Mobility phd students and scientists 2010 by Coaching

Mobility of the highly skilled can be approached from different points of view: as a human resource policy question, as an equity problem between world regions at different levels of development, or as a migration-policy topic, just to mention the most relevant ones. Human resources are the crucial element for development, and all investments in their education and positive utilization are considered essential for the general well-being of society and the economy. In this framework, the internationalization of education and research-career patterns are a basic component in order to enhance the development of a better workforce – a workforce particularly devoted to research, science, and technology, and specifically made up of PhD graduates and scientists. Mobility is unanimously considered an efficient means of knowledge diffusion and technology transfer. The border between mobility and migration for the highly skilled often becomes less evident. According to most scholars, comparing the mobility of brains to an escape from one’s country of origin, is no longer considered in our globalized society. Rather, we refer to it as the free circulation of people and ideas and not as a drain of intelligence. Mobility of skilled people and specifically of scientists, researchers, and PhD students and graduates is a complex phenomenon and can be considered from different perspectives. It is a typical two-sided question. Positive and negative aspects can be found in an event that could apparently be considered neutral. An excess of mobility is likely to cause as many problems as its absence. The need to confront, cooperate, and work with other scientists is somehow innate in the research activity itself. The question is to determine the optimal share of mobility in a career, in an institution, or in a country. If this share is either exceeded or not reached, problems may arise. Of course, there is no standard tool that can help in quantifying the optimum level. However, the analysis of positive and negative effects of mobility can help in choosing its right balance. At an individual, institutional, or country level, the advantages of having a mobile highly skilled workforce and of cooperating, studying, and working in a different environment with foreign partners, are rather obvious and the positive potentialities of this experience are self-explanatory. The risks lie essentially in missing the opportunity to fully develop the positive spillover of this experience or in the changing nature of mobility – from a temporary experience to a permanent escape.

286

When considering scientists’ and PhD students’ mobility, we refer to an occurrence which has its roots well into the Middle Ages. The very first mobility in this sector may be found in university students who were in reality, the intellectual elite of that period. They were known as clerici vagantes and they used to move within and across nations in order to attend the best universitates. Such universities, each had their own area of specialty where the elite students could find the best knowledge available. Much, if not all, has changed since then, but the essence of moving around to find the best options, to work and learn, to come across new ways of thinking, to confront other cultures and ideas, and to understand what is happening outside the borders of our own intellectual village, is the essence of modern science and higher education. This desire for good research and knowledge diffusion has remained virtually unchanged throughout the centuries. The mobility of highly skilled personnel has taken place with relative continuity, in different forms and with different consistencies, since the mid-nineteenth century into the early twentieth century, when a proper science and research career could be acquired. A number of elite migrants, including professionals and scholars, left their home countries for foreign destinations in order to start new businesses or enter cultural and scientific activities. We can recognize the importance of skilled immigrants in several countries and fields of activities – in firms, research laboratories, and universities. The flow of people has been influenced by many factors that, before and during World War II, also included political or racial persecutions. Such conditions, for instance, forced many scientists to migrate to the United States from Europe. In this case, the term brain drain rather than mobility was used. This expression first appeared in the late 1950s and was used for the first time in an official document by the Royal Society in the 1960s in order to explain the movement of British scientists from the country (Royal Society, 1963). Brain drain refers to an excess of flow of talented people who are induced to leave their home country to find better scientific working conditions. Nowadays, the percentage of mobility is considered one of the indicators of a healthy and innovative system of higher education and science. Many international agencies and supranational bodies (UNESCO, 1998; OECD, 2001; European Commission, 2007) state that both government and institutions should promote national and international mobility of PhD students and scientists as an essential element in enhancing the quality and relevance

