Content uploaded by Sonia Morano-Foadi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sonia Morano-Foadi on Sep 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK,
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
© 2005 IOM
International Migration Vol. 43 (5) 2005
ISSN 0020-7985
*Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe, University of Leeds, UK.
Scientific Mobility,
Career Progression, and Excellence
in the European Research Area
1
Sonia Morano-Foadi*
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the various aspects of mobility requirements and the
relationship between competitiveness, excellence, and mobility in scien-
tific research in the European Union (EU). The “expectation of mobility” in
science plays an important role in shaping the European Research Area.
Research argues that better economic opportunities and advanced migration
policy in destination countries promote highly skilled migration. Empirical
evidence shows that academics and researchers consider important deter-
minants in the migration decision and destination to be the research environ-
ment and conditions, i.e. research support, infrastructures, demand for
research and development (R&D) staff, and academics (Millard, 2005). While
it can be argued that the European Research Area is designed to encourage
the interchange of scientists, skills balance is essential to competitiveness
in the European region. Despite the actions and measures taken in the
context of the EC Mobility Strategy, unbalanced flows are still a weakness
of the European Research Area. There is a need in Europe to coordinate
science and migration policies at European and Member State level to en-
hance the attractiveness of European receiving countries and facilitate
return of scientists to their sending nations. This paper, which focuses
mainly on Austria, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, shows
the uneven nature of scientific personnel flows within the European Re-
search Area.
The article argues that in Europe mobile scientists are often driven by
necessity more than choice, and the longer they are away the more com-
plicated it is to return. If the academic system proved impenetrable to
return other opportunities in the private sectors might be explored by the
researcher.
134 Morano-Foadi
INTRODUCTION
The European political agenda has recently, to a large extent, been dominated by
concerns around the loss of scientists from the European Union (EU) (in par-
ticular Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom) to the United States.
However, scientific migration from Europe to the United States is not a new
phenomenon. It started during the Nazi and Fascist regimes when Italian and
German scientists migrated to the United States to escape persecution for racial
reasons. In order to compete with the United States and Japan, the EU is trying
to implement a wide range of actions and measures to improve research careers
and thus stop the brain drain from the EU. The Commission regards “mobility
as the core element in research development”, and considers it either at trans-
national (movement between countries) or interregional or intersectorial levels
(movement between academia and industry), “essential in order to take a
maximum advantage of available resources. Mobility is not an end in itself, but
an instrument by which research results can be optimized” (EC, 2001a). The
European strategy to attract and retain researchers in Europe is based on a
series of steps taken ranging from the improvement of research training, to the
fostering of research collaboration internationally (networking), as well as
enhancement of knowledge and technology transfer between industry and
academia. One of the aims is to raise the scientific excellence of individual
researchers through the creation of centres of excellence and the distribution of
research excellence in the different regions of Europe. The European Research
Area (ERA) strategy emphasizes the importance of “clustering” and the con-
centration of scientific expertise, in “Centres of Excellence” as the basis for
competitiveness.
In some areas of science the “expectation of mobility” that has always existed is
now assuming an increasingly important dimension. Balter refers to the expect-
ation of mobility by describing a “stint abroad” as “crucial for many European
PhDs who want to become academic researchers” (1999: 1524).
For many, mobility is not so much a choice as a necessity in science careers
either due to the lack of employment opportunities or because progression
demands acceptance of mobility by researchers. Given the uneven nature of
scientific personnel flows within the ERA, the European Commission is im-
plementing measures to encourage intra-community mobility and/or return and
reintegration grants to researchers’ country of origin.
Although the European community strategy tends to increase the attractiveness
of Europe for scientists, retaining them in the continent and also attracting inter-
national researchers, there is still significant migration of highly skilled to the
United States.
135
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
The aim of the present investigation is to question whether there is an expect-
ation of mobility for EU scientists and the extent to which mobility is part of the
“excellence equation” for those working in the academic or industrial research
market. These research questions are examined both by means of evaluating EU
mobility strategy and discussing empirical findings of a recently completed study
on scientific migration (the MOBISC Project).2 The paper explores the extent to
which mobility is linked to career progression in the European context. In doing
so, it first clarifies some concepts associated with migration and, scientific
mobility in particular, and explicates the methodological approach applied in the
research. Second, the paper discusses the EU Mobility Strategy and implemented
measures/actions for improving researcher’s careers, and then shows intra-
community migration trends at undergraduate, postgraduate levels, and mobility
of researchers and academics within the ERA. Finally, looking at MOBISC em-
pirical work, the paper attempts an understanding of the mobility context for the
five countries studied in the project.
CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS AND APPLIED METHODOLOGICAL
APPROACHES TO SCIENTIFIC MIGRATION
This section is an attempt to confront a series of conceptual, definitional, and
data problems to provide justifications regarding the articulated concepts and
the applied methodology. To this aim, the first section defines and distinguishes
some of the concepts used in the paper, such as “scientific migration”, “mobil-
ity”, “brain gain”, and “brain drain”. The section then moves on to a brief method-
ological discussion relating to the different categories such as “researcher”,
“scientist”, and “professional” as used by different types of surveys. It then
concludes with some methodological notes on the sample of scientists inter-
viewed in the course of the project.
Although there is no agreed definition of highly skilled migration, several efforts
have been made, at an international level, to develop a proxy definition of what
constitutes a highly skilled person. In spite of that, it is thought to encompass
those who have a tertiary qualification or its equivalent experience in a given
academic field. Skills can also be acquired through experience, and this vague-
ness increases the difficulty of recording the numbers within this undefined
group (Salt, 1997). Coupled with this is the fact that the highly skilled make up
a relatively small proportion of all those who migrate and there is little detailed
data on the scale or nature of their migration.
To categorize, collect, and analyse data on science and technology workers,
categorizations by qualification, activity, sector, and occupation have been
136 Morano-Foadi
developed. These classifications are responding to different needs such as assess-
ing the number of researchers who obtain research contracts after completing
PhD studies. Moreover, analyses of the trends in science and technology labour
markets can combine one or more classifications, for example qualification and
occupation.
The literature on highly skilled migration can be grouped into several categories
each focusing on specific aspects such as the inward and outward flow of
highly skilled personnel from a statistical perspective, the impact of scientific
emigration on the sending and receiving countries, and individual professions
such as doctors, nurses, information technology professionals, scientists, and
academics.
Geographically, mobility or migration can be classified as internal mobility within
a country, or intra-European (within the EU) or external (outside the EU). With
reference to the research labour market there can be movement between the
public research sector (e.g. universities, public research institutes) and industry
and within the public research sector or within industry. Mobility from labour
turnover refers to occupational changes (i.e. moving across occupational categor-
ies) and/or movement within a company (e.g. between divisions). Various lengths
of geographical mobility exist: short-term moves, long-terms stays, and perma-
nent stays.
This paper deals with the international mobility of scientists in the discipline of
physics and life science and encompasses all age categories and stages of a
researcher’s career (PhD student, early stage, mid-career, or senior researchers)
and lengths of stay. It also looks into intersectoral mobility between academia
and industry and vice-versa as a response to migration pressures in academia.
For the purpose of this work brain exchange has been defined as a situation in
which the outward and inward flows of skilled workers from and into a country
are broadly equal. Brain drain is when the outward flow far exceeds the inward
flow and brain gain when the net flow is heavily in the direction of the inward
flow. The concept of brain waste describes the deskilling that occurs when
highly skilled workers migrate into forms of employment not requiring the ap-
plication of the skills and experience applied in the former job. A literature re-
view on the migration of highly skilled people reveals that it is possible to
encompass in the concept of brain exchange, the two expressions of brain gain
and brain drain (Mahroum, 1999).
