Internationalisation and migrant academics: the hidden narratives of mobility

1 23 Higher Education The International Journal of Higher Education Research ISSN 0018-1560 High Educ DOI 10.1007/s10734-017-0224-z Internationalisation and migrant academics: the hidden narratives of mobility Louise Morley, Nafsika Alexiadou, Stela Garaz, José González-Monteagudo & Marius Taba 1 23 Your article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works, as long as the author of the original work is cited. You may selfarchive this article on your own website, an institutional repository or funder’s repository and make it publicly available immediately. Internationalisation and migrant academics: the hidden narratives of mobility Louise Morley 1 &Nafsika Alexiadou 2 &Stela Garaz 3 & José González-Monteagudo 4 &Marius Taba 5 #The Author(s) 2018. This article is an open access publication Abstract Internationalisation is a dominant policy discourse in the field of higher education today, driven by an assemblage of economic, social and educational concerns. It is often presented as an ideologically neutral, coherent, disembodied, knowledge-driven policy intervention—an unconditional good. Mobility is one of the key mechanisms through which internationalisation occurs, and is perceived as a major form of professional and identity capital in the academic labour market. Yet, questions remain about whether opportunity structures for mobility are unevenly distributed among different social groups and geopolitical spaces. While research studies and statistical data are freely available about the flows of international students, there is far less critical attention paid to the High Educ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0224-z *Louise Morley [email protected] Nafsika Alexiadou [email protected] Stela Garaz [email protected] José González-Monteagudo montea[email protected] Marius Taba [email protected] 1 Centre for Higher Education and Equity Research (CHEER), Department of Education, University of Sussex, Essex House, Falmer, Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QQ, UK 2 Department of Applied Educational Science, Umeå University, Umeå 901 87, Sweden 3 Independent Researcher (former Program and Studies Officer, Roma Education Fund, Budapest), Vienna, Austria 4 Department of Theory & History of Education, and Social Pedagogy, University of Seville, Pirotecnia street, s/n., Seville 41013, Spain 5 Institute of Sociology and Social Policy, Corvinus University of Budapest, Room 424 (Floor IV) Kozraktar utca 4-6, Budapest H-1093, Hungary mobility of academics. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 14 migrant academics from diverse ethnic backgrounds, including Roma and Latin American communities, and the theoretical framings of the new mobility paradigm and cognitive and epistemic justice, this article explores some of the hidden narratives of migrant academics’engagements with mobility in the global knowledge economy. It concludes that there is a complex coagulation of opportunities and constraints. While there are many gains including transcultural learning, enhanced employability and inter-cultural competencies, there are also less romantic aspects to mobility including ‘otherness’, affective considerations such as isolation, and epistemic exclusions, raising questions about whose knowledge is circulating in the global academy. Keywords Internationalisation .Migrant academics .Mobility.Identity.Roma .Epistemic justice Introduction: mobility as the new capital in the global knowledge economy Internationalisation is a dominant policy discourse in higher education today. It is invariably presented as an ideologically neutral, coherent, disembodied, knowledge-driven policy intervention—an unconditional good. Yet, it is a complex assemblage of values linked not only to economic growth and prosperity, but also to global citizenship, transnational identity capital, social cohesion, intercultural competencies and soft power (British Council 2012; Clifford and Montgomery 2014; DeWitetal.2015;Kim2017;Lomer2016;OECD2012; Stier 2004). Mobility is the sine qua non of the global academy (Sheller 2014). International movements, flows and networks are perceived as valuable transnational and transferable identity capital and as counterpoints to intellectual parochialism. Fluidity metaphors abound as an antidote to stasis e.g. flows, flux and circulations (Urry 2007). For some, internationalisation is conceptually linked to the political economy of neoliberalism and the spatial extension of the market, risking commodification and commercialisation (Matus and Talburt 2009). Others raise questions about what/whose knowledge is circulating and whether internationalisation is a form of re-colonisation and convergence that seeks to homogenise higher education systems (Stromquist 2007). Internationalisation policies and practices, it seems, are complex entanglements of economic, political, social and affective domains. They are mechanisms for driving the global knowledge economy and the fulfilment of personal aspirations (Hoffman 2009). Academic geographical mobility is often conflated with social mobility and career advancement (Leung 2017). However, Robertson (2010: 646) suggested that ‘the romance of movement and mobility ought to be the first clue that this is something we ought to be particularly curious about’. As five academics working in Austria, Hungary, Spain, Sweden and the UK, whose countries of origin include Greece, Moldova, Romania, Spain and the UK, we are curious about the hidden narratives of mobility. We have diverse socio-economic, linguistic, disciplinary and ethnic backgrounds including one Roma colleague. We are aged between 30s and 60s, with considerable individual and collective experience of