99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Revenue Diversification Strategies: Insights from Public and Private Universities in Kazakhstan
Moldir Tazhibekova
Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan
Presenting Author: Tazhibekova, Moldir
The purpose of this study is to investigate the process of revenue diversification at the universities of Kazakhstan what challenges they are facing, and how they are dealing with them. It seeks to explore the understanding, practices, and results of revenue diversification from the perspective of university leadership and faculty and to propose solutions supported by an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses found in the existing literature.
Given this purpose, this study aims to address the following question: How do two (public and private) universities in Kazakhstan implement revenue diversification to enhance their financial sustainability?
To address the research question and achieve the study’s objectives, two theoretical frameworks are employed: cost-sharing theory (Johnstone, 2002) and resource dependence theory (RDT) (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). According to cost-sharing in higher education costs are divided among four parties: students, parents, industry, and government. The costs paid by these parties contribute to HEIs as income. There are both internal and external factors that motivate universities to generate income from various sources. RDT asserts that the ability of organizations to survive is contingent upon acquiring and sustaining resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). However, this task is challenging due to environmental conditions marked by scarcity and uncertainty. Organizations must adapt to the requirements of key resource providers, and an open-systems perspective underscores the necessity for organizations to interact with those who control resources (Katz & Kahn, 1966). The degree of autonomy an organization experiences is influenced by the significance and concentration of its resource sources. This theory explains external forces faced by HEIs which encompass both global and national contexts. Furthermore, RDT analyzes the results of revenue diversification. As discussed in the previous section, there are some risks to the core mission of HEIs, which involves teaching and research, when they increase the amount of income generated from diverse sources.
Using these theories as a foundation and based on the literature reviewed, a conceptual framework for analyzing revenue diversification and the impact of diversification on student satisfaction was developed. The given theories and concepts discussed in the following sections will be synthesized to construct a framework for capturing a complex structure of revenue diversification. The internal setting of HEIs plays a crucial role in the process of revenue diversification. Factors such as a university’s mission, status, strategic development, organizational structure, history, size, location, teaching and research activities, and other related aspects contribute to the quality of revenue diversification. The internal parameters of the universities selected as research sites will be discussed in future chapters. By combining cost-sharing theory and RDT, the motivations, incentives, barriers, and possible outcomes of revenue diversification in HEIs are explored. In the context of HE in Kazakhstan and beyond, this research will contribute to our understanding of how institutions manage the challenges of resource dependencies and institutional goals.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study employs a qualitative multiple case study research design. Conducting multiple case study allows for an in-depth examination of two different types of universities as cases. In addition, this design provides opportunities for the triangulation of data sources, which can increase the validity and reliability of the results. According to Stake (1995), validity and reliability of the findings can be achieved by gaining the same results from multiple data sources. Moreover, the complex phenomenon can often be better understood through multiple case study, allowing a researcher to examine various situations, contexts, and perspectives (Yin, 2009).
Two universities (one state and one public) are units of analysis in this case study. Multiple case study with two cases has several advantages for this research. The validity of the research findings can be enhanced by conducting multiple case study and comparing and contrasting them to identify shared patterns or themes (Miles et al., 2014). Patterns that emerge across multiple cases are more likely to apply to other situations, increasing the generalizability of the research. A significant rationale for conducting a multiple case study is investigating how a program or phenomenon operates in diverse environments (Stake, 2013).
Although multiple case study is advantageous in various terms, Merriam (2014) points out that managing it can be difficult. This is because working on multiple sites can be confusing, with diverse data to keep track of. Once the first case study is completed, subsequent cases become more manageable. However, the various statuses of selected universities in this study may be an obstacle in using the same framework for two cases.
In this research, the purposeful sampling process targets university leadership members, including rectors or vice-rectors, financial managers, deans, and other officials responsible for financial and strategic decision-making in HEIs for semi-structured interviews.
Participants for the second data collection instrument – focus group discussions will be selected among faculty members in different departments. In selecting the faculties, it is important to cover a different range of schools and departments. For this reason, in this process, Biglan’s (1973) classification of scientific disciplines will be utilized.
