Introduction

A strong aspiration toward universalism predates the government-funded, professionalized, and internationalized modern scientific enterprise by several centuries (Musselin 2004; Kim 2009). In this sense, international mobility is central to conceptions of knowledge production. However the nature and purposes of mobility have evolved as the sciences have professionalized. Over time, mobility behavior has become more purposeful and more clearly associated with research and career objectives rather than more general considerations of scholarship (Heffernan and Jöns 2013).

Recent decades have seen mobility actively constructed as a problem to be resolved by policy action (as in the fear of a “brain drain” of talented British scientists to the United States in the 1960s) or as a solution to the challenges faced by national research systems in a globalized world (harnessing the power of “brain circulation” and the transnational networks thus created). The current preoccupation with “brain circulation” as a means of raising the “excellence” of national research systems and boosting the exchange of knowledge is exemplified by the efforts of the European Commission to promote mobility of scientists between European Union member states.

Yet there remains surprisingly little consensus as regards how best to conceptualize scientific mobility. The many studies extant represent partial snapshots of a complex, entangled cluster of phenomena taken from a single perspective and usually focusing on a very specific population of scientists or engineers. In this chapter we examine how mobility has been conceptualized and explored, and what those studies tell us about the factors influencing mobility and the impacts mobility may have. Because the question of scientific mobility is politicized and because the framing of policy debates influences measurement and analysis, we will also consider these policy framings and their strengths or weaknesses.

Definitional Challenges

Several definitional challenges confront those wishing to characterize and understand the international mobility of scientists, its drivers, and its impacts. Specifically, these concern the units of analysis: what constitutes a “scientist” and what constitutes “international mobility.” We briefly explore these issues below.

Conceptualising Mobility

In their excellent critical reviews of the economic literature on “brain drain” and mobility, Cañibano and Woolley (2010a, 2010b) highlight a conceptual confusion inherent in traditional approaches to considering “drain” and “gain”: namely the conflation of the demographic categories of scientist or engineer (often termed human resources for science and technology, or HRST for short) with the economic concept of “human capital.” Cañibano and Woolley argue that this tendency to treat human capital as if it were somehow encapsulated in the form of individual scientists results in a view in which movements of individuals from one system to another are considered as zero-sum additions to, and subtractions from, the respective national “balance sheets” of knowledge and talent (see also Meyer 2001). This focus on the quantity of human capital has latterly been supplemented by more attention to the quality of human capital (see, e.g., Jones 2008) but the way in which human capital is modeled still arguably conflates knowledge and skills and, even when emphasizing the role of complementary advanced skills in enabling the most productive use of the skills of another, the human capital perspective downplays the role of other complementary factors of scientific knowledge production.

Rather (and as noted by Cañibano and Woolley 2010b) human capital is only partly accounted for by the knowledge and skills embodied in individuals and is primarily a function of social structure and context (see also Davenport 2004; Bozeman, Dietz, and Gaughan 2001). The research potential of an individual scientist may be enhanced or constrained by their organizational and national contexts, not just in terms of access to potential collaborators and their knowledge and skills or access to advanced training, equipment, infrastructure, methods, samples, or data, but also in terms of the incentives and opportunities offered by the funding and research culture of the organizational or national context.

Mobility, then, is not simply a matter of the movement of discrete units of human capital and the consequent transfer or “recombination” of the knowledge embodied in those individuals (or through skill matching, unlocking the potential of one individual’s skills by combination with another’s). Context matters for the production of new knowledge, and we must therefore consider a wider range of contextual factors in conceptualizing mobility than would be suggested by simple human capital models. This is broadly in line with the so-called Stanford-Yale-Sussex synthesis (Dosi et al. 2006) and more specifically the “new economics of science” sparked by the contribution of Dasgupta and David (1994), although a search of the subsequent literature in this area finds few studies focusing specifically on the role played by the international, as opposed to intra- or inter-sectoral, movement of people. An honorable exception is the work of Edler, Fier, and Grimpe (2011) on the knowledge transfer activities of internationally mobile academic scientists.