working internationally. We are mindful that while internationalisation is conceptualised as a form of desirable capital for institutions and individuals, traditional notions of space and place are disrupted. New openings can be accompanied by risks of the reproduction of social and national hierarchies and closures, and an unequal distribution of benefits across different social groups and geopolitical regions. The international marketisation of higher education, new geographies of knowledge, spatial politics and changing mobility flows have social implications (Equality Challenge Unit 2009,2010,2011,2013). For example, who is perceived as the ideal mobile subject? Is mobility always strategic, and voluntary, or coercive, High Educ structural and contingent, as in the case with the current refugee crisis, conflict and political upheaval? (Bauder 2015;Morrice2017). Whose knowledge is circulating? Sheller (2014:3) suggests that ‘space is treated as an empty container for social processes’. People are conceptualised as chess pieces or resources to be dislocated and relocated around the globe, with limited consideration of identity, community, epistemic inclusion, care or the affective domain. Theorising mobilities, Urry (2007) argued that there is a minimisation of the significance and consequences of embodied experiences of movement. In the field of higher education studies, extensive literature exists on student mobility in the global academy (e.g. Bhandari and Blumenthal 2011;Brooks2017; Guruz 2011;Krzaklewska2008). Fewer studies explore mobility and opportunity structures in relation to academics (Ackers 2008; Bedenlier and Zawacki-Richter 2015; Bönisch-Brednich 2016; Cai and Hall 2015; Fahey and Kenway 2010;Hoffman2009; Kim 2008,2009a,2009b,2010,2017; Kim and Locke 2010; Musselin 2004;Pherali2012). Kim and Locke (2010)andECU(2014) call for qualitative studies to uncover the stories behind the sparse statistics. Our small-scale qualitative inquiry aims to engage with the social, affective and epistemic consequences of academic migration, especially in relation to equity and inclusion. Using the theoretical approaches of the new mobility paradigm (Sheller and Urry 2006), and epistemic justice (Fricker 2007) to analyse the personal accounts of migrant academics collected through 14 semi-structured interviews with academics in social science and humanities disciplinary locations, our article aims to highlight some of the hidden narratives of internationalisation for migrant academics. Mapping multiple mobilities Statistical data on academic mobility are limited. There is research on the dynamics of mobility and its relationship to particular geographical regions and higher education systems (Bedenlier and Zawacki-Richter 2015; Teichler et al. 2013), but little data about career-related mobility. While several European Higher Education (EHEA) countries have national policy goals explicitly aimed at promoting academic staff mobility (EHEA 2015), less than half of the member countries collect information on participation rates in international mobility among researchers, teachers or doctoral candidates. One study of academics’internationalisation reports large variations in the share of University employees with international backgrounds, ranging from 18 to 23% in Finland, Norway, the UK and USA, and 3–9% in France, Japan and Spain (De Wit et al. 2015). In another study based on data collected from 1336 higher education institutions, significant numbers of institutions report up to 10% of their faculty members with at least 1 year’s experience working abroad, and more widespread practices of faculty members engaging in short-term international research stays (EgronPolak and Hudson 2014:15). Drawing on data from HESA (2009), Kim and Locke (2010) address academic mobility in their chapter in the research report on the quantitative Changing Academic Profession project, highlighting how 27% of full-time academic staff appointed in 2007/2008 came from outside the UK. Lack of accurate and systematic information on academic mobility has been highlighted as problematic, especially for monitoring the equality dimensions of mobility. The UK’s Equality Challenge Unit (ECU 2014) wants more extensive surveys to map processes and practices, but also argues for supplementary in-depth and qualitative understanding of the mobility experience, as ‘telling stories is much more compelling than the data’(ECU 2014: 13). Existing studies on transnational academic mobility suggest that there is no universal model characterising how academic mobility is experienced or performed. Mobility drivers are contextual and contingent in sending and hosting countries. The nature and duration of mobility, opportunities and constraints for being mobile differ significantly, and are often bound to academics’gender, High Educ ethnicity, age, socio-economic status and indeed disciplinary location. There are differences within differences including chosen or forced mobility, the kinetic elite and the reserve and sometimes disposable labour force, nomadic and channelled mobilities as well as different velocities and temporalities. Professional stays abroad are often perceived as essential for academic identity formation, recognition and credibility and capacity building (Leemann 2010; Morano-Foadi 2005;Kyviketal.1999). Particular research projects, reputation of host institutions, access to better research infrastructures and cultural and historical interests for a specific location have also been identified as drivers (Jöns 2007). Limited academic employment opportunities and financial and resource constraints in the country of origin can also drive international mobility, especially for early career academics (Guth and Gill 2008; Jöns 2007). Women in academia