Rationale and Finding Path to Move from the Brain Drain to Brain Gain

2011–2012

ERSTE Foundation Fellowship for Social Research Should we stay or should we go?

Migration and its effects on demographic and economic development in Central Eastern Europe

Rationale and Finding Path to Move from the Brain Drain to Brain Gain Sanja Batić

THE MOTIVATION AND THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF HIGHLY EDUCATED EMIGRANTS The aim of this research was to analyze complex relation between motivation and dimensions of emigration decision model. In order to develop a complex and up-to-date approach, Self determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) were used. Constructed instruments are found to have adequate psychometric characteristics. The sample consisted of 2 groups of adult, highly educated persons that are or were Serbians citizens divided into emigrants and residents according to their current place of residence.

The study proved the applicability of TPB model, as well as the partial mediation role of emigration intention for the influence of perceived behavioural control. A further analysis is required for the precise conclusion about moderating effects of push & pulls factors. Results showed that the resiliency model of emigration motivation is more appropriate for the emigration of highly educated persons. The result that emigrants would like to contribute to Serbian development more shows that Serbian government should open dialogue with emigrants in order to find possible ways of their engagement.

Key words : resiliency model of emigration, Self Determination Theory, Theory of Planned Behaviour, highly educated persons

INTRODUCTION This study integrates theoretical frameworks of micro level perspectives developed in economics with psychological concepts of motivation and decision making in order to empirically explore reasons for the emigration of highly educated persons. It is an exploratory research with complex correlational design that has limited possibility of causation. The usage of snow ball method in obtaining data does not guarantee that correlations are universal but it enables the verification of presumed relations and models. This method was used due to the limited accessibility of the emigrants and because this research represents a validation of instruments. The aim of this research was also to create valid and reliable instruments for both concepts; self-regulation questionnaireemigrate for the operationalization of SDT dimensions of motivation and TPB questionnaire for the operationalization of attitudes, social norms and perceived locus of control related to emigration in Serbian language. Its practical implications could be used in the creation of programs that reframe the brain drain process in order to present its causes and consequences more objectively from the aspects of various involved parties.

Although there is a huge scientific production in the field of migration study, there is no satisfactory interdisciplinary collaboration, and consequently there is no integration of existing knowledge (Bommes & Morawska, 2005; Predojević-Despić, 2010; Amalina, 2010). Most migration researches explain migrations with economic factors in the first row and demographic, geographic, sociologic and psychological factors in the second (Åkerman, 1972). Some scholars analyzed psychological 1

factors and it caused a paradox, because the field of migration psychology was created by authors with obsolete psychological knowledge (Fawcett, 1985). There is a comprehensive critique of migration studies that are mostly based on old psychological and sociological theories like behaviourism and functionalism, with imprecise expressions used in their colloquial meaning and usually without systematic methodological approach (Moon, 1995; Boneva & Frieze, 2001; Tartakovsky & Schwartz, 2001; Chirkov, Vansteenkiste, Taoa, Lynch, 2007). The main consequence of this malpractice is that the review of existing literature indicates the lack of psychological analysis of migration and the intention of this research is to contribute in overcoming this gap.

Presuming that highly educated persons are equalized by the external conditions of living (for emigrants questions were for the period while they lived in Serbia) and the intellectual capacity, the main question is why some people decide to emigrate, or more precisely, what kind of motivation do they have and what are the most important factors for the realization of the emigration decision. The choice of the problem was directed by the suggestions of Massey (1999) and Boneva & Frieze (2001) that future migration studies should analyze the influence of psychological factors such as personal characteristics, motivations, goals, values and aspirations of emigrants. This study primarily deals with the motivation and decision-making processes what classifies it into the second paradigm of psychological migration researches aimed to the research of personal factors, anchored in social psychology (Moon, 1995). However, in order to reach the integration of existing knowledge, the theoretical framework includes economic as well as psychological concepts, but it demanded the complex methodology and cautious analysis (Boneva & Frieze, 2001; Tartakovsky & Schwartz, 2001; Chirkov, Vansteenkiste, Taoa, Lynch, 2007).

The theoretical part of the study consists of three parts. The first part presents the causes of emigration, specifically migratory motivation. In the second part, the decision making model used in this study, related to economic theories, is presented. The third part presents the specificities of the emigration of highly educated persons.

MIGRATORY MOTIVATION International Organization for Migration (2011) summarized valid knowledge about the possible causes of migration and claimed that it is the consequence of demographic trends (high population growth in developing countries, declining growth and ageing in developed countries), economic disparities between developing and developed countries, trade liberalization that sustains mobile labour force (especially of the highly skilled and highly educated persons), stimulating migrant 2

networks, diasporas lobbies that advocate economic assistance to their country of origin and transnational exchange of information, skills and remittances manifested in the growing acceptance of dual citizenship, multiple property, and voting rights. Although the lists of possible causes is very long, it does not include the will of individuals and analysis of psychological factors that could explain differences between persons situated in similar life conditions. Since most of the emigrants move to countries with better economic status, it is obvious that economic factors are very important migratory motivators. However, there are some anomalies, for example in Canada, from where people emigrate in order to get even better life conditions. Boneva & Frieze (2001) reported that Russia and Croatia have lower rate of emigration than countries with better economic status like Slovenia and Czech Republic. They mentioned researches of Domazetov & Jossifov (1991) and Tidrick (1971) that had found that economic status of potential emigrants was better than of those who would not like to emigrate. These kind of anomalies challenged the hypothesis of rational “homo ecconomicus” and led to the acknowledgment of the other sort of factors.

Most of the migration researchers found external motivators as crucial for the explanation of the human migration, which is especially recognizable in economic theories that support the push & pull model (see table 1). The push & pull model is an integral part of micro theoretical economic models (neoclassical economics, cumulative causality and network theories) specified for international labour migration (Bauer & Zimmermann, 1998; according to Predojević - Despić, 2010). It is presented in the form of a huge list of factors that force persons to leave the country of residence or attract them to another. According to Chirkov et al. (2007) these factors were conceptualized as a result of the socio-economic approach to the understanding international migration and were confirmed in numerous researches (Kelo & Wächter, 2004; Lee, 1966). As it can be seen from the table 1, broad categories like labour, political issues, ecological issues and conditions of living have dichotomous equivalents among push & pull factors. Since all of those factors are external, it implies that those who proclaim these factors have conception that humans are just externally motivated. The push & pull model is criticized for a static perspective, low analytical applicability, lack of systematic approach and inadequate hierarchy of constructs based on their relative contribution, mirroring of push and pull factors that just together give reasonable explanation, focus on external motivators and reductionism (De Haas, 2008, according to Predojević - Despić, 2010; Moon, 1995).

The analysis of push & pull factors from the position of Maslow’s theory of self actualization showed that they contain just deficiency aspect and external motivators. Reichlová (2005) has formulated a model upon Maslow’s theory that explains decision making in the process of migration as a two-level process. On the first level, only physiological needs are taken into account. On the

3

second level, safety and social needs become important in making decision about migration when physiological needs reach their saturation level.

Table 1. List of push and pull factors PUSH FACTORS

CATEGORY

PULL FACTORS

famine or drought, poor medical care, poor housing, landlord/tenant issues, condemned housing, poor chances of marrying high unemployment rate, slavery or forced labour political fear or persecution, loss of wealth, death threats, lack of political or religious freedom, bullying, war/civil war, discrimination pollution, desertification, natural disasters

CONDITIONS OF LIVING

better medical care, education, enjoyment, security, family links, better chances of marrying

LABOUR

job opportunities, developed industry

POLITICAL STATE

democracy, political and/or religious freedom

ECOLOGY

higher level of ecological awareness and attractive climates

The inclusion of psychological factors led to the overcoming of a deficiency model of migratory motivation claiming that the lack of personal and social resources together with feeling of insecurity and inadequacy in their original social setting cause emigration (Winter – Ebmer, 1994; Tartakovsky & Schwartz, 2001; Cone, 2007). A new resiliency model added the self-confidence, capacity and strengths as characteristics that cause migration. It proposed and confirmed the multidimensional structure of emigrants’ motivation - to pursue their goals in life, to express or protect their values better including caring for their family, identification with groups, individual growth, achievement, and security.

The relevance of the achievement motive for the prediction of migrant behaviour is explained with the higher need for the challenge amongst achievers and in addition they outperform those who emigrated involuntarily (Boneva & Frieze, 2001; Winter-Ebmer, 1994; Chirkov et al., 2007; Tartakovsky & Schwartz, 2001). Researches showed the existence of the “migrant personality syndrome” described with the following characteristics: work-orientation, higher achievement and power motivation (McClelland’s three-motive model of human motivation), but lower affiliation motivation and family centrality (Inkson, Carr, Edwards, Hooks, Jackson, Thorn, Allfree, 2004; Boneva & Frieze, 2001).

