginning to a denouement – whereas other research methods use “synchronic data,” (p. 12) which lack a chronological dimension. A plot is what gives coherence and connection to events and relational practices, and allows people to interpret individual performances and social interactions more clearly.  Although there is some disagreement over the origin of narrative inquiry, Susan Chase (2005) locates it among the Chicago School sociologists who collected personal histories during the 1920s and 1930s, an assertion with which other scholars concur (Holstein & Gubrium, 2012; Riessman, 2008). The status of narrative study, which was marginalized as positivistic research trends proliferated, was reinvigorated in conjunction with feminism and the social transformations of the 1960s (Chase, 2005). Thereafter, narrative inquiry has been developed as a form of scholarship and employed in different disciplines, including anthropology (Geertz, 1973; Spradley, 1979), psychology (Bruner, 1986, 1990; Polkinghorne, 1988, 1995), linguistics (Bamberg, 2011, 2012; Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008), sociology (Frank, 2012; Holstein & Gubrium, 2012), and education (Clandinin & Connelly, 1994, 2000). Below, I will discuss my positionality as a narrative inquirer in relation to the paradigmatic realm of narrative inquiry. 4.1.2   What is my paradigmatic approach as a narrative inquirer?  Narrative inquiry was born in tandem with the paradigmatic transition from the Cartesian binarism of mind and body to a more inclusive integration of the cognitive, linguistic, and behavioural spheres. This paradigmatic turn is resonant with my own transitional journey. I have worked as an educational administrator who had adopted a strong quantitative perspective on policy. Since policy can be initiated and developed only when financial resources are available, I often struggled to provide rationales for making monetary investments in my assigned policy areas. To convince stakeholders of the significant value of certain educational policies, I had to 81  try to demonstrate that policies had valid outcomes, and I was expected to do so by providing numeric evidence. However, numbers alone were not adequate to portray specific situations. I faced limitations in my ability to narrow the gap between macro-governmental areas and micro-practical realms using this traditional method.  Since I wanted to advance my professional career in the field of internationalization of higher education, I wanted to hear voices of both Korean international students and international students going to Korea. Having spent several months in Canada, I happened to know a returnee Canadian exchange student who had gone to Korea and planned to return to Korea to look for a job. She had a great interest in Korean pop culture and I learned about Korean popular songs and Korean idol entertainers from her. These experiences led me to explore the perceptions and experiences of exchange students: why they go to specific countries; what they experience in those foreign countries; and what goals or yearnings they fulfill from their transnational sojourn. The lack of academic attention to this issue prompted my interest in investigating their lives. Thus, I decided to meet more exchange students in person to listen to their voices and disseminate their stories.  My transformed ontological and epistemological stance as a constructivist aligns with that of many narrative inquiry researchers (Bruner, 1986; Clandinin & Connelly, 1994; Mishler, 1986; Riessman, 2008). My ontological assumption is that there are “multiple realities” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 13). Epistemologically, I believe that knowledge is co-created through interactional engagements between a researcher and participants and methodologically, I assume that the “naturalistic” method is a proper way to make sense of meaning (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 13). Constructivists view multifaceted realities as being generated through continuous interactive processes of human action and discourse (Bruner, 1986). The interpretive approach is 82  another dominant paradigm in narrative studies (Geertz, 1973; Holstein & Gubrium, 2000; Polkinghorne, 1988). As interpretivists believe that “[t]ruth is many; [r]eality is subjective and constructed; [d]iscourse is dialogic and creates reality” (Lather, 2006, p. 38), their assumptions resonate with the beliefs of constructivists. Thomas Schwandt (1994) denotes that interpretivism and constructivism share the idea that researchers should interpret in order to make sense of the world.  Narrative inquiry explores “human existence” with a focus on “existence as it is lived, experienced, and interpreted” (Polkinghorne, 1988, p. 125) and this interpretation is mediated by language; thus, narrative inquiry is a hermeneutic process. As such, researchers select, elucidate, and reconstruct a narrated story on the basis of their worldview (Rosenthal, 1993). Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur are seen as the initiators of the hermeneutic paradigm in narrative inquiry because they championed the role of language in presenting human experience and the close relationship between perception and experience (Polkinghorne, 1988; Widdershoven, 1993).  