Housing trajectories of Chinese international students in Sydney, Australia
Sarah Elisabeth Judd
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters by Research
Faculty of the Built Environment
University of New South Wales
November 2013
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...... i
List of Papers ...... ii
List of Figures ...... iii
List of Tables ...... vi
List of Abbreviations ...... viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
1.1 Introduction ...... 1
1.2 Thesis statement ...... 3
1.3 Research questions ...... 4
1.4 Research significance ...... 4
1.5 Thesis structure ...... 5
Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework ...... 6
2.1 Introduction ...... 6
2.2 Theoretical background ...... 8
2.3 Housing trajectories ...... 10
2.3.1 Housing careers, pathways and trajectories ...... 10
2.3.2 Applications to relevant groups ...... 15
2.4 Structure and agency ...... 18
2.4.1 Structure ...... 19
2.4.2 Agency ...... 20
2.4.3 Integrating structure and agency ...... 23
2.5 Housing outcomes and wellbeing ...... 25
2.5.1 Housing outcomes ...... 26
2.5.2 Wellbeing ...... 28
2.5.3 Housing outcomes and wellbeing ...... 30
2.6 Summary ...... 33
Chapter 3: Methods ...... 36
3.1 Introduction ...... 36
3.2 Methodology ...... 36
3.3 Research focus ...... 40
3.3.1 International students ...... 41
3.3.2 Why Sydney? ...... 42
3.3.3 Why universities, and why UNSW? ...... 43
3.3.4 Why Chinese students? ...... 44
3.4 Research methods ...... 50
3.4.1 Interviews ...... 51
3.4.2 Survey ...... 54
3.4.3 Focus groups ...... 62
3.5 Summary ...... 67
Chapter 4: Structural Factors ...... 69
4.1 Introduction ...... 69
4.2 The internationalisation of higher education and housing context ...... 70
4.2.1 The internationalisation of higher education ...... 71
4.2.2 The internationalisation of higher education in Australia ...... 73
4.3 Immigration policy and housing context ...... 75
4.3.1 Australian immigration policy and the Chinese international student population . 78
4.3.2 Chinese immigration policy and the Chinese international student population .... 80
4.4 Status, rights and entitlements and housing context ...... 81
4.4.1 The status of international students in Australia ...... 82
4.4.2 The rights and entitlements of international students in NSW ...... 83
4.5 Housing market conditions and housing context ...... 87
4.5.1 Student housing options in Sydney ...... 88
4.5.2 Private rental market conditions in Sydney ...... 92
4.6 Summary ...... 95
Chapter 5: Resources and Constraints ...... 98
5.1 Introduction ...... 98
5.2 Types of resources and constraints ...... 99
5.3 Internal resources and constraints ...... 102
5.3.1 Knowledge ...... 102
5.3.2 Experience ...... 107
5.3.3 Time ...... 108
5.3.4 Financial resources ...... 109
5.3.5 Ethnicity ...... 112
5.4 External resources and constraints ...... 115
5.4.1 The internet ...... 115
5.4.2 Family and friends ...... 120
5.4.3 Other students ...... 124
5.4.4 Agents ...... 126
5.4.5 University services ...... 127
5.4.6 The Chinese community ...... 129
5.5 Summary ...... 130
Chapter 6: Strategies ...... 132
6.1 Introduction ...... 132
6.2 Strategies for finding accommodation ...... 134
6.2.1 Organising accommodation from overseas ...... 136
6.2.2 Multiple occupancy ...... 138
6.2.3 Reliance on co-ethnic networks ...... 140
6.2.4 Making trade-offs ...... 144
6.3 Strategies for dealing with problems with accommodation ...... 146
6.3.1 Tolerance ...... 148
6.3.2 Modification...... 151
6.3.3 Moving out ...... 153
6.4 Summary ...... 157
Chapter 7: Housing Outcomes and Wellbeing ...... 159
7.1 Introduction ...... 159
7.2 Measuring the effects of housing outcomes on wellbeing ...... 160
7.2.1 Four kinds of housing outcomes ...... 160
7.2.2 Four kinds of wellbeing effects ...... 162
7.3 Material housing outcomes and wellbeing ...... 167
7.3.1 Dwelling type ...... 167
7.3.2 Dwelling quality ...... 169
7.3.3 Residential density ...... 172
7.3.4 Dwelling location and neighbourhood conditions...... 176
7.4 Transactional housing outcomes and wellbeing ...... 180
7.4.1 Tenure type ...... 180
7.4.2 Housing affordability ...... 183
7.5 Social housing outcomes and wellbeing ...... 185
7.5.1 Household type ...... 185
7.5.2 Household dynamics ...... 188
7.6 Transitional housing outcomes and wellbeing ...... 192
7.6.1 Housing security ...... 192
7.6.2 Residential mobility ...... 194
7.7 Summary ...... 195
Chapter 8: Conclusion ...... 196
8.1 Introduction ...... 196
8.2 Approach ...... 196
8.3 Findings ...... 197
8.3.1 Problematic housing outcomes experienced by international students in Sydney ...... 197
8.3.2 Circumstances influencing the housing outcomes of international students in Sydney ...... 199
8.4 Implications for further research and policy development ...... 202
Reference List ...... 206
Appendix 1 : Sample Interview Questions ...... 232
Appendix 2 : Interview Coding Framework ...... 233
Appendix 3 : Survey Questions ...... 235
Appendix 4 : Survey Coding Framework ...... 245
Appendix 5: Cross-tabulations ...... 249
Appendix 6 : Focus Group Slides ...... 261
Acknowledgements
A number of people have been instrumental in assisting with the preparation of this thesis. I would foremost like to thank my two supervisors at the University of New South Wales, Dr Hazel Easthope and Dr Christine Steinmetz, who have consistently provided extensive, helpful feedback on my research and who have always been approachable, constructive and supportive. The stakeholders and Chinese international students who participated in my interviews, survey and focus groups have also been essential to this research. I am grateful to them for taking the time to share their experiences and ideas, as well as assisting in recruiting other participants and pointing me towards relevant information and contacts. I also wish to express my gratitude to my colleagues in the City Futures Research Centre for supporting me in my research, in particular Mr Andy Tice and Dr Edgar Liu who assisted me on several occasions in understanding the ‘numbers side’ of my research. My research candidature would not have been the same without the constant companionship of my fellow research students in the Faculty of the Built Environment, especially my Chinese friends who provided useful linguistic and cultural assistance, and the residents of the Mezzanine Lab, who helped me to stay sane through providing support and advice as well as fun and friendship. Finally, I would like to thank my flatmate, friends and family for their support over the past two years, especially my parents, Bruce and Heather Judd, for allowing me to talk through my ideas and for helping to proofread my final draft.
i
List of Papers
The following conference papers arose from the research presented in this thesis:
Judd, S., Liu, E. and Easthope, H. (2011) ‘Navigating a complex housing landscape: University students’ housing options, pathways and outcomes’, Peer- reviewed paper presented at the State of Australian Cities conference, 29 November to 2 December 2011, Melbourne.
Judd, S. (2012) ‘Housing and international student experience’, Peer-reviewed paper presented at the Australian International Education Conference, 2-5 October 2012, Melbourne.
ii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Housing trajectories of international students: A conceptual framework ...... 8
Figure 2.2 Factors affecting the housing trajectories of households ...... 14
Figure 2.3 Housing trajectories of international students: Structure and context ...... 20
Figure 2.4 Housing trajectories of international students: Agency ...... 22
Figure 2.5 Excerpt from ‘Factors affecting the housing careers of households’...... 27
Figure 2.6 Housing trajectories of international students: Housing outcomes ...... 32
Figure 3.1: Relationships between the three primary research methods ...... 39
Figure 3.2 International student enrolments in Australia 1994-2011 ...... 44
Figure 3.3: How respondents found out about the survey ...... 57
Figure 3.4 Gender of survey respondents compared to Chinese international students at UNSW, 2011, and Chinese overseas higher education students in Australia, 2011 ...... 60
Figure 3.5 Age distribution of survey respondents ...... 61
Figure 3.6 Age distribution of Chinese students at UNSW, 2011 ...... 61
Figure 3.7 Age distribution of Chinese international students across all sectors (including higher education), 2011 (AEI 2012e) ...... 61
Figure 3.8 Level of study of survey respondents compared to Chinese international students at UNSW, 2011, and all overseas higher education students in Australia, 2011 ...... 62
Figure 4.1 Key structural factors and their implications for housing context ...... 70
Figure 4.2 Number of students enrolled outside their country of citizenship (millions) ...... 72
Figure 4.3: Five phases in the internationalisation of higher education in Australia ...... 76
Figure 4.4 Top 16 source countries over time (Australian international education) ...... 77
Figure 4.5: Typical private rental advertisements targeting international students outside two Sydney universities ...... 91
Figure 4.6 The three major universities located in inner Sydney ...... 93
Figure 5.1 I have not been aware of my rights and responsibilities according to Australian law while in Sydney...... 106
iii
Figure 5.2 My current lease / agreement follows the legal requirements ...... 106
Figure 5.3 Main source of income of survey respondents ...... 110
Figure 5.4 I feel I have experienced racism or discrimination in my search for accommodation while in Sydney...... 114
Figure 5.5 I feel I have experienced racism or discrimination while living in my accommodation while in Sydney...... 115
Figure 5.6 Resources survey respondents used to find accommodation in Sydney ...... 116
Figure 5.7 Websites survey respondents used to find accommodation in Sydney ...... 117
Figure 5.8 I have been the victim of a scam while in Sydney ...... 119
Figure 5.9 Helpful resources for survey respondents dealing with problems with accommodation in Sydney ...... 120
Figure 5.10: Helpful resources for survey respondents looking for accommodation in Sydney ...... 121
Figure 6.1 The usefulness of strategies in understanding housing trajectories ...... 133
Figure 6.2 Ease of finding current accommodation for survey respondents...... 135
Figure 6.3 Number of other people sharing survey respondents’ current accommodation ...... 139
Figure 6.4 Main language spoken in survey respondents’ current accommodation ...... 141
Figure 6.5 I have had difficulty resolving problems with my accommodation while in Sydney ...... 147
Figure 6.6 Number of times survey respondents had moved since coming to Sydney ...... 154
Figure 6.7 Reasons for which survey respondents had moved accommodation ...... 155
Figure 7.1 Four kinds of housing outcomes ...... 161
Figure 7.2 Different kinds of housing outcomes and the housing trajectory ...... 161
Figure 7.3 Survey respondents’ satisfaction with current accommodation ...... 164
Figure 7.4 Problems with my accommodation have negatively impacted on my studies while in Sydney ...... 167
Figure 7.5 Dwelling types of survey respondents ...... 168
Figure 7.6 My accommodation is safe and well maintained ...... 170
Figure 7.7 I have lived in a room that was not a proper bedroom while in Sydney ...... 172
Figure 7.8 I have lived in accommodation shared by too many people while in Sydney ...... 173
iv
Figure 7.9 I am happy with the location of my current accommodation ...... 177
Figure 7.10 I have lived in accommodation where I have felt unsafe while in Sydney ...... 180
Figure 7.11 Tenure types of survey respondents ...... 181
Figure 7.12 I can afford the cost of my current accommodation ...... 184
Figure 7.13 I have paid more money for accommodation that what I could really afford while in Sydney ...... 185
Figure 7.14 Household types of survey respondents ...... 186
Figure 7.15 Number of other people sharing respondents’ rooms ...... 186
Figure 7.16 I have a good relationship with the person / people I pay for my accommodation ...... 189
Figure 7.17 I have been treated unfairly by a landlord while in Sydney ...... 189
Figure 7.18 I have a good relationship with the other people I live with ...... 191
Figure 7.19 I have experienced having nowhere to stay while in Sydney ...... 193
v
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Key principles and major concepts ...... 6
Table 3.1 Onshore overseas students in Australia’s capital city universities, full years 2010 and 2011 ...... 45
Table 3.2 Summary of interviewees ...... 52
Table 3.3 Summary of focus group participants ...... 65
Table 4.1: Entitlements available to international students ...... 84
Table 4.2 Housing market characteristics compared: Greater Sydney, City and Inner South, Eastern Suburbs, 2011 Census ...... 94
Table 5.1: Top three external resources used by survey respondents ...... 101
Table 6.1 Three strategies for coping with problems or inadequacies with accommodation ...... 150
Table 7.1 Geographic location of survey respondents ...... 178
Table A.1 Main source of income by legal status of current lease or agreement ...... 249
Table A.2 Main source of income by having not been aware of rights and responsibilities ...... 249
Table A.3 Age bracket by main source of income ...... 250
Table A.4 Current dwelling type by main source of income ...... 250
Table A.5 Current dwelling type by age bracket ...... 250
Table A.6 Main source of income by having paid more money for accommodation than what one could afford ...... 251
Table A.7 Main source of income by ability to afford current accommodation ...... 251
Table A.8 Years of study completed in Sydney by seeking help from friends and relatives living in Sydney when looking for accommodation ...... 251
Table A.9 Age bracket by seeking help from friends and relatives living in Sydney when dealing with problems with their accommodation ...... 252
Table A.10 Main source of income by seeking help from other international students at their university when looking for accommodation ...... 252
vi
Table A.11 Years of study completed in Sydney by seeking help from other international students at their university when looking for accommodation ...... 253
Table A.12 Main language spoken at home by ease finding current accommodation...... 253
Table A.13 Main source of income by satisfaction with current accommodation ...... 254
Table A.14 Level of study by satisfaction with current accommodation ...... 254
Table A.15 Level of study by negative impacts of housing problems on study ...... 254
Table A.16 Main source of income by negative impacts of housing problems on study ...... 255
Table A.17 Years of study completed in Sydney by negative impacts of housing problems on study ...... 255
Table A.18 Current dwelling type by satisfaction with current accommodation ...... 255
Table A.19 Gender by having lived in a room that was not a proper bedroom ...... 256
Table A.20 Age bracket by having lived in accommodation shared by too many people ...... 256
Table A.21 Satisfaction with current location by satisfaction with current accommodation...... 256
Table A.22 Tenure type by satisfaction with current accommodation ...... 257
Table A.23 Current private rental type by satisfaction with current accommodation ...... 257
Table A.24 Level of study by having paid more money for accommodation than what one could afford ...... 258
Table A.25 Age bracket by having paid more money for accommodation than what one could afford ...... 258
Table A.26 Current household type by satisfaction with current accommodation ...... 258
Table A.27 Satisfaction with current accommodation by conditions of current accommodation ..... 259
Table A.28 Age bracket by legal status of current lease or agreement ...... 259
Table A.29 Times moved in Sydney by years of study completed in Sydney...... 260
vii
List of Abbreviations
ABS – Australian Bureau of Statistics
AEI – Australian Education International
AHRC – Australian Human Rights Commission
CNOS – Canadian National Occupancy Standard
COAG – Council of Australian Governments
CTTT – Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal
DEEWR – Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
DIAC – Department of Immigration and Citizenship
DIIRD – Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development
DIISRTE – Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
IARO – Institutional Analysis and Reporting Office (UNSW)
IELTS – International English Language Testing System
ISDT – International Student Development Taskforce (University of Sydney)
NHSC – National Housing Supply Council
NSW – New South Wales
OECD – Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
REINSW – Real Estate Institute of New South Wales
SDI – Student Development International (UNSW)
SUPRA - Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association
UNSW – University of New South Wales
VEOHRC – Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission
viii
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
“Slum conditions, overcrowding and dodgy landlords – welcome to foreign student accommodation in Australia’s most glamorous city...Cheap accommodation is hard to find and rogue landlords entice students into their net with advertisements promising centrally-located quality apartments at reasonable prices. When they turn up, the lodgings bear little resemblance to the promises.” (Noyon 2011)
International education is Australia’s fourth largest export after iron, coal and gold, and was worth over fifteen billion dollars in 2011 (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) 20121). In 2012, there were more than 500,000 international students living in Australia on student visas, nearly half of whom were enrolled in higher education courses (Australian Education International (AEI) 2012a). In Australian universities, international students make up approximately one fifth of the overall student population (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) 20122). However, it is only recently, following uproar in 2008-2009 over assaults on Indian students in Melbourne (Marginson et al. 2010; Senate 2009) and associated declines in enrolments threatening the education sector (Bourke 2012; Philimore & Koshy 2010), that the welfare of international students has become a priority in the public domain. This represents a significant oversight given Australia’s dependence on international education revenue (Deloitte Access Economics 2011), contractual obligation to deliver on consumer rights (Robertson 2011a) and moral obligation to uphold human rights, especially among vulnerable minorities (Deumert et al. 2005).
Since these scandals over student safety, however, Australian governments have shown a firm commitment to promoting and protecting the wellbeing of international students.
1 International education is represented by the category ‘Education-related travel services’ (DFAT 2012), which covers expenditure by foreign students in Australia, including tuition fees and living expenses (ABS 2002). 2 Data from Table 2.10 of the DEEWR dataset. This figure was calculated by dividing the number of students on temporary entry visas at the 39 Australian universities by the total number of students at those universities. 1
In October 2012, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) published their Principles to promote and protect the human rights of international students (AHRC 2012), the latest in a series of federal and state government publications (e.g. Australian Government 2010; Council of Australian Governments (COAG) 2010; Social Policy Committee 2011) to reflect this position. All of these publications acknowledge the importance of appropriate accommodation as one of several areas contributing to international student wellbeing. Furthermore, the AHRC document includes living arrangements as one of the key areas of international student experience requiring greater research and data collection in order to protect their human rights (AHRC 2012: 14). This recognition of accommodation needs and call for further research reflects the fact that a number of key housing problems – especially unaffordability, overcrowding and exploitation – have been frequently associated with international students by the media, student advocates and Members of Parliament (e.g. Aston 2010; Dominello 2010; Fife-Yeomans 2011; Swinburne et al. 2011). It also indicates that there has been little concrete evidence documenting the housing experiences of international students in Australia.
Despite the increasing profile of international student housing3 in the public sphere, at the time of writing little is known about the extent to which the problems identified occur and their implications for international students. Evidence that does exist is largely anecdotal or ungeneralisable. Furthermore, analysis of how and why international students encounter these problems has been extremely limited. The research presented in this thesis meets the challenge by the AHRC to provide data regarding international students’ living arrangements that can assist stakeholders to protect and promote their wellbeing. It also begins to fill gaps in the literature regarding the nature, extent and implications of housing problems such as unaffordability, overcrowding and exploitation, as well as circumstances influencing their occurrence, with particular reference to the experiences of a case study group: Chinese international students at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). It achieves this by introducing an original conceptual framework representing the housing trajectories of international students, drawing together the findings of scoping interviews with people working with
3 Wherever this thesis refers to ‘international student housing’ or ‘international student accommodation', it does not refer to a specific type of purpose-built accommodation, such as on campus, but rather to the broad range of different types of accommodation (including on- campus university accommodation and the full range of formal and informal private rental options) which international students occupy. 2 international students in Sydney and literature from the fields of housing research, social theory and international education. This framework was tested through its application to data from a survey and focus groups conducted with Chinese international students at UNSW.
Sydney is Australia’s largest city (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2012a), China is the top source country for international students in Australia (AEI 2012d), and UNSW hosts the largest number of international students of any Australian university (DEEWR 20124). In November 2011, the first government inquiry specifically addressing international student accommodation in Australia (Social Policy Committee 2011) reported that international students in the state of New South Wales (NSW), including its capital, Sydney, face the same kinds of housing problems identified among international students across the country, with submissions reflecting an inadequate supply of affordable housing, limited legal protection and dispute resolution mechanisms, inadequate advice and assistance, and vulnerability to exploitation by unscrupulous landlords. Although it is limited, recently published research on the housing experiences of international students in Sydney (GML Social Research 2011; Obeng-Odoom 2012; Turcic 2008) confirms the existence of these and other challenges threatening international students’ wellbeing. The quotation at the beginning of this chapter (Noyon 2011) vividly portrays the kind of scenario these challenges can create for some international students in Sydney. Although this pessimistic view does not represent the experience of every international student, it was anecdotal reports such as these that prompted the researcher to undertake a thesis on this topic and which highlight the need for a better understanding of international student housing experiences in Sydney.
1.2 Thesis statement
Existing evidence suggests that many international university students in Sydney encounter problematic housing outcomes such as unaffordability, exploitation and crowding. However, the housing problems experienced by international students are only a small part of a much larger picture. Housing outcomes are influenced by the structural factors, resources and constraints that shape international students’ housing
4 Data from Table 2.10 of the DEEWR dataset. 3 options, and the ways in which they engage these resources via strategies to meet their housing needs and preferences. A better understanding of the circumstances that influence housing outcomes among Chinese international students in Sydney will provide governments, educational institutions and other stakeholders with a greater understanding of their housing experiences in Sydney and Australia as a whole, and inform more effective intervention to enhance international student wellbeing.
1.3 Research questions
1. What are the main problematic housing outcomes experienced by international students in Sydney?
2. What circumstances influence the housing outcomes of international students in Sydney?
1.4 Research significance
This research is significant at a local level, but also nationally and internationally. At the local level, it contributes substantially to the limited existing evidence base regarding the housing experiences of international students in Sydney. Data from the case study group of Chinese international students at UNSW not only assist with an understanding of the housing experiences of one of the largest sub-groups of international students in Sydney, but also provide a starting point for understanding the housing problems that may be experienced more broadly among students of different nationalities and studying on different campuses.
At the national level, this research addresses gaps in the Australian literature regarding the extent of international student housing problems and the circumstances influencing these. Some Australian studies have used interview data to identify challenges faced by international students in relation to their housing (e.g. Fincher et al. 2009; Forbes- Mewett and Nyland’s 2008; Smith et al. 2007). Others have conducted surveys reporting on the types of accommodation international students live in, and the degree to which they are satisfied with their housing and its associated costs (e.g. AEI 2010; Argueta et al. 2009; Rosenthal et al. 2006). This, however, is the first known study to combine
4 qualitative methods with a large survey specifically addressing problematic housing outcomes to assess the extent to which these problems resonate with the experiences of a substantial sample of international students.
At the international level, the findings of this research may also provide insight into the housing experiences of international students in other countries, in spite of jurisdictional and contextual differences. An extensive search of the academic literature did not discover any other published research applying the concept of housing trajectories, which underpins the conceptual framework for this research, to international student housing experiences, or explicitly investigating international students’ housing strategies. This research thus offers unique insights into how housing problems among international students may be understood. The conceptual framework may also provide insights into the housing experiences of other groups such as other migrants and students.
1.5 Thesis structure
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 presents the conceptual framework for the research and outlines its main principles and theoretical influences. Chapter 3 identifies and justifies the methodology, focus and methods. Chapters 4 to 7 present the findings from interviews with key stakeholders together with findings from a survey and focus groups of Chinese international students attending UNSW, with reference to relevant housing and international education literature. Chapter 4 examines the influence of key structural factors on the housing trajectories of international students in Sydney and introduces the socio-political context for the subsequent findings chapters. Chapter 5 identifies, illustrates and explains the roles of resources and constraints in shaping Chinese international students’ housing trajectories, while Chapter 6 examines the ways in which students engage these in strategies to meet their housing needs and preferences. Chapter 7 provides evidence of the common housing outcomes experienced by Chinese international students at UNSW, and discusses the implications of these for their wellbeing. Chapter 8 concludes the thesis, overviewing its approach and findings and considering their implications for further research, policy and practice.
5
Chapter 2: Conceptual framework
2.1 Introduction “It is important to realise that a household’s present housing situation is a snapshot in the total housing career. Present decisions taken by households with regard to their housing situation cannot be seen separately from decisions taken earlier in the housing career.” (Bolt & van Kempen 2002: 402)
This quotation from an article on the housing careers of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands succinctly captures a foundational premise of this research: that the housing conditions of international students are only a small part of a much larger picture. Problems international students may face with their housing do not occur within a vacuum, but are rather the product of a combination of prior actions by students themselves and the forces at work around them. Underlying this premise are three key principles appropriated from contemporary housing research, and a number of subordinate major concepts. These are summarised and contextualised in Table 2.1 and are further expounded in the same order in the remainder of this chapter.
Table 2.1 Key principles and major concepts
Key Principles Major concepts Origin within Summary housing research term
1. International students’ acquisition and Housing Research on Housing consumption of housing over time careers, residential trajectories represents ongoing trajectories in housing mobility which all actions, outcomes and pathways, processes are connected. housing trajectories
2. International students’ housing choices Structure, Research on the Structure and experiences do not result purely agency, impacts of choice and agency from their own deliberate actions or resources, and constraint on purely from external forces beyond constraints, housing their control, but an integration of the strategies outcomes two.
3. The kind of housing in which Housing Research on the Housing international students live and how outcomes, influence of outcomes they view and experience it impacts wellbeing housing on and their overall wellbeing. human health wellbeing and wellbeing
6
These principles are reflected in the original conceptual framework developed for this research. The conceptual framework (depicted in Figure 2.1) was developed through a combination of in-depth analysis of qualitative data from scoping interviews with key stakeholders (described in Section 3.4.1) and extensive consultation of relevant literature from the fields of housing research, social theory and international education. The conceptual framework diagram represents the following resultant understanding of housing trajectories: Structural factors shape the housing context in which international students find themselves. They negotiate this context by engaging with the resources and constraints that surround them and by creating strategies to meet their housing needs and preferences. These processes influence both the broader structural factors shaping the housing context and the particular kinds of housing outcomes international students encounter. Students’ housing outcomes simultaneously shape the processes they use to acquire and consume housing and their personal wellbeing. Wellbeing associated with housing ultimately feeds back to affect housing outcomes, housing context and structural factors. This chapter explores the theoretical basis of each principle reflected in the conceptual framework, however it should be noted that the components of the conceptual framework, and their relationships with one another, were equally informed by the interviews undertaken for this study, and were tested and refined in their application to Chinese international students at UNSW through a survey and focus groups. These primary research methods are discussed in Chapter 3.
The body of this chapter begins by providing the theoretical background for the key principles underlying this research, situating the three relevant strands of housing research within broader developments in social theory. Following this, housing careers, housing pathways and housing trajectories are introduced and defined, with a brief review of key literature where these concepts have been applied in contexts relevant to the study of international students. The subsequent section defines structure and agency and their application within housing research then proceeds to give examples of how structure and agency have been integrated to provide a richer understanding of social action and housing behaviour. The final section of this chapter explains what is meant by housing outcomes and wellbeing in this research and briefly reviews evidence from the literature regarding their relationship.
7
Figure 2.1 Housing trajectories of international students: A conceptual framework
S T R U C T U R A L F A C T O R S
Resources Constraints
International Student
Strategies
HOUSING OUTCOMES
W E L L B E I N G
Source: Author
2.2 Theoretical background
As Table 2.1 demonstrates, the three key principles and subordinate major concepts behind this research are drawn from particular areas of housing research, namely research on residential mobility, choice and constraint and the effects of housing on human health and wellbeing. However housing research is mostly a practical and policy- focussed field (Kemeny 1992) which owes its theoretical foundations to other more theory-based social sciences such as sociology, economics, geography and political science (Jacobs et al. 2004; Kemeny 1992; King 2009). The theoretical tools developed within the social sciences to describe and explain interactions between people and the operation of social systems are broadly referred to as ‘social theory’ (Coleman 1994; Parsons 1951). Although much housing research does not explicitly align itself with
8 particular social theories (Clapham 2005), research always carries underlying assumptions that have a theoretical origin (Fopp 2008), in this case, from within social theory. The strands of housing research from which the principles and concepts for the present study are drawn represent prominent traditions within housing research and social theory, but have more recently been influenced by theoretical developments that have brought to the fore the diverse characteristics, perceptions and experiences of individuals as the central component for analysing social action and social systems.
Following other social sciences, housing research has traditionally reflected a positivist paradigm, which assumes that the role of researchers is to uncover existing ‘social facts’ which can be empirically and quantitatively measured (Clapham 2005; Jacobs et al. 2004).This assumption led to a focus within housing research on the economic, tenure and geographic characteristics of housing at a collective scale (Clapham 2005; Clark et al. 1996; Murie 1974; Wallace 2004). However, positivist approaches have been criticised for providing an overly simplistic framework for understanding housing behaviour that neglects the influence of contextual factors and the active role people take in shaping their own housing experiences (Brandsen 2001; Clapham 2005; Wallace 2004). In the words of leading housing researcher David Clapham (2005: 10-11):
“In general it is assumed that households are rational and instrumental in their approach to housing decisions...The housing field is portrayed as an objective reality that is uncontentious and perceived in uniform ways by the participants in it...There is little focus on the relationship between the attitudes and behaviour of the actors on the one hand and the constraints and opportunities which they face on the other.”
Developments in social theory regarding the relationship between structure and agency and regarding subjective experience and the creation of meaning have provided tools and approaches that are useful for gaining more nuanced understandings of housing behaviour that place a greater emphasis on the importance of contextual factors and individual attitudes and behaviours (Clapham 2005; Jones et al. 2011). As a result, much contemporary research on residential mobility, choice and constraint and the influence of housing on human health and wellbeing reflects a focus on individual differences and experiences. The present research follows this developing focus on the individual within his/her context as the central object of study, as can be seen by the placement of the international student at the centre of the conceptual framework diagram (Figure 2.1). 9
2.3 Housing trajectories
The terms ‘housing careers’, ‘housing pathways’ and ‘housing trajectories’ represent various approaches to describing and explaining the movement of households between dwellings over time (residential mobility) using metaphors of progression and journey. These approaches are useful for understanding international students’ housing experiences because studying movements between dwellings sheds light on how households make choices, the factors that constrain their choices, and how the experience of particular groups compares to those of other groups in society. This can help determine whether considerable disadvantage or discrimination exists and therefore assist in creating appropriate policy solutions (Ozuekren & Van Kempen 2002). Housing careers, housing pathways and housing trajectories overlap considerably in the housing literature, to the extent that they are sometimes used interchangeably (e.g. Robinson et al. 2007, Rugg et al. 2004). At the same time, they have also been identified as having distinct features which differentiate them from one another. This research draws on literature based on all three concepts, but ultimately uses housing trajectories as its driving concept, as explained later in this section. The section begins by comparing and contrasting housing careers, housing pathways and housing trajectories approaches. It then briefly reviews the key literature where these concepts have been used in contexts relevant to the study of international students.
2.3.1 Housing careers, pathways and trajectories A housing career has been defined as “the sequence of dwellings that a household occupies during its history” (Pickles & Davies 1991: 466) and refers to preferences, choices and constraints, perceptions and meaning, and decision making processes connected to housing (Beer et al. 2006; Ozuekren & Van Kempen 2002). Housing choices and moves are examined in relation to life events experienced by individuals and households (such as leaving home, having children, changing jobs) and as such are viewed as taking place over the long-term ‘life course’ (Clark et al. 1996). The term is typically imbued with an assumption of progress or upward mobility, with home ownership as the ultimate goal (Beer et al. 2006; Clapham 2005). As a result, moves between tenures, locations and other changes in physical characteristics have been the
10 particular focus of research on residential mobility in Western housing markets (Clapham 2005; Clark et al. 1996).
‘Housing pathways’ is a more recent approach building on the concept of housing careers (Beer at al 2006; Clapham 2005). Similar to housing careers, the housing pathways approach examines “the movement of households between different housing situations through the lifecourse” (Clapham 2004: 93) and links housing behaviour with other types of pathways within the life course such as education, employment and family (Beer et al. 2006; Somerville 2002). Unlike housing careers, the housing pathways concept is not prescriptive about direction: pathways are diverse and do not necessarily represent progress or upward mobility, but may include substantial regression or meandering. Their direction is shaped by choices made at different junctions from a range of opportunities tailored according to the previous decisions, resources and characteristics of particular households (Clapham 2005). ‘Movement’ is not only tied to physical changes, such as moves between dwellings or types of tenure, but also to changes in the understanding or experience of housing circumstances a household has while in the same dwelling (Beer et al. 2006). While the focus of housing pathways is, like housing careers, on households, the framework also allows for general patterns to be discerned that reflect the relative prevalence of different pathways at a larger scale, with common pathways being known as ‘motorways’ (Clapham 2005).
Another important characteristic differentiating the use and connotations of housing pathways from those of housing careers is its theoretical foundations. The conceptual development of housing pathways is mostly attributed to housing researcher David Clapham (2002; 2004; 2005). Clapham’s housing pathways framework was developed in response to the perceived failure of existing approaches to adequately take into account the perceptions, attitudes and meanings that households attach to housing (Beer et al. 2006; Clapham 2005). It is based on the paradigm of social constructionism, which holds that housing practices and other social realities are constructed through the interaction of actors, and is therefore particularly concerned with subjectivity, meaning and interpretation (Clapham 2004; 2005; Jacobs et al. 2004)5. It is for this reason that the housing pathways approach is particularly interested in the meanings held by households with regard to their dwellings and their interaction with the housing system
5 Although housing pathways as a term and concept can be used independently from social constructionism, this paradigm has become very influential (Clapham 2002; 2004; Somerville 2002). 11 over the life course (Clapham 2005; Wiesel et al. 2011). This recognition of the “range and diversity of housing experience” (Somerville 2002: 78) reflects the increasing theoretical emphasis on individuals cited in Section 2.2.
The term ‘housing trajectories’ has often been used interchangeably with housing careers and housing pathways (Murdie et al. 1999), and thus can be defined as describing “the way in which households change their housing consumption over time” (Hulchanski 1997: 6). Like housing pathways, it does not imply a steady progression in housing experiences over the life course, but analogises housing experiences to a journey that may not be linear or predictable, and that may involve movements ‘sideways and downwards’ (Hulchanski 1997; Murdie et al. 1999). Housing trajectory research neither focuses on subjective meaning, like housing pathways, nor defined moves between tenures over the life course, like housing careers, but reflects developing understandings of the complex dynamics of housing behaviour, in particular the important effects of structural factors on resources and constraints associated with residential moves, and the wide variety of household characteristics that affect housing consumption (Murdie et al. 1999). Housing trajectories therefore encompass a large range of factors including: where people live and what kind of housing they occupy, how and why they came to be in their housing circumstances, and how they evaluate their housing conditions (Ghosh 2007).
Housing trajectories is not dominantly associated with a theoretical paradigm in the way that housing pathways is linked to social constructionism. However, the concept of a migrant’s housing trajectory was systematically developed in the 1990s for the Housing New Canadians research project, a major collaborative study conducted by a working group comprised of academic researchers and ethnic communities in Toronto, Canada6 (Hulchanski 1997; Murdie et al. 1999). The Canadian researchers illustrated their approach in a range of helpful diagrams which succinctly represent the interactions between the set of complex factors they examined. One in particular (Figure 2.2)7 was a
6 Canada and Australia have often been compared in relation to urban research, as the two countries have been subject to similar economic and cultural histories, urban transformation processes, migration flows and immigration reforms (Adelman et al. 1994; Bourne 1975; Ley & Murphy 2001). This makes the two countries comparable in relation to migrant settlement experiences, especially given the relatively large body of research in this area in Canada. 7 Murdie et al. (1999: 9) notes: “While this model was developed specifically for the Housing Experiences of New Canadians research project it has its roots in a wide variety of literature and also draws from earlier formulations of housing access by Siksiö and Borgegård (1990) and Özüekren (1992)”. 12 key influence on the conceptual framework for this thesis. It is thorough and multi- faceted, capturing complex relationships between household characteristics, preferences and resources and the outcomes of the housing search process, as filtered by realities of the housing system and the strategies engaged in the housing search process. This extensive conceptual development, balance of structure and agency factors, and focus on groups that risk disadvantage due to their status as migrants, rendered housing trajectories the most appropriate term to adopt in the present research. Furthermore, housing trajectories was seen as a less restrictive term than housing careers and pathways, which define the time frame of analysis as the life course (Clapham 2004; Clark et al. 1996), while international students’ housing experiences in the host country are confined to a limited period of time in a particular life stage.
Together with data from scoping interviews with key stakeholders and analysis of further literature on housing, international education and social theory, the Housing New Canadians trajectories framework (see Figure 2.2) contributed significantly to the development of the original housing trajectories framework depicted in Figure 2.1. The flow chart model used in the Canadian study (Hulchanski 1997; Murdie et al. 1999, see Figure 2.2), with its progression from household characteristics through barriers and strategies to outcomes, was a key influence on the structure of the conceptual framework for the present research, as it effectively represented the rather linear way in which the interview participants and international education literature described international students’ housing experiences in Sydney. However, the Canadian framework was confined to the housing search process, whereas from the interviews with key stakeholders working with international students and the literature and media on international students, it was apparent that problems arising while living in accommodation were of equal concern and would need to be reflected in the housing trajectories framework.
Furthermore, evidence from the interviews of the significance of policy and legislation in determining the very presence of international students in Australia, their status in relation to other residents and their position in the housing market needed to be a key focus of the conceptual framework for this research, but policy was not the starting
13
Figure 2.2 Factors affecting the housing trajectories of households
Figure 2.2 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions
Source: Hulchanski 1997:7
14 point of the Canadian flow chart (see Figure 2.2). The Canadian framework also did not sufficiently capture the interaction and overlap between resources and constraints that were apparent in the interview data. Finally, the influence of housing on students’ wellbeing was a key theme in the interviews and in the international education literature and media, while the analysis of housing trajectories in the Canadian study ceased at access to, and satisfaction with, housing. For these reasons, other housing trajectories literature (see Section 2.3.2) and literature from other disciplines (reviewed in Sections 4 and 5 as well as in other chapters of the thesis) were consulted to ensure that the conceptual framework developed (depicted in Figure 2.1 and explained in the remainder of this chapter) adequately reflected the findings of the interviews and the observations of existing literature on international students.
2.3.2 Applications to relevant groups A thorough search of the literature did not uncover existing research that applied housing careers, housing pathways or housing trajectories to a study of international students. As a result, the present research draws mainly from the application of these concepts to students and migrants, of which international students are a combination by definition (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2011: 319). Four bodies of research on students and migrants have been particularly influential and are briefly reviewed here to document their influence on the development of the conceptual framework for the present study. These include:
Two studies from the UK on the housing careers / pathways of tertiary students (Christie et al. 2002 and Ford et al. 2002; Rugg et al. 2004) A study from the UK on the housing pathways of new immigrants (Robinson et al. 2007) Publications from the Housing New Canadians research working group on the housing trajectories / careers of migrants and ethnic minority groups in Toronto (Hulchanski 1997; Murdie et al. 1999)
Christie et al.’s analysis of interviews with 49 university students from the cities of Edinburgh and Napier in the UK (Christie et al. 2002) highlights the particular resources and constraints encountered by young students in the first few years of their interaction with the housing market. This study found that finances were a resource that students used to access housing, but that financial resources were unevenly distributed, with 15 students who had considerable parental support being in a more privileged position than those without. Interestingly, while greater financial resources shielded some students from many constraints and risks facing them in the housing market, paying more for housing did not guarantee better housing conditions. The resources that were associated with improving housing conditions, however, were skills and knowledge for negotiating the housing market, which were found to accumulate over time as students learned from their (often negative) experiences. This gradual increase in skills, knowledge and subsequent housing quality was found to represent a transition towards adulthood and independence. The use of financial, cognitive (skills and knowledge) and other resources to overcome constraints and risks and improve housing conditions is an important part of the conceptual framework for this research that is further developed in Section 2.4 and in Chapter 5.
Another group of researchers in the UK (Ford et al. 2002; Rugg et al. 2004) analysed student housing experiences using the concept of housing pathways. In their interviews of more than 900 young people in England, these researchers identified several common housing pathways undertaken by young people, one of which was a student pathway, which was characterised by the resources of institutional and parental support. They found that the pathways young people followed were determined by three main factors: their ability to plan for their transition to independent living; the type and extent of constraints on their access to housing and their ability to manage these; and the degree of family support to which they had access. Once again, this approach helpfully displays the interaction of resources and constraints at the individual level and the influence of students’ responses to these on their housing experiences and outcomes. This idea is also reflected in the concepts of agency and strategy included in the conceptual framework, which are further discussed in Section 2.4 and in Chapter 6.
Robinson et al.’s (2007) report on interviews of ‘new immigrants’ (specifically asylum seekers, refugees, migrant workers and people on spouse visas) in Sheffield (UK) was a useful application of the housing pathways framework to groups with several characteristics in common with international students. Although the groups in Robinson et al.’s study represent different circumstances of migration, the focus on new immigrants, including temporary immigrants, in the first five years of settlement is relatively close to the international student context, as international students are also new, temporary arrivals, generally remaining in Australia for only a few years. Their
16 housing pathways may therefore reflect similar challenges, timing and development. Robinson et al. deliberately differentiate their pathways approach from the ‘constrained choice’ approach to housing careers often applied to ethnic minority groups. They note the importance of considering both the structures that shape housing choices (such as immigration status and housing agencies) and the increasing capacity over time for immigrants to engage strategically with the housing system and its constraints. This approach was influential in the balancing of structure and agency in the conceptual framework for the present research, which is expanded in Section 2.4. Another aspect of this report which was incorporated into the framework for the present study was the important role of co-ethnic networks as social resources (and constraints) in accessing housing, which is a major theme in Chapters 5 and 6. Robinson et al.’s explanation of the role of stable housing in providing new immigrants with a sense of security and belonging and the self-confidence to engage with wider society also helped shape the inclusion of wellbeing as part of the conceptual framework for the present study. The impacts of housing outcomes on wellbeing are discussed in Section 2.5 and again in Chapter 7.
The Housing New Canadians research working group developed its conceptual framework with regard to a study on the settlement experiences of recent Afro- Jamaican, Somalian and Polish migrants to Toronto who participated via focus groups and questionnaires. The main premise of their research was that household characteristics such as ethnicity and gender can act as barriers preventing immigrants from accessing full, normal incorporation into society (Hulchanski 1997). These processes, which they labelled ‘differential incorporation’, were found to occur at group level, where many groups of new Canadians experienced unequal treatment and differential access to, for example, housing, education and employment. However these group experiences were the combined result of institutional barriers and opportunities at societal level (such as policies, gatekeepers and community institutions) and two sources of barriers at individual level: personal characteristics that were difficult or impossible to change (such as ethnicity), and personal characteristics that could be changed (such as income level, knowledge, experience and language proficiency). These barriers had differential impacts on households and prompted the creation of strategies to overcome them. Impacts included fewer housing options, higher rents, overcrowding, frequent moves and psychological consequences. Strategies created in response included ethnic solidarity, using community agencies and locational clustering 17
(Hulchanski 1997; Murdie et al. 1999). The interaction of institutional barriers and constraining personal characteristics informed the exploration of structural factors (see Chapter 4) and internal and external resources and constraints (see Chapter 5) in the present study. The emphasis on strategies here was also influential in the choice of strategies to represent the culmination of resources and constraints in the conceptual framework diagram, which is explained in Section 2.4 and elaborated in Chapter 6.
2.4 Structure and agency
The sociological concepts of structure and agency, and the academic discourse regarding their relationship, are fundamental to the conceptual framework for the present study and define its basic structure. Both structure and agency are useful concepts for understanding social action and housing behaviour (Scutella & Johnson 2012: 8-10). However, the relative significance of each concept and the nature of their relationship have been major preoccupations within social theory, with most approaches tending to emphasise one or the other (Elder-Vass 2010; Emirbayer & Mische 1998; Giddens 1979; Jones et al. 2011). One major expression of the structure/agency dichotomy in housing research is the ongoing debate between housing researchers who prioritise ‘constraint’ or ‘choice’ in explaining housing behaviour, especially of ethnic minority and migrant groups8 (Scutella & Johnson 2012: 8; Ratcliffe 2009). However, integrationist approaches are increasingly common, with many housing researchers drawing on both structure and agency to develop a more nuanced understanding of housing behaviour (Giddens 1984; Scutella & Johnson 2012: 9-10; Ratcliffe 2009; Sarre 1986). The present research also takes an integrationist position, reflecting the assumption that housing experiences are shaped simultaneously by structure and agency. This section begins by explaining the concepts of structure and agency individually and demonstrating their usefulness within housing research, and specifically in application to international students. Following this is a discussion of how structure and agency can be integrated to explain housing behaviour.
8 Literature on migrants and ethnic minority groups is relevant to international students because international students are a type of migrant and usually are of minority ethnicity in Australia (see Sections 3.3, 4.3 and 4.4). 18
2.4.1 Structure ‘Structure’ refers to the fundamental and enduring aspects of social reality which set limits and conditions to the actions of groups and individuals (Baber 19919). Structures can be formal, such as rules and regulations across the political, legal and administrative spheres, but can also be informal, such as socio-cultural expectations, patterns of behaviour, and social positions and systems (Kauko 2004; Porpora 1989). The role of structures in shaping housing behaviour is a central tenet in housing research. As the author of the influential book Housing Research and Social Theory (Kemeny 1992: 8) explains, housing research is in fact “the study of the social, political, economic, cultural and other institutions and relationships that constitute the provision and utilisation of dwellings” (Kemeny 1992: 8, emphasis added).
Structures in a housing context can be material (e.g. supply and demand), cognitive (e.g. policies, rules and standards) and social (e.g. institutions, organisations and agents) (Siksiö and Borgegård 1990) and are considered to have a strong influence on the housing options and choices of households (Crow 1989; Ozuekren & van Kempen 2002; Wallace 2002). For example, the legal status of immigrants has been found to impact their attitudes, preferences and planning regarding housing, while high market demand from immigrant groups for certain kinds of housing can affect the access of those groups to their desired housing (Ozuekren & van Kempen 2002). In this way, structure (represented by the label ‘Structural factors’ in the conceptual framework diagram, see Figure 2.3) can be understood as shaping the housing context in which international students find themselves (represented by the large circle surrounding the international student). This makes them more susceptible to certain kinds of outcomes (Scutella & Johnson 2012: 10). Structural factors are therefore not part of housing trajectories per se, but rather the starting point; they set the scene in which housing trajectories develop.
Research undertaken by Ruth Fincher and her colleagues (Fincher & Costello 2003; Fincher & Shaw 2009) in Melbourne, Australia, offers pertinent examples of the influence of structural factors on international students’ experiences of settlement via the shaping of their housing context. Specifically, growth in demand for student housing, limited planning and development regulation, and the ethnicised assumptions of
9 Baber refers to well known social theorists Marx and Engels (1984), Durkheim (1960), Parsons (1954), and Homans (1975) in particular. 19 developers about the wealth and housing preferences of Asian students led to the mass production of high-rise, self-contained student apartments in Melbourne targeting international students. The dominance of this kind of housing limited and shaped the housing options available to international students and ultimately contributed to the segregation of international students from other groups in the local area. These findings demonstrate the significant role that structural factors can have in shaping international students’ housing experiences.
Figure 2.3 Housing trajectories of international students: Structure and context
S T R U C T U R A L F A C T O R S
Resources Constraints
Structure
International Student
Strategies Housing context
Housing Outcomes
W E L L B E I N G
Source: Author
2.4.2 Agency Housing context is not only something in which international students passively find themselves, but also something to which they contribute and with which they negotiate. ‘Agency’ refers to the inherent capacity of individuals (‘actors’ or ‘agents’) to assert 20 influence over their destinies and the social world through purposive and rational choice (Emirbayer & Mische 199810). However, as sociologist James Samuel Coleman explains, social systems are not “set(s) of individuals independently exercising their control over activities to satisfy their interests...(rather,) some of those activities (are) partially or wholly under the control of other actors” (Coleman 1994: 29). Agency is therefore about using the resources at one’s disposal to negotiate the constraints of one’s immediate circumstances in order to meet one’s own needs and preferences11 (Anderson et al. 1994; Murdie et al. 1999; Stones 2009: 96; Wallace 2002). The resources and constraints that various actors encounter in the housing context are mediated by their differing inherent characteristics (Murie 1974; Siksiö and Borgegård 1990; Stones 2009: 96; Wallace 2002). For example, the preferences and resources of individuals and households affect their access to, and interpretation of, housing options that exist (Clark et al. 1996: 35). Although the term ‘agency’ is not included in the conceptual framework diagram, agency is represented by the central position of the ‘International Student’ in between ‘Resources’ and ‘Constraints’, which are also mutually connected (see Figure 2.4).
Individual agents can act to shape their circumstances in a number of ways; for example through resistance, innovation, creativity, reflection and priority making (Stones 2009: 96). Research on ethnic minority and migrant groups has highlighted that even individuals and households that are structurally disadvantaged in relation to housing have “aims, objectives and aspirations (and the resources to realise them, albeit to varying degrees)” (Ratcliffe 2009) and apply active choice, preferences and trade-offs to achieve these (Bowes et al. 1997; Kaplan & Holloway 2001; Murdie et al. 1999; Robinson et al. 2007). The method of agency of particular interest to this research is strategy making. Strategy has been explored in housing research as a part of housing search processes (e.g. Brown & Moore 1970; Herbert 1973; Murie 1974; Rossi 1955; Siksiö & Borgegård 1990) and methods for coping with unsatisfactory housing conditions (Hulse
10 This definition summarises concepts aligned with well-known social theorists Parsons (1968), Homans (1964), and Coleman (1990). 11 Preferences are ideas about what kinds of housing situations are most desirable, influencing housing choices and other actions and attitudes in relation to housing (Ozuekren & van Kempen 2002). These can be highly individual, and/or ascribed at a group level according to ethnic background, religion or other affiliations (Kauko 2004). As well as preferences, people have varying needs according to factors such as age, physical and mental health, ethnicity and employment (Housing NSW 2012). Needs and preferences are often difficult to differentiate as the distinction between what is desirable and what is necessary differs between varying perspectives. 21
& Saugeres 2008; Lister 2004; Olsen 2009). The placement of ‘Strategies’ in diagram (see Figure 2.4) reflects international students’ enacting their agency through strategy to negotiate the resources and constraints that define their context.
Figure 2.4 Housing trajectories of international students: Agency
S T R U C T U R A L F A C T O R S
Agency Agency Resources Constraints
Agency Agency International Student
Agency
Strategies
Housing Outcomes
W E L L B E I N G
Source: Author
The notion that actors have the capacity to engage with their housing context to formulate strategies to achieve their goals is an important one for understanding the housing experiences of international students. Public discourse about international students has often been underpinned by an assumption that international students are powerless to overcome challenging circumstances they may face, whereas evidence exists that students’ actions do make a difference, as expressed by Australian migration researcher Shanthi Robertson (2011a: 2033):
22
“Many portrayals of international students in the mainstream Australian media have placed them as passive subjects, largely not in control of their own social position...Yet simultaneously to these images of international students as passive, exploited and marginalized subjects were numerous examples of students, collectively and sometimes quite radically, ‘enacting citizenship’, often in response to the same issues of exploitation and victimization...Students were pivotal in drawing public attention to quality issues in the education industry, taking complaints to both government and the media.”
2.4.3 Integrating structure and agency The previous two sections demonstrated the usefulness of structure and agency in housing research and their applicability to international student housing experiences. Examining structure and agency individually enables an elaborated understanding of the forces that shape social action and how the individual responds (Scutella & Johnson 2012: 8-10). Maintaining the dichotomy of structure and agency (or choice and constraint) is appealing because of its logical simplicity, however this artificial distinction “effectively denies their interpenetrated and mutually embedded character” (Ratcliffe 2009: 435) and thus prevents a comprehensive understanding of the social world (Scutella & Johnson 2012: 10). Many authors have thus attempted to integrate structure and agency (see Elder-Vass 2010; Scutella & Johnson 2012). Institutional and structurationist approaches to integrating structure and agency are summarised in this section, followed by a final comment on the integrationist position of this thesis.
Institutionalism is one paradigm in which theorists and researchers have attempted to unite structure and agency (Guy & Henneberry 2000; Wallace 2004). Institutionalism is based on the notion that the actions of individuals and groups (actors) are shaped by the structural features of society (organisations and institutions) which provide constraints, but also opportunities (Lowndes 1996: 182; Manzi & Jacobs 2008: 35; Peters 2005; Wallace 2004). In housing research, this translates to the concept that different groups compete for desirable housing on the basis of resources which they possess (or do not possess) (Ozuekren & van Kempen 2002) and examines, often through qualitative methods, the behaviour of actors (e.g. Guy & Henneberry 2000; Healey 1992; Rugg et al. 2002; Kauko 2004). The focus on institutions means that structure is often more central than agency, however approaches labelled ‘new institutionalism’ have drawn increasing 23 attention to agency and the influence of actors on the institutions that define their context (Hay & Wincott 1998; Manzi & Jacobs 2008; Wallace 2004). Despite the balancing of structure and agency in institutionalist approaches, the dichotomy is maintained.
Sociologist Anthony Giddens set out to replace the structure/agency dichotomy with a new integrated theory: structuration (Clapham 2005). Structuration theory is primarily concerned with social practices rather than the individual actor or structural factors. Like institutional approaches, Giddens specifies that social structures are ‘rules and resources’ that both constrain and enable action (Baber 1991; Clapham 2005; Giddens 1979; 1984). However, by contrast, structuration contends that structures are not external to the individual but permeate individuals and their interactions so that all action incorporates structural rules and resources (Sarre 1986: 77). Individual action does not occur within a vacuum, but on the basis of knowledge of social structures carried by actors (Clapham 2005; 2004; Giddens 1984). Different individuals negotiate the system in varying ways depending on their ‘knowledgeability and capability’, which encompasses their skills, predispositions and personal and material resources. In the present research, this set of factors are referred to as ‘internal resources’ (see Section 5.2).
