Review Reports - Working While Studying Abroad: Cultural Embeddedness of International Students’ Employment in Hungary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study focuses on the work of international students, a practical issue of growing relevance for a continuously growing group. The literature summary provides a suitable basis for the planned study.

The difference between RQ2 and RQ3 could be stated more clearly.

The study report must follow the standard order of goal, method, sample, and results for both studies. Results appear several times, earlier than expected. The type of the mixed design is unclear, as is the goal of the interview study. It seems a pilot study proceeding with the questionnaire. We do not have information about the participants’ region of origin, which would be essential. No data are provided for the qualitative study (mentioned content frequency or quotations from the text), only the conclusions are summarised.

In the quantitative study, the authors create a new scale but do not provide example items to demonstrate face validity. Data from the factor analyses report is not provided.

The reliability of measurement scales with several subscales is calculated separately for each subscale, whereas here these were calculated overall. We do not expect to obtain a high overall reliability value for Hofstede’s dimensions, as they do not aim to measure the same concept.

What was the reason for the missing item in Hofstede’s Value Survey? There are several ways to impute missing data using the available data.

It would be interesting to know how the study participants were recruited and whether they represent the university's international community or Hungarian international students. The sample size seems very small for that; however, with a careful sampling method, it may not be a problem.

After the result heading the first sentences are not informative, they seem like instructions to authors.

Because the study is based on a cross-sectional design, the wording that individual features shape the situation is not precise, as it is easy to find latent factors that are related to Hofstede’s dimensions and financial status, such as nationality of the individual, creating a link between these variables whitout casuality.

References in brackets should be ordered consistently by either abc or time order.

Author Response

NOTE: The study focuses on the work of international students, a practical issue of growing relevance for a continuously growing group. The literature summary provides a suitable basis for the planned study.

The difference between RQ2 and RQ3 could be stated more clearly.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. Upon reconsideration, we agree that the distinction between RQ2 and RQ3 was not sufficiently clear and that the two questions partially overlapped conceptually. To improve the clarity and focus of the study, we simplified the research design by removing RQ3 from the manuscript. The analyses previously linked to RQ3 have been integrated into the examination of RQ2. This modification improves the conceptual clarity of the study and aligns the research questions more closely with the empirical analyses presented in the Results section.

NOTE: The study report must follow the standard order of goal, method, sample, and results for both studies. Results appear several times, earlier than expected.

RESPONSE: The structure of the manuscript has been revised to ensure a clearer separation between the research objectives, methodology, and results. Descriptive statements that previously appeared in the Introduction have been shortened or relocated to the Results section to maintain the conventional structure of empirical articles.

NOTE: The type of the mixed design is unclear, as is the goal of the interview study. It seems a pilot study proceeding with the questionnaire.

RESPONSE: The revised manuscript now explicitly describes the research design as a sequential exploratory mixed-methods approach, in which the qualitative phase preceded and informed the survey design. The purpose of the focus group has also been clarified: it served to explore employment experiences among international students and to support the development of the questionnaire items used in the quantitative phase.

NOTE: We do not have information about the participants’ region of origin, which would be essential. No data are provided for the qualitative study (mentioned content frequency or quotations from the text), only the conclusions are summarised.

RESPONSE: We agree that the qualitative phase was insufficiently presented in the original version of the manuscript. In the revised version, the description of the focus group study has been substantially expanded in order to provide clearer empirical grounding for the qualitative findings.

We agree that this information is relevant for interpreting the findings. In the revised manuscript we added a description of the geographical background of participants for the quantitative part as well.

NOTE: In the quantitative study, the authors create a new scale but do not provide example items to demonstrate face validity. Data from the factor analyses report is not provided.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the description of the self-developed scale to improve transparency and to demonstrate its face validity. All of the items from the questionnaire is available on Table 2. to illustrate how the scale captures employment attitudes, perceived barriers, and adaptation-related beliefs among international students. In addition, we have now included the results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) conducted on the scale. The revised manuscript reports the extraction method (minimum residual), rotation procedure (varimax), Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy. The analysis resulted in a two-factor structure, representing (1) employment attitudes and individual adaptation beliefs and (2) perceived barriers and discrimination experiences. The rotated factor loadings are presented in a new table (nr.3.) in the Results section.