Mobility of PhD Students and Scientists

of those systems. However, the problems associated with brain drain are still not over. This is especially the case if applied to the drain of talent from less-developed countries, whose return to home countries after a mobility experience is very problematical (Thorn and Holm-Nielsen, 2006). From 1990 to 2000, 5 million tertiary-educated adults moved from a less-developed nation to a more developed one, while 2 million moved between more developed nations (OECD, 2007a). The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates that over 300 000 professionals from African countries live and work in Europe and North America, and a large number of professionals, especially health workers, intend to migrate from their home countries (WHO, 2004). In absolute terms, the largest stock of educated emigrants are from Europe, Southern and Eastern Asia, and, to a lesser extent, Central America. Nevertheless, as a proportion of the local educated labor force, the highest rates are found in Central America and Africa. Between 1990 and 2000, these regions also experienced the strongest increase in brain drain (Docquier and Marfouk, 2004). The magnetism of some countries for researchers and PhD students and graduates over others is indisputable. The United States has always been and still is an important pole of attraction for skilled people. In fact 40% of its foreign-born, adult population have a tertiary-level education. Since the early 1990s, over 1 million highly skilled professionals, from India, China, Russia, and a few Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany, migrated to the United States under the H-1B temporary-visa program.

287

The direction of flows of highly skilled people benefits most of the OECD countries, and recent figures (Figure 1) show that only a few countries: Mexico, Korea, Ireland, Poland, Finland, and some Central and Eastern European countries, experienced a net loss of people. The rest of OECD countries experienced a net inflow (Dumont and Lemaitre, 2005). As for mobility of PhD students, the figures on foreign participation in science and engineering (S&E) doctoral education in the United States are often used to obtain indicators of global flows, the United States having the strongest attraction for PhD students wishing to complete their education abroad. The National Science Foundation (Oliver, 2007) states that after 2 years of decline, US enrolment of foreign graduate students in S&E fields increased in 2006. The increase was largely due to first-time, full-time enrolment of foreign students, which grew 16% over the 2005 level. From 1989 to 2003, foreign students earned nearly 40% of US S&E doctorates, with Asian students representing about 55% of this group. Students from European Union (EU) countries have totaled about 10% of all foreign doctorate recipients in the United States. The largest Asian sources were China with about 34 000 S&E doctorates from 1989 to 2003, Taiwan with 14 800, and South Korea and India with about 14 500 each. These four sources accounted for nearly 90% of all Asian recipients of US S&E doctorates. Asian recipients of US S&E doctorates are far more likely than EU students to earn an engineering doctorate: 35–38% compared with 17–21% of EU students, while the US average is 13–15% (NSF, 2007).

3000 Highly skilled immigrants from all countries 2500

Highly skilled emigrants to other OECD countries Net highly skilled migrants

2000 1500 1000 500 0 −500 −1000

T G R C BE L G BR SW E C H E ES P D EU FR A AU S C AN U SA

O N

X LU

ZL N

D N

T C ZE

N LD

N SV K

H U

EX PO L KO R IR L

−1500

Figure 1 Immigrant and emigrant population 15 þ with tertiary education in OECD countries – thousands. From Dumont J. C. and Lemaitre, G. (2005). Counting immigrants and expatriates in OECD countries: A new perspective. OECD Social Employment and Migration Working Papers, N. 25. Paris: OECD.

288

Higher Education – Research and Scholarship

PhD Students’ and Scientists’ Mobility: Main Questions Mobility occurs essentially as an individual choice but can be encouraged and favored by institutional or national programs and regulations that are aimed at promoting the circulation of researchers and scholars. All OECD countries have a variety of policies to encourage PhD students and researchers to be mobile either at a national or institutional level. Such policies include monetary incentives and are targeted toward specific groups and at different scales.

Mobility of PhD Students The mobility of PhD students faces questions of opportunity and feasibility of international research training, within a research-education process. Objectives and benefits of international mobility are to be set and barriers to internationalization considered. The opportunity of having an experience abroad is often considered, both by students and professors, as highly desirable, and perceived as a value per se. The research program they carry out may require a visit to a foreign university to collect data or perform experimenting in structures not available at home. But to these formal attainments, some informal, and not easily quantifiable, ones should also be added. The main achievements are linked to personal, cultural, and scientific growth that PhD students can acquire when exposed to a different scientific and training milieu. Objectives and benefits of international mobility therefore expose PhD students to new scientific and cultural contexts, allowing broader professional and human experience and consequently improved competences and capacity to integrate in new job situations. Converging research results point out that both concrete results, such as help with dissertation work, and intangible ones, such as personal development, are regarded as valuable outcomes for PhD students studying abroad (Kyvik et al., 1999; OECD, 2001).