Giddens’ approach also diverges from more traditional conceptions of structure as material and durable, contending that structures do not exist in time or space but are produced and reproduced by human action, often unintentionally (Baber 1991; Clapham 2005; Giddens 1979). This kind of fluid, abstract definition of structure makes sense of the impact of international student protests over safety in 2009 on public discourse, government initiatives and higher education and immigration policy (Philimore & Koshy 2010; Robertson 2011a). However, it is also limited because it does not leave space for “the very real impact of exogenous factors such as geo-political conflict, global social change (and power shifts), international demographic trends and turbulence in world financial markets” (Ratcliffe 2009: 436), many of which are found by the present research to impact international students’ housing context (see Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 5.3.4). Nevertheless, the application by some researchers of structuration to ethnic minority group housing research provides relevant insights into the dynamic, dialectical relationship between structure and agency (Ratcliffe 2009: 435-36). For example, clusters of groups in particular neighbourhoods or tenure types may lead housing
24 providers to target a particular kind of housing at those groups, which leads to further clustering, and so on (Ratcliffe 2009: 436). This concept is very useful for understanding that problematic housing outcomes which have been identified as common among international students, such as overcrowding, are not a black and white matter with a clear victim and perpetrator, but are rather the likely outcome of a much more complex, cyclical process whereby individual choices reproduce these conditions by ‘mobilising and effectively affirming them’ (Sarre 1986: 77).
Institutionalist and structurationist approaches achieve their goals of uniting structure and agency to better understand social action, but still have their limitations. This research does not propose a definitive answer on the relationship between structure and agency, but draws on both these perspectives to consider the simultaneous impacts of structural factors and individual actions on housing outcomes and wellbeing. While existing discourse on international student housing has often focused on the impact of structural factors such as affordability and inadequate housing supply, this thesis balances that perspective with an understanding that international students are capable of and responsible for, to varying degrees, shaping both their own housing outcomes and the structural factors that influence them. It does this through the exploration of strategies, which give individuals the power to negotiate structural conditions, use them to their own advantage, and alter them (Anderson et al. 1994; Crow 1989; Morgan 1989; Olsen 2009), even where barriers or abuses on the basis of personal attributes such as ethnicity may be severe (Stones 2009: 96).
2.5 Housing outcomes and wellbeing
Analysis of housing trajectories does not cease when a dwelling is successfully acquired, as housing trajectories incorporate both the acquisition and consumption of housing (Ghosh 2007). This is indicated by positioning housing outcomes and wellbeing as the final components in the conceptual framework diagram (Figure 2.6). Indeed, the types of housing accessed via housing trajectories, and how this housing is experienced and evaluated by occupants, are key to understanding moves between dwellings (Easthope & Judd 2010; Ozuekren & van Kempen 2002). Furthermore, housing outcomes are known to considerably affect many aspects of wellbeing, including mental and physical
25 health, safety and security, social connectedness and quality of life (Christie et al. 2002; Clark 2009; Hulse & Saugeres 2008: 4; Latimer & Woldoff 2010; Wells & Harris 2007). As Christie et al. (2002: 211) explain in their work on student housing careers, “Home can be the haven that allows one to face the stresses of life, or an additional burden creating extra stress and worry”, and this applies to students as much as any other group. Housing outcomes and wellbeing can be defined in a number of different ways. This section defines and explains the terms as they are used in the present research, and provides evidence from the literature on the relationship between them.
2.5.1 Housing outcomes In the original Housing New Canadians housing trajectories framework (Figure 2.2), the housing accessed is weighed up against the households needs and preferences, and this constitutes the ‘Outcome of the housing search process’. In a later version of the framework12, one of its creators, researcher Robert Murdie, refined the outcomes section to include both the nature of the dwelling and its surroundings (including the ethnic makeup of the neighbourhood, dwelling type, and the tenure, size, cost and quality of the housing) and the household’s evaluation of, and satisfaction with, the dwelling and its surroundings (in general, in comparison with previous housing, in terms of the house as a home and in terms of the neighbourhood as a community) (Murdie 2002) (see Figure 2.5). These are the two elements of housing outcomes examined in the present research.
Housing literature that refers to aspects of the nature of the dwelling and its surroundings is sometimes limited to basic, objective characteristics such as dwelling, tenure and household type (e.g. Berry 1999; McConnell & Redstone Akresh 2008; Wulff 2001). These aspects of housing are important, and are considered in the present research, but are only the starting point for describing the experience of living in housing. For the nature of housing to be fully understood, other more detailed aspects of housing conditions must also be examined (Orr & Peach 1999). After all, it is not dwelling, tenure and household type that have attracted the most attention with regard
12 Murdie et al. (1999: 10) noted when presenting the original framework that it had “gone through several iterations based on further considerations of the literature, discussions between the academic researchers and the ethnic based community partners of the Housing Experiences of New Canadians project, and findings from the focus group sessions.” In the 2002 version (Murdie 2002), the term housing trajectories was replaced with housing careers, and some small alterations were made to the framework. 26 to international student housing experiences and wellbeing, but rather specific lived conditions such as affordability, overcrowding and exploitation (e.g. Fife-Yeomans 2011; Smith 2009a; Forbes-Mewett & Nyland 2008). Common variables considered in the housing research literature regarding the more detailed nature of the dwelling and its surroundings include:
Housing quality and physical condition; Housing affordability (the share of household income taken up by housing costs); Residential density (the number of people relative to the number of rooms); Residential stability / mobility (the degree to which living arrangements are stable or changeable); Neighbourhood quality, amenity, services and facilities (Deverteuil 2005; Latimer & Woldoff 2010; McConnell & Redstone Akresh 2008; Orr & Peach 1999; Painter & Yu 2008; Van Ryzin & Kamber 2002; Van Zandt 2007).
Figure 2.5 Excerpt from ‘Factors affecting the housing careers of households’
Figure 2.5 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions
Source: Murdie 2002: 427.
27
All of these are tangible and observable, relating to the dwelling as a physical structure within a physical neighbourhood (Wright & Kloos 2007) or at least as an item that may be consumed and occupied (in the case of affordability and stability). However, the development of theoretical approaches focusing on individual meaning and experience referred to in Section 2.2 have helped to demonstrate that housing is also characterised by social and psychological outcomes, or how a household evaluates its dwelling and surroundings. These may be more difficult to identify and measure but are nonetheless significant (Johnson et al. 2009; Shaw 2004; Wright & Kloos 2007). These outcomes concern the relationship of the dwelling to its occupant (Bratt 2002), personal perception and meaning, and the experiences of interaction within the dwelling and its community (Hulchanski 1997; Murdie 2002; Wright & Kloos 2007). Major factors relating to the evaluation of dwellings and their surroundings that have been identified in the housing research literature include:
The meaning and significance of a dwelling as a ‘home’; The perception of the adequacy of a dwelling in relation to needs, values and goals; The role of a dwelling in enabling and shaping personal activities, identity creation and self-fulfilment; The degree of sense of control and security stemming from continuity and predictability of housing conditions; The frequency, nature and perception of interactions within a dwelling and its neighbourhood, and their contribution to senses of trust and belonging (Bratt 2002; Clapham 2005; 2010; Dupuis & Thorns 1998; Hulchanski 1997; Hulse & Saugeres 2008; Tomas & Dittmar 1995).
2.5.2 Wellbeing Wellbeing is a broad concept encompassing a range of phenomena that has been subject to countless definitions, models and measurements in the academic and policy literature. Wellbeing is usually measured according to either (or both) objective and subjective indicators. Both of these approaches are concerned with better understanding what it means to live well and are therefore complementary when used together (Forgeard 2011: 91-93). Many authors have attempted to identify an objective set of conditions required by all human beings for a full life. These lists typically cover
28 many domains, including physical health, emotional expression, political freedom, financial resources, adequate housing, social support and educational opportunities (e.g. Forgeard et al. 2011: 88-90). The absence of negative conditions and the presence of positive conditions across these domains can be seen to constitute objective wellbeing (Dolan et al. 2006; Fraillon 2004). Although called ‘objective’ measures, these measures are, at root, subjective, as they represent what is collectively valued by the society. However, what a society values may not necessarily correspond to what an individual values; therefore so-called objective measures of wellbeing make judgements about what is good or bad for people regardless of whether or not they are satisfied with these conditions (Dolan et al. 2006: 14; Forgeard 2011: 89). For this reason, this thesis examines both objective and subjective measures of ‘satisfactory’ housing outcomes.
By contrast, subjective measures of wellbeing focus on mental states, feelings and perceptions (Forgeard 2011). Subjective wellbeing can be measured on the basis of the frequency and intensity of positive and negative emotions as well as personal evaluations of circumstances as satisfactory or unsatisfactory (Diener & Fujita 1995; Dolan et al. 2006: 16; Kahneman & Deaton 2010). This is the approach taken by Rosenthal et al. (2006) in their report on international students’ health and wellbeing, which was based on a survey which focussed on students’ own appraisals of different aspects of their wellbeing, including satisfaction with accommodation. One way of viewing wellbeing that draws together both objective and subjective approaches considers that wellbeing represents a person’s success in performing functions or participating in activities that he/she requires or values, or which are required or valued by society (Forgeard 2011: 88-89; Fraillon 2004; Sen 1999). This includes the capacity – and belief in one’s capacity – to identify valued outcomes and overcome barriers to achieve them, as well as positive feelings and satisfaction with relation to this performance or participation, and to life in general (Bornstein et al. 2003; Fraillon 2004; Weisner 1998). For students, many of the functions and activities they value, and which society values on their behalf, relate to academic achievement. Therefore measures of academic achievement, both objective (e.g. failure to complete an assignment) and subjective (e.g. satisfaction with academic performance), could be expected to provide a good indication of overall wellbeing.
In line with this, in the context of international education, satisfaction and success in engaging with the academic side of life is usually the main focus of policy discourse.
29
However, it has also been acknowledged in the Australian research and policy literature that studying occurs within the broader experience of living in Australia, and therefore wellbeing in other domains cannot be neglected, especially as international students face unique challenges as newcomers, often with limited social supports, and sometimes limited English proficiency and limited financial stability (COAG 2010; Rosenthal et al. 2006; Varghese & Brett 2011). Wellbeing in these kinds of domains is widely recognised as contributing positively to academic achievement, and this is considered an incentive for educational institutions to invest in nurturing and supporting students’ overall wellbeing (Fraillon 2004). As the International Students Strategy of Australia, published by the Council of Australian Governments, notes: “Wellbeing is central to a positive study and life experience for international students and to ensuring the sustainability of the education sector” (COAG 2010: 9). Wellbeing in domains other than academic achievement has attracted particular attention in recent years in Australia as threats to physical safety, psychological health, social engagement and financial security have been identified (e.g. Deumert et al. 2005; Rosenthal et al. 2006; Varghese & Brett 2011). Accommodation is one of the key areas known to affect such aspects of international student wellbeing (COAG 2010). As Rosenthal et al. state in their report on a survey about international student health and wellbeing at the University of Melbourne (2006: 139):
“Living arrangements have the capacity to enhance or destroy one’s sense of well-being – interactions with co-residents, comfort, noise, cost, distance are all factors that have great impact.”
2.5.3 Housing outcomes and wellbeing As Figure 2.6 demonstrates, the conceptual framework for this research proposes that international students’ housing trajectories ultimately influence their wellbeing, and that these impacts stem from housing outcomes. Research demonstrates that both the nature of a dwelling and its surroundings and a household’s evaluation of these influence wellbeing (Bratt 2002; Wright & Kloos 2007). The implications of the physical attributes of dwellings and surroundings on health and wellbeing have been a major preoccupation of housing research, with, for example, dilapidated housing being associated with physical health problems (Bratt 2002; Clapham 2010), high residential density with psychological wellbeing (Easthope & Judd 2010: 17; Evans et al. 2003), and
30 insecure living arrangements with the stability of household relationships, employment, education and exposure to crime (Bridge et al. 2003; Hulse & Saugeres 2008; Johnson et al. 2009). Outcomes relating to the evaluation of dwellings and surroundings, however, have also been associated with wellbeing. For example, a sense of control and continuity with regard to housing outcomes is linked to stability in mental state, healthy identity development and the ability to confidently engage in social interactions (Dupuis & Thorns 1998; Giddens 1990; Hulse & Saugeres 2008; Saunders & Williams 1988). In fact, some authors propose that aspects of the dwelling only impact wellbeing as far as they are mediated by the subjective experience and interpretation of environmental conditions, in other words, the evaluation of the dwelling and surroundings (e.g. Clapham 2010; Wright & Kloos 2007). From this perspective, the stigma and shame of living in poor quality housing would have greater impact on wellbeing than the actual quality of the housing itself (Clapham 2010). As Clapham explains (2010: 257):
“The physical attributes of housing may not be important in their own right, but largely insofar as they allow one to achieve high self-esteem through living a valued lifestyle”.
The Australian international education literature has drawn broad connections between housing outcomes and a number of aspects of international students’ wellbeing, including mental health, social integration and financial stress (e.g. Khawaja & Dempsey 2008; McInnis & Hartley 2002; Neri & Ville 2008; Rosenthal et al. 2006; Wesley 2009; Ziguras & Harwood 2009). Fincher and Shaw’s article on international student housing in Melbourne (2009) demonstrates that the particular housing outcomes associated with purpose-built student apartments have both positive and negative impacts on student wellbeing, leading to greater safety and convenience, while at the same time working against social integration with local students, which is considered integral to a well- rounded international education experience (Fincher & Shaw 2009). The work on new immigrants and tertiary students cited earlier also indicates the potential impacts of housing outcomes on international student wellbeing. For example, certain kinds of temporary, shared accommodation occupied by the new immigrants in Robinson et al.’s study (2007) were associated with living conditions that threatened personal safety and security of possessions, health, and quality of life; while participants in Christie et al.’s study of student housing careers in the UK “recognised that poor conditions impaired
31
their ability to study and, particularly when overcrowded or cramped, could lead to stress or depression” (2002: 221).
S T R U C T U R A L F A C T O R S
Resources Constraints
International Student
Strategies Nature of dwelling & Subjective & surroundings; objective how household wellbeing evaluates these Housing Outcomes
W E L L B E I N G Figure 2.6 Housing trajectories of international students: Housing outcomes
Source: Author
While housing outcomes clearly have some influence on wellbeing, researchers are cautious not to represent these relationships as uni-directional or causal. This is because poor wellbeing may just as easily lead to poor housing as poor housing can lead to poor wellbeing, and both poor housing and poor wellbeing are likely to be associated with numerous other factors that also need to be taken into account, such as low income, existing mental health issues and unemployment (Bratt 2002; Clapham 2010; Evans et al. 2003; Hulse & Saugeres 2008; Shaw 2004). In this way, aspects of wellbeing can also be seen as impacting housing outcomes, as expressed by the two way arrow in Figure 32
2.6. Rosenthal et al. (2006) report one finding that illustrates how this relationship can be ambiguous: they found that students who perceived themselves to be underperforming academically were significantly less satisfied with their accommodation. It is unclear whether this finding represents the impact of academic performance on other domains of subjective wellbeing, or the impact of housing outcomes on academic wellbeing, or a combination of the two. Another way in which wellbeing, as defined by the present research, can influence housing outcomes is through the key role that satisfaction with housing plays in causing people to move between dwellings (Easthope & Judd 2010; Ozuekren & van Kempen 2002). The relationship between housing outcomes and wellbeing is therefore complex, two-way and multi-dimensional.
2.6 Summary
The foundational premise of this research is that the problems faced by international students in relation to housing are only a small part of a much larger picture. This premise takes into account three key principles:
that international student housing experiences constitute housing trajectories; that these trajectories are shaped by both structure and agency; and that the outcomes of these trajectories impact the wellbeing of international students.
These principles derive from housing research on residential mobility, choice and constraint, and the relationship between housing and human wellbeing. However, given the largely atheoretical nature of housing research, they can also be traced back to movements within social theory, in particular recent developments emphasising the role of individual interpretation and action. This chapter reviewed these principles and concepts as they have been used in social theory and housing research literature, with reference to how they may be applied to the international education context. Its purpose was to set out the theoretical basis for the conceptual framework that structures the remainder of the thesis.
Research into residential mobility has often used the concepts of housing careers, housing pathways and housing trajectories to explain movements between dwellings
33 over time. Housing careers generally examine the progressive development of housing tenure over the life course as a product of choice and constraints. The housing pathways approach is less prescriptive regarding the ‘direction’ of housing movement, and explores the meaning and interpretation of housing circumstances rather than concentrating on material aspects like tenure. Housing trajectories also makes room for diversions and regressions in direction, but examines a more complex range of factors affecting housing choices and experiences than the previous two approaches. Literature using each of these terms influenced the development of the conceptual framework for this research. Insights from the application of housing careers, pathways and trajectories to tertiary students and new immigrants in the UK and Canada helped develop a detailed model of the interaction between individuals and structural factors; between resources, constraints and strategies; and between housing outcomes and wellbeing. However housing trajectories was chosen as the driving term because of its flexibility with regard to timeframe and because of its useful conceptual development by the Housing New Canadians research working group in the 1990s.
Many researchers emphasise either structure or agency when analysing social action and housing behaviour. However, integrationist approaches provide the most nuanced understanding of the complexities of these phenomena. Structures constrain action, either formally (e.g. legislation) or informally (e.g. cultural expectations), and are acknowledged to play a key role in shaping housing behaviour. Indeed, they shape the housing context in which international students find themselves and overarch their housing trajectories. Agency, or the capacity of individuals to shape their own circumstances, is the means by which international students interact with their housing context. They engage with the individual set of resources and constraints that surround them, and make strategies to find housing and cope with unsatisfactory housing conditions. Focusing on the effects of either structure or agency alone prevents a comprehensive understanding of social action and housing behaviour. Institutionalist and structurationist approaches unite structure and agency by viewing structures as simultaneously constraining and enabling action, and giving attention to the role of individual actors in shaping these conditions; however both approaches still have limitations. This research does not attempt to solve the structure/agency dilemma, but rather is influenced by attempts such as these to integrate both concepts.
34
Housing outcomes are the culmination of housing trajectories, in that they represent the housing accessed as a result of the housing search. Both aspects of the nature of the dwelling and its surroundings (e.g. housing quality, affordability) and a household’s evaluation of these (e.g. evaluation of the dwelling as a ‘home’, perceptions of its adequacy according to specific needs and preferences) influence household wellbeing. Wellbeing is defined here as a combination of objective and subjective indicators, including how the broader community evaluates conditions across a range of valued domains such as health and financial resources, and the positive and negative emotions related to, and personal evaluation of, conditions by the individual. One aspect of wellbeing that is pertinent to the study of international students and which encompasses both objective and subjective measures is how other domains of wellbeing are considered to impact academic achievement, one of the most valued activities for students. Housing and international education literature suggests that housing outcomes impact physical and mental health, social relationships and interactions, and sense of self, among other aspects of wellbeing. However, the relationship between housing outcomes and wellbeing are complex, two-way and multi-dimensional. It must be noted, therefore, than any assessment of factors as causes and/or effects has limitations.
This chapter introduced and explained the theoretical basis for the key principles and concepts that make up the conceptual framework for this research. Chapter 3 provides information about the contribution of the primary research methods to the development and refinement of the framework. The principles and concepts represented by the resulting framework are woven throughout the subsequent chapters as each is further developed with reference to the international education literature and the original findings of this research. Chapter 4 addresses the structural factors that characterise the international student housing context, and following this, Chapters 5 and 6 examine the operation of students’ agency via resources, constraints and strategies. Housing outcomes and their influence on wellbeing are further elaborated in Chapter 7.
35
Chapter 3: Methods
3.1 Introduction
Chapter 1 established that a number of housing problems have been associated with international students by the media, student advocates and researchers, but that most existing information is anecdotal or limited in scope, and does not reveal much about the extent, implications and causes of these problems. In order to address these gaps, a pragmatic approach was taken, allowing the research questions to shape the methodology. This resulted in a mixed methods research design. However, these methodological choices were not atheoretical, as the shifts in social theory towards recognising individual diversity, meaning and wellbeing, outlined in Chapter 2, have influenced the prioritising of the voices of research subjects, leading to a predominantly qualitative approach in data collection and analysis. Two of the three methods chosen – interview and focus groups – are purely qualitative, while a survey (including mostly qualitative, but also some quantitative, questions) was also included in the research design to broaden the scope of the data and enable the phenomena of interest to be measured as well as described and explained. This chapter justifies the methodological approach and research focus and outlines the design, implementation and analysis of the three primary research methods.
3.2 Methodology
According to Clapham (2005), the analysis of housing trajectories is not confined to a particular methodological approach. However, housing trajectories research typically focuses on either quantitative methods (e.g. surveys measuring tenure status and the relative importance of variables leading to a move) or qualitative methods (e.g. life history interviews tracking the housing experiences of households over time) (Murdie et al. 1999: 22). Similarly, some Australian studies have used interview data to identify challenges faced by international students in relation to their housing (e.g. Fincher et al. 2009; Forbes-Mewett and Nyland’s 2008; Smith et al. 2007), while others have
36 conducted surveys reporting on the types of accommodation international students live in, and the degree to which they are satisfied with their housing and its associated costs (e.g. AERI 2010; Argueta et al. 2009; Rosenthal et al. 2009). However, this study intentionally chose to apply a mixed methods approach to the exploration of international students’ housing trajectories in order to draw on the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative traditions. This section justifies the chosen methodological approach.
Clapham (2005) points out that methods such as in-depth interviews can be particularly useful for understanding housing trajectories, as they allow participants to describe their experiences and researchers to observe the meanings and motivations they attach to these. Indeed, all of the studies reviewed in Section 2.3.2 used interviews or focus groups as a means of understanding the experiences of different groups within their housing careers, pathways or trajectories (Christie et al. 2002; Ford et al. 2002; Robinson et al. 2007; Murdie et al. 1999). Interviews and focus groups also have particular value in the study of international students’ experiences in a number of domains, including housing (e.g. Fincher & Shaw 2009; GML Social Research 2011; Neri & Ville 2008; Smith et al. 2007), as they enable depth of insight into experiences, beliefs and opinions that are appropriate for such topics (Forbes-Mewett et al. 2009: 150).
There can also be great benefit, however, in drawing on quantitative traditions within the social sciences to enrich qualitative understandings of housing trajectories. Clapham notes (2004: 110) that surveys can greatly complement interview data:
“Surveys can be useful in allowing the generalisation of data because one of the problems of in-depth qualitative interviews is that it can be difficult to generalise reliably beyond the individual case. However if qualitative surveys can be effectively linked with more quantitative survey approaches, the level of meaning can be effectively considered and appropriate generalisations made.”
The greater generalisabilty of survey data can also give them more credibility in a policy setting (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). Further, surveys can offer extensive understanding of complex issues faced by international students, which are not reflected in administrative records (Graycar 2010: 10). While surveys are typically used to generate data for statistical analysis, surveys can also take on a descriptive function, describing the characteristics, opinions, attitudes or behaviours of a target population
37 through the reporting of basic frequencies, means and percentages. This output can be critical in developing a basic understanding of topics on which little research has been conducted (Keele 2010: 38-39).
In summary, interviews, focus groups and surveys each have strengths and weaknesses as methods to explore housing trajectories. In-depth interviews provide rich, illustrative data and considerable insight into personal experiences, however large enough samples to generalise the issues identified are not easily achievable. Strictly quantitative surveys report effectively on broader patterns in housing behaviour, but may not link these to how the various aspects of housing are experienced. These limitations have meant that existing data on international students’ housing experiences in Australia have been limited in their ability to establish the extent to which problematic housing outcomes occur, and the factors that contribute to these outcomes.
Rather than duplicate student interview data highlighting key housing issues, or basic demographic data at a national scale, the present study sought to respond to these limitations and build on existing findings by using a mixed methods approach. A student survey was chosen as the centrepiece method. It was designed to include a combination of questions aimed at measuring student experience over a larger population than would have been possible if interviews and/or focus groups alone were used. The latter methods were, however, included, with the purpose of gaining additional insights from stakeholders and students respectively. In combining quantitative and qualitative research traditions, mixed methods research designs produce a combination of ‘numbers’ and ‘words’ that are believed to complement each other and increase the thoroughness, richness and usefulness of the data (Hesse-Biber 2010; Johnson et al. 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). This combination is particularly useful for answering complex policy questions that require an understanding of both the numerical scale and social context of phenomena (Hesse-Biber 2010). As established in Section 1.1, international student housing is a policy issue that requires such answers and is therefore a context where a mixed methods approach is appropriate.
According to Greene et al. (1989), the key strengths of mixed methods research are triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation and expansion. In brief, mixed methods allow for different dimensions of a research question to be examined and the opportunity to see whether the results converge (triangulation), which ultimately strengthens the credibility of a study’s conclusions. They also enable the researcher to 38 clarify and build on research results by allowing each method to inform the next (complementarity and development). Finally, in comparing diverse perspectives, they generate new understanding in less explored areas that can produce new research opportunities to cover specific findings in more depth (initiation and expansion) (Greene et al. 1989; Hesse-Biber 2010; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). As there has been little systematic research in the area of international student housing experiences, a mixed methods approach was deemed appropriate, since by combining interviews of stakeholders with a survey and focus groups with international students, new evidence could be gathered and corroborated from different perspectives, with each method and its findings serving to test the previous and shape the next method (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: Relationships between the three primary research methods
informs informs
Interviews Survey Focus groups
tests tests
Source: Author
In light of the characteristics listed by Greene et al. (1989), mixed methods research has been gaining considerable popularity, articulation and philosophical unity in the social sciences since the 1980s (Brannen 2005; Johnson & Onweugbuzie 2004; Johnson et al. 2007). Brannen (2005) summarises the mixed methods approach in ‘three P’s’: paradigms, pragmatics and politics, all of which are reflected in the research design for the present study. Firstly, mixed methods approaches are underpinned by a strong belief in letting research questions shape methods rather than theoretical paradigms. Interestingly, this assertion in itself represents a distinct paradigm – that of ‘pragmatism’ (Howe 1988; Johnson & Onweugbuzie 2004). Pragmatism is characterised by a balance between an appreciation for the multiple and diverse meanings of human experience and the concreteness of observable truth, echoing the integration of structure and agency discussed in Section 2.4. This leads to a focus on action and adaption of techniques according to results, rather than ‘top-down’ research founded in a rigid philosophical position (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). The second ‘P’ is pragmatics – not to be confused with pragmatism – which refers to technical concerns 39 such as resources and feasibility. Research design is determined by the parameters of what is possible given the funds, time and personnel available, as well as the accessibility of various research subjects. Politics is Brannen’s third and final ‘P’, referring to values such as freedom, equality and social justice driving the research (Brannen 2005; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). The present research reflects each of these three principles, as the choice of methods arose from the research questions; practical considerations such as time and cost were influential in the design and carrying out of research methods; and the research was motivated by the desire to discover and make known international student experiences for the purpose of improving their welfare.
The tripartite mixed methods approach adopted for this research makes it the first study on international student housing, according to an extensive search of the literature, to unite the experiences of students and stakeholders in their own words with survey data permitting the measurement of the extent of particular housing outcomes within a substantial sample of students. The result is a rich range of data where charts and percentages are complemented by quotations, together illustrating the nature, extent and implications of international students’ housing experiences.
3.3 Research Focus
The existing data and literature consulted for this research mainly related to international students studying and living in Australia, although reference is also made to relevant international statistics and research literature. However, the primary research reflects a more localised focus, with the subjects of interest being international students attending universities in Sydney, and in particular, those from mainland China enrolled at UNSW. The findings of this research therefore apply specifically to Chinese international students at UNSW, and at times more broadly to international students in Sydney. However, their close alignment with the national and international media and advocacy and research literature suggests that these findings may be considered indicative of broader issues facing international students of many nationalities in Sydney, and in Australia as a whole. This section defines how the term ‘international students’ is used in this thesis, justifies the focus on Sydney, and explains the selection
40 of the university students from mainland China studying at UNSW as an appropriate case study for exploring the housing experiences of international students more broadly.
3.3.1 International students People undertaking education outside of their home country are most often referred to as ‘international students’, ‘overseas students’ or ‘foreign students’. The present study uses the term ‘international students’ in line with the definition offered by the OECD, which classifies international students as a subset of foreign students. Foreign students, according to their definition, are not citizens in their country of study, but may be long- term residents or may even have been born there. International students, however, are distinguished as having moved from their country of long-term residence to another country with the express purpose of studying there (OECD 2011: 319). It is these temporary residents, who in Australia usually possess a student visa (ABS 2008), with whom this research is concerned.
However, the use of terminology is somewhat complicated by the way in which data are recorded and reported in Australia13. This thesis mainly refers to data from the DEEWR14 and AEI as they most clearly demonstrate the numbers of international students currently studying in Australia. AEI defines ‘international students’ as being enrolled onshore15and holding student visas (AEI 2012c), which is in line with the OECD definition. DEEWR refers to a broader group which it labels ‘overseas students’, defined as anyone enrolled in education who is not a permanent resident of Australia (DEEWR
13 There are four main national sources of data on international students in Australia which refer to slightly different groups of students and define country of origin in different terms. These are: the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), which, among other functions, registers educational providers and collects data on enrolments; Australian Education International (AEI), which collects data on international enrolments and commencements; the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) which records student visa applications and grants; and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which reports on the Census of Population and Housing and on data from overseas arrivals and departures (ABS 2008). 14 The higher education portfolio was transferred in 2011 to the new Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE), however at the time of writing, information and data regarding higher and international education were still being published online under the title of DEEWR, while the online content was being progressively migrated to the new departmental website (DIISRTE 2012). For this reason, where these data are referred to in this thesis, it is associated with DEEWR rather than DIISRTE. 15 Onshore enrolments mean that students are not only studying, but also living, in Australia. Offshore enrolments represent the growing numbers of students attending Australian institutions but residing outside of Australia, either studying by distance (e.g. online) or at an Australian educational institution located overseas (ABS 2008; AEI 2011) 41
2009; DEEWR 201016). DEEWR figures are then broken into onshore and offshore enrolments. Both AEI and DEEWR data are used because of the different and complementary information they offer. Published AEI data exclusively report on international students, and enables higher education to be compared to other sectors, as well as providing the greatest demographic detail, including age, gender and nationality. It also demonstrates growth in international education over time. Published DEEWR data, on the other hand, provide less demographic detail about international students17, but usefully presents them in contrast to domestic students, and also breaks them down by state and educational institution, from which approximate figures on students living in particular cities can be derived.
3.3.2 Why Sydney? Sydney, the capital city of the state of NSW, hosts one of the largest populations of international students in Australia yet has been the focus of relatively little research and other literature on international student housing and general welfare. For the present study, DEEWR data on overseas onshore enrolments categorised by university were analysed to ascertain approximately how many international students were living in each Australian capital city in 2010 and 2011 (see Table 3.1). According to this analysis, Sydney hosted more than one fifth (22%) of all onshore overseas university students in Australia in 2011, the second largest proportion of any capital city. Assuming that most international students live in the same city as their educational institution, most of the 49,977 students attending universities in Sydney in 2011 would also have been living there. This number equates to around 1% of Sydney’s overall population at the time18, and is the same size as, or larger than, the respective populations of three major regional centres in NSW: Tamworth, Port Macquarie and Orange (Orange City Council 2012; Port Macquarie-Hastings Council 2012; Tamworth Regional Council 2012). There is therefore a large population of international students to accommodate in Sydney, especially given that most international students live around their educational institutions (see Section 7.3.4)
16 See Table 2.4 of the DEEWR dataset. 17 Which, according to DEEWR data, are defined as onshore overseas students. 18 The 2011 Census recorded the population of Greater Sydney as 4,391,674. 42
Until recently (e.g. GML Social Research 2011; Obeng-Odoom 2012; Wang 2011), research on international student housing experiences has focused on Melbourne (e.g. Fincher & Shaw 2009; Paltridge et al. 2010; Power & McKenna 2005; Rosenthal 2006; Smith et al. 2007). Yet Sydney has also been the setting for numerous concerning reports of housing problems among international students (e.g. Aston 2010; Fife- Yeomans 2011; Kumar et al. 2009; Narushima 2011a, 2011b; Swinburne et al. 2011). Furthermore, the recent Senate Inquiry into International Student Accommodation in NSW (Social Policy Committee 2011) demonstrated, that there are significant issues facing international students in NSW and Sydney that warrant further investigation. It was therefore determined that the housing experiences of international students in Sydney merited attention in this research.
3.3.3 Why universities, and why UNSW? International students are enrolled across all sectors of Australian education19, however the higher education sector – which includes both universities and private providers offering undergraduate and postgraduate courses (Universities Australia 2012) – has displayed the greatest size and growth over the past two decades (AEI 2011, see Figure 3.2). Even amidst overall declines in enrolments since 2009, higher education has remained fairly stable. In 2011, around 44% of all international enrolments were in the higher education sector (AEI 2011), and the sector also generates more than half the revenue of the international education industry (Philimore & Koshy 2010). As well as being the largest and most lucrative sector, higher education has also been the context in which most reports of adverse housing conditions have arisen (e.g. Hasham 2011; Monfries 2011; Narushima 2011b; Stewart 2010).
Australia’s 39 universities are the largest higher education institutions by student population (DEEWR 201220), and also host the majority (90%) of onshore overseas students in higher education (DEEWR 201221). They therefore also have the greatest capacity and demand for providing services. For example, all universities provide some
19 There are three main sectors in the Australian education system: the schools sector, the vocational education and training (VET) sector and the higher (or tertiary) education sector, as well as two smaller sectors specifically catering for international students – the ELICOS (English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students) sector and the ‘Other’ sector, which includes specialised courses such as foundation studies, non-award and enabling courses (AEI 2011; ABS 2011a). 20 Data from Table 2.10 of the DEEWR dataset. 21 Data from Table 7.5 of the DEEWR dataset. 43 kind of student accommodation (Universities Australia 2011). The present research was initially designed to include students from the three universities in Sydney with the largest numbers of international students – UNSW, Macquarie University and the University of Sydney (see Table 3.1) – in the survey and focus groups. However, difficulties in obtaining data, interest, permission and promotional assistance meant that the vast majority of student survey respondents were from UNSW. For this reason, the small numbers of respondents from other universities were excluded from the survey sample before analysis (see Section 3.4.2), and the research design was amended to focus on UNSW. Fortunately, UNSW alone is an appropriate case study, as in 2011 it hosted the largest number of onshore international students in Sydney, and, indeed, in Australia (see Table 3.1).
Figure 3.2 International student enrolments in Australia 1994-2011
Figure 3.2 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions
Source: AEI 2011
3.3.4 Why Chinese students?
The housing experiences of Chinese international students are likely to overlap with those of international students of other nationalities, and even with broader groups such as young people, migrants or lower income groups in general. This thesis does not argue that the experiences of Chinese students are necessarily unique from these
44
Table 3.1: Onshore overseas students in Australia’s capital city universities, full years 2010 and 201122
CAPITAL CITY (State) Universities All students onshore 2010 (DEEWR All students onshore 2011 2011) (DEEWR 2012)
MELBOURNE (Victoria) Monash University 13,353 13,192
The University of Melbourne Not published 11,987
RMIT University 10,479 10,634
La Trobe University 6,863 6,835
Swinburne University of Technology 6,630 6,056
Victoria University 5,325 3,830
Total Melbourne 42,650 (19% of total enrolments)23 52,534 (23%)
SYDNEY (NSW) The University of NSW 13,212 13,663
Macquarie University 12,222 11,907
The University of Sydney 11,871 11,447
University of Technology, Sydney 9,091 8,674
University of Western Sydney 4,460 4,286
Total Sydney 50,856 (23%) 49,977 (22%)
22 Table 7.5 in DEEWR’s Higher Education Statistics collection (DEEWR 2011; 2012), reports on the number of onshore overseas students enrolled in each of the 39 universities by state. Universities are identified as in capital cities based on a listing of each university’s main campus by the universities peak body (Universities Australia 2012). Given that many universities have multiple campuses, these numbers are only indicative of the number of students living in capital cities. 23 Not including University of Melbourne - Data for the University of Melbourne were not included in Table 7.5 of the DEEWR dataset for 2010. 45
BRISBANE (Queensland) The University of Queensland 10,490 11,348
Griffith University 10,947 10,221
Queensland University of Technology 6,618 6,791
Total Brisbane 28,055 (13%) 28,360 (12%)
PERTH (Western Australia) Curtin University of Technology 10,149 9,580
The University of Western Australia 3,948 4,158
Edith Cowan University 3,660 3,483
Murdoch University 2,114 2,109
The University of Notre Dame Australia 520 488
Total Perth 20,391 (9%) 19,818 (9%)
ADELAIDE (South Australia) University of Adelaide 6,328 6,444
University of South Australia 6,070 5,881
The Flinders University of South 2,331 2,425 Australia
Total Adelaide 14,729 (7%) 14,750 (6%)
CANBERRA (Australian Capital Australian National University 4,917 5,347 Territory) University of Canberra 2,881 2,993
Total Canberra 7,798 (4%) 8,340 (4%)
HOBART (Tasmania) University of Tasmania 3,052 3,148
Total Hobart 3,052 (1%) 3,148 (1%)
46
DARWIN (Northern Territory) Charles Darwin University 575 683
Total Darwin 575 (0%) 683 (0%)
MULTI-CITY Australian Catholic University (Sydney, 3,227 3,211 Brisbane, Melbourne, Canberra)
Total Multi-City 3,227 (1%) 3,211 (1%)
Total in Capital Cities 171,421 180,821
Number of total onshore overseas university students 221,272 228,408
Proportion of total onshore overseas university students that were studying in 77% 79% capital cities
Source: DEEWR 2011 and DEEWR 2012, data from Table 7.5 of the datasets.
47 groups, but rather elected to focus on Chinese students as a useful case study for the reasons identified in this section. Firstly, it was determined that focusing on students of one national origin would make the findings more representative and generalisable. Examining a cross section of different ethnic groups, or at least comparing two or more, can be useful in trying to identify trends and characteristics that can be generalised to a large, nationally diverse population such as international students (Bowes et al. 1997; Fong & Chan 2010). However, international students in Australian universities come from more than 128 countries (DEEWR 201224). A very large sample would therefore be required in order to make generalisations about international students of all nationalities, to make comparisons between nationalities, or to explore at any depth the role of nationally and culturally specific factors in shaping students’ housing experiences. By contrast, a sample of students from the same national origin would enable in-depth analysis of national and cultural factors and be more likely to reach an adequate size to make generalisations about that particular population.
Secondly, in determining which country of origin to focus on, students from China25 stood out as the most appropriate choice, because of the relative size of this population, and its value to the Australian economy. With regard to size, China is the largest source country for Australian international education, and has been for the past decade (AEI 2012d; Davis & Mackintosh 2011). According to DEEWR figures (201226), 29% of international higher education students27 in Australia were from China (excl. SARs and Taiwan) in 2011. Despite belonging to a cohesive national group, Chinese students are by no means homogeneous. Like other Chinese migrants, they represent a diverse range of cultures and migration experiences (Barabantseva 2005; Collins 2002; Kaplan & Holloway 2001). The limitations of generalising the findings of this research to the greater population of Chinese students are therefore acknowledged (Bowes et al. 1997: 64). However, since contemporary Chinese students have left China in the same
24 Data from Table 7.4 of the DEEWR dataset. 25 China is defined in this thesis as ‘mainland China’, or in official terms, of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), excluding Taiwan and the Special Administrative Regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macau. This is commonly abbreviated as ‘China (excl. SARs and Taiwan)’ (ABS 2011d). This is only one of a number of ways that ‘Chinese’ can be defined. Other widely accepted definitions of ‘Chinese’ including: the Han ethnic group, citizens of the PRC and its SARs, the ‘overseas Chinese’ of South East Asia, and citizens of any nation with any ethnic, cultural or political affinity with the PRC (Burnley 2002; Chan 2006; Collins 2002; Kaplan & Holloway 2001; Townsend 1996). China (excl. SARs and Taiwan) is the category used in this thesis because it is generally used in Australian higher education datasets. 26 Data from Table 7.4 of the DEEWR dataset. 27 No distinction is made here between onshore and offshore students. 48 historical phase of migration with similar motives and procedures (see Section 4.3.2), they are likely to share many similarities, accentuated by shared demographic characteristics, traits, goals and behaviours owing to their student status. It was therefore considered appropriate to examine this group as a single unit, acknowledging its diversity, but also looking for common housing experiences, especially those that might reflect national, ethnic or cultural influences.
In terms of value to the Australian economy, Chinese students are a timely and useful case study. As the largest international group in Australian higher education, their welfare is of prime importance to the ongoing viability of the higher education sector, and is also in Australia’s broader economic interest. As Section 4.2.2 explores, the Australian higher education sector has become dependent on revenue from full fee- paying international enrolments. Concerns about the welfare of Indian students made front page news in 2008 and 2009, following a number of violent attacks and other incidents, and led to a sharp decline in Australian enrolments from this key source of international students. This held significant implications for both the higher education sector and for the Australian economy more broadly (Deloitte Access Economics 2011; Philimore & Koshy 2010). China has since overtaken India as the primary source country for international enrolments (Deloitte Access Economic 2011), however the Indian example demonstrates that damage to Australia’s reputation through the negative experiences of even a handful of Chinese students could pose a threat to this vital relationship. Investigating the housing experiences of Chinese students is useful in identifying risks to Chinese students’ wellbeing that may need to be urgently monitored and addressed to secure the loyalty of this market.
The third reason for focusing on Chinese international students relates to more anecdotal evidence suggesting patterns of exploitation among this group. The telegraph poles around UNSW, as well as in the Sydney CBD and suburban streets of Marsfield (areas which have been the focus of most of the media in Sydney around international student housing problems), are constantly adorned with homemade advertisements for student private rental accommodation (see Figure 4.5). A large proportion of these display Chinese text and/or Chinese contact names. They also often display information that suggests poor housing outcomes, especially informal subletting, crowding and disproportionately high rents. This indicates potentially common housing practices among the Chinese international student community and makes Chinese students of
49 particular interest in research on the housing outcomes of international students in Sydney.
In focusing on Chinese international students as a case study group for exploring the housing experiences of international students, it is acknowledged that findings will not necessarily be generalisable due to potential variation between groups of students on the basis of national and ethnic factors. Robertson (2011b: 105), for example, highlighted the danger of falsely representing international student experiences as Asian experiences. It is therefore noted that, while the findings presented in this thesis are consistent with literature on international students of other nationalities and may therefore be useful in understanding the experiences of international students in general, they are primarily indicative of the experiences of international students from mainland China.
3.4 Research methods
As discussed in Section 3.2, this study took a mixed methods approach comprising three primary research methods: interviews, a survey and focus groups. The study began with a review of the literature, media and statistical data pertaining to international students and housing, which helped to identify and explore key issues and shape the research design. The first primary method conducted was a set of interviews with key stakeholders. The interviews complemented the literature review in identifying and exploring key issues for international students in relation to their housing. This combined information was used to develop a conceptual framework for the study, and to design a survey tool which was intended to further explore and measure the themes raised in the interviews as well as test whether the conceptual framework was a valid tool for describing and analysing international students’ housing experiences. Data from this survey of Chinese international students at UNSW were then used to form follow-up questions for two focus groups designed to test the survey findings and gather richer, complementary qualitative data. This section details the undertaking and analysis of each of the three primary research methods.
50
3.4.1 Interviews
Semi-structured, exploratory scoping interviews with key stakeholders were chosen as the first primary method in order to gain a broad understanding of the major challenges international students in Sydney face with regard to accommodation that would assist, in conjunction with an extensive review of the literature, with the development of a conceptual framework, and contribute to the development of survey questions. Qualitative methods such as interviews are useful for gaining this kind of breadth and depth of data to orient research within a complex phenomenon (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). One of the few other Australian studies on international student housing (Fincher et al. 2009) used stakeholder interviews in a similar capacity, to develop a good understanding of the main issues to inform their research among their main subjects, international students. Other relevant research, including the work of the Housing New Canadians Research Working Group (Hulchanski 1997; Murdie et al. 1999) and a study on the social capital of international students at the University of Wollongong, Australia (Neri & Ville 2008) similarly commenced their mixed methods studies with a qualitative method designed to identify issues and experiences, create a conceptual framework and construct a survey instrument, although in both of these cases focus groups were used instead of interviews.
Approval for the interviews was obtained from the Built Environment Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel in March 2011. Thirty-three individuals with knowledge and experience in relation to student services, support or advocacy were identified through organisational websites, contacted by email and invited to be involved in an interview. Those invited included people within and outside of universities with direct experience working with international students, such as student representatives and advisers, through to more strategic observers such as departmental managers and coordinators. One third of the contacts agreed to be interviewed. As intended, participants represented diverse perspectives, and ranged from more front-line staff, situated in three universities (including student advocates, student representatives and student welfare staff), the private sector (a student housing agent) and the community sector (a local tenancy service), to more strategic observers across four universities (managers of accommodation and international education departments) and in the local community (a local council representative)(see Table 3.2). Eleven interviews with a total of thirteen
51 interviewees28 were conducted between April and September 2011. Six interviews were conducted over the phone and five in person. Several participants requested not to be identified.
Table 3.2 Summary of interviewees
Number Organisation Job title or department type29 1A Inner Sydney Tenants’ Advice & Advocacy Service, Tenancy Coordinator 1B Redfern Legal Centre Tenancy Volunteer 2A ARC (student organisation for UNSW) Student Support Manager 2B Student Support Officer 3 Student Development International (international Manager student services at UNSW) 4 Unnamed Sydney-based university Student support 5 Unnamed Sydney-based university Accommodation services 6 Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Senior Student Advice and Association (SUPRA) Advocacy Officer 7 Sydney University Postgraduate Representative President Association (SUPRA) 8 City of Ryde Mayor 9 Semester in Australia (accommodation and arrival Director service for international students) 10 Unnamed Sydney-based university International student services 11 Unnamed Sydney-based university International student services
All of the interviews followed a similar semi-structured schedule (see Appendix 1 for an example) with questions in each case tailored to the role, organisation and experience of each interviewee. The questions sought to situate international student experiences in relation to the housing experiences of other students. Most interviewees (depending on their position and expertise) were asked about the major challenges facing students in general in relation to finding and securing appropriate accommodation, and then about the international student experience specifically. Although the interviewees reflect a range of organisations, roles, experiences and perspectives, there was considerable agreement about the major housing issues facing international students. The focus on Chinese students was established part way through this first stage of primary research, partly as a result of Chinese students being singled out by several
28 In two cases, pairs of colleagues from the same organisation chose to participate together. 29 The interviewees identified by job title / department type and organisation provided their “consent to being quoted and identified” on the Project Consent Form (Form 4) approved as part of the ethics application for the project by the Built Environment Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel on 28 March 2013. Those who chose the option “I do not want to be identified but am prepared to participate anonymously” were not identified. 52 interviewees as a group of particular concern. Once the focus on Chinese students had been established, later interviewees were asked directly about Chinese students.
Analysis of the interview data was performed with the aid of the qualitative research software NVivo and took a thematic analysis approach. Thematic analysis is a rigorous approach to analysing qualitative data that captures the complexities of meaning inherent in textual data by identifying key patterns and themes (Guest et al. 2012: 4, 11). It seeks to systematically identify patterns in qualitative data, and thus requires thorough familiarity with the data. This familiarity is developed throughout the research process as the researcher personally collects and transcribes the data, and ultimately subjects them to several stages of systematic coding (Braun & Clarke 2006; Howitt & Cramer 2007). In the coding process, pieces of data are gradually grouped together to form categories (called ‘nodes’ in NVivo) that will ultimately demonstrate the major themes emerging from the data and their connections with each other. Coding enables the data to shape the research framework and conclusions, rather than being shaped by the researchers’ preconceived categories and expectations (Charmaz 2005; Punch 2005). The use of coding to draw out themes in thematic analysis bears similarity to the grounded theory approach to analysing qualitative data developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and expanded by Strauss and Corbin (1998). However, thematic analysis is more flexible, not being bound to a particular theoretical framework and not prescribing a particular method for coding. It also allows existing hypotheses and other influences, such as literature, to inform the coding process rather than requiring hypotheses to emerge strictly from the data (Braun & Clarke 2006: 8).
Nevertheless, the three consecutive stages of coding used in grounded theory were adopted in this research as a useful tool to ensure a systematic approach to coding the qualitative data from the interviews. In grounded theory, coding has three main stages: open, axial and selective (Strauss & Corbin 1998). In open coding prominent themes are selected and made into categories for analysis. In the axial coding stage, relationships between themes are identified so that a hierarchy of categories and sub-categories can be created. The final stage is selective coding, whereby the existing categories are developed and refined to best express the shape of the data (Punch 2005; Strauss & Corbin 1998). Analysis of the interview data from the present study followed these three steps. In the initial stage of analysis, the interview data were read thoroughly and sorted into major categories. Then, upon subsequent reading and sorting of the data, some
53 categories were renamed, joined together or replaced entirely, and sub-categories were created within the remaining overarching categories to greater reflect the complexities of the data. As in most thematic analyses, continual adjustment occurred during this middle phase so that the framework more and more closely reflected the content of the data (Howitt & Cramer 2007). As the coding framework was reconfigured, it was possible to make higher level, more abstract inferences about the meaning of the topics raised and their connections (Punch 2005). In the final stage, the coding framework was audited and refined to ensure that it reflected the range of topics covered in the data. As explained in Section 2.1, the thorough coding process of the interview data was undertaken in conjunction with an extensive review of the literature, the combination of which resulted in the concepts and relationships represented in the conceptual framework diagram (Figure 2.1).
The interview data are reported in the thesis by theme, with examples, quotations and counts of participants included to illustrate the definitions and meaning of each theme and provide evidence that systematic analysis has been undertaken (Howitt & Cramer 2007). It is to be expected that some research participants, given their greater experience, knowledge and passion about the subjects at hand, make more detailed, expressive and well-evidenced comments than others. This was certainly the case in the interviews for the present study. In addition, the recorder stopped working in one interview, and another interviewee did not give permission for their comments to be recorded, meaning that two interviews did not produce any direct quotations. Despite this variation in the interview data, immense care was taken to ensure that no one respondent dominated in the analysis or presentation of data and that the views of all interviewees were captured and represented. Quotations were distributed as evenly as possible between interviewees, and where quotations were not available or merely mirrored the comments of other interviewees, this was accounted for in the reporting of how many interviewees referred to particular issues.
3.4.2 Survey The second primary method used was an online survey. This was designed to be the centrepiece of the research design, being shaped by the interviews and literature review and tested and enriched by the focus groups. It was also the first of two primary methods involving Chinese international students at UNSW for which the resulting data 54 would be used to test the conceptual framework. The survey was intended to be predominantly descriptive rather than statistical, meaning that it mostly sought categorical rather than numeric data, and that descriptive analysis (frequencies, means and percentages) would be the main means of analysis rather than correlational or other statistical analysis, as descriptive surveys are useful for increasing understanding of a topic on which little research is available (Keele 2010: 38-39). Apart from testing the conceptual framework, the main purposes of the survey were:
to explore the themes raised in the interviews and literature with Chinese students as a case study group; to ascertain whether, and to what extent, they accurately represented this group’s experience, and to identify patterns in their experiences that may help explain how and why some of these issues occur for international students in general.
The internet was the chosen medium for administering the survey, partly for practical reasons, as online surveys are inexpensive and rapid to develop (Evans & Mathur 2005), and the Key Survey software that was used greatly facilitates design, data collection and data analysis. However these were not the only considerations. Ninety-seven per cent of all Chinese students on student visas were under 30 years of age in 2011 (AEI 2012e), an age group understood to be frequent and proficient users of computer and internet technologies (ABS 2006; Kennedy et al. 2010), and therefore far less likely to experience the barriers to online participation experienced by other sectors of the population (Evans & Mathur 2005). Furthermore, university students are now required to use the internet for administrative and academic tasks associated with their enrolment (Judd & Kennedy 2010; Young 2009). It was thus determined that the internet would be an appropriate delivery tool for the target population.
Approval was received for this stage of the research from the Built Environment Human Research ethics Advisory Panel through a second application, passed in June 2011. Following this, a draft survey was designed based on the key issues identified from the interviews and literature. It was then piloted with seven respondents, including four Chinese students, with their feedback incorporated into the final version. The survey was launched in July 2012, at the beginning of semester in order to achieve an optimal
55 response rate. Recipients were predominantly recruited via the internet30 as email, websites and social networking sites enable both the inexpensive and rapid reaching of a large audience as well as targeted promotion through specific mailing lists, groups and websites associated with Chinese students. Promotion was facilitated by interviewees and other university contacts with access to online tools, such as student club presidents and international student advisers31. The majority of respondents (64%) heard about the survey by an email from the university, and a further one fifth (19%) via the online student portal myUNSW where an advertisement was posted (Figure 3.3). As it was an opt-in survey, an incentive (entry into a prize draw for one of five $50 Westfield vouchers) was also provided in order to “to maximise sample size and reduce sample selection bias” (Neri & Ville 2008: 1521). The organisations contacted at UNSW were generally responsive and helpful, but promoting the survey at other universities was very difficult, leading to only one large scale email promotion at another Sydney university that did not result in many responses.