The Context of Mobility: Drivers, Impacts and Barriers

As argued above, the international job mobility of scientists is best seen as a subset of the broader category of international migration of highly skilled professional workers. There is a substantial literature in work psychology and organizational sociology around job mobility and how decisions about changing job are made. Ng et al. (2007) offer a synthesis that identifies several levels of factors that are likely to be in operation in such decisions: structural factors affect the opportunities for job mobility and exist at the societal, regional, industry, and organizational levels of analysis; different individuals have different personal goals and motivations and thus preferences concerning mobility; and decisional factors (the norms to which the individual subscribes,¹ the individual’s appetite for and readiness for change, and their calculation of the desirability of the mobility opportunity) ultimately determine whether the decision is made to change job, and also exist at the individual level of analysis.

The literature on scientific mobility rarely draws upon these potentially relevant work psychology or organizational sociology literatures. However, there is a loose conceptual framework implicit in much of the literature in which mobility is similarly seen in terms of driving factors. These can be conceptualized as operating on multiple levels, akin to those identified by Ng et al. (2007). Following the MORE Consortium (2009, 2011) we suggest that it is possible to identify three distinct but interrelated contextual levels, namely the macro-level of the national research or innovation system and its associated labor market; the meso-level – the research-performing organization, group, lab, or team in which a researcher works;² and the micro-level of factors relating to the individual researcher.

Further, the monolithic concept of “driver” is generally broken down into push factors that help to explain the decision to move away from one macro-, meso- or micro-context and pull factors that help to explain the decision to move into a different one (Thorn and Holm-Nielsen 2008). In this sense, mobility is “driven” by the interaction of personal preferences, local factors, institutional settings, and broader systemic contexts (Børing et al. 2015; Ackers and Gill 2008).

A further element which is often included in conceptualizations of mobility (especially in policy studies and documents) is the notion that there exist factors that act as barriers that suppress the level of mobility, with potentially negative effects on human capital formation, knowledge exchange, and the pursuit of “excellence.” Assuming that such barriers exist, we can again conceptualize them as operating at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels.

We will explore below what the literature has to say about potential push and pull factors, and will also look at the evidence offered for the existence of barriers to mobility. First, we briefly discuss some measurement problems in the study of mobility. These challenges are not new: many were encountered by those designing the survey of UK university department heads on which the original 1963 Royal Society report that sparked the original “brain drain” panic was based (Balmer, Godwin, and Gregory 2009).

Measuring Mobility

Much of the literature on mobility tends to make a distinction between “temporary” and “permanent” migration (see, e.g., Cañibano, Otamendi, and Solís 2011; Baláz, Williams, and Kollár 2004), or between long and short stays (see, e.g., Mahroum 2000). The former distinction is problematic: studies almost always present a snapshot of the distribution or intentions of individuals at different points in their lives and careers. At what point should we consider the migration of an individual to be “permanent” while the possibility of return remains open in practice? It is also difficult to determine how best to treat duration: for instance, might the same or greater benefits be gained through repeated short visits rather than one longer visit? Perhaps the most practically useful distinctions we can make are between job migration and those forms of mobility not involving a change of employer, and between mobility with an intention or obligation to return versus mobility that can be seen as open-ended.

Further problems arise in seeking to understand “stocks” and “flows” of researchers. Specifically, it is not necessarily straightforward to determine the “home” or “sending” country. Some studies take the country of birth or of citizenship. Some individuals hold multiple citizenships and in any case the country of birth or citizenship will not necessarily be the country in which an individual has grown up and received their schooling or higher education. Given that the literature speculates that experience of international mobility earlier in the life course may be associated with a greater interest in mobility later in life, understanding what it means to be a British, a French, or an American scientist becomes even more important. More broadly the notion of measuring stocks and flows reflects the “national accounting” framing of mobility influenced by the dominance of human capital perspectives on mobility.

Levels of Scientific Mobility

The European IISER study (Moguérou and Pietrogiacomo 2007) used data on doctorate holders and doctoral candidates to examine the circulation of researchers across Europe as well as “flows” into and out of Europe. New data was collected to update this study in 2010 (MORE Consortium 2011). These show that 7% of doctoral candidates in the EU27 in 2007 held the citizenship of another member state, while Germany, Italy, France, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom, Greece, and Bulgaria were among the top 30 countries of origin for holders of doctorates awarded in the United States in 2008. Finally, the update showed that, in 2007, China was the most important sender of doctoral candidates to the EU27 (with around 6500 doctoral candidates) followed by Mexico and the United States (sending 4000 and 3600 candidates respectively).

