In the previous chapter, we discussed the role of interactions that immigrants have with individuals representing support organizations, employers, professional peers, and members of the general community, all of whom influence QIs’ sensemaking and workforce integration. In this chapter, we look more closely at organizations and how various organizational processes and structures come to influence immigrant work integration. We understand the term ‘organization’ broadly to mean the stream of activities performed by a group of people toward a goal. We start this exploration with a fictional example.1

In a university’s departmental meeting, some faculty members engage in a conversation about teaching resources and identify the need to hire a new professor. Other members of the department quickly agree. One member suggests it would be nice to increase the team’s diversity by hiring an immigrant for the position. A senior member of the team reminds the group of the existing procedure to request budgetary approval and justify the position, offering to prepare the documentation and seek approval from the proper authorities. After a few months, the position is approved, and a hiring committee is established. The chair of the hiring committee and some of the members were not part of the initial meeting but were briefed by the department chair on the hiring procedures. The hiring committee was provided with a job description template and crafted the position announcement, including typically sought-after qualifications, such as experience teaching in English, peer-reviewed publications, Ph.D. from an accredited school, and some unique teaching and research expertise needed by the department.

The advertisement was distributed through academic channels, and over one hundred applications were received. A small committee was charged with screening candidates and flagging those that met the requirements specified in the job advertisement. Most immigrants did not qualify. Some had extensive teaching experience in other languages, but their ability to teach in English was not clear. Others had many publications but in journals unfamiliar to the hiring committee and on topics that did not match the department’s priorities. Others had doctoral degrees from unfamiliar foreign universities, raising questions about their qualifications. After this initial screening that ruled out most immigrants, the process resulted in selecting the three best candidates for a campus visit. Given the screening procedures used for the job applications and the availability of candidates who met the familiar high qualifications, immigrant candidates were deemed uncompetitive and did not make the shortlist for interviews. Committee members lamented this outcome but felt there was nothing that could be done. After all, it was a competitive process, and the university wanted the best candidate possible.

This example illustrates the interplay between collective processes of organizing and sensemaking. Organizing is the process of establishing structures, roles, and activities to achieve the goals of an organization. Organizing processes can vary across organizations, depending on organizational resources and individual tendencies. In the example above, organizing refers to the hiring process, which includes convening a hiring committee, appointing a committee chair and other members, writing the job advertisement, and shortlisting and debating potential candidates. The members of the committee organized to resolve equivocality—the existence of multiple possible meanings (Weick et al., 2005)—to make the hiring process more orderly. Thus, organizing is about coordinating action in a situation of multiple realities (Weick, 1995), such as selecting the best possible candidate and the importance of diversity. As demonstrated in our fictional example, organizing allows the employer to select candidates in a process that seems fair and consistent across time and departments.

Sensemaking, therefore, is a foundational process of organizing, as multiple actors work together through ambiguity and uncertainty to comprehend circumstances and use this understanding as a springboard for action. As discussed in Chapter 2, sensemaking in organizations happen at two levels of subjectivity—intersubjective and generic subjective—negotiated through practices of communication. At the most basic level, communication between organizational members generates intersubjective understandings, which are then picked up and built upon by others that did not participate in the original construction and thus become generic understandings. In the fictional example, the shortlist of candidates was prepared by a different committee from the one that raised the concern about increasing diversity and hiring immigrants.

There is always something lost when intersubjective understandings are translated into generic subjectivities. As a result, there is an ongoing tension between the innovation inherent in intersubjectivity and the control inherent in generic subjectivity. Despite the consensus in the department meeting about hiring an immigrant, the structures of the job approval process, advertisement, and final hiring, removed immigrants from the candidate pool. These tensions are reconciled through interlocking routines and habituated action patterns and maintained through ongoing communication (Weick, 1995).

5.1 Communication and Organizing

Organizing occurs in and through communication. In other words, organization and communication are co-constitutive (Dewey, 1944 cited in Taylor & Robichaud, 2004). It is important to remember that communication occurs within a social context. Language, texts, performances, and practices are informed as much by the communication process as the context in which they occur. Consequently, organizing is enacted within material and social conditions. In other words, organizing is ‘enacted in the world that we occupy’ (Taylor & Robichaud, 2004, p. 410). Communication through language is structured through social relations, positions, and practices.

