immigration articles for research paper

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Immigration →

• 16 Aug 2024
• In Practice

Election 2024: What's at Stake for Business and the Workplace?

Immigration, climate change, health care, and personal freedoms are just a few of the issues that US presidential candidates—and voters—will spar over. Harvard Business School faculty members discuss the potential implications of these issues on businesses, and provide advice for maintaining civility at work.

• 06 Aug 2024

What the World Could Learn from America's Immigration Backlash—100 Years Ago

Immigration concerns are shaping elections around the world, but these fears have been around for centuries. Mining data from US history, Marco Tabellini explores how immigration has actually changed communities, and offers advice for policymakers trying to move forward.

• 06 Jun 2024
• Research & Ideas

How Younger Immigrants Gain an Edge in American Business

Immigrants often struggle to acquire both higher education and good jobs after migrating to a new country. A study by William Kerr finds that the age they arrive is key, with the teen years being ideal for achieving future success.

• 11 Apr 2024

Why Progress on Immigration Might Soften Labor Pains

Long-term labor shortages continue to stoke debates about immigration policy in the United States. We asked Harvard Business School faculty members to discuss what's at stake for companies facing talent needs, and the potential scenarios on the horizon.

• 08 May 2023

How Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Crushed Crowdfunding for Minority Entrepreneurs

When public anxiety about immigration surges, Black, Asian, and Hispanic inventors have a harder time raising funds for new ideas on Kickstarter, says research by William Kerr. What can platforms do to confront bias in entrepreneurial finance?

• 14 Feb 2023

Is Sweden Still 'Sweden'? A Liberal Utopia Grapples with an Identity Crisis

Changing political views and economic forces have threatened Sweden's image of liberal stability. Is it the end of the Scandinavian business-welfare model as we know it? In a case study, Debora Spar examines recent shifts in Sweden and what they mean for the country's future.

• 01 Nov 2022
• What Do You Think?

Why Aren’t Business Leaders More Vocal About Immigration Policy?

Immigration fuels the American economy, feeds the talent pool, and can directly affect company performance. And yet few executives and entrepreneurs have waded into the policy dialogue, says James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 30 Mar 2021
• Working Paper Summaries

Whose Job Is It Anyway? Co-Ethnic Hiring in New US Ventures

The impact of immigration has been particularly sharp in entrepreneurship, yet there is remarkably little evidence about how immigration in the workplace connects to the creation and scaling of new firms. The economic consequences of greater workplace and entrepreneurial diversity deserve closer attention.

• 11 Jan 2021

The Political Effects of Immigration: Culture or Economics?

This paper reviews and explains the growing literature focused on the political effects of immigration, and highlights fruitful avenues for future research. When compared to potential labor market competition and other economic forces, broadly defined cultural factors have a stronger political and social impact.

• 03 Nov 2020

An Executive Order Worth $100 Billion: The Impact of an Immigration Ban’s Announcement on Fortune 500 Firms’ Valuation

President Trump’s executive order restricting entry of temporary foreign workers to the United States negatively affected the valuation of 471 publicly traded Fortune 500 firms by an estimated $100 billion. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 15 Jun 2020

The Seeds of Ideology: Historical Immigration and Political Preferences in the United States

Researchers test the relationship between historical immigration to the United States and political ideology today.

• 11 May 2020

Immigration Policies Threaten American Competitiveness

At this time of crisis, America risks signaling to global innovators and entrepreneurs that they have no future here, says William R. Kerr. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 21 Apr 2020

Changing In-group Boundaries: The Role of New Immigrant Waves in the US

How do new immigrants affect natives’ views of other minority groups? This work studies the evolution of group boundaries in the United States and indicates that whites living in states receiving more Mexican immigrants recategorize blacks as in-group members, because of the inflow of a new, “affectively” more distant group.

• 06 Apr 2020

Where Do Workers Go When the Robots Arrive?

Marco Tabellini and colleagues investigate where workers go after losing their jobs to automation and Chinese imports. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 17 Feb 2020

The Impact of Technology and Trade on Migration: Evidence from the US

Labor mobility can re-equilibrate local labor markets after an economic shock. Both robot adoption and Chinese import competition between 1990 and 2015 caused large declines in manufacturing employment across US local labor markets (commuting zones, CZs). However, only robots were associated with a decline in CZ population, which resulted from reduced in-migration rather than by increased out-migration.

• 01 Jan 2020

Why Not Open America's Doors to All the World’s Talent?

SUMMING UP: The H-1B visa program is exploited by some employers to replace high-paid talent, but that doesn't mean foreign workers should be shut out of working in the United States, according to many of James Heskett's readers. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 19 Jun 2019

Migrant Inventors and the Technological Advantage of Nations

This study provides robust econometric evidence for how immigrant inventors shape the innovation dynamics of their receiving countries. Countries receiving inventors from other nations that specialize in patenting particular technologies are more likely to have a significant increase in patent applications of the same technology.

• 08 Jun 2019

The Gift of Global Talent: Innovation Policy and the Economy

High-skilled workers in today’s knowledge-based economy are arguably the most important resource to the success of businesses, regions, and industries. This chapter pulls from Kerr’s book The Gift of Global Talent to examine the migration dynamics of high-skilled individuals. He argues that improving our knowledge of high-skilled migration can lead to better policy decisions.

• 07 Feb 2019

Immigrant Networking and Collaboration: Survey Evidence from CIC

This study compares United States-born and immigrant entrepreneurs’ use of networking opportunities provided by CIC, the former Cambridge Innovation Center. Immigrants clearly take more advantage of networking opportunities at CIC, especially around the exchange of advice. It remains to be seen whether this generates long-term performance advantages for immigrants.

• 01 Nov 2018

Forecasting Airport Transfer Passenger Flow Using Real-Time Data and Machine Learning

Passengers arriving at international hubs often endure delays, especially at immigration and security. This study of London’s Heathrow Airport develops a system to provide real-time information about transfer passengers’ journeys through the airport to better serve passengers, airlines, and their employees. It shows how advanced machine learning could be accessible to managers.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Glob Health
• v.8(1); 2018 Jun

Immigration: analysis, trends and outlook on the global research activity

Matthias trost.

1 Goethe University Frankfurt, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

2 Goethe University Frankfurt, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Eileen M Wanke

Daniela ohlendorf, doris klingelhöfer, markus braun, david a groneberg, david quarcoo.

* Equal authors’ contribution

Dörthe Brüggmann

Immigration has a strong impact on the development of health systems, medicine and science worldwide. Therefore, this article provides a descriptive study on the overall research output.

Utilizing the scientific database Web of Science, data research was performed. The gathered bibliometric data was analyzed using the established platform NewQIS, a benchmarking system to visualize research quantity and quality indices.

Between 1900 and 2016 a total of 6763 articles on immigration were retrieved and analyzed. 86 different countries participated in the publications. Quantitatively the United States followed by Canada and Spain were prominent regarding the article numbers. On comparing by additionally taking the population size into account, Israel followed by Sweden and Norway showed the highest performance. The main releasing journals are the Public Health Reports, the Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health and Social Science & Medicine. Over the decades, an increasing number of Public, Environmental & Occupational Health articles can be recognized which finally forms the mainly used subject area.

Considerably increasing scientific work on immigration cannot only be explained by the general increase of scientific work but is also owed to the latest development with increased mobility, worldwide crises and the need of flight and migration. Especially countries with a good economic situation are highly affected by immigrants and prominent in their publication output on immigration, since the countries’ publication effort is connected with the appointed expenditures for research and development. Remarkable numbers of immigrants throughout Europe compel medical professionals to consider neglected diseases, requires the public health system to restructure itself and finally promotes science.

Immigration has become a vital topic throughout Europe and globally around the world. Effective modes of transportation make it easy to move people quickly around the globe to accept worldwide jobs and boost personal careers [ 1 ]. But also new media attracts with transnational information and creates fundamental networks [ 2 ]. Additionally conflicts, persecution, human rights violation, or inequality force people to leave their homes and families with the hope to improve their quality of life [ 1 ].

In 2015 the number of migrants grew up to 244 million persons worldwide. Mainly originating from middle-income countries nearly two thirds of all international migrants live in Europe and Asia followed by Northern America [ 1 ]. Likewise, the number of asylum-seekers was reaching an all-time high with around 2.0 million submitted applications in 2015. 54% of the worldwide refugee population are originating from three countries: the Syrian Arab Republic, Afghanistan and Somalia with the main destinations in Germany, the United States and Sweden [ 3 ].

The general health of immigrants and refugees is commonly described as equal to the health of the population in the host country. Even sometimes a ‘healthy-immigrant effect’ is noticed which constitutes that ie, chronic conditions are even fewer in the immigrant group [ 4 – 6 ]. But during the period of acculturation a limited access to local health care systems, including individual and public health services, has a severe impact on the health of immigrants and finally on the health of the nation [ 7 ].

As frequently, immigrants do not hold any health insurance coverage, health care services need to be accessible regardless of financial or physical factors. But against the presumption that immigrants use emergency departments more often for routine consultations, this group is actually counted with less emergency department or physician’s consultations [ 8 , 9 ]. Looking at the costs of medical care from a public health perspective, given by an overall good health, the younger age and a fewer utilization of the health care system the health care expenses of immigrants are inferior compared to the native-born population [ 10 ].

Even health care professionals experience difficulties in the context of providing health care and public health to immigrants [ 11 ]. Language barriers, a different understanding of illness and treatment as well as cultural differences with a lack of trust or an inconsistent medical history are part of those complications. Besides this, traumatic experiences leading to psychological issues need to be addressed [ 11 ]. Health care professionals not only need to be aware of rare diseases but also need to address the different groups of immigrants to meet their specific health needs [ 12 ]. Immigrants or refugees are susceptible to communicable diseases and can be either the epidemiological originator or adversely affected by a public health emergency. Clear International Health Regulations (IHR) are necessary to provide a comprehensive coverage of infectious diseases [ 13 ].

Furthermore, neglected diseases like tuberculosis or parasitic infections may emerge, need to be taken into consideration and may form a major public health concern [ 14 ]. After previously declining numbers of tuberculosis during the past, as a result of the demographic development and elevated numbers of immigrants, a significant increase of tuberculosis cases was recognized in various immigration countries in 2015 [ 15 ]. The tuberculosis risk among immigrants is increased for several years after migrating to a low-prevalence country [ 16 , 17 ]. This implies a growing challenge for the global control of tuberculosis [ 18 ].

Despite numerous studies about several immigration areas can be found, there is no thorough scientometric analysis available. Scientometric studies are an integral part of research evaluation, deliver objective data for budget or funding decisions and provide a vital evidence for an impartial quality assessment [ 19 ]. This study maps an overview of the international research activity on immigration. It investigates variations and propensities of scientific development and it illustrates priorities, requirements and opportunities of research.

Although the current refugee movement in Europe requires particular attention, the study was not confined to the peculiar issue of refugees or asylum seekers but was planned to observe the spectrum of immigration as a whole over the last decades and centuries.

Immigration is increasingly important and as one of the most dynamic group immigrants can advance their host country by offering cultural diversity or by leading new pathways in science, medicine and technology [ 1 ]. The health of immigrants is a major part to well-being. It enables to work, helps building social networks and promotes integration, whereas on the other hand side integration ultimately leads to better health outcomes [ 20 ].

Specific benchmarking systems are being used to evaluate the increasing scientific publication output. Therefore, the New Quality and Quantity Indices in Science (NewQIS) platform provides tools for objective scientific evaluation and visualization [ 21 ]. Scientific output, semi-qualitative indices and quantities of research activity in particular areas of science can be evaluated and transparently compared considering specific scientometric parameters within a distinct time period.

Data source

The database Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) was used to capture the bibliometric information of the listed articles on immigration. As an international, multidisciplinary tool it offers access to literature of biomedicine and other disciplines [ 22 ].

Search and data processing

In the scientific world, the word ‘migration’ is being used with several meanings. To secure a clear differentiation conclusively the search term ‘immigra*’ was selected to perform a title search on biomedical categories of the WoS Core Collection without any chronological restriction. The data was captured in September 2016.

Evaluation criteria

The number of specific publications was analyzed including the publication year, the country of origin and national or international collaborations. Additionally, journals, articles and subject areas, the publication language as well as the authors and their particular institution were taken into account. Furthermore, the total number of citations, the citation rate [ 23 ], and the modified country- and issue-specific h-index [ 24 ] were evaluated to assess the awareness of the scientific community. To rectify a possible bias of the low publishing countries, only countries with a threshold of at least 30 articles were taken into consideration while assessing the citation rates.

On additionally considering socioeconomic factors ie, the size of the population and the GDP a further interpretation regarding a countries’ performance is possible. Equally to the citation rates, a minimum of at least 30 articles per country was determined to prevent a distortion of the outcomes.

The h-index is defined by the number n of published articles of an author that have been cited at least n-times each [ 24 ]. In this study, it has been applied in a modified way, meaning that it is adapted to countries and only includes the evaluated articles.

Visualization of findings

Utilizing the density equalizing mapping projection (DEMP) [ 25 ], a two-dimensional cartographic image with variable proportions can be designed. By scaling the country size adjusted to specific parameters, this technique facilitates a swift overview of the gathered results.

General parameters

The search delivered a total number of 6763 articles (n). The chronological distribution shows eminent article numbers (n ~ 100/y) in the first years of the 20th century. These articles mainly originate from Public Health Reports . The first case report was published in 1902. In 1999, the limit of 100 articles per year was approached. After multiplying the scientific output on immigration an all-time high with n = 461 and n = 460 publications per year was reached in 2012 and 2015 ( Figure 1 , panel A ).

A. Chronological development of the total number of publications on immigration, r 2  = coefficient of determination. B. Chronological development of the total number of received citations for articles on immigration, r 2  = coefficient of determination, dashed line = assumed beginning of the cited half-life effect.

In 1957, first more than a hundred articles on immigration were cited (c = 157) exceeding the limit of one thousand citations first in 1986 (c = 1020). After an excessive increase, the maximum of 5186 citations is seen in 2007. The linear regression of the number of articles over the years showed a coefficient of determination of r 2  = 0.3169 and respectively for the number of citations of r 2  = 0.4732 ( Figure 1 , panel B ).

Regarding the top 10 articles on immigration by the number of received citations seven articles are originating from the USA, two articles are from Canada and the most cited article on immigration is published from Japan. The publications were released between 1983 and 2008 and cover several immigration specific topics. A reasonable part of those papers is facing the acculturation and observed health changes after immigration. Apart from cancer, health behaviors and mortality comparisons furthermore obesity, mental disorders or infections are being discussed ( Table 1 ).

Top 10 articles on immigration by number of received citations

Country specific analysis

The identified publications originate from 86 different countries. With a total of n = 2629 articles (38%) the USA reflect around quadruple of the number of articles published in Canada (n = 664, 10%) followed by Spain (n = 454, 7%), Sweden (n = 350, 5%) and Israel (n = 344, 5%) ( Figure 2 ).

Publishing countries on immigration. DEMP illustrating the number of publications by country.

Setting these outcomes in relation to the size of the particular population of each country results in a different picture (i = publications/inhabitants in million). In this scenario, Israel (i = 42.7) plays the leading role followed by Sweden (i = 35.7), Norway (i = 24.8), Canada (i = 18.9) and Denmark (i = 17.6). The United States (i = 8.2) appear on position ten ( Figure 3 , panel A ).

A. Countries publishing on immigration by number of publications in relation to the population size in million, threshold: 30 articles per country. B. Most publishing countries on immigration by the ratio of publications/GDP in 1000 billion US$, threshold: 30 articles per country.

Reviewing the publication numbers in correlation to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in billion (g = publications/GDP in 1000 bn. USD) Israel (g = 1220.3) and Sweden (g = 739.3) are still prominent followed by Canada (g = 406.9), Denmark (g = 378.8) and Norway (g = 362.2). The United States (g = 146.5) appear on position 13 ( Figure 3 , panel B ).

Observing the modified h-index, the United States take the lead again (h = 76). Canada takes the second place (h = 42) and the United Kingdom is on position three (h = 41) followed by Sweden (h = 34) and the Netherlands (h = 33).

Regarding the received citations (c) by country, the order of the top countries is: USA (c = 37 742), Canada (c = 9029), United Kingdom (c = 5766), Sweden (c = 4738), Netherlands (c = 3942).

Analyzing the citation rate (cr), Japan (cr = 29.3) is taking the lead. The United Kingdom (cr = 20.0) and Finland (cr = 19.4) appear on position two and three followed by the Netherlands (cr = 18.6) and Australia (cr = 16.2). The United States (cr = 14.4) and Canada (cr = 13.6) flag up on positions six and seven directly followed by Sweden (cr = 13.5) ( Figure 4 ).

Citation rate for articles on immigration, threshold: 30 articles per country.

International collaborations

Observing the scientific partnerships, an interlinked, international network with multi-layered collaborations over national borders can be ascertained.

The highest numbers of direct collaborations between countries were found between the United States and Canada working together on n = 56 papers and the United States together with South Korea counting n = 54 joint publications. The United States and Sweden count n = 49 collaborative papers and Sweden counts in collaboration with Germany n = 33 joint articles. The United States together with Mexico count n = 31 collaborative publications ( Figure 5 ).

International collaborations. Numbers in brackets: (total number of articles/total number of articles in collaboration).

The United States publish 15% of articles in cooperation. Canada shows 19% of collaborative papers while Sweden represents 35% followed by Germany (39%), South Korea (54%) and Mexico (87%).

Journals and subject areas

The highest number of immigration papers was published by Public Health Reports (n = 638, c = 121). The Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health has issued n = 335 papers receiving c = 1671 citations. Social Science & Medicine published n = 143 articles and received the highest total amount of citations with c = 4078, whereas the American Journal of Public Health received c = 3016 citations with n = 85 articles and the Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences gains c = 1288 citations with n = 83 papers ( Table 2 ).

The 15 most cited journals publishing on immigration

The vast majority of research was found under the subject area Public, Environmental & Occupational Health (n = 2564). These articles additionally show the highest citation numbers (c = 23 906). Number two and three form Psychology (n = 1065, c = 11 425) and Psychiatry (n = 688, c = 12 059) followed by General & Internal Medicine (n = 579, c = 8638) and Nursing (n = 334, c = 2410) ( Figure 6 , panel A ).

A. Most assigned subject areas for papers on immigration by article number and by number of citations. B. Relative distribution of the most assigned subject areas by time interval for papers on immigration.

Over the last decades, a change of the applied subject areas can be observed with an increasing trend especially in the field of Public, Environmental & Occupational Health . Furthermore, Psychology continues to play a major role. Additionally, subject areas like Nursing and Health Care Sciences & Services gain more visibility ( Figure 6 , panel B ).

The objective of this study was to evaluate the published scientific output using scientometric methods. With the use of the NewQIS System [ 21 ] scientific work was assessed regarding quantitative and semi-qualitative parameters considering chronological and geographical factors and additional publication criteria.

