Disciplining transnationality? The impact of study abroad educational experiences on Turkish returnee scholars’ lives,careers and identity

Abstract

Using the literature on transnationalism, this article explores overseas-trained Turkish scholars’ experiences and whether these have had any effects on their identity construction/transformation, professional and personal lives after returning home. This exploration is informed by quantitative and qualitative data collected from Turkish scholars who completed their MA and/or PhD degrees in English-speaking countries and are now working in universities as academics. Besides highlighting the differences between educational values and practices in Turkey and Western countries, this article also examines how these differences influence professional trajectories and negotiations of identities among overseas-trained academics, with follow-up references to the author’s autoethnography as a Western-trained scholar to spotlight the commonalities in the lived experiences of returnees. The results highlight the dynamic nature of overseas experiences and returning home with new competences, skills and a broadened worldview which results in returnees’ distinguishing themselves from those around them in their personal and professional transactions.

Introduction

Largely fuelled by the impacts of internationalization, the transnational activities of students have dramatically increased since the turn of the millennium. Such activities have resulted in the growth of a highly mobile population going abroad to thoroughly further their knowledge in host educational communities and exert themselves in the pursuit of transnational knowledge. The growing demand for transnational activities has attracted researchers’ attention from several disciplines (e.g. geography, psychology and education) across diverse contexts, resulting in numerous reports, journal articles, book chapters and monographs (e.g. McNamara and Knight, 2014; Phan, 2011; 2017; Zweig, Changgui and Rosen, 2004). So far, much has been studied on how overseas students and scholars in the host countries have been affected by their overseas experiences concerning their personal and professional identity negotiation and recreation (e.g. Barnawi and Phan, 2015; Galijasevic and Hadzibegovic, 2012; Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015; Kuzhabekava, Sparks and Temerbayeva, 2019; Phan, 2011, 2017; Trilokekar and Rasmi, 2011). It has been shown that overseas-trained scholars undergo dynamic and shared transactional experiences before and after their study abroad.

Unlike many other countries, Turkey has initiated various programs for students of different disciplinary backgrounds to study abroad since its official foundation (Şarman, 2005; Tansel and Demet-Güngör, 2003). Nevertheless, despite the high number of Turkish overseas scholars going abroad and coming home for work, there is a dearth of information available regarding the impacts of overseas experiences on their social and professional lives and identity. This is because much research has concentrated on study abroad students rather than returning scholars (e.g. Aydın, 2012; Tekin and Gencer, 2013; Aslan and Jacobs, 2014; Endes, 2015). Thus, Turkey still stands as a less-researched national context in terms of academic mobility research. It is hence essential to investigate Turkish overseas scholars’ experiences, for two major reasons. First, on study abroad, they attempt to figure out new educational and sociocultural contexts, along with their values, in the act of adapting to the new social and educational environments. Second, when they return home as scholars, they return with new values, knowledge and competences. In most societies, returnees are considered to constitute the core of the ‘transnational human capital’ as ‘[i]ndividuals who possess new ideas, technologies and information that abets globalization’ and makes ‘them more valuable to these societies’ (Zweig et al., 2004: 735). This capital also encompasses returnees’ foreign language proficiency and intercultural competence. However, this point seems to be sidestepped in research on overseas scholars in Turkey to date. The investigation of overseas scholars’ personal and academic experiences before and after their overseas education can lead to obtaining revealing insights into the debates around transnationalism, transnational education and identity construction. Additionally, this investigation can contribute to the existing body of research on transnationalism by providing a point of reference for divergent and convergent issues as a less widely studied research context to the settings with similar characteristics and the ones which have been intensively studied.

It is a well-known fact that individuals and governments attribute prime importance to study abroad programs. The research-based evidence shows that certain Western countries have become education hubs for over 5 million students, with the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia being the top destinations (Project Atlas, 2018). As noted above, as a developing country, Turkey takes part in the competition of sending students abroad, too. UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics (UIS) data on the mobility of students indicate that the top Western countries for Turkish students are the United States, United Kingdom, Austria, France, Italy and Canada (UNESCO, 2018).

