UNDERSTANDING PLACE ATTACHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS: THE CASE OF KASTAMONU CITY

Öz

International student mobility is in an important growth momentum in the world and this is also true for Turkey. This study tries to understand the place attachment of international students studying at Kastamonu University. Place attachment of international students is discussed on the basis of the tripartite model developed by Scannell & Gifford. Within the scope of the study, interviews with 20 international students from 14 different countries were used. According to the findings, international students have a place attachment, but the dynamics of this attachment vary. While dynamics such as friendship relations, the warm approach of students and local people, the calmness of the city and being a conservative place stand out as positive factors in place attachment, factors such as longing for homeland and family, language, climate conditions, smallness of the city and lack of job opportunities negatively affected attachment. However, place attachment differs according to spatial scales. Among the spatial units, the majority of the participants emphasize their attachment to the city of Kastamonu, followed by Turkey and Kastamonu University, respectively.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Place Attachment
• International Student Mobility
• Kastamonu University
• Place
• Spatial Scale

ULUSLARARASI ÖĞRENCİLERİN YER BAĞLILIĞINI ANLAMAK: KASTAMONU KENTİ ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Uluslararası öğrenci hareketliliği dünyada önemli bir büyüme ivmesi içerisindedir ve bu durum Türkiye için de geçerlidir. Bu çalışma, Kastamonu Üniversitesi’nde öğrenim gören uluslararası öğrencilerin yer bağlılıklarını anlamaya çalışmaktadır. Uluslararası öğrencilerin yer bağlılıkları, Scannell & Gifford tarafından geliştirilen üçlü model temelinde ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında 14 farklı ülkeden 20 uluslararası öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilen görüşmelerden yararlanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, uluslararası öğrenciler bir yer bağlılığına sahiptir ancak bu bağlılığın dinamikleri değişkenlik göstermektedir. Arkadaşlık ilişkileri, öğrenci ve yerel halkın sıcak yaklaşımı, kentin sakinliği, muhafazakar bir yer olması gibi dinamikler yer bağlılığında olumlu etmen olarak öne çıkarken, memleket ve aile özlemi, dil, iklim şartları, kentin küçüklüğü, iş imkanlarının yetersizliği gibi etmenler de bağlılığı olumsuz etkilemiştir. Bununla birlikte mekânsal ölçeklere göre yer bağlılığı farklılık göstermektedir. Mekânsal birimler arasında katılımcıların çoğunluğu Kastamonu şehrine olan bağlılığı öne çıkarırken, Türkiye ve Kastamonu Üniversitesi sırasıyla bunu takip etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yer Bağlılığı
• Uluslararası Öğrenci Hareketliliği
• Kastamonu Üniversitesi
• Yer
• Mekânsal Ölçek

Kaynakça

1. Ayberk, C. (2018). Yer bağlılığı açısından Ters Yüz (Inside Out) filminin nitel analizi. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 16(2), 273- 287. https://doi.org/10.1501/Cogbil_0000000202
2. Ayberk, C. (2019). Uluslararası öğrenci hareketliliği: İstanbul'daki uluslararası öğrencilerin yer bağlılığı, deneyimleri ve hareketin sonuçları. (Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara).
3. Beech, S. E. (2015). International student mobility: The role of social networks. Social and Cultural Geography, 16(3), 332-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2014.983961
4. Beech, S. E. (2018). Adapting to change in the higher education system: International student mobility as a migration industry. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44(4), 610- 625.https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1315515
5. Bolat, M. A. (2017). Türkiye’nin uluslararası öğrenci politikası: Durum tespiti ve öneriler. O. Akgül (Ed.) Uluslararası öğrencilik sosyal, ekonomik ve kültürel perspektifler içinde (ss. 8-19). İstanbul: Harf Yayın.
6. Beneke, J. (2010). Marketing the institution to prospective students: A review of brand (reputation) management in higher education. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n1p29
7. Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 331-352. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0138
8. Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Bonnes, M. (2006). Perceived residential environment quality in middle and low-extension Italian cities. European Review of Applied Psychology, 56, 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2005.02.011

9. Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration and the internationalization of higher education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Bryla, P. (2015). Self-reported effects of and satisfaction with international student mobility: A large-scale survey among Polish former erasmus students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 2074-2082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.248
11. Can, N. (1996). Türkiye’de yükseköğrenim gören yabancı uyruklu öğrencilerin sorunları ve örgütsel yapı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 7, 503-512.
12. Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of place. London: The Architectural Press.
13. Collins, F. L. (2008). Bridges to learning: international student mobilities, education agencies and inter-personal networks. Global Networks, 8(4), 398-417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2008.00231.x
14. Collins, F. L. (2012). Researching mobility and emplacement: Examining transience and transnationality in international student lives. Area, 44(3), 296-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2012.01112.x
15. Cresswell, T. (2014). Place: An introduction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
16. Cross, J. E. (2015). Processes of place attachment: An interactional framework. Symbolic Interaction, 38(4), 493-520. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.198
17. Çağlar, A. (1999). Türk üniversitelerinde öğrenim gören Türki cumhuriyet ve akraba toplulukları öğrencilerinin sorunları. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 32(4), 133-169.
18. De Wit, H. (2009). Measuring the success of internationalisation of higher education. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education (EAIE Occasional Paper, 22).
19. Enachea, C., & Craciun, C. (2013). The role of the landscape in the identity generation process. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 309-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.677
20. Fried, M. (1982). Residential attachment: Sources of residential and community satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 107-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.tb01773.x
21. Göregenli, M. (2010). Çevre psikolojisi: İnsan-mekân ilişkileri. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
22. Göregenli, M., & Karakuş, P. (2014). Göç araştırmalarında mekan boyutu: Kültürel ve mekânsal bütünleşme. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 17(34), 101-115.
23. Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of attachment and place attachment. M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Ed.), Psychological theories for environmental issues (pp. 137-170). Hampshire: Aldershot, Ashgate.
24. Giuliani, M. V., & Feldman, R. (1993). Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 267-274.
25. Gustafson, P. (2006). Place attachment and mobility. In N. McIntyre, & K. E. McHugh (Ed.), Multipledwelling and tourism: Negotiating place, home and identity (pp. 17-31). Wallingford: CAB International.
26. Gustafson, P. (2009). More cosmopolitan, no less local. European Societies, 11, 25-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616690802209689
27. Guth, J., & Gill, B. (2008). Motivations in east-west doctoral mobility: Revisiting the question of brain drain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34, 825-841. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830802106119
28. Gülnar, B. (2011). Yabancı öğrencilerde kültürleşme ve medya kullanımı. Global Media Journal, 2(3), 51-68.
29. Harris, P. B., Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1996). Privacy regulation and place attachment: Predicting attachments to a student family housing facility. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0025
30. Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273-281. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221
31. Hou, C., & Du, D. (2022). The changing patterns of international student mobility: A network perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(1), 248-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1797476
32. Huntley, S. (1993). Adult international students: Problems of adjustment. Athens: Ohio University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED355886)
33. Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0226
34. Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998). Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts. A study among residents in svalbard in the norwegian high arctic. Applied Geography 18(2), 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.715726
35. Karakullukçu, A. (2020). Uluslararası öğrenci hareketliliğinin Türkiye’de eğitim ekonomisinin gelişimi üzerine etkisi. (Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul).
36. Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094293
37. Kastamonu Üniversitesi, (2019). https://www.kastamonu.edu.tr/index.php/tr/menu-oidb-istatistikler- tr/27-kategori-oidb-tr/2115-makale-oidb-istatistikler-yabanci- uyruklu-ogrenci-sayilari-2016-yili adresinden edinilmiştir.
38. Kethüda, Ö. (2015). Türkiye’deki uluslararası öğrenci hareketliliği üzerine bir araştırma. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 5(3), 147-161
39. Kıroğlu, K., Kesten, A., & Elma, C. (2010). Türkiye’de öğrenim gören yabancı uyruklu lisans öğrencilerinin sosyo-kültürel ve ekonomik sorunları. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 26-39.
40. Kondakçı, Y. (2011). Student mobility reviewed: Attraction and satisfaction of international students in Turkey. Higher Education, 62(5), 573-592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9406-2
41. Kuş, E. (2012). Nicel-nitel araştırma teknikleri: Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma teknikleri nicel mi? Nitel mi? Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
42. Laczko, L. S. (2005). National and local attachments in a changing world system: Evidence from an international survey. International Review of Sociology, 15, 517-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906700500272525
43. Levent, F., & Karaevli, Ö. (2013). Uluslararası öğrencilerin eğitimine yönelik politikalar ve Türkiye için öneriler. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 38, 97- 117. https://doi.org/10.15285/EBD.2013385569
44. Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to make people active: Role of place attachment, cultural capital and neighborhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 381-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.10.004