In general, there is a lack of statistics about the mobility of researchers and
often the information available is dispersed and incomplete. Moreover, different
types of surveys identify different categories such as “researcher”, “scientist”,
137
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
and “professional” used by “R&D surveys”, “S&T surveys”, and “labour force
surveys” respectively. Data on international mobility of highly skilled migration
are reported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) (OECD, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005), but again the classification
used includes all highly skilled workers, not only researchers, in certain subject
areas such as physics, engineering, life sciences, and health sciences.
To capture the complex dynamics involved in the career and migration decision-
making processes of scientists, this paper examines some of the empirical find-
ings of the MOBISC Project. The research sought to develop and evaluate an
approach to comparative, socio-legal work in this field and has involved a range
of approaches and methods. The study was operationalized through the develop-
ment of a cross-national team of research partners in the United Kingdom (as
coordinators), Portugal, Italy, Austria, and Greece.
It has taken a socio-legal approach combining legal and policy analysis at EU
and national levels, analysis of statistical data on career progression in science,
key informant interviews with policy makers and employers, and questionnaires
and life-history interviews with European migrant scientists (n=250). The
population has been generated through utilization of existing and new contacts
with science organizations. The population was sent an email questionnaire,
which collected background data on personal characteristics (age, gender, fam-
ily, occupational status, and location). These characteristics informed the sam-
pling criteria. The interviews were transcribed and coded using N6, computer
software for qualitative research, and the data were analysed.3 Key players in
scientific policy making have included the European Commission (EC), the De-
partment of Trade and Industry (International Affairs Unit), the Wellcome Trust,
and organizations of scientists such as the Marie Curie fellows association, the
Italian Association of Doctorate Students and Doctors, and others. Most (50.6%)
scientists interviewed in the project work in higher education and a large pro-
portion (38.2%) in the public research sector. Scientists working in industry
are underrepresented in the sample (11.2%). Main disciplines represented are
physical sciences (51.4%) and life sciences and medicine (43.3%), and a small
proportion of the sample works within other disciplines. The majority of the
respondents are aged between 31 and 40 years (61.3%) with the minority (8.8%)
aged 30 years or younger and almost one-third (30%) aged 41 years or older.
Returnees, that is, interviewees who are currently working in the country
of their nationality and have made one or more international moves, constitute
38.8 per cent of the sample.
The first stage of the research has involved the identification of the “problem”
through an analysis of progression in science in the EU countries. This work
138 Morano-Foadi
has involved mainly secondary analysis of existing EU and national data sources.
The research has then sought to identify the key elements of “context” that
shape career and migration decision making. The questions for scientists have
focused on migration, family formation, and employment decision making within
households.
Interviews with key informants have covered aspects of migration and employ-
ment policy including equal opportunities, flexible working, family friendly pol-
icies, and policies on employee mobility and relocation (including special provision
for the partners and families of mobile employees). Based on such empirical
findings, the focus of this paper is on patterns of scientific migration and push
and pull factors determining migration decisions of EU academics and researchers.
THE EU MOBILITY STRATEGY AND MEASURES/ACTIONS
IMPLEMENTED FOR IMPROVING RESEARCHER’S CAREERS
The EU places research at the core of European society: “More than ever before
it [research] is one of the basic driving forces behind economic and social
progress and a key factor in business competitiveness, employment and the
quality of life. Science and technology are also central to the policy-making
process” (EC, 2000b).
On 26 March 2004, the EU’s Heads of State and Government agreed that focus-
sing on the following four priorities was necessary in order to enhance European
competitiveness: completing the internal market, better regulation, higher rates
of research and development (R&D), and effective institutional arrangements.4
The ERA was created to contribute to the development of better overall frame-
work conditions for Research in Europe (EC, 2000a). This initiative for a Euro-
pean Research Area combines three concepts:
-the creation of an “internal market” in research, an a rea of fr ee m ovement
of knowledge, researchers and technology, with the aim of increasing
cooperation, stimulating competition and achieving a better allocation of
resources;
-the restructuring of the European research fabric, in particular by improved
coordination of national research activities and policies, which account
for most of the research carried out and financed in Europe;
-the development of a European research policy which not only addresses
the funding of research activities, but also takes into account all relevant
aspects of other EU and national policies.
139
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
The Lisbon Declaration (March 2000) affirmed that the aim of the EU is to
become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy by 2010,
able to attract and retain top-quality researchers. The Barcelona Declaration
(March 2002) called for a raise in the share of European GDP invested in re-
search (from 1.9% to 3%) and secondly for an increase in the number of re-
searchers (further 700,000 researchers or 1.2 million research-related personnel)
aiming to achieve these targets by 2010. In order to realize these objectives,
Europe needs to invest more in human resources and encourage more young
people to specialize in science and research. These goals will help to create a
dynamic ERA that puts Europe at the forefront of international scientific excel-
lence and will contribute to sustainable economic growth, better jobs, and greater
social cohesion. One of the milestones of the ERA is the mobility of scientists
who are required to visit other laboratories and research groups to acquire the
necessary skills and techniques and to share their own knowledge. However,
trends in science mobility show variations in the flows of mobile scientists
between different European countries.
This section involves a brief review of the EU policy related with the topic (e.g.
the relevant EC Communications and launched measures for the implementation
of EC Mobility Strategy for the ERA) with the aim of discussing the European
strategy in trying to retain and attract scientists in Europe.
The ERA aims at a better total organization of research in Europe. Concerns
have been expressed around the workforce in R&D in Europe which seems
relatively low compared to the United States and Japan, particularly those
employed in industry (EC, 2001b; 2003). The number of young people attracted
to careers in science and research is decreasing and the number of women
in science at high rank is very low. In implementing its strategy for a more
favourable environment for the mobility of researchers, the Commission has
developed two types of action: the first is aimed at setting up a favourable
research environment and the second at gaining the adequate financial support
to promote mobility.
Examples of measures of the first type are: the European Network of Mobility
Centres, a Mobility Web Portal,5 and the new EU flexible visa system. The
European Network of Mobility Centres launched in June 2004 now includes
about 200 centres located in 33 countries. These mobility centres are dedicated
to helping both European and foreign researchers and their families move to and
around Europe. These centres help with visa access, taxation, housing, day
care, access to language courses, and introduction to local culture. A Mobility
Web Portal with more than 3,000 active links on jobs opportunities and assist-
ance on administrative and legal issues when moving abroad is another step
140 Morano-Foadi
being taken to help market the ERA as a challenging and rewarding place to
work.
Two measures have been recently introduced by the Council: the “European
Charter for Researchers” and a “Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Re-
searchers” to further improve the framework for the career management of
R&D human resources in Europe (for more detail see Ackers, 2005: 307).
A three-fold approach has been proposed by the Commission to facilitate the
movement of third-country researchers in the ERA: a Directive on the specific
procedures for admitting third-country nationals for purposes of scientific re-
search (COM (2004) 0061/CNS); a Recommendation on facilitating the admis-
sion of third-country researchers in the EU (COM (2004) 0062/CNS); a
Recommendation on facilitating the issue by the Member States of uniform
short-stay visas for third-country researchers travelling within the EU (COM
(2004) 0178/CNS). These instruments are all in the process of being adopted.
Their aim is to make the European scientific research market more attractive to
international researchers by offering them a renewable residence permit with
some privileges that differ from a normal visa.
