Factors Influencing International Student Migration: A Survey and Evaluation of Turkey s Case

Transcription

1 Factors Influencing International Student Migration: A Survey and Evaluation of Turkey s Case Vedat AKMAN Ph.D Kadir Has University Abstract In this paper, university students international migration trends in Turkey are investigated through a survey and its empirical results are presented. The paper also covers the demographic characteristics of university students, factors impacting their emigration decisions, pull and push factors in the intentions to get education and work abroad, country preferences, and the approaches of the students families to their potential emigration decisions. Keywords: Immigration, Students, Regression Analysis, Push and Pull Factors, Education 1. Introduction In this paper, the face-to-face survey on international labor migration with the university students is evaluated, various hypotheses are tested and the results are discussed. This study provides an updated and practical contribution to the literature, by finding out, through its regression models, that the international labor migration from Turkey indirectly (rather than directly) is affected by the students perceptions or intentions to migrate. 2. Background Students are highly valued producers in the knowledge economy. UNESCO creates a student database related to international migration, based on related information contained in its annual migration reports, such as birthplace and country of education. The U.S. collects detailed data on foreign university students by their birthplace in its Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT), via its international education institute. Similarly, Canada and Australia keep their own foreign student databases. In the European Union (EU), Eurostat does not include naturalized individuals into its database, which is based on national identity (citizenship). The EU evaluates all data considering the citizenship status. On the other hand, many countries collect data on their qualified immigrants working in different fields of occupation. However, Turkey does not keep a continuous retrospective database, although a number of studies on this matter have been made. Moreover, according to TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2009), there is not a regularly-kept registry system for the international migration data in Turkey. Migrationrelated institutions do collect some data as part of their administrative activities, but it is unfortunately impossible to internationally compare and measure the migration statistics, using these data. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 390

2 3. Methodology The survey started with the sampling process, followed by the selection of the sample, completion of the survey forms by face-to-face method, and data analysis via the SPSS program. Finally, the results were evaluated Sample For the target group of the survey was 350 young people, who attended a seminar held by the Kocaeli branch of the Junior Chamber International (JCI) at Sabancı Culture Center, Kocaeli, from December 12 to 13, The survey forms were filled out by the participants after the seminar, through face-to-face method. Out of 350 students who attended the seminar, 210 completed the survey form. The survey pursued the following steps: Preparation of the questions Preparation of the form Distribution and collection of the forms to and from students Checking of the survey forms Entry of data in the SPPS program Analysis of the survey results 3.2. Instruments Aiming to understand the international migration trends of the university students, this study used the survey method. The survey form included demographic, yes-no and multiple choice questions, 17 in total. Accordingly, the statistical analyses were employed. A descriptive statistics study was performed on the results. ANOVA (variance analysis) was implemented. First of all, the validity of the survey variables was tested. When the survey results were evaluated, the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for Windows 15.0 program was used for the statistical analyses. When the study data were evaluated, descriptive statistical methods (frequency, percentage, average, standard deviation) were used. In general, a hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. A statistical hypothesis is a statement concerning the value of one or more parameters in a study, whose accuracy and validity are tested by utilizing the statistics generating information on these parameters and the sampling distribution of these statistics. The hypothesis test, as the traditional decision-making process in the interpretive statistics, utilizes the sample information to make interpretations on one or more parameters of the overall population from which the sample had been drawn. The test determines whether the difference between the statistical value, calculated with the observation values of the sample, and the predetermined known value of the parameter on which this statistic generated information is statistically significant. If there is a difference, it must be decided whether the significance of this difference is enough for the rejection of the null hypothesis. If there is a significant difference, the null hypothesis is rejected and if not so, it is accepted (sakarya.edu.tr p.213). A hypothesis is an assumed statement concerning certain behaviors, phenomena, and events which have already emerged or will emerge. A hypothesis denotes expectations COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 391

