Self-initiated expatriation and self-initiated expatriates: Clarification of the research stream

Full text

Self-initiated expatriation and
self-initiated expatriates
Clarification of the research stream
Noeleen Doherty
School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Julia Richardson
School for Administrative Studies & School of Human Resource Management,
York University, Toronto, Canada, and
Kaye Thorn
School of Management, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to move towards clarification of the self-initiated expatriate/expatriation
construct with the aim of extending and deepening theory development in the field.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on Suddaby’s think piece on construct clarity, this
paper applies his proposed four elements; definitional clarity, scope conditions, relationships between
constructs and coherence, in order to clarify the SIE construct.
Findings – The discussion examines the “problem of definition” and its impact on SIE scholarship.
The spatial, temporal and value-laden constraints that must be considered by SIE scholars are
expounded, and the links between SIE research and career theory are developed. From this, potential
research agendas are proposed.
Research limitations/implications – This is a conceptual piece which, rather than giving precise
research data, encourages further thinking in the field.
Originality/value – Although the definitional difficulties of SIEs have been identified in previous
literature, this is the first attempt to clarify the boundaries of SIE and its interconnectedness with other
related constructs.
Keywords Self-initiated expatriation, Self-initiated expatriates, Construct clarity,Expatriates, Research,
Careers
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The papers in this special issue discuss some of the key aspects of self-initiated
expatriation (SIE) highlighting both the complexity of the concept itself and the
diversity in how it has been used and understood. The variety of theoretical and
empirical approaches applied in the study of SIE to date reflects a broad and
necessarily subjective interpretation of what SIE encompasses. Therefore, rather than
forcing an “absolute” definition for SIE, we think it is incumbent on us, as guest editors
of this special issue, to embrace and engage with this diversity whilst at the same time
setting a path towards construct clarity.
Suddaby (2010, p. 347), in a recent issue of the Academy of Management Review,
highlighted the importance of construct clarity in management scholarship. He asserts
that the essence of construct clarity comprises four basic elements:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm
SIE and SIEs:
clarification of
research
97
Career Development International
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2013
pp. 97-112
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
DOI 10.1108/13620431311305971

(1) providing clear definitions;
(2) scoping the field;
(3) demonstrating relationships with other associated constructs; and
(4) providing coherent and logical consistency.
The specific value of achieving construct clarity, he indicates, is that it benefits
communication between scholars; helps facilitate the exploration of phenomena
empirically and allows for greater innovation in applied research. These are challenges
we suggest that the construct of SIE currently faces. We begin our paper, therefore,
with an examination of how the SIE construct might be clarified.
Clarity in definition
Suddaby suggests that a robust definition captures the essential characteristics of the
respective concept. Therefore, in order to understand the essential characteristics of
SIE, we must first consider how the term has evolved and how it is being used. The
origin of the concept is widely acknowledged (see, for example Dickmann and Doherty,
2010; Froese, 2012; Suutari and Brewster, 2000) as stemming from Inkson et al.’s (1997)
exposition of the differences between the well-studied corporate expatriates, who have
been sent on an overseas assignment by their employer, and young New Zealanders
who have independently chosen to leave New Zealand temporarily as part of what is
widely recognized as an “Overseas Experience”. Suutari and Brewster (2000) further
explored and extended the characteristics of individuals who chose to live and work
outside their country of origin without the support of an organization in their research
on Finnish residents. In the European context, the term “overseas” was not
appropriate, so they coined the concept of “self-initiated foreign experiences” (SIFE).
This terminology was also adopted by Myers and Pringle (2005, p. 425) in their study
of gendered influences on educated professional “free travellers”, defined as
individuals who “were not going to pre-arranged jobs” but who all “engaged in
work during their international overseas experience”.
The term SIFE, however, failed to gain currency in the academic field, perhaps
because it was lacking linguistic coherency. Moreover, SIFE focuses attention on the
experience rather than the individuals undertaking the experience. The linguistic
difficulty of continually referring to “a person who undertakes a SIFE” may have
limited the use of this phrase. Richardson and her colleagues were simultaneously
developing terminology to describe those who chose to relocate across international
borders. The use of the terms “self-selecting expatriates” (Richardson and McKenna,
2002, p. 67) and “self-directed expatriates/expatriation” (Richardson and Mallon, 2005,
p. 409) simplified the written usage of the terminology, and re-established the common
feature – expatriates and expatriation, or people living/working in countries other than
their home country. McKenna and Richardson (2007, p. 307) subsequently examined
professionals who expatriate without organizational sponsorship, calling these
“Independent internationally mobile professionals” or IIMP.
In 2008, the term “self-initiated expatriates/expatriation” first appeared in the
literature, with articles by Doherty and Dickmann (2008) and Jokinen et al. (2008). The
following year, a symposium at the Academy of Management entitled “Self-initiated
Foreign Experiences” reverted to earlier terminology, but extended an invitation to
start discussions on the possibility of moving towards a single construct (Inkson and
CDI
18,1
98

