International mobility of researchers and the circulation of knowledge

Ana Delicado Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa [email protected]

Introduction The international mobility of researchers has been strongly promoted both by the European Union (with programmes such as the Marie Curie Fellowships, the ERA Careers website, the European Charter for Researchers) and by national governments (that fund grants abroad or to foreign citizens and lift administrative barriers to the entry of highly qualified personnel). These policies rely on the assumption that international mobility enhances professional development in individual careers but also generates networks through which knowledge is circulated, fostering the production of science.

Mobility, a well-known and effective way of training skilled workers and disseminating knowledge, is a core element in research development (…) Mobility, however, is not an end in itself, but an instrument by which research results can be optimised. It creates European added value by: (…) fostering research collaboration internationally, with different regions and between the academic and business worlds (networking); enhancing the transfer of knowledge and technology between the different actors of the European research and innovation system (...) making the research work more efficient by pooling together competence and experience, providing better dissemination of research results (EC 2001: 4-5)

International scientific mobility has been extensively researched in the past few years. However, these studies have focused mainly on pull/push factors of scientific systems and career issues and mostly take for granted the role of mobility in generating and sustaining knowledge flows. This paper aims to contribute to the discussion of this issue, in particular whether mobile scientists keep ties with different locations, promote collaborative international projects, are more prone to publish internationally, and build bridges between different national scientific systems. It is based on a recently finished post-doctoral research

project regarding the international mobility of Portuguese researchers1. It is of a solely exploratory nature but it aims to provide some pointers that can be used in a more systematic assessment of these questions.

Methodology Empirical data in this paper stems from two main sources: a survey of Portuguese scientists abroad and a set of interviews with returnee researchers. The online survey was applied to a sample of Portuguese researchers abroad, carried out in June 2007. 803 researchers were identified through several sources (an online database, newspaper articles, membership lists of associations, university WebPages, Google searches) and contacted by email. The questionnaire contained both closed and open-ended questions. 521 answers were received, which amounts to 65% of the original sample2. The interviews were carried out in 2008 with 32 Portuguese researchers with PhDs from foreign institutions, who are currently working in science in Portugal. They were chosen from a database with 3008 cases. The sample, thought non-representative, was stratified according to several criteria: gender, career situation, scientific area, type and region of current host institution, year and country were the PhD was awarded.

A brief characterisation of international mobility of Portuguese scientists There are several different kinds of scientific mobility: very short term (attending conferences or meetings in another country), short-term mobility (a few weeks or months at a research institution in another country) and medium to long-term mobility (obtaining a PhD or working for several years abroad). What will be discussed in this paper concerns mostly the later kind. As other southern European countries (see, for instance, van de Sande et al 2005; Moradi-Foadi 2006; IPTS 2007), Portugal has been mostly a sending country for scientific mobility. Although there are no exact figures for entry and exit flows, some 1

Carried out at the Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, funded by a grant from the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. 2 The actual response rate is in fact lower, since the researchers were asked to forward the email to other people in the same circumstances and the survey was publicised by several associations of researchers. 62% of the respondents were doctoral students and 38% senior researchers (with a PhD); 78% of senior researchers worked in universities, 14% in public research centres and 3% in business companies; 52% of the respondents were women; 45% were under 30 years of age, 31% between 30 and 34 years old, 13% between 35 and 39 years old and 11% over 40 years of age.

indicators can be used as proxy: there were only 188 foreign (from EU countries) doctoral students in Portugal, while there were 2240 Portuguese studying for a PhD in a EU country in 2006 (IPTS 2007: 7-8); between 1994 and 2002, under the Marie Curie Fellowship scheme, there were 173 Portuguese fellows, but only 69 European researchers chose Portugal as their host country (van de Sande et al 2005: 16). Although there is no accurate figure regarding on how many Portuguese scientists have left the country (temporarily or permanently) in the past few decades, national S&T policies have actively promoted outbound mobility, by funding large amounts of PhD and post-doctoral fellowships for studying or working abroad. Between 1994 and 2007, 3,571 PhD and 647 postdoctoral fellowships for studying abroad and 2,592 PhD and 842 post-doctoral mixed fellowships were granted3. According to the data collected thorough the survey, Portuguese researchers abroad are unevenly distributed throughout the world, following the usual patterns in scientific mobility (from the periphery to the centre, towards prestigious institutions – see Mahroum 2000b). Although sampling procedures may have introduced some distortion, this survey has found that 64% of Portuguese expatriate researchers are located in European Union countries, mainly in the UK (29%), France (8%), Netherlands (7%), Germany (6%) and Spain (4%); 5% are in other (non EU) European countries, especially in Switzerland and Norway; finally, like other European scientists, many Portuguese are also attracted to the more dynamic and affluent American S&T system (27%). As to return flows, there is no solid administrative data but between 1970 and 2007, Portuguese universities have recognised 4,004 PhDs obtained in foreign institutions (until recently a necessary step for applying for a position in academia in Portugal). However, not all of these PhD holders are Portuguese national nor are necessarily still working in Portugal and positions in research institutions do not require the recognition of the diploma. Additionally, a survey carried out in 2006 in Portugal registered that 29% of Portuguese doctorate holders (3200) had obtained their PhDs abroad4. By crossing two databases (PhDs abroad and faculty of Portuguese higher education institutions) and filling in information gaps through different procedures (web searches), it was possible to identify 3008 Portuguese citizens who had obtained PhDs abroad and 3

