Abstract
This study examines how intercultural competence, shaped through international student mobility, evolves after return and contributes to returnees’ professional and institutional engagement. Drawing on 96 interviews with individuals from 43 countries who studied in the United Kingdom and the United States, the analysis focuses on five dimensions of intercultural competence—communication, adaptability, flexibility, empathy, and resilience. These competencies were not fixed outcomes of mobility but capacities that developed further as returnees navigated institutional hierarchies, policy environments, and workplace norms. The findings show that intercultural competence is not a static skillset, but a situated process shaped by structural conditions in home-country contexts. Participants applied these evolving competencies across sectors, including education, health, governance, and civil society, informing inclusive leadership, advocacy, and institutional reform. The study contributes to debates on international education by offering a situated account of post-mobility intercultural development and its significance for professional practices and institutional change.
Keywords
Introduction
Intercultural competence is recognised as essential in a world where economic, social, and political systems demand the ability to communicate across cultural boundaries, navigate unfamiliar institutional environments, and engage effectively in diverse professional and academic settings (Deardorff & Hunter, 2006; OECD and Asia Society, 2018). International mobility has been acknowledged as a key driver of intercultural learning, enabling participants to develop the ability to work across different cultural, institutional, and professional landscapes (Arasaratnam-Smith & Deardorff, 2022; Bartel-Radic & Cucchi, 2025; Hanley et al., 2025). International mobility provides a setting in which participants engage with unfamiliar perspectives, adapt to different institutional logics, and critically reassess their own assumptions. These experiences do not occur in isolation but are shaped by the structural and professional contexts in which participants operate, making it necessary to examine how mobility contributes to long-term institutional and professional engagement, and how intercultural competence continues to evolve after return.
Existing research highlights how intercultural competence enriches professional practice and contributes to international cooperation (Groves et al., 2018; Walkington, 2015). Studies have also examined how international mobility influences returnees’ contributions in their home countries, including the policy and institutional factors that shape their impact (Wang et al., 2024). However, less attention has been given to how returnees reconcile global and local knowledge systems, adjust their learning to institutional constraints, and engage with professional and social structures in ways that extend beyond the application of externally acquired expertise. The ability to translate mobility experiences into meaningful contributions is not simply a question of having developed a set of intercultural skills but depends on how these competencies are embedded within professional and civic engagement and how they are reworked through continuous interaction with home-country structures.
While research on international student mobility has demonstrated its role in shaping individual skills and career trajectories as well as broader institutional and socio-political changes (Atkinson, 2010; Campbell, 2022; Kwak & Chankseliani, 2023), less attention has been paid to how returnees engage with the institutional and professional settings that shape the extent to which they can apply their intercultural competence in everyday professional and civic practice. The degree to which returnees influence institutional practices is not simply a matter of the knowledge, skills, and relations they develop while abroad but also depends on their ability to navigate the home country structures through evolving intercultural capacities such as communication, flexibility, adaptability, empathy, and resilience.
Rather than conceptualising intercultural competence as a set of skills acquired during mobility and later applied, this study examines it as a dynamic process that continues to evolve through returnees’ engagement with structural constraints and societal expectations in their home-country contexts. This study addresses the following research question: How does intercultural competence, shaped through international student mobility, continue to evolve after return, and how does it contribute to returnees’ professional and institutional engagement within home country contexts? It moves beyond a focus on individual skills development to examine how participants critically reflect on their experiences, apply their learning in diverse sectors and adjust their intercultural competence to institutional realities of home country contexts. To provide a comprehensive account of these processes, the study draws on a conceptual framework that integrates transnationalism, transformative learning theory, and critical realism. By applying this framework to 96 interviews with changemakers from 43 countries, who had international student mobility experience, this study focuses on five dimensions of intercultural competence—communication, flexibility, adaptability, empathy, and resilience—that shape returnees’ engagement with their home societies.