The same MORE study conducted two EU27 wide surveys of research active staff in universities and in non-university public research institutes, respectively ((MORE Consortium 2009, 2011; Børing et al. 2015). 54% of a sample of 4538 university researchers and 65% of a sample of 5050 non-university public researchers had experienced international mobility (defined as taking up an employed position or spending a research visit of three months or greater in a country other than the country in which they received their highest educational attainment). Across the two sectors, 76% of respondents who had experienced mobility as an exchange student subsequently experienced mobility as a researcher, a finding in line with the suggestion from Findlay et al. (2012) that mobility in early life and later career mobility may be linked.

In a study of patterns of academic mobility between the United Kingdom and the rest of the world, Sastry (2005) finds that it is relatively junior postdoctoral researchers who account for most movement. They also found that a majority of senior academics had spent time abroad in postdoctoral positions, suggesting that early career mobility experience is associated with career development. Børing et al. (2015) also find that propensity to be mobile seems to be greater in early career stages. Taking changes in author affiliation to or from an institution in a country other than the United Kingdom as a proxy for international mobility, Elsevier (2013) use Scopus data for 265,000 researchers over the period 1996–2012 to show the very high level of mobility into and out of the UK research system, identifying a lower level of “sedentary” researchers than for most other comparator countries and higher levels of outflowing, inflowing, and returning migrants. Inflowing, outflowing, and returning migrants are of high quality measured both in terms of productivity (relative to all UK researchers) and in terms of field-weighted citation impact.

Data from the MORE surveys confirms the internationalism of the UK scientific labor market and shows that, while the level of non-job mobility is high across Europe, some national labor markets are more highly internationalized than others. Figure 17.1 shows the proportion of internationally mobile researchers with experience of international job mobility by country of affiliation for the European Union Higher Education sector. This share is highest for internationally mobile researchers from the United Kingdom (75%) and Austria (73%), and lowest for those from Slovakia (9%) and Romania (18%). Figure 17.2 shows the same data for the European Union non-university research institute sector. Again, this share is highest for internationally mobile researchers from the United Kingdom and Germany (both 79%), and lowest for those from Romania (21%) and Bulgaria (30%).

Jöns (2011) and Ackers and Gill (2008) suggest that different lengths of stay may be attractive or feasible for those with family or caring responsibilities and that this is very likely to have a gendered dimension. Børing et al. (2015) find that female respondents are less likely to have experienced international mobility than male respondents and, among those females who have experienced mobility, job mobility was less common but non-job mobility was no less common than for males. Interestingly, they also find no significant difference between the likelihood of female and male researchers having recent experience of international mobility (that is, in the three years running up to the survey). Børing et al. find no significant effect of marital/relationship status on experience of international mobility although parents have a relatively lower likelihood of having been internationally mobile. Nonetheless having children proves not to be a statistically significant predictor of whether respondents are likely to have previously experienced mobility.

At the same time Ackers has speculated that there may be a move away from traditional patterns of mobility characterized by long duration sabbaticals and job migration toward new forms of non-migratory internationalization such as holding positions simultaneously in two or more institutions in different countries, cross-border working, and new combinations of virtual collaboration and repeated very short research visits. The MORE surveys found some qualitative support for this hypothesis.

Push and Pull Factors

Impacts of Mobility

The Construction of Mobility as a Policy Issue

The term “brain drain” was first coined in 1963, not in the context of the loss of scientific human capital from developing countries to developed ones but rather to describe a perceived increase in the rate at which UK scientists left the country for positions in Canada and especially the United States (Godwin et al. 2009; Balmer et al. 2009).⁴ This debate, which ran on into the early 1970s, is characterized by Godwin, Gregory, and Balmer as tending to rely on patchy and often contradictory evidence; to conflate evidence of the migration of some elite scientists with the possibility of mass migration; and to conflate scientists and engineers, leaving for very different kinds of jobs in different sectors. Similar criticisms can be made of much of the more recent policy debate in this area.

