Relocation Decision of International Faculty in Kazakhstan

Rationale for the Study

In the landscape of higher education, universities and individuals are increasingly transcending geographic borders to participate in new initiatives (Altbach & Knight, 2007). As governments pursue internationalization to align higher education with the needs of globalized knowledge economy, highly trained international academics have become a valuable resource worldwide (Yudkevich, Altbach, & Rumbley, 2016). The imperative to recruit international faculty members (IFM) is particularly acute for developing and transitional economies, which face the shortage of qualified domestic faculty while attempting to increase economic competitiveness (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009). Emerging economies are increasingly relying on IFM to modernize the curriculum and to boost university research (Chapman, Austin, Farah, Wilson, & Ridge, 2014; Lee, Kuzhabekova, & Ruby, 2016).

While many developing and emerging economies are trying to attract IFM, the experiences of IFM moving to the global periphery have received little scholarly attention (Lee et al., 2016). The purpose of this article is to fill the gap by analyzing the relocation decisions of IFMs who work in Kazakhstan. The article continues the discussion presented in our earlier qualitative paper (Lee & Kuzhabekova, 2018) by comparing qualitative and quantitative results of a large-scale study. The article offers insights, which may improve faculty recruitment and retention at universities, as well as shed light on the underresearched area of knowledge on IFM.

Contextual Background

After gaining independence in 1991, post-Soviet Kazakhstan has experienced economic growth fueled by the oil industry. Unlike other postcolonial countries, Kazakhstan has inherited from the Soviet past a developed system of public universities and numerous cadre of faculty lacking expertise relevant to the realities of the globalized knowledge economy. Like other emerging economies, Kazakhstan has pursued modernization of higher education to increase economic competitiveness. Educational borrowing has become the main strategy in modernization (Silova, 2004) with internationalization being a key mechanism to support policy transfer.

Three approaches were used in the internationalization of higher education in Kazakhstan. First, to facilitate student mobility, Kazakhstan used the Bologna framework to move to a new degree structure, quality assurance system, and credit-based curriculum structure. Second, the government funded mobility schemes, including the notable “Bolashak” program, to support education and training abroad for talented students and faculty. Third, public support helped establish several universities, which engaged extensively with international partnerships and hired a significant number of IFM (e.g., Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics, and Strategic Research; Kazakh-British Technical University; Kazakh-Turkish University, and Kazakh-German University). In 2010, Nazarbayev University was created to become the leading research university in the region (Aitzhanova, Katsu, Linn, & Yezhov, 2014). The university operates through partnerships with a set of internationally reputable universities, such as Cambridge and Duke. It also predominantly draws on IFM to conduct teaching and research.

Literature Review

In conceptualizing our study, we relied on the literature in higher education on reasons behind relocation of IFM and on the literature in human resource management on the types of internationally mobile employees. Higher education literature focused on the analysis of the experiences of academics who migrate to North America (Lowell & Findlay, 2001; Roh, 2015) or the United Kingdom (Gimenez & Morgan, 2014). These studies examined issues such as cultural adaptation, work productivity (Franzoni, Scellato, & Stephan, 2014; Mamiseishvili & Rosser, 2010), job satisfaction and coping mechanisms (Collins, 2008; Romanowski & Nasser, 2014), faculty retention (Lawrence et al., 2014), or a combination of issues. For many IFM working in the West, their decisions to relocate for work are linked to immigration (Kim, 2016).

Most research on IFM working outside the West focuses on academics from Asia and the Middle East. These studies tend to use a “push and pull model” in the explanation of the relocation decision (Altbach, 1998; Bierbrauer & Pedersen, 1996; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). Push factors stimulate an individual to leave their current job/organization/location, while pull factors are properties of the new job/organization/location, which attract an individual. Typical pull reasons include (a) adventure and intercultural exposure (Austin et al., 2014; Chapman et al., 2014; Richardson & Mallon, 2005; Richardson & McKenna, 2003); (b) the desire for a life change (Froese, 2012; Richardson & Mallon, 2005); and (c) higher salary (Ackers & Oliver, 2005; Austin et al., 2014; Richardson & Mallon, 2005). Common push factors included (a) difficult personal or professional situations (Chapman et al., 2014) and (b) a poor job market (Froese, 2012; Kim, 2016).

