A good starting point is to assess the ways in which student mobility has been conceptualised in the existing literature. King and Ruiz‐Gelices (2003) outlined three main ways in which student mobility has been conceptualised. Firstly, student mobility has been conceptualised as a subset of highly skilled migration where students are often classified as ‘proactive immigrants’ (Krzaklewska, 2008). Earlier research identified academics, researchers and students as part of the population of highly skilled migrants as the expectation was that these students would become part of the highly skilled labour stock of the future, with many nations hoping that they would remain or return to their country of training (Hugo, 1996). Secondly, King and Ruiz‐Gelices (2003) stated that student mobility has been conceptualised as a product of globalization. With increased transport, communication and economic links between nations the flow of people has been accelerated. As discussed further in part one of this chapter, student mobility has risen within this general increasing flow of people, encouraged by the fact that national HE sectors have restructured around emerging international standards and training which is assumed to be required in a global economy (Altbach and Teichler, 2001).
The third way in which student mobility has been conceptualised, according to King and Ruiz‐Gelices (2003), is within research on youth mobility cultures and the geographies of consumption. These conceptualisations have tended to view student mobility as motivated less by traditional economic migration factors and more by experiential goals (King, 2002). This perspective identifies internationally mobile students as a ‘migratory elite’ who is
27
ready and willing to move, ‘open to changes in their environment: language, personal entourage, lifestyle, working style’ (Murphy‐Lejeune, 2002; 51).
These dominant conceptualisations of student mobility have begun to be criticised over recent years. For example, Findlay et al (2006) argued that these conceptualisations leave out issues relating to social class inequalities in the opportunities and participation rates of student mobility. This limitation has gone on to gain increased attention challenging the entirely positive conceptualisations of student mobility by highlighting the privileged nature of the student mobility experience (for example Waters, 2006; Waters & Brooks, 2010a). This will be discussed further later in this chapter. It is clear, however, that the dominant conceptualisations of student mobility present student mobility as an inherently positive activity. Murphy‐Lejeune (2008) argued that since the 1980s, ‘mobility, and the experience of strangeness which it entails, has been constructed as an essential trait of post‐modernity’ (p.13). In this sense, mobility is seen to be an essential and positive part of the post‐modern world associated with many positive outcomes. This entirely positive conceptualisation has, however, been criticised, as Ackers (2010) challenged the assumption that international mobility is linked to excellence. As argued by Ackers (2010), there is currently little research focused directly on exploring and exposing the relationship between mobility, internationalisation and excellence, which is an area that requires further attention.
Another important issue to consider when exploring the ways student mobility has been conceptualised is the choice of terminology between ‘mobility’ and ‘migration’. As stated by King (2002), the distinction between migration and other forms of spatial mobility have been blurred over recent years as new forms of European migration have challenged such definitions. The United Nations (1998) recommended that a long‐term migrant be defined as a person who moves to a country other than his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year, and short‐term migrants be defined as a person who moves for at least three months but less than a year. Taking this definition into account, Erasmus students could be classified as either short term or long‐term migrants as they can spend between three to twelve months abroad. Despite this, the use of terminology in this field of study has changed over time and as the types of student movements involved have developed. The
28
majority of researchers, particularly in recent years, have tended to use the term ‘mobility’ as opposed to ‘migration’ when discussing students’ international movements.
Earlier studies (for example, King and Shuttleworth, 1995) tended to use the term ‘migration’ as the movements of students were more likely to be long term or for the full duration of a student’s studies. More recently there is a preference for the use of the term ‘mobility’, which is in part due to the fact that movements now tend to be short term or built in to a specific course. Migration is more widely accepted to refer to ‘movements outside one’s country of origin into another for a variety of reasons, leading to changes in residence and legal status’ but mobility is ‘a more general term which applies to a phenomena other than movements from one national territory to another’ (Murphy‐ Lejeune, 2002: 4). As discussed by Findlay et al (2006), there is a clear preference for using the term mobility in studies that have looked at intra‐European student transfers, particularly moves that are shorter‐term, such as study and work abroad within the framework of a programme of study such as Erasmus. For the reasons outlined here, this study uses the term mobility as opposed to migration.