Tartakovsky &Schwartz (2001) introduced the multidimensional model of emigration motivation that consists of materialism, preservation (physical, social, and psychological security) and selfdevelopment. Results showed that the orientation to self-development is accompanied with wellbeing, self-confidence, mental health and lower anxiety, while the preservation orientation was 4

correlated negatively to these indicators (Chirkov et al., 2007; Tartakovsky and Schwartz, 2001). The influence of preservation motivation is somewhat paradoxical, as it encourages emigration in order to increase security, but complicates the adaptation process and causes persons to face the same problems they had in the country of origin. Since materialistic motivation is correlated with social alienation, potential emigrants probably perceive disorganized social conditions (lack of order, trust, control and predictability) in the country of origin as obstacles for personal advancement (Tartakovsky and Schwartz, 2001). Their research showed that preservation motivation is correlated negatively with the openness to change and positively with the conservation (maintaining the status quo and avoiding changes), self-development motivation had the exactly opposite pattern of associations with the same group of values and materialistic motivation was related positively to selfenhancement and negatively to self-transcendence orientation.

One of the frameworks for this study is the self-determination theory (SDT) of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Based on the level of people’s autonomy in the goal choosing, SDT forms a continuum that has the amotivation at one pole, intrinsic motivation at the other, and extrinsic motivation in the middle (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The amotivation is characterized by a lack of initiative and desire for activity, feeling of inadequacy and disconnection with the environment, low self-esteem, external locus of causality, increased depression and tendency to self-degradation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The extrinsic motivation including introjection and identification is controlled by the intention to meet others’ or internalized external standards. In this case the behaviour is caused by a feeling of pressure and demands attributed to others. The intrinsic motivation stems from the autonomous regulation of behaviour and is followed by the formation of feelings of integrity, self-esteem and internal locus of causality. A dominant way of motivating and regulation forms a specific type of self: integrated, egoinvesting or impersonal (Hodgins & Knee, 2002, according to Deci & Ryan, 2008). The type of self strongly determines the adaptation on new settings. Forced emigration, as an extreme case of controlled behaviour, is usually followed by reactive behaviours, whereas autonomously developed motivation causes a more rational and responsible approach to the emigration decision that result in the higher level of academic, social and cultural adaptation (Chirkov et al., 2007; 2008).

DECISION MAKING PROCESS This study assumes that individuals have active role in emigration during a process of decisionmaking and that it is significantly influenced by not just economic, but various sociological and psychological factors. In general, economic studies use ‘deficiency approach’ for the explanation of migration, focusing on materialistic benefit that potential emigrants could have. Although 5

microeconomic and migrant network theoretical frameworks are frequently used for the explanation of individual and household-level migration, they are not well suited for capturing the dynamics of migration decision-making and the volume of international migration (De Jong, 2000). Neoclassical microeconomic theories analyzed the emigration decision process recognizing the active role of a person in it, but mainly in the sense of book-keeping (Borjas, 1990, according to Massey, Arango, Hugo, Kouaouci, Pellegrino, Taylor, 1993). Within the framework of cost-benefit models the emigration decision is seen as a rational process, based on careful costs and benefits analysis of differences in wages, employment rates and employment conditions, migration costs (material costs of travelling, the cost of maintenance while moving and looking for work, the effort involved in learning a new language and culture) moderated with structural push & pull factors (De Fay, 1998).

However, Borjas (1987; 535) has enriched this equation model with psychological migration costs related to necessary changes that person has to do in order to adopt cultural and social differences related to the new society and job requirements. His contribution brought the recognition of psychological and sociological influence on the emigration decision making process. The valueexpectancy model comprehends migration as a decision process that results with the choice of the action in which the perceived value of the outcome would be more preferred and has higher probability of the expectancy (Faist, 2004). This approach has contributed to the understanding of diverse desired outcomes that could encourage people to migrate, including irrational ones that are often rationalized and hidden even to the people themselves.

The decision model developed in the framework of Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991), as an extension of Fishbein & Ajzen’ Theory of Reasoned Action (De Jong & Fawcett, 1981, according to Fawcett, 1985), was used in order to get broad understanding of emigration decision process and relevant psychological factors. Its applicability on the migration decision making process was proved in the study by De Jong (2000). A central concept in the theory of planned behaviour is the individual's intention to perform strictly specified behaviour, in this case to emigrate. The intention is a cognitive representation of person’s readiness to behave on a specific way and it is considered as an immediate antecedent of behaviour and a function of attitude toward it. It refers to the degree to which a person has a favourable evaluation of the emigration, subjective norms harmonized with opinions of important people about emigration and perceived control of own capacity with respect to it. The attitude toward specified behaviour has 2 components that have interactive influence – beliefs about behaviour and evaluation of results that would be caused by that behaviour. Persons have expectations that behaviour, in this case migration, will lead to specific outcome and they evaluate the satisfaction with it. Subjective norms are defined as individual’s perception of what important persons think that should be done and motivation to do something that 6

is in accordance of individual’s desire. De Jong (2000) claimed that expectations of attaining valued goals in desired location along with perceived family norms about migration behaviour are the major determinants of migration intentions. This is in accordance with the new economics of migration that introduced families or households as the decision making group that minimizes risks associated with various markets (insurance, capital, credit, labour, unemployment insurance) of failure to maximize the expected income from remittances ( Faist, 2004). The influence of family on the migration decision making is very applicable to developing countries that have significant number of unemployed persons (Bauer, Zimmerman; according to Predojević –Despić, 2010). De Jong (2000) has shown that perceived migration norms were unrelated to migration intentions but were strongly and directly related to migration behaviour and he interpreted it as a confirmation of the assertion that migration behaviour is the result of a 'household decision'. However, since subjective norms depend also on the perception of what friends think about the behaviour it is in accordance with the migration network theory. The perceived behavioural control represents a degree in which the person has a sense of control over the situation and inner factors, including trust in his/her own capacity to behave in a certain way. This dimension provides useful information over and above expressed intentions if it corresponds to reality. This dimension is not a motivational factor, but more like Bandura's self-efficacy beliefs that strongly influence the ability to perform the behaviour in question (Schifter & Ajzen, 1985).

Picture 1 The scheme of decision process’s model TPB (Ajzen, 1991)

Studies showed that intention is not just imperfect predictor of the performance of behaviour, but it mediates relation between attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control and the performance of behaviour (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Kelo & Wachter (2004) claimed that correlation between the intention to emigrate and the realisation of this intention is usually higher among the well educated than in any other group. Schifter & Ajzen (1985) have found that actual behaviour was also found to increase with development level of the realization plan along with the ego strength, for which they assumed that they increase control over goal attainment. This theory implies that in order to predict specific behaviour, a measurement of the intention to emigrate should be accompanied with the estimation of perceived control over behaviour (Ajzen,1991) but the intention is seen as 7

partial mediator for the effect of perceived behavioural control on behaviour (Steinmetz, Davidov, Schmidt, 2011).

In applying TPB to migration decision-making it is important to consider the intention to emigrate as the direct determinant of emigration together with direct behavioural constraint and facilitating factors (impact of individual human capital, household and community characteristics), mediated through subjective expectations about the outcomes income, community characteristics, etc. and controlled for migratory intention related expectations, values, and residential satisfaction (De Jong, 2000). It is shown that the practical performing of the intention is moderated and mediated with external factors that are categorized as push and pull factors, for example opportunities and resources like time, money, skills, willpower, age, ownership, previous experience in migrating, area, etc.

(Schifter & Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen, 1991; Lu,1999). Chirkov et al. (2007; 2008) showed that people with more autonomous motivation develop more rational and responsible approach to the emigration decision that result in the higher level of academic, social and cultural adaptation. This theoretical framework does not explore influence of irrational factors like temporary emotions, mental illness, etc. that also have influence on forming and bringing decision to emigrate (Lee, 1966; Tartakowsky & Schwartz, 2001).

THE EMIGRATION OF HIGHLY EDUCATED INDIVIDUALS The number of highly educated emigrants extremely increased as the world entered the period of knowledge economy (late 1900s – 2000s) supplied by a new phase of technological development.

