“A Step in the Right Direction”: Perspectives on Prioritizing Scholars from the Global South

Since 2014, the nccr – on the move has supported researchers on the move by funding short-term visiting fellowships, fostering international collaborations, and helping early-career scholars join its annual Neuchâtel Graduate Conference of Migration and Mobility Studies (NGC). Over time, the center began prioritizing applicants from the “Global South” to address structural inequalities in academic mobility and knowledge production rather than simply studying them from a privileged position.

Initially, the nccr – on the move fostered international mobility mainly through its Visiting Fellowship scheme, NGC participation grants, and collaborations with international researchers. Over time, however, it became clear that these initiatives were largely Euro- or Western-centered, both in terms of applicants and selected participants. This stood in stark contrast to research within the network highlighting inequalities in knowledge production and unequal access to mobility.

In response, the network adjusted its mobility schemes to reach a broader audience. Research Projects developed collaborations beyond Europe, and both the Visiting Fellowship and NGC grants increasingly targeted applicants from Low- and Middle-income Countries (LMICs).

Mobility Is Not a Level Playing Field

For many researchers at well-resourced universities in the Global North, attending an international conference – including one in Switzerland – is largely a matter of planning and securing institutional support. As one participant from Germany noted, she chose not to apply for an NGC grant because her university could fund her trip;  she preferred the bursary to go to someone with fewer resources.

For many migration scholars in the Global South, the situation is very different. Attending a conference in Europe requires long-term planning, complex visa procedures, and external funding that is rarely available locally. For them, an acceptance email from the NGC or Visiting Fellowship scheme is often the start of a financially and bureaucratically demanding process.

One participant from Nigeria described having to fly to the capital to obtain a visa appointment, spending almost his entire monthly salary because the overland route was unsafe. His initial visa application was rejected, and only after nccr – on the move staff intervened was the visa granted at the last minute. This made it possible for him to travel, present his work at the NGC, and allow others to see research that often remains invisible in Eurocentric academic networks.

Without financial and practical support, scholars like him would not have been able to travel. For many, the NGC grant was the only feasible way to participate in an international conference in-person, as they lacked institutional funding for conference travel. As a result, Switzerland often became their first international academic experience and a rare opportunity to gain visibility in another region.

By contrast, visiting fellows, mostly based in the Global North,  were often already highly mobile and embedded in well-funded institutions. While the fellowship was beneficial, many acknowledged they could likely have visited Switzerland even without external funding. For them, the program was enriching but not transformative in the same way.

Prioritizing scholars from the Global South was therefore not viewed as charity, but as fairness: an attempt to strengthen migration scholarship by diversifying the perspectives, experiences, and contexts from which knowledge is produced. Scholars in the Global North also benefit from this. Prioritizing is not only about compensating for disadvantage; it is also about improving the quality of research by centering those who study migration from contexts where cross-border mobility constraints are part of everyday life.

Beyond a Tiebreaker: Questions for the Future

Most interviewees described the prioritization as “a step in the right direction.” At the same time, the data raises several questions about how such schemes operate in practice.

Despite wider advertising and clearer guidelines, most selected candidates still came from the Global North. For many, the fellowship primarily offered new collaborations, exposure to different methods and perspectives, rather than major career shifts. For some scholars from the Global South, however, even a brief visit could significantly improve mobility prospects, confidence, and international visibility. This highlights the need to move from formal prioritization to effective outreach that reaches those who stand to benefit the most.

Interviewees also highlighted nuances often overlooked in Global North/Global South categories. Inequalities exist within regions: countries with limited resources – such as Greece – fall outside standard definitions of the Global South and therefore outside eligibility criteria. In addition, disparities in access to information, mentoring, and application-writing skills may disadvantage scholars in under-resourced institutions. Some suggested clearer guidance, mentoring, or even regional quotas.

There was a shared view – across regions – that prioritizing Global South scholars is important but not enough. Interviewees called for more sustained initiatives: mentoring programs, online events for those unable to travel, support for academic writing and publishing, and longer-term institutional partnerships. Prioritization of scholars from the Global South should therefore be embedded in broader capacity-building efforts.

From Islands of Opportunity to Fairer Infrastructures

Across regions and career stages, the message is clear: prioritizing scholars from the Global South in mobility schemes is fair, necessary and long overdue. Participants collectively advocate for a fairer academic landscape that supports those who are structurally disadvantaged, enriching the field through greater diversity, equity, and quality.

At the same time, prioritization should not become a box-ticking exercise. It raises difficult but necessary questions: How do we move from formal equality to fair distribution according to needs? How do we include “in-between” regions without diluting attention to those facing the greatest constraints? How can mobility schemes be part of broader efforts to redistribute resources, recognition, and authorship – and who should take responsibility?

The recent reconfiguration of the nccr – on the move mobility schemes – including the prioritization of the Global South – is widely seen as promising. The challenge for future initiatives is to build on this step and move toward infrastructures in which researchers from the Global South are not occasional guests but sustained partners in shaping our field – a transformation that benefits all researchers, regardless of where they are based.

Note: This blog post is based on the data from an ongoing research evaluation.

Tugay Durak is an Associate Researcher on the Academic Mobility project, funded by the nccr – on the move. Before this role, Durak was a Visiting Fellow at the nccr – on the move in the spring term of 2025.

Lucas Oesch is Scientific Officer at the nccr – on the move where he manages the Visiting Fellowship scheme and the Neuchâtel Graduate Conference (NGC).

Didier Ruedin is a Senior Lecturer at the Swiss Forum for Migration and Population Studies at the University of Neuchâtel and a Project Leader of the nccr – on the move project” Narratives of Crisis and Their Influence in Shaping Discourses and Policies of Migration and Mobility.”

To go back to our blog series on International Academic Mobility.