The Commission’s second type of action is the boosting of funding for human
resources and mobility schemes for researchers. Funds go to support fellow-
ships and grants to European and non-European scientists to study or work on
the European continent, or research elsewhere to bring knowledge back. Since
the 1990s the EC has adopted a number of grant schemes to encourage the
development and better utilization of human resources in the EU through the
training and mobility of researchers. The Training and Mobility of Researchers
(TMR) Programme was first introduced under the EC’s Fourth Framework
Research Programme (FP4) (1994-1998) and includes a special scheme for
young researchers (Marie Curie Fellowships). The scheme provides grants to
doctoral and postdoctoral researchers as well as to established researchers who
wish to receive training or specialize in a research institute outside the country
of their nationality. Within the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and
Technological Development (FP6), which runs from 2002 to 2006, the Human
Resources and Mobility (HRM) activity, also known as Marie Curie Actions,
consists of a coherent approach, largely based on the financing of actions for
researchers. These are aimed at the development and transfer of research com-
petencies, the consolidation and widening of researchers’ career prospects, and
the promotion of excellence in European research (Ackers, 2005: 304).
An EU report has identified as a key indicator of competitiveness, the “pool of
skilled labour” with best performing regions statistically associated with above-
141
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
average proportions of relatively highly qualified workers (CEC, 1999: 75).
Therefore, EU reintegration grant schemes aimed at researchers from the EU
and Associated States who have participated in a Marie Curie Action have been
introduced. These grants assist them in becoming professionally reintegrated,
usually within their country of origin, and in avoiding the brain drain of scien-
tists from less to more competitive regions.
EU MOBILITY SCHEMES AND LEVELS
OF MOBILITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES
Drawing out national differences, this section sets the context of researchers’
migration showing levels of mobility between different EU Member States, in
particular Austria, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. Attention is
paid to mobility via pan-European exchange schemes such as the ERASMUS/
SOCRATES programmes for undergraduate and postgraduate students and the
Marie Curie Fellowship schemes. Research shows that scientists who moved at
an early age with their family or who have undertaken part of their school or
undergraduate studies abroad are more inclined to move again in the future
(Ackers, 2001).
Postgraduate mobility has been defined as “a sign of an emerging scientific
community” (Jallade and Gordon, 1997: 66). The MOBISC interviews have
confirmed these findings: 54 per cent of the scientists interviewed had moved at
least once internationally, 32 per cent have made two moves (which include
return moves or continued outflows to another country), and 11 per cent three
or more moves. Some fellows felt they needed to be mobile if they wanted to
pursue a career in science. This is because in most European countries a scien-
tific career requires mobility.
Both the OECD and the Statistical Office of the European Communities
(EUROSTAT) provide good statistics on student mobility. OECD statistics, re-
ferring to the year 2001, report the United States as the greatest magnet among
OECD countries, accounting for 30 per cent of foreign student enrolments
followed by the United Kingdom at 14 per cent, Germany at 13 per cent, France
at 9 per cent, Australia at 7 per cent, and Japan at 4 per cent. More than half
(54%) of all foreign students in the OECD area study in the four leading
English-speaking countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia,
and Canada) (OECD, 2004b: 2).
The United Kingdom is the greatest recipient country in Europe, and in 2003 it
attracted 127,388 students from OECD countries. On the contrary, the number
142 Morano-Foadi
of UK students going abroad is very limited (28,469). UK students mainly go
to the United States (8,326) and Australia (5,924), while in Europe the most
popular countries are France (2,998) Germany (2,172), Spain (2,253), and Ire-
land (2,132). None of the countries studied in this project attracted UK stu-
dents. Greece and Portugal cannot be included among the countries of destination,
as they fail to attract a significant number of foreign students. These two coun-
tries mainly experience out-flow migration: 46,918 Greek and 12,081 Portu-
guese students study abroad. Austria has a positive balance with 12,613 Austrian
students going out and 21,316 students coming in from OECD countries. In
Italy, about 42,904 students move out and 14,264 students move in from OECD
countries. Among the project’s country, Italian students mainly go to Austria
(6,149) and Greek students move to the United Kingdom (22,485) and Italy
(7,979) (OECD, 2005). These data do not include ERASMUS/SOCRATES stu-
dents (see also EUROSTAT, 2001, 2003).
Statistics from the ERASMUS scheme complete the scenario of undergraduate
mobility to and from the MOBISC. Also within the ERASMUS scheme, the
United Kingdom is an important host country, receiving more than 16 per cent
of the participants from EU and EEA Member States. However, although the
United Kingdom receives a relatively large proportion of students, it is much
less important as a sending state. Among the project countries, Italy sends the
largest proportion (13% of ERASMUS students) to study elsewhere in EU and
EEA Member States. Austrian, Portuguese, and Greek students are respectively
2.81 per cent, 2.56 per cent, and 1.84 per cent of the total European under-
graduate student population within the Erasmus programme. Although the per-
centage of Greek students is very low compared with other countries in Europe,
since the 1960s Greece has experienced an important out-migration of young
people wishing to accomplish their undergraduate and postgraduate studies abroad
(as the data on students’ mobility show)6 (Maiworm and Teichler, 1996; Teichler
and Maiworm, 1996; Teichler and Maiworm, 1997).
There is a general lack of statistics and no ready-to-use datasets, regarding
postgraduate mobility at the European level. In general this reflects the invisibility
of some of these categories at the national level in the Member States. Similarly,
mobility is a moving target: from immigration to three months stay. Data are
often collected nationally as a response to specific grants or applications avail-
able at a domestic level. For example, data on postgraduate students’ mobility in
Portugal show that about half of Portuguese PhD students study abroad, either
for the complete duration of the PhD or for shorter periods of time (data col-
lected by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology).
More comparable data on doctoral mobility are available within the framework
of the ERASMUS programme from 1995 to 2001 (Mitchell, 2002). Although
143
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
the basic objectives of the ERASMUS programme are balanced mobility flows
with as many students leaving a country as entering it, an exception is the
United Kingdom, which receives more PhD students than those who send. The
other MOBISC countries present flows more or less in balance, typically within
a factor of two to four of each other (Mitchell, 2002: 13).
Until the constitution of the dataset on immigrants and expatriates in OECD
countries there was limited data on the extent of international mobility of the
highly skilled (Dumont and Lemaitre, 2004: 2). In July 2003 the OECD launched
a data collection in collaboration with national statistical offices of OECD coun-
tries, to obtain statistics on the foreign-born population for each OECD country
by country of birth and educational attainment (OECD, 2004a). This database
reveals the relative importance of the migration of highly qualified persons (i.e.
persons with tertiary education). It is for the United States and Japan that the
proportion of expatriates with tertiary education is highest (almost 50%). Net
beneficiaries of highly skilled migration from other OECD countries are the
following OECD countries in this order: United States, Australia, Canada, Switzer-
land, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg and Norway. On the contrary, “the United
Kingdom has 700,000 more highly skilled expatriates in OECD countries than
it has highly skilled immigrants from other OECD countries” (Dumont and
Lemaitre, 2004: 11).
This, of course, gives only a partial picture of brain drain/brain exchange be-
cause it does not include movements of the highly skilled between non-OECD
and OECD countries. When movements from all countries to the OECD are
included, the picture changes significantly. Furthermore, the classification used
includes all highly skilled workers, not only researchers, in certain subject areas
such as for example physics, engineering, life sciences, and health sciences
limiting the capacity to analyse this mobility by the lack of internationally com-
parative data that capture the flows of such workers (Auriol and Sexton, 2002:
13). A more rapid solution for the analysis would be to use the Labour Force
Survey and to select a large sample. However, again by selecting only the cat-
egory “researchers”, the sample is too low and the results are not statistically
valid.
Information about mobility trends of single nationality groups can be extrapolated
using data reported in studies on the Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR)
Programme (Ackers, 2001; Van de Sande et al., 2005). For example, Italy is a
large net exporter and this is also reflected within the TMR scheme. Italian and
Spanish fellows constituted the largest single nationality groups represented within
the Marie Curie Scheme under the Fourth and Fifth Framework Programmes
(FP4 and FP5). On the contrary, the United Kingdom was the most popular
144 Morano-Foadi
destination, accounting for nearly 28 per cent of the total population (Van de
Sande et al., 2005: 16).
