Social ‘integration’ and language learning at two European universities: Students’ perceptions of institutional and student-led opportunities

2.1 Students’ social ‘integration’

Students’ ‘integration’ in higher education has been “broadly interpreted as participation, mixing and involvement” (Spencer-Oatey and Dauber 2019a). While various terms – such as adaptation or engagement – have been used in the literature, ‘integration’ is understood as how well students function and feel included within the university community. Recent critiques argue that the term is often used uncritically, reinforcing exclusionary narratives and binary distinctions, and functioning as a tool for ‘othering’ (Mittelmeier 2025). However, we retain the term for coherence with existing research, using quotation marks to signal its limitations.

In higher education, ‘integration’ was introduced by Tinto’s (1993) persistence theory, which emphasizes the role of both academic and social factors in reducing student attrition. Although the theory accounts for social aspects, it foregrounds institutional structures and academic success as central to retention. An alternative approach comes from Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which highlights three basic psychological needs – autonomy, competence, and relatedness – in fostering motivation, engagement, and well-being (Deci & Ryan 1991; Ryan & Deci 2000). In this framework, successful ‘integration’ emerges when students are able to enact agency, build confidence in their learning, and feel socially connected and respected.

In such processes, the formation of meaningful relationships and social networks, maintained outside the academic domain, is particularly important. Often referred to as social ‘integration’, this includes both student-staff and student-peer interactions, with the latter being especially critical in shaping students’ sense of belonging within the university community. Compatible friends are essential, as such networks can provide emotional and practical support to help students overcome emotional and academic challenges (Thomas 2002; Wilcox et al. 2005).

Positive and successful social ‘integration’ significantly impacts students’ overall university experience. A supportive network and active participation in non-academic life can enhance well-being and sense of belonging, which positively affect students’ motivation and enjoyment and are likely to result in improved academic performance – such as higher grades – and greater persistence throughout their studies (Pedler et al. 2022; Tinto 1993; Trolian 2023). Furthermore, in culturally diverse and internationalized universities, social ‘integration’ also fosters the development of intercultural competences and contributes to forming global citizenships (Critchley and Wyburd 2021; Spencer-Oatey and Dauber 2019 a, 2019b).

Nevertheless, research suggests that specific structures and institutional opportunities are necessary to support students in forming meaningful relationships (Kuh et al. 1994; Maxwell 2016; Trolian 2023). A common concern in the literature is the limited interaction between local and international students (Page and Chaboun 2019), as such interactions have been shown to reduce stress, enhance self-esteem and improve overall psychological well-being (McFaul 2016; Meng et al. 2021; Robinson et al. 2020). Yet, these studies often frame international students from a deficit perspective (Mittelmeier et al. 2023), overlooking that all types of interactions are relevant and may provide the support students need (Mendoza et al. 2022).

2.2 Language management at university

In an increasingly diverse society, language management has acquired a major role in internationalized universities. Many European universities are investing substantial effort and resources into developing comprehensive language policies. While these policies are transversal and multifaceted, they are often shaped by the status of languages and political considerations (Darquennes et al. 2020). For students, this involves decisions around the language of instruction, language as a subject, and languages for mobility.

Most European universities promote multilingualism, yet they often witness a growing Englishization of Higher Education, where English is promoted as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) due to its role as the global lingua franca in the job market and in everyday intercultural interactions (Wilkinson and Gabriëls 2021). Some institutions support the parallel use of multiple languages, including minority ones; however, English often remains the primary, if not the only foreign language required to learn (Liddicoat 2016). Meanwhile, in English-speaking countries little attention has been devoted to language management in universities, based on the belief that international students should conform to monolingual, native English speakers’ norms (Jenkins 2014). This approach tends to perpetuate a monolingual culture, hence neglecting students’ plurilingual and pluricultural competence.

The role of English in universities is especially debated, as it is often perceived as synonymous with internationalization, yet functioning as both an inclusion and exclusion device (Adriansen et al. 2022; Sung 2021). While it allows for a diversified student population, the expectation of ‘native-like’ proficiency remains widespread, especially in English-speaking universities, leading to challenges and differential treatment among students (Jenkins 2014, 2018). Conversely, in non-English speaking settings and short-term mobility programs, where accent and pronunciation become less relevant, English may facilitate peer-to-peer interactions and the development of intercultural competences (Baker 2016; Pastena 2022, 2025b).

