International student mobility has expanded rapidly, yet participation, wellbeing and academic outcomes remain unequally distributed across socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender, disability, nationality, language and legal status (Lomer et al., 2024). Empirical studies document intersectional disadvantages, including racialised microaggressions, precarity linked to visa dependence, and heightened exposure to gendered and sexualised harms (Fethi et al., 2023; Krsmanovic, 2022). However, the evidence base is frequently context-bound (single institution/small-N) and analytically segmented (single-axis or primarily micro-level), which limits cumulative explanation of how intersecting power relations are reproduced through institutional routines and policy regimes (Joshi et al., 2021; Peng, 2024).

This study undertakes a PRISMA-guided systematic literature review to produce a global map of how intersectionality is conceptualised and operationalised in research on international students in higher education. Objectives are to: (i) audit how studies invoke, define and theoretically anchor intersectionality; (ii) identify which identity/power dimensions are foregrounded or neglected and how they shape lived experience; (iii) synthesise intersectionality-based implications for higher-education policy and institutional practice; and (iv) consolidate conceptual, methodological and empirical gaps to inform a forward research agenda (Lomer et al., 2024).

Research questions

1. How is intersectionality conceptualised and operationalised in studies of international students in higher education?

2. Which intersectional dimensions of identity and power are foregrounded, and how do they shape international students’ lived experiences?

3. What intersectionality-based implications for higher-education policy and institutional practice are articulated in these studies?

4. What conceptual, methodological and empirical gaps emerge, and how might they inform future research agendas?

Conceptual and theoretical framework. Intersectionality, as articulated by Crenshaw (1989), is treated here as a theory of power and governance rather than an identity checklist. The review adopts a multi-level stance in which micro experiences (e.g., belonging, recognition, harassment) are interpreted as traces of meso- and macro-level mechanisms (Yao et al., 2019). To evaluate “intersectionality in use”, each study will be coded across five dimensions: explicitness (EX: whether intersectionality is justified and named), definitional depth (DEF: whether power relations are theorised rather than merely listed), anchoring (ANCH: how intersectionality is situated in relevant theoretical traditions), analytic level (LVL: whether claims trace micro–meso–macro linkages), and function (FUNC: how intersectionality is used—descriptive, explanatory, critical, methodological) (Joshi et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2019). Synthesised findings will be consolidated into an Intersectional Internationalisation Mechanisms Framework (IIMF) that specifies recurrent modules through which inequity is produced in internationalised higher education: governance and dependency (visa/legal status, funding, reporting and silence), discourse and whiteness (diversity rhetoric and whiteness as unmarked norm), raciolinguistic legitimacy (accent/language as proxy for competence and belonging), and mobility stratification (post/neo-colonial hierarchies and marketised internationalisation) (Buckner et al., 2021; Hou et al., 2023; Mittelmeier et al., 2024; Ploner & Nada, 2020; Yeo, 2024; Yao et al., 2019).

European/international dimension. The review is explicitly comparative and international, aggregating studies across countries, disciplines and mobility corridors to examine how intersectional dynamics vary under different institutional and policy regimes. This is vital for Europe, where internationalisation strategies intersect with heterogeneous immigration/residence rules, tuition and funding arrangements, and national EDI infrastructures, producing distinct configurations of advantage and vulnerability for international students. The synthesis therefore generates transferable insights for European higher education on how to design equity-oriented internationalisation in ways that build inclusion and safety, not merely scale recruitment (Buckner et al., 2021; Mittelmeier et al., 2024; Ploner & Nada, 2020).

Methodological approach. Searches in major bibliographic databases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest) screened using transparent inclusion criteria; eligible studies charted, coded and synthesised through structured mapping and conceptual integration. The output is a field-level diagnostic plus an integrative, mechanism-focused framework to strengthen explanatory adequacy and policy relevance for social-justice-oriented higher education.

This study employs a PRISMA-guided systematic literature review to synthesise and evaluate how intersectionality is conceptualised and operationalised in research on international students in higher education (Moher et al., 2010). Search strategy and sources. The search was conducted in September 2025 across Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Scopus, and SciSpace AI Research Agent, using predefined strings applied to titles/abstracts/keywords. Search terms combined: (i) the population (“international student*”, “overseas/foreign/mobile student*”, “student mobilit*”); (ii) the setting (“higher education”, universit*, “tertiary education”); and (iii) the focal constructs (intersectionality-related terms) linked to inequality/experience and policy/EDI terms (e.g., inequity, discrimination, exclusion, belonging; policy, equity, diversity, inclusion, EDI, student support). Screening and eligibility. Database searching yielded 97 records screened at abstract level and 72 full texts assessed. Eligibility required (a) a clear focus on international students in higher education (including degree/exchange/visiting and forced-migrant/refugee students enrolled in HE), (b) explicit use of “intersectionality/intersectional” or a demonstrably intersectional analysis of interacting axes of power (beyond listing variables), (c) relevance to inequality/inclusion/exclusion/belonging/wellbeing/outcomes and/or policy/practice implications, and (d) full-text accessibility. Exclusions covered domestic-only populations, non-HE contexts, and studies that merely enumerated sociodemographic categories without an intersectional analytic lens. This process resulted in a final corpus of 39 studies. Data extraction and analytic procedure. Each eligible study was charted using a structured extraction protocol (18 questions) capturing bibliographic descriptors (e.g., country/region, publication type), theoretical framing, and methodological approach, alongside intersectionality-specific features. Studies were then coded using a bespoke intersectionality scheme assessing: Explicitness (EX), Definitional depth (DEF), Theoretical anchoring (ANCH), Level of analysis (LVL), and Function (FUNC). Synthesis proceeded through structured mapping (patterns across axes, contexts, and analytic levels) and integrative conceptual development, culminating in the Intersectional Internationalisation Mechanisms Framework (IIMF) as a portable, multi-level model linking micro experiences to meso institutional mechanisms and macro regimes.