Source: official statistics of the Foundation for Science and Technology (see http://alfa.fct.mctes.pt/estatisticas/bolsas/, last accessed on July 2009). 4 Source: official statistics of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education (see http://gpri08-193.link.pt/main, last accessed on July 2009).

were still active in the scientific system.70% were working in public universities, 17% in private universities, 8% in polytechnics, 3% in State Laboratories and the remaining in private institutions (business companies and non-profit research centres). Their distribution by country of PhD follows a similar pattern to expatriate researchers: 42% in the UK, 38% in other European countries, 17% in the US and 3% in the rest of the world. In sum, the rate of international mobility in the Portuguese S&T system can be considered quite high, both in terms of exit and return flows. This can be explained at least in part by the recent history of development of the Portuguese S&T system. Up until a few decades, the incipient maturity of higher education and research institutions almost forced academics to seek further education and training abroad. In more recent years, the availability of fellowships made possible for a large number of graduates, not integrated in academic careers, to pursue post-graduate training in foreign institutions. Return flows were stimulated by the growth first of higher education institutions and later of research centres. As such, the Portuguese system can be an interesting test-case for studying the impact of international mobility in the circulation of scientific knowledge.

The role of expatriate scientists in knowledge circulation Theories of brain circulation conceptualise expatriate researchers no longer as a loss to the home country but rather as nodes in diaspora networks through which knowledge circulates, and namely is channelled back to the home country (Brown 2000; Meyer and Brown 1999; Meyer and Wattiaux 2006; Mahroum et al 2006). However, this entails that expatriate researchers maintain some sort of contact with institutions and researchers in the scientific system of origin. According to the survey applied to Portuguese researchers abroad, 88% maintain at least one type of connection to the Portuguese S&T system (see Table 1).

Table 1 – Connections to the Portuguese scientific system Informal contacts with professors or colleagues in Portugal

85%

Reading scientific papers or books published in Portugal or by Portuguese authors

56%

Participating in conferences in Portugal

50%

Writing papers or books in co-authorship with Portuguese researchers

30%

Taking part in research projects in Portugal

27%

Teaching in Portugal (classes or seminars)

21%

Contract with a Portuguese institution

17%

Doing fieldwork or data gathering in Portugal

15%

Exchange of students/researchers (senior researchers)

30%

Participating in advisory/editorial/evaluation boards in Portugal (senior researchers)

17%

Participating in thesis committees (senior researchers)

16%

Co-supervising of doctorates (senior researchers)

15%

Mixed PhD programme between a Portuguese and a foreign university (PhD students)

23%

Informal contacts with professors or colleagues were by far the most frequent type of engagement in contact activities with Portuguese institutions or scientists (85%). Crane (1971: 588) highlighted the importance of informal relationships inside research areas, structuring communication and collaboration networks (“invisible colleges”). However, these contacts may also have a “strategic” nature: expatriate researchers that keep in touch with peers established in the home country (colleagues or senior scientists, such as former professors, supervisors or project coordinators) have more chance of receiving privileged information on job opportunities, of being personally known or recommended to potential recruiters, of being regarded with less suspicion that other candidates coming from abroad (Casey et al 2001: 36; Morano-Foadi 2006: 215; Gill 2005: 327). These informal contacts are followed by other types of practice that signify following Portuguese science “at a distance”: reading scientific papers published in Portugal or by Portuguese authors (56%), attending scientific conferences in Portugal (50%). Much