Another important trend of intra-community migration is represented by aca-
demic mobility for teaching purposes under the ERASMUS scheme. Although
the Commission has not established a regular statistics reporting system on the
actual number of mobile teachers within the ERASMUS, individual Member
State reports some data. Gordon et al. (2001) estimated that the total number of
teachers moving within the scheme has increased from about 1,400 in the early
1990s to about 7,000 in the late 1990s. Greek academics, for example, make a
slightly above average use of these fellowships for the exchange of teaching
experience and methods between European universities. In 2001 and 2002, 279
Greek academics moved for teaching reasons under the ERASMUS programme,
which represents 1.48 per cent of the total Greek teacher population (Gordon et
al., 2001: 406).
EXPECTATION OF MOBILITY, CAREER DEVELOPMENT,
AND EXCELLENCE IN THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH SECTOR
The free movement of persons in general and of scientists in particular is one of
the basic objectives of a united Europe and one of the fundamental conditions
for the existence of a true “citizens’ Europe”. Indeed, without scientific mobility
it is not possible to speak of a European Research Area and, equally, mobility is
one of the responses to current economic change – caused by the establishment
of the single market and the globalization of trade – and its social consequences,
notably in relation to employment creation.
Some professions demand a higher level of international or intra-community
mobility than others. Researchers are meant to be a very mobile population and
the causes are to be investigated in the type of profession itself. Mobility
appears to be an important and common component in the accepted science
career trajectory.
Research found that there is an expectation of mobility in science careers not-
ing: “For those working in science or research careers, the relationship between
employment trajectories, progression and mobility have been very much bound
together for some time” (Ackers, 2001: 61). In general, it seems that mobility is
required both for an academic career and in the private research sector. Rothwell
affirms: “Mobility and varied experience are very important in research training
and careers. It is quite acceptable to stay in the same institution for an under-
graduate and postgraduate degree (provided of course that it is respected and
145
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
well-resourced), but if this is the case the next stage should really involve geo-
graphical movement” (Rothwell, 2002: 16).
Fabio,7 a scientist working in an Italian university, commented “…Mobility is
one of the appeals of a career in science” [Interview no. 425S]. Clelia, a female
scientist working in industry, affirmed that “….It is not so smart to stay in the
same place all the time…Well, it is hard for me to imagine that a scientist who
has never been somewhere else could be successful in progression” [Interview
no 301S].
A study on student mobility found that out of a list of 11 recruitment criteria
used by employers, mobile students perceive experiences abroad and foreign
language proficiency as the fourth and fifth most important. (Volker and Teichler,
2001: 110) On the contrary, the non-mobile graduate considered those two cri-
teria as the least important criteria used during recruitment. The extent to which
one can talk about an “expectation of mobility” in science and the implication of
such a component on career progression have been questioned in the MOBISC
research. First of all, it has been investigated whether there is a pressure to be
mobile as a general requirement regardless of the research field. Mark com-
mented:
…all researchers, regardless of their topic, as well as those who graduate from
a university should get the chance to go out, have some sort of mobility, under
the logic that they will get all the experiences that they need in order to have a
better understanding of their subject matter [Interview no 220S].
This comment shows scientists’ propensity toward geographical mobility, but
is mobility a prerequisite of career progression in science? In other words, is
mobility one of the criteria judged for career progression? Or is its impact a
positive aspect in terms of networking and improving research skills?
The above-mentioned study on students’ mobility points out that “the mobile
students differ from the other students most strikingly in their interest in jobs
with international components. A subs tan tial proportion o f internationall y mobile
students successfully seek employers and jobs that require experience and
competences which are linked to their study abroad experience” (Volker and
Teichler, 2001: 109).
Therefore, it is not surprising that the MOBISC respondents, themselves being
mobile scientists, perceive mobility as somehow necessary to career progres-
sion in science, as part of the “excellence” requirement. However, general stand-
ards for an international career in science do not exist. There is a perception
among scientists that career progression is very much related to excellence, but
146 Morano-Foadi
the mechanisms to measure it might differ from country to country. A common
requirement for scientists worldwide is to have a good publication record.
For some countries, mobility is part of the excellence equation. The extent to
which this element is a determinant in career progression does depend on internal
standards implemented in the different EU Member States. Some European coun-
tries have very strict rules, while others allow a “margin of discretion” to those
who evaluate the candidate for career progression purposes.
In conclusion, the extent to which a period of work in another country is neces-
sary for the career progression of a scientist is country specific and dependent
on such factors as discipline, perceived quality and size of the science labour
market, measures to promote mobility, and wider cultural factors.
THE MOBILITY REQUIREMENT IN THE EU
In some areas of science, mobility is an essential factor even if it is not spe-
cifically included in any employment requirement. Scientists are expected to
move to acquire new skills and research methods and this is particularly true in
fields such as physics and life science.
Moreover, the emphasis on mobility depends on the domestic research market
conditions such as employment opportunities, short-term contracts, infrastruc-
tures, and funding. Traditionally, southern European countries under-invest in
research, attract fewer scientists from abroad, and fail to secure permanent
positions for those who are in science. The main problems are poor research
infrastructures; poor career perspectives, both in the private sector (no innov-
ation tradition and no investment in R&D) and in the public sector (very few
vacant places in state laboratories and universities); and poor social security
benefits. Most researchers remain grant holders for a long period of time, due to
lack of opportunities of getting a permanent job in a scientific career. The lack
of research positions compels researchers to move abroad. Industrial research
is at its embryonic stage and private companies under-invest in the research and
development sector. Although in some countries (notably Portugal) the scien-
tific labour market seems to be enlarging and opening to new realities, it still
shows rather small and concentrated research groups. In other countries (not-
ably Greece) research is under-funded and there is a very strong dependence on
EU funds. While Austria cannot be considered strictly speaking a southern Euro-
pean country, it presents a number of similarities to these countries since it has
a small number of universities and a limited scientific research market outside
academia.
147
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
On the other hand, the United Kingdom witnesses greater ingoing than outgoing
mobility flows for the large number of fixed-term contracts and postdocs avail-
able. It has been described as “postdoc paradise” (Balter, 1999). However, aca-
demic scientists within our sample have stressed the scarcity of permanent
positions in the United Kingdom and the difficulty of progressing from postdoc
to permanent positions. Competition for these openings is high and has implica-
tions for the way researchers on temporary contracts work.
Peculiarities related to each domestic cultural and social environment have an
impact in relation to the “mobility” element. For example, while mobility appears
to be a common element among Italian scientists, it is not so obvious in the
United Kingdom. A recently completed study (the MOBEX Project)8 identified
two rationales for Italian scientific mobility (Morano-Foadi, and Foadi, 2003;
Morano-Foadi, 2006). The first is related to the attitude Italian politicians have
toward scientific research; the average politician believes that science cannot
have an immediate, useful effect on society, and that, consequently, most of the
scientific research does not deserve to be funded by the Government. Scarcity
of employment opportunities in research is a consequence of this. The second
concerns the academic system and the academic community seen as a place
where nepotism, bureaucracy, and corruption occur.
Although Italians are very mobile, the extent to which a period of work in an-
other country is necessary for a scientific career progression in Italy needs to
be addressed. Most of the scientists face the “mobility” dilemma. Scientists
who are active members of a research team and are sent abroad by professors
to learn skills and techniques gain from this “outside” experience. Their super-
visors have stronger powers of negotiation and can call them back home as
soon as there is a position available. On the contrary, those who move on their
own initiative have no connection at home, or have lost their contacts, lose the
possibility to go back home. The problem is that once most of them have left,
they find it very difficult to return (Gill, 2005; Morano-Foadi, 2006).