Richardson, 2010). An informal caucus held at the same conference, and attended by 60
percent of those authors who had published in the field at that time, agreed on the term
SIE, and this has remained fairly constant in the literature since then. The rationale for
using this particular construct was three-fold. First, “self-initiated” would distinguish
those who were “sent” by an employer from those who independently elected to
relocate across international borders. Second, “expatriate” would distinguish between
those who were leaving their home country on a temporary basis and those who were
leaving on a permanent basis, i.e. immigrants – a related but qualitatively different
group. Third, the term “foreign” was viewed as redundant as it effectively duplicated
the meaning of expatriate.
Exploring the “problem of definition” in the literature over the intervening years
since the caucus suggests that the term SIE infers two essential components. The first
is that SIE must involve relocation across a national border. Hence, SIE must be about
physical mobility where the individual moves from one country to another (Inkson,
2006). Second, the initiative for that mobility must come from the individual, with
individual volition being central to the concept of SIE.
However, despite the move towards more definitional clarity, further exploration
and critique is required. Whereas expatriation is certainly about independently leaving
one’s home country, as the global landscape is becoming more complex, the range of
variations in the categories of globally mobile individuals expands. We sense a shift in
the underlying parameters of the concept that is indicative of a struggle to clarify both
the definition and usage of the term. It perhaps also reflects the dynamic contemporary
nature of global mobility and the evolving terminology that attempts to describe it.
Recent additions to the lexicon include self-initiated repatriation (Begley et al., 2008;
Tharenou and Caulfield, 2010) and, in the context of multiple moves by an individual,
self-initiated mobility (Thorn, 2009a).
Expatriates were initially differentiated into two distinct populations; those sent or
sponsored by companies and those solely taking the initiative themselves outside the
corporate context. These boundaries, however, are being blurred with increasing
recognition of other sub-groups or nested groupings in the field. For example, one
distinct but related group is that captured by the concept of the “global self-initiated
corporate expatriate” (Altman and Baruch, 2012) who is understood as someone who
self-initiates expatriation but within a single employer. These are people who would
seek out a foreign posting within their organization, perhaps to a foreign subsidiary,
rather than waiting to be sent by their employer.
Furthermore, in seeking to distinguish “expatriates” from “immigrants”, we must
engage with the “problem” of permanence. That is to say, where expatriates (both
self-initiated and those who are sent by an employer) are assumed to be leaving their
home country on a temporary basis, whereas immigrants are assumed to be leaving on
a permanent basis (see, for example, Al Ariss and O
¨zbilgin, 2010). The extent to which
we can assume a move to be temporary may change over time depending on individual
circumstances. The temporariness of a move may even be outside the consciousness of
the individual at any given point-in-time, let alone within the gift of the researcher’s
knowledge, introducing a further level of complexity.
McKenna and Richardson’s (2007) focus on professionals makes explicit an
assumption that has dominated the literature – that most of these globally mobile
people are highly educated professionals or engaged in managerial roles. This
SIE and SIEs:
clarification of
research
99

assumption is open to debate, since other occupational groups including skilled
workers, for example electricians, construction workers, or hairdressers choose to
self-initiate their expatriation to another country. Engaging in this line of thinking is
important as it directs our attention quite clearly to the heterogeneity of SIEs as a
larger group.
Returning to the premise of the original paper on the differences between overseas
experience and corporate expatriation (Inkson et al., 1997), the motivation for mobility
was primarily adventure and the desire to experience other cultures rather than career
development per se. Other studies on SIEs including professional and non-professional
populations have made similar observations (Doherty et al., 2011; Richardson and
Mallon, 2005; Thorn, 2009b). In this respect, we contend that when defining SIEs, a
focus on career development as a primary driver would be misplaced. Nonetheless, we
must also be cautious not to overlook the extent to which career remains a necessary
dimension of SIE and acknowledge the centrality of career competencies, skills and
experiences for facilitating and supporting this type of mobility. We suggest that being
able to secure employment – be it in a professional or non-professional role – is in
most (if not all) cases a key feature of SIE. Thus, while career might not be a primary
“driver”, it may well be the vehicle through which SIE is realized. A focus on, or at least
some engagement with, the influence of career is, we argue, appropriate.
Accepting and engaging with (rather than denying) the complexity of SIE, we are
nonetheless mindful of Suddaby’s assertion that any definition must avoid tautologies
and should be parsimonious. These are both essential attributes since a definition that
lacks clear and identifiable characteristics creates confusion rather than clarity. It also
limits our ability to distinguish between SIEs and other related concepts such as
corporate assignees and immigrants. It is therefore useful at this point to recognize the
tautology that has arisen in the evolution of SIE as a field of study. The populations
that have been studied have determined the definition, rather than there having been a
clear delineation of what an SIE is from the outset. As an example, the original paper
by Inkson et al. (1997) focused on New Zealanders, and as any other country is
“overseas or abroad” for these people, this became part of the terminology. For Suutari
et al. (2003); and Suutari and Brewster (2000) “overseas” was not relevant, so was
replaced by “foreign”. Thus, the construct of SIEs has predominantly been driven by
and emerged from the data in a constructionist mode rather than having been based on
theoretically-driven a priori assumptions about the construct parameters. While both
these approaches are legitimate in the development of theory, a data-driven approach
does lead to definitional concerns. In any new field of study, an emerging process of
definition and construct development is to be expected. However, we are now in a
situation where we are still seeking, perhaps belatedly, for the much-needed clarity of
who is (and just as importantly, who is not) part of the research field. In order for the
field to mature we contend that clarification and stabilization of terminology and
particularly “concepts in use” is now a matter of urgency.
Scoping the field of self-initiated expatriation
Moving on from the clarity of definition, we turn to Suddaby’s (2010) next element of
construct clarity – the need to clearly signal the boundaries for the application of a
construct. Addressing the issue of boundaries, draws our attention to the contextual
conditions impacting on the extent to which a given construct can be applied. It is
CDI
18,1
100