Asserting that humans cannot exist without historical and social traditions, Gadamer (1975) introduced the notion of “horizon” to denote that people understand and interpret social phenomena and texts from their own unique perspectives. This horizon is not a fixed frontier, but rather “moves with” and “invites” (p. 217) others to offer alternative interpretations. Given the finiteness of our consciousness, our knowledge of our own existence cannot be complete. As such, for Gadamer, it is essential for scholars to be aware of their own biases and to allow new meanings to emerge. Gadamer calls the intersection of these different hermeneutic encounters “the fusion of horizons,” which is the “projecting of the historical horizon” (p. 273). It is essential for hermeneutic scholars to consciously identify these tensions (Gadamer, 1975). In doing so, textual narratives take on different meanings, fused with each reader’s own 83  hermeneutic processes (Widdershoven, 1993). Ricoeur (1981) develops the hermeneutic tradition by investigating the temporal features of a narrative. He views the relationship between time and a narrative as reciprocal: time reflects human existential arrangements articulated by a narrative, and a narrative is organized and mediated by time. Ricoeur (1981) understands a narrative as not merely a review of past incidents but “the ‘retrieval’ of our most fundamental potentialities” (p. 179), which is the assemblage of our inherited past and a ‘stretching out’ into our future. For him, a story is a significant medium for allowing the concealed meanings of life to emerge (Widdershoven, 1993). I also follow the hermeneutic tradition, which emphasizes the dialectic process of understanding social existences through the contestations and consensus between the inquirer and the respondent, and the hermeneutic belief that vague meanings of human experience emerge in more explicit and meaningful forms through narratives (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011). Therefore, I have endeavoured to confer valuable meanings on the stories of participants through interpretative processes, trying to unpack the underlying conceptions within their narratives. I have also relied on a feminist paradigm to explore aspects of gender in exchange students. The feminist ethos is closely connected to my personal life. I grew up in an androcentric Korean culture where, despite recent efforts to become a more egalitarian society, patriarchy is still prevalent. I often confronted situations of gender inequality, and these struggles continued into my professional life. When I was assigned to a provincial Metropolitan Office of Education in Korea in 2003, I was initially rejected by the superintendent at that time because I am a woman. He was reluctant to believe that a young woman could direct the work of older male officers. I was allowed to work there only on the condition that I occupy an unimportant post. This experience at the beginning of my career trajectory made me sensitive to gender issues, 84  and thereafter I began to explore social phenomena through the lens of gender.  Borrowing the Marxist idea that individual material lives determine personal understandings of the world, feminists investigate unequal social terrains in order to identify and provide more inclusive frameworks (Hesse-Biber, 2012). A narrative is a significant resource to support feminist arguments that a socially constructed gender hierarchy exists because personal narratives illuminate aspects of people’s behaviours and systemic constraints (Personal Narratives Group, 1989). The emphases on reflexivity and praxis are significant dimensions of the feminist approach. Feminist scholars emphasize that reflexivity should be practiced throughout the whole research process (Hesse-Biber & Piatelli, 2012; Olesen, 2005). Reflexivity demands that researchers be responsible for those whom they research by protecting their privacy when their participants want their identities to be unknown (Hesse-Biber & Piatelli, 2012). By taking a reciprocal research approach, reflexivity empowers participants. As such, I have tried to conduct this narrative study by rigorously paying attention to ethical issues that may arise throughout the entire procedure. 4.1.3   How does narrative inquiry align with my research? Narrative inquiry allows the researcher to explore students’ motivations and transnational experiences. Exchange students are ensnared by globalization, and their desires and aspirations are an outgrowth of the global flows of people, media, technologies, and ideas. However, globalization is not a one-shot occurrence, but an evolving process intertwined with “diachronic perspective” (Robertson, 1992, p. 26). As such, the conceptual dimensions of exchange students’ views and experiences should be examined chronologically to uncover the global facets of their historic lives. In this regard, narrative inquiry is very suitable because, as I noted before, it investigates the temporal sequential aspect of participants’ stories (Polkinghorne, 1995).  85  Furthermore, students’ motivations, as a combination of imaginaries and realities, can be delineated through stories because stories can accommodate both realities and creations. Students’ aspirations to study abroad are influenced by the abovementioned global flows of humans (through the recommendations of those who live in a foreign territory), techno-media (fabulous illustrations of a foreign country, mediated by techno-media), and ideologies (normative ideologies that students should join a global cadre to obtain a decent job). These images of a foreign country, interwoven with the realities of the transnational space, influence students and encourage them to seek a foreign sojourn. Because narrative encompasses both the real and the imaginary (Bruner, 1990), narrative inquiry is a proper approach to investigate these hybrid dimensions of students’ aspirations of going abroad.  