In Portugal, mobility is not yet seen and valued as an important acquis in a cade mia ,
and to some extent also in a research career: “it does not hinder neither help” in
getting a job (as perceived by the Portuguese ERASMUS students).9 Scientists
in Portugal are forced to be mobile because of the poor working conditions and
the lack of career opportunities. It is common for scientists to say they feel
frustrated when asked about their career possibilities and even more about their
career progression. Poor career possibilities frequently lead to out-flowing mo-
bility based more on an individual challenge than on a real career progression
mechanism in place in the country (Perista and Silva, 2004).
148 Morano-Foadi
In Greece, there is a positive impact of mobility when it is done at an early stage
during the education period. Early experience of mobility in science careers has
never preoccupied the Greek Government mainly because out-migration of
university graduates was at their family’s cost. The first policy instrument to
promote mobility at an early stage of science careers made available in Greece
was the EC Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) Programme. How-
ever, career progression of academics in Greece does not depend on the
“expectation” of international mobility. Yet, as the overwhelming majority of
Greek academics have carried out their postgraduate studies and have gained
research experience abroad (in the United States, the United Kingdom, France,
and Germany) most of them also spend their research sabbaticals abroad
(Karamessini, 2003, 2004).
In Austria, scientists have a slim chance of gaining research posts at home. This
is mainly due to the small number of universities inside the country (Vogt et
al., 2002) and to the presence of a limited scientific research market outside
academia. It seems that more young postdoctorates move abroad for a short
period of time. However, more than a “pressure” or an “expectation” to move it
is becoming common practice to go abroad for a PhD or a postdoc. Here the
“pressure to be mobile” is also context specific. For example, in big academic
scientific research groups with international connections, it is not so essential to
move, while in small departments it is somehow expected. In the non-academic
research sector the emphasis on mobility depends on the size of the company.
Many Austrian scientists point out that mobility is beneficial for professional and
personal development, but not necessarily a plus in the career progression (Thurn
et al., 2004).
PUSH AND PULL FACTORS ENCOURAGING MOBILITY
The emphasis on mobility reflected in many cases a general lack of employment
opportunities in the home country or country of residence. The research market
places an important role on scientists’ migration motivations. In general, as
mentioned earlier, the research sector is underfunded in many EU Member States.
However, some countries have structural problems and a very high unemploy-
ment rate, which is reflected in the research sector. A general lack of employ-
ment opportunities is one of the factors precipitating mobility, as Elena seems to
suggest: “I really think that mobility is rather [a] result of where you get funding
and where you get the work. If you work in research that is the consequence”
[Interview no 406S].
It seems that mobility increases the chances of getting a job in science, as
Corinne and Marcus explained:
149
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
“Maybe there is no pressure, but you have much better career opportunities if
you are mobile. There are so few positions [in science]. There can be many
reasons why somebody had to leave science, I mean, simply because there are
not enough jobs” [Interview no 316S].
“I think so yes, I think that’s definitely true especially because if you want to
get a job then you have to be willing to move somewhere” [Interview no 014].
In other cases the “push” to make a move is the need to acquire new skills and
techniques to secure a position in science. Paradoxically in some cases access
to research grants abroad seems to be working better than schemes to get
internal funding at home. In other cases, scientists exercise their mobility to
advance their postgraduate education, which lacks a structured scheme in their
home country.
Moreover, in our sample some respondents moved abroad mainly for personal
and/or family reasons. This mostly occurred when one of the two partners had
an employment opportunity in one country or met the partner in the host coun-
try, or the partner was from a different country and then wanted to return
home.
RETURN AND REINTEGRATION PROBLEMS
In many European countries and in the United States, academic jobs are very
competitive and based on a system where in addition to merit, references and
personal and professional connections, are relevant.
In some European countries, notably Italy, this mechanism has created a “feudal-
like system” where a professor builds up his/her research group and secures
research contracts for those who work within the group (Morano-Foadi, 2004).
Therefore, researchers need to keep in touch with professors in their sending
country during their stay abroad, as Paola suggests: “The problem of going
abroad is that you lose your contact with your [home] country. It is difficult
then to get in touch again with the system and with the people. So, from this
side, a long period abroad is not very good for the career…” [Interview no
305S]. Maria pointed out that there is a big difference between those research-
ers who are sent abroad and those who make the choice to go: “If you go and
are sent, you are parked away and can come back. If you go because you want
to go, you lose” [Interview no 416R].
Similar to the Italian system, the Portuguese academic system is based on net-
working and personal connections: “In Spain and in Portugal the university is
150 Morano-Foadi
almost a feudal belief: if you have friends at a given university… sometimes it’s
very complicated, even if you are very good, to go back to your country when
you don’t have that type of connection” [Interview no 115S].
Those who have experienced mobility often express their feeling of being out of
the system due to difficulties in their (re)integration phase. Returnees report that
colleagues treat them differently and they find the teaching and researching
system very hostile to international collaboration and mobility. As reported in a
newspaper article “the recruitment criteria (to the universities) is not to bring in
the best but those from inside”.10 Returnees holding European qualifications
face more or less the same problem as those who have done their graduate
studies in Portugal. In addition to the lack of available research employment
opportunities, they encountered the problem of having been “away” for three to
four years and therefore have no “connection” within the system. Some of the
MOBISC mobile scientists denounced the lack of “international spirit” of Portu-
guese universities even on carrying out international collaborations. In addition
to these problems in Portugal, scientists who have experienced mobility have
acquired new competences, working methods, collaborative networks, critical
approaches, and a different mental attitude; they find it difficult to return home
Our respondents expressed their views about the Austrian system. Surprisingly
similar consequences are seen for those who wish to return to Austria, par-
ticularly if they have been abroad for some years. It seems that the longer one is
away the more complicated it will be to return. Arguably Greece presents a
slightly different scenario: returnees trained abroad consider their mobility as an
important step, in the long run, for their career development.
THE UNITED KINGDOM: A KEY DESTINATION
FOR MOBILE RESEARCHERS FROM ABROAD
The United Kingdom, after the United States, is the most popular destination for
international researchers. Although it is, on average, an importer of science
professionals, migration appears concentrated on the most elite and the 2003
Higher Education White Paper aimed to encourage the continued mobility of
the scientific elite into the United Kingdom.11 The proliferation of fixed-term
research contracts, the infrastructure provided by the internationally recognized
centres of scientific research, and the UK’s reputation for science have, among
other things, contributed to the UK’s reputation as a “postdoc paradise”.
Generally speaking, career progression in the United Kingdom is not as closely
dependent upon the “expectation of mobility” or at least “international mobility”
151
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
as we see in other European countries. In the United Kingdom, mobility can be
seen as a detrimental element if it is not combined with other elements of pro-
fessional development, such as publications, as John pointed out: “If you move
into a weak lab or a weak department, and spend time, but not producing pub-
lication, not developing your career, it’s pointless. But mobility combined with
other aspects of professional development is a great time” [Interview no 425S].
However, in some disciplines, such as physics for example, experience gained
abroad, particularly in the United States (and prestigious European research
centres such as CERN or EMBO, etc.), will have a significant impact on pro-
gression (Roberts, 2002).
Although there is not the “expectation of mobility” as such, internationally, in-
ternal mobility is promoted in the United Kingdom, mainly due to the Research
Assessment Exercise (RAE) (Roberts, 2003). Since the mid-1980s, the RAE
has been responsible for providing the process for both establishing a criterion
for “measuring” research excellence, and also assessing the level of research
excellence in the academic departments of Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s)
(Sockanathan, 2004). As Campbell et al. (1999: 470) said, the RAE “…now
largely determines the allocation of research funding in the United Kingdom’s
higher education institutions, has formalized such quality evaluations, and in the
process influenced and sometimes altered institutional of what constitutes ‘good’
research”.
Therefore the university rating system precipitates internal mobility in academia,
as Ben might suggest:
The situation in the UK in science [….] I do have the feeling that also here
people tend to move; I’m not sure how much. Even when you have a permanent
position people tend to move even more because there is this new system of
rating so people kind of steal each other’s professors to get the higher rating
[Interview no 010].
