Introduction

International academic mobility is a critical issue in the era of globalization, and one of the criteria of internationalization that are commonly used in global ranking systems and policy implementation analyses is a high proportion of international academics in higher education institutions (Altbach & Yudkevich, 2017). According to Rostan and Höhle (2014), the Changing Academic Profession survey revealed that approximately 42% of respondents, who hailed from 19 countries, had studied or worked away from their home country. Studies in the United States found that international faculty members made considerable contributions and performed well (Corley & Sabharwal, 2007; Mamiseishvili & Rosser, 2010). In addition, International academic mobility is associated with research excellence in European countries (Musselin, 2004). However, the presence of international academics in Japanese universities remains less pronounced, and they face more difficulties in humanities and social sciences than science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (Huang et al., 2019). Furthermore, the expected roles of international academics in higher education are different from those of domestic academics and leaders, and the dilemma between the local language and English exists in non-English native countries (Shin & Gress, 2018). To date, studies on the Asian context focus on international faculty members in higher education institutions, especially universities, instead of outside of universities.

Since the 1990s, northeast Asian countries have endeavored to increase international competitiveness in higher education. Central governments have attempted to attract international academics through generously funded policy initiatives. For example, the Korean government implemented the Brain Korea, World-Class University, and Brain Pool Projects; the Japanese government initiated the Global 30 and Top Global University Projects in 2009 and 2014, respectively; lastly, the Chinese government initiated Projects 211 and 985. However, the majority of these policy initiatives and projects emphasize universities instead of research institutes. Thus, such policy initiatives emerged from an eagerness to join global higher education rankings or, at least, to avoid being left behind (Morley et al., 2021).

Despite institutional and governmental efforts to attract international academics to northeast Asian countries, such as Korea and Japan, retaining top international academics is typically challenging. In particular, several international academics who left Korea after staying only for short periods gave very critical news interviews (Chosun-Ilbo, 2016; Joongang, 2016). English-speaking countries are more attractive destinations for internationally mobile academics (Altbach, 2007; Enders & Musselin, 2008; Franzoni et al., 2012). European countries also have strong networks among member countries and offer international academics a range of opportunities within EU member states (Altbach, 2004; Altbach & Knight, 2007). In contrast, Korea lacks strong economic or social networks with other Asian countries and does not use English as a public or second language. Thus, the potential of Korea for internationalization differs from those of countries that benefit from their location, language, or social system. Language barriers in academia and in daily life increase the challenges of attracting and retaining international academics. Similarly, the differences between the academic cultures and environments of higher education systems in Korea and in western countries present further challenges.

The situation of international academics in Japan is relatively similar to that in Korea. Recently, the Japanese government stated that it would strengthen its efforts to attract and retain top international academics in research institutes outside of universities by enhancing support for the education of their children and the employment of their partners and by providing English-language research support (Cabinet Office, 2017). Japan is home to 39 government-funded research institutes, the majority of which are in the STEM fields. According to the 2021 list of The World’s Most Innovative Research Institutions, four of these institutes (i.e., Japan Science and Technology Agency, RIKEN, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, and National Institute for Materials Science) were among the global top 30 government-funded research institutes. Thus, national research institutes in Japan have a supportive environment in which to conduct research and development. However, Japan is not the first choice for the majority of international academics due to the language barrier and cultural differences (Huang & Daizen, 2020).

Despite the common belief that hiring international academics increases the recruitment of international students and produces a better quality and quantity of research, the empirical evidence for these claims is limited. Nevertheless, Korean and Japanese governments and universities have exerted enormous efforts to attract and retain international academics. The majority of previous studies have focused on international faculty members in universities instead of those in research institutes or the private sector. Moreover, studies on the roles and experiences of international academics outside of universities are few. Therefore, the current study explores the integration of international academics in government-funded research institutes with a focus on their primary roles in and contributions to institutes and the challenges they face in their academic and daily lives.

Literature review and framework

In this study, international mobility pertains to the temporary or permanent migration of science and technology personnel, particularly doctoral degree holders. Research and development (R&D), brain drain/gain, career opportunity, and skill/competence development are critical issues in a knowledge-based society, and mobility occurs in diverse directions (Mahroum, 2000). Highly skilled international academics are essential contributors to society. Although the definitions of highly qualified professionals and their migration are varied, the present study focuses on international academics who relocate away from the country in which they were born. Previous studies mainly explore the mobility of international academics in universities in terms of the global knowledge economy and international research networks (Douglass, 2014; Jacob & Meek, 2013) as well as the mobility of international students (Brooks & Water, 2011). However, studies that explore international doctorates are limited (Mihut et al., 2017).

Moreover, the integration of international academics lacks scholarly discussion across contexts. The environment faced by international academics as they migrate is dependent on the institution to which they belong and the position they hold; however, many previous studies focused on faculty members in universities. Alternatively, universities tend to hire international professors as a symbol of an internationalized university or to meet the criteria for the World University Rankings (Brown, 2019). In contrast, research institutes can be relatively free from the external pressure of rankings and the need to maintain a reputation for internationalization (Coccia, 2008). Instead, research institutes intend to achieve world-class academic outcomes through the recruitment of international academics (Nerdrum & Sarpebakken, 2006). Universities highlight three roles, namely, teaching, research, and administrative service, but place less emphasis on the role of student education in research institutions (Bozeman & Boardman, 2013). As administrative tasks are linked to internal politics/decision-making in universities, international professors who cannot take on administrative tasks lack bargaining power (Han, 2022). In addition, the difference in organizational culture between universities and research institutes in the public section is an important factor (Shea, 2008; Tierney, 1988). In particular, the integration of international members is interrelated with professional and social adaptation, and it is influenced by cultural differences (Jonasson et al., 2017). For instance, the collectivistic cultural nature of an organization based on Confucian traditions leads to difficulties for international academics in integrating into the local academic community in the East Asian context (Froese, 2010). Moreover, local language is a critical part of integration to communicate and interact with colleagues in host countries (Yudkevich et al., 2016). Chen (2022b) suggests that the impeding factors of the integration of international faculty members into Japanese universities are work, cultural, and interpersonal in the internal context and the environmental dimension in the external context.

