There are several theoretical frameworks that seek to explain students’ motivation for studying abroad. McMahon (1992) proposes a sequential push-pull model to explain the selection process where the student first decides to study abroad or at home. Push factors are issues that suggest the student opt to study abroad, while pull factors are issues that invite the student towards a specific region, country, or university. If the student opts for studying abroad, then the model depicts a sequence for a decision regarding the country and then an educational institution (Mazzarol & Soutar 2002).

McMahon (1992) applied this push-pull model while examining the reasons why students from developing countries during the 1960s and 1970s chose to study abroad in developed countries. The sequential structure has later also been applied for understanding students from developed countries in their decision process of studying abroad (Altbach 1998). In the context of a developed country, different push and pull factors apply than those suggested by McMahon (1992), see Cubillo, Sánchez and Cerviño (2006), Maringe and Carter (2007), Mazzarol and Soutar (2002), Wilkins, Balakrishnan and Huisman (2012), Perez-Encinas, Rodriguez-Pomeda and De Wit (2021), and Huisman et al. (2022). Students from developed countries have a plethora of suitable educational offerings to choose from, both domestically and internationally. Still, some push and pull factors could be present even for students from these countries, as students gain many types of benefits from taking some of their higher education abroad.

This study takes place in a business school at a Norwegian university located in the north of Norway. Norway is a prosperous country in Northern Europe with a strong export-oriented economy. A significant proportion of young people pursue higher education. Norway has been categorised as an innovation-driven economy, and its workforce is actively involved in innovation projects (Alsos et al. 2014). The country’s unemployment rate is low, typically ranging from 2% to 4% and is mainly because of structural factors. Business graduates have an excellent job outlook, often receiving employment offers before graduating from business schools. The local industry in Norway is primarily made up of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The study’s context highlights the dynamic business environment of Norway, which is characterised by a highly educated workforce, a focus on innovation, and a robust economy with low unemployment rates.

Norwegian society and working life have an increasingly global character that requires international knowledge and competencies in politics and business to meet new dynamics between globalisation and localisation. ‘Glocalisation’ merges the globalisation of politics, business, and culture that becomes sedimented in local communities and conditions that absorbs and blends the global with the local distinctness. It demands knowledge and experience to operate in such dynamic contexts. This dynamic of glocalisation is the backdrop motivation for the Norwegian Government’s strategy to increase student mobility across borders (White Paper 2020–2021). The Norwegian Government has an ambition that half of the study population should study abroad for half a year during their studies. The desired national effect of studying abroad is to increase the future generations’ employees and leaders’ international experience, knowledge, and competence that can meet glocalisation and to increase the nations’ adaptability and competitiveness in the global challenges and complexities.

The ambition of the Norwegian Government was stated in a white paper published in 2020 named ‘A World of Opportunities: International student mobility in higher education’. At the entrance of the year 2020, under 20.0% of the student population studied abroad (SSB 2022a). Naturally, student mobility was drastically reduced in the year 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. When the borders were reopened for mobility in mid-2022, the target figure of 50.0% student mobility was resumed. The ambition for half of the student population to cross borders is in strong contrast to the few students who actually study abroad. About 19.8% of the Norwegian students who took part of their education abroad in 2021 studied business subjects (SSB 2022a). The SSB data also reveal that countries in Europe were the most popular host country, as much as 59.7% of the Norwegian students studying abroad went to one of the EU countries (Europe except the UK). The UK was very popular, alone attracting 24.2% of the abroad studying students, while the US and Canada in total attracted 12.3%, and Australia 1.8% and far-away countries in Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Mid- and South-America in sum attracted 2.0% of the outbound students.

Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) report that acknowledgment of the qualifications achieved abroad is vital to the students in their decision to study abroad or not. Student credits earned abroad could easily be accepted by the home university as relevant for the student’s study progress. Norway has joined the Bologna convention regarding the structure of higher education. The Bologna convention aims to harmonise quality and standards in higher education across Europe. The Bologna convention offers a coherent education system that facilitates student and staff mobility and mutual recognition of qualifications at universities abroad. As many as 48 participating countries have adopted a common educational system. The education system is based on a three-cycle higher education including bachelor, master, and doctoral studies. The bachelor’s is for three years and the master’s is for two years. The common structure includes a consolidating credits system, the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, that determines course workload and grading scale (Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation 2005).

One of the authors of this research article teaches applied quantitative methods to BSc business students. As a part of the quantitative element of a method course for 2nd-year business bachelor students, we engaged the students in a discussion in class on where why, and how they would like to take part of their study abroad. The students in the course are required to write a mini-thesis on a common theme, which in this case is ‘studying abroad’. The teacher explained the structure of a thesis and the governmental wish for students to study abroad for a semester.