3 of the researcher regarding the relations between the variables in the research equation (Altunışık et al. p.18). Information provided are subjected to hypothesis tests. Against the null (H0) hypothesis, an alternative hypothesis (H1,) must be set at the beginning of the hypothesis test process. After having set the hypotheses, an appropriate test technique must be selected to test the hypotheses (Altunışık, et al. p.150). As for the comparison of the qualitative data, the Pearson Chi-Square Test was applied. Pearson Chi-Square Test is used to investigate the relations of the quantitative variables with two or more groups. 4. Analysis and Results This section covers first the hypotheses of the survey, followed in order by the demographic characteristics of the sample group in the research universe, and results and related interpretations concerning their opinions on the international migration Demographic Characteristics of the Sampling Group Table 1. Distribution of Students by Age Group Age 18 and under and over Among the participants, 22 (10.6%) were aged 18 and under; 42 (20.2%), 19; 52 (25%), 20; 44 (21.2%), 21; 23 (11.1%), 22; and 25 (12%), 23 and over. The age average of the participants was 20:5±1.8, while their ages ranged from 17 to 30. Table 2. Distribution of Students by Gender Gender Female Male Among the participants, 126 (60%) were female, and 84 (40%), male. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 392

4 School Table 3. Distribution of Students by School Kocaeli University Mehmet Akif Ersoy 0.5 University Marmara University Yeditepe University Gata (Military Medical Academy) Sakarya University Anadolu University Trakya University Among the participants, 191 (96%) were from the Kocaeli University; 1 (0.5%) from the Mehmet Akif Ersoy University; 1 (0.5%) from the Marmara University; 1 (0.5%) from the Yeditepe University; 1 (%0.5%) from Gata (Military Medical Academy); 2 (1%) from the Sakarya University; 1 (0.5%) from the Anadolu University; and 1 (0.5%) from the Trakya University. Majority of the survey participants were Kocaeli University. The fact that the survey had been performed in Kocaeli can be said to be influential in this result. Table 4. Distribution of Students by Intention to Continue their Education Abroad Do you intend to continue your education abroad? Yes No Among the participants, 167 (79.5%) intended to continue their education abroad, while 43 (20.5%) did not intend to continue their education abroad. Table 5. Distribution of Students by Intended Length of Stay for Education How many years do you intend to stay abroad? 1 year and more 5 years and more 10 years and more Among the participants, 128 (68.1%) intended to stay abroad for 1 year and more; 47 (25%) for 5 years and more; and 13 (6.9%) for 10 years and more. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 393

5 Table 6. Distribution of Students by Intention to Work Abroad Do you intend to work abroad? Yes No Among the participants, 155 (73.8%) intended to work abroad, while 55 (26.2%) did not intend to work abroad. Table 7. Distribution of Students by Intention to Live Abroad Do you want to live abroad? Yes No Among the participants, 112 (53.3%) intended to live abroad, while 98 (46.7%) did not intend to live abroad. Table 8. Distribution of Students by Intended Duration to Live Abroad How long do you plan to stay abroad? 6 months year and more years and more years and more Among the participants, 15 (7.9) planned to stay abroad for 6 months; 113 (59.2%) for 1 year and more; 48 (25.1%) for 5 years and more; and 15 (7.9%) for 10 years and more. Table 9. Distribution of Students by Intention to Settle Abroad Do you intend to settle abroad? Yes No COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 394

6 Table 10. Distribution of Students by Reasons of Intention to Migrate Reasons of Intention to Migrate Education Employment Social life Health Forced migration Cultural Economic Vacation Among the participants, 177 (84.3%) intended to migrate for reasons of education; 148 (70.5%) for employment; 60 (28.6%) for social life; 19 (9%) for health; 2 (1%) for forced migration; 60 (28.6%) for cultural reasons; 74 (35.2%) for economic reasons; and 97 (46.2%) for vacation. Table 11. Distribution of Students by Intention to Return Back to Turkey What do you think about returning back to Turkey? I will certainly return back, I have concrete return plans I will certainly return back, but I do not have concrete plans I will probably return back I do not think I will return back I absolutely will not return back Among the participants, 102 (51.3%) stated that they would certainly return back to Turkey and they had concrete return plans; 67 (33.7%) that they would certainly return back, but they did not have concrete plans; 25 (12.6%) that they would probably return back; 3 (1.5%) that they did not think they would return back; and 2 (1%) that they absolutely would not return back. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 395