The principles of the new economy led to increased need for highly educated employees, engineers, scientists and researchers in developed countries (Grečić, 2002, p. 254). Estimations are that 10% of tertiary-educated adults born in developing countries would reside, and be employed, in more developed countries; the percent rises to between 33% and 50% when science and technology personnel are considered (Sriskandarajah, 2005). Massey et al. (1993) described migration as a selfsustained process, claiming that brain drain tends to draw relatively well educated, skilled, productive and highly motivated people away from sending communities but he also speculated that this process becomes less selective over time, as the costs and risks fall because of network formation. Sustained emigration leads to the decrease of human capital in sending regions and its accumulation in receiving regions causing the greater gap and further migrations. The emigration of highly educated persons is usually considered as a voluntary, labour migration and is often referred as “brain drain” in the public due to its negative consequences on the country of origin such as loss of political, economic and intellectual elite, and invested money (UNESCO, 2011). The restriction of 8

the emigration of highly educated persons to capital loss is not adequate from either the individuals’ or the societies’ points of view. People are emigrating in order to prosper, to find better education or in a broader sense to finder better conditions for the development and their human capital in that sense become more valuable (Johnson, 2000). The development of the modern economy is based on the globalization and internationalization so governments should create conditions to foster mobility and internationalization in order to be a part of developed world not to repress and classify them as detrimental.

Neoclassical economic theories are applicable in explaining the emigration decision process of specific highly educated professionals (engineers, medical staff and scientists) that due to specific deficit of in developed countries have higher benefits and chance for praised outcomes (Bauer and Zimmerman, 1998; according to Predojević - Despić, 2010). However, the current increase of their emigration is in collision with dual market theory that attributes migration to the pull factors originated in developed destinations where the deficit of the secondary market of unattractive lowwage works (dirty, dangerous and difficult) exists. This research opposes this theory’s claim that people are passive during migration process and that they just react on needs of developed market that offers better salaries, but it is in the accordance with assumptions of the world system theory that migration should be analyzed from various levels of aggregation that explain migrations as a consequence of both the economic globalization and the structure of the world market (Massey et al., 1993).

According to the definition from “A dictionary of Economics” (1997) it occurs because of limited job opportunities due to technical and economic backwardness of origin country and “tendencies in poorer countries to fill such good jobs as there are on a basis of family connections, political influence, and corruption, while on average richer countries, though subject to some of the same problems, tend to fills posts on a slightly more meritocratic basis“(Giannoccolo, 2006).

This

definition reveals some new aspects of brain drain according to which it seems that brain drain is the consequence of the malfunction of the state since it is caused by the corruption as well as by the other anomalies and deviant behaviour in the society of the origin country.

This research challenges opinion that highly educated emigrants are necessarily “brain drain” and it will suggest alternative understanding of that process as the “brain gain”. The brain drain should be seen as a sort of loss of control over the capital investment, as it does not mean that the investment collapsed, but brings a chance that the “capital” will be multiplied in the appropriate conditions. It is the investment of people in themselves in order to receive greater profit. The implication of this point 9

of view is that countries that have higher rate of highly educated and skilled emigrants have to take responsibility for it and develop strategy to involve emigrants in the functioning of their state of origin. In that way they could catalyze development and integration process which would lead to economic and political stability. Kahanec & Zimmermann (2008) confirm that migration of highly educated persons has positive effect on the increase the economic growth and productivity of receiving countries as a consequence of efficient allocation of human capital and the indirect effects on productivity and growth comes through knowledge and technology transfer, but negative effect on source economies if there is no further “brain circulation” between the host country and the country of emigration that brings additional growth to both side. Kahanec & Zimmermann (2008) present temporal migration as win-win solution because although their most able workers stay abroad for some period they return with know-how and with the innovation potential of the economy as easily employable workers with additional skills. However it should be commented that another possible loss for all parties comes from the risk of a brain waste because of emigrants personal characteristics, excess of their professional colleagues on the immigrant county market or low capacity of hosting countries for the integration of newcomers manifested in the cultural discrimination.

Republic of Serbia is European emigration country with 10% of highly educated persons amongst emigrants (Grečić, 2009). It is the developing country with a very high level of unemployment and corruption. According to Transparency International Serbia has a huge problem with the corruption, in the 2010 it has been placed on the 78th place (amongst 178 countries).

Another issue is

problematic relation of Serbian state toward talented persons, recognised on the global level by World Economic Forum. They positioned Serbia at the 136th place (amongst 139 countries) on the base of the relation of government toward talented persons (Schwab, Sala-i-Martin & Greenhill, 2010). Same source reports that Serbia also has problems with political instability, low efficiency of administration, bad infrastructure, criminal and difficult access to financial funds.

If Serbia continues the process of integration to the EU new waves of emigration should be expected but with certain limits because estimated need for highly educated person will probably drop down, the attractiveness of Europe’s universities and research institutes and living condition is not so well comparing to the United States (Kelo & Wächter, 2004). Kahanec & Zimmermann (2008) described migration in post-enlargement Europe as a temporary, citing Home Office (2008) that claimed how 60 % of the UK immigrants in March, 2008 intended to stay for less than 3 months. Epstein & Radu (2007; according to Kahanec & Zimmermann, 2008) reported same findings for the case of Romania.

Economic decline since the beginning of 2001 that influenced downward pressure on the movement of labour could have similar impact that Asian financial crisis had it in 1999 when most migrants 10

tend to remain in the country of destination even when conditions become worsen (IOM, http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/about-migration/lang/en).

Hypothesis The main hypothesis of this study is that internal psychological motivators are as relevant for the emigration decision process of highly educated emigrants as external push & pull factors and both should be used in the models that have intention to predict migration behaviour.

The review of literature indicates that decision making process and motivation for migration have already been recognized as important determinants of emigration but there was a need for the analysis from the aspect of current psychological theories.

•

H1 People with more positive attitude toward migration, higher social pressure measured by subjective norms and higher degree of perceived control will have stronger intention to emigrate and intention to emigrate is good predictor of the performance of that behaviour.

Proving of this hypothesis proves applicability of TPB theory.

•

H2 People will have different pattern of motivation in relation to dimensions of the migration decision-making model. It was expected that persons with higher autonomy have higher degree of perceived control. It is also expected that higher intrinsic motivation as an indicator of integrated self is accompanied with the independence from others so it should have negative correlation with subjective norms (TPB) and relation centrality.

•

H3 The resilient model of motivation is more appropriate for the emigration of highly educated persons. People that have more autonomous motivation to emigration estimate Serbian life conditions as worse comparing to (desired) immigrant countries.

The analysis of the

motivation was contained in the analysis of extrinsic push & pulls factors but it was not sufficient and it was necessary to supplement it with the measuring of motivation dimensions based on SDT model. This research focuses on the determinants of more or less permanent emigration of highly educated persons from Serbia.

•

H4 There is a significant impact of all three levels to migration decision which respectively come from the side of countries (push & pull factors) and individuals (family influence - overseas relatives, and personal preference: preference for exploring, ambition for an improved career, 11

etc) to emigration decision. It was assumed that there are overlaps between accumulated migration knowledge and psychological concepts in order to develop interdisciplinary approach.

•

H5 Highly educated emigrants would like to corporate with local authorities in order to foster the development of Serbia.

METHOD

This is an exploratory, post facto, transversal research with correlational design aimed to explore relations between the variables relevant to the decision to emigrate as well as relations between intentions to emigrate and different types of motivation. This research will also include demographic variables and estimation of their economic status and relation centrality.

Procedure The non-probability method of sampling was used in order to elicit respondents. One part of respondents was recruited by posting the information about the research on the internet portal of the one of most important Serbian medium, B92 in the forum dedicated to emigrations (http://forum.b92.net/topic/68573-istrazivanje-emigracije/);

this

could

be

categorized

as

a

convenience sampling. The other part of the sample was recruited by email invitation with a link to the online survey distributed on the principle of the multiple snowball sampling. Transcultural researchers frequently use this technique for both quantitative and qualitative studies but it is suggested that it should be combined with other sampling methods (purposive, purposeful or theoretical) in order to avoid bias (Penrod, Bray Preston, Cain, Starks 2003). The survey was done by on-line service Survey Monkey from June to September, 2011.The surveys were submitted electronically after completion. If the participant withdrew from the study, his/her submitted data was immediately discarded. There was no incentive for participants. Anonymity and confidentiality was assured, but participants had an option to provide an email address if they want information about final results and will to participate in the next research. All questionnaires were presented in Serbian.

The psychological part of the questionnaire aimed for emigrants was conceptualized to ask for the estimation of own state before emigration in order to create conditions for comparing them with residents. It was expected that the time lag would not have significant effect, however in order to get statistical proof for it the homogeneity of variance was checked but there was no lack of homogeneity.