Prior studies revealed moderating effects of demographic variables on relocation decision. Many studies found that some groups were more mobile than others: male (Bauder, 2012; Selmer & Lauring, 2010; Van de Bunt-Kokhuis, 2010), early and late career (Bauder, 2012; Czaika & Toma, 2015; Selmer & Lauring, 2010 Van de Bunt-Kokhuis, 2010), and those specializing in English, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; Richardson, 2009; Van de Bunt-Kokhuis, 2010).

Human resource development literature distinguishes subtypes of mobile professionals depending on whether they pursue the traditional or the boundaryless career. The traditional career model emphasizes long-term commitment to one organization and a linear hierarchical path for promotion mediated by the employer (Rosenbaum, 1979; Willensky, 1964) and external achievement indicators (e.g., salary and social status; Baruch, 2003). Modern boundaryless career does not require long-term and exclusive organizational commitment (Defillippi & Arthur, 1994). Instead it uses internal success indicators (inner satisfaction, autonomy, life balance) and relies on the employee’s self-management (Baruch, 2003).

Assigned expatriates pursue a traditional career: They are asked by the employer to relocate to an overseas branch, but they stay with the employer and expect a raise or a promotion upon return (Crowley-Henry, 2007; Siljanen & Lamsa, 2009; Stahl et al., 2002; Tung, 1998). Examples of assigned expatriates at universities include administrators and faculty dispatched from the home campus to run international branch campuses.

Seconded employees pursue a traditional career, but they relocate on a temporary basis without abandoning their primary employment (Baruch, 1999; Inkson, Arthur, Pringle, & Barry, 1997). Secondment is initiated by the employee, but it is supported by the employer as professional development. Secondment in higher education includes visiting professorships or short-term sabbaticals.

Self-initiated expatriates pursue boundaryless careers and are less concerned about the long-term impact of mobility on their careers (Peltokorpi, 2008; Thorn, 2009). They initiate relocation and perceive greater opportunities and challenges in extraorganizational mobility (e.g., greater autonomy, multicultural experience; Stahl et al., 2002; Tung, 1998). There are two subtypes of self-initiated expatriates: (a) free agents, who remain concerned about the effects of mobility on their long-term career and are motivated by professional growth; and (b) overseas experience seekers, who are opportunistic in their career management and are motivated by cultural adventures (Inkson et al., 1997). An example of the former in higher education is a professor who is fully employed at a university outside his or her home country. An example of the latter is an English language instructor who is moving from one short assignment abroad to another.

Recently, an alternative model of career development was proposed by Sullivan, Forret, Carraher, and Mainiero (2009), which expands the boundaryless career model with extracareer considerations. Contemporary employees are motivated more by self-fulfillment and balancing work/nonwork than the stability of a job (Arthur & Rousseau, 2001). The Kaleidoscope Model describes how individuals change the patterns of their career by rotating the various aspects of their life in a kaleidoscopic manner, trying to arrange their relationships and roles in more satisfying ways (Sullivan et al., 2009, p. 292). A career decision is made on three parameters:

1. Authenticity—individual’s desire to be true to themselves;

2. Balance—individual’s desire to achieve equilibrium between work and non-work demands;

3. Challenge—individual’s desire to have a stimulating work and career advancement (Carraher, Crocitto, & Sullivan, 2014, p. 303).

The Kaleidoscope Model was applied in previous empirical studies (Cabrera, 2007; Carraher et al., 2014; Smith-Ruig, 2009; Sullivan et al., 2009), including a study on academic sabbaticals (Carraher et al., 2014). Given that IFM pursue a boundaryless career, the model may serve as a useful framework to interpret the results of the study.