Through this analysis, the study contributes to ongoing debates on the role of intercultural competence developed during international mobility in shaping leadership, professional engagement, and institutional reform. The study critically examines the ways in which returnees navigate structural barriers, adjust their approaches to align with local realities, and negotiate the recognition of their international experiences within their professional and social environments. By situating intercultural competence as an evolving and relational process, the study provides a more nuanced account of how international learning is reconfigured through post-return engagement with home country contexts.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
The literature on intercultural competence provides various definitions and different models for assessing its development in international contexts (Deardorff, 2006; OECD and Asia Society, 2018). Existing conceptualisations have provided valuable foundations, although they often stop short of fully illuminating how international mobility experiences shape intercultural competence in ways that lead to broader changes in institutional and professional contexts. Many frameworks emphasise the personal cognitive and behavioural shifts that take place while learners are abroad (Deardorff, 2006; Spencer-Oatey & Dauber, 2019), yet they pay comparatively less attention to how returnees later translate these skills, insights, and sensibilities into practice back home. Despite acknowledging that intercultural competence develops through academic, professional, and social encounters, earlier models rarely address how these integration pathways interact with individual agency, structural constraints, and participants’ long-term capacity to contribute to institutional or community-level transformation.
At the core of intercultural competence lie several attitudes that facilitate substantive engagement across cultural boundaries: “openness” (suspending snap judgments), “respect” (acknowledging and valuing other cultures), and “curiosity or discovery” (tolerating ambiguity) (Deardorff, 2006, p. 256). These attitudes, which anchor deeper cultural understanding, set the groundwork for various competencies. Communication in this context goes beyond language proficiency and calls for critical awareness of diverse discursive norms (Spencer-Oatey & Stadler, 2009). It involves the ongoing negotiation of meaning, adaptation of register, and the capacity to align speech and behaviour with situational demands (Deardorff, 2006; Spencer-Oatey & Dauber, 2019). Adaptability refers to observable behavioural changes—such as learning whether to bow, shake hands, or adopt alternative greetings—while flexibility highlights cognitive readiness, including the inclination to pause, read cues, and decide which action is culturally suitable (Deardorff, 2006). Empathy requires individuals to move beyond their own worldviews and genuinely appreciate how others experience social and institutional realities (Deardorff, 2006). The importance of empathy in challenging structural inequities lies in the capacity to recognise another's viewpoint, revise assumptions, and proactively respond in diverse environments. Resilience, as defined by Walker et al. (2006), involves recovering swiftly from challenges and persisting in the face of new hardships. Rather than merely coping, resilience suggests a potential for transformation and continuous growth (Caruana, 2014), especially important for individuals who live, study, and work in unfamiliar environments.
To deepen this discussion, we draw on three complementary theoretical lenses—transnationalism (Faist, 2010; Vertovec, 2009), transformative learning (Mezirow, 1981, 2012), and critical realism (Archer, 2000, 2010)—that help explain how returnees can use their intercultural competence to reshape institutional and professional structures at home. Transnationalism (Faist, 2010; Vertovec, 2009) highlights the flow of people, practices, and knowledge across national borders. In the setting of international student mobility, learners become part of transnational networks that encourage them to examine pre-existing assumptions, consider new cultural norms, and broaden their worldview. Transformative and emancipatory learning (Mezirow, 1981) illuminates how the disorienting dilemmas sparked by new cultural contexts prompt critical reflection. Emancipatory learning emphasises the ways in which structural and cultural barriers can be exposed and challenged through dialogue and introspection, spurring shifts in how individuals perceive their roles and responsibilities. Critical realism (Archer, 2000, 2010; Donati & Archer, 2015) then elucidates the interplay between agency and structure, emphasising that home-country environments—shaped by cultural, economic, and political factors—may constrain or enable returnees’ attempts to introduce fresh approaches. By viewing these contexts through a newly refined lens, returnees can decide whether to work within prevailing systems, challenge them, or blend insights gleaned overseas with local realities. Reflexive deliberation (Archer, 2000; Donati & Archer, 2015) supports this process by enabling individuals to reflect critically on their roles and choices.
In this integrated view, intercultural competence is not merely a suite of personal attributes but part of a reflexive process that returnees deploy when interacting with communities and institutions at home. Academic integration abroad exposes them to varied intellectual traditions and professional practices, professional experiences equip them to navigate cross-cultural workplaces, and social encounters offer informal yet powerful insights into societal conventions (Spencer-Oatey & Dauber, 2019). These experiences, interwoven with new or sharpened skills in communication, adaptability, flexibility, empathy, and resilience, both shape and are shaped by returnees’ agency. When they come back, they bring with them a mix of attitudes, knowledge, and networks they can use to question entrenched assumptions, suggest novel solutions, or collaborate more dynamically with local stakeholders.
