Over the last decade there has been an increasing interest among policy makers in many transitional economies to strengthen the research capacity of universities in the attempt to stimulate economic development with innovative ideas, products, and services (World Bank, 2010). One of the key mechanisms used by policymakers to implement a package of reforms aimed at the development of universities’ research potential has been internationalization (Knight and DeWitt, 1997). Notably, study abroad is considered one of the most effective internationalization-related solutions (Gribble, 2008). While some researchers raise concerns about the undesirable consequences of the brain drain associated with study abroad initiatives in the Southern contexts (Kapur and McHale, 2005), an array of players, including European and North American universities, governments, and international organizations, offer international mobility funding to students interested in going abroad (Perna, et al., 2014; Bhandari, 2007). 

As the number of international students increases, so does the global inquiry on the topic of student mobility (Kehm and Teichler, 2007; Nicolescu and Galalae, 2013; Yudkevich et al., 2016). Most of the available research, however, focuses on the experiences of undergraduate students and there is a lack of studies on the mobility experiences of graduate students, especially, at the doctoral level (Kiisler, 2021). In addition, only a limited number of studies have explored how the doctoral-degree recipients from overseas universities readjust to the environment of their home countries upon their return (Author, XXXX). Understanding of this experience is important for Western sponsors and universities to be able to prepare students for the most successful return.

 The purpose of the study is to contribute to global inquiry about the readjustment experiences of returning scholars with doctoral degrees by exploring the readjustment experiences of such scholars in the context of Kazakhstan. More specifically, the study will shed light on variation in experiences depending on the country of study looking at the differences in the experiences of returnees from various country contexts and attempting to explain the causes of such variation. The rationale for analyzing the variation is linked to the fact that prior studies on readjustment of returning scholars in Kazakhstan (Author, XXXX) pointed to the existence of such variation and called for subsequent studies on the topic, which would shed more light on the variation and its potential drivers.

From the practical and policy standpoint we hope to generate recommendations on how host universities, scholarship programs, hiring institutions and higher education policy makers can offer differentiated approaches to supporting returnees. These recommendations will arise from the findings of the study.

 The study has been most generically organized around the following research questions:

(1)   To what extent Kazakhstani scholars, who received their doctoral education  abroad, differ in their experiences of readjustment to Kazakhstani research environment depending on the country of destination?

(2)   What are the drivers, if any, of these differentiated experiences?

 To answer the research questions, we used the theoretical construct of “legibility” (Scott, 1998), which provided a possible explanation for the existence of two types of returnees in terms of their experiences. More specifically, the application of the concept led us to the conclusion that the variation in the experiences of doctoral degree holders is the result of the operation of a legibility sorting mechanism used by the state in valuation of the quality of doctoral education and the research performance of two formerly colonial academic systems – the post-Soviet (most importantly Russian) and the Western one, which attempt to exert neo-colonial influences on the academic system of Kazakhstan. 

The central phenomenon in the study is the variation in the research-related experiences of Kazakhstani scholars, who, after the pursuit of a Ph.D. degree abroad, have returned from to work in a research organization in Kazakhstan, as well as the field of influences on the research experiences, as perceived by the individuals themselves. Given that we sought to obtain an in-depth understanding of the central phenomenon and to unpack the potential drivers of the variation, we chose a qualitative approach as most appropriate for the study (Creswell, 2013). More specifically, we used an in-depth descriptive qualitative interview design. In this design, we relied on surface interpretation of the data to arrive at an in-depth description of a phenomenon, which most of the participants of the study or other researchers would agree on (Sandelowski, 2000). The main method of data collection was Skype interviews. This approach was feasible in the context of the global pandemic and was most informative in our attempt to understand the experiences of the participants in words of the participants themselves. The semi-structured format allowed us to have some flexibility in interviewing to be able to dynamically follow up on unexpected themes in the process of interviewing (Creswell, 2013). The participants of the interviews were selected out of individuals, who were employed as faculty, researchers or research-active instructors in universities and non-academic research centres. We included only the participants, who spent no less than six months in Kazakhstan after their return and who were within five years of graduation. This allowed us to ensure that the participants have managed to find a job, have gained some initial experience to talk about, and have not yet become completely functional in the system to completely forget about their first impressions on adaptation. The sampling approach, which was used for the selection of the 32 participants was maximal variation. This approach allowed us to ensure broad representation of the experiences in a relatively small sample of participants, while capturing possible variations in the experiences, including variation in terms of country of study. In addition to the country of doctoral training, the participants were varied on such characteristics as gender, area of specialization, type of funding received for doctoral studies, and experience in Kazakhstani academia prior to departure.