The Organization and Structure of Exchange: Motivations and Procedures A wide variety of different procedures affects the PhD students’ choice to go abroad and organize a study period in a foreign university. It is not a single decision-making process which leads the student to a chosen destination. A well-organized process can make doctoral students well aware, from the very beginning of their PhD course, of the opportunity to carry out part of their research abroad. However, it may also happen that only personal initiatives of professors, in advising and guiding students, or of

students themselves, in making applications and independent arrangements, prevail. Although organizational models differ greatly, the motivations and procedures for choosing the country to study in, and the best period to go there, tend to converge. An international experience is perceived to be most fruitful if it takes place not at the very beginning of the doctoral education but after at least the first year. It may be advisable to spend the first year at home to develop acquired knowledge, to prepare the research proposal properly, and start working under the supervision of a supervisor. At the final stage of preparation of the dissertation, it is as well perceived that staying in the home country university may be preferable. During the intermediate year(s) of a doctoral course after having consolidated the initial stage, students can benefit from coming to terms with an international context. As for the country of destination, in many cases, the choice points toward a university which has a tradition of joint research with the alma mater, which may also simplify arrangements and eliminate some difficulties. Regarding the optimal duration of the study period abroad, a variety of different opinions may be considered. Respondents to direct surveys agreed that a period of 6 months is the best one, since it allows for an initial period of acclimatization, while leaving a reasonable amount of time to draw academic benefit from the experience. The average period of the stay abroad varies from 3 to 6 months for scientific and art subjects. Medicine presents a longer rate of staying (around a year), while engineers tend stay abroad shorter periods (around 3 months). The various choices are consistent from different perspectives if the study period abroad is either considered useful to strengthen research work already advanced, or part of a less-developed study and research activity maybe more learning oriented, which would thus in many cases include things such as coursework thought in sessions with a supervisor, private tutorials, if appropriate, and lectures. Problems and Obstacles May Hamper a Proper Mobility Experience The problems to face may be objective – that is, mainly of an economic, bureaucratic, and logistic nature – or subjective – that is, knowledge of languages, adapting to the new environment, interaction with different subjects and styles of study. Difficulties also arise in delays in work on the thesis, in relationships with professors of the hosting university, or at home with a lack of motivation and support in a too nationally oriented environment. The role of the university can be very important in fostering international mobility; helping students to cover the expenses and disseminating information widely, are the first relevant objectives to be met. The value of an international experience is to be considered highly relevant in a

Mobility of PhD Students and Scientists

proper research training, and so universities and research institutions are increasingly committed in ensuring that the students have this opportunity.

Mobility of Scientists Programs for researchers and scientists are typically directed at young researchers with the aim of providing them with a specific mobility program that covers part of their relevant expenses. During the middle of an expatriate’s research career, such policies are used to attract them back to their home countries. Many policy tools are set up to provide direct incentives to foreign researchers to encourage them to choose a specific country or institution as the preferred place for their mobility experience. Countries such as Korea, for instance, have provided their scientists and researchers living abroad with attractive conditions for returning home, creating positions for them, and offering adequate structures and salaries. The know-how acquired abroad can be beneficially used to serve the home country, and a positive circle of knowledge transfer can be set up. The main flows consist of information and communication technology (ICT) specialists, engineers, and researchers. At a supranational level, we can point out, for instance, the Marie Curie Actions of the EU in providing European Reintegration Grants (ERG) and International Reintegration Grants (IRG) to researchers. Within the EU, special norms have been developed in order to ease the entry of foreign researchers who wish to carry out scientific research within the EU. The European Commission (EC), for instance, introduced a directive (Directive 2005/71/EC) to regulate the procedures of special scientific visas. The researchers’ visa package contains admission procedures of and visa facilitation for third-country researchers entering the EC to obtain a special permission to enter, stay, and work in the EU in order to carry out scientific research. This allows researchers to exceed the foreigners’ quotas in a single state and to pass quickly through the immigration authorities’ procedures. In the United States, a series of special visas (the H-1B visa) allow the entrance of temporary specialty workers, among which scientists or immigrants with extraordinary ability in sciences, arts, education (and also business or athletics, the O-1 visa), are included. The figures on immigration through these visas are currently used to check the flow of highly skilled workers among countries and particularly toward the United States (Regets, 2007). Universities have played a main role in promoting mobility and fostering what has been called academic migration (Altbach, 2004). Each single university may have its own policies and programs addressed to different kinds of graduate and postgraduate or professors and scholars and offer many types of mobility opportunities.