Research shows that overseas scholars largely return home in the hope of possessing different sorts of capital and privileges that they think are not granted to those holding locally obtained qualifications (e.g. Barnawi and Phan, 2015; Karakaş, 2013). Owing to their long engagement with local and international individuals in the academic and socio-cultural spheres of Western countries/institutions, returnees are also highly likely to ‘develop transnational(ized) connections, competences and identities’ which will continue ‘to contribute to their capacity and functioning in employment and society at “home”’ (Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015: 948). With this in mind, this research explores Turkish overseas scholars’ experiences abroad and examines to what extent these scholars can translate and adjust their new competences, connections, identities and skills into their professional and personal lives for better functioning in the society and workplace, particularly in the course of transitioning into the Turkish lifestyle and work culture.

Contextual background

The idea of sending students abroad dates back to the 1920s, when Turkey was officially established as a Western-attuned country. The early initiatives for sending students to Western countries were launched by the founder of the Turkish Republic, M. Kemal Ataturk, himself in the context of Westernization. The purpose was to help talented but financially underprivileged students get an education in several fields, e.g. history, chemistry, engineering, and then transfer what they learned there into their country upon their return (Dilmaç, 2011; Şarman, 2005; Yurttadur, 2012). The policy of sending students abroad via government funds was interrupted at times as was in the case of the outbreak of World War II, yet the policy has never been abolished completely. Following the war, the then governments developed several projects from the 1960s to 2000s, which chiefly aimed to meet the shortage of academic staff and increase the quality of higher education (Tuzcu, 2003). The most recent project was launched in 2006 by the ruling government with a similar motive, i.e. having qualified human resources at universities and government organizations and making the country competitive in the international educational arena.

Recently, the number of Turkish overseas students has grown steadily. Unquestionably, the projects developed by governmental agencies, such as the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) and the Council of Higher Education (CoHE), have played a key part in this growth. For instance, since 2006, around 7000 Turkish students have been sent abroad through the ‘5 Thousand Students in 5 Years’ project, on a refundable scholarship scheme launched by the MoNE under the name of YLYS (in full, Yurt Dışına Lisansüstü Öğrenim Görmek Üzere Gönderilecek Adayları Seçme ve Yerleştirme – Selection and Placement of Candidates for Postgraduate Studies Abroad) (Güçlü, 2015). Those going abroad with this program are required to return home after completing their studies, in accordance with Law 1416 (Law No. 1416, 1929), which requires beneficiary students to serve at public universities or governmental organizations in exchange for the scholarship provided. Likewise, the CoHE supports students’ graduate studies and university researchers’ post-doctoral studies abroad and awards them scholarships under several schemes (CoHE, 2019). Turkish students also go abroad with scholarships awarded by Western organizations (e.g. Fulbright) and with familial support or bank loans.

Disentangling the term ‘transnationalism’

This research is mapped on the theoretical framework of transnationalism and its relevant concepts, such as diaspora consciousness, double consciousness, transnational imaginary, marginalization, privilege and transnational identity, as the investigation of overseas returnees’ experiences is a matter of transnational research. These constructs were particularly chosen seeing that scholars of several disciplinary backgrounds have drawn on these constructs to research immigrants, transient migrants and returnee scholars in general in their own research contexts (Barnawi and Phan, 2015; Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015; Padilla, 2013; Phan, 2011). Although they have been used in different contexts with different groups of participants, these concepts have proven themselves useful in respect to providing insights into the personal and professional identities and multiple subject positions that take shape among overseas scholars both in their host and home countries after their return. Therefore, these selective concepts serve as useful tools to delve into the superordinate concept of ‘transnationalism’ regarding overseas scholars’ experiences in that these concepts can ‘resonate with the lived worlds of individual international students during and after their studies’ (Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015: 950).

