Premature return of self-initiated expatriates in the spectre of a global crisis: a sensemaking perspective

Abstract Global mobility studies have focused on the repatriation of assigned expatriates in multinational organisations overlooking the difficulties that self-initiated expatriates (SIEs) face upon returning home prematurely. Recent converging global crises have demonstrated the precarious and challenging circumstances that SIEs confront when relocating abroad of their own volition without the security and support of an organisation. Applying a sensemaking lens, our qualitative study reveals that a global crisis’s volatile and unpredictable nature triggers a sensemaking process for SIEs on whether to withdraw prematurely or remain on assignment. Specifically, we unpack how, in attempting to put structure on what was a highly complex, anxious, and stressful situation, SIEs engaged in a sensemaking process of enactment, selection, and retention in deciding whether to return home early. This process involved interpreting varying contextual cues and emotions in acute conditions, processing conflicting information from a nexus of sensegiving actors, and engaging retrospectively in reflexive frames. Our findings enrich existing work on the challenges of SIE repatriation by illuminating the utility of crisis sensemaking to understand how SIEs navigate premature withdrawal amid crisis conditions.


Introduction
The field of global mobility is undergoing substantial change due to the significant unpredictability, insecurity, and volatility that has emerged from recent global crises (Ererdi et al., 2022;Lazarova et al., 2023;Végh et al., 2023).With rising dynamism and complexity from extreme conditions (Bader et al., 2019;Fee et al., 2019), studies have identified the need for more flexible and varied forms of international assignees outside the conventionally assigned expatriates (Jooss et al., 2021).Many diverse categories have arisen, but one dominant group are those individuals who voluntarily decide to work abroad without direct support from their organisation-known as self-initiated expatriates (Brewster et al., 2021;Cerdin & Selmer, 2014).Scholars have spent considerable effort differentiating assigned expatriates from SIEs (Andresen et al., 2014;Ceric & Crawford, 2016;Inkson et al., 1997;Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009), but a key distinction is an initiative for the move coming from the individual and not the organisation (Andresen et al., 2020;Suutari & Brewster, 2000).Although studies recognise that SIEs relinquish corporate intervention and security in favour of autonomy and flexibility (Cao et al., 2014;Cerdin & Selmer, 2014;Howe-Walsh & Schyns, 2010;McNulty, 2013), this work largely overlooks the distinctive challenges for SIEs in repatriating home.With an increase in crises in the global environment over the last two decades, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the financial crash, and COVID-19, and the ensuing ambiguity and hostility, there is a need to explore the adverse consequences for SIEs (Caligiuri et al., 2020).
Self-initiated expatriates operate in all kinds of organisations beyond multinationals, and the higher education sector is one setting that depends on SIEs to fulfil its internationalisation objectives, while also being severely exposed to crisis conditions (McDonnell & Boyle, 2012;McNulty et al., 2017;Richardson & Mckenna, 2002).Studies examine expatriation for international educators (Bailey et al., 2021), doctorate students (Kim et al., 2011), recent graduates (Suutari et al., 2018), or academics (Richardson & Mckenna, 2002), with many depicting the latter as SIEs (Froese, 2012;Selmer & Lauring, 2010).Students working abroad on international internships are often overlooked as SIEs and we suggest that greater nuance exists for this group.Unlike study abroad, this group have 'paid employment' in the host country (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009), which is a requirement for SIEs (Selmer & Lauring, 2010), but they may have less agency concerning the duration of their stay and a repatriation date that is already predetermined.As there is a need to explore the diversity of SIEs that exist in different sectors (Brewster et al., 2021;Cerdin & Selmer, 2014;Suutari & Brewster, 2000), we suggest that students on international internships are one such group to consider.Yet, in addition to their lack of experience living and working abroad, self-initiation means they fall outside the scaffolding structures of universities, which exposes them to greater precarity than conventional SIEs.
Scholars have called for a greater understanding of the repatriation challenges that SIEs face (Cerdin & Selmer, 2014) and this is important, now more than ever, given the increased uncertainty in the global environment.Research has focused on the repatriation intentions of SIEs arguing that they are more willing to stay abroad than assigned expatriates (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009), but are also likely to face greater challenges in what can be a stressful repatriation process (Begley et al., 2008).The 'push-pull' view of self-initiated repatriation argues that individuals may be 'pulled' to return by home country factors (i.e.family or lifestyle) or 'pushed' away by their host country (i.e.lack of job opportunities) (Cao et al., 2014;Chen & Shaffer, 2017;Meuer et al., 2019).A major criticism of this work is its focus on intentions without capturing individual experiences of premature withdrawal (Tharenou & Caulfield, 2010).Although some studies explore how student SIEs cope with the decision to stay or return home, the focus of this work is on studying abroad (Rajani et al., 2018).Yet, this decision is inherently more complex during a global crisis during which student mobility and the higher education sector are significantly impacted (Yang, 2022).
Premature return is likely to become a growing problem for global mobility departments and international assignees alike given the increasing prevalence of crisis conditions in recent decades (Ererdi et al., 2022).Crises create a deviation from the normal and a threat to the everyday routines of individuals and organisations, challenging the fundamental ways they operate (Jooss et al., 2023).For our study, we argue that crises may generate uncertainty, shock, and confusion about whether to repatriate home and will be particularly severe for SIEs who do not have the same protection or security of a home-based organisation that assigned expatriates benefit from.Studies have argued that a global crisis like COVID-19 increases the likelihood of SIEs and assigned expatriates returning home early as this is a challenging and uncertain situation (Jannesari & Sullivan, 2022).However, more work is needed to understand how individuals on SIEs navigate the extreme unpredictability, volatility, and potentially harmful effects associated with a crisis (Hari et al., 2023).
Sensemaking offers a suitable theoretical lens to explore how individuals put structure on an unstructured situation or how they experience and react to an uncertain event (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015;Weick et al., 2005).Scholars consider how sense is made and given after a crisis while reflecting on the conditions and actions during a crisis (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010).The process of sensemaking or the cognitive responses invoked during a complex and uncertain situation is concerned with establishing order, clarity, and rationality (Kalkman, 2020).Sensemaking theory posits a three-stage, closed-loop process, consisting of enactment, selection and retention, through which individuals process and make sense of equivocal environments (Weick, 1969(Weick, , 1988)).Despite the high level of uncertainty, novelty, and complexity that student SIEs face, regardless of crisis conditions, sensemaking has yet to be fully examined in this context (Glanz et al., 2001;Guimarães-Costa et al., 2014).To this end, our study seeks to explore how SIEs make sense of the decision to remain in-country or return home prematurely during a global crisis?
We employ a qualitative research design, interviewing higher education students on SIEs during the initial spike of COVID-19.Our paper develops two contributions.First, departing from a large amount of work on the repatriation of assigned expatriates (Chiang et al., 2018;Goede, 2020;Shen et al., 2021) we answer calls for a greater understanding of SIE repatriation (Cerdin & Selmer, 2014;Jannesari & Sullivan, 2022;Tharenou & Caulfield, 2010), specifically the problem of premature return.By concentrating on the context of a global crisis, we expand the reach of this work beyond a focus on the intentions to repatriate (Cao et al., 2014;Chen & Shaffer, 2017;Meuer et al., 2019), providing a rich account of the lived withdrawal experiences of SIEs.Revealing a darker side of SIE repatriation, we find that a global crisis presents acute and perilous conditions that intensify the fear of being stranded in an unfamiliar location, increasing the stress that SIEs experience, and impacting their decision to return home.As such, we enrich our understanding of the distinctive repatriation challenges that SIEs confront, which have to date largely been underappreciated, particularly how these individuals cope with and make sense of the intractable decision to withdraw prematurely.By focusing on students on international internships as a distinct form of SIE, we advance claims that SIEs are indeed not a homogenous group and greater diversity exists (Brewster et al., 2021;Haak-Saheem et al., 2022;Suutari & Brewster, 2000).
Second, by applying a sensemaking lens we unravel how SIEs structure, organise and process their withdrawal decision in the context of complex, volatile, and potentially harmful conditions.Our findings show how SIEs grapple with the withdrawal decision during a crisis by engaging in a sensemaking process of enactment, selection, and retention.We show how, for SIEs, the decision to return home early during a crisis manifests as a dynamic recursive sensemaking process of interpreting appropriate actions, coordinating divergent influences, processing information, and reflexive adaptation.In doing so, we also add to the crisis sensemaking literature (Christianson & Barton, 2021;Kalkman, 2020;Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010;Weick, 1988) by showing how student SIEs are a particularly important group to explore given that their high level of independence, relative inexperience living and working abroad, and lack of organisational support means they will invariably revert to and rely on their personalised sensemaking framework when confronted with a crisis.This stands in contrast to assigned expatriates that will have formalised support, be more experienced internationally, and often have the withdrawal decision made for them by their organisation, and as a result, they may feel more secure when confronted with a premature return.Building on others that have applied sensemaking insights to expatriates (Glanz et al., 2001;Guimarães-Costa et al., 2014;Hong et al., 2016), we show how sensemaking provides a scaffold for SIEs to structure and coordinate their thoughts, feelings, networks, and information flow in the midst of complex and unpredictable conditions.These insights also enrich sensemaking research (De Rond et al., 2019;Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015, 2020) by bringing to light the largely neglected role of embodied emotions in motivating actions, suggesting that sensemaking in a crisis is a more affective process than scholars have portrayed.

