Trajectories into foreign higher education systems for doctoral candidates from Germany: a comparative study of France and the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

The pathways and trajectories for foreign doctoral candidates to enter the host country can differ considerably. These trajectories are not completely embedded in the higher education systems, they also include factors outside of work and academia. Our comparative study reconstructs the perspective and trajectories of doctoral candidates from Germany who are doing their research in France and the Netherlands. This includes why and when they chose to pursue a PhD in France or the Netherlands. Our analysis shows that there are prominent differences between both of our case study groups, which can be explained by their varying attractions for foreigners and differing concepts of internationalisation and national research focus.

KEYWORDS:

• Trajectories
• doctoral candidates
• migration
• mobility
• internationalisation

Introduction

The question of the internationalisation of universities, national higher education and research systems is becoming ever more relevant and important (Knight 2004; Aerden et al. 2013). Therefore, this paper intends to take a closer look at a group of individuals who have been particularly affected by internationalisation policies – namely, PhD candidates (Netz and Schirmer 2017). Most of the previous research of internationalisation has focused on general institutional environments (de Wit and Knight 1999) from a macro and administrative sciences perspective, and using quantitative datasets. In contrast, in this study we have conducted biographical interviews with German PhD candidates, who graduated in the humanities and social sciences in France and the Netherlands. In this paper, we will present and examine their perspectives. In particular, we will use a case study design to compare the trajectories of German doctoral candidates in France and the Netherlands.

The recent trend towards internationalisation has pressured and affected every higher education system (HES) and university, who have been forced to constantly strive to become or remain competitive (Altbach and Knight 2007). However, research shows that the implementation of strategies and the general orientation towards internationalisation differs between European countries (Ackers et al. 2001). Consequently, a comparison of France and the Netherlands will be particularly interesting because France has maintained a very strong national tradition in the humanities and social sciences (Musselin 2004), while the Dutch system has had a long tradition of internationalisation (Huang 2006). This context is further complicated because the Bologna-reform has affected the French system and political actions have been taken to increase the international visibility of French universities (Liebeskind 2011).

Our paper addresses two research gaps in the research of internationalisation of higher education: the individual in the HES and the PhD candidate. Previous research of the internationalisation and internationality of an academic system generally uses an institutional and macro-level analysis. In contrast, this paper presents the perspective of the individual and it includes a multi-dimensional view of the interaction between professional decisions and private life conduct choices, while bearing in mind the context of the possibilities that different HESs offer. Our specific target group is formed of PhD candidates, who usually rank at the bottom of the academic workforce and are still shaping their career paths. However, this group of young academics is often neglected in migration and mobility studies of scientists. The previously researched target groups are usually academics, who are post-docs and beyond. In contrast, we know very little about the mobility of PhD candidates. While previous research and policy have tended to focus specifically on the mobility of natural scientists (Ackers et al. 2006), our study exclusively includes PhD candidates from the humanities and social sciences, who face very different challenges and obstacles.

The HESs of France and the Netherlands

We begin our comparative case study by giving a short introduction to the HESs of France and the Netherlands, emphasising the status of the doctoral candidates and the internationalisation of these two systems. This will provide a basic understanding of the institutional frameworks in which the universities operate and the conditions that these researchers are subjected to. Internationalisation is understood as a process of opening and mainstreaming national academic systems towards each other (van de Bunt Kokhuis 1992). These measures can comprise, for example, the inclusion of international comparative theories, international study programs and diplomas, foreign language classes, cooperation with foreign universities, international student exchange programs, support measurements for foreign students and staff, and so on (Teichler 2007; Leask and Bridge 2013). While everything related to teaching, learning and research is considered to be a core service, the peripheral aspects of internationalisation include living conditions and other components, such as accommodation, security, social benefits, infrastructure, social and cultural activities, and so on (Bianchi 2013). Both the core and the peripheral factors will be revised in our analysis. The percentage of foreigners among the PhD candidates at a university can be seen as one of several indicators for the internationality of a higher education institution (Brandenburg and Federkeil 2007). Despite the general trend of internationalisation, the national character of an academic system and its practices can become an obstacle for new comers who are not familiar with its characteristics and peculiarities (Bourdieu 1988; Enders 2001), which go beyond the legal requirements and likewise official guidelines. For example, Musselin (2004, 58) found that: ‘Informal and implicit rules of the game that each discipline in each country uses to select among numerous candidates […] are rather difficult to know and/or to satisfy for foreign candidates.’ Non-official criteria can function as an informal obstacle for foreign applicants because they are usually unaware of the unspoken and unofficial decisive factors.