This study utilizes three perspectives to elucidate the integration of international academics in government-funded research institutes. The first is academic roles and contributions. Teaching, research, and administrative service are the traditional and broadly accepted roles of academics in higher education institutions. In general, the international backgrounds and experiences of faculty members in universities in Korea are expected to be associated with increased English usage in class, better research performance, and broader global networks. Levin and Stephan (1999) and Stephan and Levin (2001) also demonstrated that international academics are academically more productive than native academics. In addition, Libaers (2007) pointed out that this tendency is particularly strong among STEM research institutes. However, these international academics face personal, institutional, and cultural challenges (Cradden, 2007; Leišytė & Rose, 2016).

To identify the contribution of international academics to research institutes, elucidating which roles institutes require them to take is necessary. Compared with universities, the major objective of research institutes that employ international academics in STEM fields is to utilize their international networks and produce world-class research materials. Through quantitative research, recent studies have confirmed the characteristics of international academics with large international networks (Scellato et al., 2015): they have obtained doctoral degrees in countries apart from the one to which they immigrate. Research connections obtained prior to their migration are important for collaborative research, and these links are expandable (Meyer, 2001; Scellato et al., 2015).

However, research institutes tend to provide academics with more autonomy in their teaching roles, because these institutes intensify research, while universities emphasize advanced research-based teaching (Dusdal et al., 2020). In this context, internationally mobile academics may feel less under pressure, because their expected contributions are clear, or they may feel frustrated due to limited opportunities to participate in governance. This issue lacks examination in the Asian context, including Korea and Japan, due to less academic interest in international academics in research institutes compared with those in universities.

Furthermore, as human capital, international academics generate economic and material benefits that derive from international knowledge networks and pose social and intellectual benefits in the form of increased diversity, multiculturalism, and knowledge exchange (Morley et al., 2021). In the neoliberal context, academics with international experience can be viewed as possessing special forms of capital in their career development (Bauder et al., 2016); therefore, employing foreign academics is perceived as a strategy for increasing productivity and joining global networks. Also, researchers in their early careers in a competitive academic labor market seek opportunities for international experience (Kim & Kim, 2021).

The second approach is a perspective of migration that covers the motivation and current status of academics in their organizations. The academic culture of an institute influences whether or not members are open-minded about international members who originate from a cultural system that is not hierarchical and bureaucratic. Kim (2016) conducted a case study in the Korean context and explored limited power in decision-making processes, the senior–junior hierarchy of faculty members, feeling of isolation, lack of connection with domestic members, and the misalignment of dual professional identities within a university and an academic community. Such an academic culture is problematic for international academics and minority groups, such as junior faculty members or women (Kim & Kim, 2021). As a minority group in Korean academic society, international academics face invisible internal challenges that cannot be solved through policies. These challenges comprise the reasons why international academics, who have been recruited with great effort and financed by government and university funding, nonetheless, consider leaving.

Studies that focus on the migration and adaptation of international scientists take a different perspective from studies on international professors in the university context. These studies analyze the phenomenon of international academics returning to their home countries in terms of individual choices that maximize economic utility (Gaulé, 2014). However, investigating the case of international scientists in the East Asian context is necessary, because numerous studies in this area have been conducted in the contexts of the United States and Europe.

Finally, individual academics express personal reasons for deciding where to pursue their academic career. Within the broad concept of academic mobility, that of academics and scientists is “a process of networking and extending of one’s social space and simulated by a desire for professional socialization” (Mahroum, 2000, p. 26). According to Baruffaldi et al. (2016), who explored international academic mobility in research institutes, personal reasons are an important motivation. Other studies demonstrated that the factors of the research environment can also influence the mobility of international academics (Siekierski et al., 2018).

Academic and economic factors related to job status are also critical for the decisions of doctoral graduates to go abroad or return to their home country (Auriol et al., 2013). Apart from professional reasons, family issues are powerful personal deciding factors. However, empirical information on why international academics in Korea move on or settle down is limited. Personal reasons related to family are potentially important, especially in Korea’s homogenous society, which is slightly internationalized and does not use English as a public language. In Japan, Huang et al. (2019) found that more than 80% of international academics from western countries had partners from Japan, and family reasons seem likely to have affected their decision to settle down.

Figure 1 presents the theoretical framework for elucidating the integration of international academics outside of universities with the three abovementioned perspectives. As the core part, their roles and contributions are the main dimension of integration in research institutes, including research, teaching, administration, service, and internationalization. Policy and governance, culture, social stability, and working conditions could be included in the environmental dimension. Personal reasons, such as family, economy, religion, and personal life goals, and values are also interrelated with their integration.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Framework for the integration of international academics with the three perspectives

Full size image

According to the objective and framework of the study, three research questions are presented. (1) How did international academics contribute and take roles in national research institutes in Korea and Japan? (2) What is the association of the social environment and academic culture with migration decisions in both countries? (3) Apart from the organizational level, what is the association between individual challenges and integration?

Methods

We invited international researchers in government-funded research institutes in Korea and Japan, but no comprehensive data are publicly available on this group. Therefore, we selected interviewees using the stratified purposive sampling strategy. The strategy describes the group to which the sample belongs and compared it with groups with other characteristics (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In the case of Korean, we visited the official websites of government-funded research institutes and collected the e-mail addresses of potential international academics by referring to names that differ from traditional Korean names. Although a few research institutes do not provide information about their members, we visited the websites of 53 research institutes to find contact information for international academics. An interesting finding was that we were nearly unable to find international academics in 26 of the research institutes under the National Research Council for Economics, Humanities, and Social Sciences. Four international members were in these areas at the Korean Development Institute, which tends to be regarded as a graduate school. Finally, we found 381 international academics in 11 research institutes under the National Research Council of Science Technology and two research institutes under individual government departments. Institute of Science and Technology universities and research institutes related to national defense, security, and nuclear power were excluded from the sample. In the case of Japan, we randomly selected four research institutes and contacted their international academics to invite them to participate. Although Japan has 39 government-funded research institutes, we found 348 international academics in eight institutes. Finally, eight international academics contributed to the study as interviewees. Table 1 provides details of government-funded research institutes in Korea and Japan.

Table 1 Government-funded research institutes in Korea and Japan
Full size table

Determining whether the identified international members were academics with a doctoral degree or graduate students is difficult. Therefore, we contacted the international members of project teams to avoid duplication and referred to titles, such as senior researchers, team leaders, or “Dr.” to select doctoral degree holders. The study used a stratified method to select and contact the interviewees and obtained their consent prior to the interviews through a brief information sheet and consent form that describes the purpose of the study, method of recording, use of interview data, freedom to withdraw from the study, and guarantee of anonymity. The semi-structured interviews were conducted in February and March 2021 with seven international academics from government-funded research institutes in Korea and from October 2020 to July 2021 with eight international academics from government-funded research institutes in Japan. The interviews were conducted in English, Japanese, or Korean according to the preference of the interviewees. All interview data in the Korean and Japanese languages were translated into English. Table 2 presents detailed information on the interviewees, but the names of the research institutes, disciplines, and academic ranks are excluded to protect their anonymity.

Table 2 Interviewee information
Full size table

For analyses, interview data were inductively and deductively coded after transcription and translation into English, although major broad themes were selected from the literature for conducting semi-structured interviews. The data were first open-coded, then the structure among the coded concepts was created. In the first coding step, the study repeated the process of segmenting meaningful parts related to the research questions and assigning meaningful themes, while repeatedly reading the transcribed data and notes written by the researchers during the interviews. For example, role, internationalization, environment, policy, culture, language, and family emerged as prominent themes in the first stage. Afterward, in the second coding step, the study strengthened the concepts derived from the first coding step and structured the relationships between concepts and categories. Through this process, the study established the hierarchical and relational structure. For instance, the first theme is role; the researchers connected their roles with teaching (e.g., supervision, class, summer school, and seminar), research (development, technique, funding proposal, paper, and article), and administration (e.g., management, paperwork, and staff), and hierarchy was structured at this stage. In addition, the researchers utilized a data triangulation technique that collects various data apart from interview data and compares them with one another to ensure the validity of the results. Among the four types of triangulation proposed by Patton (2002), data source triangulation pertains to a method for confirming the validity of information acquired through various data sources and increasing the validity of the derived results. In addition to the interview data, we collected data, including the list of international researchers at the institution and research outcomes from the websites. The institution summarized the collected data and actively used them to verify the validity of the information obtained during the analysis process of the interview data. Moreover, the researchers mutually reviewed and provided feedback when conflicting results occurred during the data analysis or when deriving results that were unclear in meaning. The triangulation technique avoided bias due to the subjective judgment of individual researchers.

Main findings

Clear academic roles with a focus on research and teaching; contributions to internationalization

The international academics all had clear roles in their institutes. In particular, 14 out of the 15 interviewees perceived their academic roles as mainly focusing on research or development; even the one other interviewee exhibited a strong identity as a researcher and perceived teaching as an elective role. Regardless of country, they reported that understanding their primary role and achieving what they intended to do research were easy aspects. The clear research role and aim made them more productive, because the other roles did not interrupt their research work in these institutes. Given the simple, clear expectations of their academic roles, the interviewees expressed strong satisfaction with their academic work at the institutes.

The main basic work is the R&D, research and development. The professor’s job is easy. It’s like an honorary job. (K2)

I don’t have any teaching role. I just do research in [area of specialty] science … sometimes, of course, I have some Ph.D. students. I do some discussion and so on, but no teaching. (K3)

I have very much a science research role. Some people in my institute perform more bureaucratic roles or administrative roles. I’m very much a pure science research person, which is actually quite unusual, I think. Most people have a lot more bureaucratic duties. I think that’s also partly because of the type of science I do. (K7)

My main role is to do research and present results. (J1)

I just focus on my research topic, actually. In our lab, each person has their own research topic and I am responsible for my topic, mainly. (J2)

Many international academics in universities have left Korea and Japan due to the closed academic culture and limited possibilities of obtaining high administrative and management positions. Several studies on international academics in Korean and Japanese universities have found that institutional discrimination and exclusive ethnonationalism have marked the academic cultures (Kim, 2011, 2016). This notion is most easily perceived when international academics are in decision-making situations or evaluated for promotion and tenure. However, compared with universities, research institutes feature relatively low levels of oversight and advocate collaboration between researchers and students, such that the isolation and marginalization of international academics are less likely to occur, as noted by Interviewee K7.

[In University A], the hierarchical structure was stronger, which affected my interactions with my boss and also with other members of staff who wanted to interact with me. This caused a lot of complications. There was some kind of history of not being willing to let your postdoc interact with other groups. It was more group-controlled in University A than it is now in [the research institute]. (K7)

From the bottom-up point of view, the hierarchy is less important because, as a foreign member of staff, when I work with students, they may be initially not quite sure how to interact with me, because they’re used to working with Korean professors. That’s a hierarchical relationship. Once they start to work with me, that quickly breaks down. Actually, this formality is not there because I’m foreign and also because I don’t want that relationship. I want a very discursive and interactive relationship with the students. (K7).

Nearly no opportunity exists for international academics in Japanese national institutes to teach classes or provide supervision for students. Only two interviewees (J1 and J3) in Japan mentioned irregular seminars or summer school programs in their institutes. They conduct research with graduate students from universities instead of provide supervision or teaching courses. A possibility exists that graduate students are recognized as research assistants who require the support of principal investigators in Korea. However, being an independent technician or researcher in Japan is more acceptable. The international academics in Japan expressed that they had no teaching burden, such that they tend to focus more on research.

Not regular teaching in classrooms. But I have, for example, several students who come from universities. They come here to do research with me, several of them. (J3)

But in the research institute there are no students, so we don’t need to teach any classes. (J4)

I am in a research institute, so there are no students. (J7)

The international academics in Korea were given teaching roles except for only one interviewee (K3), but the role was not much of a burden, and they enjoyed supporting and helping students. The interviewees highlighted an interesting point related to the integrated education system in Korea within government-funded research institutes. The teaching role is most relevant in the University of Science and Technology (UST), which was established in 2003 for a particular purpose, based on Article 33 of the Act on the Establishment, Operation and Fostering of Government-Funded Science and Technology Research Institutes. Academics in government-funded research institutes can be associate professors or professors at UST, in which case they need to fulfill a few requirements and conduct teaching roles based on the UST curriculum. Academics in research institute experience much less pressure related to student admission, recruitment, and curriculum development compared with those in universities. Therefore, the teaching work of international academics in research institutes, including supervision, is compatible with their major role in R&D.

I’m also a professor at UST, so I’m a group leader. Well, I have classes. Actually, one is at Korea University, and one is at UST. (K1)

The professor’s job is easy. It’s like an honorary job. We [academics in my research institute] teach our students, mainly my research institute’s students, and some courses we teach for all research institutes (common courses). [Students] choose our course and come and participate in it. (K2).

You could have no teaching load. The difference between KAIST and my institute, they used to be the same, but mine is just a [research] institute. It’s not a university, so there are technically no classes, but there’s a UST [course]. I’m a professor at UST and in order to have students from UST, I need to teach at least one class, which is fair. (K4).

International academics in non-English speaking countries are expected to develop an English-language environment and global networks. Particularly in Korea, they contribute to the education of students and training of domestic academics to create a more internationalized environment and are tasked with connecting to and expanding international academic networks through collaborative research work. They also provide added opportunities for students and domestic academics to communicate in English instead of in Korean and train them in working with academics from different backgrounds. Six out of the seven interviewees in Korea mainly used English, and only K6 communicated more frequently in Korean.

Students also make an effort with me. I also push them because they have to write their manuscripts in English, they have to make presentations in English, so they have to do it. I see that they know the language, but they’re hesitant to use it. I try to bring them out from the shy zone and to do extra work [in this regard] because I don’t have very good English, but whatever English I know, I speak it confidently. I try to express myself. (K5)

However, international academics in Japanese national institutes mainly speak Japanese or have experience using Japanese, even if they use English for research and work. Along this line, six interviewees (except for J1 and J2) used Japanese as the main language for their academic work. Moreover, international researchers publish papers or reports in Japanese with support from Japanese academics and vice versa. Nevertheless, international researchers (J2 and J3) in Japan also experience difficulty in communicating with administrative staff in English even if conducting their research in English in national research institutes is not challenging for them.

Not really. But I can collaborate with my colleagues. For example, I wrote the English version and he helped to translate it into Japanese. In this form, we can publish in Japanese. (J3)

Mainly in Japanese. However, in my project, the foreign research areas are Myanmar and Indonesia, so I also use English quite a bit. (J6).

The main language is Japanese, but if there are foreigners in the study group or people who can’t speak Japanese, it will be in English, and there are also foreign researchers who can’t speak Japanese except me, so I mainly use Japanese, but there are also people who don’t. (J8)

Language problem. Although in RIKEN the official language is English, so research is no problem, but still like technical staff or research assistants, they mainly speak Japanese, so sometimes it’s hard to communicate with them. (J2)

According to the interview data, international academics in research institutes clearly recognized their roles and academic responsibilities, and they focused more on R&D compared with other teaching and service. However, international academics in Korea had an enjoyable teaching load through a unique system of the specially purposed consortium of graduate schools, which is called UST, while international academics in Japan tended to concentrate on R&D without teaching workloads. In addition, the interviewees in Korea were expected to use English to play a role in improving the internationalized environment, whereas those in Japan were expected to use Japanese to adapt well to the domestic culture.

Social stability in a rewarding research environment

The working environment is one of the critical reasons for the career and mobility of the academics (Mamiseishvili & Lee, 2018; Winter & Sarros, 2002). In the same line, four interviewees in Korea mentioned that a more autonomous working environment in terms of time management and research is a positive reason for staying in Korea and continuing their research. In particular, as mentioned by the interviewees, the institutes provide international academics with the freedom to conduct research. Interviewee K3 can spend time on his research if they have done the research projects they are required to do. Furthermore, he can manage his time on the basis of a newly introduced flexible time management policy.

I have a lot of freedom in my research. That is positive. (K1)

My institute made a rule last year; now our working time has become flexible. Before, we used to start at 9:00 AM and we had to stay until 6:00 PM, but now it’s flexible, I can go anytime. (K3)

This is what I expected, and I think I am getting more than I expected in terms of freedom of work. (K5)

First of all, there’s a lot of freedom in research. I have work to do. If you’re doing well, you can spend the rest of your time freely. Yes, so I’m just doing a [specific research topic] study, doing good data evaluation, doing analysis, and the rest of my time, I’m doing [specific academic area] science. That’s it. (K6)

Moreover, although the majority of faculty members in universities expressed challenges in attaining competitive research funding from governments (Shin et al., 2020, 2021), the seven researchers in government-funded research institutes in Korea are under less pressure regarding the search for research funding compared with faculty members in universities. Moreover, two interviewees in Japan cited generous research funding compared with other contexts. Thus, the international academics are satisfied with the funding and support mechanisms from the outset, because government-funded research institutes have stable sources of funding given that the national projects continue.

In terms of funding, we have quite good funding. We have several projects in our division and I usually work on those projects. I’m assigned some specific roles, like processing the data or interpreting of papers. That’s pretty good. Yes, funding-wise, it’s quite good. (K3)

There are many reasons [I came here]. One of them was the resources here. They did offer a very good startup package to come here. (K4)

I can do good research here. And when I was looking for jobs, I saw many job openings here. That means we have lots of funding here, too. (J4)

Since we are a research institute, the institute receives a fixed budget every year. Our job is to gather professors from universities in Japan and all over the country for research. Therefore, we can all receive a generous budget without applying for a (external) scientific research grant. (J7)

To recognize it as a project of the Institute, you must do something unique like that. You have to do things that other university professors can’t do. Because it’s a big budget, more than 3 million JPY. If it was B, it would be 5 million JPY. We do it with tens of millions of dollars, so we do cutting-edge things that universities can’t do. Do something novel. That’s what I’m trying to focus on the most. (J7)

In addition to institutional support with stable research funds and guaranteed autonomy, international academics in government-funded research institutes gain a strong impression of the Korean society. Interviewee K4 mentioned the novelty of his experiences when he first visited or joined a conference in Korea. The international academics not only spoke highly of the environment of research institutes and academic society but also shared positive impressions of the overall energy and vitality of Korean society.

When I visited for the interview, I was really struck by the energy here. It was palpable. The places I’ve been in the United States are very good, but I really noticed the strong energy level here in Korea. That was kind of, “Oh, I am going to do this.” Then, the rest of it was working up the courage actually to do the transfer to Asia. (K4)

I do get a chance to learn new things, learn new techniques. Actually, over time, I realized that there’s so much that I can learn. The best thing about Korea is that they have a strong work culture and they’re very much into when they’re working, they’re working hard, which I learned. (K5)

In contrast, international academics in Japan emphasized its stable environment as a developed country. Academics from developing or emerging countries in Asia compared it favorably with the academic and social environments of their original countries. According to the four interviewees in Japan, stability included the physical research environment and their daily lives. The support they received helped them concentrate on their work, which made opting to stay in Japan easy for international academics who wanted a sense of stability and quality of life.

Yes, the current workplace is a suitable and stable condition for me. I worked in the institute in China. You know, China is now changing very fast. But in that rapidly changing environment, it is quite difficult to be left in peace to do a scientific study. So, you have to keep alert to everything. This has scattered a lot of the concentration I need to do research. But here, it’s a developed environment. So almost everything becomes very stable, so then I can concentrate on my studies. This is what I mean by stable and stability. (J3)

I think that maybe one of the things is that you can think and do research in a free environment. Not only in Laos but also in Southeast Asia, for example, there are people who came to Japan because even Thai professors could not do decent research under the military regime, but if you are researching not only in Japan but also in developed countries, you are allowed to think freely. Also, I would say that a former classmate here works in Western Europe, and I have other friends who work in other countries, Europe, France, and England, but compared to them, it is a small sample, but it is a little stable, I think there is a stable employment relationship. (J8)

But other things, the environment, I think, is quite good compared to the US for international researchers, like people treat international researchers especially, like we are supported. And like we have international housing, so you come abroad, you can rent a house inside the research institute, that’s provided only for international researchers. (J4)

As Sakurai and Mason (2023) proposed, the working environment in the sense of workload control, support structure, and collegiality are critical factors of the intention of international academics to stay. This notion is also evident among international academics in public research institutes. In particular, the freedom to manage one’s research and time and the generous research funding environment are critical reasons in the decision of the interviewees about their destination countries. In addition, the stable research and social environments provide them with long-term research and enjoyable daily lives in both countries.

Policy versus culture: Different challenges in Korea and Japan

Although international academics reported positive experiences, they also faced challenges and barriers at work. In particular, they understood how policy works in Korean academic society and its limitations. Although obtaining funding to conduct research is easier for them compared with academics in universities, two interviewees in Korea also worried about short-term policy-driven research projects.

