Mapping the research areaTime and outlets of publication

The first notable publication activity occurred at the end of 2020 (Fig. ). However, the bulk of the studies we reviewed (more than 60%) were published in 2021. Fewer studies were published in the first half of 2022. It is likely that other studies appeared in the second half of the year– and thus after the end of our review time frame.

Fig. 2

Number of reviewed studies by year of publication

Note: Where available, we extracted the date of the online publication. Otherwise, we extracted the date of the publication in print. Our intention was to best approximate publication dates to when results first became publicly available. In the reference list of this article, we used the in-print publication date as per APA7 guidelines

Full size image

By far, most of the reviewed studies (42; 88%) are based on fieldwork that was completed (at least in part) in 2020 and in 2021, although predominantly in 2020 (Table ). This implies that our analysis deals with social inequalities in ISM during the first two years of the Covid-19 pandemic and thus primarily captures its short-term effects.

Table 2 Year of fieldwork of reviewed studies

Full size table

The range of publication outlets is extremely diverse. Out of 48 studies, 32 were published in different journals, reflecting the disciplinary silos across which publications are spread in the field of ISM (Almeida, ). A somewhat broader, yet still nascent, discussion is taking place in the Journal of International Students (5 studies), Frontiers in Psychiatry (4 studies), and the Journal of Studies in International Education (3 studies), with 12 papers published in these three outlets alone.

In terms of disciplinary representation, most studies were published in the fields of education and sociology, with 18 studies each (Fig. ). While health and medicine were previously not known for producing knowledge on inequalities in education abroad, these disciplines rank third in our pool of studies (14 studies). When grouping studies in health and medicine with psychology and psychiatry, they even rise to first place (21 studies)– the reason being that the most frequently examined social inequalities relate to mental health and psychological distress (as Section "" shows).

Fig. 3

Main disciplines of the reviewed studies, as per Scopus classification of subject areas (multiple answers possible)

Full size image

Regarding the types of ISM, more than half of our studies (33) examine degree-seeking students (defined as students pursuing a full degree abroad), while 11 look at credit-seeking students (students who spend part of their degree abroad and intend to acquire credits for a degree obtained in their ‘home country’). Three studies do not specify the examined type of ISM, and one study addresses both degree- and credit-seeking students.

In line with research on education abroad in general, most of the reviewed studies (34) address incoming students, i.e., students sampled in their host country. Only 14 studies examine outgoing students, i.e., students sampled in their home country.

The reviewed studies primarily sampled students coming from Asian countries, most prominently China (17) and its special administrative regions Hong Kong (5) and Macau (1) (Fig. ). This trend might mirror global student flows, as students from Asia form the largest incoming student group abroad in post-secondary education across OECD countries (OECD, ). However, it might also reflect the fact that the Covid-19 pandemic first broke out in China. As will be discussed in Section "", East Asian students frequently emerge as the student group being most excluded or discriminated against. By contrast, very few studies examine students coming from countries in North America (USA: 1), Africa (Nigeria: 1), Europe (Spain: 1), or Australia (1). As with the types of ISM, there are several studies (10) that either did not capture or report the country of origin or prior education of the examined students, thus limiting the interpretability of their results.

Fig. 4

Students’ countries of origin (multiple answers possible)

Note: Some studies examine students from several countries. These countries are indicated separately if studies examined up to three different countries. Studies examining students from more than three countries or broader world regions of origin (e.g., Asian countries) were assigned to the category “Multiple countries”. The category “Not specified” contains studies not indicating the countries of origin of the examined students

Full size image

The ranking of the examined students’ host countries looks entirely different (Fig. ). Apart from four studies sampling incoming students in China, most studies focus on Western education hubs, i.e., Anglophone countries such as the USA (14), Australia (7), and the UK (6). Four studies examine students in multiple countries (i.e., students in more than three countries) and seven do not specify the examined countries but speak of regions instead (e.g., Asian countries or Portuguese-speaking countries).

