international migration learning and knowledge

8/3/2019 International Migration Learning and Knowledge

1/21

Progress in Human Geography 30, 5 (2006) pp. 588607

I IntroductionThis paper examines the role of internationalmigration in knowledge creation and transfer,focusing particularly on the widely distributedlearning and knowledge in the workplace.Drucker (1993: 176), in his seminal paper,emphasized that to make knowledge youhave to learn to connect, and geographersinitially focused on one aspect of this: the

importance of spatial proximity in the transferof tacit knowledge via face-to-face contacts,notably as epitomized by learning regions

recently, the focus has shifted to the diversemeans of knowledge transfer, whether local-ized or distanciated (for example, Amin andCohendet, 2004), which implicitly recognizesthe role of (international) mobility and migra-tion. However, there are still major gaps inour understanding of the specic contributionof international migration to knowledgetransfer, of the processes involved, and of the

conditions that facilitate or constrain this.These themes are addressed through con-sidering four key issues: whether international

Articles

Lost in translation? Internationalmigration, learning and knowledge

Allan M. Williams*Institute for the Study of European Transformations (and Working LivesResearch Institute), London Metropolitan University, 166220 HollowayRoad, London N7 8DB, UK

Abstract: There are changing but increasingly important ways in which international migrationcontributes to knowledge creation and transfer. The paper focuses on four main issues. First, thedifferent ways in which knowledge is conceptualized, and the signicance of corporeal mobility ineffecting knowledge creation and transfer in relation to each of these types. Second, thesignicance of international migration in knowledge creation and transfer, and how this is mediatedby whether migration is constituted within bounded (by company structures) or boundarylesscareers, and as free agent labour migration. Third, the situating of migrants within rms, and theparticular obstacles to their engagement in co-learning and knowledge translation: especiallypositionality, intercultural communication and social identities. Fourth, a focus on the importanceof place, which is explored through theories of learning regions and creativity, and notions of thetransferability of social learning across different public and private spheres. The need to viewmigrant learning and knowledge creation/transfer as widely dispersed, rather than as elitepractices in privileged regions, is a recurrent theme.

Key words: rms, knowledge, learning, migration, mobility.


2/21

knowledge; how migrants potentially con-tribute to knowledge transfer; the determi-nants of the effectiveness of rms in capturingmigrant knowledge; and some of the ways in

which place mediates effective learning andknowledge transfer by international migrants.This approach front-stages the individual butan emphasis on situated knowledge alsoimplicitly recognizes structural features.

First, the paper reviews some of the differ-ent forms of knowledge. The conceptualiza-tion of knowledge has moved a long way sincePolanyis (1966) recognition of a binary dividebetween tacit and explicit forms, even thoughthe resulting literature remains heavilyindebted to this. Blackler (2002), amongothers, has recognized various forms of knowledge, some of which reside, relativelyautonomously, in individuals, while others aregiven meaning through being socially situated.Migrants have differential capacity for trans-ferring these types of knowledge.

Second, the paper considers how migrantscan carry different types of knowledge, withdiffering degrees of effectiveness and exclusiv-ity. This is considered in respect of knowledgetransfer and translation, and knowledge cre-ation. The discussion is partly structuredaround a discussion of bounded and boundary-less careers. Much of the literature on interna-tional migration and skills (knowledge) hasfocused on intra-company and other forms of

elite mobility, while this paper contends thatevery migrant is a knowledge bearer withpotential to transfer knowledge to others.

The third section of the paper addressesthe relational nature of knowledge transferand creation. The practices and the know-ledge contributions of individual migrantsare mediated by relationships with theirco-workers who include both migrants andnon-migrants. It is therefore necessary tosituate the role of international migrants inknowledge creation and transfer within the

example, Nonaka et al. , 2001). However,recent research has challenged the reicationof the rm, which increasingly is seen a site of competing interests (Schoenberger, 1997).

This leads to a discussion of how positionali-ties and social identities inform relationshipsbetween migrants (and, indeed, all new-comers) and existing groups of workerswithin rms, thereby mediating co-learning,and knowledge transfer. Research on themanagement of knowledge (Easterby-Smithand Lyles, 2003) has surprisingly little to sayon these subjects, as does migration research,with the exception of a small but vibrant liter-ature on highly skilled migration (for example,Salt, 1988; Findlay et al. , 1996; Beaverstock,2002). This research, however, is necessarilysectorally and gender selective (Kofman andRaghuram, 2005), and does not address thedistribution of skills and knowledge throughouthe actual and potential migrant labour force.

The nal section of the paper addresses theneed to understand the learning and knowledgetransfer experiences of migrants as beingsocially situated (Evans and Rainbird, 2002).This directs our attention to the notion of placewhich can be understood as sites of embeddedor encultured knowledge, and of the temporaryspatiotemporalization of associational networks(Amin, 2002: 391). International migration isone, but an increasingly important, process of such temporary spatiotemporalization, which

mediates knowledge creation and transfer inand among particular places. This paper consid-ers two literatures that provide perspectives onthese relationships: learning regions and cre-ative cities. However, it concludes that there is aneed for a much broader approach to howsocially situated learning and knowledge trans-fer inuence the potential and effective eco-nomic contribution of international migrants,and to how knowledge ows between work-places and the family/community.

This paper responds to both the increased

Allan M. Williams 58


3/21

rooted in a number of analyses of postindus-trial, postmodern and knowledge societies(reviewed in Drucker, 1993). There are severaldistinct strands here. First, an increasing empha-

sis on knowledge in determining the capacity of rms to respond rapidly in increasingly compet-itive conditions, exacerbated by globalization.Second, the potential offered by new techno-logical means to generate, store and transferinformation (but also the requirement to holdtacit knowledge in order to utilize these effec-tively). Third, the relative growth of knowledge-intensive sectors, particularly in the servicesector. Druckers (1993: 38) widely quoted con-clusion that knowledge is the only meaningfulresource today is of course a gross overstate-ment. Knowledge has always been integral to allforms of economic activity. However, therehave been qualitative changes in the volume of knowledge available, and in the speed of dissem-ination. While most analysts have focused onthe role of information technology in these qual-itative changes, this paper contends that corpo-real mobility remains critically important inknowledge transfer and creation, given theenduring, if not enhanced, importance of tacitknowledge (Nonaka et al ., 2001: 490).

The importance of corporeal mobility inknowledge transfers has, of course, long beenrecognized; see Arrows (1962) seminal paperon knowledge spillovers, and Bunnell andCoes (2001) more recent comments on the

roles of mobile individuals. This paper doesnot review all forms of such mobility; rather itfocuses on international migration. This is notbecause of any claims as to unprecedentedlevels of international migration in recentdecades indeed, in many ways internationalmigration was relatively greater in the secondhalf of the nineteenth century (Chiswick andHatton, 2003). But there have been qualita-tive changes in international mobility (King,2002), recognized in, for example, the litera-tures on skilled international labour migration

International migration is a problematicterm, and there is neither the need nor thespace here to enter into debates about deni-tions not least because these are mostly

concerned with universal denitions, whichtend to abstract the roles of migrants fromspecic contexts or processes, in this case, inrelation to learning and knowledge transfer.Instead, this paper focuses on internationalmigration as a period spent working inanother country, involving sufcient time forsignicant integration into the labour force(that is, beyond placements of a few days orweeks, or attending seminars or workshops).The term international migration is also useddeliberately as embracing a range of working/living practices, from transnational-ism to more traditional single movements of emigration and return. In the former,migrants build elds that link together coun-tries of origins and destination (Zhou andTseng, 2002: 132), whereas in the latter eco-nomic relationships are focused more nar-rowly on the place of current residence,excepting remittance ows. Although recenttheorization in social science has focused ontransnationalism, this paper contends thatmany types of international migration arecharacterized by, and play roles in, knowledgecreation and transfer.