less frequent is the active participation in research and educational activities in Portugal: writing in co-authorship with Portuguese scientists (30%)5, taking part in joint research projects (27%), teaching (21%), doing fieldwork in Portugal (15%). Studies concerning the case of expatriate Chinese and Indian scientists showed similar levels of contact practices with the home S&T system (Mahroum et al 2006: 28). 23% of the students surveyed declared that they were enrolled in mixed PhD programmes, that is to say, they spend part of their postgraduate education at a Portuguese institution and another period at a foreign university. This is more common in the natural and health sciences and it is fostered by agreements between higher education institutions but also by specifically designed programmes. The first of these programmes started in the early 90’s, at the Gulbenkian Institute of Science, in life sciences: the students spend the first year at the Institute and in other Portuguese research centres (attending classes delivered by national and foreign experts and acquiring laboratory experience) and afterwards choose a host institution and a supervisor, either at home (less frequently) or abroad (the majority) to complete their PhDs. Since then, two other doctoral programmes were created at the Gulbenkian Institute, in Computational Biology and in Neuroscience, Brain and Behavioural Systems. Other Portuguese institutions also followed suit: the University of Oporto with the Graduate Programme in Areas of Basic and Applied Biology; and the Centre for Neuroscience and Cell Biology at the University of Coimbra with the Programme in Experimental Biology and Biomedicine. Since 2005, agreements between the Portuguese government and American universities have also promoted the creation of collaboration programmes, that include joint master and doctoral degrees: with MIT in engineering and the health sciences; with Carnegie Mellon University in information and communication technologies; with the University of Texas at Austin in digital media, advanced computing and mathematics. Regarding senior researchers, some also develop other kinds of contacts with the Portuguese S&T system, such as promoting student or researcher exchanges (30%), taking part in advisory or evaluation boards of journals, research centres or funding bodies (17%), participating in thesis committees (16%), and co-supervising graduate 5

This is in line with the general trend of the rise in co-authorship of articles by scientists from different countries “This is not only an aspect of globalisation, but also a manifestation of the increasing tendency to use knowledge, information, collaboration wherever they may be found. Immediate access to knowledge is now more a function of networking and less of institutional position” (Gibbons et al 1997: 146).

students in Portugal (15%). Their familiarity with the language and the scientific system is an advantage, alongside their independence from Portuguese institutions, in an academic milieu that is quite often accused of parochialism, patronage and inbreeding6, much like others of its southern Europe neighbours (Casey et al 2001; Morano-Foadi 2005 and 2006; Gill 2005; Millard 2005; Avveduto 2001; Szelenyi 2006). However, these contacts do not necessarily prove that actual knowledge transfer takes place. Some researchers stated that they have contacts with Portuguese research centres or departments that need PhD holders to “make up the numbers” for funding or evaluation purposes. Another declared that she experienced difficulties in maintaining contacts with the home country:

Any of the activities I proposed were carried out only once or twice. The difficulty in establishing and maintaining contacts with Portuguese colleagues is huge, I’ve been trying for years and I feel there is very little interest (senior researcher, social sciences, The Netherlands)

Interviews with returnee scientists have confirmed that most maintained contacts with the Portuguese scientific system during their absence abroad. Since the majority was already working in Portuguese institutions (universities and research laboratories), these contacts were to be expected: giving lectures, reporting on the work progress, keeping in touch with colleagues. But most of the PhD students not affiliated to Portuguese institutions also stated having informal contacts with researchers in Portugal (former professors and supervisors, mainly). These contacts seem to have served more the purpose of facilitating their return to the country than engendering knowledge flows. According to survey responses, most of the professional contacts of expatriate researchers are made with Portuguese universities (79% of respondents), followed by public research centres (31%); business companies are unlikely partners (mentioned by only 5% of respondents), since private investment in science in Portugal is very low7. As to the means through which these contacts occur, the email is largely prevalent (used frequently or very frequently by 73% of respondents). In fact, Information and Communication Technologies have become an indispensable tool for scientific communication (Gibbons et al 1997; Connel et al 2005: 13; Mahroum 2000a: 31; Urry 6

See, for instance, several of the reports issued by international expert panels regarding the evaluation of research units in 2002-2004 (http://www.fct.mctes.pt/unidades/relatorio2005/, last accessed 12 February 2008). 7 Business companies funded only 36% and executed only 38% of Gross Domestic Expenditure in R&D in 2005 (Source: GPEARI, 2007).