There are two reasons why UK scientists do not need to go abroad: the pres-
ence of good research facilities at home, as already mentioned, and the impact
of the English language in the scientific field. While English scientists are not
keen to go abroad, the United Kingdom attracts many Europeans because of the
importance of the English language in science. Most of the international scien-
tific journals are written in English, making English the language of science.
Although the overall figures show a “brain gain” rather than a “brain drain” in
flows of scientists into and out of the country, figures from the Royal Society
support the hypothesis that the researchers moving out of the country, typically
to the United States, are among the best. A survey of Royal Society Fellows
152 Morano-Foadi
found that in 1999, 26 per cent of Fellows worked outside the United Kingdom
(12% in the US)12 (Oliver, 2004).
MOVING FROM INDUSTRY TO ACADEMIA AND VICE VERSA,
AND INTRA-INDUSTRY MOBILITY
There is a different culture of two-way flows between “academy-industry” in
Europe and the United States. In most of the Member States, the research sec-
tor comprises of public and private scientific research markets. However, the
extent to which a private research market is developed is country specific. In
general, the public sector, which includes the higher education research units,
the government research and technology centres, and institutes, is mostly
developed, however, private companies and non-profit research institutes con-
stitute a share of the market.
The 1999 EUROSTAT statistics on the gross domestic expenditure on R&D as
a percentage of GDP in the EU Member States, including new Member States
and accession countries, show that some of the new Member States invest
more proportionally in research than some of the southern European countries
(EUROSTAT, 2001).
Most of the southern European countries do not have a well-developed private
sector. Among southern European countries, Greece followed by Portugal and
Spain reports the lowest percentage of investment in research. The Greek R&D
system is under-funded and strongly dependent on EU resources. The public
sector (higher education and government institutions) is dominant. There is a
very low participation of business in R&D activity. Despite the low participation
of the private sector, Greece has performed well with respect to participation in
EU-funded industrial research, gaining the fourth position after Denmark,
Belgium, and the Netherlands (Caloghirou and Vonortas, 2000). It has attracted
4.1 per cent of all competitive EU industrial research projects and 3.1 per cent
of the research joint ventures’ leaders were Greek. In Portugal R&D activities
are largely under-developed in the business enterprise sector. Recent policy meas-
ures aiming, for example, at the recruitment of masters and PhD holders by
companies have been rather unsuccessful. A science career in the industry
sector, for men and especially for women researchers, is thus not a common
situation in Portugal. In Italy research opportunities in industry are also very
slim.
Austria and the United Kingdom have a better record. In the year 2002, the
Austrian gross domestic expenditure on research and experimental development
153
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
was 1.95 per cent that is EUR4.2 billion (42.1% from the public sector, 39%
from the industry, 18.6% from foreign investors, and 0.3% from private,
charitable institution.13 Although there has been a recent rise of investment in
research, Austria has failed to reach the scheduled target of 2 per cent for 2002.
Also the Austrian research scene is characterized by the dominant position
of the universities on the one hand, and by the predominance of small- and
medium-sized structure of enterprises carrying out research on the other. By
international comparison, the non-university research institutions are, with few
exceptions, structured in small units. They are highly heterogeneous with
regard to their special field, and they are predominantly funded by the state
(Thurn et al., 2004).
In general, the phenomenon of moving out from the academic sector is not
perceived by scientists as a positive one, even if it is a move toward industrial
research. In some part this may be because respondents interviewed within the
MOBISC project have predominately been academic researchers; if identical
numbers were studied in the business sector a different view might arise. How-
ever, as reported in a recent article in Nature:
About 85 per cent of the 5,000 young post docs who were granted an individual
Marie Curie fellowship by the European Commission (EC) during the expiring
Fifth Framework Programme for research preferred an academic training site.
And industrial labs accounted for only 12 per cent of “host fellowships”, which
are awarded directly by 500 or so pre-selected host institutions throughout
Europe (Hinck, 2003: 296-297).
Moreover, the director of DG research has suggested that it is too difficult for
researchers to move between academia and industry, describing them as separ-
ate “ghettos”.14
Most of the researchers who leave academia to work for an industry are frus-
trated, and sometimes the only incentives are better salaries and working con-
ditions. Retention in industry is based on money and stability. As an empirical
study conducted in the United Kingdom reported, “external” mobility and flexi-
bility could have negative consequences to a career in research. (Tomlinson and
Miles, 1999) On the contrary, “internal” mobility and scientific partnership and
collaboration, also at an interdisciplinary level, present positive elements. Once a
decision to move from academia has been made, it is really difficult to go back,
unless an academic profile in terms of research publications is maintained. This
has been confirmed by a molecular biologist at the Institute Gustave Roussy in
Villejuif, France who says “There is a widespread feeling among many young
researchers that going to industry would isolate them from the research com-
munity, and hence would virtually be scientific suicide”. He believes that these
154 Morano-Foadi
fears are not necessarily justified. He adds “In the life sciences it is not true that
industry research cuts you off from the academic community. Large pharma-
ceutical companies have a variety of scientific collaborations with small biotech
businesses and university groups, so postdocs still have many opportunities to
publish” (Hinck, 2003: 296).
Therefore, while it is not impossible under certain circumstances to move from
academia for a job in industry, the opposite is not so easy, unless a scientist
holds an academic profile (i.e. publications, participation to conferences, etc.),
and is linked somehow with the university.
One way of relieving some of the tensions of an academic career, such as the
scarcity of permanent positions in science, pressure to be mobile (including
attending conferences, visiting research sites), the “multi-task” requirement of
an academic job (teaching, research, and administration), is for many scientists
to look for a job in the private sector. In particular, this is very common for
women who must combine work and family life, as this scientist suggests: “The
employment factor is you get a contract for life” [Interview no 017].
While scientists employed in small or medium businesses do not feel the pres-
sure to move, for those working in multinational companies there is such pres-
sure. Geographical mobility in industry is often linked to career progression.
Often intra-industry mobility is sought to soften the burden of travelling. The
lack of employment opportunities in academia at home can influence the choice
of scientists who might decide to move to industry. For those who have
obtained their PhDs in applied fields, industrial research is the natural choice,
particularly if they can then return home.
CONCLUSION
This paper has emphasized the importance of mobility in research careers. The
majority of the respondents have moved more than once, and for some their
mobility started during their undergraduate studies. In general, there is an
“expectation of mobility” in science careers between institutes or indeed coun-
tries to experience science in a different environment. However, its emphasis
depends on the country and discipline. In physics, for example, there is a real
necessity to move, particularly to the United States.
While the EU is promoting the idea of mobility pushing toward a European
science model, different Member States maintain their own protectionist prac-
tices. Unlike the United States, such a model does not exist yet. The aim of the
155
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
ERA is to create a space of free movement of knowledge, researchers, and
technology in order to increase cooperation and stimulate competition. In order
to achieve such an aim, obstacles to mobility need to be abolished. In reality, a
number of barriers to mobility such as taxation, pension, and recognition of
qualifications still exists and are deterrents, particularly for women with chil-
dren. Moreover, the establishment of an ERA requires full application of the
principle of complementarity between EU and Member States’ research activ-
ities. However, some contradictions still persist. Member States’ domestic re-
search and employment policies differ in relation to their priorities, investments,
and also recruitment procedures in the R&D public sector. Every Member State,
under the principle of subsidiarity, retains full responsibility for the organization
of its own education system of which research is considered an integral part. In
accordance with articles 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty, the Community’s role is
not to devise or implement a “common policy” on education but to contribute to
the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Mem-
ber States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action.
