Russian Academic Diaspora in the Socio-Economic Field: Difficulties and Perspectives of Cooperation

Abstract

Dmitry Popov — Senior Research Associate, Institute for Education Development, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”. Address: 20, Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: dmitry_popov@sociolog.net

Svetlana Tvorogova — Associate Professor, Sub-department of Socio-Economic Systems and Social Policy, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”. Address: 20, Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: sv-tv@inbox.ru

Igor Fedyukin — Leading Expert, Center for Economic and Financial Research, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”. Address: 20, Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: ifedyukin@hse.ru

Isak Froumin —Academic Supervisor, Institute of Education, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”. Address: 20, Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: ifroumin@hse.ru

Migrant flows and diasporas have become an important phenomenon in the modern world. Although diasporas differ in their scales, they definitely demonstrate the potential for being an important and often underestimated policy tool. This paper reviews the opportunities for domestic cooperation, considering the example of the Russian academic diaspora in social sciences (the data from a descriptive pilot study, completed in autumn-winter, 2008). The chosen focus is interesting because a) the studied community is small and questions its own attribution to the diaspora; b) highly skilled professionals seem to present a special case for all diaspora studies, tend to be more independent from the rest of their compatriots, and to integrate closer into the host culture; and c) social science was underdeveloped in the Soviet Union and remains rather isolated from the general flow of studies in contemporary Russia, thus limiting the attractiveness of the return option.

While some countries are competing for the highly skilled migrants, others either try to regulate emigration flows or develop policies reversing brain drain into the brain gain. The latter has become a popular topic, also because of its relevance to the agenda of so many countries all over the world, including the most developed ones.

Could the Russian academic diaspora in the socio-economic field be a noticeable change agent in developing Russian research and education? What are these people, and are they interested in having more cooperation with Russia? How could it be stimulated? These were the overarching questions of the study, and they defined the logic of the following text.

Highly-skilled migration has become a popular phenomenon in both reality and academic studies. If normal migrants need an identity in a host society, the professionals get it with their job affiliation, and, hence, they do not need to seek or create one. Also the use of the term ‘minority’ is often inadequate while describing the Babylonian crowd, which forms many departments or laboratories in developed countries — thus the very essence of the diaspora phenomenon is questioned by this category of people.

Instead of solving the problem of adaptation to the new society, the migrants of this type seem to maximize the professional opportunities — often better in the host countries. Thus, they often do not demonstrate most of the attributes expected from a migrant — sticking with people of the same origin, supporting ethnic networks, etc. They do not need that assistance, as they get it through the job. A situation that might stimulate the emergence of networks: a migrant needs to find what in society is substituted by a much more individualistic perspective — ‘the society (through the host institutions) assists the specialists to be integrated’, or at least does not create any additional obstacles and provides the necessary support (e.g. visa support, insurance, housing, etc). Integration through professional networks is often easier, as they are already established and recognized in the host society. Such networks are often dense enough to provide the necessary support, and colleagues help with psychological and cultural integration.

Diaspora could also be seen as a resource, opening additional opportunities in social or political space for its members. Through creating their own associations, immigrants establish many contacts, at least with other immigrant associations, third-sector organizations, and the local authorities. Again highly-skilled migrants might find integration into a professional community more beneficial than addressing the diaspora as a tool for establishing themselves in the host society.

Some studies suggest that as long as the migrant researchers are familiar with the social systems in both the host and the home country, they could serve as a special link between them, stimulating the circulation of intellectual resources. Thus, it could be also expected to find a well-integrated community, sharing the same or close values and interests, and searching for the ways for further expansion — ready to integrate the new members, etc.

Finally, one should expect to find the Russian community abroad fairly heterogeneous: the complicated history of Russia in the 20th century has created different identities for ‘Russians’, meaning both geographical and cultural diversity. The definition, ‘Russian’, could be attributed to those associated with the Russian empire, its huge territories and mixed history, thus covering most of the so-called ‘Russian-speakers’. It could also deal with the ‘Russian-Soviet’ divide and the different views on country’s past and future. Each definition of ‘a Russian’ in a mixed social environment of a host country loosens the diaspora further.

Several key findings are discussed in the article. Those include:

Heterogeneity of the category in question. Internationally integrated social researchers of widely defined Russian origin make a mixed group with a very different background, different relations to Russia and its academic community, and presumably different identities (a question not addressed in this study).

Globalised logic of career-making dominates any ethnic identity. The researchers have positive feelings about Russia, often are interested in the social processes there as a real or potential subject of research, but this does signify their readiness to move to Russia, neither their preference to cooperate with other researchers of the same origin in or outside the country. Career considerations define the further move of the well-integrated researchers. Their origin does not play an important role because the community is too small and the research topics are too diverse. Thus, the term diaspora in its standard meaning is not fully applicable to the category in question — these people form a special professional community, where work identity and work-related networking dominate.

A broader focus is possible when looking for ways to attract internationally recognized researchers. The smaller importance of ethnic identity, however, broadens the pool of researchers who might be interested in cooperation with their Russian counterparts. In a large country with many special processes interesting for social researchers, there is a good chance of attracting not only those related to the country by background, but also those looking for interesting data and good research opportunities.

A number of suggestions on the formats and conditions of cooperation between internationally recognized and local researchers is made — these schemes could be applied in different countries, not only Russia.