Concerns about the extent, causes, and consequences of mobility were very much bound up with broader concerns about relative economic decline in the post-Second World War period, but were stoked by a landmark report from the Royal Society, the United Kingdom’s national academy of science, in 1963 (Balmer et al. 2009).⁵

Intriguingly, the post-war brain drain debate in the United Kingdom tended to treat emigration to North America as of grave concern while the migration of scientists to less developed Commonwealth countries raised fewer concerns, reflecting the roots of this debate in concerns over what today would be called “national economic competitiveness.” However, it also raised questions in Government about what level of scientific emigration was “natural” and to be expected, about whether the United Kingdom was simply training too many scientists, and about the immigration of scientists from other parts of the world into the United Kingdom. Finally, it shed light on differences between the dynamism and culture of the North American context as against the UK one and may thus have contributed to broader debates about the modernization of UK industry, science, and universities (Godwin et al. 2009).

At around the same time as “brain drain” emerged as a public and policy concern in the United Kingdom, economic theories of human capital were being developed and applied to the phenomenon and its consequences for the countries from which the brains are drained (Cañibano and Woolley 2010a, 2010b). As already noted, these authors argue that early accounts of mobility frequently conflated HRST with human capital. In their view this led to two dominant framings for mobility: a nationalist-pessimistic view (“brain drain”) and an internationalist-optimistic view, what would now perhaps be characterized as “brain circulation” following the influential work of Saxenian (2005) and others.

Such framings influence the design of studies and the data that is collected, and both these perspectives remain very influential in science policy discourses. Davenport (2004) notes that “brain drain” debates have often had the character of “moral panics” and interprets the debate about “brain drain” from New Zealand during the early 2000s in those terms. In contrast, much of the European Union’s recent policy discourse about scientific mobility has been framed along the “internationalist-optimistic” line.

Børing et al. (2015), Oliver (2012), and Ackers (2008) draw attention to the particular way in which mobility is framed in European Union science policy discourse (see, e.g., Morano-Foadi 2005; Fernández-Zubieta and Guy 2010) and in particular how it is increasingly constructed as intrinsically linked with “excellence.” At the same time mobility is seen as being suppressed by “barriers” and “obstacles”, the removal of which should be a policy goal. Work in the internationalist-optimistic “circulationist” tradition (Ackers 2008), especially the contribution of Mahroum (2000), seems to have played a key role in encouraging this equation of “more mobility” with “more excellence” and in justifying a framing that there are “barriers” to mobility that can and should be removed.

Yet it is not clear why the “barriers” typically identified for policy action in the European science policy debate (mainly “technical” issues around health and social security provision, and pension portability) should be any more problematic and thus more worthy of intervention for scientists than any other group of potentially mobile highly skilled professional – save perhaps for an implicit admission that this professional group are typically paid less than other highly internationalized professions and therefore may have fewer personal resources to dedicate to the resolution of such problems than might professionals from other walks of life. While these factors do indeed create difficulties for those who are internationally mobile (and especially those who engage in cross-border working) the available evidence does not support the belief that such factors act as significant barriers preventing scientists from being mobile.

Conclusions

Mobility, whether job mobility or non-job mobility, is a complex event in the personal, family, and social life, as well as the professional life, of the individual scientist. The decision to move is influenced by conditions in both “sending” and “receiving” organizations and systems and, over time, may have a range of positive and negative impacts upon those organizations and systems as well as on the content and direction of the individual’s research and on the progression of their career. While scientific mobility is clearly connected with the internationalization of science, the phenomenon of migration – the movement from a job in one country to a new job in another country – is not unique to scientists, and many of the factors identified in the literature on scientific mobility – issues such as the availability and quality of job or training opportunities, salaries and incentives, working conditions, and broader issues around quality of working and personal/family life – are also relevant to the more general phenomenon of the international migration of highly skilled professionals.

Nonetheless, scientific mobility is often framed in an exceptionalist way, and these framings matter because they shape how we problematize and measure mobility phenomena. Most of the available data on mobility is secondary data originally collected for some other purpose, data collected on behalf of a policy actor, or data collected under specific scholarly framings (such as human capital views or knowledge transfer views) which are themselves influenced by (and are influences on) policy framings. Mobility has become a hot topic, yet the evidence base is made up of a series of partial snapshots from different perspectives of a complex, entangled cluster of phenomena.