Leišytė et al. (2006) have shown that competitive HESs are especially open to internationalisation. Given that state funding is minimal or absent, these universities have to market themselves to ensure adequate funding – internationalisation is a key part of this self-commercialisation. The Dutch use a competitive system, while the French system is still described as reluctant to bow to internationalisation trends and pressures thanks to its strong state funding (Kreckel 2008). Furthermore, the size of the country and its political, economic, academic and linguistic power and self-confidence will shape the internationalisation of its academic system (Enders 2004). France and the Netherlands are very different with regard to these dimensions, which is in part reflected in the fact that the Netherlands has a national strategy with regard to internationalisation and France does not (Craciun 2018). Prestigious European Research Council (ERC) grants are partly awarded on the applying research team’s level of international cooperation. Therefore, the number of ERC grants that a country receives provides another perspective of the international integration of a HES. In a recent evaluation of its ERC-program, the Netherlands was identified as one of three top-performers when measured with ERC grants per university. Although placed fourth, France was still seen to be in the medium-performer group (Ttopstart 2017).

France

France is a popular host country for international students and it has the highest share of non-EU PhD candidates (35%) (Delloitte 2014). This might be explained by the large share of incoming graduates from France’s ex-colonies, who are fluent or even native French-language users. The École des Hautes Études en Science Sociales (EHESS) is one of the most prestigious establishments in France and was designed as an international institution. Currently, 50 percent of its PhD students are drawn from overseas. In the last few decades, universities and the grandes écoles have made considerable efforts to increase their international visibility and attract more foreign students. For example, the foreign student population at Sciences Po, another institution belonging to the most esteemed universities in France, is close to 50 percent. This institution is currently implementing a number of internationalisation efforts, such as dual degree programmes and international collaborations (i.e. exchange and research programs, partnerships, co-publications etc.). The French language still plays an important role, especially in the humanities and social sciences. For example, the majority of research results that were published by members of the Sciences Po academic society were published in French and only one-third were published in English (Sciences Po 2017, 5).¹ This suggests that the target audience is francophone or national, rather than international. This aspect will be discussed in the presentation and analysis of the French sample cases later on in this article. However, many critical voices complain that the French HES is still not open enough. There are many reasons for this, including a low percentage of PhD candidates from other EU countries (9%) (Delloitte 2014), resistance to incorporating international elements into the curriculum (Tran 2015, 7), and the strong prevalence of the French language. However, many younger academics are more willing to learn and use English, having realised its importance in the international research context, even though that the majority still prefer to work with French. Since 1994, the Toubon Law has required the use of the French language in many areas of French public life. This can be seen as another indicator of the measures that France has taken to protect and preserve the language (Pilkington 2014).

Today, extensive efforts are in place to encourage scientific exchange between Germany and France. These efforts are implemented through a variety of measures (i.e. bi-national study programmes) that facilitate mobility for students, academics and researchers. This can be attributed to the signing of the Elysee Contract in 1963, which represented an important positive change in German-Franco relations that had been strained in the wake of WW2. The Elysee Contract marked the start of reconciliation between these two countries (Defrance and Pfeil 2005, 28), encouraging rapprochement on a number of levels.

