SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yükseköğretim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1

Variables Predicting Social Cohesion and Satisfaction with Life of International University Students in Turkey as Potential Permanent Immigrants

Muhtemel Kalıcı Göçmenler Olarak Türkiye’deki Uluslararası Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Sosyal Uyumunu ve Yaşam Doyumunu Yordayan Değişkenler

Hakan Arslan(Uşak Üniversitesi)0000-0003-2376-9253
Pages
101–117
Publication Date
2026-03-17
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on this finding, it can be concluded that social cohesion is an important predictor of life satisfaction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This quantitative research is based on a relational survey model.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although the sample of the study consists of international students in Türkiye, the specific circumstances surrounding the migration processes of Middle Eastern students, who constitute a significant portion of this group, also categorize this research as migration study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on this finding, it can be concluded that social cohesion is an important predictor of life satisfaction.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sosyal Uyum · Yaşam Doyumu · Uluslararası Üniversite Öğrencileri

Abstract

This quantitative research is based on a relational survey model. This study aims to examine the social cohesion levels and life satisfaction of international university students studying in Türkiye within the framework of their sociodemographic characteristics, as well as to determine the impact of social cohesion levels on life satisfaction. Although the sample of the study consists of international students in Türkiye, the specific circumstances surrounding the migration processes of Middle Eastern students, who constitute a significant portion of this group, also categorize this research as migration study. The high likelihood that participants will remain in Türkiye after their studies increases the significance of the research. Among the three hypotheses developed for the study, two investigate the effects of participants’ sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, region of origin, study in Türkiye before university, citizenhip status, length of recidence in Türkiye, thoughts of returning to home country) on social cohesion and life satisfaction. The third hypothesis examines the extent to which social cohesion predicts life satisfaction. Using SPSS 23, I conducted t-tests, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation, and simple linear regression analyses. According to the findings, those who have not studied in Türkiye before; those who have spent less time in Türkiye (0-2 years), and those who come from Turkic Republics have the highest level of social cohesion compared to other groups. In terms of life satisfaction, younger students and those from “Other” countries obtained higher scores. The lowest life satisfaction was observed among Middle Eastern students. According to the research results, “region of origin” is the only variable that creates a significant difference in terms of social cohesion and life satisfaction. Another finding of the study is that there is a positive and significant relationship between social cohesion and life satisfaction, and social cohesion alone predicted life satisfaction by 14.1%. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that social cohesion is an important predictor of life satisfaction.

Özet

Bu çalışma ilişkisel tarama modeline dayalı nicel bir araştırmadır. Araştırma, Türkiye’de eğitim gören uluslararası üniversite öğrencilerinin ev sahibi ülkeye sosyal uyum düzeylerini ve yaşam doyumlarını sosyo-demografik özellikleri çerçevesinde incelemeyi ve sosyal uyum düzeyinin yaşam doyumu üzerindeki etkisini saptamayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın evrenini Türkiye’deki uluslararası öğrenciler oluşturmakla birlikte sözkonusu öğrenci grubunun önemli bir kısmını oluşturan Ortadoğu kökenlilerin Türkiye’ye gelme süreçlerinin özgül durumu bu araştırmayı bir göç araştırması kategorisine de dahil etmektedir. Araştırmanın katılımcılarının öğrenim süreci sonunda yüksek oranda Türkiye’de kalma ihtimalinin bulunması araştırmanın önemini arttırmaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında geliştirilen üç hipotezden ikisi katılımcıların sosyodemografik özelliklerinin (cinsiyet, yaş, bölgesel köken, Türkiye’de aldığı eğitim, vatandaşlık durumu, Türkiye’de yaşama süresi, ülkesine dönme düşüncesi) sosyal uyum ve yaşam doyumu üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktadır. Üçüncü hipotez ise sosyal uyumun yaşam doyumunu yordama düzeyini incelemektedir. SPSS 23 programının kullanıldığı araştırmada t-testi, ANOVA, Pearson Correlation ve basit doğrusal regresyon analizleri yapılmıştır. Bulgulara göre daha önce Türkiye’de eğitim almamış olanlar; Türkiye’de daha az (0-2 yıl) zaman geçirmiş olanlar ve Türki Cumhuriyetlerden gelenler diğer gruplara göre en yüksek sosyal uyum düzeyine sahiptir. Yaşam doyumu açısından ise yaşı daha küçük öğrenciler ile “Diğer” ülkelerden gelenler daha yüksek puanlar elde etmişlerdir. En düşük yaşam doyumu Ortadoğulu öğrencilerde gözlenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre “bölgesel köken” sosyal uyum ve yaşam doyumu açısından anlamlı fark yaratan tek değişkendir. Çalışmanın diğer bir bulgusu sosyal uyum ile yaşam doyumu arasında pozitif yönlü ve anlamlı bir ilişkinin bulunması ve sosyal uyumun yaşam doyumunu tek başına %14,1 oranında yordamasıdır. Bu tespite dayanarak sosyal uyumun, yaşam doyumunun önemli bir yordayıcısı olduğu söylenebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Arslan, H. (2026). Variables Predicting Social Cohesion and Satisfaction with Life of International University Students in Turkey as Potential Permanent Immigrants. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.53478/yuksekogretim.1598206