Fig. 5

Students’ host countries (multiple answers possible)

Note: Some studies examine students in several countries. These countries are indicated separately if studies examined up to three different countries. Studies examining students in more than three host countries or broader world regions (e.g., Asian countries) were assigned to the category “Multiple countries”. The category “Not specified contains studies not indicating the host countries of the examined students

Full size image

The reviewed studies mostly adopt qualitative methodological paradigms (25), followed by quantitative (15), and mixed paradigms (8). This finding generally aligns with ISM literature, which is often characterised by single-institution case studies with small samples (Almeida, ; Streitwieser et al., ).

While all 15 quantitative studies adopt one type of methodological approach (survey research), the qualitative studies are guided by different approaches. Besides case studies (5), these include narrative-like methodological approaches centred on the experiences of research participants, such as phenomenology (7) and narrative inquiry (6). Only one study adopted an ethnographic approach, while eight studies selected a mixed methods approach.

The predominance of qualitative research designs is also reflected in the predominance of small sample sizes. More than half of all reviewed studies (27) are based on less than 100 observations, and 13 studies examine between 100 and 999 observations. Only five studies use samples of 1,000 to 4,999 observations, and merely two studies analyse 5,000 or more observations. One study did not provide corresponding information. Thus, most studies are neither likely to be representative at the country level, nor representative for the sampled student groups.

Following the mapping of the research area of interest in quantitative terms, the next section provides a qualitative synthesis of the six most frequently examined dimensions of social inequality in our pool of studies.

To summarise existing evidence on the studied dimensions of social inequality, we adopted a multidimensional approach considering the societal level and moment when these inequalities occurred in the ISM trajectory of students. We therefore categorised all reviewed studies according to (1) the examined dimensions of social inequality vis-à-vis (2) the level of analysis (micro, meso, macro), and (3) study abroad phase (before, during, and after). The resulting conceptual matrix is shown in Table .

Table 3 Conceptual matrix of dimensions of social inequality in ISM in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic (number of studies in parentheses)

Full size table

The examined dimensions of social inequality were primarily identified inductively by reading the corpus of studies. Some dimensions, however, were also identified deductively through logical reasoning or pre-existing theory. This explains the nil occurrences of some dimensions of social inequality.

As Table  demonstrates, most reviewed studies examine the lived experiences of inequalities of students at the micro level, including: inequality of treatment through increased psychological distress or the exclusion of certain student groups, inequality of opportunities through unequally experienced financial vulnerability, and inequality of outcomes in the form of differential psychological and socio-cultural adjustment outcomes. Most studies focus on social inequalities during the stay abroad (38 studies), while only eight studies focus on inequalities experienced by students in the pre-departure phase and only two on the time after their return.

The four most frequently analysed dimensions of social inequality at the micro level relate to students’ mental health, psychological distress, and wellbeing (14 studies), their experiences of exclusion, discrimination, or racism (13 studies), the determinants of study abroad plans (9 studies), and financial vulnerability (6 studies).

From a meso and macro perspective, institutional support services (8 studies), and governmental policies or public perceptions in the light of Covid-19 (7 studies) are the most frequently analysed social inequalities. Like the micro-level analyses, these studies mainly looked at social inequalities while students were in their host countries (during).

The following subsections provide a qualitative discussion of the six most frequently examined dimensions of social inequality.

The most frequently examined dimension of social inequality at the micro level is mental health, psychological distress, and wellbeing, which gathers 14 studies describing the mental health threats or disorders experienced by international students, and the related stress and coping mechanisms.

Considering all 14 studies from a double-coding perspective, four studies ascertain the relationships between mental health issues and perceived discrimination or prejudiced attitudes (Ge, ; Lai et al., ; Maleku et al., ; Zhao et al., ). In addition to experiences of exclusion, discrimination, or racism, the poor mental wellbeing of international students may be also intersected with financial hardships and/or work or academic precarity, as demonstrated by Maqbool et al. (), and Xu and Tran (). The remaining eight studies exclusively address mental health issues and/or disorders: fear of being infected, depression, anxiety, stress, insomnia, loneliness, and negative coping.

Most studies fall short of specifying their theoretical frameworks, either by not identifying any theories or by simply relying on the description of the key constructs (e.g., depression, anxiety, or stress) underpinning the adopted psychometric scales (e.g., Collins, ; Song et al., ; Teng & Takemoto, ). Of those studies that identify the theories they adopted (e.g., Chen et al., ; Lai et al., , ), the most common are theories of resilience, agency, social support, stress and coping (e.g., the Buffering Model of Social Support, the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping Theory).

