Introduction
For a number
of decades, corporate entities have made financial investments in expatriating workers.
Such investments are supposed to cover monetary compensation, skill
development, and the toil that future assignments might entail. Due to overseas
business interests, professional researchers have had to acknowledge “reentry”
– the repatriation phase of international assignment – since at least the
1960s. Ultimately, though, it has been the expatriation phase of international
assignment, and not reentry, that has received the lion’s share of scholarly
attention (see Storti, The Art of Coming Home). Moreover, available research
suggests that international assignees (workers on international assignment)
experience greater difficulty with the reentry phase of their work than with
entering a foreign culture for the first time (see Black et al., “Toward a
theoretical framework of repatriation adjustment”).
The
difficulties associated with, or related to, workers’ “reentry transition” are documented
and researched across distinct academic disciplines. But academic documentation
remains largely unconnected as many issues have yet to be addressed with
rigorous interdisciplinarity. What is more, there are many lacking elements,
including such basic things as definitions for terms like “repatriate,”
“reverse migrant,” and so on (see Szkudlarek, “Reentry—A review of the
literature”). Furthermore, researchers have yet to fully address the fact that
(1) anthropological analyses of return migration, (2) psychological studies of
expatriate readjustment, and (3) the intercultural literature on other
repatriated subjects endure as distinct phenomena—and with little-to-no overlap!
In addition to a lack
of interdisciplinary analysis, a lack of common theoretical frameworks, and a
lack of standardized methods of research, numerous other factors contribute to
a poor understanding of reentry as a thing in itself. Though a number of
publications on expatriation refers to reentry as “the theme of cross-cultural
reentry, its course, impact, and features” (see Szkudlarek), the general lack
of standard measures for reentry yet impedes researchers from drawing
conclusions and comparing studies (see Cox, “The role of communication, technology
and cultural identity in repatriation adjustment”).
Ultimately, reentry remains both neglected and underestimated amongst corresponding
academic circles. Despite this, researchers have begun questioning the role
that communication technologies have played in the experience of returning
expatriates.
Communication
Communication
behavior plays an important role in reentry. One assumption holds that the
“quality or emotionality of communication would be restricted by the technical
limitations of various kinds of media.” On a similar note, there is evidence
that newer technologies (e.g., e-mail, the Internet, etc.) were not only
subject to the most frequent use by sojourning workers, but also, their use was
linked to high levels of satisfaction in users. In fact, one study shows that
communication via different types of information and communication technologies
is “just as satisfying to individuals on overseas assignments as personal
visits” (see Cox, Szkudlarek). This is remarkable. But why?
A good number reentry
analyses indicates a universal concern for the psychological wellbeing, social
readjustment, and cultural identity of “repatriating sojourners” (see
Szkudlarek). Indeed, some cases of reentry are so severe in their psychological
impact on the individual worker that they reach clinical levels (see Sahin,
“Re-entry and the academic and psychological problems of the second generation”).
Repatriating sojourners even experience the same levels of distress as bereaved
individuals (see Chamove et al., “Grief in returning sojourners”). Cox states,
“Understanding the use of … communications technologies, would give individuals
and organizations a better understanding of how technology can be used
throughout the expatriate experience to facilitate successful [reentry].” Greater
study of this particular area could potentially affect numerous individual
volunteers—as well as the sponsoring organizations that deliberate
communication technologies and their impacts on worker reentry.
In all, reentry
research is complex despite the fact that many problems in cross-cultural
adjustment in individuals on international assignment are well known and
documented. Without a doubt, the reentry phase of international assignment
warrants greater attention from the research community (see Martin, “The
intercultural reentry: Conceptualization and directions for future research”). While
some scholarship is mindful of the fact that cross-cultural adaptations of
certain groups – immigrants, refugees, and sojourners – have undergone
extensive investigation within the social sciences, there is no integrating
theoretical foundation for a truly comprehensive assessment (see Kim,
“Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory”). Any
attempt to systematize much of the available literature would require
addressing several areas of concern: the reentry process; reentry theories and
behavioral nuances; gender; age; marital status; etc.). In addition, future researchers
might examine studies that treat the influences of “demographic factors, communication
behavior, and cultural identity” on the reentry phase of international
assignment (see Cox).