are generally less mobile than their male counterparts, especially at later career stages, which can be attributed to traditional gender roles and the intersection of sexism and ageism in recruitment practices (Giorgi and Raffini 2015; Leemann 2010). They are also less likely to participate in international mobility as academic hosts (Jöns 2011). Younger academics, building their careers, tend to be more internationally mobile than senior colleagues (Auriol 2010). Regarding the nature of mobility, academic staff fulfil diverse functions in their host countries, including teaching, research, management duties or a combination of those (Kim 2009a,b,2010). Kim (2008: 579) posited a typology of migrant academics that included three broad categories: Academic intellectuals, whose creative role is to engage as ‘legislator’and ‘interpreter’ contributing to a ‘creative destruction’and reconstruction of the paradigms of academic work; Academic experts, many of whom increasingly define their roles as ‘researchers’ with transferable methodological research skills; and Manager-academics, many of whom have assumed their role as general managers with transferable management skills rather than traditional academic leadership. Patterns and purposes of transnational mobility vary, in terms of duration, from short-term stays to permanent settlement, as our data reflect (Bauder 2015). For example, some academics move once and re-moor in one new country, while others move every few years, with no fixity. Another variation is circular mobility from the home institution to one or several host institutions, often involving multiple calculations and cycles of accumulation of diverse capital. Whatever the configuration, the simplistic binary of mobility versus fixity is itself in flux. Policy agenda for international academic mobility Lack of data is surprising as the last 30 years have seen a rise in policy discourses that place higher education and internationalisation at the heart of economic and social development. Internationalisation is integral to the global knowledge economy (Jessop 2016;OECD2004; Verger 2010). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) endorsed ‘cross-border higher education’that can meet ‘human, social, economic and cultural needs’ (Vincent-Lancrin and Pfotenhauer 2012:5). There is a regional dimension to these agendas, with distinct manifestations in the developments of higher education in East Asia, Latin and North America, Africa and the Middle East (Kim 2016; Streitwieser 2014;VergerandHermo2010), with some regions characterised as exporters while others as importers of models of research knowledge, and academic staff (Kim 2009a,b). Across Europe, the evolution of the Higher Education Research Area, and a more intensified education and lifelong learning policy since 2000, led to the adoption of ‘knowledge mobility’as the ‘fifth freedom’—a core discourse in the Bologna Strategy but also the High Educ European Union policy developments (Chou and Gornitzka 2014; Council of the European Union 2009; European Commission 2013;EHEA2012). These issues raise normative questions about the power differentials between institutions and countries in the new global economy of knowledge (Fahey and Kenway 2010; Jessop 2016; Pavlin et al. 2013). Methodology for mobility We sought some of the narratives behind the (sparse) statistics and enthusiastic policy directions. Our article is based on 14 semi-structured interviews with migrant academics, working currently or recently in universities in Hong Kong, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Japan, Poland, Qatar, Spain, Turkey, UK and the USA. Their countries of origin were Austria, Colombia, Ghana, Guatemala, Mexico, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Portugal, UK and the USA. The sample was selected through personal and professional networking paying attention to gender, ethnicity, age and countries of origin and employment. They represented different career stages of mobility including PhD researchers, lecturers and assistant, associate and full professors. Nine of our participants were women and five were men. They were aged between late 20s to mid 60s. Four participants were of Roma ethnic origin, four were Latin American, one was from Sub-Saharan Africa and one was mixed race African American and European. Most of the participants were fluent in two or more languages. Regarding disciplines, the participants were in the fields of social sciences and humanities. We acknowledge that the findings are not necessarily generalisable to the STEM disciplines as these are already highly internationalised. van der Wende (2015) suggests that it has long been accepted that mobility enhances scientific innovation as it allows migrant scientists to match their particular knowledge with those of others and to work in places where their specialisation is well-resourced. Our participants also represented multiple mobilities. The United Nations defines migrants as persons who have lived outside their country of birth for 12 months or more (Castles and Miller 2009:5), but beyond this formal definition we recognise that there are many diverse ways of conceiving and portraying mobilities. In some cases, academic mobility for our participants was driven by a quest for new, but often short-term professional or economic opportunities. Migration often followed historical colonial connections e.g. from the UK to Hong Kong. It could also be constructed as a form of neo-colonialism, with the leaders in the global knowledge economy experiencing more opportunities for mobility, and offering scholarships and bursaries to academics from lower-income countries. Migration was frequently within the Global North including from Northern Europe or the USA to countries where