Taylor and Robichaud (2004) refer to the communicative activities of agents as conversations, which are instruments of organizational action. Conversations are discursive texts constructed within a material and social language environment. These discursive texts are retrospective and emerge from reflection and interpretation to ‘monitor, rationalize, and engender the action of organizing’ (Taylor & Robichaud, 2004, p. 397). The sensemaking process involves members of organizations recollecting and using knowledge from previous events toward action, invoking both text and agency.

Texts are shared practices and habits of interpretation formed by a community of practice to make sense of the material/social environment. In our hiring example, texts are the procedures in place, the documentation that needed to be filled out, the templates used, and the job description shared among the individuals involved. Agency reflects the ability of social actors to choose which materials to employ for their purposes. In the hiring example, agency refers to the choice some individuals had to call attention to how procedures rely on previously established templates and suggest new requirements (e.g., diversity and special consideration for immigrant candidates). Sensemaking and organizing occur in conversations and actions on behalf of the organization and are preserved in social structure through texts (e.g., job advertisements, emails among different committee members, job offers, etc.), as well as individual and collective choices and actions. In other words, the documents generated through this hiring process are likely to be used in the future hiring initiatives perpetuating discriminatory hiring practices unless agency is utilized to question and change these practices.

Weick et al., (2005, p. 410) argues that ‘people organize to make sense of equivocal inputs and enact this sense back into the world to make that world more orderly.’ In other words, circumstances are turned into words and salient categories. Taylor and Robichaud (2004) would add that organizations are simultaneously lived, interpreted, and reinterpreted. The boundaries of organizations are continually made and re-made through conversations, and although this process is structured, it is unpredictable. A sensemaking perspective highlights that ‘the order in organizational life comes just as much from the subtle, the small, the relational, the oral, the particular, and the momentary as it does from the conspicuous, the large, the substantive, the written, the general, and the sustained. To work with the idea of sensemaking is to appreciate that smallness does not equate with insignificance. Small structures and short moments can have large consequences’ (Weick et al., 2005, p. 410). Often, small comments may have important implications. For example, a decision to add ‘accredited school’ to the job advertisement may not have been discussed at length or taken much consideration. Yet, it eliminates many potentially talented candidates.

Mills and colleagues (Helms Mills et al., 2010; Mills & Helms Mills, 2004) argue that a critical perspective of sensemaking allows for the understanding of the social processes through which discriminatory practices become acceptable. Three elements play a role in organizing and sensemaking: formative contexts, organizational rules, and discourse. Formative contexts (Unger, 1987a, 1987b) are an implicit model of how things should be, leading to the reproduction of practices. Formative contexts are the means through which the macro-level context influences individual sensemaking by making some text and narratives salient and plausible. In the example above, formative contexts are the narratives about what good research is. Individuals refer to an implicit understanding of which journals are considered ‘good or reputable journals’ and use this knowledge to judge whether a candidate is a good researcher or not.

At the organizational level, the remaining two elements of organizing have a more immediate influence on sensemaking and sensegiving. Organizational rules are the ways things get done; they control, constrain, guide, and define behavior in an organization. They may be written or unwritten, formal or informal. The combination of organizational rules configures expectations and prescribes the way things are done or should be done in a particular organization. Rules are emblematic of the generic subjective and guide sensemaking activities by facilitating and constraining behaviors. There are clear rules about how faculty members are hired. There is a process to be followed and approvals to be sought. This process encourages certain decisions over others.

Discourse is ‘a historically evolved set of interlocking and mutually supporting statements, which are used to define and describe a subject matter’ (Butler, 2002, p. 44 cited in Mills & Helms Mills, 2004, p. 117). Through dominant discourses, certain ideas become normalized as a way of thinking and believing, which explains how some rules become accepted. An example of this is the idea that the ‘best’ candidate should be hired. Here, the definition of ‘best’ privileges some individuals over others. This critical perspective highlights that sensemaking occurs within enduring structural contexts and implicates that sensemaking is not a democratic process; it is embedded in a system of power discrepancies and inequalities.

In summary, intersubjective meaning is constructed through communication among various actors in organizations. These meanings are then extrapolated into organizational rules, processes, structures, and discourses (generic subjective understandings). This process is recursive and intersubjective. That is, sensemaking happens within a context of rules, discourses, and power discrepancies that privilege some ideas over others. The generic subjective and intersubjective levels of sensemaking at the organizational level, however, do not preclude individuals from exercising agency to engage in acts of resistance, break the rules, change narratives, or use communicative resources to influence the construction of meaning.