Through this theoretical framework, we argue that international student mobility can act as a springboard for individuals seeking to make contributions in their home countries. It aligns the concept of intercultural competence with a broader agenda of social transformation, recognising that these processes are shaped by the ongoing relationships and exchange of ideas, practices, and social connections across national borders (Faist, 2010; Vertovec, 2009), by the transformative potential of critical self-reflection (Mezirow, 1981, 2012), and by the extent to which existing structures offer space for reproducing or transforming the social structures returnees encounter (Archer, 2000, 2010; Donati & Archer, 2015). By locating learners’ experiences within these intersecting dimensions, we gain a fuller understanding of how the attitudes, skills, and dispositions acquired abroad translate into tangible initiatives that reshape the communities and institutions returnees inhabit.
Methodology
This study draws on a large-scale research project, conducted between 2022 and 2025, titled “International Mobility and World Development”, which investigates how returnees from student, professional, and youth mobilities can contribute to broader structural change. The broader project included three components: a global longitudinal analysis, biographical profiling of systemic changemakers, and in-depth qualitative interviews (Chankseliani et al., 2025). This paper focuses on the interviews with individuals whose primary international experience was international student mobility.
The analysis here is based on 96 semi-structured interviews with participants who studied in the UK and the US. They represent 43 countries across six regions: East Asia and Pacific (EAP), Europe and Eurasia (EUR), Near East (Middle East & North Africa) (NEA), South and Central Asia (SCA), Sub-Saharan Africa (AFR), and the Western Hemisphere (WHA) (see Table 1). These 96 participants were selected from a broader qualitative dataset of 703 interviews, assembled through a structured, multi-stage process. All participants included in this paper had returned to live and work in their home countries following their studies abroad. They were selected as changemakers based on their documented role in initiating, implementing, or advocating for institutional, community, or broader systemic change. This was established through biographical mapping, analysis of public records and media coverage, and expert referrals, with particular attention to leadership roles, recognisable accomplishments.
Sample Distribution by Region and Mobility Experience.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted between May 2023 and September 2024, using 12 languages, including English, Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Chinese. The interview instrument was designed to explore how participants’ international mobility shaped their professional and institutional contributions. Questions included prompts about specific experiences abroad, perceived influence of environments inside and outside universities on their practices and values, and the challenges of applying learning in home-country institutions. The instrument was informed by assumptions that international experiences can prompt critical self-reflection, expand individuals’ sense of agency, and expose them to practices and norms that may align or conflict with those in their home contexts. To ensure coherence across interviews, a common structure was followed while allowing for contextual adaptation.
Among the 96 subjects featured in this analysis, 45 were female and 51 male. The most common destination countries were the United States (64) and the United Kingdom (35), with some having studied in both. Although participants had taken part in various mobility experiences—including student, professional, and youth exchanges—this paper focuses specifically on those whose primary mobility experience was in higher education. The study focused on five key areas in which participants made contributions in their home countries after their international study experiences: education (35), gender (17), health (11), justice and freedom (16) and economy (18). Thirty-two percent of participants had an average of 6 years between studying abroad and the interview, ranging from 2 to 10 years. Another 31% had an average of 18 years, with a range from 11 to 25 years, and 18% reported an average of 37 years, spanning from 25 to 56 years. Additionally, 7% had less than 2 years between studying abroad and the interview, while 12% of participants did not recall or report precise dates, particularly those with multiple international experiences across different life phases.
Data were analysed thematically, guided by the theoretical frameworks of transnationalism, agency formation, and critical realism. Inter-coder reliability checks ensured consistency and mitigated bias. The analysis paid particular attention to the development and post-return evolution of intercultural competence, especially in relation to communication, adaptability, flexibility, empathy, and resilience, as these dimensions emerged repeatedly in participants’ accounts of professional and civic engagement. The analysis focused on how these competencies were shaped during international study, how they were reinterpreted and adapted after return, and how they became embedded in participants’ efforts to navigate institutional structures, build alliances, and advance structural change. The findings trace pathways of intercultural development and the conditions under which such competencies supported returnees’ contributions to their home societies.