The survey closed after four and a half months in November 2011, having achieved 431 complete responses. The reluctance of other universities to participate in the research meant that the majority (91%) of the responses were from UNSW. Only 35 respondents were enrolled at the University of Sydney, and 3 at Macquarie University. It was decided that these groups differed too greatly in number to be compared, and that the 393 responses from UNSW was the only group that was large enough for the data to be at all generalisable. Fortunately, these responses represented up to 18% of Chinese international students at UNSW in 2011, as defined by country of permanent residence32. It was therefore decided that the responses from other universities would be excluded from the sample, and only those from UNSW students analysed. The
30 Some posters were also used within the Faculty of the Built Environment, but this was quickly seen to be an ineffective method as the advertisement contained a long URL that would need to be manually copied. 31 This means that the sample was not strictly random, and also that it was impossible to gauge an accurate response rate, since there was no way to account for the number of people who had received information about the survey. 32 According to figures provided by the Institutional Analysis and Reporting Office (IARO). IARO was contacted directly with a request for data. A table of UNSW students by permanent residence country recorded 2,229 students who were Chinese permanent residents in 2011. However, the permanent residence country for 1,277 students was ‘unknown’, and it was acknowledged that, unlike citizenship data, permanent residency data were not compulsorily collected on enrolment, but rather throughout the degree, and therefore not provided by all students. The number of Chinese international students could therefore be larger than this, and the survey sample overestimated. However, even if all ‘unknowns’ were permanent residents of China, the survey sample in this research would still represent more than 10% of this population. 56 distribution of the survey respondents also broadly reflected the distribution of the Chinese international student population at UNSW in terms of gender, age and level of study (see Figures 3.4-3.8).
Figure 3.3: How respondents found out about the survey33
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% In an email On the From a Through a From a poster from UNSW myUNSW university club friend or website or society classmate
431 respondents
The survey questions (see Appendix 3) fulfilled three objectives. Some elicited demographic information (e.g. gender and level of study), some elicited facts about respondents’ housing and housing trajectories (e.g. dwelling type, number of times moved) and some sought respondents’ perceptions and experiences of accommodation in Sydney (e.g. satisfaction, best and worst experiences). Questions were asked about first accommodation, current accommodation and accommodation experiences overall while in Sydney to observe transition over time. The majority of survey questions were closed multiple choice questions, either single-response, multiple-response or Likert scale-type34 questions, as these kinds of questions produce numeric data that measure the frequency of different phenomena, and also increases the speed and ease of completing the survey for respondents (Babbie 2001: 246). Given that one weakness of survey research among international students is that the information is “limited to preset questions and so confined by the researchers’ prior assumptions”, two open questions were strategically included at the end of the survey to ensure that students
33 Question 33. 34 Likert scales measure the intensity of agreement, frequency, etc. For example, ‘Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree’. 57 had an “opportunity...to put things in their own words or to explore new issues arising” (Marginson et al. 2010: 13).
The survey data were analysed using three types of data analysis software. Data cleaning as well as descriptive analysis and frequencies, including univariate and multivariate bar charts and tables, were performed using Microsoft Excel. Many of these charts and tables are presented in the thesis. The confidence interval for the survey sample is +/- 4.5% at 95% confidence levels. This means that, for example, if 75% of survey respondents indicated that they lived in a certain kind of dwelling, there is a 95% likelihood that between 71.5% and 79.5% of the total population of Chinese international students at UNSW also lived in that kind of dwelling. A large number of cross-tabulations were also performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), although statistical analysis of the relationships between variables was not the focus of the survey. Some of these cross-tabulations produced interesting results, which are reported throughout the thesis and in Appendix 5. However, these results must be used with caution – they could not be measured for statistical significance and are therefore indicative only.35 The qualitative data from the open questions were coded using NVivo software following the same thematic analysis procedure as for the interview data (see Section 3.4.1). The resulting node framework can be found Appendix 4. The quantitative and qualitative data from the survey supported the key components of the conceptual framework presented in Chapter 2 and their overall relationships. However they also provided, along with the data from the focus groups, further detailed evidence from a student perspective regarding the operation of each component that enabled the framework to be refined through minor changes to the terminology used and the directions represented by the arrows between some components of the framework. It also shaped, along with data from the focus groups, the content and structure of the chapters within the thesis.
All respondents completed the survey on the understanding that they were currently enrolled onshore at UNSW, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, and had spent
35 The chi-square test is typically used to test the statistical significance of cross-tabulations performed in SPSS, however this test requires that a sample be random, that it be large enough so that all expected frequencies equal at least 1 and that no more than 20% of the expected frequencies are lower than 5 (Huizingh 2007). The survey sample in the present study was purposive rather than random, and SPSS indicated that none of the cross-tabulations performed met the sample size criteria. 58 most of their life in mainland China (excluding SARs and Taiwan)36. The survey was administered in English, even though it was unlikely to be respondents’ first language. This presented the risk that questions may be misunderstood, and results skewed as a result. However, translation was deemed to be unnecessary since the target population is required to have a high level of English proficiency in order to study in Australia37. To avoid miscommunication, questions and response options were carefully crafted to be as simple and clear as possible and four Mandarin-speaking pilot respondents were specifically asked for constructive feedback on the language used in the survey.
According to gender, age and level of study, the survey sample broadly reflected the characteristics of the Chinese student population at UNSW38 and national figures on overall international or Chinese higher education enrolments. The gender distribution of survey respondents differed slightly from the population of Chinese students at UNSW (see Figure 3.4), although both samples were fairly well balanced between male and female. Further, the gender distribution of the survey sample exactly matched DEEWR figures (201239) for Chinese overseas higher education students nationally, which suggest that there are more females overall. The distribution of ages was more difficult to compare between survey respondents and other data sources, because slightly different age brackets were used in the data on Chinese international students at UNSW and because no data was available summarising the age of overseas higher education students, either in general or for Chinese students in particular, in 201140. However, Figures 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 demonstrate that there was consistency in that the majority of students in all samples were under 25 years of age.
36 These disclaimers appeared in a ‘cover page’ before the online survey commenced. 37 English language skills are required in order to secure a student visa and are often determined based on IELTS, TOEFL, Cambridge (CAE) and Pearson (PTE) English language tests (Australian Government 2012). Minimum entry requirements are determined by each institution. For example, UNSW’s minimum entry requirement according to the IELTS English Language scoring system is 6.5 overall (UNSW 2012), which the IELTS website notes is acceptable for linguistically demanding courses (e.g. engineering) (IELTS 2012). 38 Data on the level of study, age and gender of international students who were permanent residents in China in 2011 were provided by the IARO. It is important to note that there was some discrepancy between the totals in these tables and the total number of Chinese international students provided by the IARO. 39 Data from Table 7.4 of the DEEWR dataset. 40 Data were, however, available on the age of Chinese international students across all sectors, including higher education, which is reported in Figure 3.7. 59
Figure 3.4 Gender of survey respondents compared to Chinese international students at UNSW, 2011, and Chinese overseas higher education students in Australia, 201141
120%
100%
80%
60% Male 40% Female
20%
0% Survey respondents Chinese students, Chinese overseas UNSW higher education students
Survey respondents and Chinese students at UNSW overall were most commonly enrolled at postgraduate level42, either in coursework or research (see Figure 3.8). This was, however, different from overseas higher education students in general, of which the majority were undergraduates43, suggesting that Chinese students are more likely to study higher degrees. This is consistent with Xiang and Shen’s profile (2009: 519) of Chinese students studying abroad being largely postgraduates. A higher than average enrolment of ‘Other’44 students among Chinese students at UNSW may be explained by the fact that UNSW is a national leader in Foundation Studies programs (UNSW Global 2013). It was unclear why no students enrolled in ‘Other’ courses completed the survey for the present study. However, given that Foundation and English language students have their own intranet (my.unswglobal instead of myUNSW) and are based in a building on the periphery of the main campus and on the secondary Randwick campus, with many of their own facilities (UNSW Global 2012; 2013), it is likely that the university
41 Survey respondents based on 391 respondents to the survey for this research. Chinese student data taken from tables provided by UNSW, based on 2,208 respondents. Chinese overseas higher education student data from Table 7.4, DEEWR 2012 – based on 95,986 respondents. 42 Postgraduate’ encompasses: Doctorate/Masters by Coursework, Postgrad Qual/Prelim, Graduate Diploma/Certificate. ‘Postgraduate Research’ encompasses Doctorate/Masters by Research. 43 ‘Undergraduate’ encompasses Bachelor’s Pass/Honours/Graduate Entry, Associate Degree, Advanced Diploma, Diploma, Other undergraduate award courses. 44 ‘Other’ encompasses Enabling and Non-award courses, i.e. courses that do not count towards an Australian degree qualification, including foundation studies, bridging and English language courses and short-term study exchange. 60
Figure 3.5 Age distribution of survey Figure 3.6 Age distribution of Chinese students Figure 3.7 Age distribution of Chinese respondents at UNSW, 2011 international students across all sectors (including higher education), 2011 (AEI 2012e)
30-34 30-34 35+ yrs 26-30 years years 2% yrs, 2% 1% 18-19 25-29 4% <19 yrs yrs 25-29 years 9% 12% years 13% 20%
<21 yrs 21-25 45% 20-24 yrs yrs 51% 20-24 77% years 64%
391 respondents45 2,306 respondents46 Source: AEI 2012e
45Where a different number of respondents is reported to the total number of survey respondents (393) this is because some respondents elected not to answer the question. 46 Age brackets above 30 years were not included in the graph because each category accounted for only a tiny fraction of 1%. 61 bodies through which the survey was promoted are less frequently accessed by these students.
Figure 3.8 Level of study of survey respondents compared to Chinese international students at UNSW, 2011, and all overseas higher education students in Australia, 201147
120%
100%
80%
60% Undergraduate Postgraduate 40% Postgraduate research 20% Other 0% Survey Chinese All overseas respondents students, higher UNSW education students
3.4.3 Focus groups Focus groups were included as the final stage of the research in order to test and enrich the findings of the survey and help test the conceptual framework for the study. They were also intended to provide a forum for discussion of students’ ideas about how they could be better supported in regard to their accommodation. This approach was similar to that used in another study of international student accommodation in Sydney (GML Social Research 2011: 45) which included two focus groups in conjunction with a survey, using the focus groups primarily to “explore individual accounts of housing experiences and to seek feedback from students on potential future options”. Indeed, focus groups are commonly used in conjunction with surveys, including to follow up and help interpret survey findings, as is the case here (Cameron 2005: 86-87). Two focus groups were planned for early first semester, 2012 to minimise the chances of study commitments interfering with students’ willingness to participate. The original intention was to recruit focus group members through the survey so that focus group participants
47 Survey respondents based on 393 respondents to the survey for this research. Chinese student data taken from tables provided by the IARO, based on 2,265 respondents. All overseas higher education student data from Table 7.1, DEEWR 2012 – based on 145,064 respondents. (No data were available on Chinese students’ level of study for 2011). 62 could be asked in more detail about their opinions of, and experiences in relation to, key findings from the survey to produce richer data to accompany the statistics. However, although 148 survey respondents initially indicated that they would be willing to participate, it proved very difficult to recruit these respondents as participants, despite offering an incentive of a free movie ticket and refreshments in the email invitation.
Willing participants were sorted so that those contacted represented a range of housing types and demographic groups. In all, 77 survey respondents were contacted, with five replying to the email; a response rate of only 6%. The lower than expected response rate meant that few students had been recruited within the short time before the scheduled focus group dates. It was unclear whether perhaps having sent the emails prior to the first week of semester meant that some students had not yet returned from overseas holidays, or were possibly still busy arranging their accommodation. As the focus group dates were approaching, and assistants and room bookings had been organised, alternative recruitment methods were employed. Firstly, the survey respondents who had agreed to participate were asked to invite their friends, a form of ‘snowball’ sampling (Babbie 2007). This resulted in nine further participants. To fill the remaining spaces, email advertisements were sent out to two mailing lists within the Faculty of the Built Environment: the postgraduate research cohort and all Chinese international students (both undergraduate and postgraduate). This yielded the greatest number of responses, with many more willing participants than necessary arising for the few remaining spaces.
As a result, some criteria needed to be established by which to select students from those willing to participate, especially as focus groups used as a supplementary source of data in conjunction with another primary method such as a survey “must be set up and conducted in ways that maximize their value for the primary method” (Morgan 1997: 4). As the existing participants were mainly female, males were prioritised in this selection process. Priority was also given to students that had responded quickly and demonstrated in their reply that they had a strong interest in the topic, rather than just the simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response sent by many. This was done with the hope of stimulating discussion, which was ultimately successful. Six further participants were confirmed, resulting in a total of nineteen participants overall, divided between two focus groups, one week apart in early March 2012. Despite the use of snowballing and
63 targeted recruitment in one faculty, the participants represented diverse levels of study, faculties, number of years spent in Sydney and current living locations (see Table 3.3).
The focus groups were conducted outside of regular class hours to facilitate the attendance of students across different faculties and class schedules. Both were scheduled to be two hours long and ran to time, with a scheduled ten minute refreshment break in the middle. A semi-structured moderating style was chosen to fit the purpose of the focus groups, given the importance of direction in keeping the discussion on track and eliciting experiences and knowledge in relation to the phenomena identified by the survey (Fern 2001: 85). The discussion was focussed on gaining further information from students on housing outcomes and impacts on their wellbeing, as well as the operation of resources, constraints and strategies. It comprised three parts, each pertaining to key themes from the survey findings that would benefit from the insight provided by qualitative data, namely: how aspects of accommodation affected study, strategies used in relation to finding accommodation and solving problems, and students’ ideas for how they could be better supported.
A Microsoft PowerPoint presentation (see Appendix 6) was used to overview the purpose of the focus groups in the context of the research project, outline the ‘ground rules’ for the group and to guide the participants through the various topics planned for discussion (Cameron 2005: 95; Morgan 1997: 48). The use of PowerPoint slides was considered to be particularly important since the participants had varying levels of proficiency in English, were largely unfamiliar with the focus group method and had mostly not participated in the survey. However, discussion was not restricted to the information presented on the slides; they were simply a guide to prompt group interaction, retain focus on the key topics and enable comparisons across the groups and with the survey data in the analysis phase (Cameron 2005: 86; Morgan 1998: 47).
As the role of the focus groups was to supplement data from the survey, the qualitative data from the focus groups were not analysed in the same way as the data from the interviews and survey. Rather, the focus group transcripts were annotated with key words (e.g. living with classmates, vermin problems). This was done to ensure that participants’ comments were not taken out of context, but considered as part of the discussion in which they arose. The key words and overarching themes from the focus group transcripts were then compared with the findings from the survey to test whether the survey findings were consistent with students’ anecdotal experiences, and to gain 64
Table 3.3 Summary of focus group participants
Name48 Group Recruitment Gender Course Faculty Years in Location Sydney (Suburb)49
Ying 6 Mar Faculty email F Postgraduate Built Environment <1 Kingsford
Jianning 6 Mar Faculty email M Postgraduate research Built Environment <1 Kingsford
Wendi 6 Mar Friend F Postgraduate Built Environment 2-3 Kingsford
Hui 6 Mar Friend F Postgraduate Australian School of <1 Maroubra Business
Yabo 6 Mar Survey F Undergraduate Science 2-3 Hurstville
Dan 6 Mar Friend F Postgraduate research Built Environment 1-2 Randwick
Haiyong 6 Mar Friend M Postgraduate Engineering 1-2 Kensington
Lei 6 Mar Friend M Postgraduate Engineering 1-2 Kensington
Xinxin 6 Mar Friend F Postgraduate Unknown 1-2 Kensington
Bingfei 6 Mar Faculty email F Undergraduate Built Environment 2-3 Unknown
Liang 12 Mar Faculty email M Postgraduate Built Environment 1-2 Maroubra
48 Pseudonyms were selected by a Chinese international student at UNSW friend of the author. 49 UNSW is located in Kingsford/Randwick. Maroubra and Ultimo are within 5km of the university, and Hurstville approximately 17km away, according to Google Maps.
65
Yansong 12 Mar Survey M Postgraduate research Built Environment <1 Kingsford
Xueling 12 Mar Faculty email F Postgraduate Built Environment 1-2 Kingsford
Yue 12 Mar Survey F Undergraduate Unknown 1-2 Kingsford
Ming 12 Mar Friend M Undergraduate Unknown 1-2 Unknown
Haidong 12 Mar Friend M Postgraduate Unknown 2-3 Ultimo
Mengyu 12 Mar Friend F Postgraduate Unknown 2-3 Hurstville
Huijun 12 Mar Survey F Postgraduate Unknown 2-3 Hurstville
Lili 12 Mar Faculty email F Undergraduate Faculty of Built 3-4 Kingsford Environment
66 further insights into the operation of strategies, resources and constraints. Participants’ comments were found to be consistent with the findings of the survey, but also provided further detail and connections that were useful in interpreting the survey results and structuring the thesis content. They were also compared with the conceptual framework for the study (Figure 2.1), and found to be consistent with the framework, while assisting, along with the survey data, to refine the terminology and layout of the final diagram. As with the interview data and qualitative data from the survey, key themes from the focus groups helped shape the content and structure of the thesis chapters, and quotations of, and references to, comments in the focus groups were included throughout the thesis according to theme to illustrate and expound the findings of all three research methods (Cameron 2005: 98-100; Morgan 1997: 64). All of the focus group data reported in the thesis is identified by gender and pseudonym, so that the comments can be read in the context of the basic demographic data for each participant presented in Table 3.3.
3.5 Summary
This research takes a mixed methods approach, drawing from quantitative and qualitative traditions. A mixed methods approach was selected because of its strength in producing useful insights in relatively unexplored research areas through triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation and expansion. Moreover, mixed methods approaches have been successfully implemented in relevant studies on housing trajectories and international student experience. Interviews, focus groups and a survey were selected in order to identify, describe and explain the issues as well as measure the extent to which they were occurring, in line with the aims of the study. Chinese international students were selected as a case study group because of their dominance of international enrolments, the subsequent importance of their welfare to the higher education sector and broader Australian economy, and apparent housing practices among the Chinese international student community in Sydney. Sydney was the setting for the research because of the large population of international students and relative lack of localised research on international student housing. UNSW was the focus of the research because of the relatively large international student population and lack of co- operation from other universities.
67
The primary research was conducted via three different methods: interviews, a survey and focus groups. Eleven interviews were undertaken with thirteen stakeholders working with international students across different roles and organisations in Sydney. These were used, in conjunction with an ongoing review of the literature, to identify major areas of concern surrounding international student experiences relating to housing and develop a conceptual framework for the study. Findings from the interviews and literature also helped to shape an online survey which was promoted online to Chinese international students, which resulted in a sample of 393 students at UNSW. To test and enrich the findings from the online survey, two focus groups were conducted with a total of nineteen participants. The survey and focus groups also served to validate the usefulness of the conceptual framework developed in the initial stage of the research for understanding international students’ housing experiences. The findings from the three primary methods are presented primarily in all four remaining chapters in the form of quotations, charts, tables and percentages. The next chapter (Chapter 4) commences the analysis of international students’ housing experiences with regard to the trajectories framework overviewed in Chapter 2 and provides important background for the subsequent findings chapters.
68
Chapter 4: Structural Factors
4.1 Introduction
Section 2.4 described how structural factors shape the housing context in which international students find themselves by influencing the housing options available to them and their ability to access those options. This first findings chapter explores four kinds of structural factors that have been found by this research to influence the housing context of international students, and particularly Chinese international students, in Sydney:
the internationalisation of higher education; immigration policy; the legal status, rights and entitlements of international students; and housing market conditions.
In this way it also doubles as a background chapter, providing the socio-political context for the findings presented in subsequent chapters. Although the international education literature rarely makes an explicit connection between these structural factors and international students’ housing, this chapter argues that the operation of structural factors at international, national, and local levels has influenced the size and profile of the international student population needing to be accommodated in Australian cities, the extent of support international students receive relative to other groups in relation to their housing, and the predominant types and conditions of accommodation they choose (see Figure 4.1). The influence of these factors was certainly evident, if not explicitly stated, in the literature review and interview stages of the study. At the same time, data from the survey and focus groups demonstrated students’ actions can feed back to shape those very same structural factors, a concept supported by literature on the dialectical relationship of structure agency (see Section 2.4.3). While the impact of structure on housing context is the main focus of this chapter, the influence of international students’ actions on these structural factors is also referred to throughout, and is further explored in Chapters 5 and 6.
69
Figure 4.1 Key structural factors and their implications for housing context
INTERNATIONAL Higher education policy Immigration policy
NATIONAL Higher education policy Immigration policy
Size and profile of the Status, rights and international student entitlements of the population international student population
LOCAL Housing market conditions
Housing options and outcomes
Source: Author
4.2 The internationalisation of higher education and housing context
Students from overseas have been studying in Australian universities for more than one hundred years (Fraser 1984). However, in recent decades international student flows have increased dramatically and changed significantly in composition. The past thirty years have brought unprecedented growth to Australia’s international education
70 industry, especially higher education50, with considerable numbers of students coming from Asian countries, especially China and India. This internationalisation of education both nationally and internationally is a structural factor that has contributed to the housing context of international students. It has underpinned the immense size of the international student population living in Australia which needs to be housed; the rate at which this population has had to be absorbed into Australian cities, and accommodated with new housing; and international students’ profile in terms of status, rights and entitlements that affect their housing experiences. At the same time, problems with international students’ welfare have contributed to recent declines in enrolments (Deloitte Access Economics 2011; Philimore & Koshy 2010), suggesting that problems with housing could also have similar potential structural effects. This section outlines the internationalisation of higher education internationally and within Australia, and indicates how this can impact the housing context of international students, and vice versa.
4.2.1 The internationalisation of higher education International education in Australia is a product of global trends in the internationalisation of education. Internationalisation refers to an overall increase in educational activities and initiatives fostering cross-border exchange and collaboration, from study abroad programs through to localised training in cross-cultural understanding (Altbach & Knight 2007; Marginson 2001). The main incentives for investing in international education are economic and political. International exchange and activities promote ties between countries that favour future economic relations, provide skilled labour, engender knowledge of, and sympathy for, the host society and generate income through tuition fees and personal expenditure (Altbach & Knight 2007; Knight & De Wit 1995). Additional important incentives include the export of cultural values, the development of individuals through cross-cultural negotiation, the enriching of curricula with opportunities for non-parochial critical inquiry, and strengthening and improving the quality and reputation of institutions (Adams et al. 2011; Knight & De Wit 1995). Though not the only component of internationalisation, recruitment of large intakes of students from overseas has played a central role in this process (Altbach &
50 Higher education sector may also be referred to as tertiary education. Higher education in Australia is explained in context in Chapter 3.3.3. 71
Knight 2007; Marginson 2001) and is the focus of this section because it is of most relevance to the topic of housing. In the past thirty years, the number of students globally who are enrolled to study outside their country of citizenship has quadrupled, with accelerated growth since the year 2000 (see Figure 4.2). Students from China represent the largest group by far, with 339,700 studying abroad in 2011 (AEI 2012b).
Figure 4.2 Number of students enrolled outside their country of citizenship (millions)
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
Millions Millions ofstudents 1.0
0.5
0.0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009
Year
Source: OECD 2011: 320
Internationalisation is evident across all sectors of education, yet higher education has been at the forefront. Higher education has always been a platform for international mobility and dialogue (Knight & De Wit 1995; Rizvi 2011; Teichler 1999). However, since the late 1980s, broader societal, economic and political trends of globalisation and the facilitation of global movement and communication through technological development have prompted a dramatic expansion in the volume, scope and complexity of cross- border interaction in higher education (Altbach & Knight 2007; Marginson 2001; OECD 2011: 320). Previously disparate, peripheral international activities undertaken by higher education institutions have given way to increasingly strategic systemic policies and infrastructure that are making the core activities of learning and teaching more international (Altbach & Knight 2007; Teichler 1999). From 2000 until now, the number
72 of foreign students51 enrolled in tertiary (higher) education has more than doubled in Australia and fifteen other countries (OECD 2011: 320).
While offshore enrolment52 is increasingly popular, most overseas study requires temporary migration, which contributes to population growth, and consequently increases housing demand, especially in the private rental sector (Clark et al. 1996; Hulse et al. 2012: 12; Kubitschko 2008; National Housing Supply Council (NHSC) 2011). In many industrialised countries that have greatly expanded their higher education sectors (including via internationalisation) in the last 50 years, governments have failed to match expansion with strategic plans for accommodating increasing numbers of students, and the educational institutions left in charge of providing housing have failed to keep up with rapidly increasing demand despite significant investment in new developments (Rugg et al. 2000). This has contributed to existing pressure in urban private rental markets, especially those around universities (Rugg et al. 2000; Powell & Barke 2008; Stevenson & Askham 2011). In this way, the internationalisation of education as a whole can greatly impact the housing context in which international students find themselves.
4.2.2 The internationalisation of higher education in Australia While global trends have largely driven the internationalisation of higher education in Australia, the size, growth and development of the international higher education sector in Australia has been distinctive, and has been facilitated by national policies, funding and regulation (Marginson 2007a; Sidhu 2011; Teichler 1999). Australia ‘punches above its weight’ in international education: its share of the global foreign student population is around seven times as large as its share of the total global population (Khoser 2009: 4). Australia hosted 7% of all tertiary foreign students worldwide in 200953 (OECD 2011), which was the third largest proportion following the United States (18%) and the United Kingdom (10%), both of which have considerably larger populations, education sectors and economies (Neri & Ville 2008; Weiss & Ford 2011). Furthermore, in 2009, more than one fifth of tertiary students in Australia were international students54, the largest proportion of any OECD country (OECD 2011). This suggests that international students
51 See Section 3.3.1 for the definition of foreign students 52 See Section 3.3.1 for the definition of offshore enrolments 53 The most recent figure reported by the OECD (2011). 54 See Section 3.3.1 for a definition of international students. 73 are particularly visible within the Australian community, and play a more significant role in local housing markets than in other countries with smaller relative proportions of international students.
Australia’s large market share is not due to institutional prestige, but rather to competitive advantages relating to cost, reputation for safety and education quality, and features such as climate, amenity and proximity to major Asian source countries (Marginson 2001; 2007a). Supporting these assertions, the recent destabilising of cost advantages (through the rising Australian dollar) and of safety perceptions (due to media reports of a number of attacks on international students and other incidents) have coincided with declines in enrolments since 2009 (Deloitte Access Economics 2011; Philimore & Koshy 2010). Dissatisfaction relating to the cost and safety of housing among international students could, therefore, contribute to negative effects on Australia’s reputation and influence prospective international students to prefer other countries for undertaking their studies. This is one way in which student agency can be seen as having an effect on the structural factor of higher education. As foreign policy expert Dr Michael Wesley explains (Wesley 2009: 1):
“Students who return to their countries with negative experiences could become a poisoned alumni, conveying critical attitudes...about Australian society and poor impressions about Australia’s education [providers]. They could ultimately destroy a strong export product.”
Another distinctive feature of Australian international education has been its rapid growth and development (Marginson 2007a). Between 1985 and 2005, the international student population in Australia grew from 30,000 to 375,000, multiplying by twelve times, while worldwide numbers only tripled during the same period (Marginson 2007b). This growth has been underpinned by policy, and can be seen as taking place in a number of phases (e.g. Gallagher 2011). Five main phases are proposed in Figure 4.3. In essence, international higher education in Australia has transitioned from a peripheral, largely altruistic phenomenon to a vital part of the higher education sector and Australian economy. The introduction of tuition fees in the 1980s marked the beginning of the rapid expansion, diversification and commercialisation, with educational institutions becoming increasingly dependent on international student revenue as a result of decreased government funding (Marginson 2007a; 2007b; Wesley 2009). In line with other industrialised countries (see Section 4.2.1), this rapid growth 74 and change was not accompanied by adequate planning for housing. As one interviewee explained:
“Universities took the carrot of full-fees for degrees but were not thinking about the reality. If a huge number of people are coming to study, obviously there’s issues around housing... Everybody needs to...have a decent place to sleep...It’s remarkable that there wasn’t a more collaborative approach about how to deal with an influx of people, and so universities themselves haven’t been prepared.” (Interviewee no. 655).
Numerous student housing projects have been undertaken in Australia in recent years to meet the shortfall. Even over the course of this research (2011-2012), thousands of new units of student accommodation have been announced or opened in Sydney (e.g. Hamilton 2011; Howden 2012; Rosenberg 2012; Sunday Telegraph 2012). For example, at the time of writing, UNSW is about to unveil 399 new beds as part of its new University Terraces development (UNSW 2012), within only a short time of the opening of 1,021 beds in UNSW Village in 2010, the largest student accommodation facility in Sydney, in 2010 (UNSW Village 2011) and more than 300 beds in the postgraduate New College Village (New College Village 2012). This already constitutes a considerable effort to increase the supply of student housing. However, the time required to plan and build such housing has resulted in a considerable delay in meeting housing demand, pressuring existing housing markets (Social Policy Committee 2011).
4.3 Immigration policy and housing context
Amidst overall increases in the international student population in Australia, the number of Chinese students has demonstrated considerable and rapid growth over a relatively short period. This number increased from only 400 in 1985 to around 100,000 or more in 2011 (AEI 2012e; Davis & Mackintosh 2011; DEEWR 2012)56, with most growth taking
55 Interviewees are referred to by number throughout the findings chapters. For information on the interviewees, see Section 3.4.1. 56 Figure 4.4 places Chinese student enrolments across all sectors at over 140,000 in 2011, while AEI figures report around 120,000 Chinese enrolments in the same year (AEI 2012e), and DEEWR figures (which in this case do not distinguish between onshore and offshore enrolments) reported 95,986 overseas students whose country of permanent home residence was China (DEEWR 2012, Table 7.4). 75
Figure 4.3: Five phases in the internationalisation of higher education in Australia
Phase 1: 1904 • First private university students from overseas (Fraser 1984). International Education Begins • Mainly of European origin, with only 300 non-Europeans studying in Australia before 1948 (Weiss & Ford 2011: 232).
• The Colombo Plan (1950) used subsidised international education as a form of aid to developing countries in South and South-East Asia (Sidhu 2011; Weiss & Ford 2011) and to Phase 2: 1950 promote cross-cultural understanding (Oakman 2002). Education as Foreign Aid • 40,000 students in 35 years (Weiss & Ford 2011: 232) mostly from Malaysia and Indonesia (Oakman 2002).
• Tuition charges for international students introduced (Coleman 1997: 186; Fraser 1984), with universities charging full fees by 1989 (Coaldrake 1999; Harman 1989; Marginson 2007b). Phase 3: 1980 'Aid to Trade' • International education shifted from aid to an export, with expansion a "conscious state policy" (Weiss & Ford 2011: 233) and revenue a supplementary income for universities (Marginson 2007b).
• Public expenditure on tertiary education decreased so international student fees became a Phase 4: mid-1990's substitute, rather than a supplement (Marginson 2007b; Wesley 2009: 4). Dependence on • Increasing outflow of students from Asian countries with growing middle classes (Fincher et al International Revenue 2009; Kell & Vogl 2007) combined with immigration policy changes (see Section 4.3) increasing the rate of growth.
• Increasing international competition, global financial crisis, and strong Australian dollar create unfavourable economic conditions (Philimore & Koshy 2010). Phase 5: 2008-present Sector Under Threat • Attacks on students places international student welfare under scrutiny and reduces international confidence (Marginson et al 2010; Social Policy Committee 2011) while changing visa conditions also deter some potential applicants (see Section 4.3.1).
Source: Author 76
Figure 4.4 Top 16 source countries over time (Australian international education)
Figure 4.4 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions
Source: Davis & Mackintosh, 2011. Data from AEI.
77 place in the past decade. Figure 4.4 provides a stark representation of the extent to which Chinese enrolments have grown in the last ten years, both in their own right and relative to enrolments from other source countries. Although the most marked growth in Chinese enrolments occurred during this relatively short time period, the large number of Chinese students in Australia today is also the product of longer-term policy developments in both Australia and China. Prior to the late 1970s, neither Chinese nor Australian governments would have permitted such a large movement of Chinese students. Developments in immigration policy in both countries during the Twentieth Century, and especially the last thirty years, formed conditions to allow, and increasingly encourage, such large scale Chinese student migration.
4.3.1 Australian immigration policy and the Chinese international student population Australian immigration policy has both facilitated the presence of mainland Chinese students in Australia and shaped the profile of the Chinese student population. Throughout the Twentieth Century, Australian policy opened up considerably to permanent and temporary Chinese migration. Chinese migration to Australia began on a very small scale in the gold rush of the 1850s (Collins 2002) but was limited for many decades because of restrictions on non-white immigration known as the ‘White Australia Policy’ (Burnley 2002). The abolition of this policy in 1975 expanded migration to include non-Europeans (Burnley 2005), paving the way for large strategic intakes of ethnically Chinese skilled migrants in the 1970s and 80s from Hong Kong, Taiwan and South-East Asia (Collins 2002; Ip 2001; Li 2003). However it was not until the mid-1990s that immigration from mainland China came to the fore. By 1995-1996 mainland China had become the third largest source of immigrants to Australia (Ip 2001), mirroring trends in other Western countries (Li 2003). Today, China remains Australia’s third largest source of permanent migrants, behind New Zealand and the UK, with the majority of Chinese migrants gaining entry through the skilled migration scheme (Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) 2012b). There has also been an increase in mainland Chinese temporary migrants (including travellers, temporary workers and students) in recent times (ABS 2008; ABS 2011c). Most student visas – the most popular of all temporary visas (ABS 2011c) are granted for higher education, and China is the top source country (DIAC 2012a; 2012b). The opening up of Australian
78 immigration policy to Chinese migration was a necessary condition for the presence of a large population of Chinese international students.
However, Australia has not only become increasingly accepting of Chinese migration; in recent times it has deliberately encouraged it, and international education is an important component of this strategy. Like Canada and New Zealand, Australia is dependent on migration to provide a large proportion of its professional workforce due to an ageing population, and international education is a key mechanism for recruiting elite, highly skilled migrants (OECD 2011; Robertson 2011b; Ziguras & Law 2006). International students are desirable migrants because they are assumed to be young, familiar with Australian life and culture, proficient in English and skilled according to local standards, making them more employable (Robertson 2011b; Ziguras & Law 2006). Australia’s need for this kind of skilled labour has led to the creation of ‘two-step’ migration pathways that facilitate the transition from temporary student migration to permanent skilled migration (Deloitte Access Economics 2011; Hawthorne 2010b; Robertson 2011b; Sidhu 2011; Walton-Roberts 2011). Policy changes from the late 1990s onwards, such as allocating high numbers of points for Australian qualifications and enabling international students to apply for a change of visa onshore, have supported this process (Robertson 2011b; Sidhu 2011). Two-step pathways have been a major incentive for Chinese citizens to study in Australia (Hawthorne 2010a), and as Figure 4.4 demonstrates, it is since the late 1990s when these pathways began to be implemented that the most marked growth has occurred in Chinese student enrolments. This suggests that Australian policies promoting temporary migration as a means of encouraging permanent migration have been influential on the size of the Chinese international student population in Australia.
Policy changes associated with two-step migration pathways have also had significant impacts on the profile of international students. Before the 1990s, international students were primarily short-term educational consumers expected to return home on graduation (Robertson 2011a; Sidhu 2011). The draw of permanent residency attracted more students from lower socio-economic backgrounds with less financial stability, which aggravated existing social problems experienced by international students (Robertson 2011a). This may well have had implications for the housing context negotiated by international students, as many may have been competing for low cost housing. There was also concern that migration-driven enrolments had brought down
79 the quality of the international education sector (Sidhu 2011). Subsequent community backlash against two-step migration led the government to distance itself from this approach and tighten student visa requirements in 2010 (Robertson 2011a). This included an increase in the basic rate of living costs that applicants were required to demonstrate they could fund as part of the application process (DIAC 2010). These policy changes affected overall student numbers, being associated with declines in enrolments, and were therefore countered by more recent changes designed to make the visa application process less onerous, following the recommendations of the ‘Knight Review’ of the Student Visa Program in 2011 (Australian Government 2011; Ross 2011).
4.3.2 Chinese immigration policy and the Chinese international student population Policies in China have also had a critical influence on the timing, scale and demographic profile of Chinese student emigration (Xiang & Shen 2009: 514). As Australian policy increasingly opened up to Chinese migration throughout the Twentieth Century, China was also opening up. Citizens of mainland China have studied abroad for more than five hundred years (Byram & Feng 2006). However, prior to 1978, restrictive national policies developed during the Cultural Revolution kept emigration and travel abroad to a minimum (Xiang & Shen 2009). As the Chinese government opened up the country to foreign investment (Li 2003), these restrictions were gradually relaxed (Chan 2006; Kaplan & Holloway 2001; Liu, G. 2009). Over the 30 years since these policy changes, more than one million Chinese have studied overseas (Sidhu 2011; Xiang & Shen 2009). Essentially, “student migration began as a state project and evolved to become a “societal” phenomenon” (Xiang & Shen 2009: 515).
Studying abroad was first initiated, financed and controlled by the government in the late 1970s, but was gradually liberalised as socio-economic conditions became more conducive to overseas study. By the 1980s the government had formally recognised self- financed study as a legitimate option (Xiang & Shen 2009). Sustained economic growth during the 1980s and ‘90s meant that the rapidly growing middle classes had increasing resources to invest in education (Xiang & Shen 2009; Li 2003; Liu, G. 2009; Zheng & Berry 1991). Overseas education was increasingly used as a strategy to overcome intensifying competition and social stratification in China (Xiang & Shen 2009: 514, 516). From the mid-1990s, the Chinese government was particularly supportive of overseas 80 study, summarised by the government catchphrase, zhichi liuxue, guli huiguo, laiqu ziyou, or “support study overseas, encourage returns, guarantee freedom of movement” (Wescott & Brinkerhoff 2006: 46-47; Xiang & Shen 2009: 515). This offers another reason as to the considerable growth in Chinese enrolments from the late 1990s depicted in Figure 4.4. However, the idea of encouraging returns is interestingly in contrast with the objective of Australian policy during the same period to retain student migrants as permanent workers.
According to Xiang and Shen’s article (2009) on Chinese international student migration, China’s domestic and international policy not only enabled growth in the movement of students to Australia and elsewhere, but also directly influenced the profile of Chinese students abroad at different times. Since the 1980s, they explain, Chinese international students have transitioned from predominantly government- or scholarship-supported postgraduates from the prosperous southern and coastal regions of China, to younger, longer-term, self-funded students from diverse regional and socio-economic origins who make arrangements through private education agents. Since the mid-2000s, there have been three main groups of Chinese students using education agents: adult professionals spending their own savings on Masters degrees, middle-income families sending their children overseas for post-graduate courses and wealthy families investing in more than one kind of education, for example late high school through to university (2009: 519). This indicates that the profile of Chinese students varies considerably, with some likely to have few problems affording appropriate accommodation, but others more likely to struggle. Indeed, Xiang and Shen note (2009; 514, 516) that the large investments made by Chinese families in overseas education often exceed their annual income, requiring considerable savings as well as informal borrowing and bank loans. The influence of changes to Chinese immigration policy on the type of students studying overseas and their financial position (an important component of their housing context) is thus evident.
4.4 Status, rights and entitlements and housing context
Status, rights and entitlements are further structural factors that affect international students’ housing context. While other groups, including other migrants, other students
81 and low income households, are likely to experience many of the same challenges as international students in the housing market, international students experience a unique position with regard to rights and entitlements as a result of their dual status as students and temporary migrants. International students’ status has been shaped by the national developments in higher education and immigration policy discussed in the previous two sections, and their status in turn determines the degree of support they have from Australian governments and educational institutions with regard to their housing. The unique status of international students provides both advantages and disadvantages, as international students in some ways receive special treatment, while in other ways are excluded from many sources of housing assistance that can be accessed by permanent migrants and domestic students. Examining discrepancies between the rights and entitlements of international students and these groups helps to demonstrate the major challenges international students face with regards to accommodation and identify ways in which these challenges could be reduced.
4.4.1 The status of international students in Australia The developments in higher education and immigration policy detailed in the previous two sections have shaped, to a large extent, the status held by international students in Australia. Immigration policy frames international students as temporary migrants (with the potential for becoming permanent skilled migrants), while higher education policy has primarily positioned them as consumers. Each of these labels has important implications for their rights and entitlements, and differentiates their housing context from those of other students and migrants more broadly, which are both categories in which international students belong. As temporary migrants, international students retain only a marginal status in both home and host countries, relinquishing access to the rights and privileges to which they have access at home, while also not enjoying the full array of rights and privileges that assist the settlement of permanent migrants in the host country (Deumert et al. 2005; Neri & Ville 2008: 1516; Rizvi 2005). This can mean they are disadvantaged in relation to other migrants, being more vulnerable to unstable situations and having fewer opportunities for assistance or recourse (Ottonelli & Torresi 2011). As Kell and Vogl point out (2008a), international students are still treated as aliens, being expected to accept political and social conditions without question, complying with local customs and practice, while at the same time possessing fewer legal rights and entitlements than citizens. 82
The dependence of Australian educational institutions on international student revenue (see Section 4.2.2) has framed international students’ rights within the context of the market (Robertson 2011a) and identified them as consumers. International students mostly pay full up-front tuition fees of tens of thousands of dollars per year, while domestic students generally do not, due to government subsidy and loans (see Table 4.1). Fincher and Costello (2003: 171-173) infer that, as a result, international students are sometimes given special treatment, for example being given priority placement in university housing. This priority placement, they describe, is a response to the status of international students as consumers, paying large sums, and needing to be convinced of the value of their prospective investment during the recruitment stage. Although special treatment may be an advantage in the housing context, increasing access to some kinds of accommodation and housing services, the focus on satisfaction with educational facilities in the consumer approach has sometimes led to the neglect of considerations of students’ broader welfare and human rights beyond the institution (Marginson 2007b: 8; Robertson 2011a). In addition, being labelled ‘international’ rather than ‘domestic’ is the main determinant of ineligibility for a number of rights and entitlements (see Table 4.1).
4.4.2 The rights and entitlements of international students in NSW Because international students are neither citizens nor permanent residents of Australia57, they are excluded from several key rights and entitlements enjoyed by other students and young people that can expand housing options and improve housing affordability. In this way the advantages international students may experience through specialised services are counter-balanced by disadvantages in financial and other support. Table 4.1 documents a range of rights and entitlements to which many domestic students in NSW have access58, since such rights and entitlements are largely determined at state level in Australia, with NSW being the state in which the subjects for this research are located. These rights and entitlements provide considerable assistance to access and afford housing that otherwise might be unattainable due to low income and/or competitive housing market conditions. While international students have some access to these privileges, they are ineligible for the majority. This renders their housing
57 See Section 3.3.1. 58 Where deemed eligible on the basis of other regulations, such as means testing. 83
Table 4.1: Entitlements available to international students
Rights and entitlements available to citizens or permanent International student residents (subject to other eligibility requirements) eligibility in NSW
Educational subsidy and deferred payment through government Ineligible loan59
Student income support60 Ineligible
Scholarships Some eligibility
University non-tuition loans Some eligibility
Rent assistance61 Ineligible
Social housing62 Ineligible
Financial assistance for rental bonds and moving costs63 Ineligible
First home owner grant64 Ineligible
Emergency temporary housing Some eligibility
Tenants Union assistance Eligible
Unrestricted hours of employment65 Ineligible
Student public transport concession fares Some eligibility
Source: Adapted from Marginson et al. 2010: 18-20, Table 1.2
59 Eligible students pay a reduced amount – called a ‘student contribution’ – rather than full tuition fees. Most domestic students are Commonwealth supported and therefore also eligible for government loans (e.g. HECS-HELP) which substantially assist them to pay their student contributions through gradual repayment via the taxation system once their income is above a minimum threshold (Australian Government 2012). 60 Hundreds of thousands of Australian students receive income support payments, either Youth Allowance (for 18-24 year old students), AUSTUDY (for students 25 and older) or ABSTUDY (for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students) (ABS 2012b). 61 Rent assistance is another income support payment which gives extra financial assistance for those receiving another income support payment in order to help them to meet accommodation costs (ABS 2012b). 62 Social housing and emergency temporary housing services are government funded services to provide affordable, secure housing to groups on low incomes that have difficulty finding affordable, appropriate housing in the private market (Housing NSW 2012). 63 In NSW, the Rentstart scheme assists people in setting up a private tenancy through a rental bond loan, and also may help to fund advance rent and financial assistance for moving (Housing NSW 2012). 64 A scheme awarding several thousand dollar grants to assist first home owners to enter the housing market at that time (NSW Office of State Revenue 2012). 65 Apart from some scholarship holders. 84 context distinct from other students, and also from other migrants, who are also able to access the non-student-specific entitlements such as social housing and rent assistance. In the absence of these entitlements, international students do not have the same safety net that protects domestic students and other migrants, are thus more dependent on their own resources and networks and the private market, and may be disadvantaged in accessing housing that meets their needs and preferences. For example, as one interviewee explained:
“If something goes wrong where they’re staying, domestic students can access government or local community housing options, international students just don’t enjoy the same access rights, which can lead to international students staying in really unsafe or unsuitable accommodation due to actually having nowhere else to go.” (Interviewee no. 4).
The ineligibility of international students for two entitlements – transport concession and unlimited working hours – have been particularly controversial among student advocates for their effects on student welfare, including in the housing context. Most full-time tertiary students in NSW are eligible for half-price fares on most timetabled public transport services (Transport for NSW 2013). Until recently, international students in NSW (apart from those on government scholarships) were completely ineligible for these concession fares available to domestic students. Victoria was the only other state where this was the case, with all remaining Australian states and territories extending their transport concessions to international students (Universities Australia 2010: 7). In October 2012, after years of lobbying by national student representative organisations and industry peak bodies (Council for International Students Australia 2012; Australian Council for Private Education and Training 2012; Universities Australia 2010), the NSW government agreed to grant travel concessions to international students. However, the concessions proposed were limited in scope and not equivalent to those enjoyed by domestic students (Patty 2012; Ross 2012). Student advocates (e.g. Kumar et al. 2009; Noor & Richards 2012; Smith 2009b) have argued that ineligibility for equitable public transport concessions can adversely impact students’ housing outcomes in a number of ways, including making them more likely to experience crowding, unaffordability and safety hazards travelling to and from home. Indeed, the recent Senate inquiry into international student accommodation (Social Policy Committee 2011: 38) recommended that full travel concessions would “increase
85
[international students’] opportunities to source appropriate accommodation and improve their personal safety.” An interviewee and a focus group participant questioned the legitimacy of this lack of entitlement on a number of grounds, and illustrated the potential adverse impacts for international students themselves and for the higher education sector in NSW:
“Even though they are full time students and they are bringing money into the economy [the NSW Government] will not make [international students] eligible for transport concessions... if you rent a long way...away from the university you’re studying at, you’re going to then face a massive increase in your transport costs.” (Interviewee no. 6)
“I think it’s pretty funny that when I was first in uni they tell me, you can’t buy a student ticket, even [though] you are a student. Some of my friends prefer to go to Queensland instead of Sydney because they got the student ticket and they got the same right with the local student.” (Huijun, female focus group participant66)
Student advocates and other commentators have also argued that the 20 hours of paid employment per week permitted by most student visas may not be sufficient for students hoping to fund their living expenses through their income, making them more vulnerable to financial stress (Kumar et al. 2009; Nyland et al. 2007; Scarton & Purnama 2011; Smith 2009a; 2009b) and affecting housing outcomes such as affordability. As one interviewee explained:
“Restrictions around how many hours [international students] can work and what they will earn mean that they’re limited [as to] where they can [live], affordability will definitely determine their accommodation choice.” (Interviewee no. 4)
In addition to this, limited work entitlements and housing affordability considerations may interact to increase opportunities for exploitation in the workplace and in the housing market, as a submission from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) to the Victorian Overseas Student Taskforce (VEOHRC 2008: 7) illustrates:
66 Focus group participants are referred to by pseudonym and gender throughout the findings chapters. See Section 3.4.2 for more details on focus group participants. 86
“The complex relationship between visa rules, employment patterns and housing costs appears to leave some international students vulnerable to exploitation through perverse incentives to seek out and stay in arrangements which potentially breach rights.”
The disparity of entitlements such as these between international students and other groups is unusual given the economic contribution of international students, who may study in Australia for a number of years, generating tens of thousands of dollars in tax payments, labour, tuition fees and other expenditures. However, even the discussion of rights according to this kind of consumer rationale has been criticised, with international students’ rights being perceived more and more as human and citizen rights rather than consumer rights (Robertson 2011a). Student wellbeing and security have thus come increasingly to the fore (Deumert et al. 2005; Kell &Vogl 2008b), and government initiatives – including recent taskforces and reviews into different aspects of international education – have reflected an increasing acceptance of government responsibility for student experience (Robertson 2011a). Here the question raised by Sidhu (2011: 18) arises: “Which of the rights that settled populations currently enjoy should we subtract from student migrants because of their ‘temporary’ status?” It is also notable that, despite policy shifts positioning many international students as potential permanent migrants, this long term perspective has not generally been reflected in increased entitlements to services and benefits (Robertson 2011a; Sidhu 2011).
4.5 Housing market conditions and housing context
Local housing market conditions present some influential structural factors affecting international students’ housing contexts. This section examines two structural factors in particular: student housing options and private rental market conditions in Sydney. The local supply of housing stock provides the options from which households make housing choices (Clark et al. 1996) and displays and reproduces group-based inequalities (Ozuekren & van Kempen 2002: 365). In addition, the cost, accessibility and legislative coverage of different types of private rental housing also impacts the housing experiences of international students by contributing to the challenges facing international students with regards to their accommodation. In these ways,
87 international students’ housing contexts are shaped by student housing options and private rental market conditions.
4.5.1 Student housing options in Sydney The student housing options that exist are an important structural factor shaping the international student housing context. In particular, the practices of higher education students in Australia affect the amount of purpose-built student accommodation67 that exists. In contrast to the situation in many other countries, a large proportion of Australian students tend to stay at home with their families while they study (Abbey 1994; Burke et al. 2002; Fincher & Shaw 2009; Fuller 2011). The tendency to stay in the parental home is reflected in the limited supply of purpose-built student accommodation. Although all Australian universities offer some kind of accommodation (Moore 2010), there are only enough places to supply approximately 5% of university students with accommodation (Universities Australia 2011). Supporting this information, the 2011 ABS Census reported that one third (33.3%) of tertiary students in Greater Sydney were living with their parents. The next most common form of housing was group households in private dwellings (12.1%). Residential colleges and halls of residence, on the other hand, accommodated relatively very few tertiary students in Sydney (2.6%) (ABS 2012d)68.
67 Purpose-built student accommodation can include on-campus accommodation and off-campus accommodation, shared or independent, university operated or privately operated. There are two main ‘dwelling types’ for student-specific accommodation: residential colleges and student apartments. Residential colleges are owned by or affiliated with the educational institution and accommodate a large number of students in rooms on-campus in a setting characterised by pastoral care, supplementary academic support, a social programme and shared facilities and services such as catering (Coates & Edwards 2009; Fincher et al. 2009; Macintyre 2003; MacroPlan 2006; Universities Australia 2011). By contrast, purpose-built student apartments may be located on- or off-campus and are owned and/or managed by private companies, as part of increasing partnerships between universities and private capital to address the shortfall of student housing (Macintyre 2003). They may also have similar services, activities and shared facilities but are mostly self-contained, being made up of small studio apartments or shared larger apartments, with only a few communal facilities (Fincher et al. 2009). Additionally, according to Macintyre (2003), as for-profit organisations they seek return for their investors as well as student benefit. Developments associated with companies such as Campus Living Villages (creators of developments such as UNSW Village), UniLodge and Urbanest are examples of this emerging sector. 68 Statistics sourced and calculated with the assistance of Dr. Edgar Liu, City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW. This was an update of a previous Table Builder analysis completed for Judd et al. 2011. 88
These structural factors hold significant implications for the international student housing context. Most international students do not have the option to live with their parents, having travelled away from their families to study in the host country. While living at home may also not be an option for some Australian citizens and permanent residents due to family estrangement, geographical distance, financial situation and other factors, the norm of family absence among international students differentiates them from the large numbers of local students and other young people who can live with family if they choose. As a result, international students’ options are generally more limited, in that they are dependent on other housing options. This means that the short supply of purpose-built student accommodation has a disproportionate impact compared with domestic students, and leads most international students to be dependent on the private rental market (Obeng-Odoom 2012, see also Section 7.4.1).
Depending on their personal circumstances and the housing stock of particular areas, university students living outside the parental home can live in a range of different types of dwellings, with their living arrangements also varying greatly in terms of tenure type, occupancy arrangement, household type and other characteristics (Judd et al. 2011). However, in addition to restrictions preventing international students from accessing some of these (see Section 4.4.2), certain housing types cater for, or are marketed to, students, and especially to those from overseas. As Rugg et al. (2000) note, private landlords targeting students is a fundamental characteristic of student housing markets. These landlords usually represent a mix of ‘traditional’ landlords with one room or property to let and ‘entrepreneur’ landlords with several properties, sometimes using a letting agent. In Sydney, these landlords are typically associated with three main housing options: sharehouses, homestays and boarding houses. Sharehousing involves a number of people, often students, sharing a flat or house leased from a private landlord, and is popular among young people in Sydney (MacNamara & Connell 2007). Homestay (or boarding/lodging) is where a landlord lives in the property but rents out a bedroom, often along with food and facilities (Richardson 2003; Tenants NSW 2012a). Boarding houses are properties managed by a landlord, who may or may not live onsite, where several boarders/lodgers pay to rent individual rooms and often share facilities, with meals and services included in some arrangements (Anderson et al. 2003).
