There is a general consensus that mobility during the course of university leads to a much greater likelihood of international mobility after graduating (King and Ruiz‐Gelices, 2003; Tremblay, 2005; Findlay et al, 2006; Dreher and Poutvaara, 2006). There has however been little empirical evidence to support this claim (Parey and Waldinger, 2007). One reason for this lack of evidence is data availability as most graduate surveys do not contain information relating to study abroad during a student’s under‐graduate career, and graduates who work abroad are generally not sampled in national surveys of the sending countries (Parey and Waldinger, 2007). Therefore the majority of the research discussed here is based on student surveys.
The question as to whether mobile students return to their home country, stay in the host country or travel elsewhere has important policy implications both for the home and host country (Dreher and Poutvaara, 2006). This issue is linked to debates surrounding ‘brain drain’ as it has often been assumed that talent will move from developing to developed nations that may be encouraged by student mobility. The concept of ‘brain drain’ has however been greatly debated in recent years (see, for example, Favell, 2008) being replaced by the concept of ‘brain circulation’ as mobility patterns have been revealed to be much more complex than ‘brain gain’ theories suggest (Ackers, 2005; Jöns, 2009). Findlay et al (2010) reported that degree mobile students with the strongest A level results were more likely to want to return to the UK and therefore international student mobility should not be interpreted as a brain drain of the UK’s brightest young people. In the European context, the effects of student movements upon future migration is particularly important as a major political rationale of facilitating student mobility within Europe is to facilitate the development of a European labour force (discussed further in chapter 4).
It has frequently been argued that students who have been mobile during their undergraduate studies are more likely to live or work abroad after graduation than students who have not studied abroad (Teichler and Jahr, 2001; King and Ruiz‐Gelices, 2003; Bracht et al, 2006; Oosterbeek and Webbink, 2006; Parey and Waldinger, 2007;
60
2011; Wiers‐Jenssen, 2008; Cammelli et al, 2008). It has also been asserted that degree mobile students are likely to become internationally mobile after graduation, although this has been found to vary by host country (Findlay et al, 2010). Furthermore, it has been suggested that students who study abroad are more likely to go on to develop careers with a global aspect or which involve international assignments (Kehm, 2005; Norris and Gillespie, 2009). This correlation has been suggested to occur because a period of student mobility can act as ‘trial run’ for further geographical moves which are often back to their host country (King and Ruiz‐Gelices, 2003). Parey and Waldinger (2007) asserted that such findings suggest that international student exchange may play a major role in facilitating later labour migration. They go on to acknowledge the effective role which Erasmus has played in increasing labour market mobility in Europe as they found that of the students who study abroad in a European country and work internationally after graduation, two thirds end up working in a European country. Whilst examining such debates within a European context, it must be kept in mind that the concept of a European labour market has been debated. For example, Musselin (2004) argued that due to strong divergences among national recruitment and careers processes, academic labour markets in Europe remain highly national and a European labour market is therefore still missing.
The relationship between temporary mobility and future moves has nevertheless been identified in research that has examined the effects of academic mobility of researchers. For example, Ackers (2005) found that a very high proportion of scientists moving at doctoral and post‐doctoral level had experienced some form of undergraduate mobility and often used the networks developed at that stage in their career as the basis for future mobility. Similarly Jöns (2009) argued that visiting academics to Germany often engaged in subsequent academic mobility and collaboration, encouraging other students and researchers at different career stages, in both home and host country, to engage in academic mobility between the two countries.
Teichler and Jahr (2001) outlined the limitations in researching the future mobility of mobile students. They stated that a reason for the lack of response from some of the cohort in their longitudinal study could have been due to the most‐mobile students not being able to receive the questionnaire, which could have led to under reporting Erasmus students’ future mobility. Teichler and Jahr (2001) also pointed out that if they wanted to
61
measure the effect of the Erasmus programme they also needed to have analysed a ‘comparison group' of graduates who had been internationally mobile as students without Erasmus support and respective study conditions and provisions. They also argued that international competences, such as foreign language proficiency, could only, in part, be attributed to the study abroad period since their survey showed that a high proportion of mobile students had had international experience prior to the study period abroad. Therefore the international competences and the inclination to opt for mobility on the part of former Erasmus students could, in part, be due to earlier international experiences. When analysing the effects of student mobility, the possibility that individuals who spend part of their undergraduate studies abroad are systematically different from individuals who do not leave their home country cannot be ignored (Parey and Waldinger, 2007). For this reason, Parey and Waldinger (2007) took a range of factors into account, such as scholarship and funding availability to go beyond simply identifying a correlation. When this range of factors was taken into account the correlation between student and future mobility was still found to be present. It has also been suggested that students’ satisfaction with their stay abroad affects their future mobility plans as those who were more satisfied were more likely to consider moving abroad in the future (Krzaklewska and Krupnik, 2006). The type of student mobility has also been found to play a role here as Dwyer and Peters (2004) found that US students who studied abroad were more likely to work or volunteer abroad than students who completed an internship abroad.
2.4
Conclusion
Part one of this chapter examined the numerous transformative processes (internationalisation, globalisation, regionalisation and neoliberalisation) that have greatly affected HE over recent years. This provides the conceptual framework for this research. Part two of this chapter reviewed the student mobility literature and the few studies on work placement mobility. Reference was also made to the body of literature focusing on student work placements based in students’ home countries of study. This situates the current research within the context of existing literature.
62
Throughout this chapter reference has been made to the scant literature on student work placement mobility. This review has shown that in the field of student mobility studies, student work placements remains an under researched topic, particularly in a UK context. It has been argued that work placements abroad can be beneficial to many stakeholders; however, this research has tended to focus on students from the US (for example, Toncar and Cudmore, 2000; Adler and Loughrin‐Sacco, 2003). Where students from the UK have been included, this has included language students only (Meier and Daniels, 2011). In particular, students’ motivations, experiences and outcomes of this form of mobility are yet to be fully understood. As highlighted here, and supported by academics such as Kristensen (2001; 2004) and Webber (2005), the field of research which explores international work placements is emerging but remains deficient. This study aims to contribute towards filling this gap in the literature by examining the Erasmus work placement mobility of UK students. This research therefore widens our understanding of different forms of student mobility for purposes other than study abroad, thus making a valuable contribution to existing literature.
This literature review has also identified gender to be a substantial gap in existing literature as the drivers, experiences and effects of mobility are most often treated as gender neutral. The lived experience of mobile students has also been identified in this chapter as a gap in the student mobility literature. There are notable exceptions to this (for example, Murphy‐Lejeune, 2002; Tsoukalas, 2008); however, this remains an under researched area requiring further academic attention (Figlewicz and Williams, 2005; McLeod and Wainwright, 2009). In particular, differences in the experiences of students according to different types of mobility have been neglected.
The review of the existing literature presented in this chapter informs the methodological approach adopted in this study. Murphy Lejeune’s (2002) approach in ‘student mobility and narrative in Europe’ has been described as pioneering and has been heralded as becoming a ‘minor classic in its genre’ (King et al, 2010: 5) as the approach taken privileged the voices of the students. The tone of Murphy‐Lejeune’s study is reflected in Byram and Dervin’s (2008) book ‘students, staff and academic mobility in HE’ as the majority of chapters in this volume focus on the experiences of mobility from the participants’ perspectives. According to King et al (2010), such an approach adds considerable nuance to
63
more standardised findings from other research investigating student mobility. The methodological approach adopted in this study has been heavily influenced by such research and will be examined in the following chapter.