Introduction

In the past decades, processes of globalization and internationalizationFootnote 1 have significantly influenced the development of higher education. The higher education system in many countries is becoming a glonacal and hybrid space that imbricates different sociocultural, economic, and policy features from global, national, and local perspectives (Marginson, 2008; Lingard, 2021). Influenced by such complex situations, academics may encounter various challenges to achieve individual development, which could influence their academic identity formation and how they make sense of themselves as academics in a higher education context. For some academics, cross-system mobility may significantly impact their identity formation as scholars as well as their individual development. Such mobility is becoming one of the most significant components in the current global higher education field (Shen et al., 2022). On the one hand, academic mobility may refer to the cross-system movement of academic activities (e.g., transnational programs, exchanging study and research) (Dai, 2021; Shen et al., 2022). On the other hand, it is characterized as the movement of academic individuals (e.g., university professors, research fellows, and doctoral students) between different higher education systems with distinct cultures, norms, and standards (Dai & Hardy, 2023; Greek & Jonsmoen, 2021; Shen et al., 2022); the latter conception of mobility informs this research.

Many studies (e.g., Chen, 2017; Anikina et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022) have explored the latter approach to understand how researchers understand their academic identity formation in different social, cultural, and spatial settings. These authors argue that identity formation is never complete or permanent but is constantly changing and developing in response to exposure to different contexts. In this sense, academic identity formation refers to individual identity shaped in academic settings. Therefore, individual academics’ movement across different educational settings may affect their identity formation, which may significantly influence scholars’ career paths and development (Ching, 2021). According to Henkel (2000), academic identity formation is a continuum that connects the past, the present, and also the future. Individuals may construct their academic identity through various imaginings of what comprises the academic, their past experiences, and their understanding of current circumstances (Billot, 2010). In short, identity is not static and time specific, but its formation has strong interactions with external sociocultural conditions (Henkel, 2000). Thus, understanding academics’ identity formation is necessary to link the past with the present, and to comprehend future changes from imagined and also real contexts (Billot, 2010).

Existing research mainly focuses on two main subjects of academic identity formation: internationally trained scholars trying to integrate into their home or a new educational community (i.e., academic localization) (Hao et al., 2017), and locally trained academics’ development under the influence of internationalization of higher education (Xu et al., 2019). However, existing studies lack analysis between these cohorts as a vehicle to better understand how academics’ identity formation is (re)shaped at different stages of learning, teaching, and research in the Chinese higher education context, which reflects the complex imbrication of the interplay between international influences and local circumstances.

Analyzing different cohorts’ academic identity formation is essential to Chinese and international higher education contexts, which increasingly interweave with each other. Moreover, the factors that contribute to such formation are critical to explore in detail to interpret the complexity of the early stages of academic identity formation (e.g., postdoctoral/research fellows, lecturers/assistant professor before getting a tenured position). This is a time when young/emerging scholars are trying to establish themselves. Some studies have compared the international returnees and locally trained scholars from various perspectives. For example, by adopting a quantitative survey approach, Li et al. (2019) comparatively analyzed the differences in practices and performances of doctoral supervision between international returnees and locally trained scholars in China. Their study found that while the returnee cohort had better performances in supporting doctoral students to publish in international journals, the local group gained higher overall satisfaction in doctoral supervision. This difference may indicate that the returnee cohort may lack sufficient understanding of the local Chinese doctoral supervision styles and student features. Furthermore, based on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological system theory, Liu et al. (2022) qualitatively analyzed a group of international returnees’ career development in the Chinese higher education context. Their study found that while many returnees gained some advantages in finding academic positions, they encountered various challenges (e.g., lack of understanding Chinese higher education policy, lack of Chinese academic writing skills, lack of social networks) in their career development compared to the locally trained cohort. While these studies provided fruitful analysis from different perspectives, there is still a lack of exploration about academic identity formation trajectories between the two cohorts in complex national-global higher education contexts.

In the Chinese context, fostering internationalization is a popular trend in higher education (e.g., undertaking doctoral studies overseas, publishing international journals, and collaborating with foreign researchers). However, this trend towards internationalization is not unchallenged, as evident in the recent policy push for scholars to publish in Chinese, and in Chinese journal/publication outlets, and emphasizing a more national orientation. These conditions may influence academic formation and are crucial to consider under current policy settings in higher education. In the current Chinese context of increasing national orientation, exploring whether and how international returnees and locally trained scholars make sense of their work is becoming increasingly important to make sense of their academic development. Notably, this academic identity formation is important in the early phases of academics’ development, when it is perhaps most obvious and fluid (Billot, 2010). How academics navigate through the different opportunities available to them in these early stages is key to identify how they understand the nature of their work and development into the future.