This study does not intend an entire content-analysis of the scientific publications on immigration but it considers titles and subject areas. By additionally analyzing scientometric parameters it is possible to investigate characteristics of the worldwide research output as well as the impact on the scientific community [ 26 ].

The search term was selected in consensus between the authors. In the light of quality and after thoughtful consideration the expression ‘immigra*’ had to be chosen to acquire a representative data set. With this search we figured out to achieve the best thematic results for the project. The asterisk ‘*’ opens up the option to study ‘immigration’, ‘immigrant’ and other possible spelling variants, keeping in mind that single words like ‘migration’ or ‘emigration’ -if they occur alone- cannot be included in this analysis. But as these terms produced high numbers of artefacts for the purpose of the regarded meaning, it was necessary to exclude these words.

The utilized database was the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS). WoS offers search queries through a title or topic selection. The topic search includes the title, the abstract and the author keywords. As an inconsistency can be observed in the structure of keywords [ 27 ] and as an abstract search without scanning the keywords is not provided by WoS a title search was performed accepting the limitation to receive less but higher quality results.

The comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar , which are the only sources for citation analyses yet, results in the detection of different citation numbers for high-profile medical articles [ 28 ]. While Scopus covers a wider journal range it has a strong limitation by publishing only recent articles after 1995 [ 29 ]. Google Scholar lacks in less frequently updated citations [ 29 ], consequently WoS was the best, but certainly limited, choice.

As WoS originates from the United States a bias of the English language has to be taken into detailed consideration. English is used as the universal language of science [ 30 ]. This can correspondingly be demonstrated on the gathered results with a clear domination of the English language. As English-language articles reveal a higher impact factor [ 31 ] they subsequently receive even more citations.

All parameters based on the amount of citations are affected by incorrect citations or may be manipulated by self-citations [ 32 ]. Additionally, several characteristics of citation can be evaluated throughout the different academic disciplines [ 33 ].

While assessing the h-index of an author, the age of a scientist has not been taken into account whereas the total period of a scientists’ research activity might influence the results [ 34 ]. Furthermore, specific details of an authorship or the country of origin are disregarded.

The citation rate provides single measures but cannot evince the complete work of a researcher. By studying semi-qualitative indicators, the recognition of articles within the scientific community can be investigated. The synopsis of multiple parameters guides to a meaningful statement.

In the first years of the 20th century, remarkable numbers of articles on immigration can be found in Public Health Reports . The intention of these reports was to provide epidemiologic information [ 35 ]. The first published papers in the early 1900s covered several medical immigration topics. Not only trachoma or hookworms were discussed, noticeable are several articles about ‘insanity’ and ‘mentally defective’ immigrants. It shows that the ethical requirements and the moral attitude during this time were completely different from nowadays.

Looking at the number of articles per annum, increasing scientific work on immigration can be found at the end of the 20th-21st century. On one side, this can be explained by an overall increase of scientific work and publications [ 36 , 37 ]. On the other hand, immigration has become a frequently discussed topic in all areas of life. Not only triggered by worldwide crises and a generally increased mobility [ 1 ] immigration has certainly become one of the main topics of public interest in several countries.

The USA releases the vast majority of the total publications. Canada can also be identified as a frequent publishing country. Interestingly Spain, Sweden and Israel are on the next positions which demonstrates the significance of immigration for these countries.

Different countries are equipped with different proportional resources. Not only the national population size but also differing funds for research and development (R&D) need to be taken into consideration [ 38 ]. Ranking each countries’ articles in relation to the GDP clearly shows Israel on position one followed by Sweden, Canada and after several mainly European countries the United States on position 13. Comparing the worldwide gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) as a percentage of the GDP Israel and Sweden can correspondingly be found under the top five countries [ 39 ]. After adjusting the absolute numbers to the number of inhabitants of each country Israel, Sweden and Norway turn up to be on the first positions which shows their substantial work. These findings clearly validate the importance of immigration for the affected countries.

As scientists are interested in a high visibility and recognition of their work, the preference of collaboration partners within prestigious institutions can explain the collaboration share with the USA. In the scientific world international cooperation is important as it achieves a higher impact [ 40 ], it offers access to resources, encourages a spread of knowledge and finally receives more citations [ 41 ].

The most cited articles show the broad spectrum of health issues on immigration. Although several subject areas are being used and different authors and institutions are contributing the research, on evaluating the scientific work, a possible country bias needs to be acknowledged as on nine of the top 10 most cited articles the USA are mainly involved. While barely reaching the threshold (n = 30) by publishing 35 articles in total, Japan achieves the highest citation rate. In this context, the bias of one paper from 1991 in collaboration with the USA, on cancer among Japanese US-immigrants, is appreciable. With 532 citations, it is the most cited article in this study indicating the importance of cancer in conjunction with different home countries.

Concerning the subject areas, a difference can be recognized by comparing Italy and Spain with other countries. Relatively these two countries publish a high number of articles using the subject area Infectious Diseases with a noticeable focus on tuberculosis. Furthermore, ie, hepatitis, HIV or parasitic diseases are being discussed. This shows the impact of immigration on these countries and the specific health topics they are affected with.

With the general increase of publication numbers interestingly a shift between the topics can be documented over the last years. Although a consistent absolute amount of papers is still being published under the subject area General & Internal Medicine the article numbers in the category Public, Environmental & Occupational Health are remarkably increasing leading this group to the mainly used subject area. This demonstrates that immigration is not only relevant for individual medicine, but it is in fact an important aspect for public health and subsequently for a whole nation’s health system.

Immigration is a frequently discussed topic which can also be determined by an increase of scientific work about immigration especially during the recent times. During the next years and decades immigration will be in the focus and further scientific work on immigration will be seen. To satisfy this need of science, future international networks as well as interdisciplinary and international scientific cooperation are extremely important.

Acknowledgements

We thank G Volante for technical assistance and C Scutaru for his pioneering work during the establishment of the NewQIS platform.

Funding: None declared.

Authorship contributions: MT conceptualised the aim of the study, drafted and wrote the manuscript, analysed the data pool. EMW, DO, DK, MB, JB, DAG, DQ, DB contributed to conception, design and analyses and the interpretation of findings. The authors selected the search term and database, revised the article and participated in the final approval of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare no conflict of interest.

Immigration

The global movement of people from one country to another introduces complex questions for governments, citizens, and immigrants. Read the overview below to gain a balanced understanding of the issue and explore the previews of opinion articles that highlight many perspectives on immigration.

Access Through Your library >>  

Topic Home      |      Social Issues      |      Literature      |      Lifelong Learning & DIY      |      World History

Immigration topic overview.

"Immigration." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection , Gale, 2023.

Immigration is the act of moving from one's home country to another nation with the intention of settling there permanently. Immigrants may or may not become citizens of their new countries of residence. In the United States, immigrants may become naturalized citizens or obtain permission to remain as legal "permanent" or "conditional permanent" residents. People in the country without permission are considered unauthorized immigrants . Tourists, foreign students, and others who visit or reside in a country temporarily are not considered immigrants.

According to a 2020 Pew Research Center analysis, forty million immigrants reside in the United States, making up 13.7 percent of the population. An estimated one million new immigrants enter the United States annually. More than three-quarters of immigrants in the United States have authorization, with the remainder considered unauthorized immigrants. Compared to other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States accepts the largest numbers of immigrants, but the number of immigrants admitted each year make up a smaller percentage of the country's overall population than most other OECD countries.

American attitudes toward immigration shifted significantly in the first decades of the twenty-first century. Pew surveys revealed that 63 percent of US adults considered immigration an economic and social burden to the country in 1994. By 2019, however, 66 percent considered immigration a source of social and economic strength for the country. Despite the shift, the United States continues to experience deep political divides on attitudes toward immigration.

Advocates point out that immigrants often provide labor and services in important economic areas, helping to meet workforce demands and expanding the economy at the local, state, and national levels. Others assert humanitarian and human rights arguments, such as helping people fleeing poverty and violence and allowing those in search of economic opportunities to improve their quality of life. Critics view immigration primarily as a security concern and threat to the employment and wages of citizens. In the first decades of the twenty-first century, extreme political partisanship and rhetoric have inflamed anti-immigrant bias based on xenophobia, nativism, racism, and Islamophobia.

Congressional lawmakers have tried and failed for several decades to pass bipartisan deals on comprehensive immigration reform to fix what many Americans consider a broken and antiquated system. Meanwhile, presidential administrations have advanced differing priorities. Immigration policies during the presidency of Donald Trump sharply curtailed both authorized and unauthorized immigration. The succeeding Joe Biden administration released a blueprint for immigration policy reform in July 2021, stressing "a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system." Data from the US Census Bureau found that immigration declined sharply in fiscal year (FY) 2021, a decrease of nearly half compared to FY 2020, which experts largely attributed to travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. As emergency restrictions lifted, US enforcement agencies reported record highs in the number of unauthorized migrant encounters along the southern US border during FY 2022.

• Immigration is the act of moving to a foreign country with the intention of settling there permanently. Immigrants can be beneficial to their new local economies, yet political and cultural biases contribute to fears that immigrants will take jobs or commit crime.
• The United States had few immigration restrictions until the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned Chinese workers from immigrating, though who could become a citizen was limited to free white men and their children by the Naturalization Act of 1790 until 1868. Later laws used quotas that limited immigrants from primarily nonwhite countries. The quota system ended in 1965.
• Refugees are people who immigrate to escape natural disasters, war, or political persecution. Economic migrants are people who immigrate to find better jobs or improve their standards of living.
• Undocumented immigrants enter and stay in a country outside of official legal channels. This can include crossing a border outside of authorized points of entry or overstaying a legal temporary visa. Preventing illegal entry and enforcement of laws against undocumented immigrants is a highly charged political issue in the United States.
• The Trump administration strongly opposed both legal and illegal immigration and changed several enforcement processes and priorities in controversial ways. Since taking office, the Biden administration has sought to modify or reset many of these policies.

IMMIGRATION PROCESS AND MOTIVATIONS

US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) facilitates the official immigration process, which is often complex and varies by individual. Would-be immigrants residing outside of the United States must apply for a visa at a US consulate or embassy to obtain documentation for entry. The application process includes an interview, a criminal background check, a review of financial information, and a medical examination. Immigrants already residing in the United States with temporary status may apply to adjust their status, depending on their situation. Applicants for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status often require fiscal sponsorship from a US citizen or LPR, typically a relative or employer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported that 740,000 people became LPRs in FY 2021.

People may choose to emigrate , or leave their countries of origin to reside elsewhere, because they face untenable challenges in their home country. Some migrants come to the United States fleeing religious or political persecution, or escaping war or criminal violence. In such situations, prospective migrants may apply to enter the country with refugee status or apply for political asylum once they are in the United States or reach the international border. Obtaining authorization to immigrate as a refugee requires extensive vetting, and the process can take several years. The waiting period must be spent outside of the United States, with few exceptions. International and US law requires the United States to accept asylum seekers who meet the burden of proof that they would be endangered if repatriated to their home countries.

Decisions on granting refugee and asylum-seeking status are often based on the political relationship between the United States and the country of the immigrant's origin. The US admitted 11,445 refugees and evacuated some seventy-six thousand Afghan nationals to the country for resettlement during the 2021 calendar year. President Biden increased the FY 2022 refugee cap to 125,000 people, though analysts predicted this figure would be difficult to achieve. The number of individuals admitted as refugees dropped sharply from more than 20,000 in FY 2019 to less than 9,000 in FY 2021. Similarly, the number of individuals granted asylum dropped from more than 46,500 in 2019 to about 17,700 in 2021. Asylum seekers from Venezuela, Cuba, and several other Central American countries saw significant increases in asylum grant rates.

Many immigrants come to the United States for economic reasons. They may be attracted by the country's entrepreneurial culture or to pursue jobs or higher wages. Some employment-based immigration visas provide permanent residency for individuals and their immediate family in specialty professions, for those who possess exceptional and desired abilities, or skilled workers in high demand. Other types of immigrants work low-paying jobs in the hope that their children can access educational and career opportunities unavailable in their home countries. The economies of many origin countries often benefit from remittances , money sent by immigrants to their family members after securing employment in the destination country.

Immigrants also come to the United States to reunite with family members who immigrated previously, or as the spouse of a US citizen. Under family reunification rules, LPRs and US citizens can sponsor close relatives to immigrate and join their family members residing in the United States. For US citizens, eligible relatives are limited to the sponsor's spouse, children, parents, and siblings. For LPRs, eligible relatives are limited to the sponsor's spouse and unmarried children. DHS reported that 65 percent of new LPRs in 2021 were family-sponsored. Aspiring immigrants lacking employment or family connections may apply through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, which provides as many as fifty thousand visas each year through a lottery system to residents of countries with low rates of immigration to the United States.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is one of the key agencies charged with enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigrants who enter the country without satisfying established legal requirements, commit fraud during the immigration process, or overstay a legitimate visa are considered unauthorized immigrants. Some individuals come into the country by crossing US borders from Mexico or Canada without authorization. Others enter on a valid temporary visa and overstay the term limit. However, the number of individuals who overstay their temporary visas represents a very small minority of authorized entries. DHS calculated that people on temporary visas did not depart as required less than 1.5 percent of the time, or a total of almost 685,500 events out of more than 46 million admissions in FY 2021.

Each year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants take the oath to become US citizens. Among authorized immigrants in 2019, nearly 65 percent were naturalized citizens , foreign-born LPRs who completed the legal requirements outlined by Congress to obtain US citizenship. Pew estimated that the total number of naturalized citizens in the United States reached 22.1 million that year. According to USCIS, some 834,000 immigrants became naturalized US citizens in FY 2019. In FY 2020 the number of new naturalized citizens dropped to 625,400. Population experts cite the COVID-19 pandemic as a major contributing factor to the decline. USCIS reported that the number of naturalizations rebounded in FY 2022, reaching 967,400, the country's second highest annual recorded amount. USCIS cited significant progress in processing the backlog of applications as contributing to the historical number.

Applicants pay fees to adjust their immigration status and must meet other requirements. In 2022 the naturalization application cost $725 per person, including fees for biometric measurements. Applicants for naturalization must pass a test measuring a basic understanding of US history, government, and English language competency. USCIS reported a failure rate of only 3.9 percent of exam takers, including those that repeat the exam, from 2009 to 2021. The average period between obtaining LPR status and naturalized citizenship measured 7.3 years.

HISTORICAL IMMIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES

The territory that today makes up the United States was originally populated by Indigenous Peoples. White European settlers were the first immigrants, and they forcibly brought enslaved Africans to the country. As the nation evolved to include the descendants of all of these groups, migration to North America became central to its character. However, shortly after securing independence from Great Britain, the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, the country's first immigration law, which applied only to white people and required individuals to live in the country for two years before qualifying for naturalization. The residency requirement changed to longer periods through subsequent legislation.

The first significant change to US immigration law occurred in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment extended citizenship to anyone born in the United States, including those who were formerly enslaved. The Naturalization Act of 1870 extended naturalization rights to all white people and people of African descent. However, the act also had the effect of establishing legal justification to deny the option of citizenship to nonwhite immigrants who were not from Africa. In 1882 the federal government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned all Chinese workers from entering the United States until its repeal in 1943. This law was the first and only time the federal government effectively banned the population of an entire country from entry outside of wartime, until the Trump administration enacted travel bans on several Muslim-majority nations in 2017. During the late nineteenth century, Congress also passed legislation banning convicted criminals, sex workers, the mentally ill, and migrants deemed incapable of caring for themselves.

As immigrants arrived from an increasingly diverse set of origin countries, some Americans voiced their anxieties that the demographics of the country would change. These concerns led to further restrictions on immigration, including the imposition of literacy requirements through the Immigration Act of 1917 and the imposition of national quotas as part of the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924, commonly referred to as the Johnson-Reed Act. Together with the Great Depression (1929–1939) and the Second World War (1939–1945), these laws sharply limited immigration to the United States in the 1930s and early 1940s.

Reduced immigration contributed to labor shortages, particularly on farms in western states. A 1942 agreement between allied Mexico and the United States during World War II led to Congress creating the Bracero Program the following year. As part of the agreement, Mexican workers filled vacancies created when the US native-born labor force left to fight in the war. After the war, US president Harry Truman commissioned a report concluding that the Bracero Program hurt the hiring prospects and earning power of native-born workers. Truman's successor, Dwight Eisenhower, proposed sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants and launched an initiative to deport millions of Mexicans with the offensive yet official designation, Operation Wetback. Many of these deportees had originally legally entered the United States through the Bracero Program.

Following calls for reform to immigration law, the nationality quota system was abolished as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The law replaced the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which had upheld the quota system in place since the 1920s. The new act instituted a preference system that favored immigration by skilled workers and relatives of US citizens and resident aliens. Immigration from Asia, Africa, and Latin America increased in subsequent decades as a result.

As a result of the US withdrawal of armed forces in Vietnam in 1973, Congress amended existing immigration legislation with the Refugee Act of 1980, which revised the government's definition of a refugee to align with the United Nations' (UN) definition and enabled a larger number of refugees from Vietnam and other war-torn countries to resettle in the United States than had previously been allowed.

The presidential administration of Ronald Reagan addressed concerns about undocumented immigration through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which imposed penalties on employers who hired undocumented immigrants and created a path to amnesty for undocumented immigrants without criminal records who had entered the country before 1982. Comprehensive reforms passed during the 1990s expanded the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to allow more sanctioned immigration while also addressing concerns about undocumented immigration and criminal behavior among legal immigrants.

Several immigration laws were proposed and enacted in the early twenty-first century in response to security concerns following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and concerns about undocumented immigration. In 2002 the federal government approved state and local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts through 287(g) agreements, which were originally proposed as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Despite more welcoming attitudes toward immigration among the American public during the first decades of the twenty-first century, political polarization surrounding immigration became sharply divided. Under successive presidential administrations, Congress failed to pass major legislation on immigration. Instead, it acted on select bills on narrow issues such as specific immigration programs or border security measures. States passed laws that either expanded or restricted police cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Immigration continues to stir debate among those who feel that immigrants enhance the population and those who view immigration as having an overall negative effect on US society. A Pew analysis published in 2020 found that 88 percent of Democrats considered immigration a strength while 44 percent of Republicans considered immigration a burden. Democrats and Republicans also express wide ideological differences regarding federal immigration policy priorities.

Democrats generally consider immigration as a benefit, noting that most immigrants pay taxes, work jobs that native-born Americans are often unwilling to perform, and enrich their local communities. A 2022 Pew analysis found that the majority of Democrats felt that federal immigration policy should prioritize taking in refugees (85 percent), making family sponsorship easier (80 percent), allowing children brought to the US to remain (88 percent), and providing a pathway to amnesty (80 percent). Democrats often assert that US immigration laws are too restrictive.

Republicans typically express more opposition, believing that immigrants take jobs away from US citizens and depress wages, draw more benefit from tax dollars than they contribute, worsen social problems , and resist cultural assimilation into US society. The same 2022 Pew analysis found that most Republicans felt that federal immigration policy should prioritize deportations of unauthorized immigrants (79 percent) and enhanced border security (91 percent). Republicans often assert that US immigration laws are too permissive and lack sufficient enforcement.

Immigrants come to the United States from all over the globe, but trends change over time and are heavily influenced by geography as well as US immigration and foreign policies. USCIS reported that for FY 2021, Mexico continued to be the top country of birth for US naturalized citizens (13.9 percent), followed by India (7 percent), the Philippines (6 percent), and Cuba (5.9 percent). DHS reports that, collectively, Asian countries of birth made up the largest proportion at 36.3 percent, followed by North America (including Central America and the Caribbean) at 35.4 percent, European countries at 9.5 percent, African countries at 9.3 percent, and South American countries at 8.9 percent.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS

• Why you think the United States has often been characterized a "nation of immigrants"? Do you agree with this description? Why or why not?
• Do you believe that US immigration policy should treat potential immigrants from high-income Western countries differently from those from low-income countries? Explain your reasoning.
• In your opinion, should the federal government make it easier or more difficult for more immigrants to enter the country? Explain your answer.

IMMIGRATION POLICIES

Though the Trump administration placed its highest emphasis on preventing unauthorized immigration, official administration positions on sanctioned immigration departed sharply from norms encouraging immigration in place since the 1960s. Administration officials took steps to limit immigration, including drastically reducing the numbers of refugees and asylum recipients and cutting visa and permanent residency approvals. Legal immigration numbers declined by 49 percent during the Trump presidency.

Upon taking office in January 2021, President Joe Biden took several steps to expand legal immigration opportunities. He repealed several Trump administration executive orders, including restoring protected status for some temporary residents, increasing refugee and asylum openings, halting family detentions, and ending attempts at discriminatory bans on entry, such as the Trump administration's attempt to prevent all entry into the United States by citizens of some Muslim countries.

The Biden administration's July 2021 blueprint for immigration policy reform sought to address root causes that spur unauthorized immigration, including corruption, violence, security, and economic crises in Central American nations, in an effort to stem the flow of asylum seekers. The Biden administration prioritized deportations for unauthorized immigrants found guilty of violent crimes and targeted transnational criminal organizations. Though the Biden administration continued to conduct large-scale deportations, immigration arrests within the United States dropped from one hundred thousand in FY 2020 to seventy-four thousand in FY 2021.

The Biden administration continued public health measures implemented by his predecessor during the COVID-19 pandemic aimed at stemming the tide of unauthorized immigration and asylum seekers along the southern border. Restrictions on nonessential travel into the United States over the land borders with Canada and Mexico were lifted in October 2021. Court orders required the Biden administration to retain a Trump-era policy known as Title 42 , which allowed rapid expulsions of migrants who crossed the US border and required asylum seekers at the southern border to wait in Mexico for the duration of their proceedings. A November 2022 court order struck down Title 42 but placed a five-week hold on lifting the policy. In December 2022 the Supreme Court halted the lower court's ruling pending additional hearings in 2023.

Republican governors and state officials in border states engaged in political disputes targeting the immigration policies of the Biden administration. Texas governor Greg Abbott deployed the National Guard and state troopers to increase arrests along the border and pledged to use $4 billion in state funding on physical barriers and border security efforts. Florida governor Ron DeSantis advanced legislation granting select local police officers the authority to enforce immigration laws. Their supporters argue that these states are filling in a gap in security enforcement neglected by the federal government under the Biden administration. Organizations such as the Immigrant Legal Resource Center warned that such policies would increase racial profiling of Latinx population and violations of civil rights, and lead to isolation of immigrant communities.

Rights advocates also accused Abbott and DeSantis of using immigrants as political pawns and engaging in human trafficking in 2022. Both governors recruited migrants to fill buses and flights sent to northern states and Washington, DC. The buses and flights targeted political opponents and sanctuary cities where city officials were unprepared to receive them. Supporters argued these tactics were intended to pressure the Biden administration to relieve the heavy burden of unauthorized immigration on border states. The strategy resulted in legal scrutiny, including federal inquiries, a criminal investigation, and several lawsuits.

Immigrant rights advocates express concern about discrimination in the application of federal policy. They point to disparities in the treatment of unauthorized immigrants and asylum seekers from two conflict-torn countries: the poor and primarily Black Caribbean nation of Haiti and the high-income European nation of Ukraine. The Washington Office on Latin America reported in February 2022 that the Biden administration deported or expelled more twenty thousand Haitians back to a country racked by political instability, widespread gang violence, displacement, and an increasing humanitarian crisis. In contrast, the Migration Policy Institute reported that following the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration expanded Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to nearly sixty thousand eligible Ukrainians residing in the United States and permitted entry to about twenty thousand unauthorized Ukrainian immigrants at the US-Mexico border seeking asylum from February until late April 2022.

More Articles

Donald trump, the migrant caravan, and a manufactured crisis at the u.s. border.

"In effect, while the Administration claimed to only be targeting those who enter the U.S. illegally, it was, in multiple ways, trying to shut down the southern border for everyone."

Jonathan Blitzer is a staff writer at the New Yorker .

In the following viewpoint, Blitzer examines how the presidential administration of Donald Trump has responded to asylum seekers at the southern US border. The author contends that the administration's response violates international law and does little to discourage more migrants from attempting to enter the country. By enacting a policy that grants asylum hearings only to those who apply at designated ports of entry and delaying hearings for official asylum requests, the author maintains, the Trump administration has created further congestion along the border. Blitzer criticizes the administration for its repeated threats to withhold aid from impoverished countries, as a lack of economic opportunity has contributed to the conditions that spur migrants to leave their home countries.

President Trump's Wall of Compassion

"President Trump is not simply upholding basic US national security by protecting the southern border; he is showing great compassion to countless future migrants who may seek asylum in the US."

Rovvy Lepor is a contributor to the American Thinker .

In the following viewpoint, Lepor argues that President Donald Trump's policy of militarizing the US southern border will prevent people from entering the country illegally and deter those who might consider joining a migrant caravan, a term referring to a large group of Central and South American migrants that travels north to seek asylum in the United States, migrating together to facilitate safe travel. By deterring people from joining caravans, the author contends, the president's policy demonstrates his desire to prevent people from risking their lives by undertaking the perilous journey north. Stationing troops and building a physical barrier along the southern border, Lepor maintains, will encourage asylum seekers to pursue other methods of making their cases for legally immigrating to US authorities.

Family Separation and Detention Are Bad Immigration Practices

"The goal here is to keep the families together—but not by violating a rule that was designed to set rational and compassionate immigration detention standards for children."

The Times Editorial Board determines the perspectives and positions of the Los Angeles Times .

In the following viewpoint, the board praises President Donald Trump's decision to seek an end to the separation of immigrant children from their parents at the US-Mexico border but tempers that praise by noting that Trump's hand was effectively forced to end family separations by a large and vocal opposition. The practice of family separation, the authors maintain, results from the Department of Justice's ""zero tolerance"" immigration policy, which calls for the detention of anyone suspected of crossing the border illegally, and a 1997 law that forbids the detention of undocumented children for more than twenty days. Contending that Trump's decision will not provide a permanent solution, the authors stress that Congress has a responsibility to enact effective and comprehensive immigration reform.

Who's Responsible for Separating Alien Kids From Their Parents? Many People, but Not Trump

"Our justice system doesn't refuse to arrest, prosecute, and jail citizens when they break the law because they happen to have children."

Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

In the following viewpoint, Spakovsky argues that the mainstream news media has incorrectly blamed President Donald Trump for the hundreds of families separated by federal agencies at the US–Mexico border in 2018. Though systematized family separations did not begin until the Department of Justice announced its zero-tolerance policy in April 2018, Spakovsky assigns blame to the policies of previous presidential administrations for mandating that immigrant children not be detained for extended periods of time. The author also attributes some of the blame to the parents who brought their children to the United States without securing legal immigrant status. In separating children from their families, Spakovsky maintains, the Trump administration fulfilled its duty to enforce the country's law. The alternative, the author contends, creates an incentive for undocumented migrants to travel with their children.

Looking for information on other topics?

Access Through Your Library >>

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Issues
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish?
• About Migration Studies
• Editorial Board
• Call for Papers
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. studies of migration studies, 3. methodology, 4. metadata on migration studies, 5. topic clusters in migration studies, 6. trends in topic networks in migration studies, 7. conclusions, acknowledgements.

• < Previous

Mapping migration studies: An empirical analysis of the coming of age of a research field

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Asya Pisarevskaya, Nathan Levy, Peter Scholten, Joost Jansen, Mapping migration studies: An empirical analysis of the coming of age of a research field, Migration Studies , Volume 8, Issue 3, September 2020, Pages 455–481, https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnz031

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Migration studies have developed rapidly as a research field over the past decades. This article provides an empirical analysis not only on the development in volume and the internationalization of the field, but also on the development in terms of topical focus within migration studies over the past three decades. To capture volume, internationalisation, and topic focus, our analysis involves a computer-based topic modelling of the landscape of migration studies. Rather than a linear growth path towards an increasingly diversified and fragmented field, as suggested in the literature, this reveals a more complex path of coming of age of migration studies. Although there seems to be even an accelerated growth for migration studies in terms of volume, its internationalisation proceeds only slowly. Furthermore, our analysis shows that rather than a growth of diversification of topics within migration topic, we see a shift between various topics within the field. Finally, our study shows that there is no consistent trend to more fragmentation in the field; in contrast, it reveals a recent recovery of connectedness between the topics in the field, suggesting an institutionalisation or even theoretical and conceptual coming of age of migration studies.

Migration studies have developed rapidly as a research field in recent decades. It encompasses studies on all types of international and internal migration, migrants, and migration-related diversity ( King, 2002 ; Scholten, 2018 ). Many scholars have observed the increase in the volume of research on migration ( Massey et al., 1998 ; Bommes and Morawska, 2005 ; Scholten et al., 2015 ). Additionally, the field has become increasingly varied in terms of links to broader disciplines ( King, 2012 ; Brettell and Hollifield, 2014 ) and in terms of different methods used ( Vargas-Silva, 2012 ; Zapata-Barrero and Yalaz, 2018 ). It is now a field that has in many senses ‘come of age’: it has internationalised with scholars involved from many countries; it has institutionalised through a growing number of journals; an increasing number of institutes dedicated to migration studies; and more and more students are pursuing migration-related courses. These trends are also visible in the growing presence of international research networks in the field of migration.

Besides looking at the development of migration in studies in terms of size, interdisciplinarity, internationalisation, and institutionalisation, we focus in this article on the development in topical focus of migration studies. We address the question how has the field of migration studies developed in terms of its topical focuses? What topics have been discussed within migration studies? How has the topical composition of the field changed, both in terms of diversity (versus unity) and connectedness (versus fragmentation)? Here, the focus is not on influential publications, authors, or institutes, but rather on what topics scholars have written about in migration studies. The degree of diversity among and connectedness between these topics, especially in the context of quantitative growth, will provide an empirical indication of whether a ‘field’ of migration studies exists, or to what extent it is fragmented.

Consideration of the development of migration studies invokes several theoretical questions. Various scholars have argued that the growth of migration studies has kept pace not only with the growing prominence of migration itself but also with the growing attention of nation–states in particular towards controlling migration. The coproduction of knowledge between research and policy, some argue ( Scholten, 2011 ), has given migration research an inclination towards paradigmatic closure, especially around specific national perspectives on migration. Wimmer and Glick Schiller (2002 ) speak in this regard of ‘methodological nationalism’, and others refer to the prominence of national models that would be reproduced by scholars and policymakers ( Bommes and Morawska, 2005 ; Favell, 2003 ). More generally, this has led, some might argue, to an overconcentration of the field on a narrow number of topics, such as integration and migration control, and a consequent call to ‘de-migranticise’ migration research ( Dahinden, 2016 ; see also Schinkel, 2018 ).

However, recent studies suggest that the growth of migration studies involves a ‘coming of age’ in terms of growing diversity of research within the field. This diversification of migration studies has occurred along the lines of internationalisation ( Scholten et al., 2015 ), disciplinary variation ( Yans-McLaughlin, 1990 ; King, 2012 ; Brettell and Hollifield, 2014 ) and methodological variation ( Vargas-Silva, 2012 ; Zapata-Barrero and Yalaz, 2018 ). The International Organization for Migration ( IOM, 2017 : 95) even concludes that ‘the volume, diversity, and growth of both white and grey literature preclude a [manual] systematic review’ of migration research produced in 2015 and 2016 alone .

Nonetheless, in this article, we attempt to empirically trace the development of migration studies over the past three decades, and seek to find evidence for the claim that the ‘coming of age’ of migration studies indeed involves a broadening of the variety of topics within the field. We pursue an inductive approach to mapping the academic landscape of >30 years of migration studies. This includes a content analysis based on a topic modelling algorithm, applied to publications from migration journals and book series. We trace the changes over time of how the topics are distributed within the corpus and the extent to which they refer to one another. We conclude by giving a first interpretation of the patterns we found in the coming of age of migration studies, which is to set an agenda for further studies of and reflection on the development of this research field. While migration research is certainly not limited to journals and book series that focus specifically on migration, our methods enable us to gain a representative snapshot of what the field looks like, using content from sources that migration researchers regard as relevant.

Migration has always been studied from a variety of disciplines ( Cohen, 1996 ; Brettell and Hollifield, 2014 ), such as economics, sociology, history, and demography ( van Dalen, 2018 ), using a variety of methods ( Vargas-Silva, 2012 ; Zapata-Barrero and Yalaz, 2018 ), and in a number of countries ( Carling, 2015 ), though dominated by Northern Hemisphere scholarship (see, e.g. Piguet et al., 2018 ), especially from North America and Europe ( Bommes and Morawska, 2005 ). Taking stock of various studies on the development of migration studies, we can define several expectations that we will put to an empirical test.

Ravenstein’s (1885) 11 Laws of Migration is widely regarded as the beginning of scholarly thinking on this topic (see Zolberg, 1989 ; Greenwood and Hunt, 2003 ; Castles and Miller, 2014 ; Nestorowicz and Anacka, 2018 ). Thomas and Znaniecki’s (1918) five-volume study of Polish migrants in Europe and America laid is also noted as an early example of migration research. However, according to Greenwood and Hunt (2003 ), migration research ‘took off’ in the 1930s when Thomas (1938) indexed 191 studies of migration across the USA, UK, and Germany. Most ‘early’ migration research was quantitative (see, e.g. Thornthwaite, 1934 ; Thomas, 1938 ). In addition, from the beginning, migration research developed with two empirical traditions: research on internal migration and research on international migration ( King and Skeldon, 2010 ; Nestorowicz and Anacka, 2018 : 2).

In subsequent decades, studies of migration studies describe a burgeoning field. Pedraza-Bailey (1990) refers to a ‘veritable boom’ of knowledge production by the 1980s. A prominent part of these debates focussed around the concept of assimilation ( Gordon, 1964 ) in the 1950s and 1960s (see also Morawska, 1990 ). By the 1970s, in light of the civil rights movements, researchers were increasingly focussed on race and ethnic relations. However, migration research in this period lacked an interdisciplinary ‘synthesis’ and was likely not well-connected ( Kritz et al., 1981 : 10; Pryor, 1981 ; King, 2012 : 9–11). Through the 1980s, European migration scholarship was ‘catching up’ ( Bommes and Morawska, 2005 : 14) with the larger field across the Atlantic. Substantively, research became increasingly mindful of migrant experiences and critical of (national) borders and policies ( Pedraza-Bailey, 1990 : 49). King (2012) also observes this ‘cultural turn’ towards more qualitative anthropological migration research by the beginning of the 1990s, reflective of trends in social sciences more widely ( King, 2012 : 24). In the 1990s, Massey et al. (1993, 1998 ) and Massey (1994) reflected on the state of the academic landscape. Their literature review (1998) notes over 300 articles on immigration in the USA, and over 150 European publications. Despite growth, they note that the field did not develop as coherently in Europe at it had done in North America (1998: 122).

We therefore expect to see a significant growth of the field during the 1980s and 1990s, and more fragmentation, with a prominence of topics related to culture and borders.

At the turn of the millennium, Portes (1997) lists what were, in his view, the five key themes in (international) migration research: 1 transnational communities; 2 the new second generation; 3 households and gender; 4 states and state systems; and 5 cross-national comparisons. This came a year after Cohen’s review of Theories of Migration (1996), which classifies nine key thematic ‘dyads’ in migration studies, such as internal versus international migration; individual versus contextual reasons to migrate; temporary versus permanent migration; and push versus pull factors (see full list in Cohen, 1996 : 12–15). However, despite increasing knowledge production, Portes argues that the problem in these years was the opposite of what Kritz et al. (1981) observe above; scholars had access to and generated increasing amounts of data, but failed to achieve ‘conceptual breakthrough’ ( Portes, 1997 : 801), again suggesting fragmentation in the field.

Thus, in late 1990s and early 2000s scholarship we expect to find a prominence of topics related to these five themes, and a limited number of “new” topics.

In the 21st century, studies of migration studies indicate that there has been a re-orientation away from ‘states and state systems’. This is exemplified by Wimmer and Glick Schiller’s (2002) widely cited commentary on ‘methodological nationalism’, and the alleged naturalisation of nation-state societies in migration research (see Thranhardt and Bommes, 2010 ), leading to an apparent pre-occupation with the integration paradigm since the 1980s according to Favell (2003) and others ( Dahinden, 2016 ; Schinkel, 2018 ). This debate is picked up in Bommes and Morawska’s (2005) edited volume, and Lavenex (2005) . Describing this shift, Geddes (2005) , in the same volume, observes a trend of ‘Europeanised’ knowledge production, stimulated by the research framework programmes of the EU. Meanwhile, on this topic, others highlight a ‘local turn’ in migration and diversity research ( Caponio and Borkert, 2010 ; Zapata-Barrero et al., 2017) .

In this light, we expect to observe a growth in references to European (and other supra-national) level and local-level topics in the 21t century compared to before 2000.

As well as the ‘cultural turn’ mentioned above, King (2012 : 24–25) observes a re-inscription of migration within wider social phenomena—in terms of changes to the constitutive elements of host (and sending) societies—as a key development in recent migration scholarship. Furthermore, transnationalism, in his view, continues to dominate scholarship, though this dominance is disproportionate, he argues, to empirical reality. According to Scholten (2018) , migration research has indeed become more complex as the century has progressed. While the field has continued to grow and institutionalise thanks to networks like International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion in Europe (IMISCOE) and Network of Migration Research on Africa (NOMRA), this has been in a context of apparently increasing ‘fragmentation’ observed by several scholars for many years (see Massey et al., 1998 : 17; Penninx et al., 2008 : 8; Martiniello, 2013 ; Scholten et al., 2015 : 331–335).

On this basis, we expect a complex picture to emerge for recent scholarship, with thematic references to multiple social phenomena, and a high level of diversity within the topic composition of the field. We furthermore expect increased fragmentation within migration studies in recent years.