Transnationalism as a type of ‘consciousness’ and as a reconstruction of ‘locality’

Transnationalism, at its broadest, ‘refers to multiple ties and interactions linking people or institutions across the borders of nation states’ (Vertovec, 1999: 447). Namely, transnationalism can be taken as a circumstance in which particular networks among individuals have been strengthened worldwide ‘and now take place paradoxically in a planet-spanning yet common – however virtual –arena of activity’ (Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015: 447). In transnational activities, individuals raise ‘a kind of “diaspora consciousness” marked by dual or multiple identifications’ which leads to ‘depictions of individuals’ awareness of decentred attachments, of being simultaneously “home away from home,” “here and there”’ (Vertovec, 1999: 450). Otherwise stated, most individuals, if not all, embark on forging multiple identities and attachments across borders tying them into several nations and cultures concurrently irrespective of their physical locality (Guo and Lei, 2019; Schiller, Basch and Szanton-Blanc, 1992). What matters for such individuals is connectivity and interconnectedness across cultural and linguistic boundaries rather than mobility (Phan, 2011; Yeoh, Willis and Fakhri, 2003).

Transnational(ized) identity construction in transnational activities rests on developing a sense of belonging to an international culture, be it virtual or physical, since this sort of identity is not fixed but dynamic, hybrid, multiple and subject to change and is negotiated and transformed by individuals continuously and contextually (Duff and Uchida, 1997; Phan, 2008; Yeoh et al., 2003). Additionally, this view of identity recognizes the complexity of the identity construct, thereby regarding it as being and becoming (Phan, 2011: 106) and admits the role of locality in ‘[i]dentity formation and knowledge mobilization’. This makes sense considering that ‘when individuals are separated from locality/localities, be it/they imagined or out here’, it is rather difficult to make sense of their identity and knowledge mobilization (Phan, 2011: 106). The understanding of transnational identity as being and becoming is very well manifested in Nonaka’s (see this Special Issue, Nonaka 2020) narratives about her shift from being a PhD scholar in an English-speaking country to becoming a Japanese female professor in Japan. Moreover, it is possible to speak of a development of double consciousness among overseas students, which materializes as ‘the condition of having two modes of perceptions’ (Williams, 2013: 76). Through this consciousness, one can view his/her own identity from his/her own perspective and see his/her identity as seen by others. By these types of consciousness, overseas scholars may negotiate and restructure their sense of self with respect to the rest of their surrounding world while abroad and upon their return.

Transnational imaginary and embeddedness in transnationalism

Saldivar’s (2006: 59) concept of ‘the transnational imaginary’ has also direct relevance to transnational activities, as it is probable to talk about the existence of a study abroad context and a home-country context transnational imaginary, which represents an ‘imaginary social space consisting in transnational communities of shared fates’. The transnational communities in this research are those established by Turkish scholars who went for study abroad and returned home for work and whose shared fates have possibly been influenced by the educational, cultural, and socio-economic characteristics of the host countries. To Gu and Schweisfurth (2015: 950), this sort of imaginary is ‘a reflection of the embeddedness of individuals across a range of networks’. Sandberg (2003: 4) notes that ‘‘the idea of embeddedness’ is useful to describe and explain why and how networks are manifested’. Thus, concerning overseas students’ ‘simultaneous embeddedness in more than one society’ (Yeoh at al., 2003: 213), it is possible to speak of their formation of embeddedness in diverse networks, such as social, cultural, religious and academic, during and after their studies. Through embedding themselves in different networks and groups, they might forge ‘a range of bonds with others who have similar experiences, whose identity or identities overlap in any number of ways with their own’ (Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015: 950).

Research on returnee scholars

Student mobility literature is rather rich and encompasses various disciplinary backgrounds, including psychology, (e.g. issues of stress), geography (e.g. issues of migration) and education (e.g. knowledge construction, identity formation), (e.g. Brown and Holloway, 2008; Gribble, 2008; Zhang and Goodson, 2011). Similar issues have also been investigated in the Turkish context (e.g. Aslan and Jacobs, 2014; Aydın, 2012; Endes, 2015; Mutlu, Alacahan and Erdil, 2010; Tekin and Gencer, 2013) where it was found that overseas education had positive impacts on returnees’ cultural, personal and professional growth. It also emerged that overseas students may gain linguistic and cultural capital as a socio-economic resource, through which their social mobility in stratified societies can be promoted more easily than those without these capitals (Bourdieu, 1991).