The empirical evidence indicates heightened psychological distress, with loneliness, anxiety, depression, and fear of prejudice increasing during the pandemic (Ge, ; Lai et al., ; Ma & Miller, ; Maleku et al., ; Zhao et al., ). International students emerge as a vulnerable group, experiencing more mental health issues when surveyed longitudinally (pre- vs. post-Covid) or vis-à-vis other student groups (domestic students). The fact that international students are foreign-born residents made them vulnerable to psychological distress not only due to their weaker social bonds and fewer resources, but also because they were beyond the remit of the governmental protection afforded by their host countries.

Equally, discriminatory behaviour and the rise of anti-Chinese prejudice during the pandemic left international students psychologically distressed (e.g., Ge, ; Lai et al., ; Ma & Miller, ; Maleku et al. ; Zhao et al., ). Studies at the intersection of mental health and exclusion, but also those primarily addressing mental health (e.g., Alam et al., ; Chen et al., ), indicate that Chinese students were more likely to experience discrimination due to the misconception that they were carriers of the virus.

Most studies call for a wider understanding and recognition of mental health problems among international students. They also call for the provision of macro and meso support systems, from both universities and governments, e.g., in the form of training programmes or psychological interventions and contingency plans, to avoid similar situations during future crises.

The second most frequently examined dimension of social inequality (13 studies) deals with experiences of exclusion, discrimination, or racism. Most studies concentrate on inequality of treatment via students’ lived experiences of exclusion abroad (e.g., Koo et al., ; Rzymski & Nowicki, ; Zhang et al., ). Only two studies address inequality of outcomes by looking at psychosocial adjustment levels (Baharloo et al., ; Tikhonova et al., ).

However, exclusion happens in different shapes, whether through racial discrimination and xenophobic behaviour (Koo et al., ; Rzymski & Nowicki, ; Zhang et al., ), social and economic hardships (Malet Calvo et al., ), financial vulnerability (Cairns et al. ; Coffey et al., ), or lower levels of psychosocial adjustment (Baharloo et al., ; Tikhonova et al., ). According to three of the four studies focusing exclusively on this topic, discriminatory behaviours were frequently geared towards East-Asian students in Western destinations (USA and Poland). However, as discussed in Section "", this finding is not necessarily substantiated when controlling for socio-demographic variables to determine which student groups were most affected by the pandemic. In fact, only one of the three studies includes students from different countries of origin, but its scope is confined to 18 focus group participants, 12 of whom were from China and South Korea (Koo et al., ). The remaining study (Malet Calvo et al., ) addresses Portuguese-speaking African and Brazilian students; it does not focus on overt discrimination, but rather on unjust treatment.

From a double-coding perspective, this group of studies is the richest of the six most frequently examined dimensions of social inequality, by also addressing four other dimensions of social inequality: mental health (4 studies), financial vulnerability (2 studies), determinants of study abroad plans (1 study), and socio-cultural adjustment (2 studies).

As discussed in the previous section, studies addressing both mental health and exclusion show how poor mental health might be linked to social exclusion and discrimination (Lai et al., ; Ge, ; Maleku et al., ; Zhao et al., ). Exclusion can also be related to financial vulnerability, as demonstrated by the two studies at this intersection (Cairns et al., ; Coffey et al., ). In a similar vein, the study that links exclusion and determinants of study abroad plans (Yu, ) indicates that the pandemic might have exacerbated economic difficulties and negatively influenced students’ educational decision making (which is further discussed in Sections "" and ""). Finally, the two studies on socio-cultural adjustment show how pandemic-related anxiety and perceived discrimination not only led to a weaker psychosocial adjustment (Baharloo et al., ), but also to a re-assessment of adaptation barriers (e.g., increased language difficulties due to remote teaching, as well as new temporalities and physical constraints arising from restrictions to visas, work permits, and physical movement– Tikhonova et al., ).