Furthermore, scholarly and policy understandings of scientific mobility are at risk of becoming disconnected from the reality of mobility as experienced by mobile scientists. Ackers (2008) argues that excellence and mobility are not “mutually constitutive” as is assumed in the circulationist framing of mobility in current science policy debates, and questions why policymakers and funding agencies seem so preoccupied with the barriers to mobility and with the quantity of mobility, rather than with drivers of mobility (a significant proportion of which is being “forced” by serious structural problems in national systems) and with the quality of mobility as experienced by those who undertake it. “The fact of mobility has been divorced from the objectives associated with it to become almost a rite of passage: a convenient, independent, indicator of excellence rather than a means to an end” (Ackers 2008: 418).

The act of mobility raises questions about the nature of the research of the individual but also about the sending and receiving organizations and systems and the way that they work. The framing of “brain circulation” has come to dominate thinking to the extent that there is a widespread commonsense understanding that the more mobility the better⁶ – so long as at least some of those who leave return.

Yet the high levels of mobility of scientists in Europe observed by recent studies arguably tell us less about the growing excellence of the European Research Area than about, on the one hand, the emergence of an international labor market for elite researchers and elite institutions, and on the other, how dysfunctional some national research systems, labor markets, and career and reward structures still remain.

There is good evidence that international mobility can play an important role both in the transfer of knowledge and technology, and in the development of scientific human capital. The world’s most successful national research systems undoubtedly owe much of their success to their ability to attract the brightest and the best scientists, wherever they come from. And these benefits are not won at the cost of equivalent losses in the “sending” systems in a zero-sum game: diaspora networks and migration/return can in principle benefit both systems.

However, it is lazy thinking to extrapolate from all this that mobility must always equate to excellence, and that more will always be better. The human and personal costs of enforced mobility, and the signals that mobility may send about dysfunctions in some national systems, deserve more scholarly and policy attention than they currently receive, especially since changes in the modes of production and dynamics of science such as the highly internationalized nature of some national research systems, the rise of cross-border working and dual positions, and the emergence of new patterns of ICT-enabled virtual collaboration, may be rendering traditional modes of mobility less attractive or necessary to scientists themselves.