II Conceptualizations of knowledge

Polanyis (1958; 1966) seminal work, distin-guishing between tacit and explicit knowl-edge, is the obvious starting point forconsidering different types of knowledge.This essentialized tacit knowledge as beingperson and context specic: a person knowsmore than he [sic] can express in words. Incontrast, explicit knowledge is transmittablein formal and systematic ways (via manuals,databases, etc). This dichotomy has beenextended by a number of writers, mostnotably by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) who

590 Lost in translation? International migration, learning and knowledge


4/21

conceptualizations of knowledge, for exampleYang (2003) who distinguishes betweenexplicit, implicit and emancipatory knowl-edge. But this paper adopts Blacklers (2002)

typology, which draws especially on his ownearlier work and that of Berger andLuckmann (1966), Zuboff (1988) and Brownand Duguid (1991). This typology is particu-larly useful for understanding how interna-tional migration mediates particular forms of knowledge transfer. Embrained knowledge is dependent on

conceptual skills and cognitive abilities,which allow recognition of underlying pat-terns, and reection on these. The individ-ual mindset is a key inuence on learning.

Embodied knowledge results from experi-ences of physical presence (for example,via project work). This is practical thinkingrooted in specic contexts, physical pres-ence, sentient and sensory information,and learning in doing.

Encultured knowledge emphasizes thatmeanings are shared understandings, aris-ing from socialization and acculturation.Language, stories, sociality and metaphorsare mainsprings of knowledge.

Embedded knowledge is embedded in con-textual factors and is not objectively pre-given. Moreover, shared knowledge isgenerated in different language systems,(organizational) cultures and (work)

groups. Encoded knowledge is embedded in signsand symbols to be found in traditionalforms such as books, manuals, codes of practice and websites.

There has been increased recognition of these different types of knowledge because of the changing organization of work, notablygreater emphasis on so-called soft skills of communication, problem-solving and creativity(Payne, 2000). The issue here, however, isthe transferability of particular types of

fully articulated through documented (ie,codied), and possibly even through verbal,forms, but is learned through experience(Polanyi, 1966; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

Consequently, given that much knowledgeis tacit, whether knowledge spillovers arecontained within a rm, or within a region,depends on the nature of mobility inthat industry or region (Almeida and Kogut,1999: 916).

The key question, however, is the relation-ship between knowledge transferability viamigration and Blacklers (2002) typology of tacit knowledge. Given the limited empiricalresearch on this theme, the following discus-sion is essentially hypothetical. Embrainedand embodied knowledge are necessarily indi-visible from the individual, and so are fullytransferable via corporeal mobility. Migrantswho have cognitive skills that allow themto diagnose faults in computer language(embrained knowledge), or sensory and phys-ical skills for restoring art works (embodiedknowledge), can transfer these in theirentirety across borders. The valorization of the migrants knowledge therefore is condi-tioned by (while conditioning) corporealmobility: in other words, their market valuesare dependent on where the individual works taking into account different forms of migra-tion (transnational, permanent, return) whilepossession of such knowledge also inuences

the level and type of mobility.In contrast, encultured and embeddedknowledge represent relational knowledge,grounded in the institutionally specic rela-tionships between individuals. In so far asthese settings are not transferable or replic-able, then, at best, they are only partly trans-ferable through corporeal mobility. A morenegative interpretation would emphasize thatthey are necessarily devalorized by corporealmobility for example, lacking an understandingof country-specic practices or even non-



5/21

knowledge, even if these are time and placespecic and non-transferable in their totali-ties. In effect, individuals can be understoodas engaged in informal benchmarking pro-

cesses. For example, migrants can transferideas about alternative work practices, even if these require modication to t culturally andorganizationally different settings. In part,they carry such knowledge with them, but inpart they carry the means to access suchknowledge. Arguably, they have differentsocial networks to non-migrants, and candraw on these to access new and differentsources of encultured and embedded knowl-edge. Such linkages are particularly intensiedin respect of transnational migrants (Zhouand Tseng, 2002). This positive assessmentdoes not imply a lack of obstacles to applyingknowledge of in different settings. Forexample, transferring embedded knowledgebetween organizations is problematic becauseit resides in an organizations interrelated sys-tems of physical, human and organizationalrelationships (Empson, 2001). Individualmigrants have limited capacity to bring aboutchanges in such institutions.

Finally, while the paper has distinguishedbetween different types of knowledge, one of the keys to their valorization is how they arecombined. In this sense, all forms of knowl-edge are relational, and none are transferableby migrants without transforming their

potential economic value. The question thenis how corporeally mobile forms of knowl-edge, and knowledge of knowledge, arerecombined with other forms of knowledge,in new settings which may be politically, cul-turally and organizationally different. Thenext section explores further how migrationcontributes to the transfer and creation of knowledge, and to learning.

III International migrants andknowledge

making a critical contribution to innovation andcompetitiveness. However, the migration liter-ature on knowledge transfer has tended to behighly selective, focusing on elites and espe-

cially intra-company mobility (eg, Beaverstock,2005). Here, the paper rst considers the rolesof migrants in knowledge creation/transfer inthe economy, before considering two majortypes of migration: bounded versus boundary-less career moves. This leads to revisiting thenotion of how skilled labour migration is con-stituted. First, consider knowledge transferand knowledge creation.

1 Knowledge transfer and knowledgecreationThe transfer of tacit knowledge is facilitatedand sustained by corporeal mobility.International migration is one way in whichmobility is articulated and, indeed, Bunnell andCoe (2001) suggest that the astronauts shut-tling between Taiwans Hsinchu region andSilicon Valley are iconic gures for mobility(Saxenian, 1999). Other Silicon Valley exam-ples include transnational migrants who origi-nated in India, China or Israel, and are nowstrongly embedded in both locations (Saxenianand Hsu, 2001). There are, however, limits tothe transferability of some types of knowledge,as indicated in the previous section.

Hodkinson et al . comment on the differen-tial transferability of skills and knowledge

between working environments:prior abilities are important in negotiatingchanges of work and learning environments.These are not decontextualized transferableskills but abilities which have structural andreferential features. Their structural featuresmay be carried (tacitly) between environmentsbut they have to be situated, underpinned bydomain-specific knowledge and developedthrough social interaction within the cultureand context of the work environment.(Hodkinson et al ., 2004: 11)

The distinction between structural (transfer-



6/21

opposed to encultured and embedded knowl-edge. However, as Evans and Rainbird (2002:24) note, understanding of the processes bywhich skills are transformed from one setting

into another is limited, and as this papercontends this is especially so for interna-tional migrants.

The key to such transmissions is thatknowledge and learning are relational, so thattransfers between individuals in the samesetting (eg, company and country), let alonetransfers between settings, are perhaps betterthought of as translation . Czarniawska (2001:126) elegantly captures this: It is peoplewhether regarded as users or as creators, whoenergize an idea every time they translate it fortheir own or somebody elses use. Watchingideas travel, . . . we observe a process of trans-lation. This process of translation modies allthe agents involved: the individual translators,and the translated knowledge. Ultimately, itmay also modify institutions.

Migrants have distinctive roles as translatorsof knowledge. As Allen (2000: 28) argues, thetranslation of ideas and practices, as opposed totheir transmission, are likely to involve peoplemoving to and through local contexts, towhich they bring their own blend of tacit andcodied knowledges, ways of doing and ways of judging things. Knowledge can be transferredacross space via many different channels, butthis paper contends that migration involves a

particular combination of embrained, embo-died, encultured, and embedded knowledge.Embedded and encultured knowledge areespecially prone to translation, because of theirreexive nature, but all knowledge transfersinvolve translation, because they are effectedthrough social interactions with others(migrants and non-migrants) in the destinationorganization and territory. Knowledge transferor translation, conceptualized in this way, doesnot privilege any particular group of migrants,but is a process that all migrants necessarily

knowledge, and leads to consideration of knowledge creation. There is a very ne linebetween knowledge translation and creation.Migrants bring knowledge with them to a

new setting, where it may be integrated withother knowledge through participation invarious formal and informal practices, notonly within but also outside of employingorganizations. As a result, their knowledgecan be described as having been expanded,modied, or even transformed (Eraut, 2000:27). At some point, therefore, knowledgetranslation (approximating expanded andperhaps modied) becomes knowledge cre-ation (approximating transformed).