Findings
This section examines five dimensions of intercultural competence that participants described as central to navigating professional life after return – dimensions that were not fixed outcomes of mobility, but dynamically reshaped in home-country contexts: communication, flexibility, adaptability, empathy, and resilience. These dimensions emerged through participants’ academic, professional, and social encounters, each informing their capacity to navigate complex cultural, institutional, and community contexts. The following subsections illustrate how these five dimensions were cultivated abroad and subsequently applied in their professional practices upon return, showcasing the enriching process of intercultural development after their international student mobility. These findings reinforce the central claim of this study: that intercultural competence is not a static product of international experience, but an evolving capacity formed through returnees’ continuous engagement with structural dynamics.
Communication
Participants described communication skills as essential to the intercultural competence they developed through international student mobility. The ability to engage with different linguistic and cultural norms, adjust communication styles to varying contexts, and navigate intercultural interactions effectively helped them apply their knowledge and experiences to social change in their home countries. Mobility experiences encouraged participants to refine their ability to express ideas clearly, negotiate meaning across cultural divides, and engage in dialogue with a range of actors—from policymakers to community members—upon their return.
Academic integration played a central role in the development of these communication skills. Open discussions in the classroom exposed participants to diverse perspectives and challenged them to communicate in ways that bridged cultural and ideological differences. Interactions with classmates, professors, and university staff—many from a variety of national backgrounds—helped participants develop strategies for articulating their viewpoints while engaging constructively with contrasting perspectives. Professors introduced a range of cultural approaches in their teaching and encouraged students to analyse arguments critically, adjust their rhetorical approaches for different audiences, and participate in complex discussions. These experiences proved valuable beyond the academic setting, equipping participants with the skills to communicate effectively in professional and social contexts after returning home.
A human rights and feminist activist from Europe (EUR550) described how these experiences shaped heir ability to communicate and discuss the issues with various stakeholders in their activism and campaigning on gender economy topics in their country. They noted that their mobility experience, particularly interactions with peers and faculty from varied cultural and political backgrounds, enhanced their sensitivity to different modes of communication. These experiences helped them learn how to construct arguments more strategically and anticipate diverse interpretations of their ideas. This ability proved essential when working with stakeholders in their home country, where continually refining their communication skills enabled them to manage cultural norms, institutional structures, and divergent viewpoints. By adapting their approach to suit these contexts, they could advance policy reforms that were both locally appropriate and informed by the perspectives and knowledge they had acquired through their international academic exposure.
Beyond the classroom, social integration in informal settings and personal relationships played an equally significant role in developing participants’ communication skills. Interacting with international peers in informal settings—through student groups, social events, and everyday conversations—provided opportunities to practice adjusting communication styles and responding to different cultural cues. For example, SCA909, who later launched an education initiative in Nepal, recalled how participating in university elections and social events helped her develop confidence in engaging with diverse stakeholders. These experiences were not just about learning how to speak in different contexts but about understanding how to build relationships, read social dynamics, and adapt to different communicative norms. Over time, these skills evolved into the ability to switch between formal and informal modes of engagement, proving useful when working with funders, government officials, and local communities to develop an initiative supporting youth employability in Nepal.
Many described friendships as formative experiences that expanded their awareness of different cultural perspectives and deepened their appreciation for the role of trust and rapport in communication. One participant, an entrepreneur from Liberia (AFR144), explained that while his formal education provided technical expertise, it was the relationships he built during his mobility experience that helped him refine his ability to negotiate, persuade, and connect with people. He credited these skills with enabling him to establish a business that now works with over 5,000 farmers across 50 villages. His ability to communicate across cultural and linguistic divides, learned through both structured and unstructured interactions abroad, became essential in managing a business dependent on cross-cultural collaboration.
Professional experiences during the international student mobility experience reinforced these skills further, exposing participants to high-stakes communication in institutional settings. Internships and work placements provided structured environments where participants had to engage with professionals from different cultural and organisational backgrounds, learning to adjust their communication approaches to fit different workplace norms. WHA206, a human rights activist from Ecuador, described how her work in Denver's municipal government taught her how to navigate conversations between public and private sector actors. She reflected on how adapting her communication style to different professional settings allowed her to build credibility and develop partnerships essential to her work and secure funding for gender equality initiatives in Ecuador.
