Internationalisation and migrant academics: the hidden narratives of mobility

Internationalisation is a dominant policy discourse in higher education today. It is invariably presented as an ideologically neutral, coherent, disembodied, knowledgedriven policy intervention - an unconditional good. Yet it is a complex assemblage of values linked not only to economic growth and prosperity, but also to global citizenship, transnational identity capital, social cohesion, intercultural competencies and soft power (Clifford and Montgomery 2014; De Wit et al. 2015; Kim 2017; Lomer 2016; Stier 2004). Mobility is the sine qua non of the global academy (Sheller 2014). International movements, flows and networks are perceived as valuable transnational and transferable identity capital and as counterpoints to intellectual parochialism. Fluidity metaphors abound as an antidote to stasis e.g. flows, flux and circulations (Urry 2007). For some, internationalisation is conceptually linked to the political economy of neoliberalism and the spatial extension of the market, risking commodification and commercialisation (Matus and Talburt 2009). Others raise questions about what/whose knowledge is circulating and whether internationalisation is a form of re-colonisation and convergence that seeks to homogenise higher education systems (Stromquist 2007). Internationalisation policies and practices, it seems, are complex entanglements of economic, political, social and affective domains. They are mechanisms for driving the global knowledge 2 economy and the fulfilment of personal aspirations (Hoffman 2009). Academic geographical mobility is often conflated with social mobility and career advancement (Leung 2017). However, Robertson (2010: 646) suggested that ‘the romance of movement and mobility ought to be the first clue that this is something we ought to be particularly curious about.

Scottish government equality outcomes:pregnancy and maternity evidence review

Edinburghdiv_BaMpub3815pu

Investigating the Relationship between Ethnicity and Degree Attainment

In January 2008, the Higher Education Academy (HEA) and the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) presented their ‘Ethnicity, Gender and Degree Attainment Project’ report (HEA, 2008). Whilst the report does not locate clear causes for difference in degree attainment that can be directly linked to ethnicity and gender, it describes concerns from higher education institutions’ (HEIs) staff and students that black and minority ethnic (BME) groups are marginalised. While the HEA/ECU suggest that ‘[t]he causes of degree attainment variation with respect to gender and ethnicity were found to be unlikely to be reducible to single, knowable factors’ (2008, p.2), they do note that ‘even after controlling for the majority of contributory factors, being from a minority ethnic group…was still found to have a statistically significant and negative effect on degree attainment’ (ibid., p.2). The relationship between ethnicity, gender and degree attainment remains both troubling and uncertain

Statistics for Equal Opportunities in Higher Education: Final Report to HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW

This report gives the findings and conclusions of a project looking at the availability and use of statistics on discrimination and equality of employment opportunity in the higher education sector, considering both academic and non-academic staff. This represents a small part of a wider programme funded by the three Higher Education Funding Councils exploring how best to monitor the higher education sector in order to avoid discrimination and facilitate the dissemination of good practice