*2.4. Correlation Between Faculty Mobility and Gender*

In general, previous studies have found that female faculty members are less likely to move than their male peers [25,26] because of family caretaking considerations or a preference for larger metropolitan areas [27]. Additionally, some female faculty members may prefer to be affiliated with an institution with higher prestige [28] and may opt to accept a part-time position at a higher prestige institution rather than a full-time appointment at a lower prestige institution. Kacey Beddoes and Alice L. Pawley [29] held that a married woman may be constrained by family responsibility and her husband's career, and the final decision regarding a move is often based on benefit to the husband [30]. In addition to, Jöns' study [31] "transitional academic mobility and gender" with the visiting researchers in Germany found that the academic world of female researchers had less interest in mobility than that of their male colleagues. The limitation of female mobility in their work life found in the literature related to both education and research is family-concerning responsibility especially taking care of their children [32]. Similarly, in the Italian labor market, Alkadry and Tower [33] address an overlooked manifestation of pay discrimination against women in the labor market, and men's salaries increase faster than women's, which is more significant for employee mobility between companies and represents a form of gender salary punishment. Gender bias related to income and mobility is generally similar in the U.S. and Europe.

#### *2.5. Study of the Impact Factors for Faculty Mobility in Di*ff*erent Countries*

The literature on the impact factors for faculty mobility has significant national characteristics [34]. The existing literature has noted many concerns about faculty mobility in the U.S. Meanwhile, scholars from other parts of the world have also had many discussions about the impact factors for faculty mobility. Compared with the U.S., European scholars have focused more on the macro and meso levels in recent years, especially the study of how faculty mobility is influenced by various policy designs [35] in which money is the key factor that facilitates scholars' mobility. Some European scholars even believe that the European academic labor market is far from being fully developed and that appropriate policy intervention is thus necessary. Some European countries fully consider the influence of money when designing policies to facilitate mobility (e.g., Sweden), and some non-European countries tend to welcome and promote faculty mobility and incorporate the basic concept of leveraging money to promote faculty mobility in their policy design (e.g., Brazil, Chile, and South Africa).

There has been a general lack of research on job mobility among Chinese faculty members [19], particularly empirical research, and the findings of previous studies have not been consistent with respect to the relationship between income and mobility. In 2008, a questionnaire survey of 268 faculty members at six Chinese universities found that material aspects such as income and preferential treatment were the key factors for promoting faculty mobility [36]. By contrast, in 2012, an analysis of sample data for full-time faculty members at Chinese public four-year universities found that job satisfaction was the most significant variable in explaining faculty mobility intention [37].

#### **3. Data and Method**

#### *Description of the Data*

Ethical approval for this study was not sought due to the absence of an Ethics Committee process. The following steps were undertaken to ensure due consideration of the ethical process: All participants were provided with written information about the nature and purpose of the research project. Faculties were informed about the study at the beginning that data collected may be included in publications, and that they could withdraw their contributions at any time without penalty. All institutional information was de-identified; all faculty responses were anonymous; faculties were given the choice to respond to the survey questionnaire. Their submission of the questionnaire was taken as indication of their informed consent to participate in the research.

The Survey of Faculty Mobility was distributed to 1,100 faculty members from 11 Chinese research universities. All the included universities are part of the "Double first-class construction" project ("Double first-class construction" project: In 2017, the Chinese government introduced the project to establish world-class universities and world-class disciplines; to date, 42 universities have been in the list of world-class construction universities, 99 universities have been in the list of world-class disciplines construction universities). There were three primary considerations when selecting this sample. The first was the geographic distribution and characteristics of the included universities: four in east China (Peking University, Tsinghua University, Fudan University, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University), three in central China (Wuhan University, Huazhong University of Science and Technology and Central South University), and four in west China (Lanzhou University, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Northwestern Polytechnical University, and Northwest Agriculture and Forest University). The second consideration was the universities' rankings: the selected 11 universities are ranked in the top 50 Chinese Universities [38]. The third consideration was the academic disciplines of the universities. Of the 11 universities, five are comprehensive universities, five are polytechnic universities, and one is an agricultural university, which corresponds to the general proportion of comprehensive universities (33%), polytechnic universities (36%), and agricultural universities (5%) among Chinese research universities. Overall, the 11 selected universities represent 28% of the total number (39) of Chinese research universities; thus, the sample can represent the general characteristics of faculty mobility at the main research universities in China (but it cannot represent

the characteristics of some research universities associated with a specific industry, such as the Ocean University of China).

Survey research on faculty mobility generally focuses on a single discipline [39,40] or several disciplines [41,42], and the sample sizes of these studies are often small—between 100 and 400 subjects—because many potentially mobile faculty members are busy elite scholars [40,43]. The disciplines offered by Chinese universities are traditionally divided into five categories, including science, engineering, agronomy, medicine, and liberal arts [44]. Not all research universities have fully established these five disciplines, however. Therefore, in accordance with typical practice in Chinese academic circles [45–47], the sampling method in the present study involved conducting questionnaire surveys of faculty members from all five disciplines at the universities that have fully established those disciplines. In the universities with three or four of the five disciplines, the questionnaire survey was administered only to faculty in the corresponding established disciplines. For example, the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China does not offer medicine and agronomy disciplines, so the sample for that university included only three categories.

The survey consisted of two phases. The goal was to obtain 250 completed questionnaires from faculty members with job mobility experience and to obtain completed questionnaires from a certain proportion of faculty members without job mobility experience, which could serve as a reference sample. The time span for phase 1 was October 2011 to December 2011, during which the questionnaire surveys were administered to and completed by faculty members at Peking University, Tsinghua University, Fudan University, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan University, and the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China. One responsible person in the department of personnel in each university was selected as a contact person to distribute the questionnaires. The proportion of faculty members with job mobility experience in the sample was intentionally increased during the survey phase based on the low response rate [48]. A total of 100 questionnaires were administered at each university, and the proportion of faculty members with job mobility experience was 70–80%, while the proportion of those without mobility experience was 20–30%. A total of 700 questionnaires were disseminated during phase 1, and 302 valid questionnaires were collected, including 166 from faculty members with the mobility experience. Because the goal (250 questionnaires from faculty with mobility experience) was not reached during phase 1, a second phase was conducted at four universities from October 2012 to February 2013. Of the 1100 total questionnaires distributed, valid responses were received from 445 faculty members, for a response rate of 40.5%. The sample frame and distribution of respondent characteristics are presented in Table 1. Of the 445 respondents, 59.6% had mobility experience, and of those with mobility experience, most had only one experience (56.9%), most were men (76.3%) and most were full professors (51.3%).



In this study, faculty mobility is generally divided into three categories. The first is long-term mobility, which refers the occurrence of a substantive employment relationship, such as changing academic jobs. The second is periodic short-term mobility [49]. The third category is conventional periodic short-term mobility, such as flying faculty [50]. The first type of mobility is very different from the other two, and although many scholars contend that long-term mobility can generate knowledge transfer, it is generally a zero-sum game. However, some scholars assert that the key benefit of long-term mobility is constructing research networks [51]. The influence of mobility is reflected not only in the zero-sum game between brain drain and brain gain but also in the way that brain circulation is managed and promoted [52]. Therefore, this paper focuses on long-term mobility. The survey defined mobility as four main types of substantive moves in the past ten years: 1) a move from an overseas academic institution (university, research institution or enterprise) to a Chinese HEI; 2) a move from another Chinese HEI to the respondent's current HEI; 3) a move from another research institution (mainly the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) to the respondent's current research institution; and 4) a move from a non-research institution (mainly government and finance-supported institutions) to the respondent's current institution.

The items were designed based on the literature on academic mobility and included 27 questions that addressed the respondents' experiences with mobility, changes in income, and satisfaction with income. The questionnaire used in this study covered three types of factors that may affect faculty mobility: twelve personal and family factors (total personal income, potential income and insurance benefits, housing size, personal professional development opportunities, academic titles, workload and work pressure, spouse's workplace, spouse's total income, spouse's career development opportunities, distance from relatives and friends, educational opportunities and environment for offspring, and elder care); nine academic institutional factors (prestige of colleges and departments, cooperation and relationship with colleagues, total research funds, research equipment and library facilities, extent of connection with academic circle, educational ideas and culture, atmosphere of academic freedom, quality of student source, and academic systems and policies); and six social factors (university geographic location, climate of university geographic location, whether the university is located in a metropolis or not, social atmosphere in the location of the university, recreational and leisure facilities in the community, and educational facilities in the community).

#### **4. Results**