These findings show that developing communication skills during international student mobility was not a passive process; rather, it was shaped by intentional practice, critical reflection, and meaningful interactions. Instead of simply absorbing new ways of speaking, participants actively experimented with different communication strategies throughout their mobility experience, adjusting them to fit various contexts. These skills were subsequently applied upon their return, supporting policy discussions, professional collaborations, and grassroots initiatives. The examples illustrated how intercultural communication continued to develop within home institutional and cultural structures, enabling the participants to adapt and translate their mobility experiences into tangible contributions.
Flexibility
Flexibility in intercultural contexts involves recognising different perspectives and responding in ways that are appropriate to the cultural setting. Participants described flexibility as a skill that allowed them to navigate and reconcile contrasting viewpoints, enabling them to apply global insights to local realities. They developed this skill during their mobility experiences, where they engaged with unfamiliar cultural and intellectual environments that encouraged them to reconsider assumptions and explore alternative ways of thinking. Rather than merely adjusting to new surroundings, participants described an ongoing process of reflection, adaptation, and synthesis—one that shaped how they later approached professional and institutional challenges at home. This flexibility became particularly valuable in professional and civic settings, where they needed to balance external influences with local priorities. A Central Asian educational activist (SCA286), for example, described how studying in the US broadened their ability to engage with diverse cultural narratives, leading them to adopt a more inclusive leadership approach in their work at the Soros Foundation. Over twelve years, they applied these insights across projects in education, media, civil society, and health, playing a key role in shaping reform initiatives that were attuned to their country's political transition.
Many participants traced their ability to contextualise cultural behaviours to their social integration during mobility. Engaging in communal activities, whether through student groups or informal gatherings, provided opportunities to interact across cultural differences in ways that went beyond academic learning. Through these experiences, they refined their ability to interpret social cues, navigate unspoken norms, and apply this understanding in their home contexts. A participant from Jordan (NEA255) highlighted how exposure to British and American cultural principles—particularly privacy, diversity, and ethics—reshaped his professional approach. He described learning to adjust his communication style to facilitate negotiations with foreign investors, ensuring that discussions were framed in ways that resonated with international partners while remaining relevant to local business and legal frameworks. The continuously refined ability to interpret and bridge these cultural expectations after his mobility experience proved crucial in securing investments that contributed to Jordan's economic development.
Participants also identified professional integration—through internships and work placements—as a key setting where flexibility was put into practice. These experiences provided a testing ground for applying theoretical knowledge to real-world scenarios that required cultural and institutional adaptability. Exposure to different professional environments abroad enabled participants to compare global and local practices, critically assess their relevance, and determine how best to introduce new ideas into their home contexts. These abilities continued to evolve within changing cultural environment of their home country setting. WHA043, for example, described how visits to legal institutions across multiple US states during her mobility experience allowed her to observe how law was enacted and applied in different cultural and political settings. This comparative perspective later informed her work in Argentina, where she played an instrumental role in shaping legal discourse around equal marriage rights. By drawing on strategies observed abroad, she was able to navigate institutional resistance and effectively advocate for policy change within Argentina's specific social and political climate.
Taken together, these findings illustrate that flexibility was not simply about adapting to new cultural environments. Participants described it as an iterative process of exposure, reflection, and recalibration that enabled them to engage with diverse perspectives while remaining grounded in their structural contexts. Whether in business negotiations, policy advocacy, or civic initiatives, they used flexibility to introduce, develop and sustain new approaches in ways that were responsive to both local and global realities.
Adaptability
Adaptability—the ability to adjust communication styles, actions, and behaviours to align with different cultural contexts—was reported by less than half of the participants in this study. Rather than being a direct outcome of mobility experience, adaptability was shaped by exposure to diverse ways of thinking, engagement with professional networks, and opportunities to navigate unfamiliar settings. Participants who embraced uncertainty, revised their perspectives, and incorporated alternative approaches into their work and personal lives described adaptability as critical to their ability to contribute to structural change upon return. This capacity continued to evolve when participants integrated new practices, managed cultural complexities, and negotiated differences within their home contexts, where local norms and global perspectives needed to be reconciled.
Academic interactions during mobility programmes provided participants with the opportunity to refine their ability to adapt across cultural and intellectual traditions. Engaging in workshops, academic projects, and conferences, participants were introduced to different ways of conceptualising knowledge, problem-solving, and structuring professional relationships. Exposure to these varied perspectives informed their later efforts to contextualise and implement new ideas in their home countries. For example, while studying in the US, a leader from Near East (NEA273) observed how professional student networks functioned at a university in the U.S. This experience motivated them to establish a student society at the local university, creating a structured platform for early-career professionals to connect with experienced practitioners. By replicating these academic-industry linkages, they facilitated career guidance and knowledge exchange in their country. This example demonstrated how adaptability developed within different cultural settings, bridging structural gaps in their country.
