Kaye Thorn: Sums for the return home

COMMENT

It is no surprise that 725 New Zealand scientists have presented the Science Minister, Pete Hodgson, with an open letter warning that short-term science funding was driving New Zealanders overseas.

As the scientists said, the change in the early 1990s from the old Department of Scientific and Industrial Research model, in which science provided secure long-term careers, to the new crown research institute model, in which scientists have security for only as long as the end of their next contract, has been highly disruptive to their careers.

Careers are repositories of knowledge, and any calculation which fails to weigh the long-term value of a person's accumulated wisdom against the short-term exigencies of immediate need is flawed. The minister should take the scientists' concerns seriously.

At the same time, the issue of local talent, fragmented careers and the "brain drain" is not unique to scientists. Downsizing, outsourcing and casualisation have interrupted and restructured many careers.

One thing missing from this debate is hard information. Seven hundred and twenty-five scientists signed the letter, and plenty of scientists have left our shores forever. But how many actually leave, and why do they leave? Is it only the insecure nature of their contracts that concerns them, or lower salaries, less interesting scientific problems, lack of laboratory resources, or simply the desire to expand their horizons by living and working abroad?

In a workshop in Australia this year, scientists complained about exactly the same problems in their setting as the New Zealanders experience.

How many of those who leave return, and when they return, how much knowledge have they added to their repository because of their overseas experience? And what about the inflow of scientists, from countries whose salaries, working conditions and security are poorer than here?

It is a good thing for New Zealand that talented New Zealanders go overseas - provided they eventually return. Overseas experience is likely to provide them with a new level of independence and self-confidence, increased interpersonal and cross-cultural skills, and often considerable acquisition of important expertise.

It is when they find being overseas so much more attractive, or set down family roots there and decide not to return, that New Zealand loses. Undoubtedly, the career insecurity highlighted by New Zealand scientists is a key factor for them, but the overall picture is much more complex.

Last year we conducted an e-survey of New Zealanders living abroad. By distributing our survey by means of professional associations we focused on highly skilled people. A total of 2201 people returned our questionnaire, including about 1300 business professionals and more than 100 scientists, engineers and technologists.

The focus in the questionnaire was on intentions to return (or not) to New Zealand, the reasons for that decision, and the motivation and values of the various groups of expatriates.

Among the key points to emerge were:

* Most expatriates continue to identify as New Zealanders, even after many years abroad. Nearly half of them said they intended or were likely to return to New Zealand, against less than a third who were likely to remain overseas. The remainder were undecided.

* The main reasons for wishing to remain overseas were salaries, business and career opportunities, and challenge. The main reasons for intending to return were family (both elderly parents and children), safety and security, lifestyle and sense of identity.

* The group most disposed to return was health professionals, predominantly nurses. The group least disposed was senior managers and entrepreneurs. Scientists, engineers and technologists were in the middle.

* Those expecting to return had lower achievement motivation, and higher orientations to family and lifestyle, than those planning to stay away.

This gives us mixed messages. The continuing identification of expatriates with New Zealand gives hope that their talents may eventually be available to this country in some form of global diaspora, even if they never return here.

The strong wish to return enables us to view the departure of New Zealanders not as a national loss but as a wonderful opportunity to capitalise on their experience.

The reasons for returning/not returning are complex but predictable. They remind us that career decisions, including migration, are never made because of a single factor, such as job security, but always on a range of career, economic, political, cultural and lifestyle factors.

They offer some support for the view that New Zealand, despite inferior salaries and conditions compared with richer countries, could become a haven for those seeking a less complicated and more secure way of life.

They draw attention to the fact that in considering emigrants and immigrants we need to think about what kinds of people they are - not just their particular occupation, their brand of science or business, and whether that assists national priorities.

Our findings on achievement versus social motivation are worrying. Repeated surveys have shown that New Zealanders value lifestyle and family above money and careers, and our results suggest this is reflected in the values of returning migrants. But quality of life includes such things as a social security safety net, a top-class education system and a good health service. These have to be paid for, and achievement, motivation and entrepreneurship - of which, if our results are correct, New Zealand may be an exporter - have been shown to be key drivers of economic growth.

The concerns of the 725 scientists must be dealt with by the Government. There is a need to examine funding decisions, so these scientists and other highly qualified New Zealanders can see a career pathway.

There must be strong incentives for people who choose to stay, and also to ease the transition back to New Zealand for those who choose to return.

It is imperative that we harness the skills and expertise of expatriates who remain overseas but wish to contribute to the future of the country.

As a nation, we must move past a short-term focus to plan for long-term success.

* Kaye Thorn teaches in the department of management and international business at Massey University, Albany.