particularly necessary with constructs proposed as universal, to specify the boundary
limitations or scope conditions which underpin the theoretical argument on which a
construct is based (Suddaby, 2010, p, 349). Suddaby identifies three general categories
of scope conditions – space (where the construct is located and the extent to which it
can be transferred or generalized to other spaces), time (when the construct was
assessed and the extent to which it can be applied to other time periods) and values (the
extent to which a concept reflects the researchers’ underlying ontological and
epistemological assumptions). A core theme here is the need to signal the degree to
which our research constructs are socially constructed and contextually specific. Thus,
it requires us to acknowledge the spatial and temporal parameters as well as the
potential influence of the researcher’s orientation on the scope of the SIE construct. We
attend to each of these issues next.
Level of analysis is an important component of space. When we consider research
conducted on SIE thus far, many scholars have adopted an essentially individual level
focus exploring the experiences of individual SIEs and developing an “emic”
understanding of the SIE experience (see, for example, Doherty et al., 2011; Richardson
and McKenna, 2006). While there is significant merit in exploring the experience and
exposing the characteristics of the population at the individual level, within the
management literature in particular, there is increasing recognition of the importance
of the SIE at an aggregated level (e.g. the organizational, labor market or country level)
(Thorn and Inkson, 2012; Collings et al., 2007). Thus, for example, Suutari and Brewster
(2000) have suggested that given their potential role as national and organizational
resources, SIEs must be managed in a way that maximizes their individual
performance and thereby enhances their contribution at the collective level. Doherty
and Dickmann (2012a), rehearse the talent management and career challenges of
achieving this. Clearly defining the populations under study is a key step in being able
to maximize the comparative utility of research findings and the application of
research to practice.
Addressing the idea of “scope” further, the cultural context of the research is
another important aspect that needs to be explicit in SIE research. Much of the research
to date has centered either on individuals from particular countries (for example, New
Zealand (Thorn, 2009a), Finland (Suutari and Brewster, 2000), and the UK (Doherty
et al., 2011)) or on self-initiated expatriates within one geographical location
(Crowley-Henry, 2012; Al Ariss and O
¨zbilgin, 2010). Research which considered SIEs
operating in different cultural contexts was undertaken by Richardson and colleagues,
using samples of individuals who had self-initiated to four culturally diverse locations;
New Zealand, Singapore, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, to account for the
impact of cultural distance on their experiences (Richardson and Mallon, 2005;
Richardson and McKenna, 2006). While this body of research marked a useful starting
point, further research comparing SIEs in different cultural contexts (for example,
Thorn (2009a)) and/or comparing SIEs from different cultural contexts in the same
location (for example, Richardson et al., 2008) is necessary to advance our
understanding of SIE. Such comparisons would be particularly useful for identifying
the impact of context on the SIE experience, a theme that remains relatively
unexplored.
Turning now to the “temporal” aspects of scope, where it is important for the
researcher to be explicit about the temporal scope under which the construct is
SIE and SIEs:
clarification of
research
101

assumed to operate (Suddaby, 2010), we are mindful of Suddaby’s (2010, p.349)
cautionary note that “management theorists tend to ignore the temporal boundaries of
phenomena and assume invariance over time”. Temporal boundaries are particularly
important to the study of SIE(s) and to the theoretical and empirical applications of
research on this phenomenon. One of the key definitional dimensions of SIE is “length
of time in the host country”, and more precisely anticipated / expected / or eventual
duration of stay. We suggest that this temporal condition is definitive in determining
whether an individual can be considered an SIE. As noted previously, the key concern
here is the assumption that the period of time spent outside the home country will be
temporary rather than permanent, thus while the individual is undertaking an
intentionally temporary stay in a location outside their home country, they can be
deemed self-initiated.
Yet, as the field evolves it is notable that this assumption is underpinned by a
further caveat – that the degree of temporariness varies between individuals. Thus, we
recommend that researchers remain aware that expected duration of stay and actual
duration are not synonymous. Defining the “temporal scope” further, expected length
of stay and actual length of stay should be incorporated into how we understand the
SIE construct. In particular, it should be acknowledged as a source of heterogeneity
both at the individual and aggregate level.
We flag the issue of temporariness as a key boundary-defining element in the
construct. For example, an SIE who has been living in their host country for several
years could be considered to be showing an intention to stay in the host country, which
if acted upon, would then categorize them as an immigrant and not an SIE. We suggest
that such individuals need to be clearly distinguished from, for example, a person who
has recently arrived and expects to stay only a year or so. Length of stay is a variable
that potentially impacts the extent of adjustment, identity and establishment, since
these may differ for the person who has been in the country for a longer period
compared to those who are newly arrived in a host country. Hence, any research on
SIEs must include this temporal variable, to ensure that appropriate comparisons are
being made.
The status of an individual living and working across international boundaries can
also be subject to variance over time. Consider the scenario where an American
multinational company sends a female employee to the UK for two years. Quite clearly,
she is, at this stage, a corporate expatriate. However, before the end of the two-year
period, she chooses to leave that employ, and takes a job with another company in the
UK. Some scholars may argue that the individual is now a SIE, since she is living
outside her home country (an expatriate) and the decision to remain the UK was clearly
of her own volition. We, however, would suggest that the individual now does not fit
either category. If we return to the two essential components of SIE – relocation across
a national border (which has not occurred in this transfer of employment) and
individual volition (which has occurred), we must conclude that the individual is no
longer a corporate expatriate, but also not an SIE. This scenario is illustrative of how
individual status can change over time, reinforcing the significance of the temporal
aspect. Also, this highlights that we need to ensure we are clear about our population
descriptors. In this example, the focus on who initiated the relocation across the
international boundary becomes paramount. Continuing our focus on the temporal
variable we suggest that extrinsic conditions are also an important consideration.
CDI
18,1
102