These housing types are, of course, not only targeted at, or occupied by students. The same or similar housing types are also occupied by other vulnerable groups, including
89 people on low incomes and people with disability and mental illness. However, strong student markets are certainly apparent in the areas around universities. The targeting of these housing types to students is a structural factor that shapes the international student housing context considerably, because they are each associated with very little legal protection. Importantly, with the exception of sharehouses where all occupants are named on a written tenancy agreement (which is uncommon in student sharehouses, according to those interviewed for this research), occupants of these three housing types are legally regarded as boarders and lodgers (or marginal renters) who do not have the rights and obligations that most tenants have under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)69, including:
a prescribed standard tenancy agreement; mandatory registration of the bond with NSW Fair Trading (which independently arbitrates the return of bonds); formalised processes for beginning, maintaining and ending a tenancy; entitlements to prescribed standards of repairs and maintenance, privacy and security; reasonable notice of termination; and access to appeal breaches of such terms and conditions through the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) (Tenants NSW 2012b).
Subsequently, large numbers of students lack basic tenancy protection, according to four interviewees. As two of these explained:
“There’s a lot of students who come under boarders and lodgers...and if you’re regarded as a boarder and lodger you have very, very few rights.” (Interviewee no. 4)
“For students in sharehousing situations, the 2010 changes with the new Residential Tenancies Act mean that it is...going to be...harder for a student who isn’t named on the lease agreement to actually get recognition as being a tenant and therefore go to the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal, to get their bond
69 The Act also does not apply to occupants of most residential colleges in educational institutions. However, these are usually affiliated with an institution, and are therefore subject to some regulation and more likely to have internal complaint and dispute mechanisms (Obeng- Odoom 2012: 208). 90
back and get rent returned and so on, if they’ve paid too much rent.” (Interviewee no. 6).
The targeting of informal forms of housing to students, in combination with the dependence of international students on the private rental market, discussed earlier, means that international students may be more likely than other students, and even other groups (for example new migrants, low income households) to choose this kind of accommodation in the areas around universities, and are therefore at risk of being subject to poor conditions and exploitation without straightforward means of recourse. It is also evident from the many accommodation advertisements littering telegraph poles, traffic lights and noticeboards around Sydney universities (see Figure 4.5) that part of this marginal tenancy market specifically targets international students. Indeed, the Tenants Union of NSW reports that most international students are marginal renters (Martin 2011). These structural factors are significant for international students’ housing context, as they mean that many of the main housing options available are unregulated, leaving students with potentially fewer rights and fewer avenues for recourse than other groups living in the same areas.
Figure 4.5: Typical private rental advertisements targeting international students outside two Sydney universities70
Source: Author
The Tenants Union (Tenants Union of NSW 2011), former Member for Sydney Clover Moore (Residential Tenancies Amendment (Occupancy Agreements) Bill (NSW) 2011) and the NSW Parliament’s inquiry into international student accommodation (Social
70 These photographs were taken by the researcher on telegraph poles outside two Sydney universities. The accommodation advertisements all feature Chinese writing, suggesting they are marketing to Chinese international students. 91
Policy Committee 2011) have all called for greater protection for marginal tenants through the introduction of occupancy agreements and the provision of access to a dispute resolution mechanism such as the CTTT. The recently introduced Boarding Houses Bill (NSW) 2012 applies these protections to the occupants of registered boarding houses, however there is yet to be a regulatory response addressing the deficits in rights experienced by marginal tenants in other forms of housing.
4.5.2 Private rental market conditions in Sydney Private rental market conditions offer another good example of the impact of structural factors on international students’ housing context, as well as the influence of international students’ housing behaviour on those structural factors. According to the analysis presented in Section 3.3.2, the majority of international students in Sydney were enrolled at the three major universities located in inner Sydney in 2011 (see Figure 4.6). The statistical areas in which these three universities are located71 displayed housing market conditions rather different from those of Greater Sydney and Australia as a whole at the time of the 2011 Census (see Table 4.2). More private rental, higher density dwellings and group and lone person households mean that international students living in inner Sydney are more likely to live in rented flats, alone or sharing, than elsewhere in Sydney and Australia, and higher median rents and levels of housing stress than average indicate considerable pressure within Sydney’s private rental market. International students are not, of course, the only group facing these housing circumstances. The challenges international students experience in pressured parts of Sydney are shared by a range of other vulnerable groups, including other students, other migrants, low income families, first home buyers, people with disability or mental illness and the unemployed. However this study is focussed on examining the experiences of international students in particular, for the reasons outlined in Section 3.3.
Sydney’s private rental market is known to be competitive and expensive, with low vacancy rates and high and rising rents. In May 2012, the overall vacancy rate72 for Sydney was 1.7%, well below the ideal 3% (Real Estate Institute of NSW (REINSW) 2012),
71 ‘City and Inner South’ and ‘Eastern Suburbs’. 72 Vacancy rates measure “the percent of all apartment units that are vacant and available for rent. Low vacancy rates typically mean that households will have greater difficulty finding a place 92 and had been consistently below 3%, and declining overall, since 2004 (NHSC 2011). In the decade to June 2011, median rents increased more than average earnings (NHSC 2011). The media has also reported significant recent rent rises in areas where students are concentrated (Kwek 2011; Sydney Morning Herald 2011). Inadequate supply and high and rising housing costs were referred to by six interviewees as characteristic problems for students negotiating Sydney housing markets. For example:
“The rental market [in Sydney] is just so small, there’s hardly any places to live...Even though there’s accommodation offices that might offer a range of listings and things, it might not always be available, especially on campus housing.” (Interviewee no. 9)
“I think the overarching issue is just a massive shortage of affordable housing in the inner city where most of the universities are. And I think a lot of people, just out of necessity, get forced into quite precarious housing situations.” (Interviewee no. 1B)
Figure 4.6 The three major universities located in inner Sydney73
CBD
UTS
USyd
UNSW
Source: Background map from Google Maps; Overlay by Author
to rent. They may also lead to increases in rents, as more households seek to occupy a smaller pool of rental units” (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada 2012) 73 According to the REINSW definition of Inner Sydney as between 0 and 10 km from the CBD) (REINSW 2012). 93
Table 4.2 Housing market characteristics compared: Greater Sydney, City and Inner South, Eastern Suburbs, 2011 Census
City and Inner Eastern Suburbs Greater Australia South Sydney
Dwellings rented74 53.7% 44.0% 31.6% 29.6%
Flats, units, 61.8% 55.1% 25.8% 13.6% apartments75
Group households 12.4% 9.7% 4.3% 4.1%
Lone person 35.5% 29.4% 22.6% 24.3% households
Median weekly $430 $470 $351 $285 rent
Households with 21.9% 17.6% 12.6% 10.4% rent payments > 30% of household income (= ‘housing stress’)
Source: ABS 2012c
In addition, three focus group participants and an interviewee compared Sydney to other cities in Australia and overseas, noting the problem of relatively high housing costs. This could potentially deter people from studying in Sydney. Examples of comments from the focus groups included:
“Sydney is so dense. But in other cities, maybe not so dense, maybe the situation is much more different..[T]he price...in Sydney is maybe the top in the world. Maybe six to eight times Beijing...But I have friends in Wollongong and they have the same price but they can rent a big house, much lower prices.” (Jianning, male focus group participant)
“If I stay in Washington DC, the core area, 500m [from campus] to my house, the price of a studio there is $1,000 per month, but living in Sydney...not [even] a good location, it’s also like $780 per month...why’s there such a huge gap between what we can see in other places compared to what we have in Sydney?...If we have $500 per month, we can live as a king in Texas...and that’s the reason I was so
74 Percentage of occupied private dwellings, 2011. 75 Percentage of occupied private dwellings, 2011. 94
shocked when I first arrived in Sydney – to see the price in the market.” (Yansong, male focus group participant)
The dominant housing stock and household types available, as well as vacancy rates and median rents are structural factors that shape international students’ housing context in Sydney by influencing the housing options available and the accessibility and affordability of those options. Further, as Rugg et al. (2000) note, in localities where there is high demand for housing from a number of different groups, students may experience disadvantage in accessing housing. At the same time, international students also have an impact on those very structural factors. Large student populations concentrated in urban areas close to universities are known to result in niche markets that influence the surrounding housing market (Kemp 2009). Also, as noted earlier, demand from large numbers of international students who cannot be accommodated in existing student accommodation has only served to exacerbate existing shortages of affordable private rental dwellings for low income earners (Australian Government 2010; Hulse et al. 2011; Marginson et al. 2010; NHSC 2011; Social Policy Committee 2011; Wulff et al. 2011). In this way, the presence and housing choices of international students also have an influence on the structural factors associated with housing market conditions.
4.6 Summary
This chapter provided the socio-political context for international students’ housing trajectories, and demonstrated how structural factors at international, national and local levels impact upon the housing context negotiated by Chinese international students in Sydney. It also provided examples of how international students may themselves influence these overarching structural factors by their actions. Drawing primarily on the international education literature and available government data, this chapter began by demonstrating how developments in higher education policy in Australia together with overseas and Australian and Chinese immigration policy have helped shape the size and profile of the international student population, thereby influencing competition and housing supply within the international student housing context. Of key importance has been the worldwide internationalisation of education, shifts towards dependency on
95 revenue from full-fee paying international students in Australian universities, the opening up of Australia to Chinese immigrants, the development of two-step migration to address Australian skills shortages, and the opening up of and economic growth in China. These have resulted in a large and growing population of Chinese international students in Australia, including Sydney.
Immigration and higher education policies have also largely determined international students’ status as temporary migrants and consumers, and subsequently, the rights and entitlements to which they are eligible at state level. Although international students receive many privileges in their position as consumers, these rights and entitlements differentiate them from other students and other migrants, threatening to disadvantage them as they compete with these and other vulnerable groups for affordable housing. Ineligible for a number of forms of financial and housing assistance, they do not have the safety net enjoyed by many others. At a local level, the student housing options and private rental conditions that characterise inner Sydney’s housing market have a strong influence on the dominant kinds of housing occupied by international students, as well as the conditions they experience within their housing. In a housing market with very little purpose-built student accommodation, most international students are dependent on the competitive private rental market and targeted by landlords offering tailored accommodation options such as homestay, which serve the particular needs of international students while at the same time disadvantage them by depriving them of the legislative protections offered in other forms of housing.
The influences of these structural factors render the international student housing context in Sydney distinct, reflecting both similarities and differences – and, indeed, advantages and disadvantages – in relation to other groups. Ultimately, the large population of Chinese international students adds pressure to already pressured housing markets, where students compete for affordable housing close to their educational institutions. Lacking the rights and entitlements of other groups, and more likely to take up student-targeted forms of housing that are not covered by state tenancy law, Chinese international students may be disadvantaged in terms of housing affordability and rights. However, given the socio-economic variation between Chinese international students, and the considerable support offered to international students by their educational institutions, these disadvantages are likely to affect some more than others. Within this housing context, a number of other factors also mediate the
96 impacts of these structural factors on individual housing trajectories. The next chapter (Chapter 5) examines the resources and constraints that individual Chinese international students can harness to find accommodation and deal with accommodation problems, and thus shape their housing trajectories and outcomes.
97
Chapter 5: Resources and constraints
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 established that structural factors influence the housing trajectories of international students by shaping their housing context. However, the findings of this research and the housing literature both demonstrate that a common housing context defined by such structural factors does not produce homogenous housing outcomes, as different people respond to their housing context in various ways. As Section 2.4.2 noted, the impacts of various aspects of the housing context are mediated by the resources to which individuals have access. Indeed, varying personal characteristics, possessions and access to networks and services in the community are mobilised by individuals to meet their housing needs and preferences (Anderson et al. 1994; Clark et al. 1996; Murdie et al. 1999; Murie 1974; Ozuekren & van Kempen 2002; Siksiö and Borgegård 1990; Stones 2009: 96; Wallace 2002). These resources enable individuals to compete with others in the housing market and to overcome disadvantages or barriers which they may face. However, individuals engage not only with resources, but also constraints which restrict their ability to meet their housing needs and preferences. This chapter examines the role of resources and constraints in shaping international students’ housing trajectories, using Chinese international students at UNSW as a case study. It identifies the most common resources and constraints that emerged from the interview, survey and focus group data and supports these with reference to the housing and international education literature.
The findings presented in this chapter demonstrate that resources and constraints are highly interconnected. When a specific resource exists that is useful for finding housing or dealing with housing problems (e.g. knowledge), relative lack of access to this same resource can prove to be a constraint. Further, the use of certain resources can reflect constraints in other areas. For example, dependence on university services can reflect an absence of supportive social connections. Finally, the use of something viewed
98 primarily as a resource can also have unintended constraining ‘side-effects’. For example, the internet may provide students with rapid, remote access to a large amount of housing information, however lack of regulation and the presence of exploitative operators may render those using online information more vulnerable to poor housing outcomes. For these reasons, resources and constraints are dealt with simultaneously in this chapter. The sub-sections are organised according to the various resources used by international students, with the operation of constraints being discussed in each case. These subsections are broken into two overall categories to reflect the different kinds of resources and constraints found to be in operation: internal and external resources and constraints.
5.2 Types of resources and constraints
Although distinctions are made between different kinds of resources in the housing literature (e.g. Brown & Moore 1970; Murdie et al. 1999; Ozuekren & van Kempen 2002; Robinson et al. 2007; Siksiö and Borgegård 1990), it is in the fields of psychology, social work, business and management that the framework of internal and external resources has been developed most extensively. In the psychology/social work context, internal resources are personal attributes (e.g. demographic characteristics, beliefs and abilities) that enable individuals to cope with stressors and maintain control over their circumstances (Cowley & Billings 1999; Kelley 1998; Lu & Chen 1996). In the business/management context, they are assets and capabilities held by an organisation that contribute to its performance, are critical for establishing and maintaining relationships with other entities and lead to competitive advantage in the marketplace (Lee et al. 2001; Porter 1991; Ritter 1999; Sirmon & Hitt 2003; Zald 1969; Zhang & Li 2008). Psychology and social work literature defines external resources as resources drawn from the surrounding environment, extended family, community, and culture, as well as from formally provided services (Cowley & Billings 1999). External resources are also associated with external networks and relationships with others in a business/management context (Lee et al. 2001; Porter 1991; Wu et al. 2008; Zhang & Li 2008), and are seen to fill gaps in internal resources and enhance organisational performance (Darnall & Edwards 2006; Lee et al. 2001).
99
These principles can be applied to the context of this research to define the two types of resources and constraints as follows: Internal resources and constraints are the inherent personal characteristics and assets of international students which they bring with them to their housing context in Sydney and mobilise to find housing and deal with housing problems. External resources are the people, entities and other resources that international students seek, acquire or encounter within the housing context and which they draw upon to find housing and deal with housing problems. Many resources and constraints could be considered both internal and external; for example, financial resources can include wealth, which is brought by students into the housing context, but also income, which may be sourced in Sydney through part time work. Similarly, social relationships are possessed by students before they come to Sydney, however new friendships and connections are formed within the housing context. Despite the many overlaps, the kinds of resources and constraints identified in this research are divided into internal and external categories.
Resources and constraints were labelled internal or external depending on how they were referred to by research participants and how internal and external resources are conceived in the literature. The internal resources examined in this chapter are knowledge, experience, time, financial resources and ethnicity. They emerged as the major themes relating to internal resources in analysis of the interview data, and were also mentioned by several survey and focus group participants as well as being covered in the international education and housing literature. Data on the external resources included in this chapter (the internet, friends and family, other students, agents, university services and the Chinese community) were predominantly drawn from the survey responses, although data from the focus groups and interviews and references from the literature are also included. Table 5.1 presents the top three external resources used by survey respondents in relation to the four survey questions dealing with external resources and constraints76. It is these resources that form the focus of the discussion of external resources and constraints in this chapter.
76 Two survey questions (Questions 5 and 12) asked respondents which of a range of resources they had used to find their first accommodation in Sydney as well as their current accommodation, for example the internet, real estate agents and Chinese newspapers. A second set of questions (Questions 25 and 26) asked respondents about a narrower range of resources emphasising social networks and formal services, for example other international students and government agencies, eliciting which they had tried when looking for accommodation and dealing with accommodation problems, and how helpful they had been in these situations. 100
Table 5.1: Top three external resources used by survey respondents
Resources most used for Resources most used for Resources most tried Most helpful resources of Resources most tried Most helpful finding first finding current when looking for those tried when looking when dealing with resources of those accommodation (Q.5) accommodation (Q.12) accommodation (Q.25) for accommodation problems (Q.25) tried when dealing (Q.25) with problems (Q.25)
The Internet77 The Internet Family / friends in Sydney Family / friends in Sydney Family / friends in Sydney Family and friends in Sydney
Family / friends in Sydney Family / friends in Sydney International students at International students at International students at International uni uni uni students at uni
An education agent Real estate agent & University University Local students & Chinese Chinese community Classmates / co-workers accommodation accommodation community & University in Sydney office/website office/website accommodation office/website
Source: Author
77The Internet was not included as an option in the later questions about resources that were helpful when looking for accommodation and dealing with problems with accommodation, as the focus of these questions was on the use of relationships and services. 101
5.3 Internal resources and constraints
5.3.1 Knowledge Knowledge emerged as the most important internal resource and constraint for international students in the interviews. Knowledge has also been identified as a central resource and constraint by the existing international student housing literature, which notes that possessing knowledge in certain areas can increase the likelihood of desirable outcomes, while lack of knowledge in the same areas can make students vulnerable to poor outcomes (Power & McKenna 2005; Senate 2009; Smith et al. 2007). For example, knowing what is expected of a landlord in NSW can help one international student make wise choices about which agreements to enter and which to avoid, while a lack of this knowledge can increase the likelihood that another student will make a choice that exposes them to poor treatment. The Tenants Union of Victoria’s submission to the Overseas Student Experience Taskforce in 2008 (Archer 2008) outlined the importance of knowledge in shaping international students’ housing experiences, and exacerbating existing challenges. This account provides a good summary of the three main areas in which knowledge as a resource and constraint has been referred to in the interviews and literature as affecting international student housing trajectories: knowledge of local geography; knowledge of local culture and standards; and knowledge of local laws and rights (Archer 2008: 3-4).
“Overseas students experience the issues commonly experienced in the private rental market, including accessibility, affordability and appropriateness. In addition to these issues international students face particular difficulties arising from limited knowledge of their new place of study... Many do not have the skills to assess the standard and amenity of properties in order to select an affordable and appropriate dwelling. Furthermore, overseas students may be unaware of their rights and responsibilities in relation to their housing, and are more likely to enter into agreements binding them with unfair terms...Any overseas student with limited independent housing experience will not know what appropriate housing is, what questions to ask landlords and property managers to fully assess the suitability of a property.”
102
Local geography Greater knowledge of local geography places local students at an advantage over international students, as they are more likely to be familiar with the relative cost and reputation of various suburbs, as well as the distance and cost of travel from those suburbs to the university (Smith et al. 2007). In their book on international student security, Marginson et al. (2010: 164) reported that not knowing where properties are located in relation to the university can lead students to make unsuitable initial accommodation choices. Interviewees in the present study also referred to this problem. Indeed, two interviewees explained how lack of knowledge about the demographics and safety of certain neighbourhoods can also lead students into less than ideal living situations. The propensity for international students in Australia to live in suburbs where rents are lower, and which are often relatively unsafe, has been considered to be a contributing factor to the many assaults on international students in Australian cities (Baas 2010). Interviewees’ comments about both issues are included here:
“Where [international students are] at a disadvantage, if you like, is that they lack the familiarity of the area. So geographically they really can’t say whether that’s close, far and what the links by public transport are.” (Interviewee no. 3)
“You may have to move a little bit further away in order to reduce the cost, and then perhaps not quite aware of what might be considered a slightly less favourable suburb to live in, so they’re not really aware of the demographics as well. And sometimes they might find out the hard way that it’s not an ideal place to live for them.” (Interviewee no. 11)
Geographical knowledge also arose as an important resource and constraint for the housing search process, as having a working knowledge of the layout of Sydney was identified by two interviewees and one survey respondent as important for effectively inspecting properties, which may be a great distance from each other and impossible to access within a short space of time. For example:
“International students have the difficulty of having to look through accommodation listings, and they might be in Coogee, Bondi, Strathfield,
103
Kirribilli78, all in one day, without realising where any of those place are, whereas I think a local student will hone in on exactly where they want to live and then focus on that.” (Interviewee no. 3)
Local culture and standards Not being aware of aspects of local culture and standards may also place international students at a disadvantage. Knowledge about expected and acceptable behaviour from landlords and tenants and the standards and conditions expected in return for a certain amount of money could protect a student from sub-optimal housing experiences. One example cited in the literature of a lack of this kind of knowledge acting as a constraint is the common confusion among international students about what constitutes a standard sharehouse. Apparently, not many international students are aware that boarding house-type arrangements are not considered standard sharehousing and should be considerably cheaper to rent (GML Social Research 2011; Smith et al. 2007; Smith 2009b). Six interviewees referred to knowledge of local culture and standards as a challenge for international students in Sydney, for example:
“[Some international students] make these arrangements before they come here, and they don’t know what the standard is of how much rent you should pay for what you should get in return, or that it’s not really normal or usual for us to be renting in those situations when you’re sharing rooms with other people...They’re agreeing to these situations where most other students would know it’s not normal.” (Interviewee no. 1A)
“[International students] move in with other local students and they have to negotiate things like meals, who does the shopping, who has what corner of the refrigerators, when the video needs to be turned off...But I think international students not knowing the rules, the social rules, the cultural rules, I think that negotiation is more difficult.” (Interviewee no. 3)
78 Coogee and Bondi are both located in coastal Eastern Sydney but are relatively difficult to access and roughly 45 minutes apart by bus, requiring one to two changeovers. Kirribilli is another 45 minutes to an hour away, by two to three forms of public transport, on the other side of the city and across Sydney Harbour in the Northern Sydney region. Strathfield is another 45 minutes and two forms of transport away from Kirribilli in Sydney’s Inner West. 104
A comment by a focus group participant also demonstrated the potential gulf between awareness of standards of value among Chinese international students and other members of the community, and how this could lead to exploitation:
“An Australian owner asked me about the price of my property and I told him, the first word I heard from him is ‘Ridiculous’. He told me about the similar accommodation nearby only cost 100 [dollars] lower than the price I got. So I think some of the agencies or some of the landlords are bullying us.” (Ming, male focus group participant)
Local laws and rights Existing Australian research has demonstrated that many international students are not adequately aware of their tenancy rights, where to find assistance, and how to pursue recourse when mistreated in relation to their housing (GML Social Research 2011; Marginson et al. 2010; Noor & Richards 2012; Senate 2009; Smith et al. 2007). Unfamiliarity with laws and rights can expose students to unfair treatment, poor living conditions, and scams and other exploitation, and prevent them from making the most of the assistance available to resolve such issues (GML Social Research 2011; Kumar et al. 2009; Smith et al. 2007). Most survey respondents indicated that they had, at some point, been in a situation in which they were not aware of their rights and responsibilities regarding their accommodation according to Australian law79 (Figure 5.1). Furthermore, almost one in five respondents did not know whether their current lease or agreement followed the legal requirements80 (Figure 5.2). Self-funded students were more likely to know whether or not their current lease followed legal requirements than respondents whose main income was from their parents or relatives or their partner’s income (see Appendix 5, Table A.1)81 and were also far more likely to indicate that they had not been aware of their rights and responsibilities at some point (see Appendix 5, Table A.2)82. This may indicate that students more reliant on their own resources may also have been more likely to have done their research. Four interviewees referred to lack of knowledge about the basics of a tenancy agreement being a particular problem, for example:
79 Question 24. 80 Question 23. 81 Questions 23 and 32. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of respondents that differ considerably in size. 82 Questions 24 and 32. As above. 105
“When it comes to the rental process, if you’re a local, you’d know the laws in NSW and...that you have to sign a lease, but some students, in their country, they could rent a room just like that, by paying rent to someone and taking it for a month or a couple of months.” (Interviewee no. 5)
“If people are breaking their leases, if they’ve got a formal lease, they have the responsibility to give the required notice and there’s a real gap in knowledge around that...and that’s where landlords get quite antsy.” (Interviewee no. 4)
Figure 5.1 I have not been aware of my rights and responsibilities according to Australian law while in Sydney
26% 28% Never
Sometimes
Often
46%
393 respondents
Figure 5.2 My current lease / agreement follows the legal requirements
17% Agree 7% Disagree 76% Don't know
393 respondents 106
Additionally, three interviewees referred directly to landlords exploiting international students’ lack of knowledge by lying about, or avoiding, their legal responsibilities. The following comment was one of the most vivid examples:
“I’ve had students in regard to the tenancy situation, a student who was renting a place over in the Eastern Suburbs area, and when they were paying their bond money and two weeks rent in cash, the landlord willingly took it and then nothing was offered as a receipt, and then the student had actually said, ‘Isn’t there a receipt for that money I’ve just given you?’ And this landlord seriously said to that student, ‘Oh, in Australia we don’t do receipts, that’s not necessary’, and the student had no knowledge of where they could check that out and just believed it. So what’s amazing to me is the brazenness and the willingness to completely exploit the lack of knowledge by international students.” (Interviewee no. 6)
5.3.2 Experience Experience is another useful resource for international students in negotiating their housing trajectories. It is common for international students to be living out of home for the first time, which means their experience negotiating accommodation agreements and their capacity to deal with the demands of independent living may be limited, and they may be less likely to have the necessary documentation and references to secure a rental property (Power & McKenna 2005). In addition, an inexperienced student may not know simple practical things such as what kind of tradesperson is needed to fix a particular problem (Smith et al. 2007). Inexperience living out of home can therefore be a constraint to achieving housing needs and goals, while experience can be a great asset. These principles were mentioned by four interviewees:
“For a lot of students it’s actually the first time they’ve lived out of home and so the whole process is new to them not just the environment. So learning about suburbs, learning about tenancy, all those things is really difficult – a whole lot of information to digest all at once.” (Interviewee no. 10)
“Our target market is often people who have never lived out of home before, so...it shouldn’t be that surprising to us that they have issues like not understanding how the maintenance works or that kind of thing, not getting along with housemates and stuff like that, because they’ve never had to do it before.” (Interviewee no. 9)
107
At the same time, experience with housing in the Sydney context was portrayed as a resource by three interviewees, helping international students to have knowledge that equips them to effectively negotiate their housing and avoid undesirable situations, as exemplified in the first quotation below. In this way, students that had already been in Sydney for a while can be advantaged, with their experience even representing a potential resource for others, as expressed in the second quotation:
“By the time a student is in second or third year uni, they’ve probably rented somewhere, so they might know how it works, and how a bond works, and know what’s expected of them, and that kind of thing.” (Interviewee no. 9)
“When one of our staff go with [international students to inspections], they’re in a much stronger position to be able to say, is this realistically what I can expect for my dollar?...We take out the postgrad international students into that role, who have been through the process themselves and have now been residing in Australia for quite a few years and really know and understand the issues.” (Interviewee no. 3)
However, when ease of finding current accommodation and satisfaction with current accommodation were cross-tabulated with number of years spent in Sydney and times moved since arriving83, there were no clear, steady trends of increasing ease or satisfaction over time.
5.3.3 Time Time is an important resource for securing housing and dealing with problems, and lack of time can be a significant constraint. Time can play a role in two main ways. First, different students come to Australia for various lengths of time (often punctuated by returns home during university vacation), therefore giving them more or less time to find and live in their accommodation, affecting their accommodation choices and outcomes (Social Policy Committee 2011). Second, international students must study full time as a condition of their visas, and many have competing commitments, such as work, that can add time demands and stress and limit the ability to balance other areas of life (Obeng-Odoom 2010: 208; Rosenthal et al. 2006; Varghese & Brett 2011). A
83 Questions 3, 9, 14 and 15. 108 submission by the Consulate-General of the PRC in Sydney to the Parliamentary inquiry into international student accommodation in NSW (Wang 2011) noted that the time taken to find accommodation was a constraint to many Chinese students in Sydney. Several interviewees pointed out that the overall time constraints of a degree and the day-to-day time demands of student life restrict the time students have to search for accommodation and deal with accommodation problems. For example:
“The intensity of the workload when one is studying in at a university in Australia as an international student...is so great that a lot of students just find that they don’t have enough time to even find out more about their rights or what they can do to help to get assistance in resolving a problem to do with their living.” (Interviewee no. 6)
“If they have an issue and they want to take it to [The Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal] there’s a three month period for doing so. That can be problematic for people who are about to leave and not intending to come back until the end of February or March. Though they can apply for a waiver, but it’s a bit onerous. And the Tribunal would be sympathetic to that, I’d imagine, but it’s just an extra step that makes you think, ‘Oh, will I bother?’” (Interviewee no. 4)
5.3.4 Financial resources Clapham (2010) points out that financial resources are one of the major determinants of housing options, with higher-income households being more able to achieve desirable housing outcomes than lower-income households. Research on university students in the UK (Christie et al. 2002) found that financial resources were unevenly distributed among students, leading some to be more at risk in the housing market than others. Moreover, parental financial support was a useful resource for gaining housing that advantaged some students over others. While the survey in the present study did not ask students about their wealth or level of income, it did ask about their major source of income, which provides some indication of students’ financial position and ability to secure housing. Financial support from family is known to be a major component of international students’ financial resources (James et al. 2007; Khawaja & Dempsey 2008; Rosenthal et al. 2006). In line with these findings, the majority of survey respondents (79%) sourced most of their income from their
109 parents or relatives84 (Figure 5.3). This was particularly true of younger students, with those over 25 years of age being much less likely to depend on their parents or relatives as a main source of income (see Appendix 5, Table A.3)85.
Figure 5.3 Main source of income of survey respondents
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Parents / Partner's Paid work Scholarship Savings relatives income
392 respondents
The substantial financial resource of family assistance can mean that international students are advantaged over other students in being able to afford more expensive accommodation, such as high-quality on-campus apartments (Fincher & Costello 2003; Macro Plan Australia 2006). Supporting this idea, most of the 26 survey respondents living in student accommodation indicated that their parents or other relatives were their main source of income86, and the majority were less than 25 years old (see Appendix 5, Tables A.4 and A.5).87 However, an interviewee quoted by Marginson et al. (2010: 155) noted that international students’ finances vary considerably, with some being very wealthy, and others having parents who are struggling to afford their child’s tuition, leaving them with little left in their budget to spend on accommodation. They therefore may not, by default, be better off than other students, or more able to afford expensive, higher quality student accommodation. This was supported by the comments
84 Question 32. 85 Questions 30 and 32. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 86 Questions 16 and 32. As above. 87 Questions 16 and 30. As above. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on only 26 respondents living in student accommodation, compared to 364 living in private dwellings. 110 of two interviewees from the present study, who discussed the constraints on some international students to accessing purpose-built student accommodation:
“Even though there’s [new purpose-built housing] now, it’s out of the price range of a lot of students. So there’s a lot of students that would love to live in it, just can’t afford to.” (Interviewee no. 10)
“[Chinese international students] have very different expectations and budgets to, say, the American exchange student who’s coming for six months with a full loan organised already...students from China...are more likely to go to the private rental market, sharing rooms, overcrowding...Whereas the others – the Europeans, the Americans – are much more likely to go for on-campus.” (Interviewee no. 10)
Indeed, a number of Australian studies have found that international students experience constraints with regard to housing because of a lack of financial resources (Deumert et al. 2005; Forbes-Mewett et al. 2009; Khawaja & Dempsey 2007; Rosenthal et al. 2006). Even substantial financial support from relatives may not equate to abundant financial resources and housing options. This is also reflected in discussion of housing affordability in Section 7.4.2. Many international students balance time-limited part-time work, scholarship money, loans and financial assistance from family to meet their living costs, including housing (Obeng-Odoom 2012: 207-08). Further, the families of many Chinese students have taken out loans to support their study, prompting them to feel pressured to work towards paying them back (Neilson 2009). Further evidence that family assistance does not necessarily equate to greater wealth or financial stability emerged from the survey for the present study, in which both self-funded respondents and those primarily supported by relatives were equally likely to have paid more for accommodation than they could afford at some point while in Sydney (see Appendix 5, Table A.6)88. Moreover, a higher proportion of self-funded respondents and respondents relying on their partner’s income agreed that they could afford the cost of their current accommodation than those relying on parents or relatives (74%) (see Appendix 5, Table A.7)89.
88 Questions 24 and 32. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 89 Questions 23 and 32. As above. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of respondents that differ considerably in size. 111
Another constraining factor regarding financial resources is the impact of global economic conditions. For example, throughout 2012, Iranian students have been known to face considerable financial struggles due to the declining value of their national currency and sanctions imposed on Iran (Richards 2012). Interviewees noted that the recently high Australian dollar and global economic downturn have threatened the financial resources of many international students, leading to constraints with regard to accommodation. For example:
“If you’re an Australian student and you’re looking for accommodation in Australia, your dollar is going to be the same this week, next week and the week after. Whereas international students’ finances can actually be very much subject to...the ups and downs of the Australian dollar.” (Interviewee no. 3)
5.3.5 Ethnicity Ethnicity is another resource and constraint that shapes housing trajectories (Bowes et al. 2002; Tomlins et al. 2002). Fenton (1999: 62) defines ethnicity as:
“the way in which social and cultural difference, language and ancestry combine as a dimension of social action and social organisation, and form a socially reproduced system of classification.”
Although this system of classification occurs primarily at group level, with different groups being distinguished by their language, history, ancestry, religion and appearance (Giddens 1997: 210), ethnicity is also strongly related to personal identity and subjective perception of self and others (Clapham 2005; Tomlins et al. 2002)90. Ethnicity can be both a resource and constraint, as Tomlins et al. (2002: 507) explain:
“Ethnicity offers bonds, real or imagined, which bind households together and offers a resource which can be drawn on to satisfy aspects of housing needs. In
90 Perception of group membership and the propensity to identify with associated needs, activities and social networks on the basis of that membership is something that international students bring with them to the housing context in Sydney, even if it undergoes some change and negotiation within this context (Tomlins et al 2002: 507). Ethnicity is thus classified as an internal resource for the purposes of this research. However, ethnicity encompasses both internal resources (such as self-esteem and cultural knowledge) and external resources (such as social support) (Bowes et al 2002). The inextricable connection between ethnicity and the use of external resources embodied in ethnic social networks was evident in the findings of this research, as discussed in Chapter 6.2.3. 112
practical terms, this may be a common language, a common way of behaving, or organising social and/or religious activities and the exchange of information...However, ethnicity...can also be a constraint...A current choice to find housing near to other community members may seek to benefit from the resource offered by community connections, but restrict a household to particular areas because of discrimination previously experienced by the community.”
Ethnicity also affects people’s housing preferences, choices, strategies and outcomes in a number of ways (Bowes et al. 2002; Van Zandt 2007). For example, Tomlins et al. (2002) note that ethnic minority groups may prefer certain kinds of housing providers because of their ability to communicate in a certain language. However, it is also acknowledged in the literature that such effects may be confounded by other mediating factors such as gender, class and age, and cannot therefore be directly attributed to ethnicity (Bowes et al. 2002; Fincher & Shaw 2003; Harrison & Davis 2001; Tomlins et al. 2002).
In addition to shaping housing preferences, ethnicity can present two main constraints to international students: firstly, the foreign linguistic and socio-cultural environment of the host country can be difficult to negotiate for the student. Secondly, they may be perceived, and therefore treated, by others as ‘different’ (Fincher & Shaw 2003; Forbes- Mewett & Nyland 2008: 185). Students from Asian cultures, such as Chinese students, have been identified as particularly likely to experience cultural and linguistic ‘distance’ in Australia and therefore face challenges in these areas (Thomson et al. 2006). Three interviewees and six focus group participants demonstrated how language and culture could affect Chinese students’ access to rights and services. For example:
“Maybe some people can speak Chinese and they work there. Usually I go to [the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) service] I find a person, the staff there can speak Chinese, it’s very easy for us to communicate. Because there are some issues it’s not easy to explain.” (Xueling, female focus group participant)
“I think Chinese are used to focus on responsibility and ignore our rights. And maybe it’s because of the culture of Confucius that we are supposed to tolerate as much as we can.” (Hui, female focus group participant)
Furthermore, treatment as ‘different’ was also an evident issue in the research findings. More than one third of survey respondents felt they had experienced racism or 113 discrimination in their search for accommodation while in Sydney (Figure 5.4) and one quarter of respondents had this experience while living in their accommodation (Figure 5.5) 91. Racist discrimination is often the outcome of perceptions of ethnic difference by observers that coincide with ideological principles about superiority or inferiority (Fenton 1999: 69). These experiences can represent a serious constraint on people’s housing options and experiences and be linked to disadvantaged housing outcomes among ethnic minority groups (Bowes et al. 2002). Even if perceptions of difference do not imply a sense of superiority, they may still impact students housing trajectories. For example, Fincher and Shaw (2003) found that Asian students were perceived by housing providers as having particular needs, which resulted in the provision of certain kinds of accommodation that may not have actually met their preferences.
Figure 5.4 I feel I have experienced racism or discrimination in my search for accommodation while in Sydney
11%
Never
25% Sometimes
64% Often
393 respondents
91 Question 24. 114
Figure 5.5 I feel I have experienced racism or discrimination while living in my accommodation while in Sydney
6%
19% Never
Sometimes
75% Often
393 respondents
5.4 External resources and constraints
5.4.1 The Internet The internet was the most common external resource used by survey respondents to find accommodation in Sydney92. More than one third of respondents had used the internet to find their first accommodation, and around half had used it to find their current accommodation (Figure 5.6). Interviewees and focus group participants also referred to the frequent use of the internet, especially when organising accommodation from overseas (see Section 6.2.1). Other studies in Sydney have similarly found that the internet is a key resource international students use for finding accommodation (GML Social Research 2011; International Student Development Taskforce (ISDT) 2009). The internet represents a vast range of different resources, from formal services to informal information sources. Previous studies have found that international students use both university and non-university websites, especially the latter (ISDT 2009) and that specialist real estate websites are increasingly popular (Archer 2008). Similarly, non-
92 Questions 5 and 12 asked respondents about resources they used to find their first accommodation in Sydney and question 12 asked about the resources they used to find their current accommodation in Sydney. 115
Figure 5.6 Resources survey respondents used to find accommodation in Sydney93
The Internet Family / friends in Sydney An Education agent Family / friends in China Classmates / co-workers in Sydney Public advertisements (e.g. telegraph poles, library) First accommodation University in Sydney Real estate agents
Campus noticeboards Current accommodation Chinese newspapers / magazines University in China
Resourcesusedaccommodation find to Non-Chinese newspapers / magazines Chinese community in Sydney (e.g. businesspeople, churches) Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % of respondents
393 respondents (first accommodation) and 306 respondents (current accommodation)
93 This chart combines responses to Question 5 and Question 12. Responses to the second question include only those respondents who had moved at least once since arriving in Sydney. Those whose current accommodation was the same as their first accommodation did not answer the second question. This was a multiple response question, so percentages do not add to 100%. The 87 respondents who had not moved since their first accommodation in Sydney skipped the second question, accounting for the difference in response numbers. 116
university websites were the most common internet resources for finding accommodation in the present study94 (Figure 5.7), and these included specialist real estate websites such as Domain and Realestate.com.au95. However the university accommodation website was also widely used. Another prominent type of website was the Chinese-language online portal, including Tig Tag, OzChinese and Aobo96. TigTag was the most common website used overall by respondents to find their first and current accommodation, with around half using this website in the latter instance. TigTag was also raised in both focus groups as an important aspect of students’ strategies to find housing. One participant described it as:
“a very well known Chinese website for rent and life problems in Australia...every time before the semester begins, there will be plenty of rental information in the section.” (Haidong, male focus group participant)
Figure 5.7 Websites survey respondents used to find accommodation in Sydney97
TigTag OzChinese Domain University's accommodation website Realestate.com.au Used to find first Gumtree accommodation Australian Chinese Daily website Aobo.com Used to find Move2Rent current Other accommodation I didn't use any websites
0 10 20 30 40 50 % of respondents
389 respondents (first accommodation), 305 respondents (current accommodation)98
94 Questions 6 and 13. The website options included were compiled through informal consultation with UNSW students, both domestic and international about the most popular online resources for finding accommodation. 95 Domain and Realestate.com.au are leading Australian websites for finding properties. 96 TigTag is a portal for study abroad in China with more than than 600,000 registered users worldwide (TigTag 2012), while OzChinese and Aobo are Australia-based portals catering to the broader Chinese community (Aobo 2012; OzChinese 2012). All three feature news, housing advertisements, information about immigration and education and discussion forums. 97 As above. 117
Although the internet is a widely used resource for finding accommodation in Sydney, reliance on the internet to find initial accommodation also reflects constraints with regard to local knowledge and to language proficiency that would enable information to be sourced in person (Archer 2008). Indeed, the use of the internet can itself prove to be a constraint to finding accurate information or satisfactory accommodation, as some online advertisements are misleading (Archer 2008; Power & McKenna 2005). The lack of oversight and regulation of online advertisements also means that unscrupulous operators can continue to advertise even when known to be exploitative (Kumar et al. 2009). For example, rental scams, where people falsely advertise online as landlords in order to make money, have been reported as a common problem among international students in Australian cities (Aston 2010; Kumar et al. 2009). More than one in four survey respondents reported having been the victim of an accommodation scam of some type99 (Figure 5.8). The following quotation from an interviewee describes this problem:
“A lot of international students...particularly Chinese students, will talk about ads going up about amazing accommodation opportunities here, and often they’re setting all that up, and either the accommodation doesn’t exist, or they pay their money and it’s not what they expected, so there’s a lot of that happening. And that’s a really difficult one for universities here to control, because it’s websites set up in their home countries.” (Interviewee no. 4)
The internet was not included as an option in the survey question about what resources respondents had tried when dealing with problems with their accommodation100. However, respondents were asked about two key services which provide a number of online resources that can assist international students with dealing with housing problems. These were government agencies (in particular NSW Fair Trading) and local community organisations (in particular Redfern Legal Centre). NSW Fair Trading offers extensive online information about tenancy rights and responsibilities, including a recently published Consumer Guide for International Students (NSW Fair Trading 2012) with a section on renting accommodation, as well as information about formally
98 As above. Also, some respondents did not answer these questions. 99 Question 24. Online scams were not specified in this question, but the evidence from the literature and interviews suggest that this is the predominant setting for accommodation scams targeting international students. 100 As stated earlier, the purpose of this question was to highlight the use of particular kinds of relationships and services. 118 resolving tenancy disputes through the CTTT. The most active local community organisations with regard to housing problems are the state-funded Tenants Advice and Advocacy Services, in particular the Inner Sydney Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service located at Redfern Legal Centre, which provides a number of fact sheets on tenancy legislation as well as an extensive “Sharehouse Survival Guide” (Redfern Legal Centre 2012) and contact information for arranging individualised advice. Most focus group participants had never heard of the majority of these resources, which may help to explain the relatively low usage of them by survey respondents (Figure 5.9). They were also among the least tried and least helpful resources for survey respondents dealing with problems with accommodation. However, Government services were still tried by roughly one in four respondents, and in each case more than half of those who used them found them helpful.
Figure 5.8 I have been the victim of a scam101 while in Sydney
8% Never
17% Sometimes
Often 73%
393 respondents102
Interviewees and focus group participants mentioned a range of constraints that prevent international students from benefiting from government and community resources. These included language barriers, lack of awareness (partly due to inadequate publicity), excessive cost, time and complexity (real or perceived), and fear of causing trouble. Focus group participants, however, also saw these deficits as opportunities for increasing the usefulness of such resources, especially through the internet. For example:
101 Defined as “somebody lied to me about accommodation and stole my money” 102 Figures rounded do not add to 100%. 119
“Each of these parties [should] hire Chinese staff, like he said, to maintain some website work, like Chinese media. But the fake Twitter, fake Facebook, Chinese copy. To maintain that and to do some advertisement work to inform the Chinese students.” (Haiyong, male focus group participant)
Figure 5.9 Helpful resources for survey respondents dealing with problems with accommodation in Sydney103
Friends / relatives living in Sydney
International students at university
Sydney Chinese community (e.g. businesspeople, churches)
University accommodation office / website
Local students at university Tried this Government agencies (e.g. Fair Trading NSW)
University international office / website Found this helpful Clubs & societies at university
University welfare service
Local community organisations (e.g. Redfern Legal Centre):
0% 50% 100% % of respondents
393 respondents
5.4.2 Family and friends After the internet, family and friends in Sydney were the second most commonly used resource for finding first and current accommodation in Sydney104 (Figure 5.6). Beyond these two instances of finding accommodation, the vast majority of survey respondents
103 This was a multiple response question, therefore percentages do not add to 100%. Percentages of respondents who had tried each resource were worked out based on those who indicated that they had never tried each resource. Those counted as finding each resource helpful were those who indicated that each resource helped a little or helped a lot, as a proportion of those who had tried the resource. 104 Questions 5 and 12. 120
(85%) had sought assistance from friends or relatives in Sydney at some stage when looking for accommodation, and of those, nearly all (95%) had found these resources helpful105 (Figure 5.10). Unsurprisingly, respondents who had completed three or more years of study in Sydney appeared to be the most likely to have sought help from friends or relatives in Sydney when looking for accommodation (see Appendix 5, Table A.8)106. This is most likely to be because those students would have had longer to develop those local relationships than others.
Figure 5.10: Helpful resources for survey respondents looking for accommodation in Sydney107
Friends / relatives in Sydney
International students at university:
University accommodation office / website Tried this Local students at university:
University international office / website Found this helpful Sydney Chinese community (e.g. businesspeople, churches)
Clubs / societies at university
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents
393 respondents
Social resources like family and friends have been acknowledged as important for assisting international students to negotiate the new and unfamiliar cultural and institutional contexts they encounter in Australia (Khawaja & Dempsey 2008; Neri & Ville 2008). They are also considered critical for assisting new immigrants to overcome
105 Question 25. 106 Questions 3 and 25. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 107 This was a multiple response question, therefore percentages do not add to 100%. Percentages of respondents who had tried each resource were worked out based on those who indicated that they had never tried each resource. Those counted as finding each resource helpful were those who indicated that each resource helped a little or helped a lot, as a proportion of those who had tried the resource. 121 constraints in housing markets; in particular to access secure accommodation and housing information and support services in the early stages of settlement and to improve their housing conditions over time (e.g. Moriah et al. 2004; Robinson et al. 2007). Furthermore, social resources have been said to have particular importance in Chinese culture, where the principle of guanxi, or the “drawing on a web of connections to secure favors in personal and organizational relations”, pervades every aspect of Chinese social and organisational activities (Park & Luo 2001: 455). This practice reflects a strongly culturally held collectivist principle that human relationships are the organising principle for life, with different networks – from close family members to more peripheral classmates – being mobilised when an individual requires extra capacity to deal with a situation (Barnes et al. 2011; Park & Luo 2001). The relevance of this concept to Chinese international students and their accommodation was evident in the comment of one focus group participant, who made the following point to explain why Chinese students were reluctant to use formal accommodation services:
“Chinese people trust relationships more than the discipline. They kind of rely on the relationship between people...Chinese society is a moral based society. It’s not law based....So people just trust people more, don’t trust law more.” (Dan, female focus group participant)
Support from relatives can be an important resource in assisting students with finding housing, both in terms of financial support (as discussed in Section 5.3.4) and the provision of accommodation (Christie et al. 2002; James et al. 2007; Smith 2007; Turcic 2008). For example, relatives living in Sydney may be able to provide accommodation at little or no cost that, even if not permanent, can at least be a buffer while students look for other accommodation or a back-up in case other housing falls through. A study for the City of Melbourne reported that the majority (63%) of the nearly 800 international students surveyed did not have any relatives living in Melbourne (Evaluation Solutions 2010), and therefore would not have access to this valuable resource. The present study was unable to locate an equivalent finding for Sydney in the existing research and did not ask respondents whether or not they had relatives living in Sydney. However, the fact that only 4% of survey respondents lived with relatives (see Section 7.5.1) indicates that an overall lack of local family was likely to also be the case for this group. Two interviewees drew attention to the fact that lack of local family can be a constraint for
122 international students, who may therefore be more stressed and more vulnerable to poor conditions when their housing is under threat. As one explained:
“Local students usually have family somewhere in the background...that they can confide in, or – worst possible scenario – they can go home to...whereas international students don’t have that...there’s no backup option...Local students usually...know, okay, if I get thrown out, or I can’t afford to pay the rent, they actually know that somewhere they will have a roof over their head. Whereas for international students, that roof over their head may be thousands of miles away.” (Interviewee no. 3)
In the absence of family, friends can constitute an alternative safety net for securing accommodation. Six focus group participants referred to having intentionally drawn on friends in Sydney as resources for finding accommodation, including moving in with them, getting information from them about available accommodation and enlisting them to search for housing on their behalf. For example:
“I found [accommodation] in TigTag and need to do the inspection but couldn’t do by myself so I asked one of my friends in Sydney and he could do the inspection for me and help me pay the deposit on my behalf.” (Haidong, male focus group participant)
“One month I should find a new place to stay and I have no choice because in this time it’s really a rush time, and for just one month, hard to rent new house. So I should only choice to stay with my friend in their houses.” (Jianning, male focus group participant)
As well as assisting international students to find accommodation, friends and relatives can be useful resources for gaining information and advice in the case of housing problems. Most survey respondents (74%) had tried to draw on friends and relatives when dealing with problems with their accommodation in Sydney, and the vast majority (93%) said these had been helpful108 (Figure 5.9). Younger respondents appeared to be more likely to have tried to get help with problems with their accommodation from friends and relatives than older respondents (see Appendix 5, Table A.9)109. One focus
108 Question 26. Helpful includes ‘Helped a lot’ and ‘Helped a little’ 109 Questions 26 and 30. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2.
123 group participant recounted how discussion with friends and relatives provided the information necessary to act on unreasonable conditions imposed by a landlord:
“Our oven was broken and [the landlord] asked us like $300 to fix it. But after complained with our parents...we discuss with my friends...and then we know like the agent or the landlord has a responsibility to fix it instead of us.” (Huijun, female focus group participant)
However, lacking connections with friends and relatives was seen by interviewees as a constraint that may disadvantage some international students. Two interviewees explained the impact that a lack of friends and relatives can have on making wise housing decisions:
“They’re often here with no family or friends or good support network, so they’re really vulnerable to [exploitative] situations.” (Interviewee no. 1A)
Sometimes they have to make decisions in isolation because it’s so new to them when they’re arriving in the country. Most people would bounce things like that off a friend or off an acquaintance, whereas often they don’t have that.” (Interviewee no. 3)
5.4.3 Other students Fewer than one in ten survey respondents found their first accommodation in Sydney with the help of classmates or co-workers, however this figure doubled to become the third most used resource for finding students’ current accommodation (Figure 5.6), corroborating Marginson et al.’s (2010) finding that the development of local social networks over time provides new accommodation opportunities to international students (Marginson et al. 2010). Australian and international research resoundingly reports that international students generally have difficulty making lasting friendships with local students, and therefore tend to have most contact with other international students, especially from the same cultural background (e.g. Deumert et al. 2005; Campbell et al 2008; Chung & Nyland 2007; Montgomery & McDowell 2009; Rosenthal et al. 2006). This was also reflected in the present study in that considerably fewer survey respondents sought accommodation assistance from local students than from other international students, and that local students were overall considered much less
124 helpful110 (Figure 5.9 and 5.10). Furthermore, there were very few references to local students across the present study. The majority of survey respondents appeared to be living with other Chinese international students, given that most respondents were living with other students (see Section 7.5.1) and spoke Chinese as the main language in their accommodation (see Section 6.2.3). Age and gender did not appear to affect whether or not respondents tried getting help with accommodation from other international students111. However, self-funded respondents and respondents who had been studying in Sydney for less than three years appeared to be most likely to look to other international students to find accommodation (see Appendix 5, Tables A.10. and A.11)112, which is understandable given that other relationships and familiarity with other resources are likely during a long period of settlement.