Therefore, this study attempts to explore how international returnees and locally trained scholars construct and adjust their academic identity at the earlier stages in their development, in the Chinese higher education context. The paper begins with a review of literature about academic identity formation. This is followed by an overview of the Chinese higher education policy context. Then, the concept of social hybridization and the notion of global-national-local imbrication are introduced, as the conceptual resources informing the study. The research design and findings are illustrated before discussing key insights. Finally, a summative remark and suggestions for future research are provided.

Academic identity formation

Identity is a complex concept with different definitions and interpretations. Identity formation could be understood as an ongoing process of understanding who we are, depending on past, present, and future situations (Geijsel & Meijers, 2005). Considering scholars’ academic identity, Henkel (2000) suggested that individual scholars could shape the consciousness of the “academic self” from their own experiences and understandings of current situations, and thus construct their own academic identity. Academic identity formation is a continuum that connects the past, the present, and the future, which are influenced by one’s understandings of values, sociocultural contexts, policies, and histories (Henkel, 2000). Specifically, academic identity is an interactive outcome of the dynamic negotiations between academics and institutions (Henkel, 2005). It may be continually fluid, and individuals have subjective interpretations of their academic identity in different higher education contexts (Billot, 2010). Notably, no single academic identity exists in the current higher education context because of the complex changes within the global higher education field. This is a field which is influenced by processes of globalization, internationalization, and multiple and conflicting policy discourses. As a result, academic identity formation becomes a complex process that needs to be continuously (re)examined.

Academic identity formation of Chinese scholars is also influenced by multiple factors. Some scholars have emphasized the importance of formative higher education experiences in the construction and development of academic identities, specifically academic experiences during their doctoral studies (Dai & Hardy, 2021; Xu & Grant, 2020). Moreover, academic identity may be influenced by research topics, disciplines, institutions, cultural contexts, and individual academics’ experiences (Ai, 2017; Djerasimovic & Villani, 2020). However, a key determinant of academic identity formation pertains to mobility.

Many studies have focused on the influence of academic mobility on academic identity formation (e.g., Yang & Welch, 2010). The construction of one’s identity is a continuous and reflexive process that occurs within specific historical and institutional contexts (Hall, 1996). Identity is (re)constructed when the socio-cultural context changes (Ai, 2017; Jenkins, 2014). Therefore, academics’ cross-system movements may affect their identity formation (Lei & Guo, 2020). Arguably, academic identity formation is a complex process which reflects the mobility of academics and how such mobility contributes to and reflects glonacal influences and hybridized dispositions.

In the Chinese context, issues of academic mobility and identity relate most obviously to two groups of early-career scholars: outward-flowing scholars (moving to another country) and international returnees (returning from another country). Some studies have focused on outward-flowing scholars, especially their reasons for mobility; these include the opportunity to improve their own socio-economic class position (Leung, 2017), the chance to experience learning/working in high-quality academic institutions (Li et al., 2021), and as a means to enhance academic job prospects (Jiang et al., 2020). The difficulties of integrating into foreign academic communities have also been investigated (see Hsieh, 2012).

Meanwhile, research also explores international returnees’ experiences; this includes scholars’ reasons for returning. Reasons for returning may relate to Chinese government initiatives for attracting overseas scholars (Wang et al., 2015) and various personal, professional, and social factors (such as family ties, career opportunities, and cultural belonging) (Hao et al., 2017). Moreover, there are also studies of international returnees’ reintegration experiences, including challenges of reintegration (Wang, 2020; Lei, 2020) and their contributions to Chinese HE (Hao et al., 2017; Jiang et al., 2020). For example, Chen and Li (2019) found that the institutional context played an essential role in returnees’ reintegration and academic innovation. Regarding the adaptation strategy, Lei (2020) indicated that many returnees stayed in touch with former colleagues or supervisors, cultivating a desire to seek belonging within a transnational academic community rather than becoming fully integrated into the local educational community. Furthermore, Lei (2020) found that different academic evaluation systems, workplace cultures, and languages are the main difficulties returnees face as they transition from being overseas doctoral students to domestic scholars.