7 Table 12. Distribution of Students by Family Support in Going Abroad Would your family support you in this matter? They would support They would support a little They would support much Among the participants, 130 (64.4%) stated that their family would support their decision to migrate; 40 (19.8%) that their family would support them a little; and 32 (15.8%) that their family would support them much. Table 13. Distribution of Students by Educational Status of Family Education status of family Primary school Secondary school High school University Higher education Among the participants, the educational level of the family is primary school in 47 students (24.2%); secondary school in 30 (15.5%); high school in 76 (39.2%); university in 38 (19.6); and higher education in 3 (1.5%). Table 14. Distribution of Students by Country Choice Which countries would you prefer? American countries EU countries Asian / Eurasian countries African countries Far Eastern countries Australia Scandinavian countries Among the participants, 119 (56.7%) preferred the American countries; 165 (78.6%), the EU countries; 36 (17.1%), the Asian/Eurasian countries; 8 (3.8%), the African COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 396

8 countries; 37 (17.6%), the Far Eastern countries; 31 (14.8%), Australia; and 38 (18.1%), Scandinavian country Table 15. Distribution of Students by Intention to Perform R & D Studies Abroad Would you want to perform R & D studies abroad? Yes No Among the participants, 165 (84.6%) stated that they would want to perform R & D studies abroad, while 30 (15.4%) did not want to perform R & D studies abroad. Table 16. Pull Factors for Migration Decision of Students Pull factors Salary High living standard Social life Culture Healthcare services Great number of professional advancement opportunities ,8 Deferment of military service Economic stability Systematic and well-organized environment Opportunity for my children to get better education abroad Proximity to great science and innovation centers Others Among the participants, the pull factors in their intention to migrate were salary for 74 (35.2%); high living standard for 120 (57.1%); social life for 79 (37.6%); culture for 50 (23.8%); healthcare services for 26 (12.4%); great number of professional advancement opportunities for 134 (63.8%); deferment of military service for 11 (5.2%); economic stability for 68 (32.4%); systematic well-ordered environment for 83 (39.5%); opportunity for my children to get better education abroad for 50 (23.8%); proximity to great science and innovation centers for 107 (51%); and others for 22 (10.5%). COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 397

9 Table 17. Push Factors for Migration Decision of Students Push Factors Push Factors Low salaries Inadequate opportunities in professional advancement Economic instability Political instability Healthcare services Corruption Bureaucratic barriers, ill-functioning government agencies Inability to develop myself at a better level in my field Distance from great science centers in my field Lack of material support and financing required for setting up a business Unsatisfactory social and cultural life Inadequate social security Others Among the participants, push factors in the intention to migrate were low salaries for 73 (34.8%); inadequate opportunities in professional advancement for 116 (55.2%); economic instability for 94 (44.8%); political instability for 48 (22.9%); healthcare services for 23 (11%); corruption for 43 (20.5%); bureaucratic barriers, ill-functioning government agencies for 55 (26.2%); Inability to develop myself at a better level in my field for 129 (61.4%); distance from great science centers in my field for 48 (22.9%); lack of material support and financing required for setting up a business for 55 (26.2%); unsatisfactory social and cultural life for 37 (17.6%); inadequate social security for 34 (16.2%); and others for 20 (9.5%). COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 398

10 4.2. Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student Gender Table 18. Distribution of Pull & Push Factors by Gender Group N Mean Sd. t P Pull factors Female Male Push factors Female Male H0: Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate does not vary by gender. H1: Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varies by gender. Among the participants, the number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varied significantly by gender (p<0.05). The number of pull factors for male students was found to be significantly higher than the number of pull factors for female students. The number of push factors in the students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by gender (p>0.05). The number of push factors was equal for male and female students Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student Age Table 19. Distribution of Pull and Push Factors by Age Group Group N Mean Sd F P Pull Factors 18 and under and over Push Factors 18 and under and over COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 399