Data collection is planned to be conducted in February and March 2024, with initial findings expected to be ready by May 2024.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings of this study will contribute insights into the complex process of revenue diversification in universities, shedding light on the unique dynamics and practices in the Kazakhstani context. This study aims to articulate the primary challenges, opportunities, potential outcomes, and policy recommendations emerging from the research findings. This research serves as a valuable resource for university leadership, middle management, and policymakers seeking effective strategies to enhance financial sustainability in higher education institutions in Kazakhstan.
ReferencesJohnstone, B. D. (2002). Challenges of financial austerity: Imperatives and limitations of revenue diversification in higher education. The Welsh Journal of Education, 11(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.16922/wje.11.1.3
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. SAGE.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Beneath the Surface: A Review of Underlying Pedagogical Principles for Generic Skill Development
Ainsley Loudoun1, Laurie Delnoij1, Inken Gast1, Nicole Kornet2, Sjoerd Claessens2, Simon Beausaert1
1School of Business and Economics, Maastricht University; 2Faculty of Law, Maastricht University
Presenting Author: Loudoun, Ainsley
Students are navigating an ambiguous post-graduate landscape, marked by global crises, shifting societal demands, and dynamic careers (Redecker et al., 2011). This uncertainty poses challenges for graduates, as they often feel ill-prepared when transitioning from the stable confines of higher education to the dynamic and often unfamiliar professional realm (De Schepper et al., 2023). Recognising this, higher education institutions are adjusting their focus, moving from job-specific skills to cultivating a broader set of competences that are transferable across diverse contexts (Trinidad et al., 2021). As such, the importance of ‘generic skills’ has grown increasingly evident within higher education and related research.
The term ‘generic skills’, synonymous with soft skills, transferable skills, 21st-century skills, and employability competences, encompasses critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, problem-solving, and ethical skills (Tuononen et al., 2022). Broadly defined, these skills constitute a “dynamic combination of cognitive and meta-cognitive skills, interpersonal, intellectual and practical skills” that empower individuals to navigate challenges effectively, within both professional and personal realms (Haselberger et al., 2012, p. 67). It is important to note that this call for ‘21st-century-skills’ is not necessarily novel, as these competences, such as critical thinking, have been components of education throughout history. However, as highlighted by Rotherham and Willingham (2010), “[w]hat’s actually new is the extent to which changes in our economy and the world mean that collective and individual success depends on having such skills” (p. 17).
This growing emphasis on generic skills has prompted various initiatives, ranging from comprehensive programmes and standalone workshops, to seamlessly integrating skills training into content courses. Notably, within this landscape, specific skill-development practices have gained prominence. For instance, some institutions have integrated competence-based coaching approaches into their curricula, emphasising a supportive and reciprocal coach-coachee relationship as means to cultivate skill development (Nuis & Beausaert, 2020). Alternatively, other institutions have adopted problem-based learning methods, concentrating on facilitating skill development through the resolution of complex, authentic problems (Carvalho, 2015), or portfolio systems, wherein students compile diverse documents to illustrate their learning goals and competence development (Heymann et al., 2021). These efforts have also been echoed within research, as scholars aim to understand what skills are needed (e.g., García-Álvarez, 2022), as well as how to effectively cultivate these types of competences in educational settings (e.g., Tuononen et al., 2020).
However, despite well-intentioned endeavours, these efforts often yield mixed results. Extensive research has explored diverse skill-development methods, such as those mentioned above, spanning various contexts, including medical and business domains. This diversity makes it challenging to discern the effective mechanisms in different settings, highlighting the need to consolidate these efforts and cultivate a more systematic understanding of their practical functioning and efficacy (Abelha et al., 2020; Cranmer, 2006). Moreover, the optimal strategy for implementing skill development into higher education remains debated, whether through curriculum integration, optional courses, or work-related experiences (Abelha et al., 2020). Crucially, Tuononen et al. (2022) reveal that factors influencing skill development are contextual, related to teaching and learning environments, rather than individual student factors. In other words, higher education institutions and educators have a degree of control in the success of skill development programmes, particularly if there is effective understanding and implementation of evidence-informed principles.