Students’ transnational experience is an epiphanal incident; many students recount that their foreign sojourn was a memorable and life-changing experience (Nunan, 2006; Robbins et al., 2004; Root & Ngampornchai, 2013). The narrative inquiry used here includes the holistic stories of exchange students, and thus overcomes the limitations of restricted investigations, which are focused on “question-answer exchanges” (Mishler, 1986, p. 67). It is also useful in investigating academically under-researched realms because it uncovers many implications of unfamiliar terrains by allowing students to present their voices fully.  Thus far, the temporary foreign sojourns of undergraduate exchange students have been under-appreciated in comparison with the foreign sojourns of long-term international students. Sometimes, these exchange students are depicted as mere travelers, as privileged students enjoying an extravagant transnational journey, or as immature young adults who prefer social gatherings over contemplating global issues (Forsey et al., 2012; Tsoukalas, 2008). However, narrative inquiry helps to challenge these prejudices and partial illustrations by allowing for an 86  in-depth investigation of students’ underlying perceptions beyond their explicit narratives. For instance, after I met my participants for the first time, I felt some biases toward some of them. However, after meeting them again and again, I was able to debunk my own prejudices and deepen and expand my perspective on them. If I had conducted my research using a one-time interview method, I would not have been able to obtain these profound and multifaceted portraits of each participant.  Narrative inquiry is a powerful contributor to the co-development of researchers and participants by extending mutual reflexivity. As Ruthellen Josselson (1996) notes, narrative inquirers often experience uneasy and uncomfortable emotions in their intimate relationships with their participants, as well as with their obligation to talk publicly about their participants’ stories. As a narrative inquirer, I also experienced these tensions, especially as my relationships with participants became closer. Since narrative inquirers generally maintain close relationships with participants throughout their research, they are more aware of their positionality and negotiate their relationships constantly, which is something I did. In addition, narrative inquiry furthers narrators’ reflexivity because recounting their stories often digs up the “‘emotional residue’ of [their] experience” (Atkinson, 2002, p. 127). Hence, for most narrators, participation in a narrative study is a learning process through which they discover their new selves, improve their mental and intellectual capacities, and better understand their jobs, identities, and experiences (Y. Ahn, 2008; Atkinson, 2002; He, 1998; R. Lee, 2014).  Most undergraduate exchange students are from affluent socio-cultural and economic backgrounds, and their recollections of their foreign sojourn, an opportunity they previously had taken-for-granted, enable them to recognize and reflect on their privileged status and thus reshape the meanings of their transnational lives, including their future choices and opportunities. 87  Indeed, some of my participants, while talking about their transnational experiences, demonstrated a strong determination to engage in their foreign lives more thoroughly so that they could share more meaningful experiences with me in our next meeting. This underscores the point that telling stories encourages students to be more reflexive, and that these discursive engagements contribute in genuine ways to their transnational journeys.  4.2   Procedural Phases of Narrative Inquiry Clandinin and Connelly (2000) suggest conducting a narrative inquiry in five stages: initiating relationships with participants by “being in the field” (p. 63); listening to stories of participants by repositioning inquirers “from field to field texts” (p. 80); interweaving data by “composing field texts” (p. 92); making sense of experiences and perceptions by transforming “field texts to research texts” (p. 119); and “composing research texts” (p. 138) through constant negotiation between inductive and deductive reasoning. In capturing my participants’ stories, I used a deductive process based on the three theories of globalization, imagination and space, and an inductive process based on the ideas and themes that emerged both collectively and individually in their narratives. Below, I will illustrate my research process. 4.2.1   A journey into the field  I selected Canada University (CU, pseudonym) as a site for my field research because it has collaborated with Korean universities since early 2000, with around 100 inbound and outbound students joining exchange programs between Canada University and Korean universities annually since 2012. This provided me a sufficient population of potential participants. However, it was not easy to obtain any personal information about these students. Therefore, I approached a “gatekeeper” (Creswell, 2013, p. 94) at Canada University who would grant me access to the research field and to prospective participants. I met Judy (pseudonym), the 88  director who was in charge of student exchange programs at Canada University, to negotiate my access to the research site and explain the purposes, implications, and significance of my research (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Agreeing with my view of the urgent need for academic attention to exchange students, she agreed to support my research.  