Not all studies specify their theoretical foundations, centring instead on concepts and/or ideologies such as prejudice, xenophobia, discrimination, neo-racism, social imaginaries, and neoliberalism. The few studies identifying their adopted theoretical lenses rely on psychological theories such as acculturation and resilience theory, postcolonial theory (the Global North-Global South framework as an epistemological paradigm), and intersectionality theory.

The empirical evidence indicates a shift from perceiving international students as a mobile elite to seeing them as a vulnerable population group that might be socially excluded on the grounds of race, nationality, or fear of being carriers of the virus, or simply due to their foreign-national status that renders them socially and financially vulnerable (Coffey et al., ). Another central theme is that experiences of exclusion might lead to poor psychosocial adjustment (Baharloo et al., ; Tikhonova et al., ) and mental health (Maleku et al., ; Zhao et al., ). The latter facet emerged more strongly, however, reinforcing the results yielded by mental health studies, in that the pandemic appeared to have stronger adverse psychological effects among specific student groups.

Most studies reported discriminatory behaviours towards Chinese students (from mainland China and Hong Kong) studying in Canada, the USA, and the UK (Ge, 2021; Koo et al., ; Lai et al., ; Maleku et al., ; ; Zhang et al., ). Other destinations are also mentioned in this regard (e.g., Poland, Rzymski & Nowicki, ). Racist incidents occurred on and off campus, in physical and online spaces (Koo et al., ; Maleku et al., ; ), and they extended to students’ wider social circles (Koo et al., ; Rzymski & Nowicki, ).

The third most frequently examined dimension of social inequality at the micro level refers to the determinants of study abroad plans in the context of the pandemic, with a total of nine studies. Seven of these studies refer to the pre-departure phase, more specifically to how prospective international students conceived the possibility of studying abroad in light of Covid-19. The remaining two studies refer to the impact of the pandemic on the future overseas plans of those currently studying abroad (Santiso & Sanz, ; Yu, ).

Six studies address decision making among Chinese degree-seeking students from China, Hong Kong, and Macau (Cheng & Agyeiwaah, ; Mok et al., , ; Mok & Zhang, ; Wang, ; Yu, ), and one study among US-American degree-seeking students abroad (Santiso & Sanz, ). The other two studies focus on the decision making of students from India (Singh et al., ) and Kazakhstan (Almukhambetova & Kuzhabekova, ). The overemphasis on Chinese students might be related to their frequent experiences of exclusion, further emphasised by their overrepresentation as the largest international student group in Western destinations, as discussed in Sections "" and "".

In terms of theory, most studies refer to the notion of push and pull factors (Almukhambetova & Kuzhabekova, ; Mok et al., , ; Mok & Zhang, ). Additionally, some studies draw on theories of human capital (Mok et al., ), actor-networks (Cheng & Agyeiwaah, ), or agency (Wang, ). The study by Singh et al. () does not refer to any specific theories or concepts.

All studies conclude that the likelihood of studying abroad decreased during the pandemic. Quantitative studies indicate that this likelihood decreased by 13–14% after the onset of the pandemic, resulting roughly in an 8–16% share of students who still intended to study abroad despite the restrictions imposed (Mok et al., , ; Mok & Zhang, ). However, when asked about their intentions to study abroad after the pandemic, the surveyed students indicated that they planned to study abroad to a similar extent as before the pandemic (Mok et al., , ; Mok & Zhang, ).

Additionally, Mok and Zhang () contend that students from low-income families were the most affected by the pandemic. Arguably, this social group was already less prone to studying abroad before the pandemic, making it difficult to maintain, based on Mok and Zhang’s () design, that students from low-income families were affected more strongly by the pandemic than those from higher income families. Regarding gender, Singh et al. () report that women were more likely than men to postpone their overseas plans due to the pandemic.

Only one (doubled-coded) study can be situated at the intersection of two dimensions of social inequality, by analysing how experiences of exclusion or discrimination may influence student decision making (Yu, ).

Overall, the empirical evidence indicates that the main explanations for the decreasing participation in international mobility opportunities were personal reasons, familial or parental health concerns, diplomatic frictions between home and host countries, worries about anti-China sentiment abroad (a recurring topic also in other groups of studies in our review– see Section ""), and fear of not being able to return to the home country (Almukhambetova & Kuzhabekova, ; Cheng & Agyeiwaah, ; Mok et al., ; Singh et al., ). Students who still intended to study abroad during the pandemic pointed to opportunities for high-quality learning and the prestige of the potential host universities (Almukhambetova & Kuzhabekova, ; Mok et al., ).