2000: 177), for transnational activities in general (Portes 2001: 188; Vertovec 1999: 451; Vertovec 2001: 577; Roudometof 2005: 119; Schiller et al 1995) and for the establishment of scientific and technological “diaspora” networks in particular (Brown 2000; Meyer and Brown 1999; Ferro 2004: 388; Meyer et al 2001: 353; Meyer and Wattiaux 2006; Mahroum et al 2006: 29). The decrease in travel costs and time has also made face-to-face contacts easier: visits to Portuguese institutions are mentioned by 39% of researchers, even though meeting Portuguese peers at scientific events or receiving them at the foreign institutions is less common (23% and 10% of respondents, respectively): “short, targeted visits by highly skilled emigrants to their home countries can also serve as a channel for knowledge transfer” (Mahroum et al 2006: 29). Scientific associations play an important role in fostering communication inside the scientific community, since they organise scientific meetings, publish reputable journals and monographs, disseminate relevant information for practitioners (standards and norms, ethical rules, job offers, courses, seminars) and can even run large scale facilities or equipments (laboratories, libraries, databanks, datasets, museums) (Barke 2003: 313; Crane 1971; Schofer 2003: 723; Drori et al 2003: 81-99).

Schimank [1988] found that scientific associations perform these basic functions: communication within disciplines or sub-disciplines; professional support for members’ careers; representation of collective interests, enabling researchers to come into contact both with each other and with the users of their research (the ‘transfer’ function); and the promotion of research and the use of expertise in science policy decisions. (Barke 2003: 313)

Although Portuguese citizens show traditionally low levels of civic participation and association membership (see, for instance, Bartkowski and Jasiska-Kania 2004: 120), 75% of respondents to the survey stated that they belong to at least one of these organisations (see Table 2).

Table 2 – Membership of associations International disciplinary associations

57%

Host country disciplinary associations

46%

Associations of Portuguese students/researchers in the host institution/country

31%

Portuguese disciplinary associations

28%

Students/researchers associations in Portugal

21%

Disciplinary associations, as to be expected, are predominant, especially organisations at an international level (57% of respondents): “Individual scientists may identify with the broad sweep of science, but are likely to pledge primary allegiance to the discipline from which the ‘rewards’ of citizenship flow.” (Barke 2003: 323; see also Henkel 2000; Hirt and Muffo 1998: 18). However, membership rates of Portuguese disciplinary associations are almost half (28%) of those in the host country (46%), which may signify a higher degree of integration in the receiving S&T system, but it also means that quite a few expatriate researchers do maintain connections to professional bodies at home. Membership of student or researcher’s associations in Portugal is less common (21% of respondents). Under this denomination there are different kinds of groups, pursuing diverse objectives: university alumni associations, trade unions, associations of scientists (scientific workers, fellowship holders, women scientists), associations for the promotion of scientific culture, etc. It is also relevant that close to one third of respondents (31%) is a member or participates in the activities of associations of Portuguese students or researchers in the host institution or country (although sampling procedures, namely the use of membership lists, are also responsible for this high affirmative response rate). Culture and language groups are common in some large institutions, such as MIT, Oxford or Cambridge, and Portuguese groups are no exception: MIT Portuguese Student Association, Oxford University Portuguese Society, Cambridge University Portuguese Language Society. Their scope of activities includes cultural activities to promote Portuguese language, literature and arts; social events to bring together and facilitate the integration of Portuguese nationals; representation, advocacy and support to students and academics; fostering connections with institutions in the home country. On a

national level, other organisations can be found, such as PAPS - Portuguese-American Post-graduate Society, which aims

to stimulate the development of strong relationships between the Portuguese postgraduate community in the US and universities and companies in Portugal (…) and the PortugueseAmerican community; [and] To strengthen the influence and representation of the Portuguese academic community in the American society.8

This organisation has roughly 400 members and it promotes an annual forum and several regional gatherings, publishes a newsletter, runs a mailing list and an internet forum, provides information on living and studying in the US (university applications, visa, daily life) and issues opinions on Portuguese S&T policies. It is supported by public and private Portuguese organisations (Foundation for Science and Technology, Gulbenkian Foundation, Luso-American Foundation, some business companies). Finally, on a transnational level, the International Forum of Portuguese Researchers FIIP is the main organisation that brings together Portuguese scientist located both at home and abroad (it has currently around 300 members). Created in 1995 and supported by the Foundation for Science and Technology, it’s most important activity is the organisation of a bi-annual meeting in Portugal. FIIP aims to “offer a space for disseminating and harnessing the scientific potential and resources inside and outside Portugal and to stimulate the mobility and internationalisation of the Portuguese scientific community”, by

promoting partnerships between researchers and research centres in Portugal and abroad, for facilitating student and post-doctoral mobility (…), scientific exchange (…) [and] scientific collaboration between researchers in Portugal and abroad (Portuguese or connected to Portugal); fostering the exchange of information, contact and effort coordination between Portuguese researchers residing abroad; organising meetings (…) on issues of general scientific interest, for debating the new scientific and technological challenges, policies of academic institutions in view of current social and technological settings, and the answers found in Portugal and other countries; identifying interdisciplinary areas, at the frontier of contemporary research, for sponsoring seminars, conferences and summer schools on these areas9