Self-initiated expatriation
A growing body of work in global mobility literature recognises the differences between SIEs and assigned expatriates (Andresen et al., 2014;Doherty, 2013).An SIE is any person seeking cross-border employment on their own initiative and is hired as a local in the host country, in contrast to assigned expatriates sent by their home organisations (Andresen et al., 2020;Brewster et al., 2021).They take the initiative independent from, and without the support of, an employer to move to and work in a foreign location.One differentiator from assigned expatriates is that the decision to employ an SIE is made by the new work contract partner in the host country rather than the home country, meaning SIEs cross inter-organisational boundaries (Andresen et al., 2014;Bozionelos, 2009).SIEs are often driven abroad by a combination of escaping current circumstances or an intrinsic sense of adventure to travel, explore, and learn through personal development and cultural immersion, beyond purely working (Inkson et al., 1997).Scholars suggest that SIEs will generally have agency about where they relocate, the organisation they work for, and the role they work in Doherty (2013).SIEs typically do not benefit from relocation allowances or company support in terms of housing or other forms of assistance that enable them to integrate with unfamiliar surroundings (Hussain & Deery, 2018;Inkson et al., 1997).It is assumed that most SIEs first expatriate and subsequently find work in a foreign firm (Jokinen et al., 2008) but this is not always the case (Bozionelos, 2009).Another prevailing assumption is that SIEs move abroad without a preplanned duration of stay (Suutari & Brewster, 2000).Self-initiation ultimately means that SIEs face more obstacles than assigned expatriates in the assignment process such as financial challenges and negative emotions like fear or uncertainty (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009).

Students as distinctive SIEs
Scholars have called for more research on expatriation, both self-initiated and traditional types, beyond the conventional corporate setting, and higher education is one of the contexts considered (Brewster et al., 2021;McNulty et al., 2017).Much of this work examines academics as both expatriates (Richardson & Mckenna, 2002;Selmer & Lauring, 2010) and self-initiated expatriates (Froese, 2012;Selmer & Lauring, 2010) when travelling abroad for work purposes.It could be argued that students in higher education that embark on international internships more closely represent the category of SIEs than assigned expatriates (Rajani et al., 2018), and given they are the focus of our study, it is important to draw some comparisons and contradictions in this respect. 1Similar to SIEs, students are going to work for a new organisation that is unattached to their home country's position.Students are also seeking a sense of adventure and exploration by travelling to and immersing in a new culture (Inkson et al., 1997), are likely at an earlier life stage (Cerdin & Le Pargneux, 2010;Thorn, 2009), will work on lower hierarchical levels or junior positions (Jokinen et al., 2008), and will have less emphasis on career goals given their lack of professional experience (Suutari & Brewster, 2000).Student internships are mainly for self-development rather than financial benefits or as part of a structured career progression within an organisation (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009, 2012).Yet, we suggest that working students represent a more distinct type of SIE as they do not adhere neatly to all SIE characteristics portrayed in previous work.
Students are not in charge of every step of their assignment, particularly those embarking on international internships.Although they are offered some latitude over the decision to go abroad, where to go, the length of stay, and when to return home, they will not have complete agency.Challenging common assumptions in SIE research, students will already have a role/organisation established before they travel abroad (Jokinen et al., 2008) and will have a recognised and predetermined duration of stay (Suutari & Brewster, 2000), typically 9-12 months before moving abroad.Unlike SIEs, some students have less latitude or agency in choosing which country to work in Doherty (2013), as this may be defined by the language they are studying i.e. students enrolled in degrees with a language element will work in the country of that language.Although they do not necessarily initiate all aspects of the assignment themselves, they will have agency in selecting which organisation and role they work in, as well as which part of the country they wish to be located.They are also likely not to travel to connect with spouses, family, friends, or colleagues in the host country which is often the case for SIEs (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009, 2012;Suutari & Brewster, 2000).In contrast to SIEs who typically receive no company support (Hussain & Deery, 2018), students may initially benefit from pre-departure language training, practical support, and financial assistance through Erasmus grants, and may be provided with ongoing post-arrival provisions for mental or physical health challenges (Conroy & Mccarthy, 2021).This support is by no means as generous as what assigned expatriates receive (Wurtz, 2014) and more in line with shorter-term relocations (Conroy et al., 2018).Student SIEs are extremely important for developing markets that are exporters of international students to developed markets to recapture this source of talent.The UK, for example, is one of the biggest importers of international students, with China and India as two of the largest markets (Zheng, 2014), but these students are likely to face greater challenges and are more exposed to crisis conditions than those relocating from developed-to-developed markets (Cerdin & Selmer, 2014).Given their lack of experience travelling and working abroad, students SIEs in general may be more vulnerable to adverse conditions in the global market increasing the likelihood of premature return during a crisis.