However, previous studies on returning scholars failed to address the impacts of overseas experiences on their personal and professional lives in their home countries. Perhaps, they were once study abroad students, but they have returned and assumed an academic status in most contexts. Thus, it becomes crucial to explore how these returnee scholars’ personal and professional transactions at home are affected by their overseas education. Recently, a nascent body of research has started exploring these issues, acknowledging that overseas-trained academics’ perceptions and competences will not be the same as they were before their return. One typical finding is that overseas experiences, especially studying in the host countries’ education systems, caused returnee scholars to experience personal, perceptual, competence and identity-related changes and to enjoy certain privileges, e.g. better-job opportunities and higher social class (Barnawi and Phan, 2015; Galijasevic and Hadzibegovic, 2012; Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015; Guo and Lei, 2019; Trilokekar and Rasmi, 2011; Zweig et al., 2004). The returnees were found to develop a strong sense of (internal) double-consciousness, feeling themselves privileged compared to those without overseas education.

Another typical finding is about how these returnees gained a diaspora consciousness, especially an internal diaspora consciousness in their home countries, through embedding themselves across different networks abroad and at home and in (re)constructing their transnational identity at particular places and times (e.g. Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015; Kuzhabekova et al., 2019). Further, unlike the studies in which overseas returnees obtained grasped certain privileges based on their overseas background, in some contexts they were denied certain rights granted to those with locally obtained degrees. Take, for instance, the case of Kazakh returnees’ and a small group of Chinese returnees’ reintegration experiences into the local academic environment (Guo and Lei, 2019; Kuzhabekova et al., 2019). They had difficulties in being accepted into the local scholarly communities due to the gatekeeping role of seniors in the academic environment, who were reluctant to ‘acknowledge the advances that junior [overseas-trained] scholars were making’ (Kelley, 2020: page no, in this Special Issue). What was more important, particularly in the Kazakh context, was not that the returnees held degrees from Western institutions, but their ‘having better connections with the local and regional scholarly communities’ (8). Likewise, in the case of Chinese returnees, they were considered ‘less experienced, early career academics in their local academic communities in China’ (Guo and Lei, 2019: 7) and these communities emerged to be ‘more characteristics of a hierarchical, top-down, parenting-style relationship between them and their superiors’ (8). Nonaka (2020) has brought a similar point to the fore in this Special Issue in relation to the Japanese context, remarking that ‘[e]ven those with the same qualifications and status, seniority (age) plays a vital role, inducing a large impact on the hierarchical relationships among group members’ (page no).

As for the studies in Turkey on overseas-trained academics, the results demonstrate that they experienced trouble in their appointment to universities as they were placed in disciplines not well-matched to their subject specialization and had conflicts with their colleagues, especially their seniors, who tended to undervalue their diaspora knowledge and competences (Çelik, 2012; Gümüş and Gökbel, 2012). They also appeared uncomfortable about cronyism and favouritism in the workplace, and consequently resented coming back home since their qualifications gained abroad through hard work and painful struggles did not get any appreciation in the workplace. Long ago, Tansel and Demet-Güngör (2003: 63–64) investigated Turkish overseas students’ return intentions after their study abroad and found that one of the oft-cited reasons for Turkish students not intending to return was the work environments in Turkey where, many participants thought, ‘there is a lack of value given to science and academics’. Another similar but large-scale research on returnees’ changes in their socio-political, educational and personal perceptions found that they became more open to novel ideas, appreciating individual differences in religious views, racial and cultural backgrounds (Erden, 2013). Unlike these studies, some studies examining overseas scholars’ experiences about studying and surviving in Western countries showed that students in the UK upheld an awareness of ‘being in a foreign land’ and ‘home,’ mingling with other students, yet mostly making friends with their co-nationals (Karakaş, 2013). They did not detach themselves from ‘home’, simultaneously searching for Turkish food, yet increased their intercultural awareness (e.g. visiting art galleries, museums).