As such, this study recognises existing efforts and aims to address the above uncertainty by providing a comprehensive overview of effective skill development practices and their contextual conditions, addressing the research question: What pedagogical principles underlie effective generic skill development in higher education? By delving into this complexity, this study aims to contribute to the theoretical understanding of effective skill development, as well as provide insights for the practical implementation of evidence-informed frameworks in educational settings.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe review process for this study adheres to the procedural steps for systematic reviews by Petticrew and Roberts (2006). To begin, a search strategy was devised based on the proposed research question, utilising a combination of synonyms for three sets of terms: (1) higher education, (2) skill development, and (3) pedagogy. Two large databases, Web of Science and EBSCOhost, were chosen to ensure a broad selection of studies across diverse educational domains. To narrow down the scope, the search was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between 2006 (the year of implementation of the Bologna Declaration) and 2023. The literature search was conducted in November 2023, yielding a total of 16.166 articles.
Following the initial search, 1.440 duplicate records were removed, leaving 14.726 articles for further review. Titles and abstracts were then screened to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria, which require an empirical evaluation of generic skill development for students within higher education. Next, the selected articles will undergo a thorough assessment of their full text to ensure alignment with the research objectives, as well as a critical appraisal to evaluate their quality.
Upon completion the review process, the analysis will employ a ‘realist synthesis method’ to help uncover underlying pedagogical principles evident in the selected empirical studies. This analytical approach was chosen for its capacity in revealing the interplay between context, mechanism and outcome (e.g., Kusurkar et al., 2023), a feature that effectively aligns with the research objective. This choice is particularly suitable considering the existing diversity of skill-development methods across various domains and the recognition that the effectiveness of such initiatives is contingent on context (e.g., Tuononen et al., 2022). In relation to this research, the ‘context-mechanism-outcome’ approach will facilitate the identification of which pedagogical principles lead to what (level of) skills in which educational contexts.
It is important to note that this comprehensive review process, as well as the subsequent analysis, will be carried out over the next six months. As such, a more detailed description of the methodology and exhaustive findings will be presented during the ERC 2024 conference.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe spotlight on cultivating generic skills among higher education students has sparked considerable attention and recognition. Despite this, a theoretical underpinning of how to effectively design and implement these programmes is lacking. This review study aims to fill this gap by systematically delving into empirical studies that delineate various pedagogical approaches for developing generic skills within education. This focus is on uncovering principles underpinning teaching and learning practices that foster generic skills, particularly through a focus on the ‘context-mechanism-outcome’ approach.
For example, De Backer et al. (2014) explore how peer tutoring can promote students’ metacognitive cognition. Through the application of the ‘realist synthesis method’, educational systems that emphasise independent learning (context), reciprocal peer tutoring, which involves feedback provision (mechanism), can be harnessed to facilitate the development of metacognitive regulation skills (outcome).
The overarching objective is to establish a robust theoretical foundation, shedding light on the intricacies of these pedagogical approaches. The expected results will not only contribute to a deeper understanding of the theoretical landscape but also offer practical insights for future studies to explore the nuanced application of these evidence-informed principles. Furthermore, higher education institutions seeking to create impactful skill development trajectories can benefit from leveraging these informed principles for more effective implementation.
ReferencesAbelha, M., Fernandes, S., Mesquita, D., Seabra, F., & Ferreria-Oliveira, A.T. (2020). Graduate employability and competence development in higher education – A systematic literature review using PRISMA. Sustainability, 12, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155900
Cranmer, S. (2006). Enhancing graduate employability: Best intentions and mixed outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 169-184.