Professional integration through internships and work placements further reinforced the importance of adaptability by placing participants in environments where they had to adjust to institutional expectations, professional hierarchies, and workplace cultures different from their own. The ability to compare global and local practices continued after they returned home, helping participants develop a more flexible approach to problem-solving and decision-making. For example, a healthcare professional from Georgia (EUR335) undertook a 10-week internship at Grady Hospital in Atlanta as part of his master's programme at New York University. Collaborating with diverse teams and observing management strategies in a culturally distinct setting refined his ability to navigate cross-cultural professional environments. Upon returning home, this skill continued to develop, enabling him to introduce internationally informed yet locally relevant changes in healthcare reform initiatives in his own country.
These findings highlight that adaptability was not simply about adjusting to different cultural norms but about strategically engaging with new ideas and translating them into actionable contributions at home. Whether through fostering professional networks, negotiating institutional constraints, or applying insights from global contexts to local challenges, participants used adaptability as a key mechanism for advancing professional and institutional change.
Empathy
Participants consistently demonstrated a heightened capacity for empathy. The enriched empathy not only facilitated more meaningful interpersonal connections but also allowed for more effective collaboration in multicultural settings. Empathy was described by participants as an active process of encountering alternative perspectives, reassessing deeply held assumptions, and navigating cultural complexities. Returnees reported that exposure to diverse viewpoints within academic, professional, and social environments during their mobility experiences enabled them to develop a more expansive understanding of global and local challenges. This broadened perspective frequently informed their ability to recognise structural inequalities and engage in civic or policy initiatives upon return, demonstrating empathy's role as a driver of change.
Academic interactions were particularly significant in this process. Engaging in discussions with international peers and professionals deepened participants’ appreciation of the multiplicity of perspectives shaping global issues. A participant from Lebanon (NEA362) described how sustained conversations with peers from diverse backgrounds during his time in the US helped him critically reflect on his own positions on human rights and social justice. These exchanges clarified both the specificity of Middle Eastern challenges in global advocacy efforts and the broader structural conditions shaping political discourse in the US. This experience strengthened his engagement with human rights advocacy in Lebanon, particularly in civilian protection efforts in conflict zones across the Middle East and North Africa.
Beyond academic environments, social integration and shared lived experiences played a crucial role in deepening participants’ ability to connect across cultural and ideological differences, a process that continued after their international mobility experience. Immersive social interactions, particularly cohabitation and collaborative problem-solving, were central to this process. A Panamanian participant (WHA311) reflected on how living with female roommates from different backgrounds reshaped her understanding of gender dynamics in STEM fields. Through shared experiences, she became more attuned to the barriers faced by women in scientific careers across cultural contexts. This awareness evolved continuously after her mobility experience, when she actively promoted initiatives to support women's participation in STEM through her leadership in higher education and policymaking in her home country. These relational experiences highlight that empathy is not an innate quality but a capacity that develops through structured and unstructured interactions, not only during international mobility experience but also after the participants return home.
Empathy also shaped participants’ ability to formulate context-sensitive solutions upon their return. A Eurasian human rights activist (EUR536) described how sustained dialogue with individuals from vastly different social, religious, and ideological backgrounds challenged their assumptions about advocacy strategies. Engaging with “very different people with their very different experiences, beliefs, and goals in life” refined their approach to human rights work in their country, particularly in supporting foreign nationals facing legal and institutional discrimination. Rather than imposing externally derived frameworks, they integrated a broader range of perspectives into their strategies, leading to more locally relevant interventions.
Participants also highlighted empathy's role in fostering solidarity and collective action. Mobility experiences often provided them with opportunities to build relationships with practitioners, policymakers, and civil society actors addressing similar global challenges in different regional contexts. A Central Asian immunologist (SCA502) explained how during the COVID-19 pandemic, the experiences she had previously had establishing networks with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and the Global Burden of Disease project in London became crucial in informing how she approached the work of coordinating her country's epidemiological response. Such transnational connections were not only instrumental in participants’ professional trajectories but also in shaping collaborative efforts post-mobility. Meaningful engagement with others working on related issues strengthened their capacity to mobilise resources, exchange knowledge, and implement initiatives responsive to both local and global conditions. For many, relationships built during their time abroad became enduring partnerships that enhanced the sustainability of their contributions at home.
