Roughly one-third of all UK university academics are thought to be foreign-born and/or trained. I am one of them, having moved to the UK in the mid-1970s as a master¡¯s student. Most of my PhD students, too, were foreign-born; many are now professors. One has been knighted and one is a multimillionaire.

They were, of course, the brightest from their home universities, highly motivated and quick to learn. But it is notable that there are also many successful foreign-born entrepreneurs in the UK and US, too, particularly from the Indian subcontinent. All of which raises the question of whether foreigners, paradoxically, have some sort of competitive advantage over the natives solely by virtue of being outside the social mainstream.

Being a group insider usually offers various privileges, such as acceptance, status and social support. Better, of course, to be a member of the majority, powerful group. You know who ¡°your people¡± are. The ¡°old Etonians¡± come to mind.

Through contact with the group, you pick up their behaviour, language and values. Members act, think and speak alike. In-group members are recognisable and, for others in the pack, worthy of support.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

But it is difficult to become an insider if you aren¡¯t born one. Converts from, or to, any religion will tell you that they are never fully trusted again, not only by the faithful of the religion they left (who damn them as traitors, apostates, quislings) but also by the faithful of the faith they join.

Outsiders have to work harder to be accepted, initially by toeing the line and being squeaky clean. There is a concept in work psychology called idiosyncratic credit: you are allowed to flout the rules, but only once you have built up enough of the credits awarded for following them.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

But that necessity actually confers an advantage on the outsider because it forces them into very close and insightful observation. The less powerful have to be a lot more careful of the powerful than vice versa; you have to be more aware of the quirks, moods and peccadilloes of your boss than he/she needs to be of yours. Outsiders have to be good at picking up mistrust, misinterpretation and misunderstandings. The ¡°wrong¡± skin colour, accent or apparel means you are noticed. You don¡¯t fit in ¨C and because people are scared of appearing sexist, racist or otherwise prejudiced, they sometimes disguise their real attitudes and beliefs towards you.

Such vigilance has survival value. It makes outsiders more shrewd, more perceptive and a better reader of the signals. That is very useful in negotiations, selling or persuading situations ¨C especially in the cliquish, vicious world of academia. It also makes them resilient ¨C a seriously important trait in the academic world, where the ability to withstand publication and promotion rejection is so important.

Another advantage conferred by being an outsider is understanding. Those who learn by imitation are different from those who learn by instruction ¨C and sometimes the latter way can be the better way. It comes as a nasty surprise to many native English speakers that foreigners often have a better command of grammar than they do themselves.

Of course, overseas staff have to learn social rules?mostly by imitation, too, but they do so in a more conscious and reflective way than natives, who learn them at a much younger age. This promotes understanding of the rules¡¯ function and their history; it can make outsiders more perceptive of what is really going on and allow them to respond to their advantage.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

A third advantage of the outsider is flexibility. The bilingual, bicultural, ambidextrous person has more choice. If you know two systems, you can make useful comparisons. You can move between those systems. You can stay outside and come inside for different purposes ¨C as done, historically, by the Jews in a mainly Christian continent, or homosexuals in a?mainly heterosexual world.

There are various studies examining the biographies of very successful people, such as Nobel prizewinners. Many had highly mobile parents so had to adapt to new environments. They were introduced to all sorts of new ideas and practices, which gave them a wider view of problems.

I am far from the only overseas academic who first came to the UK as a student. My peers and I were extremely grateful for the openness of British?scholars and universities ¨C long before international students became so financially valuable to them. But as the toxic immigration debate piles ever more pressure on the government to crack down ¨C including, potentially, reducing international student numbers ¨C it would serve the country well to reflect on the benefits, as well as the drawbacks, of immigration.

¡°Outsiders¡± may, quite naturally, be viewed with a certain suspicion, but the advantages of their non-mainstream perspectives should not be overlooked. All those foreign-born academics in the UK might limit job opportunities for native academics, but they were appointed on merit ¨C and those merits are a big part of the reason that UK academia is such a world power.

ÌÇÐÄVlog

Adrian Furnham is professor of psychology at the Norwegian Business School. He grew up in South Africa, the son of migrants, and has degrees from three countries.