Research Design

The overarching research question of the study was “How do IFMs make their decisions to relocate to Kazakhstan?” Specific subquestions were as follows:

An IFM is defined in this study by three criteria: (a) non-Kazakhstani citizenship; (b) full-time employment in Kazakhstan; (c) minimum 1 year residency in Kazakhstan. These criteria eliminate visiting professors, individuals on sabbaticals, as well as Kazakhstani returnees who studied or worked abroad.

A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design was used, where semistructured qualitative interviews provided information that was subsequently used to create an online quantitative survey (Creswell, Plano Clark & Garrette, 2008). Within this approach, interviews provided an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon, and the survey revealed general tendencies. Specifically, the purpose of the interviews was to enlist factors affecting the relocation decision. We used a maximal-variation purposive sampling strategy (Creswell, Plano Clark & Garrette, 2008) to diversify the participants on the following criteria prompted by the literature: (a) gender; (b) age/rank; (c) citizenship; (d) prior international experience; (e) discipline; (f) marital/parental status.

The interview sample contained 51 participants. There was equal representation of individuals in their 30s, 40s, and 50s but underrepresentation of those in their 60s (14%) and 70s (2%). Nine participants were females (given the low representation of females among IFM). Twenty-one percent of the participants were full professors, 38% were associate professors, 31% were assistant professors, and 10% were instructors. Fourteen percent of participants represented humanities, 8% life sciences, 22% physical sciences, and over 50% social sciences (including business, economics, public policy). About half of the participants (49%) had prior international experience. The participants were citizens of countries such as the United States, Canada, Belgium, the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kenya, and South Africa. Half of the participants resided in Astana, the capital city, while the half resided in Almaty, the largest city in Kazakhstan based on population. Most of Astana participants came from Nazarbayev University and spent on average 3 years in Kazakhstan, while most of the Almaty participants have lived for more than 5 years in Kazakhstan. Sixty-five percent of the participants were single without children.

The interview protocol included questions about (a) demographic characteristics; (b) push and pull factors (the nature of prior employment, country context, and alternative employment opportunities, the nature of the job offer in Kazakhstan); (c) noncareer factors, such as the needs of children and significant others, as well as other nonwork priorities; and (d) the participants’ expectations about the effects of Kazakhstani experience on their future career.

The second stage of the study was based on a survey. The purpose of the survey was to identify patterns in the population. One of the challenges in data collection was that it was impossible to estimate the size and variability of the population and to obtain a sampling frame because no systematic data are available on IFM in Kazakhstan. Hence, we used nonrandom cluster sampling: We purposefully selected five universities in Almaty and Astana which employed the greatest number of IFMs based on preliminary website searches and then conducted a census survey of all IFM within these universities. Survey participants’ contact details were retrieved from university websites.

We estimate that the total population of IFM in the country in 2014 was around 300. The estimate is consistent with the fact that in 2014 Nazarbayev University, which hires the majority of international faculty in the country, employed around 200 IFM (https://zakon.uchet.kz/rus/docs/P1500001051). Out of these, only 150 would have worked at the university for a year given the young age of the new university. The size of the sampling frame (97 individuals) was less than the size of the estimated population because not every IFM post their contacts on university websites, and some contacts were outdated. The response rate for the survey was 56% of the sampling frame, with the sample representing about a fifth of the population. Such a response rate is appropriate for an online survey (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000).

Eleven percent of the survey respondents were full professors, 17% were associate professors, 44% were assistant professors, and 28% were instructors. Forty percent represented humanities, 33% social sciences, and only a small percentage came from life and physical sciences. The sample included a greater number of males (78%). Eighteen percent of the participants did not have prior international experience, while 21% of participants had experience more than 10 years. Seventy percent of the participants were married or in committed relationships, and 28% had young children. A third of the participants were in their thirties, slightly less than a third in their sixties, 15% were in their forties, and 21% in their fifties. The sample in the survey was relatively representative of the diversity in the population.