11 H 0 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate does not vary by age. H 1 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varies by age. Among the participants, the number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by age (p>0.05). The number of pull factors was found to be equal for different age groups. Among the participants, the number of push factors in the students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by age (p>0.05). The number of push factors was found to be equal for different age groups Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Length of Stay Table 20. Distribution of Pull and Push Factors by Intended Length of Stay Pull factors Push factors Group N Mean Sd F p 1 year and more years and more years and more 1 year and more years and more years and more H 0 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate does not vary by the intended length of stay. H 1 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varies by the intended length of stay. Among the participants, the number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intended length of stay (p<0.05). As a result of the Tukey test performed to investigate the difference among groups, the number of pull factors in students who intended to stay more than 1 year was found to be significantly lower than the number of pull factors in students who intended to stay more than 5 years or 10 years. This means that the number of pull factors in students who intended to stay longer was higher. Among the participants, the number of push factors in the students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intended length of stay (p>0.05). The number of push factors in students who intended to stay 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years was found to be equal. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 400

12 4.5. Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Intention to Work Abroad Table 21. Distribution of Pull and Push Factors by Intention to Work Abroad Group N Mean Sd t P Pull factors Push factors Yes No Yes No H 0 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate does not vary by the intention to work abroad. H 1 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varies by the intention to work abroad. Among the participants, the number pull factors in the students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intention to work abroad (p<0.05). The number of pull factors in students who intended to work abroad was found to be significantly higher than the number of pull factors in students who did not intend to work abroad. Among the participants, the number of push factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intention to work abroad (p>0.05). The number of push factors in students who intended and students who did not intend to work abroad was found the equal Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Intention to Live Abroad Table 22. Distribution of Pull and Push Factors by Intention to Live Abroad Group N Mean Sd t P Pull factors Yes No Push factors Yes No COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 401

13 H 0 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate does not vary by the intention to live abroad. H 1 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varies by the intention to live abroad. Among the participants, the number of pull factors in students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intention to live abroad (p<0.05). The number of pull factors in students who intended to live abroad was found to be significantly higher than the number of pull factors in students who did not intend to live abroad. Among the participants, the number of push factors in students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intention to live abroad. (p<0.05). The number of push factors in students who intended to live abroad was found to be significantly higher than the number of push factors in students who did not intend to live abroad Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Intention to Settle Abroad Table 23. Distribution of Pull and Push Factors by Intention to Settle Abroad Group N Mean Sd t P Pull factors Yes No Push factors Yes No H 0 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate does not vary by the intention to settle abroad. H 1 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varies by the intention to settle abroad. Among the participants, the number of pull factors in students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intention to settle abroad (p<0.05). The number of pull factors in students who intended to settle abroad was found to be significantly higher than the number of pull factors in students who did not intend to settle abroad. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 402

14 Among the participants, the number of push factors in students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intention to settle abroad (p<0.05). The number of push factors in students who intended to settle abroad was found to be significantly higher than the number of push factors in students who did not intend to settle abroad Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Intention to Return Back to Turkey Table 24. Distribution of Pull and Push Factors by Intention to Return Back to Turkey Group N Mean Sd F p Pull factors I will certainly return back, I have concrete return plans I will certainly return back; but I do not have concrete plans I will probably return back I do not think I will return back I absolutely will not return back Push factors I will certainly return back, I have concrete return plans I will certainly return back; but I do not have concrete plans I will probably return back I do not think I will return back I absolutely will not return back H 0 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate does not vary by the intention to return back to Turkey. H 1 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varies by the intention to return back to Turkey. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 403

15 Among the participants, the number of pull factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intention to return back to Turkey (p>0.05). The number of pull factors in students who intended and students who did not intend to return back to Turkey was found to be equal. Among the participants, the number of push factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intention to return back to Turkey (p>0.05). The number of push factors in students who intended and students who did not intend to return back to Turkey was found to be equal Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Family Support Table 25. Distribution of Pull and Push Factors by Family Support Pull Factors Push factors Group N Mean Sd F p They would support They would support a little They would support much They would support They would support a little They would support much H 0 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate does not vary by the family support. H 1 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varies by the family support. Among the participants, the number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the family support (p>0.05). The number of pull factors in students who were supported a little and students who were supported much was found to be equal. Among the participants, the number of push factors in the students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the family support (p>0.05). The number of push factors in students who were supported a little and students who were supported much was found to be equal. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 404

16 4.10. Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Family Education Table 26. Distribution of Pull and Push Factors by Educational Status of Family Pull factors Push factors Group N Mean Sd F p Primary school Secondary school High school University Higher education Primary school Secondary school High school University Higher education H0: Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate does not vary by the education level of the family. H1: Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varies by the education level of the family Among the participants, the number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the education level of the family (p>0.05). The number of pull factors in students who had families with different education level was found to be equal. Among the participants, the number of push factors in the students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the education level of the family (p>0.05). The number of push factors in students who had families with different education level was found to be equal. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 405