12

Sample There was initially by 313 participants, but this number was reduced to 297 adults that are or were citizens of Serbia that answered the first part of the questionnaire related to push & pull factors and their possible contribution to Serbia. The number of respondents was further reduced to 212 for analysis of relation between psychological concepts due to the quantity of unanswered questions. The sample was divided into 2 main groups - emigrants and local citizens, for emigrants are highly educated persons that live abroad. Beauchemin & González-Ferrer (2011) suggested that it requires collecting data both in destination and origin countries (on non migrants and return migrants) in order to understand specificities of migrant behaviour comparing to their communities of origin.

A sample of emigrants consisted of 160 subjects; 68 males and 92 females with the average age of 33.93 (s=7.64 years) that have average period in emigration 7.64 years (s=5.713), 96.1% of them are legal immigrants. A sample of residents consisted of 137 subjects; 51 males and 86 females with the average age of 31.39 (s=5.677 years). Although it was predominantly female sample (59.9%), both groups had equal proportional number of young women and men (χ2=0.406, p>0.05). There is no significant difference in age between genders (emigrants t=0.290, p>0.05; residents t=1,081, p>0.05).

There is a significant difference in marital status between emigrants and residents (χ2=17,967, p≤0.01). There are more married persons amongst emigrants and more persons that are in emotional relationship amongst residents. Most of the emigrants now live in the European Union (52.3%) and North America (39.1%). Most of them plan to stay abroad, 55.7% of emigrants, 18.3% plan to return and other did not think about returning. They have learned language of the settlement country, 73% of emigrants have proficiency language acquisition level of the immigrating country, and 36.7% of residents have proficiency language acquisition level of desired immigrating country.

All respondents have high level of education (see picture 2). There is significant difference amongst emigrants and residents in the education degree (χ2=12,323, p≤0.01), due to higher number of emigrants with Ph D degree (23 emigrants, 6 residents).

Picture 2. Histogram with frequency distribution of respondents’ education degree 13

The professional structure of respondents consisted of various backgrounds; however there is a dominance of engineers with IT professionals and professionals from social sciences is obvious.

Medical staff and IT professionals are mainly employed in their own professions economist and humanities are not (see table 2).

Table 2. Frequency and percentage distribution of respondents’ occupation RESPONDENTS

TYPE OF PROFESSION ECONOMICS

HUMANITIES LAW

LINGUISTICS ENGINEERING

IT MEDICINE

NATURAL SCIENCE

STUDENT

emigrants

residents

Total

Count

20

10

30

%

12.8%

7.7%

10.5%

Count

25

38

63

%

16.0%

29.2%

22.0%

Count

5

5

10

%

3.2%

3.8%

3.5%

Count

5

9

14

%

3.2%

6.9%

4.9%

Count

29

12

41

%

18.6%

9.2%

14.3%

Count

26

21

47

%

16.7%

16.2%

16.4%

Count

12

5

17

%

7.7%

3.8%

5.9%

Count

8

6

14

%

5.1%

4.6%

4.9%

Count

11

8

19

%

7.1%

6.2%

6.6%

Count

15

16

31

%

9.6%

12.3%

10.8%

Instruments Instruments were structured as the on-line self-administered questionnaire administrated by respondents. It was anonymous and respondent are asked to fulfil it in accordance to their opinions.

Most of the questions had defined answers, categorical or five-point Likert scales. The first part of the questionnaire obtained demographic data (gender, age, education, citizenship, marital status, period in emigration), estimation of respondents economic status, the professional affirmation, the importance of social relations with relatives and friends, the level of the language acquisition evaluation of Serbia and immigrant country on the list of the push & pull factors (administration efficiency, law appraisal, human rights, transport organization, cultural life, economic stability, 14

economic perspective, democracy level, education system, society relations, health protection and social protection). The second part was constructed to explore possible ways of corporation between emigrants and the country of origin. The third part is used for psychological scales for the measuring of dimension of decision – making model (TPB) and Self-Regulation Questionnaire-Emigration (SRQ-E) based on SDT. The Theory of Planned Behaviour Questionnaire (Batić, 2011) was created for this research, on the base of the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; 2002). It consisted of subscales designed for the measurement of attitude toward emigration (behavioural beliefs and evaluation of results), the degree of subjective norms (normative beliefs and motivation to apply them), the degree of perceived behavioural control (assumed obstacles and beliefs about control over them) and intentions to emigrate. The instrument is created according to manual for the constructing scale based on TPB model (Ajzen, 2002). Attitudes toward emigration scales were constructed from 18 items answered on five-point Likert scale. They were derived from the content analysis of 288 comments of on line newspaper’s readers on the article about emigration of highly educated citizens of Serbia (B92, http://www.b92.net/biz/vesti/srbija.php?yyyy=2010&mm=11&dd=28&nav_id=475478)

after

the

Ajzen (2002) suggestion that it should be based on the attitudes of ordinary people. Since the term evaluation of results was not clear the variable constructed with that scale was named personal consequence of attitude toward emigration. The social norms was measured with 2 subscales Normative beliefs constructed from 6 items and subscale Motivation that represents acceptance of the opinion of important others constructed from 7 items. Perceived behavioural control was represented with subscales Control beliefs – assumed obstacles and influence of control beliefs represented as control over them, both had 14 items. Lee (1966) recognized obstacles as on determinants of the migration decision. Emigration intention scale was consisted from 4 items.

Self-regulation Questionnaire-Emigration (Batić, 2011) was constructed on the base on the short version of SRQ—SA (Chirkov et al., 2007) that assessed the level and structure of self-determination to study abroad. It had four subscales that differentiate between four types of motivation regulation intrinsic motivation (5 items), introjected motivation (8 items), identification (7 items) and external motivation (4 items).

A constructive validity of all subscales from both questionnaires was confirmed by PCA method.

Items with low psychometric value were excluded from the subscales. All subscales have satisfying construct validity and Cronbach alpha higher than 0.70. All psychological variables were

15

operationalized as factor score for the first principle component. Missing results were substituted with the mean for the given variable. Final lists of item for both questionnaires is in Appendix B. RESULTS In order to check validity of TPB model in relation to emigration intention partial correlations between assumed predictors and intention were calculated, but due to the heterogeneity of the sample it was controlled for the emigration status. Results proved the first hypothesis about the applicability of TPB model on the emigration decision process. Results showed that those with higher level of the intention to emigrate have more positive attitude toward migration (r=.490, p≤0.01) and more positive expectation of migration (r=.434, p≤0.01), they also accept influence from important persons significantly more (r=.150, p≤0.05). Social norms (r=.128), and capacity to overcome obstacles (r=.128) were statistically marginally significant. These results showed that the emigrant intention is higher amongst those whose social network supports the idea of emigration as well as among those who perceive themselves as more capable to overcome obstacles. A predictive validity of emigration intention for the performance of migration behaviour has been proved through the result that emigrants have significantly higher emigration intention than residents (t=4.643, df=210, p≤0.01).

Canonical discriminant analysis showed significant differences between emigrants and residents in the predictors of the performance of emigration behaviour (ΛW=0.832, χ2=38.083, p≤0.01).

Significant correlation was reported for both dimensions of perceived behavioural control and positive personal consequence of emigration behaviour. Emigrants expected fewer obstacles to occur; they estimated that they have more capacity to overcome it so they had a higher perceived locus of control, as well as stronger positive expectations from personal consequences that are implication of their attitude toward migration. Isolated discriminant function was very successful in classification, 70.3% of original grouped cases were correctly classified.

Table 3. Results of canonical discriminant analysis for dimensions of TPB model structure r

tpb dimensions PERCEIVED OBSTACLES / CONTROL BELIEF PERSONAL CONSEQUENCE OF ATTITUDE TOWARD EMIGRATION/ EVALUATION OF RESULTS CAPACITY TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES/INFLUENCE OF CONTROL BELIEFS ATTITUDE TOWARD EMIGRATION/ BEHAVIOUR BELIEFS SOCIAL NORMS/NORMATIVE BELIEFS OPINION OF IMPORTANT OTHERS/MOTIVATION functions at group centroid

16

.872 -.418

standardized coefficients .820 -.778

.414 -.279 .166 .049 emigrants -.411

.074 .368 .198 -.005 residents .487

Sobel test proved that emigration intentions partially mediates the effect of perceived behavioural control on behaviour (test statistic=2.70, p≤0.01). ANCOVA was used for the checking of the effect of gender as a possible moderator but it was not significant. There was no significant correlation between economic status and perspective estimated for the period before emigration and the emigration intention.

