For this Research Corner, I (Alan) interviewed my colleague and dear friend Dr. ‪Alessandro (Ale) Quartiroli to discuss his recently published article on transnationalism—expatriation (departure from one’s country of origin to another country) and repatriation (the process of returning to one’s country of origin)—among sport psychology professionals. We had conversations about how he developed the research idea, what he found, and why this research mattered. Additionally, I provided some of my perspectives through a brief post-interview reflection at the end of this research corner.

Article Citation and Abstract:

Quartiroli, A., Vosloo, J., Anderson, S. N., Ditter, J., & Keeley, M. (2021). The transnational experience of sport psychology practitioners from training to practice. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 54, 101903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101903

Objective: Despite a growing body of literature examining the migratory experiences of athletes, limited attention has been paid to the migratory experience of sport psychology practitioners (SPPs). This study explores SPPs’ experiences of transnational migration; specifically, for those who expatriated to receive their training and repatriated to begin their professional careers. Design: Adhering to consensual qualitative research methodology, we conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Methods: Following criterion-based sampling, we interviewed six female and four male SPPs who worked in academic (n = 3), applied (n = 3), and governmental (n = 4) environments. We used an analytical procedure encompassing concurrent deductive and inductive processes. Results: Participants described their motivations for expatriation and repatriation. They shared the challenges and benefits they faced throughout their transnational experience, recognizing the value that this experience brought to their lives. In most cases, SPPs shared how their training abroad became a professional advantage, once repatriated. They also described how the process of repatriation was more challenging than expected due to personal and professional difficulties. Conclusions: Participants highlighted the positive influence that their transnational experience had in their personal and professional lives. Their transnational experience helped them grow personally and professionally, and provided them with professional advantages. However, our participants’ stories also highlighted systematic barriers that professional organizations could address to facilitate the transnational experience of practitioners, which would subsequently enhance the cultural growth of the field. Recommendations for professionals engaging in similar transnational experiences are discussed.

Interview with Dr. Alessandro (Ale) Quartiroli:

Alan: How was the idea of this research paper developed?

Ale: I was working on a project in which I was interviewing professionals on cultural competency in sport psychology. For all of my projects, whether quantitative or qualitative, I do put extra effort into trying to recruit people from different parts of the world as much as possible. In doing one of these projects, I ended up interviewing a few people who discussed the idea of “Well, you learn about cultural competency by getting your training somewhere and utilizing it when you come back home.” It got me thinking a little bit. I started looking into the literature and noticed that there was some literature …but not even much… looking at sport psychology professionals from different backgrounds and diverse contexts, but not anything looking at people working back in their home country after training abroad. As I was working on developing a study guide for the interviews, I noticed there was also not much literature looking at the experience of training abroad. So I thought it would be interesting to merge these two aspects.

There is a lot of literature on expatriation and repatriation in higher education and organizational psychology, but not in our field. I had a couple of individuals in mind that would have fit nicely within these inclusion criteria, but I had to identify more potential participants. It was interesting because we were able to put together people from very different countries working and studying in countries from three different continents, which gave us a global flavor. Obviously, it’s far from comprehensive, but I was very happy to see the diversity in the training countries and home countries as well as the associated challenges. One of the things that we were struggling with when we went through the peer review process was the impact of the specific professional’s culture in this project. Since only in two cases we had participants from the same country, we could specifically explore the role of each specific culture. Looking back, I love the project…I am very happy with the study, but there is a lot more information I could have gotten throughout this project.

Also at that time, I was doing my self-training in qualitative research and looking into this methodology called consensual qualitative research. I asked two of my undergraduate students if they would be interested in this research. They both studied abroad before so they were interested in the idea. After that, we contacted Justine Vosloo who was interested in being an external auditor of the project. When we wrote the paper, we also asked Shelby, one of Justine’s students at the time, if she was interested in getting involved in the writing process.

Alan: Which findings from this project were interesting or surprising to you?

Ale: It was wonderful to me to hear how people wanted to go back to their country to make a difference. Some of them identified that they had better opportunities to train abroad because their home country did not have strong sport psychology programs. It was interesting to see not only the challenges that they had because of the development of the field but also the enthusiasm of going back. Some of these individuals ended up working with Olympians in their home country after graduation, something very difficult for a professional to do in a foreign country because they are a foreigner and there are many others doing sport psychology in the training country.

It was also interesting to me…stuff that I’ve noticed myself… to hear about their challenge of speaking about sport psychology in their language. Speaking sport psychology in Italian is very difficult for me because I studied sport psychology in Spanish and English. These individuals had to restudy the terminology in their language. In addition to that, many of them started to notice the cultural differences in their training. For example, some trained in countries where things are fairly linear and logical…but they had to deal with the cultural piece back in their county. One participant was talking about how their culture was very laid back…so people showed up a half-hour late. Or another participant talked about physical contact was very common in their home country, but not in their training country. They had to readjust…so it was very interesting to see the linguistic and cultural reassessment in their professional development. Even though those individuals who had cultural training struggled, which is the idea that knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean behavior and that having studied but not experienced something might not be enough. Stuff that was not so surprising but good to hear about was all the values in their training abroad. Everyone spoke about personal growth, maturity, increased awareness, and so on.

