Why English? Exploring Chinese early career returnee academics' motivations for writing and publishing in English

International academic publications and citations are key metrics for evaluating the internationalization of higher education institutions and heavily influence world-class university rankings. Consequently, universities promote publishing in internationally indexed journals, most of which are in English. In China, early career returnee academics (ECRAs) are scholars who obtained doctoral degrees outside mainland China and then returned to work in mainland universities. Although their international training and exposure to Western academic culture suggest a propensity to publish in English, it is not self-evident that they will prefer English over their mother tongue. This study therefore asks: What factors motivate ECRAs in the humanities and social sciences to write and publish in English? Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, the study argues that decisions about language of publication are shaped by interactions between individuals and multiple environmental contexts rather than by either in isolation. The focus on HSS reflects the stronger ties between language, culture, and society in these fields, making English a particularly complex choice. The paper reviews prior literature and outlines the theoretical framework, then details the data collection and analysis, presents findings, and discusses implications.

Prior research identifies multiple motivations and benefits for non-native English-speaking scholars to publish in English, including wider international reach, higher visibility and impact, engagement with global scholarly communities, and alignment with national and institutional incentives that prioritize internationally indexed journals. Policies and evaluation systems often reward English-language publications, sometimes with monetary or workload points incentives, affecting tenure and promotion decisions. Publishing in high-quality outlets (e.g., SSCI, A&HCI) can improve research quality through rigorous peer feedback and enhance scholars’ confidence, competitiveness, and language skills. International publishing also facilitates collaboration and knowledge exchange across cultures. Overseas-trained scholars often prefer and feel more competent writing in English due to familiarity with English academic genres and terminology developed during their training, sometimes more so than in their native language. However, few studies focus specifically on young Chinese returnees’ motivations, despite large annual numbers of returning scholars. This study addresses that gap and explicitly applies ecological systems theory to analyze interactions among individual motivations and multi-level environmental influences. Theoretical framework: Ecological systems theory conceptualizes influences on behavior across interrelated systems. In this study, the microsystem encompasses ECRAs’ interactions with collaborators (supervisors, colleagues in China and abroad). The mesosystem involves the interplay among departments, institutes, and universities. The exosystem refers to national-level policies that indirectly shape institutional rules and individual choices. The macrosystem denotes overarching academic culture and norms. The chronosystem accounts for changes over time (e.g., globalization, English dominance, career transitions). This framework guides the analysis of how these layers influence ECRAs’ language-of-publication decisions.

Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, supplemented by document analysis of national, institutional, and departmental policies on international publications. Sampling and participants: Snowball sampling targeted ECRAs in HSS who (1) earned a PhD abroad (including Hong Kong SAR) and (2) were within five years of academic employment in mainland China. To mitigate bias, initial seeds varied by gender, age, study location, years of work, discipline, and title. Sampling continued to saturation. Twenty ECRAs from eight research-intensive, internationalization-oriented universities across six provinces participated. Data collection: Interviews were conducted in Mandarin, 45–60 minutes each; eight were face-to-face in offices and twelve by phone. All participants provided informed consent and agreed to audio recording. Primary questions probed experiences, motivations, and the influence of factors on writing and publishing in English. Additional prompts aligned with ecological systems levels (micro/meso/exo/macro/chrono). Policy documents at national and institutional levels were collected for triangulation. Data analysis: Interviews were transcribed verbatim and member-checked. Thematic analysis followed open coding to allow themes to emerge without preconceived categories, with iterative comparison to assess saturation. Multiple coders independently coded transcripts and reconciled discrepancies to enhance reliability. Themes were refined for coherence and mapped onto ecological sub-systems. Interview themes ultimately aligned with micro-, exo-, and macro-systems; few data fit mesosystem or chronosystem influences. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval was obtained from the corresponding author’s institution; data were anonymized and participants’ rights protected.