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (91)

  1. Ainsaar, M. (2023). Life Satisfaction of immigrants and length of stay in the new country. Social Sciences 12, 655. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120655
  2. Akhtar, M. & Kroener-Herwig, B. (2019). Coping styles and socio-demographic variables as predictors of psychological well-being among international students belonging to different cultures. Current Psychology, 38, 618-626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9635-3
  3. Amanat, A. (2012). Introduction: Is there a Middle East? Problematizing a virtual space. In Bonine, M. E., Amanat, A & Gasper, M. E. (Eds.) Is there a Middle East The evolution of a geopolitical concept. (pp. 1-11). Stanford University Press.
  4. Amanov, I. (1996). Özbekistan Cumhuriyeti'nden Bursa’ya yüksek öğrenim görmek için gelen öğrencilerin uyum problemleri [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Uludağ Üniversitesi.
  5. Amit, K. (2010). Determinants of life satisfaction among immigrants from Western countries and from the FSU in israel. Social Indicators Research, 96, 515-534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9490-1
  6. Ana, Z. M. (2020). Türkiye’de yaşayan yabancı uyruklu öğrencilerin sosyal uyum sürecine ilişkin görüşlerinin incelenmesi: Nitel bir yaklaşım [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi.
  7. Angelini, V., Casi, L. & Corazzini, L. (2015). Life satisfaction of immigrants: does cultural assimilation matter?. Journal of Population Economics, 28, 817-844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-015-0552-1
  8. Aruqaj, B. (2023). An integrated approach to the conceptualisation and measurement of social cohesion. Social Indicators Research, 168(1), 227-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03110-z
  9. Azmaz, S. (1995). Orta Asya Cumhuriyetleri’nden gelen Uludağ Üniversitesi’nde öğrenim gören öğrencilerin uyum düzeylerini etkileyen bazı etmenler [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Uludağ Üniversitesi.
  10. Bolgün, C. (2020). Sosyal uyum ve gruplararası ilişkiler: Türkiye’de yerel toplum ve Suriyeliler [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  11. Bonini, A. N. (2008). Cross-national variation in individual life satisfaction: Effects of national wealth, human development, and environmental conditions. Social indicators research, 87, 223-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9167-6
  12. Bottoni, G. (2018). A multilevel measurement model of social cohesion. Social Indicators Research, 136(3), 835-857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1470-7
  13. Chan, J., To, H. P. & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75, 273-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-2118-1
  14. Council of Europe (2001). Promoting the policy debate on social exclusion from a comparative perspective. https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/Trends/Trends-01_en.pdf
  15. Council of Europe (2004). Revised strategy for social cohesion. European Committee for Social Cohesion. https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/revisedstrategy_en.pdf
  16. Davison, R. H. (1960). Where is the Middle East? Foreign Affairs, 38, 665– 675. http://doi.org/10.2307/20029452
  17. Deaton, A. (2008). Income, health and well-being around the world: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22, 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.2.53
  18. Delhey, J. & Dragolov, G. (2016). Happier together. Social cohesion and subjective well-being in Europe. International Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12149
  19. Dereli, B. (2018). Refugee integration through higher education: Syrian refugees in Turkey. Policy Report, UNU Institute on Globalization, Culture and Mobility (UNU-GCM). https://epale.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/refugee_integration.pdf
  20. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
  21. Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164-172. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1993-35863-001
  22. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E. & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
  23. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J. & Griffin, S. (1985). The saticfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assesment, 49(1), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
  24. Ding, S., Shi, W., Ding, L., Chen, Y., Dai, J., Yuan, H. & Zhou, G. (2024). The relationship between life events, life satisfaction, and coping style of college students. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 29(2), 398-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2022.2115181
  25. Dragolov, G., Ignácz, Z., Lorenz, J., Delhey, J. & Boehnke, K. (2013). Social cohesion radar measuring common ground: An international comparison of social cohesion methods report. https://aei.pitt.edu/74134/1/Social_cohesion_radar.pdf