After the research site had been confirmed, I elaborated on the criteria of my participants. Given my research purpose of identifying various features of exchange students, I planned to compose a diverse list of participants in terms of study duration, gender, discipline, ethnicity, age, and transnational experience. In terms of nationality, originally I defined Canadian participants as Canadian citizenship holders; yet while I was researching the contextual landscapes of Canada University, I realized that the percentage of Canadian citizenship holders who went on an exchange to Korea was decreasing, whereas the ratio of Korean international students and Asian international students in Canada participating in these programs was increasing as I addressed in the previous chapter. Since 65% of Canada University students among outgoing exchange students to Korea were Koreans or other Asian students in terms of their nationality as of 2014, I included permanent residents in Canada as an additional eligibility criterion for Canadian participants in order to explore their perceptions and experiences, which may be somewhat different from the motivations and transnational experiences of Canadian citizenship holders. Because narrative inquiry permits the exploration of a small number of participants’ narratives in-depth, I planned to recruit six to ten participants, selecting them based on their diverse backgrounds. Given the number of outbound and inbound exchange students of Canada University, I assumed that it would not be difficult to recruit this number of participants. However, although stakeholders at Canada University officially supported my research, it was not easy to recruit participants. Because I was not allowed to contact exchange students 89  personally, Canada University contacted former exchange students through a listserv and introduced my research and provided my contact information so that interested individuals could contact me directly. Nonetheless, I did not receive any indications of interest through this official method. I then asked Judy to promote my research once again, yet still received no expressions of interest through the second official recruitment attempt. Therefore, I started to promote my research personally, as I indicated as an option in my proposal and Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) application, which included complementary recruiting strategies in the event I could not recruit enough participants through the official route.  I posted advertisements around the Canada University campus including in dormitories, chapels, cafeterias, and bus loops. I also promoted my research online using social networking services (SNSs) and popular websites for Korean international students in Canada and Canadian students. To protect their identification, I encouraged potential participants to contact me directly through email or a phone call and not to leave a message on the website. I also employed a network selection strategy, asking for referrals from my acquaintances and my previous relationships, and asking them to disseminate invitation letters to introduce my study to other potentially interested people (LeCompte, Preissle, & Tesch, 1993). After these online and offline promotions, some exchange students contacted me. However, most of them did not respond to my email asking for their demographic profiles.  In my communications with potential study participants, I emphasized the importance of sharing their voices to improve exchange programs, and stressed that their narratives would contribute to an understanding of short-term international students’ multiple motivations and experiences which might offer support to other students who were planning to participate in exchange programs, as well as academics and practitioners who had interests in international 90  students. After these initial communications, I finally recruited five female students, including three Canadian students, and two Korean students. Among the three Canadian participants, two were Korean Canadians and one was Chinese Canadian. Two Korean participants were former exchange students and the two Canadian students were former exchange students.  Because I wanted to capture the dynamic process of exchange students’ transcultural involvements and activities, I contacted Canada University again to find out whether it has SNSs for incoming and outgoing exchange students who would begin their exchange as of September 2015. Canada University has one official SNS for incoming exchange students and it allowed me to join the closed community so that I could promote my research. Within two days after I posted my advertisement, I received almost 10 replies from incoming Korean exchange students and realized the impact of SNSs among undergraduate students. Among them, I selected two female students and three male students, deploying a “purposive sampling” (Palys, 2008, p. 697) by taking individual backgrounds into consideration. After ten former and prospective exchange students agreed to participate in the research, I asked them to sign a written consent form, which described the purpose, possible risks of and benefits of joining the study, and the option of withdrawing from the study (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; iles, Huberman,  Salda a, 2014).  Before meeting the individual participants, one Korean male student informed me that he decided not to go on an exchange. Since I wanted to recruit one more Canadian participant, I asked initial participants who had already sent me their consent forms if they knew any other Canadian participants who might be interested in taking part in this study, and if so, to please promote my research to them. Although some initial participants tried to help me by introducing my research to their friends, none of these friends contacted me. In terms of ethnicity, all of my participants were Asians, and the number of Canadian participants was fewer than the number of 91  Korean participants. Hence, I promoted my research again after a new semester began, hoping that I could recruit at least one returnee Canadian exchange student, but this was not effective. Thus, I decided to enter the research field to meet nine participants. To keep participants’ identities anonymous, I asked them to select a pseudonym. The following Table 1 presents the demographic profiles of the nine participants. Table 1    Demographic Profile of the Nine Participants   Pseudo-nym Nationality/ Birthplace Home / Host U Gender  (Age) Major / Minor Academic year Exchange period Previous foreign experience Angela Canada / China CU /  HU Female (21) Political Science / International Relations 5th year SEP 2013 JUN 2014 US, Asia Erica Canada / Korea CU /  HU Female (23) Psychology Graduated in 2014 SEP 2011 AUG 2012 US, Asia Shinbi Korea (Seoul) HU /  CU Female (21) Economics /  Chinese Literature 4th year SEP 2014 APR 2015 Europe, Asia Bella Korea (Gyungju) PU /  CU Female (27) Business Administration Graduated in 2012 SEP 2011 DEC 2011 China Katy Canada / Korea CU /  HU Female (24) Commerce /  Human Resources 3rd year SEP 2015 DEC 2015 US, Europe Sarang Korea (Seoul) MU / CU Female (21) English Education / Economics 2nd year SEP 2015 DEC 2015 Asia Haram Korea (Gyunggi) DU /  CU Female (21) English Literature 3rd year SEP 2015 DEC 2015 Africa, Asia Maru Korea (Gyunggi) MU / CU Male (27) Psychology /  Business Administration 4th year SEP 2015 DEC 2015 US, Asia Gangin Korea (Seoul) DU /  CU Male (25) Applied Statistics 3rd year SEP 2015 DEC 2015 New Zealand, US, Asia, Europe   92  4.2.2   Being among the narratives  I collected a diversity of data through multiple sources, including field notes, observations, conversations, interviews, life stories, family stories, experiences, conceptions, and perceptions in and between Canada and Korea. In addition to their verbal and embodied data, I also asked them to share their study plans or written reports before, during, and after the exchange program if they had them. Three students shared their study plans. In general, Korean universities request their outbound exchange students to upload reflective reviews regarding their overseas education experience on the university’s official website. With participants’ permission, I included these publically-available documents as data but to preserve their confidentiality, I did not reveal any identifying information in those publicized documents. Furthermore, I asked participants to reflect on memorable items, including photos, that are associated with their transnational experience and to generate narratives using metaphors and images of the host country (Schwind, Zanchetta, Aksenchuk, & Gorospe, 2013). After I became close with participants, usually after the second or third meeting, I asked them to share their SNSs account, and some students asked for my SNSs account information first. I also included personal communications through SNSs, emails and one hand-written letter. However, to protect participants’ privacy, I did not use any postings or photos uploaded on SNSs directly in my research, and instead tried to associate them with each participant’s related narratives.  In addition, I started to write my own narratives to deepen my understanding of participants’ lives after I began my field research. Clandinin and Connelly (2000) urge narrative inquirers to start their study by writing their own narratives. Indeed, understanding myself as a Korean international student in Canada through an introspective monologue was what sparked my interest in understanding inbound Korean exchange students to Canada in the first place. 93  Moreover, reflecting on my years in Canada allowed me to perceive Korea from a distance, and to feel greater affinity for Canada, which helped me relate to the conceptual horizons of Canadian participants.  Although I incorporated a diversity of data to create enriched field texts, the main data in my study were verbatim transcripts from narrators’ oral stories. There are different ways to elicit narratives, yet interviews are widely used as a source of storied narratives (Atkinson, 2007; Polkinghorne, 1995; Riessman, 2008). The interview method is relevant specifically when exploring informants’ “identities, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, and orientations toward a range of phenomena” (Talmy, 2010, p. 25). I conducted one-on-one and face-to-face interviews in mutually agreed upon locations in Western Canada. I conducted at least three official interviews with each participant, and each interview lasted between 90 minutes and two hours. With some participants, I conducted additional interviews and met with them in person more times. However, some interviews were conducted over Skype. For instance, I had the first interview through Skype with four incoming Korean students before they came to Canada, and two interviews with one Canadian student while she was in Korea for her exchange.  