In contrast to these studies, considerable work has also been undertaken on the academic identity formation of locally trained Chinese scholars. Influenced by the internationalization of higher education and university policies, many locally trained scholars have attempted to establish international academic profiles and identities in different ways; for example, they seek to become a doctoral student or visiting scholar in a foreign university and publish academic articles in international journals. Notably, Xu et al. (2019) found that although Chinese academic research has become increasingly visible, and the international influence of Chinese academic studies has expanded, many locally trained scholars still face difficulties because of limited English writing skills and maintaining Chinese characteristics alongside international recognition. In the context of rising nationalism, Li (2021b) has argued that Chinese scholars should construct a more balanced academic identity between more national and international dimensions.

To date, few studies have examined academic identity formation by critically analyzing international returnees’ experiences alongside those of their domestically trained peers. This research presents how these two categories of scholars formulated and adapted their academic identity to match the continuing push for academic internationalism in the Chinese higher education context in an era of increased nationalism. Moreover, this study is important for not only understanding the Chinese higher education context but also for understanding how increasingly nationalist emphases influence the internationalization of higher education in other contexts (albeit with their own specific path dependencies). To do so, we employ the concept of social hybridization and the notion of global-national-local imbrications; this approach enables us to analyze academic identity formation in a setting influenced by a complex array of policies. The next section provides an overview of this complex policy setting, followed by an account of the conceptual resources deployed in the research.

Chinese higher education policy context

In the past decades, the Chinese government and universities have proposed various policies and strategic plans to internationalize higher education and improve global rankings through different pathways (Mok & Marginson, 2021). Strategies included establishing Double First-Class institutions, recruiting international students and academics, developing transnational higher education, and encouraging international publications. These strategies have helped the Chinese higher education context integrate into the English language dominant one-world science system (Marginson, 2008, 2016). However, now many academics mainly publish in English-based journals but ignore Chinese-based publications. Meanwhile, many universities heavily rely on counting the number of international articles to assess academics’ performance. It seems that chasing internationalization of higher education may colonize the Chinese academic context as a process of westernization (Guo et al., 2022).

Recently, Chinese government leaders and policymakers have proposed many new policies and thoughts to increase localization in the Chinese academic context. For example, in a national conference about science innovation in 2016, President Xi Jinping advocated that “Academics and scientists should write articles in the motherland and apply research outcomes to modernize development in China.” This suggestion has become a key thought that guides knowledge creation and academic development in the Chinese context. Later, in response to Xi’s thoughts, in 2018, the Ministry of Education proposed the “Breaking 5 Only” policy to reform academic evaluation standards to create a healthy and sustainable higher education environment. Specifically, the policy suggested that academic evaluation cannot only rely on the following: (1) publication (especially English-based SCI/SSCI journals); (2) academic levels (e.g., lecturer-associate professor-professor); (3) awards; (4) academic degrees (e.g., whether an academic has a doctoral degree; whether the degree is awarded from a leading university); and (5) academic titles (e.g., whether an academic has extra “prefix,” for example, Changjiang Scholar). In 2020, this policy was formally published in the Overall Plan for Deepening the Reform of Education Evaluation in the New Era to guide academic and higher education development.

These strategies and policies significantly influence the Chinese higher education context and academics’ research practices. Universities have also launched institutional rules to implement the Breaking 5 Only policy; many institutions have removed the English academic publication requirement in recruitment advertisements, and some have emphasized Chinese publications in assessing promotion applications. Such reform indicates that the Chinese higher education context may become progressively less internationalized— particularly in relation to the English-dominated discourse in the current global field. At the same time, academic nationalism has emerged as part of this transition.

While many policies and strategies have emphasized the importance of localization and nationalism in the Chinese academic context, publishing in leading English-based journals may still be essential for many academics; this is particularly the case for those who wish to communicate with the international community and be seen as modern scholars with global horizons. Thus, seeking a balance between international and domestic influences is an essential strategy for many scholars in China, which may potentially impact their academic identity formation. This reform may also motivate scholars to strategically navigate between different academic fields to meet policy requirements and achieve individual development more effectively.