The course’s applied quantitative methods section begins with a discussion of studying abroad and its pros and cons. The class discusses their motivation for studying abroad. This discussion is based on student input and an extensive literature review conducted by the teacher on studying abroad and its motivations. The students reflect on their thoughts about studying abroad, while the teacher feed in new topics when needed. They then regroup to sort out their main reasons and concerns, which the teacher records on a mind map. The class then discusses what insights survey data on studying abroad can provide using frequencies, t-tests, and correlations. The teacher structures the mind map into a survey, which all students complete before the next class. The students are then given a data set and grouped into smaller groups, where they receive assistance in doing their selected quantitative analysis for the four-page long mini-thesis.

This discussion resulted in a survey to which all 76 students taking the course replied. In the class, these data were then used as input for some simple quantitative analysis, building a basis for the students to do a short quantitative report as one of the exam elements of the course. The data were then collected through a web survey e-mailed to all students, and they all replied to it as it was a compulsory element of the course to jointly create our own data. The students themselves were to analyse the data and in their hand-in report interpret their findings.

This study investigates what students consider when selecting a host country for their potential study abroad, given that they need to take part of their study abroad. The study then includes issues such as how the student’s life situation, characteristics, and preferences influence their choice of country. We then address students who have a choice and investigate their opportunities, their concerns, and their evaluations. We do so quantitatively as we would like to know more about the preferences and the volumes of such preferences.

There were 35 males and 41 females in the sample of 76 2nd year business bachelor students. Among these, eight males and 17 females have kids, 17 males, and 20 females were single, 25 males and 26 females worked besides studies, five males and three females had already done parts of their university study abroad, two males and two females reported an A as their average grade during their bachelor studies so far, 9 males and 11 females reported a B, 19 males and 23 females reported a C, and five males and five females reported a D as their average grade. Females reported on average to have already visited 9.4 countries, while males reported to have already visited 11.8 countries.

We had a discussion in class regarding ethics related to surveys and quantitative research designs. This survey was compulsory, and the students were more or less forced to select a country. The students were told upfront of the survey and that they did not need to reply to invasive questions or questions that did not fit them at all, and that we were to discuss such items later in class. The discussion revealed that none of the questions were invasive, but some were non-relevant. Among the 76 students, only 60 provided a preferred country. The discussion with the students indicated that they reported true answers to the questions as they themselves had to interpret their findings for their home exam, and it would be easier to do this if they could rely on the data. The students replied to the survey anonymously.

We asked the students to list the country they would like to select as their abroad country to study, given that they hypothetically had to take part of their study abroad. We then grouped these countries as indicated in Table 1. Table 1 also shows the number of students who preferred a given country as their first choice of host country for a study abroad. Only 60 students chose to respond to this item, indicating that 16 felt it was totally irrelevant to study abroad.

Students are previously reported to have different motivations for wanting to study abroad in specific countries (Nyaupane, Paris & Teye 2011). Furthermore, Davis and Knight (2021) found that students doing the same programme, but in different countries, had different learning experiences because of the specific characteristics of destination country. Based upon this, we find data supporting grouping our destinations. We then grouped the countries according to the list of important trade partners (SSB 2022b), that is the US, the UK, and the European Union (EU). Australia was sorted as a separate category as it is a very popular host country for foreign students. The US, the UK, Germany, and Australia are the top four destinations for studying abroad (Civera et al. 2021). Then there were seven countries that are far away from Norway, either in the physical distance (Canada, South Africa) or the cultural distance (Brazil, China, Japan, and Russia) (Hofstede 2023). The physical distance from the home country has an influence on the student’s willingness to study abroad (Rodríguez González, Bustillo Mesanza & Mariel 2011). Geographic and time proximity are important for students in their selection of a country for their abroad studies (Mazzarol & Soutar 2002). Cultural distance could also play an important role in how students experience their study abroad (Iskhakova et al. 2022). Inglehart (ed. 2004) and Beugelsdijk et al. (2018) define cultural distance as the degree to which shared norms and values between people in one country differ from those in another country.

We analyse the data by means of a principal correspondence analysis (PCrA) by the prcomp package in R. A PCrA could be regarded as a many-to-many regression where the results are presented as a map displaying how the variables relate to each other. Through PCrA, the six country groups were positioned in a multi-dimensional space by the 10 vectors representing the students’ concerns and their socioeconomic characteristics (Greenacre 2010). The points in the map position the mass-middle point of the group.