Arguably, international migration is a par-ticularly important, potential source of knowledge creation precisely because itinvolves transversing boundaries. Wenger(2000: 233), writing about generic (notspecifically territorial) boundaries, empha-sizes that these present opportunities as wellas barriers. They can be places of unusuallearning, where different perspectives meet,and where echoing our earlier discussion reflexivity is at a premium. Radical newinsights are particularly likely to emerge whenboundaries are successfully crossed,although such bridges tend to be exceptionalrather than routinized in the workplace.Wenger (2000) identifies several types of bridges, including brokers. Some individuals

act as brokers between communities, and thispaper argues that international migrants areespecially important as brokers across inter-national borders that constitute significantcultural as well as jurisdictional boundaries.

Wenger (2000) identied a number of dif-ferent types of brokering, which can be seento apply to international migrants. Boundar

spanners (Tushman and Scanlan, 1981), takecare of one specic boundary over time, andare exemplied by the Taiwanese knowledgeshuttlers working in Silicon Valley (Saxenian



7/21

European operations of a North Americancompany). Roamers travel from place toplace, creating connections, and creating ortransferring knowledge. They are exemplied

by the free agents (for example, touristworkers Uriely, 2001) that are discussedbelow. Finally, outposts bring back news fromthe forefront, while exploring new territo-ries: for example, the representative of amultinational who has been seconded for aperiod to work with a new supplier in a coun-try new to the companys supply chain.Again there is limited empirical research onthis theme, but the paper contends thatmigrants are implicated in all these forms of brokering: crossing international boundariespotentially, but not necessarily, createsopportunities for unusual learning opportuni-ties, or meetings of perspectives, as Wengeremphasizes. Migrants may be particularlyimportant as brokers between previouslyunconnected networks. In particular, thispaper argues that transnational migrants, whoinitiate global interactions by engaging simul-taneously in several countries relating to theirmigration (Zhou and Tseng, 2002: 133), areespecially likely to act as brokers, becausethey are necessarily locally embedded in theorigin and destination. But not all transna-tional migrants, let alone all migrants, are sig-nicant brokers, as these roles are mediatedby positionality and social identities. These

issues are discussed later in relation to therm, but rst, consider two types of economicmigration.

2 Migration and bounded/boundarylesscareersThe constitution of migration temporally,spatially and organizationally mediatesknowledge creation and transfer by migrants.One key feature is whether migration is con-stituted as what this paper terms bounded asopposed to boundaryless careers

Pioneering research on skilled labour migra-tion focused on such mobility (Salt, 1992),which remains an important phenomenon(Beaverstock and Boardwell, 2000; Morgan,

2001). The links between company organiza-tion and international mobility have beenexplored by Morgan (2001), who distin-guished between two types of internationalfirms. Multinationals are organized alongnational lines: they have local branches serv-ing local markets, and organize relativelylimited human mobility (of any form) amongtheir branches, or between these and thecompany headquarters. In contrast, theglobal enterprise is based on transnationallycoordinated interrelationships among differ-ent sites. Managers careers regularly involve(international) mobility between subsidiariesand the HQ. Such mobility facilitates dis-persed and multidirectional learning (p. 122).

Globalized firms value internationallymobile management as: providing genericexpertise and technical skills to internationalofces; disseminating corporate culture andpolicy; contributing to career development;and networking and accumulating knowledge.More specically, McCall (1997) details whatmanagers learn overseas: managerial skills(including being more open-minded and deal-ing with a broader range of people); toleranceof ambiguity (for example, taking decisionswith relatively limited information); acquiring

multiple perspectives (seeing things fromotherspoints of view); and ability to work withothers (tolerating different kinds of people,communicating more, and anticipating theimpact of ones practices). Many of theseforms of learning contribute to Sennetts(2000) notion of exible individuals, but also tothe role of brokers, whether as boundaryspanners or roamers. They involve not onlyembrained and embodied knowledge, butalso reflexive encultured and embeddedknowledge Indeed companies value mobile



8/21

conceptualizations tend to assume thatintra-company mobility is associated withknowledge brokering, while this is highly con-tingent in practice, as discussed later.

Mobile individuals also play an importantrole in ows of knowledge through extra-rmmobility. Moreover, Bunnell and Coe (2001)argue that a strong association between indi-vidually centred knowledge and economicrewards has facilitated possibly unprece-dented mobility for highly skilled workers,including international migration. There isanecdotal and fragmented empirical evidence(for example, ORiain, 2004) that large and,at least in some contexts, increasing numbersof workers move as what can be termed freeagent labour migrants: workers who migratewithout formal employment contracts, andoutside of company frameworks. The notionof free agent labour migrants draws onOpengart and Shorts (2002) concept of freeagent learners that, in turn, is based onKanters (1995) use of the term free agents(analogous to professional sports). A differentperspective comes from Barley and Kunda(2004: 21), who contend that new economymagazines such as Fast Company and Wiredbegan to lionize highly skilled contractors asfree agents, the heroes and heroines of postindustrialism. These individuals focus ontheir long-term employability security withina career model that implicates mobility.

Free agent learners move between compa-nies and organizations, seeking lifetime learn-ing, while free agent international labourmigrants also cross borders and have a rangeof economic goals. Free agent labourmigrants are socially diverse, in terms of boththeir skills and motivations, ranging fromyoung people working abroad as part of a gapyear or the Big OE, to itinerant specialistssuch as ski instructors, to the plumber orbuilder who moves from eastern to westernEurope in search of employment From the

import skills that permanent employees lackbut need to learn. Such workers (whether ornot international) epitomized the rhetoric of continual learning. Learning became a central

life activity that blurred the boundarybetween work and everyday life (p. 263).International migration, therefore, con-

tributes to what are conceptualized as bound-aryless careers (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996;Eby, 2001). Boundaryless careers are consti-tuted of sequences of jobs across organizationand, in the case of international migrants,across national boundaries. They are facili-tated by external networks and contacts, andby a capacity for learning that fosters a freeagent approach to careers, whereby employ-ees are independent from, rather thandependent on, the employing organization(Eby, 2001: 344). The boundaryless career isassociated with increased emphasis onemployability. Greater opportunities formobility, and increased uncertainty in careerdevelopment, have meant a shift fromemployment security to employability security(Opengart and Short, 2002: 221). Success inthe labour market depends on knowing yourstrengths, continuously updating knowledgeand skills, and renewing networks (p. 222).Migration is one of the more importantsigniers of engagement in the processes thatcreate and sustain employability, as ORiain(2004) demonstrates in the case of a software

writing team in Ireland. Of course, greaterworker agency has not eclipsed the impor-tance of structural labour market conditions(Hodkinson et al. , 2004: 8), but the balancebetween structure and agency has shifted,and migration is one of the key ways in whichthis is articulated in labour markets.

3 Rethinking the notion of the skilled migrantThis recent emphasis in the migration litera-ture on skilled or highly skilled labour



9/21

(2000: 103) view that the prevalentdichotomy between unskilled and skilled isarticial and unhelpful, giving undue salienceto a single characteristic of the individual.

Moreover, there have been deep changes inthe organization of work, so that so-calledunskilled jobs increasingly require a range of social skills, such as communication, or teamworking (Payne, 2000). Florida (2005: 45),writing about creative cities and regions, alsocontends that every human being is creative.This can be paraphrased to argue that everymigrant is a learner, knowledge carrier andknowledge creator: the extent of this, and itseconomic impact, may vary considerably, butthe underlying processes of learning andknowledge transfer remain in place. Caremust be taken, however, not to glamorize jobs which may involve drudgery, and routinetasks, even if they involve learning and knowl-edge transfer experiences.