migrant academics were actively recruited to increase internationalisation and build capacity of universities in a competitive academic and research landscape, for example, in East Asia or the Middle East. Some were part of the Transnational Education industry, employed by a university in the Global North, but posted to its overseas branch campuses. Another type of mobility involved moving from the Global South to the Global North for economic, political and human rights motivations. This was the case with our four Latin American academics living and working in the USA. For them, migration was perceived as a long-term commitment. For some, mobility was temporary including visiting fellowships or doctoral scholarships. Among our Roma participants, mobility was often from lower-income to higher-income European countries. Some participants were migrant teachers, while others moved across borders for their international research. Our research posed some ethical challenges about how to protect participants’anonymity when fields and representation were limited and individuals easily identifiable e.g. Roma academics. Hence, we sometimes present participants without specifying identifiable socio-demographic characteristics. High Educ All interviews were conducted in English and transcribed and coded, drawing on thematic and dialogic analysis. We were interested in not only the ‘what’(themes and contents), but also the ‘who’,‘when’and ‘why’(Riessman 2008,53–76; Wengraf 2001), opening the research and analytical process to questions of relationships, context, complexity, power and the diversity of knowledges and knowers (Merrill and West 2009). Our methodology was informed by a combination of inductive, emerging coding and deductive coding from the literature review, and the objectives of the European project from which this article emerged. We paid attention to causal conditions, events and incidents, strategies, context and intervening conditions, action/interaction and consequences (Gibbs 2007:86–88). We identified key debatable issues that show opportunities, constraints and the politics of knowledge regarding mobilities and internationalisation of under-represented and disadvantaged groups. We recognise that we are currently in a highly pluralistic moment of social research. Thus, postmodern, post-foundationalist, post-structuralist and indeed post-qualitative perspectives inform our research, influenced by life history, feminist studies and biographical approaches (Bruner 1991; Roberts 2002; Maclure 2013; Merrill and West 2009). The interviews focused on narrating and exploring life itineraries, personal and professional experiences of mobility and internationalisation (Atkinson 1998; Clandinin and Connelly 2000;Miller2000;Wengraf 2001). Interviews initially encouraged narratives and personal accounts, aimed at exploring and identifying meaning-making and individual engagements, and progressed to discussing cultural and professional contexts; mobility drivers or motivations; personal and professional benefits and disadvantages; factors that contributed to positive or negative experiences; and how internationalisation interacted with their social identities. Participants were also asked about support needs, and what training and formal and informal interventions would be helpful to support mobility? Their responses have been incorporated in a Training Module Internationalisation in Higher Education: Practical Guidance [1]. This intervention reflects our commitment to promoting a research process that effects multilevel, long-term changes to enhance international mobility of disadvantaged, marginalised groups. Theorising academic mobility Theoretically, we drew upon two central approaches: the new mobility paradigm in the social sciences which studies the interdependent movements of people, information, images and objects (Sheller and Urry 2006;Sheller2014;Urry2007), and epistemic justice (Fricker 2007). New mobility research interrogates who and what is de-mobilised and re-mobilised. It interrogates what is at stake in debates over differentiated mobility, and recognises that movement and spatial fixity are always co-constituted. Mobility is embodied, but is also discursive and material involving the production, distribution and relay of power and power relations. Cresswell (2010: 18) suggests that ‘mobility involves a fragile entanglement of physical movement, representations, and practices’,andis‘a resource that is differentially accessed’(p. 21). Academic mobility can mean that new knowledge is produced, emergent knowledge is exchanged, disseminated and validated, and knowledge networks and collaborations are formed (Jöns 2011). Epistemic justice explores the right of multiple forms of knowledge to co-exist and the plurality that recognises the diversity of knowledges and the equality of knowers. Fricker (2007) identifies two types of epistemic injustice: testimonial and hermeneutical. Testimonial injustice involves a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s world. Hermeneutical injustice is a gap in collective interpretative resources. Some social groups are wronged in their capacity as knowers, suffer a credibility deficit and lack rational authority. The ultimate cause of both injustices is High Educ prejudice against certain speakers (Anderson 2012). Fricker (2007:71) suggests that we rely on various markers of credibility, and that these are often based on stereotypes. These markers are frequently attached to particular social identities, and authority does not ‘stick’to certain bodies (Ahmed 2000). For migrant academics, this can mean that those coming from the Global South often have to navigate credibility assessments in relation to norms from the Global North. Migrant academics as ‘other’: a complex