The Netherlands

In 2000, the Netherland’s government published its National Strategic Plan, which encouraged universities to sharpen their institutional profiles. One part of this plan was the change from the traditional master-apprentice relationship towards a system of structured graduate schools, which defines tasks and obligations between professor and candidate through a contract (Kehm 2004). Another part was an increased orientation towards internationalisation (Klumpp, de Boer, and Vossensteyn 2014). The process of internationalisation intensified with the implementation of the Bologna-reform, the Treaty of Lisbon and the introduction of the Bachelor-Master-system, with the PhD as the highest academic degree (Luijten-Lub 2004). In Luijten-Lub’s (2005) evaluation of university employees, these developments were considered to be rather positive for the Europeanisation and internationalisation of the Dutch HES. Compared to other European countries, the Netherlands implemented internationalisation measurements at their universities quite early (van der Wende 1997; de Weert 2004) and they prepared their university employees for the new changes (Stronkhorst 2005). Generally, the Netherlands and its university system have a long history of international orientation (Huang 2006; Rud, Wouterse, and van Elk 2015), mainly because of the small size of the Dutch population and the need to attract good scientists, which are sometimes even specifically scouted (Kehm 2004) from abroad to ensure the reputation and high quality of research and teaching in the Netherlands. This becomes obvious when we look at the percentage of foreign students and academics. In the academic year 2014/2015, 10 percent of all students in the Netherlands and 45 percent of all PhD candidates were foreigners (Dorst, Deuten, and Horlings 2016). Furthermore, 60 percent of the foreign PhDs are from Europe (van der Wende 2015), which makes it the EU country with the highest proportion (with the exception of Luxembourg) of doctoral candidates from other EU member states (Delloitte 2014). Over the last 10 years, the percentage of international students and PhDs rose between four and seven percent every year (Huberts 2017). English-based Bachelor programs and especially Master’s and PhD programs were massively expanded and institutionalised during the implementation of Bologna (Kotake 2016). The switch to English as the scientific franca lingua in the Netherlands was justified by the general good level of English in Dutch society and the low knowledge and impact of the Dutch language globally (Kotake 2016). The Netherlands ranked top in a comparative study (Höhle and Teichler 2012) between different countries in the non-use of the national language in research and teaching.

Academic mobility and conduct of life

Academic mobility can be challenging and it includes a large number of considerations. It depends largely on a combination of factors concerning academia itself, such as transparent and open recruitment, working and employment conditions, a career system with long-term perspectives, salary, reputation and the expertise of the professors and supervisors (Ackers 2005; Delloitte 2014; Teichler 2007), in addition to more general factors such as transparent immigration rules, social security, possibility of balancing private and professional life, and a good quality of life (Børing et al. 2015). However, simplistic economical migration theory tends to not fully grasp complexity of mobility of academics (Urry 2016) by reducing it to economic-financial decisions, whereas economic determinants are less important for academics (Mahroum 2000, 2001).

As shown, we cannot simply look at academic mobility through the lenses of work-related issues because work is only one part of the conduct of an academic life (Abel and Cockerham 1993; Weber 2010), which is intertwined with private areas of life, such as family, friends, leisure, etc (Brooks 2018). In this paper, we draw on theoretical conceptualisation on the conduct of life linked to mobile scholars (Schittenhelm, El Dali, and Schäfer 2017). The conduct of life is maintained by the stakeholder and is the result of constant follow-up work by his or her action (Voß 1991). Therefore, the conduct of life is not something that is imposed on the passive individual by others, ‘however, external influences like life chances clearly structure the options’ (Cockerham, Abel, and Lüschen 1993, 419). Life chances are defined as the probability of realising the choice of life conduct, depending on structural patterns, such as open positions for doctoral candidates. Together they form the lifestyle, as Weber understood it. This expanded the classical view in the sociology of work, which had only focused on the area of work and long overlooked other factors and their impact on occupation and career. This is especially relevant for mobile workers (Huchler 2013) and, therefore, well suits our research question. Although the concept of conduct of life takes an individual perspective and micro-approach, it should not be assumed that the life conduct is subject to the person’s will alone:

It is always also (if not primarily) the consequence of situational decisions and pragmatic ad hoc arrangements, which come into being with limited reflexivity. Regardless of the fact that it is the product of an individual, life conduct gains both a functional and a structural autonomy in relation to its producer. (Jurczyk, Voß, and Weihrich 2016, 47)

Once the direction has been set, it cannot change at will at any time but it is subject to the individual’s set up regime of regulation and routine. Established trajectories and pathways form and limit the freedom of action in specific situations. Therefore, the individual’s life is integrated in a complex and multi-dimensional social context. Life conduct is always socially influenced through objective social conditions, which not only constrain and demand but also enable and enact the individual. Furthermore, sociocultural influences tell us what life conduct should look like and they set normative standards. This also happens through the individual’s interaction with others, whether it be privately with friends and family or professionally with colleagues and networks (Jurczyk, Voß, and Weihrich 2016). This is neither a deterministic concept of social structures nor a framework of total individual freedom: ‘The conduct of everyday life represents a mediating category between the individual subjects and societal structures, articulating in particular the subjects’ experiences and the scope of action as they grapple with these structures through collective and structuring actions’ (Højholt and Schraube 2016, 4).