Premature return of student SIEs during a crisis
A crisis can be defined as an event that is 'unwanted, unexpected, unprecedented, and almost unmanageable, causing widespread disbelief and uncertainty' (Rosenthal et al., 2001, p. 6).Crises in the global environment in the past two decades, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the SARs outbreak in 2003, the global financial recession in 2008, the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and the recent earthquakes in Turkey all significantly impact the mobility of international assignees (Végh et al., 2023).Global crises in particular impact various nations and may be geo-political, economic, social, or environmental in nature but will have a disruptive effect on individuals who are working abroad for a temporary period, likely triggering premature withdrawal.
Work on the repatriation intentions of SIEs is helpful when looking more closely at the problem of premature return (Begley et al., 2008;Lindsay et al., 2019).Repatriation is the act of returning to one's home country after working abroad for a contractually agreed-upon time (Tharenou & Caulfield, 2010), whereas premature return occurs when an individual returns home before that defined period has elapsed due to unforeseen circumstances (Meuer et al., 2019).Much of this research is focused on assigned expatriate repatriation (Chiang et al., 2018) or the issue of expatriate premature return, with a distinct gap around the premature return of SIEs (Andresen et al., 2014).Studies on the early return of assigned expatriates consider the inability to adjust to a new culture, work-related challenges, or family issues as reasons for early re-entry (Goede, 2020;Shaffer & Harrison, 1998;Shen et al., 2021).Work on SIE repatriation is confined to intentions, which are plans regarding staying in the host country (Cao et al., 2014).One of the inconsistencies with this body of work is that scholars assume there is no prearranged return to the home country for SIEs.Yet, others suggest that the 'intention of a temporary stay' is a central part of the SIE process as they consider themselves guests in their host locations, as opposed to assigned expatriates on longer assignments (Cerdin & Selmer, 2014).
Research indicates that pull and push factors in home and host countries have an influence on repatriation intentions (Ceric & Crawford, 2016).Being weakly embedded in host country career opportunities and community (Chen & Shaffer, 2017), as well as experiencing greater belongingness or familiarity in the home country (Cao et al., 2014), fosters an SIE's intention to repatriate.Others find that SIEs are more likely to return home when their on-the-job embeddedness in the host country is low, as they are more likely than assigned expatriates to encounter unexpected situations due to their unfamiliarity with the host organisation (Hussain & Deery, 2018).Tharenou and Caulfield (2010) were one of the first to identify the significance of external shocks that occur in both home or host countries, both positive and negative, which may create a negative appraisal of life abroad, triggering SIEs to repatriate.Although engaging in a job search to increase career prospects in the home market after a shock is helpful, SIEs are less likely to return home if they perceive this process as challenging or stressful.Looking at the COVID crisis (Végh et al., 2023), found that assigned expatriates will use various coping mechanisms to remain in-country but felt 'pulled in different directions' and will likely 'fall between two stools' in being ineligible for support in their home and host countries.Scholars have also begun to examine the intentions of SIEs to repatriate during the pandemic (Jannesari & Sullivan, 2022).Rosa González et al. (2022) argue that social networks and dual home-host allegiances may exacerbate feelings of stress and guilt for nurses to return, but the impact of the crisis on the local society creates a pull to remain.
We know very little about premature returns for students with some studies considering their intentions to stay after a period of study.Rajani et al. (2018) suggest that initially family encouragement or employer practices 'push' students to repatriate, but personal ambitions or positive experiences may 'pull' them to remain.Others have found that transnational sensemaking, by comparing information from two or more contexts, may help international students studying abroad (Hari et al., 2023).

A sensemaking perspective
In the past decade research on sensemaking has grown rapidly yet in seemingly disparate directions around organisational change and crisis situations.Maitlis and Christianson (2014) argue that sensemaking is: 'a process, prompted by violated expectations that involve attending to and bracketing cues in the environment, creating intersubjective meaning through cycles of interpretation and action, and thereby enacting a more ordered environment' (p.67).
Sensemaking is particularly important in crises as it involves a process of social construction that occurs when discrepant cues interrupt individuals' ongoing activity, enabling 'the retrospective development of plausible meanings that rationalise what people are doing' (Weick et al., 2005, p. 409).In other words, when confronted with ambiguous situations, individuals try to retrospectively make sense of the unfolding events, to rationalise them (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010).Crises, therefore, trigger sensemaking where a crisis involves 'a specific, unexpected, non-routine event or a series of events that creates a high level of uncertainty and a significant or perceived threat' (Seeger & Mitra, 2019, p. 253).Given the inherent ambiguity of crisis situations in fast-changing and threatening contexts characterised by distributed and competing information sources (Christianson & Barton, 2021), individuals can struggle to interpret the situation or generate shared understandings to coordinate action (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007;Rubin & de Vries, 2020).
Sensemaking theory posits a three-stage, closed-loop process, consisting of enactment, selection, and retention stages, through which individuals process and make sense of equivocal environments (Maitlis, 2005;Weick, 1969).With high levels of equivocality, the environment is difficult to analyse, and enactment becomes the primary means of understanding.In highly complex situations, the sensemaking process begins with enactment, defined as 'action that produces the raw materials that can then be made sensible' (Weick, 1969, p. 133).Faced with multiple potential interpretations of the environment, 'people often don't know what the "appropriate action" is until they take some action and see what happens' (Weick, 1969, p. 137).Within the sensemaking process, enactment represents the execution of actions that are guided by preconceptions but may not be fully understood by the actor (Weick, 1969).Accordingly, enactment incorporates a previous understanding and provides the raw material for subsequent clarification (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015).Central to an enactment is the activity of bracketing contextual cues or creating an initial sense of the interrupted situation, through extracting cues (units of meaningful environmental information) (Weick, 1969(Weick, , 1988)).During enactment, preconceptions guide actions aimed at managing a situation; through such actions, equivocality-the raw material of sense-making is introduced into the sense-making process (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007).
Selection refers to the interpretation process in which individuals attach meanings to actions by constructing plausible stories that explain current accounts of enactment (Weick, 1969).In effect, an individual 'selects' a contextually rational explanation, from those available, that best utilise past wisdom and experiences.Through selection, past experiences constrain and preconceptions influence, current understanding.As such, the selection process accounts for the extent to which the perceived, enacted environment matches an objective reality.Weick (1969) suggests that all behaviours manifest against the background of a concrete or internalised social context, based on which individual sensemaking actors (sensegivers) influence the sensemaking of others (sensemakers) (Weick et al., 2005).Consequently, ongoing sensemaking during selection is often referred to as collective sensemaking e.g. in that obtaining consensus on plausibility is socially negotiated.
Retention is the third stage of the sensemaking process.An understanding of salient issues and cause-effect relationships are developed during enactment and selection, but retention allows actors to reflect on these by developing cognitive cause frames.These frames of retrospective interpretation exist within the mind of the individual and represent (i) past wisdom, that is, knowledge of what one thinks, (ii) the criteria that influence what is noticed versus ignored, and how one will act and (iii) the enacted environment (Weick, 1993).The retrospective nature of sensemaking during retention focuses on justifying enactment through self-reflection that facilitates legitimacy with key stakeholders, a sense of coherence and enables normal activity to resume.In this regard, sensemaking assumes a retrospective quality that involves generating explanations to justify actions (Weick, 1993).We posit that a sensemaking perspective offers a valuable lens for exploring how student SIEs make sense of the decision to remain in-country or return home prematurely during a crisis.

