Guest editorial: Bridging disciplinary silos – cross-fertilization between global mobility and other fields

Citation

Dimitrova, M., Guttormsen, D.S.A. and Shaffer, M.A. (2024), "Guest editorial: Bridging disciplinary silos – cross-fertilization between global mobility and other fields", Journal of Global Mobility, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGM-09-2024-103

How often do we see innovative and thought-provoking research on global mobility? Are the knowledge producers in our field sufficiently curious about employing unexplored perspectives from other academic disciplines? And vice versa, do findings from the global mobility field regularly inform and contribute to important developments in cognate disciplines? Or are we stuck in a habit of rehashing the same old themes and theoretical models, making only limited and incremental contributions? Recent criticisms of the global mobility and broader International Human Resource Management (IHRM) literature suggest that this might be the case, raising concerns about a narrow thematic and theoretical focus in certain areas, such as the management of assigned expatriates and multinational enterprises (MNEs) (e.g. Delbridge et al., 2011; Welch and Björkman, 2015). This has led to calls for more interdisciplinary research and for an increased effort to seek new inspirations to revitalize and broaden our scholarly discourse (e.g. Delbridge et al., 2011; Farndale et al., 2017).

There is no doubt that the global mobility field has made substantial contributions in important research areas such as understanding the adjustment experiences of expatriates (e.g. Black et al., 1991; Takeuchi, 2010) and their families (e.g. Caligiuri et al., 1998; Shaffer and Harrison, 2001), career implications for globally mobile workers (e.g. Stahl et al., 2002) and research on alternative forms of global employment (e.g. international business travelers and self-initiated expatriates) (e.g. McNulty and Brewster, 2017; Reiche et al., 2019), among others. However, following well-trodden paths runs the risk of becoming increasingly irrelevant by gradually losing practical importance and failing to keep up with changes in the global work context. Several exogenous forces, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, wars and geopolitical challenges, have recently transformed many business practices and policies. But we know little about how these forces have affected global mobility.

As is common with most nascent streams of research, early global mobility scholars focused on making sense of new phenomena, and due to a lack of suitable established theoretical frameworks, they were quite interdisciplinary in their approaches (e.g. Black et al., 1991: model of expatriate adjustment; Takeuchi et al., 2002: work-family interface during expatriation). However, as a field matures, it naturally becomes more inward-looking and self-referential (Buckley et al., 2017). Disciplinary traditions and structures are known for restricting thematic, theoretical and methodological choices. This is, of course, helpful in providing frameworks within which knowledge can accumulate in a coherent and systematic way.

Reliance on the normative boundaries of within-disciplinary paradigms, however, may stall research advancement to the point that it loses relevance. A continued inward focus may create epistemic bubbles and disciplinary silos, isolating the scholarly community from relevant and important developments in other fields (Chapman, 1997). Hence, bridging such silos is essential in promoting exchanges of ideas and cross-fertilization (Aguinis and Gabriel, 2021; Chapple et al., 2020) to push the research frontier and to avoid marginalizing non-mainstream research approaches and minority voices as far as knowledge production is concerned (Alm and Guttormsen, 2021). We consider this effort imperative if the field is going to succeed in addressing societal “grand challenges” and sustainable development goals (e.g. migration) (Buckley et al., 2017; Ren et al., 2023) – including those beyond our immediate field – due to their innately complex, multifaceted and multidisciplinary nature.

Continuing calls are urging IHRM to seek cross-fertilization of theories and ideas across disciplinary divides and boundaries (e.g. Dickmann et al., 2023; Farndale et al., 2017). Similarly, rather than protecting its disciplinary boundaries, the global mobility field has more to gain by building bridges rather than walls to facilitate synergies that can positively impact research and society (Aguinis and Gabriel, 2021). Promoting boundary permeability is, thus, important to help global mobility research make a broader cross-disciplinary impact. Joining this movement toward cross-fertilization, this special issue aims to nudge researchers on global mobility (1) to experiment with theories and paradigms from other disciplines and (2) develop insights of broad interest to other fields. In addition, through achieving the above, we endeavor to create fertile ground within our field for researchers in other disciplines to engage with us. We present an agenda for future research to purposefully bridge disciplinary divides by importing and exporting thematic, theoretical, epistemological and methodological insights.

