Last week I had the opportunity to be in a policy session as rapporteur on “Precarious Returns: Research Careers in Emerging and Under-Resourced Contexts” at the #MCAAConf organized by Marie Curie Alumni Association. As an MSCA researcher from the Global South, this was never a distant question. Being responsible for the session’s output made it even less so. Sharing my reflections:
The key focus of the session was to understand the challenges in researcher reintegration process after mobility, in the MSCA context for global south STEM researchers, since mobility is something always perceived as positive, and is meant to build capacity, networks, independence and skills, and translate all of that when researchers go back to their home country. Listening across the reflections from the speakers, one thing stood out: that translation is assumed far more than it’s actually supported.
Most prevalent indicators were limited funding and infrastructure, delays in getting established, and receiving systems not prepared for what the researchers bring back.Came across also cases about international experiences not being recognized at all and that the “successful return” has to do with timing, political leadership and luck.
Regardless, we adapt, try to find positives, and that resilience often covers the lack of systemic support. In fact, precarious returns shape our career trajectories in ways we might fail to anticipate. Not just the position you take up, but which questions you choose to ask or quietly drop, which collaboration never happen. The researchers who had chosen to pursue something can be pushed to something else. No metric captures this. The weight of family is its own calculus.
So, how does actually valuing and using mobility look like? It could be institutions recognizing international experience in hiring, research allocation, in how researchers are positioned with the department, and startup packages that actually covers the transition.The recognition aspect is somewhat in place, but that alone isn’t enough. Using mobility means the returnee being treated as a bridge, create conditions where ideas can thrive, international network coming home, asking what did you learn?, how can we build it?, equipment access, bridge funding, to name a few. Basically, a system wanting to implement what you bring. Return schemes designed on brain gain logic often assumes that the institution is ready and new research and collaborations will follow, creating a gap that researchers cover with their adaptability. This holds across both academic and non-academic transitions alike.
This might sound like something we know already and we keep discussing the same. So yes, the answer isn’t more discussion about the discussion. Not how schemes are designed but how they land. Mobility creates potential, systems decide whether it’s tapped.That gap is not the researcher’s to solve alone.
Thanks to the speakers, organizers and audience in the room for a worthy conversation.
Leave a Reply