Despite some drawbacks of using Skype, such as difficulties in building a close rapport, conducting interviews that way allowed me to interact with participants who were otherwise inaccessible in person (Janghorban, Roudsari, & Taghipour, 2014). Nonetheless, to overcome the challenge of building rapport, I also communicated with them through email before the Skype interview in order to build relationships with them (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014). I conducted interviews either in English or Korean depending on the participants’ preference. Except for one Chinese Canadian participant, the other eight participants wanted to conduct their interviews in Korean, although they used a lot of English words while they spoke. Even the single Canadian 94  participant who interviewed in English used a lot of Korean words. With their permission, I recorded the interview to create a more accurate transcript of the data. When I was investigating the first and the third research questions regarding their motivations and reflections on their exchange experience, I asked participants to historicize their past experiences and envision their future lives on a continuum of their entire biographic schemes (Atkinson, 2002, 2007). By doing this, I examined the process by which students decided to study abroad and their imaginary future existence based on their relational, spatial, and socio-cultural landscapes. Specifically, when I conducted my first interview with each of them, I asked them to share their family stories, academic lives, cultural engagements, and other relationships in their home or in other foreign countries in order to identify factors that influenced their aspirations for overseas education. Similarly, when I conducted the final interview with each participant, I asked them to portray their future trajectories, anticipating prospective challenges, concerns, expectations, and hopes. In addition, I inquired about their reflections on their temporary journey, letting them make recommendations to administrators of their home and host universities, as well as to future exchange students. I also asked them to reflect on how their exchange program experience had had reverberations in their lives and what they felt they achieved through their foreign sojourn. Meanwhile, when I explored the answers to my second research question regarding their transnational experiences in their academic, relational, and cultural space, I narrowed the focus to their epiphanal episodes, asking questions about their relationships with friends, faculties, other international students, and local people, as well as their perceptual, conceptual, and embodied navigations in their daily lives in academic and transcultural contexts. I also tried to capture the nuances of their transformative processes after they arrived on alien terrain.  95  Some participants were very adroit in verbally mapping out their experiences and perceptual territories, which helped me to grasp their underlying conceptions and emotions. However, some students found it difficult to describe their experiences at length. Therefore, I encouraged them to share whatever topics were familiar to them during their exchange program, even if they thought those experiences would be irrelevant to my research. Following Mellisa Freeman’s (2006) hermeneutic approach, I tried not to be quick to judge their narratives, but to let them tell their stories in a liberal mode by posing open-ended questions first, then prompting them to provide specific examples. After finishing each interview, I transcribed the audio-recoded file and my narrative study resulted in around 1,000 pages of verbatim transcript. Since eight participants’ transcripts are Korean, I translated them into English. However, I hired a Korean Canadian who had an official certificate of translator and interpreter and let her check original Korean transcript and my own translated English to ensure accurate translation to the original narratives by evading potential biases.  4.2.3   Interweaving narratives  After listening to each participant’s storied lives and lived stories, I started to transform their biographic stories, embedded with historic events and diverse emotions, into sociological narratives. While I was converting their multiple-layered field texts into research texts, I tried to interpret and illuminate their singular experiences and perceptions within the broader social contexts shaped by their different spatial, relational, and temporal stances. As I addressed before, Clandinin and Connelly (2000) emphasize that narrative inquirers should position field texts in relation to temporal, interactional, and situational spaces. In terms of the temporal dimension, I repositioned the field texts chronologically, looking backward and forward from the vantage point of each student’s participation in the exchange program. Then, I interjected an existential 96  element into each narrative. I categorized their lives in relation to internal and external situations, and arranged inward emotions and feelings, such as anxieties, expectations, concerns, and imaginations in the internal space, and placed their home/host country and university, socio-cultural, economic, and academic landscapes as part of their external situations. When it came to interaction, I included family stories and personal interactions, along with their academic relationships and social engagements.  