  26. Duman, T. (2019). Toplumsal uyum için eğitimin önemi: Türkiye’deki Suriyeliler örneği. Selçuk Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 41, 343-368. https://doi.org/10.21497/sefad.586638
  27. Durak, M., Senol-Durak, E. & Gencoz, T. (2010). Psychometric properties of the satisfaction with life scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers, and elderly adults. Social Indicators Research, 99, 413-429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9589-4
  28. Erdoğan, M. (2022). Suriyeliler barometresi- 2021. Suriyelilerle uyum içinde yaşamın çerçevesi. Eğiten Kitap Yayıncılık.
  29. Ergün, N., (2022). Göçmen öğrencilerin uyumlarında temasın rolü. OÜSOBİAD 12(2), 1499-1530. https://doi.org/10.48146/odusobiad.1103431
  30. Ertong, Attar, G. & Küçükşen, D. (2019). Somehow familiar but still a stranger: Syrian students in Turkish higher education. Journal of International Migration and Integration 20(4) 1041-1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-018-00647-8
  31. European Commision (2005). Study on immigration, integration and social cohesion: Final report. European Commision Employment and Social Affairs. Focus Consultancy Ltd. Erasmus University Rotterdam Faculty of Social Sciences. https://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_situation/docs/vc04_171_immigration_report.pdf
  32. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publication.
  33. Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S. & Brazier, F. (2019). Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to characterize it. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 32(2), 231-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480
  34. Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 409-425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110625
  35. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2012). SPSS Statistics 21: Step by Step. Allynand Bacon.
  36. Gülerce, H. & Çorlu, R. (2021). Yükseköğretimdeki Suriyeli sığınmacı öğrenciler: Uyum ve çatışma alanları. Üsküdar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12, 71-106. https://izlik.org/JA84AT85WN
  37. Habib, R. R., El-Harakeh, A., Ziadee, M., Abi Younes, E. & El Asmar, K. (2020). Social capital, social cohesion, and health of Syrian refugee working children living in informal tented settlements in Lebanon: A cross-sectional study. PLoS Medicine, 17(9), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pmed.1003283
  38. Harell, A. & Stolle, D. (2014). Diversity and social cohesion. In S. Vertovec (Ed.) Routledge international handbook of diversity studies (1st ed., pp. 294-301). Routledge.
  39. Hirai, R., Frazier, P. & Syed, M. (2015). Psychological and sociocultural adjustment of first-year international students: Trajectories and predictors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(3), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000085
  40. Hulse, K. & Stone, W. (2007). Social cohesion, social capital and social exclusion: A cross cultural comparison. Policy Studies, 28(2), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442870701309049
  41. Jenson, J. (2010). Defining and measuring social cohesion. UNRISD & Commonwealth Secretariat.
  42. Juaristi, O., Larrea, I. & Muela, A. (2024). The enculturation process in early childhood education and care: A mixed methods study. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 32(4), 658-671. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2023.2268879
  43. Kaya, Ö. S. (2019). Geçici koruma statüsünde bulunan Suriyeli üniversite öğrencilerinin göç sürecindeki uyum yaşantıları [Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  44. Kaya, Ö. S. (2022). Göçmenler için sosyal uyum ölçeği (GSUÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 26(2), 353-368. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1503123
  45. Klein, C. (2013). Social capital or social cohesion: What matters for subjective well-being?. Social Indicators Research, 110, 891-911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9963-x
  46. Kondakci, Y. (2011). Student mobility reviewed: Attraction and satisfaction of international students in Turkey. Higher Education, 62, 573-592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9406-2
  47. Köşer Akçapar, S. & Şimsek, D. (2018). The politics of Syrian refugees in Turkey: A question of inclusion and exclusion through citizenship. Social Inclusion, 6(1), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v6i1.1323
  48. Leininger, J., Burchi, F., Fiedler, C., Mross, K., Nowack, D., von Schiller, A. & Ziaja, S. (2021). Social cohesion: A new definition and a proposal for its measurement in Africa (Discussion Paper 31/2021). Bonn: German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE).
  49. Lewis, B. (2022). Modern Ortadoğu nasıl kuruldu? Kronik Yayınları.
