This paper aims to examine how bi- and multilingual academics reconstruct professional identities during international mobility and how they exercise agency in relation to language hierarchies, institutional expectations, and belonging across higher education systems.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 mobile bi- and multilingual scholars working across six higher education settings (Israel, Italy, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States). Interviews were carried out in participants' preferred languages and analyzed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis, with iterative coding, theme development, and ongoing reflexive memoing across the author team.
Five themes captured recurrent tensions: embodied linguistic marginalization (notably accent and “non-native” positioning), institutional contradictions between international rhetoric and local norms, strategic multilingual practices to manage legitimacy and workload, identity transformation through negotiated “in-betweenness”, and the conditional value of mobility as capital depending on context and recognition.
The sample is small and purposive, and findings are not intended to be statistically generalizable. The dataset is interview-based and captures narrated experience rather than observed institutional practice; additional triangulation through policy documents, workplace interactional data, or longitudinal follow-up would strengthen causal claims about change over time. Even so, the cross-setting design highlights patterned mechanisms through which recognition, gatekeeping, and symbolic valuation shape mobile scholars' trajectories, suggesting that future work should compare discipline-specific and contract-type differences and track identity outcomes across career stages.
Institutions recruiting international staff should align internationalization rhetoric with operational supports: transparent language expectations, workload recognition for multilingual labor (translation, mediation, “extra” student support), and fair evaluation practices that do not treat accent or local-language deficits as proxy competence measures. Supervisors and HR units can reduce gatekeeping by standardizing onboarding, providing funded language training, and clarifying when local-language proficiency is required. Departments can also formalize multilingual communication norms to prevent ad hoc, unequal reliance on mobile staff as linguistic brokers.
When mobility is framed as merit but linguistic difference is penalized, higher education reproduces inequity while benefiting from migrants' labor. Recognizing multilingual scholars' contributions supports more inclusive academic communities and mitigates “conditional belonging” that can erode well-being and retention. More coherent language and evaluation policies can reduce discrimination tied to accent and national origin, broaden participation in research and teaching, and improve the quality of student support in linguistically diverse settings.
The study integrates Third Space, transnational identity capital, and poststructural language–power perspectives to conceptualize academic mobility as contingent identity work rather than linear “progress.” Empirically, it offers a comparative, multilingual account across multiple systems, foregrounding how institutions simultaneously depend on mobile scholars and constrain their linguistic and professional legitimacy.