De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2014). Promoting university students’ metacognitive regulation through peer learning: the potential of reciprocal peer tutoring. Higher Education, 70, 469-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9849-3
De Schepper, A., Clycq, N., & Kyndt, E. (2023). Socioeconomic differences in the transition from higher education to the labour market: A systematic review. Journal of Career Development, 50(1), 234-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453221077674
García-Álvarez, J., Vázquez-Rodríguez, A., Quioga-Carrillo, A., & Priegue Caamaño, D. (2022). Transversal competencies for employability in university graduates: A systematic review from the employers’ perspective. Education Sciences, 12, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030204
Haselberger, D., Oberheumer, P., Perez, E., Cinque, M. Capasso, D. (2012). Mediating soft skills at higher education institutions. ModEs Project, Life-Long Learning Programme. https://gea-college.si/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/MODES_handbook_en.pdf
Heymann, P., Bastiaens, E., Jansen, A., van Rosmalen, A., & Beausaert, S. (2021). A conceptual model of student reflective practice for the development of employability competence, supported by an online learning platform. Education + Training, 64(3), 380-397. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2021-0161
Kusurkar, R.A., Orsini, C., Somra, S., Artino, A.R., Daelmans, H.E.M., Schoomade, L.J., & van der Vleuten, C. (2023). The effect of assessments on student motivation for learning and its outcomes in health professions education: A review and realist synthesis. Academic Medicine, 98(9), 1083-1091. http://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005263
Nuis, W., & Beausaert, S. (2020). The what and How of Mentoring for Student Reflection in Higher Education: A Literature Review, Paper Presented at EARLI 2019, Aachen, Germany.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n3p268
Redecker, C., Leis, M., Leendertse, M., Punie, Y., Gijsbers, G., Kirschner, P., Stoyanov, S., & Hoogveld, B. (2011). The future of learning: Preparing for change. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/64117
Rotherham, A.J., & Willingham, D.T. (2010). “21st-Century” Skills: Not new, but a worth challenge. American Educator. 17-20. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/RotherhamWillingham.pdf
Trinidad, J.E., Raz, M.D., & Magsalin, I.M. (2021). “More than professional skills:” student perspectives on higher education’s purpose. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1891043
Tuononen, T., Hyytinen, H., Kleemola, K., Hailikari, T., Männikkö, I., & Toom, A. (2022). Systematic review of learning generic skills in higher education – enhancing and impeding factors. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.885917
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Recognition of Prior Learning in Irish Higher Education- A Qualitative Study
Deirdre Goggin, Margaret Linehan, Irene Sheridan
Munster Technological University, Ireland
Presenting Author: Goggin, Deirdre
This paper explores why, despite inclusion in national strategy and position papers, the practice of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) remains at low levels in Irish higher education.
The study focuses, in particular, on the recognition of informal and non-formal learning and seeks to elucidate the elements which have most influence on practice. In Irish higher education, RPL can include formal, informal, and non-formal learning. The recognition process seeks to validate the learning in the context of a specified destination award from level one to ten on the national framework of qualifications (European Commission; Cedefop; ICF International, 2014, p. 3). The research conducted focused on exploring academics understanding of RPL, its position within their institutional context, and identifying opportunities and perceived challenges to practice and implementation.
The study addresses a knowledge gap in Irish RPL literature regarding the reasons for diminished support and practice of RPL despite evident backing in national published sources and initiatives. The study is focused on exploring the beliefs of academics in relation to why implementation of RPL remains low. It also seeks to determine if there is a correlation between staff beliefs and RPL in practice with the intention of informing future systems and structures for RPL within higher education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research study adopts a constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) and interpretative approach to examine the reasons for limited practice of RPL, with a particular focus on informal and non-formal learning in higher education. The qualitative research study gathered empirical data through 31 semi-structured interviews conducted over two years, 2019 and 2020. The data includes the views of 17 senior academic and 14 academic staff from 11 higher education institutions. Purposive sampling was initially employed to identify potential participants within the study, snowball sampling was subsequently used, as participants identified colleagues with experience of RPL in practice who had an interest in contributing to the research.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings demonstrate the diversity of the views of academic staff regarding RPL in practice in higher education. There are a number of barriers in current national and institutional settings that have impact on practice. Three dominant causal effects arose from the study, namely, culture, resources, and motivation (national, institutional and individual staff). These factors emerged as exerting most influence on the practice and implementation of RPL in Irish higher education. Responsibility for the implementation of RPL also emerged as a challenge from the research. A framework to address these factors is proposed as a mechanism to ensure greater engagement with RPL at three levels: national, institutional, and individual staff.
This study of the practice and implementation of RPL in Irish higher education is significant, as it makes a unique contribution to identifying the factors influencing the implementation of RPL and the findings have implications for policy, practice, and future research of RPL. The study has relevance at a European and international level in the development of validation practice and policy. It also has relevance to national, European and international development of lifelong learning and adult education.
ReferencesCedefop, 2023. European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning, Luxembourg: Publications Office Cedefop reference series No 124.
Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory:Practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications Inc..
Charmaz, K., 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory. Introducing Qualitative Methods series. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
European Commission; Cedefop; ICF International, 2014. European Inventory on validation of non-formal and informal learning 2014 : country report Ireland, Brussels: European Commission.
OECD, 2021. The recognition of prior learning in adult basic education. [Online]
Available at: https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/skills-and-work/adult-learning/Prior_learning.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2022].