coagulation of opportunities and constraints Migrant academics, as strangers, can occupy liminal spaces in the global academy (Ahmed 2000; Bönisch-Brednich 2016;Kim2017). This positioning has the potential to provide externality and new insights into how the knowledge economy is experienced materially, intellectually, socially and affectively. The narratives of our 14 migrant academics, as knowledge workers, suggested that experiences of mobility were contextual, contingent and contradictory. It was rare to find that mobility was totally positive or negative. Rather, it offered a complex coagulation of opportunities and constraints. Participants narrated the positive influence of international mobility on professional development including the expansion and diversification of professional networks and soft power. In this regard, a Roma academic explained how her mobility provided opportunities for the accumulation of academic and social capital. ... in [my host city], you know, they are from across Europe, and sometimes even from different continents. And this is something that stays with you for a long time…And eventually at some point, some of these friendships or networks might actually help you with your academic career as well. Expanding one’s global reach, as the above academic identifies, enhances credibility markers, visibility and validation. This is particularly important for marginalised communities such as the Roma. While the policyscape is changing including a new phase in European Union policy, accompanied by the extension of freedom of movement to new accession countries in 2004, and especially in 2007 (van Baar 2012), Roma academics are still few in number. To counter this underrepresentation, Roma participation in higher education and student and faculty mobility have been promoted by organisations including the Central European University and the Roma Education Fund. Mobility across sectors has also been enabled by the requirement for some European Union funded research programmes for universities to form wider partnerships, involving civil society in the spirit of what Gramsci (1995) described as organic intellectuals. The HEIM Project’s partnership 1 between universities and the Roma Education Fund is an example, of how knowledge can be created and exchanged for Roma participation in internationalisation. However, internationalisation for marginalised groups can sometimes exacerbate exclusion. Fahey and Kenway (2010: 630) noted: The exilic intellectual has little sense of belonging.Loss of citizenship and associated identifications were reported in our study as mobility left some people feeling that they could not invoke a fixed national identification. A Roma academic discussed the detachment or de-territorialisation of global citizenship and multiple identities: 1 The HEIM project focuses on how principles of equity and inclusion can be applied to internationalisation strategies and programmes in higher education, as well as on developing research and innovation capacity in this field. Research focuses on the Roma community in Europe as a critical example of a marginalised group, at both staff and student levels. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/education/cheer/researchprojects/rise High Educ education. Internationalisation could also be a site of enhanced opportunity structures and the deparochialisation of knowledge. With a focus on 14 migrant academics’narratives, our article explores how academic mobility is experienced intellectually, socially and affectively. In line with the findings of other scholars (Bauder 2015; Jöns 2007), the article highlights the lack of a universal model of academic mobility, arguing that it is characterised by a diversity of geographical patterns, motivations, constraints and outcomes. While there is no doubt that internationalisation in higher education brings many social, professional and material benefits including enhanced employability, inter-cultural competencies and global citizenship, there are encounters and engagements that are often disqualified from or silenced in official policy discourses and texts. Academic mobility has identity implications that can be both positive and negative. Members of socially disadvantaged and marginalised groups can re-cast themselves as cosmopolitan global citizens, obtain transnational visibility and validation for themselves and their research interests, and at the same time become a valuable resource for their marginalised communities. However, negative identity positionings sometimes pursue them internationally—especially when they move from the Global South to the Global North, or from marginalised communities to mainstream academia. Gender discrimination can be a driver for academic mobility; at the same time, opportunities for being academically mobile still have a strong gender bias against women. The less romantic side of academic mobility is mainly felt through the experience of ‘otherness’. Migrant academics may be motivated by the identity capital and capacity building gained through mobility; at the same time, the feeling of de-territorialisation, loss of fixed national identification and loss of stability can be part of the experience. In some academic settings, migrant academics may feel more like knowledge workers than knowledge producers, constrained to absorb the local ways of (re)producing knowledge instead of actively contributing to creating it. This suggests that the circulation of knowledge in the global economy through internationalisation of higher education might be more limited than assumed. The social and affective dimensions of international academic mobility need further research to determine the extent to which national socio-economic inequalities and constraints are transposed