The analysis of relation between motivation and dimensions of the migration decision-making model showed that emigrants have higher score on autonomic motivation. However the expectation that persons with higher autonomy have higher degree of perceived control was not confirmed.

Hypothesis that higher intrinsic motivation, an indicator of integrated self, is negatively correlated with subjective norms (TPB) and relation centrality were also not confirmed. Partial correlations between motivation dimensions and intention of emigration controlled for the emigration status showed that identification (r=0.673, p<0.01) and intrinsic motivations (r=0.427, p<0.01) were correlated with emigration intention; however extrinsic emigration and introjection were not.

Canonical discriminant analysis showed significant difference between emigrants and residents in the structure of SDT motivation dimensions (ΛW=0.956, χ2=9.340, p≤0.05). Emigrants had higher level of intrinsic motivation, identification and introjection comparing to residents.

Table 4. Results of discriminant analysis for dimensions of TPB model TPB dimensions INTRINSIC MOTIVATION IDENTIFICATION INTROJECTION EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION functions at group centroid

structure coefficients .752 .545 .306 -.167 emigrants .196

standardized coefficients .765 .166 .710 -.700 residents -.232

MANCOVA revealed correlations between motivation dimensions according to SDT model and dimensions of decision making process controlled for emigration status ( see table 1. in appendix).

Persons with higher score on the intrinsic motivation had higher scores on both subjective norms and lower level of control beliefs, which means that they recognized that their social network has positive attitude toward migration, however they see more obstacles. Persons with higher score on the identification had higher score on both variables of the attitude toward migration, but they also saw more obstacles. Persons with higher score on the introjection evaluate that they are more under influence of important people and they perceived obstacles in the higher degree. Persons with higher score on the extrinsic motivation had higher score on both variables of the attitude toward migration and subjective norms.

17

Hypothesis H3 that people with more autonomous motivation to emigration estimate Serbian life conditions as worse comparing to (desired) immigrant countries was confirmed. Partial correlations between push & pull factors with relation centrality and dimensions of motivations according to SDT model controlled for migration status were calculated (see Appendix A, table 2). Higher level of extrinsic motivation was accompanied with more positive evaluation of the transportation. Higher level of the introjected motivation for the emigration was followed with the estimation that human rights, transportation, economic stability, economic perspective, health and social security are/ would be better in Serbia than abroad. Higher level of motivation in the sense of identification was followed by lower centrality of relations with relatives and with the estimation that administration efficiency, human rights, culture, democracy, education, social relations, health and social security are worse in Serbia than in desired or immigrant country. Higher level of intrinsic motivation was correlated with the evaluation that culture, economic perspective and social security is/would be better abroad than in Serbia.

Hypothesis H4 claiming that there is a significant impact of macro and meso level which respectively come from the side of countries and family influence to emigration decision was confirmed. Partial correlations between push & pull factors with relation centrality and dimensions of decision making process controlled for migration status were calculated (Appendix A, table 3). Significant correlations implicated that attitude toward emigrations is more positive if relation with relatives is less important. Considering macro level or push and pull factors the administration efficiency; human rights, culture, economic perspective, democracy, education, health and social relations were evaluated as worse in Serbia than in desired or immigration country. If social norms or normative beliefs supported emigration idea more the relation centrality with relative was lower. Persons who accepted influence of their network members have higher relation centrality with friends and they also estimate that administration efficiency is higher in Serbia, but these relations are marginally significant. Persons who perceived more obstacles have estimated that culture, human rights and transportation were/ would be better in Serbia. These last two were marginally correlated.

Canonical discriminant analysis have shown that there is significant differences between emigrants and residents in the evaluation of the indicators of life conditions in a real or potential immigrant country (Î&#x203A;W=0.905, Ď&#x2021;2=24.671, pâ&#x2030;¤0.05). Emigrants estimated that the immigrant country has higher level of culture and education. Isolated discriminant function was average success in classification, 57.9% of original grouped cases was correctly classified.

18

Table 5. Results of discriminant analysis for push & pull factors Administration efficiency Law appraisal Human rights Transportation Culture Economic stability Economic perspective Democracy Education Social relations Health Social security Functions at Group Centroids

structure coefficients .115 .012 .241 .171 .738 -.087 .272 .090 .516 -.047 .037 .104 Emigrants .288

standardized coefficients .169 -.243 .409 -.075 .710 -.281 .228 -.383 .592 -.343 -.143 .054 Residents -.362

However, it should be noted that most of respondents answered that they think that those life conditions indicators are worse in Serbia (see picture 3) .

Picture 3. Histogram with the averages for indicators of life conditions Hypothesis that highly educated emigrants would like to corporate with local authorities in order to foster the development of Serbia was confirmed. Results showed that emigrants have higher readiness to contribute to Serbia than they practice it are right especially in the education and transferring know- how that could create turbine for the development of Serbia. There is significant difference in the actual and possible level of emigrants contribution (t=-8.904, pâ&#x2030;¤0.01).

19

Table 6. Frequency and percentage distributions describing contribution of emigrants Contribute now Frequency Percent % Financial donation 27 16.9 Enterprise initiation 5 3.1 Collaboration with Serbian universities 16 10.0 Project participation 20 12.5 Education 9 5.6 Networking of Serbian and international 12 7.5 enterprises

Readiness for contribution Frequency Percent % 25 15.6 16 10.0 50 31.3 71 44.4 51 31.9 33 20.6

Emigrants reported significant improvement of economic status (t=-5.519, p≤0.01) and perspective (t=0.517, p≤0.01) after emigration. There were significant difference between emigrants and residents in the estimation of their own professional success, economic status and economic perspective. Emigrants estimated them more positively (see table 7).

Table 7. Results of t test and Levene’s test for the differences between emigrants and residents Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Professional success

F .979

p .323

t 2.944

df 294

p (2-tailed) .003

Economic status

.420

.517

5.116

289

.000

Economic perspective

.271

.603

6.139

287

.000

Relation centrality –friends

5.170

.024

-1.459

287.540

.146

Relation centrality – relatives

2.725

.100

1.698

288

.091

Descriptive statistic e r e

N 159 137 157

M 3.70 3.38 3.41

s .991 .892 .809

r

134

2.90

.920

e

156

3.72

.862

r

133

3.08

.934

e

159

4.17

.887

r

136

4.30

.659

e

156

3.83

1.125

r

134

3.62

.924

The main hypothesis of this study is that for the emigration decision process of highly educated emigrants internal psychological motivators are relevant as well as external push & pull factors and both should be used in the models that have intention to predict migration behaviour is confirmed.

DISCUSSION This research used multidisciplinary approach based on economic and psychological theories for the exploration of the determinants that influence the more or less permanent emigration of highly educated persons from Serbia in order to fulfil methodological requests for migration studies. The motivation and a decision making process are subjects of the research in both disciplines. Since 20

neoclassical theories are applicable to the emigration of highly educated persons (Bauer and Zimmerman, 1998; according to Predojević - Despić, 2010) their main concepts push & pull factors and household were included in the research design. Although this research offers integrated approach, it is still limited due to the fact that instead of the participation of researchers from various fields, one researcher explored both perspectives. The existing economic theories contain psychological concepts like decision making process, motivation, values, and relation centrality but the content of psychological terms has not been seriously elaborated and psychological analysis would be incomplete without analysis of the moderating and mediating influence of life conditions (macro level) and relation of individuals with their social network (meso level). The analysis of the migration process from micro, meso and macrolevel was recommended by Faist (2004). The main hypothesis of this study that for the emigration decision process of highly educated emigrants internal psychological motivators are relevant as well as external push & pull factors and that both should be used in the models that have intention to predict migration behaviour was confirmed.

The most important limitation for the validity of the research came from the low representativeness of data caused by used sampling technique. The snowball sampling technique is recommended and useful for eliciting migrants that are difficult to access because they are a rare population, vulnerable, and appropriate sampling frames are rarely available but it is subject to numerous biases (Penrod et al., 2003; Beauchemin & González-Ferrer, 2011). A possibility that the sample is not representative is a result of the exclusion bias, in this case, it could be assumed that respondents are members of the same network, as well as they are more friendly, closer to their home community, but permanently inhabited will be probably underrepresented (Beauchemin & González-Ferrer, 2011; Penrod et al., 2003). Due to the usage of the on-line method there is probability that people that do not use internet as a medium of communication are excluded. It would be better to use chain referral sampling that relies on a series of participant referrals to others who have experienced the phenomenon of interest in order to form the sample consisted from multiple networks. Although used technique restricts inferences to the general population consistency of results with the existing knowledge as well as with the assumed implications has been taken for the proof of the data validity. The typical emigrants in this study were adults, female, highly educated, married, fluent in the language of destination country and it differs slightly from the description of Kelo & Wächter (2004).

