BETWEEN OPPORTUNITIES, BARRIERS AND INEQUALITIES: THE FACES OF ACADEMIC MOBILITY

In the mid-2000s, two works were published to discuss globalization and its effects. In the book The world is flat, Thomas L. Friedman [1] argued that globalization and technological development would make historical and geographic divisions increasingly irrelevant. Richard Florida [2], on the other hand, argued that the changes generated by globalization would be far from leveling the differences between countries, due to socioeconomic disparities. For Olechnicka, Ploszaj and Celińska-Janowicz [3], the dynamics of scientific production would be closer to Florida’s logic, as knowledge generation processes historically occur in a concentrated manner, reflecting global disparities, hierarchies and transformations, including those related to the growing role of scientific collaboration.

In any case, globalization has increased the interconnectivity of countries and enabled an increase in the flow of ideas and individuals, also affecting the dynamics and patterns of international academic mobility [4].

In the past, academic mobility was mainly concentrated in European countries and the United States (USA). This was due to the economic and cultural power, the high investments made in research and innovation, as well as the presence of prestigious universities in these locations. However, it is observed that the pattern of international mobility has changed over time: the US, previously a central player on the board of international mobility, has lost ground. This scenario stems from the relative decline in the prestige of North American educational institutions and the strengthening of European and Asian universities [4]. The Asian case is emblematic of China’s economic rise, for changing the global landscape of mobility destinations with massive investments in research and innovation in its universities. In view of this, it is observed that the volume of international mobility has grown exponentially in recent decades, changing the dynamics of the flow, with a greater growth in mobility between European countries, as well as between China and its neighboring countries. Therefore, the patterns currently observed indicate a change in the behavior of international mobility, which previously had a bipolar (USA and Europe) dynamic and now has characteristics of a multipolar dynamic, with China occupying an increasingly central space.

In addition to changes in mobility patterns, studies indicate that, as scientists move across national borders, it is possible that they encounter different types of barriers, which can be political, regulatory, logistical, or cultural. The following are among the main barriers identified: lack of funding, restrictions on sharing material and data, difficulty in obtaining visas, differences in academic standards in different countries, prejudice against academics from emerging or developing countries and lack of encouragement, or even restrictions, from the very institutions or departments to which the scientists were linked. Even in countries with consolidated scientific systems, such as the USA, the United Kingdom and France, about a third of scientists stated that they had already faced some type of barrier [5].

Given this scenario, academic mobility has been the target of increasing incentive policies in recent decades, justified by the positive impacts it can generate. In general terms, it is argued that mobile scientists, especially those who perform international mobility, are part of broader collaboration networks, access infrastructure and funding, are more productive, generate more scientific impact and have more opportunities to develop personal skills and symbolic capital [6]. It is possible to conclude, therefore, that mobility can positively impact the occupational situation and career progression [7].

It is important to highlight that mobility can be conditioned by systemic, institutional, and individual factors. Systemic factors are linked to the contextual framework of the countries of origin and destination, relating, for instance, to migration policies, the size and maturity of the academic community, STI policies, as well as mobility and internationalization [8]. The dynamics of areas of knowledge and disciplines also fall into this category. Institutional factors relate to the profile and reputation of the institution where the scientist works (origin) or to which they move (destination), to institutional rules concerning endogamy [i], among others. Finally, individual factors involve two types of elements, namely, sociodemographic characteristics (gender, race, age, nationality, language, income, etc.) and characteristics related to education, career stage and “academic heritage”, i.e., the legacies incorporated by a researcher during his training period — intangible knowledge, scientific training, academic network and financial and non-financial resources [9].

Among these constraints, we can mention gender disparity, as women are underrepresented in international mobility in all areas of knowledge [10]; the difficulty of advancing in their career, in the case of scientists with international mobility experience linked to universities that do not have rules preventing endogamy [11]; the decrease in international mobility movements with advancing age in their career [10].

There are certainly many opportunities. Most of the studies conducted in European countries show that mobility impacts access to international funding and favors the continuity of an academic career. However, the impacts differ according to the gender of the researcher and their area of expertise. Although we know that the impacts of academic mobility differ for women and men, considering the differences between their paths as researchers and the disadvantages, that women have historically faced, some articles are inconclusive, while others show evidence that women can achieve better remuneration after academic mobility [12].

Considering that there are limitations in the studies is also necessary. The samples, for example, are from specific areas, which do not allow for knowing the impacts of mobility for all areas of knowledge. Therefore, we note that academic mobility is multifaceted, and the impacts can be positive or negative depending on the characteristics and historical processes, be it countries, institutions, or the researchers; own trajectory.

In Brazil, there is a shortage of studies on the subject. The relevance of this type of research is due to the advancement of knowledge, as it is interested in capturing the main empirical patterns, institutional changes, and the very composition of the academic mobility board. In addition, the results of this type of research can help in the implementation of public policies, in the strengthening of development agencies and in the creation of mechanisms aimed at gender equality in the generation of academic mobility opportunities.

The study of the effects of mobility and international cooperation on academic careers is included in the research project called “Research and Innovation Research: Indicators, Methods and Evidence of Impacts”, funded by the State of São Paulo Research Foundation (Fapesp) and coordinated by Professor Sérgio Luiz Monteiro Salles Filho. The research questions are intended to assess the national and international impact of mobility on the occupational situation, on the time to progress, on the formation of cooperation networks and on obtaining funding for research, having Fapesp programs as the universe of analysis. To avoid generalist studies, we intend to consider individual, institutional and systemic factors, the importance and effect of time on the trajectories of scientists, and territorial extension —so as not to underestimate the efforts of domestic movements in countries of continental dimensions such as Brazil.