With regard to this present paper, the conduct of life of PhD candidates can be shaped and influenced by the conditions in their home country (i.e. Germany) and also in the host country, especially with regard to their private and professional lives. As shown, migration decision-making depends on a number of factors. Both the national framework of France and the Netherlands – both as a state and as a HES – and the French and Dutch cultures influence the interviewees’ lifestyle and decisions. This concept allows us to analyse the biographical trajectories and orientations that led these doctoral students to migrate. In particular, these life course decisions and everyday coping mechanisms are framed in the particularities of the respective countries, including their HESs. As discussed previously, internationalisation efforts on the macro- and meso-level cannot be limited to the core services but should also include the conduct of private life. In our analysis, we will examine the trajectories of how these candidates’ transition into a foreign system in respect to their private and professional lives.

Data and methods

The data analysed and presented in this paper was collected as part of the ongoing project ‘Mobile transitions – mobile lifestyles? Career choices and way of living at the transition to transnational scientific careers in the European Union’ (Schittenhelm, El Dali, and Schäfer 2017) which commenced in October of 2016 and is continuing through to September 2019. The qualitative study looks at results of different research areas and aims to add to the debate of topics such as migration and transnational mobility of the highly qualified in Europe, and the interconnection of professional mobility and a way of life (Schittenhelm 2014). It furthermore offers the conceptual framework of our research. The sample consists of graduates of the social sciences and humanities (SSH) who completed their studies at German universities and chose to migrate to France or the Netherlands to pursue academic careers (i.e. PhD). These two countries were chosen as exemplary cases due to the fact that after the UK and German-speaking countries, France and the Netherlands have the highest EU percentage of German nationals among their students and academic staff (Schittenhelm 2014). The sample was later extended to include persons who had concluded their high school diploma in Germany and migrated at an earlier stage (prior to the completion of their Bachelor’s and/or Master’s studies). This extension enabled us to adapt to the field because our research had shown that a large number of interviewees migrated at earlier periods. In this paper, the interviewees who migrated from Germany prior to their PhD studies will be referred to as the extended sample, in demarcation to the original sample. The first interviews were conducted in December of 2016 and they continued till September 2018, resulting in 60 interviews: 35 in the Netherlands and 25 in France. The sample consists of 40 women and 20 men, the majority of whom are in their late-20s to mid-30s.

The first few months of the project were dedicated to research the field and to gain a better understanding of it. Institutions that were probably able to host potential interview partners were identified and contacted (i.e. doctoral schools, research institutes) and asked for support in establishing contact with the sample group (e.g. through sending information about the project and the search for interview partners via their internal mailing list). In addition, potential interview partners were researched on the institutions homepages (i.e. research laboratories) and contacted directly. Snowballing also led to the recruitment of volunteer participants.

This study applies narrative interviews for data collection (Schütze 1983).² Each participant was presented with the same narration stimulus.³ In essence, interview partners were asked to narrate their detailed biography, including all of the occurrences and experiences that they recall, with the objective of triggering an impromptu narration in which the interviewee describes their experiences and orientations, unprepared and in their own words. The narrative interview is an important explorative instrument and is used to identify the interviewee’s perceptions and priorities and orientations. Evidently, the initiation question – the narration stimuli – plays an integral part in the success of the interview and gives the interviewee an opportunity to introduce, emphasise and prioritise the topics that are relevant to them, without the researcher imposing ideas or notions on the interviewee (Corbin and Morse 2003). The researcher wants to trigger as many narrations as possible and influence the narrator as little as possible. Once the initial first narration comes to an end, the interviewer may then ask immanent questions, pertaining to issues already raised that need clarification, and trigger further narrations. Only after the last stage is concluded can the interviewer may ask questions raising topics that have not been addressed, namely exmanent questions (Nohl 2010). Before the interviews were conducted, several subjects of interest and topics pertaining to the research questions were identified. After the participants had concluded their narration, the questions helped to render the case complete.

In our analysis, we have applied the documentary method (Bohnsack 2014) as the method of interpretation. This method originates from the sociology of knowledge (Mannheim 2013). As a reconstructive analysis method, the documentary method looks at how a topic or action is portrayed and constructed. This enables us to identify an orientation frame, in which the issue is processed and presented. This method is not only interested in the content of the interviews but also how topics are addressed by the interviewee (Nohl 2010). The findings of the interviews are contextualised with the results of other research regarding the internationalisation of the two HESs and way of life choices/approaches.

Findings

In this section, our findings will be presented. Prior and early connections and affiliations to the country of PhD choice are presented, and the path and transition to the actual PhD position are retraced.