The survey instrument included closed-ended questions, such as (a) questions on demographic characteristics; (b) questions exploring the importance of various push- and pull-associated factors; and (c) questions about the expected impacts of the Kazakhstani job on future career.

Findings

Factors Affecting Relocation Decision

Push motivations

For participants at the assistant professor level, the most important push was the lack of employment opportunities in the job market in their home countries. One assistant professor in law from Spain stated, “The situation with jobs is very bad in Spain. And it is even worse if you want to find jobs in academic world . . . Most people my generation are looking for jobs abroad.”

Relocation of full professors was also related to the labor market. Older faculty are nowadays pushed to retire early, while still having intellectual potential for professional assignments. Unable to secure a job in their own countries, retiring faculty consider going abroad. One of the full professors in history from the United States mentioned, “I was asked to retire, and I was not really ready to quit academia. Then this opportunity presented itself, and I thought I could do something good for this young country and its young people.”

Another push for IFM is linked to dissatisfaction with employment conditions in their own country. Sources of dissatisfaction include pressure to publish, large teaching load, lack of challenge, research and promotion opportunities, and conflict-ridden environments. A quote to illustrate the point is, “I was pretty disillusioned by academia in the US with academia being all about making it for yourself (rather than changing lives of others)” (Assistant Professor, Engineering, USA).

Some individuals left their home countries out of frustration with the general conditions of the country. These conditions included poor economy, religious/cultural differences, peculiarities of organizational culture (such as unhealthy competition or pressure to perform), discrimination, poor medical services, or unsuitable settings for raising children. A quote from an Italian assistant professor in philosophy demonstrates the idea,

Italians are not dynamic people. Many Italians are born in a city and die in the same city. I became a different person after a trip to the United States. My country got too small for me. I wanted to go away.

Some push factors originate from participants’ personal lives—experiences of bankruptcy, divorce, or terminal illness. Quite a story was told by an associate professor in sociology from the United States:

Many things happened to me. I just had a surgery for my kidney, then my father had a heart attack, then I had a surgery for my knee, and then I found out that I had cancer. I just wanted to go to Kazakhstan as soon as possible.

We asked survey participants to indicate the importance of several reasons in making their decisions to leave their prior employment. Figure 1 summarizes the results pertaining to push factors. Three observations are notable about the figure. First, about 50% of the participants had a low salary. Half of those indicated that the salary was a key push, while another half noted that the salary was not the main reason to leave. Among 54% of survey respondents, who indicated that the factor “limited academic jobs” was relevant to them, two thirds chose the factor as significant in the decision to leave.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Distribution of participants in the importance of the push factors.

Other factors from the literature, such as increasing teaching loads, pressure to publish, poor availability of research funding, political or economic instability in the country of origin, as well as factors related to child rearing and retirement, were important for only a small portion of respondents. The finding implies that the factors are contributing but not sufficient for an individual to relocate.

Pull motivations

Consistent with prior research, our interviews revealed that the combination of salary and benefits is an important factor in the relocation decision (Inkson et al., 2004). Several properties are important for the salary offer. First, the salary level should be internationally competitive. Second, the salary should be adjusted to compensate for the undesirable aspects of the location (e.g., remote location). IFM in Astana wanted to be compensated for the harsh climate, lack of diversity and entertainment. Third, the salary should account for the differences in taxation volatility of the local currency. At the time when the interviews were conducted, Kazakhstan went through a devaluation of its currency. Many participants mentioned that they expected a salary adjustment because their incomes dropped sharply overnight, yet their financial obligations back in their home countries remained the same.

While generous compensation is an important incentive, the responses of most participants confirmed a prior finding by Inkson et al. (2004) that noneconomic factors are more important. Some participants pointed out that their salary is lower than the level in their home countries:

Here I have to pay rent myself. I have no car, no free lunch or dinner, all the trips, travels are from my pocket. Plus, the overall salary was lower [than my previous job]. (Professor, Marketing, Austria)

One of the strongest nonmonetary factors was the desire to seek an adventure. Kazakhstan is attractive to adventurous individuals because not much is known about this remote place. One participant explained the appeal of Kazakhstan:

Previously we had a Cold War. . .and we did not understand anything of what was on the Eastern side of the Berlin Wall. . . When a country like Kazakhstan presented itself, that sounded interesting. (Professor, Organizational Behavior, UK)

In addition, many individuals were attracted by an opportunity to build new organizations/programs. Faculty were interested to work in young organizations because they either (a) professionally specialized in management or organizational development; or (b) expected to gain a variety of CV-enhancing experiences; or (c) perceived established universities as lacking excitement. A quote from one participant demonstrates the points:

I have never been interested in a purely academic job. I am not interested in just publishing academic articles and teaching. What interests me is building new things. That is why I came here. (Professor, Management, UK)

Another nonmonetary motivating factor was the opportunity to make a meaningful change in society. The prospect of working in a newly independent country, which lacked experts in many sectors, appealed to this category of IFM especially when the government welcomes international advice. One female participant explained,

I began looking for international positions where I could make a difference. This was exactly what I wanted to do: being able to contribute to the development of the university, to help the future generations of the country and to do research. (Assistant Professor, Engineering, USA)

Better availability of research opportunities is the last noneconomic pull factor mentioned by the interviewees. Some faculty are attracted to Kazakhstan because they are regional experts; others specialize in niche fields for which few positions are available in the West. The availability of seed grants at Nazarbayev University was particularly attractive for junior faculty trying to jumpstart their research agendas.

The survey results pertaining to the pull factors were consistent with the interview results. Figure 2 summarizes participants’ responses about pull factors. The most important finding is that for 90% of IFM salary is an important factor in making a decision to relocate. However, 68% of the respondents thought that it was not the most important factor. Benefits package was important for 80% of the respondents, but it was most important for only 19% of the participants. Also, for 50% of the respondents, the availability of research funding was important. In short, money seems to matter for IFM, but it is not sufficient alone as a factor for relocation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Distribution of participants in terms of the importance of the pull factors (in percent).

Similarly to the results of the interviews, nonmonetary factors were found in the survey as the most common pull factors for relocation. Sixty-eight percent of IFM made their decision to move to Kazakhstan because they wanted to contribute to the development of the country. Seventy-one percent of participants came to Kazakhstan because of an interest in adventure.

Expected Effects on Future Career

IFM varied in how strategically they thought about their careers. In general, there seem to be two subtypes of faculty, which are similar to “free agents” and “overseas experience seekers” (Inkson et al., 1997). The former view their international experience as a step toward securing a tenure-track position in the West. These people tend to be cognizant of both positive and negative effects of an international job, as well as the actions they need to take to be more attractive to employers in established Western universities. They are very articulate about how their international experience has allowed them to become more effective educators, researcher, and administrators. The majority of the participants of the first kind are assistant professors or instructors, who, moved to Kazakhstan to get their first full-time academic position.

I also was aware within my specialty, because I focus on Eurasia, that a good number of my peers had already worked in American University of Central Asia and I compared my CV to several other people around. I knew that most people have done a couple of years teaching there. It was in my mind that to be competitive in the field I should have that type of experiences as well. (Assistant Professor, Sociology, USA)

However, some of the interviewees are more senior and are more interested in obtaining promotion in administrative positions, or in increasing their chances of obtaining large-scale grants by developing a broader international expertise.

I have been in Tokyo, Hong-Kong, South East Asia, and all over Europe. Central Asia was totally unknown for me, and to me that was an attraction. The other school that I was offered to go to was in Europe, where I grew up. Europe is a beautiful place and, but to me it was not adding things. I needed that geographic diversity to add basically to my experience. (Associate Professor, Business, Belgium)

The strategic careerists tend to set a limit for the number of years to stay abroad because they are worried that a long-term stay overseas may lead to negative effects. They also tend to have specific career objectives that they want to achieve during their stay. These objectives are frequently stated in terms of number of publications, research grants, number of PhD supervisees, and even the types of committees they wish to serve. These objectives are largely shaped by the conventional tenure/promotion standards.

Getting the best out of what I can do here with the given resources . . . I thought I should at least publish two research papers per year, which I did with no problems. And to start the research agenda I needed to get some research funding, which I did. Those important metrics were met. (Associate Professor, Engineering, Turkey)

Another group of IFM are opportunistic career developers, who are more similar to Inkson et al.’s (1997) “overseas experience seekers.” These are truly internationalists in a sense that they purse a mobile career because they want to escape traditional academe. They are not strategic from the point of view of a traditional academic. When choosing between international jobs, they contemplate the long-term effects of the job on their overall employability as a mobile academic. Their employability as an internationally mobile worker depends largely on their ability to adapt and thrive in a foreign environment. They also depend on their ability to teach in a non-English speaking environment, set up new organizations and programs, and understand cultural differences. More often, though, these individuals do not even think beyond their current assignment. They are also less likely to set specific objectives for their stay and do not set a limit on the length of stay. They often reply that they will stay as long as they are satisfied with their current job and living conditions.

Despite the difference between these two types of faculty, the survey revealed lots of similarities in the answers on the expected effects on career and on the length of stay. The majority of the 34 survey respondents said that they planned to stay for about 3.5 years (SD = 1.28). Only 9% of participants planned a 5-year stay.

Figure 3 summarizes answers to the question about the expected effect of the job in Kazakhstan on the long-term career. The main finding is that the survey respondents anticipated mostly positive effects from their international assignments. An overwhelming majority of the faculty expected that they will enhance their teaching, intercultural communication, and leadership skills. About 80% expected to develop useful expertise in the region. Slightly over a half expected to improve their knowledge of languages, to gain additional research skills, to form new research partnerships, and to gain novel perspectives in their field. About a third of respondents expected an expansion in their industry contacts and greater ability to attract research funding and consultancy opportunities.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Distribution of participants in terms of predicted effect on long-term career.

Discussion

This article provided insights into the relocation decisions of internationally mobile faculty members. Some of our findings are consistent with prior literature, while others are new and surprising. Prior research indicated that the main push factors are (a) difficult personal or professional situations (Chapman et al., 2014) and (b) a poor job market (Froese, 2012; Kim, 2016). The main push factors identified by our research participants are as follows: a challenging job market in their home countries, a lack of promotion opportunities or professional challenge, a conflict or discrimination at the workplace, and unexpected life circumstances (e.g., illness, divorce, relocation of a spouse).

Prior research concluded that the main pull factors were (a) the promises of adventure and intercultural exposure (Austin et al., 2014; Chapman et al., 2014; Richardson & Mallon, 2005; Richardson & McKenna, 2003); (b) the desire for a life change (Froese, 2012; Richardson & Mallon, 2005); and (c) a higher salary (Ackers & Oliver, 2005; Austin et al., 2014; Richardson & Mallon, 2005). Meanwhile, in Kazakhstan, the most commonly cited pull factors were opportunities to create new academic institutions and programs as well as to contribute to change in a dynamic society.

This finding about the desire to make a societal change challenges the myth in some host countries that internationally mobile faculty members are largely egotistical individuals who are seeking material and nonmaterial gains. In the case of Kazakhstan, the myth is rather widespread both inside and outside academe. Many academic job ads targeting the international audience emphasize gains such as an “internationally competitive salary,” “attractive benefits package,” free housing and tuition benefits for children, as well as access to funding for research. Absent from many of these job ads are the potential contributions that an academic can make to a growing institution and society, as well as the level of personal satisfaction in these contributions. In Kazakhstan, this myth about foreign academics circulates widely among locals inside and outside universities, throughout mass media, as well as in private conversations that often compare salaries between IFMs and locals (both academics and non-academics). These discussions often assume IFMs are motivated largely by monetary gains.

Meanwhile, while adventure, as well as salary and benefits do matter, the majority of our participants indicated that these were secondary to more altruistic motives. This makes us wonder to what extent these altruistic motivations could characterize other international faculty working in non-Western contexts. Newly established universities outside the West face a variety of unusual challenges. International faculty may be moving there in search of new professional challenges and opportunities to change the host society for the better. This possibility may be explored in subsequent studies. In Kazakhstan, recognizing the altruistic dimension should make administrators of host universities appreciate IFM more and provide more opportunities for them to be able to contribute. International faculty would feel more eager to move to and to stay at the universities if the reward structures reinforce them for the effort to contribute to organizational or societal change via service to the university or the host country, via research on topics relevant to the needs of the host country, or via teaching innovative subjects, which take into consideration locally relevant issues and knowledge.

Our study also demonstrates the relevance of the Kaleidoscope Model (Carraher et al., 2014; Sullivan et al., 2009) in explaining IFM relocation decisions. Contemporary academics are seeking professional challenges, acutely concerned about being able to live by their values, and more cognizant of the need to balance their professional and personal lives. Hence, the decision to relocate is not simply a consideration of career advancement opportunities. All three parameters are considered, and career-related ones are not always the most important ones. One of the broader implications of this study for higher education administration is that hiring and retention policies for IFM should recognize the value of work–life balance. Benefits packages could be improved by including housing, family insurance, and tuition support for children. Home travel should be subsidized for the faculty to be able to maintain their family connections abroad. Flexible working hours and a reasonable workload are also important for the ability of the international faculty to achieve this balance.

Another issue that became clear from our study is that IFM vary in their motivations depending on the career type that they pursue. This finding is consistent with the human resource development literature on mobile professionals (Baruch, 2003; Defillippi & Arthur, 1994; Rosenbaum, 1979; Sullivan, 1999; Willensky, 1964). Some faculty are internationalists who are committed to mobile careers for the duration of their professional life. Others are “traditional academics in disguise.” These two groups face different career expectations, plan their careers differently, and compete in different job markets. The former are looking for employment options in developing or transitional economies, while the latter are largely oriented to finding a job in the West in the near future. For the first group, it is important to maintain a track record in teaching, doing research, and performing administrative responsibilities in international settings, as well as having experience in starting new projects. For the second group, research and publications are more important. Understanding these differences will allow university managers to align incentives and professional development opportunities accordingly.

One conclusion from the study is that the majority of IFM come to Kazakhstan for 3 to 5 years. Individuals who are interested in a lifelong international career will become bored with familiarity at one point. The faculty who use international assignment as a stepping stone to their conventional academic career are aware of the potential negative effects of overstay. There are significant implications for the sustainability of the host university given the short length of commitment. How can a university maintain a relatively stable culture with a transient body of employees? Could a tenure system mitigate this transiency? How can a university leverage IFM to raise the capacity of local faculty who may have less opportunities for mobility?

It is important to note that generalizations from our findings are constrained by certain methodological limitations. In particular, the survey sample size was very small and consisted of only 54 IFMs. These 54 individuals comprised 10% of the estimated total population of international faculty in Kazakhstan and represented a variety of characteristics, which could create maximal variation. While the findings might be representative of the relatively small population of international faculty in Kazakhstan, they may not be representative of the experiences of international faculty in other countries. As the internationalization of higher education progresses in Kazakhstan and data collection on international faculty improves, it would be worthwhile to survey a larger sample to revisit our questions in the future. Similar studies of international faculty in other non-Western countries, as well as large-scale international studies, would allow researchers to draw more general conclusions about international faculty in non-Western contexts.

In summary, this article was able to unpack some factors and mechanisms behind the relocation decision of IFM in a non-Western country. The study revealed some motives, which are unique to faculty moving to universities in the Global South. Subsequent studies can explore the influence of demographic traits on mobility and the experiences of IFMs in teaching and conducting research in a foreign environment.