Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To provide a theoretically grounded exploration of the family's role in the decision to expatriate independently. Design/methodology/approach This is a qualitative study drawing on data collected in interviews with 30 British faculty working in universities in Singapore, New Zealand, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. Data analysis was performed using computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (NVivo). Findings Family played a strong role in the decision to expatriate independently, particularly spouse and children. Yet, extended family remaining in the home country were also implicated. Moreover, participants drew on previous family experiences and history to explain their decision. The concept of the “significant” other was useful in explaining these findings. Research limitations/implications As an exploratory study the sample size was appropriate. However, a larger study might present further themes and/or allow generalization. Alternative family forms were not well represented but they were identified as deserving further attention. Practical implications Given their centrality in the respective decision‐making process family should be taken into account when managing self‐directed expatriates. Moreover, rather than problematizing it as an encumbrance to be managed, families are allies who stand to gain as much from expatriation as the candidate to whom the position is offered. Originality/value The paper extents beyond the traditional corporate assignment model to consider self‐directed expatriate academics. It also answers call for more theoretically grounded studies of expatriation by drawing on interpretive interactionism. A further value is that it draws on contemporary career theory as a useful framework to recognise the embeddedness of the family in expatriation as a career decision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".