289

These may vary from the short-term leave to a yearround commitment. Mobility schemes per se do not necessarily encompass a high level of mobility to be obtained by a country. However, it is clear that without these schemes, entering into a mobility experience proves to be quite difficult. Studies have proved that the absence of a mobility scheme is an obstacle to mobility. As an EC Green Paper stated: ‘‘It should be stressed that the obstacles to mobility are necessarily more difficult to overcome for those who ‘spontaneously’ seek to undertake training in another Member Country’’ (European Commission, 1996).

Mobility Indicators and Measurements Indicators of stock and flow of mobility include the following: (1) occupation mobility, such as a demand for specific skills or flexibility of skills; (2) sector mobility, that is, changes from one sector of activity to another such as from a university to the private sector; and (3) international mobility, from one country to another. The last one can encompass the two previous types of mobility because changing country can also mean changing occupation or one’s sector of employment. It is likely, for instance, that a researcher working in a university in his own country moves to the private sector in another. The measurement of mobility of scientists is not an easy task. This is particularly the case for international mobility, as the indicators to track the outgoing personnel are far weaker than those to track ingoing ones. We should rely mostly on the latter as, when leaving an institution or a country, it is not at all a common practice to inform the former employer or a central agency of the directions of the next move either in terms of employment destination or the foreign country which the employee is planning to travel to. Barring a few countries (e.g., the European Nordic ones that can rely on a very detailed and updated register of all employment changes for each citizen), most countries do not have a central register that can be used to track scientists and PhD graduates’ movements across professions, institutions, sectors, and countries. The relevant information is kept by each source separately and a cross-comparison is always very difficult to make. As for international mobility, it is more likely that one will find information and figures on scientists in the incoming country rather than the country of origin. The country of destination, due to immigration regulations, might have a more detailed record of all skilled immigrants where relevant data on scientists can be found. Tracking mobility of PhD students is, in principle, an easier task especially if they move within a specific structured program. Each university and research institution they are studying in, keep track of PhD students’ movement, and the trajectories under their choices can

290

Higher Education – Research and Scholarship

be visible at this level. A thorough picture of the phenomenon is, also in this case, more difficult to draw.

Reasons to Move International mobility is marked by different reasons that encourage movement, push-and-pull factors inducing people to leave their institution, sector, or country and driving them toward different places that are thought to be more attractive. Pull factors may be identified in the offer, available in the countries, of grants and scholarships that multiply the number of positions. Push factors include direct government or institutional policies created by the sending countries that stimulate the demand as well as programs specifically directed to provide funding and facilities. To measure mobility reliability and validity and to fully develop the right indicators to do this, it is necessary to analyze the various dimensions relevant to individuals, institutions, and nations. These include: the number of people involved; level of qualification; gender; age profile; length of time, duration, and time interval between the different experiences; type of motivations; push-and-pull factors; barriers and incentives; economic and scientific impact; benefits and losses in personal and institutional terms; and policies to allow individuals, institutions, and countries to benefit most from the mobility experience. A number of different factors either pertaining to the public or the private sphere influence international mobility. Why people decide to move and why they choose one destination over another remains largely part of individual choice but some motivations are common and some incentives can be determined. The general framework is influenced by legislative regulations concerning immigration in the host country and general migration policy of the country of origin that can facilitate or hinder the mobility choice. Working conditions in the country of destination have an important influence on the decision to move. Countries with poor working and/or studying conditions are, of course, less attractive. However, countries with good working/studying conditions may also become unattractive due to factors such as high cost of living, difficulties in settling (finding adequate housing, etc.). The entire set of factors to be considered should certainly take into account personal reasons, such as family ties, a milieu of reasons, such as cultural circumstances, or standards to be met, such as language requirements and qualifications needed. But wider facets such as policies and accessibility to mobility schemes; supply and demand of scientists and researchers in the country of destination; salary and pay-scale levels; qualifications required; and career prospects are also highly relevant. To acquire a more precise picture of a PhD graduate’s profile across countries, and to track their moves, either

as employees or geographically, OECD, in collaboration with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and European Statistics (EUROSTAT), launched an international review. This review desires to contribute to the understanding of the scale, directions, and drives of international mobility of PhD graduates and scientists. The international project on Careers of Doctorate Holders (CDH) has thus been set up and should provide comparable data on these groups and their international mobility. The project is at present gathering figures and data on researchers in all stages of their career (OECD, 2007a). The OECD–Group on Steering and Funding of Research Institutions (SFRI) have collected data and policy information at the institutional level, including institutional practices, and on foreign (temporary and permanent) researchers working in the public research sector to complement the picture in member countries (OECD, 2007b). Many attempts have been made to come up with a reasonable picture of mobility by using direct survey tools that can give a more accurate picture of trends. Such direct surveys allow for an in-depth investigation of the reasons and outcomes of mobility. As a study carried out for the EC on mobility of scientists points out (Hansen, 2003), the professional factors that drew migrants to foreign countries (i.e., pull factors) have been defined as follows: a large proportion of interviewees stated the possibility of finding better opportunities to work at the forefront of scientific research in their field or to acquire new scientific training and to specialize in a field that was insufficiently developed in their home country. But other factors may be considered pertaining to the personal sphere. Many researchers mentioned the desire to have more freedom in their work and personal life as an important factor in the decision to move (Figure 2).

Country EU 25

Country USA

Career advancement

87.9

51.9

Employer reputation

74.0

61.1

Access to leading edge technologies

73.3

29.6

R&D funding

69.8

24.1

Professional networking

67.7

46.3

Employment/business opportunities

56.1

25.9

Salary

54.0

18.5

Adventure

48.8

53.7

Education

45.6

20.4

Reasons

Figure 2 European and US Scientists’ main reasons to move abroad from their home country (percentage of positive answers to the survey questions). From Hansen, W. (2003). Merit survey on flows of qualified scientists. Final Report Project: Brain Drain Migration Flows of Qualified Scientists. Brussels: European Commission.

Mobility of PhD Students and Scientists

The scientists share both positive and negative evaluations of their mobility experience. The positive ones prevail because mobile scholars feel they are in high-level working environments that produce good-quality results and offer resources and access to scientific equipment. The negative evaluation is commonly due to obstacles linked to bureaucratic red tape and difficulties in obtaining work permits and residence visas. Postdoctorals and young researchers also complain of the fear of losing opportunities at home and of leaving them to people who preferred staying in the home institution even if at a lower level.

The Timing and Effects of International Mobility: Positive and Negative Outcomes International mobility includes both short- and long-term experiences and its timing and duration are relevant to a scientist’s career. In the initial stage, mobility commonly takes place just after the completed PhD and may be the first step in a research career. Immediately after graduation, the possibilities of considering moving out of the home country for a longer period, are higher than for graduates leaving the home country at a later stage. These graduates already present in the host country may be interested in pursuing or accepting a job offer and thus starting a career in the host country. As stated in the NSF studies, the propensity to stay in the host country (the United States in this case) and accept a solid job offer is relevant (NSF, 2006). The mobility experience may, however, take place at a later stage and its meaning and influence on the career choices may be far different. One obvious benefit of receiving one’s PhD abroad is also the much higher probability of getting employment in the country where the PhD has been awarded. In the