Interdisciplinary research agenda

Borrowing themes and theoretical and methodological approaches from other disciplines can help global mobility scholars explain less understood emerging phenomena or provide a new lens for re-examining established themes and concepts. Even better, rather than directly importing a theme or theoretical perspective, it may be more valuable to contextualize and reformulate it to create truly novel insights (Buckley et al., 2017). For example, the recent accelerated scaling up of global virtual technology has far-reaching implications for global employees and their organizations (Selmer et al., 2022). Other academic traditions could also inform how we build theory (see Cornelissen et al., 2021). Over the years, global mobility researchers have looked for ideas in various disciplines, most notably in related fields, such as organizational behavior and applied psychology. Theories like the job-demands resources theory (e.g. Lazarova et al., 2010), conservation of resources theory (e.g. Reiche et al., 2023) or self-determination theory (e.g. Chen and Shaffer, 2017) have been adopted and, in some cases, recontextualized.

Unfortunately, adopting newer theoretical developments is rare. For example, the now common practice in organizational behavior research to enhance employees’ positive experiences and outcomes rather than focus mostly on reducing adverse effects is not adequately covered in global mobility research. Although the positive angle is gaining momentum (e.g. Dimitrova, 2020; Ren et al., 2014), we focus primarily on the factors able to reduce adaptation stress rather than on those that help global workers flourish. Using positive psychology perspectives, such as broaden and build theory, which emphasizes the power of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), and studying concepts like thriving (Porath et al., 2012), which encompasses the positive psychological states of vitality and learning, can help us more comprehensively understand the experiences of those engaging in global work. In addition to focusing on the positive, our field would benefit from a better understanding of global work. In the general performance literature, both task and relational forms of performance have a robust theoretical foundation, but the global mobility literature tends to focus only on task performance. What constitutes relational performance in a global context, and does the cultural context require unique competencies and behaviors for global employees to succeed?

Similarly, global mobility research does not appear to have a strong tradition in incorporating the interpretive nature of “taken-for-granted” assumptions. This might be a symptom of the positivist-dominated research orientation in our field. For example, the long-standing definition of “expatriate failure” has persisted for nearly half a century, albeit Harzing (1995) commendably contested the unsubstantiated claims regarding high failure rates. Building on her work, Guttormsen et al. (2018) drew upon social constructionism in a social anthropological tradition to demonstrate that expatriates themselves perceive and experience “failure” not as a premature return of the contract (as per definition) but rather the lack of experiencing international and intercultural lives that predominantly unfolded outside of the work realm.

While certain themes have already been covered extensively in global mobility research, we should still aim to incorporate newer insights as theories and concepts change and evolve. For example, we have made progress in understanding identity changes within globally mobile individuals (Kraimer et al., 2022). However, incorporating emerging related research on the multi-faceted concept of authenticity – i.e. remaining true to oneself (for a review, see Cha et al., 2019) – can open new prospects for enhancing our understanding of identity and identity work processes in the global context. Another area that has the potential to inform global mobility research is the creativity literature. While the link between international experience and creativity has been established, we know little about the underlying processes that enable this relationship. Examining creativity in a global mobility context may shed light on this phenomenon and infuse the creativity literature with new ideas.

Identifying new themes that emerge from the global work context but still have significant relevance across disciplines can offer opportunities for meaningful cross-fertilization. For example, the ongoing debates about different forms of expatriates and global mobility that have broadened the focus of research to include globally mobile employees who are not necessarily “highly skilled” and wealthy (McNulty and Brewster, 2020) can inform research on domestic employees and, to our field, non-traditional expatriates. Cross-fertilization can also take the form of a two-way venture whereby investigations might emerge from the interface of ideas between two or more disciplines or subject fields. For example, our field has comparatively less focus on diversity and inclusion. In contrast, diversity scholars seldom engage with international employees as subjects in their research – a dialog between the two fields will thus be mutually beneficial.

Emerging interdisciplinary fields can also serve as inspiration for global mobility researchers. One example is work on sustainability, which can enrich how we think about the role of global mobility management in the larger societal context (see Schmitz et al., 2023). Some have answered the call for more research on the UN SDGs, such as ensuring decent work for all, by making advances in research on skilled migrants (for a review, see Hajro et al., 2019) and vulnerable populations like refugees (e.g. Szkudlarek et al., 2024). Research on sustainable practices is by its nature interdisciplinary, and we should stay mindful of developments in related fields (for insights from sustainable HRM, see Aust et al., 2020; for integrations between the international business field, strategic HRM and IHRM regarding the UN SDGs, see: Cooke and Wood, 2024; Ren et al., 2023). Furthermore, more research can be done on concepts related to sustainability. For example, the role of responsible leadership in global mobility is just beginning to be examined (Marques et al., 2023). Connections can be made to research on global leadership, which is a relatively new subdomain of the leadership literature (Reiche et al., 2017). While expatriate managers have been acknowledged as global leaders, we know little about the leadership styles and roles of other forms of global employees, such as short-term assignees, frequent international business travelers and expatriate entrepreneurs.