Alan: Among the professionals studying abroad, did you see any differences in their perceptions of their own experiences?

Ale: I didn’t feel much difference in terms of participants making a comparison in the training itself. Some of them did compare the applied experience between their training country and other countries. Some were not shy to talk about the collegiate sport applied experience in the US. Some from the US talked about how it was “simpler” to get applied experience in other countries because there was less competition. They all thought the training experience was better than it would have been in their home country.

Alan: I realized that the participants included early- and mid-career professionals, meaning that some of them studied abroad earlier than others. Did you see differences in their decision-making in terms of expatriation and repatriation?

Ale: The reason to expatriate was very similar. The difference was how they got to make the decision. It seemed that those participants who expatriated to study more recently had established relationships with a professional in their home country before studying abroad or with professionals in the training country through academic conferences. That’s how they heard about the possibility of training abroad. It seemed that those who did it earlier on, instead, had to almost toss a coin and see if it would fly. Regarding repatriation, some of them were very determined in the get-go and mentioned throughout the interview that the plan was always to go back home. Some made the choice depending upon the opportunities presented back home that might not have been available in the training country. Once they got back, the motive to go back was similar. In terms of age, when they had the professional experience, I didn’t find much difference in their reason for going back.

Alan: Based on your interviews with the professionals and the paper, what are your suggestions for (a) international students and (b) their mentors/advisors to navigate the expatriation and repatriation decision-making process?

Ale: For students who want to go back home, I would encourage them to try to find unpaid short internships or visits back home, not only to maintain contact but also to think about how to apply what they learn from the training country to the home country. Stay involved, stay in touch, and take advantage of opportunities to integrate and contextualize their knowledge. For students who want to stay in the training country, that’s a different conversation. It becomes more about what is needed to stay, what they want to do, and what their biases may be, and so on.

In terms of mentors or supervisors, first, help the students understand if they are interested in staying or going back. If that’s not clear, help them figure it out! Most importantly, don’t assume that they are like domestic students. Don’t encapsulate them to the comfort of the mentor. The mentor has to do the exercise of being uncomfortable in learning and making mistakes. Mentors should take opportunities to learn about not only what sport psychology is like in the student’s country of origin, but more so about what the country of origin is like and means to the student, going from the food to language…language is difficult at times. Be curious: “How would you say this?” “How would this issue look like in your country?” Start making these connections to help students understand things from a personal perspective so that the mentoring process becomes personal growth of the student rather than just ethical and professional standards that we evaluate in the westernized, US-centered world.

One thing about professional organizations in sport psychology is that they are becoming more inclusive, but still far from being inclusive…they still encapsulate international students and professionals in the domestic context rather than the idea of transnationalism. So we talk a lot about the transnationalism of athletes, but that’s a whole lot more about transnationalism of professionals…sport psychologists, coaches, physiotherapists… for us to understand what they need, how that impacts the job, and what we need to do. That would help mentors and students start to do these reflections in a more systematic way.

Alan: Great suggestions! This is my last question: what is next for you regarding this research area?

Ale: That’s a great question! I just started thinking about this…barely [laugh]. I’d like to expand upon this project. Do I have any set plans? No. How about that [laugh], just kidding? Just between me and you, there’re a few things I’d like to look into…

[That’s how we ended the conversation with Ale’s top secrets]

Post-Interview Reflection:

As an international sport psychology professional who studied abroad and now work abroad in the US, I found myself pondering on three things, among the many excellent points that Ale highlighted, during and after the interview:

1. Decisions for expatriation and repatriation (or not): My reason for expatriation was very similar in that my home country wasn’t very established in the sport psychology field and that I received help from other professionals back home about where to potentially study abroad. Yet, the process still felt like rolling the dice. My reason for not repatriating was my perception of an increasingly diverse group of professionals in this field and greater inclusivity within professional organizations in the US. It is very important, however, to acknowledge that for international students and professionals to stay in the training country, it’s often not just a personal choice to not repatriate. It involves family and life decisions and whether or not one can secure a job soon enough after graduation to maintain their status to stay in that country.
2. Cross-cultural considerations in mentorship: As a profession, we have had more conversations about how to consider athletes’ intersectionality and address their diverse needs in our work. These intersectional and cultural considerations, however, have not been discussed much with regard to (a) mentoring international students and professionals and (b) fostering cross-cultural (international consultant–domestic athlete) consulting relationships. Although I was fortunate enough to have caring and supportive mentors, there were instances that I did feel my cultural lens was not taken into consideration in my consulting work or relationships with my clients. Building on Ale’s suggestions for mentors and professional organizations, I feel that cultural humility should be a required component of mentorship in our profession to support international students and professionals.
3. Research, research, and more research: In line with my last point and the scientist-practitioner model that we advocate in the field, we need more research on the experiences of international students and professionals in order to assist them with their professional development and personal growth. We also need to start looking at the cultural identity of the practitioner, rather than only that of the athletes or clients, when conducting intervention research. This consideration would inform better evidence-based sport psychology practices without imposing a cookie-cutter approach for diverse practitioners to do their consulting the same way as their peers from a WEIRD (westernized, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) culture.