Prior affiliations to France or the Netherlands

The most common connection to the Netherlands prior to the candidates’ migration was a vacation, either with the family as a child or teenager, or with friends. The spatial proximity and the easy access played an important role, in addition to the general attraction of the Netherlands as a vacation destination. However, this did not lead to any specific interest in the country or investment in knowledge about Dutch culture, society or language, as in the following example:

I knew exactly six Dutch words: yes, thanks, bye and, um, watch out bump on the street, from our [laughing] vacations in the past. Let op trempel. This [laughs] is not so much a vocabulary, which will bring you something if you are um looking for a room in a shared flat [laughs]. (Anna)

Vacations were common among interviewees who had previously lived in the northern and western parts of Germany, and were less important for interviewees from other regions. However, even for candidates who grew up in relative proximity to the Netherlands, the neighbouring country would often remain unknown. For example, Alena, who is from northern Germany, stated that she had never been in the Netherlands before and has ‘no relationship’ to the country.

The transition to a new, mostly unknown country, was never framed in a negative or intimidating way, rather it was seen as a chance to develop new horizons and gain new experiences. Apart from these private dimensions of their lives, there was no further connection, mobility or orientation directed towards the Netherlands during their childhood and adolescence – neither school exchanges, languages-school classes, gap year abroad, or the like. Not surprisingly, none of the candidates from our sample possessed Dutch-language skills at the beginning of their Master’s or PhD. For example, Linda did an internship at the same university where she later started her PhD. The internship was placed between her Bachelor’s and Master’s studies in Germany, and was described by Linda as the initial process for her interest in research. Her decision to do the internship was based on the outstanding reputation of the research institution and not on the fact that it was located in the Netherlands. There was only one more case in the Dutch PhD sample that mentions a professional connection prior to the transition – Nina, who had a brief and unplanned academic visit to the Netherlands during her Master’s.

For the group who studied their Master’s in the Netherlands, English-medium instruction (EMI, Lueg 2015) was one of the key factors behind their decision because many Master’s studies in the Netherlands are taught in English (Kotake 2016). Another pattern can be found here is that many of the candidates had originally thought about or had sent applications to British universities but had eventually decided against it when they considered the disadvantages, including the high tuition fees, living costs and the struggle to find accommodation (especially in Greater London). The Netherlands presented a lower priced alternative that offers the same language of instruction as the UK:

I thought about it very, very long, if I want to go to London or to Leiden. Um, I would have found London just interesting as a city, but I thought regarding […] regarding money it is of course very, then I will sit somehow in a small shabby apartment, two hours outside of the city, um, […] plus the tuition fees. So, this was then also a consideration, that led me to the thought ‘Okay, then […] it is maybe a not so great place to go as a student.’ (Julia)

This argument is corroborated in Anna’s narration, who also focused on the high tuition fees in the UK and described her decision to do her Master’s in the Netherlands instead of the UK as a very good choice in retrospect. In particular, she has no debt, which she doubts would be the case if she had gone to the UK. The adaption of the Anglo-American system in the Netherlands makes these decisions considerably easier for potential candidates, who are keen to study in this environment but without occurring the heavy financial burden. This is a good example of how structural circumstances can influence the professional conduct of life, which ultimately also has consequences for private life (e.g. a lower level of debt allows a greater range of actions in the future).

The time before the actual job search and the transition to the host country reveals a number of prominent differences between the two nations. These differences particularly pertain to the lack of mobility to the Netherlands before the start of the Master’s or PhD. A connection or bigger interest in the Dutch country and culture was clearly not a decisive factor. However, the limited Dutch-related experiences did not affect the later professional decision, if any of those experiences were available at all. A common narrative pattern among our interviewees in the original Dutch sample group showed that they chose the location because of the job and not for the city, which they sometimes had no experience of.

