Navigating identity: How international students balance cultural heritage and university policies

Written by Bowen Zhang 张博文 (Durham University)

This story begins on the day I submitted my PhD thesis. After carefully formatting over 300 references, I noticed a striking difference in how referencing worked for Chinese versus Western authors. Chinese surnames are highly repetitive, and without tonal distinctions in English transliteration, even names that are distinct in Mandarin—like Zhang (张) and Zhang (章)—become indistinguishable. As a result, I had to insert additional initials, hyphens, and formatting adjustments just to ensure clarity. This unexpected extra work was frustrating, and as I sat there, irritated at my own last-minute decision to format references, I impulsively decided to add the Chinese characters of my name alongside the English transliteration on my thesis title page.

The next day, the university dismissed this as a presentation error. I received a firm email stating: “Your name should only be shown in English.” It was at this moment that I began to realise the broader implications of this seemingly small issue. Initially, my decision wasn’t motivated by a deep sense of cultural pride or tradition—I was simply trying to make my name more complete. But the institutional response turned this into something bigger: as international students, how do we navigate the balance between maintaining our cultural heritage and conforming to institutional expectations?

The institutional blind spot

Higher education institutions pride themselves on diversity and internationalisation, yet policies often fail to accommodate students’ cultural identities in meaningful ways. My university eventually allowed me to retain the Chinese characters of my name—but not because of inclusivity. It was because a prior case had set a precedent, and for the sake of consistency, they let me keep it. This decision, however, underscored a fundamental issue: institutional inclusivity often operates reactively rather than proactively.

For many international students, name representation is just one of many ways in which university policies subtly erase cultural identity. We are encouraged to bring our diverse perspectives, yet expected to conform to standardised academic norms that are overwhelmingly Western. Whether it is the subtle resistance of making extra effort in pronouncing our real names, or conforming to citation formats that do not account for non-Western naming conventions, or being gently advised to avoid non-English references in academic writing, these micro-level policies accumulate into a larger structural issue.

Challenging the deficit narrative: Agency in navigating identity

There is a common misconception that international students passively accept institutional rules. This deficit framing portrays them as lacking agency, as if they are mere recipients of academic policies rather than active participants shaping their experiences. However, my experience suggests otherwise. The simple act of pushing back against the university’s formatting rule made me realise that institutions can and do change—though often reluctantly and only when challenged. This raises an important question: how many international students feel empowered to advocate for themselves in similar situations? How often do students comply with policies that conflict with their cultural identity simply because they assume there is no room for negotiation?

My experience with name representation is just one example of the broader challenge international students face in balancing cultural heritage with institutional expectations. But it also highlights the importance of agency—the ability to challenge policies and advocate for meaningful change. Agency refers to how international students, as human agents, have the potential to navigate international education experiences and ‘enact self-changes’. In my case, studying abroad, receiving academic training, and engaging with scholarship on equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) made me realise how institutions must align their actions with their stated values. Universities cannot claim to prioritise diversity while simultaneously enforcing rigid policies that exclude non-Western traditions. 

This inconsistency can also lead international students to feel alienated from their own identities—something echoed in research on Chinese students’ experiences in global higher education. For instance, a recent study highlights how students continually navigate contradictions in identity. It describes three paradoxes: between “dedicated learners” and “disoriented bees,” between “global citizens” and “proud Chinese,” and between “team players” and “independent fighters.” My experience resonates with this framework—should I be the compliant international student who follows the rules unquestioningly, or should I use my knowledge and values to stand firm in protecting my cultural identity?

Moving forward

The fact that my university eventually permitted the inclusion of Chinese characters was not a triumph of inclusivity but rather an administrative necessity. However, the experience made me more aware of the subtle ways in which international students must constantly negotiate their identities within academic spaces. For fellow international students who encounter similar dilemmas, I would encourage asking: Is this policy truly rigid, or is there room for flexibility? Institutional policies often appear non-negotiable, but change frequently happens when students challenge assumptions and highlight overlooked perspectives. Rather than viewing ourselves as adapting to the system, we should also consider how we can shape the system itself.

True inclusivity in higher education should not be about making space within existing structures but about rethinking those structures altogether. And sometimes, something as simple as a name can be a starting point for that conversation.

Author bio