Although other students, especially international students, were considered a useful resource by many research participants, two important constraints were identified. The first was that other international students are likely to be subject to the same constraints in terms of knowledge and experience and therefore not necessarily have useful advice to offer. The second was that some international students have taken to opportunistically consorting with other international students in order to exploit them in the housing market. Examples of these two constraints are illustrated by the following quotations:
“Most of my classmates are from China, they are not local students...and they are just like you, they don’t know where to find accommodation, and you don’t ask them about this.” (Xinxin, female focus group participant)
“There is...the phenomenon not only of unscrupulous landlords of Australian citizenship ripping off and being unscrupulous towards international students, but there’s also the phenomenon of many of those unscrupulous landlords also being fellow international students ripping off international students as much as an Australian landlord has been. So people have come and worked out the inadequacies of residential tenancy law...and they’ve seen an opportunity to exploit and they’ve just gone in there and done it...” (Interviewee no. 6)
110 Questions 3, 25 and 26. 111 Questions 25, 26, 29 and 30. 112 Questions 3, 25 and 32. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 125
5.4.4 Agents Private agents (including education agents and real estate agents) were the third most commonly used resource for finding first and current accommodation (Figure 5.6). Furthermore, 11 of the 12 interviewees mentioned agents when describing international students’ search for accommodation. Education agents recruit students for Australian institutions and organise their study in Australia, often combining educational services relating to applications and admissions with other services such as making arrangements for housing (Senate 2009). Some agents also have a narrower exclusive focus, such as accommodation. Twenty-nine percent of survey respondents used an education agent to find their first accommodation, however this had dropped to only 3% for their current accommodation (Figure 5.6), which reflects the primary role of education agents being to set initial arrangements in place. One interviewee was the director of an agency focussed on accommodation and relayed how useful their services were to students seeking accommodation:
“We’ve had a lot of support and a lot of demand for what we’re doing...The universities trust us and they recommend us because they know who we are, how to get hold of us if somebody’s got a complaint...I think students just find it incredibly helpful in general, and they don’t waste – by using our service – two or three weeks of their time and money...looking for so many places to live and paying for expensive temporary accommodation, and just that peace of mind, being so stressed until you are in a place where you can settle down for your studies.” (Interviewee no. 9)
The other kind of agent used by international students to find housing is real estate agents. Smith et al.’s (2007) student interviews from nine unidentified Australian universities elicited that real estate agents were the most common way international students in their sample found housing. While real estate agents were not as central for respondents in the present study, they were the third most used resource used for finding their current accommodation, after the internet and family and friends (Figure 5.6). Three interviewees pointed out how real estate agents are able to assist international students by collaboration with universities, for example:
“If a student comes to me and says, ‘Look, I’ve got my family, I’m looking for a place’, I would call the real estate agents, and we have built a good relationship
126
with them where, if they could assist they will do that...They’ll usually help them with the application process, if there are language difficulties.” (Interviewee no. 5)
In spite of the usefulness of education and real estate agents for finding accommodation, agents are also associated with some constraints. Some education agents have been found to give inaccurate or biased information about accommodation (Senate 2009) or even take advantage of student’s lack of local knowledge and exploit them (Ziguras & Harwood). It was highlighted by one interviewee that some real estate agents are also complicit in perpetuating negative housing outcomes through failure to enforce occupancy limits for international students:
“With the owner or the real estate agent, they are permitted to sub-let, usually the agreement though should say a maximum number of people. But sometimes landlords and real estate agents are turning a blind eye to that or they’re not even filling it out.” (Interviewee no. 6)
5.4.5 University services Students are uniquely supported in terms of their housing given the degree to which higher education providers intervene in student housing markets (Rugg et al. 2000). Universities offer a number of services that can prove to be very useful resources for international students looking for accommodation. Universities Australia’s university housing stocktake in 2010 found that all 36 participating universities provided housing information for students, with 18 providing comprehensive housing support services including follow-up scrutiny and references for students (Moore 2010). Accommodation information provided includes information about available accommodation both on- and off-campus, anticipated rental and other costs, rights and responsibilities and safety (Universities Australia 2011). Most services are delivered through an accommodation office or an international office. International students appear to use accommodation services more than domestic students in Australia (AEI 2010; Centre for Multicultural Youth 2008; Monash University 2010), demonstrating that these are a particularly important resource for international students. One interviewee highlighted the importance of university services for international students, who lacked other forms of assistance to which local students might have more access:
127
“For international students there’s often no support, no family support, no friends around, so they really are reliant on the university for starters, to help orientate them into their new situation.” (Interviewee no. 4)
Fewer than one in ten survey respondents said they drew on their university to find their current accommodation, and even fewer for their first accommodation (Figure 5.6). However, when looking for accommodation in Sydney overall, a much larger proportion indicated that they had used the accommodation office or its website (42%), and most of these (74%) found that it was helpful113 (Figure 5.10). One of the main ways in which universities in Sydney assist international students in finding housing is by providing listings of off-campus accommodation, both online and on noticeboards. Seven interviewees in total referred to private listings. At UNSW, the international office (Student Development International (SDI)) partners with the accommodation office to administer a service called the International Student Housing Assistance program which provides a listing service and supports students by accompanying them to inspections. Although only a minority of focus group participants were aware of and/or had used this service, one who had used the service spoke positively of it as a useful resource:
“Actually, they are really helpful...I see lots of advertisements there and they have a sign there that says they can provide lifts to inspection. So I think that really caring.” (Yue, female focus group participant)
While such a service can greatly facilitate the housing search process, a number of constraints were also identified with listing services in general. Two interviewees drew attention to the risk that university listing services may not involve sufficient monitoring to weed out questionable housing providers, thereby posing a potential constraint to international students with little outside knowledge and experience. A paper reporting on data from the Tenants Union of Victoria echoed this concern, noting that universities in Melbourne did not necessarily take responsibility for the standards and quality of all options listed, which may cause problems for international students relying on those lists for information (Power & McKenna 2005). However, two interviewees also referred to efforts by the universities to ensure the lists were safe. For example:
“If we feel that an accommodation is not appropriate, we can reject it. We can ask questions, if we feel that it’s dodgy or...doesn’t sound right, we either ring and find
113 Question 25. 128
out a bit more about it, or if we think, no, this is not what we want, it will be rejected...a landlord will apply, and we will go through a check, and if we feel it is appropriate, we will approve it.” (Interviewee no. 5)
Another way in which universities assist students with their accommodation is by supporting and advising them as problems arise. At UNSW, Accommodation UNSW offers extensive information on tenancy rights, standards and procedures and links to other services; SDI offers international student advisers who can consult on issues including accommodation, advocate on behalf of students and refer them to specialist services; and the student organisation (ARC) offers welfare services including advocacy, free legal advice and information publications to members on matters including housing and tenancy. Around one third of survey respondents had used the university accommodation office or website when dealing with problems with their accommodation114 (Figure 5.9) and most who did found it helpful. Fewer survey respondents, but still around one quarter, had tried the international student office or website or university welfare services when facing housing problems, with around half of both groups finding them helpful. The focus groups with Chinese students from UNSW brought up a number of issues they saw as limiting the potential benefits of these helpful resources, including uncertainty about their ability to help, personal laziness and language barriers.
5.4.6. The Chinese community The use of co-ethnic networks can both help and hinder housing outcomes, acting as both resources and constraints (Murdie et al. 1999). Specifically, they are an effective way of obtaining information about accommodation, but may lead to co-ethnic clustering in particular areas and types of housing associated with particular problems such as overcrowding (Fong & Chan 2010; Xu 2003). These ideas are further explored in Section 6.2.3. Very few survey respondents reported having drawn on the local Chinese community to find their first and current accommodation (Figure 5.6). However, in the later question regarding the use of resources overall while in Sydney, roughly one third indicated they had tried these resources when looking for accommodation and when dealing with problems with accommodation, and most had found them helpful in both
114 Question 26. 129 these contexts (Figures 5.9 and 5.10). The reason for this discrepancy is unclear. Data from the focus groups seemed to support the low usage and usefulness of the Chinese community reflected in Figure 5.6, with three participants citing the inactivity and lack of support within the Chinese community. For example:
“It depends on the Chinese in this country, this country issue. Chinese people don’t trust you, don’t trust our own people at first sight...cheat with each other.” (Haiyong, male focus group participant)
“Probably in most America Chinese are so willing to help each other, but in Australia the Chinese we have here is more business oriented, or they’re more interested in immigration or they’re more interested in like adjust themselves to the culture or, I don’t know...they have different orientations of helping each other.” (Yansong, male focus group participant)
5.5 Summary
Within their housing context, international students face a range of individualised resources and constraints with which they engage to pursue their housing needs and preferences. These resources and constraints appear to mediate the impact of broader structural factors on their housing trajectories. International students have access to both internal resources (including knowledge, experience, time, financial resources and ethnicity) and external resources (including the internet, family and friends, other students, agents, university students and the Chinese community). Resources enable international students to find housing and deal with problems with their housing, however every resource is also associated with one or more constraints. Constraints can result from a lack of that same resource, or the unintended side-effects of using that resource, or may simply be reflected in the use of a particular resource.
Knowledge was the most common internal resource and constraint that emerged from the findings of this research, while the internet, family and friends and other international students were the most commonly used external resources to find accommodation and deal with problems. Each of these resources, as well as the other resources discussed in this chapter, were found to have the potential to greatly assist 130 international students secure positive housing outcomes, but also displayed the operation of constraints that made international students vulnerable to exploitation and other difficulties in the housing market. International students strategically negotiate these resources and constraints, ultimately shaping their housing outcomes and overall housing trajectories. The next chapter (Chapter 6) considers some common ways in which international students harness the resources to which they have access to develop strategies to achieve their housing needs and preferences.
131
Chapter 6: Strategies
6. 1 Introduction
The previous chapter examined a range of resources and constraints that international students in Sydney, and in particular Chinese international students at UNSW, encounter as they find housing and deal with housing problems. This chapter explores the strategies used by students as they engage with these resources and constraints throughout their housing trajectories. The findings from interviews, surveys and focus groups supported the idea explored in some housing and sociological research that all individuals can exercise their agency through strategy making, but the capacity of individuals to make various strategies depends on the type and volume of resources to which they have access, as well as constraints they experience with regard to their relative knowledge of, access to and ability to use these resources (Crow 1989; Lister 2004; Morgan 1989; Siksiö and Borgegård 1990: 165). Strategies are a key component of housing trajectories because the long term goals and plans which characterise them drive individual housing decisions over time (Anderson et al. 1994: 20; Clapham 2004: 199-100; 2010: 260). The analysis of strategies permits a greater understanding of how international students respond to various resources and constraints, and why they experience certain kinds of housing outcomes and wellbeing effects (see Figure 6.1).
International students use strategies to both find accommodation and deal with problems with their accommodation (Marginson et al. 2010: 151-52). This chapter presents seven key strategies in both areas that were identified from the interview, survey and focus group data. The four key strategies for finding accommodation were identified in the interview stage and further evidenced and developed by the survey and focus group data. Examples of students using strategies for dealing with problems with accommodation were present in the interviews and taken into account in the development of the conceptual framework, which included strategies as a component but intentionally did not restrict this to housing search strategies, as in most housing literature consulted. This understanding was also reflected in the inclusion of a question in the survey on the resources that helped respondents to deal with problems with their accommodation (Question 26). The data from this question, as well as the qualitative 132 data from the survey, provided further examples of the methods international students may use to cope with housing problems. However, further detail was required to confirm that these responses were strategies rather than simply knee-jerk reactions. It was in the focus groups that the data from the three primary methods were able to be drawn together to identify three key strategies for dealing with problems with accommodation, and the sociological and housing literature assisted in theoretically validating and expounding these findings.
Figure 6.1 The usefulness of strategies in understanding housing trajectories
Resources & Constraints
Help explain how students respond to... STRATEGIES * To find accommodation * To deal with problems with accommodation
Help explain why students experience certain...
Housing Outcomes
Source: Author
It is important to note that the student responses identified as strategies in this chapter were often, but not always, understood or described by research participants as conscious strategies. However, many responses showed systematic reasoning and planning that amounted to a kind of strategy making. As Anderson et al. (1994: 21) note, “actors may not themselves refer specifically to strategies; we infer their existence from the account they give of their plans.” Housing and sociological literature support the idea that what we may consider to be strategies are not necessarily undertaken in a conscious or considered fashion (Crow 1989; Pickvance & Pickvance 1994; Warde 1990: 501) but may rather simply be a line of action reflecting some underlying motivation, rationalisation and/or monitoring (Anderson et al. 1994: 21; Giddens 1979; Olsen 2009: 381). For example, a student may not consciously set out to live in poor quality or overcrowded accommodation as a strategy to reduce housing costs, but their housing search process may reflect a willingness to trade off quality for cost, and they may even 133 retrospectively rationalise their housing choice in these terms. Accordingly, the information in this chapter is drawn both from reflections of focus group participants on the conscious strategies they had employed in finding accommodation and dealing with problems in their accommodation, as well as information about responses to resources and constraints from the survey, interviews and focus groups that implicitly reflect strategy making. These data are considered in the context of the literature on immigrant and student housing trajectories reviewed in Chapter 2, literature analysing the housing strategies of young people and ethnic minority groups115 and the broader literature on international students’ experiences of living in Australia.
6.2 Strategies for finding accommodation
Much of the international literature referring to housing strategies focuses on the housing search process (e.g. Brown & Moore 1970; Herbert 1973; Murie 1974; Rossi 1955; Siksiö & Borgegård 1990). Finding suitable accommodation has been identified in the research and advocacy literature as a common challenge for international students in Australia (e.g. James et al. 2010; Kumar et al. 2009). A 2009 survey of international students at the University of Sydney, for example, found that 50% of the 1,100 students in their sample had not obtained permanent accommodation by the beginning of semester, and 38% of respondents found searching for accommodation to be their least satisfying experience with accommodation (ISDT 2009: 3, 19). However, a recent nation- wide study found that the majority (84%) of international students were satisfied with access to accommodation (Varghese & Brett 2011). In the present research, the majority of respondents did not report difficulty finding their current accommodation, however a considerable minority – one in four respondents (24%) – still had some degree of difficulty116 (Figure 6.2). Gender, age, level of study and main source of income appeared to have no bearing on respondents’ difficulty finding current accommodation117.
115 Findings on these groups are relevant for international students as most international students in Australia are ‘young people’ (according to the ABS definition of 20-34 years (ABS 2009) and the majority of international students are from Asian countries where English is not the first language (AEI 2012e). 116 Questions 7 and 14. Includes ‘Quite difficult’ and ‘Very difficult’. Based on a composite of ease finding current accommodation and ease finding first accommodation, where the respondent has only lived in one dwelling in Sydney. 117 Questions 3, 7, 14, 29, 30, 32. As above. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 134
Consistent with the finding that a substantial minority of students did experience some difficulty finding their accommodation, ten respondents referred to aspects of the housing search process as their worst experience of accommodation in Sydney. For example:
“Finding an appropriate place for myself was really difficult and stressful. I’m still struggling.” (Survey respondent no. 362)
“Before I found the current flat, it is too difficult to find a proper accommodation at the beginning of a semester.” (Survey respondent no. 28).
Figure 6.2 Ease of finding current accommodation for survey respondents 118
Difficult 24% Easy 40%
Neither easy nor difficult 36%
385 respondents
The only other Australian study found to mention the accommodation strategies of international students (Marginson et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2007) points out that organising accommodation from overseas and multiple occupancy are commonly employed by international students as strategies to find housing. This confirmed the findings of the present study, in which these two strategies also emerged as common among international students. However, in addition to organising accommodation from overseas and multiple occupancy, the interview data pointed to two other key strategies: relying on co-ethnic networks and making trade-offs. The latter two strategies were strongly confirmed by the survey and focus group data to be common
118 Based on a composite of first and current accommodation. Difficult includes ‘Very difficult’ and ‘Quite difficult’. Easy includes ‘Very easy’ and ‘Quite easy’ 135 among Chinese international students, and are also well established in research literature on the housing of young people and ethnic minority groups, as detailed in the remainder of this section. The four key strategies explored in this section reflect the importance of the internet and social networks as resources used by international students to find housing (see Section 5.4) and also appear to be associated with particular housing outcomes, such as poor housing quality, overcrowding and exploitative arrangements (see Chapter 7). Thus, understanding these strategies assists in understanding both the use of resources and constraints by international students in Sydney, and some key contributing factors behind housing outcomes that have been identified as problematic.
6.2.1 Organising accommodation from overseas The majority of survey respondents (84%) indicated they had organised their initial accommodation in Sydney before they arrived119. Organising accommodation from overseas was also the strategy referred to most extensively in the interviews for international students seeking accommodation, being mentioned by eight interviewees. Five focus group participants gave examples of organising accommodation from overseas, highlighting the important role of both the internet and social networks as valuable resources:
“The first thing I would do is to contact my friends to see if anyone is in Sydney and if I can share a room with them, or if not, I would get information from them.” (Hui, female focus group participant)
“My strategy was looking to TigTag plus Gumtree before my arrival here, then called a local friend during introduction of house. I live in one temporary one for two weeks after my arrival then I look into different options myself after arrival.” (Yansong, male focus group participant)
Most of the interviewees who referred to the strategy of organising accommodation from overseas viewed it as a risky practice which may lead to unsatisfactory housing outcomes. For example:
119 Question 4. 136
“Domestic students can go out and actually view properties. But often international students are actually trying to set this up from home so they don’t get to...check it out, ask questions, or if they do, they don’t know if the answers they’re getting are actually the truth...Who wants to turn up in a city where you have nowhere to stay? So the pressure is, I need to have somewhere before I come, but how do I actually work out what’s going to be safe and appropriate and all the rest of it.” (Interviewee no. 4)
“Some international students...choosing a place purely from the internet, looking at it before they come here, and committing to a place and even paying money before they’ve even physically looked at it. And the basic bit of advice that I have for these students is not to do that, because even though it means there is a bit of uncertainty, a person is always better to come and stay at a youth hostel or a backpackers for the first one or two weeks, if they can come that early, so they can use that as a base and then go and get an idea of what’s good value and what’s not good value.” (Interviewee no. 6)
Little other research has measured the extent to which international students organise their accommodation before they arrive and the effects of this practice on housing outcomes and wellbeing. According to Power and McKenna (2005), international students assisted by the Tenants Union of Victoria often chose their accommodation before arriving in Australia, based on information from their intended educational institution or the internet. On the other hand, most participants in Marginson et al.’s study (2010) did not pre-book accommodation. There is some evidence in the literature, however, of a link between organising accommodation from overseas and negative housing outcomes. A submission to the NSW Ministerial Taskforce on International Education by SUPRA (Kumar et al. 2009: 8) identifies organising accommodation before arrival in Australia as potentially leading students to commit money to a provider without seeing the premises, placing them at risk of scams. Marginson et al. (2010: 159) also notes that students organising accommodation from overseas risk being “led into commitments that subsequently proved unsatisfactory”. Interestingly, despite the association of organising accommodation from overseas with problematic housing outcomes in the present study, there was no apparent difference between the
137 satisfaction rates of survey respondents who had found their first accommodation before or after coming to Australia120.
6.2.2 Multiple occupancy Nearly all respondents to the survey (96%) shared their accommodation with at least one other person, most of whom shared with three or more people (see Figure 6.3). This finding is supported by studies involving students from across Australia which have shown that international students generally live in shared accommodation (Forbes- Mewett et al. 2006; James et al. 2010; Marginson et al. 2010: 163; Rosenthal et al. 2006). Four interviewees referred to the choice to share housing as a strategic one to reduce costs. For example:
“The city could be very expensive, which I think students prefer to live in the city, so I guess multiple occupancy might be very attractive to them for affordability.” (Interviewee no. 5)
“Even if one is being helped by family or if one has saved money from having been employed, there’s still areas where you’re looking at to cut your costs of living whilst you’re here in Australia to study. So people are looking for cheaper accommodation. And so they’re tending to go into share housing situation.” (Interviewee no. 6)
Five focus group participants indicated that they had considered or tried multiple occupancy as a conscious strategy for securing appropriate accommodation, including the following:
“I moved into a really good apartment...but it’s really expensive, so we need more people to share the room.” (Lili, female focus group participant)
“I wanted to just have my own place...Because if you can find enough people to share the rent it will be cheaper than rent from the person who already took the house from the agent.” (Ming, male focus group participant)
120 Questions 4 and 8. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 138
Figure 6.3 Number of other people sharing survey respondents’ current accommodation
60
50
40
30
20 %Respondents of
10
0 No others 1-2 others 3-4 others 5-6 others 7-8 others 9-10 others 10 + others Number of other people sharing accommodation
380 responses
The association of multiple occupancy with making housing more affordable in the above quotations is supported by research conducted by sociologist Gill Jones on young people’s housing strategies in the UK (Jones 2000; 2001), which found that pooling resources in peer-shared private rental housing is a key strategy used by young people to make housing affordable in markets characterised by inadequate supply and limited choice. This strategy is particularly common among young people who have migrated away from their hometown for study purposes (which could also be applied to international students), and therefore do not have access to the other major housing strategy used by young people: staying in the parental home. Formation of peer-shared households among these ‘migrants’ may also reflect a lack of knowledge and guidance with relation to other options within local housing markets, with which they are unfamiliar as new residents (Jones 2000; 2001). However, peer-shared households are not always primarily formed in response to constraints, but are also commonly established by young people, including students, as a lifestyle preference (Heath & Kenyon 1999; Jones 2000). Indeed, share housing is known to be an important rite of passage and valued aspect of student life for many local students in Sydney (MacNamara & Connell 2007). Chinese immigrants have also been assumed to be more likely than other groups to choose or accept multiple occupancy (Anderson 1972; Loo & Ong 1984; Pamuk 2004). However, other authors have noted that these stereotypes are
139 not necessarily accurate (Fincher & Shaw 2009; Loo & Ong 1984), and the present research did not compare Chinese students to any other groups to determine whether this may be the case.
In spite of considerable evidence that multiple occupancy is a strategy consciously undertaken by students to afford better quality housing, it is also portrayed as a strategy of opportunistic landlords, and associated with problematic housing outcomes such as poor housing quality and overcrowding. For example, one of the interviewees quoted earlier in this section in relation to the strategic choice of share housing continued to caution that:
“The problem is that many unscrupulous landlords are out there, and they’re only too happy to rent, say, a master bedroom in a three-bedroom unit to up to three international students and putting in three beds or a double bunk and one single bed, and then they’re trying to pack two into the medium-sized bedroom and even two in some cases into the smaller bedroom.” (Interviewee no. 6)
The association of strategies of multiple occupancy with exploitation and poor housing conditions highlights the importance of two concepts introduced in Chapter 2. Firstly, that strategies (as a form of agency) are not completely autonomous but are constrained by the context in which they are formulated. Multiple occupancy may therefore not be the ideal situation but a method of coping with limited options (Jones 2000; 2001). Secondly, multiple occupancy may also be considered an example of a strategy that acts to reproduce constraints by reinforcing existing subordination (Crow 1989: 17; Ratcliffe 2009: 435-36; Sarre 1986; see Section 2.3.3). The latter was reflected in the comments of one interviewee (Interviewee no. 7), who spoke of overcrowding as having become normalised among international students, with students even perpetuating the process when becoming landlords themselves121.
6.2.3 Reliance on co-ethnic networks Another strategy linked to the reinforcement of exploitation and poor conditions is reliance on co-ethnic networks. However, as discussed in Section 5.4.6, reliance on co- ethnic networks can also lead to positive outcomes. Most survey respondents (84%)
121 There were technical problems with the recording, hence the representation of this comment in summary form rather than as a quotation. 140 lived in accommodation where the main language spoken was a Chinese language122 (Figure 6.4) suggesting the acquisition of housing through the use of co-ethnic networks. Two interviewees referred to living with people of shared ethnicity or nationality as a strategic choice to overcome constraints such as lack of time and cultural misunderstandings:
“[International students] may not have the time to actually, if they have the inclination, do research, or look at more than one place. And if they’re already drawn to living with someone from their own country and living in that culture, then if they find a place where there’s already four other Chinese students, that’s the place they’re going to pick.” (Interviewee no. 2B)
“I think as a general rule...students would prefer to share with people from their own cultural backgrounds because it’s easier on so many levels. Food, communication, language, common rules, common understanding... I think international students not knowing the rules, the social rules, the cultural rules, I think that negotiation [with local co-sharers] is more difficult.” (Interviewee no. 3)
Figure 6.4 Main language spoken in survey respondents’ current accommodation
90 80 70 60 50 40 30
%of respdonents 20 10 0 Mandarin English Cantonese Other Chinese Other non- language Chinese language Main language spoken
392 respondents
One focus group participant reflected on his regular strategy of using Chinese student associations to find accommodation when studying overseas, although he noted that
122 Question 22. This category includes Mandarin, Cantonese and Other Chinese language. 141 this strategy had been impossible when moving to Sydney because an equivalent service did not exist:
“Every time when I relocate to a new place I try to first reach the local Chinese Students and Scholars Association, that’s CSSA, actually it’s very popular in the United States, in Canada, in Europe, so every school has a website...In other universities it is really easy to submit a request to an email group and tell you, this is some information about myself...what time I need an apartment...but I tried UNSW, there is no such listserv123, so bad luck.” (Yansong, male focus group participant)
While relying on ethnic connections can assist people to overcome inadequate policy or shortages of appropriate housing (Tomlins et al. 2002) and appeared to be a successful strategy for many research participants to find housing, it does not necessarily guarantee a smooth housing trajectory. For example, survey respondents who were living in households where the main language spoken was a Chinese language appeared to have had more difficulty finding that accommodation than those in predominantly non-Chinese speaking households (see Appendix 5, Table A.12)124. Although it was unclear what factors were at work here, this finding may suggest a high level of competition for accommodation shared with other Chinese people. Relying on co-ethnic networks was also associated with other disadvantages. Two interviewees and three focus group participants indicated that there were dangers associated with relying on Chinese networks in Sydney, as exploitation was common. This is illustrated by the two quotations below:
“For student landlords, especially Chinese student landlords, I suggest do not live with them because, I’m not saying that they’re all bad, but most of them rent a house and they rent it out, they want to make money and they wish to rent the house as much as possible. They’d rent a living room to two people and I heard that someone rented a house, a two-storey house and they separated it into twelve bedrooms... It’s not like I don’t like Chinese people, because I am a Chinese, I like to live with them but some of them are really, really mean, so it’s a big problem.” (Xinxin, female focus group participant)
123 A listserv is an electronic application that allows an email to be send to a mailing list of subscribers. 124 Questions 14 and 22. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Based also on the comparison of groups with considerably different numbers of respondents. 142
“I think [it] can be even more devastating when people come and say, somebody from home has done this. So there’s the shock and distrust around that, and also there’s that shared cultural background. So for example, we’ll often have Chinese students saying, I didn’t ask for a receipt because it was a fellow Chinese person and that’s quite offensive. So that actually creates that as an expectation, really, and leaves them even more vulnerable.” (Interviewee no. 4)
The variable of main language spoken at home was cross-tabulated with Question 23 of the survey, which addressed a number of conditions in students’ current accommodation (see Appendix 3) to ascertain whether there was any apparent difference between the incidence of poor housing outcomes in predominantly Chinese speaking households compared to predominantly non-Chinese speaking households. However, there was very little variation between the incidence of poor conditions in the two household types125. Further research would be required to establish whether there is a statistically significant connection between indicators of using co-ethnic networks, such as main household language, and poor housing outcomes.
However, Forbes-Mewett and Nyland’s article (2008: 197-98) on international student security, drawing on fifty-five interviews of different staff and student leaders working with international students at Melbourne’s Monash University, supports the idea of there being a relationship between reliance on co-ethnic networks and exploitation, noting that the perpetrators of exploitation and abuse are often from the same cultural community, although students may assume that accommodation organised by someone from their own community would protect them from such dangers. Australian researchers from Macquarie University in Sydney have identified a similar phenomenon – which they term ‘co-ethnic exploitation’ – among temporary skilled migrants from India living and working in Australia (Velayathum & Wise 2010). Although co-ethnic exploitation is still little understood, and yet to be explored in relation to international students, insights from this research shed some light on the situation among international students identified in the present study.
According to Velayathum (2013: 356-57), co-ethnics may be likely to deliberately exploit others from their own country or culture because they have a good understanding of the nature and extent of their vulnerability and know that they will be automatically
125 Questions 22 and 23. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 143 perceived as trustworthy. However, not all co-ethnic exploitation is malicious; it may also be a matter of co-ethnics benefitting from the connections and solidarity of their ethnic communities to succeed in business and fill service gaps, while at the same time determining ‘reasonable conditions’ on the basis of conditions experienced in the ‘homeland’. The many references to co-ethnic exploitation in the present study are consistent with these findings, however there was too little evidence of this phenomena to make any conclusions about the frequency of, and reasons for, co-ethnic exploitation in the Chinese student context. For example, the survey did not ask about the ethnicity or nationality of current landlords, meaning that conditions reported in the survey could not be identified as co-ethnic exploitation. Gathering further primary data in relation to co-ethnic exploitation among Chinese international students is therefore recommended in Section 8.4 of the thesis as an opportunity for further research.
In addition to exploitative housing outcomes, reliance on co-ethnic networks is also associated with cultural isolation. A number of Australian authors have noted the tendency for international students to mostly consort with people of the same cultural, linguistic or ethnic background or nationality while in Australia (Deumert et al. 2005; Rosenthal et al. 2006), and to choose dwellings and locations shared by people from similar backgrounds (Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development (DIIRD) 2008; GML Social Research 2011: 50). The resulting outcome of geographic concentration of international students has been identified with isolation from the wider community (DIIRD 2008; Fincher & Shaw 2009). Reliance on and preference for co-ethnic networks resulting in geographic concentration is also a common characteristic of migrant populations internationally (e.g. Fong & Chan 2010; Kaplan and Holloway 2001; Krysan 2008; Mendez et al. 2006; Moriah et al. 2004; Murdie et al. 1999; Ooka & Wellman 2003; Robinson et al. 2007; Teixeira 1998).
6.2.4 Making trade-offs One survey respondent’s description of their current accommodation reflects how international students may weigh up different housing outcomes and trade off those they deem to be higher priorities as a strategy for finding housing:
“The place I live in now is my first accommodation in Sydney. It is not the best, but considering the price and location (close to train station and near
144
supermarkets), it is acceptable even though it is a little bit far from my uni.” (Survey respondent no. 306)
Four interviewees referred to students making these kinds of trade-offs about cost, quality and location, including the following:
“A lot of them [Chinese students] do really want to be close to campus, and so they sacrifice space and quality for convenience a lot of the time.” (Interviewee no. 10)
“I guess with the affordability, you could say with a student, just to take the cheaper option, they could live quite a distance away. So there might be the challenge of travelling and they could end up somewhere like Campbelltown126.” (Interviewee no. 5)
In addition, three focus group participants indicated that they had chosen inconvenient locations far from campus in favour of other factors, namely, proximity to public transport and a convenient neighbourhood. Existing research on international students confirms that international students often trade off decent housing conditions for the sake of an attractive price or location (Argueta et al. 2009; GML Social Research 2011; Turcic 2008; Wesley 2009). It has also been acknowledged in the literature that international students may trade off a formal agreement and security of tenure to obtain shorter-term, flexible housing that better suits the duration of their study and visa and their plans to return home for holidays (Argueta et al. 2009; Power & McKenna 2005; Smith et al. 2007). Two interviewees and a focus group participant referred to this kind of trading security of tenure for flexibility, as exemplified below:
“Sometimes the agent requires you to sign a lease for at least one year, but you know we have holidays and usually up to three months. We cannot leave the house empty for three months. That’s too much money. [So you choose not to take a long lease with an agent].” (Xinxin, female focus group participant)
“There’s a lot of informal arrangements and agreements that happen... A student might say to a landlord, ‘I’m not really happy, I’m going to move out, but my friend Mary’s looking for somewhere’, well, the landlord’s happy, he’s got
126 Campbelltown is a suburb in Greater Sydney’s south-west, around 50km from the Sydney CBD and a great distance from most major university campuses. 145
someone and that person gets to move on. Now, under the legislation, that’s got nightmare written all over it, but both are happy with the arrangement, it’s fine. It’s only when one person says, ‘hang on a second!’ that it becomes problematic. And sometimes it’s the student doing the wrong thing, unknowingly, or sometimes knowingly, but mostly unknowingly I would say, and that’s when the tenancy side of things comes into play. Or bond issues.” (Interviewee no. 4)
Other student and low-income households also have a tendency to make such trade-offs (Burke & Pinnegar 2007; Hulse & Saugeres 2008; Rugg et al. 2002: 29). While they are often conscious, rational decisions, trade-offs are, in the end, compromises, and therefore have consequences in relation to housing quality and wellbeing (Burke & Pinnegar 2007). For example, trading security of tenure in favour of flexibility has advantages in that there are ‘no questions asked’ and may make housing more accessible, however there are also disadvantages associated with this compromise, such as less control over one’s living environment and more likelihood of overcrowding and high costs (Rex & Moore 1967: 38). Ottonelli and Torresi (2011) suggest, however, that such outcomes may be less problematic for temporary migrants, who are only in the country for a short time to accomplish particular educational or vocational goals, rather than attempting to settle and make a life for themselves. This privileged position may act as a further incentive for international students and other temporary migrants to make a variety of trade-offs that result in short term marginal tenancy status.
6.3 Strategies for dealing with problems with accommodation
Strategies are not only used for searching for housing, but also for coping when aspects of housing are unsatisfactory (Hulse & Saugeres 2008; Lister 2004; Olsen 2009). More than half of respondents to the survey had had difficulty resolving problems with their accommodation at some stage127 (Figure 6.5). While gender, age, level of study and main source of income did not appear to influence difficulty resolving problems128, different people are likely to respond differently to the same kinds of problems, as “some households are more enterprising, some more defensive, some have strategies in
127 Question 24. 128 Questions 3, 24, 29, 30 and 32. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 146 a weak sense, some in a strong sense” (Wallace 2002: 287). In Lister’s study (2004) of young renters in the UK, the absence of formal complaints procedures (similar to the situation for international students in Sydney, see Section 4.5.1) forced young people into other strategies to manage relationships with landlords and, for example, secure rightful repairs and maintenance. Many participants feared that direct strategies such as withholding rent might damage their relationship with the landlord, so they chose instead subtle, informal strategies that required a high level of negotiation skills (Lister 2004). It could be supposed that international students, lacking cultural knowledge and being more likely to lack proficiency in English, might struggle with such skills. Indeed, a study referring to international student accommodation strategies in Australia (Smith et al. 2001: 77) found that varying levels of internal resources such as experience and language ability made some students more active or passive than others in addressing issues like repairs and maintenance (Smith et al. 2007: 11):
“For the assertive student, or one who has lived in Australia for longer periods of time, continuous requests to estate agents to make repairs is not so difficult, however, many students are not able to push to have housing problems resolved.”
Figure 6.5 I have had difficulty resolving problems with my accommodation while in Sydney
12%
Never 44% Sometimes Often 44%
393 respondents
Diversity in strategic approaches, from active to passive, was reflected in the responses of focus group participants about the strategies they had used to address problems such as inappropriate landlord behaviour and inadequate repairs and maintenance. Their
147 strategies ranged from bearing with, ignoring or avoiding the problem at hand, to addressing the problem through negotiation with others or personal initiative, to evading the problem entirely. Sometimes only one strategy was chosen by focus group participants, in other cases two or more were tried successively as previous strategies failed to produce the desired result. There were no clear patterns in the types of students that undertook the various strategies, with focus group participants from both genders and levels of study referring to each approach129. However, it is likely that a larger sample may reflect a greater likelihood of certain types of international students undertaking certain types of strategies130. The three overall approaches identified from the focus group data also roughly corresponded with the frameworks presented in two studies of young people’s housing experiences in the UK (Christie et al. 2002; Lister 2004) and a well-known American article on the intra-urban migration process (Brown & Moore 1970). Consultation of this literature enabled further analysis of these strategic approaches and led to the use of the following terms to represent them in this section: ‘Tolerance’, ‘Modification’ and ‘Moving out’. The three key strategies are summarised in relation to the focus group findings and the identified literature in Table 6.1.
6.3.1 Tolerance
According to Anderson et al. (1994: 20), the decision not to act still represents a strategy. Comments made by four interviewees and one focus group participant suggested that fear of making trouble is a particularly influential constraint dissuading international students from taking any formal action regarding accommodation issues, even when this resource is available. For example:
“I’m sure for every person we see there would be ten that we don’t see...They just don’t want to create trouble. They don’t want to raise problems. They don’t want to challenge...So they recognise there’s a problem but they won’t do anything to fix it if it reflects badly on them...They think that anything they do could mean
129 Gender and level of study were the only demographic characteristics gathered from the focus group participants. Main source of income and age bracket, which were collected in the survey, were not requested of focus group participants. 130 There were only 19 focus group participants in the present study, which is not enough to make any generalisable or statistically significant conclusions about the influence of demographic variables. 148
their visa is revoked...I had one student whose Mum told her not to do anything.” (Interviewee no. 2B)
“The students here, the major targets is to study and gain degrees and they don’t want to make troubles because the language is our own language, and if we do something in legal stuffs it’s much more different, much more trouble for our studies here. So maybe they choose to just stop.” (Jianning, male focus group participant)
As well as fear of making trouble, unfamiliarity with and misconceptions about legal processes are also an apparent constraint deterring some international students from using the legal system to resolve housing issues. According to one interviewee:
“Many of them come from countries where they are a bit suspicious of the law and law enforcement; they don’t necessarily view the legal system in a facilitative way so I think a lot of people just take it on the chin when they get involved in a dispute, they just move on to the next place and don’t do anything about it.” (Interviewee no. 1B)
These issues are not only apparent in Sydney, but have also been raised by the VEOHRC which notes (VEOHRC 2008: 5) that:
“Due to the temporary nature of the student visa and limited understanding of Victorian laws and systems international students are unlikely to make formal complaints...The Commission has been told by international students that they fear making complaints [including housing complaints]...in case this jeopardises future employment and/or permanent resident status...Systemic issues, such as the 8303 student visa condition which prohibits activities which are ‘disruptive’ may cause fear and confusion amongst students. This visa condition may also be miscommunicated by unscrupulous operators to frighten students into not complaining.”
Fear of making trouble not only deterred students from taking formal action, but also from addressing problems informally through negotiation, in case it led to conflict and jeopardised their housing security. One interviewee explained the thought process of two students whose fear of making trouble prevented them from addressing inadequate housing conditions:
149
Table 6.1 Three strategies for coping with problems or inadequacies with accommodation
Focus group Lister (2004) Christie et al. (2002) Brown & Moore (1970)
Residential movement within urban areas in the USA Chinese international students – Young households in the UK – Students in the UK – coping with poor problems with accommodation managing relationships with private housing conditions landlords
Tolerance Maintaining tenancy relationships Tolerating poor conditions Adjusting household needs to fit the environment Bearing with, ignoring, avoiding the problem
Modification Restructuring tenancy relationships Making improvements to the dwelling to Restructuring the environment so it make it more ‘homely’ better satisfies household needs Addressing the problem through negotiation with others or personal initiative
Moving out Mobility Moving accommodation Relocating to housing that better fits household needs Evading the problem by moving out
Source: Author
150
“The two people I saw in this garage...were just putting up with it and I think they were probably doing that, firstly so they didn’t antagonise the people that owned the place, but also there was a fear of what moving out means, I don’t know where else I’m going to go, it’s very difficult to find another place that’s the correct rent.” (Interviewee no. 2A)
In addition to this, four focus group participants indicated that they ignored, avoided or simply did not know how to address co-sharers or landlords about problems they were causing. This kind of avoidance was also used by participants in Lister’s study (2004). While this strategy appeared to preserve housing security, it meant that other unsatisfactory outcomes remained problematic. As two focus group participants explained:
“In a sharehouse you sometimes will find your stuff being displaced and you don’t know who to ask...and you will be afraid that you will make them unhappy if you ask, so have to live with that. Okay, displaced, I just ignore. Sometimes your food been displaced or you can’t find your clothes, your socks. So it’s really a little bit tricky but I just couldn’t do anything about it because I don’t know who to ask or how.” (Lili, female focus group participant)
“We just reduced the frequency to meet [the landlord], so like we prefer transfer the renting instead of pay cash in person, so she will come our house much less than before, so it’s better.” (Yue, female focus group participant)
6.3.2 Modification Six focus group participants referred to cases where they had negotiated with landlords or co-sharers to address problems with their accommodation; however, these strategies were only successful in three of the cases. Examples of successful negotiation that were undertaken included the following:
“In my apartment we have seven people and we have only one old fridge and you always find it difficult to put your food in the fridge and we decided to ask the landlord to buy a new one so we can have two in the room and we offered a temptation for the landlord and we said that if you would buy a new one we will
151
be very willing to renew our contract for next semester so you won’t have trouble finding new tenants. So he finally agree.” (Haidong, male focus group participant)
“Last year I found someone in my apartment left the gas open, they put everyone of us in a risk...I told every one of them what had happened and I think the one who did this realised what he had done to us.” (Ming, male focus group participant)
Lister (2004) noted that although contractual private rental arrangements assume the ability of tenants to negotiate with landlords as legal equals, this is often not the case in practice due to power relationships that exist. Even when tenants were seeking something to which they were legally entitled, such as repairs and maintenance, they felt pressure to remain polite and subtly persuasive. Furthermore, negotiation was not always effective. However, many young people were found to be self-reliant, being “prepared to fend for themselves and take risks to restructure relationships, even though they did so in the context of unequal bargaining power” (2004: 322). One such focus group participant highlighted her determination to prevent inadequate conditions by negotiating with the landlord from the beginning:
“When I signed a contract with the landlord we just agree that he can agree me to move out at the beginning of the semester, not at the end of the semester...before you move in you need to make an agreement with the landlord. Otherwise you just don’t move in, or you will be in big trouble at the end!” (Xueling, female focus group participant)
According to Hulse & Saugeres (2008), lower income households are able to adapt in less than ideal housing conditions to make themselves feel at home and somewhat in control of their living circumstances. Personal actions that can be taken to improve housing outcomes include reducing spending elsewhere or taking on work to improve affordability, or making DIY modifications and maintenance (Pickvance & Pickvance 1994). These kinds of strategies were reflected in personal action taken by research participants, however they required access to resources such as adequate finances and information. Five focus group participants referred to instances where they had made strategies to personally address the problems they faced in their accommodation. For example:
152
“I had an internet reception problem at home. Firstly I talked to my landlord because it’s only me and him living in the apartment...After a few days I read an article about how to make an amplifier of the signal using the Coca Cola can and we started to make those little things at home and it improved the signal a little bit...After a few weeks I living with him he went back to China and everything, so because that distribution of the quota goes to my room and I tried to extend the wire because if I do that before it would cross his bed so the router will be placed on his bed. So after he went back to China I can make that arrangement. So these days my room can have a very good reception of the signal now.” (Yabo, female focus group participant)
“I have a problem with the window, the window has no lock, so it’s quite easy for people outside to open it and at first I feel it’s very unsafe , and I talk to my landlord and I don’t think he care...So after a week later I told him I deal with it myself. I found a steel bar to put it on the window so people cannot open it.” (Ying, female focus group participant)
6.3.3 Moving out Previous Australian studies on international students in Australia have indicated that international students are highly mobile, with most moving at least once during the course of their stay, often as a strategy for dealing with unsatisfactory living arrangements (GML Social Research 2011; James et al. 2010; Neri & Ville 2008; Rosenthal et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2007; Turcic 2008; Varghese & Brett 2011). This is not surprising considering that private renters, especially those on lower incomes, tend to move fairly frequently and tend to do so to avoid risks to their wellbeing (Hulse & Saugeres 2008; Hulse et al. 2011). The present study support these findings. Most survey respondents (78%) had moved at least once since arriving in Sydney (see Figure 6.6), and most of these (72%) twice or more131. Given that the majority of respondents (71%) had completed 2 years or less of study in Sydney, this indicates that much of the sample population had been fairly mobile (see Appendix 5, Table A.29)132.
Some of the major reasons cited for moving were related to upgrading conditions or
131 Question 9. 132 Questions 3 and 9. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 153 escaping negative conditions133 (see Figure 6.7). Gender, age, main source of income and level of study did not appear to have any bearing on whether or not students used moving out as a way of dealing with problems such as conflict, crowding or unsafe conditions134. It appeared to have been a strategy used by a broad range of survey respondents. The fact that more survey respondents were satisfied with their current accommodation (68%) than with their first accommodation135 (52%) suggests that this strategy may have contributed to improving housing outcomes over time. This corresponds with Christie et al.’s finding (2002) that students’ housing outcomes improved over time as they learned to identify and secure better properties. However, when satisfaction with current accommodation was cross-tabulated with the number of times respondents had moved since being in Sydney and the number of years of study they had completed in Sydney, there was no clear upward or downward trend in satisfaction over time136.
Figure 6.6 Number of times survey respondents had moved since coming to Sydney
6 + times 5%
4-5 times Never 12% 22%
2-3 times Once 39% 22%
393 respondents
133 Question 10. 134 Questions 22, 30 and 32 and 10. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 135 Questions 8 and 15. 136 Questions 3, 9 and 15. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Several categories also registered relatively very small numbers of respondents in relation to other categories. 154
Figure 6.7 Reasons for which survey respondents had moved accommodation137
Wanted to move closer to campus Wanted to find cheaper accommodation Lease / agreement finished Went back to China Wanted to move in with friends elsewhere Accommodation poorly maintained Too many people sharing accommodation
Conflict with landlord Reasonsmovingfor Accommodation unsafe Conflict with my house-mates / flat-mates Agreement did not include vacation period Lease / agreement not legal Evicted for doing something wrong Wanted to move in with partner / relatives Other
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 % of respondents
306 respondents
137 This was a multiple response question, so the percentages do not add to 100%
155
In summarising their overall housing trajectories, two focus group participants spoke in detail about the significance of moving house as a strategy for coping with inadequate conditions, and its apparent eventual success in enabling currently acceptable conditions:
“If they choose to have conflict with you, just quit, I just quit. It’s the simplest solution, I think...There are some problem that is unsolvable...The host that I broke up with...he punched me and I didn’t fight back because I think I’m just a room renter, I didn’t have another choice during the exam period and I tried to live up with it, and after that I moved out...When I first came to Australia, actually I called an agent in China to help me with accommodation first and they find me a homestay at the Matraville...the rent is $250 a week and plus the commute fee, that was probably $300 a week, and besides money, it took you a long time, a very long time to get to the uni. And then after one month – ‘cause one month is the compulsory period of time for living there – I moved to the...back end of Day Avenue. Actually there I met my first crazy landlord. And after half a year staying there I move out and had my second sad story, and this time I lived with another friend of mine. And that’s pretty well so far.” (Haiyong, male focus group participant)
“When I first came to Sydney I live in homestay and the problem is that homestay didn’t give me much food. So I tried to find a place I can cook for myself, and then I moved to a really good apartment, and the apartment has A/C, and it’s a totally new apartment, so I thought it’s really good, but it’s really expensive, so we need more people to share the room and there’s two guys live in another room, but they’re always smoking in their room so it’s really bad. So I’m able to find another place, I just want to share with another girl. And you know, if two people live together it’s maybe better than five people live together. And the problem is the girl has really, very bad lifestyle, throw everything everywhere and she can’t find anything. Totally disorganised. Then I moved out another place, tried to avoid this kind of situation, so I currently live in a single room by myself. And I rented a house from an agency, it’s a two-bedroom apartment. I live in one room and another two girls live in another bedroom. So it’s better, I can cook for myself and my own bedroom, and girls in there, no smoking, that’s good.” (Lili, female focus group participant)
156
An interviewee also described the mentality of many international students with regard to moving out as a common solution to housing problems in the following quotation:
“People are feeling the need to set up accommodation before they get here and it’s just that, I’ll just get anything and I’ll deal with it then. Then they get here, if it works out fine, great, they’ll continue, but if they run into any tenancy difficulties or flat share, they will move, or meet friends through their courses. ‘Oh, you’ve got a place...I’ll move in there’. I think that does happen a lot... and it becomes problematic when they don’t follow what’s required under the [Residential Tenancies] Act.” (Interviewee no. 4)
Marginal renters, like informal sub-lessees, are particularly likely to depend on this strategy for resolving disputes, as, while some may be eligible to pursue recourse against landlords through the General Division of the CTTT, most only have the option of going through the court system and relying on consumer and common law, which is costly, complex and unrealistic for international student housing issues (Martin 2011; Swinburne et al. 2011). However, as Lister (2004) points out, mobility is not always a strategy of preference, but often a last resort that reflects overall constraints to any other satisfactory solutions. Furthermore, while it may enable an individual to escape the problem at hand, it does not really represent a solution, as, especially if moving out occurs at the end of a fixed term, the landlord may not be prompted to “consider the reasons why the tenants leave or to assess whether the overall quality of the relationship, accommodation and services provided are satisfactory” (2004: 325) and problems may therefore be ongoing for future tenants.
6.4 Summary
Strategies represent the different ways in which international students respond to their housing context, engaging with the resources and constraints surrounding them to negotiate access to housing that meets their needs and preferences. Strategies are used both to find housing and to deal with housing problems, but may not necessarily be undertaken consciously or deliberately. They may simply reflect the underlying rationale behind a certain set of choices. Understanding international students’ strategies in both
157 of these areas helps explain how they respond to particular resources and constraints, as well as why they experience certain kinds of housing outcomes. This chapter identified a number of common strategies employed by international students in Sydney to find housing and deal with problems with their housing. Strategies were identified by international student participants themselves when asked about this topic in the focus groups, and also deduced from comments and responses in the interviews, surveys and focus groups justifying certain lines of action. Aspects of many of these strategies are also supported by the literature on international students in Australia and literature analysing the housing of immigrants, students, young people and ethnic minority groups.
Organising accommodation from overseas, multiple occupancy, relying on co-ethnic networks and making trade-offs were all found to be common strategies used by international students in general, and in particular among Chinese international students at UNSW, to find housing. While these strategies were often made consciously in an attempt to secure housing with desirable attributes, all four were associated with the risk of poor housing outcomes, especially through deception and exploitation. In relation to strategies used to address problems with housing, different people were found to respond in various ways, some more assertive, some more passive. Three broad approaches were identified in this research which corresponded with existing literature: tolerating conditions, modifying conditions through negotiation or personal initiative, and evading the problem by moving out. Fear of retribution was the prime motivator for passivity, and moving out was therefore also a common ‘easy’ option for improving housing conditions. Neither of these solve the underlying problems, however, and may rather perpetuate threats to students’ wellbeing. The next chapter examines in more depth the housing outcomes and wellbeing effects of international students’ housing trajectories which, as displayed in this chapter, are strongly connected to the strategies undertaken by international students.
158
Chapter 7: Housing outcomes and wellbeing
7. 1 Introduction
Chapter 6 explored common strategies used by international students to find housing and deal with problems relating to their housing. Many of those strategies were linked to particular housing outcomes, such as poor quality housing and crowding. This chapter has two purposes: to describe common housing outcomes with reference to the experiences of Chinese students at UNSW, and to explore their potential effects on student wellbeing. While accommodation is not the only factor influencing international students’ wellbeing, interviewees in the present study resoundingly agreed that it is a major contributor. Literature on international and other students points to the effects of housing outcomes on various objective measures of wellbeing, such as academic performance, and subjective measures, such as satisfaction (Christie et al. 2002; Grayson 1997; Holahan & Wilcox 1978; Holdsworth 2006; Humphrey & McCarthy 1997; Thompson et al. 1993). This chapter examines the full range of housing outcomes and wellbeing effects that were identified through the three primary research methods as important components of international students’ housing trajectories. Many of these have been previously identified as problematic areas for international students in Sydney, however the content of this chapter is based on the themes and data from the primary research. Housing research literature (reviewed in Sections 2.5 and 7.2) and media and literature regarding international education also assisted greatly with the interpretation, validation and labelling of these outcomes and their wellbeing effects, and are therefore thoroughly referenced throughout the chapter.
This chapter devotes significant attention to the incidence and implications of adverse housing outcomes that arose as common and problematic. However, care has been taken to present housing outcomes in a neutral light (for example, using the term ‘residential density’ rather than ‘overcrowding’) to ensure that satisfactory housing outcomes and positive wellbeing effects are not overlooked. The housing outcomes
159 explored in this chapter are: dwelling type, dwelling quality, residential density, dwelling location and neighbourhood conditions, tenure type, housing affordability, household type, household dynamics, housing security and residential mobility. These are divided into four categories of outcomes that are considered to be important within a trajectories framework: material housing outcomes, transactional housing outcomes, social housing outcomes and transitional housing outcomes. This original model of housing outcomes provides the structure for the chapter. It was developed from a combination of the key themes regarding housing outcomes arising from the analysis of qualitative data from the interviews, surveys and focus groups and from the terms and concepts that are commonly used in housing research literature to describe housing outcomes (outlined in Section 2.5.1). Throughout the analysis of housing outcomes, particular wellbeing effects are highlighted, in relation to both objective indicators, such as physical safety and finanical stress, and subjective indicators, such as satisfaction and self-reported positive and negative experiences.
7.2 Measuring the effects of housing outcomes on wellbeing
7.2.1 Four kinds of housing outcomes As explained in Section 2.5.1, housing outcomes refer to a large number of different aspects of the nature of a dwelling and its surroundings and how these are evaluated by its occupants (Murdie 2002). In the analysis of data from the interviews, survey and focus groups, certain housing outcomes were identified as featuring prominently in international students’ housing trajectories. In order to better understand the nature of, and relationships between, these outcomes, they were organised into an original model comprising four categories, each representing a different kind of housing outcome. Rather than separate housing outcomes into the two categories often used in the literature (see Section 2.5.1), the four kinds of housing outcomes identified were material, transactional, social and transitional (Figure 7.1). Material housing outcomes are defined here as physical characteristics of a dwelling and its surroundings. Transactional housing outcomes refer to the agreements made with regard to housing and associated conditions. Social housing outcomes are confined to the interaction of people within, and in relation to, the dwelling. Finally, transitional outcomes refer to the
160
circumstances contributing to the continuation of housing trajectories through residential mobility. The role of each kind of housing outcome in the housing trajectory is depicted in Figure 7.2. The categories are addressed in the same order in the remainder of this chapter. It should be noted, however, that these four categories, and the housing outcomes associated with them here, are not mutually exclusive, but overlap significantly, and have simply been employed as a way of clearly organising the different kinds of housing outcomes.
Figure 7.1 Four kinds of housing outcomes
MATERIAL SOCIAL Dwelling type & quality, Household type and
residential density, location & household dynamics neighbourhood conditions
TRANSACTIONAL TRANSITIONAL Tenure type & housing Housing security &
affordability residential mobility
Source: Author
Figure 7.2 Different kinds of housing outcomes and the housing trajectory
The housing search Housing is consumed, experienced and evaluated... process begins again...