Theorizing global, national, and local socio-political relations

To understand academic identity formation in the context of these policy reforms, this study draws upon theorizing of globalization and particularly the multiple and intersecting local, national, and global scalar relations that characterize educational reform under current policy conditions. Nederveen Pieterse (1993) argues that globalization is a form of hybridization, as it weakens the concept of the nation-state, placing, for example, transnational human rights above state administration. However, in the current global context, cultural ideologies are expressed differently and reflect more nationalist sentiments and influences, even as global processes continue to exert influence. In broad terms, meaningful cross-cultural mixing processes produce innovative sociocultural hybridizations, which can complicate identity patterns; that is, people are faithful to their ethnic identities but want to experience global values and lifestyles (Li, 2018). Bhabha (1994) proposed the concept of hybrid (or third) space to conceptualize the places that appear in-between as different communities when people transition from familiar to unfamiliar contexts. This process provides opportunities for people to reconstruct their identities or even cultivate new ones (Dai, 2020). The context of contemporary Chinese higher education can also be seen as a hybridized space with a mixture of academic thoughts, reflecting internationalism and nationalism (Li, 2021a, b).

Such hybridity is further complicated by more recent processes that have seen increasing nationalist sentiments exerting influence, even as global processes continue to resonate, albeit differently. Rizvi (2022a) reflects upon how increasingly populist sentiments are deployed within state policymaking, reflecting a much more nationalist orientation than in recent times. This includes in the higher education space where China is seen as increasingly prominent. Relations between China and the west reflect more nationalist sentiments in the way in which the western political class views such relations with caution. These more nationalist sentiments also challenge global pressures to increase cooperation between universities in different nation-states (Rizvi, 2022a). These changes in the global context significantly disrupt the traditional view of globalization and education, which are heavily influenced by economic neoliberalism. As Rizvi et al. (2022) argue, the global order is changing due to the rise of new powers, which may lead to calls for decolonization of education and anti-globalization; such responses are a challenge to more Anglophone dominant and English-based discourses. Under these circumstances, nation-states and educational institutions may encounter various challenges to balance globalization, nationalism, and populism in new policies (Rizvi, 2022b).

Global-national-local imbrications in the global higher education context

Academic identity formation can be abstract and happen in different places or spaces in various ways, and be influenced by different practices, resources, and policies within global, national, and local contexts. While the global higher education context can be understood as a one-world science system and English is the dominant language in knowledge production (Marginson, 2008), there is also recognition that higher education is a localized practice which expresses national features (Marginson, 2016). Thus, national policies and politics in a state may significantly influence higher education practices. To understand such interactions, Marginson and Rhoades (2002) suggest that people should understand educational policy and practices not only in a global perspective, but also at national and local levels—i.e., as part of a hybridized, glonacal lens. However, this western-dominated English-based tradition may be reshaped by changes in geopolitical situations and national policies (Marginson, 2022).

Recently, Lingard (2021) proposes the notion of global-national/local imbrications to conceptualize the complex interleaving between globalization and education policy and practices at more national/local levels. From a global perspective, academics, students, and other resources may move between different nation-states in various ways, which has been understood as internationalization of higher education. From a national perspective, each country may have different policies and strategies to respond to the internationalization of higher education (e.g., establishing Double First-Class universities in China). At the same time, governments and higher education institutions also strategically avoid negative influences while seeking to maintain potential benefits from global-national interactions (e.g., Breaking 5 Only policy while maintaining international relationships with individual academics/institutions).

From a more local perspective at the institutional level, stakeholders may express various responses to this interleaving. On the one hand, people may seek to be responsive to global trends and follow national policies in practice. On the other hand, they may strategically navigate between different levels/layers to gain individual development and avoid potential problems. How to effectively navigate between internationalization of higher education in a globalized context alongside increasing nationalism is a key challenge for many educational researchers and practitioners. The concept of imbrication may help scholars to better explore the intersections among the global context, the Chinese higher education policies, and also academics’ mobility and identity formation under such conditions. The research question guiding the study is: How do international doctoral returnees and locally trained scholars form their academic identity in the Chinese higher education context?

Research design

Narrative inquiry was utilized to document participants’ educational experiences and understand their academic identity formation processes and the key factors contributing to such formation. This method can frame the exploration as a form of storytelling to present personal experiences embedded in social interactions and living contexts (Webster & Mertova, 2007).

Participants were recruited through purposive and convenience sampling methods. According to the purpose of this study, scholars who work in Chinese mainland universities who had overseas study experience, or who only cultivated local experiences, were selected as research participants. Six academics voluntarily participated in the study. They worked in two Double First-Class universities and taught in different disciplines. Their demographic information is shown in Table 1. The ethics application was approved by the selected universities. In narrative study, the sample size could only be one participant or several individuals who may have some shared experiences (Guetterman, 2015). Meanwhile, as the first author has established connections with these participants, and has considerable ongoing discussions and engagement with them, this enables further confirmation/verification and in-depth understandings of participants’ experiences. While the study only involved a small number of participants, a small sample size can provide rich insights to illustrate participants’ experiences (Guetterman, 2015).