Overall, universities primarily focus on international students and the importance of learning the host language – whether English or another one – to facilitate ‘integration’, as language barriers can inhibit communication, thereby preventing both social and academic engagement (Wilczewski and Alon 2023). Meanwhile, other languages – often with instrumental functions – are relegated to those with specific interests or needs (Liddicoat 2016; Pauwels 2011). Consequently, universities frequently adopt a monolingual approach (Pauwels 2011), which marginalises the use of additional languages and frames foreign language learning as an optional add-on rather than a core component of internationalization.

This raises concerns about equity and inclusion and has a direct impact on students’ intercultural learning and educational outcomes, particularly those who would benefit from a translanguaging approach (Díaz 2018; Jenkins and Wingate 2015). As a matter of fact, research shows that language learning is closely linked to the development of intercultural competences (Council of Europe 2016), and language centres may play a crucial role in fostering such skills by promoting a “global, multilingual and multicultural culture” among students and staff (Critchley and Wyburd 2021).

2.3 Activities and initiatives facilitating interaction and language learning

Beyond individual factors, students’ opportunities for meaningful relationships and learning languages are strongly influenced by the university environment and the activities it offers (Trolian 2023). These activities can be promoted by the university, either as part of the curriculum, co- or extra-curricular, or as student-led initiatives.

In a study on a college in the USA, Tinto (1997) identified the classroom as a critical environment for both academic and social ‘integration’. Effective teaching practices, such as collaborative learning strategies and specific activities, can foster interaction and generate a sense of community that positively influences students’ persistence. Targeted interventions, like randomized early contact opportunities in the classroom, can help students in establishing networks and meaningful relationships, especially for groups at risk of marginalization (Boda et al. 2020), such as gender minorities or international students.

A considerable amount of attention in both university planning and academic literature is focused on the ‘integration’ of international students. Most universities provide various support services and infrastructure to help these students adjust academically, socially, and linguistically. These units also organize activities designed to foster contact among international students, as well as between this group and local students, such as language tandems, buddy programs, and workshops, with the aim of supporting language learning and enhancing intercultural competences (Leask 2009; Marangell et al 2018; Thomas et al. 2018)

Co-curricular and extra-curricular activities – such as language programmes, international cultural festivals, and house arrangements – have been shown to significantly enhance students’ social well-being. For example, Wang and Holmes (2019), in a Chinese university context, found that these activities served as initial steps towards the development of sense of belonging, interculturality, and transversal skills. Maxwell (2016) further highlights that the campus ecology greatly influences how individuals engage in that space, and that student-centred facilities – such as student unions – are crucial for community building.

A few other studies focus on the crucial role played by student societies and associations. For instance, Neri and Ville (2008) showed that Australian students involved in university clubs and volunteer activities often build strong, intercultural networks. In an exploratory study at a UK university, Gallagher and Gilmore (2013) created a society for marketing students and interviewed 12 participants, finding that involvement positively impacted social ‘integration’ – both student-peer and student-staff –, as well as students’ confidence and perceived employability. Similarly, in Valencia, Boni and Calabuig (2017) compared the experiences of three groups of students involved, respectively, in a mobility program, two electives on international cooperation, and a student-led group promoting actions and activities on diversity and solidarity. While students in all groups developed critical thinking skills and cosmopolitan capability, only those involved in the student-led group acquired the practical skills linked to civic engagement – such as collaborative work, problem-solving, and self-awareness – enabling them to exercise agency as citizens. Recent research, however, shows that these initiatives are most effective when they receive institutional support and recognition (Briggs et al. 2019; Girolamo & Ghali 2021).

4.1 Context of the study

This study was conducted at two leading European universities: one located in the United Kingdom (hereafter, UNI1), and another in Spain (hereafter, UNI2)^[1]. As mentioned, although situated within different language dynamics, both universities are recognized for their high levels of internationalization and academic prestige within the respective countries and are members of the same European university alliance (European Commission 2022).

UNI1 is located in England and primarily offers instructions in English. The university features a language centre that offers courses in 11 languages, providing students the option to choose language modules either within their degree programs or as additional courses. The international office is particularly active in assisting international students with bureaucracy and other matters, and it organizes workshops on intercultural competences and communication that are open to all students. The campus is fully equipped with all necessary facilities; all first-year undergraduates reside on campus and, optionally, international students. The university boasts a large and active student union, with over 250 societies, including around 50 specifically focused on language and culture.