17 4.11. Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Intention to Perform R & D Studies Abroad Table 27. Distribution of Pull and Push Factors by Intention to Perform R & D Studies Abroad Group N Mean Sd T P Pull factors Yes No Push factors Yes No H 0 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate does not vary by the intention to perform R & D studies abroad. H 1 : Number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate varies by the intention to perform R & D studies abroad. Among the participants, the number of pull factors in the students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intention to perform R & D studies abroad (p>0.05). The number of pull factors in students who intended and students who did not intend to perform R & D studies abroad was found to be equal. Among the participants, the number of push factors in the students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intention to perform R & D studies abroad (p>0.05). The number of push factors in students who intended and students who did not intend to perform R & D studies abroad was found to be equal Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Intention to Work Abroad by Gender Table 28. Distribution of Students Intention to Work Abroad by Gender Would you intend to work abroad? Total Yes No Gender Female Male Total N % 68.3% 82.1% 73.8% N % 31.7% 17.9% 26.2% N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 406

18 H 0 : The intention of students to work abroad does not vary by gender. H 1 : The intention of students to work abroad varies by gender. Among female students, 86 (68.3%) intended to work abroad, while 40 (31.7%) did not intend to work abroad. Among male students, 69 (82.1%) intended to work abroad, while 15 (17.9%) did not intend to work abroad. Students intention to work abroad varied by gender (chi-square= 5.03; p=0.025). The number of male students who intended to work abroad was higher than the number of female students who intended to work abroad. In other words, the number of female students who intended to work abroad was lower than the number of male students who intended to work abroad Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Intention to Settle Abroad by Gender Table 29. Distribution of Students Intention to Settle Abroad by Gender Would you intend to settle abroad? Total Yes No Female Gender Male Total N % 20.8% 48,8% 32.1% N % 79.2% 51,2% 67.9% N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% H 0 : The intention of students to settle abroad does not vary by gender. H 1 : The intention of students to settle abroad varies by gender. Among female students, 26 (20.8%) intended to settle abroad, while 99 (79.2%) did not intend to settle abroad. Among male students, 41 (48.8%) intended to settle abroad, while 43 (51.2%) did not intend to settle abroad. Students intention to settle abroad varied by gender (chi-square= 18.1; p=0.000). The number of male students who intended to settle abroad was higher than the number of female students who intended to settle abroad. In other words, the number of female students who intended to settle abroad was lower than the number of male students who intended to settle abroad. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 407

19 4.14. Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Intention to Continue Education Abroad by Age Table 30. Distribution of Students Intention to Continue Education Abroad by Age Group Group N Mean Sd t P Yes Age No H 0 : The intention of students to continue their education abroad does not vary by age. H 1 : The intention of students to continue their education abroad varies by age. The average age of students who intended to continue their education abroad was found to be 20; while the average age of students who did not intend to continue their education abroad was found to be 21. Students intention to continue their education abroad varied by age (p<0.05). Younger students intended to continue their education abroad, while older students did not intend to continue their education abroad Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Intention to Live Abroad by Age Table 31. Distribution of Students Intention to Continue Education Abroad by Intention to Live Abroad Do you intend to continue your education abroad? Total Do you want to live abroad? Total Yes No Yes No N % 60.5% 25.6% 53.3% N % 39.5% 74.4% 46.7% N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 408