The key expectation of this article is, therefore, that the recent topical composition of migration studies displays greater diversity than in previous decades as the field has grown. Following that logic, we hypothesise that with diversification (increasingly varied topical focuses), fragmentation (decreasing connections between topics) has also occurred.

The empirical analysis of the development in volume and topic composition of migration studies is based on the quantitative methods of bibliometrics and topic modelling. Although bibliometric analysis has not been widely used in the field of migration (for some exceptions, see Carling, 2015 ; Nestorowicz and Anacka, 2018 ; Piguet et al., 2018 ; Sweileh et al., 2018 ; van Dalen, 2018 ), this type of research is increasingly popular ( Fortunato et al., 2018 ). A bibliometric analysis can help map what Kajikawa et al. (2007) call an ‘academic landscape’. Our analysis pursues a similar objective for the field of migration studies. However, rather than using citations and authors to guide our analysis, we extract a model of latent topics from the contents of abstracts . In other words, we are focussed on the landscape of content rather than influence.

3.1 Topic modelling

Topic modelling involves a computer-based strategy for identifying topics or topic clusters that figure centrally in a specific textual landscape (e.g. Jiang et al., 2016 ). This is a class of unsupervised machine learning techniques ( Evans and Aceves, 2016 : 22), which are used to inductively explore and discover patterns and regularities within a corpus of texts. Among the most widely used topic models is Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). LDA is a type of Bayesian probabilistic model that builds on the assumption that each document in a corpus discusses multiple topics in differing proportions. Therefore, Document A might primarily be about Topic 1 (60 per cent), but it also refers to terms associated with Topic 2 (30 per cent), and, to a lesser extent, Topic 3 (10 per cent). A topic, then, is defined as a probability distribution over a fixed vocabulary, that is, the totality of words present in the corpus. The advantage of the unsupervised LDA approach that we take is that it does not limit the topic model to our preconceptions of which topics are studied by migration researchers and therefore should be found in the literature. Instead, it allows for an inductive sketching of the field, and consequently an element of surprise ( Halford and Savage, 2017 : 1141–1142). To determine the optimal number of topics, we used the package ldatuning to calculate the statistically optimal number of topics, a number which we then qualitatively validated.

The chosen LDA model produced two main outcomes. First, it yielded a matrix with per-document topic proportions, which allow us to generate an idea of the topics discussed in the abstracts. Secondly, the model returned a matrix with per-topic word probabilities. Essentially, the topics are a collection of words ordered by their probability of (co-)occurrence. Each topic contains all the words from all the abstracts, but some words have a much higher likelihood to belong to the identified topic. The 20–30 most probable words for each topic can be helpful in understanding the content of the topic. The third step we undertook was to look at those most probable words by a group of experts familiar with the field and label them. We did this systematically and individually by first looking at the top 5 words, then the top 30, trying to find an umbrella label that would summarize the topic. The initial labels suggested by each of us were then compared and negotiated in a group discussion. To verify the labels even more, in case of a doubt, we read several selected abstracts marked by the algorithm as exhibiting a topic, and through this were able to further refine the names of the topics.

It is important to remember that this list of topics should not be considered a theoretically driven attempt to categorize the field. It is purely inductive because the algorithm is unable to understand theories, conceptual frames, and approaches; it makes a judgement only on the basis of words. So if words are often mentioned together, the computer regards their probability of belonging to one topic as high.

3.2 Dataset of publications

For the topic modelling, we created a dataset that is representative of publications relevant to migration studies. First, we identified the most relevant sources of literature. Here we chose not only to follow rankings in citation indices, but also to ask migration scholars, in an expert survey, to identify what they considered to be relevant sources. This survey was distributed among a group of senior scholars associated with the IMISCOE Network; 25 scholars anonymously completed the survey. A set of journals and book series was identified from existing indices (such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus) which were then validated and added to by respondents. Included in our eventual dataset were all journals and book series that were mentioned at least by two experts in the survey. The dataset includes 40 journals and 4 book series (see Supplementary Data A). Non-English journals were omitted from data collection because the algorithm can only analyse one language. Despite their influence on the field, we also did not consider broader disciplinary journals (for instance, sociological journals or economic journals) for the dataset. Such journals, we acknowledge, have published some of the most important research in the history of migration studies, but even with their omission, it is still possible to achieve our goal of obtaining a representative snapshot of what migration researchers have studied, rather than who or which papers have been most influential. In addition, both because of the language restriction of the algorithm and because of the Global North’s dominance in the field that is mentioned above ( Bommes and Morawska, 2005 ; Piguet et al., 2018 ), there is likely to be an under-representation of scholarship from the Global South in our dataset.

Secondly, we gathered metadata on publications from the selected journals and book series using the Scopus and Web of Science electronic catalogues, and manually collecting from those sources available on neither Scopus nor Web of Science. The metadata included authors, years, titles, and abstracts. We collected all available data up to the end of 2017. In total, 94 per cent of our metadata originated from Scopus, ∼1 per cent from Web of Science, and 5 per cent was gathered manually. One limitation of our dataset lies in the fact that the electronic catalogue of Scopus, unfortunately, does not list all articles and abstracts ever published by all the journals (their policy is to collect articles and abstracts ‘where available’ ( Elsevier, 2017 )). There was no technical possibility of assessing Scopus or WoS’ proportional coverage of all articles actually published. The only way to improve the dataset in this regard would be to manually collect and count abstracts from journal websites. This is also why many relevant books were not included in our dataset; they are not indexed in such repositories.

In the earliest years of available data, only a few journals were publishing (with limited coverage of this on Scopus) specifically on migration. However, Fig. 1 below demonstrates that the numbers constantly grew between 1959 and 2018. As Fig. 1 shows, in the first 30 years (1959–88), the number of migration journals increased by 15, while in the following three decades (1989–2018), this growth intensified as the number of journals tripled to 45 in the survey (see Supplementary Data A for abbreviations).

Number of journals focussed on migration and migration-related diversity (1959–2018) Source: Own calculations.

Within all 40 journals in the dataset, we were able to access and extract for our analysis 29,844 articles, of which 22,140 contained abstracts. Furthermore, we collected 901 available abstracts of chapters in the 4 book series: 2 series were downloaded from the Scopus index (Immigration and Asylum Law in Europe; Handbook of the Economics of International Migration), and the abstracts of the other 2 series, selected from our expert survey (the IMISCOE Research Series Migration Diasporas and Citizenship), were collected manually. Given the necessity of manually collecting the metadata for 896 abstracts of the chapters in these series, it was both practical and logical to set these two series as the cut-off point. Ultimately, we get a better picture of the academic landscape as a whole with some expert-approved book series than with none .

Despite the limitations of access, we can still have an approximate idea on how the volume of publications changed overtime. The chart ( Fig. 2 ) below shows that both the number of published articles and the number of abstracts of these articles follow the same trend—a rapid growth after the turn of the century. In 2017, there were three times more articles published per year than in 2000.

Publications and abstracts in the dataset (1959–2018).

The cumulative graph ( Fig. 3 ) below shows the total numbers of publications and the available abstracts. For the creation of our inductively driven topic model, we used all available abstracts in the entire timeframe. However, to evaluate the dynamics of topics over time, we decided to limit the timeframe of our chronological analyses to 1986–2017, because as of 1986, there were more than 10 active journals and more articles had abstracts. This analysis therefore covers the topical evolution of migration studies in the past three decades.

Cumulative total of publications and abstracts (1959–2017).

Migration studies has only internationalised very slowly in support of what others have previously argued ( Bommes and Morawska, 2005 ; Piguet et al., 2018 ). Figure 4 gives a snapshot of the geographic dispersion of the articles (including those without abstracts) that we collected from Scopus. Where available, we extracted the country of authors’ university affiliations. The colour shades represent the per capita publication volume. English-language migration scholarship has been dominated by researchers based, unsurprisingly, in Anglophone and Northern European countries.

Migration research output per capita (based on available affiliation data within dataset).

The topic modelling (following the LDA model) led us, as discussed in methods, to the definition of 60 as the optimal number of topics for mapping migration studies. Each topic is a string of words that, according to the LDA algorithm, belong together. We reviewed the top 30 words for each word string and assigned labels that encapsulated their meaning. Two of the 60 word strings were too generic and did not describe anything related to migration studies; therefore, we excluded them. Subsequently, the remaining 58 topics were organised into a number of clusters. In the Table 1 below, you can see all the topic labels, the topic clusters they are grouped into and the first 5 (out of 30) most probable words defining those topics.

Topics in migration studies

After presenting all the observed topics in the corpus of our publication data, we examined which topics and topic clusters are most frequent in general (between 1964 and 2017), and how their prominence has been changing over the years. On the basis of the matrix of per-item topic proportions generated by LDA analysis, we calculated the shares of each topic in the whole corpus. On the level of individual topics, around 25 per cent of all abstract texts is about the top 10 most prominent topics, which you can see in Fig. 5 below. Among those, #56 identity narratives (migration-related diversity), #39 migration theory, and #29 migration flows are the three most frequently detected topics.

Top 10 topics in the whole corpus of abstracts.

On the level of topic clusters, Fig. 6 (left) shows that migration-related diversity (26 per cent) and migration processes (19 per cent) clearly comprise the two largest clusters in terms of volume, also because they have the largest number topics belonging to them. However, due to our methodology of labelling these topics and grouping them into clusters, it is complicated to make comparisons between topic clusters in terms of relative size, because some clusters simply contain more topics. Calculating average proportions of topics within each cluster allows us to control for the number of topics per cluster, and with this measure, we can better compare the relative prominence of clusters. Figure 6 (right) shows that migration research and statistics have the highest average of topic proportions, followed by the cluster of migration processes and immigrant incorporation.

Topic proportions per cluster.

An analysis on the level of topic clusters in the project’s time frame (1986–2017) reveals several significant trends. First, when discussing shifts in topics over time, we can see that different topics have received more focus in different time frames. Figure 7 shows the ‘age’ of topics, calculated as average years weighted by proportions of publications within a topic per year. The average year of the articles on the same topic is a proxy for the age of the topic. This gives us an understanding of which topics were studied more often compared with others in the past and which topics are emerging. Thus, an average year can be understood as the ‘high-point’ of a topic’s relative prominence in the field. For instance, the oldest topics in our dataset are #22 ‘Migrant demographics’, followed by #45 ‘Governance of migration’ and #46 ‘Migration statistics and survey research’. The newest topics include #14 ‘Mobilities’ and #48 ‘Intra-EU mobility’.

Average topic age, weighted by proportions of publications (publications of 1986–2017). Note: Numbers near dots indicate the numeric id of topics (see Table 1 for the names).

When looking at the weighted ‘age’ of the clusters, it becomes clear that the focus on migration research and statistics is the ‘oldest’, which echoes what Greenwood and Hunt (2003 ) observe. This resonates with the idea that migration studies has roots in more demographic studies of migration and diversity (cf. Thornthwaite, 1934 ; Thomas, 1938 ), which somewhat contrasts with what van Dalen (2018) has found. Geographies of migration (studies related to specific migration flows, origins, and destinations) were also more prominent in the 1990s than now, and immigrant incorporation peaked at the turn of the century. However, gender and family, diversity, and health are more recent themes, as was mentioned above (see Fig. 8 ). This somewhat indicates a possible post-methodological nationalism, post-integration paradigm era in migration research going hand-in-hand with research that, as King (2012) argues, situates migration within wider social and political domains (cf. Scholten, 2018 ).

Diversity of topics and topic clusters (1985–2017).

Then, we analysed the diversification of publications over the various clusters. Based on the literature review, we expected the diversification to have increased over the years, signalling a move beyond paradigmatic closure. Figure 9 (below) shows that we can hardly speak of a significant increase of diversity in migration studies publications. Over the years, only a marginal increase in the diversity of topics is observed. The Gini-Simpson index of diversity in 1985 was around 0.95 and increased to 0.98 from 1997 onwards. Similarly, there is little difference between the sizes of topic clusters over the years. Both ways of calculating the Gini-Simpson index of diversity by clusters resulted in a rather stable picture showing some fluctuations between 0.82 and 0.86. This indicates that there has never been a clear hegemony of any cluster at any time. In other words, over the past three decades, the diversity of topics and topic clusters was quite stable: there have always been a great variety of topics discussed in the literature of migration studies, with no topic or cluster holding a clear monopoly.

Average age of topic clusters, weighted by proportions (publications of 1986–2017).

Subsequently, we focussed on trends in topic networks. As our goal is to describe the general development of migration studies as a field, we decided to analyse topic networks in three equal periods of 10 years (Period 1 (1988–97); Period 2 (1998–2007); Period 3 (2008–17)). On the basis of the LDA-generated matrix with per-abstract topic proportions (The LDA algorithm determines the proportions of all topics observed within each abstract. Therefore, each abstract can contain several topics with a substantial prominence), we calculated the topic-by-topic Spearman correlation coefficients in each of the time frames. From the received distribution of the correlation coefficients, we chose to focus on the top 25 per cent strongest correlations period. In order to highlight difference in strength of connections, we assigned different weights to the correlations between the topics. Coefficient values above the 75th percentile (0.438) but ≤0.5 were weighted 1; correlations above 0.5 but ≤0.6 were weighted 2; and correlations >0.6 were weighted 3. We visualised these topic networks using the software Gephi.

To compare networks of topics in each period, we used three common statistics of network analysis: 1 average degree of connections; 2 average weighted degree of connections; and 3 network density. The average degree of connections shows how many connections to other topics each topic in the network has on average. This measure can vary from 0 to N − 1, where N is the total number of topics in the network. Some correlations of topics are stronger and were assigned the Weight 2 or 3. These are included in the statistics of average weighted degree of connections, which shows us the variations in strength of existing connections between the topics. Network density is a proportion of existing links over the number of all potentially possible links between the topics. This measure varies from 0 = entirely disconnected topics to 1 = extremely dense network, where every topic is connected to every topic.

Table 2 shows that all network measures vary across the three periods. In Period 1, each topic had on average 21 links with other topics, while in Period 2, that number was much lower (11.5 links). In Period 3, the average degree of connections grew again, but not to the level of Period 1. The same trend is observed in the strength of these links—in Period 1, the correlations between the topics were stronger than in Period 3, while they were the weakest in Period 2. The density of the topic networks was highest in Period 1 (0.4), then in Period 2, the topic network became sparser before densifying again in Period 3 (but not to the extent of Period 1’s density).

Topic network statistics

These fluctuations on network statistics indicate that in the years 1988–97, topics within the analysed field of migration studies were mentioned in the same articles and book chapters more often, while at the turn of the 21st century, these topic co-occurrences became less frequent; publications therefore became more specialised and topics were more isolated from each other. In the past 10 years, migration studies once again became more connected, the dialogues between the topics emerged more frequently. These are important observations about topical development in the field of migration studies. The reasons behind these changes require further, possibly more qualitative explanation.

To get a more in-depth view of the content of these topic networks, we made an overview of the changes in the topic clusters across the three periods. As we can see in Fig. 10 , some changes emerge in terms of the prominence of various clusters. The two largest clusters (also by the number of topics within them) are migration-related diversity and migration processes. The cluster of migration-related diversity increased in its share of each period’s publications by around 20 per cent. This reflects our above remarks on the literature surrounding the integration debate, and the ‘cultural turn’ King mentions (2012). And the topic cluster migration processes also increased moderately its share.

Prominence and change in topic clusters 1988–2017.

Compared with the first period, the topic cluster of gender and family studies grew the fastest, with the largest growth observed in the turn of the century (relative to its original size). This suggests a growing awareness of gender and family-related aspects of migration although as a percentage of the total corpus it remains one the smallest clusters. Therefore, Massey et al.’s (1998) argument that households and gender represented a quantitatively significant pillar of migration research could be considered an overestimation. The cluster of health studies in migration research also grew significantly in the Period 2 although in Period 3, the percentage of publications in this cluster diminished. This suggests a rising awareness of health in relation to migration and diversity (see Sweileh et al., 2018 ) although this too remains one of the smallest clusters.

The cluster on Immigrant incorporation lost prominence the most over the past 30 years. This seems to resonate with the argument that ‘integrationism’ or the ‘integration paradigm’ was rather in the late 1990s (see Favell, 2003 ; Dahinden, 2016 ) and is losing its prominence. A somewhat slower but steady loss was also observed in the cluster of Geographies of migration and Migration research and statistics. This also suggests not only a decreasing emphasis on demographics within migration studies, but also a decreasing reflexivity in the development of the field and the focus on theory-building.

We will now go into more detail and show the most connected topics and top 10 most prominent topics in each period. Figures 11–13 show the network maps of topics in each period. The size of circles reflects the number and strength of links per each topic: the bigger the size, the more connected this topic is to the others; the biggest circles indicate the most connected topics. While the prominence of a topic is measured by the number of publications on that topic, it is important to note that the connectedness the topic has nothing necessarily to do with the amount of publications on that topic; in theory, a topic could appear in many articles without any reference to other topics (which would mean that it is prominent but isolated).

Topic network in 1988–97. Note: Numbers indicate topics' numerical ids, see Table 1 for topics' names.

Topic network in 1998–2007. Note: Numbers indicate topics' numerical ids, see Table 1 for topics' names.

Topic network in 2008–2017. Note: Numbers indicate topics' numerical ids, see Table 1 for topics' names.

Thus, in the section below, we describe the most connected and most prominent topics in migration research per period. The degree of connectedness is a useful indicator of the extent to which we can speak of a ‘field’ of migration research. If topics are well-connected, especially in a context of increased knowledge production and changes in prominence among topics, then this would suggest that a shared conceptual and theoretical language exists.

6.1 Period 1: 1988–97

The five central topics with the highest degree of connectedness (the weighted degree of connectedness of these topics was above 60) were ‘black studies’, ‘mobilities’, ‘ICT, media and migration’, ‘migration in/from Israel and Palestine’, and ‘intra-EU mobility’. These topics are related to geopolitical regions, ethnicity, and race. The high degree of connectedness of these topics shows that ‘they often occurred together with other topics in the analysed abstracts from this period’. This is expected because research on migration and diversity inevitably discusses its subject within a certain geographical, political, or ethnic scope. Geographies usually appear in abstracts as countries of migrants’ origin or destination. The prominence of ‘black studies’ reflects the dominance of American research on diversity, which was most pronounced in this period ( Fig. 11 ).

The high degree of connectedness of the topics on ICT and ‘media’ is indicative of wider societal trends in the 1990s. As with any new phenomenon, it clearly attracted the attention of researchers who wanted to understand its relationship with migration issues.

Among the top 10 topics with the most publications in this period (see Supplementary Data B) were those describing the characteristics of migration flows (first) and migration populations (third). It goes in line with the trends of the most connected topics described above. Interest in questions of migrants’ socio-economic position (fourth) in the receiving societies and discussion on ‘labour migration’ (ninth) were also prevalent. Jointly, these topics confirm that in the earlier years, migration was ‘studied often from the perspectives of economics and demographics’ ( van Dalen, 2018 ).