This systematic literature review synthesised 39 studies (2011–2025) and demonstrates a clear “intersectional turn” in international-student research: intersectionality is now widely used and typically oriented toward power and inequality, yet conceptual specification and methodological enactment remain uneven, with a persistent risk of dilution into generic “heterogeneity” language. Three results are particularly consequential. First, the corpus is recently accelerated (32/39 published in 2021–2025; peak in 2024) and geographically skewed toward Anglophone destination systems (US 18/39; Canada 10/39; UK/NZ/Australia collectively bringing Anglophone destinations to 35/39). Methodologically, it is predominantly qualitative (25/39). This concentration strengthens the case for broader regime-comparative work, including European contexts. Second, across the included studies, the most recurrent intersectional nexus shaping outcomes is racialisation × nationality/international status × language/accent, frequently intensified by class/financial precarity and legal/temporary (visa) status. The literature repeatedly shows that marginalisation is produced less by “cultural difference” than by racialised bordering and raciolinguistic legitimacy regimes that structure who is heard, trusted, and recognised as competent. Third, axis visibility is uneven: race–nationality–language–visa dominate, while disability is rarely centred, and sexuality/religion appear in fewer but analytically high-yield studies—signalling both substantive gaps and institutional data/practice problems of single-axis categorisation. To consolidate these findings, the review advances the Intersectional Internationalisation Mechanisms Framework (IIMF), translating dispersed insights into a portable multi-level explanation (macro regimes–meso institutional assemblages–micro interaction orders) and associated minimum criteria for rigorous intersectionality. Practically, policy implications converge on structural repair: embedding international students within EDI/anti-racism architectures, redesigning teaching/assessment and interaction norms, strengthening supervision/reporting accountability and anti-harassment capacity, addressing visa/immigration precarity as a student-success issue, mitigating fee/material pressures, and improving intersectional monitoring and evaluation.

Buckner, E., Marijani, M., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Diversity without race: How university internationalization strategies discuss international students. Journal of International Students, 11(S1), 30–49. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. The Uni-versity of Chicago Legal Forum, 1, 139-167. Fethi, I., Daigneault, I., Bergeron, M., Hébert, M., & Lavoie, F. (2023). Campus sexual violence: A comparison of international and domestic students. Journal of International Students, 13(1), 1–21. Hou, M. H., Yu, J., & Katsumoto, S. (2023). Methodological approaches to the study of international students. Critical Internationalization Studies Review, 2(1), 13. Joshi, A., Chan, C. D., & Graham, L. (2021). Convergences of oppression for international racially minoritized doctoral students. Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling, 11(2), 73–89. Krsmanovic, M. (2022). “Outsiders” hurting from within: Racialization, discrimination, and microaggression experiences of international students. In S. P. Huffman, D. D. Cunningham, M. Shavers, & R. Adamson (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Opening Pathways for Marginalized Individuals in Higher Education (pp. 210–224). IGI Global. Lomer, S., Budginaitė-Mačkinė, I., et al. (2024). Social inequalities in international student mobility: a systematic literature review. Centre for Global Higher Education Working Paper series, Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford. Mittelmeier, J., Lomer, S., & Unkule, K. (2024). Research with international students: Critical conceptual and methodological considerations (p. 302). Taylor & Francis. Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. Altman, and PRISMA Group. 2010. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement.” International Journal of Surgery 8 (5): 336–341. Peng, C. (2024). Analysis of bias in international education from the perspective of intersectionality theory. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies (pp. 197–202). Ploner, J., & Nada, C. (2020). International student migration and the postcolonial heritage of European higher education: Perspectives from Portugal and the UK. Higher Education, 80(2), 373-389. Yao, C. W., George Mwangi, C. A., & Malaney Brown, V. K. (2019). Exploring the intersection of transnationalism and critical race theory: A critical race analysis of international student experiences in the United States. Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(1), 38-58. Yeo, H. T. (2024). Not a citizen but a student: International Student Critical Race Theory (IntlCrit) framework. In M. Tight & J. J. Lee (Eds.) Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, Vol. 9 (pp. 23–42). Emerald Publishing.