References

1. Ackers, Louise. 2005a. “Moving People and Knowledge: Scientific Mobility in the European Union.” International Migration 43(5): 99–131.
2. Ackers, Louise. 2005b. “Promoting Scientific Mobility and Balances Growth in the European Research Area.” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 18(3): 301–317.
3. Ackers, Louise. 2008. “Internationalisation, Mobility and Metrics: A New Form of Indirect Discrimination?” Minerva 46(4): 411–435.
4. Ackers, Louise. 2013. “Internet Mobility, Co-Presence and Purpose: Contextualising Internationalisation in Research Careers.” Sociología y tecnociencia / Sociology & Technoscience / Sociologia e Tecnociência 3(3): 117–141.
5. Ackers, Louise, and Bryony Gill. 2008. Moving People and Knowledge: Scientific Mobility in an Enlarging European Union. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
6. Agrawal, Ajay, Iain Cockburn, and John McHale. 2006. “Gone But Not Forgotten: Knowledge Flows, Labor Mobility, and Enduring Social Relationships.” Journal of Economic Geography 6(5): 571–591.
7. Baláz, Vladimír, M. Alan Williams, and Daniel Kollár. 2004. “Temporary Versus Permanent Youth Brain Drain: Economic Implications.” International Migration 42(4): 3–34.
8. Balmer, Brian, Matthew Godwin, and Jane Gregory. 2009. “The Royal Society and the ‘Brain Drain’: Natural Scientists Meet Social Science.” Notes and Records of the Royal Society 63(4); 339–353.
9. Børing, Pål, Kieron Flanagan, Dimitri Gagliardi, Aris Kaloudis, and Katerina Karakasidou. 2015. “International Mobility: Findings from a Survey of Researchers in the European Union.” Science and Public Policy.
10. Bozeman, Barry, James Dietz, and Monica Gaughan. 2001. “Scientific and Technical Human Capital: An Alternative Model for Research Evaluation.” International Journal of Technology Management 22(7/8): 716.
11. Cañibano, Carolina, and Richard Woolley. 2010a. “Beyond the Economics of the Brain Drain.” Paper presented at Globelics 2010, Kuala Lumpur.
12. Cañibano, Carolina, and Richard Woolley. 2010b. “Towards a Socio-Economics of the Brain Drain and Distributed Human Capital.” Paper presented at Globelics 2010, Kuala Lumpur.
13. Cañibano, Carolina, F. Javier Otamendi, and Francisco Solís. 2011. “International Temporary Mobility of Researchers: A Cross-Discipline Study.” Scientometrics 89(2): 653–675.
14. Crane, Diana. 1971. “Transnational Networks in Basic Science.” International Organization 25(3): 585–601.
15. Cullen, J., B. Jones, and K. Hadjivassiliou. 1998. COMPETE: Competence Evaluation and Training in Europe. Final Report. European Commission DG-XII, Targeted Socio-Economic Research Programme, Contract No. SOE2-08-2038.
16. Dasgupta, Partha, and Paul A. David. 1994. “Toward a New Economics of Science.” Research Policy 23(5): 487–521.
17. Davenport, Sally. 2004. “Panic and Panacea: Brain Drain and Science and Technology Human Capital Policy.” Research Policy 33(4): 617–630.
18. Dosi, Giovanni, Franco Malerba, Giovanni B. Ramello, and Francesco Silva. 2006. “Information, Appropriability, and the Generation of Innovative Knowledge Four Decades after Arrow and Nelson: An Introduction.” Industrial and Corporate Change 15(6): 891–901.
19. Edler, Jakob, Heide Fier, and Christoph Grimpe. 2011. “International Scientist Mobility and the Locus of Knowledge and Technology Transfer.” Research Policy 40(6): 791–805.
20. Elsevier. 2013. International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base – 2013. Report prepared for the UK’s Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.
21. Fernández-Zubieta, Ana, and Ken Guy. 2010. Developing the European Research Area: Improving Knowledge Flows via Researcher Mobility. European Commission, JRC-IPTS Scientific and Technical Report.
22. Findlay, Allan M., Russell King, Fiona M. Smith, Alistair Geddes, and Ronald Skeldon. 2012. “World Class? An Investigation of Globalisation, Difference and International Student Mobility.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37(1): 118–131.
23. Franzoni, Chiara, Giuseppe Scellato, and Paula Stephan. 2012. “Foreign-Born Scientists: Mobility Patterns for 16 Countries.” Nature Biotechnology 30(12): 1250–1253.
24. Franzoni, Chiara, Giuseppe Scellato, and Paula Stephan. 2014. “The Mover’s Advantage: The Superior Performance of Migrant Scientists.” Economics Letters 122(1): 89–93.
25. Gibson, John, and David McKenzie. 2014. “Scientific Mobility and Knowledge Networks in High Emigration Countries: Evidence from the Pacific.” Research Policy 43(9): 1486–1495.
26. Godwin, Matthew, Jane Gregory, and Brian Balmer. 2009. “The Anatomy of the Brain Drain Debate, 1950–1970s: Witness Seminar.” Contemporary British History 23(1): 35–60.
27. Hall, Peter A., and David Soskice (eds.). 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Heffernan, Michael, and Heike Jöns. 2013. “Research Travel and Disciplinary Identities in the University of Cambridge, 1885–1955.” The British Journal for the History of Science 46(2): 255–286.
29. Jones, Benjamin F. 2008. The Knowledge Trap: Human Capital and Development Reconsidered. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