Material Transactional Social Transitional Housing is housing outcomes housing outcomes housing outcomes housing outcomes acquired as a result of The dwelling The consumption The dwelling is the Under certain housing search acquired has of the dwelling is setting for a social circumstances, the strategies... particular physical determined by an environment in arrangement is characteristics arrangement with which interactions terminated certain conditions take place
Housing trajectory
Source: Author
161
7.2.2 Four kinds of wellbeing effects Two main ways of measuring wellbeing were described in Section 2.5.2: objective evaluation of conditions across a range of domains considered important by the society (e.g. health and financial resources) and subjective evaluation of conditions by individuals coupled with positive or negative emotional responses. In addition, the assessment of academic achievement by both the individual and their society were identified as particularly pertinent measures of wellbeing for international students. Objective and subjective wellbeing were measured in four main ways in this research. Objective wellbeing was mainly determined with reference to the literature and the comments by the interviewees about the effects of certain housing outcomes. Subjective wellbeing was measured according to students’ self-reported satisfaction with their accommodation, and also the positive and negative experiences they described with regard to their accommodation. The effects of housing outcomes on academic wellbeing were based on a combination of the literature, objective comments by the interviewees and subjective reports by students of how housing had impacted their study.
Most interviewees believed that housing outcomes had considerable impact on international students’ wellbeing and studies, for example one said the following:
“If...you’re living somewhere really unhappy, you can imagine the impact that would have on your general wellbeing or concentration.” (Interviewee no. 4)
Literature on international students and on the housing experiences of other related groups, such as young people and private renters, also makes connections between certain housing outcomes and wellbeing effects. Specifically, affordable, secure and appropriate housing is acknowledged to play an important role in a positive overall experience of studying in Australia (DIIRD 2008; Kumar et al. 2009; Power & McKenna 2005: 216), while living in an unsuitable environment can add to existing difficulties with coping with the demands of high level study in an unfamiliar country (McInnis & Hartley 2002: 64). A paper by the Tenants Union of Victoria (Power & McKenna 2005: 226) explained that adverse housing outcomes can strongly impact the wellbeing of students, to the extent of even damaging Australia’s reputation:
162
“If international students find themselves...facing issues such as homelessness during their stay, the experience is devastating for the individual and damaging to the industry as a whole.”
Although these insights into the effects of housing outcomes on objective wellbeing are threaded throughout the chapter, the emphasis is on self-reported evidence of effects on subjective wellbeing from survey respondents and focus group participants. Self- reported satisfaction is an important indicator of international student wellbeing (Rosenthal et al. 2006). Survey respondents were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with their first accommodation and their current accommodation in Sydney.138 In line with other Australian studies (GML Social Research 2011; Rosenthal et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2007; Varghese & Brett 2011), the majority of respondents (69%) were satisfied with their current accommodation139 (see Figure 7.3). Satisfaction with current accommodation was also cross-tabulated with the demographic data from the survey in order to ascertain whether different kinds of students were more or less likely to be satisfied with their accommodation. Gender, age and main language spoken in current accommodation appeared to have no bearing on satisfaction140. However, analysis of current satisfaction along with main source of income and level of study returned some potential relationships. Students relying on their partner’s income were considerably more satisfied than those who were reliant on parents or relatives or who were self- funded (see Appendix 5, Table A.13)141, and undergraduate students were more likely to be dissatisfied than postgraduate students with their current accommodation (Table A.14)142. Since existing research has found that the types of housing students occupy can affect student satisfaction (e.g. Fincher & Shaw 2009; Paltridge et al. 2010; Richardson 2003; Rosenthal et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2007), data regarding satisfaction with current accommodation were also cross-tabulated with data from other questions relating to aspects of housing type and housing outcomes. Potential relationships that emerged
138 Questions 8 and 15. Based on a five point scale consisting of: Very satisfied; Satisfied; Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Very dissatisfied. For the purposes of analysis, the categories of ‘Very satisfied’ and ‘Satisfied’ are combined (and similar for ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘Very Dissatisfied’). 139 Reference to ‘satisfaction with current accommodation’ in this thesis is based on a composite of satisfaction with current accommodation (Question 15) and satisfaction with first accommodation (Question 8) where respondents had not moved since their arrival in Sydney (Question 9). 140 Questions 8, 9, 15, 22, 29 and 30. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 141 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 30. As above. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on a comparison of 309 respondents with groups of 45 and 38. 142 Questions 2, 8, 9 and 15. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 163 from this analysis are reported throughout the chapter and in Appendix 5. As discussed in Section 3.4.2, all results from cross-tabulation in this study may be considered indicative only.
Figure 7.3 Survey respondents’ satisfaction with current accommodation
60
50
40
30
20 % of respondents of %
10
0 Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfaction with current accommodation
388 respondents
The relatively high rates of overall satisfaction returned by the survey could suggest that problematic housing outcomes are either uncommon, or have very little effect on Chinese international students at UNSW. However, as a report commissioned by a local council in Sydney stated, “being satisfied does not equate with living in optimal conditions for study and lifestyle” (GML Social Research 2011: 13), which is why other measures of wellbeing are also required when evaluating housing outcomes. The survey findings indicated that overall satisfaction at a particular point in time does not necessarily capture broader housing experiences, but is only one of an array of complex factors contributing to the housing experiences of an international student in Sydney. The findings demonstrated that self-reported satisfaction overall may coincide with considerable dissatisfaction in previous accommodation colouring the overall experience of accommodation in Sydney, with significant concerns and complaints about current housing, or even with objective problems such as crowding. For example, levels of satisfaction were surprisingly high among respondents who reported current conditions
164 that are considered to be problematic according to objective measures of wellbeing, such as unaffordability and crowding (see Appendix 5, Table A.27)143.
In order to more thoroughly capture the subjective experience of housing, survey respondents were also required to evaluate their housing through a question which asked them whether several aspects (e.g. location and household dynamics) of their current accommodation were adequate.144 These findings are reported in the sections dedicated to the various housing outcomes. Another important way in which survey respondents were able to self-report effects of housing outcomes on their wellbeing was in response to two open questions which asked respondents to write about their best and worst experiences of accommodation in Sydney145. These questions allowed respondents to freely identify the most important housing outcomes they had experienced and express or demonstrate how these had impacted their wellbeing. The most frequent housing outcomes referred to in these responses were household dynamics, location and neighbourhood conditions, housing quality, housing affordability and housing type. Importantly, one fifth of respondents (21%) had no negative experiences to report; however more than one in ten (13%) had no positive experiences to report, which was further evidence of the large variation between different students’ experiences. Comments about students’ best experiences (henceforth ‘positive experiences’) and worst experiences (henceforth ‘negative experiences’) are referred to and quoted throughout this chapter. Many responses vividly and explicitly portray the various impacts of housing outcomes on wellbeing, including the following response, which is annotated to highlight the amount of information that can be drawn from such comments and reflect the coding of the qualitative data:
“I live with 6 others students also from UNSW (household type). In fact, the rent is cheaper compared with the other places near the school (housing affordability). However the condition was poor (housing quality) and I didn’t have a good time get along with the landlord (household dynamics). About 7 people would have to share a bathroom and a kitchen together (housing quality, residential density). It’s quite inconvenience and the place is also dirty (housing quality) and makes people feel quite uncomfortable (subjective wellbeing). Also once the landlord told my
143 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 23. These findings can be considered indicative only. See Section 3.4.2 or Appendix 5. 144 Question 23. 145 Questions 27 and 28. 165
mother they also install camera to victim everyone’s actions in their room to make sure everyone is doing the right thing (household dynamics, housing security). I feel quite sick of this (subjective wellbeing) but my next agreement is on 17th July which is two weeks later. Before this I have nowhere to stay (housing security) and I feel very insecure and helpless (subjective wellbeing).” (Survey respondent no. 61)
One final way in which survey and focus group participants were able to report effects of housing outcomes on their wellbeing was through acknowledging that their accommodation had impacted their study. While academic achievement is likely to be the main preoccupation of most international students, Chinese students are known to experience particular pressure to succeed academically. One reason for this is cultural values and expectations regarding filial piety (e.g. Bodycott & Lai 2012; Liu 2009). Another is that the Chinese university students of recent years belong to the first wave of children from the nationwide One Child Policy, and are thus often the sole object for the family’s future aspirations (Xiang & Shen 2009: 516). A third reason is that Chinese families invest a disproportionate amount of money in overseas education, often taking out considerable loans, which means the stakes of success are high (Xiang & Shen 2009: 514, 516). The impact of housing experiences on study is therefore of prime importance for this group. The majority of survey respondents (64%) indicated that problems with accommodation had negatively impacted their studies at some point (see Figure 7.4)146. Undergraduate student respondents, respondents who were self-funded, and those who had been studying in Sydney for a year or more appeared to be the most likely to have had housing problems negatively impact their studies (see Appendix 5, Tables A.15, A.16 and A.17)147. Focus group participants were also asked how their accommodation affected their study, and referred to a range of housing outcomes, most commonly household type and household dynamics, as affecting their study time and quality. Many of these comments are included in the relevant sections throughout this chapter.
146 Part of Question 24. 147 Questions 2, 3, 24 and 32. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given the discrepancies between the numbers of respondents in some categories. 166
Figure 7.4 Problems with my accommodation have negatively impacted on my studies while in Sydney
16%
36% Never Sometimes
Often
48%
393 respondents
7. 3 Material housing outcomes and wellbeing
7.3.1 Dwelling type The vast majority of survey respondents (93%) were living in a private dwelling148. Most of these (72%) were living in a flat, unit or apartment (Figure 7.5). Student accommodation149 housed only a small number of students (7% of all respondents) by comparison. The prominence of off-campus private housing, especially flats and apartments, is also supported by the findings of other research involving international students across Australia (Argueta et al. 2009; Neri & Ville 2008; Smith et al. 2007). Student accommodation is also consistently reported to house only a minority of international students, although this minority varies from as many as one quarter of international students sampled (Argueta et al. 2009; Neri & Ville 2008) to fewer than 10% (GML Social Research 2011; Marginson et al. 2010)150. Other types of housing
148 Question 16. Private dwelling in this context refers to dwellings other than purpose-built student accommodation (i.e. residential college, student residence on campus, student residence off campus) and temporary accommodation (e.g. backpacker hostel). 149 Defined here as encompassing residential colleges and student residences on and off campus. 150 These discrepancies may be explained at least in part by the different sample sizes and research methods used in each study and the diverse ways of defining and measuring student 167 targeted to international students, including homestay and boarding houses (see Section 4.5.1), are covered under tenure type (Section 7.4.1) rather than dwelling type, as they are characterised by certain kinds of arrangements rather than certain kinds of buildings.
Figure 7.5 Dwelling types of survey respondents
Flat / unit / apartment
Separate house
Town house / terrace
Student residence on campus (e.g. UNSW Village)
Student residence off campus (e.g. Unilodge) Dwelling type Dwelling Residential college
Temporary accommodation (e.g. backpacker hostel)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 % of Respondents
393 respondents
In the present study, the respondents living in private dwellings demonstrated a higher rate of self-reported satisfaction than those in student accommodation (See Appendix 5, Table A.18)151, however given that the size of these groups varied substantially, the usefulness of this finding is limited. By comparison, much of the literature has lauded the benefits of student accommodation, which is claimed to offer greater safety, social connection and study support to international students (Forbes-Mewett and Nyland; GML Social Research 2011; Graycar 2009; James et al. 2010; Marginson et al. 2010; Paltridge et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2007). A survey conducted by Monash University’s accommodation service showed that 80% of international students surveyed believed that living on-campus was beneficial for their study. An analysis of the academic grades achieved by students living in on-campus accommodation over an eight-year period showed a consistently higher pass rate (Monash University 2010). Further, according to the Chinese Consulate-General in Sydney, on-campus accommodation was preferred by
accommodation, as well as the varying supply of student accommodation across different locations and institutions (Abbey 1994; Universities Australia 2011). 151 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 16. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of considerably different sizes, some with less than 10 respondents. 168 almost all the students in their interview sample, citing that it provides a good academic environment, saves transportation time and is much less likely to expose students to deception and scams than housing sourced through agencies or advertisements (Wang 2011). Consistent with these positive assessments of student accommodation, three interviewees and two focus group participants from the present study described some of the ways in which university housing can act as a resource for helping international students meet their housing needs and goals. For example:
“They’re on campus so they’re right in the thick of things, close to everything, safe, there are a whole lot of safeguards that [they’re not] necessarily going to have if they go and find their own place.” (Interviewee no. 2A)
“If I can afford I would prefer to live on campus, the college. They provide food and tutoring...I prefer the accommodation with food so it’s really easy and relaxing to live there.” (Yue, female focus group participant)
7.3.2 Dwelling quality Aspects of housing quality appeared to have a greater impact on wellbeing than dwelling type. Housing quality can be assessed according to physical defects, the functioning of utilities, upkeep of the property, the state of facilities in the kitchen and bathroom (Orr & Peach 1999), the presence of vermin and mould, fire and gas safety measures, and security (Marginson et al. 2010). A recent survey of international students across Australia found that 84% were satisfied with the quality of their accommodation (Varghese & Brett 2011). However, poor quality housing has often been associated with international students in Australia (Argueta et al. 2009; Brisbane City Council 2008; Dominello 2010; GML Social Research 2011; Marginson et al. 2010), which is problematic given that housing quality can have implications for many aspects of wellbeing, including satisfaction, health and safety (Christie et al. 2002; Clark 2009; Latimer & Woldoff 2010). The most important aspects of housing quality according to students’ self-reported experiences related to the upkeep of the dwelling, both in terms of cleanliness and repairs and maintenance, as well as the original structure of the
169 dwelling, in particular access to good facilities onsite, sufficient space and standard bedrooms152.
Figure 7.6 My accommodation is safe and well maintained
11%
10% Agree Disagree Don't know 79%
393 respondents
Most survey respondents (79%) indicated that their current accommodation was well maintained153 (Figure 7.6), however almost one quarter of respondents (23%) had moved in the past because this had not been the case154, demonstrating the potential impact for such conditions on students’ housing trajectories. As one survey respondent and one focus group participant demonstrated, inadequate cleanliness, repairs and maintenance can also impact international students’ wellbeing by consuming their time, energy and financial resources:
“The landlord also provided little effort to maintain the living condition thus the students who live there need to use their own time/money to keep a basic living condition.” (Survey respondent no. 186)
“There were lots of cockroaches in the kitchen where I lived. So we have to buy sprays and the things we can buy from the supermarket to deal with them. And we stopped using the toaster because we don’t think it’s clean...And we have to wash
152 Most positive experiences of housing quality related to cleanliness (15 references) and facilities (7 references). Negative experiences of housing quality most commonly related to not having a proper bedroom (11 references), repairs and maintenance (10 references) and facilities (10 references). 153 Question 23. 154 Question 10. 170
our cooking stuff before using them to make sure it’s clean.” (Bingfei, female focus group participant)
Problems relating to upkeep and facilities have also been associated with the housing of students and other young people in private rental in a number of studies in the UK and Australia (Burke et al. 2002; Ford et al. 2002; Johnson et al. 2010; Kenyon & Heath 2001; Lister 2004). However, not having a proper bedroom seems to be particularly common for international students (e.g. Dominello 2010, Noyon 2011)155. According to the information provided by research participants and media reports from Sydney and other Australian cities, when international students refer to not having a proper bedroom, they may be indicating one of three things: that they are sleeping in a common area such as a living room, enclosed balcony or garage; that one of these areas or, indeed, a bedroom, has been subdivided or partitioned (often without authorisation) to create one or more small rooms; or that some kind of ‘hot-bedding’ arrangement, where students shared beds in shifts, is occurring. The survey found that 162 respondents (41%) had lived in a room that was not a proper bedroom at some point while in Sydney (Figure 7.7)156. Just under one third of these had often had this experience, and males appeared to be more likely than females to not live in a proper bedroom (see Appendix 5, Table A.19)157. These are significant findings which demonstrate a high frequency of this kind of substandard condition amongst Chinese students in Sydney. It is also the only case identified in the literature review for this research where the incidence of this issue has been measured in a substantial sample.
The tragic death of a young Chinese student in 2012 as a result of a fire in a subdivided Sydney apartment highlighted how such arrangements can pose a serious threat to physical wellbeing (McNeilage 2012), while the following comments of two survey respondents illustrate the great impact these conditions can have on subjective wellbeing:
“The room is actually not a real bedroom. It was separated by woody board so the sound proof ability is quite poor and the room is so narrow for even one person to live comfortably. What is worse is that during the last time I lived in the room, the
155 Although Rugg et al. (2000) mention the subdivision of rooms occurring in a number of jurisdictions among students in the UK, this is not portrayed as a mainstream concern to the extent that it was in the present study. 156 Question 24. 157 Questions 24 and 29. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 171
landlord...even began to run a kindergarten next to my “room”. So the noises were haunting day and night.” (Survey respondent no. 107)
“Half living room in a big house. $150 per week. Chinese landlord. The house was in poor condition. The other half live a Australian (separate the living room by wardrobe). We can heard everything from each other. No privacy. We both leave there later.” (Survey respondent no. 195)
Figure 7.7 I have lived in a room that was not a proper bedroom while in Sydney
13%
Never Sometimes 28% 59% Often
393 respondents
7.3.3 Residential density The practice of partitioning rooms enables more people than intended to live in a dwelling, increasing the residential density. ‘Density’ is an objective, neutral term that refers to the number of people inhabiting a physical space (Churchman 1999: 390). When density is subjectively evaluated as negative and affectively experienced as such, it is known as ‘crowding’. Different individuals and cultures have varying expectations for what conditions of density constitute crowding (Churchman 1999: 390). Crowding is known to hold adverse implications for mental and physical health and household relations (Baldassare 1981; Huang 2003; Mitchell 1971). The first way in which density was evaluated in this research was, therefore, through the subjective perceptions of respondents, and whether they perceived the density of their dwelling to be acceptable. More than half (55%) of survey respondents indicated that they had lived in accommodation in Sydney that they perceived to be shared by too many people, and 172 nearly one third (30%) of these had experienced this often158 (Figure 7.8). In addition, nearly one in five respondents (17%) had moved at least once for this reason. Gender, age, main source of income and level of study did not appear to influence who had moved for this reason159, however younger students were more likely to have lived in accommodation shared by too many people at some stage (see Appendix 5, Table A.20)160. Further, twenty-one survey respondents wrote about negative experiences of crowding. These findings indicate that the wellbeing of a large number of Chinese student respondents may have been compromised as a result of conditions they perceived to be crowded. Negative experiences relating to density included the following:
“Seven people live in a three bedroom house but with only one bathroom.” (Survey respondent no. 139)
“I shared a master room with a girl before in city. There are 5 people living in the same place. Moreover, there is a boy living in the common area. The apartment is always very crowded, and they don’t pay much attention to the living environment.” (Survey respondent no. 391)
Figure 7.8 I have lived in accommodation shared by too many people while in Sydney
17% Never
45% Sometimes
Often 38%
393 respondents
158 Question 24. 159 Questions 3, 10, 29, 30 and 32. 160 Questions 24 and 30. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 173
In Australia, the term ‘overcrowding’ (rather than simply ‘crowding’) is commonly used in association with international student housing conditions (e.g. Kembrey 2012; Noor & Richards 2011; Thomas 2011). Two interviewees gave examples of the kind of conditions considered by observers to be overcrowding:
“What’s happening in these high-rises...in the CBD, is that you’ll have four to a room, you’ll have more in the loungeroom, and some in the enclosed balcony. Usually around
$180-$200 each, and it’s often head tenants...and the owners know nothing about it.” (Interviewee no. 1)
“There were actually nine living in the place...the third bedroom had two beds put into it, the lounge room was curtained off and there were two or three beds behind the curtain...There was also a curtain put across an area near the kitchen and one bed behind those, then there was a bed put underneath the stairway and then as well, that unscrupulous landlord also let out the garage and just put newspaper underneath it...and actually had two beds hidden behind the newspaper.” (Interviewee no. 6)
However, overcrowding can be defined in many different ways. Some authors point out that conditions which may be perceived as crowded in Western culture may be acceptable to Chinese students and migrants, who have different expectations regarding density and are content to share with several others (Anderson 1972; Gao & Liu 1998: 36; Huang 2003; Obeng-Odoom 2012: 210). For example, sharing dormitory rooms with several others is commonplace in on-campus accommodation in China (Duan 2003; Jin & Cortazzi 2006; Wang 2011), though much less common in Australia. Interestingly, a survey of Chinese international students in NSW by the Chinese Consulate-General found that, while most Chinese students shared rooms and crowded 7-9 students into a house or unit for affordability reasons, these conditions were not preferred and were considered to be poor living conditions lacking in privacy, basic amenities and personal security (Wang 2011).
Regardless of whether some international students are satisfied with examples such as those listed above, objective measures of wellbeing according to Australian standards indicate that they represent crowding, and therefore that they place international students’ wellbeing at risk. While the Australian Bureau of Statistics acknowledges that 174 there is no universally accepted definition of overcrowding, it employs the Canadian National Occupancy Standard (CNOS)161 to represent the minimum standard for acceptable density in Australia (ABS 2011b). By this standard, it reported that more than one quarter of international students in 2006 had high levels of overcrowding, which was considerably more than for domestic students and the general population. This standard was also applied to the survey data from this research, which found that most (71%) survey respondents’ accommodation complied162, however there was still a considerable minority of a similar size that reported in the ABS data who were living in crowded conditions163.
Crowded international student accommodation is widely considered to be detrimental to the wellbeing of the international students themselves, as well as their dwelling and neighbours (e.g. Thomas 2011). Concerns that have been raised by student advocates and local governments include:
Poor fire safety due to, for example, overloaded electrical circuits and an excess of belongings or furniture impeding evacuation (Noor 2011; Thomas 2011) Inadequate bathroom and kitchen amenities (Dominello 2010) Pressure on garbage facilities, increasing the risk of vermin infestation (Dominello 2010; Thomas 2011) Increased use of shared facilities and services in apartment blocks leading to increased operating costs passed on to other owners (Thomas 2011) Increased spread of infectious disease (Noor 2011; Thomas 2011) Lack of personal space impinging on mental health (Noor 2011).
In addition to these effects, an interviewee and several focus group participants also noted the potential impact of overcrowding on their ability to study, which is an important aspect of student wellbeing:
161 This standard states that there should be no more than two persons per bedroom, and, that while parents or couples may share a bedroom, single household members aged 18 years and over should have separate bedrooms (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2005). 162 More than half of respondents (58%) currently had a bedroom to themselves, and 51 (13%) shared their bedroom with only their partner, totalling 71% who were living in appropriate housing according to the standard. 163 A further 90 respondents (23%) were sharing a bedroom with one other person who was not a partner, 2 (1%) were sharing a bedroom with a partner and child(ren), and 19 (5%) were sharing a bedroom with more than one other person, totalling 29% whose living conditions were not appropriate according to the CNOS. 175
“It [be]comes a question of if there’s adequate space and security...if the shared facilities are reasonable...and if they’ve got any private space to actually get any study done.” (Interviewee no. 2A)
“Another point is the internet. Because if the internet is not good, like about ten people share only small area of the internet, there will be some problem for student who want to do their research at home because they want to write the essay, they have to meet the deadline. So I had that experience.” (Wendi, female focus group participant)
7.3.4 Dwelling location and neighbourhood conditions The majority of survey respondents (80%) were satisfied with the location of their current accommodation, however 15% were not satisfied164 (Figure 7.9). Location was found to be an important outcome affecting overall perception of housing, in that respondents who were not satisfied with the location of their current accommodation were considerably less satisfied with their current accommodation overall (See Appendix 5, Table A.21)165. The most common aspect of location mentioned in respondents’ positive experiences was proximity to the university, with forty-seven respondents mentioning this. For example:
“I am now living quite near the campus, which helps me save lots of time.” (Survey respondent no. 385)
“Actually, I am extremely satisfied with my accommodation location, it is in Kingsford just beside uni, I spend 5 minutes to walk to uni everyday and it gives me many convenience.” (Survey respondent no. 328)
Indeed, most respondents were living quite close to UNSW. Seventy-seven per cent were living in the Eastern Suburbs, the area in which UNSW is located, at the time they completed the survey (see Table 7.1)166. Almost half of these (47%) were living in the same suburb as the university, Kingsford, and therefore within very close walking distance. Studies in Sydney and Melbourne have drawn attention to the importance of
164 Question 23. 165 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 23. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of considerably different sizes. 166 Question 31. 176 living within walking distance of the educational institution for international students, especially for those without access to concession fares on public transport (MacroPlan Australia 2006; Turcic 2008). A survey of Chinese students in NSW by the Consulate- General of the PRC found that most Chinese students choose to live near to the universities because of the reduced transport costs and other convenience factors, even though housing prices in those locations are much higher (Wang 2011). One focus group participant reflected on the advantages of living close to the campus for his own personal wellbeing, and another described how travel distance between home and the university could impact their studies and overall wellbeing, both showing the benefit of living close to campus:
“My accommodation is so great, it’s one minute walk to the classroom, so I can wake up like 8:35...But if I’m tired, I can go back and take a nap. Just so great, I love this accommodation.” (Yansong, male focus group participant)
“When I first came to Sydney I live in Burwood because that’s the only place I can find accommodation that is close to the train station. And I found it’s hard, exhausting because every day...it took me about two hours and it’s during the peak hour. So that’s pretty bad traffic jam on road. So when I got home I just get tired, and the next morning I get up early to avoid the traffic jam.” (Liang, male focus group participant).
Figure 7.9 I am happy with the location of my current accommodation
5% 15%
Agree Disagree Don't know 80%
393 respondents
177
Table 7.1 Geographic location of survey respondents
Region No. % CBD / INNER CITY 26 7 EASTERN SUBURBS 299 77 2018 Eastlakes, Rosebery 7 2167 2020 Mascot 7 2 2021 Centennial Park, Moore Park, Paddington 1 0 2023 Bellevue Hill 1 0 2026 Bondi, North Bondi, Tamarama 4 1 2031 Clovelly, Clovelly West, Randwick, St Pauls 39 13 2032 Kingsford, Daceyville 140 47 2033 Kensington 49 16 2035 Maroubra, Maroubra South, Pagewood 30 10 2036 Chifley, Eastgardens, Hillsdale, La Perouse, Little Bay, 16 5 Malabar, Matraville, Phillip Bay, Port Botany 2052 UNSW 5 2 OTHER SUBURBS 62 16 Total 387 100
However, it is not only proximity to the university that determines a good location. International students also value public transport and proximity to activity centres with necessary services and desired entertainment (MacroPlan Australia 2006). Other neighbourhood conditions known to contribute to people’s housing decisions and satisfaction include the aesthetics, convenience and reputation of the neighbourhood, availability and quality of services, and the safety, cleanliness and atmosphere of the surroundings (Orr & Peach 1999). Of the 35 survey respondents who referred to aspects of neighbourhood conditions in their best and worst responses, most positive comments were related to convenience (15 references), and most negative comments to safety (7 references). For example:
“My accommodation locates at a really convenient place to me where I can almost handle everything of my daily life, except study, in less than 20-minutes- walking distance.” (Survey respondent no. 12)
“That district/city is not safe enough. Drunk people and malicious teenager.” (Survey respondent no. 16)
167 Percentage of Eastern Suburbs residents. 178
Given that safety has been an issue of particular concern for international students in Australian cities in recent years, with numerous instances of attacks on international students (Cai 2012; Callinan 2009; Marginson et al. 2010), the contribution of housing to safety is important to note. Many commentators have referred to the influence of location of housing on student safety, especially when they need to commute on public transport or by foot at night time (Senate 2009; Turcic 2008; Wesley 2009). The Chinese Consulate-General reported that increasing neighbourhood crime involving Chinese international students provoked concerns for their safety (Wang 2011). Although neighbourhood safety was not specified, nearly half (47%) of respondents to the survey conducted for this research said they had lived in accommodation where they felt unsafe at some stage168 (Figure 7.10), with one in ten respondents having moved at least once for this reason169. This is considerably lower than the 93% of international students in a survey of 35,308 students across Australia who felt safe in their accommodation (Varghese & Brett 2011). The reference of two focus group participants to neighbourhood safety being a problem suggests that many of the survey respondents in the present study were likely to have neighbourhood safety in mind. Both focus group participants demonstrated the impact of perceived safety risks on wellbeing and study patterns:
“I heard from some of my friends it’s not safe, especially around uni, maybe at night or some local people like to drink. If they’re drunk, they do some bad things to students so my parents and I also afraid to these things.” (Ying, female focus group participant)
“Everyone know [street name] is bad news...If you live very close to the university but if you live in a not-so-security street, maybe you should go home more early than your classmates.” (Jianning, male focus group participant)
168 Question 24. 169 Question 10. 179
Figure 7.10 I have lived in accommodation where I have felt unsafe while in Sydney
10%
Never Sometimes 37% 53% Often
393 respondents
7. 4 Transactional housing outcomes and wellbeing
7.4.1 Tenure type Most existing Australian studies have shown that international students mainly live in privately rented dwellings (Argueta et al. 2009; Evaluation Solutions 2010; James et al. 2010; Khawaja & Dempsey 2008; Marginson et al. 2010; Neri & Ville 2008). The present study supported these findings, with 87% of survey respondents living in private rental arrangements170. The most common arrangement was tenancy with rent paid to an individual private owner, however, sub-letting, or paying rent to another tenant, was also common (Figure 7.11). From an objective wellbeing perspective, research on international students in Sydney notes that their dependence on private rental, due to not being able to stay in the parental home, makes them more vulnerable to housing problems than other students (Obeng-Odoom 2012:208). Subjectively, however, the majority of respondents living in private rental arrangements were satisfied with their current accommodation (See Appendix 5, Table A.22)171. Of these, the respondents
170 Question 17. Private rental here refers to either paying rent directly to a private owner, a real estate agent or another tenant. 171 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 17. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of considerably different sizes, some with less than 10 respondents. 180 paying rent to a real estate agent had the highest level of satisfaction, and those subletting from another tenant the lowest (see Appendix 5, Table A.23) 172.
Figure 7.11 Tenure types of survey respondents
I pay rent directly to an individual private owner I pay rent to another tenant I pay rent to a real estate agent I pay fees to a company / organisation I live with my relatives at no cost I live with a home stay family and pay them I own it
Accommodation arrangementAccommodation I live with my relatives and pay them Other
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 % of Respondents
386 respondents
After the various private rental arrangements, the most common form of tenure was paying a company or organisation for accommodation173 (Figure 7.11). The majority of these respondents (65%) were also satisfied with their current accommodation, and were equally satisfied as those in private rental arrangements (see Appendix 5, Table A.22)174. However, given the large discrepancy between the numbers of respondents living in private rental housing compared to paying a company or organisation, the usefulness of this result is limited. Most of the respondents paying fees to a company organisation were living in student residences on- or off-campus, however a significant minority (30%) indicated they were living in a flat/unit/apartment or separate house. It is unclear what kind of arrangement these responses represent, but could point to some kind of hostel or boarding house175. Few other studies have examined boarding house as
172 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 17. As above. 173 Those who said they paid a company or organisation for their accommodation did not include the four respondents who lived in a dormitory room in a residential college, who were allowed to skip that question. 174 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 16. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of considerably different sizes, some with less than 10 respondents. 175 Boarding house was not included as a category in the survey because boarding houses are unregulated and a range of different kinds of arrangements where several students share 181 a housing type, and those that have found such accommodation also represented only a minority of international students – between 4-4.5% across Australia (Argueta et al. 2009; Marginson et al. 2010) and 16%176 in Ryde, Sydney (GML Social Research 2011). Another tenure arrangement targeted to international students (see Section 4.5.1), homestay, also hosted only a very small proportion of survey respondents (2%). This was fairly consistent with other Australian studies (Argueta et al. 2009; Marginson et al. 2010), including one focused on Sydney (GML Social Research 2011). Argueta et al. (2009) did find, however, that international students were three times as likely as domestic students to live in such arrangements.
When cross-tabulated with satisfaction, homestay and home ownership yielded the highest rates of satisfaction, at 100% each. This was followed closely by living with relatives, where 93% of respondents were satisfied (see Appendix 5, Table A.22)177. However, the numbers of respondents living in these tenure types were so small, especially in comparison to the major tenure types, that the results of this analysis cannot be considered representative. However, subjective wellbeing can be measured based on comments about accommodation experiences in the survey. Despite the relatively few respondents in homestay accommodation, these arrangements were the most common tenure type discussed in terms of both negative and positive experiences, suggesting that homestay experiences were memorable to, and polarising for, respondents. This is in line with observations in the advocacy and research literature that homestay experiences can vary widely from very positive to very negative (Archer 2008; GML Social Research 2011; Marginson et al. 2010; Power & McKenna 2005) due to the lack of regulation of the sector178 (Marginson et al. 2010; Social Policy Committee
housing may be considered boarding houses, including some homestay arrangements, and instances of paying rent directly to a private owner, head tenant, agent or organisation. While boarding houses have been a central concern in Sydney media and advocacy regarding international students, these reports have mainly been in relation to the suburban context surrounding Macquarie University. 176 The 16% referred to share houses which may be informal boarding houses without legal protection; and the corresponding study was undertaken in an area of Sydney known to have a large informal boarding house market (Dominello 2010; Noyon 2011; Patty 2011). 177 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 16. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of considerably different sizes, some with less than 10 respondents. 178 While many operators in the homestay, boarding house and student accommodation sectors are represented by umbrella organisations such as the Australian Homestay Network and the Property Owners Association of NSW, the standards in these industries are not regulated (NSW Ombudsman 2011 ; Social Policy Committee 2011). 182
2011). The spectrum of experiences in homestay is represented by the contrast of the following quotations:
“My first accommodation was home stay and the landlord and landlady regarded me as a family member.” (Survey respondent no. 146).
“Living in a homestay, which cost me quite a lot but the food and living conditions are not worth that money.” (Survey respondent no. 235)
7.4.2 Housing affordability As discussed in Chapter 4, housing affordability is an ongoing problem for many groups in Australia’s major cities, including young people and students (Gilmore 2010; Zappone 2012). Objective measures of wellbeing demonstrate that unaffordable housing can adversely impact wellbeing by contributing to health problems, financial stress, mobility and poor household relations (Burke & Pinnegar 2007; Johnson et al. 2009). Interviewees resoundingly identified affordability as the major challenge facing university students in Sydney, with international students being no exception. As discussed in Section 5.3.4, not all international students are as well off as they are often perceived. Indeed, one study comparing international and domestic students across Australia (Argueta et al. 2009) found that more international students than domestic students had problems with affordability.
Most survey respondents (77%) in the present study considered their current accommodation to be affordable (Figure 7.12)179, which was significantly higher than the finding of a nation-wide study that found that only 60% were satisfied with housing costs (Varghese & Brett 2011). However, most survey respondents in the present study (65%) also reported having lived at some point in housing they could not really afford (Figure 7.13)180. Around one third of these (32%) had experienced this often. Undergraduate respondents and under-25s were more likely to have paid more than they could afford for housing (see Appendix 5, Tables A.24 and A.25)181. Seventeen respondents referred to positive experiences relating to cost highlighting good value for
179 Question 23. 180 Question 24. 181 Questions 2, 24 and 30. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 183 money, but 70 respondents referred to negative experiences regarding cost. Examples of positive and negative comments included:
“I met a local landlord, who offered me a relatively cheap and comfortable accommodation.” (Survey respondent no. 217)
“The rental is too much expensive and it probably have bad competition since the accommodation around uni is quite expensive that I couldn’t afford it. And the accommodation provided by university accommodation is more expensive than rent room from other private landlord.” (Survey respondent no. 313).
Figure 7.12 I can afford the cost of my current accommodation
6% 17%
Agree Disagree Don't know 77%
393 respondents
Affordability was mainly seen to be a problem with housing on campus or close to the university by survey respondents and focus group participants. Although Australian commentators have differed on whether or not purpose built student accommodation works out to be more expensive than other options, all inclusions considered, there is consensus that many students at least perceive this to be the case, and therefore consider it beyond their reach (Argueta et al. 2009; Fincher & Shaw 2009; Smith et al. 2007). Financial difficulty resulting from unaffordable housing can have significant wellbeing implications, as financial resources are also needed for tuition and living costs. Financial stress has been associated with insecurity, depression, anxiety and compromised study among international students in Australia (Forbes-Mewett et al. 2009; Richards 2012; Rosenthal et al. 2006).
184
Figure 7.13 I have paid more money for accommodation that what I could really afford while in Sydney
21%
35% Never Sometimes Often 43%
393 respondents182
7. 5 Social housing outcomes and wellbeing
7.5.1 Household type Section 6.2.2 reported that the majority of international student survey respondents share their housing with others. In line with other Australian research (Forbes-Mewett et al. 2006; James et al. 2010; Marginson et al. 2010: 163; Rosenthal et al. 2006), a large proportion of survey respondents (41%) were sharing with friends. However, an even larger proportion (55%) were living with people they had not known before (Figure 7.14)183. Whether previously known or unknown, other students were the most common household members. Despite sharing accommodation, the majority of survey respondents for the present study (58%) had their own room (see Figure 7.15)184. However, 13% were sharing their room with a partner, and nearly one quarter (23%) sharing their room with another person who was not their partner. Only 5% were
182 Figures rounded do not add to 100%. 183 Question 19 184 Question 21 185 sharing their room with more than one other person, which would seem to indicate that cases identified by some interviewees where three to four students share a room are not common among this group of students.
Figure 7.14 Household types of survey respondents185
People unknown before (students) Existing friends (students) The landlord People unknown before (non-students) Partner / spouse No one Other family members
Existing friends (non-students) Peoplesharing accommodation Parent(s)
0 10 20 30 40 50 % of respondents
389 respondents
Figure 7.15 Number of other people sharing respondents’ rooms
70
60
50
40
30
%Respondents of 20
10
0 No one Partner Child(ren) Partner & 1 other 2-3 other 3 + other child(ren) person people people Number of other people sharing room
391 respondents
185 This was a multiple response question, therefore percentages do not add to 100%. 186
Household type was found to have a noticeable impact on satisfaction, and therefore, wellbeing. Respondents to the survey who were living with friends, family and/or a landlord were generally more satisfied with their current accommodation than those living alone or with strangers186 (see Appendix 5, Table A.26). In addition, almost all of the 29% of respondents who had changed their accommodation in order to change their household type had wanted to move in with friends elsewhere187. Positive housing experiences relating to household type were most often connected to living with friends (32 references), and several focus group participants discussed the benefits of living with friends while studying in Australia, demonstrating the positive impact of such household arrangements on student wellbeing. Positive comments from the survey and focus groups regarding living with friends included:
“Live with friends, cook and share food together. These are really nice experience.” (Survey respondent no. 302)
“If you live with your friends, you can take care of each other and you feel some really at home, and you feel like have some positive feelings when you try to study. I think it’s the positive part of being with friends.” (Yue, female focus group participant)
Participants demonstrated that household type was not only important for relational support and household dynamics, as exemplified in the earlier quotes, but also for more functional reasons. An interviewee and a focus group member, for example explained the practical advantages of living with other students.
“Everybody’s sharing with other students. So they all have the same stressful times, they all need to be studying at the same times, they’re living with likeminded people. So you’re not living with someone who works at a bar and comes home at four in the morning and then decides to party with their friends, or whatever.” (Interviewee no. 9)
“It’s pretty good to live with classmates. Like if you’ve got some confusing stuff you can do some brainstorm and share some ideas. It’s pretty good for the final examination, because everyone just do the same thing and we prepare. So maybe
186 Questions 15 and 19. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of varying sizes. 187 Question 10. 187
the work will be less and the results will be better.” (Huijun, female focus group participant)
7.5.2 Household dynamics Another social factor found to influence student experience was household dynamics, or the nature of relationships with housing providers (including both live-in and off-site landlords) and co-sharers. Most survey respondents had good relationships with their housing providers (84%)188 (Figure 7.16), however 51% of respondents perceived that they had been treated unfairly by a landlord at some point189 (Figure 7.17), and 14% of respondents had moved due to conflict with a landlord190. Furthermore, 73 survey respondents wrote about negative experiences with ‘bad’ landlords. Various instances of unfair and unethical landlord behaviour arose in the interviews, survey and focus groups, and were linked with instability, stress, financial loss and restricted lifestyle and study quality. Further, when cross-tabulated with satisfaction with current accommodation, a poor relationship with the landlord was associated with the highest rate of overall dissatisfaction with accommodation191 (see Appendix 5, Table A.26). These findings resonates with Lister’s comment regarding young people in the UK (2004: 323) that “landlords’ behaviour and management practices can have a profoundly negative impact upon young people and their experiences of independent living.”
In the survey questions about landlord behaviour, no distinction was made between landlords living in the same property as respondents and those living off-site. While only 13% of respondents shared accommodation with their landlord (Figure 7.14), and the majority of these were satisfied with their accommodation192 (see Appendix 5, Table A.26), many of the negative landlord experiences recounted by respondents related to live-in landlords. For example:
“[I] rented a bedroom from a Australian Chinese woman and she stolen my valuable things and humiliated my friends and me quite often, finally forced me to leave without any notification.” (Survey respondent no. 389)
188 Question 23. 189 Question 24. 190 Question 10. 191 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 23. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of varying sizes. 192 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 19. As above. 188
“Our landlord...did not allow us to cook in the morning because they had to sleep. But we have class in the morning. We have to cook, we have to eat something before we go to the class. But they just do not allow us to do that so we had to go to the uni...hungry.” (Xinxin, female focus group participant)
Figure 7.16 I have a good relationship with the person / people I pay for my accommodation
10% 5% Agree Disagree Don't know 84%
393 respondents193
Figure 7.17 I have been treated unfairly by a landlord while in Sydney
13%
Never 49% Sometimes 38% Often
393 respondents
193 Figures rounded do not add to 100%. 189
Community and university tenancy advocates and media in Sydney have argued that international students are specifically targeted by ‘unscrupulous landlords’ and head tenants because of their vulnerability, knowing that they will pay more for housing or earn less income and put up with poor conditions (Dominello 2010; Narushima 2011; NSW Legislative Assembly 2010). Exploitation may include routinely evicting students and keeping their bonds and misleading students as to how many people will share their room (CMY 2008; Noyon 2011; Smith 2009a; Stewart 2010; Swinburne et al. 2011; Turcic 2008; Ziguras & Harwood 2009). A number of sources have also reported that exploitation has in some cases extended as far as students being manipulated to appease landlords with sexual favours (Marginson et al. 2010: 155; Narushima 2011b; Patty 2011). Cross-tabulation of demographic data with a question on whether the respondent’s current lease follows legal requirements suggested that self-funding students and older students may be more likely to encounter this situation194 (see Appendix 5, Tables A.1 and A.28). However, not all housing provider experiences were negative, and positive relationships with housing providers were shown to have a significant impact on student satisfaction. For example:
“This place where I’m now living, the homestay family is very kind and friendly, we always cook both Chinese food and Greek food, they’re both delicious. And sometimes my host takes me to her relatives’ house and have dinner. It’s fantastic experience and I love it!” (Survey respondent no. 72).
Most survey respondents (86%) also indicated they had good relationships with their current co-sharers (Figure 7.18)195. One interviewee explained the importance of these household dynamics in the following terms:
“If you’re sharing with somebody you’re not getting along with, then it just permeates through every aspect of your life.” (Interviewee no. 3)
Positive experiences with both co-sharers and live-in housing providers seemed to hinge on friendliness, support and interaction, with good household dynamics generating enjoyment and practical support, and enhancing the overall experience of studying in
194 Questions 22, 30, 32 and 23. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of varying sizes.
195 Question 23. 190
Australia. This was also reflected in the focus groups. Some examples of survey and focus group comments regarding positive relationships with co-sharers were:
“The other tenants picked me up from airport and drove me to the supermarket the next day.” (Survey respondent no. 245)
“The two boys are really nice, and sometimes I can ask questions about life and study and anything, and they’re very nice and answer your questions. And one of the boys had problems studying...so [another] helps him with the program and assignments.” (Xinxin, female focus group participant)
Figure 7.18 I have a good relationship with the other people I live with
10% 4%
Agree Disagree Don't know 86%
393 respondents
At the same time, lack of connection or inconsiderate behaviour can cause dissatisfaction, prompt further moves, and adversely impact sleep and study. For example, conflict with co-sharers caused nearly one in ten (8%) of survey respondents to move196. Poor relationships with co-sharers were also associated with relatively high levels of overall dissatisfaction with current accommodation197 (see Appendix 5, Table A.27). Survey respondents and focus group participants both attested to the negative impacts of poor relationships with co-sharers. For example:
196 Question 10 197 Questions 8, 9, 15 and 23. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of varying sizes. 191
“After I moved to [student accommodation], I felt not pleasant as I expected. My flatmates don’t contact with each other which make me feel like live with strangers. So I moved out after 6 months.” (Survey respondent no. 170)
“Sometimes my house mate would have a party, and they sing really loudly, and chatting and, because I’m sharing a room with another girl, so sometimes when she watch a movie or chatting with her friends, or like Skype, or QQ, so it makes sounds a lot. But I have to bear with her because I don’t want to study in the living room, because there are more people like cooking there, or chatting.” (Yue, female focus group participant)
7.6 Transitional housing outcomes and wellbeing
7.6.1 Housing security Secure, stable housing arrangements promote safety, privacy, comfort, belonging and a sense of control, while vulnerability to unwanted changes in housing situation can greatly impact experience and wellbeing (Hulse & Saugeres 2008; Hulse et al. 2011). Housing insecurity can affect many other areas of life, including financial security, employment security, physical and mental health, security of self and family stability, with insecure housing contributing to or exacerbating anxiety and depression (Hulse & Saugeres 2008). An extreme expression of housing insecurity is homelessness. More than one quarter of respondents to the survey (29%) indicated that, while in Sydney, they had at some point experienced having nowhere to stay at all198 (Figure 7.19). They were not asked how long this was for, the reason it occurred or where they stayed at the time, however this result provides an indication of the substantial mobility and instability experienced by some survey respondents, and would undoubtedly impact their wellbeing.
Even when housing is acquired, sudden changes can put wellbeing at risk. For example, the issue of sudden eviction was mentioned by participants in the interviews, survey and focus groups, especially with reference to the stress and disruption to study this
198 Question 24. 192 situation can cause when it occurs at a critical time of semester:
“Once during the exam period, the terrible landlord was being really mean and asked me to leave.” (Survey respondent no. 378)
“It’s very annoying if your landlord ask you to move out before the final is coming. So you’ve got two weeks to find a new apartment but you need time to review the lecture notes and something like that – it’s very, very horrible...I don’t think it’s reasonable for students. ‘Cause accommodation should give you a thing like stable, comfortable, like home, but sometimes, because you rent it, you didn’t own it, so it’s a big trouble.” (Huijun, female focus group participant)
Figure 7.19 I have experienced having nowhere to stay while in Sydney
7%
21% Never Sometimes Often 72%
393 respondents
Two interviewees elaborated on the potential implications of these kinds of situations on student wellbeing and academic performance:
“When things go wrong and it’s around exam time...that’s going to have a huge impact...on your stress levels as well and your wellbeing. Because moving house is meant to be one of the biggest life stresses in the first place...plus exams on top of that...” (Interviewee no. 1A)
“I’ve written numerous times to lecturers...the student is in the middle of, either a tenancy problem or the landlord’s doing something where they have to move at really short notice, they need an extension on an assignment or some sort of
193
special consideration, just because it’s stressful... you might just, you can’t go to a class that day, because you don’t have anywhere to live.” (Interviewee no. 2B)
7.6.2 Residential mobility It was reported in Section 6.3.3 that international students, including those in the survey sample for this research, are highly mobile. Although moves can be ‘positive’ in that people choose to attain preferred accommodation, they also often have a forced character (such as the evictions mentioned in Section 7.6.1), be prompted by dissatisfaction with current conditions, or be necessary as a result of constraints on housing choice (Ozuekren & van Kempen 2002). Frequent moves, especially those beyond a person’s control, can be stressful and make it difficult to secure stable living conditions that promote mental, physical, social, and financial wellbeing as well as work or study (Hulse & Saugeres 2008; Hulse et al. 2011). Moving house not only brings the hassle of change, but also added financial burdens for bonds, rent in advance and relocation costs which can contribute to financial insecurity (Hulse & Saugeres 2008).
Substantial numbers of respondents had moved several times in a relatively short period (see Appendix 5, Table A.29)199. Particularly striking examples include that one third (34%) of students who had moved 4-5 times (and therefore lived in 5-6 different dwellings) had been studying in Sydney for only 1-2 years. Moreover, 95% of respondents who had lived in seven or more dwellings during their time in Sydney had been studying in Sydney for five years or less, indicating more than one move per year200. Interestingly, Rosenthal et al. (2006) found little difference between the mean rating of satisfaction of students who had not changed their accommodation at all and those who had changed it 1-3 or even 4-6 times. Only those who had moved more than 6 times demonstrated a considerably lower mean rating of satisfaction. The sample size in the present study was too small to produce a reliable equivalent finding, however no clear upward or downward trend in satisfaction was identified over time when satisfaction with current accommodation was cross-tabulated with number of moves since being in Sydney201.
199 Questions 3 and 9. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. Extra caution should be used given that this is also based on groups of varying sizes, with some cells including fewer than 10 cases. 200 As above. 201 Questions 9 and 15. Indicative only. See Section 3.4.2. 194
7.7 Summary
This chapter identified a number of common housing outcomes experienced by international students, in particular Chinese international students at UNSW, and demonstrated the ways in which these outcomes can impact student wellbeing. Housing outcomes were categorised as material, transactional, social or transitional. Material housing outcomes explored included dwelling type, quality, density and location. Transactional housing outcomes examined characteristics of the housing agreement or arrangement, namely tenure type and affordability. Social housing outcomes explored included household type and household dynamics, and finally, transitional housing outcomes encompassed factors relating to moving between dwellings, in particular housing security and residential mobility. Wellbeing was assessed through objective assessments from the interviewees and literature, self-reported satisfaction with housing, positive and negative experiences described by student respondents, and evaluations by students and interviewees of the impacts of housing on study.
While the majority of survey respondents were satisfied with their current accommodation, and positive housing experiences were common, many had experienced housing problems in their previous accommodation and/or reported other issues of concern in their current accommodation. Notably, most respondents had lived in crowded and unaffordable housing at some point while in Sydney, and large proportions had been treated unfairly by a landlord, lived in a room that was not a proper bedroom, or been homeless at some point. Such outcomes were shown to hold implications for student wellbeing, with the potential to affect their physical safety and mental health, satisfaction and experience, and study quality. At the same time, positive experiences in these and other areas were shown to enhance wellbeing and academic performance. The findings presented in this chapter demonstrate the wide spectrum of international student housing experiences and the great potential they have to shape overall wellbeing, both positively and negatively. Importantly, the chapter provides evidence that a number of key concerns raised by the media and student advocates are in fact commonplace.
195
Chapter 8: Conclusion
8. 1 Introduction
In recent years, the Australian media has often reported on problematic housing outcomes experienced by international students, especially relating to affordability, overcrowding and exploitation (e.g. Collins 2010; Fife-Yeomans 2011; Hasham 2011; Monfries 2011; Patty 2012; Stewart 2010; Sun 2010). A growing body of Australian research, advocacy and government literature has affirmed that such problems are experienced by many international students (e.g. Argueta et al. 2009; Brisbane City Council 2008; DIIRD 2008; Fincher & Shaw 2009; GML Social Research 2011; Jakubowicz & Monani 2010; Kumar et al. 2009; Obeng-Odoom 2010; Marginson et al. 2010; Smith 2007; Social Policy Committee 2011). However, this literature has yet to provide adequate evidence of the nature, extent and implications of these problems and the circumstances that influence their occurrence. This thesis begins to address these gaps in the literature by examining the housing experiences of international students within a housing trajectories framework. The research focussed on Chinese international students at UNSW as a case study to identify, substantiate, describe and explain common housing outcomes experienced by international students across Australia. Chinese students are the largest national group in Australian international education and UNSW hosts the largest number of international students of any Australian university. This concluding chapter overviews the approach and findings of the research and discusses implications for further research and policy development.
8.2 Approach
The purpose of this research was to obtain an in-depth understanding of the poor housing conditions reportedly experienced by some international students in Sydney, based on the assumption that such outcomes, such as unaffordability, overcrowding and exploitation, did not occur in a vacuum, but rather resulted from broader forces and processes. Therefore, if these forces and processes could be better understood, such problematic housing outcomes could be prevented or reduced. Two main research 196 questions guided the investigation of housing experiences of international students in Sydney. These were:
1. What are the main problematic housing outcomes experienced by international students in Sydney? 2. What circumstances influence the housing outcomes of international students in Sydney?
The first research question was intended to identify, describe and substantiate common problems experienced by international students in Sydney with regard to their housing. The second research question sought to identify circumstances in the housing trajectories of international students that may help explain how and why they encounter certain problematic housing outcomes. The supposition that problematic housing outcomes are influenced by preceding circumstances led to the development and application of a housing trajectories framework. This framework was developed from a combination of data from scoping 11 interviews with key stakeholders working with international students in Sydney and a thorough review of literature from housing research, social theory and international education, and was then tested in its application to data from a survey and focus groups of Chinese international students at UNSW (Chapters 2 and 3). Data from the 393 survey respondents and 19 focus group participants validated the conceptual framework as a useful model for understanding international students’ housing experiences. It also demonstrated the extent to which issues identified in the interviews and literature review were a problem for Chinese international students at UNSW as a case study group, provided detailed evidence on the nature and implications of these and other issues, and helped to link problematic housing outcomes with prior circumstances and implications for student wellbeing.
