The paper outlines findings of an exploratory research that investigates international academic mobility experiences of faculty members in Russian universities as part of higher education institutions internationalization efforts. The study aims at getting a deeper understanding of motivation, personal expectations and outcomes of the mobility experience, as well as its influence on further teaching and research activities after the mobility period completion. Ten faculty members employed in Russian universities were interviewed about their experience of academic mobility abroad. The transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. The study allowed to examine 3 dimensions of academic mobility in the Russian context from the perspective of university faculty: (1) personal motivation and benefits of the participating faculty members; (2) institutional support and barriers that occur during the preparation and mobility process; (3) effects of completed academic mobility on further professional performance of the faculty members.

 Theoretical framework

Internationalization of higher education is a global process that has been discussed at the national, sector, and institutional levels and is defined as the process of integrating an international, intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of postsecondary education (Knight, 2003). Historically, the two basic directions of internationalization of higher education on the institutional level were mobility of students, academic and research staff, and academic cooperation between the universities (Prutsch, 2015). In Europe, academic mobility is one of the key indicators that is applied to measure the internationalization progress (de Witt, 2009). However, in the Russian educational system, mobility of university academic staff is not measured as an indicator of university performance assessment (Teplyakov, 2018). In this sense, Russia makes a unique example of internationalization practice because university internationalization is not regarded as a key initiative for national academia nor for universities themselves but is directed and regulated by the state (Shenderova, 2018). Therefore, faculty academic mobility is less of a priority for university management, and it is less attractive for faculty as it is not regarded as a necessary element of professional development; hence, they may not even be aware of academic mobility benefits (Petriakova, 2015). 

The research explores international academic mobility experiences of faculty members of Russian universities based in regions outside the capital region. For data collection semi-structured interviews were used (Kvale, 2007), which included 14 questions on 3 dimensions of academic mobility experience, that is, personal motivation to participate and expected results, institutional support and barriers from both sending and receiving institutions, and mobility outcomes that affected professional performance in research and teaching and interactions with international and mobile students of the respondents’ home institution. We used purposive sampling aimed to involve participants with determined characteristics: being employed at the university as academic staff; having experience of academic mobility participation; residing in Russia. Ten university faculty members were interviewed. The interviews were performed online, audio-recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis (Patton, 2002). The purpose of this approach was to reflect on the qualitatively different or similar patterтs in perception of the faculty members of their experiences of academic mobility. We created a coding matrix that allowed extracting the meaningful patterns and constructing deductive conclusions of the research.

The analysis allowed eliciting ideas on the key factors that affect decision-making of the faculty whether to participate in mobility: (a) motivations, (b) experiences connected with home and hosting institutions, and (c) outcomes they managed to integrate into their professional performance. (a) Decision on the academic mobility is underpinned by information from trustworthy colleagues or international cooperation officers. However, the decision does not imply much choice, lack of available information is often a serious limitation. Participation is not incentivized by home institutions, neither at the macro nor the meso level of the university ecosystem (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2012), but by internal motivation. (b) On the institutional level, faculty felt supported by the international offices, this very much reflected the acknowledged importance of international cooperation between academic departments (rather than universities). So, importance of faculty mobility characterized the meso level of university (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2012). (c) The outcome of the mobility differs depending on the disciplinary affiliation of the participants and their language skills. Successful academic networking is more typical for researchers; enhancing teaching practice and integrating them in the home institution are problematic due to different institutional and cultural approaches to teaching and learning (Trowler & Cooper, 2010), students’ conceptions of learning (Virtanen & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2010) and language barriers. Finally, mobile faculty often perceive themselves as cultural ambassadors of their home country and take this role as an important contribution. Academic staff who experience academic mobility are driven more by personal motivations rather than external incentives. More support should be provided to better integrate their experiences into practices; thus, home institutions could foster internationalization at home (Teekens, 2003). The analysis indicates lacking knowledge transfer between meso and micro levels (administrative and academic staff), thus practices of highly internationalized institutions should be evaluated by considering the specifics of Russian institutions.

Aerden A. (2015) Frameworks for the assessment of quality in internationalisation. ECA Occasional Paper. European Consortium for Accreditation in Higher Education. de Wit, H. (ed.) (2009). Measuring success in the internationalisation of higher education. EAIE Occasional Paper 22. NVAO European Parliament. Policy Department B: structural and cohesion policies (2015). Internationalization of Higher Education. Prutsch M. J. (ed.) Knight J. (2003). Updated internationalization definition. International Higher Education 33 (33), 2-3. Knight J. (2012). Student mobility and internationalization: trends and tribulations. Research in comparative and international education, 7 (1), 20-33. Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodelled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8 (1), 5–31. Kvale S. (2007). Doing interviews. Sage Publications. Marinoni G. (2019) Internationalization of Higher Education: An Evolving Landscape, Locally and Globally. Executive summary. IAU 5th Global Survey. Patton M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd Edition. Sage Publications. Petriakova N. (2015, April 24-26). Academic mobility of teachers of the university [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Strategies of Social Communities, Institutions, and Territories. Yekaterinburg, Russia. Vol. 2 (97-100). Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2012). How effects from teacher training of academic teachers propagate into the meso level and beyond. In E. Simon & G. Pleschova (Eds.), Teacher development in higher education. Existing programs, program impact, and future trend. (pp. 213-233). London, UK: Routledge Rozhenkova, V. & Rust, V.D. (2018). Internationalization of higher education in Russia: aiming for global recognition. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalization and education reforms. Series: globalization, comparative education and policy research (93-106). Netherlands: Springer. Shenderova, S. (2018). Internationalisation of higher education in Russia: National policy and results at institutional level. In: Korhonen, V., & Alenius, P. (Eds.). Internationalisation and Transnationalisation in Higher Education (69-100). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang AG. Teekens, H. (2007). Internationalization at Home: An introduction. In Teekens, H. (Ed.) Internationalization at Home: Ideas and Ideals (33–39). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: European Association for International Education (EAIE). Teplyakov D.& Teplyakova O. (2018) National Policy for Academic Mobility in Russia and the BRICS Countries: 20 Years of the Bologna Process Implementation. BRICS Law Journal, 5(1). 5–26 Trowler, P. & Cooper A. (2002) Teaching and Learning Regimes: Implicit theories and recurrent practices in the enhancement of teaching and learning through educational development programmes. Higher Education Research & Development, 21 (3), 221-240. Virtanen, V., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2010). University students’ and teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning in the biosciences. Instructional Science, 38, 355-370.