History and Key Aspects
By the end of the
Second World War, sociological research had already begun examining the
“equivocal concepts of ‘home’ and ‘primary relations’” from the perspective of
an expatriated individual as much as that of someone welcoming an expat home.
Findings suggest that both individuals changed with time—not merely the
returnee herself. Insofar as returnees are concerned, some researchers have
seriously asked whether it is even possible to for them “go home again” once they
have expatriated (see Scheutz, “The homecomer”). Beyond
these domestic relationships, international and intercultural relationships
also impact the young members of an expatriated family. These young individuals
must sometimes adjust to two or more unique cultures, which remains no small
task for them as they mature to adulthood (see Firmin et al., “Social adjustment among
students growing up in foreign mission-field contexts”).
Such observations call into question the boundaries of the
expatriation/repatriation experience wrought on workers and their loved ones.
It is ultimately true
for expats living in different societies that all kinds of problems can
manifest upon their return (see Bretsch, “A study of intercultural adjustment
problems of missionary children”). Grief models and related research on expats
sojourning in foreign places focus on the initial adjustment phase to the host
country—but not on reentry. Again, in some cases, sojourners who repatriate to
their home states experience grief on levels comparable to those experienced
during “loss from death” (see Chamove). Consider, for example, the Unitedstatesians
who sojourn abroad and then experience reverse culture shock upon reentry. In
this particular demographic, the returnees who reportedly experience a “high
level of reverse cultures shock” may also have greater difficulty with reentry
than those who report little reverse culture shock. Research also evinces a
negative correlation worthy of note: with an increase in culture shock comes a
decrease in the use of support services (see Gaw, “Reverse culture shock in
students returning from overseas”). In terms of business and industry, some researchers
urge that human resources departments ought to at least adopt a “clear policy
on repatriation”— most likely for similar and related issues (see Hurn, “Repatriation—the
toughest assignment of all”).
Research that
examines the expectations for, and reactions to, “college level” study-abroad
programs commonly assess the following characteristics: age, gender, program
location, previous transition or experience with sojourning, and communication
(see Rohrlich, “Host country and reentry adjustment of student sojourners”). These
same details might be important for prospective research that seeks to treat
repatriated workers. In one phenomenological investigation, for instance, students
returning home after their college-level experience of studying abroad were
asked to interview and to reply to the following statement: “Please describe
your experiences of returning home after your study abroad.” After taping,
transcribing, and analyzing within the context of group subjects, a few
“bipolar themes” emerged: “Shock/Adjustment,” “Freedom/Restriction,” and
“Changing/Static”—all of which the researchers “grounded in the theme of
cultural comparison” (see Thompson et al., “Can you go home again?”). Such phenomenological
interviews might also provide a sound platform on which to build greater knowledge
vis-à-vis workers returned from international assignment.
Conclusion
Generally speaking, a good deal of the research performed
on expatriating workers does not entail the repatriation phase of their
international assignment, or “reentry.” How
communication technologies effect this particular phase receives even less
attention (see Storti). Many international firms fund the research related to this topic,
which is perhaps the most significant reason for it having been conducted. Nevertheless,
firms do not always consider the repatriation phase of sojourning workers
(reentry) to be critical to their business after the fact. Expatriated volunteers, too, often occupy worker roles, and the
small amount of recent research on the matter suggests that the reentry phase
of international assignment is more critical than the expatriation phase itself
(see Black). In sum, relevant
research suggests that reentry needs to be an issue of the utmost priority for
sojourning individuals as well as people who manage the reentry transition of
sojourners (see Martin). Of course, this encompasses numerous
kinds of workers who are returned from international assignment (see Szkudlarek). Theory suggests that a number of things affect
psychological wellbeing, social readjustment, and cultural identity amongst
returning individuals. New forms of communication
have the potential to affect all of these areas and more (see Cox), but first they will have to receive greater attention.
Mateo Pimentel is an Axis of Logic columnist, living on the US-Mexico border. Read the Biography and additional articles by Axis Columnist Mateo Pimentel.
© Copyright 2015 by AxisofLogic.com
This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!
|