Throughout the continuous processes of changing field data into sociological research data, I analyzed the data by combining deductive and inductive approaches. Unlike quantitative researchers who analyze deductively depending on hypotheses based on theories, qualitative scholars employ complex reasoning, mixing inductive and deductive processes throughout the research (Creswell, 2013). Thus, to analyze the data I mainly drew on Catherine Riessman’s (2008) scalar stages of thematic analysis, focusing on “‘what’ is said” (p. 53) and trying to interpret it within the broad socio-cultural contexts (Grbich, 2013; Gubrium & Holstein, 2009). I started to analyze the narratives deductively, starting from theoretical frameworks. However, I reanalyzed the data inductively to find recurrent themes. Through these “relentless rereading” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 131) processes, I selected categories of data that fell at the intersection of theoretical landscapes and the attributes that had emerged from the accumulated information and stories (Polkinghorne, 1995). While I was coding the data, I tried to capture common threads, gaps, and tensions within each narrator’s multiple narratives and among the participants’ differing stories. I also speculated as to what was “omitted, ignored, or could otherwise have been said” (Gubrium & Holstein, 2009, p. 52). Thus, I tried to find alternative and other interpretations beyond the students’ explicit statements, including by comparing their narratives with stories of other groups of 97  people. In addition, I tried to refashion each narrative from different perspectives and stances. Through this repetitive procedure, I coded “narratively” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 131) including silences, discrepancies, and similarities as a possible code to identify common and exceptional elements in and between data (Grbich, 2013; Polkinghorne, 1995).  After weaving these disparate narrative elements together, I grappled with the issue of how to represent these narratives. Narratives that had seemed clear when I was categorizing them no longer seemed so clear once I started to represent them. I became less confident in ‘how’ to convey what I wanted to share. Although I spent a lot of time and effort to understand field texts, I was still composing these research texts with an uncertain mind. Such doubts and complexities are common for narrative inquirers, who thus need to generate their research texts as something that is “becoming” instead of “being” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 145). I wanted not only to portray each participant’s idiosyncratic stories but also to elicit meaningful common messages that transcended each narrator’s unique stories due to my dual positionality as researcher and education officer. As a public officer in the Federal Ministry of Education in Korea, I wanted to help narrow the gap between agential and institutional understandings by unveiling conceptual, performative, and material practices in the under-researched realm of exchange students between Canada and Korea. Moreover, there were many overlapping and contrasting narratives in and between stories of individual participants. I decided to locate my data mainly based on overarching iterative and coherent discourses.  Yet, I presented some participants rather long narratives in the prelude to each finding chapter in order to provide a foreground for each section. As I noted before, the nine participants had different communication styles. Some participants appeared comfortable as storytellers through the interview process and when I posed an introductory question, they started their 98  stories very fluently, speaking in long passages. On the other hand, some participants found it challenging to tell a long story. For them, responding briefly with a couple of phrases was more common and familiar. Although all of the nine participants provided significant and meaningful narratives in relation to their exchange experience, I was obliged to strategically choose some participants whose stories would be presented in whole in the prelude of each finding chapter, which was not an easy decision. To create a story of these narrators, I reshaped their narratives through a continual “hermeneutic circle” (Polkinghorne, 1995, p. 16) of back-and-forth flows of their shared lives and storied lives. I also present a summary table of the nine participants before the prelude to allow readers to get a glimpse of how the nine narrators were portrayed. In addition to representation issues, the issue of translation emerged when I composed the research texts. I let participants choose between English and Korean for the interview language; all participants except one Chinese Canadian participant chose Korean as their interview language, even though, as mentioned above, those eight participants used a lot of English words. With respect to this, some suggest including “multilingual texts” (González y González & Lincoln, 2006, p. 204) because language is entrenched within complicated cultural and contextual milieu and thus it is challenging to convey exact meanings through translation. Nonetheless, given that this study includes a lot of long narratives, juxtaposing all narratives in both Korean and English may distract readers and make this dissertation too lengthy. Therefore, I only included some words in verbatim Korean to reduce semantic loss in cases of quintessential phrases and words whose exact English equivalent was difficult to identify. After I tried to find appropriate narratives in each section, I verified the quality of the research texts. However, since narrative data is “interpretive… composed by an individual at a certain moment in time” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 84), some argue that inquirers access 99  only an “imitation (mimesis)” (Riessman, 2008, p. 22, emphasis in original) by the narrator. Similarly, Jerome Bruner (1986) contends that a narrative mode cannot establish truth, but rather ascertains “verisimilitude” (p. 11). As such, narrative researchers, rather than focusing on whether narratives reflect factual reality, highlight the “authenticity” (Gubrium & Holstein, 2009, p. 202) of their data by