Beyond deriving themes from other areas, adopting theories from other fields can also be timely and beneficial. For example, given the importance of stakeholders (e.g. spouses, companies, host-country nationals, etc.) in the global mobility process that has been recognized in past research (Takeuchi, 2010), stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) has the potential to shed light on these relationships. Currently, global mobility researchers predominantly see these stakeholders only in terms of their role in supporting global workers. However, stakeholder theory emphasizes that organizations should aim to create value for all stakeholders without resorting to trade-offs (Freeman et al., 2010). Joining others who call for a stakeholder approach in HRM (Stahl et al., 2020), we encourage global mobility researchers to adopt this perspective in their theorizing. As Lämsä et al. (2017) contend, the family of the global worker needs to be examined in its own right and not just viewed as a vehicle for expatriate support and adjustment. Similarly, host-country nationals may not be globally mobile, but they are influenced by global forces and the movement of global workers (Lau and Shaffer, 2023). This challenges researchers in the field to consider alternative “units of analysis” and employ different types of “units of observations.” The latter indicates that we should consider various contexts within which we study units of analysis; doing so is pertinent to (re)consider when studying phenomena that perform in different geographical locations and/or conceptual spaces (e.g. home and host-country environments and children with divorced parents who partly live with one expatriated parent and the remaining time with the other parent).

To appropriately test and extend theoretical frameworks, we also need to better understand underlying processes. Global workers' experiences, attitudes and psychological states evolve and change over time, but while we theorize about these changes, we seldom test them. Looking to other fields with traditions in studying change can be helpful. For example, the related organizational behavior literature on the adjustment of newly hired employees can provide ample insights to understand the process of expatriate adjustment (Dimitrova et al., 2023). Research from international business about large-scale exogenous shocks, such as wars and pandemics (Ciravegna et al., 2023) or studying fluctuations of emotions and attitudes using affective events theory (Weiss and Cropanzano, 1996) can offer further insights about within-individual changes in global workers. Accounting for such exogenous disruptions in longitudinal process models can be a powerful tool for understanding the experiences of global workers. In sum, the global mobility field can only benefit from interdisciplinary work on time and change, as these concepts are at the core of assumptions and theories across disciplines (Blagoev et al., 2024; Mayrhofer and Gunz, 2023).

Similarly, focusing on umbrella constructs, which refer to “broad concepts used to encompass and account for a diverse set of phenomena” (Hirsch and Levin, 1999, p. 199), could be especially useful in bridging disciplines. Classic global mobility concepts, such as performance, learning, culture and adjustment, are umbrella constructs relevant to various fields, from international business to organizational behavior and sociology. Likewise, boundary spanning and social network analyses are well-developed concepts in other fields, and these could easily be incorporated into the global mobility domain. Using a mix of interdisciplinary insights to re-examine classic concepts can not only breathe new life into the global mobility field but also lead to cross-disciplinary contributions.

Keeping in mind that global work is embedded in multiple contextual layers (e.g. organizations, countries, transnational institutions, etc.) can also facilitate cross-disciplinary insights. For example, there is a growing interest within strategy and organization theory research towards the study of microfoundations, which in part emphasizes the influence of an individual’s cognitions and behaviors on firm-level outcomes (Felin et al., 2015). Moving toward explicitly connecting global employees’ capabilities and behavior to strategically relevant outcomes, such as knowledge transfer and firm competitive advantage (e.g. Froese et al., 2021; Lazarova and Tarique, 2005), can broaden the impact of global mobility research. Going beyond the organization and considering the wider socio-economic and institutional context is also essential and likely to necessitate even broader cross-disciplinary work (Delbridge et al., 2011). Creating linkages across the micro-macro divide is not an easy task and requires careful theorizing (Cowen et al., 2022), but such research is particularly valuable and practically relevant.