20 H 0 : Students who intend to continue their education abroad do not intend to live abroad. H 1 : Students who intend to continue their education abroad intend to live abroad. Among students who intended to continue their education abroad, 101 (60.5%) intended to live abroad, while 66 (39.5%) did not intend to live abroad. Among students who did not intend to continue their education abroad, 11 (25.6%) intended to live abroad, while 32 (74.4%) did not intend to live abroad. Students who intended to continue their education abroad intended to live abroad, as well (chi-square= 16.7; p=0.000) Hypothesis Test on Migration and Student s Intention to Settle Abroad Table 32. Distribution of Students Intention to Continue Education Abroad by Intention to Settle Abroad Would you intend to settle abroad? Total Yes No Do you intend to continue your education abroad? Yes No Total N % 35.5% 18.6% 32.1% N % 64.5% 81.4% 67.9% N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% H 0 : Students who intend to continue their education abroad do not intend to settle abroad. H 1 : Students who intend to continue their education abroad intend to settle abroad. Students who intended to continue their education abroad, 59 (35.5%) intended to settle abroad, while 66 (39.5%) did not intend to settle abroad. Students who did not intend to continue their education abroad, 8 (18.6%) intended to settle abroad, while 35 (81.4%) did not intend to settle abroad. Students who intended to continue their education abroad intended to settle abroad, as well (chi-square= 4.5; p=0.034). 5. Conclusion. Survey forms were completed by university students who were the potential qualified labor. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 409

21 . The pull factors in university students intention to migrate varied by gender. The number of pull factors in male students was statistically higher than the number of pull factors in female students.. Pull and push factors in migration intention of the university students aged from 17 to 30 years old did not vary statistically by age. In other words, the number of pull and push factors in students from different age groups was equal.. The number of pull factors in students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intended length of stay. Accordingly, the number of pull factors in students who intended to stay abroad for more than one year was significantly lower than the number of pull factors in students who intended to stay abroad for more than 5 and 10 years. This means that students who intended to stay abroad longer had a higher number of pull factors in their intention to migrate. On the other hand, the number of push factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intended length of stay.. The number of pull factors in students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intention to work abroad. The number of pull factors in students who intended to work abroad was significantly higher than the number of pull factors in students who did not intent to work abroad. Accordingly, it is possible to say that the perception that there are more job opportunities abroad than in Turkey encouraged students to migrate.. The number of pull factors in students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intention to live abroad. The number of pull factors in students who intended to live abroad was significantly higher than the number of pull factors in students who did not intent to live abroad.. The number of push factors in students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intention to live abroad. The number of push factors in students who intended to live abroad was significantly higher than the number of push factors in students who did not intent to live abroad.. The number of pull factors in students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intention to settle abroad (p<0.05). The number of pull factors in students who intended to settle abroad was significantly higher than the number of pull factors in students who did not intent to settle abroad.. The number of push factors in students intention to migrate varied significantly by the intention to settle abroad. The number of push factors in students who intended to settle abroad was significantly higher than the number of push factors in students who did not intent to settle abroad.. The number of pull factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intention to return back to Turkey. The number of pull factors COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 410

22 in students who intended to return back to Turkey and students who did not intend to return back to Turkey was found to be equal.. The number of push factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intention to return back to Turkey. The number of push factors in students who intended and students who did not intend to return back to Turkey was found to be equal.. The number of pull factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the family support. The number of pull factors in students who were supported a little or much by their families was found to be equal.. The number of push factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the family support. The number of push factors in students who were supported a little or much by their families was found to be equal.. The number of pull factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the educational level of family. The number of pull factors in students whose families had different educational levels was found to be equal.. The number of push factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the educational level of family. The number of push factors in students whose families had different educational levels was found to be equal.. The number of pull factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intention to perform R & D studies abroad. The number of pull factors in students who intended and students who did not intend to perform R & D studies abroad was found to be equal.. The number of push factors in students intention to migrate did not vary significantly by the intention to perform R & D studies abroad (p>0.05). The number of push factors in students who intended and students who did not intend to perform R & D studies abroad was found to be equal. Among female students, 86 (68.3%) intended to work abroad, while 40 (31.7%) did not intend to work abroad. Among male students, 69 (82.1%) intended to work abroad, while 15 (17.9%) did not intend to work abroad. Students intention to work abroad varied by gender. The number of male students who intended to work abroad was higher than the number of female students who intended to work abroad.. Among female students, 26 (20.8%) intended to settle abroad, while 99 (79.2%) did not intend to settle abroad. Among male students, 41 (48.8%) intended to settle abroad, while 43 (51.2%) did not intend to settle abroad. Students intention to settle abroad varied by gender. The number of male students who intended to settle abroad was higher than the number of female students who intended to settle abroad. In other words, the number of female students who COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 411