Semi-structured interviews (45 mins to 1 hour) were used to collect data. Based on the narrative interview guidance (Jovchelovitch & Martin, 2000), the authors designed the interview protocol, which focused on the following aspects: education and work experiences; personal understanding of academic internationalism and nationalism; academic identity formation; the phases and events that influence construction and adjustment of academic identity; and future development directions. All interviews were conducted in Chinese and audio recorded. Each participant was assigned a pseudonym.

Before analyzing the data, the first author translated the Mandarin transcripts into English. Given that narrative-based analysis can be done in different ways, such as stories constructed in chronological order or via subject categories (Webster & Mertova, 2007), this study deployed thematic analysis through inductive coding of datasets, including identifying primary encodings such as “construction,” “reintegration,” “challenge,” and “the importance of academic internationalization.” In addition, deductive interpretation was used as well, in order to analyze how participants constructed and adjusted their academic identities in the Chinese higher education context, particularly in relation to the concept of social hybridization and the notion of global-national-local imbrications.

Representative extracts were selected to present the research findings. The academic identity formation of both international returnees and locally trained scholars is presented through three phases: doctoral student period; transition period to becoming an academic; and the consolidation of the early-career phase. Among academics, the transition period referred to the time when scholars began to work at Chinese universities, international returnees tried to integrate into local academic contexts, and locally trained scholars tried to pursue academic internationalization. The early stage can be understood as describing scholars’ construction of academic identity after 3 to 5 years of working at Chinese universities (for example, as postdoctoral research fellows and lecturers (or assistant professors), before attaining a tenured position.

Table 1 Participants’ demographic information
Full size table

Findings: international returnees and locally trained scholars in China

This study found that global, national, and local factors comprehensively influenced academic identity formation of both international returnees and locally trained scholars. These scholars reflect a complex amalgam of apprehension, confusion, and more active construction of hybridized academic identity, incorporating a mixture of international and local academic characteristics. The research found that the rules and standards of the Chinese higher education context (for example, the academic evaluation policy,) affected the construction of a hybrid academic identity. Moreover, the collaboration between international returnees and locally trained scholars was mutually beneficial and ultimately promoted the construction of a hybridized academic identity in the Chinese higher education context. The analysis of the complex impacts of glonacal and hybrid contexts on participants is presented below, based on a chronologically ordered thematic analysis of the stages of early career academics identity formation.

As a doctoral student: permeation of the global at host universities

During the student period, the local educational environment at the host university played a crucial role in shaping participants’ academic identity formation. As R2-Ming indicated, the capacity to write in English would influence publication practices:

During my doctoral study, I did not think about what kind of academic researcher I will become but more about what kind of research I would do. If there were opportunities, I might publish some papers in English.

Similarly, R1-Hong, who studied in the USA during his doctoral study shared that contact with foreign scholars was integral to development of a more international disposition alongside localized understandings:

Influenced by my supervisor, I developed a yearning and curiosity about academic internationalization. During my doctoral studies, I systematically received international academic training with foreign scholars… This process gave me a deep and balanced understanding of localization and internationalization.

Moreover, locally trained scholar L2-Chang believed that the consciousness of academic internationalization existed through the nature of his research:

Few people had done my topic in China, so I had to find some foreign research as references. If I defined whether this activity was international or local research, I now think it must be international (studies).

Although a clear academic identity was not constructed during the student phase, some participants affirmed the critical role of international ideas on their development (Djerasimovic & Villani, 2020), and particularly in relation to being an international scholar. For example, R2-Ming shared that:

I did not think that I would have to become an international scholar when I was a doctoral student. Now I believe that If I had been exposed to some international ideas earlier, I might have changed my academic direction.

In comparison, R1-Hong’s goal of becoming an international scholar guided his academic activities more overtly. Exposure to international conferences and journal reviewing activities contributed substantively to his development:

Every year I attempt to present my research in English at international academic conferences and assess papers as a journal reviewer… I believe that such activities are important for me to become an international scholar, not only as an academic participant, but also to make an impact on the field beyond the Chinese context.

These experiences may suggest that participants’ learning experiences and environments in different local academic contexts had complex impacts on their future academic identity formation, in which the global—via various notions and forms of international engagement—figured prominently. In the main, neither international nor locally trained scholars had developed a clear understanding of their academic identity during the doctoral study phase (However, some scholars, such as Hong, seemed to have more developed understandings than others). More global and local contextual settings, alongside understandings of the national, became significant as part of participants’ academic identity formation, during their transition from a doctoral student to an early career researcher.

During the transition phase: global as inflected through national and local contexts

The transition period describes the stage in which scholars transitioned from student to academic. For international returnees, this period refers to the time when they returned to China and began working at Chinese universities. Many participants suggested that the local institutional orientation of emphasizing the global at their Chinese university, and the national policy of establishing Double First-Class universities more broadly, motivated them to publish more papers in English-based international journals. This was seen as a way to potentially position these returnees more favorably in a global academic context. This was the case for returnees, such as R2-Ming who reflected upon how such scholars were looked upon favorably in their university and by colleagues:

Returnees are more familiar with international academic norms and can publish papers in international journals, so many Chinese universities have incentives to recruit returnees. Many locally trained academics were also considered returnees as ‘international scholars’ who had overseas research experiences and foreign doctoral degrees.

This experience suggests that the global significantly influenced the national context and policies, including at the local/institutional level. As a result, academics at the local/institutional level strategically sought to meet the institutional requirements, reflecting the imbrication of global trends, via national policies (cf. Lingard, 2021).

At the same time, during the initial period of returning to China, some international returnees experienced a dislocation of academic practice as they sought to adapt to different cultures and standards. Thus, some attempted to adjust and reintegrate into the Chinese higher education context, which was manifested as international returnees’ localization. For example, R1-Hong expressed the challenge of this localization:

One of the problems is that it is challenging to build academic reputation in China. Returnees, especially in social science, usually need to consider whether they want to change the writing system they had studied for a long time [English] to publish papers in Chinese instead.

This experience indicates that international returnees, who had global views and knowledge, needed to adapt to national and local cultural contexts, including in relation to academic writing standards, and management systems. This change perhaps reflects more of the balanced academic identity development encouraged more recently (Li, 2021b).

Notably, locally trained scholars also faced challenges during the transition period about whether to pursue academic internationalization. One of the challenges was language. As L1-Qing stated:

I have been trained in Chinese writing style for a long time and it is difficult to convert to thinking in English quickly. It takes a lot of practice to express my ideas well in English. While I encountered challenges, the university has asked all academics to publish some papers in international journals as a way of chasing academic internationalization. Thus, I had to learn how to write in English. Meanwhile, many international returnees came back in recent years, [and] the competition becomes very intensive. To survive in the Chinese HE context, I had to know how to publish in some top-ranked international journals.

In addition to English writing, Qing also mentioned that due to the lack of understanding of international academic norms, it was difficult for locally trained scholars to find research topics and entry points that could attract foreign journals’ attention. This work was also costly in terms of time and this issue also involved another challenge facing many of these scholars in their early careers—namely the pressure of promotion:

My university evaluation system for promotion gives more focus on international SSCI journals even though government has advocated that academics need to publish papers in more Chinese journals. However, it can be challenging for local scholars to publish in SSCI, compared to publishing in Chinese journals, which may not be valuable compared to the international journals.

It seems that internationalization of higher education through English publication and academic nationalism created tensions and potential challenges for some scholars. They had to develop an all-round capacity to survive in a more nationalist academic field in China but one in which the one-world English language system continued to exert strong influence (Marginson, 2022).

These findings indicate that the global-national-local imbrication of academic norms and requirements have multiple and complex influences on scholars’ academic formation during the transition period. For international returnees, returning to China meant considering the extent to which to reintegrate into the Chinese higher education community (Ai, 2017). At the same time, the Chinese context, as highly influenced by globalization and internationalization of higher education, meant local scholars had to consider ways of pursuing academic internationalization even as they encountered many difficulties. During this period, both returnees and locally trained scholars were struggling with new challenges, continuing to explore their educational directions, and preparing/hoping for a more stable academic identity in the future.

Consolidating the early-career phase: managing global, national, and local influences

After a few years of working in Chinese universities, these scholars seemed to have found ways to navigate through the challenges during the early stages of their careers and gradually clarified their academic direction. At this stage, many of them seemed to deal more strategically with complex imbrications of global, national, and local requirements and policies, establishing a hybridized academic identity blending academic localization and internationalization of higher education.

As a result of the Breaking 5 Only policy, many international returnees felt disadvantaged as they were more familiar with publishing in international journals. As R3-Fei explained:

If returnees are accustomed to using English in their previous training and academic experience, many returnees in education and other social science fields may feel it is difficult to publish in Chinese and were used to writing in English, which is a way to become an international scholar. However, the new policy seems to push these returnees to become domestic scholars who mainly publish papers in Chinese. Locally trained scholars have advantages of publishing articles in Chinese compared to the returning cohort … many dilemmas emerge from this policy and practice.

This experience indicates that returnees, as global agents, had to adjust to the national policy context as part of localization processes in the Chinese higher education system, which progressively emphasized a form of academic nationalism in a more nationalist era (Rizvi, 2022a). With regard to the local scholars, some chose to focus on their work arrangements and localized research projects. For example, L2-Chang shared:

As my research is about educational law, this discipline is more of a dialogue with domestic legal scholars than internationals. Moreover, I am also busy with some social welfare services, such as working as a part-time legal consultant, which is also one of the focuses of my future work.

Such choices were based on the trade-off between the difficulties of publishing in English journals in the short term and practical needs (such as specific disciplinary characteristics). However, local scholars were still concerned about the dynamics of the international academic community, given the conditions in their local institutions. As L3-Nie argued:

I hope to become an international scholar in the future. Even though I got my PhD degree in China, I have to know the international trend in my field and get publication in English journals, which has become a rule in my area, no matter where I am.

For local scholars who aspired to academic internationalization and encountered difficulties, collaboration with foreign scholars or international returnees was a potential solution. For Chang, such collaboration had mutual benefits:

We can work with international scholars who can help me translate my Chinese to English. Meanwhile, through our communication, we can write research reports in a way that complies with international rules. I also help some returnees to check their Chinese writing. I think such collaborations make us become academics who shift between Chinese and international contexts.

These experiences suggest that the complexity of Chinese higher education policy context gradually led to the development of a hybridized academic identity. In this process, the global (international English-dominated academic norms, returnees) and local (locally trained academics) encountered varying challenges created by the Chinese national policies, particularly regarding academic evaluation reform. It seems that the Chinese higher education context embraces internationalization while simultaneously fostering decolonization and anti-globalization from the western-dominated one-world English science system (Rizvi, 2022b). Such responses are a reflection of local-national-global imbricated circumstances that pushed international returnees and locally trained scholars to strategically navigate these complexities. These neophyte academics were responding to processes of internationalization of higher education as well as cultivating a stronger sense of Chinese nationalism.

Discussion: contextualizing and hybridizing academic identity formation

This study shows how academic identity formation of international returnees and locally trained scholars reflects the influence of the Chinese higher education system as a glonacal and hybridized educational setting. The study indicates that academic identity formation is a complex process in an increasingly hybridized but also conflicted environment, characterized by increasing nationalism alongside concurrent global influences. These influences play out in multifarious ways in different academic sites at the local level.

During the student period, some participants had not yet developed a clear understanding of their academic identity, but they had developed some knowledge of academic internationalization, including how this was localized in international contexts. This finding suggests that the educational environment has a significant impact on academic identity formation (Chen & Li, 2019). On the one hand, for local scholars, the ideological paradigm, academic thinking, and cultural values in the Chinese higher education context were influenced by the international academic community (Li, 2021a). The Chinese higher education context had a subtle impact on Chinese scholars’ understanding of academic internationalization, illustrating an interleaving between the global and local. On the other hand, for scholars who chose to study overseas, including to pursue better resourced educational environments and improve their employment competitiveness (Li et al., 2021), there was a sense that they had more opportunities to integrate into the international academic community. There was also the sense that they could more deeply understand the connotations of academic localization as this pertained to internationalization. This enabled these academics to more progressively engage in the global at the local level—global-local imbrication—promoted by national policies. The findings suggest that the doctoral study experiences of returnees may affect their future academic identity formation. This experience is consistent with Ching’s (2021) study that found that scholars’ academic interactions with faculty and peers during the doctoral period can influence their future career development.