This perspective links to critiques of thehighly gendered nature of research, and policydebates, on skilled migration. As Kofmanand Raghuram (2005: 15051) argue, the neg-lect of women in the literature on skilledmigration partly arises from the problematicdenition of skills. The emphasis on techno-logical innovation, and the new knowledgeeconomy, has focused attention on scienticand technological jobs, thereby ignoring theskills required in, for example, educational and

caring jobs, such as teaching and nursing. Inreality, as Williams and Balaz (2004) demon-strate in their study of Slovak au pairs in theUK, there is a vast amount of learning andknowledge creation not only in the publicsphere, but also within the private sphere of the home, which potentially can be commodi-ed in the labour market (for example, socialor language skills). By extension, there is aneed to recognize that migrant workers, at alllevels of the rm (and beyond), are knowl-edge carriers and learners The critical ques-

IV Employer organizations: capturingmigrant knowledgeLeveraging learning and knowledge transferis a, if not the, key to competitiveness in the

management literature (Nonaka andTakeuchi, 1995; deGues, 1997). From the per-spective of migration research, and given ouremphasis on the individual, it is useful to seerms as repositories of competences, knowl-edge, and creativity, as sites of invention,innovation and learning (Amin andCohendet, 2004: 2), inclusive of all workers(and migrants). This is consistent with thefocus in economic geography on microspaces,drawing attention to people and avoiding thereication of organizations (Ettlinger, 2003).

The focus on agency needs to be setalongside the view that knowledge is rela-tional. Recognizing that knowledge existswithin individuals is but the rst step for anorganization. As van der Heijden (2002: 565)argues, expertise can only exist by virtue of being respected by knowledgeable people inthe organization. However, knowledge gainsvalue when shared with others (Bertels andSavage, 1998: 22; see also Nonaka andTakeuchi, 1995: 340; Bartol and Srivastava,2002). Sharing is a disarmingly simple termfor a complex process, whereby knowledgetransfer (effectively translation) and knowl-edge creation become inseparable from co-learning. This applies to all four types of

knowledge discussed earlier.Where do migrants t into this picture of knowledge transfer and learning in firms,where the other is often (although notalways) a non-migrant? There are a numberof points to consider although, once again,currently there is little empirical research todraw on: Whether mobility is bounded (eg, within

intra-company transfers) or unbounded,as part of boundaryless careers. The for-mer usually provide more structured



10/21

and did they intend to be permanent ortemporary migrants? This mediates thetypes of jobs and industries migrants seekemployment in. There is, in short, an inter-

section of migration regulation, andprocesses of co-learning and knowledgetransfer.

The nature of the employer organization isimportant. This is partly an issue of rmsize and complexity. Howells (2000: 54),for example, argues that the distancebetween the knowledge frames of individ-uals tend to be greater in larger rms, orrms spread across multiple (geographi-cally diverse) sites, where staff are morelikely to be drawn from different culturalbackgrounds. In practice, however, this ismediated by other considerations, such asthe prevalence of cosmopolitanism (seebelow) in rm, local and national cultures.

Fourth, micro processes within the rmare influential in organizational learning(Andrews and Delahaye, 2000). Co-learn-ing flourishes where there are stronglyestablished norms of trust and cooperation(Empson, 2001). Of course, all newcomersto organizations face barriers to co-learning precisely because norms, localdiscourse and other aspects of an organiza-tional or occupational culture are acquiredover a signicant period of time (Eraut,2000: 19). But, as argued below, migrants

face particular obstacles to co-learning andknowledge transfer.While migrants seem to have relatively shortlearning curves for particular competencies(Williams and Balaz, 2005), sustained co-learning requires sharing norms and signi-cant engagement between newcomers andexisting personnel. Arguably, in terms of engagement, observation and imitation maybe relatively more important with respect toembrained and embodied knowledge, whilediscourse may be relatively more important

which extend beyond this, related to diversity.Diversity is valued by many organizations as asource of learning and knowledge. Amin(2000: 11), for example, argues that the infra-

structure of soft learning is dissonance andexperimentation. Creative communitiesactively seek to mobilize difference and coun-terargument (see also Brown and Duguid,1991), including assigning workers to teamson the basis of nationality differences(Randel, 2003). This is an idealized perspec-tive because, in practice, many migrants facesignicant barriers to knowledge sharing andlearning, although it is difcult to disentanglethe implications for each of the main types of tacit knowledge.

Managing co-learning and knowledgetransfer in a socially diverse workforce can beproblematic. Co-learning depends, funda-mentally, on the willingness of individualworkers and the organization to embraceexternal reference standards and methods(Earl, 1990: 742). At the level of the organiza-tion, this is exemplied by the difculties thatworkers face in transferring educational cre-dentials between countries, notably in thehealth sector (Hardill and MacDonald, 2000).There may also be a demand for social andcultural skills, which are seen as country-spe-cific, although the latter are, to a degree,socially and politically constructed, and mayconceal intolerance for diversity (Duvander,

2001: 210-11). Hence positionality whetherin terms of class, gender or migration status is important in determining what people areperceived to know and can do within rms(Hudson, 2004: 450). This applies as much toskilled migrants as unskilled migrants (Nagel,2005: 208).

Obstacles to migrant and non-migrant co-learning can also be understood in terms of intercultural communication, the symbolicprocess in which people from different cul-tures create shared meanings (Taylor and



11/21

about the attributes of group membership increases the likelihood that the voices of strangers will not be heard within an organiza-tion. In contrast, cosmopolitanism facilitates

intercultural exchanges. Cosmopolitanism isan orientation, a willingness to engage withthe other . . . intellectual and esthetic open-ness toward divergent cultural experiences, asearch for contrasts rather than uniformity(Hannerz, 1996: 104). Those contrastsinclude brokering, bringing together differentperspectives across boundaries, as betweenmigrant and non-migrant workers, or amongmigrants of different nationalities. While thisdenition of cosmopolitanism most obviouslychimes with openness to encultured knowl-edge, a willingness to engage can be argued tobe a critical prerequisite to the effective trans-fer of all four types of knowledge by migrants.

Another perspective on intercultural com-munication is provided by Golemans (1998: 7)notion of emotional intelligence, understoodas managing feelings so that they areexpressed appropriately and effectively,enabling people to work together smoothlytoward their common goals. Of the fiveemotional competences identified byGoleman, empathy is critical because it facili-tates understanding others and leveragingdiversity. Bogenrieder and Nooteboom(2004), for example, argue that empathyhelps in judging trustworthiness because it

facilitates accurate attribution of competen-cies and intentions, while tolerating devia-tions from expectations. However, empathyand identification are generally based onshared experience in the process of indwelling (p. 297), which is why migrantsmay face particular barriers in developingshared identities and empathy with non-migrants.

Co-learning and knowledge transfer arealso mediated by social identities, understoodhere as the way that identication with a par-

assumptions referring back to cosmopoli-tanism and stereotypes are critical inuenceson how, and the extent to which, individualsare prepared to relate positively or negatively

to others. Wenger captures the essence of thisrelationship in respect of learning:

Because learning transforms who we are andwhat we can do, it is an experience of identity.It is not just an accumulation of skills andinformation, but also a process of becoming to become a certain person or, conversely, toavoid becoming a certain person. (Wenger,1998: 215)

In his later writings, on expansiveness,Wenger (2000) concluded that a healthyidentity is constituted of multimemberships,and will involve crossing multiple boundaries.Individuals with healthy identities willactively seek out a range of experiences, andwill be open to new learning possibilities. Andthey will identify with broad communities, anotion that resonates with cosmopolitanism.By extension, therefore, it can be argued that

co-learning in workplaces will be facilitatedwhere migrants, and non-migrants, both havehealthy identities.