  50. Litwin, H. (2005). Correlates of successful aging: Are they universal? International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 61(4), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGV-AQPU-PT28-B8D7
  51. Mangan, D. & Winter, L. A. (2017). (In) validation and (mis) recognition in higher education: The experiences of students from refugee backgrounds. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36(4), 486-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2017.1287131
  52. Moiseyenko, O. (2005). Education and social cohesion: Higher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(4), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje8004_7
  53. Morgül, K., Savaşkan, O. & Mutlu, B. (2021). İstanbul’da Suriyeli sığınmacılara yönelik algı ve tutumlar: Partizanlık, yabancı karşıtlığı, tehdit algıları ve sosyal temas. Türkiye Ekonomik Sosyal Siyasal Araştırmalar Vakfı.
  54. Nesterko, Y., Braehler, E., Grande, G. & Glaesmer, H. (2013). Life satisfaction and health-related quality of life in immigrants and native-born Germans: the role of immigration-related factors. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1005-1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0239-y
  55. Oguri, M. & Gudykunst, W. B. (2002). The influence of self construals and communication styles on sojourners’ psychological and sociocultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(5), 577-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(02)00034-2
  56. O’Reilly, A., Ryan, D. & Hickey, T. (2010) The psychological well-being and sociocultural adaptation of short-term international students in Ireland. Journal of College Student Development 51(5), 584-598. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0011
  57. Öz, Y. (2021). The emergence of Turkey as a regional hub for international students: A macro-level analysis. Annual review of comparative and international education 2020, 307-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920210000040017
  58. Özçetin, S. (2013). Yükseköğrenim gören yabancı uyruklu öğrencilerin sosyal uyumlarını etkileyen etmenler [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  59. Özdemir, A. S., Orhan, B. E., Karaçam, A., Malka, A., Buhociu, D. H. & Iconomescu, T. M. (2023). Tourist nomads, leisure constraints, and social cohesion: a study on ınternational students living in İstanbul. Sustainability, 15, 7533. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097533
  60. Parr, N. (2010). Satisfaction with life as an antecedent of fertility: Partner+ Happiness= Children?. Demographic Research, 22, 635-662. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2010.22.21
  61. Pavot, W. & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164-172. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1993-35863-001
  62. Pavot, W. & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701756946
  63. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65-85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
  64. Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2005). Allport’s intergroup contact hypothesis: Its history and influence. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. P. Rudman (Eds.), Reflecting on the nature of prejudice (pp. 263–277). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773963.ch16
  65. Putnam, R. (2007) E Pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
  66. Ryšavý, D., Hrabalová, P. & Polášek, P. (2024). What differentiates the ethnic tolerance of Czech university students? The role of field of study, family background, gender and friendship. Czech Sociological Review, 60(3), 295-319. https://doi.org/10.13060/csr.2024.021
  67. Sam, D. L. (2001). Satisfaction with life among international students: An exploratory study. Social Indicators Research, 53, 315-337. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007108614571
  68. Schiefer, D. & van der Noll, J. (2017). The essentials of social cohesion: A literature review. Social Indicators Research, 132, 579-603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1314-5
  69. Searle, W. & Ward, C. (1990). The prediction of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14(4), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(90)90030-Z
  70. Skvorcova, O., Stavicka, A. & Odina, I. (2020). Subjective well-being of international students in Latvian higher education institutions. Human, Technologies and Quality of Education, 196-207. https://doi.org/10.22364/htqe.2020.18
  71. Spoonley, P., Peace, R., Butcher, A. & O’Neill, D. (2005). Social cohesion: A policy and indicator framework for assessing immigrant and host outcomes. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 24(1), 85-110. https://www.msd.govt.nz
  72. Stanley, D. (2003). What do we know about social cohesion: The research perspective of the federal government’s social cohesion research network. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie, 5-17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3341872
