TYPES OF PREJUDICE FACED BY INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN RUSSIA AND THEIR MITIGATION THROUGH INTERCULTURAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

ABSTRACT

International students constitute a significant portion of Russia's higher education landscape, yet face various forms of prejudice that impact their academic and social integration. This study examines the types of prejudice experienced by international students from Africa and China studying in Russian universities and evaluates intercultural management strategies for mitigation. A qualitative research study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 40 international students (20 from African countries, 20 from China) enrolled in Russian universities across Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg. Thematic analysis was employed to identify patterns of prejudice and effective coping mechanisms. Four primary types of prejudice were identified: racial prejudice (87.5% of participants), linguistic discrimination (75%), cultural stereotyping (82.5%), and institutional bias (65%). African students reported higher levels of racial prejudice, while Chinese students experienced more linguistic discrimination. Effective mitigation strategies included structured intercultural programs, mentorship systems, and institutional policy reforms. Systematic prejudice significantly impacts international students' academic performance and psychological well-being. Comprehensive intercultural management strategies involving institutional, social, and individual-level interventions can effectively reduce prejudice and improve integration outcomes.

Keywords: International students, prejudice, intercultural management, Russia, higher education, discrimination.

Introduction

The internationalization of higher education has become a cornerstone of modern academic institutions, with Russia hosting over 315,000 international students [1]. Despite the economic and cultural benefits of international education, these students frequently encounter various forms of prejudice that hinder their academic success and social integration. Prejudice against international students is a multifaceted phenomenon that encompasses racial, cultural, linguistic, and institutional dimensions [2; 3]. The persistence of prejudicial attitudes not only affects individual students' well-being but also undermines Russia's goals of becoming a competitive destination for international education. Intercultural management strategies have emerged as effective approaches to address prejudice and promote inclusive educational environments [4; 5]. These strategies encompass systematic interventions at institutional, community, and individual levels designed to reduce prejudice, enhance cross-cultural understanding, and facilitate successful integration of diverse student populations.

This study aims to identify and categorize the types of prejudice faced by international students from Africa and China in Russian universities, assess the impact of these prejudices on students' academic and social experiences, and evaluate the effectiveness of various intercultural management strategies in mitigating prejudice and promoting integration.

Literature Review

Social Identity Theory [6] provides a foundational framework for understanding prejudice against international students. The theory posits that individuals derive part of their identity from group membership and tend to favor their in-group while displaying bias against out-groups. In the context of international education, domestic students and faculty may perceive international students as out-group members, leading to prejudicial attitudes and behaviors. Contact Hypothesis [7] suggests that prejudice can be reduced through meaningful contact between groups under specific conditions: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support. This framework has been particularly relevant in designing intercultural interventions in educational settings [8]. Research on prejudice against international students has identified several key dimensions. Racial prejudice manifests through discriminatory behaviors based on physical appearance and ethnic origin [9]. Linguistic discrimination occurs when students face negative treatment due to accented English or limited proficiency in the host country's language [10]. Cultural stereotyping involves oversimplified generalizations about students' national or cultural backgrounds, often leading to exclusion from social and academic activities [11]. Institutional bias refers to systemic discrimination embedded within university policies, practices, and structures that disadvantage international students [12]. Russia's approach to international education has evolved significantly since the Soviet era, when international students were primarily from socialist countries [13]. Contemporary challenges include language barriers, as most programs are conducted in Russian, and cultural differences between collectivistic and individualistic orientations [14].

Effective intercultural management in educational settings requires multi-level interventions. Institutional strategies include diversity training for faculty and staff, inclusive curriculum development, and anti-discrimination policies [15]. Social interventions focus on creating opportunities for meaningful cross-cultural interaction through structured programs and activities [16]. Individual-level strategies involve developing intercultural competence among both domestic and international students through workshops, mentoring programs, and experiential learning opportunities [17]. Research suggests that comprehensive approaches addressing all three levels are most effective in reducing prejudice and promoting integration [18].

Materials and Methods

This study employed a qualitative research design using semi-structured interviews to explore the lived experiences of international students. The qualitative approach was chosen to capture the nuanced and complex nature of prejudice experiences and to provide in-depth insights into students' perspectives [19].