Identities are central to the effectivenessof knowledge transfers and co-learning byinternational migrants, because nationalityand ethnic group membership constitutemajor social points of reference around whichpersonal identities are worked and reworked

(Jenkins, 2004: 5). This is increasinglyimportant as companies, and their work-forces, become more globalized (Childand Rodrigues, 2003: 538). Nationality andethnicity are, of course, not the only referentsfor the identities that workers bring into, andwhich are reinterpreted within, organiza-tions; gender is another important referent,as are age and professional afliation. Butnationality and ethnicity are, of course, par-ticularly strong referents for internationalmigrants. Hence, organizations that aim to



12/21

2002: 32324). In other words, they seek tofoster empathy, trust and openness in identi-ties, and to counter stereotypes. Failure to doso may debase the organizations potential for

knowledge transfer and creation.In part, however, the importance of socialidentities depends on the type of knowledgeinvolved. Child and Rodrigues (2003) arguethat technical knowledge (about systemsand procedures, and strategic understanding)is less likely to be sensitive to social identity,while systemic and strategic knowledgewhich originate within an organization, are farmore identity sensitive. Or, in terms of Blacklers (2002) typology, it can be arguedthat transfers of encultured and embeddedknowledge are more likely than embodied orembrained knowledge to be sensitive to iden-tities but this remains speculative.

While the above discussion has focusedmostly on the individual, these approachestend to lose sight of the importance of theorganizational features of the company, withrespect to knowledge management (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003). Firms can be seen ascharacterized by institutional isomorphism(DiMaggio and Powell, 1991: 66), wherebythere is increased resemblance between unitsin the same set of environmental conditions.Migrants, it can be argued, potentially chal-lenge the legitimacy of practices within organi-zations. However, the sources of legitimacy

are controlled within these organizations bycoercive, mimetic and normative institutionalmechanisms (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991).The capacity of individual, or even groups of,migrants to challenge these may be con-strained, but at the same time this is contin-gent on the types of migration: for example,skilled migrants, well networked in formal andinformal professional associations, may be bet-ter able to challenge normative mechanismssuch as those relating to the recognition of knowledgeable individuals

transfers from migrants, both to individualworkers and to the organizational level.But knowledge creation and knowledgetransfer depend on co-learning, and the latter

is mediated, both by the organization of therm and by positionalities and social identi-ties. However, this is not to argue thatmigrants are passive agents in co-learning,being dependent on the lead taken bynon-migrants, or on how learning is institu-tionalized within particular companies. Likemost newcomers, initially they may beperipheral to groups within a company, buttheir situation is neither static nor passive.Rather as Hodkinson et al . (2004: 7) empha-size, it is not just that each person learns in acontext, rather, each person is a reciprocalpart of the context, and vice versa. In otherwords, Baetjers (2000: 170) comment thatsocial co-learning is co-evolutionary, involvingcomplex and changing relationships overtime, is particularly apposite for migrants.

V Place and migrant knowledgeThe nal section looks beyond the boundariesof the rm. Initially, informed by the notion of the rm as a sociospatial construction, thatis embedded in broader practices played outby social actors across various social net-works (Currah and Wrigley, 2004: 1), thepaper considers how migration relates to twosignicant literatures on knowledge in eco-

nomic geography, on learning regions and cre-ativity. Both perspectives, although less socreativity, fail to address how knowledge spillsover the borders between different spheres,for example the public and private. Therefore,an alternative approach is favoured, whichunderstands individual migrant knowledgewithin rms as being socially situated, withlearning distributed across work and nonwork places. This again foregrounds the indi-vidual, drawing on Ettlingers (2004: 32)notion of untidy geographies wherebymul-



13/21

1 Learning regions and beyondThe literature on learning regions (having ahigh-level capacity, via innovation, to adjustto changing economic conditions) starts from

the assumption that tacit knowledge is mosteffectively transferred, face to face, by thosewho share similarities in terms of language,social norms, and personal knowledge deve-loped through long-established formal andinformal interactions. The key contention isthat physical proximity facilitates trust, whichin turn facilitates knowledge transfers andcollective learning (Maskell and Malmberg,1999). The importance of a history of face-to-face contacts implies there is at least acore of relatively immobile in terms of migration key personnel (at least within aspecific territory, if not within particularrms). This has led to a relative neglect of therole of migration in learning regions (Williams et al. , 2004: 3335). One important excep-tion is Alarcon (1999), who argued that thehigher proportion of foreign-born engineersand scientists in Silicon Valley, compared toRoute 128 in the USA, was attributable togreater openness to new migrants in a morecosmopolitan environment. But, as our earlierdiscussion of social identities, interculturalcommunication and stereotyping versus cos-mopolitanism indicates, the opportunities andconstraints faced by migrants are complexand still poorly understood.

There has, subsequently, been an exten-sive critique of the tendency to essentializethe role of proximity in knowledge transfer.Oinas (2000) argued that proximity only facil-itates interactions, and does not necessarilycreate them; and, while distance may hinderinteractions, it does not exclude them. Amin(2002) similarly argues against privileging spa-tial proximity because rms draw on a varietyof networks, at different scales ranging fromthe local to the international. He argues thatphysical proximity and localized face-to-face

networks of communication and travel(Amin, 2002: 39394). Amin does notdevelop further his understanding of travel,nor question the types of knowledge transfer

that require corporeal mobility, although ourearlier discussion of Blacklers (2002) typologysuggests differentiation. There are numerousforms of migration, let alone travel, in termsof duration and frequency. Each is likely toprovide different opportunities for translationof ideas and practices if only because of howthese are mediated by social identity andstereotyping. In summary, surprisingly little isstill known about the roles of different typesof migration in learning regions.

Given the limitations of the learning regionperspective, there has been a search for alter-native conceptual frameworks for understand-ing extra-rm knowledge ows (see Bunnelland Coe, 2001; Gertler, 2001; Amin andCohendet, 2004). Two literatures have beenparticularly important: communities of practice and knowledge communities.Communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) is awell-established concept, which emphasizesthat individuals are bound together by sharedmeanings and understandings, and the prac-tices that emerge from networking. WhileWenger recognizes that spatial proximity canbe important (perhaps brought about by cor-poreal mobility), it does not necessarily createsuch communities. This has entered debates in

economic geography. Some commentators(such as Amin, 2002) argue that relationalproximity (achieved via communities of prac-tice) is likely to outweigh spatial proximity.Others (such as Gertler, 2001) contest this,arguing that relational proximity is unlikely toovercome the barriers of geographical distance.Unfortunately, there is very little research onhow different types of tacit knowledge aretransferred by different channels includingdifferent forms of migration within suchcommunities of practice but the role of corpo-



14/21

but does at least recognize this implicitly.Henry and Pinch (2000) analysed theagglomeration economies of the British motorsport industry, concentrated in Motor Sport

Valley, and identified key elements in itsconstitution as a knowledge community. Theseinclude labour market features, such as rapidand continual staff transfers within the indus-try, the convergence of careers (most skilledworkers spend at least part of their careers inthis particular cluster), labour market churn-ing due to the deaths and births of rms, andnon-labour market factors. The constantlyshifting pool of skilled labour within and fromoutside the knowledge community, that isincluding (circulating) migrants, is of particu-lar relevance. This can be linked to Crouch et al.s (1999) writings on employability inareas such as Silicon Valley. Workers in suchareas have low employment security withindividual rms (which have high death rates),but strong individual expectations of good jobopportunities in other rms in the area. It canonly be concluded, however, that the implica-tions for migration are ambiguous: these con-ditions may repel or attract migrants. Crouch et al. also argue that a shift from employmentto employabilitytransfers greater responsibilityto the individual for acquiring skills and plan-ning career development. This suggests thatboth bounded and borderless careers, whichare explicitly linked to migration, are impor-

tant in how knowledge communities are con-stituted and reconstituted, and in the transferof different types of knowledge.