30. Jöns, Heike. 2007. “Transnational Mobility and the Spaces of Knowledge Production: A Comparison of Global Patterns, Motivations and Collaborations in Different Academic Fields.” Social Geography 2(2): 97–114.
31. Jöns, Heike. 2011. “Transnational Academic Mobility and Gender.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 9(2): 183–209.
32. Kannankutty, Nirmala, and Joan Burrelli. 2007. “Why Did They Come to the United States? A Profile of Immigrant Scientists and Engineers.” NSF Infobrief 07-324.
33. Kim, Terri. 2009. “Shifting Patterns of Transnational Academic Mobility: A Comparative and Historical Approach.” Comparative Education 45(3): 387–403.
34. Lundvall, B.-A. (ed.). 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
35. Mahroum, Sami. 2000. “Highly Skilled Globetrotters: Mapping the International Migration of Human Capital.” R&D Management 30(1): 23–32.
36. Marginson, Simon, and Gary Rhoades. 2002. “Beyond National States, Markets, and Systems of Higher Education: A Glonacal Agency Heuristic.” Higher Education 43(3): 281–309.
37. Meyer, Jean-Baptiste. 2001. “Network Approach Versus Brain Drain: Lessons from the Diaspora.” International Migration 39(5): 91–110
38. Moguérou, P., and M.P.D. Pietrogiacomo. 2007. Integrated Information System on European Researchers II: WP 1, 2 & 3: Indicators on Researchers’ Stock, Career and Mobility. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission, Joint Research Centre.
39. Morano-Foadi, Sonia. 2005. “Scientific Mobility, Career Progression, and Excellence in the European Research Area.” International Migration 43(5): 133–162.
40. MORE Consortium. 2009. Technical Report 1: Scoping Paper. Study on Mobility and Career Paths of EU Researchers.
41. MORE Consortium. 2010a. Technical Report 2 (Part One): Report of the Higher Education Survey. Study on Mobility and Career Paths of EU Researchers.
42. MORE Consortium. 2010b. Technical Report 2 (Part Two): Report of the Non-University Research Institutes Survey. Study on Mobility and Career Paths of EU Researchers.
43. MORE Consortium. 2011. Final Report: Mobility and Career Paths of Researchers in Europe (MORE). Report to the European Commission Research DG.
44. Musselin, Christine. 2004. “Towards a European Academic Labour Market? Some Lessons Drawn from Empirical Studies on Academic Mobility.” Higher Education 48: 55–78.
45. Ng, Thomas W.H., Kelly L. Sorensen, Lillian T. Eby, and Daniel C. Feldman. 2007. “Determinants of Job Mobility: A Theoretical Integration and Extension.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 80(3): 363–386.
46. Oettl, A., and A. Agrawal. 2008. “International Labor Mobility and Knowledge Flow Externalities.” Journal of International Business Studies 39(8): 1242–1260.
47. Oliver, E.A. 2012. “Living Flexibly? How Europe’s Science Researchers Manage Mobility, Fixed-Term Employment and Life Outside Work.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 23(18): 3856–3571.
48. Rip, Arie, and Barend J.R. van der Meulen. 1996. “The Post-Modern Research System.” Science and Public Policy 23(6): 343–352.
49. Sandström, Ulf. 2009. “Combining Curriculum Vitae and Bibliometric Analysis: Mobility, Gender and Research Performance.” Research Evaluation 18(2): 135–142.
50. Sastry, T. 2005. “Migration of Academic Staff to and from the UK.” Higher Education Policy Institute Report.
51. Saxenian, AnnaLee. 2005. “From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation: Transnational Communities and Regional Upgrading in India and China.” Studies in Comparative International Development 40(2): 35–61.
52. Schiller, Daniel, and J. Revilla Diez. 2009. Mobile Star Scientists as Regional Knowledge Spillover Agents. IAREG Working Paper 2/7.
53. Sung, Johnny, Jill Turbin, and David Ashton. 2000. “Towards a Framework for the Comparative Analysis of National Systems of Skill Formation.” International Journal of Training and Development 4(1): 8–25.
54. Thorn, K., and L.B. Holm-Nielsen. 2008. “International Mobility of Researchers and Scientists: Policy Options for Turning a Drain into a Gain.” In The International Mobility of Talent: Types, Causes, and Development Impact, ed. A. Solimano, 145–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
55. Trippl, Michaela. 2013. “Scientific Mobility and Knowledge Transfer at the Interregional and Intraregional Level.” Regional Studies 47(10): 1653–1667.
56. van de Sande, D., Helen Louise Ackers, and Bryony Gill. 2005. Impact Assessment of the Marie Curie Fellowships under the 4th and 5th Framework Programmes of Research and Technological Development of the EU (1994–2002). Report of IMPAFEL 2, Contract No. IHP-D2-2003-01.
57. van Heeringen, A., and P.A. Dijkwel. 1986. “Mobility and Productivity of Academic Research Scientists.” Czechoslovak Journal of Physics B 36: 58–61.
58. Yano, Masaharu, and Junichi Tomita. 2006. “Mobility Principle among Japanese Professors: Based on the Example of Professors in the Economics Field.” International Journal of Educational Management 20(5): 338–347.