8.3 Findings
8. 3.1 Problematic housing outcomes experienced by international students in Sydney The interviews, survey and focus groups found that problematic housing outcomes such as unaffordability, crowding and exploitation raised in the media and literature were prevalent among international students in Sydney, and commonly experienced by
197
Chinese international students at UNSW. A range of other problematic housing outcomes receiving less attention in the media and literature were also found to be commonly encountered by this group. Although largely focussed on a case study group from one nationality and university, these findings suggest that the frequency and implications of housing problems might be significant among the broader international student population in Australia. The common problematic housing outcomes identified and examined in this thesis (Chapter 7) are:
Poor maintenance Feeling unsafe Sleeping in common areas or partitioned rooms Crowding Dissatisfaction with location Unaffordable housing costs Exploitation by landlords Household conflict Homelessness Frequent moves
While many of these issues have been raised before in the media or literature, this research provided unprecedented evidence of the extent to which these problems are encountered by a sample group of international students in Sydney and unique insights into how they are experienced and their implications for student wellbeing. Most survey respondents had, at some point while in Sydney, lived in unaffordable or crowded housing. Large proportions had been treated unfairly by a landlord, felt unsafe in their accommodation, or lived in a room that was not a proper bedroom. Smaller, but still significant, proportions of students had been homeless at some stage, had moved due to poorly maintained accommodation or conflict with co-sharers, had changed accommodation four or more times, or were dissatisfied with the location of their current accommodation. These problematic housing outcomes were found to have implications for various aspects of international students’ wellbeing, including financial stability, emotional wellbeing and the capacity to study effectively. Wellbeing effects were evident in the comments made by interviewees, survey respondents’ self-reported satisfaction with their accommodation and positive and negative experiences recounted by participants in the survey and focus groups.
198
Due to the preceding emphasis on negative experiences such as these in the public sphere, the research questions and the design of the primary methods were problem- focussed, reflecting an assumption that international students’ housing experiences would be negative. While significant problems were identified, and many of them found to be common, this was not the whole picture. Indeed, the majority of survey respondents considered that their first and current accommodation arrangements were satisfactory overall. Further, most survey respondents indicated that they did not have difficulty finding accommodation and reported satisfactory conditions in terms of their household relationships, location, agreement conditions and housing quality. In addition, while negative experiences with various kinds of housing outcomes were found to be detrimental to student wellbeing, positive experiences in relation to the same outcomes were also shown to enhance student wellbeing.
These positive findings do not, however, invalidate the findings of significant and common problematic housing outcomes among Chinese international students at UNSW, and potentially more broadly. This thesis has argued that overall satisfaction with a particular form of accommodation is only one of many considerations in evaluating housing outcomes. Students’ self-reported experiences in their current and previous accommodation as well as more objective measures of wellbeing such as crowding are also important indicators.
8.3.2 Circumstances influencing the housing outcomes of international students in Sydney In addition to evidence about problematic housing outcomes, this thesis provides original insights into how and why international students may experience such outcomes, with reference to Chinese international students at UNSW as a case study group. These findings arose from the development and application of an original housing trajectories framework described in Section 8.2. According to a thorough search of the literature, this research provides the first application of a housing trajectories framework to international students’ housing experiences and the first in-depth analysis of international student housing strategies. The framework also builds on previous research regarding the housing careers, pathways and trajectories of related groups (e.g. Christie et al. 2002, Ford et al. 2002; Hulchanski 1997; Murdie et al. 1999; Robinson et al. 2007; Rugg et al. 2004) and further incorporates social theory regarding the 199 integration of structure and agency and the relationship between housing outcomes and wellbeing. Although it was impossible to establish cause and effect, it was evident that a number of key structural factors (Chapter 4), resources (Chapter 5), constraints (Chapter 5) and strategies (Chapter 6) influenced international students’ housing outcomes overall, and therefore the problematic housing outcomes and wellbeing effects they experienced (Chapter 7). For example, exploitation by landlords (a housing outcome) was found to be linked to the targeting of marginal rental housing options to international students (a structural factor), frequent use of the internet (a resource), lack of knowledge (a constraint), reliance on co-ethnic resources (a strategy) and stress and financial loss (wellbeing effects).
The following structural factors were found to influence international students’ housing outcomes by shaping their housing context:
the internationalisation and commercialisation of higher education in Australia; immigration policies enabling increases in Chinese and student migration to Australia; deficits in the rights and entitlements of international students in NSW, limited purpose-built student accommodation in Australia; inadequate regulation of the marginal rental sector in NSW; and competitive and expensive private rental market conditions in Sydney.
National and international policy change in higher education and immigration have influenced the size and profile of the international student population in Sydney, which effects local housing demand and puts pressure on local housing markets. Immigration and higher education policy have also determined the status of international students as temporary migrants and consumers which affects their rights and entitlements at national and state levels and makes them ineligible for a number of services and benefits enjoyed by other groups. The types of accommodation available to, and targeted at, international students also influence their housing choices and experiences, with most international students ending up in the marginal rental sector due to a shortage of university accommodation and the targeting of unregulated accommodation types to international students.
In addition to structural factors that shape the housing context, every international student is faced with a variety of resources and constraints at the local level that
200 enhance or restrict their ability to meet their housing needs and preferences. While resources and constraints vary between individuals, the following circumstances were identified as being particularly influential:
knowledge of local geography, culture and standards, and laws and rights; experience of living out of home or of living in Sydney; time to search for housing and deal with housing problems; financial resources; ethnicity, language and culture; information and services on the internet; family and friendship networks; other students at university; education and real estate agents; university accommodation services; and co-ethnic networks within the Chinese community.
Together, these circumstances can combine to create a complex cycle of vulnerability to problematic housing outcomes. The inadequate supply of affordable housing in Sydney (in particular the shortage of purpose-built student accommodation) was found to contribute to a strong dependence on the private rental market among international students in Sydney, especially marginal rental options exempt from the protection of NSW tenancy law. These conditions, in combination with the limited rights and entitlements enjoyed by international students under national and state policies, their lack of knowledge and experience of the local housing system, and their reliance on informal resources (e.g. the internet, social networks) rather than formalised services, were shown to make them more likely to choose housing arrangements that made them susceptible to poor housing outcomes such as crowding and exploitation. Where this occurred, lack of knowledge and legal protection could also mean that there were few solutions other than moving out. These factors have been identified elsewhere, but this research provides unprecedented evidence of their relationships.
However, international students are not passive victims of these structural factors, resources and constraints. Rather, the research found that international students actively negotiate them via strategies they use to find accommodation and deal with related problems. This perspective advances the discourse on international student housing from a fixation on problems to an understanding that problems may be 201 preventable if intervention is undertaken to empower students to develop effective housing strategies. Seven major strategies were identified from the research data, including four used commonly by international students to find accommodation, and three to deal with problems with their accommodation. These were:
organising accommodation from overseas; multiple occupancy; relying on co-ethnic networks; making trade-offs; tolerating problems; modifying living arrangements or environments; and moving out.
Data from the interviews, survey and focus groups indicated that organising accommodation from overseas, multiple occupancy, reliance on co-ethnic networks and making trade-offs between different housing outcomes were common among international students seeking housing. Indeed, most survey respondents had organised their first accommodation from overseas, shared their accommodation with others, and lived with other Chinese-speakers. However, all four strategies were found to be potentially dangerous, making many students vulnerable to exploitation and poor conditions. International students’ responses to problems with their housing were found to vary from passive strategies (tolerating problems) through to more active strategies (modifying living arrangements or environments or moving out). A general reluctance to cause trouble appeared to prevent many students from directly confronting or negotiating with their landlords or co-sharers, thereby leaving many problematic housing conditions unresolved.
8.4 Implications for further research and policy development
The findings presented in this thesis contribute to a small but growing body of evidence regarding the housing outcomes experienced by international students in Australia, and highlight a number of areas where further research is needed. They also provide information that will be valuable for policy makers and practitioners in promoting 202 international student wellbeing. Findings from the survey may be considered representative of the housing experiences of Chinese international students at UNSW, and in conjunction with the focus group data provide practical insights into the effectiveness of university initiatives and the incidence of issues that remain to be addressed with regard to this particular student population. For example, a key problem area identified by the research was a lack of awareness of information and services offered by the university, government and community organisations, which prevented some Chinese students from benefitting from these valuable resources. This indicates a need for a greater understanding of the communication barriers in operation for Chinese international students at UNSW and innovative policy solutions to increase their awareness of services. Both of these needs could be addressed through further research on how services are promoted at UNSW and how effective these strategies are with regard to different nationality groups. The findings of such research would also be beneficial to other universities in enhancing the effectiveness of student support initiatives.
Another opportunity for further research relates to the impact of nationally or culturally specific experiences, values and expectations on international students’ housing experiences. The present study touched on this in relation to Chinese students, however in order to ascertain the impact of, for example, norms regarding on-campus accommodation at Chinese universities and the importance of social networks in Chinese society, more in-depth research involving Chinese students and students from other nationalities is required. Comments by a number of participants in the present study about exploitation of Chinese students by people of Chinese nationality or background highlight another area of opportunity for future research. Further research on co-exploitation among Chinese international students could provide insights into how frequently, and for what reasons, this occurs, as well as provide suggestions as to how international students may be protected from these practices.
Although the focus on Chinese international students at UNSW has resulted in practical insights that may be applied in relation to this group, it also limits the generalisability of many of the findings to the broader international student population in Sydney or Australia, as do the small sample sizes used and the predominantly qualitative approach. However, most of the data presented in this thesis supports existing literature that refers to the housing experiences of international students of various nationalities in
203
Sydney and across Australia. This suggests that this research may be indicative of broader experiences in the international student population. In order to confirm whether this is the case, and to obtain more genearlisable data on the housing experiences of international students as a whole, further research is required. This research would need to compare the housing experiences of students from various nationalities, universities and locations across Australia and involve larger samples, permitting more quantitative analysis and the testing of statistical significance.
Regardless of the extent to which the findings of the present study are directly generaliseable to the international student populations in Sydney, Australia and elsewhere, they provide important insights into the potential impact of housing outcomes on student wellbeing and the complex circumstances that can underlie housing problems. These contributions are very timely given the increasing profile of international student wellbeing on the Australian public agenda (e.g. Australian Government 2010; Power & McKenna 2005; Kubitschko 2008; Varghese & Brett 2011; VEOHRC 2008) and recognition by governments of the important contribution of accommodation to international student wellbeing and the integrity of the international education sector (AHRC 2012; Australian Government 2010; COAG 2010; Social Policy 2011).
The housing trajectories framework used to analyse the housing experiences of Chinese international students in this thesis offers an original perspective on the occurrence of problematic housing outcomes among international students in Sydney, positioning international students as neither passive victims nor exclusively rational agents, but as actors who engage to varying degrees with aspects of their housing context to meet their housing needs and preferences. This integration of structure and agency provides a useful lens for policy makers and practitioners to apply when attempting to understand and address problematic housing outcomes among international students. The housing trajectories framework could also be similarly applied beyond UNSW and Sydney, informing research into promoting positive housing outcomes among international students and other similar groups elsewhere in Australia and overseas. Further application of the framework could again test and develop its validity and usefulness as an analytical tool.
The finding that housing outcomes are influenced by structural factors, resources and constraints and strategies implies that problematic housing outcomes may in fact be 204 prevented through intervention. If both positive and negative housing outcomes can be linked to particular circumstances in students’ housing contexts and decision making processes, then modifying those circumstances could promote positive outcomes. A preventative, rather than reactive, approach to addressing problematic housing outcomes among international students in Sydney could both modify the housing context – such as by increasing the supply of student housing, greater regulation of the marginal rental sector and expanding the rights and entitlements of international students – and equip and empower students to make more informed and effective housing strategies – such as by improving the accessibility of formalised services, providing more targeted information and creating opportunities for students to gain experience in the housing market. The circumstances identified by the present research as influencing the housing outcomes of Chinese international students at UNSW are a useful starting point for developing initiatives to prevent problematic housing outcomes. However, more research is required to confirm that such measures would be successful. The piloting and formal evaluation of specific initiatives would need to be a part of this process.
The research presented in this thesis represents a significant step towards filling the gaps in the literature regarding international student housing experiences and meets the recent call from the Australian Human Rights Commission for more research on international students’ living arrangements (AHRC 2012: 14). The findings of this research regarding the nature, extent and implications of problematic housing outcomes among Chinese international students at UNSW and the circumstances that influence their housing outcomes will provide researchers, governments, universities and other stakeholders with a greater understanding of the housing experiences of international students, and therefore inform more effective initiatives to promote their wellbeing. It is the hope of the researcher that these findings will contribute to greater community awareness of the challenges faced by international students and be used by stakeholders in positions of power to protect and improve the housing experiences of international students across Australia, both for the benefit of the students themselves and for the Australian society and economy.
205
Reference List
Abbey, B. 1994, ‘Student housing: A retrospect and some prospects’, Journal of Tertiary Education Administration, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 195-204.
Adelman, H. 1994, Immigration and refugee policy: Australia and Canada compared, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Altbach, P.G. and Knight, J. 2007, ‘The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities’, Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 11, no. 3-4, pp. 290-305.
Anderson, E.N. 1972, ‘Some Chinese Methods of Dealing with Crowding’, Urban Anthropology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 141-150.
Anderson, M., Bechhofer, F. and Gershuny, J. (eds) 1994, The Social and Political Economy of the Household, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Anderson, P., Hume, A., Rogers, N. and Stephenson, T. 2003, ‘‘It’s no palace’, Boarding Houses: the sector, its clientele and its future. Department of Human Services, Adelaide.
AOBO 2012, Opal: About Us, AOBO, viewed 25 January 2013, http://6au.com/misc.php?mod=faq&action=faq&id=1.
Archer, T. 2008, Tenants Union of Victoria Submission to Overseas Student Experience Taskforce, Tenants Union of Victoria.
Argueta, J., Brown, N., Mittelman, D., Renda, B., Salvatori, R. and Smeal, A. 2009, An Assessment of Fire Safety in Australia‘s International Student Housing, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Melbourne.
Aston, H. 2010, ‘Exposed: Sydney's great rental rip-off’, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 April 2010.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2002, ‘International Trade in Education Services’, Australian Economic Indicators, Jan 2002, Cat. no. 1350, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, Household use of information technology, Australia, Cat. no. 8146.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, Overseas Students, Cat. no. 3416.0, Perspectives on Migrants, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009, ‘Home and away: the living arrangements of young people’, Australian Social Trends, Cat. no. 4102.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. 206
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011a, Australian Social Trends December 2011: International students. Cat. no. 4102.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011b, Key Issues: Overcrowding, Cat no. 2050.0.55.002, Position Paper, ABS Review of Counting the Homeless Methodology, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011c, 2009-10 Migration, Cat. no. 3412.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011d, Standard Australian Classification of Countries, Second Edition, Revision 1, 2011, Cat. No. 1269.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012a, ‘Geographic Distribution of the Population’, Year Book of Australia, 2012, Cat. no. 1301.1, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012b, ‘Income and Community Support’, Income and welfare, Year Book Australia, 2012, Cat. no. 1301.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012c, Quick Stats, Census 2011, viewed 24 September 2012, http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/quickstats?opendocu ment&navpos=220.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012d, Table Builder 2011, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Council of Private Education and Training 2012, Achieving equitable travel benefits for international students. An Australian Council for Private Education and Training positioning paper, Australian Council of Private Education and Training, Melbourne.
Australian Education International 2010, International student survey 2010: Report of the consolidated results from the higher education, VET, ELICOS and schools sectors in Australia, Australian Education International, Canberra.
Australian Education International 2011, International Student Enrolments in Australia 1994-2011, viewed 17 September 2012, https://aei.gov.au/research/International- Student-Data/Pages/InternationalStudentData2011.aspx#1.
Australian Education International 2012a, Basic Pivot Tables 2012, https://aei.gov.au/research/International-Student- Data/Pages/InternationalStudentData2011.aspx, viewed 16 December 2012
Australian Education International 2012b, Chinese students abroad – 2011 figures released, viewed 25 January 2013, https://aei.gov.au/News/Latest- News/Pages/Article-Chinesestudentsabroad-2011figuresreleased.aspx.
207
Australian Education International 2012c, Explanatory notes for AEI student enrolment data, viewed 17 September 2012, https://aei.gov.au/research/International- Student-Data/Pages/ExplanatoryNotesforAEIStudentEnrolmentData.aspx.
Australian Education International 2012d, Monthly Summary of International Student Enrolment Data - Australia - YTD July 2012, Australian Education International, Canberra.
Australian Education International 2012e, Research Snapshot: International student numbers 2011, Australian Education International, Canberra.
Australian Government 2010, Stronger, simpler, smarter ESOS: supporting international students: Review of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000, Australian Government, Canberra.
Australian Government 2011, Strategic Review of the Student Visa Program 2011 Report, Australian Government, Canberra.
Australian Government 2012, Study In Australia, viewed 12 December 2012, http://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au.
Australian Human Rights Commission 2012, Principles to promote and protect the human rights of international students, Australian Human Rights Commission, Sydney.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2005, 2.02 Overcrowding in housing, viewed 29 January 2013, www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442458667.
Baas, M. 2010, Imagined mobility: migration and transnationalism among Indian students in Australia, Anthem Press, India.
Babbie, E. 2007, The practice of social research, Thomas Wadsworth, USA, Eleventh edition.
Baber, Z. 1991, ‘Beyond the Structure/Agency Dualism: An Evaluation of Giddens’ Theory of Structuration’, Sociological Inquiry, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 219-230.
Baldassare, M. 1981, ‘The effects of household density on subgroups’, American Sociological Review, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 110-118.
Barabantseva, E. 2005, ‘Trans-nationalising Chineseness: Overseas Chinese Policies of the PRC’s Central Government’, Asien, vol. 96, pp. 7-28.
Barnes, B.R., Yen, D. and Zhou, L. 2011, ‘Investigating guanxi dimensions and relationship outcomes: Insights from Sino-Anglo business relationships’, Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 510-521.
Beer, A., Faulkner, D. and Gabriel, M. 2006, 21st Century housing careers and Australia’s housing future: Literature review. National Research Venture 2: 21st Century Housing
208
Careers Research Paper 1, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.
Berry, M. 1999, ‘Unravelling the ‘Australian Housing Solution’: the post-war years’, Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 106-123.
Boarding Houses Bill 2012 (NSW)
Bodycott, P. and Lai, A. 2012, ‘The Influence and Implications of Chinese Culture in the Decision to Undertake Cross-Border Higher Education’, Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 252-270.
Bolt, G. and van Kempen, R. 2002, ‘Moving Up or Moving Down? Housing Careers of Turks and Moroccans in Utrecht, the Netherlands’, Housing Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 401-422.
Bornstein, M.H., Davidson, L.E., Keyes, C.L.M. and Moore, K.A. (eds) 2003, Well-being: Positive development across the life course, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, USA.
Bourke, E. 2012, ‘Overseas student numbers down again, industry losing billions’, Transcript, ABC News, 16 January 2012.
Bourne, L.S. 1975, Urban systems: strategies for regulation: a comparison of policies in Britain, Sweden, Australia, and Canada, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Bowes, A., Dar, N. and Sim, D. 1997, ‘Tenure preference and housing strategy: an exploration of Pakistani experiences’, Housing studies, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 63-84.
Bowes, A., Dar, N. and Sim, D. 2002, ‘Differentiation in housing careers: the case of Pakistanis in the UK’, Housing Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 381-399.
Brandsen, T. 2001, ‘Bringing actors back in: towards an institutional perspective’, Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 2-14.
Brannen, J. 2005, ‘Mixed methods research: A discussion paper’, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, Methods Review Paper, vol. 12, pp. 2010.
Bratt, R.G. 2002, ‘Housing and family well-being’, Housing Studies, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 13- 26.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77-101.
Bridge, C., Flatau, P., Whelan, S., Wood, G. and Yates, J. 2003, Housing assistance and non-shelter outcomes, Final Report No. 40, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.
Brisbane City Council, 2008, International Education Futures Brisbane Taskforce: Report of Taskforce Findings, Brisbane City Council, Brisbane.
209
Brown, L.A. and Moore, E.G. 1970, ‘The intra-urban migration process: a perspective’, Geografiska Annaler Series B, Human Geography, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1-13.
Burke, T., Pinkney, S., Ewing, S. and Housing, A. 2002, Rent Assistance and Young People's Decision-making, Final report no. 6, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.
Burke, T and Pinnegar, S. 2007, Experiencing the housing affordability problem: blocked aspirations, trade-offs and financial hardships, National Research Venture 3: Housing affordability for lower income Australians, Research Paper 9, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.
Burnley, I. 2002, ‘Evolution of Chinese settlement geographies in Sydney, Australia’, Urban Geography, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 365-387.
Byram, M. and Feng, A. (eds) 2006, Living and studying abroad: research and practice, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Cai, P. 2012, ‘‘This city is so dangerous’: outrage in China over Sydney train assault’, Sydney Morning Herald, 24 April 2012.
Callinan, R. 2009, ‘Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia’, Time, 6 June 2009.
Cameron, J. 2005, ‘Focussing on the Focus Group’, in Hay, I. (ed) 2005, Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp. 83-102.
Campbell, J. and Li, M. Winter 2008, ‘Asian Students' Voices: An Empirical Study of Asian Students' Learning Experiences at a New Zealand University’, Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 375-396.
Centre for Multicultural Youth 2008, International students in our community, Report from CMY’s Statewide Multicultural Youth Issues Network Meeting, 26 June 2008, Carlton, Melbourne.
Chan, B. 2006, ‘Virtual Communities and Chinese National Identity’, Journal of Chinese Overseas, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-32.
Charmaz, K. 2005, ‘Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods’, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds) 2005, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Second Edition, Sage Publications, London.
Christie, H., Munro, M. and Rettig, H. 2002, ‘Accommodating students’, Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 209-235.
Chung, M. and Nyland, C. 2007, ‘The impact of cultural differences on international students in Australia’, Paper presented at the Global Business and Technology Association International Conference, Huntington Station, N.Y.
210
Churchman, A. 1999, ‘Disentangling the Concept of Density’, Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 389-411.
Clapham, D. 2002, ‘Housing Pathways: A Post Modern Analytical Framework’, Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 57.
Clapham, D. 2004, ‘Housing pathways – A social constructionist research framework’ in Jacobs, K. Kemeny, J. and Manzi, T. (eds) 2004, Social Constructionism in Housing Research, Ashgate, Basingstoke, pp. 93-116.
Clapham, D. 2005, The meaning of housing: A pathways approach, The Policy Press, Bristol, UK.
Clapham, D. 2010, ‘Happiness, well-being and housing policy’, Policy & Politics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 253-267.
Clark, E.J. 2009, The Housing Quality Questionnaire: A New Self-Report Measure for Public Health Assessment, Doctor of Philosophy in Public Health Sciences in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Clark, W.A.V., Dieleman, F.M. and Clark, W.A. 1996, Households and housing: Choice and outcomes in the housing market, Center for Urban Policy Research New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Coaldrake, P. 1999, ‘The Changing Climate of Australian Higher Education: An International Perspective’, Higher Education Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 117- 134.
Coates, H. and Edwards, D. 2009, Engaging College Communities: The impact of residential colleges in Australian higher education, AUSSE Research Briefing 4, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Victoria.
Coleman, J.S. 1994, Foundations of social theory, Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA.
Collins, J. 2002, ‘Chinese entrepreneurs: the Chinese diaspora in Australia’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, vol. 8, no. 1/2, pp. 113-133.
Collins, S. 2010, ‘Students far from home in crowded rental market’, The Age, 19 July 2010.
Council of Australian Governments 2010, International students strategy for Australia 2010-2014, Council of Australian Governments, Canberra.
Council of International Students Australia 2012, CISA, NSW, CAPA Welcome International Students Transport Concession in NSW, Media release, 30 October 2012.
Cowley, S. and Billings, J.R. 1999, ‘Resources revisited: salutogenesis from a lay perspective’, Journal of advanced nursing, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 994-1004.
211
Crow, G. 1989, ‘The use of the concept of strategy in recent sociological literature’, Sociology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1-24.
Darnall, N. and Edwards, D. 2006, ‘Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: the role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 301-320.
Davis, D. and Mackintosh, B. (eds) 2011, ‘Making a difference: the impact of Australian international education’, The Australian, 16 November.
Deloitte Access Economics 2011, Broader implications from a downturn in international students, viewed 28 February 2012, http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/resources/618/1100.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2009, Administrative information for higher education providers: student support, Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2011, Students: Selected Higher Education Statistics, viewed 17 September 2012, http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/ Pages/Students.aspx.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2012, Students: Selected Higher Education Statistics, viewed 11 September 2012, http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Publications/HEStatistics/Publicatio ns/Pages/Home.aspx.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2010, Student Visa Program Integrity Measures 2009-10, viewed 16 January 2013, http://www.immi.gov.au/students/_pdf/students-integrity-measures.pdf.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2012a, Student visa program trends 2005-06 to 2011-12, Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship 2012b, Country Profile: People's Republic of China, Australian Government, viewed 12 December 2012, www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/country-profiles/_pdf/china.pdf.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2012, ‘Australia – trading with the world’, Trade Matters 2012, Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, Tertiary Education, viewed 17 September 2012, http://www.innovation.gov.au/TertiaryEducation/Pages/default.aspx.
Deumert, A., Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Ramia, G. and Sawir, E. 2005, ‘The social and economic security of international students in Australia: study of 202 student cases: Summary report’, Monash Institute for the Study of Global Movements, Monash University, Melbourne.
212
DeVerteuil, G. 2005, ‘The relationship between Government Assistance and Housing Outcomes among Extremely Low-income Individuals: A Qualitative Inquiry in Los Angeles’, Housing Studies, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 383-399.
Diener, E. and Fujita, F. 1995, ‘Resources, personal strivings, and subjective well-being: A nomothetic and idiographic approach’, Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 926.
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T. and White, M. 2006, Review of research on the influences on personal well-being and application to policy making, Report to Defra, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
Dominello, V. 2010, ‘Student Boarding House Accommodation’, Private Members Statements, 25 February, 2010, Parliament of New South Wales, viewed 24 September 2012, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA2010022 5044?open&refNavID=HA8_1.
Duan, X.R. 2003, ‘Chinese higher education enters a new era’, Academe, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 22-27.
Dupuis, A. and Thorns, D.C. 1998, ‘Home, home ownership and the search for ontological security’, The Sociological review, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 24-47.
Easthope, H. and Judd, S. 2010, Living well in greater density, Shelter NSW, Sydney.
Elder-Vass, D. 2010, The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. 1998, ‘What Is Agency?’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 103, no. 4, pp. 962-1023.
Evaluation Solutions 2010, International Student Survey. October - November 2010. Report of Findings, City of Melbourne, viewed 27 September 2011, http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/CommunityServices/ForYouth/InternationalStud ents/Documents/International_Student_Survey_OctNov_2010.pdf.
Evans, G.W., Wells, N.M. and Moch, A. 2003, ‘Housing and mental health: A review of the evidence and a methodological and conceptual critique’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 475-500.
Evans, J.R. and Mathur, A. 2005, ‘The value of online surveys’, Internet Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 195-219.
Fenton, S. 1999, Ethnicity: Racism, Class and Culture, Macmillan, London.
Fern, E.F. 2001, ‘The Focus Group Moderator’, in Advanced Focus Group Research, Sage Publications, London, pp. 77-97.
Fife-Yeomans, J. 2011, ‘Cowboy landlord Panos Patelis squeezing tenants’, Daily Telegraph, 5 April, 2011 . 213
Fincher, R. and Costello, L. 2003, ‘Housing Ethnicity: Multicultural Negotiation and Housing the Transnational Student’, in Yeoh, B., Tong, C.K., and Charney, M.W. (eds) Approaching transnationalism: Studies on transnational societies, multicultural contacts and imaginings of home, Kluwer Academics, Boston.
Fincher, R., Carter, P., Tombesi, P., Shaw, K. and Martel, A. 2009, Transnational and Temporary: students, community and place-making in central Melbourne, University of Melbourne, viewed 6 December 2010, www.transnationalandtemporary.com.au.
Fincher, R. and Shaw, K. 2009, ‘The unintended segregation of transnational students in central Melbourne’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 41, pp. 1884-1902.
Fincher, R. 2011, ‘Cosmopolitan or ethnically identified selves? Institutional expectations and the negotiated identities of international students’, Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 905-927.
Fong, E. and Chan, E. 2010, ‘The Effect of Economic Standing, Individual Preferences, and Co‐ethnic Resources on Immigrant Residential Clustering’, International Migration Review, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 111-141.
Fopp, R. 2008, ‘Social constructionism and housing studies: a critical reflection’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 159-175.
Forbes-Mewett, H., Chung, M., Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Ramia, G. and Sawir, E. 2006, ‘Income Security of International Students in Australia’, in Fallon, F. and Chang, S. (eds) 17th ISANA International Education Conference Proceedings, University of New South Wales, Sydney, pp. 1-14.
Forbes-Mewett, H. and Nyland, C. 2008, ‘Cultural diversity, relocation, and the security of international students at an internationalised university’, Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 181-203.
Forbes-Mewett, H., Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Ramia, G. and Sawir, E. 2009, ‘Australian University International Student Finances’, Higher Education Policy, vol. 22, pp. 141- 161.
Ford, J., Rugg, J. and Burrows, R. 2002, ‘Conceptualising the contemporary role of housing in the transition to adult life in England’, Urban Studies, vol. 39, no. 13, pp. 2455-2467.
Forgeard, M.J.C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M.L. and Seligman, M.E.P. 2011, ‘Doing the right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy’, International Journal of Wellbeing, vol. 1, no. 1.
Fraillon, J. 2004, Measuring student well-being in the context of Australian schooling: discussion paper, The Australian Council for Educational Research, Canberra.
Fraser, S.E. 1984, ‘Overseas students in Australia: governmental policies and institutional programs’, Comparative Education Review, 28(2): 279-299.
214
Fuller, J. 2011, Navitas submission to the NSW Inquiry into International Student Accommodation", accessed 28 July 2012, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/50758df40d 4f30caca25792d001cccf7/$FILE/sub%20no%2027%20navitas.pdf.
Gallagher, M. 2011, ‘The role of government in international education: helping or hindering?’, in Davis, D. and Mackintosh, B. (eds) 2011, Making a Difference: Australian International Education, UNSW Press, Sydney.
Gao, M.C.F. and Liu, X. 2002, ‘From student to citizen: A survey of students from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Australia’, International Migration, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 27-48.
Ghosh, S. 2007,‘Transnational ties and intra-immigrant group settlement experiences: a case study of Indian Bengalis and Bangladeshis in Toronto’, GeoJournal, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 223-242.
Giddens, A. 1979, Central Problems in Social Theory, The Macmillan Press Ltd, London.
Giddens, A. 1984, The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration, University of California Press.
Giddens, A. 1990, The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Giddens, A. 1997, Sociology, Third Edition, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Gilmore, H. 2010, ‘University students squeezed by rent stress, study finds’, Sydney Morning Herald, 22 April 2010.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.
GML Social Research 2011, Integrated Enforcement and Education - Illegal Boarding Houses Project, Research Report, City of Ryde, Sydney.
Graycar, A. 2010, Racism and the Tertiary Student Experience in Australia, The Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Canberra.
Grayson, J.P. 1997, ‘Place of residence, student involvement and first year marks’, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1-23.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J. and Graham, W.F. 1989, ‘Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs’, Educational evaluation and policy analysis, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 255-274.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K.M. and Namey, E.E. 2012, Applied Thematic Analysis, SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks CA.
Guy, S. and Henneberry, J. 2000, ‘Understanding urban development processes: integrating the economic and the social in property research’, Urban Studies, vol. 37, no. 13, pp. 2399. 215
Hamilton, T. 2011, ‘Student digs get results’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 July 2011.
Harrison, M.L. and Davis, C. 2001, Housing, social policy, and difference: disability, ethnicity, gender, and housing, The Policy Press, Chicago.
Harman, G. 1989, ‘The Dawkins Reconstruction of Australian Higher Education’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, March 27-31, 1989.
Hasham, N. 2011, ‘Vulnerable international students become rental victims’, Illawarra Mercury, 27 September 2011.
Hawthorne, L. 2010a, ‘Two-step migration: Australia's experience’, POLICY, July-August 2010, pp. 39-43.
Hawthorne, L. 2010b, ‘How valuable is 'two-step migration'?: labor market outcomes for international student migrants to Australia’, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 5-36.
Hay, C. and Wincott, D. 1998, ‘Structure, agency and historical institutionalism’, Political studies, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 951-957.
Healey, P. 1992, ‘An institutional model of the development process’, Journal of Property Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 33-44.
Heath, S. and Kenyon, L. 1999, ‘Families of friends: young adults and shared household living in the 1990s’, Paper presented to the 94th Annual Meeting of the ASA, New Family Forms Session, Chicago, 7 August 1999.
Herbert, D. 1973, ‘The residential mobility process: some empirical observations’, Area, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 44-48.
Hesse-Biber, S.N. and Leavy, P. 2010, The practice of qualitative research, Sage Publications.
Holahan, C.J. and Wilcox, B.L. 1978, ‘Residential satisfaction and friendship formation in high- and low-rise student housing: An interactional analysis’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 237-241
Holdsworth, C. 2006, ‘‘Don’t you think you’re missing out, living at home?’ Student experiences and residential transitions’, Sociological Review, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 495-519.
Housing NSW 2012, Consistent Housing Needs Analysis, viewed 11 September 2012, http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Centre+For+Affordable+Housing/Affordable+Ho using+Resources/Affordable+Housing+National+Leading+Practice+Guide+and+To ol+Kit/Housing+Needs+Analysis/Consistent+methods+for+housing+needs+analys is.htm.
Howden 2012, ‘Block reinvented for new kids, students and artists’, Sydney Morning Herald, 20 January 2012. 216
Howe, K.R. 1988, ‘Against the Quantitative-Qualitative Incompatibility Thesis or Dogmas Die Hard’, Educational researcher, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 10.
Howitt, D. and Cramer, D. 2007, ‘Thematic Analysis’, Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology, 2nd ed. Pearson Education, companion website http://wps.pearsoned.co.uk/ema_uk_he_howitt_resmethpsy_2/77/19811/507181 2.cw/, viewed 11 August 2013.
Huang, Y. 2003, ‘A room of one's own: housing consumption and residential crowding in transitional urban China’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 591-614.
Huizingh, E. 2007, ‘Crosstables’, in Applied Statistics with SPSS, Sage Publications, London, pp. 245-254.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2012, Housing – Rental Vacancy Rates, viewed 2 July 2012, http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=43.
Hulchanski, J.D. 1997, ‘Immigrants and access to housing: How welcome are newcomers to Canada’, Paper presented at the Metropolis Year II Conference : The Development of a Comparative Research Agenda, Montreal, 23-26 November 1991.
Hulse, K. and Saugeres, L. 2008, Housing insecurity and precarious living: an Australian exploration, Final Report no. 124, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.
Hulse, K., Milligan, V. and Easthope, H. 2011, Secure occupancy in rental housing: conceptual foundations and comparative perspectives, Final Report no. 170, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.
Humphrey, R. and McCarthy, P. 1997, ‘Stress and the Contemporary Student’, Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 221-242.
International Student Development Taskforce 2009, Final Report - August 2009, University of Sydney, Sydney.
Ip, D. 2001, ‘A decade of Taiwanese migrant settlement in Australia: comparisons with mainland Chinese and Hong Kong settlers’, Journal of Population Studies, vol. 23, pp. 113-145.
Jacobs, K., Kemeny, J. and Manzi, T. (eds) 2004, Social constructionism in housing research, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, UK.
Jakubowicz, A. and Monani, D. 2010, International Student Futures in Australia: A Human Rights Perspective on Moving Forward to Real Action. Occasional Paper 6/2010, The Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Canberra.
James, R., Bexley, E., Devlin, M. and Marginson, S. 2007, Australian University Student Finances 2006. Final report of a national survey of public universities, Universities Australia, Melbourne.
217
James, R., Krause, K. and Jennings, C. 2010, The First Year Experience in Australian Universities: Findings from 1994 to 2009, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Jin, L. and Cortazzi, M. 2006, ‘Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 5-20.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. 2004, ‘Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come’, Educational researcher, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 14.
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Turner, L.A. 2007, ‘Toward a definition of mixed methods research’, Journal of mixed methods research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 112.
Johnson, G., Natalier, K., Bailey, N., Kunnen, N., Liddiard, M., Mendes, P. and Hollows, A. 2009, Improving housing outcomes for young people leaving state out of home care, Positioning paper, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.
Johnson, G., Natalier, K., Mendes, P., Liddiard, M., Thoresen, S., Hollows, A. and Bailey, N. 2010, Pathways from out-of-home care, Final Report no. 147, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.
Jones, G. 2000, ‘Experimenting with Households and Inventing Home?’, International Social Science Journal, vol. 52, no. 164, pp. 183-194.
Jones, G. 2001, ‘Fitting Homes? Young People's Housing and Household Strategies in Rural Scotland’, Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 41-62.
Jones, P., Bradbury, L and Le Boutillier, S. 2011, Introducing Social Theory, Second Edition, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Judd, S., Liu, E. and Easthope, H. 2011, ‘Navigating a complex housing landscape: University students' housing options, pathways and outcomes’, Paper presented at the 5th State of Australian Cities Conference 2011Melbourne, 29 November - 2 December 2011.
Judd, T. and Kennedy, G. 2010, ‘A five-year study of on-campus Internet use by undergraduate biomedical students’, Computers & Education, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1564-1571.
Kahneman, D. and Deaton, A. 2010, ‘High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, no. 38, pp. 16489-16493.
Kaplan, D.H. and Holloway, S.R. 2001, ‘Scaling ethnic segregation: causal processes and contingent outcomes in Chinese residential patterns’, GeoJournal, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 59-70.
Kauko, T. 2004, ‘Towards infusing institutions and agency into house price analysis’, Urban Studies, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1507.
218
Keele, R. 2010, Quantitative versus Qualitative Research, or Both? Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Kelley, S.J. 1998, ‘Stress and Coping Behaviors of Substance-Abusing Mothers’, Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 103-110.
Kell, P. and Vogl, G. 2008a, ‘Perspectives on mobility, migration and well-being of international students in the Asia Pacific’, IJAPS, vol. 4, no. 2. Editorial, pp. v-xviii.
Kell, P. and Vogl, G. 2008b, ‘Transnational education: the politics of mobility, migration and the well-being of international students’, IJAPS, vol. 4, no. 1, pp 21-31.
Kembrey, M. 2012, ‘Overseas students ‘ starved’’, Sydney Morning Herald, 29 October 2012.
Kemeny, J. 1992, Housing and social theory, Routledge, New York.
Kemp, P.A. 2009, ‘The transformation of private renting’, in Malpass, P. and Rowlands, R. (eds) 2009, Housing, markets and policy, Routledge, New York , pp. 122-142.
Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B. and Waycott, J. 2010, ‘Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation students’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 332-343.
Kenyon, E. and Heath, S. 2001, ‘Choosing this life: narratives of choice amongst house sharers’, Housing Studies, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 619-635.
Khawaja, N. and Dempsey, J. 2007, ‘Psychological Distress in International University Students: An Australian Study’, Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, vol. 17, no. 1, pp.13-27.
Khawaja, N. and Dempsey, J. 2008, ‘A comparison of International and Domestic Tertiary Students in Australia’, Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 30-46.
King, P. 2009, ‘Using theory or making theory: Can there be theories of housing?’, Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 41-52.
Krysan, M. 2008, ‘Does race matter in the search for housing? An exploratory study of search strategies, experiences, and locations’, Social science research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 581-603.
Kubitschko, S. 2008, ‘Housing Markets, Global Cities’, Arena Magazine, no. 97, pp. 38.
Kumar, R., Choi, Chihong, Claus, H., Vu, C., Kirkby, M, Huisman, P. and Cardinali, A. 2009, Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association (SUPRA) Submission to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee Inquiry into the Welfare of International Students, viewed 11 September 2012, http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committe es?url=eet_ctte/international_students/submissions.htm.
219
Kwek, G. 2011, ‘Renters in the east pay for five beaches’, Sydney Morning Herald, 14 October 2011.
Lam, C. 2006, ‘Reciprocal Adjustment by Host and Sojourning Groups: Mainland Chinese Students in Hong Kong’ in Byram, M. and Feng, A. (eds) 2006, Living and studying abroad: research and practice, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp. 91-107.
Latimer, M. and Woldoff, R.A. 2010, ‘Good Country Living? Exploring Four Housing Outcomes Among Poor Appalachians’, Sociological Forum, pp. 315-333.
Lee, C., Lee, K. and Pennings, J.M. 2001, ‘Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on technology‐based ventures’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 6‐7, pp. 615-640.
Ley, D. and Murphy, P. 2001, ‘Immigration in gateway cities: Sydney and Vancouver in comparative perspective’, Progress in Planning, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 119-194.
Li, P. 2003, ‘The Rise and Fall of Chinese Immigration to Canada: Newcomers from Hong Kong and Mainland China, 1980-2000’, Paper presented at the Conference on Subethnicity in the Chinese Diaspora, 12-13 September, University of Toronto.
Lister, D. 2004, ‘Young people's strategies for managing tenancy relationships in the private rented sector’, Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 315-330.
Liu, Z. 2009, L’expérience des étudiants chinois en France : Entre mobilité et intégration, Master Recherche : Sociologie de l’éducation et de la formation, Université Paris Descartes – Paris V, Faculté des Sciences Humaines et Sociales – Sorbonne.
Orange City Council 2012, Orange City Council: Australia’s Colour City, viewed 18 September 2012, http://www.orange.nsw.gov.au/site/index.cfm?display=147055.
Loo, C. and Ong, P. 1984, ‘Crowding perceptions, attitudes, and consequences among the Chinese’, Environment and Behavior, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 55-87.
Lowndes, V. 1996, ‘Varieties of new institutionalism: a critical appraisal’, Public Administration, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 181-197.
Lu, L. and Chen, C.S. 1996, ‘Correlates of coping behaviours: Internal and external resources’, Counselling Psychology Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 297-307.
Macintyre, C. 2003, ‘New Models of Student Housing and Their Impact on Local Communities’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 109-118.
MacNamara, S. and Connell, J. 2007, ‘Homeward Bound? Searching for home in Inner Sydney's share houses’, Australian Geographer, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 71.
MacroPlan Australia, 2006, Student Accommodation Study. Prepared for the City of Whitehorse, MacroPlan Australia, Melbourne.
220
Manzi, T. and Jacobs, K. 2008, ‘Understanding institutions, actors and networks: Advancing constructionist methods in urban policy research’, Studies in Qualitative Methodology, vol. 9, pp. 29-50.
Marginson, S. 2001, ‘Global Enterprise and Local Squalor: Australian Higher Education and the International Student Market’, Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education International Education Research Conference, 2-6 December, Perth.
Marginson, S. 2007a, ‘Global Position and Position Taking: The Case of Australia’, Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 5-32
Marginson, S. 2007b, ‘The global positioning of Australian higher education: Where to from here?’ Paper presented at the University of Melbourne Faculty of Education Dean’s Lecture series, 16 October, Melbourne.
Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Sawir, E. and Forbes-Mewett, H. 2010, International student security, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Martin, C. 2011, Submission no. 24: International Student Accommodation in NSW, viewed 28 July 2012, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/Committee.nsf/0/2245e09f4 6a53820ca2579350006452c/$FILE/sub%20no%2024%20tenants%20union.pdf.
McConnell, E.D. and Redstone Akresh, I. 2008, ‘Through the Front Door: The Housing Outcomes of New Lawful Immigrants’, International Migration Review, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 134-162.
McInnis, C. and Hartley, R. 2002, Managing study and work: The impact of full-time study and paid work on the undergraduate experience in Australian universities, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra.
McNeilage, A. 2012, ‘Woman dies after jumping from Sydney unit fire’, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 September 2012.
Mendez, P., Hiebert, D. and Wyly, E. 2006, ‘Landing at home: Insights on immigration and metropolitan housing markets from the longitudinal survey of immigrants to Canada’, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, vol. 15, no.2, pp. 82-104.
Mitchell, R.E. 1971, ‘Some Social Implications of High Density Housing’, American Sociological Review, 36 (1): 18-29.
Mitchell, J.L. 2004, ‘Will empowering developers to challenge exclusionary zoning increase suburban housing choice?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 119-134.
Monash University 2010, ‘Community-Campus Summit on International Students: Best Practices – student Welfare’, Paper presented at Monash University, Melbourne, 20 April 2010.
221
Monfries, A. 2011, ‘Students pay for squalor: Young people live in dog boxes as politicians argue over flats’, Sunday Mail, 14 August 2011.
Montgomery, C. and McDowell, L. 2009, ‘Social Networks and the International Student Experience An International Community of Practice?’, Journal of Studies in International Education, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 455-466.
Moore, A. 2010, ‘Overview of Student Housing Issues’, Presentation at ‘More than Just a Roof Over My Head’, Australian International Education Conference, 13 October 2010, Sydney.
Morgan, D.H.J. 1989, ‘Strategies and sociologists: a comment on Crow’, Sociology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 25-29.
Morgan, D.L. 1997, Focus groups as qualitative research, Sage Publications, Inc.
Moriah, A., Rodriguez, L. and Sotomayor, L. 2004, ‘Building housing through social networks: New Colombian immigrants in Toronto’, Paper presented at Adequate and Affordable Housing for All, University of Toronto, 2004.
Murdie, R.A., Chambon, A.S., Hulchanski, J.D. and Teixeira, C. 1999, Differential incorporation and housing trajectories of recent immigrant households: Towards a conceptual framework, Discussion Paper, Housing New Canadians Research Working Group, Toronto.
Murdie, R.A. 2002, ‘The housing careers of Polish and Somali newcomers in Toronto's rental market’, Housing Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 423-443.
Murie, A. 1974, Household movement and housing choice, Occasional Paper 28, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham.
Narushima, Y. 2011a, 'It's like we are a different class of people here', Sydney Morning Herald, 12 April 2011.
Narushima, Y. 2011b, Landlords 'demanded sex' from students, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 April, 2011.
National Housing Supply Council 2011, State of Supply Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Neilson, B. 2009, ‘The world seen from a taxi: Students-migrants-workers in the global multiplication of labour’, Subjectivity, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 425-444.
Neri, F. and Ville, S. 2008, ‘Social capital renewal and the academic performance of international students in Australia’, Journal of Socio-economics, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1515-1538.
New College Village 2012, New College Village, viewed 15 December 2012, http://www.ncv.unsw.edu.au/index.php/about.
222
NSW Fair Trading 2012, Consumer Guide for International Students, NSW Government, Sydney, viewed 25 January 2013, http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/About_us/Publications/ft397.pdf.
NSW Office of State Revenue 2012, First Home Owner Grant Scheme, viewed 12 December 2012, http://www.osr.nsw.gov.au/benefits/first_home/general/fhogs.
NSW Ombudsman 2011, More than board and lodging: the need for boarding house reform. A special report to Parliament under section 31 of the Ombudsman Act 1974, NSW Ombudsman, Sydney, viewed 24 September 2012, http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/news-and- publications/publications/reports/community-and-disability-services/more-than- board-and-lodging-the-need-for-boarding-house-reform.
Noor, A. and Richards, H. 2011, Council of International Students Australia Submission to the Inquiry into International Student Accommodation in NSW, viewed 25 January 2012, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/876b31e3d1f 0604dca2579330008a5e7/$FILE/sub%20no%2059%20cisa.pdf.
Noor, A. and Richards, H. 2012, Council of International Students Australia Submission to the NSW International Student Taskforce, viewed 24 September 2012, http://www.business.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/21583/Council-of- International-Students-Australia.pdf.
Noyon, R. 2011, ‘Students battle slum conditions in Sydney’, AFP, 9 May 2011.
Nyland, C., Forbes-Mewett, H., Marginson, S., Ramia, G., Sawir, E. and Smith, S. 2007, ‘International Students – A Segregated and Vulnerable Workforce’, in Sanderson, G. (ed) 18th ISANA International Education Association Conference Proceedings, ISANA International Education Association Inc, The Gap, Queensland.
Oakman, D. 2002, ‘‘Young Asians in Our Homes’: Colombo Plan Students and White Australia’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 72, pp. 89-98.
Obeng-Odoom, F. 2012, ‘Far away from home: the housing question and international students in Australia’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 201-216.
Ooka, E. and Wellman, B. 2003, ‘Does Social Capital Pay Off More Within or Between Ethnic Groups? Analyzing Job Searches in Five Toronto Ethnic Groups’ in Fong, E. (ed) 2003, Inside the Mosaic, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 199-226
Olsen, W. 2009, ‘Exploring Practical Horizons of Beyond Sociology: Structure, Agency, and Strategy among Tenants in India’, Asian Journal of Social Science, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 366-390.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 2011, Education at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing.
223
Orr, J.A. and Peach, R.W. 1999, ‘Housing outcomes: an assessment of long-term trends’, FRBNY Economic Policy Review, pp. 51-61.
Ottonelli, V. and Torresi, T. 2011, Taking migrants’ projects seriously: temporary migration, integration and exit options, Indo-Pacific Governance Research Centre: Policy Brief Issue No. 1.
OzChinese 2012, ‘Australia Chinese network introduced’, viewed 25 January 2013, www.ozchinese.com/2007/chinese/2007-10-12/3380.shtml&usg=ALkJrhiJ1Fbmidw- nQxgHoBA1hyzOqQRlA.
Ozuekren, A. and van Kempen, R. 2002, ‘Housing careers of minority ethnic groups: experiences, explanations and prospects’, Housing Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 365- 379.
Painter, G. and Yu, Z. 2008, ‘Leaving gateway metropolitan areas in the United States: Immigrants and the housing market’, Urban Studies, vol. 45, no. 5-6, pp. 1163.
Paltridge, T., Mayson, S. and Schapper, J. 2010, ‘The Contribution of University Accommodation to International Student Security’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 12.
Pamuk, A. 2004, ‘Geography of immigrant clusters in global cities: a case study of San Francisco’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 287-307.
Park, S.H. and Luo, Y. 2001, ‘Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 455-477.
Parsons, T. 1951, The social system, The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, USA.
Patty, A. 2011, ‘Slick rotation keeps rogue landlords a jump ahead’, Sydney Morning Herald, 17 September 2011.
Patty, A. 2012, ‘Overseas students to get discounted public transport’, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 October 2012.
Peters, B.G. 2005, Institutional theory in political science: the 'new institutionalism', Continuum International Publishing Group, London.
Philimore, J. and Koshy, P. 2010, The Economic Implications of Fewer International Higher Education Students in Australia, John Curtin Institute of Public Policy, Perth.
Pickles, A.R. and Davies, R.B. 1991, ‘The empirical analysis of housing careers: a review and a general statistical modelling framework’, Environment and Planning A, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 465-484.
Pickvance, C. and Pickvance, K. 1994, ‘Towards a strategic approach to housing behaviour: A study of young people's housing strategies in south-east England’, Sociology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 657. 224
Porpora, D.V. 1989, ‘Four Concepts of Social Structure’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 195-211.
Port Macquarie-Hastings Council 2012, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council: Introduction to Hastings, viewed 18 September, http://www.hastings.nsw.gov.au/www/html/77- introduction-to-hastings.asp.
Porter, M.E. 1991, ‘Towards a dynamic theory of strategy’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 12, no. S2, pp. 95-117.
Powell, K. and Barke, M. 2008, ‘The impact of students on local house prices: Newcastle upon Tyne, 2000-2005’, Northern Economic Review, vol. 38, pp. 39.
Power, C. and McKenna, T. 2005, ‘International Student Housing: More than just a Market’ in Adams, R. and White, K. 2005, Internationalising education: risks and returns - Proceedings of 2003 Victoria University/UCLA Conference, Melbourne, pp. 216-227.
Punch, K. 2005, Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches, Second Edition, Sage Publications Ltd, London.
Ratcliffe, P. 2009, ‘Re-evaluating the Links between ‘Race’ and Residence’, Housing Studies, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 433-450.
Real Estate Institute of New South Wales 2012, ‘Vacancy rates in Sydney unchanged for second consecutive month’, 20 June 2012, http://www.reinsw.com.au/Vacancy- rates-in-Sydney-unchanged-for-second-consecutive-month/default.aspx.
Redfern Legal Centre 2012, Share Housing Survival Guide (NSW), Redfern Legal Centre, Redfern, viewed 23 January 2013, http://sharehousing.org.
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW).
Rex, J. and Moore, R. 1967, Race, Community, and Conflict: A Study of Sparkbrook, Institute of Race Relations, London.
Richards, H. 2012, Iranian International Students in Australia: Winter/Spring Survey Report, Council of International Students in Australia, Melbourne.
Richardson, K. 2003, ‘International Education: Homestay Theory Versus Practice’, Paper presented at the 17th IDP Australian International Education Conference, 21-24 October 2003, Melbourne.
Ritter, T. 1999, ‘The networking company: antecedents for coping with relationships and networks effectively’, Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 467-479.
Rizvi, F. 2005, International Education and the Production of Cosmopolitan Identities, Transnational Seminar, viewed 23 March 2011, http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/3516/TSRizvi.pdf?sequence=2.
225
Robertson, S. 2011a, ‘Cash cows, backdoor migrants, or activist citizens? International students, citizenship, and rights in Australia’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 2192-2211.
Robertson, S. 2011b, ‘Student switchers and the regulation of residency: the interface of the individual and Australia's immigration regime’, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 103-115.