In summary, migration does intersect withcollective learning in learning regions orknowledge communities. Human capital the-ory, with its emphases on returns to individualinvestment in learning, and the discountingof risk (Sjastaad, 1962), provides a basis forrationalizing why learning regions are particu-larly attractive to (skilled) migrants. Thelearning regions and knowledge communities

territory. However, both approaches areunduly economistic in failing to address howdiscrimination and stereotyping shape oppor-tunities and constraints.

2 Global cities and creativityThe extra-rm perspectives examined abovepay scant attention to migration issues, notleast because their focus remains the rm,albeit constellations of firms. However,the literature on creativity, especially whenarticulated in relation to global cities, givesmore emphasis to place characteristics,including how migration relates to these.

Florida (2002) argues that, in the knowl-edge economy, territorial competitive advan-tage is based on ability to mobilize rapidly acombination of skilled people, resources andinnovation capacity. Above all, it stems frombeing able to generate, attract and retain aneffective combination of talent, creativepeople in the arts and cultural industries, anddiverse ethnic, racial and lifestyle groups. Thisis reinforced by Lee et al. (2004) who stressthe need for creative people, from variedbackgrounds, to come together to generateknowledge and innovation. Not surprisingly,global cities are key nodes of creativity, andAmin and Thrift (2002: 59) consider cities tobe meeting places for knowledgeable and cre-ative people, and sites of knowledge transfer.

Migration is clearly implicated in these

perspectives, and is addressed directly byFlorida (2002: 75051). The key challenge forrms is to produce and retain talent becausehigh human-capital people have manyemployment options and change jobs relativelyfrequently, and thus they strongly favor loca-tions that possess thick labor markets. This ismatched by the expectations of the creativeclass who seek out high-quality experiences,openness to diversity of all kinds, and oppor-tunities to validate their identities as creativepeople (Florida 2005: 36) Therefore the



15/21

A link can also be made to the earlier discus-sion of free agent labour migrants and movers,because the migration of creative people isrelated to life cycle stage and career-develop-

ment aspirations. For example, Hannerz(1996: 131) argues that individuals specializingin expressive activities tend to migrate to globalcities when they are relatively young, partlybecause these provide unique learning oppor-tunities, but also because of a sense of pil-grimage or of being in the right place. Suchcities are open systems (Jacobs, 1961) thatattract people (including internationalmigrants) from diverse backgrounds.

While the literature on global cities andcreativity offers insights into the relationshipsbetween migration and knowledge, it has lim-itations. First, it tends to focus on social elites.In contrast, Sassen (2000) argues that theexpansion of business service jobs in globalcities creates a demand not only for high-leveltechnical and administrative jobs, but also forlow-wage unskilled jobs in public and privateservices, thereby generating parallel ows of skilled and unskilled migrants. However, herreading of immigration implies that the knowl-edge carriers and translators are in higher-order jobs, which fails to recognize explicitlythat all immigrants are involved in learningand knowledge creation/transfer. Second, thevery notion of a creative class associated withthe cultural industries and bohemian lifestyles

is implicitly elitist (Ettlinger, 2004: 27).Third, these theories understate the discrim-ination and stereotyping faced by migrants,which shape the opportunities and con-straints they encounter. For example, Zhouand Tseng (2002: 142) show that manyChinese high-tech entrepreneurs in Californiafollowed this pathway precisely because theyencountered a glass ceiling as employees.Finally, theories of creativity make sweepingassumptions about the openness and cos-mopolitanism encountered by migrants in

perspective provides a step towards such anunderstanding.

3 Socially situated knowledge and migration

historiesIn contrast to learning regions and creativitytheories, social learning perspectives, such assituated learning (Brown and Duguid, 1991),do not privilege either places or social elites.They also encourage a lifelong learning per-spective, arguing that individuals are productsof their social and cultural histories while alsocontributing to producing situations thatmirror these (Elkjaer, 2003). This perspectivehas two attractions for understanding inter-national migration and knowledge.

First, it places the immediate experiences of the migrants, with respect to knowledge andlearning, in context of personal histories of social and spatial mobilities. Second, theemphasis on social and cultural histories directsattention to the whole person because expe-rience, knowledge and skills already possessedrange over all of a persons life, not just that partof it in paid employment (Beckett, 2000: 41).In other words, workplace learning and knowl-edge transfer have to be understood in relationto non-workplace experiences. Ettlinger (2003)adopts a similar perspective in researching howmultiple rationalities emanate from differentspheres of peoples lives. Paraphrasing sucharguments (p. 152), this paper contends that a

migrants knowledge employed in a workplacederives from a kaleidoscope of learning prac-tices that emanate from different spheres of life and different social networks. This resonateswith Folbres argument that:

If human capital is so important, maybe weshould pay more attention to how and where it isactually produced in families and communities.The way economists treat nature helps explainthe way they treat people. Both are taken asexogenously given. (Folbre, 2001: 71)

Similarly Bentley (1998: 104) argues that



16/21

emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998)travels across the boundaries of work, familyand community; arguably the same logicapplies to different types of knowledge.

How does the above conceptualization of learning apply specifically to internationalmigrants? While there is a vast literature onmigrant communities, there is little researchon how practices within these relate to work-place knowledge and learning. However, byway of illustration, consider some evidence onelite meeting grounds, and language learning.

Beaverstock (2002; 2005) considers howinternationally mobile workers in the higher-order services constitute transnational elites,who ow into or through global cities, bring-ing with them well-established cosmopolitannetworks, cultural practices and social rela-tions (in our terms, access to encultured andembedded knowledge). The social meetinggrounds of global spaces, such as clubs,restaurants and bars, facilitate networkingand are critical sites for knowledgetransfer/translation and co-learning. Theyassume different iconic forms in particularcities bars and clubs in Singapore, lunchingin New York, and bars and cafs in London but have similar functions. Entertaining athome also provides an important arena forknowledge transfer, although the social rulesgoverning this are more complex, as is evidentin the differentiation between expatriates and

locals in Singapore (Beaverstock, 2002: 537).Such complexity needs to be emphasized, forcommunities are differentiated, and shouldnot be reied (Ettlinger, 2004: 35).

There is rather more published research onlanguage learning by migration, another areain which non-workplace learning has spillovers(Voydanoff, 2001) into the workplace. Notsurprisingly, immigrants who live in tightlybounded ethnic enclaves, with few opportuni-ties to practice the language of the host com-munity or to venture outside the security of

favourable environment for language learningat home for example, spillovers from chil-dren, who have been taught formally atschool, to parents this learning and knowl-

edge can be taken into the workplace. Forsimilar reasons, intermarriage between immi-grants and non-migrants enhances languagelearning and communication skills (Chiswickand Miller, 1995), again with spillovers intoemployment. Intermarriage also facilitates theacquisition of country-specic customs, andknowledge of local labour markets (Meng andGregory, 2005), that is of particular forms of encultured and embedded knowledge.

In summary, migrant learning and knowl-edge need to be understood as socially situated.This is recognized, implicitly, in the literature onlearning regions in terms of the conditions thatfavour building trust, while creativity theoriesrecognize the importance of cosmopolitanismin both the rm and local societies or places.These theories have two major limitations.First, their social and territorial focus is highlyselective. Second, they do not engage withknowledge spillovers between differentspheres, whether the public and private, or therm and community/family. In short, this paperargues that all labour migrants have potentialfor realizing knowledge spillovers, and it advo-cates a socially situated approach to under-standing these. Although this foregrounds theindividual, it also recognizes the importance of

institutional features (for example, affectingintermarriage or immigration), and the interplaybetween these. Or, as Jenkins (2004: 17)argues, individuals experience the world interms of three distinct but linked orders: theindividual order (embodied individuals andwhat-goes-on-in-their-heads), the interactionorder (relationships between people), and theinstitutional order (structures, organization andestablished norms and routines).

