This study assesses how four types of mobility, which are analysed simultaneously, are associated with the current research output quality and visibility of academics working in the city-based higher education systems of Hong Kong and Macau. Transnational educational mobility is associated with the academics' educational path, whilst intrasectoral job mobility, intersectoral job mobility and transnational job mobility are related to their professional careers. The research output, quality and visibility of academics are based on three indicators pertaining to the publications of these academics in international, peer-reviewed and indexed journals: the number of publications, the cumulative SCImago journal rank of these publications (which measures quality from an output perspective) and the citations obtained by these publications (which measures visibility). The results show that different mobilities have different effects on research output, quality and visibility, and that often these effects can be beneficial to one indicator but concurrently detrimental to another. Nested analyses of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and non-STEM academics, and by sex, offer further insight into the associations of these mobilities with knowledge output and outcomes. Copyright ©Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

This article explores how the past mobilities of academics affect their current research output (and its multidisciplinarity). Five types of mobility are used simultaneously in the analysis. Field mobility and transnational educational mobility are associated with academics' educational path, whereas transnational job mobility, intra-sectoral job mobility and inter-sectoral job mobility refer to their career path. The analysis is based on a representative sample of academics based in Hong Kong and Macau. Results show that intra-sectoral job mobility (up to a threshold) and transnational job mobility positively affect research output and its multidisciplinarity, whereas inter-sectoral job mobility, field mobility and transnational educational mobility exert slight or no effect. Nested analyses of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and non-STEM academics as well as experienced and junior academics offer further insight into the roles of these mobilities. Impacts of mobile experience were stronger among junior than senior academics, and in STEM fields than non-STEM fields. The article discusses these findings along with the significance of considering mobilities rather than mobility when analysing academic trajectories and the determinants of academic research production.
[Copyright of Higher Education Quarterly is the property of Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12161 ]