UNI2 is located in Catalonia, an officially bilingual region in Spain, and adopts a trilingual policy, offering instruction in Catalan, Spanish, and English. The university offers degrees in various combinations of these languages, all including a proportion of EMI, ranging from a minimum of 6 % of European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) to programs delivered entirely in English. The language centre offers courses in 12 languages, as well as a “plurilingual course” designed to develop basic competencies in six languages over the course of one academic year. Additionally, the university runs a program which organizes language tandems, cultural tours and activities specifically aimed at fostering exchange between local and international students (referred to here as VL to preserve anonymity). UNI2 is an urban university with three closely situated campuses within the city, and it supports around 50 student associations with diverse focuses.

4.2 Participants

The present study is part of a larger research project investigating language biographies and practices, and intercultural interactions in internationalized European universities^[2]. For this paper, a total of 32 students participated, with 16 for each university, enrolled in a variety of degrees. Participants’ age ranged from 17 to 25 years (M=20.5) at the time of data collection, and the majority self-identified as female (12 at UNI1 and 14 at UNI2). All students were proficient in at least two languages – always including English – and reported up to seven languages in their repertoire (M=3.4 and M=4.3, respectively). Additionally, eleven participants at UNI1 and seven at UNI2 reported having experienced a heritage language and culture at home.

Most had lived or were living abroad for study purposes (12 and 9), with durations ranging from 3 months to 3 years. At UNI1, six students moved to the UK for university studies; additionally, at the time of interview, three were on short-mobility programs in the UK and two were undertaking an international exchange elsewhere. At UNI2, four students relocated to Catalonia for university from another Spanish Autonomous Community and two from other countries, while two Catalonia-schooled students were currently abroad for a short-term program. These varied profiles – though not identical across institutions – reflect the diversity of student trajectories at both universities.

The participants’ self-reported gender, faculty, and academic year are detailed in Table 1. Students voluntarily chose to take part in the study; they were informed about the purposes of the research and provided written informed consent for the anonymous use of their responses^[3].

4.3 Data collection and analysis

An anonymous online questionnaire was distributed through various channels at the two participating universities^[4]. At the end of the form, students interested in participating in subsequent phases of data collection could provide their institutional email address. The researcher then invited selected students for interviews by email, aiming to balance self-reported gender, faculty, and academic year within each university. However, the final participant pool was skewed – showing an overrepresentation of female students, those Social Sciences, and final-year undergraduates – due to the initial imbalance of interested students and because not all selected students responded to the invitation.

Interviews were semi-structured, with a predetermined set of questions while allowing participants the space to share their personal experience and for additional topics to emerge (Cohen et al. 2007). As part of a broader project, the interviews covered a wide range of topics related to participants’ experiences with languages both inside and outside university, as well as their intercultural experiences and interactions. Interviews were automatically transcribed using Microsoft Word’s transcription feature and subsequently checked for accuracy by the researcher. Transcripts were then coded using NVivo and analysed thematically. For this study, an inductive approach was employed, starting from two macro-themes: university-promoted activities and student-led initiatives.

Interviews were conducted first at UNI1 and then at UNI2, over approximately three months. The date and time of each interview were arranged based on students’ availability. The interviews were held on the universities’ premises or online for students on mobility and were audio-recorded, each lasting between 35 and 75 minutes. At UNI1, interviews were conducted in English; at UNI2, students could choose their preferred language among the three official ones (i.e. Catalan, English, Spanish)^[5].

5.1 Classroom environment

At both universities, the classroom environment appears to fall short in providing opportunities for meaningful interactions, and students tend to engage with one another mainly for academic purposes. Nine participants from UNI1 reported not having formed friendships with classmates, and four of them specifically mentioned finding it challenging to turn classroom interactions into lasting connections. For instance, Maria feels that “interacting in class is hard, definitely, because [...] everyone gets there on time and leaves on time”. Similarly, Fidan reflects, “I can’t have meaningful relationships with my class [...] I don’t think that we are forming a... friendship, or relationship. No, we have a relationship, but not friendship”.