VI Conclusions



17/21

are corporeally although not virtually per-formed within nationally bounded spaces. Incontrast, international migrants account foronly some 2% of the worlds population at any

one time. Nevertheless, there has been a fun-damental shift in careers and working lives, sothat flexibility, migration, and relocations,instead of being coerced or resisted, havebecome practices to strive for rather thanstability (Ong, 1999: 19). Changes in knowl-edge creation and transfer both facilitate andresult from such enhanced exibility, includinginternational migration. However, the signi-cance of international migration in knowledgetransfer and learning extends beyond mobileindividuals, to non-migrants in areas of originand destination. Whether through migrationand return, or transnational migrant prac-tices, the knowledge creation and transferseffected by migrants do impact both thoughpositive and negative spillovers on theperformances of non-migrant workers.

In broad terms, two major gaps have beenaddressed in the still relatively neglected eldof international migration, knowledge andlearning. First, the paper has sought to con-ceptualize how migration contributes toknowledge creation and transfer, drawing inparticular on literatures in economic geogra-phy and migration studies, both of which havepaid only scant attention to this subject.Second, it has sought to foreground the indi-

vidual, although recognizing the importance of institutional frameworks. A privileging of places and elites in existing research needs tobe balanced by a greater understanding of learning and knowledge creation/transfer asbeing distributed throughout the labour force.

A number of arguments has been advancedin this paper. First, the need to identify thepotential for transferring different types of tacit knowledge via corporeal mobility;Blacklers (2002) typology of embrained,embodied encultured and embedded knowl-

transfer is perhaps better thought of, in thecase of international migration, as knowledgetranslation. Third, there are critical and still lit-tle understood distinctions between migration

involving bounded as opposed to boundarylesscareer moves, especially between intra-com-pany moves and free agent labour migration.

Fourth, migrant co-learning and knowl-edge transfer is relational, and needs to beunderstood in context of micro processeswithin rms. The engagement of migrants inlearning and knowledge transfer within rms,and particular work groups, is strongly medi-ated by positionality, social identities andintercultural communication, as well as bycompany-level practices and organization.Fifth, theories of learning regions, knowledgecommunities, and creativity do not pay suf-cient attention to the constraints faced byindividual migrants, in the forms of stereotyp-ing or intercultural communication barriers. Inextremis, their experiences may be more akinto knowledge being lost in translationthan toknowledge translation. Finally, there is a needto understand migrantsknowledge and learn-ing as being socially situated, and to under-stand spillovers between workplace andnon-workplace spheres. In short, deepeningof our understanding of international migra-tion, learning and knowledge requires linkingtogether our understanding of individuals,social relationships and institutions in more

imaginative and more non-essentialist ways.

AcknowledgementsThis research was undertaken within a pro-gramme of research funded by a BritishAcademy Readership. I am also grateful forthe comments of two exceptionally helpfulreferees.

ReferencesAlarcon, R. 1999: Recruitment processes among for-eign-born engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley.



18/21


Almeida, P. and Kogut, B. 1999: Localization of knowl-edge and the mobility of engineers in regional net-works. Management Science 45, 90517.

Amin, A. 2000: Organizational learning through com-munities of practice. Paper presented at the

Millennium Schumpeter Conference, University of Manchester 28 June1 July. 2002: Spatialities of globalization. Environment and

Planning A 34, 38599.Amin, A. and Cohendet, P. 2004: Architectures of

knowledge: rms, capacities and communities. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Amin, A. and Thrift, N. 2002: Cities: reimagining theurban. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Andrews, K.M. and Delahaye, B.L. 2000: Inuenceson knowledge processes in organizational learning:the psychological filter. Journal of ManagementStudies 37, 797810.

Arrow, K.J. 1962: Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for Invention. In Nelson, R.R., editor, The rate and direction of inventive activity: economic and social fac-tors , volume 13, NBER Special Conference Series,Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 60925.

Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. 1996: The boundary-less career: a new employment principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baetjer, H. 2000: Capital as embodied knowledge:some implications for the theory of economic growth. Review of Austrian Economics 13, 14774.

Barley, S. and Kunda, G. 2004: Gurus, hired guns, and warm bodies: itinerant experts in a knowledge economy.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. 2002: Encouragingknowledge sharing: The role of organizational rewardsystems. Journal of Leadership and OrganizationalStudies 9 , 6477.

Beaverstock, J.V. 2002: Transnational elites in globalcities: British expatriates in Singapores nancial dis-trict. Geoforum 33, 52538.

2005: Transnational elites in the city: British highlyskilled inter-company transferees in New York Citysnancial districts. Journal of Ethnic and MigrationStudies 31, 24568.

Beaverstock, J. and Boardwell, J.T. 2000:Negotiating globalization, transnational corporationsand global city nancial centres in transient migrationstudies. Applied Geography 20, 277304.

Beckett, D. 2000: Making workplace learning explicit:an epistemology of practice for the whole person.Westminster Studies in Education 23, 4153.

Bentley, T. 1998: Learning beyond the classroom: educa-tion for a changing world. London: Routledge.

B g P d L k T 1966 Th i l t

and Kleine, D., editors, Knowing in rms: understanding, managing, and measuring knowledge , LondonSage, 725.

Blackler, F. 2002: Knowledge, knowledge work andorganizations. In Choo, C.W. and Bontis, N., editors,

The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge, New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 4762.

Bogenrieder, I. and Nooteboom, B. 2004: Learningroups: what types are there? A theoretical analysisand an empirical study in a consultancy firm.Organization Studies 25, 287313.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. 1991: Organizational learningand communities-of-practice: towards a unied viewof working, learning and innovation. OrganizationaScience 2, 4057.

Bunnell, T.G. and Coe, N.M. 2001: Spaces and scales ofinnovation. Progress in Human Geography 25, 56989

Child, J. and Rodrigues, S. 2003: Social identity andorganizational learning. In Easterby-Smith, M. andLyles, M.A., editors, The Blackwell handbook of orga nizational learning and knowledge , Oxford: Blackwell53555.

Chiswick, B.R. and Hatton, T.J. 2003: Internationalmigration and the integration of labor markets. InBordo, M., Taylor, A. and Williamson, J., editors,Globalization in historical perspective , CambridgeNational Bureau of Economic Research, 65119.

Chiswick, B.R. and Miller, P.W. 1995: The endogeneitybetween language and earnings: international analyses. Journal of Labor Economics 13, 24688.

Chiswick, B.R., Lee, Y.L. and Miller, P.W. 200 Parents and children talk: the family dynamics of English language proficiency. London: UniversityCollege London, Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, Discussion Paper 3/4.

Chrobot-Mason, D. and Thomas, K.M. 200Minority employees in majority organizations: theintersection of individual and organizational racialidentity in the workplace. Human Resour Development Review 1, 32344.

Crouch, C., Finegold, D. and Sako, M. 1999: A skills the answer? The political economy of skill creationin advanced industrial countries. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Currah, A. and Wrigley, N. 2004: Networks of orga-nizational learning and adaptation in retail TNCs.Global Networks 4, 123.

Czarniawska, B. 2001: Anthropology and organiza-tional learning. In Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J.and Nonaka, I., editors, Handbook of organizationalearning and knowledge , Oxford: Oxford UniversityP 118 35


19/21


rationality in organization elds. In Powell, W.W. andDiMaggio, P.J., editors, The new institutionalism in organizational analysis , Chicago: Chicago University Press,6382.

Drucker, P.F. 1993: Post-socialist society. London:

Butterworth-Heinemann.Duvander, A.-Z.E. 2001: Do country-specic skills leadto improved labor market positions? An analysis of unemployment and labor market returns to educationamong immigrants in Sweden. Work and Occupations28, 21033.

Earl, P. 1990: Economics and psychology: a survey. The Economic Journal 100, no. 402, 71855.

Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. , editors 2003:The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell.

Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolini, D.2000: Organizational learning: debates past, presentand future. Journal of Management Studies 37, 78396.

