Multiplicities and fluidity in the networked relationships of migrant academics in Britain

Increasing internationalization and marketization of higher education, global research collaboration, and staff mobility place academics' networking practices at the centre of higher education systems. Migrant academics are conceptualized with different network types including personal, local and transnational family and friendship networks. However, this research aims to understand the boundaries between different types of participants' networked relationships. The data of this paper comes from a larger research project on transnational family relationships of migrant academics conducted between 2018 and 2022. Life story interviews with 45 migrant academics from 27 different national backgrounds working at British universities were conducted. Additionally, sociogram maps are used as embedded in qualitative interviews. Migration background (as European or non‐European countries); gender; age; the length of the stay in the UK; academic position/contract type; annual income level and marital/relationship status were considered while forming the sample. The findings reveal that network forms and structures do not determine the resources and benefits of relationships; rather, individuals' actions over a time period and the meanings they attribute shape the positions of an alter (other actors that the focal person have connection with) within the personal network structure. As such, actions and meanings regarding those actions can bring one forward or backward in the personal network hierarchy. The boundaries regarding the content of these networks are usually blurred in relation to time, relationality and human agency attributing specific sets of meanings to certain relationships. The findings of this research translate into specific contributions to the discussions in migration and social network research. That is, research findings emphasized that different types of networks shaping participants' lives and migratory experiences are far from being stable and fixed, rather, they are characterized by being transmissive and dynamic. It is revealed that none of the network categories are homogenous, stable and fixed in terms of the content of the relationships. This adds to Emirbayer and Goodwin's (1994) discussions around the ‘form’ and the ‘content’ of networks. This paper underscores the significance of the historical settings, dynamism and the content of each relationship in understanding individual networks.