asking themselves how narratives fit together in daily lives, and how fragmented parts of a story generate a coherent entity as a holistic narrative (Chase, 2005; Holstein & Gubrium, 2000; Mishler, 1986). Nonetheless, given questions about the quality of narrative inquiry and demands of methodological precision, I paid particular attention to establishing a “trustworthiness” of my study in terms of “credibility” by creating authentic narratives (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 300). Credibility, the extent to which findings reflect reality and correspond to research purposes, can be ensured by triangulation. Triangulation refers to collecting data from divergent sources and interpreting them from different angles (Lincoln &Guba, 1985; Miles et al., 2014). To ensure triangulation, I combined diverse sources, including field notes, conversations, interview transcripts, photos, my journals, and students’ written reports.  Furthermore, to ensure the trustworthiness of my study, I was cognizant of the blurry boundaries and overlapping areas of criteria, including nationality and gender. Thus, instead of juxtaposing narratives of Canadian students versus Korean students, and female students versus male students, I tried to thickly describe their diverse backgrounds and their unique narratives in detail in order to provide a broader and enriched vignette of the apprehensions, imaginations, and future dreams of each student. Because of these efforts, participants are illustrated as having evolving and multiple identities, but not on the basis of national, gender, and racial stereotypes, which might label them negatively and categorize them as fixed identities.  100  4.3   Summary  A story is “in between description and prescription” (Widdershoven & Smits, 1996, p. 278). A story is a discursive description of previous occurrences and perceptions. However, a story does not reflect reality per se, but embodies the significant implications of social arrangements, illustrating them in a meaningful way and allowing readers to interpret narratives from different perspectives (Gadamer, 1975). Stories also proffer prescriptions to the society by presenting alternative connotations; hence, in this case, telling stories permitted Canadian and Korean exchange students to reconstruct their global, regional, local, and academic contexts that were circumscribed by their historic selves, their assembled resources, and their imagined future conditions.  Following Riessman’s (2008) thematic analysis, I repeated deductive and inductive reasoning to understand each exchange student’s underlying motivations and multifaceted transnational experiences within broader socio-historic, economic, academic, and cultural landscapes. Along these lines, living with the nine narrators’ narratives has permitted me to grasp their fluid modes of being in the relational, temporal, and spatial territories. In the subsequent four chapters, I will share what I heard and what I felt in relation to the nine exchange students’ temporary foreign sojourn in and between Canada and Korea.  101  Chapter 5: Being on a Threshold of Storied Lives In this chapter, I present what nine exchange students recounted about their life trajectories and their desires and anxieties, which had been generated at the intersection of local and global arenas, for a foreign sojourn. The academic, relational, and socio-cultural landscapes in which each participant had been positioned created different desires to go abroad. For some, the desire had been instilled into them even before they entered university. For others, being an exchange student was rather an abrupt decision in response to administrative matters, and they would not likely have embarked on an exchange program without official supports between their home and host universities.  The particular demographic backgrounds of each student shaped their differing imaginations and expectations of their host country and their future lives in a transnational space. For some, their foreign sojourn involved going to a country that was already somewhat familiar; others crossed the border between Canada and Korea with only a vague image of their host country. There were also some commonalities among individual backgrounds of participants. Most of them were from the upper echelons, attending prestigious universities and speaking two or more languages. The exchange programs between Canada and Korea were gendered and ethnically biased spheres, with a female majority within the study abroad student population and Asian ethnic backgrounds being the most common within the two-country exchange. In the Korean circumstance, mandatory military service for Korean males is a major reason for the predominance of Korean female students in exchange programs.  Before I examine local territories of participants, I provide their vignettes in Table 2 to portray how their aspirations had been stimulated, and what it was they wanted to achieve. Then, I introduce Shinbi’s story in the prelude as a foreground to the nine portraits of displacement.  102  Table 2  Motivation Profile of the Nine Participants  Pseudo- nym Home/ Host U Local terrains Global flows Expectation Angela CU /  HU Immigrated to Canada and grew up in multicultural Eastern Canada. Applied to a university in Western Canada to be independent from parents, but suffered from family issues before going on an exchange. Became close to Korean exchange students. Got positive images of Korea through media. Improve Korean. Erica CU /  HU Immigrated to Canada in 2004 and got along with Asian Canadians. Started to work since grade 8. Stressed out and lonel