Taken together, this set of studies not only demonstrates how the pandemic acted as a disruptor of access to international mobility opportunities, but also how it exacerbated social inequalities– because some students already belonged to economically disadvantaged groups (Mok & Zhang, ), due to governmental responses to Covid-19 (e.g., Mok et al., ; Cheng & Agyeiwaah, ), or because of increased prejudice against specific student groups (e.g., Yu, ).

The fourth most frequently examined dimension of social inequality at the micro level relates to students’ financial vulnerability. A body of six studies examines financial hardships, primarily from a student perspective (micro level), but also considering potential macro-structural exclusion.

While all six studies address students’ financial vulnerability, the discussed reasons for students experiencing economic precarity vary. These reasons range from precarious jobs (Coffey et al., ), limited welfare access in the host country due to students’ foreign-national status (Ramia et al., ), geopolitical and economic asymmetries (Cairns et al., ), and students’ socio-demographic backgrounds (Hastings et al., ) to increasing financial strain arising from travel restrictions (Maqbool et al., ; Xu & Tran, ).

Within this group of studies, five are at the intersection of different dimensions of social inequality. Ramia et al. () examine international students’ financial welfare before and during the pandemic as a policy question, investigating both financial vulnerability and governmental policies in response to Covid-19. Another intersection concerns two studies examining students’ financial vulnerability and their mental health (Maqbool et al., ; Xu & Tran, ), which probe into economic hardships arising from border closures or travel bans and the resulting psychological distress of international students pursuing postgraduate studies. Relatdly, two studies show that financial vulnerability might lead to social exclusion, either due to foreign citizenship status and gender inequalities (Coffey et al., ) or lacking economic capital (Cairns et al., ).

This group of studies clearly states the adopted theoretical frameworks, which comprise citizenship/non-citizenship frameworks (Hastings et al., ; Ramia et al., ), bioecological systems and needs-response agency theory (Xu & Tran, ), intersectionality theory (Coffey et al., ), and Bourdieu’s theory of social, economic, and cultural capital (Cairns et al., ). Only Maqbool et al. () lack a clear theoretical background, despite drawing on the existing academic literature to contextualise a less frequently examined flow of ISM, namely from Pakistan to China.

The empirical evidence shows that international students experienced heightened financial vulnerability during the Covid-19 pandemic. This finding becomes evident in both studies adopting a longitudinal approach (pre- vs. post-Covid) and studies comparing study abroad students and domestic students cross-sectionally (Cairns et al., ; Coffey et al., ; Hastings et al., ; Maqbool et al., ; Xu & Tran, ; Ramia et al., ).

Similar to the studies on mental health (see Section ""), these studies show that financial vulnerability was exacerbated by the foreign-national status of international students, as it hindered their access to financial assistance in the host country (Hastings et al., ; Ramia et al., ). However, due to students’ diverse socio-economic backgrounds and the intersection with other social vulnerabilities, the impact of the pandemic on their financial precarity was uneven. Students from low-income countries and working-class backgrounds had to rely on precarious jobs for financial survival even before the Covid-19 pandemic. Consequently, the adverse impacts of the pandemic were more pronounced than for their counterparts from affluent families in high-income countries (Cairns et al., ; Maqbool et al., ; Hastings et al., ). Additionally, the pandemic intensified the pre-existing financial vulnerability of female students (Coffey et al., ).

These studies also highlight a dearth of institutional responses to the hardships brought about by the pandemic (Cairns et al., , Ramia et al., ). Although both home- and host-country higher education institutions were aware of the financial struggles of students, the measures they implemented to ease these burdens proved insufficient in many cases. Most studies call for a broader understanding and better acknowledgment of the financial vulnerability of international students, emphasising the importance of providing appropriate support via both governments and universities to improve working conditions and welfare provisions.