The process of constructing, revising, and reconstructing meanings resolves the tensions of innovation emerging from the intersubjective level of sensemaking (resistance) and the rigidity inherent in the generic subjective level of sensemaking (rules, structures, and discourses). Thereby, it creates room for individuals who constitute organizations to break habits, patterns, and routines. This understanding of organizing acknowledges the paradoxical nature of organizations as simultaneously possessing enduring structures yet being in constant flux and malleable to change.

5.2 Prominent Organizational Actors Involved in Immigrant Work Integration

Multiple organizational actors are involved in the process of QIs’ work integration, which is a long-term process that may start before migration and continue for many years after settlement. As QIs contemplate migration, they seek information and support to manage their expectations about employment opportunities and challenges, prepare for migration financially and psychologically, and make migration decisions (Gulanowski, 2018). After securing employment, QIs continuously negotiate their place within the new organization and society. Additionally, in the process of seeking employment, QIs engage with many organizations and their policies and procedures, which has implications for their sensemaking and actions. Below we discuss some of the most prominent organizational actors interacting with QIs.

5.2.1 Immigrant Service Provider Organization (SPO)

SPOs play a critical role in immigrants’ workforce integration (Godin & Renaud, 2002; Lacroix et al., 2015; Steimel, 2016, 2017). They are a primary provider of professional employment support, including job counseling, identification of career options, skill assessment, and the acquisition of work-related skills. Several studies have documented the challenges facing SPOs, which are often small and with limited capacity. Funding structures can limit an SPO’s ability to provide individualized assistance (Godin & Renaud, 2002) and, at times, create unhealthy competition within the sector (Mukhtar et al., 2016). In addition, funding rules favor immediate outcomes, such as short-term employment, which can interrupt QIs’ career development and limit their future career choices (Steimel, 2017).

Employment support programs provided by SPOs are typically funded by a combination of donors and funders at different levels of government. Funders usually rely on outcome measures to evaluate the efficacy of programs; these evaluations are used to decide whether to continue allocating funds to specific programs or organizations. These outcome measures tend to be based on crude calculations of the number of newcomers served and the actual number of newcomers employed within a funding period. While, on the surface, the focus on outcomes seems reasonable and would appear to create accountability, it places undue pressure on SPOs to design support programs that address the needs of as many immigrants as possible to keep costs low and maintain a steady flow of resources in an already competitive environment. As a result, these programs tend to focus on general requirements and skills and may not provide the customized support needed by newcomers with unique backgrounds or specializations. In addition, these funding structures create pressures to place immigrants in jobs as soon as possible, even if finding commensurate employment may require longer interventions.

These limitations have been the focus of recent critiques of SPOs that demonstrate that despite the commitment to seek the best outcomes for immigrants, the sector’s dependence on governmental support results in an emphasis on short-term results that are detrimental to long-term adjustment (Al-Dasouqi, 2016). QIs engaged in jobs below their skills and qualifications and often outside their fields are deprived of the opportunity to build the social and cultural capital required to secure careers commensurate with their education and experience. Additionally, given the overall structure of the employment support system and its focus on short-term goals, the burden of long-term workforce integration becomes the responsibility of individuals and becomes subject to their resilience and resourcefulness (Nardon et al., 2021).

5.2.2 Employers

Employers play a critical role in integrating immigrants. Employers provide immigrants with meaningful work opportunities, support them in gaining relevant work experience, and build the social and cultural capital needed to achieve their career goals. Management researchers are increasingly recognizing the importance of understanding how organizations can gain long-term competitive advantages by recognizing and utilizing the full spectrum of talents of QIs in their workforce. This discussion usually falls into two overlapping conversations: talent management and equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).

Talent has been defined as ‘the human capital in an organization that is both valuable and unique’ (De Vos & Dries, 2013, p. 1818 cited in Crowley-Henry & Al Ariss, 2018, p. 2056). Talent management refers to a set of activities that involves (1) identifying, recruiting, and selecting talented individuals from the external labor market; (2) identifying key internal talent; (3) developing employees; (4) managing talent flow across regions or countries; and (5) retention of talented employees (Vaiman et al., 2015, p. 281). As Vaiman and colleagues argue, talent management is at play within a transnational and global field with an ever-increasing number of variables, complexities, and interdependencies (2015, p. 281), resulting in a need to think of talent management as a global activity, referred to as global talent management (GTM).