23 intended to settle abroad was lower than the number of male students who intended to settle abroad.. The age average of students who intended to continue their education abroad was 20, while the age average of students who did not intend to continue their education abroad was 21. Students intention to continue their education abroad varied by age. Younger students intended to continue their education abroad, while older students did not intend to continue their education abroad. Among the students who intended to continue their education abroad, 101 (60.5%) intended to live abroad, as well, while 66 (39.5%) did not intend to live abroad. Among the students who did not intend to continue their education abroad, 11 (25.6%) intended to live abroad, while 32 (74.4%) did not intend to live abroad. The students who intended to continue their education abroad intended to live abroad, as well..among the students who intended to continue their education abroad, 59 (35.5%) intended to settle abroad, while 66 (39.5%) did not intend to settle abroad. Among the students who did not intend to continue their education abroad, 8 (18.6%) intended to settle abroad, while 35 (81.4%) did not intend to settle abroad. The students who intended to continue their education. COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 412

24 References Akçapar, Şebnem. Do Brains Really Going Down the Drain? Revue Europeenne des Migrations İnternationales, S.22, No.3, 2006, pp Barışık, Salih, and Hakan Çetinbaş. Beyin Göçü ve Beyin Göçünün Oluşumunda Yüksek Öğrenim, AR-GE Faaliyetleri, Çokuluslu Şirketlerin Rolü. Afyon: Kocatepe University, Magazine of the FEAS, C.6, No.2, December 2004, pp Babataş, Gönül, Beyin Göçü ve Türkiye nin Sosyo-Ekonomik Yapısının Beyin Göçüne Etkisi. İstanbul: Marmara University, Magazine of the Institute for Social Sciences, 2007, pp Beine, Michel Frederic Docquier, and Maurice Schiff. Brain Drain and its Determinants: A Major Issue for Small States. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) DP, No. 3398, March 2008, pp Beine, Michel, Frederic Docquier, and Hillel Rapoport. Brain Drain and Human Capital Formation in Developing Countries: Winners and Losers. Department des Sciences Economiques de L Universite Catholique de Louvain, Discussion Paper, No. 23, 2006, pp Bildirici, Melike Seçkin Sunal, and Elcin Aykaç Alp. Determinants of Human Capital Theory, Growth and Brain Drain: An Econometric Analysis for 77 Countries. Applied Econometrics and International Development, No.5 2, 2005, pp Birgani, Minoo Alipour. Progress Without Professionals? Fighting Brain Drain in EU Accession Countries. Utrecht: School of Governance, 2004, pp Boyd, M. Family and Personal Networks in International Migration: Recent Developments and New Agendas. International Migration Review, No. 23(3), 1989, ss Akman Vedat, The Impact of International Labor Migration and Remittances on Turkey's Economic Growth, Yakamoz Publications, ISBN , English, Istanbul, 2011, pp Çağlayan, Savaş. Göç Kuramları, Göç ve Göçmen İlişkisi. Muğla University, Magazine of the Institute fort he Social Sciences (İLKE), No.17, 2006, pp Çengel, Yunus. Beyin Gücü ve Beyin Göçü: Madalyonun Öteki Yüzü. Eğitime Bakış Dergisi, No.13, March 2009, pp Commander, Simon, and Mari Kangasniemi. The Brain Drain: Curse or Boon? A Survey of the Literature. Stockholm: CEPR/NBER/SNS International Seminar on International Trade Paper, May 2002, pp Danış, Aslı Didem. Yeni Göç Hareketleri ve Türkiye. İstanbul: Birikim Yayın, No , 2004, pp COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 413