Thus, for example, a study of SIEs conducted during an economic crisis in one country
must be differentiated from studies conducted during an economic boom since such
extrinsic temporal conditions may impact the individual decision to choose a particular
location and may influence the length of their stay there. Hence, authors in the field
need to recognize the dynamic nature of SIE, and ensure they have clearly bounded
their populations and define the temporal parameters of their studies.
The third aspect of scope is what Suddaby (2010, p. 350) refers to as constraints of
value, or the “scope considerations that arise as a result of the assumptions or the
world view of the researcher”. He calls for a position of “critical reflexivity” in
conducting research. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that many prominent authors
writing on SIEs are either living in a country other than their home country
(e.g. Richardson, Doherty, Al Ariss, Dickmann, Inkson, McKenna, Bozionelos, Baruch),
or have spent considerable periods living and working outside their home country
(Crowley-Henry, Selmer). This may be a function of the international evolution of
academic careers (Bauder, 2012; Welch, 1997) and/or recent pressures on academics to
engage in international mobility (Ackers and Gill, 2008). In a literature where SIEs are
mainly portrayed as a privileged group among expatriates in managerial career
positions, and migrants tend to be viewed as unskilled individuals or somewhat
inferior (see Al Aris and Crowley Henry, this issue), the researcher may prefer to
affiliate as an SIE rather than a migrant, and this could alter the definitional
perspective they adopt. Taking this critical perspective a step further, we should be
aware of the potential tendency to focus on people like ourselves and/or understanding
our research subjects “as if” they were just like ourselves.
There has been a rapid expansion of the SIE literature with many authors who have
traditionally focused their research on corporate expatriation or migration now turning
their attention to SIEs. This trend brings our attention back to the relationships
between constructs and demonstrates how some scholars have extended their study of
corporate expatriates to related constructs, in this case SIEs (e.g. Doherty, Dickmann,
Suutari, Brewster, Janssens, Bozionelos, Cerdin, Selmer) or immigrants (Richardson
and Zikic).
Relationships between constructs
Constructs do not simply exist in isolation from each other (Suddaby, 2010, p. 350) and
as illustrated above, they develop over time, and invariably exist “in referential
relationships, either explicit or implicit, with other constructs and with the phenomena
they are designed to represent”. We have already noted above how the term “SIE” has a
“historical lineage” (Suddaby, 2010, p. 350) evolving in juxtaposition to, and expanding
on, the more established term of “corporate expatriate”. The SIE concept is a distinct,
separate (albeit related), field of study. A key concern for our understanding of the term
SIE is to signal the “logical connections” between SIE as the “new construct” and
corporate expatriation as the pre-existing construct. Therefore, while the field has
evolved owing to putative differences between SIEs and corporate expatriates, the
similarities and relationships between these constructs must be acknowledged. Clearly,
both SIEs and corporate expatriates belong to the broader grouping of “expatriates”
defined as individuals who are living outside of their home country on what they
expect to be a temporary basis. However, the distinction between them is that SIEs
SIE and SIEs:
clarification of
research
103