Topics, such as ‘education and language training’ (second), community development’ (sixth), and ‘intercultural communication’ (eighth), point at scholarly interest in the issues of social cohesion and socio-cultural integration of migrants. This lends strong support to Favell’s ‘integration paradigm’ argument about this period and suggests that the coproduction of knowledge between research and policy was indeed very strong ( Scholten, 2011 ). This is further supported by the prominence of the topic ‘governance of migration’ (seventh), reflecting the evolution of migration and integration policymaking in the late 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, exemplified by the development of the Schengen area and the EU more widely; governance of refugee flows from the Balkan region (also somewhat represented in the topic ‘southern-European migration’, which was the 10th most prominent); and governance of post-Soviet migration. Interestingly, this is the only period in which ‘migration histories’ is among the top 10 topics, despite the later establishment of a journal dedicated to the very discipline of history. Together these topics account for 42 per cent of all migration studies publications in that period of time.

6.2 Period 2: 1998–2007

In the second period, as the general degree of connectedness in the topic networks decreased, the following five topics maintained a large number of connections in comparison to others, as their average weighted degree of connections ranged between 36 and 57 ties. The five topics were ‘migration in/from Israel and Palestine’, ‘black studies’, ‘Asian migration’, ‘religious diversity’, and ‘migration, sexuality, and health’ ( Fig. 12 ).

Here we can observe the same geographical focus of the most connected topics, as well as the new trends in the migration research. ‘Asian migration’ became one of the most connected topics, meaning that migration from/to and within that region provoked more interest of migration scholars than in the previous decade. This development appears to be in relation to high-skill migration, in one sense, because of its strong connections with the topics ‘Asian expat migration’ and ‘ICT, media, and migration’; and, in another sense, in relation to the growing Muslim population in Europe thanks to its strong connection to ‘religious diversity’. The high connectedness of the topic ‘migration sexuality and health’ can be explained by the dramatic rise of the volume of publications within the clusters ‘gender and family’ studies and ‘health’ in this time-frame as shown in the charts on page 13, and already argued by Portes (1997) .

In this period, ‘identity narratives’ became the most prominent topic (see Supplementary Data B), which suggests increased scholarly attention on the subjective experiences of migrants. Meanwhile ‘migrant flows’ and ‘migrant demographics’ decreased in prominence from the top 3 to the sixth and eighth position, respectively. The issues of education and socio-economic position remained prominent. The emergence of topics ‘migration and diversity in (higher) education’ (fifth) and ‘cultural diversity’ (seventh) in the top 10 of this period seem to reflect a shift from integrationism to studies of diversity. The simultaneous rise of ‘migration theory’ (to fourth) possibly illustrates the debates on methodological nationalism which emerged in the early 2000s. The combination of theoretical maturity and the intensified growth in the number of migration journals at the turn of the century suggests that the field was becoming institutionalised.

Overall, the changes in the top 10 most prominent topics seem to show a shifting attention from ‘who’ and ‘what’ questions to ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. Moreover, the top 10 topics now account only for 26 per cent of all migration studies (a 15 per cent decrease compared with the period before). This means that there were many more topics which were nearly as prominent as those in the top 10. Such change again supports our claim that in this period, there were more intensive ‘sub-field’ developments in migration studies than in the previous period.

6.3 Period 3: 2008–17

In the last decade, the most connected topics have continued to be: ‘migration in/from Israel and Palestine’, ‘Asian migration’, and ‘black studies’. The hypothetical reasons for their central position in the network of topics are the same as in the previous period. The new most-connected topics—‘Conflicts, violence, and migration’, together with the topic ‘Religious diversity’—might indicate to a certain extent the widespread interest in the ‘refugee crisis’ of recent years ( Fig. 13 ).

The publications on the top 10 most prominent topics constituted a third of all migration literature of this period analysed in our study. A closer look at them reveals the following trends (see Supplementary Data B for details). ‘Mobilities’ is the topic of the highest prominence in this period. Together with ‘diasporas and transnationalism’ (fourth), this reflects the rise of critical thinking on methodological nationalism ( Wimmer and Glick Schiller, 2002 ) and the continued prominence of transnationalism in the post-‘mobility turn’ era ( Urry (2007) , cited in King, 2012 ).

The interest in subjective experiences of migration and diversity has continued, as ‘identity narratives’ continues to be prominent, with the second highest proportion of publications, and as ‘Discrimination and socio-psychological issues’ have become the eighth most prominent topic. This also echoes an increasing interest in the intersection of (mental) health and migration (cf. Sweileh et al., 2018 ).

The prominence of the topics ‘human rights law and protection’ (10th) and ‘governance of migration and diversity’ (9th), together with ‘conflicts, violence, and migration’ being one of the most connected topics, could be seen as a reflection of the academic interest in forced migration and asylum. Finally, in this period, the topics ‘race and racism’ (fifth) and ‘black studies’ (seventh) made it into the top 10. Since ‘black studies’ is also one of the most connected topics, such developments may reflect the growing attention to structural and inter-personal racism not only in the USA, perhaps reflecting the #blacklivesmatter movement, as well as in Europe, where the idea of ‘white Europeanness’ has featured in much public discourse.

6.4 Some hypotheses for further research

Why does the connectedness of topics change across three periods? In an attempt to explain these changes, we took a closer look at the geographical distribution of publications in each period. One of the trends that may at least partially explain the loss of connectedness between the topics in Period 2 could be related to the growing internationalisation of English language academic literature linked to a sharp increase in migration-focussed publications during the 1990s.

Internationalisation can be observed in two ways. First, the geographies of English language journal publications have become more diverse over the years. In the period 1988–97, the authors’ institutional affiliations spanned 57 countries. This increased to 72 in 1998–2007, and then to 100 in 2007–18 (we counted only those countries which contained at least 2 publications in our dataset). Alongside this, even though developed Anglophone countries (the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand) account for the majority of publications of our overall dataset, the share of publications originating from non-Anglophone countries has increased over time. In 1988–97, the number of publications from non-Anglophone European (EU+EEA) countries was around 13 per cent. By 2008–17, this had significantly increased to 28 per cent. Additionally, in the rest of the world, we observe a slight proportional increase from 9.5 per cent in the first period to 10.6 per cent in the last decade. Developed Anglophone countries witness a 16 per cent decrease in their share of all articles on migration. The trends of internationalisation illustrated above, combined with the loss of connectedness at the turn of the 21st century, seem to indicate that English became the lingua-franca for academic research on migration in a rather organic manner.

It is possible that a new inflow of ideas came from the increased number of countries publishing on migration whose native language is not English. This rise in ‘competition’ might also have catalysed innovation in the schools that had longer established centres for migration studies. Evidence for this lies in the rise in prominence of the topic ‘migration theory’ during this period. It is also possible that the expansion of the European Union and its research framework programmes, as well as the Erasmus Programmes and Erasmus Mundus, have perhaps brought novel, comparative, perspectives in the field. All this together might have created fruitful soil for developing unique themes and approaches, since such approaches in theory lead to more success and, crucially, more funds for research institutions.

This, however, cannot fully explain why in Period 3 the field became more connected again, other than that the framework programmes—in particular framework programme 8, Horizon 2020—encourage the building of scientific bridges, so to speak. Our hypothesis is thus that after the burst of publications and ideas in Period 2, scholars began trying to connect these new themes and topics to each other through emergent international networks and projects. Perhaps even the creation and work of the IMISCOE (2004-) and NOMRA (1998-) networks contributed to this process of institutionalisation. This, however, requires much further thought and exploration, but for now, we know that the relationship between the growth, the diversification, and the connectedness in this emergent research field is less straightforward than we might previously have suggested. This begs for further investigation perhaps within a sociology of science framework.

This article offers an inductive mapping of the topical focus of migration studies over a period of more than 30 years of development of the research field. Based on the literature, we expected to observe increasing diversity of topics within the field and increasing fragmentation between the topics, also in relation to the rapid growth in volume and internationalisation of publications in migration studies. However, rather than growth and increased diversity leading to increased fragmentation, our analysis reveals a complex picture of a rapidly growing field where the diversity of topics has remained relatively stable. Also, even as the field has internationalised, it has retained its overall connectedness, albeit with a slight and temporary fragmentation at the turn of the century. In this sense, we can argue that migration studies have indeed come of age as a distinct research field.

In terms of the volume of the field of migration studies, our study reveals an exponential growth trajectory, especially since the mid-1990s. This involves both the number of outlets and the number of publications therein. There also seems to be a consistent path to internationalisation of the field, with scholars from an increasing number of countries publishing on migration, and a somewhat shrinking share of publications from Anglo-American countries. However, our analysis shows that this has not provoked an increased diversity of topics in the field. Instead, the data showed that there have been several important shifts in terms of which topics have been most prominent in migration studies. The field has moved from focusing on issues of demographics, statistics, and governance, to an increasing focus on mobilities, migration-related diversity, gender, and health. Also, interest in specific geographies of migration seems to have decreased.

These shifts partially resonated with the expectations derived from the literature. In the 1980s and 1990s, we observed the expected widespread interest in culture, seen in publications dealing primarily with ‘education and language training’, ‘community development’, and ‘intercultural communication’. This continued to be the case at the turn of the century, where ‘identity narratives’ and ‘cultural diversity’ became prominent. The expected focus on borders in the periods ( Pedraza-Bailey, 1990 ) was represented by the high proportion of research on the ‘governance of migration’, ‘migration flows’, and in the highly connected topic ‘intra-EU mobility’. Following Portes (1997) , we expected ‘transnational communities’, ‘states and state systems’, and the ‘new second generation’ to be key themes for the ‘new century’. Transnationalism shifts attention away from geographies of migration and nation–states, and indeed, our study shows that ‘geographies of migration’ gave way to ‘mobilities’, the most prominent topic in the last decade. This trend is supported by the focus on ‘diasporas and transnationalism’ and ‘identity narratives’ since the 2000s, including literature on migrants’ and their descendants’ dual identities. These developments indicate a paradigmatic shift in migration studies, possibly caused by criticism of methodological nationalism. Moreover, our data show that themes of families and gender have been discussed more in the 21st century, which is in line with Portes’ predictions.

The transition from geographies to mobilities and from the governance of migration to the governance of migration-related diversity, race and racism, discrimination, and social–psychological issues indicates a shifting attention in migration studies from questions of ‘who’ and ‘what’ towards ‘how’ and ‘why’. In other words, a more nuanced understanding of the complexity of migration processes and consequences emerges, with greater consideration of both the global and the individual levels of analysis.

However, this complexification has not led to thematic fragmentation in the long run. We did not find a linear trend towards more fragmentation, meaning that migration studies have continued to be a field. After an initial period of high connectedness of research mainly coming from America and the UK, there was a period with significantly fewer connections within migration studies (1998–2007), followed by a recovery of connectedness since then, while internationalisation has continued. What does this tell us?

We may hypothesise that the young age of the field and the tendency towards methodological nationalism may have contributed to more connectedness in the early days of migration studies. The accelerated growth and internationalisation of the field since the late 1990s may have come with an initial phase of slight fragmentation. The increased share of publications from outside the USA may have caused this, as according to Massey et al. (1998) , European migration research was then more conceptually dispersed than across the Atlantic. The recent recovery of connectedness could then be hypothesised as an indicator of the field’s institutionalisation, especially at the European level, and growing conceptual and theoretical development. As ‘wisdom comes with age’, this may be an indication of the ‘coming of age’ of migration studies as a field with a shared conceptual and theoretical foundation.

The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback, as well as dr. J.F. Alvarado for his advice in the early stages of work on this article.

This research is associated with the CrossMigration project, funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement Ares(2017) 5627812-770121.

Conflict of interest statement . None declared.

Bommes M. , Morawska E. ( 2005 ) International Migration Research: Constructions, Omissions and the Promises of Interdisciplinarity . Aldershot : Ashgate .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Brettell C. B. , Hollifield J. F. ( 2014 ) Migration Theory: Talking across Disciplines . London : Routledge .

Caponio T. , Borkert M. ( 2010 ) The Local Dimension of Migration Policymaking . Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press .

Carling J. ( 2015 ) Who Is Who in Migration Studies: 107 Names Worth Knowing < https://jorgencarling.org/2015/06/01/who-is-who-in-migration-studies-108-names-worth-knowing/#_Toc420761452 > accessed 1 Jun 2015.

Castles S. , Miller M. J. ( 2014 ) The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World , 5th edn. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan .

Cohen R. ( 1996 ) Theories of Migration . Cheltenham : Edward Elgar .

Dahinden J. ( 2016 ) ‘A Plea for the “De-migranticization” of Research on Migration and Integration,’ Ethnic and Racial Studies , 39 / 13 : 2207 – 25 .

Elsevier ( 2017 ) Scopus: Content Coverage Guide . < https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf > accessed 18 Dec 2018.

Evans J. A. , Aceves P. ( 2016 ) ‘Machine Translation: Mining Text for Social Theory,’ Annual Review of Sociology’ , 42 / 1 : 21 – 50 .

Favell A. ( 2003 ) ‘Integration Nations: The Nation-State and Research on Immigrants in Western Europe’, in Brochmann G. , ed. The Multicultural Challenge , pp. 13 – 42 . Bingley : Emerald .

Fortunato S. , et al.  ( 2018 ) ‘Science of Science’ , Science , 359 / 6379 : 1 – 7 .

Geddes A. ( 2005 ) ‘Migration Research and European Integration: The Construction and Institutionalization of Problems of Europe’, in Bommes M. , Morawska E. (eds). International Migration Research: Constructions, Omissions and the Promises of Interdisciplinarity , pp. 265 – 280 . Aldershot : Ashgate .

Gordon M. ( 1964 ) Assimilation in American Life . New York : Oxford University Press .

Greenwood M. J. , Hunt G. L. ( 2003 ) ‘The Early History of Migration Research,’ International Regional Sciences Review , 26 / 1 : 3 – 37 .

Halford S. , Savage M. ( 2017 ) ‘Speaking Sociologically with Big Data: Symphonic Social Science and the Future for Big Data Research,’ Sociology , 51 / 6 : 1132 – 48 .

IOM ( 2017 ) ‘Migration Research and Analysis: Growth, Reach and Recent Contributions’, in IOM, World Migration Report 2018 , pp. 95 – 121 . Geneva : International Organization for Migration .

Jiang H. , Qiang M. , Lin P. ( 2016 ) ‘A Topic Modeling Based Bibliometric Exploratoin of Hydropower Research,’ Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 57 : 226 – 37 .

Kajikawa Y. , et al.  ( 2007 ) ‘Creating an Academic Landscape of Sustainability Science: An Analysis of the Citation Network,’ Sustainability Science , 2 / 2 : 221 – 31 .

King R. , Skeldon R. ( 2010 ) ‘Mind the Gap: Integrating Approaches to Internal and International Migration,’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 36 / 10 : 1619 – 46 .

King R. , Skeldon R. ( 2002 ) ‘Towards a New Map of European Migration,’ International Journal of Population Geography , 8 / 2 : 89 – 106 .

King R. , Skeldon R. ( 2012 ) Theories and Typologies of Migration: An Overview and a Primer . Malmö : Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM ).

Kritz M. M. , Keely C. B. , Tomasi S. M. ( 1981 ) Global Trends in Migration: Theory and Research on International Population Movements . New York : The Centre for Migration Studies .

Lavenex S. ( 2005 ) ‘National Frames in Migration Research: The Tacit Political Agenda’, in Bommes M. , Morawska E. (eds) International Migration Research: Constructions, Omissions and the Promises of Interdisciplinarity , pp. 243 – 263 . Aldershot : Ashgate .

Martiniello M. ( 2013 ) ‘Comparisons in Migration Studies,’ Comparative Migration Studies , 1 / 1 : 7 – 22 .

Massey D. S. , et al.  ( 1993 ) ‘Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal,’ Population and Development Review , 19 / 3 : 431 – 66 .

Massey D. S. ( 1994 ) ‘An Evaluation of International Migration Theory: The North American Case,’ Population and Development Review , 20 / 4 : 699 – 751 .

Massey D. S. , et al.  ( 1998 ) Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium . Oxford : Clarendon .

Morawska E. ( 1990 ) ‘The Sociology and Historiography of Immigration’, In Yans-McLaughlin V. , (ed.) Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Nestorowicz J. , Anacka M. ( 2018 ) ‘Mind the Gap? Quantifying Interlinkages between Two Traditions in Migration Literature,’ International Migration Review , 53/1 : 1 – 25 .

Pedraza-Bailey S. ( 1990 ) ‘Immigration Research: A Conceptual Map,’ Social Science History , 14 / 1 : 43 – 67 .

Penninx R. , Spencer D. , van Hear N. ( 2008 ) Migration and Integration in Europe: The State of Research . Oxford : ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society .

Piguet E. , Kaenzig R. , Guélat J. ( 2018 ) ‘The Uneven Geography of Research on “Environmental Migration”,’ Population and Environment , 39 / 4 : 357 – 83 .

Portes A. ( 1997 ) ‘Immigration Theory for a New Century: Some Problems and Opportunities,’ International Migration Review , 31 / 4 : 799 – 825 .

Pryor R. J. ( 1981 ) ‘Integrating International and Internal Migration Theories’, in Kritz M. M. , Keely C. B. , Tomasi S. M. (eds) Global Trends in Migration: Theory and Research on International Population Movements , pp. 110 – 129 . New York : The Center for Migration Studies .

Ravenstein G. E. ( 1885 ) ‘The Laws of Migration,’ Journal of the Royal Statistical Society , 48 : 167 – 235 .

Schinkel W. ( 2018 ) ‘Against “Immigrant Integration”: For an End to Neocolonial Knowledge Production,’ Comparative Migration Studies , 6 / 31 : 1 – 17 .

Scholten P. ( 2011 ) Framing Immigrant Integration: Dutch Research-Policy Dialogues in Comparative Perspective . Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press .

Scholten P. ( 2018 ) Mainstreaming versus Alienation: Conceptualizing the Role of Complexity in Migration and Diversity Policymaking . Rotterdam : Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam .

Scholten P. , et al.  ( 2015 ) Integrating Immigrants in Europe: Research-Policy Dialogues . Dordrecht : Springer .

Sweileh W. M. , et al.  ( 2018 ) ‘Bibliometric Analysis of Global Migration Health Research in Peer-Reviewed Literature (2000–2016)’ , BMC Public Health , 18 / 777 : 1 – 18 .

Thomas D. S. ( 1938 ) Research Memorandum on Migration Differentials . New York : Social Science Research Council .

Thornthwaite C. W. ( 1934 ) Internal Migration in the United States . Philadelphia, PA : University of Pennsylvania Press .

Thränhardt D. , Bommes M. ( 2010 ) National Paradigms of Migration Research . Göttingen : V&R Unipress .

Urry J. ( 2007 ) Mobilities . Cambridge : Polity .

van Dalen H. ( 2018 ) ‘Is Migration Still Demography’s Stepchild?’ , Demos: Bulletin over Bevolking en Samenleving , 34 / 5 : 8 .

Vargas-Silva C. ( 2012 ) Handbook of Research Methods in Migration . Cheltenham : Edward Elgar .