  73. Stolle, D. & Harell, A. (2013). Social capital and ethno-racial diversity: Learning to trust in an immigrant society. Political Studies, 61(1), 42-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00969.x
  74. Stratton, S. J. (2021). Population research: Convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 36(4), 373-374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X21000649
  75. Student, R., Kendall, K. & Day, L. (2017). Being a refugee university student: A collaborative auto-ethnography. Journal of Refugee Studies, 30(4), 580-604. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/few045
  76. Sungur, M. A., Şahin, M., Can, G., Şahin, M. F., Duman, K., Pektaş, B.,. & Onuk, H. (2016). Düzce üniversitesinde yükseköğrenim gören yabancı uyruklu öğrencilerin yaşam doyumları ve sosyal uyumlarını etkileyen faktörler. Düzce Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(2), 101-109. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/224968
  77. Şeker, B. D. & Akman, E. (2016). Uluslararası öğrencilerin psikolojik ve sosyokültürel süreçleri. Cukurova Medical Journal, 41(3), 504-514. https://doi.org/10.17826/cukmedj.237504
  78. Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (Sixth edition). Pearson Education.
  79. UNESCO (2008). Global education digest 2008: Comparing education statistics across the world. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000178740
  80. van der Meer, T. & Tolsma, J. (2014). Ethnic diversity and its supposed detrimental effects on social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 40. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/133583/1/133583.pdf Ward, C. & Kennedy, A. (1993). Psychological and socio-cultural adjustment during cross-cultural transitions: A comparison of secondary students overseas and at home. International Journal of Psychology, 28(2), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599308247181
  81. Ward, C. & Searle, W. (1991). The impact of value discrepancies and cultural identity on psychological and sociocultural adjustment of sojourners. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15(2), 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(91)90030-K
  82. Ward, C., Okura, Y., Kennedy, A. & Kojima, T. (1998). The U-curve on trial: A longitudinal study of psychological and sociocultural adjustment during cross-cultural transition. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(3), 277-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00008-X
  83. Yalçınkaya, M. & Beşirli, H. (2022). Türk Cumhuriyetleri arasındaki uluslararası öğrenci hareketliliği ve bu hareketliliğin yükseköğretimin uluslararasılaşma sürecindeki rolü. Karadeniz Araştırmaları, 19(74), 363-382. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/karadearas/article/1138496
  84. YÖK (2021). Yükseköğretimde yeni YÖK projeleri. Yükseköğretimde hedef odaklı uluslararasılaşma. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/2021/yuksekogretimde-hedef-odakli-uluslararasilasma.pdf adresinden 01.11.2014 tarihinde alınmıştır.
  85. YÖK (2022). Yükseköğretimde uluslararasılaşma ve Türkiye’deki üniversitelerin uluslararası görünürlüğü çalıştayı düzenlendi. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2022/yuksekogretimde-uluslararasilasma-ve-turkiye-deki-universitelerin-uluslararasi-gorunurlulugunu-artirma-calistayi.aspx adresinden 29.08.2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
  86. YÖK (2024). Yükseköğretim bilgi yönetim sistemi. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr adresinden 30.08.2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
  87. Yükseker, D., Kurtuluş, H., Tekin, U., Kaya Erdoğan, E. (2023). Göçmen mahallelerinde yaşam: Türkiye’de 2010 sonrası göçler ve göçmenlerin toplumsal katılımı. Heinrich Böll Vakfı.
  88. Zhang, J. & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial adjustment to life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(2), 139-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.011
  89. Zihnioğlu, Ö. & Dalkıran, M. (2022). From social capital to social cohesion: Syrian refugees in Turkey and the role of NGOs as intermediaries. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(11), 2455-2472. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2022.2047908
  90. Ryšavý, D., Hrabalová, P. & Polášek, P. (2024). What differentiates the ethnic tolerance of Czech university students? The role of field of study, family background, gender and friendship. Czech Sociological Review, 60(3), 295-319. https://doi.org/10.13060/csr.2024.021
  91. Sungur, M. A., Şahin, M., Can, G., Şahin, M. F., Duman, K., Pektaş, B.,. & Onuk, H. (2016). Düzce üniversitesinde yükseköğrenim gören yabancı uyruklu öğrencilerin yaşam doyumları ve sosyal uyumlarını etkileyen faktörler. Düzce Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(2), 101-109. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/224968