have not been sent to the host country by an employer, rather they have elected to go
under their own volition.
We contend that while the exact nature of the relationship between these constructs
appears fluid and composite, there is a need for an organizing framework of the key
characteristics to define the possible populations for study. Figure 1 sets out these key
factors, which we identify from theory, the literature and the research base to date as
significant to clarifying these constructs. We organize our framework according to
eight different dimensions:
(1) “initiation” – the source of the impetus for mobility;
(2) “goals” – the objective of the intended outcome of the move;
(3) “funding” – the source of funding to enable the international move;
(4) “focus” – the predominant motivators or drivers of mobility;
(5) “career agenda” the relative status of career in the decision to move and the
career impact of the experience;
(6) intended duration; intended period of stay abroad;
(7) “employment” - the type of employment engagement; and
(8) “occupational category” – typical occupational types.
The conceptual difference between the groups notwithstanding, an underlying
constant is that they all “belong” to the larger group of internationally mobile
individuals. However, a fundamental factor in distinguishing these constructs is, we
argue, the initiation of the relocation to the new “host” country. Figure 1 shows that
initiation can come from the company, at one end of the spectrum. Moving along the
spectrum, while the initiative to expatriate may come from the individual, they may
receive encouragement, sponsorship or support from an employer. At the other end of
the spectrum the driver for expatriation is firmly located within the respective
individuals (the potential impact of family and other significant others accepted). While
this is the primary distinguishing factor, we suggest that there is a range of other
salient criteria, which apply to variations in the SIE theme. The additional criteria
indicate the increasingly complex range of variables to incorporate into how we
distinguish between mobile populations. They also draw our attention to the
complexity and diversity of expatriation as a process. What is clear from Figure 1 is
that all of the concepts – Flexpatriate, Expatriate, Organizational SIE/Seconded, SIE,
OE, International Student and Migrant are similar in some dimensions and yet
different in others.
One notable observation from Figure 1 is that the defining characteristics of each of
the respective constructs vary minimally. These degrees of separation are indicative of
the complexity involved in describing and defining mobile populations and the range
of constructs available. Thus, for example, on the “initiation” dimension, the SIE can be
distinguished from the flexpatriate, and the expatriate by virtue of the fact that they
have initiated their own expatriation. Between these is the organizational expatriate,
who, although initiating their own relocation, get some company assistance when
making the move. Similarly, on the “goals” dimension, the constructs are
distinguishable as they can be focused on predominantly “individual” or “company”
outcomes.
CDI
18,1
104

Figure 1.
A spectrum of global
mobility
SIE and SIEs:
clarification of
research
105

We suggest that another key criterion in Figure 1 that connects and distinguishes the
SIE from other related concepts is the issue of “funding”. From the original
classification (Inkson et al., 1997) and subsequent expansion (Howe-Walsh and Schyns,
2010; Suutari and Brewster, 2000) funding has been distinguished as either
organizational or self. Within this definition SIEs fund their own relocation and
related expenses themselves, from the airfare, all requisite documentation, to
post-expatriation expenses such as accommodation, familial support (e.g. children’s
education) and eventually costs of repatriation. More recently, researchers have
identified those individuals who receive some organizational support but who continue
to meet the criteria that initiation comes distinctly from the individual (e.g. Altman and
Baruch, 2012). This would mean that people who apply for jobs in other countries, but
who may receive some assistance in the relocation (for example, airfares, or some
accommodation in the host country) we suggest, would be classified as SIEs but fall
within the organizationally supported range of the spectrum. This is a clear example of
where the empirical base has moved ahead of theoretical and conceptual development
of the construct.
Figure 1 also addresses Suddaby’s (2010, p. 351) fourth and final element that “the
construct, its definition, its scope conditions, its lineage and its relationship to other
constructs must all make sense”. It provides a range of criteria that will help to
distinguish the populations falling within (and outside) the construct of self-initiated
expatriation with the aim of clarifying both the constructs in use and the populations
that have been, and may be, studied.
Discussion
Connecting the study of SIE with contemporary career theory
In order for a field of research to mature, it must extend beyond description towards
theory building. As it stands, the current body of literature on SIEs has made some
move in this direction with several authors connecting their research findings to
existing theories in related fields (see, for example, Jokinen et al., 2008; Richardson et al.,
2008; Tharenou and Caulfield, 2010). However, to ensure further maturity, a more
robust corpus of theory is required. We suggest that a relevant and rich ground for SIE
scholars to draw on and contribute to is the careers literature and contemporary career
theory. We have already identified the extent to which “career” permeates the reported
drivers for and experiences and evaluations of SIE as a form of international mobility.
Research to date indicates that while career is not a central concern to SIEs, they are
engaged in gainful employment and have varying career outcomes from the experience
(Doherty and Dickmann, 2012b). So career, perhaps in the more holistic meaning, is an
important element of the SIE experience at the individual level (Doherty et al., 2011;
Thorn, 2009b). Career from an organizational level perspective is also important, in
particular to the engagement and performance outcomes of SIE (Mayrhofer et al., 2008;
Thorn and Inkson, 2012). Indeed, in drawing the relevance of SIE to organizational
attention, career becomes a focal point of concern and importance as the terrain in
which the relationship is played out (Inkson and King, 2011). We suggest that
connecting SIE research to career theory is therefore a key imperative for SIE scholars
and is a necessary step towards developing and building theoretical perspectives as
well as establishing parameters that can frame theory testing.
CDI
18,1
106