At UNI2, five students described the university as comparable to a “neo high school” in which, as Agata puts it, “you go, you do your classes and go back home. No one really stays”. Interviewed students identify three main barriers in forming close relationships with classmates. First, there are limited chances to meet other peers because not all students in the same degree take the same modules. Second, the university is perceived academically demanding or, in Oihana’s words, “we are studying all the time”. Third, since the university attracts students from smaller towns in the region, Elena observes that “it is very difficult like to meet outside of class time”.

Regarding language use, participants at both universities highlighted the predominance of local language(s) in classes. At UNI1, this means English since, as Wendy puts it, “I mean this is like an English like uni, so like most stuff will be in English”. Gülay points out that, in her experience, even students enrolled in language degrees are “not exposed to it as much as you should be” since “like culture modules, so that’s like [foreign] literature, [foreign] history” are “taught in English”. Yue adds that opportunities to practice with L1 speakers are also limited in language modules, noting that these mostly involve “classmates talking with each other, but we do not have the chance to talk with like a real local people from [foreign country]”.

Likewise, at UNI2, four students explained that the language of instruction varied depending on the degree and the instructor, while six reported that, in Martina’s words, “the majority [of classes] are in Catalan”. Paolina even believes that some instructors “prioritize Catalan a lot [...] and they are bothered by Castellan”, while other participants perceive a more balanced use of Spanish and Catalan. Five students were enrolled in a full EMI degree and two in a language-focused degree that includes English; among the remaining ones, three complain about the lack of modules offered in English. For example, Sara laments that “unfortunately” she does not have “neither one” module in English, while Hormiga considers that “one in five [...] or in ten, is very low”.

Nevertheless, unsurprisingly, English seems to play a different role in interactions at the two universities. At UNI1, the low proficiency level of some students makes, according to Hameed, “hard to communicate” and, thus, to develop relationships. Conversely, at UNI2, English may serve as a resource for inclusion, as exemplified by Isabela’s experience with some classmates from abroad: “No one expects you to have perfect English [...] of course, it is also an extra effort because maybe there were four of us who could have spoken Spanish to do the task, but since they were there, we spoke English, because they shouldn’t have been excluded either”.

5.2 Institutional activities

When it comes to institutional activities and services to support social interactions, students at both UNI1 and UNI2 express similar concerns: they feel that the universities do not provide sufficient opportunities for engaging with peers outside of the classroom. As Fidan, at UNI1, perfectly explains, “the university doesn’t offer a lot of like... ice breaking activities, maybe socialising activities”. At UNI2, Irma echoes this sentiment, “at least for me, no, I didn’t see many activities to like socialise with people; it’s all just studying, end of story”. In both institutions, the main focus seems to be on classes, and only interactions among international students appear to be supported and fostered.

At UNI1, the international office takes on this responsibility, providing services to help international students settle in. As Loke explains, “especially in welcome week and shortly after that there were like events also held exclusively for international students, kind of to meet each other”. This support should not necessarily be viewed negatively since, up to Hameed, these services provided him with a sense of belonging and helped him in adjusting in a new country and educational system. He notices that the office offers “a tonne of great services [...] in terms of well-being for international students”, who ultimately “always felt like there was a place” for him. Similarly, Maria formed her international group of friends thanks to “a tour of university for exchange students”, while Aminah feels “not alone”, as she “could share [her] experience with other international students”.

At UNI2, the VL, while not originally designed with this purpose, serves a similar function for students on mobility, being considered by Jason “like a support service for international students as well”. He adds that engaging with it, he was “able to visit or engage culturally with a lot of things [...] and learn about Catalan culture”. However, as with UNI1, these activities seem to be targeted to international students only. For instance, Laia believes that “it is more designed for people who are international” and she is “not even sure whether it is open to Catalan people”. Consequently, local students do not participate, as Elena admits, “since I am from here, so usually the activities they do are for foreigners”.

In terms of language learning, though both universities offer additional language modules, students report several issues. At UNI1, they tend to clash with the regular schedule, as Elvira explains, “I was actually going to do a module in [foreign language], but they didn’t let me because there was a timetable clash”. Also, Fidan mentions the lack of information, as “it wasn’t really clear on how to get a [foreign language] class inside the university’s body”. Likewise, at UNI2, most interviewed students were unaware of the language modules on offer. Even when aware, as Sara notices, these courses “are worth a lot of money”, and the timetable is not convenient for “people like [her] who come from outside [...] are from small towns”.