The concept of legibility provides a very useful frame for interpreting the results of the study. On the surface, we can clearly see that the returnees from foreign doctoral programs have different experiences of readjustment to the research environment in Kazakhstan. It is evident that the recipients of the Bolashak program, the majority of those who study in the West or in top-ranked universities in the world, are considered superior to all others, who have returned from non-Western and post-Soviet contexts. The latter have to go through a mandatory process of nostrification and may end up in a situation when their degrees are not even recognized in Kazakhstan. This differentiated treatment results in different opportunities in terms of subsequent development of research careers. The former group find employment in better universities and ultimately have better chances to succeed. At the deeper level, heterogenization of graduates is a manifestation of the underlying “war” between the two competing systems of academic colonialism. One of the systems is the old Soviet one, which dominated higher education and research system in Kazakhstan over the last century and which has continued to exert its post-colonial influence in the persisting belief about its superiority, which is evident in the perceptions of some of the returning scholars. Its counterpart is the Western system, which has been increasingly strengthening in its influence in the post-colonial world. Prior studies (Author, XXXX) showed how returning scholars might act as the agents of the neo-colonial domination in academia by promoting Western academic practices, norms, standards of quality, and values. T

Ackers, L., 2005. Moving people and knowledge: Scientific mobility in the European Union. International migration, 43(5), pp.99-131. Bhandari, R., 2017. Post‐secondary scholarships for students from developing countries: Establishing a global baseline. European Journal of Education, 52(4), pp. 533-545. Center for the Bologna Process and Academic Mobility (2019). Analytic Report 2019. Nur-Sultan, 2019. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenic-kazakhstan.edu.kz%2F%2Fuploads%2Fadditional_files_items%2F56%2Ffile%2Fanaliticheskiy-otchet-za-2019-god.pdf%3Fcache%3D1581490562&embedded=false Choudaha, R., 2017. Three waves of international student mobility (1999–2020). Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), pp. 825-832. Gribble, C., 2008. Policy options for managing international student migration: the sending country's perspective. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(1), pp. 25-39. Kehm, B. M., & Teichler, U., 2007. Research on internationalisation in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), pp. 260-273. Kiisler, K., 2021. A realist evaluation of a doctoral mobility programme in Estonia (Doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University (United Kingdom)). Kiselyeva, T. (2021). “Bolashak” – a successful project of the 30 years of independence. 365 InfoKZ, 15.11.2021. Retrieved from https://365info.kz/2021/11/30-let-programme-bolashak-uspeshnomu-proektu-nezavisimogo-kazahstana Knight, J. & De Wit, H., 1995. Strategies for Internationalization of Higher Education: historical and conceptual perspectives, in H. De Wit (Ed.) Strategies for Internationalization of Higher Education: a comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America, Amsterdam: European Association for International Education, pp. 5-33. Nicolescu, L., & Galalae, C., 2013. A systematic literature review on students’ international mobility and cultural adjustment. Management & Marketing, 8(2), 261-282. Perna, L. W., Orosz, K., Gopaul, B., Jumakulov, Z., Ashirbekov, A., & Kishkentayeva, M. 2014. Promoting human capital development: A typology of international scholarship programs in higher education. Educational Researcher, 43(2), pp. 63-73. Rossi, U. 2008. “Being Here and There: in-Betweenness, Double Absence, and the Making of a Multi-Layered Academic Citizenship.” Area 40 (3): 401–406. Sagintayeva, A., & Jumakulov, Z. (2015). Kazakhstan’s Bolashak scholarship program. International Higher Education, (79), 21-23. Sandelowski, M., 2000. Focus on research methods-whatever happened to qualitative description?. Research in Nursing and Health, 23(4), pp. 334-340. Wyrtzen, J., 2017. Colonial Legitimization-Legibility Linkages and the Politics of Identity in Algeria and Morocco. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 58(2), pp.205-235. Yudkevich, M., Altbach, P. G., & Rumbley, L. E. (Eds.)., 2016. International Faculty in Higher Education: Comparative Perspectives on Recruitment, Integration, and Impact. Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis.