MOVE was based on a multi-level, transdisciplinary research design. Firstly, the macro level was examined by analysing social and economic data at a national and regional level. Following, our own analyses - qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey - were compiled. On the micro level, young people’s achievement of agency was the main focus. On the meso level, the organizational/institutional context of the mobility type within the respective (inter)national legal regulatory framework was taken into consideration.
A macro-database on youth mobility (here: those aged 15 - 29) and related socio-economic indicators was initially compiled, based primarily on publicly available data from EUROSTAT, OECD, UN, and the World Bank. This integrated, unique database includes macro-data from EU-28 and 3 EFTA (CH, IS, NO) countries, and covers a period of 10 years (2004-2013). By focusing on the creation and exploitation of human capital on the basis of youth mobility macro-indicators, a country-typology was created that distinguishes four country types: (1) mobility promoters: prone to losing their skilled workforce; (2) mobility utilisers: produce and make use of human capital; (3) mobility fallers: educate youth but cannot retain them; (4) mobility beneficiaries: make use of and integrate the highly skilled into their economic and societal structures.
The second data source comprised qualitative interviews conducted with young people from six mobility types (N=206), complemented by insights from youth mobility experts (N=40). The data collection took place from January to December 2016. Each mobility type was examined in two countries (cross-country comparison) and each country focused on two mobility types (cross-field comparison). The interview guide covered: mobility experiences (circumstances before/during stay abroad), relationships, hindering and fostering factors and evaluation/situation after the stay abroad. From the qualitative material, six patterns emerged: (1) peer relationships are the main context in which youth mobility is bred, induced or hampered; (2) mobility is a learning process, framed as “doing something else”, mobility itself is insufficient, requiring enhancement through additional processes/activities; (3) mobility contexts are not only personal (peers and/or family) but always interwoven with forms of institutionalization such as education and work; (4) mobility occurs mainly where youth become members of organisations (membership) in order to gain access to funding, information and guidance; (5) youth connect their mobility to the wish to become independent; (6) youth connect their mobility and leave home with the wish to break out. Youth mobility is to be seen as a form of initiation, a rite of passage into aspects of society (i.e. education, work and family); in mobility young people experience practices that introduce them to bureaucratic structures/procedures, to norms and practices of at work, etc..
The third data source was an online survey (N=8,706: a merged dataset from a panel sample of 5,499, and a snowball sample, only for mobiles, of 3,207) conducted in order to explore who the mobile youth population are and why some are not mobile, and to address the mobility-fostering and -hindering factors, the social embeddedness and social background of (non-)mobile youth. The data was collected from November 2016 to February 2017. The results show that 74.7% of young respondents evaluate their mobility experiences positively and 91.3% report themselves as the major influence in the decision to become mobile. The main mobility motivations are: to learn or improve languages (46.3%); previous knowledge of a language (33%), considered to be an advantage for mobility; to improve working conditions (31.2%); to improve the opportunities for personal and professional development (28.7%). The most useful sources of information are informal sources, such as internet search engines (48.5%) or friends (35.7%); followed by advice from teachers/tutors (32.1%). In regard to future plans, 35.4% of mobile respondents express doubts about returning to their country of origin, while non-mobiles consider that it is unlikely that they will move to another country or region.
Triangulating the data sources, the following generalisations can be made:
- European countries differ regarding (pre)conditions to youth mobility, which, in turn, could lead to inequalities in individual access to mobility and mobility outcomes,
- hindering factors and motivations differ between mobility types, as they follow different logics: the main differences are between work-related and education-related mobilities (i.e. student, pupil and VET mobility),
- the approach of youth to mobility differs depending on biographical and institutional embeddedness; young people change their agentic strategies as they respond to new situations,
- social networks play an important role in mobility, both as a fostering and hindering factor.