to international academic mobility. It would also be interesting to explore the hidden narratives of STEM migrant academics. The existence of good practices for assisting migrant academics to contribute as active knowledge producers and to cope with the feeling of ‘otherness’and de-territorialisation should be mapped and analysed. Finally, the actual impact of international academic migration on global knowledge production requires exploration. The ‘otherness’or externality of migrant academics offers new insights and challenges to some of the orthodoxies of academic life, and exemplifies some of the main arguments embedded in theories of epistemic justice, that is, that while physical bodies might be on the move, whose knowledge is included and circulated in the global knowledge economy. Acknowledgements We wish to thank the European Union Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation for funding the HEIM project (Grant number: H2020-RISE-2014-643739), the 14 interview participants, Emily Danvers for research assistance and the Centre for Higher Education and Equity Research (CHEER), University of Sussex, for their contribution to the data collection, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and supportive feedback. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. High Educ References Ackers, L. (2008). Internationalisation, mobility and metrics: a new form of indirect discrimination? Minerva, 46(4), 411–435. Ahmed, S. (2000). Strange encounters: embodied others in post-coloniality. London: Routledge. Ahmed, S. (2010). The promise of happiness. Durham: Duke University Press. Anderson, E. (2012). Epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions. Social Epistemology, 26(2), 163–173. Arnot, M., Schneider, C., & Welply, O. (2013). Education, mobilities and migration: people, ideas and resources. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(5), 567–579. Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Auriol, L. (2010) Careers of doctorate holders: employment and mobility patterns. STI Working Paper,2010/4. Paris, OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/43/44893058.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2017. van Baar, H. (2012). Socioeconomic mobility and neoliberal governmentality in post-socialist Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38, 1289–1304. Bauder, H. (2015). The international mobility of academics: a labour market perspective. International Migration, 53(1), 83–96. Bedenlier, S., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2015). Internationalization of higher education and the impacts on academic faculty members. Research in Comparative and International Education, 10(2), 185–201. Bhandari, R., & Blumenthal, P. (2011). International students and global mobility in higher education: national trends and new directions. London: Palgrave Macmillian. Bönisch-Brednich, B. (2016). Rituals of encounter: campus life, liminality and being the familiar stranger. In A. Komisarof & Z. Hua (Eds.), Crossing boundaries and weaving intercultural work, life, and scholarship in globalizing universities (pp. 118–130). London: Routledge. British Council (2012). The shape of things to come: higher education global trends and emerging opportunities to 2020. British Council. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/the_shape_of_things_to_come__higher_education_global_trends_and_emerging_opportunities_to_2020.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2016. Brooks, R. (2017). Understanding the higher education student in Europe: a comparative analysis. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education.https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1318047. Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construal of reality. In J. Bruner (Ed.), (1996). The culture of education (pp. 130– 149). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cai, L., & Hall, C. (2015). Motivations, expectations, and experiences of expatriate academic staff on an international branch campus in China. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(3), 207–222. Cantwell, B., & Kauppinen, I. (Eds.). (2014). Academic capitalism in the age of globalization.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Press. Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2009). The age of migration. International population movements in the modern world (4th ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Chou, H.-M., & Gornitzka, Å. (2014). Building the knowledge economy in Europe: new constellations in European research and higher education governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Clifford, V., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Challenging conceptions of western higher education and promoting graduates as global citizens. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1), 28–45. Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory. London: Allen & Unwin. Council of the European Union (2009). Council conclusions of 12th May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training. [2009/C 119/02]. Brussels: The Council of the European Union. Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28,17–31. Cresswell, T. (2014). Friction. In A. Petal (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of mobilities (pp. 107–115). London: Routledge. de Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the south: justice against epistemicide. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. De Wit, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Internationalisation of higher education. Brussels: European Parliament. Egron-Polak, E., Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalisation of higher education : growing expectations, fundamental values. IAU 4 th Global Survey.http://www.iau-aiu.net/sites/all/files/IAU-4th-GLOBAL-SURVEYEXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2016. EHEA. (2012). Making the most of our potential: consolidating the European higher education area.Bucharest: Bucharest Communiqué. EHEA Ministerial Conference http://media.ehea.info/file/2012_Bucharest/67 /3/Bucharest_Communique_2012_610673.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2016. EHEA (2015). Bologna Process Implementation Report.http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/ documents/thematic_reports/182EN.pdf. Accessed 14 October 2016. High Educ Equality Challenge Unit (ECU). (2009). Internationalising equality, equalising internationalisation: the intersection between internationalisation and equality and diversity in higher education: scoping report. London: Equality Challenge Unit. Equality Challenge Unit (ECU). (2010). Internationalisation and equality and diversity in higher education: merging identities. London: Equality Challenge Unit. Equality Challenge Unit (ECU). (2011). Joining up agendas: internationalisation and equality and diversity in higher education. London: Equality Challenge Unit. Equality Challenge Unit (ECU). (2013). Improving the experiences of international staff in UK higher education. London: Equality Challenge Unit. Equality Challenge Unit (ECU). (2014). The rationale for equality and diversity: how vice-chancellors and principals are leading change. London: Equality Challenge Unit. European Commission (2013). Why European universities need to think global. Speech by Androulla Vassiliou to the European Higher Education in the World conference, Vilnius. (europa.eu/rapid/pressrelease_SPEECH-13-678_en.htm Accessed, 09–09-2016). Fahey, J., & Kenway, J. (2010). Thinking in a ‘worldly’way: mobility, knowledge, power and geography. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(5), 627–640. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage. Giorgi, A., and Raffini, L., (2015) Love and Ryanair: academic researchers’mobility, Forum Sociológico [Online], 27. : https://doi.org/10.4000/sociologico.1327. Gramsci, A. (1995). Further selections from the prison notebooks. Ed. and trans. Derek Boothman. Minneapolis, MN. Minnesota: University Press. Guruz, K. (2011). Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge economy. Albany: State University of New York. Guth, J., & Gill, B. (2008). Motivations in east-west doctoral mobility: revisiting the question of brain drain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(5), 825–841. HESA. (2009). Resources of higher education institutions 2007/08. Cheltenham: Higher Education Statistics Agency. Hoffman, D. (2009). Changing academic mobility patterns and international migration: what will academic mobility mean in the 21st century. Journal of Studies in.International Higher Education, 13(3), 347–364. Jessop, B. (2016). Putting higher education in its place in (East Asian) political economy. Comparative Education, 52(1), 8–25. Jöns, H. (2007). Transnational mobility and the spaces of knowledge production: a comparison of global patterns, motivations and collaborations in different academic fields. Social Geography, 2,97–114. Jöns, H. (2011). Transnational academic mobility and gender. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(2), 183– 209. Kim, T. (2008). Transnational academic mobility in a global knowledge economy: comparative and historical motifs. In D. Epstein et al. (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2008: geography of knowledge, geometries of power: framing the future of higher education (pp. 319–337). London: Routledge. Kim, T. (2009a). Transnational academic mobility, internationalisation and interculturality. Intercultural Education, 20,395 –405. Kim, T. (2009b). Shifting patters of transnational academic mobility: a comparative and historical approach. Comparative Education, 45(3), 387–403. Kim, T. (2010). Transnational academic mobility, knowledge and identity capital. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(5), 577–591. Kim, T. (2016). Internationalisation and development in East Asian higher education: an introduction. Comparative Education, 52(1), 1–7. Kim, T. (2017) Academic mobility, transnational identity capital, and stratification under conditions of academic capitalism. Keynote presentation at CHEER Seminar: Disrupting Internationalisation Discourses: Discussing Equity and Inclusion, University of Sussex, 19 July 2017. Kim, T., & Locke, W. (2010). Transnational academic mobility and the academic profession. In J. Brennan, L. Arthur, B. Little, A. Cochrane, R. Williams, W. Locke, M. Singh, M. David, T. Kim, & R. King (Eds.), Higher education and society: a research report. London: The Open University. Krzaklewska, E. (2008). Why study abroad? An analysis of Erasmus students’motivations. In M. Byram & F. Dervin (Eds.), Students, staff and academic mobility in higher education (pp. 82–98). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kyvik, S., Karseth, B., Remme, J. A., & Blume, S. (1999). International mobility among Nordic doctoral students. Higher Education, 38,379–400. Leemann, R. J. (2010). Gender inequalities in transnational academic mobility and the ideal type of academic entrepreneur. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(5), 605–625. High Educ Leung, M. W. H. (2017). Social mobility via academic mobility: reconfigurations in class and gender identities among Asian scholars in the global north. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.https://doi.org/10.1080 /1369183X.2017.1314595. Lomer, S. (2016). Soft power as a policy rationale for international education in the UK: a critical analysis. Higher Education.