U.S. and Australian International Student Data Collection

U.S. and Australian International Student Data Collection - Key Differences and Practices. Download the briefing paper.
The Institute of International Education's Center for Academic Mobility Research is pleased to announce the publication of a new briefing paper: U.S. and Australian International Student Data Collection: Key Differences and Practices.
This briefing paper summarizes the findings of a comparative study on international student data collection methods and practices in the United States and in Australia, conducted in collaboration with the International Research and Analysis Unit of Australian Education International (AEI) with support from the Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE). The paper summarizes the key differences between the data collection systems of both countries and identifies best practices in Australian data collection which can be used to improve data collection efforts in other countries, as well as ways in which countries can collaborate to move toward the common goal of better cross-national comparability of mobility data. Download a copy of the briefing paper. Learn more about IIE’s Center for Academic Mobility Research.
V Conclusion
International fellowships, such as the Endeavour Award that allowed for this research, provide excellent opportunities for the in-depth exploration of mobility issues by allowing research staff at peer organizations to learn about research and data collection practices in other countries. As a result of this research, the following lessons were learned:
1) The U.S. and Australian international student data collections are synchronized in many ways but several aspects remain divergent. Examples of areas which are aligned include core definitions, such as basing the country of origin on citizenship rather than permanent residence, and the exclusion of students on tourist or other temporary entry visas. Areas where the data collections diverge include level of education: AEI enrollment data includes vocational education (VET), English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS) and schools (primary and secondary education) in addition to higher education, while U.S. data covers only higher education, and to a limited extent, intensive English enrollments. However, AEI does disaggregate data by level, thus valid comparisons can be made.
2) As the case of Chinese student enrollment shows, it is vital to take into account variations in data collection methodologies and definitions when making comparative analyses of cross-national data. Comparing published numbers without regard to these details may result in inaccurate conclusions.
3) The AEI monthly data releases reflect course enrollments, not student headcounts, which are reported only once a year. The Open Doors U.S. data collection is an annual headcount, and thus is actually reported on the same timeframe as the Australian data.
4) The higher level of government oversight and support of international education in Australia has a number of consequences for international student data collection. While access to data and compulsory data submission are major benefits, government-mandated data collection is not perfect. Education providers who do not receive government funding are not included in government data collection, which necessitates independent private sector data collection; in Australia this takes place primarily in the VET and ELICOS sectors.
5) Cultural differences, such as the stronger sense of corporatism in Australia, also play a role in facilitating data collection. Educational institutions and providers in the U.S. often operate in a competitive framework, where peer institutions are considered rivals or benchmarks to be surpassed. Institutions and providers may be unwilling to provide data which may be used to competitor’s advantage. Improving the performance of the U.S. as a whole in the global marketplace is generally not a consideration, although institutions may band together locally in the form of city and state consortia to jointly promote study in their immediate region. Australia, with a smaller overall population and smaller number of institutions and providers is more likely to band together at the national level, and this is reflected in the success of national data collection efforts.