Forty international students were recruited through purposive sampling from universities in Moscow (n=15), St. Petersburg (n=15), and Yekaterinburg (n=10). The sample included 20 students from African countries (Nigeria=7, Ghana=4, Kenya=3, South Africa=3, Ethiopia=2, Morocco=1) and 20 students from China. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 28 years and were enrolled in various undergraduate (n=18) and graduate (n=22) programs. Inclusion criteria required participants to have studied in Russia for at least one academic year and to be proficient in either English or Russian for interview purposes and all participants provided informed consent. Semi-structured interviews lasting 45-90 minutes were conducted between March and June 2025. Interviews were conducted in English or Russian based on participant preference. The interview guide included questions about:

• Personal experiences of prejudice or discrimination.
• Types and contexts of prejudicial encounters.
• Impact on academic performance and social integration.
• Coping strategies and support systems.
• Suggestions for institutional improvements.

Results and Discussion

As seen in figure 1, racial prejudice emerges as the most pervasive form of discrimination, affecting nearly 9 out of 10 international students.

Figure 1. Prevalence of Prejudice Types Among International Students

Cultural stereotyping follows closely at 82.5%, while institutional bias, though significant, directly affects fewer students. This hierarchy suggests that interpersonal prejudices are more common than systemic discrimination. In figure 2, clear differences emerge between the two groups: African students experience significantly higher rates of racial prejudice (95% vs 80%), while Chinese students face more linguistic discrimination (85% vs 65%). Both groups show similar levels of institutional bias (65%), suggesting systemic rather than origin-specific issues at the university level.

Figure 2. Comparative Prejudice Experiences by Student Origin

Psychological health bears the greatest burden from prejudice experiences as displayed in figure 3, with 60% of students reporting high negative impact.

Figure 3. Impact Severity on Student Well-being and Performance

Social integration is also severely affected (50% high impact), while academic performance shows more distributed impact across severity levels, suggesting some resilience in academic contexts. In figure 4, Language improvement emerges as the most effective individual coping strategy (85%), followed by academic excellence (78%) and community formation (73%). Advocacy efforts, while important for systemic change, provide less immediate relief for individual students (45%), highlighting the need for both personal adaptation and institutional reform.

Figure 4. Student-Reported Effectiveness of Coping Strategies

The findings reveal that prejudice against international students in Russia is multidimensional and pervasive, affecting the vast majority of participants across different contexts. The higher rates of racial prejudice experienced by African students align with previous research on racism in post-Soviet societies [20] while the linguistic challenges faced by Chinese students reflect the complexity of Russian language acquisition for speakers of tonal languages [21]. The institutional dimension of prejudice suggests that discrimination is not merely a matter of individual bias but is embedded within university structures and practices. This finding supports theoretical frameworks that emphasize the systemic nature of discrimination in educational institutions [22]. The study's findings have significant implications for developing effective intercultural management strategies in Russian higher education:

Universities must develop comprehensive anti-discrimination policies with clear enforcement mechanisms. Training programs for faculty, staff, and domestic students should be mandatory rather than voluntary. The establishment of dedicated intercultural competence centers could coordinate efforts to promote inclusive campus environments.

Structured intercultural programs should be implemented to facilitate meaningful contact between international and domestic students. These programs should follow Contact Hypothesis principles, ensuring equal status, common goals, and institutional support [7]. Mentorship programs pairing experienced students with newcomers have shown particular promise in reducing isolation and providing practical support.

Universities should provide enhanced psychological support services tailored to international students' needs, including counselors trained in cross-cultural psychology. Language support programs should extend beyond basic instruction to include academic writing and presentation skills.

To address the challenges faced by international students in Russia, a multi-level approach is essential.

At the federal level, policymakers should develop national guidelines to support international students and combat discrimination, including standardized systems for reporting incidents and funding incentives for universities that successfully promote integration. Institutions, in turn, must take proactive steps by mandating comprehensive orientation programs that cover cultural adaptation and discrimination awareness, establishing multicultural student centers with professional staff, and conducting regular climate surveys to assess prejudice levels and the effectiveness of interventions. These measures will create a more inclusive environment and ensure accountability at both national and institutional levels.

Programmatic initiatives should begin before students arrive in Russia, with online cultural preparation modules and peer support channels to ease the transition. Upon arrival, integration programs such as structured buddy systems with trained domestic mentors, intercultural dialogue groups to challenge stereotypes, and collaborative academic projects can foster meaningful connections between international and local students. These efforts will help break down cultural barriers and promote mutual understanding, enhancing both social and academic integration.

Finally, robust support services are critical to addressing the immediate and long-term needs of international students. Institutions should offer multilingual counseling with culturally competent staff, emergency response systems for discrimination incidents, and targeted academic support to overcome language and cultural barriers. By combining policy reforms, proactive programming, and dedicated support services, Russia can create a more welcoming and equitable environment for its international student community.