Unsurprisingly, opportunities to learn and practice other languages seem to be more readily available to students enrolled in language-focused degrees. For example, Elias, a modern language student at UNI1, notes that he “can’t really recall a time where [he] felt like something from outside of [his] course has come up”, suggesting that structured opportunities for linguistic and cultural exchange are often limited to specific degrees. At UNI2, there is a language tandem programme open only to language students. Therefore, students from other degrees often turn to mobility programs to learn other languages since, in Isabela’s word, “what better opportunity to study [a foreign language] than living there?”.

One notable exception appears to be the language tandem program organized by the VL, which is open to students of all degrees. In this program, students are paired with others speaking different languages and willing to practice. Laia, for instance, has been taking part in the program for two years and remains in contact with one of her partners. However, there are limited spots and once students are paired, it is up to them to meet. Elena complains that there are people who sign up but then “do not show any interest”, which “takes away the opportunity from someone else who may benefit from it more”.

Overall, many students implied that fostering social interactions is largely their own responsibility. As Cecilia from UNI1 explicitly observes, “the issue is that at at this point we are basically adults, and it’s quite hard to try and foster relationships between people that are just gonna do whatever they want anyway. [...] I don’t think the uni, the uni could do anything [...] it’s down to us to do the interaction”. Other participants’ narratives reflected a similar perception, though less directly stated.

5.3 Student-led initiatives

Student-led initiatives is where the experience of participants at the two universities diverges the most. At UNI1, student societies seem to play a key role in fostering social ‘integration’, relationship-building, and language learning, ultimately contributing to students’ sense of belonging. In contrast, students at UNI2 report a lack of opportunities and information about available resources. Illustrative is a comment made by Loke, a student on short-term mobility at UNI1 who is originally from a university in the same city as UNI2, “I wasn’t expecting to see that much of [student societies], like in [city] there’s maybe maximum 10 or so and they aren’t really that promoted so people just make their friends in class”.

At UNI1, all participants emphasized the central role of the student-led initiatives for students’ social life, as exemplified by Cecilia, “obviously socialising between others, between students is completely down to the student union and the societies”. The student union offers a broad range of extra-curricular activities and designated spaces on campus, allowing students to meet peers who share similar interests and, consequently, develop friendships. Fidan notices that she was able to “find like most of the more meaningful friendships there”. According to Chloé, societies “are really active [...] they do a lot for the campus”, which made her experience at the university extremely positive.

The societies may also serve as spaces where students can learn and use languages other than English. The language society, in particular, provides valuable opportunities for students to learn a new language. As Elvira explains, “they offer classes and also they offer a language café, so you can just go and speak to people and learn another language which is really cool”. For Fidan the chance to learn an additional language with a “native” speaker of her age is “really good, really efficient”, while Aminah find that it is “really helpful, especially for someone who want learn the other languages, but they cannot afford to take courses”. Country-specific societies provide students whose first language is not English with the opportunity of speaking their heritage language, fostering a sense of community and belonging.

However, not all aspects of societies emerge as inclusive. Four students pointed out that country-specific societies may also be exclusive, preventing students from joining them. For instance, Mandy observes that there are separate societies for students with an Asian background, one for international students and another for those born in the United Kingdom. Claire also noticed that lacking a direct connection with a particular country may make joining certain societies unpleasant experience; for instance, joining the Afro-Caribbean society, “if you’re like a white person [...] it’d be a bit weird [...] you might feel a bit of a minority”. Similarly, Wendy and Gülay shared their experience of feeling excluded by two diverse societies due to either not having proficiency in the language or speaking with a different accent. Broader societies, such as the Muslim one, are perceived as more inclusive; in Aminah’s words, “they like literally like include everyone like [...] it’s always open for everyone and they never like, you know, like, intimidate someone from their culture and from where they’re from”.

At UNI2, students seem to suggest a different scenario. Participants manifested a lack of information about activities and associations and, when explicitly asked, most students, such as Laia, admitted, “I don’t know, I have no idea, I’m not familiar with it at all”. Hormiga adds that “they do not advertise it enough”. Indeed, Isabela mentions that her knowledge is “because they came to our classroom and told us, we are so-and-so, if you want to join [...] I think that at [UNI2] there are many associations, but I really cannot mention more than five”.