Methodology
We adopted a qualitative research design with an interpretive approach to explore the withdrawal experiences of SIEs during a global crisis.Qualitative methods are valuable for uncovering the experiences of SIEs (Froese, 2012) as well as the sensemaking process of individuals in crisis situations (Christianson & Barton, 2021).Our context is set in the higher education sector in the UK, and we used purposive or theoretical sampling (Silverman, 2020) to identify a sample of students that were on international internships across Europe during COVID-19.This approach involved intentionally inviting individuals who were experienced in the phenomenon under study and were willing and interested in sharing their experiences to advance our understanding of that contemporary phenomenon (Patton, 2014).
We consulted with university departments responsible for overseeing students on work abroad such as global opportunities, Erasmus, and the placement office.This led us to identify students on an International Business with a Language degree who were all on an international placement as part of their four-year degree and were at least six months into this when the pandemic struck in March 2020.We sent an email invite to these students to participate in the study and 21 of the 24 on the course agreed to be involved.Participants were mainly UK nationals and from the same business school in a UK university.These individuals were all between the ages of 20-25 and none had any work experience in international markets previously.
We classify this group of individuals as SIEs given that they initiated their assignment to a host country (Andresen et al., 2020) searched for and secured paid employment in a new organisation (Bozionelos, 2009), are working in junior positions (Jokinen et al., 2008), chose their role and location of the country to live in Doherty (2013), with the intention of a temporary stay (Cerdin & Selmer, 2014).These individuals, therefore, had a predetermined return date in that they all spent between 9 and 12 months maximum on assignment.They all embarked on an assignment from July-August 2019 to major cities in Spain, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Austria.Training and support were provided over 9 months before departure, which involved language and cultural classes, a handbook of practical information on the local country, and health and safety awareness workshops.The local firms varied from start-ups and SMEs to large multinationals, with individuals typically performing roles in HR, Marketing, Finance, and IT.

Data collection
Data were collected in May 2020; 10 wk post the decision to either remain in-country or return home.All interviews were semi-structured and conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams, lasting on average 60 min, and they were recorded and transcribed verbatim.Interviewees were provided with pseudonyms to protect their identities.We incorporated insights from the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), where we asked individuals to reflect on the specifics of their decision to either stay in-country or withdraw.The critical incident technique is particularly appropriate when asking participants to recall and detail a time when a behaviour, action or occurrence impacted (either positively or negatively) a specific outcome, activity, or task (Butterfield et al., 2005).This is important in attending to the risk of retrospective reconstruction (Gehman et al., 2018;Langley, 1999).The critical incident was based on the decision to remain or return, given the spike in COVID-19, and the impact this had on their assignment experience.We asked interviewees to focus on the week leading up to the decision to return home or not.For all individuals, this was the week of 9-16th March 2020.Most of Europe began to close their borders and deny entry to citizens from various countries.Equally, most of the local organisations decided that interviewees would not be able to work from their offices after 14th March 2020, with some allowing individuals to work remotely.
Interview questions focused on the individuals' experiences up until the week they returned home, how they made sense of this situation, who influenced their decision, where they received their information, the subsequent consequences of this decision, and any support they received.We also asked questions on the experience of transitioning to their home country, with some (2) individuals continuing their assignment remotely from the UK and the rest struggling to occupy their time with no work.A limited number (2) of interviewees chose to remain in situ and finish their assignment while working remotely from their apartments.

Data analysis
We employed an abductive-based approach to our data collection and analysis.Abduction offers qualitative researchers a 'vocabulary to articulate how they iterate between theory and data' (Plakoyiannaki & Budhwar, 2021, p. 230), allowing inductive exploration for richer theory extension and refinement.Our analysis proceeded along three broad stages underpinned by the 'Gioia method' (Gioia, 2021;Gioia et al., 2013).First, we familiarised ourselves with the data analysing transcripts individually identifying broad themes in the form of open coding.This process involved comparing codes across individual participants and developing a list of generic codes generated mainly from the language that interviewees used but guided by insights from global mobility studies.In this early stage of analysis, literature on the repatriation and premature return of SIEs and students (Rajani et al., 2018;Tharenou & Caulfield, 2010), as well as work more broadly on the challenges for international assignees in crises (Bader et al., 2019), provided structural signals.
Second, in attempting to further conceptualise these codes in theoretical language, we collapsed them into second-order categories.These second-order categories were informed by the literature on sensemaking and sensegiving, particularly during complex crisis conditions, providing the foundational base of our findings (Maitlis, 2005;Weick, 1969Weick, , 1993)).Our aim was to abstract concepts by theorising the dynamic relationships between themes and uncover the systems of interpretations and meanings around divergent interests (Cornelissen, 2017).To cluster the list of first-order codes into themes, we looked for the co-location of codes.For example, several codes described formal sensegiving agents, while others related to informal sensegiving mechanisms.We iterated between the codes and axial coding to connect concepts and ideas of how the emerging themes related to each other (Gehman et al., 2018).In this sense, taken together, our second-order codes provide an important theoretical bridge for the conceptual leap (Klag & Langley, 2013) between the empirical and theoretical parts of our paper.
Third, we developed final aggregate dimensions derived from the first and second-order codes that allowed us to answer how interviewees made sense of the decision to withdraw during a global crisis.In structuring our coding, the analysis was informed by an iterative back and forth between data and literature on sensemaking and global mobility, while remaining anchored in the context of a global crisis.The coding and analysis generated the data structure (Table 1) that served as the basis for our findings and allowed us to discern how themes and dimensions were intertwined.
The trustworthiness of qualitative research is dependent on internal and external validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).Internal validity decisions are usually made in the design phase but applied to the data analysis phase and this was established by clearly outlining the data collection and analysis.Our study had a clear theoretical justification that guided the purposive sampling and data collection.We drew on constant comparison techniques across interviewees when analysing our data along with pattern matching between relationships in current data and previous literature as well as in the coding process between researchers (Silverman, 2020).External validity was ensured in the form of analytical generalisation by providing a clear rationale for the sampling choices.We have sought to be transparent in our use of a student sample by framing our theoretical positioning around students as SIEs and global mobility in the higher education sector, building on studies in this context, as well as being clear about the importance of our findings for HR departments in managing graduates .We argue that our sample is closer to 'real life' employees given they are contracted to an organisation and experiencing the phenomenon of interest (withdrawal decision) first-hand, which is different to other student samples examining real-world problems in the classroom (Bello et al., 2009).

Findings
We structure our findings in line with the three-stage sensemaking process of enactment, selection, and retention, detailing the specific sensemaking experiences of SIEs.First, in the enactment phase, we detail how • feelings of responsibility to decide without time to make an informed one.• Panic of having to act in a rushed manner • The burden of deciding, which had to be continually re-evaluated as new information clarifies/conflicts features of the pandemic embracing agentic responses • seeking information from managers who prioritised a decision to terminate the assignment • seeking information from the university placement office, academic mentors and helpline which was inundated with calls resulting in a delayed reply or inability to get through.• lack of timely decision support from formal channels, empathy and frustration around this and an inability to anticipate the implications of a decision to stay/leave absorbing information from formal sensegiving actors selection • seeking information from family and friends who were worried about the worsening situation and advised the return home and exhibited fear and anxiety • seeking information from social media which resulted in incoherent and incomplete understandings • The role of press briefings and televised statements from government leaders in providing information for sensemaking about the severity of the situation absorbing information from informal sensegiving actors • Worst case scenarios and the loss of the full international assignment work experience • Deriving a sense of internal coherence of the reasonableness of the decision that is socially acceptable • reflecting on the importance of health and valuing cultural experiences and virtual working skills retrospective framing retention • The ease of adjusting, organisational support, and technological advancements for remote working • statements about teething problems with technology such as slow internet connection and inadequacy of computer monitors to engage in work tasks shifting to remote working • feeling isolated at home after returning to a strange home environment in lockdown • experiencing boredom after returning home during lockdown with no social outlets • experiencing an inability to find part-time work in the home country • Worrying about health of elderly relatives at home coping with lockdown the acute nature of the pandemic triggered rapid sensemaking responses, causing the decision to withdraw to be highly complex, dynamic, and emotionally charged.Second, in the selection phase, we find that these sensemaking responses were not carried out in isolation, but instead, were socially constructed through various sensegiving actors that influenced the withdrawal decision.Third, in the retention phase, we outline the various reflexive frames that interviewees employed in the aftermath of their decision.
For context, the higher education sector, particularly the two-way flow of students on international work placements, is a particularly sensitive context to crises (Choudaha, 2017).This is certainly the case for outward student mobility in the UK.According to Universities UK International (UUKi Publications, 2021), student mobility to and from the UK was significantly impacted by the pandemic, with mobile student numbers dropping to 27.5% of the pre-pandemic peak.Before the pandemic crisis, the number of students with a period of mobility had grown by nearly 40% during 2015-2019.The top three most popular destinations for mobile students from the UK in 2019-20 were the US, Spain, and France, while only 20% of this group were working abroad.