Exploring the idea of drawing on and contributing to career theory further, one
useful starting point is to consider whether SIE researchers might make a contribution
to our understanding of the “boundaryless career” as a dominant influence on
contemporary career scholarship (Briscoe et al., 2006; Inkson et al., 2012; Sullivan and
Baruch, 2009). They might, for example, be well placed to answer calls for a more
critical exploration of the concept (Inkson et al., 2012; Pringle and Mallon, 2003), and
extend their contribution to career theory more generally. Moreover, exploring the
value of boundaryless career theory for understanding the experiences of SIEs and SIE
would help to address Pringle and Mallon’s (2003) other recommendation that the
boundaryless career concept needs to be applied to more diverse populations. Thus, we
see again here, potential for SIE scholars to make a theoretical contribution.
While there is still some way to go in this direction, some SIE scholars have made a
start by examining the potential synergy between boundaryless career theory and the
experiences of SIEs, including skilled workers such as nurses (Bozionelos, 2009), highly
educated individuals (Doherty and Dickmann, 2012a), managerial populations
(Biemann and Andresen, 2010) and in particular SIE academics (e.g. Richardson,
2009, 2012; Richardson and Zikic, 2007). Taking each of the six dimensions or
emphases of the boundaryless career (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996), Richardson (2012)
has concluded that “While there are strong synergies between each of the six emphases
and SIE academic careers, they are not a direct fit. Rather, the connection between them
is more nuanced ...”. Her main argument is that SIE academic careers like careers in
other spheres (King et al., 2005) can be both bounded and boundaryless, rather than
either one or the other. This offers a more critical perspective suggesting that whereas
SIE may, by its very nature, involve crossing national boundaries, further institutional
and disciplinary boundaries may be more difficult to cross. Thus, for example, drawing
on the Ackers and Gill (2008) study of Italian academics seeking to return to Italy after
expatriating to the UK, she notes that the experience they gained in the UK was “not
recognized” which inhibited their ability to find a position in the Italian job
marketplace. It is notable that this argument echoes previous work by Begley et al.
(2008) suggesting that experience gained in one country may not be “recognized” by
organizations on repatriation.
Similarly, while there is widespread evidence that some SIE academics may see
themselves as having a “boundaryless future” (the sixth dimension or emphasis of a
boundaryless career), contemporary careers are in fact more bounded than
contemporary boundaryless career theory suggests (Rodrigues and Guest, 2010).
The critical point here, therefore, is that SIE academic careers and perhaps SIE careers
more broadly may be less about boundarylessness than about boundary crossing
(Inkson, 2006). This supports Inkson et al.’s (2012, p. 325) call for “boundary-focused
careers scholarship”. Further, SIE can create boundaries. Many New Zealanders living
and working in the global environment, for example, would love to return to their home
country, primarily for the quality of life and for family relationships (Thorn, 2008).
However, they find they cannot obtain the challenging work experiences or the high
salaries that are offered in larger economies, back in New Zealand. As time passes,
then, SIEs may find that they are bounded to the host country through their children’s
education and developing social networks (Rizvi, 2005; Suutari, 2003). Ironically, the
very boundaryless move across international borders can result in a bounded and
restrictive future. We believe that there is, therefore, a clear opportunity here for SIE
SIE and SIEs:
clarification of
research
107

researchers to contribute to contemporary career scholarship by contributing to a more
nuanced development of boundaryless career theory.
Another dominant concept in career theory is the “intelligent career” (Defillippi and
Arthur, 1994; Inkson and Arthur, 2001), based on the concept of “three knowings” –
“knowing why, knowing how and knowing whom”. While this theory has already been
applied by scholars exploring the career experiences of corporate assignees (Cappellen
and Janssens, 2005; Jokinen, 2010), there is room for it to be applied to the SIE
experience. Indeed, the “knowing why” of an SIE career has already been examined in
those studies seeking to identify the “motives” for SIE (e.g. Doherty et al., 2011; Thorn,
2009b) and the outcomes of the experience ( Jokinen et al., 2008). Further research,
therefore, might examine potential connections between the three “knowings” and the
SIE experience, for example how the “knowing why” of SIE might impact (or
otherwise) on the subsequent “knowing how” and “knowing whom”. Inkson et al.
(2004) explored knowing why with New Zealand SIEs. Drawing on McClelland’s (1961)
concept of achievement motivation, they found that those who value achievement,
money and influence were more likely to stay abroad than those who valued family,
friendships and lifestyle. The implication was that those who valued the first three
were most likely to be the entrepreneurs and innovators, so those who chose to be SIEs
are perhaps one of the most valuable groups of people within a nation.
The theme of “knowing who” in SIE also draws our attention to career networks, a
well-established area of careers research (Chiu et al., 2009; Cotton et al., 2011; Shen and
Kram, 2011). Thus, for example, taking Granovetter’s (1973) conception of “strong and
weak ties” with home and host countries, SIE scholars might investigate the impact of
such ties on opportunities to engage in SIE and subsequent experiences and
evaluations of that experience.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper has been to seek clarification of the SIE construct, to
facilitate the further exploration of the construct. We do not purport to have a
prescriptive definition of SIE, but we do hope our thoughts will serve as a basis to
extend the dialogue. We have applied Suddaby’s (2010) paper as a template for
dissecting the components of SIE and aligning it with related constructs. We draw
attention to the fact that the SIE literature, is growing, but seems to be developing
without a clear basis. It is time to capitalize on the interest in SIEs, to define and refine
its boundaries, to ensure the development of theory. The links between SIEs and career
theory are clear, and there are new avenues of research created by such a connection.
Here we have attempted to set a path for concept clarity and highlighted just a few of
the areas with significant potential for further exploration of this fascinating
population of individuals.
References
Ackers, L. and Gill, B. (2008), Moving People and Knowledge: Scientific Mobility in an Enlarging
European Union, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Al Ariss, A. and O
¨zbilgin, M. (2010), “Understanding self-initiated expatriates: career experiences
of Lebanese self-initiated expatriates in France”, Thunderbird International Business
Review, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 275-85.
CDI
18,1
108