The French sample stands in stark contrast to the Dutch in terms of the candidates’ affiliations to the host country and mobility prior to PhD studies. Evidently, and pertaining to the language aspect, Dutch is seldom offered or taught at German high schools. In contrast, French is very prominent, giving students an opportunity to not only learn the language but also acquire knowledge about France and its culture. Furthermore, French classes in high schools generally entail an exchange trip to France and possibly hosting a French pupil. This means that a significant number of German students have links to France or to the French language before commencing undergraduate studies. Even those who do not develop a great interest in the French language or excel at learning it in school, graduate from the classes with at least a minimal knowledge of France and its language. This is an example on how external influences can shape the individual’s conduct of life into a certain direction. All of the interviewees in the French sample had studied French at school (albeit to different degrees of proficiency) and they had stayed at least once (in most cases more) in France or a French-speaking country prior to commencing their PhD. In several cases, early experiences with the country and/or the language had prompted the candidate’s interest in France and the desire to improve their language skills. With regard to school exchanges, many of the participants recalled staying several months in France (or a French-speaking country), which is substantially longer than the more usual couple of weeks⁴:

I took part in an exchange in tenth grade, a student exchange to France, um: m […] I spent three months there, that was near Strasbourg […] And um […] there I started somehow, so I liked foreign languages from the beginning, but – yes, um there I somehow […] I somehow fell in love […] – with French ((laughing)) and France a little um […] – um, yes, that was when I think I thought about it for the first time, that maybe I could somehow go to study there, (um), because that was just such a great experience. (Laura)

Another example came from Frieda, who recounted a number of stays (of different lengths) in France and other French-speaking countries during high school, one of which lasted almost six months. Frieda had visited a special high school, which offered its students the opportunity to graduate with a German–French high school diploma (i.e. the AbiBac).⁵ Frieda is not the only participant who obtained a bi-national diploma, Paul, Helena and Mascha also had this qualification. Hence, these candidates had already formed a bond to the host country.⁶ These cases demonstrate an early German–French educational interchange, commencing even before the transition into the HES. For those cases, the internationalisation of the HES is less relevant because the focus is already very national-orientated.

Vacations are an additional and common connection to France (similar to the case of the Netherlands). A number of interviewees recounted vacations with their parents in France, such as Thomas, who stated that he had ‘the best memories of France’ through the many holidays that he spent there with his parents.

Mobility to France or French-speaking countries after completion of high school and preceding PhD studies is also very prominent in the French sample and the interviewees gave various purposes for their stays. For several, the move was part of their studies (e.g. semester abroad/Erasmus) but Lisa and Mia, for example, had worked as Au Pairs and Nils had completed his community service in France. Our sample also includes participants with obvious affiliations, such as people who had been born in France, had a French parent, or grew up in close vicinity to the French–German border.

In summary, and as previously indicated, one of the main differences between the two country samples is mobility and the subsequent forging of affiliations to the host country prior to the PhD studies. In addition, the language aspect differs in both samples. All of the participants had knowledge of the French language (albeit to different degrees) prior to their undergraduate studies. Furthermore, stays in France were in some cases motivated by the wish to improve language skills. For example, Thomas stayed and studied in France for one year during his undergraduate studies to gain professional (subject related) knowledge and also out of a desire to improve his language skills. One of the two subjects that Thomas studied was history, he recounted that:

I realised […] how important French knowledge is for the study of history … and then I saw, the […] Erasmus program as the last opportunity ((laughing)) to properly learn French and go to France. (Thomas)

There were several reasons behind Lisa and Mia’s stays as Au Pairs, one of which was to improve their French-language skills. Thomas’s statement also indicates another dimension of language, namely the relevance that it has for a subject/study programme. A few of the participants had lived in the United Kingdom, United States or Australia (e.g. exchanges, Erasmus, part of studies, etc.) for periods lasting up to a year. Overall, the participants’ orientations towards these countries was low in the French sample. In addition, several of the participants also mentioned the high tuition fees in these countries.

In this first segment, we have shown that previous affiliations and connections to the later host country are much stronger among the French cases and they had little influence among the Dutch cases. The conduct of the participants’ lives was shaped more by considerations of a private nature for the French group (e.g. family vacations). The lack of knowledge about the Netherlands did not deter the participants from transitioning to this country. In this case, more general considerations played a decisive role (e.g. study programs in English and well-organised research communities with interesting topics of research), which are connected to the internationalisation of the Dutch HES.