Even when aware of some associations, students perceive challenges in actively engaging with them. First, the university’s “high school” format may leave little time to take part in the activities. For example, Isabela joined an association for a few months, but had to “drop off because it took off a lot of time”. Second, according to Francesc, “there is not enough offer either”, and he did not find one of his interest. Third, many associations have a strict selection process and, as “there was a bunch of people who wanted to apply”, students like Oihana did not get in. Furthermore, some associations seem to fail in providing real opportunities to meet new people as, in Irma’s experience, “you like end up remaining in your circle and it’s challenging like to socialise and connect with the others”. The limited variety, along with the fact that some associations seem to have a narrow focus, makes hard for students to find groups that match their interests. Even well-publicized and bigger associations may not align with all students’ preferences. As Agata explains, “I see advertised the parting club, the [name of student association] is everywhere, but I’m not much of a party person, so I don’t really engage with those people, and also the rugby is advertised and the Castellers. But yeah, it’s not really my thing. So I don’t really engage any further”.

Interestingly, students from UNI2 who participated in mobility program in universities with active student societies, appreciate their value in developing meaningful relationships and support networks, and their contribution to their social ‘integration’. Oihana, for instance, observes that at her host university all students show high engagement in the university social life, taking part in diverse activities. Similarly, Ana recalls that her host university “manages it in a different way, that is, it offers different activities” allowing students to socialise, such as a sport centre, a variety of affordable language courses, and weekly workshops; overall, she believes that the institution is “better made for students, directed at students, I mean, it’s not so academic but rather student life”. Aleksandar explains that at UNI2 “it’s not a normal or general thing that you participate in any association [...] and because there is only two associations, it’s very difficult to enter”, while during his experience abroad he benefitted greatly from participating in various student associations, “I made really, really good friends there, uh, actually, I’m speaking with half of them, right, right now, like I’m maintaining the relationship with them”. Ultimately, when asked what UNI2 could do to enhance social interactions, he remarked, “it can do association, I think it’s the most important thing”.

6.1 Key findings and discussion

Higher education is rapidly evolving under a neoliberal approach to internationalization, emphasizing economic rationales such as marketing, rankings and international student recruitment (de Wit and Altbach 2021). However, this often overshadows the transformative potential of comprehensive internationalization, which includes valuing student diversity and fostering intercultural exchanges (Turner and Robson 2008). To enhance the educational experience of all students and prepare them for a diverse and global society, opportunities for meaningful relationships and multilingualism appear crucial (Critchley and Wyburd 2021; Jenkins 2014; Spencer-Oatey & Dauber 2019 a, 2019b).

Following Leask’s (2009) reflections on formal and informal curriculum, this study focused on two highly ranked, internationalized European universities to explore if, and to what extent, university-promoted activities and student-led initiatives facilitate meaningful interactions and language learning among students. Although student profiles slightly differ across institutions, they reflect the rich diversity of backgrounds and mobility experiences in internationalized university settings.

Our analysis revealed that participants at both universities perceive similar classroom limitations and institutional gaps in fostering social ‘integration’ and language learning. Contrarily to Tinto’s (1997) and Wilcox and colleagues’ (2005) findings, classrooms appear to provide limited opportunities for meaningful interactions. In both institutions, classes are structured similarly to high school, as explicitly mentioned by five students at UNI2. While Tinto’s (1993, 1997) model remains foundational in the study of student ‘integration’, its focus on institutional structures may be less applicable to contemporary internationalized environments. Frameworks such as Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1991, Ryan & Deci, 2000) may better explain how students’ sense of belonging and well-being unfolds, especially in informal contexts fostering intrinsic motivation.

As for languages specifically, we acknowledge that the broader linguistic environment – and the differing status and legitimacy assigned to languages – has a significant impact on instructional policies and everyday language practices. Nevertheless, local languages seem to remain the predominant focus in both universities, and even foreign language classes offer insufficient practice opportunities, as already pointed out (Liddicoat 2016). Mirroring research on the role of English in internationalization, our findings confirm that this language is perceived differently depending on the context. At UNI1, a monolingual English-speaking environment, the role of this language is scarcely contested, and low proficiency or a ‘foreign’ accent is perceived as a barrier to interaction, acting as an exclusion device and reinforcing the dominance of the ‘native’ speaker norm also among “international” students (Jenkins 2014, 2018). In contrast, at UNI2, a multilingual environment, English functions as a lingua franca and may facilitate inclusion regardless of proficiency level (Sung 2021), although it may also raise concerns about the marginalization of local linguistic identities (Pastena 2022; Trenchs-Parera and Pastena 2021).