Scientists who have migrated outside the EU argued that mobility is a standard
expectation in the United States, but is more country specific in Europe:
I think it [expectation of mobility] depends on the country. I think in Europe it is
not expected, while in America it is expected. So I think in Europe it’s still in its
infancy, and actually I think it’s very sad, because it would be nice to have more
people from Spain teaching here and people from here teaching there, going
back and forth [Interview no 321S].
Apparently, unlike in Europe there is a sort of unwritten law based on mobility
and networking in the United States:
In the science business you are pushed to be very mobile so for example in the
States if you have finished your undergraduate [degree] at university it is
understood that you should go and do your PhD in a different place where you
learn something new, where you will make new contacts and then you do your
postdoc in a different place as well. Then, your second postdoc in a different
university and then when you finally look for a more permanent position you
cannot apply, well this is an unwritten rule, to any of the places where you have
been. So it really pushes you around and the people live by the rules. Even if
it’s never written anywhere this is how people work, this is what happens and
then of course when you go and apply for these positions it all comes down to
personal network because these are small communities [Interview no 010].
While mobility is supported and promoted in the United States, the same does
not necessarily happen in Europe, despite the creation of the ERA. Although
156 Morano-Foadi
mobility is generally perceived as positive, its “expectation” varies from country
to country. In Austria, it might be considered a “plus” but there are return and
reintegration problems. In the United Kingdom there is not an “expectation” as
such. Promotion and progression in science careers are driven by the Research
Assessment Exercise and based on publications more than mobility. In Italy
mobility is considered an “acquis” if the researcher is sponsored, i.e. he/she is
sent abroad by an academic for a limited period of time; otherwise many return
reintegration problems are envisaged. In Portugal and Greece there is no clear
relationship between career progression and mobility. Concerns are also ex-
pressed by scientists around their return migration and their reintegration phase
after a period spent abroad (Gill, 2005). Returnees should be welcomed back
home and this does not seem to be the case in some European countries.
NOTES
1. This paper is based on the findings of a recently concluded research project
(the MOBISC Project) Project Reference VS 2002 0656. The MOBISC Project is
an Implementation of the Council Decision of 20 December 2000 on a Programme
Relating to the Community Framework Strategy on Gender Equality (2001-2005)
Restricted Call for Proposals Vp/2002/13.
2. See footnote 1.
3. Some of the contents of interviews with scientists are mentioned in following
sections.
4. See Ahern singles out R&D as priority for competitiveness in CORDIS Rtd-
News (29 March 2004) available at http://www.cordis.lu and also the Lisbon
Declaration and European Council Conclusions (23-24/3/2000) available at http:
//europa.eu.int/geninfo/whatwasnew/032000.htm.
5. Further information on the European Network of Mobility Centres and Mobil-
ity Web Portal can be found at http://europa.eu.int/eracareers/index_en.cfm.
6. For more information on ERASMUS data see the following document that can
be accessed at http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/
erasmus/statisti/stat14.pdf.
7. The scientists names used in the course of the paper are fictitious names to
preserve the anonymity of the respondents.
8. The paper is based on the findings of a research project on “Mobility and
excellence in the European Research Area” (the MOBEX project) financed by
the ESRC under the Science and Society Programme. The Final Report (2003) of
the project is available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/mariecurie-
actions/information/publications_en.html.
9. See Conclusions of a Multinational Conference (2003) A experiência da Mobili-
dade Erasmus, available at http://www.socleo.pt/menu/socrates/socrates.htm.
10. See newspaper article “Sara Sá “O saber não tem lugar”, Visão, 20 February
2003.
157
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
11. See Higher Education White Paper (2003) “The future of higher education”,
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway.
12. The report can be downloaded from the Royal Society web site, http://www.
royalsoc.ac.uk.
13. Statistics are reported on the following web site, www.statistik.at/fachbereich_
forschung/txt.shtml.
14. See ResearchResearch (newspaper for the research world), Research Day: Eur-
ope, 15 July 2004: 5, available at http://www.researchresearch.co.uk.
REFERENCES
Ackers L.
2001 The Participation of Women Researchers in the TMR Marie Curie Fellow-
ships, European Commission, DG Research, Office for Official Publications
of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
2005 “Promoting scientific mobility and balanced growth in the European Re-
search Area”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Re-
search, Special Issue, Scientific Mobility in the European Research Area:
Promoting Balanced Growth, 18(3): 301-317.
Auriol, L., and J. Sexton
2002 “Human resources in science and technology: measurement issues and
international mobility”, in OECD, International Highly Skilled Migration.
Balter, M.
1999 “Europeans who do postdocs abroad face re-entry problems”, Science
Magazine, 285(5433): 1524-1526.
Caloghirou Y., and N. Vonortas
2000 “Science and technology policies: towards research joint ventures”, Final
Report to the European Commission, Laboratory of Industrial and Energy
Economy, National Technical University of Athens.
Campbell, K., et al.
1999 “Journal publishing, journal reputation, and the United Kingdom’s re-
search assessment exercise”, Journal of Law and Society, 26(4): 470-501.
Council of the European Union
2005 Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and on a
Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (2005/251/EC), para 2.
Dumont, J-C, and G. Lemaitre
2004 Counting Immigrants and Expatriates in OECD Countries: A New Per-
spective, OECD, Paris.
European Commission (EC)
2000a Communication from the Commission to the Council: Towards a Euro-
pean Research Area, COM (2000) 6 (18.01.2000).
2000b Communication from the Commission to the Council: Making a Reality
of the European Research Area: Guidelines for EU Research Activities
(2002-2006), COM(2000) 612 final (04.10.2000), not published in the of-
ficial journal.
158 Morano-Foadi
2001a Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament:
A Mobility Strategy for the ERA, COM (2001) 331 final (20.06.2001).
2001b High Level Expert Group on Improving Mobility of Researchers: Final
Report, European Commission (DG Research), Brussels.
2003 Commission Staff Working Paper, First Implementation Report on a Mo-
bility Strategy for the ERA, SEC (2003)146 (04.02.2003).
EUROSTAT
2001 Structural Indicators, http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat.
2003 Towards a European Knowledge-based Society: The Contribution of
Men and Women, Statistics in Focus, Science and Technology, theme 9,
European Communities, http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat.
Gordon, J., et al.
2001 “Overall summary and recommendations”, SOCRATES 2000 Evaluation
Study, European Commission, Brussels: 401-422.
Hinck, S.
2003 “Mobility in Europe”, Naturejobs, 421: 296-297, 16 January.
Jallade, J.P., and J. Gordon
1997 Student Mobility within the European Union: A Statistical Analysis,
Report for DGXXII of the European Commission.
Karamessini, M.
2003 “Demand and supply of higher education services and the labour mar-
ket”, in D. Tsaousis (Ed.), From Internationalization of Universities to
Globalization of Education: The Case of Greece, Gutenberg, Athens.
2004 “Women’s representation and progression in science careers in Greece”,
CSLPE Research Report no. 19, CSLPE, University of Leeds, http://www.
peripherie.ac.at/english/index.html.
Mahroum, S.
1999 “Highly skilled globetrotters: the international migration of human capital”,
DSTI/STP/TIP, (99)2/final: 168-185.
Maiworm, F., and U. Teichler
1996 Study Abroad and Early Career: Experiences of Former ERASMUS Stu-
dents, European Commission, Brussels.
Millard, D.
2005 “The impact of clustering on scientific mobility: a case study of the UK”,
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Special
Issue Scientific Mobility in the European Research Area: Promoting
Balanced Growth, 18(3): 343-359.
Mitchell, I.
2002 “European doctoral mobility”, European Commission (DG Education and
Culture), http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/CordobaA.pdf.
Morano-Foadi S.
2004 “Academic scientific careers in Italy”, CSLPE Research Report no 16,
CSLPE, University of Leeds, Leeds, http://www.peripherie.ac.at/english/
index.html.