In this study, we would like to know how some variables (characteristics of the students and their preferences and concerns related to a study abroad) influence other variables (such as which country/region is preferred for studying abroad). The predicted variables, that is, the groups of countries (see Table 1), are then represented by positions on the map. The predicting variables are then depicted as vectors originating from the centre of the map. It is also possible to superimpose other variables into such a map, where the values of a given variable are represented as a point. The variable ‘gender’ is among the variables used to predict the positions of the country groups on the map and is then represented by a vector. This vector indicates how gender influences the positioning of the countries (see Figure 2). In addition, the gender values male and female, are passively regressed into the map to show how the different genders relate to the country groups (see Figure 3), then male and female are represented as a point.

Table 2 shows the variables used to position the six country groups in the PCrA-map. The list of predicting variables describes the living situation and the concerns of the students. We include topics such as gender, if they have kids to care for, and if they have work commitments. Then some descriptive variables depict their concern for security (healthcare, crime), their academic confidence (coping with the language, strong enough academically), and if it gains them (pay off in the long run, useful to know other cultures, relevant to their career). The numbers in the first column are the abbreviation shown in the map, the 3-character long text is the label shown in Appendix 1, and the following text is the item wording. A01, Gender, was measured as Male (1) and Female (2), while A03 and A07 were measured as Yes (1) and No (2), the other items were measured by a 7-point Likert scale where 1 was Totally Disagree, 4 were Neutral and 7 was Totally Agree on a statement: ‘To what extent do you Disagree or Agree the following statements is valid for you?’

Table 3 shows the variables that are passively regressed into the map, which allows expression of which students are most associated with the country groups’ position. These variables describe how males and females, those students with and without kids, and students with or without job obligations or work commitments related to studying abroad. We also include an item showing how students’ average grade relates to studying abroad in different countries or regions. We also include a dichotomous variable revealing if they already have had a study experience abroad before, either at high school or at university as Iskhakova et al. (2022) expect the prior international experience to influence student’s choices for studying abroad.

This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.

The results show that students consider their living situation, the safety and usefulness of their potential study abroad, the benefit of alternative use of time, to what extent the student view studying abroad as academically possible, and whether it is possible and wise to do so, when selecting the host country for their potential study stay abroad.

Our study is guided by a set of three research questions. Our third research question relates to: Do the students associate different countries or regions differently? Our data indicate that the students associate a different set of benefits and costs or drawbacks to different countries or regions. The students associated the US with good learning opportunities suited for high achievers. Europe together with the UK was considered like the Norwegian offerings related to living conditions and academic offerings, they are easily accessible, and the costs and benefits are predictable. The UK is considered more accessible than countries within the EU. Australia is regarded as exotic, while still Western and familiar. The more far-away countries were exotic and unfamiliar, preferred by the experienced traveling student.

Our second research question is regarding which factors Norwegian business students consider when selecting a host country for their study abroad. The factors that seem to influence the choice of Norwegian business students in their decision to take part of their education abroad is their life situation at home regarding family, job, and such obligations. Also influential is the expected living condition in the host country, how their health and safety could be ensured, if the stay is relevant for their future career and if the stay offers interesting learning opportunities both culturally and academically. It is also important that the students feel confident that they will master the abroad study situation regarding language and academic content and demand. The results show that students perceive that different countries or regions provide different benefits and drawbacks related to a credit mobility study situation.

Finally, we also investigated the extent to which one could profile the students’ preferences for studying abroad according to their socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, parental status, job obligations, and academic performance. We see that the students who prefer the US, tend to be male, have a very good grade (A), and that the student has no job commitments/obligations. The students who prefer the EU or the UK, have done their studies in Norway, have work obligations, and have kids at home, these students have earned grades B or D. The students who could see themselves studying in an exotic host country tend to be females and report their average grade to be C. The students who prefer Australia tend to not have kids, have done parts of their study abroad already, and do not have job commitments and/or obligations.

The push and pull model were developed to explain the decision process among students from developing countries opting to take part of their study in developed countries. The implicit hierarchical three-stage model allows sorting out of elements of such decision processes also for students from a developed country. It does not equally well assist in understanding the concerns evaluated by the student in the actual decision.

Here we use the push-pull model as a frame for sorting the students’ decisions. We address the decision for going abroad or not and which country to choose and the elements within this decision. The investigated students are in a position where they are supposed to decide whether to apply or not for doing parts of their study abroad. This study reveals that our respondents included other issues into consideration in this decision than suggested by the original model, which focused on students from developing countries. We see that our students also associate other issues with the push and pull components of the model.