Robinson, D., Reeve, K. and Casey, R. 2007, The housing pathways of new immigrants, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK.
Rosenberg, J. 2012, ‘Cheers to new student accommodation on old brewery site’, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June 2012.
Rosenthal, D.A., Russell, J. and Thomson, G.D. 2006, A Growing Experience: The Health & Well-being of International Students at the University of Melbourne, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Ross, J. 2011, ‘Knight review lifts visa requirements for overseas students’, The Australian, 22 September 2011.
Ross, J. 2012, ‘Overseas students' discounts restricted’, The Australian, 30 October 2012.
Rossi, P.H. 1955, Why families move: a study in the social psychology of urban residential mobility, The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, USA.
Rugg, J., Rhodes, D., and Jones, A. 2000, The nature and impact of student demand on housing markets, Joseph Rowntree Foundation York.
Rugg, J., Rhodes, D. and Jones, A. 2002, ‘Studying a niche market: UK students and the private rented sector’, Housing Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 289-303.
Rugg, J., Ford, J. and Burrows, R. 2004, ‘Housing advantage? The role of student renting in the constitution of housing biographies in the United Kingdom’, Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 19-34.
Salaff, J.W. and Greve, A. 2003, ‘Relations of migration of Hong Kong and mainland Chinese’, Paper presented at the Conference on New Paradigms in Hong Kong Studies.
Sarre, P. 1986, ‘Choice and constraint in ethnic minority housing: a structurationist view’, Housing studies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 71-86.
Saunders, P. and Williams, P. 1988, ‘The constitution of the home: Towards a research agenda’, Housing Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 81-93.
Scarton, E. and Purnama, M. 2011, ‘Call to abolish international students’ 20-hour work restrictions’, Meld Magazine, 28 April 2011.
Scutella, R. and Johnson, G. 2012, Locating and Designing Journeys Home': A Literature Review, Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 11.
226
Sen, A.K. 1999, Development as freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
The Senate 2009, Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee Inquiry into the Welfare of International students, Commonwealth of Australia, viewed 11 September 2012, http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committe es?url=eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/2008-10.htm.
Shaw, M. 2004, ‘Housing and public health’, Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 25, pp. 397-418.
Sidhu, R.K. 2011, Re-thinking Student Migration Trends, Trajectories and Rights, Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series No. 157. Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.
Siksiö, Ola and Borgegard, Lars-Erik 1990, ‘Markets in distress - on access to housing in local housing-markets', Housing Sociology in Times of Change, Proceedings from 7th Meeting CIB Working Commission, 12-16 September 1988.
Sirmon, D.G. and Hitt, M.A. 2003, ‘Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family firms’, Entrepreneurship theory and practice, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 339-358.
Smith, S. 2007, National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia Submission to Residential Accommodation Issues Paper, Consumer Affairs Victoria, viewed 2 July 2011, http://www.nlc.edu.au/Submission_Doc/residential_accommodation_consultation _submission_national_liaison_committee_for_international_students_in_australia .pdf.
Smith, S. 2009a, International Students' Security and Safety Needs in Australia. Report - 2009, National Union of Students, viewed 2 August 2011, http://www.unistudent.com.au/home/images/national.
Smith, S. 2009b, National Union of Students (NUS) Submission to the References Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Inquiry into the Welfare of International Students, viewed 2 August 2011, http://www.unistudent.com.au/site/images/nus_smith_plan.pdf.
Smith, S., Forbes-Mewett, H., Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Ramia, G. and Sawir, E. 2007, ‘The Right to Adequate Housing in the Context of International Education’, Paper presented at the Australian International Education Conference, 10 October 2007, Melbourne.
Social Policy Committee 2011, Inquiry into International Student Accommodation in New South Wales. Report 1/55, Legislative Assembly, New South Wales Parliament, Sydney, NSW.
Somerville, P. 2002, ‘But Why Social Constructionism?’, Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 78-79.
227
Stevenson, R. and Askham, P. (2011) ‘Purpose built student accommodation: changing the face of student accommodation in Sheffield, The Sheffield Hallam University Built Environment Research Transactions, pp. 6.
Stewart, J. 2010, Overseas students still face exploitation, Transcript, 13 September 2010, Lateline, ABC Television.
Stones, R. 2009, ‘Theories of Social Action’ in Turner, B.S. (ed) 2009, The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, John Wiley & Son, West Sussex, UK, pp. 83-105.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998, Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Sage Publications Incorporated, 2nd ed.
Sun, J. 2010, ‘Overcrowding? We have no choice’, Northern District Times, 25 August 2010.
Sunday Telegraph 2012, ‘Student dwellings, Kensington St, Central Park’, Sunday Telegraph, 10 June 2012.
Swinburne, J., Shulman, J. and Mulchay, L. 2011, Redfern Legal Centre Submission to the NSW Parliament's Legislative Assembly Social Policy Committee Inquiry into International Student Accommodation in NSW, Redfern Legal Centre, viewed 11 September 2012, http://www.rlc.org.au/about-us/submissions.html.
Sydney Morning Herald 2011, ‘Sydney rents rocket by 13 per cent: report’, Sydney Morning Herald, 15 October 2011.
Tamworth Regional Council 2012, Council Overview: Tamworth Regional Council, viewed 18 September, http://www.tamworth.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council- Overview/Council-Overview/default.aspx.
Teichler, U. 1999, ‘Internationalisation as a challenge for higher education in Europe’, Tertiary Education and Management, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 5-22.
Tenants NSW 2012a, Factsheet 14: Boarders and lodgers, viewed 24 September 2012, http://www.tenants.org.au/publish/factsheet-14-boarders-lodgers/index.php.
Tenants NSW 2012b, Factsheet 01: Residential Tenancies Act, Tenants NSW, viewed 24 September 2012, http://www.tenants.org.au/publish/factsheet-01-residential- tenancies-act/index.php.
Tenants Union of NSW 2011, Reforming marginal renting: policy paper, viewed 15 December 2012, http://www.tenantsunion.org.au/publications/papers- submissions/56-reforming-marginal-renting.
Teixeira, C. 1998, ‘Cultural resources and ethnic entrpreneurship: a case study of the Portuguese real estate industry in Toronto’, Canadian Geographer, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 267-281.
Thomas, A. 2011, Submission to the Inquiry into International Student Accommodation in NSW, City of Sydney, Sydney, viewed 16 December 2012, 228
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/Committee.nsf/0/815f8d231 f26361dca257945001c6617/$FILE/sub%20no%2066%20city%20of%20sydney.pdf.
Thompson, J., Samiratedu, V. and Rafter, J. 1993, ‘The Effects of On-campus Residence on First-time College Students’, NASPA Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 41-47.
Thomson, G., Rosenthal, D. and Russell, J. 2006, ‘Cultural stress among international students at an Australian university’, Paper presented at the Australian International Education Conference, 10-13 October, Perth.
TigTag 2012, About TigTag, viewed 23 July 2012, http://www.tigtag.com/corp/EN/ad_about.html.
Tomas, A. and Dittmar, H. 1995, ‘The experience of homeless women: An exploration of housing histories and the meaning of home’, Housing studies, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 493- 515.
Tomlins, R., Johnson, M.R.D. and Owen, D. 2002, ‘The Resource of Ethnicity in the Housing Careers and Preferences of the Vietnamese Communities in London’, Housing Studies, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 505-519.
Transport for NSW 2013, Travel concessions for tertiary students, NSW Government, viewed 21 January 2013, http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/content/travel- concessions-tertiary-students.
Turcic, S. 2008, Needs assessment of international students in the City of Sydney, Project Report, City of Sydney.
Universities Australia 2010, Transport Concessions for International Students: A Position Paper. Universities Australia, Canberra.
Universities Australia 2011, Universities Australia Stocktake of Accommodation. Universities Australia, Canberra.
Universities Australia 2012, University Profiles, Universities Australia, Canberra.
UNSW 2012 UNSW Residential Communities, viewed 15 December 2012, http://www.rc.unsw.edu.au/terraces.html.
UNSW Global 2012, UNSW Institute of Languages International Student Handbook, UNSW Global, Sydney.
UNSW Global 2013, UNSW Foundation Studies Student Guide 2013, UNSW Global, Sydney.
UNSW Village 2011 UNSW to open Sydney’s largest student residence, 11 September, 2009.
Van Ryzin, G.G. and Kamber, T. 2002, ‘Subtenures and housing outcomes for low income renters in New York City’, Journal of urban affairs, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 197-218.
229
Van Zandt, S. 2007, ‘Racial/ethnic differences in housing outcomes for first-time, low- income home buyers: Findings from a national homeownership education program’, Housing Policy Debate, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 431-474.
Varghese, M. and Brett, K. 2011, International Student Barometer Project 2010: National Report, Australian Education International, Canberra.
Velayutham, S. and Wise, A. 2010, ‘Co-ethnic exploitation and Indian temporary skilled migrants in Australia’, Paper presented at XVII ISA World Congress of Sociology: Sociology on the move, 11-17 July, 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Velayutham, S. 2013, ‘Precarious experiences of Indians in Australia on 457 temporary work visas’, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 340-361.
Wallace, A. 2004, ‘Understanding Local Housing Markets? The need for a complementary institutional approach’, Paper presented at the Housing Studies Association Spring Conference, 15-16 April, Sheffield Hallam University, UK.
Wallace, C. 2002, ‘Household strategies: their conceptual relevance and analytical scope in social research’, Sociology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 275-292.
Walton-Roberts, M.W. 2011, ‘Immigration, the University and the Welcoming Second Tier City’, Journal of International Migration and Integration, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 453-473.
Wang, X. 2011, On the Accommodation of International Students in NSW, Consulate General of Peoples Republic of China submission to the Inquiry into International Student Accommodation in New South Wales, viewed 16 December 2012, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/95855a35f8d4 10afca2579330007b682/$FILE/sub%20no%2047%20pr%20of%20china.pdf.
Warde, A. 1990, ‘Household work strategies and forms of labour: conceptual and empirical issues’, Work, Employment & Society, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 495-515.
Weisner, T.S. 1998, ‘Human development, child well‐being, and the cultural project of development’, New directions for child and adolescent development, vol. 1998, no. 80, pp. 69-85.
Weiss, M.L. and Ford, M. 2011, ‘Temporary Transnationals: Southeast Asian Students in Australia’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 229-248.
Wells, N.M. and Harris, J.D. 2007, ‘Housing quality, psychological distress, and the mediating role of social withdrawal: a longitudinal study of low-income women’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 69-78.
Wescott, C., and Brinkerhoff, J. (eds) 2006, Converting Migration Drains into Gains: Harnessing the Resources of Overseas Professionals, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines.
Wesley, M. 2009, Australia’s Poisoned Alumni: international education and the costs to Australia, Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney.
230
Wiesel, I., Easthope, H. and Liu, E. 2011, Pathways and choice in a diversifying social housing system, Positioning paper no. 137, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.
Wright, P.A. and Kloos, B. 2007, ‘Housing environment and mental health outcomes: A levels of analysis perspective’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 79-89.
Wu, L.Y., Wang, C.J., Chen, C.P. and Pan, L.Y 2008, ‘Internal Resources, External Network, and Competitiveness during the Growth Stage: A Study of Taiwanese High-Tech Ventures’, Entrepreneurship theory and practice, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 529-549.
Wulff, M. 2001, ‘Growth and change in one person households: implications for the housing market’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 467-489.
Wulff, M., Reynolds, M., Dharmalingam, A., Hulse, K. and Yates, J. 2011, ‘How great is the shortage of affordable housing in Australia’s private rental market?’, AHURI Research & Policy Bulletin, vol. September, no. 44. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.
Xiang, B. and Shen, W. 2009, ‘International student migration and social stratification in China’, International Journal of Educational Development, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 513- 522.
Xu, L. 2003, ‘Segmented Housing Market through Ethnic Social Ties’, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, viewed 10 May 2011, http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~salaff/XUhousing_arrangements.pdf.
Young, K. 2009, ‘The Internet in tertiary education: A survey of students' Internet activity’, Age, vol. 15, pp. 17.
Zald, M.N. 1969, ‘The power and functions of boards of directors: A theoretical synthesis’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 75, no.1, pp. 97-111.
Zappone, C. 2012, ‘Housing stress hits young people hard’, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 April 2012.
Zhang, S. and Li, X. 2008, ‘Managerial ties, firm resources, and performance of cluster firms’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 615-633.
Zheng, X. and Berry, J.W. 1991, ‘Psychological adaptation of Chinese sojourners in Canada’, International Journal of Psychology, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 451-470.
Ziguras, C. and Harwood, A. 2009, Principles of Good Practice for Enhancing International Students’ Experience Beyond the Classroom, ISANA International Education Association Inc., Hobart.
Ziguras, C. and Law, S.-F. 2006, ‘Recruiting international students as skilled migrants: the global ‘’skills race’ as viewed from Australia and Malaysia’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 59-76.
231
Appendix 1: Sample Interview Questions
Thank you for participating.
Ensure they have signed the permission form and read the information statement.
Ensure they have sent or organised a letter of support (or arrange this after).
Permission to record?
Any questions?
Brief explanation of purpose and topic.
Caveat – by ‘student housing’ I am not only referring to housing provided specifically for students, for example, on campus, but to all kinds of accommodation that students find themselves in, from private rental to college housing to staying at home.
1. What are the main functions of (your organisation)? 2. What is your role within (this organisation)? 3. How long have you worked with university students? 4. Do you think it is difficult for university students to find and secure appropriate housing? Why or why not? 5. In your opinion, what are the most important challenges facing university students in finding and securing appropriate housing? 6. Why do you think these challenges exist? Are there any things that make them vulnerable or make the problems worse? 7. Do you think that the housing experiences of international students are the same or different to those of other university students? Why or why not? 8. What are the most important challenges facing international students in finding and securing appropriate housing? 9. Are there any ways in which your organisation or you personally assist or support students in relation to these challenges? 10. Do you have any other ideas about how your organisation or other bodies, such as government agencies or universities, might better assist and support students in relation to housing?
Is there anything else you think is important that you haven’t had a chance to mention so far?
Ensure they have sent or organised a letter of support (or arrange this after)
Storing of information.
232
Appendix 2: Interview Coding Framework
~ ~ ~ Na m e , I ISou rces IR eferences 8 · 0 1 - Structural Factors 7 22 I 8 0 Housing Market Cond~ i ons 0 0 a·0 Afforda bility 8 21 i I I j ·· 0 Global events and financial situation 3 4 I j ; -0 Living costs 4 4 I I ~ · 0 Availability 8 12 I I i 0 General shortage 6 7 I I I ~ 0 University Housing Shortage 3 3 l... o Cly Va ri ation 2 I I S·· 0 Policy and Legislation 6 20 ~- 0 Immigration policy 2 4 t·- 0 International education policy 2 3 t- 0 Status, rights and entitlements 2 6 L. 0 Tenancy legislation 3 6 9 · 0 2 - Resources and Constraints 5 6 I 0 Agents 10 31 ' I··· Q Exploitative operators & 8 20 !··0 Finances 4 8 Internet 7 13 LI o s .. o Lack ot Knowledge, Inform ation and Experience 10 58 I Culture, values and standards 7 14 I >O I l-· 0 Geography 5 8 I L. o Law and rights 10 25 1- 0 Nationality, culture, language 4 8 - 0 On-campus housing 4 4 -· 0 Soda I support networks 9 19 - 0 Study program 2 4 -0 Tenancy services 3 3 - 0 Time 6 8 .. o University services 10 54 - . Q 3 - Strategies 12 40 0 Living with co-culturals 2 3 ·~ O Making trade-offs 6 8 -0 Mukiple occupancy 5 7 ·-· 0 Organising accommodation overseas 10 21 -.0 4 - Housing Outcomes 10 34 0 Dwelling density 8 13 -· 0 Housing q u a l ~y 6 16 ·- 0 Housing security 2 Location 2 3 ·-· 0
233
$· Q 5- Wellbeing Outcomes 7 30
i !···· Q Academic Performance 5 7 3 3 3 6 &, 5 12 ~~~ ~ ~~~t:,i~~::, oodA"'"""""'"
234
Appendix 3: Survey Questions
Housing pathways and outcomes of university students
NB: The survey was conducted online using computer software and not in printed form. This document simply presents the questions as they appeared in the text of the online survey.
Welcome to the survey!
To continue and complete this survey, you must: - be aged 18 years or older - be an international student (onshore) - be currently enrolled at a university in Sydney, Australia - be a citizen of the People’s Republic of China - have spent most of your life in Mainland China (NOT - including Hong Kong or Taiwan)
If any of this information is NOT true for you, please do not continue with the survey.
This survey will take 10-15 minutes to complete.
At the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to win one of five $50 Westfield gift vouchers. Remember to enter your email address before you finish!
Please read the attached project information statement before continuing with the survey.
By clicking 'Next', you are giving your consent to participate in this research project. The information which you give will be treated as confidential.
1. I am currently enrolled at:
University of New South Wales University of Sydney Macquarie University Other (please specify): ______
235
2. The course in which I am enrolled is:
Undergraduate (e.g. Bachelor, Diploma) Postgraduate coursework (e.g. Masters, Graduate Diploma) Postgraduate research (e.g. PhD, Masters by Research) An English language or Foundation Studies course Other (please specify): ______
3. I have already completed:
Less than 1 year of study in Sydney 1-2 years of study in Sydney 2-3 years of study in Sydney 3-4 years of study in Sydney 4-5 years of study in Sydney More than 5 years of study in Sydney
4. I found my first accommodation in Sydney:
Before I arrived in Australia After I arrived in Australia
5. I found my first accommodation in Sydney (you can choose more than one): On the internet Through an education agent With the help of my university in China With the help of my university in Sydney With the help of my family or friends living in China With the help of my family or friends living in Sydney With the help of classmates or co-workers in Sydney On a campus noticeboard On a public advertisement (e.g. on a telegraph pole, at a library) Through a real estate agent In a Chinese newspaper or magazine (e.g. Australian Chinese Daily (澳洲新报)) In a non-Chinese newspaper or magazine Other (please specify): ______
6. I used the following website(s) to find my first accommodation in Sydney (you can choose more than one):
I didn't use any websites My university's accommodation website Domain Realestate.com.au Gumtree TigTag OzChinese Australian Chinese Daily (澳洲新报) website Aobo.com.au Other (please type URL): ______
236
7. Finding my first accommodation in Sydney was:
Very easy Quite easy Neither easy nor difficult Quite difficult Very difficult
8. Regarding my first accommodation in Sydney, I was:
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
9. Since I arrived in Sydney, I have changed my accommodation:
Not at all – my current accommodation is my first accommodation in Sydney 1 time only 2-3 times 4-5 times 6 or more times
10. At least once I have changed my accommodation because (you can choose more than one):
My previous lease / agreement finished My agreement did not include the university vacation period I went back to China I wanted to find cheaper accommodation I wanted to move closer to campus I wanted to move in with friends somewhere else I was evicted for doing something wrong My previous lease / agreement did not follow legal requirements I had conflict with my previous landlord I had conflict with my previous house-mates / flat-mates There were too many people sharing my previous accommodation My previous accommodation was unsafe My previous accommodation was poorly maintained
11. I found my current accommodation in Sydney:
Before I arrived in Australia After I arrived in Australia
12. I found my current accommodation in Sydney (you can choose more than one): On the internet Through an education agent With the help of my university in China With the help of my university in Sydney
237
With the help of my family or friends living in China With the help of my family or friends living in Sydney With the help of classmates or co-workers in Sydney With the help of the Chinese community in Sydney (e.g. church, community organisation, businesspeople) On a campus noticeboard On a public advertisement (e.g. on a telegraph pole, at a library) Through a real estate agent In a Chinese newspaper or magazine (e.g. Australian Chinese Daily (澳洲新报)) In a non-Chinese newspaper or magazine Other (please specify): ______
13. I used the following website(s) to find accommodation (you can choose more than one):
I didn't use any websites My university's accommodation website Domain Realestate.com.au Gumtree TigTag OzChinese Australian Chinese Daily (澳洲新报) website Aobo.com.au Other (please type URL): ______
14. Finding my current accommodation in Sydney was:
Very easy Quite easy Neither easy nor difficult Quite difficult Very difficult
15. Regarding my current accommodation in Sydney, I am:
Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
16. My current accommodation is:
A separate house A town house or terrace A flat, unit or apartment A dormitory room in a residential college A student residence on campus (e.g. UNSW Village) 238
A student residence off campus (e.g. Unilodge) Commercial temporary accommodation (e.g. backpacker hostel, motel, guest house, hotel) Other (please specify): ______
17. Regarding my current accommodation:
I own it I pay rent to a real estate agent I pay rent directly to the private owner (an individual person) I pay rent to another tenant, who pays rent to the private owner I pay fees to a company / organisation I live with a home stay family and pay for my room I live with my relatives at no cost I live with my relatives and pay them rent Other (please specify): ______
18. I share my current accommodation with ______other people:
Number: ______
19. I share my current accommodation with (you can choose more than one): No one - I live alone My parent(s) My partner / spouse My child(ren) Other family members Friends I had already (students) Friends I had already (non-students) People I did not know before (students) People I did not know before (non-students) My landlord Other (please specify): ______
20. In my current accommodation there is/are ______bedrooms.
Number: ______
21. I share my room with:
No one - I have the room to myself My partner My child(ren) My partner and child(ren) 1 other person 2-3 other people More than 3 other people
239
22. The main language spoken in my current accommodation is:
English Mandarin Cantonese Other Chinese language Other non-Chinese language (please specify):
23. Regarding my current accommodation:
I can afford the cost of my current accommodation - I agree I disagree I don't know I am happy with the location of my current accommodation - I agree I disagree I don't know My current lease / agreement follows the legal requirements - I agree I disagree I don't know I have a good relationship with the person / people I pay for my accommodation - I agree I disagree I don't know I have a good relationship with the other people I live with - I agree I disagree I don't know There is enough space and privacy in my current accommodation - I agree I disagree I don't know My current accommodation is safe and well maintained - I agree I disagree I don't know
24. While in Sydney, I have experienced the following problems:
I have had nowhere to stay at all - Often, Sometimes, Never I have paid more money for accommodation than what I could really afford - Often, Sometimes, Never I have lived in accommodation that was too expensive for the quality I received - Often, Sometimes, Never I have not been aware of my rights and responsibilities according to Australian law - Often, Sometimes, Never I have been the victim of a scam (somebody lied to me about accommodation and stole my money) - Often, Sometimes, Never I have been treated unfairly by my landlord - Often, Sometimes, Never I feel I have experienced racism or discrimination in my search for accommodation - Often, Sometimes, Never I feel I have experienced racism or discrimination while living in my accommodation - Often, Sometimes, Never I have lived in accommodation shared by too many people - Often, Sometimes, Never I have lived in accommodation where I felt unsafe - Often, Sometimes, Never I have lived in a room that was not a proper bedroom - Often, Sometimes, Never I have had difficulty resolving problems with my accommodation - Often, Sometimes, Never Problems with my accommodation have negatively impacted on my studies - Often, Sometimes, Never
240
25. When I was looking for accommodation in Sydney, the following places/people helped me:
The accommodation office at my university (or their website): I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
The international student office at my university (or their website): I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
Other international students at my university: I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
Local students at my university: I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
Student clubs & societies at my university: I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
The Chinese community in Sydney (e.g. Chinese business owners, Chinese churches, community organisations): I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
My friends and relatives living in Sydney: I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
26. When I was dealing with problems with my accommodation in Sydney, the following things helped me.
The accommodation office at my university (or their website): I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
The international student office at my university (or their website): I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
Student welfare services at my university (e.g. counsellors): I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
Other international students at my university: I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
Local students at my university: I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
Student clubs & societies at my university: I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
The Chinese community in Sydney (e.g. Chinese business owners, Chinese churches, community organisations): I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
241
My friends and relatives living in Sydney: I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
Local community organisations (e.g. Redfern Legal Centre): I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
Government agencies (e.g. Fair Trading NSW): I never tried, Helped me a lot, helped me a little, Did not help me at all
27. My best experience of accommodation in Sydney is: ______
28. My worst experience of accommodation in Sydney is: ______
29. I am:
Male Female
30. I am:
18-19 years old 20-24 years old 25-29 years old 30-34 years old 35-39 years old 40 years or older
31. My current post code is (e.g. 2026): ______
32. My main source of income is:
My parents or other relatives My current job (paid work) My savings My partner's income My scholarship Other (please specify):
33. I found out about this questionnaire:
In an email from my university From a university club or society Through a friend or classmate
242
From a poster From a flier Other (please specify):
Thank you for your time!
For your chance to win 1 of 5 $50 Westfield gift vouchers, please enter your email address: ______
(Terms and conditions of entry attached) There will also be some discussion groups (6-10 people) to discuss these issues further. Participants will receive a free movie ticket and refreshments will be provided.
Would you be interested in joining a small discussion group in semester 1, 2012? Only some people will be contacted and invited to participate. If you are interested in participating, please enter your email address and contact phone number: ______
If you are having problems with your accommodation and you need some help, take action!
Here is a list of useful services:
Tenants NSW www.tenants.org.au
Kingsford Legal Centre 9385-9566 [email protected]
Redfern Legal Centre 9698-7277 [email protected] www.rlc.org.au
If you attend UNSW:
ARC www.arc.unsw.edu.au/support--representation/legal-advice/tenancy UNSW Accommodation www.housing.unsw.edu.au/housing/
****************
If you attend University of Sydney:
SRC www.src.usyd.edu.au SUPRA (Postgraduate) 243 www.supra.usyd.edu.au/get-help.php Accommodation http://sydney.edu.au/current_students/accommodation/index.shtml ****************
If you attend Macquarie University:
Welfare Services www.campuslife.mq.edu.au/campus-wellbeing/welfare-service/tenancyrentingissues Macquarie Accommodation www.accommodation.mq.edu.au
244
Appendix 4: Survey coding framework
1...... 1N ame ·• 1.&1Sou rces IRe ferences ~¥· 0 Best experiences 54 I $ .. 0 Housing outcome o 0 l I 9·0 Affordability 17 I I I .0 Reasonable price 17 I $. 0 Finding accommodati on 11 I 1 I'···· O Helpful friends 4 i 1 '··-Q Sufficient choice 2 l I j 1.. Q Useful resourc es 5 I I ~- 0 Household dynamics 76 ! I ! j 1 I .-Q Ethnicity 3 ! I · 1 Q Good Relationships w~h Household 22 I I Co Independen ce 6 i I ! ·-0 Kind Landlond or Host 25 ! i I .. Q Learn ing English & Australian cu ltur 5 I I ,:.. Q Making Friends 4 I 1 j 1 Q Quiet Accomm odati on 11 ; I a·0 Housing quality 54 I i I r· Oo Aesthetic appeal 3 i ; r· Age of building 6 i I · Q Cleanliness 15 I I ·~·= 0 Facilities 7 ! I .... QO No proper bedroom ! j ~- Other 10 . I . I i L 0 Unspecified 9
!i i ·-· 0 Repairs & Maintenance 2 ··· 0 Safety & secu r~y 5 ··· 0 Size & spa ce 5 .0 Neighbourhood conditions 24 .. 0 General convenience 15 -0 Noise 2 ... 0 Pleasant surroundings 4 0 Safety 3 -.0 Residential Density 8
.... 0 Few people 5 1.. 0 Own room 3 ... 0 Residential Stability 0 0
-·· 0 Housing type 0 0 .0 Dwelijn g type 36 ··· 0 Flat. unit, apartm ent 17 .. 0 House, town house 5 t 245
!;..IName / l& lsources IReferences s L.. Q Student accommodation 14 ' S·Q Household type 59 i.... Q Ethnicity 10 i.... Q Living with Friends 32 Living with landlord 2 1:::: 8 Living With Relatives 10 L. o Sharing With Partner 5 6·0 Location 30 Around campus 8 City 2 Further 14 Location in relation to university 30 •:..•:.:: i~--.... Q§ Relatively close 3 L.. Q Unspecified 3
33 :,·':. I;}· Q Tenure type :.... Q Boarding House 22 8 I & l?m0~:::,.,, 2 73
Current 48
J:.,':. : .... Q First 21 1::::8 Other previous 4 1:8~~::• ~""'"" No<"Ppll~ble 40 6 I.... Q Unspecified 8 l... O Good quotes 38 .0 Open Survey Responses 0 0 .... Q Best experience 393 I.... Q Worst experience 393 I.Q Worst experiences 0 0 0 0
-.0 Affordability 79 .... Q Expensive 70 I.... Q Poor Value For Money 9
-·0 Finding accommodation 13 .... Q Difticuky Finding Accommodation 10 I.... Q Sources 3
-·Q Household dynamics 116
~ .. Q Bad landlord (AG with bad behavio 73
246
/ l& lsources IReferences ~... Q Bond Withheld 12 ~... 0 Deception, exploitation 5 }... Q Discrimination 3 ~... Q Informal Agreement 2 ~... 0 Oppressive rules, surveillance 8 L. O Unfair charges 10
l"" Q Poor flatmate behaviour, bad relatio 16 L... Q Unpleasant, uncomfortable, notho 9
S· 0 Housing quality, physical condition 67 j.... Q Age of building 5 j.... Q Cleanliness 9 j.... Q Facilities 10 j.... Q No Proper Bedroom 11 8.. 0 Other 5 L 0 Unspecified 5 j.... Q Repairs & Maintenance 10 j.... Q Safety & security 5 j.... Q Size & space 9 L... Q Thermal comfort 3
11
I',,_. ~ g·~;~;::::::::· 3 L... Q Safety 7 ~- 9 Residential density 22 l L... Q Crowding, number of people 21 1.... O Residential mobility, stability 8 -.. O Housing type 0 0 -.0 Dwelling type 27 .... Q Apartment 14 .... 0 Boarding house 2 .... 0 House, town house 9 .... Q Student apartment 2
-.0 Household type 26 .... Q Ethnicity 14 .... Q Friends 2 .... 0 Locals 2 .... 0 Relatives 2 .... 0 Strangers 5 .... Q Students
-·Q Specific Location 26
247
11-.IName I l& lsources IReferences ~ .... 0 Around campus 14 i···· O City 4 i.... Q Further 5 ~ .... Q Location in relation to u ni 17 !.... 0 Relatively close 4
17 r~ ~"::m:::, 12 i..,'., i.... Q On c8mpus !.... Q Private rental 4
B· Q Timing 41
i···· O Current 8 i···· O First 20 !.... Q Other previous 13
;···· Q No worst experience 62 i···· O Other 6 L. .. O Unspecified 4
248
Appendix 5: Cross-tabulations
This appendix contains the cross-tabulations where potential relationships were identified, as referred to in the thesis. As discussed in Section 3.4.2, these results must be used with caution, as they could not be measured for statistical significance due to the nature of the sample. It is also evident in the tables that many comparisons are made between groups that differ considerably in size. Any identification of potential relationships is therefore indicative only and may not be reliable or representative.
Table A.1 Main source of income by legal status of current lease or agreement
Self- Parents or Partner’s No Total funded202 relatives income response respondents My current lease / 34 (76%) 235 (76%) 31 (82%) 1 (100%) 301 agreement follows legal requirements My current lease / 7 (16%) 19 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 26 agreement does not follow legal requirements Don’t know 4 (9%) 55 (18%) 7 (18%) 0 (0%) 66 Total respondents 45 309 (100%) 38 (100%) 1 (100%) 393 (101%)203 Questions 23 and 32.
Table A.2 Main source of income by having not been aware of rights and responsibilities
Self- Parents or Partner’s No Total funded204 relatives income response respondents I have not been aware 36 (80%) 220 (71%) 26 (68%) 0 (0%) 282 of my rights and responsibilities according to Australian law205 I have always been 9 (20%) 89 (29%) 12 (32%) 1 (100%) 111 aware of my rights and responsibilities according to Australian law206 Total respondents 45 (100%) 309 (100%) 38 (100%) 1 (100%) 393 Questions 24 and 32.
202Includes the categories: My current job (paid work), My savings and My scholarship. 203 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 204Includes the following categories: My current job (paid work), My savings and My scholarship. 205 Based on respondents who chose ‘Often’ and ‘Sometimes’ in response to the statement: ‘While in Sydney, I have not been aware of my rights and responsibilities’. 206 Based on respondents who chose ‘Never’ in response to the above statement. 249
Table A.3 Age bracket by main source of income
18-24 years 25-34 years No response Total respondents Self-funded207 23 (7%) 22 (39%) 0 (0%) 45 Parents or 278 (83%) 30 (54%) 1 (50%) 309 relatives Partner’s income 33 (10%) 4 (7%) 1(50%) 38 No response 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 Total 335 (100%) 56 (100%) 2 (100%) 393 respondents Questions 30 and 32.
Table A.4 Current dwelling type by main source of income
Student Private Commercial Total accommodation208 dwelling209 temporary respondents accommodation210 Self-funded211 3 (12%) 42 (11%) 0 (0%) 45 Parents or 20 (77%) 286 (79%) 3 (100%) 309 relatives Partner’s 3 (12%) 35 (10%) 0 (0%) 38 income No response 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 Total 26 (100%) 364 (100%) 3 (100%) 393 respondents Questions 16 and 32.
Table A.5 Current dwelling type by age bracket
Student Private Commercial Total accommodation212 dwelling213 temporary respondents accommodation214 18-24 years 24 (92%) 309 (85%) 2 (67%) 335 25-24 years 2 (8%) 54 (15%) 0 (0%) 56 No response 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 1 (33%) 2 Total 26 (100%) 364 (100%) 3 (100%) 393 respondents Questions 16 and 30.
207Includes the following categories: My current job (paid work), My savings and My scholarship. 208 Includes the following categories: A dormitory room in a residential college, A student residence off campus (e.g. UniLodge), A student residence on campus (e.g. UNSW Village). 209 Includes the following categories: A flat, unit or apartment, A separate house, A town house or terrace 210 E.g. Backpacker hostel, motel, guest house, hotel 211Includes the categories: My current job (paid work), My savings and My scholarship. 212 Includes the following categories: A dormitory room in a residential college, A student residence off campus (e.g. UniLodge), A student residence on campus (e.g. UNSW Village). 213 Includes the following categories: A flat, unit or apartment, A separate house, A town house or terrace 214 E.g. Backpacker hostel, motel, guest house, hotel) 250
Table A.6 Main source of income by having paid more for accommodation than what one could afford
Self- Parents or Partner’s No Total funded215 relatives income response respondents I have paid more for 29 (64%) 201 (65%) 23 (61%) 1 (100%) 254 accommodation than what I could afford216 I have never paid money 16 (36%) 108 (35%) 15 (39%) 0 (0%) 139 for accommodation than what I could afford Total respondents 45 (100%) 309 (100%) 38 (100%) 1 (100%) 393 Questions 24 and 32.
Table A.7 Main source of income by ability to afford current accommodation
Self- Parents or Partner’s No Total funded217 relatives income response respondents I can afford the cost of 39 (87%) 230 (74%) 33 (87%) 0 (0%) 302 my current accommodation I cannot afford the cost 5 (11%) 59 (19%) 4 (11%) 1 (1%) 69 of my current accommodation Don’t know 1 (2%) 20 (6%) 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 22 Total respondents 45 (100%) 309 (100%) 38 (100%0 1 (100%) 393 Questions 23 and 32.
Table A.8 Years of study completed in Sydney by seeking help from friends and relatives living in Sydney when looking for accommodation
< 1 year in 1-3 years in 3+ years in Total Sydney Sydney Sydney respondents I have tried getting help 123 (83%) 149 (83%) 61 (94%) 333 from my friends and relatives living in Sydney when looking for accommodation in218 I have never tried getting 26 (17%) 30 (17%) 4 (6%) help from my friends and relatives living in Sydney when looking for accommodation219 Total 149 (100%) 179 (100%) 65 (100%) 393 Questions 3 and 25.
215Includes the categories: My current job (paid work), My savings and My scholarship. 216 Includes the following categories: Often, Sometimes 217Includes the categories: My current job (paid work), My savings and My scholarship. 218 Based on respondents who selected all options other than ‘I never tried’ regarding ‘Other international students at my university’. 219 Based on respondents who selected ‘I never tried’ regarding ‘Other international students at my university’. 251
Table A.9 Age bracket by seeking help from friends and relatives living in Sydney when dealing with problems with their accommodation
18-24 years 25-34 years No response Total respondents I have tried getting help 255 (76%) 37 (66%) 0 (0%) 292 from my friends and relatives living in Sydney when dealing with accommodation problems220 I have never tried getting 80 (24%) 19 (34%) 2 (100%) 101 help from my friends and relatives living in Sydney when dealing with accommodation problems221 Total respondents 335 (100%) 56 (100%) 2 (100%) 393 Questions 26 and 30.
Table A.10 Main source of income by seeking help from other international students at their university when looking for accommodation
Self- Parents or Partner’s No Total funded222 relatives income response respondents I have sought help from 23 (51%) 204 (66%) 23 (61%) 1 (100%) 251 other international students at my university when looking for accommodation in Sydney223 I have never sought help 22 (49%) 105 (34%) 15 (40%) 0 (0%) 142 from other international students at my university when looking for accommodation in Sydney224 Total respondents 45 309 38 1 (100%) 393 (101%)225 (100%) (100%)226 Questions 25 and 32.
220 Based on respondents who selected all options other than ‘I never tried’ regarding ‘Other international students at my university’. 221 Based on respondents who selected ‘I never tried’ regarding ‘Other international students at my university’. 222Includes the categories: My current job (paid work), My savings and My scholarship. 223 Based on respondents who selected all options other than ‘I never tried’ regarding ‘Other international students at my university’. 224 Based on respondents who selected ‘I never tried’ regarding ‘Other international students at my university’. 225 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 226 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 252
Table A.11 Years of study completed in Sydney by seeking help from other international students at their university when looking for accommodation
< 1 year in 1-3 years in 3+ years in Total Sydney Sydney Sydney respondents I have sought help from 97 (65%) 119 (66%) 35 (54%) 251 other international students at my university when looking for accommodation in Sydney227 I have never tried getting 52 (35%) 60 (34%) 30 (46%) 142 help from other international students at my university when looking for accommodation in Sydney228 Total 149 (100%) 179 (100%) 65 (100%) 393 Questions 3 and 25.
Table A.12 Main language spoken at home by ease finding current accommodation229
Chinese Non-Chinese No response Total language230 language231 respondents Finding current 121 (37%) 32 (52%) 1 (100%) 154 accommodation was easy Finding current 83 (25%) 9 (15%) 0 (0%) 92 accommodation was difficult Neither 120 (36%) 19 (31%) 0 (0%) 139 No response 6 (2%) 2 (3%) 0 (0%) 8 Total respondents 330 (100%) 62 (100%)232 1 (100%) 393 Questions 14 and 22.
227 Based on respondents who selected all options other than ‘I never tried’ regarding ‘Other international students at my university’. 228 Based on respondents who selected ‘I never tried’ regarding ‘Other international students at my university’. 229 Ease finding current accommodation here is a composite of Questions 7 and 14, taking into account the number of times moved (Question 9). 230 Includes the following categories: Cantonese, Mandarin and Other Chinese language. 231 Includes the following categories: English, Other non-Chinese language 232 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 253
Table A.13 Main source of income by satisfaction with current accommodation
Self- Parents or Partner’s No response Total funded233 relatives income respondents Satisfied234 30 (67%) 207 (67%) 32 (84%) 0 (0%) 269
Dissatisfied235 1 (2%) 28 (9%) 2 (5%) 1 (100%) 32 Neither 13 (29%) 70 (23%) 4 (11%) 0 (0%) 87 No response 1 (2%) 4 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 Total 45 (100%) 309 (100%) 38 (100%) 1 (100%) 393 respondents Questions 15236 and 30.
Table A.14 Level of study by satisfaction with current accommodation
Postgraduate237 Undergraduate No response Total respondents Satisfied238 151 (69%) 117 (67%) 1 (100%) 269
Dissatisfied239 9 (4%) 23 (13%) 0 (0%) 32 Neither 55 (25%) 32 (18%) 0 (0%) 87 No response 3 (1%) 2 (1%) 0 (0%) 5 Total 218 (99%)240 174 (99%)241 1 (100%) 393 respondents Questions 2 and 15242.
Table A.15 Level of study by negative impacts of housing problems on study
Undergraduate Postgraduate No response Total respondents Often 37 (21%) 25 (11%) 0 (0%) 62 Sometimes 83 (48%) 105 (48%) 1 (100%) 189 Never 54 (31%) 88 (40%) 0 (0%) 142 Total 174 (100%) 218 (100%) 1 (100%) 393 Questions 2 and 24.
233Includes the following categories: My current job (paid work), My savings and My scholarship. 234 Includes ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Very satisfied’ 235 Includes ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘Very dissatisfied’ 236 Based on a composite of Question 15 with Questions 8 and 9 to include those whose first accommodation is their current accommodation. 237 Includes the following categories: Postgraduate research and Postgraduate coursework 238 Includes ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Very satisfied’ 239 Includes ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘Very dissatisfied’ 240 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 241 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 242 Based on a composite of Question 15 with Questions 8 and 9 to include those whose first accommodation is their current accommodation. 254
Table A.16 Main source of income by negative impacts of housing problems on study
Self- Parents or Partner’s No response Total funded243 relatives income respondents Often 5 (11%) 53 (17%) 4 (11%) 0 (0%) 62 Sometimes 27 (60%) 145 (47%) 16 (42%) 1 (100%) 189 Never 13 (29%) 111 (36%) 18 (47%) 0 (0%) 142 Total 45 (100% 309 (100%) 38 (100%) 1 (100%) 393 Questions 24 and 32.
Table A.17 Years of study completed in Sydney by negative impacts of housing problems on study
< 1 year in 1-3 years in 3+ years in Total Sydney Sydney Sydney respondents Often 15 (10%) 40 (22%) 7 (11%) 62 Sometimes 65 (44%) 86 (48%) 38 (58%) 189 Never 69 (46%) 53 (30%) 20 (31%) 142 Total 149 (100%) 179 (100%) 65 (100%) 393 Questions 3 and 24.
Table A.18 Current dwelling type by satisfaction with current accommodation
Student Private Commercial Total accommodation244 dwelling245 temporary respondents accommodation246 Satisfied247 15 (58%) 254 (70%) 0 (0%) 269
Dissatisfied248 2 (8%) 29 (8%) 1 (33%) 32 Neither 9 (35%) 76 (21%) 2 (67%) 87 No response 0 (0%) 5 (1%) 0 (0%) 5 Total 26 (101%)249 364 (100%) 3 (100%) 393 respondents Questions 15250 and 16.
243Includes the following categories: My current job (paid work), My savings and My scholarship. 244 Includes the following categories: A dormitory room in a residential college, A student residence off campus (e.g. UniLodge), A student residence on campus (e.g. UNSW Village). 245 Includes the following categories: A flat, unit or apartment, A separate house, A town house or terrace 246 E.g. Backpacker hostel, motel, guest house, hotel) 247 Includes ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Very satisfied’ 248 Includes ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘Very dissatisfied’ 249 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 250 Based on a composite of Question 15 with Questions 8 and 9 to include those whose first accommodation is their current accommodation. 255
Table A.19 Gender by having lived in a room that was not a proper bedroom
Female Male No response Total respondents I have lived in 113 (53%) 104 (59%) 1 (50%) 218 accommodation shared by too many people251 I have never lived in 101 (47%) 73 (41%) 1 (50%) 175 accommodation shared by too many people Total 214 (100%) 177 (100%) 2 (100%) 393 Questions 24 and 29.
Table A.20 Age bracket by having lived in accommodation shared by too many people
18-24 years 25-34 years No response Total respondents I have lived in 191 (57%) 27 (48%) 0 (0%) 218 accommodation shared by too many people252 I have never lived in 144 (43%) 29 (52%) 2 (100%) 175 accommodation shared by too many people Total respondents 335 (100%) 56 (100%) 2 (100%) 393 Questions 24 and 30.
Table A.21 Satisfaction with current location by satisfaction with current accommodation
I am happy with I am not happy Don’t know Total the location of with the location respondents my current of my current accommodation accommodation Satisfied253 233 (74%) 23 (39%) 13 (68%) 269
Dissatisfied254 15 (5%) 16 (27%) 1 (5%) 32 Neither 63 (20%) 20 (34%) 4 (21%) 87 No response 4 (1%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 5 Total 315 (100%) 59 (100%) 19 (99%)255 393 respondents Questions 15256 and 23.
251 Includes ‘Often’ and ‘Sometimes’ 252 Includes ‘Often’ and ‘Sometimes’ 253 Includes ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Very satisfied’ 254 Includes ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘Very dissatisfied’ 255 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 256 Based on a composite of Question 15 with Questions 8 and 9 to include those whose first accommodation is their current accommodation. 256
Table A.22 Tenure type by satisfaction with current accommodation
Paying rent Paying fees Owner Living Homestay No Total to an to a ship with resp. resp. individual / company / relatives real estate organisation agent Satisfied257 224 (66%) 13 (65%) 6 14 (93%) 7 (100%) 5 269 (100%) (62%) Dissatisfied 28 (8%) 3 (15%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 32 (13%) 258 Neither 80 (24%) 4 (20%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%) 2 87 (25%) No 5 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 5 (0%) response Total resp. 337 (100%) 20 (100%) 6 15 7 (100%) 8 393 (100%) (100%) (100 %) Questions 15259 and 17.
Table A.23 Current private rental type by satisfaction with current accommodation
Pay rent to a Pay rent directly Pay rent to Total private real estate to the private another tenant, rental agent owner (an who pays rent individual) to the private owner or real estate agent Satisfied260 55 (73%) 99 (68%) 70 (60%) 224
Dissatisfied261 3 (4%) 14 (10%) 11 (10%) 28 Neither 16 (21%) 33 (23%) 31 (27%) 80 No response 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 4 (3%) 116 Total respondents 75 (99%)262 146 (101%)263 116 (100%) 337
Questions 15264 and 17.
257 Includes ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Very satisfied’ 258 Includes ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘Very dissatisfied’ 259 Based on a composite of Question 15 with Questions 8 and 9 to include those whose first accommodation is their current accommodation. 260 Includes ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Very satisfied’ 261 Includes ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘Very dissatisfied’ 262 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 263 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 264 Based on a composite of Question 15 with Questions 8 and 9 to include those whose first accommodation is their current accommodation. 257
Table A.24 Level of study by having paid more money for accommodation than what one could afford
Postgraduate265 Undergraduate No response Total respondents I have paid more money 132 (61%) 121 (70%) 1 (100%) 254 for accommodation than what I could really afford266 I have never paid more 86 (39%) 53 (30%) 0 (0%) 139 money for accommodation than what I could really afford Total respondents 218 (100%) 174 (100%) 1 (100%) 393 Questions 2 and 24.
Table A.25 Age bracket by having paid more money for accommodation than what one could afford
18-24 years 25-34 years No response Total respondents
I have paid more money 221 (66%) 32 (57%) 1 (50%) 254 for accommodation than what I could really afford267 I have never paid more 114 (34%) 24 (43%) 1 (50%) 139 money for accommodation than what I could really afford Total respondents 335 (100%) 56 (100%) 2 (100%) 393 Questions 24 and 30.
Table A.26 Current household type by satisfaction with current accommodation
Friends268 Family / Landlord Strangers270 No one Total partner269 responses271 Satisfied272 122 (76%) 44 (76%) 38 (74%) 137 (64%) 14 (56%) 355
Dissatisfied273 9 (6%) 5 (9%) 5 (10%) 18 (8%) 5 (20%) 42
265 Includes the following categories: Postgraduate research and Postgraduate coursework 266 Includes the following categories: Often, Sometimes 267 Includes the following categories: Often, Sometimes 268 Includes the following categories: Existing friends (non-students) and Existing friends (students) 269 Includes the following categories: Parents, Children, Other family members and Partner / spouse 270 Includes the following categories: People unknown before (students) and People unknown before (non-students). 271 Multiple response question, therefore the total number of responses is larger than the total number of survey respondents. 272 Includes ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Very satisfied’ 273 Includes ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘Very dissatisfied’ 258
Neither 27 (17%) 9 (16%) 8 (16%) 57 (27%) 6 (24%) 107 No response 3 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (1%) 0 (0%) 6 Total 161 58 51 (100%) 215 (100%) 25 510 (99%)274 (101%)275 (100%) respondents Questions 15276 and 19.
Table A.27 Satisfaction with current accommodation by conditions of current accommodation277
Cannot Not Current Poor Poor Not Not safe or afford happy lease relation relation enough well with does ship w. ship w. space maintained location not landlord house and follow mates privacy legal req. Satisfied278 32 23 (39%) 11 5 (24%) 6 (40%) 33 13 (32%) (46%) (42%) (43%) Dissatisfied279 15 16 (27%) 6 (23%) 9 (43%) 6(40%) 18 12 (29%) (22%) (23%) Neither 21 20 (34%) 9 (35%) 7 (33%) 3 (20%) 26 16 (39%) (30%) (34%) No response 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Total 69 59 26 21 15 77 41 (100%) (99%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) respondents 280 Questions 15 and 23.
Table A.28 Age bracket by legal status of current lease or agreement
18-24 years 25-34 years No response Total respondents My current lease / 263 (79%) 36 (64%) 2 (100%) 301 agreement follows legal requirements My current lease / 18 (5%) 8 (14%) 0 (0%) 26 agreement does not follow legal requirements Don’t know 54 (16%) 12 (21%) 0 (0%) 66 Total respondents 335 (100%) 56 (99%)281 2 (100%) 393 Questions 23 and 30.
274 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 275 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 276 Based on a composite of Question 15 with Questions 8 and 9 to include those whose first accommodation is their current accommodation. 277 Taken from respondents who chose ‘Disagree’ in relation to the statements in Question 23. Multiple response question. 278 Includes ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Very satisfied’ 279 Includes ‘Dissatisfied’ and ‘Very dissatisfied’ 280 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 281 Rounded figures do not add to exactly 100%. 259
Table A.29 Times moved in Sydney by years of study completed in Sydney
Never Moved Moved 2-3 Moved 4-5 Moved 6+ Total moved once times times times respondents < 1 year in 71 (82%) 49 (58%) 28 (18%) 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 149 Sydney 1-2 years in 10 (11%) 25 (30%) 75 (49%) 16 (34%) 3 (14%) 129 Sydney 2-3 years in 1 (1%) 6 (7%) 29 (18%) 9 (19%) 5 (24%) 50 Sydney 3-4 years in 3 (3%) 4 (5%) 17 (11%) 11 (23%) 6 (29%) 41 Sydney 4-5 years in 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 4 (3%) 7 (15%) 5 (24%) 17 Sydney > 5 years in 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 4 (9%) 1 (5%) 7 Sydney Total 87 84 (100%) 154 47 (100%) 21 (100%) 393 respondents (99%)282 (100%) Questions 3 and 9.
282 Figures rounded did not add to 100%. 260
Appendix 6: Focus Group Slides
Thank you for participating in my research.
Please help yourself to a drink and look at your information pack
Chinese international students' experiences of accommodation in Sydney
261
393 respondents
Most lived In flats/ apartments close to UNSW
Most rented with other Chinese students
Most found accommodation through family/ friends and the internet
Most had moved 2-3 times
..___Most were satisfied
Purpose:
To explore some of the challenges 'in your own words', with real-life examples
To hear your ideas about how to help students with accommodation
262
1) How accommodation affects your study
2) Your strategies relating to accommodation
-- 10 minute Break --
3) Your ideas for the future
Discuss with the group, not with me- I am just here to listen!
Only one person talks at one time (no side conversations please!)
Please give everyone an opportunity to say something
There are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers
263
64°/o said problems with accommodation had negatively affected their studies
Strategies relating to your accommodation
- • I have a goal I problem • A make a plan for addressing my goal I problem • I take specific steps to achieve my plan '-
264
My strategy for
My goal : Find an apartment to share, walking distance from UNSW, < $200 p.w. My plan: Try to find a place through my friends and look for other options on the internet. • The steps I took: Step 1: Asked my friends if they had a spare room. Step 2: Advertised on Facebook to my friends. Step 3: Asked my local church. ..____ Step 4: Looked on uni website and Domain.com ___..
What was your strategy for 1naing ac mo
265
My strategy for
The problem: Water leaking into my bedroom from the shower. My plan: Try to fix it myself, then ask the real estate agent to get it fixed. • The steps I took: Step 1: Stopped having showers, dried carpet with a fan. Step 2: Researched my rights on the internet Step 3: Asked my parents for advice Step 4: Emailed the real estate agent about it. Step 5: When he was slow, called the real estate agent.
What was your strategy for 1 p 1th your accommodatio
266
0 minute Break
deas for the future
---How can universities, governments and local people in Australia can help you with: • finding accommodation • dealing w ith problems with your accommodation
267
Most helpful resources:
• Friends I relatives • Other international students • Uni accommodation office I website
Least helpful, OR Didn't try • Local students • Clubs & societies • International student office I website • Chinese community (e.g. Business
.__owners , religious organisations)
268
Most helpful resources: • Friends I relatives • Other international students
Least helpful, OR Didn't try
• Local students • University welfare service • Clubs & societies • Local community • International organisations (e.g. office I website Kingsford Legal • Government Centre) - agencies (e.g. Fair Trading)
269
Most respondents did, at some stage, not know their rights and responsibilities in relation to accommodation in Sydney.
Most respondents had experienced problems affording good accommodation.
270
That's the end of today's discussion group
Don't forget to: 1) Give me your consent form 2) Take your free movie ticket
271