Eby, L.T. 2001: The boundaryless career experiences of mobile spouses in dual-earner marriages. Group andOrganization Management 26, 34368.

Elkjaer, B. 2003: Social learning theory: learning as par-ticipation in social processes. In Easterby-Smith, M.and Lyles, M.A., editors, The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge , Oxford:Blackwell, 3853.

Empson, L. 2001: Fear of exploitation and fear of con-tamination: impediments to knowledge transfer inmergers between professional service rms. Human Relations 54, 83962.

Eraut, M. 2000: Non-formal learning, implicit learningand tacit knowledge in professional work. In Cofeld,F., editor, The necessity of informal learning , Bristol:Polity Press, 1231.

Ettlinger, N. 2003: Cultural economic geographyand a relational and microspace approach to trusts,rationalities, networks, and change in collaborativeworkplaces. Journal of Economic Geography 3,14571.

2004: Towards a critical theory of untidy geographies:the spatialities of emotion in consumption and pro-duction. Feminist Economics 10, 2154.

Evans, K. and Rainbird, H. 2002: The signicance of workplace learning for a learning society. In Evans,K., Hodkinson, P. and Unwin, L., editors, Working tolearn: transforming learning in the workplace , London:Kogan Page, 728.

Findlay, A. Li, F. Jowett, A. and Skeldon, R. 1996:Skilled international migration and the global city: astudy of expatriates in Hong Kong. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 21, 4961.

Fl id R 2002 Th i g g h f t l t

Folbre, N. 2001: The invisible heart: economics and family values. New York: New Press.

Fukuyama, F. 1995: Trust: the social virtues and the source of prosperity. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Gertler, M.S. 2001: Best practice: geography, learning

and in the institutional limits to strong convergence. Journal of Economic Geography 1, 526.Goleman, D. 1998: Working with emotional intelligence

London: Bloomsbury.Hannerz, U. 1996: Transnational connections: culture,

people, places. London: Routledge.Hardill, I. and MacDonald, S. 2000: Skilled interna-

tional migration: the experience of nurses in the UK. Regional Studies 34, 68192.

Henry, N. and Pinch, S. 2000: Spatializing knowledge:placing the knowledge community of Motor SportValley. Geoforum 31, 191208.

Hodkinson, P., Hodkinson, H., Evans, K., Kersh,N., Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. 2004: The signicance of individual biography in workplace learning.Studies in the Education of Adults 36, 624.

Howells, J. 2000: Knowledge, innovation and location.In Henry, N., Bryson, J., Daniels, P. and Pollard, J.,editors, Knowledge, space, economy , London and NewYork: Routledge.

Hudson, R. 2004: Conceptualizing economies and theirgeographies: spaces, ows and circuits. Progress Human Geography 28, 44771.

Jacobs, J. 1961: The death and life of great Americancities. New York: Random House.

Jenkins, R. 2004: Social Identity (second edition)London: Routledge.

Kanter, R.M. 1995: Nice work if you can get it: thesoftware industry as a model for tomorrows jobs.The American Prospect 23, 5265.

King, R. 2002: Towards a new map of European migra-tion. International Journal of Population Geography89106.

Kofman, E. and Raghuram, P. 2005: Gender andskilled migrants: into and beyond the work place.Geoforum 36, 14954.

Lee, S.L., Florida, R. and Acs, Z.J. 2004: Creativityand entrepreneurship: a regional analysis of new rmformation. Regional Studies 38, 87992.

Maskell, P. and Malmberg, A. 1999: Localized learningand industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal o Economics 23, 16785.

McCall, M. 1997: High iers. Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Meng, X. and Gregory, R.G. 2005: Intermarriage andthe economic assimilation of immigrants. Journal Labor Economics 23, 13575.

M J 2005 I bilit f t h i l l


20/21


Nagel, C. 2005: Skilled migration in global cities fromOther perspectives: British Arabs, identity politics,and local embeddedness. Geoforum 36, 197210.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 1995: The knowledgecreating company: how the Japanese companies create

the dynamics of innovation. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Byosire, P. 2001: A the-

ory of organizational knowledge creation: understand-ing the dynamic process of creating knowledge. InDierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J. and Nonaka, I.,editors, Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 491-517.

Oinas, P. 2000: Distance and learning: does proximitymatter? In Boekma, F., Bakkers, S. and Rutten, R.,editors, Knowledge, innovation and economic growth:the theory and practice of learning regions.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 5769.

Ong, A. 1999: Flexible citizenship: the cultural logics of transnationality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Opengart, R. and Short D.C. 2002: Free agent learn-ers: the new career model and its impact on humanresource development. International Journal of Lifelong Education 21, 22033.

ORiain, S. 2004: Net-working for a living: Irish soft-ware developers in the global workplac. In Amin, A.and Thrift, N., editors, The Blackwell cultural economy reader , Oxford: Blackwell, 1539.

Payne, J. 2000: The unbearable lightness of skill: thechanging meaning of skill in UK policy discourses andsome implications for education and training. Journal of Education Policy 15, 35369.

Polanyi, M. 1958: Personal knowledge. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

1966: The tacit dimension . London: Routledge andKegan Paul.

Randel, A.E. 2003: The salience of culture in multina-tional teams and its relation to team citizenshipbehavior. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 3, 2744.

Robinson, V. and Carey, M. 2000: Peopling skilledinternational migration: Indian doctors in the UK. International Migration 38, 89108.

Salt, J. 1988: Highly skilled international migrants:careers and internal labour markets. Geoforum 19,38799.

1992: Migration processes among the highly skilled inEurope. International Migration Review 26, 484505.

Sassen, S. 2000; Cities in a world economy (secondedition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Saxenian, A. 1999: Silicon Valleys new immigrant entrepreneurs. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of C lif i

Schoenberger, E. 1997: The cultural crisis of the rmOxford: Blackwell.

Sennett, R. 2000: The corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new capitalismLondon: WW Norton and Company.

Sjastaad, L.A. 1962: The costs and returns of humanmigration. Journal of Political Economy 70S, 8093.Taylor, S. and Osland, J.S. 2003: The impact of inter-

cultural communication on global learning. InEasterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A., editors, T Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge , Oxford: Blackwell, 21232.

Tomlinson, F. and Egan, S. 2002: From marginalizationto (dis)empowerment: organizing training andemployment services for refugees. Human Relation55, 101943.

Tushman, M. and Scanlan, T. 1981: Boundary spanning individuals: their role in information transfer andtheir antecedents. Academy of Management Journal24, 289305.

Uriely, N. 2001: Travelling workers and workingtourists: variations across the interaction betweenwork and tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 3, 18.

van der Heijden, B.I.M. 2002: Individual career initia-tives and their inuence upon professional expertisedevelopment throughout the career. Internation Journal of Training and Development 6, 5479.

Voydanoff, P. 2001: Incorporating community into workand family research: a review of basic relationships. Human Relations 54, 160937.

Wenger, E. 1998: Communities of practice: learning meaning, and identity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

2000: Communities of practice and social learningsystems. Organizations 7, 22546.

Williams, A.M. and Balaz, V. 2004: From private topublic sphere, the commodication of the au pairexperience? Returned migrants from Slovakia to theUK. Environment and Planning A 36, 181333.

2005: What human capital, which migrants?Returned skilled migration to Slovakia from the UK. International Migration Review 39, 43968.

Williams, A.M., Balaz, V. and Wallace, C. 200International labour mobility and uneven regionaldevelopment in Europe: human capital, knowledgeand entrepreneurship. European Urban and RegionaStudies 11, 2746.

Yang, B. 2003: Toward a holistic theory of knowledgeand adult learning. Human Resource Developmen Review 2, 10629.

Zhou, Y. and Tseng, Y.-F. 2002: Regrouping the g d d i l li ti th g g hi l


21/21

international migration learning and knowledge

Documents