This research proved that the fluency in language of the destination country is required skill for the emigration. Kelo & Wächter (2004) claimed that the fluency in language of the destination country or the conviction to be able to learn it fast or easily, is usually in correlation with plans to migrate because knowledge of language is a condition for labour-market access and reduce the risk of failure.

21

They said that the language acquisition facilitates access to vital information necessary for the choice of the destination country, and thus a realistic assessment of the benefits and disadvantages of migration.

The applicability of TPB model on the emigration decision process of highly educated persons is proved. This research has confirmed the crucial importance of perceived behavioural control for the actual performing of the behaviour, as well as the significant impact of all three concepts on the behavioural intention. As it was the case with previous researches the attitude is more important than norms and perceived behavioural control for the strength of intention, but for the performance is more relevant perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991). Behavioural intention mediates relations between predictors and performance of the behaviour and it has strong predictive validity for the performance of migration behaviour (Lu, 1999; Baron & Kenny, 1986). However, it should be expected that the relation between the intention to emigrate and the realisation of this intention would be lower amongst people with lower level of education (Kelo & Wachter, 2004). This research proved claims of Steinmetz et al. (2011) that perceived behavioural control is mediated with intentions. However, for the prediction of the migrant behaviour the emigration intention should be used together with perceived behavioural control. The capacity to overcome obstacles could be understand as the operationalization of the intelligence and capacities. However the fact that the sample consists from the highly educated persons indicate that they are equalized in the intelligence and it could be cause of the decrease of its influence in this research.

Factor structure of the original questionnaire, constructed for the measuring of dimensions of the theory of planned behaviour, was too complex and in order to make it consistent with the theory the simplest solutions were chosen. Questionnaires developed for this research could be used in future researches. Baron & Kenny (1986) recommended the analysis of potential moderator and it was done for the gender but with no significant effect. The analysis of other possible moderators could be done in the next research.

This study confirmed the applicability of the resilient model of motivation by proving that emigrants had higher level of the autonomy related to emigration issue and that they saw it as a chance to develop or to become happier. These results show that more autonomous and integrated persons probably because of their openness to change were more ready to emigrate. Findings of this research regarding relations between SDT and TPB models are partially inconsistent with previous results (Chirkov et al., 2007; Tartakovsky & Schwartz, 2001). Higher level of the autonomy was connected the recognition that their social network has positive attitude toward migration, but also with the 22

perception that there are more obstacles. It could be interpreted that they estimated more objectively the situation in Serbia related to the emigration. However although it should be expected that people who have more integrated self and higher level of the autonomy do things because of their own beliefs and with higher sense of perceived behavioural control from the previous results this research did not prove it. The nature of the introjection was confirmed through the evaluation that they are more under influence of important people. Persons with extrinsic motivation developed more positive attitude toward emigration probably recognizing that their network has it too. These findings did not prove that external motivation increases insecurity that would result in lower perceived behavioural control.

This research showed differences between the influence of family members (household) and friends (network) on decision process. The importance of relations with family members was more influential to the decision process; but not as it would be predicted in the frame of household theories (De Jong, 2000) but in the way that Boneva & Frieze (2001) presented migrant personality. Those who were closer to relatives had negative attitude toward migration and perceived that people from their network were against the emigration. This finding showed that the family cohesion should be included in analysis of the influence of family households on decision process. Relations with relatives are negatively correlated with identification which reveals that people who are closer to their relatives perceived that their relatives had more negative attitude toward emigration. Since the centrality of the relations with friends is correlated with the motivation part of subjective norms, importance of others for the decision making that dimensions should be regarded more as the reflection of friends influence. Intrinsic motivation is correlated to the centrality of the relation with friends as a part of their healthy functioning.

There is a significant impact of macro level which respectively comes from the side of countries (push & pull factors), the attitude toward emigrations is related to the estimation of the relation between administration efficiency; human rights, culture, economic perspective, democracy, education, health and social relations in Serbia and immigrant country.

It implies that those

indicators are very important push or pull factors. Perceived control is related to the culture, human rights and transportation but it is difficult to understand why.

Results showed that degree of autonomy influenced on the higher recognition of differences between Serbia and desired or immigration country, maybe it is caused with the fact that autonomy is followed with more rational, objective and profound elaboration of the reality (Chirkov et al., 2007;

23

2008). There is not enough empiric data that could prove the implication that higher degree of autonomy led emigrants abroad where they achieved better economic status and perspective.

Emigrants estimated level of culture and education higher than residents did. However, it should be noted that most of respondents answered that they think that those life conditions indicators are worse in Serbia. Highly educated emigrants would like to corporate with local authorities in order to foster the development of Serbia even more than they practice it right now, especially in the education and transferring know-how.

Presented results could be useful to policy makers for the better understanding of emigrants’ attitudes toward their future involvement in the country of origin. Even though Serbia is facing the problem of brain drain in the last 2 decades there is still no adequate and transparent policy toward migrants, especially highly educated ones. Government’s representatives usually reveal data about the number of people that went abroad but they do not show data about the quantity of remittances received by the local citizens. Since remittance is one of the most important sources of foreign investments in developing countries their presentations could be in fact hidden agenda that assures the social peace and the income of money without the work on the improvement of the local political situation and industrial production. The ad hoc content analyses of public opinion about the statement of the president of Serbia, Boris Tadić that there is no cure for the brain drain indicate that many persons see the problem in the hopelessness caused by the corruption and political situation of the country (http://www.b92.net/biz/vesti/srbija.php?yyyy=2010&mm=11&dd=28&nav_id=475478).

The government should not concentrate just on the measures that could decrease emigration but also to develop measures that could increase engagement of emigrants in Serbia. Government representatives search for resolving the problem of brain drain through the enhancement of conditions and improvement of material status (housing, better equipment) for those who did not emigrate but they should also promote the corporation with emigrants more transparently. This research proved that highly educated emigrants would like to cooperate with local authorities in order to foster the development of Serbia and that is the possible way of receiving dividends for “the lost human capital”. The reported readiness of emigrants to support Serbia in the field of education comes probably from the fact that there is significant number of professors in the sample. However, it indicates that Serbian government does not know what to ask from their emigrants. It seems that they are expected to give us donation what they are not ready to do and offered dividends for the loss caused by brain drain are not perceived. Grečić (2009) suggested that due to economic constraints that did not allow to give the adequate life conditions to highly educated professionals, Serbia should 24

recruit them that in order to receive know-how from them. It would be also useful to create conditions for the labour circulation of migrants. Findings that emigrants estimated all aspects of life conditions better than residents, especially cultural happenings and education indicate that people idealize situation in desired countries. Although this research is concentrated on Serbian emigrants, its findings can be generalized to all transitional economy countries. It should be expected that Serbia will pass through the similar process in regard to the emigration as Eastern European countries after the entrance in the process of integration to EU so adequate measures should be taken in order to avoid their mistakes.

25

REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991). The intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50,179-211. Åkerman, S. (1972). The psychology of migration. American Studies in Scandinavia, 8, 46-52.

Amelina, A. (2010). Searching for an Appropriate Research Strategy on Transnational Migration: The Logic of Multi-Sited Research and the Advantage of the Cultural Interferences Approach.

Forum: Qualitative Social Research.

Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51,1173–1182.

Beauchemin, C. & González-Ferrer, A. (2011). Sampling international migrants with origin-based snowballing method: New evidence on biases and limitations. Demographic Research, 25(3), 103-134. Retrieved February 22, 2012 from http://www.demographicresearch.org/Volumes/Vol25/3/ Bommes, M. & Morawska, E. (eds.) (2005). International Migration Research: Constructions, Omissions and the Promises of Interdisciplinarity. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Boneva, B. S. & Frieze, I. H. (2001). Immigrant Perspectives and Adaptations toward a Concept of a Migrant Personality. Journal of Social Issues, 57, i3, 477 – 491.\ (retrieved November 22, 2006 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/0022-4537.00224) Borjas, G.J. (1987). Self-Selection and the Earnings of Immigrants. The American Economic Review, 77 (4), 531-553.

Chirkov, V., Safdar, S. Guzman, J. Playford, K. (2008) Further examining the role motivation to study abroad plays in the adaptation of international students in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 427–440.