These organisations come close to constituting “diaspora networks” (although the term is more commonly used for developing, non-European, countries), mobilising and connecting expatriate highly qualified workers, “allowing the exploitation not only of

8 9

http://www.papsonline.org/node/68, last accessed 20 February 2008. http://mondego.calit2.uci.edu:8080/fiipwiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Objectivos, last accessed 20 February 2008.

embodied knowledge, but also their wide socio-professional networks, as well as the associated human, material and cognitive resources” (Meyer et al 2001: 352). They share most of the characteristics of diaspora networks identified in other studies (Brown 2000; Meyer and Brown 1999; Meyer and Wattiaux 2006: 10; Mahroum et al 2006: 29): -

are recent (created in the 90’s);

-

emerged spontaneously and independently, from grassroots initiatives;

-

require the loyalty and commitment of highly qualified expatriates;

-

have different degrees of dispersion in host countries and cover diverse scientific areas;

-

are non political and non-profit but have some connection to the home country government;

-

aim to generate communication and exchanges among its members, to foster the educational, social, cultural and professional advancement of its members and to contribute to the development of the home country, encouraging and supporting “distant cooperative work” (Mahroum et al 2006: 33);

-

make use of the internet as one of the main ways of connecting their members (emailing lists, discussion forums)10.

Government support to this diaspora networks may be part of a strategy to tap their resources: “For sending country governments, their migrants have become increasingly important, not only as sources of remittances, investments, and political contributions, but also as potential ‘ambassadors’ or lobbyists in defence of national interests abroad” (Portes 2001: 190). In recent years, the Portuguese government has in some cases resorted to expatriate scientists to perform international evaluations of research centres11 and to act as mediators in the agreements with American universities (see above)12. In short, researchers abroad can be a resource and a channel for knowledge circulation but only if they maintain some links with the home country. In the case of Portuguese expatriate researchers, most of them keep in touch with institutions and colleagues at home. However, most of these contacts are informal and not necessarily geared towards 10

There is even an online database of Portuguese scientists abroad and at home (www.papaformigas.com), but that has stemmed from the individual initiative of a doctoral student in the US and it is not connected to any organisation. 11 See, for instance the evaluation of research units in 2007: 7 out of the 23 disciplinary panels had expatriate Portuguese researchers as members. (http://www.fct.mctes.pt/pt/apoios/unidades/avaliacaounidades/2007/periodos/?LANG=en , last accessed 19 February 2008). 12 José M. F. Moura, professor at Carnegie Mellon University and director of the Information and Communications Technologies Institute (ICTI), now manages the CMU-Portugal Programme.

the co-production of research. Nevertheless, even informal contacts can foster the diffusion of knowledge.

The role of returnee scientists in knowledge circulation The return of expatriate scientists, after a period studying or working abroad, to the home country usually has obvious and direct results in terms of knowledge flows: the accrued knowledge that returnee researchers bring with them in terms of innovative theories, methodologies, techniques, research problems. Though scientific information circulates formally through publication in peer reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences, tacit knowledge can only be obtained in face-to-face relationships, through actual physical presence at the laboratories and research centres, by attending internal meetings, seminars, informal chat (Langberd and Gravesen 2001; Nerdum and Sarpebakken 2006: 217; Van de Sande et al 2005: 40). Return mobility allows that tacit knowledge to be transmitted to other scientists in the home country.

Scientific mobility brings about the circulation of knowledge and ideas which, in turn, and when applied locally, requires some sort of transformation. This transformation of knowledge is often to adapt “external” knowledge to local specifications. In doing so, it engenders a change in the hosting site’s reservoir of knowledge and affects its knowledge profile in the long run (Mahroum 2000a: 121)

Mobile scientists are thus “cultural bees” (Todisco et al 2003: 122) that pollinate the institutions in which they work. Keimar (1997) describes how the return to Argentina of a group of scientists was crucial for the development of a particular research area and Gaillard and Gaillard (1997: 219, 213) mention similar studies regarding India and Korea. The recent changes in the Portuguese scientific system can partially be attributed to the role played by returnee researchers. Several top institutions were created or are currently headed by scientists who obtained their PhDs abroad

13

. The qualitative leap

of research in Portugal, measured for instance in the growth of international publications and in the assessments by international experts, can also be partially attributed to the influx of human resources trained abroad. 13

For example, ITQB-UNL (António Xavier), IGC (António Coutinho), IBMC (Alexandre Quitanilha), CNC (Arsélio Pato de Carvalho), INESC (José Tribolet).

The interviews carried out do show that returnee researchers bring with them valuable knowledge:

here the science that was being done was quite descriptive, sort of how many birds there are in the Berlengas islands and that it, whereas in England they tested hypothesis. (…) the question was, for instance, which percentage of energy a consumer wastes in reproduction and searching for food, and that consumer can be a bird in the Berlengas islands or a grasshopper in Figueira da Foz or a wolf in Trás-os-Montes. And that was very different: to test hypothesis (interview 21) it’s obvious that the contact with researchers from other countries and having been abroad allowed me access to some techniques, some perspectives that possibly I wouldn’t have acquired here, perhaps (interview 27)

However, the question is whether that knowledge was applied and disseminated in the home country. In most cases, the researchers interviewed went on to have fruitful academic careers. But a few, burdened down by teaching and administrative duties or impaired but a less than welcoming environment in the home institution, gave up on research and concentrated on lecturing. And others, not previously affiliated to any institution, may have left the scientific system altogether. Perhaps more important than the knowledge that returnee researchers acquired is the network of contacts with researchers and institutions in the former host country or throughout the world they may have formed (Ackers 2005: 312; Connel et al 2005: 13; Gill 2005: 319; Mahroum 2000a: 9; Thron and Holm-Nielsen 2006; Van de Sande et al 2005: 25-28). Since mobile researchers are pulled towards clusters or centres of excellence (Millard 2005), they usually chose host institutions which already have a high level of cultural diversity, in terms of faculty and students nationalities (Mahroum 2000b: 517).

We had Americans, we had French, we had Germans, we had Italians, Canadians, Australians, we had a large team of engineers with similar interests, we were young, this gave me a very large multicultural experience and that was a very enriching experience (interview 26)

This network of contacts can be later activated for the constitution of work teams or the preparation of joint projects

In these institutions there is a work group environment, (…) contacts with the surrounding community are easier, there is always in the group someone who knows

someone who can act as reference for an introduction, someone in another country or another workgroup, so it’s much easier to build networks than here (interview 4)

for the dissemination of tacit or not yet published information

Going abroad is very enriching for exchanging notes with colleagues, to see what our colleagues are doing, why they are doing it. To give an example, we have a project approved for funding by the Foundation of Science and Technology regarding climate change (…) In one of these trips abroad, I sat down at the café table with one of my colleagues – many times it’s just as important to sit at the café table as going to the laboratory or to conferences, at the café table we talk about things that have nothing to do with science but we also talk a lot about science - (…) and this colleague is doing something similar and (…) he is a year ahead of us and we gave me some tips on how to approach EDP to ask (…) them to warm the river water (…) he gave me some tips on the kind of experiments we can do (…) and he also got some ideas for some extra experiments (interview 21)

for promoting students or faculty exchanges

I tell a colleague of mine who is in Germany or Switzerland or Canada “come to Portugal for a week and I’ll pay you the trip and the hotel and the food and you teach that new technique you’re describing”. And he comes to Portugal and teaches that new technique to my master degree students, in the same week comes someone from Canada, someone from Germany, someone from Spain. And in two weeks my students are exposed to people who are experts in that field of science (…) All these experiences are possible only through contacts. I think that if I hadn’t gone to Sheffield, my first contact abroad, I would hardly have started this internationalisation process (interview 21)

for publication in co-authorship one of the good things I brought from Florence were the good friends I made there and that I still keep in my email list because they are scattered around the world but I still contact them frequently (…) in the humble articles I publish, there is always the name of some of my former colleagues at the department because I have this habit of before sending anything to a journal, to ask three or four of them to read it and criticise it (interview 19)

However, this requires that the returnee researchers maintain some form of contact with former colleagues or professors. And according to the interviews, this is not always the case. Connections can be lost over time or due to the volatility of professional paths in research (international, inter-sectorial or internal mobility, changes in research interests) or to institutional change.

My contacts are almost reduced to zero. One of the places I used to go was the group of my former PhD supervisor, but he retired (…) I also used to go to Swansea (…) there was

a gentleman with whom I collaborated, who was younger than me, but they were going to shut down the department (I don’t know if they did it already) and he was thinking of early retirement (interview 27)

Academics that become less involved in research also tend to lose touch with former colleagues

[Contacts with the host institution in the US] were gradually lost (…) Not even informally, because I haven’t been there for a while and sending an email wishing a merry Christmas is not really my style (interview 3)

On the other hand, international connections can be formed through other means (attending conferences, taking part in meetings and events, writing emails) and with people without previous face to face contact.