25 Docquier, Frederic. Brain Drain and Inequality Across Nations. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) DP, No. 2440, 2006, pp Dobson, Ian R, Bob Birrell ve Virginia Rapson. Brain Drain and Brain Gain: The Challenges of Internalisation Brain Drain: Fact or Fiction? Australia: Conference Paper on Trends in the Management of Human Resources in Higher Education, İMHE, OECD, 2003, pp Docquier, Frederic ve H. Rapoport. Documenting the Brain Drain of la Creme de la Creme: Three Case-Studies on International Migration at the Upper Tail of the Education Distribution. Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales de Universite Catholique de Louvain, Discussion Paper 31, 2009, pp Dunnewijk, Theo. Global Migration of the Highly Skilled: A Tentative and Quantitative Approach. United Nations University Working Paper Series, No. 70, 2008, pp Erzan, Refk, Erzan Umut Kuzubaş ve Nilüfer Yıldız. Büyüme ve Göç Senaryoları: Türkiye ve AB. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, pp.1 15 Gökbayrak, Şenay. Beyin Göçünü Sınıfandırma Çabaları. İstanbul: İş Güvenliği Dergisi, No.84, January-February 2006, pp Gökbayrak, Şenay. Yurt Dışı Göç ve Kalkınma Tartışmaları: Beyin Göçü Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Ankara University; Magazine of the Faculty of Political Sciences, No.63 3, 2008, pp Gönüllü, Müzeyyen. Dış Göç. PAÜ. Magazine of Faculty of Education, No.1, 1996, pp Görlich, Dennis Toman Omar Mahmoud and Christoph Trebesch. Explaining Labour Market Inactivity in Migrant-Sending Families: Housework, Hammock, or Higher Education. Kiel Working Paper No. 139, December 2007, pp Güngör, Nil Demet and Aysıt Tansel. Brain Drain from Turkey: The Case of Professionals Abroad. IZA DP, No. 2617, 2007, pp Gürak, Hasan. Ekonomik Büyüme ve Küresel Ekonomi. Ekin Kitapevi, İstanbul, 2006, pp Gümüş, Sevda. Beşeri Sermaye ve Ekonomik Kalkınma: Türkiye Üzerine Bir Ekonometrik Analiz ( ). Doctorial Thesis, İKV, 2005, pp Hainmueller, Jens and Michael J. Hiscox. Educated Preferences: Explaining Attitudes Towards Immigration in Europe. Chicago: American Political Science Association, September 2004, pp İçduygu, Ahmet. International Migration and Human Development in Turkey. Human Development Research Paper, UNDP, No.52, 2009, pp COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 414

26 Kaya, Muammer. Beyin Göçü: Entellektüel Sermaye Erozyonu. Eğitime Bakış Dergisi, Eğitim-Bir-Sen, February-March 2009, pp Kelo, Maria Kelo and Bernd Wachter. Brain Drain and Brain Gain: Migration in the EU after the Enlargement. Hague: Academic Cooperation Association, 2004, pp.1 89 Khan, Habibullah and M. Shahidul Islam. Outsourcing, Migration, and Brain Drain in the Global Economy: Issues and Evidence. U21 Global Working Paper, No.004, 2006, pp Klinthall, Martin. Immigration, Integration and Return Migration. Turin: Population Division Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations Secretariat, 2006, pp Kirdar, Murat. Determinants of Return Migration of Turkish Immigrants in Germany. Department of Economics, Middle East Technical University, 2005, pp.1 8. Lin, Justin Yifu and Boris Pleskovic. Higher Education and Development. World Bank Publication, 2008, pp Lianos, T. Factors Determining Migrant Remittances: The Case of Greece. International Migration Review, No. 31(1), 1997, pp Migration in Turkey: A Country Profile. IOM International Organization for Migration, 2008, pp Murru, Maurizio. Globalization, Migration and Brain Drain: A Reality Check. Health Policy and Development, Vol. 6, No.3, December 2008, pp Özden, Çağlar. Educated Migrants: Is There Brain Waste. 2008, pp Tansel, Aysıt and Nil Demet Güngör. Türkiye den Yurt Dışına Beyin Göçü: Ampirik Bir Uygulama. Ankara: ERC Working Paper in Economics, 2002, pp Tansel, Aysıt and Nil Demet Güngör. Türkiye den Beyin Göçü: Bir Anket Çalışması Üzerine Düşünceler. Eğitime Bakış Dergisi, No.13, 2009, pp Tanner, Arno. Brain Drain and Beyond: Returns and Remittances of Highly Skilled Migrants. Global Migration Perspectives, No. 24, January 2005, pp Timur, Necdet and Necdet Sağlam. Nitelikli İşgücünden Faydalanma ve Geri Kazanım Stratejileri: Beyin Göçü ve Geri Kazanımı Türkiye Örneği. EUROMED, No. CFP2/C/27, 2006, pp COPY RIGHT 2014 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 415