Enactment
In deciding whether to withdraw early from their international assignment, we find that participants had to create an initial sense of the interrupted situation.This involved a 'bracketing' activity of extracting cues rooted in assessments of worsening local circumstances that deviated from existing experiences -not entirely aligned with universal accounts of the crisis.

Bracketing contextual cues
A great uncertainty involved the lack of accurate information about the severity of the crisis and rapid changes as interviewees encountered an incoherent and frenzied host country and organisational environment that disrupted their routines.Interviewees struggled to cognitively process this context, as Julie noted, 'Everybody was afraid and uncertain.It was overpowering us -the poor atmosphere and worrying health aspect'.The challenge for participants was attempting to rapidly acquire, at the earliest opportunity, the most relevant information that reflected the actual status of the amorphous situation.This was complicated by mixed local interpretation schemes of the severity of the crisis and lagged institutional responses across country contexts.John described the conflicting contextual cues between the home and the host countries: 'Spain was high risk whilst Ireland was calm with no quarantine'.During the early stage of the crisis the university maintained normal operating procedures but the official narrative to 'continue on assignment' appeared at odds with the crisis cues coming from interviewees' local environments.Indeed, there were vulnerabilities and points of contest emerging as exemplified by Elaine: ' At a higher level in the university were saying for me to stay on.I was afraid of staying.I was worried about what would happen to me'.A primary contextual cue stemmed from the talk around the possible closure of the local organisations, as Katie explained: 'February was quiet, and it was getting really bad, and we were worried for the company with sales dropping.It was a worrying time with chats and rumours that people would have to be let go.I didn't know about my position, and it was unsettling'.

Recognising emotions
Underpinning interviewees' narratives of noticing and attempting to interpret multiple contextual cues was a significant emotional dimension.These emotions surfaced as participants reflected on the stress, anxiety, fear, and panic associated with the uncertainty around their health and career implications.Sarah noted: 'It was really worrying, everyone else was told this is really serious, you need to come home, we need to make sure where you are, but then for us there was a change in one day of '

you can come home if you want to, you can make up the time later to you can come home if you want to but you won't have to make up the time'.
Interviewees explained their cognitive dissonance and expressed that there was no script to guide an appropriate action which rendered it a very intense emotional experience, as Hilary expressed: 'Because it's so unpredictable it was hard to know what to do in that situation'.
Interviewees also voiced how this situation quickly became a miasma of fear and panic of being stranded abroad amidst the perception of the global enormity of the epidemic and looking to the potential but unknown outcomes of the situation.Enda explained: 'The placement took a back seat as your thinking was what's the best thing for me and am I going to be stuck out here without being able to get out'.Karen equally expressed this sentiment: 'I would get home because if they closed the borders, the flights would be cancelled.It was panic'.Enda voiced worry about having to self-isolate abroad without family support: 'I didn't want to get caught out in Germany having to isolate having to work in an apartment in the city so at that stage I was keen to come home and work on the assignments or whatever'.The fear and uncertainty were exacerbated by the sudden rise in the price of returning flights in tandem with the cancellation of existing flights and difficulties of rescheduling.These logistical problems verified the increasingly volatile nature of the situation and time critical decision for returning home.Interviewees' rapid reappraisal of having to return home triggered the need to decide whether to bring their belongings home or not as part of an unfolding situation but with an inconclusive answer.

Embracing agency
Interviewees expressed the uncertainty surrounding the unprecedented nature of the experience and a lack of a guiding framework for terminating their assignment prematurely.Participants were propelled into a state of 'needing to decide' that they did not have experience with.The urgency of this decision was intensified by the rapid way in which the host country appeared to close their borders and enforce lockdown rules, which did not afford individuals time to align their cognitive frameworks with the reality of the situation.This situation was described as 'a sense of shock' (Corah) and a feeling of 'chaos as the world just stopped' (Maura).
Our findings suggest that whilst individuals were afforded full agency in making this decision, rather than being obliged to return home by their university or organisation, this was perceived as being a difficult position to be in.Some interviewees emphasised a burden associated with the freedom to choose whether to terminate the assignment.Marie explained this unease and the complexity of the decision: 'I was quite reluctant about going home because I was thinking it would get complicated and I don't want to do this.I was thinking I will stay here, and I will follow the rules until June.I thought I may contract the virus and give it to my family so there were so many things running through my mind'.Intermingled with a sense of urgency and ambivalence was the experience of frustration with participants expressing that the university didn't give them a definite guide for action.

Selection
During the selection stage of sensemaking, participants' stories of the crisis were exchanged and then used to negotiate a shared social information basis on which to act.Interviewees' decisions were socially constructed and represented a complicated collective sensemaking process as many different stakeholders were involved in sensegiving across different country contexts.

Absorbing information from formal sensegiving actors
Home country sensegiving was provided by the university, placement office and mentors as well as host country organisational actors including managers, supervisors, and local colleagues.These actors provided cues for constructing a new meaning through delivering reassurance, balance, and orientation.Interviewees' stories displayed a pragmatic approach which involved being both frustrated and empathetic of the unprecedented nature of the situation which the university could not plan for.Corah detailed: 'We sent an email seeking clarification about things to the university and there were no plans in place.I understand but yes it was tough to receive no clear information'.Enda typified a shared positive feeling of all interviewees towards the efforts to manage the process by the university but underlined the need for earlier communication and guidance.Nicola also voiced that whilst the university was helpful on the academic side of things, more communication was needed to help individuals understand where they were at in their assignment trajectory and what to expect.All interviewees expressed a positive attitude towards the support they had received from the placement office staff and their academic mentors.
Sensegiving was also formally provided by actors in the host country mainly through local colleagues, supervisors, and managers.All interviewees expressed a positive experience of the supportive nature of their organisations with managers helping them focus on their health as the main priority, Hilary emphasised the prioritisation of the health of staff by her organisation: 'The office told us 'maybe bring your laptop home in case' but they didn't realise on that Friday that it would be our last day in the office for months.It was a bit stressful; it wasn't too overwhelming though because the company was so supportive with everything telling me my safety was the most important thing'.Participants' appreciation of support from their organisations was also tinged with a sense of worry after hearing that other individuals were losing their jobs amid company closures.Sarah explained this dilemma as follows: 'I knew that a lot of people were losing their jobs, or they were told they weren't going to and then they did, and no one knew how long this was going to last.It was beyond the control of our organisations' .

