Assembling the “Brain” in International Educational Discourse

• In Event: Virtual Mobility and Strategic Internationalization: Examining Digital Trends in Global Higher Education

Proposal

In this paper, I interrogate how the concept of "brain" has been constructed through an assemblage of historical discourses and various governmental, institutional, national, and global actor-networks to become an object of inquiry in the internationalization of higher education. I aim to offer both an analysis and critique of the term "brain" as a matter of concern, with the goal of destabilizing its meaning and revealing how it has been constructed.

**Relevance

There is extensive literature in international education, economic and public policy, globalization, and migration and diaspora studies on the phenomenon of brain drain (Biglari et al., 2022; Kone & Özden, 2017; Mahroum, 2005; Rizvi, 2005; Robertson, 2006; Sager, 2014; Vinokur, 2006; Ukpokodu, 2020). This body of scholarship traditionally investigates what brain drain means for countries whose skilled workers and educated individuals emigrate, as well as for the host countries where they relocate (Giannoccolo, 2009). Kaempf and Singb (1987) note UNESCO’s 1980 definition of brain drain as "an atypical form of scientific exchange marked by a unidirectional flow favoring more advanced countries." Unsurprisingly, scholarly and policy discourses have largely focused on economic gains and losses, especially in the context of global knowledge markets (Cañibano & Woolley, 2015).

However, recent conversations in these fields have complicated the discourse by highlighting the circulation of brainpower and talent, providing a more nuanced understanding of the movement of educated and skilled individuals across the globe (Varma & Kapur, 2013). Special attention has been paid to the mobility of brainpower from the Global South and so-called "developing" countries to the Global North (Córdova, 2004). This discourse is often framed in terms of brain drain, brain loss, and brain gain, with critics arguing that such uneven mobilities contribute to "underdevelopment" (Kone & Özden, 2017).

This paper is particularly relevant to the CIES 2025 theme, as digitalization is accelerating the circulation and stabilization of these discourses across national and international contexts.

**Context of Internationalization

Mobility has become one of the primary analytical frameworks within the field of higher education internationalization. International students and scholars are frequently depicted in terms of the economic benefits they bring to educational institutions and host societies (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Choudaha & Van Mol, 2022; Zhang & Lucey, 2019). These discussions often mirror the discourse on brain drain/gain/circulation, which are not only present in academic discourse but are also deeply embedded in national discourses worldwide (Chimboza, 2012; Karimi & Gharaati, 2013; Nwokocha, 2016; Varma & Kapur, 2013).

Why have these discourses been so widely understood and mobilized across national and international contexts? Despite the intense focus on brain drain, brain gain, and brain circulation, little is known about the social construction of the discourse itself. What exactly constitutes a "brain" in these discussions? In this paper, I interrogate the assemblage of the brain by drawing from actor-network theory (Latour, 2005) and poststructural assemblage theory (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987/2020).

**Inquiry

This paper explores how "brain" discourse has become a norm in the internationalization of higher education. I use actor-network theory (Latour, 2005) and poststructural assemblage theory (1987/2020) as a framework (Author, 2022) to explain how the concept of brain has been assembled historically. Latour (2005) poses the question: who constructs socially constructed realities? Answering this requires us to understand the social world as an assemblage of actors—both human and non-human—who form interconnections in rhizomatic ways (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987/2020) to stabilize social reality.

This shift in focus moves the inquiry away from simply explaining brain drain, gain, or circulation and towards understanding why the "brain" has become an object of analysis in the first place. In this context, the brain does not assume a fixed meaning but is destabilized and reassembled as an amalgam of frameworks, actor-networks, and discourses that have given it its stabilized meaning. In line with Suspitsyna’s (2020) work, this inquiry seeks to critique the concept of the brain as a matter of concern, rather than as a matter of fact (Latour, 2004).

**Findings

In this paper, I demonstrate that the concept of "brain" has been assembled through various actors, including governmental institutions, human capital theory, the media, scientific and technological discourses, and national and global migration discourses.

First, I situate the rise of the brain drain discourse within the broader context of U.S. governmental policy shifts in the 1960s, particularly with the adoption of human capital theory, which justified governmental investment in higher education (Holden & Biddle, 2017). The rise of the brain drain discourse is closely tied to the emergence of human capital theory during the 1960s, a relationship that can be traced through tools like Google N-gram (although this does not imply causality). The U.S. government's investment in science and technology, spurred by the successful launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union, further accelerated this discourse (Geiger, 2008; Holden & Biddle, 2017).

Second, I highlight the role of media in shaping the construction of brain discourses. In various national and international contexts, brainpower is frequently portrayed as a national asset that is either lost through large-scale emigration or gained through immigration of educated and skilled individuals (Gjerazi, 2024; Grubel & Scott, 2016).

Third, I provide examples of how national discourses around brain drain intersect with global discussions of brainpower (Chimboza, 2012; Karimi & Gharaati, 2013; Nwokocha, 2016; Varma & Kapur, 2013). These intersecting discourses shape both policy and public perception on the movement of talent across borders, ultimately influencing international educational practices and policies.

**Contributions

By approaching the discourse of internationalization and brainpower as a matter of concern (Latour, 2004), I seek to interrogate how the concept of "brain" has become signified as a common-sense term in educational, economic, political, and migration discourses. This approach destabilizes the meaning of "brain" by showing how governmental actors, national and global discourses, and media have collectively assembled the brain as an object of interest for research, policy, and politics.

This work contributes to the field of internationalization of higher education (Suspitsyna, 2020) by encouraging scholars to rethink the taken-for-granted nature of brain drain/gain/circulation discourse.

Author

• Milad Mohebali, University of Nebraska Lincoln