Altman, Y. and Baruch, Y. (2012), “Global self-initiated corporate expatriate careers: a new era in
international assignments?”, Personnel Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 233-55.
Arthur, M. and Rousseau, D. (eds) (1996), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle
for a New Organizational Era, Cambridge University Press, Boston, MA.
Bauder, H. (2012), “The international mobility of academics: a labour market perspective”,
International Migration, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2012.00783.x.
Begley, A., Collings, D.G. and Scullion, H. (2008), “The cross-cultural adjustment experiences of
self-initiated repatriates to the Republic of Ireland labour market”, Employee Relations,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 264-82.
Biemann, T. and Andresen, M. (2010), “Self-initiated foreign expatriates versus assigned
expatriates: two distinct types of international careers?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 430-48.
Bozionelos, N. (2009), “Expatriation outside the boundaries of the multinational corporation:
a study with expatriate nurses in Saudi Arabia”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 111-34.
Briscoe, J.P., Hall, D.T. and Frautschy DeMuth, R.L. (2006), “Protean and boundaryless careers:
an empirical exploration”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 30-47.
Cappellen, T. and Janssens, M. (2005), “Career paths of global managers: towards future
research”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 348-60.
Chiu, Y., Wu, M., Shang, W. and Hsu, Y. (2009), “Influences on expatriate social networks in
China”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 790-809.
Collings, D., Scullion, H. and Morley, M. (2007), “Changing patterns of global staffing in the
multinational enterprise: challenges to the conventional expatriate assignment and
emerging alternatives”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 198-213.
Cotton, R., Shen, Y. and Livne-Tarandach, R. (2011), “On becoming extraordinary: the content
and structure of the developmental networks of major baseball hall of famers”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 15-46.
Crowley-Henry, M. (2012), “Re-conceptualizing the career development of self initiated
expatriates: rivers not ladders”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 130-41.
Defillippi, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1994), “The boundaryless career: a competency-based
perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 307-24.
Dickmann, M. and Doherty, N. (2010), “Exploring organizational and individual career goals,
interactions, and outcomes of developmental international assignments”, Thunderbird
International Business Review, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 313-24.
Doherty, N. and Dickmann, M. (2008), “Self-initiated expatriates–corporate asset or a liability?”,
4th Workshop on Expatriation, October 23-24, La Palmas de Granada.
Doherty, N. and Dickmann, M. (2012a), “Comparing and contrasting the talent and capital of
self-initiated and corporate expatriates”, in Hasleberger, A. and Vaiman, V. (Eds),
Managing Talent of Self-Initiated Expatriates: A Neglected Source of the Global Talent
Flow, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Doherty, N. and Dickmann, M. (2012b), “Self-initiated expatriation: drivers, employment
expertise and career outcomes”, in Andresen, M., Al Ariss, A., Walther, M. and Wolff, K.
(Eds), Self-Initiated Expatriation: Individual, Organizational and National Perspectives,
Routledge, London, pp. 122-42.
SIE and SIEs:
clarification of
research
109

Doherty, N., Dickmann, M. and Mills, T. (2011), “Exploring the motives of company-backed and
self-initiated expatriates”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 595-611.
Froese, F.J. (2012), “Motivation and adjustment of self-initiated expatriates: the case of expatriate
academics in South Korea”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1095-112.
Granovetter, M.S. (1973), “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78
No. 6, pp. 1360-80.
Howe-Walsh, L. and Schyns, B. (2010), “Self-initiated expatriation: implications for HRM”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 260-73.
Inkson, K. (2006), “Protean and boundaryless careers as metaphors”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 48-63.
Inkson, K. and Arthur, M.B. (2001), “How to be a successful career capitalist”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 48-61.
Inkson, K. and King, Z. (2011), “Contested terrain in careers: a psychological contract model”,
Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 1, p. 37.
Inkson, K. and Richardson, J. (2010), “Self-initiated foreign experience as a field of study: some
issues of terminology, definition and research direction”, symposium presented at the
Academy of Management Annual Meeting, August 6-10, Montreal.
Inkson, K., Arthur, M., Pringle, J. and Barry, S. (1997), “Expatriate assignment versus overseas
experience: contrasting models of international human resource development”, Journal of
World Business, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 351-68.
Inkson, K., Gunz, H., Ganesh, S. and Roper, J. (2012), “Boundaryless careers: bringing back
boundaries”, Organization Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 323-40.
Inkson, K., Carr, S., Edwards, M., Hooks, J., Jackson, D., Thorn, K. and Allfree, N. (2004), “From
brain drain to talent flow: views of expatriate Kiwis”, University of Auckland Business
Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 29-40.
Jokinen, T. (2010), “Development of career capital through international assignments and its
transferability to new contexts”, Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 52 No. 4,
p. 301.
Jokinen, T., Brewster, C. and Suutari, V. (2008), “Career capital during international work
experiences: contrasting self-initiated expatriate experiences and assigned expatriation”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 979-98.
King, Z., Burke, S. and Pemberton, J. (2005), “The ‘bounded’ career: an empirical study of human
capital, career mobility and employment outcomes in a mediated labour market”, Human
Relations, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 981-1007.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
McKenna, S. and Richardson, J. (2007), “The increasing complexity of the internationally mobile
professional: issues for research and practice”, CrossCulturalManagement:
An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 307-20.
Mayrhofer, W., Sparrow, P. and Zimmermann, A. (2008), “Modern forms of international
working”, in Dickmann, M., Brewster, C. and Sparrow, P. (Eds), International Human
Resource Management: A European Perspective, Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 219-39.
Myers, B. and Pringle, J. (2005), “Self-initiated foreign experience as accelerated development:
influences of gender”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 421-31.
Pringle, J.K. and Mallon, M. (2003), “Challenges for the boundaryless career odyssey”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 839-53.
CDI
18,1
110

