Abstract
In this chapter, we look at the theoretical foundation of understanding highly qualified migration in the European Union. This involves unpacking some of the problems associated with the uncritical use of simplistic concepts from neo-classical migration theory at a time when the practice of highly qualified mobility is differentiated in terms of its forms and the predictability of outcomes. We argue that there is a need to recognise liminal qualities in the process of gaining overseas experience, explained through use of the idea of ‘reflexive mobility’, manifest in practices such as the encouragement of employability through student exchange visits and internship. Also explored are the potential consequences of mismanaged mobility systems. When reflexive mobility goes awry, it turns into a generator of precariousness, contributing to the marginalisation of movers rather than helping them overcome social and economic disadvantages.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
An example of outmoded thinking is the use of the ‘brain drain’ metaphor, referring to the more or less permanent exit of economically vital individuals, such as top scientists or eminent entrepreneurs, and is generally regarded as something to be guarded against by national governments. It is not a synonym for highly qualified migration per se, and should not be used as such. The term ‘brain circulation’ is also applied to the practice of students and graduates moving abroad for relatively short periods but returning to the sending society, bringing with them the skills and capacities they have acquired abroad. For this reason, brain circulation is regarded as something to be encouraged, and this helps explain why the circulation principle is built into many institutional mobility platforms, including the Erasmus undergraduate exchange programme (Jöns, 2015; see also Balmer et al., 2009).
- 2.
As Castles and Miller (2009, pp. 21–22) note in The Age of Migration, neo-classical theory is the foremost paradigm within the study of international migration, dominating thinking in areas such as controlling population flows in the name of global security, as well as economic development. Much data-driven work on highly qualified migration is also over-simplistic and inherently conservative, with a lack of imagination leading to making recourse to tired typologies and semi-metaphorical categories, for example, ‘brain drain’, often without understanding what these frames of reference actually mean (see Jons, 2009).
- 3.
The UK does not produce migration data on intra-European circulation; indeed, few countries do, owing to the methodological difficulties of studying such a fluid phenomenon. Instead, they use survey evidence and proxy indicators, with the British figures deduced from indicators including the International Passenger Survey and National Insurance registrations, none of which actually measure migration (Migration Watch UK, 2016). We therefore do not know if there are ‘too many’ EU migrants in Britain; the real number may be much lower than estimates suggest or far in excess.
- 4.
The Hollywood treatment of the migratory experience is similarly neo-classical, typically portraying movement from hardship to prosperity, which is the basic plotline of countless movies, ranging from the pioneering work of Charlie Chaplin (The Immigrant, 1917) to perennial classics like Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather Part II (1974). Even the recent box office hit, Brooklyn (dir. John Crowley, 2015), presents a fairy-tale account of moving from 1950s rural Ireland to modern America, illustrating the popularity and durability of economic migration stereotypes.
- 5.
At a deeper level, we can describe reflexivity as an internal conversation, a term associated with the work of Margaret Archer (see, e.g., Archer, 2012).
- 6.
While our use of the ‘life course’ concept in this book is relatively normative, there is a substantial body of theoretical and empirical work on this theme, from Thomas and Znaniecki’s The Polish Peasant in Europe and America onwards (see Elder et al., 2003).
- 7.
The Erasmus+ initiative is perhaps the most prominent example of this process, but there are numerous other less high-profile instances of mobility being undertaken for this purpose. This may be in formal education, in the sense of enrolling in a course at a foreign tertiary level institution and receiving accreditation, or more tacitly in an informal learning environment, such as the short-duration exchange programmes of the former Youth in Action initiative (now integrated into Erasmus+) or in longer-term placements as part of the European Voluntary Service (EVS). Here, the focus may be more upon inter-cultural competencies, such as being able to meet with young people from a variety of different national backgrounds or addressing specific societal issues such as conflict resolution. The intention is thus to establish relatively subtle mobility-related skills, rather than the acquisition of qualifications.
References
Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Balmer, B., Godwin, M., & Gregory, J. (2009). The Royal Society and the “brain drain”: Natural scientists meet social science. Notes & Records of the Royal Society, 63(4), 339–353.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. D. J. (1992). Invitation to a reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Briggs, D., & Ellis, A. (2016). The last night of freedom: Consumerism, deviance and the ‘stag party’. Unpublished Conference Paper.
Cairns, D. (2014). Youth transitions, international student mobility and spatial reflexivity: Being mobile? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cairns, D., Growiec, K., & Smyth, J. (2012). Spatial reflexivity and undergraduate transitions in the Republic of Ireland after the Celtic Tiger. Journal of Youth Studies, 15(7), 841–857.
Castles, S., & Miller, M. J. (2009). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world (4th ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Elder, G. H., Kirkpatrick Johnson, M., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Faist, T. (2013). The mobility turn: A new paradigm for the social sciences? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(11), 1637–1646.
Foucualt, M. (2001). The order of things: Archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jons, H. (2009). Brain circulation and transnational knowledge networks: Studying long-term effects of academic mobility to Germany, 1954–2000. Global Networks, 9(3), 315–338.
Jöns H. (2015). Talent mobility and the shifting geographies of Latourian knowledge hubs, Population, Space and Place, 21(4), 372–389.
King, R., Warnes, T., & Williams, A. (2000). Sunset lives: British retirement to the Mediterranean. New York: Berg.
Krings, T., Bobek, A., Moriarty, E., Salamońska, J., & Wickham, J. (2013). Polish migration to Ireland: “Free movers” in the new European mobility space. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(1), 87–103.
Migration Watch UK. (2016). How immigration is measured. Retrieved May 2016, from http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/95
Moriarty, E., Wickham, J., Daly, S., & Bobek, A. (2015). Graduate emigration from Ireland: Navigating new pathways in familiar places. Irish Journal of Sociology, 23(2), 71–92.
Piketty, T. (2013). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rammler, S. (2008). The Wahlverwandtschaft of modernity and mobility. In S. Kesselring, W. Canzier, & V. Kaufman (Eds.), Tracing mobilities: Towards a cosmopolitan perspective (pp. 57–76). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cairns, D., Cuzzocrea, V., Briggs, D., Veloso, L. (2017). Mobility Contexts. In: The Consequences of Mobility. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46741-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46741-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46740-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46741-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)