Looking for inspiration outside of the business field is also essential. For example, the literature on global migrants has a tradition in disciplines such as political science, geography, development studies and economics, among others (Hajro et al., 2021). However, it is uncommon for global mobility studies on other forms of global employees (e.g. business expatriates and international business travelers) to seek insights from disciplines such as sociology and social anthropology (Klerck, 2014). We consider the potential for such interdisciplinary bridging to remain vast, especially vis-à-vis disciplines a bit further afield (e.g. social anthropology, sociology and geography) compared to mainstream disciplines in our field. Paradigms from such disciplines can spark new research avenues. For example, scholars can incorporate mature theories and intellectual advancements in other disciplines that have yet to be borrowed by our field. Examples of this approach are studies by Lauring and Selmer (2009) and Moore (2012), who successfully integrated ethnographic research strategy and “native categories” from social anthropology to provide novel and nuanced knowledge contributions about global mobility and expatriates. Furthermore, the New Mobilities paradigm, with roots in sociology (see Sheller, 2013), allows going beyond a focus on the physical movement of people and opens complementary themes around the mobility of ideas and materiality (Guttormsen and Lauring, 2022). Health research and medicine, while vastly different, can offer insights into certain issues in the context of global mobility. We know there are negative consequences to the physical and psychological health of globally mobile individuals (see for a review: De Cieri and Lazarova, 2021). However, the global mobility management literature predominantly focuses on psychological outcomes, leading to gaps in our understanding of negative physical health consequences and how to prevent them. Interdisciplinary work measuring health markers can be especially valuable. Furthermore, while the general management literature has recognized the value of behavioral genetics in understanding inherited predispositions to certain attitudes like job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2017), the global mobility field has yet to do so. It is possible that, like attitudes, adaptation behaviors in a foreign context may be influenced by genetic tendencies along with situational and learned factors.

Interdisciplinary cross-fertilization can also occur with respect to methodologies. Our research field could particularly benefit from rethinking what types of data we consider relevant. We may need to move away from a focus on a fixed physical space (e.g. an expatriate’s host country) toward better capturing the authentic nature of the expatriation phenomenon as inherently fluid and not bound to a physical location – for example, by collecting data about the nature of the journey and dynamics of mobility itself, “betwixt” in transitional spaces (Turner, 1967) between the home and host country or an expatriate’s social interactions online (Elliot et al., 2017) and the movement in and out of virtual and non-virtual workspaces (Lauring and Jonasson, 2023).

Emerging tools and methods can open new research avenues. For example, virtual reality technology can be used to mimic real-world phenomena in a controlled environment (Hubbard and Aguinis, 2023), which may make it easier to study important but difficult-to-capture phenomena, such as expatriate reactions to an acute terrorist threat or natural disaster in real time. Furthermore, machine learning approaches can be used to explore and discover patterns in quantitative data that may be missed using traditional statistical methods (for introduction and applications of machine learning, see Choudhury et al., 2021). Using machine learning to supplement traditional hypothesis testing presents a more flexible method to capture and test the myriads of complexities inherent in theorizing around global mobility.

Easier said than done?

While we presented some ideas for interdisciplinary work, these suggestions were filtered through our own experiences, intellectual networks and training. The possibilities for contributions across fields are far greater. Unfortunately, bridging disciplines and cross-fertilization sounds daunting, which may deter authors from engaging in such research. Indeed, this requires integration across diverse bodies of work, but it may also be simply a matter of re-framing and seeing a phenomenon or a construct from a new angle.

It is fair to say that a practical challenge relates to the scarcity of time. It is often time-consuming to venture beyond theories, methodologies and research approaches that we are already familiar with, whereas the above encouragement would entail spending a lot of time exploring new areas. From a long-term perspective, this should instill an interest in widening the reading lists in the courses we offer our Ph.D. students, which hopefully translate into future interdisciplinary research careers. However, a practical approach to circumvent this challenge more quickly could be to design interdisciplinary research and/or co-author teams at the very idea stage to explore alternative research questions and research designs. This approach can potentially save time, as interdisciplinary teams can readily use their diverse knowledge base to generate new ideas. However, in our experience, this process is not as straightforward as researchers will need to work on establishing a common ground and a common “language” to be able to communicate effectively across disciplinary silo boundaries. This inevitably necessitates frequent and intense discussions that may slow the research process.

Another time-saving option that may still improve the interdisciplinary contributions is for researchers to take a critical look at their current research projects and evaluate whether their studies may already contain insights that are meaningful to research beyond the narrow field of global employee mobility. If that is indeed the case, we urge authors to work toward bringing out this broader contribution in their manuscript and putting it center stage. Furthermore, we encourage researchers to critically and reflectively evaluate if certain research questions, empirical contexts, perspectives and voices remain hidden or silenced in our field due to falling outside the current paradigmatic delimitations but which might come to light through interdisciplinary work (Guttormsen and Moore, 2023).