Processing information from informal sensegiving actors
Sensemaking influences are also manifested in informal channels by actors in both the home and host country.Host country sensegiving was provided by the peer networks, mainly friends and other international assignees.Interviewees expressed how a sense of collective identity formed with their peers which can be seen in Nicola's statement: ' Anytime I felt panicky I just told myself 'we are all in the same situation'.In this way the informal chat amongst peers, discussions and stories on social media filled some of the information holes and served as an important influence on interviewees' sensemaking processes, as typified by Jessica: 'In the days leading up to leaving the group chat got crazy.People were saying you need to go home, and it was a state of panic'.Oliva explained: 'We saw loads of people putting up on Instagram and snapchat that they were leaving so that also influenced our decision.So, then we said right we better get out of here, as all our friends had started to leave… what got us through it was we were all in the same boat'.Sarah further added: 'We have a Barcelona group chat… when everything was going on we were talking to each other, seeing who had a job, who didn't, what was going on if they were going to stay.Just to know how your friends are and what they are doing helps whilst you are abroad and especially trying to cope with the same thing'.Yet, Marie indicated social media networks as a source of strain: 'Yes it was awful and uncertain.Everyone was telling me what to do, social media went mad…I had to switch it off.Some people said to come home, and others said stay as it is not dangerous'.Karen echoed this in referring to the worsening situation in other countries which she heard about from other international assignees: 'As the crisis in Italy worsened a wave of panic came over everybody and they were like what does that means for us and then literally they closed the border, and nobody could get in or out.A couple of my friends were in Italy and Germany, and they were stranded, and they couldn't get back'.
Collective sensegiving influences also emerged in informal channels by actors in the home country, mainly family.Parents' and friends' emotional expressions of fear, panic and worry acted as sensegivers, as illustrated by Jane: 'It crept up and I was getting messages from my family back home and they were saying about the worsening situation at home'.Hilary explained how her parents helped her put structure and certainty on her decision to return home: 'I spoke with my parents about it and thought about coming home.The day the office told us we could work from home; I asked my parents 'do you think I should come home or am I being dramatic?'But they were thinking the same thing and scared that I should come home'.Others commented on how they wanted to stay on assignment, but that family changed this desire as Aidan expressed: 'I wanted to stay on, but things were so bad, and police were everywhere.I spoke to my mum, and she said please come home…it was a frightening situation to be in'.In contrast, Katie's decision to remain abroad was influenced by the relaxed and encouraging attitude of her parents who gave her the freedom to decide and communicated daily with her in addition to her concentration on the possible financial implications of terminating her assignment.

Retention
In closing the sensemaking loop, we found that the final sensemaking stage of retention involved interviewees engaging in a retrospective analysis of the decision to stay or leave drew conclusions about their experiences and making sense of their new realities.In returning to a changed home environment, some interviewees are adapting to their new roles working remotely from the UK, a minority have remained in the host country working out of the office in lockdown, and the majority have either finished or lost their jobs as a result of returning and are coping with life in lockdown.

Retrospective framing
Interviewees reflected on their decision to withdraw and terminate their assignment early with both positive and negative retrospective frames.Sarah, who was more positive in her framing, noted: 'I was just starting to enjoy my time on placement, and I felt like that was ripped away from me.I guess the silver lining is that I have still been able to work, and I am very grateful for that, I know most of my peers have been let go with no income at home'.Other interviewees that returned home to work remotely voiced the virtual skills they have gained.For example, Katie explained: 'Seeing how the company has transitioned has been invaluable, changing a lot of projects going virtual, seeing all that first-hand has been really beneficial.I've gained a lot of that experience that I wouldn't have if this didn't happen'.Another example was given by Enda who ended his assignment early to return home but was focused on a positive frame: 'Going out adapting to Germany putting yourself in an uncomfortable situation I definitely achieved that'.All interviewees that returned home highlighted how they had made a decision that prioritised their health and safety which surfaced in statements such as: 'I'm alive that's all that matters' (Hilary) and 'coming home didn't affect me because I love being home.I was the safe and that was the most important thing' (Marie).
Interviewees' retrospective frames also involved a sense of loss around the cultural experience and missing friends: 'there is a lot of stuff I didn't get a chance to do like the cultural side I have missed out on a bit, but I had time before that to experience the culture' (Jane).Some individuals had encountered financial loss because of returning home.Sarah expressed the cost of returning home: 'I hired a company that packed up everything and shipped it back to me.I couldn't go and collect that yourself.I had to pay for that myself' .

Shifting to remote working
Some interviewees had stayed in the host country and referred to shifting to virtual working for their organisations.Katie decided to stay in Barcelona and work from her apartment and she explained the organisational support that facilitated this decision: 'The company went completely virtual super quickly and even though everyone was quite confused we were given very good guidelines from corporate headquarters'.Another participant echoed this sentiment but felt that virtual working reduced his efficiency: 'I experienced the difficulty of working off a 13-inch laptop rather than working off two screens which means you are not as quick or efficient getting the work done' (Tim).Several interviewees who returned home were permitted to continue their assignment and work remotely from the UK and they reflected on this change in circumstances.Whilst they found it strange, they commented on the organisational support they received and the ease of setting up a daily routine that mirrored that of the host country working.Interviewees explained that virtual working is becoming more common although indicating the minor adjustment challenges of 'a slow network, setting up a workstation from home and figuring out how to ask for help when people aren't physically present' (Katie).

Coping with lockdown
All interviewees, regardless of returning home or not were suffering from withdrawal symptoms and struggling with the lockdown.Those who repatriated home reflected on the difficulties with Sarah commenting: 'With the whole panic rush home mindset, it was difficult, and moving home for the first time in 3 years, the fear of loss of independence, a bit strange but it was good to home, it feels strange to still be here now.It has been difficult sharing the same workspace with my little siblings and sharing the same desk… it's being slightly odd'.Enda highlighted that his return home was quickly followed by the lockdown which he had to adjust to in addition to readjusting to living with his parents, and that was voiced by many participants who had become used to independent living abroad.James explained how he felt demotivated since he returned home: 'My motivation has really gone down since the start, when I came home, I was working 9-5 and had a routine and for the first few weeks in April I worked on my assignments but since things have gone one, my productivity has gotten less and less.This is the longest I've had to live at home since I turned 18'.Alternatively, those interviewees who had chosen to stay in the host country indicated feelings of boredom and isolation as the pandemic continued: 'So started working from home [in Barcelona], my house mates had gone home for Saint Patrick's Day and couldn't come back.I ended up in the apartment by myself ' (Katie).Tim echoed this and explained: 'I ended up moving to a new apartment in the middle of the pandemic and I was very lucky that a room opened up for me with people of my age.I had been living by myself for 7 wk in my apartment'.