45. Lewicka, M. (2008). Place attachment, place identity and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 209-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001
46. Lewicka, M. (2010). What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004
47. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 270-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001
48. Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 12, 1- 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4_1
49. Manzo, L. C. (2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.01.002
50. Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20, 335-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412205286160
51. Mesch, G. S., & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environment and Behavior, 30, 227-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000405
52. Naidoo, V. (2010). From Ivory towers to international business: Are universities export ready in their recruitment of international students? Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315308327953
53. Neuman, W. L. (2008). Toplumsal Araştırma Yöntemleri–Nitel ve Nicel Yaklaşımlar. (1.Cilt) (Çev: S. Özge), İstanbul: Yayın Odası Yayıncılık.
54. OECD (2009). Higher education to 2030 (Vol. 2): Globalisation. Paris: OECD.
55. OECD (2011). Education at a glance, 2011. Paris: OECD.
56. Osmanlı, Ü. (2018). Uluslararası öğrencilerin sosyal adaptasyonuna yönelik bir araştırma: Laü örneği. LAÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(1), 49-74.
57. Özer, M. (2012). Türkiye’de uluslararası öğrenciler. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2(1), 10-13.
58. Patterson, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2005). Maintaining research traditions on place: Diversity of thought and scientific progress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 361-380.
59. Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. California: Sage Publications.
60. Polat, S., & Arslan, Y. (2017). Uluslararası öğrencilerin üniversite seçimini etkileyen etmenler. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 7(2), 94-104.
61. Pretty, G. H. Chipuer, H. M., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two australian towns the discriminating features of place attacahment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272- 4944(02)00079-8
62. Proshansky, H., Fabian, A., & Kaminoff, R., (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80021-8
63. Qiang, Z. (2003). Internationalization of higher education: Towards a conceptual framework. Policy Futures in Education, 1(2), 248-270. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2003.1.2.5
64. Reilly, A., Hickey, T., & Ryan, D. (2015). The experiences of American international students in a large Irish university. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 86-98. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v5i1.445
65. Richters, E., & Teichler, U. (2006). Student mobility data: Current methodological issues and future prospects. In M. Kelo, U. Teichler, & B. Wächter (Ed.), EURODATA: Student mobility in European higher education (pp.78-95). Bonn: Lemmens Verlags- & Mediengesellschaf.
66. Rollero, C., & De Piccoli, N. (2010). Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 198-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.12.003
67. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006
68. Shumaker, S. A., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Toward a clarification of people- place relationships: A model of attachment to place. In Feimer, N.R. & Geller, E S. (Eds), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives. Praeger.
69. Steele, F. (1981). The sense of place. Boston: CBI Publishing Company.
70. Stokols, D., & Schumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. J. Harvey (Ed.) Cognition, social behavior and the environment. (pp.441-488) New Jersey: Erlbaum.
71. Stolle, D., Soroka, S., & Johnston, R. (2008). When does diversity erode trust? Neighborhood diversity, interpersonal trust and the mediating effect of social interactions. Political Studies, 56, 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00717.x
72. Taylan, Ş. (2019). Sakarya üniversitesindeki uluslararası öğrencilerin sorunları. (Yüksek lisans tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sakarya).
73. Tekelioğlu, S., Bafler, H., Örtlek, M., & Aydınlı, C. (2012). Uluslararası öğrencilerin ülke ve üniversite seçiminde etkili faktörler: Vakıf Üniversitesi örneği. Organizasyon ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(2), 191- 200.
74. Trentelman, C. K. (2009). Place attachment and community attachment: A primer grounded in the lived experience of a community sociologist. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802191712
75. Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Space and place: Humanistic perspective. Progress in Human Geography, 6, 211-252.
76. Tuan, Y. F. (1975). Place: An experiential perspective. Geographical Review, 65, 151-165.
77. Ujang, N. (2016). Affective perception of place: Attachment to Kuala Lumpur historical urban places. Open House International; Gateshead, 41(2), 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1108/OHI-02-2016-B0012
78. UNESCO (2009). http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0018/001832/183249e.pdf adresinden edinilmiştir.
79. Verbik, L., & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends. London: The Observatory on borderless higher education.
80. Wasserman, I. M. (1982). Size of place in relation to community attachment and satisfaction with community services. Social Indicators Research, 11, 421-436.
81. Westin, K. (2015). Place attachment and mobility in city regions. Population Space and Place 22(8), 722-735. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1949
82. Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J, J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830-840.
83. YÖK (2019). Öğrenci istatistikleri. Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi. 07 Temmuz 2020 tarihinde https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/ adresinden edinilmiştir.
84. Zheng, P. (2014). Antecedents to international student inflows to UK higher education: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 136-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.11.003