In government/pnp

291

United States, one of the most attractive countries to complete a PhD, EU citizens account for 25% of doctorates awarded. This trend has continued since 1991 to the early years of 2000 and places them between 3% and 4% of all those awarded in the United States. The share of employment offers that European PhD graduates obtained is very relevant. In the mentioned period, 45% of graduates planned to stay on in the United States as they received a firm employment offer in the country (Figure 3). Direct and indirect effects of international mobility can be registered on science, technology, and higher education systems, on human capital, and labor markets of the sending and receiving countries, and at an individual level. The main positive and negative effects have been studied and cataloged (Regets, 2001). As for the possible positive effects on science, technology, and higher education systems of sending countries, it should be mentioned that this has led to an opening of knowledge flows and collaboration between countries and an increase in ties and networking between foreign research institutions. Specifically for the science system, the return of natives with a foreign education and, in general, highly skilled human capital may prove, directly or indirectly, to be of benefit. The return of mobile researchers means that the country of origin will acquire this new knowledge and experience gained, due to it being brought back upon the citizen’s return. The returnees may in fact bring back valuable entrepreneurship or management skills and give the home country a better insight into export opportunities for technology or into access to global networks. A recent study of 127 developing countries conducted in 1990 and 2000, respectively, suggested that doubling the emigration rate of the highly skilled led to a 5% increase in gross human capital formation among the native population (Beine et al., 2006). This may mean that scientists’ migration may turn out to be a positive

18.0

In business sector

22.6 59.4

In higher education

45.1

Firm offer total %0

Figure 3 European Union with PhD obtained in the United States with firm employment offer planning to locate in the United States (from 1991 to 2000). Firm offer total: 45.1; in higher education: 59.4; in business sector: 22.6; and in government/pnp: 18.0. From SRS, NSF.

292

Higher Education â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Research and Scholarship

Table 1 2002

Foreign students enrolled in doctoral programs,

Country

Number of foreign doctoral students

Switzerland Belgium United Kingdom United States (2001) Australia Denmark Austria Canada Norway Sweden Spain Czech Republic Hungary Finland New Zealand Portugal Iceland Korea Turkey (1999) Slovak Republic Mexico Italy

5359 1990 22 824 78 884 8033 872 2705 4655 727 3147 8677 1367 496 1350 341 718 2 649 378 110 99 218

From OECD, Education Database, 2006, 2008.

asset for the less-developed countries as well. Researchers produce public goods that can also be shared across borders. They are particularly important as innovation and development agents for the economy, and beneficial effects of their work outcome may spread over different sectors of the economy. Beneficial effects may also arise when using foreign facilities not available in the country of origin to further that countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research and development (R&D) agenda (i.e., big science facilities). The receiving countries may benefit from hosting researchers and scientists. This may also turn into an increased R&D and economic activity, due to the availability of additional highly skilled workers, which favors entrepreneurship, especially in high-growth areas. Receiving countries also benefit from stronger knowledge flows and collaboration with sending countries. Diversity and creativity are certainly further promoted by the melting pot of the intellectual mix brought about by the inflow of people with different backgrounds. A number of negative effects on science, technology, and higher education systems can also be envisaged. For the sending countries, the most-studied effect of highly skilled labor leaving its country of origin is the wellknown and mentioned brain drain. This departure may mean losing part of the national ability to generate highlevel activities that thus may lead to a weaker intellectual and productive capacity. Similarly, the country of origin will miss out if the outcome of the research, not the

process, is of value, as, for example, in a postdoctoralâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research. Patents, for example, may provide instant benefit to the host country with little or no likely benefits for the country of origin. A direct loss can be envisaged also in purely economic terms. The investment made in tertiary education becomes a benefit for another nation and may be perceived waste of national resources that gives poor returns from public investment.

Summary The simple and traditional model brain drain/brain gain is no longer adequate to explain the complex movements of the highly skilled population, to describe and explain international mobility patterns and, even more, the consequences that these movements generate on the creation of knowledge and knowledge investments. The attention given by policy analysts and international organizations to these issues has been rapidly growing in recent years in order to develop a common framework for analysis (OECD, 2001, 2002). Potential effects of mobility have been recognized to be positive or negative, both for the sending and receiving countries. Science and education policies must carefully take these potential effects into consideration to prevent possible drawbacks or, at the other end, to favor the positive spillover. The envisioned global effect of increased mobility in higher education, science, and technology may be found in the best use of highly qualified people. But the analysis of the effects of highly qualified international migrations on investments in human capital is still to be fully developed. There are not yet consolidated indicators that can ease the measurement of the various effects of international mobility of highly skilled human resources. Many questions are raised about the meaning and reasons for mobility. What helps and hinders international mobility? What are the driving and resisting forces? What barriers are still to be removed and what actions can ease the mobility process? A wise mix of incentives and schemes seems to be the best way of promoting mobility. The value of an international mobility experience is generally highly considered both by PhD students and scientists. It is part of the personal scientific and cultural growth and may result in being the first step in a research career for PhD graduates. The difficulties in organizing a stay abroad may result in personal and objective problems needing to be overcome, concerning the financing, location, etc. A supranational intervention is a suitable means to simplify international relations and overcome differences in local legislation, through a lightweight normative role, acting as a catalyst and leaving institutions and individuals free to organize mobility.