Paths and transition to the current position

One of the most, if not the most important factor for applying and pursuing current PhD positions was the fit of research interest and previous academic work. This can be traced in both the original sample and in the extended sample and can be found in both countries, which is in agreement with the previous research (Verwiebe, Wiesböck, and Teitzer 2014). However, as illustrated in the previous section, there are noticeable differences between the two countries in terms of affiliations and in the transition itself. For example, Nina, from the original Dutch sample, had never considered going to the Netherlands but was drawn there after meeting her research supervisor during her undergraduate studies, who offered her a research position and topic that was of interest to her. She appreciated the reliability between employees at Dutch universities in comparison to her previous experience of southern European countries, which also have a less-internationalised HES. This stay took place during her Master’s studies in Germany. She returned to Germany to complete her Master’s dissertation and received an offer from her supervisor to start a PhD at a different Dutch university, which she accepted. Nina’s case also indicates a very big difference between the two countries – before she went to the Netherlands for her first visit, she could not speak any Dutch. This was the case for all of the participants from the Netherlands. English is far more widespread than Dutch internationally and it can be regarded as a lingua franca in academia. Dutch research policies allow foreign graduates to enter the Dutch research system without much cultural-linguistic preparation. Consequently, most of our interviewees in the Dutch sample had started their PhD positions without preparation or pre-knowledge.

In France, language plays a very different role because French is still very much prevalent in universities and study programs. For a number of PhD programmes, a certain level of knowledge of the French language is a prerequisite to enrol and, hence, indispensable. Mia moved to France to pursue her Master’s studies after completing her Bachelor’s degree in Germany. In the course of the interview, she describes the first semester as being very difficult, causing her immense stress, because she did not anticipate the strong prevalence of French in the classes:

Of course I saw that the f- that the = that – the classes are mainly in French, that there are only a few seminars in English, […] but that the literature […] er is so […] French influenced, I could not have anticipated […] and that, I practically discovered in every seminar […] uh: h […], that is, that really umh […] that there is a strong French tradition in ABC [subject in the humanities]. (Mia)

Although several of the interviewees intend to write their dissertation in English, adequate knowledge of the French language is necessary for the majority of study programs, especially in the humanities and social sciences.

In the Netherlands, the positions themselves were found with the help of mailings lists or personal contacts, established (for example) at conferences. Several of our respondents from the extended Netherlands sample imagined that our search for interview partners who graduated from higher education institutions in Germany would be complicated, due to their own path and the path of their colleagues who all secured PhD positions through their research Master’s at the same university. Julia told us that her PhD position virtually grew out of her Master’s activities with her supervisor. She told us that she would have never considered applying for a PhD in the Netherlands otherwise. Despite the fact that PhD candidates did not have to possess Dutch-language skills, there were still mechanisms and procedures that made it easier for the homegrown graduates to secure a position within academia. Direct contact and established social connections offered opportunities that enabled them to secure a position from within the institution. As described at the start of this section, the relationship between PhD students own research interest and the focus of the supervisor/institute/PhD project was crucial for the application, and possibly also the acceptance. Therefore, graduates on the ground occupy an advantageous position because they have early access to information pertaining to the PhD positions and can, on occasion, influence the research topic as regards content. In neither sample was financial compensation named as a decisive factor. Instead, the interviewees’ narration tended to focus more on their intrinsic motivations and incentives, which is valued in academia (Bourdieu 1988). This finding is in line with other contemporary research (Briedis 2018). However, for some cases, the salary and financial conditions reinforced the interviewee’s decision to move to the Netherlands to do their research. These interviewees emphasised that the employee status, salary and a secure setting for their PhD were attractive prospects, which they could not find in other countries at the time – including Germany.

In the French case, about one-third of the interviewees proceeded to enrol into a PhD program after successfully completing their Master’s studies in France (in some cases, both Bachelor’s and Master’s). They tended to remain at the same institution/university and they continued with the same supervisor. This corresponds with the homegrown graduates in the Dutch sample. Once they have been in the host country and institution for an extended period of time, they have built a network (both social and professional) and were familiar with the local structures. Therefore, the interviewees tended to pursue their career in France rather than return to Germany to do their PhD research. Another path pursued by interviewees in the French sample was to enrol into a German–French doctoral program, which entailed stays in both countries and at two universities. In some cases, this also was a continuation of an already completed German–French Master’s program. It is important to mention here that motivations to become a doctoral candidate in France were not always or solely professionally motivated. About one-third of our participants were in a relationship with a French national, who at different points in time influenced their orientations. For example, frequent vacations left Thomas with positive impressions of France and created an affiliation to the country. He opted for an Erasmus stay in France, to improve his French-language skills. During this Erasmus, he met his French wife. Thomas mentioned that thoughts to pursue and enrol for a PhD in France (after completing his studies in Germany) generally crossed his mind but his plans only became more concrete after he met his partner and the two decided to pursue their relationship, leading a long-distance relationship for two years while arranging for his return. In another example, Lea met her partner, also a French national, after graduating from high school, during a voluntary year in France. Both worked at the same facility and Lea decided, only a few months into the relationship, to remain in France and enrol in a one-year intensive language course. She described the first year as difficult, partly because her partner did not live in the same city. As the relationship evolved, Lea decided to commence her undergraduate studies in France and stated that until the end of her Bachelor’s studies, her partner was the only reason for her to remain in France. Consequently, partners, and hence private dimensions of the conduct of life, played a significant role in the interviewees’ decision to consider pursuing their studies and work in France instead of Germany.