NOTE: The reliability of measurement scales with several subscales is calculated separately for each subscale, whereas here these were calculated overall. We do not expect to obtain a high overall reliability value for Hofstede’s dimensions, as they do not aim to measure the same concept.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this important methodological observation and fully agree with the point raised. Hofstede’s Values Survey Module (VSM 2013) measures several conceptually independent cultural dimensions rather than a single latent construct. Therefore, the instrument is not intended to function as a unified scale with a single overall reliability coefficient. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified this methodological issue. The description of the VSM instrument has been revised to emphasise that the cultural dimensions were treated as separate indices, and the interpretation of internal consistency has been adjusted accordingly. The reliability coefficient previously reported for the entire item set has therefore been removed from the text to avoid the impression that the VSM constitutes a single scale.

NOTE: What was the reason for the missing item in Hofstede’s Value Survey? There are several ways to impute missing data using the available data.

RESPONSE: The missing item (Q19) resulted from an unintended omission during the programming of the online questionnaire in the survey platform. We have clarified this issue in the revised manuscript. While we acknowledge that several statistical approaches exist for imputing missing data, we decided not to apply imputation in this case. The calculation of the Hofstede VSM indices follows a fixed formula that relies on specific questionnaire items, and imputing the missing item could introduce additional measurement bias into the index calculation. For this reason, the Long-Term Orientation (LTO) dimension was excluded from the analysis, and the study focuses on the remaining five cultural dimensions.

NOTE: It would be interesting to know how the study participants were recruited and whether they represent the university's international community or Hungarian international students. The sample size seems very small for that; however, with a careful sampling method, it may not be a problem.

RESPONSE: International students at the university are largely accommodated in a dedicated student residence hall. Part of the recruitment therefore took place through personal invitations in this residence, which allowed us to directly approach members of the international student community. In addition, instructors teaching courses attended by international students distributed the survey through the university’s administrative communication system via email invitations, encouraging students to participate in the study. Through this combined approach—personal recruitment in the residence hall and institutional email communication—we aimed to reach as many international students as possible. While the final sample size (N = 61) remains relatively modest, the recruitment strategy ensured that respondents were drawn from the international student population enrolled at the university, reflecting the diversity of this community.

Moreover, the aim of the study is not to produce statistically representative estimates of the entire international student population, but rather to explore within-sample differences between working and non-working international students and to examine their cultural value orientations. In this context, the sample size is sufficient for the exploratory analyses conducted.

NOTE: After the result heading the first sentences are not informative, they seem like instructions to authors.

RESPONSE: Thank you for the important notice, this sentence was in the template for the Social Sciences in which we added the text. In the revised text we deleted this part.

NOTE: Because the study is based on a cross-sectional design, the wording that individual features shape the situation is not precise, as it is easy to find latent factors that are related to Hofstede’s dimensions and financial status, such as nationality of the individual, creating a link between these variables whitout casuality.

RESPONSE: In the revised manuscript, we have revised the wording throughout the text to avoid causal language. Expressions suggesting that individual characteristics shape employment behaviour have been replaced with formulations referring to associations or relationships between variables. We also explicitly emphasise that the observed patterns may reflect underlying factors—such as nationality or other background characteristics—rather than causal effects.

NOTE: References in brackets should be ordered consistently by either abc or time order.

RESPONSE: In the revised manuscript, we have revised and made it consistent (abc order).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic and offers a valuable perspective by conceptualizing international student employment not merely as an economic necessity but as a culturally embedded social practice. The mixed-methods design is appropriate, and the qualitative phase meaningfully informs the development of the survey instrument. The application of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions provides a coherent conceptual framework, and the manuscript demonstrates solid engagement with the international literature. The overall structure is logical and clearly organized.

At the same time, several aspects would benefit from further refinement. The introduction is comprehensive but somewhat lengthy in places; tightening the argument leading to the research gap and more explicitly articulating the study’s theoretical contribution would strengthen the manuscript. While the research questions are clearly formulated, the stated expectations function as implicit hypotheses. It would be helpful to clarify more explicitly the extent to which the study is exploratory versus theory driven.

The methodology section is detailed; however, the implications of the relatively small sample size should be discussed more prominently, particularly in relation to the use of ANCOVA and multiple dimension comparisons. The modifications applied to the VSM index calculation (e.g., omission of constants, inability to compute LTO) are transparently reported, but their potential impact on interpretation could be addressed in greater depth.