UNESCO, 2023. International trends of lifelong learning in higher education. Germany: UNESCO.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
The International Mobility of Early-Career Researchers: Contextual Structures and Agential Practices
Yuqing Huang
University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Huang, Yuqing
Studies on early-career researchers (ECRs) as an emerging field of higher education research has gained an increasing attention in the past 20 years (McAlpine & Amundsen, 2018). Traditionally, cross-border mobility is commonly believed to promote academic success and is regarded as an unconditional good. However, with the underlying neoliberal influence and the changing landscape in the internationalisation of HE, literature has revealed a more complex picture of international mobility with conflicting outcomes. Literature highlights a diverse range of motivations driving ECRs to engage in international mobility. Career advancement, access to cutting-edge research facilities, and collaboration opportunities emerge as prominent factors (Teichler, 2004; Horta, Jung, & Santos, 2020; Poole & Xu, 2022); while fierce competitions juxtapose with the positive discourse lead to normalized or even coerced practices of international mobility among ECRs that may lead to risks such as increased precarity and the loss of social capital (Ackers, 2005; Bauder, 2020). Despite the flow of ECRs from Global South to Global North, which still remains as a major mobility pattern, a growing inclination of returning mobility to their home countries in the Global South has been noticed. Studies have discussed the benefits and challenges brought by the mobility experience for the returning ECRs, however limited research has been done to reveal how they negotiate with macro structures through exercising agency. Therefore, a nuanced understanding of rationales and experiences behind the different mobility patterns of staying or returning is needed. As context matters for comparative analysis, China and UK are chosen as the two research sites for this study. UK is the top destination in Europe while China being the largest sending country in the non-EU region not only for students but also for international staffs at HEIs (OECD, 2022; HESA, 2022). This study aims to understand the stay/return rationales and experiences among Chinese ECRs in the UK and those who have returned to China, specifically, the author asks:
RQ1. In the context of China and UK, what roles do structural factors play in attracting, recruiting, retaining, and developing of international ECRs?
RQ2. For Chinese ECRs with a UK PhD degree, what factors influence their stay/return decisions of international mobility?
RQ3. For internationally trained Chinese ECRs in UK and returned to China, how do they navigate through their academic career and personal life trajectories?
a) What are the similarities and differences in their exercise of agency?
b) How do the different contextual structures shape their exercise of agency?
This study adopts Glonacal Agency Heuristic as the conceptual framework (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002). Glonacal stands for global, national and local, the three interconnected levels in the process of globalization of higher education. This heuristic pinpoints six nods on each level, including people individually or collectively as agencies in 1) polities, 2) economies, and 3) higher education, and 4) organizations and entities in/of governmental and non-governmental agencies, 5) economics agencies and markets, and 6) educational and professional agencies. The nods form a set of three hexagons, indicating the direct or indirect reciprocal interplay between forces of different levels. It is adopted in this study particularly for its power in conceptualizing agency representing both entities and organizations at global, national and local level, and people’s ability to exercise agency. National level and individual agency will be the main focus for this study, with only some necessary discussions on the practice of institutions based on data analysis, since in the context of both UK and China, national policies play a much prominent role in attracting and recruiting internationally trained ECRs.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis empirical study reconciles ontological Critical Realism and epistemic relativism through comparative case study. Critical Realism offers a philosophical foundation for understanding reality as multi-layered, with observable events influenced by underlying structures and generative mechanisms. Epistemic relativism informs the significance of a context-based interpretation of individuals’ experience. It allows the current research to combine empirical investigation with critical analysis to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the mobility of ECRs and address the interconnection between structure and agency.
Following the stance of ontological Critical Realism and epistemic relativism, I intend to adopt the qualitative method of comparative case study (CCS) to investigate my research questions (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). The two countries, China and the UK, are the two cases for examining stay/return mobility of Chinese ECRs. Its approach to horizontal comparisons (between the two cases of UK and China) and vertical comparisons (across organisations and individuals within one case) also aligns with my conceptual framework.
I intend to adopt documentary analysis, website analysis, semi-structured interview, and focus group to address my research questions. For documentary analysis, the UK and China’s major policies pertaining to the attraction, recruitment, retaining, and developing of ECRs at national level will be analyzed. Documents from mainly the immigration department, education bureau, and national academic organisations will be analyzed. Website analysis mainly focuses on the academic organisations at national level. I intend to investigate the vision and mission statements of academic organisations such as UK Research and Innovation and National Natural Science Foundation of China. It is conducive to identify the major forms of supports such as funding opportunities and training programmes that open to international ECRs. By cross-case comparisons, potential structural enablements and constraints influencing the development of ECRs might be identified.
In the current study, ECRs are defined as academics who are within ten years of completing their doctorates. For interview and focus group participants of ECRs in the UK, it will include postdocs and other academic staffs with Chinese nationality who are not recipients of funding opportunities that require their return to China; for interview and focus group participants of ECRs in China, it will include postdocs and other academic staffs who returned to China with a UK doctorate. Nvivo will be used for coding and thematic analysis.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis research aims to explore the motivations and decision-making process influencing the international mobility of ECRs, examining their experiences and the intricate relationship between contextual structures and their agential practices within the evolving landscape of internationalization in HE. More specifically, the study delves into the interplay of national structural constraints and opportunities for UK-trained Chinese ECRs. It unveils the complex factors influencing their choices, including staying in the host country, returning to China, or even re-expatriating to the Global North, and sheds light on the challenges faced by ECRs within the neoliberal-influenced HE systems of both the UK and China.
This study contributes to the literature on the internationalisation of HE with a particular focus on the mobility of ECRs. The critical discussions on the rationales of the flow of ECRs from Global North to Global South and the opposite, together with a systematically examination of its influence on the experience of ECRs could reveal the emerging dynamics within the changing landscape of international academic mobility.
Though financial gains offered by the talent recruitment programs in China may still be one of the largest reasons for the return of ECRs, it is expected to discover other cultural, social, and political factors that support their long-term development in China, or on the contrary, that prompt their plan to re-expatriate in the future. While for Chinese researchers in the UK, the financial aspects may have lost its attractiveness in retaining ECRs, but it might not be the only concern of returnees in China and stayer in the UK. It is also expected to find the practice of agency to form a transnational space where they are not fully “accultured”, but are collectively acting to create a more diverse and dynamic academic community in both the host and home countries.
ReferencesAckers, L. (2005). Moving people and knowledge: Scientific mobility in the European Union. International Migration, 43(5), 99–131.
Altbach, P., & de Wit, H. (2018). The Challenge to Higher Education Internationalisation. University World News.
Archer, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge University Press.
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies: An innovative approach. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1(1), 5-7.
Bauder, H. (2020). Migrant solidarities and the politics of place. Progress in Human Geography, 44(6), 1066-1080.
Brooks, R., & Waters, J. (2011). Student mobilities, migration and the internationalization of higher education. Springer.
Cantwell, B. (2021). Concepts for understanding the geopolitics of graduate student and postdoc mobility. U.S. Power in International Higher Education, edited by J. J. Lee, Ithaca, NY: Rutgers University Press, pp. 94-110.
Cao, C., Baas, J., Wagner, C. S., & Jonkers, K. (2020). Returning scientists and the emergence of China’s science system. Science and Public Policy, 47(2), 172–183.
De Wit, H., & Altbach, P. G. (2021). Internationalization in higher education: Global trends and recommendations for its future. In Higher Education in the Next Decade (pp. 303-325). Brill.
Hayhoe, R. (2017). China's universities, 1895-1995: A century of cultural conflict. Routledge.
Horta, H., Jung, J., & Santos, J. M. (2020). Mobility and research performance of academics in city-based higher education systems. Higher Education Policy, 33, 437–458.
Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U. (2007). Research on internationalisation in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 260-273.
Kim, D., Bankart, C. A., & Isdell, L. (2011). International doctorates: Trends analysis on their decision to stay in US. Higher Education, 62, 141-161.
Knight, J. (2003). Updated definition of internationalization. International higher education, (33), 2-3.
Laudel, G., & Bielick, J. (2019). How do field-specific research practices affect mobility decisions of early career researchers?. Research Policy, 48(9), 103800.
Lee, J. T. (2015). The regional dimension of education hubs: Leading and brokering geopolitics. Higher Education Policy, 28, 69-89.
Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43, 281-309.
McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2018). Identity-trajectories of early career researchers. Palgrave Macmillan.
Zweig, D. (2006). Competing for talent: China's strategies to reverse the brain drain. International Labour Review, 145, 65-90.
|