After all these years and since I changed my subject a bit (…) I had to establish contact with new teams, who had nothing to do with the [former host institution in France] team not even the subject. Currently I’m working in forest disease so I ended up making contacts with other specialised laboratories and I have privileged contacts with some laboratories in South Africa, with teams that are currently more advanced, and Australia (interview 9)

Nevertheless, working or studying abroad may have fostered the inclination and the aptitudes for international collaboration, as well as the development of other needed skills, such as the use of the English language

The effortlessness of working in English. For me, that has opened many doors in terms of international collaboration (interview 2)

This, in turn, has also increased the ability of transferring knowledge abroad, namely thorough the publication in international journals

It has the advantage of the English language, of learning a little more, which then is important for studying, for writing articles and for publishing (…) to be knowledgeable in English is very useful, it’s much easier to read and write, especially for publishing in foreign journals (interview 10)

In what regards the participation in international associations, most (but not all) of the returnee researchers interviewed claim to be members, but that is not necessarily a consequence of having had an experience of international mobility.

I became a member when I came to Portugal, after starting my professional activity. (…) It serves several purposes, it serves the purpose of belonging to a club of people who are interested in the same subjects and that exchange information among them, it serves the purpose of gaining access to journals, to research projects, to scientific meetings where issues of interest are discussed. In this sense, it is useful, it is useful for circulating ideas and opportunities, for being aware of opportunities (interview 11)

In conclusion, returnee researchers play an important role in the circulation of scientific knowledge not only between home and former host countries, but also with other institutions and peers throughout the world. Mobility seems to stimulate the propensity for international communication and collaboration. However, maintaining links abroad requires an ongoing effort, since over time connections can be lost. This strongly depends on the conditions returnee scientists encounter at home for pursuing scientific activities. Academics no longer active in research have little use for and few contributions to give to the exchange of knowledge.

Final remarks Results from this research project indicate that mobility encourages the circulation of scientific knowledge. Mobile researchers are prone to forging and maintaining international connections, to participate in international associations, to collaborate and to publish internationally, to stimulate student and faculty exchanges. However, mobility is not a necessary and sufficient condition for knowledge flows: expatriate or returnee researchers over time may loose most or all of their links with institutions and colleagues in other countries, “immobile” researchers (in so far as there is such a thing) may also have intense and fruitful international connections. To truly assess the role of international mobility in knowledge circulation, other, more systematic methodologies are needed (bibliometrics, network analysis, surveys) in order to accurately match career paths and international linkages of researchers.

References Ackers, Louise 2005. Promoting scientific mobility and balanced growth in the ERA. Innovation, 18(3), 301-314 Avveduto, Sveva 2001. International mobility of PhDs. In Innovative people: mobility of skilled personnel in national innovation systems, pp. 229-242. Paris: OCDE. Barke, Richard P. 2003. Politics and Interests in the Republic of Science, Minerva, 41, 305–325.

Bartkowski, Jerzi and Aleksandra Jasiska-Kania 2004. Voluntary organisations and the development of civil society. In European Values at the Turn of the Millennium, eds. W. Arts and L. Halman, pp. 109138, Leiden: Brill. Brown, Mercy 2000. Using the intellectual diasporas to reverse brain drain: some useful examples. UNECA

documents,

http://www.uneca.org/eca_resources/conference_reports_and_other_documents/

brain_drain/word_documents/brown.doc, last accessed 4 March 2008. Casey, Tom, Sami Mahroum, Ken Ducatel and Remi Barré 2001. The mobility of academic researchers: academic careers and recruitment in ICT and Biotechnology. Seville: IPTS-JRC-EC. Connell, R. W., Julian Wood and June Crawford 2005. The global connections of intellectual workers, International Sociology, 20 (1), 5-26. Crane, Diana 1971. Transnational Networks in Basic Science. International Organization, 25 (3), 585601. Drori, Gili S., John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez and Evan Shofer 2003. Science in the modern world polity: institutionalization and globalization. Stanford: Stanford University Press. European Commission 2001. A mobility strategy for the European Research Area: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Brussels, EC, COM (2001)331 final Ferro, Ana 2004. Romanians abroad: a snapshot of highly skilled migration. Higher Education in Europe, XXIX (3), 381-391. Gaillard, Jacques and Anne Marie Gaillard 1997. The international mobility of brains: exodus or circulation?. Science Technology and Society, 2, 195-228 Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow 1997. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage. Gill, Bryony 2005. Homeward bound? The experience of return mobility for Italian scientists. Innovation, 18 (3), 319-337. GPEARI,

2007.