Wimmer A. , Glick Schiller N. ( 2002 ) ‘Methodological Nationalism and beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences,’ Global Networks , 2 / 4 : 301 – 34 .

Yans-McLaughlin V. ( 1990 ) Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Zapata-Barrero R. , Yalaz E. ( 2018 ) Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies . Dordrecht : Springer .

Zapata-Barrero R. , Caponio T. , Scholten P. ( 2017 ) ‘Theorizing the “Local Turn” in a Multi-Level Governance Framework of Analysis: A Case Study in Immigrant Policies,’ International Review of Administrative Sciences , 83 / 2 : 241 – 6 .

Zolberg A. R. ( 1989 ) ‘The Next Waves: Migration Theory for a Changing World,’ International Migration Review , 23 / 3 : 403 – 30 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2049-5846
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Immigration Research Library

Informing People Concerned About Immigration and Immigrants

Search form

Immigration research and information.

The Immigration Research Library  is a free, online collection of contemporary, U.S. immigration reports, briefs, fact sheets, infographics, news and events. The Library hosts (with links to original sources) more than 1,500 U.S. immigration research reports with simple, straightforward abstracts drawn from respected universities and research institutes from across the country. This free Library is for anyone interested in U.S. immigration issues including students, researchers, journalists, educators, advocates, policymakers, direct-service providers, etc. 

The Immigration Research Library  is hosted by The Immigrant Learning Center’s Public Education Institute in Malden, MA, a not-for-profit organization that educates Americans on the contributions of immigrants. See “About Us” to learn more. 

The Immigration Research Library  was created with the assistance of three research institutes at the University of Massachusetts Boston: the  Institute for Asian American Studies , the  Mauricio Gastón Institute for Latino Community Development and Public Policy  and the  William Monroe Trotter Institute.  

Please bookmark this page as new reports are uploaded every week. 

Contact: [email protected]

How to Use the Library 

The Immigration Research Library  is divided into five sections: Research, Infographics, Resources, News and Events. In the  Research  section, you can easily filter reports by state, issues (e.g. rights and justice, demographics, economics), communities (e.g. refugees, children, Latinx immigrants, workers) and/or source organization for the report(s).  Infographics   are similarly tagged and may come up with your search results.  

The  Resources  section contains links to large databases of immigration data and research from respected organizations such as Migration Policy Institute’s Immigration Data Hub. 

The  News  section draws up-to-date immigration news articles from organizations such as the American Immigration Lawyers’ Association. 

The  Events  section includes local and national webinars, conferences, festivals and other events related to immigration. Feel free to send us your event! 

Suggestion for improvement? Know of a report that should be here? Something broken? Email Denzil Mohammed at  [email protected] .  

Advertisement

U.S. Visa and Immigration Policy Challenges: Explanations for Faculty Perceptions and Intent to Leave

• Published: 06 March 2023
• Volume 64 , pages 1031–1057, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Mary K. Feeney   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6850-1985 1 ,
• Heyjie Jung 2 , 4 ,
• Timothy P. Johnson 3 &
• Eric W. Welch 2  

4017 Accesses

2 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

United States (US) immigration policies have increasingly focused on national security resulting in universities experiencing declines in international student applications, constraints on international scholar employment, and complications facilitating international research collaborations. The COVID-19 pandemic brought additional travel restrictions, embassy closures, and health and safety concerns that exacerbated these challenges. Science mobility is critical for science education, training, competitiveness, and innovation. Using a representative sample of US and foreign-born scientists in three STEM fields, we explore how recent visa and immigration policies have shaped research collaborations, work with students and postdoctoral scholars, and intentions to leave. We use descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and logistic regression and find academic scientists report disruptions from visa and immigration policies; negative impacts of immigration policies on US higher education; negative effects on recruitment and retention of international trainees; and increased intentions to leave the US driven by negative perceptions of immigration policy.

Similar content being viewed by others

Competing for Academic Labor: Research and Recruitment Outside the Academic Center

International Students Need Not Apply: Impact of US Immigration Policy in the Trump Era on International Student Enrollment and Campus Experiences

“Too Many Things Pull Me Back and Forth”

Explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

It is widely accepted that migration and international movement of scholars and scientists creates positive outcomes for national economies and the science and technology enterprise. Research across the world indicates that international mobility among science students and faculty increases the dissemination of knowledge, resource flow (Toren, 1996 ), and the production of science, medicine, and engineering (Nerdrum & Sarpebakken, 2006 ). Nowhere is this reliance on international scholarship more valued than in the US scientific enterprise, a system that has long touted the value of investing in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and welcoming scientists from around the world to advance US research, innovation, and economic development. Yet, this reputation and culture has been shifting as the US immigration system becomes more focused on national security and international scholars face increased social hostility and bureaucratic barriers to living in the US (Gopal, 2016 ; Kim et al., 2018 ; Sabharwal & Varma, 2017 ). These changes in US immigration policy are occurring at the same time that global competition for scientific human capital has increased international academic career opportunities (Altbach, 2005 ) and more foreign-born scientists and engineers are returning to their home countries because of improved employment, research, and career opportunities (Sabharwal & Varma).

The US has a history of welcoming and relying on foreign-born scientists, from German scientists fleeing World War II, Russian and Eastern European scientists during and after the Cold War, to scientists from East and South Asia seeking educational and employment opportunities. International scholars offer vital human capital to American universities, through diversity of ideas and campus life, international networks, scientific production, and the recruitment and training of students (Corley & Sabharwal, 2007 ; Kim et al., 2012 ; Mamiseishvili, 2013 ; Mamiseishvili & Lee, 2018 ; Mamiseishvili & Rosser, 2010 ; Slaughter, 2014 ). In more recent decades, as US universities find themselves under state and federal funding constraints, they have sought to supplement their budgets by recruiting more international students who typically pay higher tuition rates (Banks & Bhandari, 2012 ; Gopal, 2016 ). Today, foreign-born faculty make up 29% of full-time STEM faculty and foreign-born students account for about 41% of undergraduate students and approximately 63% of graduate students in STEM fields (National Science Board, 2014 , 2020 ). Foreign-born scientists bring resources, knowledge, and value to the US higher education system. While the US higher education system has long enjoyed the benefits of its strong reputation for welcoming foreign students and faculty and producing top science, recent shifts in global politics and US immigration policy have added barriers to the recruitment and retention of foreign-born scientists. Growing anti-immigrant sentiments, travel bans, and immigration policies during the Trump administration exacerbated these challenges. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic limiting travel affected domestic and international scientists travel, mentoring, and recruitment efforts, while highlighting the poor health care system and political strife in the US. These US policies have been implemented at a time when the scientific workforce at all career stages is more globally mobile (Moed et al., 2013 ), competition for international scientific talent is rising (Hazelkorn, 2015 ), and international collaboration teams are common (Gazni et al., 2012 ). Additionally, countries in Europe and Asia have implemented policies to better facilitate the return and reintegration of scientists (Cañibano et al., 2008 ; van Holm et al., 2019 ) and their universities have become more competitive and attractive to scholars (Freeman, 2010 ). These push and pull factors inevitably shape the opportunities, strategies, and intentions of individual scientists, which ultimately affect the diversity and quality of the US academic workplace.

In this paper, we present recent data on academic scientists’ perceptions about immigration and visa challenges in the US. We draw from a representative sample of US-born and foreign-born scientists in biology, civil and environmental engineering, and geography at research extensive universities across the US. We ask the following research questions:

What are US academic scientists’ experiences with and perceptions of visa and immigration policies given recent political rhetoric, immigration policy changes, and the COVID-19 pandemic?

What are academic scientists’ experiences working with international students and postdocs as related to visa and immigration issues?

What are academic scientists’ intentions to leave the US and are those intentions related to field of study, citizenship status, and workplace perceptions?

Next, we review the literature on international diversity and push–pull factors in US higher education. In Sect. “ Material and Methods ”, we describe our survey, sample, and data collection methods. In Sect.  “ Results ”, we present our findings. We conclude with a discussion of what the findings mean for academic scientists, higher education policy, and US STEM diversity and competitiveness.

International Faculty and Students in STEM at US Universities

Academic stem.

US higher education institutions attract talented students and faculty from around the world. The US has maintained its reputation as a rich research environment, that supports generous investment in research infrastructure (Stephan et al., 2013 ; Trapani & Gibbons, 2020 ) and a competitive STEM job market (Gandhi-Lee et al., 2017 ). US-based academic science relies on international collaborators, colleagues, faculty, and students as critical drivers of the US innovation and competitiveness (Gandhi-Lee et al., 2017 ; Kerr & Lincoln, 2010 ; Roach & Skrentny, 2019 ; Stephan & Levin, 2003 ; Welch et al., 2018 ). International scholars help the US higher education system maintain its global competitive position. Foreign-born academic scientists bring multiple resources critical for the health and well-being of university communities and sustained scientific leadership (Kim et al., 2012 ). They recruit high-quality colleagues and provide access to international opportunities for both US and international students through professional networks in their home countries (Altbach & Balán, 2007 ; Foote et al., 2008 ; Kim et al., 2011 , 2012 ; Mamiseishvili, 2013 ; Sun & Bian, 2012 ). Additionally, communities of international scholars provide important social support to newly arriving students and faculty (Gahungu, 2011 ). Yet, foreign-born scientists’ career prospects are contingent on immigration and visa policies. For example, recent visa delays have decreased stay rates for Indian and Chinese PhD holders who make up a large proportion of foreign-born STEM graduate students in the US (Kahn & MacGarvie, 2020 ). These delays directly affect the research trajectories of domestic and foreign-born STEM faculty and the competitiveness of US science.

International collaboration and travel are both common and critical to advancing science and innovation (Ackers, 2005 ; Freeman et al., 2015 ; Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005 ; Wagner et al., 2017 ). Foreign-born faculty are more likely than US-born scientists to collaborate with colleagues abroad and to travel for research (Finkelstein et al., 2009 ; Stephan & Levin, 2000 ; Stephan et al., 2013 ; Welch et al., 2018 ). International scientists transfer their experience, knowledge, and networks expanding science collaborations, knowledge, and available resources benefitting less mobile scientists in the US institutions (Bratti & Conti, 2018 ; Schiller & Diez, 2008 ; Siekierski et al., 2018 ). Domestic scientists who do not travel or work abroad also experience the effects of visa and immigration policies through their students and collaborators. The international nature of science networks and global knowledge flows (Franzoni et al., 2014 ; Gibson & McKenzie, 2014 ; Welch et al., 2018 ) make visa and immigration issues pertinent for most faculty at US higher education institutions.

Universities play a critical role in attracting and retaining international talent to the STEM workforce and provide extensive, costly, time-consuming services to assist students coming to the US on visas (typically the F-1). While visas bring talented science students to the US, there is not a guaranteed path from student visa to permanent residency. Upon graduation (and expiration of the F-1), international students must either leave the US or secure an H1-B work visa, a highly competitive process for which there are yearly quotas (Gopal, 2016 ). Many universities work to transition foreign-born scientists from student visas to work visas, but doing so is complicated and costly for employers (Gopal, 2016 ). Consequently, many scientists and engineers report returning to their home countries because of immigration challenges (Sabharwal & Varma, 2017 ).

While universities provide invaluable legal and financial support to faculty on work visas (typically H1-B) or who are navigating the citizenship process, foreign-born academic scientists regularly report hurdles and extensive bureaucratic barriers to staying and working in the US or returning to their home countries for visits (Bookman, 2020 ; Gopal, 2016 ). Researchers note that since the 1990s there has been an increasing shift toward foreign-born scientists and engineers leaving the US after receiving their training due to improved employment opportunities in their home countries and US immigration challenges (Marini & Yang, 2021 ; Varma & Kapur, 2013 ; Wadhwa & Salkever, 2012 ). There have long been calls to streamline the US visa and immigration system, to enhance employment in STEM fields (Harris, 2014 ; Teich, 2014 ), and to make it easier for universities to attract top students and faculty, yet universities continue to have little input to immigration policy (Gopal & Streitwieser, 2016 ).

Political Change, COVID-19, and Academic Mobility

In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, increased globalization and migration of workers, and nationalistic political trends, the US has experienced a shift away from liberal policies toward immigration to focus more on border security and immigration restrictions. Visa and immigration policy changes following the 9/11 attacks, in particular the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), reduced international student enrollment, marking the first declines in over 30 years (Bollag, 2004 ; Guruz, 2011 ). Universities have long benefited from preferential treatment in the US visa and immigration system, since they typically attract those focused on STEM fields who can participate in two-step migration, first as a student and then as a permanent resident, worker, and eventually citizen (Hawthorne, 2012 ). But this benefit to universities was curbed when SEVIS ensured national security concerns would take precedence over educational missions.

Following the 2016 election of Donald Trump, the pressure on international scholars in the US intensified. The Trump administration used strong political language advocating for less immigration and stronger borders. For example, in 2018 the administration created a “National Vetting Center” to increase efforts for extreme vetting of individuals who might pose a national security threat (Trump, 2018 ). They also singled out particular nations and religious groups. In January 2017, Trump issued the first of three “Muslim Bans” or travel bans applying to six Muslim majority countries—Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria—which had an immediate impact on university hiring and student enrollments (Jackson, 2017 ; Wadhia, 2018 ). The Department of Justice’s 2018 “China Initiative”, aimed at countering Chinese national security threats including trade secret theft, hacking, and espionage, resulted in racial profiling and threats to academic freedom of Chinese born academic scientists (Kania & McReynolds, 2021 ). The Trump administration also initiated numerous discussions to limit or end the H1-B visa program and in June 2020 issued an executive order suspending H1-B, H2-B, J and L visa programs (AB Wire, 2020 ), the primary mechanisms for international scientists to work and for international STEM graduates to stay in the US. Shifts in US immigration policy toward national security and border control coupled with executive orders that targeted particular populations threatened the flow of international scientists to US universities and increased uncertainty and administrative burdens for international applicants.

Changes in visa policies or uncertainty about potential changes greatly impact student enrollments. For example, the SEVIS changes to student visa regulations and processing times coupled with poor treatment of applicants resulted in a stark decline of male international students from the Middle East coming to the US (Danley, 2010 ). In a comparison of international student mobility across the UK, Australia, Canada, and the US, Gopal ( 2016 ) found that the ease by which student visas can be obtained is a primary predictor of international student enrollments. These shifts in US immigration policy since 9/11 have slowed what was historically a successful inflow of international students to the US. Gopal ( 2016 ) notes that declines in international student movement to the US have been picked up by Canada and Australia, countries that have adopted more open and less bureaucratic visa systems for students with options for permanent residency after graduation and China has become the third largest destination for foreign students in 2016 (Lu, 2019 ).

These changes in policies and attitudes are also affecting the recruitment and retention of international faculty at US universities. Faculty mobility is shaped by a number of factors including ease of movement (e.g. opportunities for new jobs, family constraints), job satisfaction, and productivity (Kim et al., 2020 ; Rosser, 2004 ). Recent qualitative research indicates that foreign-born faculty are reporting increased levels of concern about the rise of racism and xenophobia and the unpredictability of immigration policies in the US (Bookman, 2020 ). One interviewee noted that these concerns have led her to consider “leaving the US if Trumpism continues” (Bookman, 2020 p. 59). Another faculty member noted considering moving to Canada, which is more open to immigrants. Qualitative research indicates uncertainty, increased administrative burden, and fears related to racism are leading faculty to consider leaving the US (Bookman, 2020 ) but we have less knowledge about how these changes are affecting domestic faculty, US university competitiveness, and the scientific enterprise.

In addition to shifts in immigration policy and culture from one of welcoming immigrants to a less friendly national security effort, the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak and subsequent policies requiring social distancing, travel bans, and closures of universities and government offices leveled another threat and complication to international and domestic academic sciences. Universities closed in-person activities and sent people home to work remotely and government offices (e.g. US embassies) limited, temporarily suspended, or ceased altogether in-person visits and routine visa services (US Department of State & Bureau of Consular Affairs 2020 ). Border closures and travel restrictions immediately affected travel for domestic and international scientists, university admissions, and the ability of scientists to visit their home countries, collect data, or return to the US.

In addition to embassy closures and visa processing delays, some international students and faculty living in the US experienced hostility based on their national origin. This hostility has been especially harsh against Chinese nationals and other Asians and Asian descendants in the US (Makalintal, 2021 ). The US response to COVID-19 not only complicated visa and immigration processing for international scientists, but it accentuated major social and cultural problems in the US including racial conflict and discrimination, poor health care systems, and inadequate social safety nets for childcare, unemployment, and housing. International scholars found themselves victims of racial violence and threats, unsure about the safety of their families, and managing increased stress with little institutional support (Johnson et al., 2021 ). These negative experiences shape the perceptions of both international and domestic scientists and are likely to shape short-term and long-term behavior in the US science enterprise.

Research Questions

What are academic scientists’ experiences with and perceptions of visa and immigration policies given recent political rhetoric, immigration policy changes and COVID-19 pandemic?

What are scientists’ intentions to leave the US and are those intentions related to field of study, citizenship status and workplace perceptions?

Material and Methods

Data collection.

This paper uses online survey data collected October through November 2020 by the ASU Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Studies, SciOPS team ( www.sci-ops.org ). In this section, we describe the sample design and survey development and implementation. The population is a random sample of academic scientists (tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track) who work in three disciplines (biology, civil and environmental engineering, and geography). These scientists work at 60 randomly selected universities classified as Carnegie designated research extensive (R1) universities (drawn from the most recent Carnegie listings). We geographically stratified the full list of research extensive institutions by the eight region Carnegie classification and did random proportionate sampling from each region to account for regional differences. For each selected university, we developed a list of all tenure, tenure-track, and non-tenure track faculty in biology, civil and environmental engineering, and geography. The final sample was randomly selected from these lists and includes US born and foreign-born scientists. The research team developed the survey in October 2020. The questionnaire included sections about the impacts of current US visa and immigration policies on scientific research and collaboration, the higher education system, and policy objectives over the past 12 months. All respondents (US-born and foreign-born) were asked the same questions. The instrument was electronically programmed in English using the Sawtooth Software ® system. The survey was approved by Institutional Review Boards at Arizona State University and the University of Illinois at Chicago.

A total of 2443 scientists were invited to participate in the survey via email invitations with a series of personalized email follow-up reminders. Survey invitations with a unique ID, passwords, and hyperlink to the survey were sent on October 22 and 23, 2020 followed by three reminder messages. The survey was closed on November 23, 2020. 419 usable responses including 48 partial responses were collected representing an AAPOR response rate (RR4) of 17.4%. Poststratification weights were applied for gender and academic field to represent the population as closely as possible. The measure of sampling error for questions answered by the full sample is plus or minus 5 percentage points. In this analysis, we use the 371 complete responses.

Data Description

Table 1 reports the demographic characteristics of survey respondents. Among faculty surveyed, 42% are full professors, most work in biology departments (72%), and about two-thirds (68%) are male. Slightly more than half are US-born citizens (54%). About 21% of respondents are non-US citizens with either permanent or temporary US resident visas.