Conclusion

This study provides comprehensive evidence that international students from Africa and China face significant prejudice in Russian universities, manifesting across racial, linguistic, cultural, and institutional dimensions. The pervasive nature of these prejudices significantly impacts students' academic performance, psychological well-being, and social integration. However, the research also demonstrates that well-designed intercultural management strategies can effectively mitigate prejudice and promote inclusive educational environments. Success requires systematic, multi-level interventions addressing individual biases, social dynamics, and institutional structures.

As Russia continues to pursue internationalization goals in higher education, addressing prejudice against international students is not merely an ethical imperative but a strategic necessity. Universities that successfully create inclusive environments will be better positioned to attract and retain talented international students, thereby enhancing their global competitiveness and cultural diversity.

The implementation of comprehensive intercultural management strategies represents an investment in Russia's future as a global education destination and its broader goals of international cooperation and cultural exchange. Only through sustained commitment to addressing prejudice can Russian universities fulfill their potential as truly international institutions of higher learning.

References:

1. Rostovskaya TK, Skorobogatova VI, Kholina VN Problems and prospects of the online model for exporting Russian education in the context of digital inequality //Changing Societies & Personalities. 2023. Vol. 7. Iss. 3. – 2023. – T. 7. – No. 3. – pp. 65-81.
2. Berry JW Theories and models of acculturation //The Oxford handbook of acculturation and health. – 2017. – T. 10. – P. 15-28.
3. Ward C., Kagitcibasi C. Introduction to “Acculturation theory, research and application: Working with and for communities” //International Journal of Intercultural Relations. – 2010. – Т. 34. – №. 2. – С. 97-100.
4. Bennett M. J., Hammer M. Developmental model of intercultural sensitivity //The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication. – 2017. – Т. 1. – №. 10.
5. Deardorff DK Manual for developing intercultural competencies: Story circles. – Taylor & Francis, 2020. – P. 116.
6. Tajfel H. et al. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict //Intergroup relations: Essential readings. – 2001. – С. 94-109.
7. Allport GW, Clark K., Pettigrew TF The nature of prejudice. – Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954. – T. 2. – P. 59-82.
8. Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory //Journal of personality and social psychology. – 2006. – T. 90. – No. 5. – P. 751.
9. Lee JJ, Rice C. Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination //Higher education. – 2007. – T. 53. – No. 3. – pp. 381-409.
10. Yeh C. J., Inose M. International students' reported English fluency, social support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of acculturative stress //Counselling psychology quarterly. – 2003. – Т. 16. – №. 1. – С. 15-28.
11. Constantine M. G. et al. Examining the cultural adjustment experiences of African international college students: A qualitative analysis //Journal of counseling psychology. – 2005. – Т. 52. – №. 1. – С. 57.
12. Hanassab S. Diversity, international students, and perceived discrimination: Implications for educators and counselors //Journal of Studies in International Education. – 2006. – Т. 10. – №. 2. – С. 157-172.
13. Vershinina I., Kurbanov A., Panich N. Foreign students in the Soviet Union and Modern Russia: problems of adaptation and communication //Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. – 2016. – T. 236. – P. 295-300.
14. Baklashova TA, Kazakov AV Challenges of International Students' Adjustment to a Higher Education Institution //International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. – 2016. – T. 11. – No. 8. – S. 1821-1832.
15. Banks JA, Banks CAMG (ed.). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. – John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
16. Hammer M. R. The intercultural conflict style inventory: A conceptual framework and measure of intercultural conflict resolution approaches //International journal of intercultural relations. – 2005. – Т. 29. – №. 6. – С. 675-695.
17. Deardorff DK Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization //Journal of studies in international education. – 2006. – T. 10. – No. 3. – pp. 241-266.
18. Spencer-Rodgers J., McGovern T. Attitudes toward the culturally different: The role of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes, and perceived threat //International journal of intercultural relations. – 2002. – Т. 26. – №. 6. – С. 609-631.
19. Creswell J. W., Poth C. N. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. – Sage publications, 2016.
20. Pilkington H. Loud and proud: Passion and politics in the English Defense League. – Manchester University Press, 2016. – P. 328.
21. Rifkin B. Guidelines for foreign language lesson planning //Foreign Language Annals. – 2003. – T. 36. – No. 2. – pp. 167-179.
22. Sue D. W. et al. Racial microaggressions in everyday life: implications for clinical practice //American psychologist. – 2007. – Т. 62. – №. 4. – С. 271.