Discussion
Our study set out to explore how SIEs make sense of the decision to remain in-country or return home prematurely during a global crisis.By providing an in-depth account of the lived experiences of SIEs during a global crisis and disentangling their sensemaking process around the decision to withdraw, our findings contribute to theorising in two ways.
First, our findings contribute to research on SIEs by focusing on the premature return experiences of students during a global crisis.We answer calls for more work on understanding the repatriation challenges that SIEs face (Cerdin & Selmer, 2014) by expanding research beyond a focus on intentions to explore the premature return decision for SIEs.Specifically, by providing a rich account of the lived experiences of SIEs during the withdrawal decision, our findings advance existing work that is confined to SIEs' intentions as hypothetical plans of staying in the host country (Begley et al., 2008;Cao et al., 2014;Chen & Shaffer, 2017;Meuer et al., 2019).In so doing, we position premature return as an important challenge for SIE repatriation.Although there is a broad range of work examining repatriation and premature return for assigned expatriates (Chiang et al., 2018;Goede, 2020;Shen et al., 2021) our findings highlight that premature return is an important problem for SIEs that current research has largely failed to acknowledge.We posit that one of the reasons for this lacuna may lie in some studies arguing that a requirement for SIEs is to relocate without a predetermined duration of stay ( (Suutari & Brewster, 2000), which may diminish the repatriation part of their assignment.Instead, we argue that studies in this space should be more mindful of the criteria for an SIE's 'intention of a temporary stay' (Cerdin & Selmer, 2014) so that the challenges of a potential premature return are considered.Our findings build on work from Tharenou and Caulfield (2010) who were one of the first to show that unexpected shocks (both positive and negative) in the home or host country can influence the repatriation intentions of SIEs.We focus on COVID-19 as a global crisis or shock that transcends the home-host country boundary and negatively impacts an SIE's assignment experience, triggering a decision on whether to remain in-country or return home.We argue that the decision to return home prematurely is a challenging and stressful one in normal circumstances (Shen et al., 2021), but in the context of a global crisis, it is characterised by even greater uncertainty, precarity, and anxiety.Specifically, we find that a crisis presents acute and potentially perilous consequences which may exacerbate the fear of being stranded in a largely unfamiliar location, increasing the emotional stress and panic that SIEs experience, and impacting their decision to terminate their assignment.These insights build on emerging work on how the COVID-19 crisis is impacting the repatriation intentions of other types of SIEs (Jannesari & Sullivan, 2022) such as nurses or assigned expatriates who may be more inclined to remain on assignment during a crisis (Rosa González et al., 2022).As such, our findings caution that the decision to withdraw early and the problem of premature return is likely to become a more prevalent challenge due to increased volatility from global crises, and both organisations and individuals need to find ways to offset the adverse effects.
Our findings enrich existing research on SIEs by extending the view that they are a diverse heterogeneous group, identifying how students on international internships represent a distinct form of SIE, one that does not have to prescribe to all the rigid requirements that other studies set out.Key criteria such as self-initiation (Andresen et al., 2020) secured paid employment in a new organisation (Bozionelos, 2009), working in junior positions (Jokinen et al., 2008), choice of role and location of country to live in Doherty (2013), and intention of a temporary stay (Cerdin & Selmer, 2014) are all prevalent for student SIEs working abroad.Contradicting common assumptions in SIE work, we argue that these students may not have full agency in determining the location they relocate to Doherty (2013), or the length of their stay (Suutari & Brewster, 2000), will have a role or organisation established before relocating (Jokinen et al., 2008), and may receive some support from their home organisation (Cerdin & Selmer, 2014;Howe-Walsh & Schyns, 2010).By exploring the challenging conditions that students face during a global crisis, our findings provide insights into a group of SIEs who are motivated and willing to embark on future assignments and may become valuable employees for global organisations.
Second, by applying a sensemaking lens (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015;Weick et al., 2005) we reveal how SIEs structure, organise and process their decision to remain or return home in the midst of a highly complex, volatile, and unpredictable global crisis.Our findings show how SIEs struggle with the decision to return home prematurely by engaging in a sensemaking process of enactment, selection, and retention.In so doing, we argue that the SIE context is particularly fertile ground for exploring sensemaking practices given that these individuals have a high degree of personal initiative and voluntarily relocate without the systematic supports or scaffolding structures of a home-based organisation that assigned expatriates will have.Moreover, in the context of a global crisis, with rapidly changing circumstances, SIEs with limited experience working and living abroad, will have no choice but to rely on their personal sensemaking framework when deciding whether to withdraw or not.In contrast, assigned expatriates will have formalised support and security from their organisation in both the home and host country when the crisis happens, will have spent more time in the host country, as well as already being provided with training on how to cope with such circumstances (Wurtz, 2014).
Building on work that emphasises the influence of networks in shaping the intention to repatriate or return home prematurely (Shen et al., 2021;Tharenou & Caulfield, 2010), we discover that SIEs become reliant on their wider network of professional and personal connections in both home and host countries, to make sense of the decision to withdraw.In this sense, SIEs engage in selection which involves individuals forming a collective and socially negotiated explanation or plausible meaning of an unfolding situation.Our findings suggest that the ongoing collective sensemaking of SIEs was adapted and influenced by a network of formal and informal sensegiving actors in both home and host country settings.Yet, we reveal the double-edged nature of these networks, in that indecision and anxiety may be compounded due to conflicting contextual cues and divergent information sources, acting as both pull and push factors between various sensegiving actors.Although the sensegivers we identify in both home and host countries may assist SIEs in constructing greater meaning in an unstructured situation (Glanz et al., 2001), we find that they also risk creating greater hesitancy and apprehension if they are presenting contradictory information and using emotionally laden language.For instance, our findings show how informal networks in the home country such as family and friends, are likely to offer advice that is emotionally charged and characterised by concern for an assignee's safety and wellbeing, amplifying the potential risks of staying on assignment during the crisis.This suggests that the emotions of sensegivers are used in tandem with cognition to create a plausible reality for SIEs.These insights advance our understanding of collective sensemaking (Maitlis, 2005;Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007) and how sensegivers may have both positive and adverse effects on an SIE's repatriation experience.Moreover, given their more condensed time in-market than assigned expatriates, student SIEs will be less embedded in the host country and emotional and social connections with their home market will endure during the assignment, swaying their decision to return home prematurely during a crisis.This finding contradicts those that suggest SIEs will relocate to connect with family or friends in the host country and therefore be more embedded locally than assigned expatriates (Peltokorpi & Froese, 2009;Suutari & Brewster, 2000).
Through enactment, SIEs attempt to absorb and interpret contextual cues to formulate rational actions for managing an uncertain situation.However, we argue that student SIEs emotions may override rationality in the context of a crisis, a finding that enriches sensemaking literature which has primarily been studied through a cognitive and rational lens (De Rond et al., 2019;Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015).Analysing how sensemaking unfolds before and after an SIE's action to remain or withdraw brings to light the neglected role of embodied emotions like fear, equivocality, and anticipation in motivating actions (De Rond et al., 2019;Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015).As such, these insights suggest that, in the context of an SIE's premature return decision, 'crisis sensemaking' is an emotionally charged and intensified process.
Yet, not all individuals in our study were keen to return home prematurely.During a crisis event, there will likely be those individuals that intend to withdraw at the first opportunity, but there may also be those SIEs that will be determined to remain in-country regardless of the circumstances.The individuals that remained appeared to be more embedded in the local context and more rational in their decision to stay, being less influenced by fear and anxiety or home-based influences.A central aspect of withdrawal behaviours for SIEs amid a crisis may be an individual's concern with emotions and feelings related to personal values and motives, rather than objectively accurate (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015).In this sense, a withdrawal decision manifests as a dynamic, ongoing recursive sensemaking process resembling 'continued redrafting of an emerging story', rather than rational decision-making (Weick et al., 2005, p. 415).These insights appear to suggest that the more acute, ambiguous, and uncertain the circumstances, and the more influential or supportive the SIE's home and host country networks are, the more likely it is that they will return home early during a crisis.These findings also speak to the growing calls for more research on the lived experiences of flexible forms of global mobility (Jooss et al., 2021), particularly as global environments become more unpredictable, and individuals decide to embark on less conventional forms of mobility.
Contrasting with other studies that examine SIEs' intentions to withdraw (Chen & Shaffer, 2017;Meuer et al., 2019;Tharenou & Caulfield, 2010) we suggest that the retrospective analysis of the interrupted assignment, and whether individuals enact a positive or negative framing on the experience, may impact the willingness to embark on future SIEs.Our findings elucidate ongoing reflexive sensemaking in the aftermath of the decision to return home as individuals had to develop meaning structures for adjusting to new ways of living and working.Research suggests that SIEs may decide not to return home if they perceive the process to be challenging or stressful or have no established job or career opportunities (Tharenou & Caulfield, 2010).However, we argue that during a crisis which shocks an SIE into returning, their home may be perceived as a much more secure and safer environment, regardless of career prospects.Crisis circumstances will likely lead to disruptive or transitional working conditions for SIEs whether they choose to return home prematurely.Although not the major focus of our study, it was clear that global remote working and the importance of adjusting to virtual assignments (Nurmi & Hinds, 2016;Welch et al., 2007) will become paramount as an alternative to traditional forms of global mobility.For example, some SIEs terminated their assignment and relocated in haste while others transitioned to become a remote worker, either remaining in the host country to work or departing and continuing their assignment remotely from their home country.Moreover, our findings suggest that some SIEs may suffer withdrawal symptoms which may have negative implications for health and well-being.Yet, going through such a challenging and stressful experience may provide SIEs with a valuable learning opportunity, which enhances their capacity to develop international human capital.Thus, as well as contributing insights on the potentially darker side of SIE repatriation, we suggest that premature return in precarious and stressful circumstances may still foster some silver linings for SIEs.These insights indicate that being able to reflect on premature return as a learning experience, rather than being impacted adversely by withdrawal symptoms, may allow some student SIEs to continue their assignments remotely from home or adjust to a new internship upon returning in the short term, which may help them build career capital in the long term.