The only dimension of social inequality we carved out at the meso level relates to the nature and efficacy of institutional support services to address the challenges faced by international students during the Covid-19 pandemic. Four out of a total of eight studies analyse such institutional support services of higher education institutions (HEIs) based in the USA. The remaining studies look at HEIs in the UK (1), Australia (1), South Korea (1), or the USA and the UK simultaneously (1).

These studies examine students’ satisfaction with a range of institutional interventions or support mechanisms, including financial support, hygiene and social distancing, effective communication, measures to ensure students’ wellbeing and mental health (Greenland et al., ), remote teaching, and pastoral care services such as counselling, tutoring, and mentoring (Honegger & Honegger, ; Krsmanovic, ). Some studies focus on specific support mechanisms, such as remote teaching (Eboka, ; Han et al., ) and quarantine support (Stewart & Kim, ).

These studies assess the adequacy of support services according to the challenges faced by international students (Whatley & Fischer, ), including their access to resources like housing, food, and essential supplies. Other common challenges include travel restrictions, visa issues, and the impact of the digital divide (Eboka, ; Han et al., ).

While these studies do not overtly intersect with other dimensions of social inequality, they frequently explore the psychological dimension of students’ experiences abroad by ascertaining how the provision (or lack thereof) of institutional support can influence students’ mental health issues, isolation, and the stress associated with meeting online educational requirements during a global health crisis. The arrow connecting mental health to institutional support services in Fig.  shall reflect this implicit thematic connection.

Fig. 6

Intersecting dimensions of social inequality in ISM in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic

Full size image

The theoretical foundations are notably diverse, with each study employing distinct theories or frameworks, such as narrative theory (Honegger & Honegger, ), sociology of conventions theory (Ye, ), and the adaptive leadership framework (Krsmanovic, ). Other studies incorporate concepts related to online learning (Han, ) or broader theories like social constructivism (Whatley & Fischer, ). Three studies (Eboka, ; Greenland et al., ; Stewart & Kim, ) do not explicitly articulate their theoretical foundations.

Overall, the findings emphasise the need for effective responses from HEIs that do not only address immediate educational challenges, but also the broader psychosocial and economic impacts of the pandemic on international students. Another recurrent theme is the call for more research from a student perspective that goes beyond market-driven approaches in order to harness more socially equitable and supportive educational environments.

The most frequently examined dimension of social inequality at the macro level relates to governmental policies in response to Covid-19 and negative perceptions of international students. Seven studies look at international students within their macro contexts and address how pandemic-related governmental policies affect different aspects of the study abroad experience. These policies range from limiting access to international mobility opportunities, disrupting transnational infrastructures that sustain international migration, and restraining citizenship rights or access to societal services to shaping public perceptions of international students. The examined host countries primarily constitute Anglophone education hubs, including Australia, the USA, and the UK. China is the sending country in three out of seven analysed studies; four studies do not specify the countries of origin or education of the examined students.

The inequalities these studies highlight concern degree-seeking students and arise from governmental policies in response to Covid-19 (4 studies), societal support services in response to Covid-19 (1), policies regarding international student access to higher education abroad (1), and perceptions of international students and/or public discourses (1). While one study focuses on access policies in the pre-departure phase (Buckner et al., ), the other studies scrutinise policies, services, or public perceptions affecting students’ time abroad (Table ).

The reviewed studies are mainly descriptive and have limited theoretical foundations. Four studies do not specify the adopted theoretical framework (Buckner et al., ; Ma & Zhan, ; Mittelmeier & Cockayne, ; Younis et al., ), and the remaining three conceptualise their work from different angles, drawing on concepts such as risk conceptualisation and family-mediated migration infrastructures (Hu et al., ), stigma and coping mechanisms (Ma & Zhan, ), and social citizenship (Ramia et al., ).

Overall, findings from the macro-level studies highlight the fragile position of international students during the pandemic. International students’ perspectives and needs were not necessarily addressed when governments pursued national interests in policymaking (Qi & Ma, ). Furthermore, public narratives about international students fuelled racism when tweets portrayed them as spreaders of the virus (Mittelmeier & Cockayne, ). The studies analysing pandemic-related governmental policies and practices portray international students as a migrant group irrespective of national and institutional contexts. Future research could, thus, seek to understand international students in light of both their student status, and their home and host countries and institutions.