I think the biggest negative is not appreciating how short-term things can be. The World-Class Institutes was only a five-year program, and I didn’t really think about that too much. I was just so happy to have the chance to start a lab that I didn’t really think too much about what’s going to happen in five years or what’s going to happen in ten years. It turns out neither had Korea [laughs] and so these policies that they try, and then if you don’t get a return rather quickly, they’re done, and you can see the ghosts of programs past in different areas. Even at my institute, I see this department no longer exists, and that department no longer exists. (K4)

It’s a little bit of a problem to do research quickly. I’m glad I moved—I haven’t had that kind of experience. And the sudden disappearance of research projects with every presidential election, I think that’s a big problem. (K6)

Political issues have influenced many policy initiatives in Korea, and funding distribution can be based on internal politics or nontransparent decision-making processes instead of definite and transparent empirical evidence. Therefore, maintaining policies over the long term are difficult, and they may change with the changes in government. Academics have criticized the short-term policy initiatives of bureaucrats, particularly in the Korean context, in which a robust government-centered orientation exists. Although the international academics were mainly satisfied with the relatively comfortable research funding, the limited short-term policies of the government countered this aspect. In addition, international academics could feel isolated when they attempt to seek for Korean colleagues for collaboration, and they could experience the insularity of an academic culture that is based on the universities from which their Korean colleagues graduated.

I’m quite isolated, I think. I now have a very good partner with whom I’ve been collaborating for several years, but it’s very difficult to find someone who’s willing to work with foreigners because of the language—everything is inconvenient. I feel it’s very difficult to collaborate in Korea. (K1)

Group-focused. In my research institute, it’s not quite so strong, but I think you still have to be aware of this mentality. It’s a little bit different. In the institute, it’s interesting that everybody comes from different universities: Yonsei University, Korea University, Seoul National University. Actually, that mentality is even stronger. Which group you originally came from plays a role in who you interact with and how you interact with people in the institute. (K7)

In contrast, international academics in Japanese national research institutes rarely pointed to policy and political issues. Instead, half of them spoke of the acceptance of cultural differences in Japan. Interviewee J5 mentioned the uniqueness of Japanese culture and society and the expectation that international researchers would take on a similar role to Japanese researchers. In particular, they respected the hard-working environment but found themselves isolated in institutes. Therefore, understanding and being accustomed to Japanese culture is critical for succeeding in research institutes in Japan. A few of the interviewees expressed that adjusting to the culture is easy, because they went to graduate school at a Japanese university and have been living there for a long time.

I think Japan is very different from many other countries and they have a very strong culture. And knowing those cultural differences is very important, I think. (J5)

I think Japanese people tend to concentrate on their work; it’s hard to find time to talk to each other, so in the lab, it’s always very silent all the time. (J2)

Even I think from my observation, Japanese colleagues are also isolated from each other. This is the environment. I think it’s the culture. (J3).

The master’s program is at [a university in Japan] and the doctoral course is at [another university in Japan]. (J7)

I came to Japan when I was 19 years old, and I have been in Japan for almost all my life, so I don’t have any experience [studying abroad]. (J8)

To be honest, in my case, my master’s degree and doctorate were in Japan, so I am probably used to Japanese culture. (J5)

Although generalizing all the cases of the international academics in national research institutes using only the limited number of interviews is difficult, the interviewees from both countries clearly demonstrated differences in policy and cultural issues. The international academics from both countries perceived barriers to collaboration, but the actual pattern was different. Although international academics in Korea feel alienated from a solid network based on the universities of the Korean scholars, international academics in Japan face difficulty due to the high levels of cultural understanding and language skills required to adapt to the Japanese academia. In a study international mobile academics, Bauder (2020) pointed out that the connection between global mobility and social capital features diverse aspects. The interviewees have experienced challenges when they were unable to contribute to bridging between domestic and international colleagues.

Continued challenges: Language barriers and family issues

Regardless of the use of English as a lingua franca, the interviewees stated that they endeavor to overcome difficulties in work situations through the administrative staff and colleagues in their teams. However, the language issue is always a major challenge for international academics regardless of whether their organization is a university or a research institute. In particular, although using the Korean language in the workplace voluntary, the seven interviewees felt that learning Korean affords them with better opportunities for acquiring research funding and for collaboration with domestic colleagues. As certain research funds require that proposals be in Korean, international academics who lack Korean language skills cannot be involved in large funding projects. Moreover, the eight interviewees in Japan could speak Japanese out of which six have achieved advanced levels of the local language through their education and long-term stay in Japan. The majority of interviewees in Japan agree that integrating into institutes is difficult if one is unable to use the Japanese language.

The only problem is that if you need to apply for research funding here, you need to write a proposal in the Korean language, not in English. That is the difficulty here; English projects get a very small amount, a small budget. If you are able to write a funding proposal in Korean, and you are able to present a subject in the Korean language, you can get access to the mega-project funding. (K2)

If there’s anything that could be a problem, [it is that] everything is done in Korean, so if foreigners want to come to the institute and work as full-time employees, they need to know Hangul well. I think that part is difficult for foreigners. But there’s nothing they can do about it. For foreigners who come to Korea, if you want to work well with Korean colleagues at a research institute in Korea, you need to communicate well. I think they should study Korean first and then take the job. (K6)

Family is also an important consideration when deciding to move to another research institute or country, according to six interviewees each in Korea and Japan. Interviewees K1 and K3 stated that they selected Korea as a destination country for family reasons, but K2 and K7 mentioned that their family members encountered challenges with language or visa status. Moreover, finding jobs, operating their own businesses with family members, or sending the children to local schools are complex tasks for the partners of international academics. In a number of cases, the partners of the interviewees experienced difficulty in starting their businesses in Korea or landing an academic job due to their visa status. In addition, living in Japan presented similar challenges related to education for the children and the health issues of family members. The difficult situation of the education of the children is similar for international academics in Japan according to Interviewee J1. Lastly, J2 and J4 considered the possibility of staying or moving back to their home countries due to their family members.