Richardson, J. (2009), “Geographic flexibility in academia: a cautionary note”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 160-70.
Richardson, J. (2012), “Self-initiated expatriation in academic careers”, in Andresen, M., Al Ariss,
A., Walther, M. and Wolff, K. (Eds), Self-Initiated Expatriation: Individual, Organizational
and National Perspectives, Routledge, London.
Richardson, J. and McKenna, S. (2002), “Leaving and experiencing: why academics expatriate
and how they experience expatriation”, Career Development International, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 67-78.
Richardson, J. and McKenna, S. (2006), “Exploring relationships with home and host countries:
a study of self-directed expatriates”, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 6-22.
Richardson, J. and Mallon, M. (2005), “Career interrupted? The case of the self-directed
expatriate”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 409-20.
Richardson, J. and Zikic, J. (2007), “The darker side of an international academic career”, Career
Development International, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 164-86.
Richardson, J., McBey, K. and McKenna, S. (2008), “Integrating realistic job previews and
realistic living conditions previews: realistic recruitment for internationally mobile
knowledge workers”, Personnel Review, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 490-508.
Rizvi, F. (2005), “Rethinking ‘brain drain’ in the era of globalisation”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 175-92.
Rodrigues, R.A. and Guest, D. (2010), “Have careers become boundaryless?”, Human Relations,
Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 1157-75.
Shen, Y. and Kram, K. (2011), “Expatriates’ developmental networks: network diversity, base and
support functions”, Career Development International, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 528-52.
Suddaby, R. (2010), “Editor’s comments: construct clarity in theories of management and
organization”, The Academy of Management Review (AMR), Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 346-57.
Sullivan, S. and Baruch, Y. (2009), “Advances in career theory and research: a critical review and
agenda for future exploration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1542-71.
Suutari, V. (2003), “Global managers: career orientation, career tracks, life-style implications and
career commitment”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 185-207.
Suutari, V. and Brewster, C. (2000), “Making their own way: international experience through
self-initiated foreign assignments”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 417-36.
Tharenou, P., and Caulfield, N. (2010), “Will I stay or will I go? Explaining repatriation by
self-initiated expatriates”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 1009-28.
Thorn, K. (2008), “Flight of the kiwi: an exploration of motives and behaviours of self-initiated
mobility”, Doctor of Philosophy, Massey University, Palmerston North.
Thorn, K. (2009a), “Motives for self-initiated international mobility”, Massey University
Department of Management and International Business Discussion Papers 09/01, Albany.
Thorn, K. (2009b), “The relative importance of motives for international self-initiated mobility”,
Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 441-64.
Thorn, K. and Inkson, K. (2012), “Self-initiated expatriation and talent flow”, in Andresen, M.,
Al Ariss, A., Walther, M. and Wolff, K. (Eds), Self-Initiated Expatriation: Individual,
Organizational and National Perspectives, Routledge, London, pp. 75-89.
Welch, A.R. (1997), “The peripatetic professor: the internationalisation of the academic
profession”, Higher Education, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 323-45.
SIE and SIEs:
clarification of
research
111

About the authors
Noeleen Doherty is Senior Research Fellow at Cranfield University, School of Management. Her
key area of research interest is exploring career transitions and she has researched and published
extensively on careers in the global context, in particular the self-initiated expatriation
experience. The development of conceptual and theoretical frames of reference to further the
understanding of careers is a dominant theme in her research and publishing.
Julia Richardson is Associate Professor in the School of Human Resource Management at
York University. She has a longstanding interest in self-initiated expatriation and specifically the
impact of this form of mobility on career experiences and employment more generally. Dr
Richardson has published extensively in this field and has significant experience as an SIE
herself having worked in the corporate and public sector in Australasia, Europe and North
America.
Kaye Thorn is a Senior Lecturer at Massey University’s School of Management where she
teaches a postgraduate paper in career management, manages the internship programme and
postgraduate research. Her own recent research has been exploring the motives behind the
self-initiated expatriation of New Zealanders. She is also interested in self-initiated serial
mobility (the highly mobile), patterns of mobility and the impact of mobility on careers. Kaye
Thorn is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: k.j.thorn@massey.ac.nz
CDI
18,1
112
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints