Knowledge

Few studies systematically examine the nature of migrant knowledge and whether, upon return, migrants are able to use their knowledge (Williams and Balaz 2008b: 11), which can encompass increased awareness the political, social economic and institutional environment of the receiving country (Phillips and Stahl 2000:13; OECD 2008c: 201). Millar and Salt (2008: 26) make a similar observation; “Few studies have examined the role of mobility in achieving knowledge

transfer and learning and the management literature has paid scant attention to international migration as a potential transfer mechanism.” The ability to apply knowledge is vital since if human capital gained abroad represents know-how that cannot be applied (e.g. because it is linked to a specific location), repatriation problems will arise (Bonache and Brewster (2001: 162). Despite the acknowledged lack of research, some pioneering work has been carried out, such as Balaz et al’s (2004) study of return migrants to Slovakia from the UK. Using surveys and interviews, the authors ask respondents to assess their knowledge and status before, during and after migration. Balaz and Williams (2006) found a range of outcomes for how returnees commodified the knowledge they acquired in the UK that points to previously unobserved competences acquired by individuals while they are abroad, which are difficult to measure using quantitative methods. Another key study by Tung and Lazarova (2006) compared the migration experiences of a cohort of scholarship recipients. An important finding from these studies is that highly skilled migrants in low skilled employment in receiving countries are still able to perceive social advancement upon return to the home country. The authors also argue that the importance attributed by respondents to certain skills indicated the relative supply of these skills (Tung and Lazarova 2006), as respondents highlight the differences between their own competences and those of their local colleagues. The range of skills is measured by asking respondents to evaluate the importance of international experience for acquiring different skills.

This thesis echoes calls for a broader conceptualisation of knowledge focusing less on skills and more on competences, or ‘total human capital’ (Li et al. 1996). Other authors have also called for a refocus on the different types of knowledge that migrants acquire, rather than a narrow assessment based on technical skills and qualifications (Blackler et al. 1998; Williams and Balaz 2008). Again, the literature on transnational corporations has led this discourse. Knowledge has long been recognised by firms and researchers as important for productivity, and many have attempted to describe and codify it (see Nonaka et al. 2001). A substantial body of literature is devoted to understanding how knowledge circulates within firms, teams, units, between individuals and, for multinational firms that have offices in several countries, across locations. Knowledge is the most important source of firms’ competitive advantage (Nonaka et al. 2000). Moving on from a simple ‘information-processing paradigm” (Nonaka et al. 2001: 491), knowledge management is increasingly guided by a broad conception of skills that includes scientific and technical skills, know-how and so-called ‘soft-skills’, such as communication and

creativity. McCall (1997), for instance, developed a typology of knowledge that managers acquire abroad through international migration: managerial skills; tolerance of ambiguity (taking decisions with little information); multiple perspectives (seeing things from others’ points of view); and ability to work with others (tolerating different types of people). Beaverstock (2005) discusses elite cadres of management staff who can span boundaries with their generic knowledge. Reich (1992) talks about ‘social skills’ and Evans (2002) about ‘social and interpersonal competences’ and attitudes and values (responsibility and reliability). Social skills such as self-confidence, self-reliance and adaptability to changing circumstances are also critical. Payne (2000: 354) writes that “skill has expanded almost exponentially to include a veritable galaxy of ‘soft’, ‘generic’, ‘transferable’, ‘social’ and ‘interactional’ skills, frequently indistinguishable from personal characteristics, behaviours and attitudes which in the past would rarely have been conceived of as skills.” Recent studies have argued that migrants acquire knowledge through the migration experience even if they are working in unskilled positions in receiving countries (Williams and Balaz 2005; Tung and Lazarova 2006). The importance of this knowledge becomes apparent upon return when competences such as self-confidence and social and communication skills are commodified (Balaz et al. 2004). This last point underlines the importance of surveying individuals at the return point of the migration cycle. The value of knowledge often only becomes apparent upon return to the home country when returnees enjoy improvements in status and wages, even if their position in the host country did not reflect the perceived identity or status (Balaz and Williams 2004). Ghosh writes (2000b: 188) that highly skilled migrants working in unskilled positions in receiving countries implies “downward occupational mobility and downgrading of skills” which is a loss to the country of origin because it “fails to benefit from improved skills of the workers should they return.” This represents a broad approach to skills, rather than focusing on formal occupational skills and qualifications that are implicit in concepts such as ‘brain waste’ (Williams and Balaz 2005: 443-444). This mirrors to some extent the observation that most workplace learning is informal and thus requires a focus on interaction between colleagues, and the prevailing workplace culture (Evans and Rainbird 2002: 15).

Alongside their technical skills, in theory, the most valuable competences required for knowledge economies are the most difficult to transfer. Key distinctions have been identified in knowledge research, which refer to transferability, particularly according to two dimensions:

tacit versus explicit and generic versus specific. These in turn influence the extent to which knowledge is tied to individuals, teams, workplaces or environments. Polanyi (1958) established the distinction between explicit and intangible - or tacit – knowledge. Whereas explicit knowledge can be codified (expressed in words and numbers), and easily communicated and shared in the form of data and text, tacit knowledge is rooted in individual experience, and is only exposed through its application (Bonache and Brewster 2001: 149). Individuals acquire tacit knowledge through experience, and it exists in the minds and behaviours of people when they work individually or in teams (Boisot 1998). The majority of our knowledge is tacit (Bonache and Brewster 2001: 149) and is often shared in informal settings (Jones and Jordan 1998; Pan and Scarbrough 1999: Truran 1998). In its purest form, individuals are unaware of tacit knowledge in their work; they do not recall its use and cannot readily access or demonstrate it (Chilton and Bloodgood 2007: 2). Tacit knowledge is believed to be more valuable for companies than explicit knowledge, which can be easily codified and communicated to a wide number of constituents (Lazarova and Tarique 2005:364; Subramaniam and Venkatraman 2001). Talent can be generic (it can be acquired on the labour market) or specific (it can only be acquired within the company). These theories can be logically extended to all types of mobile individuals. For instance, students go abroad ostensibly to acquire qualifications but employers are also increasingly aware of the tacit benefits that international experience brings.

The transferability of knowledge is central to this thesis. Following Ipe (2003) this research defines knowledge sharing as “[...] a conscious act by an individual who participates in the knowledge exchange even though there is no compulsion to do so”, which is different from the “exchange of information based on some routines or structured formats” (Ipe 2003: 342). Transferability can be understood according to the concept of ‘stickiness’ developed by Szulanski (2000: 10). Knowledge is ‘sticky’ if it is linked to a specific location (encultured and embedded knowledge). Tacit knowledge is especially hard to transfer and is more vulnerable to cultural and personal distance than explicit knowledge, which can be codified and is less dependent on personal interaction and relationships (Davenport and Prusak 1998: 90; Hau and Evangelista 2007: 1158). Formal learning channels facilitate knowledge sharing but they tend to favour explicit knowledge (Ipe 2003: 349). Tacit knowledge transfer is suited to international

assignments and physical proximity whereas firms can use manuals, IT or annual meetings to spread explicit knowledge (Bonache and Brewster 2001: 160).

Blackler’s (2002) typology of different types of knowledge are relevant for migration because, like the tacit and explicit distinction, they refer to knowledge that is intrinsic to individuals, which can be carried between locations, and knowledge which is more difficult to transfer through mobility, that which is developed through interpersonal interactions.

Table 1.4 Taxonomy of knowledge and transferability

Type of knowledge

More useful forms of engagement

Transferability between locals Differences and migrants Where encapsulated / situated Embrained Conceptual skills and cognitive abilities Observation and imitation

Fully exchangeable via corporeal mobility Unlikely to be consistent differences Encapsulated in the individual Embodied Action oriented and only partially explicit. Results from experiences of physical presence Observation and imitation. Acquired by doing.

Fully exchangeable via corporeal mobility. Necessarily devalorised by corporeal mobility Unlikely to be consistent differences Encapsulated in the individual Encultured Process of achieving shared understanding. Processes of socialisation and acculturation Discourse Barrier to mobility – grounded in shared understanding between individuals. Can be eroded by migration. Devalorised by corporeal mobility

Different Socially situated _knowledge

Embedded Knowledge residing in systemic routines Discourse Barrier to mobility – grounded in shared understanding between individuals. Can be eroded by migration. Transferring embedded knowledge between organisations is problematic because it resides in an organisation’s interrelated systems of physical, human and organisational relationships

Different Socially situated _knowledge

Encoded Tangible. In _{printed form} Easiest to transfer – _{completely explicit}

Unlikely to be consistent differences

Disembodied

Embedded and cultured knowledge are useful because they facilitate comparison and critical reflection, allowing individuals to draw out similarities and differences, to adapt and translate knowledge and practices between locations (Williams and Balaz 2008b: 192-193). In Table 1.4 ‘Transferability’ column describes the relationship of knowledge to the individuals and environment where it is located. Knowledge that is encapsulated within the individual - embodied and embrained – has the most transferability because it is stored within the individual, independent of others or external environmental factors. It is also described as generic knowledge because it exists in similar forms across a wide variety of locations (i.e. accounting or medicine). Conversely, embedded and encultured knowledge are relatively difficult to transfer. Within organisations, since they are moulded by the interaction between the individual and their colleagues operating in the same environment/culture, they have high internal value but offer little to third parties. Once this unique set up is broken, the knowledge begins to erode. They also require different forms of interaction for transfer to take place; “Arguably, in terms of engagement, observation and imitation may be relatively more important with respect to embrained and embodied knowledge, while discourse may be relatively more important for encultured and embedded knowledge” (Williams and Balaz 2008b: 162). Formal learning channels can include structured training and courses. Informal training and learning, on the other hand, involve observation of skilled colleagues. It is a process of trial and error, receiving feedback, advice and guidance.

The tacit / explicit knowledge distinction is also conceived as knowledge which is specific to a certain work environment and that which can be easily transferred across firms. Non-specific knowledge is generally viewed as more valuable to firms than specific knowledge because of its relative transferability. ‘Specific’ knowledge loses some of its relevance once a person leaves an organisation. Generic knowledge has wide applicability, while specific knowledge is primarily pertinent to critical areas of expertise within an organisation (Lazarova and Tarique 2005:364). However, while Backler’s (2002) distinctions are important, it is not within the scope of this research to test knowledge categories in such detail. The thesis focuses on the tacit versus explicit, formal and ‘soft’ skills, and specific and generic distinctions.