2005

R&D

Survey:

Final

Results,

Lisbon:

GPEARI-MCTES,

http://www.estatisticas.gpeari.mctes.pt/?idc=29&idi=203404, last accessed 19 February 2008. Henkel, Mary 2000. Academic identities and policy chance in Higher Education, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Hirt, Joan B. and John A. Muffo 1998. Graduate students: institutional climate and disciplinary cultures. New Directions for Institutional Research, 98, 17-33. IPTS 2007. Intra-EU mobility of researchers. Seville: IPTS, http://www.jrc.es/ , last accessed 29 February 2008. Kreimer, Pablo 1997. Migration of Scientists and the Building of a Laboratory in Argentina. Science Technology Society, 2; 229-259 Langberd, Kamma and Erik Graversen 2001. Mobility among researchers. Working Paper 2001/7, Aarhus, The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research Policy Mahroum, Sami 2000a. The international mobility of academics: the UK case, PhD Thesis, Bundeswehr University-Hamburg Mahroum, Sami 2000b. Scientists and global spaces. Technology in Society, 22, 513-523.

Mahroum, Sami, Cynthia Eldridge and Abdallah S. Daar 2006. Transnational Diaspora Options: How Developing Countries Could Benefit from their Emigrant Populations. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 8 (1): 25-42. Meyer, Jean-Baptiste and Jean-Paul Wattiaux 2006. Diaspora Knowledge Networks: Vanishing Doubts and Increasing Evidence, International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 8 (1): 4-23. Meyer, Jean-Baptiste and Mercy Brown 1999. Scientific Diasporas: A New Approach to the Brain Drain. MOST Discussion Paper No. 41, http://www.unesco.org/most/meyer.htm, last accessed 12 March 2008. Meyer, Jean-Baptiste, David Kaplan and Jorge Charum 2001. Nomadisme des scientifiques et nouvelle géopolitique des savoirs. Revue Internationale des Sciences Sociales, 168, 341-354. Millard, Debbie 2005. The impact of clustering on scientific mobility. Innovation, vol.18, n. 3, 343-359 Morano-Foadi, Sonia 2005. Scientific Mobility, Career Progression, and Excellence in the European Research Area. International Migration, 43 (5), 133-162. Morano-Foadi, Sonia 2006. Key issues and causes of the Italian brain drain. Innovation, 19 (2), 209-220. Nerdrum, Lars and Sarpebakken, Bo 2006. Mobility of foreign researchers in Norway, Science and Public Policy, Volume 33, Number 3, 1 April 2006 , pp. 217-229 Portes, Alejandro 2001. Introduction: the debates and significance of immigrant transnationalism. Global Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 1 (3): 181-194. Roudometof, Victor 2005. Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Glocalization. Current Sociology, 53: 113-135. Schiller, Nina Glick, Linda Basch and Cristina Szanton Blanc 1995. From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration. Anthropological Quarterly, 68 (1): 48-63. Schofer, Evan 2003. The Global Institutionalization of Geological Science, 1800 to 1990. American Sociological Review, 68 (5): 730-759. Szelenyi, Katalin 2006. Students without borders? Migratory decision-making among international graduate students in the US. In The human face of global mobility, eds. M.P Smith and A. Favell, pp. 181209. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Thorn, Kristian and Lauritz B. Holm-Nielsen 2006. International mobility of researchers and scientists – policy options for turning a drain into a gain. Research Paper n. 2006/83, UN-WIDER, 1-15 Todisco, Enrico, Maria Carolina Brandi, and Giovanni Tattolo 2003. Skilled migration: a theoretical framework and the case of foreign researchers in Italy. Fulgor, vol. 1, n. 3, 115-130 Urry, John 2000. Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century, London: Routeledge. van de Sande, Daphne, Louise Ackers and Bryony Gill 2005. Impact assessment of the Marie Curie fellowships under the 4th and 5th Framework Programs of Research and Technological Development of the EU (1994-2002), Brussels: European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/mariecurieactions/pdf/impact_fellow_en.pdf. last accessed 23 January 2008. Vertovec, Steven 1999. Conceiving and researching transnationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22:2, 447 – 462. Vertovec, Steven 2001. Transnationalism and identity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27:4, 573 – 582