The push and pull elements described in McMahon (1992) push-pull stage model relate to half of the cost–benefit analysis that the self-determination theory proposed by Gagné and Deci (2005) suggests. The push and pull factors relate to the gain from action. The push and pull model does not equally account for the cost side of the student’s decision. Push factors propose the student into credit mobility. The push factors relate to the student’s perception of the need for international knowledge and experience, as governments expressed expectations as well as the expressed need for international expertise among potential employers. This is then an instrumental decision balancing the expected later gain and present investment by the action, that is an extrinsic motivation. The pull factors relate to how the student perceives the study environment and the learning gained from the action. This relates more to the intrinsic motivation of the student.

Adding self-determination theory (Gagné & Deci 2005) to the McMahon (1992) push-pull stage model opens for a balanced decision, as it allows the decision model to also include a cost element. Our study shows that the student balances cost elements such as fear of crime, health issues, language difficulties, and misaligned academic content and learning environments with the gain. Then the concept of cultural distance introduced by Hofstede and Bond (1984) and Hofstede (2023) permits us to reflect upon which countries offer environments where such costly conditions are more or less eminent. We then suggest that the McMahon (1992) push-pull stage model should be revised to include or emphasise cost–benefit elements as important in students’ decisions regarding studying abroad. Adding self-determination theory (Gagné & Deci 2005) to the equation allowed us to understand the student’s choice situation better.

Roy et al. (2019) only finds five studies that compared mobile with non-mobile students while studying factors students choose regarding study abroad, and ask for more studies researching the motivation among students at a time when they are to make such a decision. They claim that pre-departure data are more likely to provide a better understanding of the issue. We asked students about their preferences. There is a long way from preferences to actual action. If we instead investigated which students actually went, and where they went, we would reveal students’ actions. We chose to study preferences, as actions are limited to the available offer, and the offer and the want might differ. Some investigate students’ preferences for conditions to study abroad, among students who have returned. The risk is that the student then seeks to rationalise their choice retrospectively. We ask students about their preferences at a time when they are to make such a decision, and where such an option is real. By our approach, we can inform universities and governments about students’ preferences, these inputs could then be transformed into offerings, allowing supply and demand to be related to where to study abroad to be met in a better way. Therefore, this study adds to the body of knowledge regarding the motivational and constraining factors experienced by students when they have to consider taking part of their study abroad through credit mobility at higher education institutions.

We here provide practical advice to stakeholders in higher education based on the new insights derived from the present study. Universities could gain from offering credit mobility study abroad situations serving the different needs of different students, there is no such one-size-fits-all in studying abroad. If a university knows its students well, it could shape its offerings accordingly. Some students are adventurous and would like to explore exotic far-away locations, some are industrious and seek advanced learning situations while others prefer more modest challenges in more familiar settings. For some others again, studying abroad is not possible because of their living situation and their other commitments. The latter group would be harder to tempt to take part of their study abroad. This as the Norwegian government defines studying abroad as staying away for more than three months. Staying away from family obligations for that long time is impossible for many of today’s students. The Norwegian governments could install other, shorter, studying abroad possibilities to remedy this.

Students would gain from evaluating all sides of the pro and cons regarding engaging in credit mobility or studying abroad. A well-reflected decision increases the odds of a successful stay abroad. Such a considered choice is possible when the student is aware of his or her criteria and preferences. Administrative staff at universities responsible for outbound students has a responsibility to prepare the student for such a choice, as well as informing on the matching options. One way of motivating students for a study credit mobility element could be to invite students who have already done such abroad courses, to inform on the pros and cons of this to other students considering such undertaking. This will ensure that the students are informed on issues important to them, by students who know why this is important information. Business owners and potential employers could ease the decision process by being explicit on which international competencies and experiences they value, allowing students to select actions that respond to their call.

The internationalisation of higher education is a growing phenomenon. Therefore, universities and governments should be aware of and understand the different socio-demographic variables such as gender, parental status, job obligations, and academic performance that can influence students’ preferences for studying abroad to better meet students’ needs when developing and designing credit mobility policies and offerings.

Our results both align with, and challenge previous studies and the suggestions derived from our theoretical framework. All the same, our sample is small. Principal correspondence analysis is robust enough to discern differences in small sample sizes and allows for small groups (Greenacre & Primicerio 2013). Even so, we urge to interpret our findings with care. We explore preferences for credit mobility among Norwegian business students. A larger sample, and other student populations in other environmental contexts, might provide other, more nuanced results. We suggest further studies in other contexts.