The presentation of results is generally clear, yet the manuscript occasionally refers to tables without sufficiently integrating and interpreting their contents in the narrative. A more consistent presentation of statistical indicators (e.g., effect sizes, confidence intervals) would improve clarity. The key finding concerning the masculinity femininity (MAS) dimension is interesting and potentially meaningful; however, given the gender imbalance between working and non-working groups, the discussion should more clearly disentangle possible gender composition effects from employment-related value differences. If feasible, an additional analysis controlling more explicitly for gender, or a more detailed discussion of this limitation, would strengthen the argument.

The discussion section appropriately avoids overgeneralization and demonstrates awareness of critiques of Hofstede’s framework. Nonetheless, the theoretical contribution could be articulated more explicitly: in what precise way does this study advance the understanding of cultural embeddedness in student employment research? The policy and institutional implications are relevant but could be developed in a more concrete and specific manner.

From a language and formatting perspective, the manuscript is generally understandable, but there are minor stylistic inconsistencies, typographical errors, and formatting issues (including in headings and references) that require careful proofreading. Some inconsistencies in the reference list should also be corrected to ensure conformity with journal standards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not a native English speaker, so I would not like to give an opinion.

Author Response

NOTE: The manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic and offers a valuable perspective by conceptualizing international student employment not merely as an economic necessity but as a culturally embedded social practice. The mixed-methods design is appropriate, and the qualitative phase meaningfully informs the development of the survey instrument. The application of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions provides a coherent conceptual framework, and the manuscript demonstrates solid engagement with the international literature. The overall structure is logical and clearly organized.

In the revised manuscript, we have streamlined the Introduction by reducing some of the background discussion and strengthening the argument leading to the research gap. This revision improves the focus of the section and clarifies the motivation for the study.

NOTE: The methodology section is detailed; however, the implications of the relatively small sample size should be discussed more prominently, particularly in relation to the use of ANCOVA and multiple dimension comparisons. The modifications applied to the VSM index calculation (e.g., omission of constants, inability to compute LTO) are transparently reported, but their potential impact on interpretation could be addressed in greater depth.

We have further elaborated on the methodological implications of the modifications applied to the VSM index calculation. The manuscript now provides a more detailed explanation of the omission of the constant terms in the VSM formulas and the inability to compute the Long-Term Orientation (LTO) dimension due to the missing item. We clarify that the omission of the constants does not affect within-sample comparisons, which constitute the primary focus of the study, but may limit the comparability of the resulting scores with national-level VSM indices reported in other studies.

NOTE: The presentation of results is generally clear, yet the manuscript occasionally refers to tables without sufficiently integrating and interpreting their contents in the narrative. A more consistent presentation of statistical indicators (e.g., effect sizes, confidence intervals) would improve clarity. The key finding concerning the masculinity femininity (MAS) dimension is interesting and potentially meaningful; however, given the gender imbalance between working and non-working groups, the discussion should more clearly disentangle possible gender composition effects from employment-related value differences. If feasible, an additional analysis controlling more explicitly for gender, or a more detailed discussion of this limitation, would strengthen the argument.

In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened the integration between the tables and the narrative in the Results section.

We agree that the gender imbalance between working and non-working respondents may influence the observed differences. In the revised manuscript, we therefore clarify this issue more explicitly in the Discussion section, emphasising that the observed MAS difference may partly reflect the gender composition of the groups rather than employment status alone. This limitation has been discussed in greater detail in Section 4.3 (Cultural Value Orientations and Employment) and in the Limitations section of the revised manuscript.

NOTE: The discussion section appropriately avoids overgeneralization and demonstrates awareness of critiques of Hofstede’s framework. Nonetheless, the theoretical contribution could be articulated more explicitly: in what precise way does this study advance the understanding of cultural embeddedness in student employment research? The policy and institutional implications are relevant but could be developed in a more concrete and specific manner.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the theoretical contribution of the study more explicitly in the final paragraphs of the Introduction. In addition, the policy and institutional implications have been further developed in the Discussion section. The revised manuscript now provides more concrete examples of potential institutional responses, including targeted career services for international students, language-integrated employment opportunities, and clearer guidance on legal employment conditions.

NOTE: From a language and formatting perspective, the manuscript is generally understandable, but there are minor stylistic inconsistencies, typographical errors, and formatting issues (including in headings and references) that require careful proofreading. Some inconsistencies in the reference list should also be corrected to ensure conformity with journal standards.

RESPONSE: The manuscript has been carefully proofread and edited to correct minor typographical errors, stylistic inconsistencies, and formatting issues. In particular, we have standardised section headings, corrected typographical errors in the Results section, and improved the consistency of table references in the text.