GTM practices directly impact an organization’s ability to reach its goals (Crowley-Henry & Al Ariss, 2018; Farndale et al., 2014; Vaiman et al., 2015). Yet, the talent (competencies, skills, qualifications, knowledge, and abilities) of QIs is widely overlooked within GTM initiatives (Crowley-Henry & Al Ariss, 2018). Indeed, several studies have documented that QIs are disadvantaged by biases embedded in organizational practices regarding recruitment (Almeida et al., 2015; D’Netto et al., 2014) and training (Mahadevan & Kilian-Yasin, 2017). For example, Almeida and colleagues (2015) found that perception of ‘fit’ played a crucial role in the evaluation of QI candidates, who were more likely to be seen in an unfavorable light if they exhibited attributes such as heavy accents, non-Western attire, religious affiliations, and non-Anglo names.

Crowley-Henry and Al Ariss (2018) attribute this disregard of QIs’ talent to various factors, including language proficiency, the requirement for additional qualifications for certain occupations, inadequate understanding of local customs and legislation, and lack of access to local networks. They argue that many organizations take a short-term approach to talent management, ignoring the long-term strategic potential of QIs. Furthermore, they demonstrate that current definitions of talent tend to be narrow and prioritize local perceptions while ignoring important talents such as cross-cultural adaptability, flexibility, and resilience. This was exemplified in our opening example when a job description was crafted emphasizing local definitions of an ‘accredited school’ and metrics used to evaluate candidates’ accomplishments. Crowley-Henry and Al Ariss (2018) argue for the use of coaching, mentoring, and organizational role models to make career development pathways more visible to QIs and facilitate their career advancement.

Discourses and practices of EDI play a crucial role in ensuring the potential contributions of QIs are not overlooked due to institutionalized discriminatory practices. Even though QIs may not have acquired their credentials in the receiving country, their knowledge and qualifications obtained abroad may be important assets for employers. Bernstein and colleagues (2020) define the terms equity, diversity, and inclusion in the following way: Equity is ‘the absence of systematic disparities… between groups with different levels of underlying social advantage/disadvantage—that is, wealth, power, or prestige’ (Chin & Chien, 2006, p. 79). Diversity is ‘the representation, in one social system, of people with distinctly different group affiliations of cultural significance’ (Cox, 1993, p. 5). Inclusion is ‘the degree to which individuals feel a part of critical organizational processes such as access to information and resources, involvement in work groups, and ability to influence the decision-making process’ (Mor-Barak & Cherin, 1998, p. 48).

Based on this definition, EDI efforts must go beyond recruiting individuals from different demographic groups. While recruitment is the entry point to an organization, efforts to recruit a ‘diverse’ workforce without consideration for integration and advancement may lead to superficial compliance with legal requirements rather than tackle longstanding systemic issues, such as deskilling, underemployment, and exploitation. For example, D’Netto and colleagues (2014) found that organizations following a minimum compliance approach in Australia paid limited attention to immigrants’ training, performance appraisal, and compensation and did not capitalize on the potential benefits of EDI beyond hiring.

In summary, QIs need to be included in employers’ GTM and EDI efforts. Solving the wicked problem of QIs work integration (see Chapter 1) in ways that benefit immigrants, employers, and society requires that employers reduce barriers that prevent QIs from entering the workforce (equity) and provide QIs with opportunities for global leadership, cross-cultural management, and strategic internationalization of their organizations (inclusion) (Schuler et al., 2011).

5.2.3 Professional Organizations

Entry into regulated professions (e.g., engineering, medicine, law, etc.) is managed by professional organizations. These organizations are self-governing bodies that assess QIs’ educational and work experience to grant licenses. Their evaluation procedures are embedded within existing social relations and practices (Granovetter, 1985). As the sole authority for assessing international credentials and work experience, these organizations reproduce cultural and social norms through licensing procedures that can limit the integration of foreign-trained professionals, thereby reproducing the advantage of locally educated professionals. For example, Girard and Bauder (2007) conducted an in-depth exploration of Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) in Canada and found that professional labor markets are culturally regulated, often disadvantaging QIs. Like employers discussed above, selection agents often focus on tacit criteria that extend beyond well-defined qualification criteria, such as communication and presentation skills, workplace behaviors, dress code, and professional ethics.