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0060-6. Lynch, K. (2009). Carelessness: a hidden Doxa of higher education. Paper presented at the Centre for Higher Education and Equity Research (CHEER) ESRC Seminar Series Imagining the University of the Future. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/education/cheer/esrcseminars/seminar2. Accessed 6 Sept 2016. MacLure, M. (2013). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in post-qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 658–667. Maestri, G. (2017). Are they nomads, travellers or Roma? An analysis of the multiple effects of naming assemblages. Area, 49(1), 18–24. Matus, C., & Talburt, S. (2009). Spatial imaginaries: universities, internationalization, and feminist geographies. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education., 30(4), 515–527. Merrill, B., & West, L. (2009). Using biographical methods in social research. London: Sage. Mignolo, W. (2009). Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial freedom. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(7–8), 1–23. Miller, R. (2000). Researching life stories and family stories. London: Sage. Morano-Foadi, S. (2005). Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence in the European research area. International Migration, 43(5), 133–160. Morley, L. (1999). Organising feminisms: the micropolitics of the academy. London: Macmillan. Morrice, L. (2017). The Global Crisis of Refugee Education: the neglect of young people and adults. Keynote presentation at CHEER Seminar: Disrupting Internationalisation Discourses: Discussing Equity and Inclusion, University of Sussex, 19 July 2017. Mountz, A. (2010). Seeking asylum: human smuggling and bureaucracy at the border. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Musselin, C. (2004). Towards a European academic labour market? Some lessons drawn from empirical studies on academic mobility. Higher Education, 48(1), 55–78. OECD. (2004). Internationalisation and trade in higher education: opportunities and challenges. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264015067-en Accessed 14 October 2016. OECD. (2012). Approaches to internationalisation and their implications for strategic management and institutional practice. A guide for higher education institutions.Paris:OECDhttps://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/Approaches%20 to%20internationalisation%20-%20final%20-%20web.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2016. Omobowale, A. O., & Akanle, O. (2017). Asuwada epistemology and globalised sociology: challenges of the south. Sociology, 51(1), 43–59. Pavlin, S., Dezelan, T., & Svetlik, I. (2013). Challenges of citizenship in higher education: shifting visions, roles and outcomes. Series Sozialwissenschaftliche Beobachtungen, (2). Wien: Edition Echoraum. Pherali, T. J. (2012). Academic mobility, language, and cultural capital. The experience of transnational academics in British higher education institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(4), 313–333. Poole, G. S. (2016). Administrative practices as institutional identity: bureaucratic impediments to HE ‘internationalisation’policy in Japan. Comparative Education, 52(1), 62–77. Richardson, J., & Zikic, J. (2007). The darker side of an international academic career. Career Development International, 12(2), 164–186. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. London: Sage. Roberts, B. (2002). Biographical research. Buckingham: Open University Press. Robertson, S. (2010). Critical response to special section: international academic mobility. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(5), 641–647. Said, E. W. (1994). Intellectual exile: expatriates and marginals. In E. W. Said (Ed.), Representations of the intellectual—the 1993 Reith lectures (pp. 35–47). London: Vintage. Sheller, M. (2014). The new mobilities paradigm for a live sociology. Current, 62(6), 789–811. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning, 38(2), 207–226. Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. London: Routledge. Stier, J. (2004). Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologies in higher education: idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(1), 83–97. Streitwieser, B. (Ed.). (2014). Internationalisation of higher education and global mobility. Oxford: Symposium Books. Stromquist, N. (2007). Internationalization as a response to globalization: radical shifts in university environments. Higher Education, 53,81–105. Teichler,U.,Arimoto,A.,&Cummings,W.K.(2013).The changing academic profession: major findings of a comparative survey. Dordrecht: Springer. High Educ Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. London: Polity Press. UUK. (2007). Talent wars: the international market for academic staff, policy briefing, July 2007. London: Universities UK. Verger, A. (2010). WTO/GATS and the global politics of higher education.NewYork:Routledge. Verger, A., & Hermo, J. P. (2010). The governance of higher education regionalisation: comparative analysis of the Bologna Process and MERCOSUR-Educativo. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(1), 105–120. Vincent-Lancrin, S., & Pfotenhauer, S. (2012). Guidelines for quality provision in cross-border higher education: where do we stand? OECD Education Working Paper Series. Paris: OECD. Walkerdine, V. (2003). Reclassifying upward mobility: femininity and the neo-liberal subject. Gender and Education, 15(3), 237–248. Wende, M.C. van der (2015). International academic mobility: towards a concentration of the minds in Europe. In, The European Review. Cambridge University Press. Volume 23, issue S1, pp. S70-S88. Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage http://www.sussex.ac. uk/education/cheer/researchprojects/rise/trainingmodule. High Educ