Additional practical steps are to attend university research talks across departments or attend scholarly conferences in other disciplines to get a feel for research topics and approaches anchored in other paradigms that might enrich studying mobility. Similarly, professional development workshops and symposia at conferences within the management field could increasingly invite speakers or panelists from other disciplines as well as practitioners to facilitate interdisciplinary connections and learning.

Like this special issue, journals can feature interdisciplinary guest editorial teams requesting interdisciplinary papers. As global mobility scholars, we could also seek special issues in journals from other disciplines to bring our chief topics and contributions to other fields. However, in facilitating this interdisciplinary special issue, we came across several challenges that those who would like to engage in such editorial work may want to consider. First, it is a daunting task to identify reviewers skilled in recognizing and bringing out the strengths of interdisciplinary papers – which, at the beginning of the review process, often resemble “diamonds in the rough.” It helps if editors are more involved and guide authors to successfully interpret and navigate reviewers’ comments. Second, while a particular special issue may be more interdisciplinary in nature, journals tend to be disciplinary-based and follow certain research traditions. Thus, it can be valuable for prospective authors to ask colleagues who have published in the target journal for feedback on their papers before submission. Third, editorial teams and publishers should be aware that interdisciplinary special issues may take longer to complete since reviewing and revising interdisciplinary work is more complex and time-consuming.

To conclude, interdisciplinary research may seem like a formidable task and not worth the effort, but on the flip side, it can be energizing and fun. Interdisciplinary ideas are sparked through cross-disciplinary interaction, be it through reading, attending conferences, or informal conversations. Such interactions broaden our knowledge base, enrich our research and help us make new friends along the way.

Papers in the special issue

In their article “‘Willing to go the extra mile’: An exploration of antecedents to assigned expatriates’ work engagement,” van Bakel et al. (2024) take a fresh look at the factors influencing work engagement – a construct studied extensively in the organizational behavior literature. Even though it has been suggested to be an important outcome in the expatriate adjustment process (Lazarova et al., 2010), work engagement has rarely been studied in global mobility research (e.g. Lauring and Selmer, 2015; Reiche et al., 2023). Directly applying insights about the factors facilitating and impeding engagement from the organizational behavior field to the context of expatriation can be convenient but also likely inaccurate and incomplete. Using a qualitative study, the authors present a framework of work engagement antecedents specific to the global mobility context. In doing so, this article also highlights the importance of context in research on engagement and thus provides insights into the general management literature.

In the article “How language power, white subalternity and compressed modernity frame highly-skilled non-Western migrants in an East-German company: insights from multi-sited ethnography,” Mahadevan (2024) combines ethnographic methods with global migration studies as well as novel social theoretical concepts (compressed modernity and white subalternity) as far as mainstream global mobility studies are concerned. Empirically, the study focuses on highly-skilled migrant employees who have arrived in Germany from non-Western countries. They face a negative framing as outsiders, detectable in the ways a local East German organization, in a condescending fashion, proceeds to integrate the migrants. Through the interdisciplinary lens employed by the author, the study demonstrates how this phenomenon can only become fully understood by employing a multi-sided ethnographic methodology anchored in a social anthropologist tradition, in addition to linking the abovementioned concepts with language power and incorporating the context-specific socio-historical facets of East German identities and the nation’s broader discourses on migration. The use of multi-sided ethnography is rare in management studies and, thus, reflects an additional interdisciplinary aspect of the article’s contribution, herein its power and relevance as a methodological and epistemological vehicle for producing rich and nuanced new knowledge.

In the article “Sedentary settlers or nomadic opportunists? Diverging rationales in international entrepreneurial mobility,” Mielly et al. (2024) tackle new interdisciplinary grounds in terms of global mobility studies by interfacing various aspects of entrepreneurship, internationalization and global mobility. The empirical focus is directed toward international entrepreneurs working in France regarding cross-border mobility and their internationalization activities. A qualitative longitudinal approach rooted in constructivism, chiefly centered on interviews as the method, is used to analyze diverging narratives regarding mobility. Social theory, less known to global mobility research, has been applied to produce new findings that pertain to the types of underexplored questions in our field, for example: the movement of the individuals carrying out internationalization as opposed to the firm; moving beyond the traditional location-dependency paradigm when gazing at the research problem and contesting binary underpinnings and typologies of motives and expatriation categories that are frequent in existing bodies of literature. Arguably, interdisciplinary engagement also transpires in the form of a critical outlook on well-established terms, concepts, categorizations and other assumptions underlying knowledge production.