During the transition period, the global, national, and local policy contexts played complex roles in academic identity formation. Notably, the pursuit of academic localization by returnees meant that they needed to adapt to a new set of academic norms and educational contexts (Lei, 2020; Chen & Li, 2019). This was challenging as they confronted an academic evaluation policy setting of breaking the “5 only.” On the one hand, this initiative fostered their integration into the local Chinese academic community to some extent. This policy change also indicated an academic nationalism in the Chinese higher education context. On the other hand, the locally trained scholars’ academic identity formation was also influenced by local policy contexts which still valued the ability to communicate with global (English) audiences. Since publishing in English requires systematic knowledge of the rules of international journals and English writing skills, the time-cost of this transition became a key determinant for local scholars as they weighed up whether to pursue academic internationalization.

After the confusing stage in their early career, returnees and local scholars seemed to gradually manage the inherent tensions that characterized global-national-local imbrications in the Chinese higher education context. The result was the creation of a hybrid space to integrate academic internationalization and localization of higher education. On the one hand, as China attached great importance to internationalization of higher education, it has attracted more and more overseas scholars to return to China; this is in accord with the national initiative of building Double First-Class universities. This policy emphasizes the importance of international publication and encouraging local scholars to pursue academic internationalization. This continues to be important and is recognized as such by both local and returnee academics. However, the Chinese national policy discourse and the higher education sector also emphasize local (in the form of national) practices. Therefore, the co-existence of academic internationalization and localization via nationalism in the Chinese higher education context has influenced academic identity formation.

As a result, many scholars developed a hybridized academic identity, reflecting a sense of global-national-local imbrication (Lingard, 2021). Importantly, the exchange and cooperation between returnees and local scholars can further promote the integration of internationalization and localization in the Chinese higher education context. As Xu et al. (2019) argued, local researchers should establish cooperation with international academics as a vehicle for cultivating their language capacity, leveraging cross-system communication channels and the academic reputation of international scholars. Consistent with this view, this study suggests that the collaboration between international returnees and locally trained scholars could promote a better understanding of different academic norms among researchers, thereby alleviating the language and standards barriers. This way would help these scholars to strategically navigate the international and Chinese academic contexts, and eventually enable more localized Chinese research to be taken seriously by the global academic community, vice versa).

In addition, such collaboration may help scholars realize national expectations alongside the process of internationalizing Chinese higher education (Hao et al., 2017). These more localized approaches are increasingly emphasized by the Chinese national policies and expressed through leader’s “thoughts” as mentioned above. Developing closer ties between returnees (and their overseas connections) and local scholars has the potential to enhance the academic development of all groups. These experiences suggest that the Chinese higher education system may be seeking something of an equilibrium that balances the affordances of internationalization and localization, and in contra-point with the current western-dominated English-based model (Marginson, 2022). Such an approach both reflects and may foster an increasingly imbricated higher education field for some academics to develop a more hybridized identity. However, this political reform in higher education also reflects an increased sense of nationalism which needs to be engaged cautiously (Rizvi, 2022a, b). This is the case even as more national approaches may challenge the current understandings of globalization and internationalization that have reduced the diversity of the global higher education context.

Conclusion

This study examines the impact of local, national, and global influences upon the trajectory of academic identity formation of international returnees and locally trained scholars in the Chinese higher education context. The findings suggest that the academic identity formation is characterized by initial confusion, but also, potentially, the development of a more hybridized academic identity. Such an identity reflects complex and multifarious local-national-global imbrications. These contextual factors play out differently for different groups of scholars and are important in guiding scholars’ future academic directions. National policy and local institutional orientations in different academic communities all have complex impacts on the reintegration of international scholars and the decision of locally trained scholars to pursue academic internationalization. The Chinese higher education context creates an environment where academic internationalization and localization, with strong national inflections, co-exist in a complex, at times contradictory, imbricated space. Understanding this context may enhance scholars’ engagement with internationalization and localization. Such engagement may facilitate the formation of more sustainable and hybridized academic identities.

Several important implications can be drawn from these findings. For international returnees, there is a need to try to reintegrate into the Chinese higher education community because academic localization and nationalism also have the potential to enrich their international experiences. At the same time, locally trained scholars benefit from a comprehensive understanding of the nature of academic internationalization. Finally, there is need for more inclusive academic evaluation systems and more diverse standards to help scholars adapt to and integrate into the imbricated Chinese higher education context. In light of the limitations of this research, these insights also help inform future research, which needs to draw upon a larger sample, and also explore how these issues play out in other national contexts. This includes contexts in which English is the primary language and those in which English occupies a much more marginal position.