Of course, my wife is Korean, so that was one reason why I was initially interested in coming here. (K1)

First of all, my wife was working at the same research institute at that time. She also did her Ph.D. and master’s at the same university, but she stayed in Korea. She was living in Korea and then I moved from Germany. Then after five years, there was a position and I applied. The primary reason was that my wife was here, so we could be together again. (K3)

I have only one problem here [and that is] English-language schools for my kids. I have a family. I have two kids. My kids stayed with me until 2016. In 2016, my eldest son went to a school in India. He was a seven-year-old at that time. Now, he’s a 12-year-old boy. In 2019, my second kid and my wife also moved to India. They both are studying in India. At least up to high school, they should study in India. Then, my plan is after graduation, I will bring them back to Korea and try to join a SKY university. (K2)

Actually, moving abroad might be more suitable for [my wife] if we could work in a country where [they speak either English or Spanish]; she speaks both Spanish and English very well. She’s learning Korean, but it’s not easy. It’s very difficult to reach the level of Korean where you could really be out in the market doing any job. That’s not easy. Also, there are visa restrictions. She would have to get a job with a contract to be able to [get a work visa], so she couldn’t set up her own business, for example. There are limitations, basically, on what she can do. Without that contract, she can’t get a work visa. She has a PhD in astronomy herself and she has a wide range of interests. That’s one reason that we would be thinking of looking abroad as well, in addition to the possibilities for me in the future. (K7)

One downside to living in Japan could be issues about kids. For example, I want my kids to speak the Arabic language, my native language. But so far, my sons don’t speak Arabic. This makes me think seriously about finding an Arabic country where I can work. Also, our salary is not so high that we can afford international schools or that type of support. Yes, it’s a difficult balance. (J1)

Now his [the interviewee’s father] condition is okay, but I think it’s time for my family to move back to Taiwan. That is the main reason. The second reason may be partially due to COVID-19. I feel Taiwan seems safer than Japan. (J2)

But if she [partner] wants to go back to China, then I have to really consider that. But if I’m just alone, I would be okay staying here. (J4)

As discussed by previous studies, the language issue is relatively critical for international academics, particularly non-native English-speaking countries (Brotherhood et al., 2020; Froese, 2012; Li & Xue, 2021) regardless of university or research institutes. In addition, family is another influential reason for the choice of destination countries in which to stay and work (Froese, 2012; Gress & Ilon, 2009; Larbi & Ashraf, 2020). Although governments and institutes have endeavored to attract and retain international academics in Korea and Japan through policy initiatives at the macro level, other reasons at the micro level, which cannot be solved only with the policy or system, lack serious considerations.

Discussion

From the three perspectives based on their integration, the study described three discussion points with the findings from the interviews with international academics in national research institutes in Korea and Japan. Although the three theoretical perspectives could not be perfectly separated but be interrelated, we discussed the meaningful points raised by the findings on the (1) major roles and contributions, (2) social stability and academic culture, and (3) personal challenges and issues beyond societal and organizational levels.

In relation to roles and contributions, international academics in government-funded research institutes are generally satisfied with their jobs and roles in Korea and Japan. Their well-defined research roles afford them autonomy over their personal research. Although international academics in universities expect to engage in diverse roles, including governance, the different perceptions of domestic and international staff regarding their roles in universities frequently lead to conflicts about how they are valued (Brotherhood et al., 2020). In the case of Korea, at the UST, these academics can decide whether or not to engage in student supervision, while those in Japan are not given teaching duties. However, various factors continue to hinder them from performing their roles in institutions.

Considering the contribution of international academics in research institutes to the internationalization of their organizations is important. Despite limited evidence that international academics are more productive, the Korean government implemented policies at the national level to attract international academics on the basis of the belief that their contributions could enhance the research quality and capacity of Korean academia. International academics may not always be more productive than domestic academics outside of the west (Kuzhabekova & Lee, 2017; Shin & Gress, 2018). However, scholars clearly demonstrated that international academics provide more opportunities to use and practice English as the main language of academic communication (Altbach, 2015). As the academic society in Korea is unfamiliar with using English in the domestic context, international academics expose students and domestic academics to English and thus create a more global environment. However, their ability to fulfill the role of bridging between domestic and international academia has been limited, because they face challenges in finding Korean academics who are willing to collaborate.

The Japanese academic community more strongly emphasizes integration and adaptation into its academic community. International academics in Japan are expected to increase the use of English in the workplace and create an international research environment; in addition, they are required to acquire high-level Japanese language skills and to adapt to Japanese organizational culture (Brotherhood et al., 2020; Chen, 2022a, 2022b; Huang et al., 2019). This emphasis is reflected in the tendency of institutions to favor international academics with Japanese doctoral degrees. Although the same achievements are required, the new finding of the current study is the contradiction between the emphases of the Japanese academic community on the connection with Japan and that of the Korean academic community on connection with overseas academic communities. Understanding the contextual difference between Japan and Korea in terms of their perspectives of highly educated human resources is possible. The number of doctoral degree holders has dramatically increased, including international degrees in Korea, while it has continuously decreased in Japan since the early 2000s. Therefore, the reasons for the recruitment of international academics differ according to situation: that is, to replace domestic human resources or to increase global competitiveness through international networks.