For the logistic regression model, we use the dependent variable, Intention to Leave the US, a binary variable drawn from the questionnaire item: “In the past 12 months, have you seriously considered moving to another country?” (1 = yes; 0 = no).

We include four indexed measures of the following faculty perceptions: (1) positive visa and policy outcomes, (2) negative visa and policy outcomes, (3) student and faculty mobility, and (4) impacts of visa and immigration policies on US higher education. To capture specific perceptions of Trump administration policies, we asked respondents: “The Trump Administration has proposed a number of changes to the US visa and immigration system. To what extent do you think these potential changes will contribute toward achieving each of the following policy objectives?” Respondents were presented with 10 items with a 3-point response scale. Table 2 shows the principal component analysis results that loaded into two components: Positive Policy Outcomes and Negative Policy Outcomes. Positive Policy Outcomes is an average of the responses to seven questionnaire items; the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.85. Negative Policy Outcomes is the average of responses from three questionnaire items; the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.61. A higher score indicates a perception that immigration policy has major positive or negative outcomes.

Perceived Mobility is an averaged scale from responses to four items. The survey asked: “In your opinion, to what extent have US visa and immigration policies increased or decreased the following?” (1) International scholars seeking employment outside the US, (2) US faculty seeking employment outside the US, (3) International student preference to work outside the US after graduation, and (4) International student applications to study in US institutions. The resulting scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.62 and ranges from 1 to 5 with a higher score indicating perceptions of greater mobility.

Perceived impacts on higher education measures faculty perceptions of the impacts of recent visa and immigration policies on dimensions of US higher education. The variable is constructed by averaging responses to nine items (see Fig.  2 or Appendix A). The resulting scale has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94 and ranges from 1 to 5. A higher score indicates more positive effects.

We include the following individual level measures: self-reported citizenship status, gender, academic rank, and field of science. We include the following controls for university characteristics: region, proportion of faculty of color, and faculty citizenship composition, which come from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). All questionnaire items and descriptive statistics are listed in Appendix A.

Method for Analysis

We report descriptive statistics to investigate how academic scientists experience recent visa and immigration issues in the US. We conduct a series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) models and crosstabs to examine variation between US citizens and non-US citizens and a logistic regression model investigating the determinants of intention to leave the US.

Scientists’ Experiences and Perceptions of US Visa and Immigration Policy

Visa and immigration issues related to research and collaboration.

Figure  1 illustrates faculty responses to questions regarding how visa and immigration issues have affected their research and collaborations in the previous year. These responses inevitably capture visa and immigration experiences shaped by COVID-19 responses. More than one third of respondents (35%) experienced some delays in their projects because of visa issues and were unable to visit their collaborators in other countries. About one third indicated that their international collaborators’ visits were canceled or postponed due to visa problems. Approximately 24% had to cancel their projects because of visa issues.

Faculty experiences due to current US visa and immigration policies (n = 368)

Visa and Immigration Issues Related to Higher Education

Figure  2 illustrates how faculty perceive the effects of current US immigration and visa policies on various dimensions of the US higher education system. Respondents indicated if they believe US immigration policies have positive, negative, or no effect on student recruitment, global competitiveness, and the reputation of US higher education. They overwhelmingly reported negative effects. More than 80% indicated that current immigration policies have a negative impact on the attraction of top talent to study at US institutions of higher education (89%), diversity in US higher education (87%), competitiveness and openness of global science (87%), development of the scientific workforce (87%), and strength of the US high tech industry (83%). The most positive effect scientists reported from current immigration policies is protection of US intellectual property (18%), though a larger proportion of respondents reported negative effects related to protecting intellectual property (26%).

Faculty perceptions of the impacts of current US and immigration policies on higher education (N = 362)

Visa and Immigration Issues Related to International Students and Postdocs

Hiring and mentoring international students and postdocs.

International students make up a large contingent of trainees in the US. More than half reported employing international students as research or teaching assistants (53%) and about one third employed international postdocs (32%) in the last 12 months. Around half reported mentoring international students who do not necessarily work on research with them (52%) and working on research with international students they did not directly employ (48%). These reports indicate the important role international postdocs and students play as both employees and collaborators.

Figure  3 shows faculty experiences with student and postdoctoral visa and immigration issues. Nearly three-quarters of respondents (72%) said that international students and postdocs they work with could not return home because of visa and immigration issues. Approximately 42% also reported that their international students and postdocs could not get a visa to enter or return to the US. More than half of the respondents (54%) reported they lost international students and postdocs they had recruited and 45% indicated they could not hire new students or postdocs. These reports indicate a clear disruption to US-based scientists working with international trainees.

Faculty experience hiring and working with international students and postdocs in last 12 months (N = 371)

We also asked faculty how they have been engaging, supporting, and mentoring their international students during the last 12 months. Table 3 shows that keeping regular or one-on-one meetings (83%), hosting meetings to keep a sense of community (78%), organizing regular updates and setting communication expectations (77%), and by discussing employment concerns (76%) are the most common ways faculty report engaging their international students.

Figure  4 shows the topics related to visa and immigration discussed by faculty with international students and postdocs during the last 12 months. One of the most common topics discussed was uncertainties regarding visas (69%). More than half of faculty reported discussing inability to travel to home countries (58%) and returning to the US (52%) with their trainees. Faculty also reported discussing limited job opportunities (50%), delays in studies or research (43%), limited funding opportunities (42%), and concerns about harassment (39%) and physical safety in the US due to national origin (34%). Over one quarter (27%) reported they discussed the student or postdoc leaving the US because of family visa and immigration issues.

Visa and immigration related topics discussed with international students and postdocs in last 12 months (N = 371)

Impacts of Visa and Immigration Issues on Mobility

Work and study mobility preferences.

Figure  5 illustrates scientist perceptions of the impacts of visa and immigration policies on preferences to study and work in the US. The majority of respondents (90%) regardless of their citizenship status reported that preferences among international students to study in the US have decreased (either a lot or some). Around three quarters of US citizens (73%) and non-citizens with permanent visas (75%) and nearly all non-citizens with temporary visas (95%) reported that international students’ interest in working in other countries has increased (either a lot or some). More than half of the scientists who are US citizens (55%) indicated international scholars are increasingly seeking employment outside the US; a higher proportion of non-US citizen faculty with permanent visas (75%) and temporary visas (62%) reported the same. The difference is statistically significant (Pearson Chi 2  = 15.58, p = 0.049). About half of US citizens (49%) reported US faculty are increasingly seeking work opportunities outside the US, while about 64% of non-citizens with permanent visas and 75% of non-citizens with temporary visas reported the same. This difference is also statistically significant (Pearson Chi 2  = 16.64, p = 0.034).

Faculty perceptions on the impacts of US visa and immigration policies on work/study preferences among students and faculty (N = 343). Test for difference based on chi-square test. *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.10

Intention to Leave the US

We asked respondents if they have considered moving to another country over the last 12 months, which spanned the 1st year of COVID-19. About 37% of the respondents (n = 137) indicated they have considered leaving the US. An ANOVA reveals non-US citizens with temporary visas (63%) are significantly more likely than US citizens (35%) to report intentions to leave the US (Pearson Chi 2  = 7.47, p = 0.024).

Motivations for Considering Leaving the US

We asked those who indicated considering leaving about the major and minor reasons for their intentions. Figure  6 illustrates these reasons, by citizenship status. A similar proportion of US citizens (89%), non-US citizens with permanent residency (89%), and non-US citizens with temporary visas (93%) report no longer feeling welcomed in the US because of political rhetoric. Around 60% of non-US citizens cite health and safety issues in the US as a major reason to move, while about 36% of US citizens mentioned health and safety issues as a major reason to move. Figure  6 shows there are significant differences in intention motivations by citizenship status. First, there is a significant difference in reporting work opportunities as a reason for intention to the leave the US (Pearson Chi 2  = 11.58, p = 0.021). Significantly more US citizens (55%) report work opportunities abroad (a pull factor) as a major or minor reason to move, compared to non-US citizens with permanent (18%) and temporary visas (27%). Second, Non-US citizens report that immigration and visa issues regarding their family (permanent visa holders (40%), temporary visa holders (63%)) (Pearson Chi 2  = 35.81, p < 0.001) and themselves (permanent visa holders (42%), temporary visa holders (87%)) (Pearson Chi 2  = 92.55, p < 0.001) are major reasons for their intentions to leave the US. In sum, while all respondents report political rhetoric as a major reason for intention to leave, US citizens are significantly more likely to report work opportunities as a second reason to leave while non-US citizens’ intentions to leave are also explained by health and safety concerns (likely accentuated by COVID-19) and visa and immigration challenges.

Percent of faculty who identified major and minor reasons for their intention to move to another country, by citizenship status (N = 134) Test for difference based on chi-square test. *** p < 0.01; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.10

Logistic Regression Predicting Intention to Leave

Given the clear differences in intention to leave among US and non-US citizens, we estimated a logistic regression model to examine the binary dependent variable, intention to leave the US. The Variance Inflation Factor for the model is lower than two for all variables meaning that variance of coefficients in the model is not inflated due to linear dependency with other exogenous variables (e.g., multicollinearity). The results are in Table 4 .

Table 4 shows that the perceived impacts of visa and immigration policies on higher education and mobility are significant indicators of intention to leave. Faculty perceptions of an increased trend in international scholars seeking employment abroad are related to their own intentions to leave (p < 0.10). Faculty intention to leave is significantly related to reporting that visa and immigration policies have negative impacts on the broader higher education system (p < 0.01). Full professors (p < 0.01) are less likely than non-tenured faculty to report intent to leave. Faculty in the New England region (p < 0.01) are more likely to consider moving to a different country, compared to faculty in the Far West. This finding is possibly explained by the more severe COVID-19 outbreak and restrictions in New England at the time of this survey (Johnson et al., 2021 ). Citizenship status is significantly related to intention to leave, non-US Citizens with temporary resident visas (p < 0.05) are significantly more likely than U.S. citizens to report intention to leave, though as noted earlier the motivation behind the intent to leave varies by citizenship status.

We analyze data on academic scientists’ perceptions of and experiences with US visa and immigration policies and how those perceptions are related to their research, interactions with trainees, and intentions to leave the US. Before discussing the results as related to the research questions, we address a few limitations. The sample is limited to three STEM fields at research intensive universities. Because norms and expectations for travel, collaboration, and hiring trainees vary across fields, the findings may not be generalizable to other fields of science, social sciences, or humanities. Second, we did not collect respondent race, ethnicity, family structure, and country of origin data. We cannot assess differences across or at the intersection of these groups. Third, our model on intention to leave focuses on perceptions of visa and immigration policies, rather than labor market demand and supply issues. We look at faculty perceptions, but do not have objective measures of pull factors including job offers, salaries, or competitiveness of positions outside the US. Fourth, our study does not look at how department or university climate shapes faculty perceptions. Future studies should explore relationships between push and pull factors, including competition from universities outside the US, and between department and university responses to visa and immigration policies and faculty experiences.

Our first research question asked what are academic scientists’ experiences with and perceptions of visa and immigration policies given recent political rhetoric, immigration policy changes and COVID-19 pandemic? Around one third report disruption related to university closures, travel delays, visa processing halts and delays, and interruption of collaborations. Faculty believe current visa and immigration policies are having more negative than positive effects on US higher education. More than 80% of respondents report that US immigration policies are negatively impacting diversity, attraction of talent, open science, competitiveness, scientific workforce development and strength of US technology industries. These findings, while related to the COVID-19 pandemic, indicate longer term negative outcomes due to the shift toward a national security approach to immigration. These longer-term negative impacts are of greater concern to scientists than the temporary policies and rhetoric of a single president. These reports align with increasing concerns surrounding recruitment and retention of international scientists at US universities due to uncertainties and inefficiencies in visa processing (Roach & Skrentny, 2019 ). All academic scientists, regardless of their own immigration status, report negative outcomes from US immigration policy and believe it is harming the success and competitiveness of US higher education which will ultimately have lasting effects on STEM diversity and innovation.

The second research question asked how current visa and immigration issues are shaping scientists’ experiences working with international students and postdocs. Respondents report increased complications related to student and postdoctoral recruitment and management. About half report a loss of new students and postdocs. Three quarters report increasing travel problems and uncertainty for current trainees. Most respondents to the survey reported having discussed employment, visa, immigration, and financial concerns with international students, half report providing mental health information and counselling recommendations, and around one-quarter reported discussing student decisions to leave the US. These results point to challenges in recruiting and retaining scientific talent as international scholars are increasingly uninterested in studying or working in the US, while simultaneously finding more competitive options outside the US (Freeman, 2010 ; Gopal, 2016 ; Marini & Yang, 2021 ). Faculty report that visa and immigration policies are driving international scholars away from the US, confirming previous findings that the shift in US immigration policy toward national security has reduced US competitiveness for top STEM scholars (Choudaha, 2018 ; Gopal, 2016 ; Sá & Sabzalieva, 2018 ; Wang et al., 2019 ).

Both domestic and international respondents indicate that a major reason for considering leaving the US is not feeling welcome due to political rhetoric and not feeling comfortable because of health and safety issues (Fig.  6 ). Other reasons differ by citizenship status, with US citizens noting pull factors such as work opportunities and non-citizens reporting push factors including immigration and visa issues for themselves and family members. Increasing uncertainties and delays in the visa and immigration process affect international scholars’ sense of security and job satisfaction, both of which predict retention (Bookman, 2020 ; Rosser, 2004 ; Sabharwal & Varama 2017 ).

When faculty perceive their colleagues are more mobile, they report a higher intention to leave. This finding confirms trends in science mobility (Jacob & Meek, 2013 ) and points to a potentially endogenous relationship between intentions and behavior. Prior research finds foreign-born faculty have more global collaborative networks and are more likely to migrate than US counterparts (Finkelstein et al., 2009 ; Franzoni et al., 2012 ), and that more foreign-born scientists and engineers are returning to their home countries to improved higher education systems, competitive salaries, and for personal and cultural reasons (Freeman, 2010 ; Kim et al., 2020 ; Marini & Yang, 2021 ; Sabharwal & Varma 2016 ). The relationship between perceived mobility and behavior is concerning because as scientists become more mobile, the more both likely foreign-born and domestic scholars will face new opportunities and adjust perceptions, behavior, and intentions to leave.

A recent qualitative study of faculty intentions to leave found heightened concerns about Trump’s policies and an increasingly hostile climate toward international scholars drove intentions (Bookman, 2020 ). Our regression model indicates that faculty intentions to leave are not significantly related to perceptions of the potential positive and negative outcomes of Trump’s visa and immigration policies (e.g. building a skilled labor supply, protecting jobs for Americans, ensuring public health). We find intention to leave is significantly related to perceptions of immigration policy damaging US higher education, recruitment, competitiveness, and diversity. This finding points to how immigration policy broadly shapes perceptions and work life for academic scientists, not just their own visa and immigration experiences but the experiences of their trainees, their ability to effectively collaborate with international scholars, recruitment and retention efforts, research agendas, and the reputation and competitiveness of the institutions where they work. These findings, taken together, indicate that shifts in US visa and immigration—beyond Trump’s specific policies—are shaping STEM faculty perceptions, experiences, and behavior. Visa and immigration policies centered on national security, along with increased delays and bureaucratic hurdles in visa processing, when coupled with attractive pull factors elsewhere, negatively impact the ability of US higher education to advance internationally competitive science. Given these circumstances, it comes as no surprise that international and eventually domestic talent will begin to opt out of the US system (Gopal, 2016 ).

Conclusions

This research confirms much of the recent research on international faculty experiences in the US (Mamiseishvili & Lee, 2018 ; Mecoli, 2021 ) in response to shifts toward an immigration system focused on national security. Our data also capture the added tensions of the COVID-19 social distancing orders, embassy closures, travel restrictions and bans, and increased visa and immigration constraints. We find that STEM faculty, regardless of citizenship status, report increased concerns about the experiences of their international trainees, delays and negative effects on international research collaborations, and long-term negative effects on university success. The US higher education system has long enjoyed being a leader in STEM production, education, and training, attracting talent from around the world. Yet, the strong pull factors that historically drew international talent to the US are shifting and competing countries now offer strong STEM education program opportunities with easier paths to full time employment, residency and potentially citizenship (Freeman, 2010 ; Gopal, 2016 ; Kim et al., 2020 ; Sá & Sabzalieva, 2018 ).

Shifts in the US immigration policy toward national security; growing anti-immigrant sentiments and travel bans; and the COVID-19 pandemic limiting travel and highlighting the poor health care system and political strife in the US are inevitably shaping scientist opportunities, strategies, mobility, and collaboration patterns. While COVID-19 will pass and the Trump policies can be reversed, the longer-term negative effects on US higher education are not easily overcome. As our results show, faculty perceive the longer-term negative effects on the higher education system as more concerning than the outcomes of Trump’s policies and these concerns coupled with perceptions of increased mobility are driving intent to leave.

Universities should be very concerned about the continued shift in immigration policy towards one of national security – it is negatively impacting higher education STEM fields, faculty and students, and research collaborations and other nations are responding by improving their university systems and offering competitive salaries and more amicable immigration systems (Freeman, 2010 ; Sabharwal & Varma 2016 , 2017 ). These negative impacts will eventually translate into negative effects on the economy and STEM workforce. Our data show that current visa and immigration policies and practices in the US are having strong, negative effects on faculty perceptions and those perceptions, coupled with increase scientist mobility, are related to intent to leave the US, which is not in the best interests of US higher education or the broader scientific enterprise and workforce.

Data Availability

Data underlying the analytical models is available upon request.

Code Availability

If accepted for publication, code underlying the analysis will be made publicly available.

Ackers, L. (2005). Moving people and knowledge: scientific mobility in the European union1. International Migration, 43 (5), 99–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2005.00343.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Altbach, P. G. (2005). Patterns in higher education development. American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, 2 , 15–37.

Google Scholar  

Altbach, P. G., & Balán, J. (2007). World Class Worldwide: Transforming Research Universities in Asia and Latin America . JHU Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Banks, M., & Bhandari, R. (2012). Global student mobility The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education . SAGE Publications.

Bollag, B. (2004). Enrollment of foreign students drops in U.S. The Chronicle of Higher Education., 51 (13), A1.

Bookman, B. (2020). Foreign-born faculty’s perceptions and experiences in a turbulent sociopolitical climate. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, 5 (1), 52–75. https://doi.org/10.32674/jimphe.v5i1.2726

Bratti, M., & Conti, C. (2018). The effect of immigration on innovation in Italy. Regional Studies, 52 (7), 934–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1360483

Cañibano, C., Otamendi, J., & Andújar, I. (2008). Measuring and assessing researcher mobility from CV analysis: The case of the Ramón y Cajal programme in Spain. Research Evaluation, 17 (1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820208X292797

Choudaha, R. (2018). ‘A Third Wave of International Student Mobility: Global Competitiveness and American Higher Education’, The Center for Studies in Higher Education, Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.8.18.

Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2007). Foreign-born academic scientists and engineers: Producing more and getting less than their U.S.-born peers? Research in Higher Education, 48 (8), 909–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9055-6

Danley, J. V. (2010). SEVIS: The impact of homeland security on American colleges and universities. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010 (146), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.343

Finkelstein, M. J., Walker, E., & Chen, R. (2009). ‘The internationalization of the American faculty: Where are we, what drives or deters us’, RIHE international seminar reports , 13: 113-144. Presented at the International Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project.

Foote, K. E., Li, W., Monk, J., & Theobald, R. (2008). Foreign-born scholars in US universities: Issues, concerns, and strategies. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32 (2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260701731322

Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2012). Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 countries Nature Biotechnology . Nature Publishing Group.

Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2014). The mover’s advantage: The superior performance of migrant scientists. Economics Letters, 122 (1), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.10.040

Freeman, R. B. (2010). What does global expansion of higher education mean for the United States? In American Universities in a global market . University of Chicago Press.

Freeman, R. B., Ganguli, I., & Murciano- Goroff, R. (2015). Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration The Changing Frontier Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy . University of Chicago Press.

Gahungu, A. (2011). ‘Integration of Foreign-Born Faculty in Academia: Foreignness as an Asset’, International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation , 6/1. NCPEA Publications

Gandhi-Lee, E., Skaza, H., Marti, E., Schrader, P. G., & Orgill, M. (2017). ‘Faculty Perceptions of Student Recruitment and Retention in STEM Fields’, European Journal of STEM Education , 2/1. Lectito Journals.

Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (2), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21688

Gibson, J., & McKenzie, D. (2014). Scientific mobility and knowledge networks in high emigration countries: Evidence from the Pacific. Research Policy, 43 (9), 1486–1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.04.005

Gopal, A., & Streitwieser, B. (2016). ‘International Students, Support Structures and the Equity Question’. Inside Higher Ed . Retrieved March 12, 2021, from < https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/world-view/international-students-support-structures-and-equity-question >

Gopal, A. (2016). Visa and immigration trends: A comparative examination of international student mobility in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 4 (3), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/sem3.20091

Guruz, K. (2011). Higher Education and International Student Mobility in the Global Knowledge Economy (2nd ed.). State University of New York Press.

Harris, L. (2014). ‘Education and Immigration: Why Keeping International Students Is a Good Thing for the Economy’. HuffPost . Retrieved March 12, 2021, from < https://www.huffpost.com/entry/education-and-immigration_b_5609706 >

Hawthorne, L. (2012). Designer immigrants? International students and two-step migration The Sage Handbook of International Higher Education . SAGE Publications.

Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence . Palgrave Macmillan.

Jackson, A. (2017). ‘The 10 US colleges that stand to lose the most from Trump’s immigration ban’. Business Insider . Retrieved March 12, 2021, from < https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-potentially-most-affected-trump-immigration-ban-2017-2 >

Jacob, M., & Meek, V. L. (2013). Scientific mobility and international research networks: Trends and policy tools for promoting research excellence and capacity building. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (3), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.773789

Johnson, T. P., Feeney, M. K., Jung, H., Frandell, A., Caldarulo, M., Michalegko, L., & Welch, E. W. (2021). COVID-19 and the academy: opinions and experiences of university(-based scientists in the U.S. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications., 8 (1), 1–7.

Kahn, S., & MacGarvie, M. (2020). The impact of permanent residency delays for STEM PhDs: Who leaves and why. Research Policy STEM Migration, Research, and Innovation, 49 (9), 103879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103879

Kania, E., & McReynolds, J. (2021). ‘The Biden Administration Should Review and Rebuild the Trump Administration’s China Initiative From the Ground Up’. Lawfare .

Kerr, W. R., & Lincoln, W. F. (2010). The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and US Ethnic Invention. Journal of Labor Economics . https://doi.org/10.1086/651934

Kim, D., Roh, J. Y., & Barroso, E. T. D. (2018). To stay or not to stay: A decision to make upon completion of doctoral degrees among Asian international doctorates in US higher education institutions. In Y. Ma & M. A. Garcia-Murillo (Eds.), Understanding international students from Asia in American universities. Springer.

Kim, D., Twombly, S., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2012). International faculty in american universities: experiences of academic life, productivity, and career mobility. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2012 (155), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20020

Kim, D., Twombly, S. B., Wolf-Wendel, L., & Belin, A. A. (2020). Understanding career mobility of professors: Does Foreign-born status matter? Innovative Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09513-x

Kim, D., Wolf-Wendel, L., & Twombly, S. (2011). International faculty: Experiences of Academic life and productivity in U.S. universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 82 (6), 720–747. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2011.0038

Lu, Z., Li, W., Li, M., & Chen, Y. (2019). Destination China: International students in chengdu. International Migration, 57 (3), 354–372.

Makalintal, B. (2021). ‘Asian Americans Are Calling on Allies in Response to a Wave of Violence’. Vice . Retrieved March 12, 2021, from < https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdw4z/attacks-on-elders-asian-american-community-racism-covid >

Mamiseishvili, K. (2013). Contributions of foreign-born faculty to doctoral education and research. New Directions for Higher Education . https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20068

Mamiseishvili, K., & Lee, D. (2018). International faculty perceptions of departmental climate and workplace satisfaction. Innovative Higher Education, 43 (5), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-018-9432-4

Mamiseishvili, K., & Rosser, V. J. (2010). International and citizen faculty in the United States: An examination of their productivity at research universities. Research in Higher Education, 51 (1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9145-8

Marini, G., & Yang, L. (2021). Globally bred Chinese talents returning home: An analysis of a reverse brain-drain flagship policy. Science and Public Policy, 48 (4), 541–552.

Mecoli, N. A. (2021). Employment in the Time of Crisis: International Faculty and Recessionary Events in American Higher Education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). https://www.proquest.com/openview/f64fb770bb3e123f28951d9c4c3a45c4/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Moed, H. F., Aisati, M., & Plume, A. (2013). Studying scientific migration in Scopus. Scientometrics, 94 (3), 929–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0783-9

National Science Board. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 . Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from < https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators/ >

National Science Board. (2020). Science and Engineering Indicators 2020 . Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from < https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators/ >

Nerdrum, L., & Sarpebakken, B. (2006). Mobility of foreign researchers in Norway. Science and Public Policy, 33 (3), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781779000

Roach, M., & Skrentny, J. (2019). Why foreign STEM PhDs are unlikely to work for US technology startups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (34), 16805–16810. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820079116

Rosser, V. J. (2004). Faculty Members’ Intentions to Leave: A National Study on Their Worklife and Satisfaction Research in Higher Education . Springer.

Sá, C. M., & Sabzalieva, E. (2018). The politics of the great brain race: Public policy and international student recruitment in Australia, Canada, England and the USA. Higher Education, 75 (2), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0133-1

Sabharwal, M., & Varma,. (2017). Grass is greener on the other side: Return migration of indian engineers and scientists in academia. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 37 (1), 34–44.

Sabharwal, M., & Varma. (2016). Return migration to India: Decision-making among academic engineers and scientists. International Migration . https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12265

Schiller, D., & Diez, J. R. (2008). ‘Mobile star scientists as regional knowledge spillover agents’, IARED Working Paper, 11: 3–33.

Siekierski, P., Lima, M. C., Borini, F. M., & Pereira, R. M. (2018). International academic mobility and innovation: a literature review. Journal of Global Mobility the Home of Expatriate Management Research . https://doi.org/10.1108/JGM-04-2018-0019

Slaughter, S. (2014) ‘Retheorizing Academic Capitalism: Actors, Mechanisms, Fields, and Networks’, Academic Capitalism in the Age of Globalization, JHU Press, MD

Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (2003). ‘Foreign Scholars in U . S . Science : Contributions and Costs’, Science and the University , 237/April.

Stephan, P., Franzoni, C., & Scellato, G. (2013). Choice of Country by the Foreign Born for PhD and Postdoctoral Study: A Sixteen-Country Perspective ( No. w18809). NBER working papers series. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved March 12, 2021, from < http://www.nber.org/papers/w18809.pdf >. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w18809

Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (2000). Exceptional contributions to US science by the foreign-born and foreign-educated. Population Research and Policy Review, 20 (1–2), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010682017950

Sun, X. E., & Bian, Y. (2012). Ethnic networking in the transnational engagement of Chinese American scientists. Asian Perspective, 36 (3), 435–461.

Teich, A. H. (2014) ‘Streamlining the Visa and Immigration Systems for Scientists and Engineers’, Issues in Science and Technology, University of Texas at Dallas

Toren, N. (1996). Integration of immigrants in science, medicine and engineering and the structure of collegial networks in Israel. Science and Public Policy, 23 (6), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/23.6.361

Trapani, J., & Gibbons, M. (2020). Academic Research and Development (No. NSB-2020–2). Science and Engineering Indicators 2020. Alexandria, VA: National Science Board. Retrieved March 9, 2021, from < https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20202/ >

Trump, D. J. (2018). ‘Presidential memorandum on optimizing the use of Federal government information in support of the national vetting enterprise’. The White House.

US Department of State & Bureau of Consular Affairs. (2020). ‘Suspension of Routine Visa Services’. Retrieved March 12, 2021, from < https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/suspension-of-routine-visa-services.html >

van Holm, E. J., Wu, Y., & Welch, E. W. (2019). Comparing the collaboration networks and productivity of China-born and US-born academic scientists. Science and Public Policy, 46 (2), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy060

Varma, R., & Kapur, D. (2013). Comparative analysis of brain drain, brain circulation and brain retain: A case study of Indian Institutes of Technology. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 15 , 315–330.

Wadhia, S. S. (2018). National Security, Immigration and the Muslim Bans. Washington and Lee Law Review, 75 , 1475.

Wadhwa, V., & Salkever, A. (2012). The immigrant Exodus: Why America is losing the global race to capture entrepreneurial talent . Wharton Digital Press.

Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34 (10), 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.002

Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Growth of international collaboration in science: Revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics, 110 (3), 1633–1652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2230-9

Wang, J., Hooi, R., Li, A. X., & Chou, M. (2019). Collaboration patterns of mobile academics: The impact of international mobility. Science and Public Policy, 46 (3), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy073

Welch, E. W., van Holm, E. J., Jung, H., Melkers, J., Robinson-Garcia, N., Mamiseishvili, K., & Pinheiro, D. (2018). ‘The Global Scientific Workforce (GTEC) Framework’ STI 2018 Conference Proceedings. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). 868–71

AB Wire. (2020). ‘Trump extends executive order suspending H-1B till March’. The American Bazaar . Retrieved March 12, 2021, from < https://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2020/12/31/trump-executive-h-1b-order-set-to-expire-443630/ >

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the SciOPS team for conducting survey design and implementation, and data for this paper, specifically Eric W. Welch, Lesley Michalegko, Mary K. Feeney, Timothy P. Johnson, Mattia Caldarulo, Ashlee Frandell, Shaika Lamia Islam, and Heyjie Jung

This study was funded by the Arizona State University and the Center for Technology, Science and Environmental Policy Studies as part of a new science communication tool, SciOPS ( www.sci-ops.org ), which collects representative opinion data on current events from scientists in the United States to be shared with policy makers, journalists, and the general public.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Mary K. Feeney

Center for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Studies, Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA

Heyjie Jung & Eric W. Welch

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA

Timothy P. Johnson

Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA

Heyjie Jung

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors whose names appear on the submission made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data; and drafting and completion of the manuscript. All authors approve the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary K. Feeney .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

The data collection underlying this manuscript was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Arizona State University and University of Illinois at Chicago.

Consent to Participate

All research participants gave informed consent.

Consent for Publication

All research participants gave informed consent and the researchers are only reporting data in the aggregate, thus ensuring individual identities are protected.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 27 KB)

Appendix a questionnaire items and descriptive summary.

Appendix B Descriptive statistics for variables used for the logistic regression

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Feeney, M.K., Jung, H., Johnson, T.P. et al. U.S. Visa and Immigration Policy Challenges: Explanations for Faculty Perceptions and Intent to Leave. Res High Educ 64 , 1031–1057 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-023-09731-0

Download citation

Received : 22 July 2021

Accepted : 16 February 2023

Published : 06 March 2023

Issue Date : November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-023-09731-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Higher education
• Immigration
• Foreign-born scientists
• STEM faculty
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Immigrants and refugees.

• How to Use this Guide
• What is an Immigrant or Refugee?
• Encyclopedias and Handbooks

Key Databases

Recommended starting points to find articles, important information for remote users.

• U.S. Immigration Law
• Troubles @ the US/Mexico Border
• Mixed Media
• Policy Papers
• International Law
• Interest Groups
• International Organizations
• Statistics and Data

UC Library Search

If UCI doesn't own a journal article, you can (freely!)  get it with InterLibary Loan .

Got a Citation?

Learn more about Citations or how to Save and Manage them.

• InterLibrary Loans - How To Document Visual how-to to request interlibrary loans, from the catalog page or manually when needed.

• Social Science Research Network [SSRN] Downloadable full text documents. SSRN is "devoted to the rapid worldwide dissemination of social science research and composed of a number of specialized research networks in each of the social sciences..."
• AARN: Migration (Topic) Anthropology & Archaeology Research Network Research Paper Series - Migration focused journal articles

Sample SSRN Articles: 

Lynch, Timothy E., The ICCPR, Non-Self-Execution, and DACA Recipients' Right to Remain in the United States (June 16, 2020). Georgetown Immigration Law Review, Vol. 34, 2020, Available at SSRN:  https://ssrn.com/abstract=3628600  

Campbell, Kristina Michelle, Dreamers Deferred: The Broken Promise of Immigration Reform in the Obama Years (December 1, 2019). 40 Immigr. & Nat'lity L. Rev. 265 (2019), Available at SSRN:  https://ssrn.com/abstract=4261492

Ryo, Emily, Representing Immigrants: The Role of Lawyers in Immigration Bond Hearings (July 19, 2018). Law & Society Review, Vol. 52: 503-531 (2018); USC CLASS Research Paper No. CLASS18-11; USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 18-11. 

Gilman , Denise L., To Loose the Bonds: The Deceptive Promise of Freedom from Pre-Trial Immigration Detention (February 24, 2016). U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 644. 

The changing culture, discussion and challenges of migrants and refugees issues covers many disciplines; see these interdisciplinary databases to search many disciplines and resource types, like newspapers, trade journals or scholarly journals, at once.

• Migration & Diaspora Journals Group of journals in these subject areas from BrowZine
• Immigration Topic Journals List of journals that cover immigration from our catalog listings.
• AlterNative Journal Internationally peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal on latest thinking and practice in Indigenous scholarship, on Indigenous worldviews and experiences of decolonization from Indigenous perspectives from around the world.
• Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

The information provided below will help you access and use the Libraries' online resources when you are not connected to the campus computer network.

• Connect from off-campus :  The majority of the library online materials are available only to current UC Irvine students, faculty and staff.  Authenticate yourself with your UCInet ID and password in order to use them remotely.
• Ask a Librarian :  There are lots of ways to get help from a librarian.
• Find Articles: The Databases To Get You Started guide provides links to resources (called databases) that will help you find scholarly and popular articles. 
• Citations: A Beginners Guide : This guide provides basic information on how to cite the materials you use for your writing assignments.
• Need more help?  Ask a Librarian
• << Previous: Encyclopedias and Handbooks
• Next: U.S. Immigration Law >>
• Last Updated: Aug 30, 2024 4:16 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/immigrants

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Immigration Trends

Latinos’ views on the migrant situation at the u.s.-mexico border.

U.S. Hispanics are less likely than other Americans to say increasing deportations or a larger wall along the border will help the situation.

Key facts about recent trends in global migration

The number of international migrants grew to 281 million in 2020; 3.6% of the world’s people lived outside their country of birth that year.

What’s happening at the U.S.-Mexico border in 7 charts

The U.S. Border Patrol reported more than 1.6 million encounters with migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2021 fiscal year.

Key facts about Asian Americans, a diverse and growing population

A record 22 million Asian Americans trace their roots to more than 20 countries in East and Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

Facts on U.S. immigrants, 2018

Key statistics about immigrants in the United States from 1980 to 2018.

Unauthorized immigrant population trends for states, birth countries and regions

In 2017, an estimated 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States, down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. Explore trends in the unauthorized immigrant population for U.S. states, as well as for birth countries and regions, based on Pew Research Center estimates.

Estimates of U.S. unauthorized immigrant population, by metro area, 2016 and 2007

Sortable table of estimates of unauthorized immigrant populations in 182 U.S. metropolitan areas, derived from a sample of census data.

U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016

Pew Research Center estimates that 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants, the lowest level in a decade, lived in the U.S. in 2016

Immigrant share in U.S. nears record high but remains below that of many other countries

Nearly 14% of the U.S. population is foreign-born. That’s the highest share of foreign-born people in the country since 1910, but it’s far from the highest in the world.

International migrants by country

Explore detailed tables on the number and share of immigrants and emigrants by country.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

• D’Vera Cohn (25)
• Jeffrey S. Passel (25)
• Phillip Connor (24)
• Jens Manuel Krogstad (17)
• Mark Hugo Lopez (12)
• Ana Gonzalez-Barrera (9)
• Rakesh Kochhar (7)
• Eileen Patten (5)
• Gustavo López (5)
• Jynnah Radford (5)
• Neil G. Ruiz (5)
• Paul Taylor (5)
• Roberto Suro (5)
• Abby Budiman (4)
• Daniel Dockterman (3)
• Gretchen Livingston (3)
• Luis Noe-Bustamante (3)
• Michael Suh (3)
• Monica Anderson (3)
• Tom Rosentiel (3)
• Adam Nekola (2)
• Anna Brown (2)
• Antonio Flores (2)
• Ariana Rodriguez-Gitler (2)
• George Gao (2)
• Renee Stepler (2)
• Richard Fry (2)
• Seth Motel (2)
• Shirin Hakimzadeh (2)
• Alissa Scheller (1)
• Andrea Caumont (1)
• Anusha Natarajan (1)
• Arturo Gonzalez (1)
• Audrey Singer (1)
• B. Lindsey Lowell (1)
• Bruce Drake (1)
• C. Soledad Espinoza (1)
• Christine Tamir (1)
• Felisa Gonzales (1)
• Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz (1)
• Frank D. Bean (1)
• Gabriel Velasco (1)
• Jacob Poushter (1)
• Jennifer Van Hook (1)
• John Gramlich (1)
• Karen Woodrow-Lafield (1)
• Katayoun Kishi (1)
• Lauren Mora (1)
• Michael T. Light (1)
• Mohamad Moslimani (1)
• Peter Bell (1)
• Pew Research Center Staff (1)
• Rebecca Hinze-Pifer (1)
• Rich Morin (1)
• Ruth Igielnik (1)
• Sonya Tafoya (1)

Research Teams

• Race and Ethnicity (96)
• Global Migration and Demography (47)
• Global (43)
• Social Trends (24)
• Religion (7)
• Politics (5)
• Internet and Technology (4)
• Data Labs (1)
• Journalism (1)
• Methods (1)
• Pew Research Center (1)
• Science (1)

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center