Mobility of PhD Students and Scientists

Bibliography Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal word. Tertiary Education Management 1, 3–25. Beine, M., Docquier, F., and Rapoport, H. (2006). Brain drain and human capital formation in developing countries: Winners and losers. Discussion Paper 2006-23. Louvain-la-Neuve: De´partement des Sciences E´conomiques de l’Universite´ catholique de Louvain (forthcoming in Economic Journal). Docquier, F. and Marfouk, A. (2004). Measuring the international mobility of skilled workers (1990–2000). Release 1.0. http://www-wds. worldbank.org(accessed June 2009). Dumont, J. C. and Lemaitre, G. (2005). Counting immigrants and expatriates in OECD countries: A new perspective. OECD Social Employment and Migration Working Papers, N. 25. Paris: OECD. European Commission (1996). Green Paper Eliminating Obstacles to Transnational Mobility. COM(96) 462. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission (2007). Green Paper the European Research Area: New Perspectives. COM(2007) 161 final. Brussels: European Commission. Hansen, W. (2003). A web-based e-survey on the international mobility of scientists and engineers. Final Report Project: Brain Drain Migration Flows of Qualified Scientists. Brussels: European Commission. Kyvik, S., Karseth, B., and Blume, S. (1999). International mobility among Nordic doctoral students. Journal of Higher Education 38(4), 379–400. NSF (2006). Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. NSF (2007). Asia Rising Science and Technology Strength: Comparative Indicators for Asia, the European Union and the United States, NSF 07-319. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. OECD (2001). Innovative People: Mobility of Skilled Personnel in National Innovation Systems. Paris: OECD. OECD (2002). International Mobility of the Highly Skilled. Paris: OECD. OECD (2007a). Labour market characteristics and international mobility of doctorate holders: Results for seven countries. STI Working Paper 2007/2. Paris: OECD. OECD (2007b). International mobility of researchers. DSTI/STP(2007)25, Mimeo. Paris: OECD.

293

Oliver, J. (2007). First-Time, Full-Time Graduate Student Enrollment in Science and Engineering Increases in 2006, Especially among Foreign Students, NSF 08-302. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. Regets, M. (2001). Research and policy issues in high-skilled international migration: A perspective with data from the United States. Innovative People: Mobility of Skilled Personnel in National Innovation Systems, pp 243–260. Paris: OECD. Regets, M. C. (2007). Research issues in the international migration of highly skilled workers: A perspective with data from the United States. Working Paper SRS 07-203. Arlington, VA: Division of Science Resources Statistics, National Science Foundation. Royal Society (1963). Emigration of Scientists from the United Kingdom. London: Royal Society. Thorn, K. and Holm-Nielsen, L. B. (2006). International mobility of researchers and scientists policy options for turning a drain into a gain. Research Paper No. 2006/83, United Nations University. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER. UNESCO (1998). Declaration on higher education for the 21st century: Vision and action. Proceedings World Conference on Higher Education. http://portal.unesco.org/education (accessed June 2009). WHO (World Health Organization) (2004). Report by the Secretariat on the Recruitment of Health Workers from the Developing World, WHO Document EB114/5. Geneva: WHO.

Further Reading Avveduto, S., Brandi, M. C., and Todisco, E. (2004). High skilled migrations, opportunity and brain drain. Migration Studies/Studi emigrazione 156, 775–796. Gaillard, J. and Gaillard, A. M. (1997). The international migration of brains: Exodus or circulation? Science Technology and Society 2, 2. Lowell, L. (2001). Policy responses to the international mobility of skilled labour. International Migration Papers. International Labour Office, Geneva. Salt, J. (1997). International movements of the highly skilled. OECD Occasional Papers No 3. Saxenian, A. L. (2006). The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.