Therefore, the contribution of international academics to government-funded institutes by expanding global networks has focused on their international collaborations instead of providing added opportunities for Korean academics to participate in international collaboration. If international academics are isolated from domestic academics and collaborate only with those abroad, then they cannot help academics in Korea to connect with those abroad. Therefore, identifying and analyzing the factors that hinder collaboration between domestic and international academics in research institutes is crucial.

From the migration and integration perspectives, previous studies illustrated that international academics were marginalized due to the language barrier in universities (Brotherhood et al., 2020; Froese, 2012; Li & Xue, 2021), and which was confirmed by the interviewees. Disagreeing that language is a critical problem that leads to the marginalization of international academics in the Korean and Japanese academic contexts is difficult. As local language proficiency is not mandatorily required, and the expected language level is diverse according to disciplines in university (Lee, 2020), the language issue is equivocal in government-funded research institutes in the STEM field for the integration of international academics. However, this issue remains a difficult one in Korea and Japan as non-English-speaking countries regardless of the type of organization. Moreover, we found that the closed culture of Korean academic organizations is a barrier for international academics apart from language issues. Interviewee G shared his experiences of working in a university and in his current research institute. At the university, he encountered difficulties in co-working with students with different majors under the strongly hierarchical structure. Furthermore, the interviewee experienced limitations in collaboration due to seniority issues in the authoritarian organizational culture of the university. Alternatively, he perceived the organizational culture of the research institute to be more open to collaboration with students, because the relationship between seniors and professors in lab-based research units is much more horizontal and open. Moreover, more space exists for international academics to collaborate and interact equally despite the group culture based on one’s alma mater. Many international academics have left Korean universities after their negative experiences with their organizational culture, but the more open and horizontal collaborative culture of the research institutes suggests one method for attracting international academics.

Bauder (2020) demonstrated the multi-dimensionality of the social capital of international academics according to global mobility. In addition, the current study emphasized that changes in the social capital of international academics are dependent on which roles are desired of them by institutions in the destination countries. In particular, differences exist in the major role required for international academics in Korea and Japan. International academics in Korea are expected to connect with international research networks (Shin & Gress, 2018), while those in Japan are expected to adapt to domestic academia with Japanese proficiency. In other words, international mobility does not consistently foster or reduce the social capital of international academics. Nevertheless, social capital is dependent on the role of international academics in institutions. In addition, it is associated with the decision of international academics to promote further development, to use personal networks, or to focus on creating new domestic networks in the country of immigration.

The last point is related to top-down policy initiatives instead of integrating with personal reasons and priorities. Clearly, these initiatives for recruiting international academics have led to a quantitative increase in their numbers in Korea. As a vibrant case of internationalization, Switzerland provides a good example of a competitive and attractive place for international academics due to its high-level of inbound mobility and international recruitment as well as incentives and financial support for early-career researchers who graduated with a PhD in Switzerland (Bataille et al., 2017; Sautier, 2021). In Korea, after the first appointment step, a long-term plan and support system to encourage international academics to participate and work actively in academic society are required. The depth of integration and meaningful engagement, which are influenced by the duration of stay, can facilitate the transfer of certain types of knowledge (Coey, 2018). In addition, personal and cultural benefits may influence the decisions of international academics to work and live in Korea and Japan apart from professional reasons. However, individual motivations and family issues are rarely considered at the policy level despite their importance to potential international academics (Coey, 2018). International academics in Japanese national institutes also experience many cultural differences. A few interviewees were well adjusted to these cultural differences, because they were educated in Japan, but they worried that international academics who are unfamiliar with Japanese culture would experience difficulties. Therefore, addressing the possibility that international academics will pass through institutes instead of being integrated into society is necessary. Further studies should consider potential long-term policies for integrating academics within the cultural context.

Conclusion

This study explored the experiences and integration of international academics in government-funded research institutes in Korea and Japan though their roles and contribution, motivation to stay, and challenges in the environmental and individual dimensions. Although international academics are critical human resources in academic society (Kim, 2017), their experiences outside of universities lack thorough investigation in Korea or Japan. Therefore, we describe their current status and provide suggestions for attracting international academics by leveraging the unique characteristics of government-funded research institutes.

We provide information about the integration of international academics at national research institutes in Korea and Japan and illustrate that a clear academic role, horizontal organizational culture, and systemic support are important factors for them to stay. We also highlight the challenges they experience in relation to policy, culture, language, and family issues. International academics help create an international working environment, although they frequently face difficulty in bridging between domestic and international academia. The interviewees also expressed relatively positive views on the prospects of increasing the number of inbound international academics after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite contributing to the understanding of international academics outside of universities, this study has its limitations. In a certain sense, the interviewees were examples of successful adaptation to the structures of their institutions. Therefore, their responses tended to be more positive than they would have if they had failed to settle. In addition, this study recruited only 15 interviewees from different academic disciplines and research institutes and with different doctoral degrees. Given the limited information available on international academics outside of universities, the number of interviewees was small, which may be unable to reflect the overall situation. The 15 interviewees were male due to the small number of female international academics, and none of them responded to the invitation to participate. Although female academics tend to be less mobile compared with male academics, and family issues are critical for them in making decisions about their academic careers (Sautier, 2021), this aspect was a critical limitation. The higher proportion of male international academics in Korea and Japan is not only the result of a recruitment preference for males but also due to male dominance in the STEM fields. For this reason, further studies are required to explore the experiences of female international academics and to compare the academic cultures of universities and research institutes in the Korean and Japanese academic contexts.