Scholars highlight a discrepancy between an immigration system focusing on employability and public perception that views QIs as vital to addressing economic shortfalls and the realities of work integration for QIs (Guo, 2009; Reitz, 2012). In relation to professional organizations, this discrepancy is referred to as credentialism and can include exorbitantly high fees for foreign credential assessments and qualifying exams, the rules, procedures, and practices of licensing and registration in professions and trades, as well as the requirements of educational institutions and employers (Foster, 2006). New admissions are restricted to raise a profession’s status in the labor market; this can severely limit QIs’ work integration (Aycan & Berry, 1996), as demonstrated in our fictional example.

Credentialism draws on principles of ‘social closure’ (Weber, 1978) that guards against competitors and safeguards the monopolization of social power. Professional organizations seek to ‘maximize rewards by restricting access to rewards and opportunities to a limited circle’ (Parkin, 1974, p. 3) to protect their status and role (Abbott, 1988). Credentialism protects locally educated professionals by restricting foreign-educated professionals’ access to the sector. The experiences of internationally educated nurses (IEN) provide a startling example of such practices of ‘social closure.’

The National Nursing Assessment Service (NNAS) is solely responsible for verifying nursing credentials acquired outside Canada and determining a fair process of equivalency. Little (2007) found that approximately 50 percent of applications for licensure met the educational and language requirements, flagging incomplete documentation, inadequate education, and poor English/French language proficiency (1339–1342). In a separate study, Jeans (2006) found that many applicants were confused by the multiple numbers of regulatory bodies and would sometimes submit documents to the wrong agency. Baylon (2021) noted that even during the heightened demand for nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic, ‘many foreign-trained nurses watch from the sidelines, wanting but unable to pitch in’ (p. 5).

The behaviors and practices of professional organizations are prime examples of organizational sensemaking that perpetuates discriminatory practices to further disadvantage QIs seeking to enter local labor markets. It is such practices that must be reimagined to improve QIs’ work integration. QIs who are unsuccessful in obtaining a license to work in their professions often have no choice but to accept underemployment, low wages, and challenging work conditions (Boyd & Thomas, 2001; Reitz, 2005). In summary, professional organizations’ formal and informal assessment practices that regulate who is included or excluded from the professional community have a significant impact on QIs’ work integration.

5.2.4 Educational Institutions

Educational institutions play a pivotal role in QIs’ work integration by providing opportunities for local education/training, which can enhance QIs’ attractiveness to local employers. Many QIs need to return to school for additional education to comply with professional accreditation requirements maintained by professional organizations discussed above. Others may decide to pursue a new degree in the hopes of opening new doors and in search of alternative professional selves. In addition, many QIs arrive in the country as international students, using education as an entry point into society and the job market.

Educational institutions are investing heavily in the internationalization of their academic environments (Harris, 2011; Leask, 2001) and in attracting global talent (Gertler & Vinodrai, 2005). There are some critical challenges to achieving these goals. Despite receiving local education, barriers to work integration remain for international graduates and QIs alike. These include employers’ preferences for local work experience, as well as perceived language and cultural adaptability. New international graduates may not have permanent residency status, which can be perceived as an ‘administrative burden’ to employers (Dauwer, 2018, p. 4). While international student offices and career offices are considered the primary resource for assisting students with integration, a lack of oversight, inadequate inter-institutional communication, and lack of access to funding can result in inconsistent and limited services being offered to help students and QIs with their integration (Dauwer, 2018).

As mentioned before, international graduates and QIs face additional challenges when seeking to build social and professional networks due to limited co-op and work-related opportunities, a lack of confidence in language skills, limited awareness of local cultural norms, and institutional barriers, such as lack of coordinated orientation programming and cultural learning and exchange (CBIE, 2015). Educational institutions’ internationalization practices, therefore, must accommodate the specific needs of the increasing numbers of QIs crossing borders.

5.3 Practical Insights

Organizations play a key role in solving the wicked problem of immigrant work integration by legitimating, supporting, recruiting, and developing talent. This requires a critical rethinking of discriminatory structures that keep QIs excluded. In addition, there is an urgent need to review and revise the funding structures for SPOs to allow them to support QIs’ long-term employment goals and design programs to meet the variable needs of QIs with specialized backgrounds. Governments and funding bodies remain focused on short-term gains and often use crude employment numbers to measure the success of programs for newcomers. There is a need for such organizations and institutions to be mindful of the unintended consequences of simplistic measurement practices in evaluating funding and allocation decisions. Instead, funding evaluations should consider a longitudinal and complex approach to measuring the outcomes of QIs.