Conclusion

This paper has compared the French and the Dutch HESs, and the trajectories of German doctoral candidates in these systems. Although discrepancies can be found on many levels, many similarities were also detected. For example, we found that prior connections and affiliations to the country of migration differed significantly. Whereas France and the French culture played an important role in the conduct of our interviewees’ lives, the same cannot be said about the Netherlands and its culture. The latter was only mentioned by some as a destination for family vacations, with no further relevance to their private and professional orientations. In the French sample, linguistic and cultural interest, and also spatial mobility towards France were prevalent. The candidates had many different kinds of mobility experiences prior to their decision to move to the country. In addition, the acquisition of the French language occupied a central part of their early studies. This can be partly explained by the widespread French-language classes in German schools, while Dutch-language classes are seldom offered. Furthermore, France and French culture have an attraction of their own, which cannot be claimed for the Netherlands. Although the specific pull factors and motivations varied, many of the interviewees in the French sample framed their decision with their wish to move and work in France. This decision was sometimes connected to their private lives, usually because they had French partners. This was almost never the case in the Netherlands. This may explain the candidates’ higher interest in the culture and people in the French sample, and the more and longer stays in France previous to their PhD. However, the interviewees from both of the samples underlined the importance of the good fit between their doctoral position, supervisor and their own research interest, and they showed a high degree of situational life conduct. Finding a PhD position differed less between France and the Netherlands but was more important for those participants who had studied in the host country prior to their PhD studies and those who had completed their higher education entirely in Germany. The first group relied upon and used their contacts and network in the respective university or country, whereas the latter group had to seek and depended more on other more official paths. In general, the trajectory of pursuing (under)graduate studies in the host country proved to be the most common and successful way of entering a foreign HES as a doctoral candidate. An interesting insight is the perception of the Dutch HES as an affordable alternative to the United Kingdom for students who want to benefit from an Anglo-Americanised higher education without paying the high British tuition fees. Overall, the path into the French system was much more connected and it had a longer trajectory, which mostly started in secondary school. As expected, the Dutch HES proved to be more internationalised than the French one, which eased the entry for people who were not prepare for (e.g. language) or aware of the possibilities in the Netherlands. In contrast, it could be argued that a country like France has to rely less on internationalisation by mainstreaming their institutions and curriculums (e.g. EMI) because the national culture, language, HES, and so on are attractive enough to entice foreign students and academics. This is certainly mirrored in the self-confidence, pride and sense of mission that can be found in French society and also higher education. For academic mobility, factors like quality of life and personal connections are additional important to research-related issues. Our findings point to the direction that such things have a bigger impact in France. Ultimately, France is a decision for a country and the Netherlands is a decision for a position.

This case study has also observed several limitations. First, our sample presented possible differences in trajectories in those two countries, but is not representative in terms of generalisability for all German PhDs in the two countries. Second, while it says something about how the PhDs entered the respective country, what role their private conduct of life played in that part, and what weight HES internationalisation had, we cannot state the distribution of such trajectories among the entirety of German PhDs. However, it has become clear that substantial differences can be attributed to the country of destination.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under Grant number 281509238.

Notes

1. Other common publication languages include Italian, Spanish, and German.

2. All but one of the interviews were conducted in German. Our analysis is based on the original transcripts and all of the quotes from the interviewees in this article are translations made by the authors. All of the names of persons and locations have been altered to avert identification and ensure anonymity.

3. The stimulus was ‘We are interested in life stories of young academics from Germany. I would like to hear now your life story with all the events that you remember. There is no limit of time, I will not interrupt you and only take notes for follow-up questions during your story.’

4. The duration of school exchanges varies but mostly does not extend more than a couple of weeks.

5. Abitur/Baccalauréat.

6. One has to bear in mind at this stage that which school their child visits is largely the decision of the parents.