Chirkov V., Vansteenkiste M., Tao R & Lynch M. (2007). The role of self-determined motivation and goals for study abroad in the adaptation of international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 199–222.

Cone, L. (2007). Review Essay: Resilience in Russian Immigrant Stories: An Alternative to Deficiency Models. Forum: Qualitative Social Research.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

De Fay, J. B. 1998. The Sociology of International Migration. PhD Dissertation: Submitted to the University of California. San Diego.

De Jong, G. (2000). Expectations, Gender, and Norms in Migration Decision-Making. Population Studies, 54 (3), 307-319.

Faist, T. (2004). The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.

Fawcett, J.T. (1985) Migration Psychology: New Behavioral Models. Population and Environment, 8, 1, 5-14.

Giannoccolo, P. (2006). Brain Drain Competition" Policies in Europe: a Survey" .Working Papers. Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Dipartimento di Statistica.

Grečić, V. (2009). Iseljavanje mladih kao jedan od faktora starenja stanovništva Srbije.

Gerontologija, 36(1), 123-142.

Grečić, V. (2003). Promena vrednosti i tranzicija u Srbiji: pogled u buducnost. Beograd: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung & Institut drustvenih nauka.

Inkson, K., Carr, S., Edwards, M., Hooks, J., Jackson, D., Thorn, K. and Allfree, N. (2004). From Brain Drain to Talent Flow-Views of Kiwi Expatriates. Auckland: Business Review, 6, i2.

International Organization for Migration (2011) (Retrieved November 1, 2011 26

http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/about-migration/lang/en ) Johnson, A.G. (2000). The Blackwell dictionary of sociology (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Kahanec, M. & Zimmermann, K. (2008). Migration in an enlarged EU: A challenging solution?

Paper prepared for the Workshop: “Five years of an enlarged EU – a positive-sum game” Brussels, 13-14 November 2008 Kelo M. & Wächter B. ( 2004). Brain Drain and Brain Gain Migration in the European Union after enlargement . Bruxelles: Academic corporation association.

Lee, E. (1966). A Theory of Migration.Demography, 3(1), 47-57.

Lu, M. (1999). Do People Move When They Say They Will? Inconsistencies in Individual Migration Behavior. Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 20, 5.

Massey, D. (1999). International Migration at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: The Role of the State. Population and Development Review, 25 (2), 303-322.

Massey, D; Arango, J; Hugo, G; Kouaouci.A; Pellegrino, A; Edward Taylor.J. (1993). Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal. Population and Development Review, 19(3),pp. 431-466.

Moon, B. (1995). Paradigms in migration research: exploring “moorings” as a schema. Progress in human geography, 19(4), 504.

Penrod, J., Bray P., D., Cain, R.E., Starks, M.T. (2003) A Discussion of Chain Referral As a Method of Sampling Hard-to-Reach Populations. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14(2), 100107.

Predojević-Despić, J. (2010). Ka razumevanju determinanti međunarodnih migracija danas – teorijska perspektiva. Stanovništvo, 1, 25-48.

Reichlová, N. (2005). Can the theory of motivation explain migration decisions? The IES working papers. 97. Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies.

Ribeiro, J. S. (2008). Gendering migration flows: physicians and nurses in Portugal. Equal Opportunities International, 27(1), 77-87.

Ryan, R. (2009). Self-determination Theory and Wellbeing. Research Review 1. University of Bath.

Schifter, D. B., & Ajzen, 1. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 843-851.

Schwab, K. , Sala-i-Martin , X. & Greenhill, R. (2010). The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011. World Economic Forum. Geneva. (Retrieved March 1, 2010 http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2010-11.pdf) Sriskandarajah, D. (2005) A paper prepared for the Policy Analysis and Research Programm of the Global Commission on International Migration, Institute for Public Policy Research.

Steinmetz, H., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P. (2011). Three Approaches to Estimate Latent Interaction Effects: Intention and Perceived Behavioral Control in the Theory of Planned Behavior.

Methodological Innovations Online, 6(1) 95-110.

Tartakovsky, E., & Schwartz, S. H. (2001). Motivation for emigration, values, well-being, and identification among young Russian Jews. International Journal of Psychology, 36, 88-99.

UNESCO http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/socialtransformations/international-migration/glossary/migrant/ Winter-Ebmer, R. (1994). Motivation for migration and economic success. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15 (2), 269-284.

27

APPENDIX A Table 1. Parameter Estimates for the MANCOVA model for the relations between SDT and TPB dimensions

ATTITUDES

Dependent Variable

Parameter

ATTITUDE TOWARD

Intercept

EMIGRATION /

B

Std. Error

t

p

-.090

.089

-1.009

.314

Extrinsic m.

.159

.073

2.166

.031

BEHAVIOURAL

Introjection

-.065

.073

-.891

.374

BELIEFS

identification

.461

.077

6.007

.000

-.019

.078

-.246

.806

.166

.122

1.356

.177

-.143

.087

-1.641

.102

Intrinsic m.

Emigration status PERSONAL

Intercept

CONSEQUENCE OF

Extrinsic m.

.146

.072

2.026

.044

ATTITUDE TOWARD

Introjection

-.029

.071

-.404

.687

EMIGRATION/

identification

.354

.075

4.707

.000

EVALUATION OF

Intrinsic m.

.077

.076

1.016

.311

RESULTS

Emigration status

.264

.120

2.205

.029

SUBJECTIVE

SOCIAL NORMS//

Intercept

.102

.091

1.121

.264

NORMS

NORMATIVE BELIEFS Extrinsic m.

.268

.075

3.569

.000

Introjection

.076

.074

1.027

.306

-.035

.078

-.448

.655

.198

.079

2.497

.013

-.188

.125

-1.506

.133

Identification Intrinsic m.

Emigration status IMPORTANT

Intercept

.062

.089

.693

.489

OTHERS//

Extrinsic m.

.201

.074

2.725

.007

MOTIVATION

Introjection

.220

.073

3.020

.003

identification

.030

.077

.385

.701

Intrinsic m.

.159

.078

2.042

.042

-.114

.123

-.931

.353

.399

.088

4.544

.000

Emigration status PERCEIVED

PERCEIVED

Intercept

BEHAVIOURAL OBSTACLES//CONTR

Extrinsic m.

-.007

.072

-.093

.926

CONTROL

Introjection

.251

.072

3.514

.001

-.214

.076

-2.821

.005

.154

.077

2.016

.045

-.735

.120

-6.107

.000

OL BELIEFS

identification Intrinsic m.

Emigration status CAPACITY TO

Intercept

.185

.095

1.952

.052

OVERCOME

Extrinsic m.

.063

.078

.811

.418

OBSTACLES//INFLUE

Introjection

.142

.077

1.836

.068

NCE OF CONTROL

identification

-.095

.082

-1.167

.245

BELIEFS

Intrinsic m.

.005

.083

.061

.952

-.341

.130

-2.624

.009

Emigration status

28

Table 2. Partial correlations between TPB dimensions and push & pull factors Controlled for emigration status

Attitude toward emigration

Personal consequence Social norms Important of attitude others

Perceived obstacles

Capacity to overcome obstacles

Relation centrality

r

-.093

-.053

-.049

.128

.123

.085

friends

p

.204

.469

.505

.078

.090

.241

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

Relation centrality

r

-.275

-.217

-.216

.055

.094

.087

relatives

p

.000

.003

.003

.451

.198

.235

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.189

-.140

-.058

.130

.122

.108

p

.009

.053

.428

.075

.095

.137

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.108

-.046

-.016

.053

.008

.039

p

.137

.533

.822

.469

.908

.590

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.265

-.252

-.109

.068

.134

.113

p

.000

.000

.135

.350

.064

.122

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.087

-.065

-.058

.041

.130

.047

p

.231

.374

.425

.576

.074

.524

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.307

-.316

-.074

-.075

.141

.017

p

.000

.000

.310

.302

.053

.820

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.104

-.119

-.007

.037

.065

-.073

p

.155

.103

.919

.609

.372

.315

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.191

-.149

-.131

-.047

.025

.029

p

.008

.040

.071

.520

.732

.694

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.308

-.311

-.097

.024

.105

.114

p

.000

.000

.185

.742

.151

.116

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.262

-.275

-.046

.027

.062

-.048

p

.000

.000

.528

.709

.399

.513

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.285

-.302

-.016

-.019

.095

.039

p

.000

.000

.832

.795

.193

.598

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.158

-.155

-.005

.076

.096

.079

p

.029

.033

.946

.300

.188

.279

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

r

-.163

-.151

-.050

.046

.084

.084

p

.024

.038

.492

.527

.248

.252

df

188

188

188

188

188

188

Administration efficiency

Law appraisal

Human rights

Transportation

Culture

Economic stability

Economic perspective

Democracy

Education

Social relations

Health

Social security

29

Table3 Partial correlation between motivation dimensions and push & pull factors Controlled for emigration status