Furthermore, both universities seem to strongly rely on the local-international dichotomy in the services and extra-curricular activities they promote to foster social interactions, often targeting only the international group – or at least, this is how students perceive it. Nonetheless, both institutions seem to offer adequate support to the so-labelled international students. If the concern is about ‘integrating’ these students into university life, the ways in which they meet their friends demonstrate their engagement with the university and its activities, and thus their social well-being (McFaul 2016). Additionally, while the lack of local-international interactions is seen as an issue, even the international bubble can provide students with the support they need (Page and Chahboun 2019; Pastena 2025a). Language centres could play a key role in students’ international experience (Critchley and Wyburd 2021), but they appear to fall short: students cite several barriers, including high prices, scheduling conflicts or inconvenient timetables, and a lack of detailed information.

These findings suggest that both universities frame social ‘integration’ as an issue mainly concerning international students. While this approach is valuable, as international students may face specific bureaucratic and linguistic challenges, it reinforces the local-international dichotomy and frames international students from a deficit perspective, as pointed out by recent critical studies (Mittlemeier 2025; Mittlemeier et al. 2023; Page and Chahboun 2019). Furthermore, this approach marginalizes other students who may also need linguistic or social support, such as minority language speakers and students relocating within the same country (Jones 2017). Alternative approaches exist, where university-led initiatives adopt a community-based orientation and are designed for the entire student population. Examples include peer-mentoring or language tandem programs, conversation groups, inclusive campus events, and interaction with external communities (Leask 2009; Marangell et al 2018; Thomas et al. 2018). Here, the focus shifts from targeted support to shared intercultural engagement, emphasizing the value of diversity among all learners (Zhao & Wildemeersch 2008).

In the experience of our participants, this role may be partially fulfilled by student-led activities, though the two universities differ significantly in the level of support they offer to such initiatives and, thus, how students experience them. At UNI1, student societies seem to bridge institutional gaps and are crucial in fostering student-peer interactions, thus promoting a sense of belonging, consistent with previous findings (Gallagher and Gilmore 2013; Neri and Ville 2008; Thomas 2002). They also serve as spaces where students can learn and use languages other than English in a supportive, egalitarian environment, aligning with studies showing that extramural language learning increases motivation and engagement (Zhang et al. 2021). However, like English, societies reflect the broader paradox of inclusive-exclusive spaces within universities: while aiming for inclusivity, they may unintentionally segregate groups based on certain characteristics, leaving some students feel excluded (Chen and Prue 2019; Gallagher and Gilmore 2013).

At UNI2, the role of societies is less clear. According to our participants, opportunities for student-led initiative are limited, and existing societies do not align with some students’ interests, are poorly promoted, and difficult to access or engage with. Interestingly, however, students who experienced student societies during mobility programs emphasized their importance in forming relationships and facilitating ‘integration’. As a result, student societies at UNI1 appear to play a more active role than those at UNI2. This difference may be attributed to differences in institutional support – particularly funding and visibility –, as well as incentives linked to student career development. Indeed, research shows that student-led initiatives are most effective in promoting inclusion, well-being, and empowerment when they receive logistical backing, financial resources, and formal recognition from the university (Briggs et al. 2019; Girolamo & Ghali 2021).

We recognize that these two universities differ across three main aspects, which should be mentioned. First, the institutions are situated in different broader contexts, that is, a small countryside city and a big global city. These contexts naturally offer different opportunities: while UNI1 becomes the centre of students’ lives, this is not the case at UNI2. Second, UNI1 is campus-based, whereas UNI2 is an urban university. Although the campus environment fosters social interactions and a sense of community (Maxwell 2016; Stave 2020), it may also function as a “bubble” that isolates students from wider society (Schweisfurth and Gu 2009). These two aspects can also affect the organization, visibility, and reach of student-led initiatives. Third, the universities have different language policies: UNI1 is a monolingual, English-speaking institution, while UNI2 employs a trilingual approach, including two global languages – i.e. English and Spanish – along with a minority one – i.e. Catalan. As previously mentioned, these differences may also shape how relationships unfold inside and outside the classroom, due to issues related to proficiency and perceived linguistic hierarchies.

All these factors clearly shape student experiences and their opportunities from the beginning of their studies. Additionally, it is important to note that broader national and regional differences – such as higher education funding models, tuition fees, and state-level language policies – frame the possibilities and constraints within which these universities operate. While such macro-level factors are relevant, they fall beyond the scope of this study and would deserve further analyses.

6.2 Implications and conclusions

Despite the above-mentioned differences, considering both universities offers insights into how diverse, yet highly prestigious and internationalized institutions address students’ social ‘integration’. This is particularly relevant given the European Higher Education Area’s (EHEA) emphasis on fostering meaningful exchanges, interconnectivity, mobility, and a unified image. Indeed, our analysis suggests similar patterns: limited institutional support and the significant role of student-led initiatives. This study, thus, raises broader questions about what we want universities to be: mere academic institutions that retain students and prepare them for the job market, or spaces that foster meaningful relationships, soft-skills, and a linguistically inclusive mindset?

Our findings suggest that theories of student ‘integration’ may benefit from incorporating a more fluid and dynamic view of such a concept, especially in internationalized and multilingual university settings. Although Tinto’s (1993, 1997) theory remains valuable, in contemporary, mobile, and diverse universities, institutional structures are not the only space where students act, and student retention, though still important, is not the sole concern. In this context, Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan 1991; Ryan & Deci 2000) may offer a more useful lens by accounting for spaces not directly controlled by the university. For students to thrive academically and personally, their basic psychological needs – autonomy, competence and relatedness – should be fulfilled. However, these needs may be better met in student-led and informal spaces, where students can exercise choice, build confidence, and interact without external pressure from deadlines or directives.

We believe that we should move beyond the term ‘integration’, as it may unintentionally reinforce binaries and position some students as outsiders, overlooking their agency (Mittlemeier 2025). Instead, we propose viewing universities not just international spaces but also intercultural ones (Zhao and Wildemeersch 2008), and understanding student experiences through the lens of social well-being: emotional security, peer connections, and opportunities for meaningful interaction across linguistic and cultural boundaries.

To achieve this, as suggested by Leask (2009), a balance of formal and informal curriculum, and effort from all university actors, is essential. In particular, it would be advisable to provide students with “third places” (Stave 2020) where they can come together and pursue their own activities feeling respected and valued (Kuh et al. 1994; Maxwell 2016). These spaces emerge as crucial for students’ social and linguistic well-being since interactions unfold outside traditional power dynamics, allowing for a more equitable environment. Although the responsibility for interaction primarily rests with the student themselves, universities could support opportunities that encourage students to step out of their comfort zones (Spencer-Oatey and Dauber 2019b) – that is, student-led, university-supported initiatives.

Our findings also challenge the assumption that English alone ensures inclusion in internationalized settings. Rather than being inherently integrative, its role depends on the broader linguistic environment and the extent to which institutions adopt plurilingual policies. English-speaking institutions, in particular, could benefit from not only providing more support to students whose first language is not English, but also actively promoting multilingualism (Critchley and Wyburd 2021; Pauwels 2011). Additionally, more attention could be given to the impact of the university’s physical environment and culture on student engagement (Trolian 2023). Although several constraints may be anticipated – such as limited physical space, ministry requirements, and financial limitations –, student well-being should be at the centre of all initiatives.

Moving forward, universities could consider enhancing their role not only as places for academic development but also as spaces for fostering social connections and language inclusivity. This shift should be accompanied by greater awareness that inclusion is never neutral, as creating belonging for some may entail boundaries for others. Accordingly, a broader reconceptualization of ‘integration’ theories is required, incorporating greater attention to multilingualism, student agency, and informal social networks, while carefully reflecting on how inclusion and exclusion coexist within the university setting – especially in internationalized higher education.

This paper should be viewed as an initial exploration of the phenomenon considering two institutions and the role of both university and student-led initiatives. It does not claim to be exhaustive, and several limitations can be addressed. First, while interview data are not generalizable, they offer a more in-depth perspective; future studies could adopt a mix-method approach. Second, additional data should be collected from other contexts. Given that our participant universities are situated in unique contexts, further research involving other institutions could provide a more comprehensive picture of similarities and differences. Lastly, other factors may influence opportunities for social well-being and language learning, such as the broader political and linguistic situation and individual characteristics – like gender, social class, and proficiency in the local language(s), identified as decisive in other studies (Pastena 2022) – and are worth investigating. Future research should continue to explore these dynamics across various contexts and in greater detail.