Employers need to provide QIs with meaningful opportunities to gain relevant work experience, build social and cultural capital, and craft a realistic path toward their career goals. Employers can also play a critical informational role by participating in training programs and information sessions to help prepare QIs for the local labor market. Employers may also reconsider recruitment practices, focusing on talent identification as opposed to filling positions. Think back to Olga’s success (Chapter 2) and the vital role played by the hiring manager who worked with her to identify her talent and redesign the job description to fit with Olga’s expertise without compromising the organization’s needs. Professional organizations must critically engage with the issue of credentialism and reconsider the impact of monopolizing ideas of professional status to realize the full potential of global talent. In addition, they must reconsider accreditation requirements and look for ways to translate foreign experience in a fair, equitable, and feasible manner.

Educational institutions can play a bigger role in removing barriers and supporting current and prospective QIs’ work integration. One way is facilitating the recognition of foreign credentials by providing affordable programs that honor previous knowledge and support QIs to meet local market needs and requirements. These institutions can work alongside professional organizations and SPOs to assist QIs in developing social, cultural, and institutional capital, as well as establishing social and professional networks. The Manitoba Project is a prime example of cross-sectoral collaboration to provide approved internationally educated nurses with $23,000 to cover costs of licensing, including bridging programs, transportation costs, and even childcare (Baylon, 2021).

In summary, QIs’ work integration requires multiple stakeholders to coordinate against discriminatory practices and increase organizational competitiveness. Moreover, a long-term perspective of integration is critical and must focus beyond the first job, giving QIs the time and resources necessary to gain the social, cultural, and institutional capital to utilize their full potential.

5.4 The Road Ahead

In this chapter, we discussed the role of organizations in QIs’ work integration. At the organizational level, sensemaking allows for understanding the social processes through which discriminatory practices become acceptable. As individuals within an organization engage in conversations, intersubjective meaning is constructed. This meaning is then built upon by others and generalized into rules, processes, structures, and discourses. These, in turn, become the backdrop in which new conversations take place, constraining and informing future conversations. This organizational context is fraught with power discrepancies that privilege some ideas over others. While these rules and processes can (and do) change over time, change requires deliberate efforts. It is important to remember that organizations are embedded in an institutional environment with regulatory and symbolic realities that impinge upon organizational realities, which we discuss in the next chapter.

5.5 Key Points

  • Sensemaking is a foundational process of organizing. As organizational actors attempt to comprehend circumstances and act, they create processes and structures, which can at times be discriminatory and inform future sensemaking efforts.

  • Organizing happens in and through communication. Actors recollect and use knowledge from previous events toward action, invoking both text and agency. Texts are practices and habits shared by a community of practice. Agency refers to the ability individuals have to choose which texts to employ in a specific situation.

  • Sensemaking is influenced by formative contexts (implicit models of how things should be), organizational rules (the ways things get done), and discourse (statements that have come to describe a subject matter).

  • Immigrant Service Provider Organizations (SPOs) play a key role in QIs’ work integration by providing professional employment support. These organizations operate under critical constraints, including short-term funding and goals, and are not always able to support the long-term needs of QIs.

  • Employers have the critical role of providing QIs with meaningful job opportunities. Yet, QIs’ talent is often overlooked due to narrow definitions of talent and short-term orientation to fill positions quickly. QIs’ integration requires the reduction of barriers to employment, as well as increased opportunities for development and leadership.

  • Professional organizations regulate who can participate in a profession by granting licenses to individuals that meet certain criteria. These criteria often disadvantage QIs.

  • Educational institutions play a key role in QIs’ integration by providing education that makes them more competitive. Yet, several barriers remain even after education, including employers’ preferences for local work experience, limited administrative support to international students, and challenges in building social and professional networks.

  • QIs’ work integration requires coordination from multiple stakeholders to counter discriminatory practices and increase organizational competitiveness by recruiting and retaining global talent.

Note

  1. 1.

    We built this example based on reports from immigrants pursuing academic positions in Canada, and our own experiences on hiring committees in universities. We spoke with nine immigrant women as part of a research project exploring the experiences of immigrant scholars attempting to secure academic positions. This study is in preparation for publication.