EXTRINSIC

INTROJECTION

IDENTIFICATION

INTRINSIC

Relation centrality

r

-.020

-.001

-.019

.146

friends

p

.783

.989

.792

.044

df

188

188

188

188

Relation centrality

r

-.017

.059

-.142

.006

relatives

p

.811

.416

.050

.935

df

188

188

188

188

r

.002

.062

-.152

-.043

p

.977

.398

.036

.551

df

188

188

188

188

r

.066

.072

-.046

.031

p

.363

.324

.525

.675

df

188

188

188

188

r

.030

.147

-.228

-.110

p

.680

.043

.002

.131

df

188

188

188

188

r

.137

.180

-.040

-.037

p

.059

.013

.581

.611

df

188

188

188

188

r

-.035

.039

-.223

-.154

p

.631

.589

.002

.034

df

188

188

188

188

r

.106

.200

-.103

-.054

p

.146

.006

.156

.457

df

188

188

188

188

r

.016

.162

-.107

-.134

p

.827

.026

.142

.066

df

188

188

188

188

r

-.019

.042

-.261

-.122

p

.796

.568

.000

.093

df

188

188

188

188

r

.059

.063

-.262

-.198

p

.420

.389

.000

.006

df

188

188

188

188

r

-.061

.004

-.236

-.110

p

.403

.951

.001

.130

df

188

188

188

188

r

.045

.128

-.258

-.067

p

.538

.078

.000

.357

df

188

188

188

188

r

.035

.141

-.210

-.146

p

.632

.052

.004

.044

df

188

188

188

188

Administration efficiency

Law appraisal

Human rights

Transportation

Culture

Economic stability

Economic perspective

Democracy

Education

Social relations

Health

Social security

30

APPENDIX B SDT questionnaire (SRQ - E) There are various reasons which prompted you to decide to emigrate and settle permanently abroad.

Indicate the extent to which each of the following reasons for the move can be applied to you. Some claim you can make very similar to others, but please answer each of them. The numbers have the following meanings: 1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree to a lesser extent, 3 I'm not sure, 4 agree to a greater extent, 5 strongly agree

Intrinsic motivation 1) I emigrated because I thought it would be fun and interesting.

4) I emigrated because I thought it will be an exciting thing for me.

22) I emigrated because I thought it would be a fulfilling experience.

23) I emigrated because I wanted to try to live in the new environment.

29) I emigrated because I expected that I would have felt rejoice by the arrival in new environment.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

4.

4.

4.

4.

4.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

4.

4.

4 4.

4 4.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.

3.

3.

3.

4.

4.

4.

4.

5.

5.

5.

5.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

3.

3.

3.

4.

4 4.

5.

5.

5.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

4.

4.

4.

4.

4.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

Identification 6) I emigrated because it was one of my life goals.

11) I emigrated because I really wanted to do it.

12) I emigrated because it was personally important to me.

25) I emigrated because I like to live by the way people live here.

30) It seemed to me that I will realize my potentials after the emigration.

34) I emigrated because it was my dream.

Introjection 27) I emigrated because my neighbour assured me that it is right for me.

35) I emigrated because I have thought that I do not belong here.

38) I emigrated because everyone said that this state is not good for me.

41) I emigrated that because we all need to go from this country.

Extrinsic motivation 3) I emigrated because other people would approve it.

7) I emigrated because my neighbours would criticize me if I had not done it..

14) I emigrated because I would felt embarrassed in front of others (relatives, friends) if I had not done it.

15) I emigrated because the other people (relatives and friends) expected that I would do it.

17) I emigrated because I wanted to avoid embarrassment that would follow if I had not moved.

20) I emigrated because others (parents, friends, etc.) forced me to do so.

36) I emigrated because I have other people tried to persuade me to it.

42) I emigrated because I did not want be ashamed in the eyes of those who have already left.

TPB questionnaire 1.) Remind yourself of your attitudes toward emigration before you moved and the rate with fivespeed scale, the extent to which you can then get along with each of the following statements. The numbers have the following meanings: 1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree to a lesser extent, 3 I'm not sure, 4 agree to a greater extent, 5 strongly agree

1. I intended to emigrate.

2. I planned emigrate.

3. I had to emigrate.

4. I had taken necessary procedures in order to emigrate.

31

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.

3.

3.

3.

4.

4.

4.

4.

5.

5.

5.

5.

2.a) Please provide answers in accordance with its opinion immediately before making a decision about emigration. For this purpose it is necessary to evaluate a five scale to what extent do you agree with any of the following statements. The numbers have the following meanings: 1 I was not assumed, I assumed 2 / by a lesser extent, I'm not sure 3 / at, assumed 4 / I to a greater extent, was 5 / I have a completely safe

b) Rate a five scale the extent to which you have assumed in the period immediately before the emigration to you personally you experience any of these consequences when you emigrated. The numbers have the following meanings: 1 I was not supposed / la, I assumed 2 / by a lesser extent, I'm not sure 3 / at, assumed 4 / I to a greater extent, was 5 / I totally secure.

1. Emigration is useful to help achieve their goals.

2. Emigration of people talking about maturity.

3. People who migrate are more successful.

5. Emigration increases the chance of achieving personal goals.

13. Life in Serbia does not offer challenges for me.

14. Emigration of those who are willing to accept risk to the new.

15. Staying in Serbia is the choice of a predictable way.

16. In Serbia there are no conditions for a better future for me.

18. Staying in Serbia reduces freedom of choice.

19. Anyone who wants a normal life to emigrate.

20. Emigration provides an opportunity for people to change the old and create new values.

21. Emigration may be less secure life in a corrupt society.

22. Emigration provides the possibility of getting a job based on personal qualities.

23. You need to emigrate because the society is corrupt.

24. People who migrate have the capacity to do so.

28. I am able to overcome obstacles that would hinder me in order to emigrate.

29. The success of immigrants is only a question of persistence person.

30. The difficulties associated with immigration can be overcome by effort.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

4.

4.

4 4 4.

4 4.

4.

4.

4.

4.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

3.

4.

4.

4.

4.

4.

4.

4.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

3.a). Rate using the five-scale the extent to which each of the statements suit real situation before you emigrated. The numbers have the following meanings: One does not suit, 2 generally do not suit, I'm not sure 3 / at, 4 would correspond to a greater extent, 5 full suits 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

2. Since I was expected to emigrate from Serbia.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

3. Some people have told me to go away from here.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

4. Most people I know do not plan to stay in Serbia.

2.

3.

4.

5.

5. My friends think that highly educated people who remain in Serbia made a 1. fool of himself.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. Most believe that intellectuals who remain in Serbia are rare.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

7. My father believes that most educated Serbs emigrated.

3. b) Rate the extent to which these persons affected to make the decision to emigrate. The numbers have the following meanings: 1 is not affected, 2 is not affected to a lesser extent, 3I'm not sure in it , 4 resulted in a greater extent, 5 very much influenced 1.

2.

3.

4.

Mother 1.

2.

3.

4.

Father 1.

2.

3.

4 Brother or sister 1.

2.

3.

4.

Kin, relatives 1.

2.

3.

4 Partner (wife, girlfriend) 1.

2.

3.

4.

Colleagues at work 1.

2.

3.

4.

Teachers

32

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

5.

4. a) With five-evaluate how you scale emigration before assessing the possibility that these obstacles appear in the emigration process. The numbers have the following meanings: 1 is not a possibility, 2 there was no possibility a lesser extent, I'm not sure 3 / at, 4 there was a possibility to a lesser extent, 5 there is a strong possibility. b) Rate the extent that we interfered with each of the obstacles that arose during or before you emigrated. The numbers have the following meanings: 1 I would not be interfered with at all, 2 to interfere with me to a lesser extent, I'm not sure 3 / at, 4 to interfere with me, 5 I would very much interfere with me 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Required material resources 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Obligations to family 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Loyalty to friends 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Personal disorganization 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Disease 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Adaptation to new environment 1.

2.

3.

4 5.

Lack of encouragement by relatives of people 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Lack of confidence 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Lack of time 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Fear of change in their 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Disposal of seeking employment 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Ignorance of the destination language 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Inability to cope in the new environment 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The duration of administrative procedures going

33