Talent Mobility between Canada and China

It is claimed that a “new mobilities” paradigm, also known as a “mobility turn,” is being formed within the social sciences to transcend disciplinary boundaries. 1 As a powerful discourse that creates its own effects and contexts, this emerging mobility paradigm challenges the ways in which much of social science research has been relatively “a-mobile” until recently. Fuelled by globalization, the integration of the world economy and advanced transportation technologies has greatly enhanced the mobility of people across national boundaries.

As a result of increasing global mobility, we have witnessed the growth of transnational migration and increasing enrolment of international students in Canada. 2 Over the past two decades, China has been one of the top source countries providing both immigrants and international students to Canada. It is estimated that close to 1.6 million of Canada’s population identify themselves as of Chinese origin. 3 Meanwhile, China has been the leading country of origin for international students to Canada since 2001. Canadian Bureau for International Education reports that, in 2015, 33.5% or 118,915 of Canada’s international students came from China, an 11% increase from 2014. 4 Of note, 15.4% of Chinese international students transitioned directly to permanent residency in 2015. Meanwhile, China’s continued economic growth and its favorable “brain circulation” policies have attracted many internationally-trained Chinese expatriates back to China, suggesting that the diaspora sojourn should be seen as multiple and circular rather than unidirectional and final. 5

Aside from student mobility, China is overwhelmingly the top focus of almost all facets of Canadian universities’ internationalization activities, being prioritized by 88% of Canadian universities. 6 In terms of Canada’s outbound mobility, however, only 3.4% Canadian domestic students went to China in 2015 and 7% identified China as potential choice of country for future visit. 7 This represents a stark contrast with the number of Chinese students in Canada, suggesting that it is important to closely examine talent mobility between the two countries. Given the data above, doing so necessarily involves a focus on international students and immigration.

This special issue consists of seven articles by established and emerging scholars from Canada and China who are interested in talent mobility between the two countries. In the first article, Hongxia Shan examines talent mobility in the context of Chinese transnationalism and global capitalism. She draws on the concept of transnational social field as a framework to analyze the social organization of the career lives of 15 professional Chinese immigrant women engaged in circular migration between Canada and China. She charts their migratory and career trajectories and maps the complex relations that constitute the transnational field. Her study demonstrates that this transnational social field is comprised of a complex of social relations reticulated through multiple institutions, organizations, and actors. It also reveals that this transnational social field provides conduits for alternative flows of power, privileging the entrepreneurial quest for social, cultural, and economic capitals. Though the transnational social field may present an elitist façade, Shan argues, it is itself also vulnerable, fractured, and prone to crisis.

In the second article, Cui takes up some of the themes discussed by Shan. She examines how second-generation immigrant youth engage in transnational practices and negotiate their identity formation within the transnational social field. Informed by theoretical insights from transnationalism and identity construction, Cui explores how transnational networks such as transnational family connections and activities shape the lived experiences and identification of Chinese immigrant youth. Her findings suggest that transnational practices within immigrant families nurtured transnational orientation and identification among Chinese youth. Cui questions using the frequency of homeland trips as an objective measure to evaluate the degree of second generation transnationalism. She contends that the filter that second generation provides to observe, think and construct meanings may reflect the ideological and hegemonic socialization and indoctrination they receive in host society.

With the next article, Zhang and Beck continue to examine talent mobility between the two countries with a focus on the experiences of Chinese international students. The authors analyze student mobility in the context of globalization and internationalization of education. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concepts of social power, in particular, on sanctuary, they explore factors that drive students from China to seek higher education in Canada, as well as their learning experiences in a Canadian university. Their analysis shows that avoiding the highly competitive national entrance exam or Gaokao is one of the major reasons for coming to Canada for higher education. Ironically, their pursuit of sanctuary from Gaokao turns into another battle from which they have little chance of refuge. Zhang and Beck argue that the benefits of going abroad as an alternative to taking Gaokao have been exaggerated, gilded, and romanticized. Their findings also indicate that the participants went through a complicated process of identity negotiation and construction, demonstrating identities as Chinese, as Chinese international students, and as transnationals.

In the fourth article, Zhou, Liu and Rideout shift the focus to the experiences of Chinese international graduate students in Canada. Their study investigates academic adaptations of Chinese international graduate students enrolled in a master of education program at an Ontario university in Canada. The findings demonstrate that Chinese international graduate students share common challenges with international undergraduates, including language barriers, cultural differences, and unfamiliarity with Canadian academic environment. Their study also suggests that Chinese international graduate students have unique perspectives and expectations of curriculum and pedagogy of their graduate programs. In light of these findings, the authors recommend a number of changes for new curriculum development and inclusive teaching.

In the next article, Liu takes us beyond the popular cultural approach in examining the experiences of Chinese international students in Canada. She argues that existing studies that take a cultural approach typically focus on cultural differences and intercultural adaptation, thus ignoring questions of social inequality. In framing intersectionality as a form of critical inquiry, her study identifies race, gender, and class as distinct social categories of identity and examines how these components intersect to produce social inequality. Drawing on narrative inquiry, her analysis highlights the paradox of racialized experiences, the ignorance of gender, and social inequality beyond class. The colour line divides students into the “dominant white” and “people of colour.” At the same time, colour blindness negates the racial identities of international students and ignores the ways in which these affect their learning experiences. This study calls for an intersectionality approach in understanding the lived experiences of Chinese international students and their multiple identities as international students in Canada.

In the sixth article, Yochim and Servage turn our attention to faculty experiences and perspectives on “the Chinese learner” in the internationalized classrooms of a Canadian university. The study is situated in the context of “internationalization at home,” which focuses on universities’ efforts to make international students feel welcome and valued. Their study explores how faculty respond to imperatives to “internationalize” their classrooms in the absence of sufficient preparation or supports to teach to linguistically and culturally diverse student populations. Their findings highlight a number of areas in which faculty struggle. Their analysis also takes into account faculty critiques of internationalization as revenue-driven and the university’s failure to provide the support that international students need to succeed in a Canadian academic environment.

The final article by Zong and Lu problematize the notion of “brain gain” and “brain drain” by focusing on talent mobility between Canada and China. They argue that the traditional approach focusing on the outflow and inflow of the number of talented people often ignores the extent to which the “brain” has been utilized. Their examination revisits “brain drain” and “brain gain” by focusing on the actual utilization of professional talents. Their analysis shows that Canada as a traditional country of “brain gain” has experienced the phenomenon of “brain waste” due to the devaluation of immigrants’ international credentials and prior work experience in Canada. Their findings also reveal that China has subsequently benefited from returning talents from Canada through its attractive initiatives that have motivated many to return to China to live and work. On this view, China has become a country of “brain gain,” benefiting from the knowledge and expertise of returnees. This article uncovers the changing dynamics of these concepts in the age of transnational mobility.

Taken together, this special issue represents our collective efforts in attempting to understand talent mobility between China and Canada. As a group, we examine the changing demographics as a result of transnational migration and increasing enrolment of international students between the two countries. The rich national contexts provided across all seven articles enrich our understanding about the emerging patters and trends associated with talent mobility and brain circulation across national boundaries. Emerging from this examination is a broadened perspective about mobility which has shifted from its uni-directional past to its transnational present and future. All contributors also highlight a number of concerns and challenges facing Chinese international students and immigrants in the process of adaption to a new environment and the need for interventions. We wish to thank all authors for their outstanding contributions.

Shibao Guo and Yan Guo

Guest Editors

University of Calgary, Canada