• Overall alignment to ecological systems: Participants’ motivations mapped onto three subsystems. Little evidence surfaced for mesosystem or chronosystem effects in self-reports.
• Microsystem (collaborator interactions): ECRAs frequently co-authored with prior foreign supervisors, foreign colleagues, and Chinese colleagues. Collaborations facilitated idea generation, feedback, and English academic skill development. Complementary roles and personalities were critical. Examples included division of labor (e.g., senior co-author writing introductions, junior handling technical tasks), ongoing partnerships to maintain academic English and track international trends, and domestic collaborations generating ideas due to proximity. Emotional and personality complementarity helped navigate reviewer feedback, rejection, and revision persistence, which sustained English publishing efforts.
• Exosystem (national policies): 2020 policy reforms aimed to counter “paper-only” practices and the supremacy of SSCI/A&HCI, requiring institutions to de-emphasize raw counts and high-cash rewards. Despite this, policies continued to endorse high-quality outputs in prestigious journals. Universities implemented localized systems (e.g., workload point schemes and curated journal lists) that still strongly incentivized high-profile international publications. One participant described a points differential of 40 for ordinary journals versus 120 for top journals, motivating a continued focus on English outlets. The introduction of “representative achievements” allowed scholars to select impactful works regardless of language, which ECRAs saw as favorable to their English outputs.
• Macrosystem (academic culture): Participants contrasted Chinese academic culture (preference for grand topics, personal reflection, utility/practicality) with Western norms (evidence-based argumentation, contribution to understanding). Many ECRAs favored the Western approach, perceiving Chinese expectations (e.g., policy prescriptions) as misaligned with critical or analytic work. Re-integrating into Chinese academic writing norms was time-consuming; familiarity and comfort with English academic conventions further motivated publishing in English.
• No clear mesosystem or chronosystem effects: Participants seldom attributed motivations to inter-departmental dynamics or temporal/historical changes, possibly due to salience and self-awareness limits. Illustrative details: Point-based workload incentives favor top-tier international journals; institution-specific journal lists emerged to comply with national policy while incentivizing quality; collaborations with domestic colleagues were common despite a focus on international publishing; emotional support and complementary personalities materially affected persistence through rejections and revisions.

Findings show that ECRAs’ English publishing is propelled by proximal collaborations, national policy environments, and cultural-academic norms. Compared with prior studies, this research highlights a higher-than-expected frequency of collaborations with domestic Chinese colleagues when targeting international journals, suggesting convenience, cultural affinity, or local networking may matter alongside international ties. The study extends work on collaboration by emphasizing not only complementary expertise and resources but also complementary emotions and personalities as crucial for sustaining writing, navigating critique, and persevering after rejection. At the policy level, reforms intended to curb overreliance on SSCI/A&HCI nonetheless preserve strong incentives for high-quality international outputs, with institutions devising tailored journal lists and point schemes. This creates a tension between building world-class universities and devaluing international publications; universities respond by crafting contextualized evaluation systems that still reward English-language publishing. At the cultural level, returnees’ preferences for evidence-based, Western-style scholarship and their greater familiarity with English academic genres make English a practical and epistemic choice. The macrosystem interacts with exosystem policies and microsystem collaborations, shaping partner selection and language choice. A Foucauldian lens underscores shifting power-knowledge dynamics as policies aim to rebalance recognition toward domestic scholarship while still valuing global engagement, moving toward a more inclusive assessment of scholarly merit based on contribution rather than language. Overall, the ecological systems framework helps explain how multi-level contexts jointly shape ECRAs’ motivations, though the salience of meso- and chronosystem influences was limited in self-reports.

Using ecological systems theory, this study identifies three external factors motivating ECRAs to write and publish in English: collaborator interactions (microsystem), national policies and institutional implementations (exosystem), and academic culture differences between China and the West (macrosystem). These forces, acting together, encourage continued English-language publishing among Chinese ECRAs in HSS. The findings can inform policymakers and university leaders seeking to foster supportive environments for returnees’ international research performance. Although grounded in China, the core issues are relevant globally, particularly in developing contexts where English-language publishing is often tied to visibility and assessment. The study also notes that overseas training boosts confidence and competence in English publishing, while re-entry challenges, dual norms, and competing demands persist. Future research should include longitudinal designs to track shifts in language choice and alignment with evolving policies over 5–10 years, expand samples to test potential gender or field differences, examine senior returnees’ experiences, and explore identity and loyalty issues amid linguistic diversity, potentially drawing on classical Chinese philosophy for deeper reflective analyses.

• Sampling/Generalizability: Snowball sampling and a qualitative design limit representativeness; findings are not generalizable to all Chinese ECRAs or disciplines.
• Scope: Focused on HSS and ECRAs within five years post-return; results may not transfer to natural sciences or more senior cohorts.
• Self-report salience: Participants rarely articulated mesosystem or chronosystem influences; limited reflection may understate these levels’ effects.
• Theoretical limitations: Ecological systems theory may overemphasize environmental influences and underplay individual agency, adaptive capacities, and resilience; the nested-systems assumption has been questioned by network approaches.
• Contextual dynamics: Rapidly evolving policies and institutional practices may change incentives over time, potentially altering motivations beyond the study period.