Taken together, these findings illustrate how empathy, shaped through international mobility, extends beyond personal growth to tangible contributions in participants’ home contexts. Through intellectual, social, and professional interactions, they developed the capacity to navigate cultural complexity, challenge structural inequalities, and engage with pressing societal issues. The ability to recognise and respond to diverse perspectives was not an abstract idea but a practical skill that informed their advocacy, policymaking, and professional work. By integrating insights gained abroad with local realities, participants advanced more inclusive, contextually grounded solutions in fields ranging from human rights to public health and education.
Resilience
Resilience emerged as a crucial capacity developed through international mobility, equipping participants with the ability to navigate unfamiliar environments, adapt to uncertainty, and sustain long-term commitments to structural change upon their return. Unlike a generic notion of perseverance, resilience in this context was closely tied to intercultural self-awareness, independence in decision-making, and the ability to work effectively across diverse institutional landscapes. Participants described how immersion in new academic and social settings—where familiar cultural references, support networks, and ways of operating were absent—pushed them to cultivate autonomy in thinking and acting. For many individuals, their international experiences translated into an increased ability to operate in complex home-country environments, where bureaucratic inertia, sociopolitical instability, and entrenched institutional norms posed significant barriers to change.
One participant from Myanmar (EAP821) explained how returning from her U.S. graduate studies to a drastically shifting political landscape tested her determination to continue working in health and development. Despite deteriorating civil conditions and the challenges of navigating bureaucratic constraints, she drew on insights gained abroad—particularly a broadened perspective on problem-solving and cross-cultural collaboration—to remain focused on community-based work. This resilience enabled her to persist in providing humanitarian assistance for vulnerable populations, even as the country's institutions became increasingly fragile and conflicted. The resilience cultivated through these international experiences was not limited to overcoming logistical or bureaucratic barriers; it was central to sustaining participants’ motivation and effectiveness in navigating the constraints of their professional environments.
Across these dimensions, participants described not only how they applied intercultural competencies but how their efforts were mediated by structural factors—ranging from bureaucratic resistance and political conservatism to professional hierarchies and funding regimes. These structural conditions were not passive backdrops but active forces that shaped what could be translated, reframed, or sustained.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study demonstrates how intercultural competence development was shaped during and after international student mobility, equipping returnees with the ability to navigate institutional complexities and cultural diversity upon return. While prior research has recognised that cross-cultural exposure enhances communication skills, adaptability, and cross-cultural awareness, this study goes further by demonstrating how competencies—communication, flexibility, adaptability, empathy, and resilience—continued to evolve after return, becoming increasingly shaped by returnees’ ongoing interactions with home country contexts. Mobility did not simply expose participants to new cultural perspectives but required them to negotiate differences, assess competing viewpoints, and develop a heightened awareness of their own positioning within complex social and institutional systems. Rather than simply broadening cognitive repertoires, mobility shaped how individuals approached challenges, engaged with institutions, and established connections across different professional and national contexts.
The conceptual framework developed in this study, bringing together transnationalism, transformative learning theory, and critical realism, helps explain how intercultural competence becomes embedded in returnees’ professional and civic contributions. Transnationalism accounts for the ways returnees operated across borders, not merely transferring ideas from one context to another, but adapting and reworking them through sustained transnational linkages. Transformative learning theory clarifies how engagement with unfamiliar institutional logics and cultural norms prompted returnees to reassess assumptions, reorient goals, and revise practices. Critical realism, in turn, helps explain why similar international experiences gave rise to divergent forms of engagement upon return—outcomes shaped not only by individuals’ reflexive deliberation, the process of critically examining one's assumptions and positionality in response to new contexts, but by the structural conditions that enabled or constrained their capacity to act. These frameworks served as interpretive lenses that helped illuminate recurrent patterns of engagement across sectors and regions. The empirical findings show that intercultural competence was not a discrete set of acquired skills, but an evolving and situated capacity, reshaped in dialogue with institutions, policies, and power dynamics. Returnees consistently acted as cultural and institutional intermediaries, using their mobility-generated knowledge and networks to navigate local constraints and build coalitions for change. Yet their ability to do so was uneven. In many cases, mobility enabled participants to claim new forms of authority or legitimacy, but this depended on whether institutional environments permitted innovation, recognised external expertise, or allowed space for negotiated change.