159
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
2006 “Italian brain drain: does reality match perception?”, Innovation: The
European Journal of Social Science Research, (forthcoming).
Morano-Foadi S., and J. Foadi
2003 “Italian scientific migration: from brain exchange to brain drain”, CSLPE
Research Report no. 7, CSLPE, University of Leeds, http://www.leeds.
ac.uk/law/cslpe/phare.
Oliver, E.
2004 “Academic science careers in the UK”, CSLPE Research Report no. 12,
CSLPE, University of Leeds, http://www.peripherie.ac.at/english/index.
html.
Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
2002 International Highly Skilled Migration, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.
org/publications/e-book/9202011E.PD.
2003 Trends in Migration, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/document/50/
0,2340,en_2649_33931_24968882_1_1_1_1,00.html.
2004a “A new database on the international mobility of the highly skilled and
policy options”, OECD Policy Brief, OECD, Paris.
2004b “Internationalisation of higher education”, OECD Policy Brief, OECD,
Paris.
2005 “Education at a glance: foreign students in tertiary education”, OECD,
Paris.
Perista, H., and A. Silva
2004 “Science careers in Portugal”, CSLPE Research Report no. 13, CSLPE,
University of Leeds, http://www.peripherie.ac.at/english/index.html.
Roberts, G.
2002 SET for Success: The Supply of People With Science Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics Skills, HM Treasury, London.
2003 Review of Research Assessment: Report by Sir Gareth Roberts to the UK
Funding Bodies, http://www.ra-review.ac.uk/reports/roberts.asp.
Rothwell, N.
2002 Who Wants to be a Scientist? Choosing Science as a Career, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Salt, J.
1997 “International movements of the highly skilled”, Directorate for Education,
Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, International Migration Unit,
Occasional Papers no. 3, OCDE/GD, (97)169.
Sockanathan, A.
2004 “Conceptualising and rewarding excellence in UK academia: the role of
research assessment”, CSLPE Working Paper no. 17, CSLPE, University
of Leeds, http://www.peripherie.ac.at/english/index.html.
Teichler, U., and F. Maiworm
1996 “Study abroad and early career: experiences of former Erasmus students”,
Erasmus Monograph no. 21, Jessica Kingsley, London.
1997 The ERASMUS Experience, Office for Official Publications of the Euro-
pean Communities, Luxembourg.
160 Morano-Foadi
Thurn, N., et al.
2004 “Measuring and rewarding excellence of academic careers”, CSLPE Work-
ing Paper no. 17, CSLPE, University of Leeds, http://www.peripherie.ac.at/
english/index.html.
Tomlinson, M., and I. Miles
1999 The Career Trajectories of Knowledge Workers, in OECD, 99(2)/Final.
Van de Sande, D., et al.
2005 Impact Assessment of the Marie Curie Fellowships under the 4th and
5th Frameworks Programmes of Research and Technological Develop-
ment of the EU (1994-2002), Final Report, European Commission, Brussels.
Vogt, M., et al.
2002 Räumliche Mobilität und Karriere. Mobilität von WissenschafterInnen
in Österreich. Materialien zur Förderung von Frauen in der Wissenschaft,
Band 15, Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (Ed.),
Wien.
Volker J., and U. Teichler
1997 “Employment and work of former ERASMUS students”, in U. Teichler
and F. Maiworm (Eds), The ERASMUS Experience, Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
2001 Employment and Work of Former ERASMUS Students, SOCRATES 2000
Evaluation Study, European Commission, Brussels: 99-117.
161
Scientific mobility, career progression, and excellence
MOBILITÉ SCIENTIFIQUE, AVANCEMENT PROFESSIONNEL
ET EXCELLENCE DANS L’ESPACE EUROPÉEN DE LA RECHERCHE
Cet article étudie les différents aspects des conditions de la mobilité et le rapport
entre capacité concurrentielle, excellence et mobilité dans la recherche scientifique
au sein de l’Union européenne. Dans le domaine scientifique, l’« attente de
mobilité » joue un rôle important pour déterminer l’Espace européen de la
recherche. D’après les recherches, de meilleures perspectives économiques et
une politique migratoire avancée dans les pays de destination favorisent une
migration hautement qualifiée. Les données empiriques montrent que, pour les
universitaires et les chercheurs, les facteurs importants qui déterminent la décision
de migrer et la destination sont l’environnement et les conditions de la recherche,
c’est-à-dire le soutien à la recherche, les infrastructures, et la demande de
personnel et d’universitaires en recherche et développement (RD) (Millard, 2005).
Si l’on peut affirmer que l’Espace européen de la recherche est conçu pour
encourager les échanges de scientifiques, l’équilibre des compétences est
indispensable pour assurer la capacité concurrentielle au sein de l’Europe. Malgré
les interventions et les mesures prises dans le cadre de la Stratégie de mobilité
en Europe, le déséquilibre des flux reste un point faible de l’Espace européen de
la recherche. Il faut, au niveau européen et au niveau des États membres,
coordonner les politiques migratoires et les politiques scientifiques afin, d’une
part de rendre plus attirants les pays hôtes européens et d’autre part de faciliter
le retour des scientifiques dans leur pays d’envoi. Portant essentiellement sur
l’Autriche, la Grèce, l’Italie, le Portugal et le Royaume-Uni, cet article montre le
caractère inégal des flux de personnel scientifique au sein de l’Espace européen
de la recherche.
D’après cet article, c’est souvent la nécessité plus que le choix qui motive les
scientifiques européens mobiles et plus ils restent partis longtemps, plus il leur
est compliqué de rentrer. S’il s’avère impossible de réintégrer le système
universitaire, le chercheur peut décider d’explorer d’autres possibilités dans le
secteur privé.
162 Morano-Foadi
MOVILIDAD CIENTÍFICA, ASCENSO PROFESIONAL Y EXCELENCIA
EN EL ÁMBITO DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN EUROPEA
Este artículo examina los diversos aspectos de los requisitos de movilidad y la
relación entre competencias, excelencia y movilidad en la investigación científica
en la Unión Europea (UE). La “expectativa de movilidad” en el ámbito científico
es fundamental a la hora de conformar el espacio europeo de investigación. Los
estudios arguyen que las mejores oportunidades económicas y las políticas
migratorias avanzadas en los países de destino promueven una migración alta-
mente calificada. Los resultados empíricos demuestran que los académicos y
estudiosos tienen en cuenta factores importantes a la hora de tomar una decisión
sobre la migración y el lugar de destino, el entorno de investigación y las
condiciones – es decir el apoyo que obtendrán para sus estudios, las
infraestructuras, la demanda de personal de investigación y el desarrollo y los
profesionales académicos (Millard, 2005). Si bien puede decirse que la finalidad
del espacio europeo de investigación es alentar el intercambio de científicos, el
equilibrio de competencias es esencial a la competitividad de la región europea.
A pesar de las acciones y medidas adoptadas en el contexto de la estrategia de
movilidad para el espacio europeo de investigación de la CE, las corrientes
desequilibradas siguen siendo una flaqueza del espacio europeo de investigación.
Por ello, es preciso que Europa coordine las políticas científicas y migratorias a
nivel europeo y de los Estados Miembros para acrecentar la atracción de los
países receptores europeos y facilitar el retorno de científicos a los países de
envío. Este artículo se centra principalmente en Austria, Grecia, Italia, Portugal
y el Reino Unido, y demuestra el carácter desigual de las corrientes de personal
científico en el seno de la región de investigación europea.
Asimismo, arguye que la movilidad de científicos en Europa depende más bien
de las necesidades que de la elección y que mientras más tiempo permanezcan
fuera más complicado es su retorno. Si el sistema académico fuese impene-
trable al retorno, es probable que los científicos optaran por examinar otras
oportunidades en el sector privado.