Practical implications & future research
Our findings have important implications for a variety of critical stakeholders.For instance, HR departments, in both home and host country organisations, need to understand how to better support the repatriation of SIEs and prevent the adverse consequences of premature return.An important first step for organisations and HR departments is to formally recognise the significant value of SIEs' experiences, skills, and performance potential in the same way as they already do with assigned expatriates.For instance, SIEs add value by having a high degree of self-directedness, motivation for learning opportunities, and adaptability that organisations should tap into and leverage as part of developing an initiative-taking culture.Second, although SIEs often fall outside the formalised support of these organisations, we follow others in suggesting that more systematic policies need to be tailored to SIEs (Baruch et al., 2016), especially those graduates that are younger and inexperienced.For home-based organisations, offering pre-departure training such as basic information briefings, cross-cultural sessions, or awareness of crisis management techniques would have positive effects on individuals in boomeranging to the home organisation in the future.Another example may involve allocating an experienced mentor that maintains contact with these individuals post-arrival, as well as when they repatriate home.Third, formulating a clearer return plan and timeline in advance of their departure, as well as making them aware of any premature return implications, would provide SIEs with a realistic expectation of repatriation.HR departments in the host country should provide SIEs with similar training and support on cultural adjustment, as well as having a formalised duty of care to assist these individuals in repatriating home.Local HR departments should recognise that embeddedness in host country networks is an important source of preventing, or even lessening the adverse consequences of, premature return.
Our findings also have important implications for SIEs who are the central stakeholders in the withdrawal process.We argue that they should apply our crisis sensemaking model of enactment, selection and retention when faced with a context that produces uncertainty, fear, or stress.This may help them cope, adjust, and reflect in terms of drawing on their networks and seeking or processing vital information for key decisions on whether to remain in-country or return home.In this sense, although SIEs are considered proactive and independent and highlight motivated, we argue that perhaps a more risk-averse or purposeful approach to where, and when they relocate is needed given the increased instability and volatility in the global environment.
Our study also has implications for universities as stakeholders in managing the duty of care of students on international internships.Universities need to develop health and safety guidelines as well as unambiguous advice for students and placement companies on what should happen in a crisis.Organisations and universities should provide individuals that return home prematurely with a debriefing session, like our CIT approach, that allows them to reflect as well as reinforce the potentially positive implications of such an event.Formalised pre-departure training on risk management, health and safety, and clear points of contact would increase the decision-making confidence of students and allow them to adjust more effectively in the local context.These supports would bolster the sensemaking framework of individuals by allowing them to process a potentially perilous situation and have a focused trustworthy point of contact that provides clear sensegiving advice.These mechanisms would also enhance the practical, social, and emotional support that our findings suggest are central to the crisis sensemaking process.
We encourage others to build on our findings in developing future research in this space.First, more work is needed on the value of crisis sensemaking as a way to examine international assignee adjustment during shock events.As our findings show, this is a particularly fruitful avenue for exploring how those engaged in global work in unfamiliar settings adapt their behaviours and routines when a global crisis creates precarity and feelings of stress or insecurity.We hope other scholars in the global mobility field utilise this lens to explore different types of assignees' sensemaking frameworks in alternative contexts, such as inpatriates engaging with HQ, roadwarriors coping with heavy travel schedules or flight disruptions, and individuals engaged in remote or virtual working in multinationals with dispersed teams.Second, a limitation of our study is that it does not consider SIEs coming from developing economies, which is a valuable and pertinent context to demonstrate their value and adjustment challenges.Scholars should build on our findings, to explore how student SIEs from developing economies, relocating to developed countries, are impacted by global crises as well as how it may impact their ability to transfer their learnings and career capital to their home country upon return.The devastating earthquakes in Turkey at the time of writing this paper offer a jarring yet important crisis context to look at SIEs moving between developing to emerging markets.Third, it would be interesting for others to explore in more depth how premature return impacts self-initiated returners' career progress in terms of their ability to transform learnings into career capital.This was not something we employed as our study was not longitudinal, but others could look at it in the context of student SIEs who have worked abroad on internships and track their development after university.Studies taking this approach could seek to generate richer insights into the silver linings that result from the darker side of SIE repatriation during a crisis.

Conclusion
The significant unpredictability and precarity that come from global crises serve as an ideal setting to illuminate how international assignees engage in sensemaking.By emphasising the context of SIEs and their decision to return home prematurely, we advance existing work in global mobility by disentangling how SIEs navigate a state of crisis through the sensemaking process of enactment, selection, and retention.We acknowledge several limitations of our work as well as the potential for future research.First, our work is exploratory in nature resulting in an empirical portrait of the interrupted mobility experiences of SIEs using a sensemaking perspective during an extreme crisis.Our sample size served our research interest and is in line with the need for more contextualised research on the lived sensemaking experiences of alternative forms of mobility.Like others, our context does not look explicitly at international assignments in multinationals (McDonnell & Boyle, 2012), but instead focuses on the higher education sector exploring students on international internships.We identify this sample as a potential strength of our work in extending the boundaries of the SIE classification as well as answering calls for SIE research beyond the multinational.

Note
1.There are studies that place students squarely in the SIE category, but these tend to focus on study abroad, a group that generally has greater agency than those with work internships built into their degree -the focus of our work.