Communication was not limited to linguistic competence but involved an ability to engage across discursive norms, making returnees more effective in policy discussions, advocacy efforts, and cross-sector collaborations. Flexibility and adaptability were similarly not passive traits but processes requiring active engagement with unfamiliar perspectives and institutional expectations. However, these transitions were rarely straightforward. Many encountered resistance to ideas developed abroad, scepticism from colleagues, or professional hierarchies that limited opportunities for change. Their ability to navigate these obstacles depended on critical reflection, as the examples of WHA043 and NEA255 show, enabling them to determine which aspects of their international experience could be directly applied, which required modification, and which demanded gradual integration into local systems. In this sense, intercultural competence was not simply applied but progressively reshaped in response to institutional constraints and sector-specific demands.
Empathy and resilience were central to how returnees translated their intercultural learning into meaningful contributions. Exposure to different cultural contexts did not merely introduce them to diverse perspectives but immersed them in experiences of inequality, exclusion, and systemic disadvantage. These encounters informed their approaches to education, human rights work, and institutional reform, as they developed a sharper awareness of structural injustice. Empathy was not an abstract principle but a practice embedded in their professional and civic strategies, shaping their capacity to engage in meaningful dialogue and advocate for inclusive policies. Resilience was also shaped in distinctive ways. Rather than simply demonstrating perseverance, returnees had to adjust to new professional hierarchies, institutional expectations, and workplace cultures that were not always receptive to externally developed knowledge. Many had to renegotiate their professional identities, manage institutional inertia, and identify ways to introduce new perspectives without provoking resistance. This adaptation process further deepened their intercultural repertoire, a dynamic set of communicative, behavioural and interpretive strategies, as they learned to navigate misalignment between their mobility-acquired perspectives and the structural realities of their home institutions.
These findings challenge the idea that intercultural competence is a static set of skills acquired through international experience. Instead, this study highlights that it is a process shaped by the institutional and structural conditions that participants encounter upon their return. Mobility does not automatically result in influence or leadership, but it enables returnees to question established practices, assess the applicability of external models, and negotiate between different ways of working. Their capacity to act—discern, deliberate, and persist—was always context-dependent, and often relationally embedded in the partnerships and coalitions they built post-return.
While this study provides strong evidence of how intercultural competence was developed during and after international students’ mobility and how it was implemented in diverse settings, it also raises questions that require further exploration. One limitation is its reliance on purposive sampling, which, while effective in identifying participants with demonstrable contributions, does not account for returnees whose mobility experiences may not have led to significant impact. Future research would benefit from longitudinal studies that examine how intercultural competence in relation to returnees’ contributions evolve over time, particularly in response to political and institutional shifts. Additionally, while this study highlights the advantages of international mobility, further research is needed to explore whether comparable competencies can emerge through other routes, such as virtual exchange, international professional collaborations, or engagement with transnational civil society networks. A closer examination of these alternative pathways would help determine whether mobility is indispensable for developing these competencies or whether comparable skills can be cultivated through different forms of global engagement.
International mobility is not simply a pathway to professional advancement or individual transformation but a process through which returnees develop the capacity to contribute to social change in their home contexts. By drawing on transnationalism, transformative learning, and critical realism, this study not only maps individual trajectories but explains how these unfold in specific structural conditions, producing uneven but meaningful opportunities for institutional and civic transformation. These findings contribute to ongoing discussions about the role of international higher education in shaping civic engagement, institutional change, and global knowledge exchange. As international student mobility faces growing constraints due to geopolitical instability and shifting funding priorities, assessing its wider implications is more urgent than ever. Understanding its role is essential not only for recognising how international education builds intercultural competence but also for ensuring that mobility remains central to creating more responsive, inclusive, and globally connected institutions.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) of the U.S. Department of State under Grant R77721/CN002. The authors would like to thank the interviewees for the time they have taken to participate in this study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interest
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This work was supported by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) of the U.S. Department of State under Grant R77721/CN002.