From the surveyed studies, it seems that most overseas-trained academics attempted to embrace a transnational perspective upon their return from study abroad to adjust into social, cultural and academic environments at home by reconstructing their perceptions of the home through the lenses of their transnational(ized) identity. While doing so, they did not seem to compromise their own national and cultural identity. Rather, they were involved in identity enrichment through integrating values, knowledge, skills they considered important for global citizenship into their existing identities.

The study

Focus

The focus of this research is on probing into Turkish overseas-trained scholars’ experiences during and after their studies abroad. This focus was guided by the following central research questions: RQ1: What are Turkish overseas-trained scholars’ perceptions and beliefs about their gains from their study abroad experiences in Western countries? and RQ2: What are their perceptions and beliefs concerning the influences of their study abroad experiences on their current personal and professional lives in Turkey? Have they encountered any challenges in their attempts to reintegrate into the home-culture and work-culture in Turkey?

Research setting and design

To examine Turkish returnees’ experiences during and after study abroad, the mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was utilized (Creswell et al., 2003). Within this design, the researchers first collect data through quantitative techniques and then apply qualitative means to further explore issues raised in the quantitative data and consequently elaborate on the quantitative results. While interpreting the overall results, quantitate and qualitative results are compared and merged.

The sampling and data collection process

The fieldwork was conducted using Facebook. As the target population is widely dispersed across the country, it was impossible to reach them physically. However, one can find several Facebook groups established by Turkish overseas-trained academics who already returned. As myself a returnee, I became a member of such a Facebook group (YLYS Sonrası Görev Alanlar Platformu [Post-YLYS platform for returnees]). At the time of data collection, the group had around 1060 members, some of whom are, however, still abroad for their graduate studies. The distance issue led me to utilize online questionnaires, which provide an ‘advantage of reaching out to a larger and more diverse pool of potential participants’ (Wilson and Dewaele, 2010: 103). The questionnaire was adapted from Gu and Schweisfurth (2015). It consisted of closed-ended items exploring participants’ perceived changes in their personal, professional qualifications and viewpoints originating from their Western educational experiences. Part of the questionnaire collected demographic information, e.g. the country and department of study and the length of study abroad. An open-ended item was added to the questionnaire so that participants could provide further comments about their experiences. To recruit participants for the qualitative part, the questionnaire also included an item asking participants to provide their email address if they were keen to discuss their answers to questionnaire items in an interview later. In total, 11 participants agreed to take part in follow-up interviews.

After amendments and expert views on the questionnaire, the questionnaire was transformed into an online survey, i.e. Qualtrics. The link with an introductory text on the research purposes was posted on the wall of the Facebook group and 101 Turkish returnees completed the questionnaire. All participants reported obtaining their postgraduate degrees in English-speaking countries, e.g. the UK, the USA and Canada. The sampling was random in that any members of the Facebook group could complete the questionnaire. The sampling was also purposive in respect to targeting returnee scholars only (Mackey and Gass, 2005). The sample represented several disciplines of hard (e.g. engineering) and social sciences (e.g. philosophy, economics). Of the participants, 52% were female and 48% were male. They ranged in age from 27 to 41. Their length of stay abroad ranged from one to eight years. The majority had spent about four years abroad. Nearly 95% of the participants obtained funding for their study abroad while around 3% got bank and family loans, and the remaining 2% relied on their personal income. 65% had returned home with a PhD, 27% with a master’s level degree and 8% with a post-doctoral degree.

Of the 11 interviewees, six were female and five were male. Four face-to-face and seven online (Skype/FaceTime) semi-structured interviews were conducted. Semi-structured interviews were employed because this sort of interview ‘allows researchers to develop in-depth accounts of experiences and perceptions with individuals’ (Cousin, 2009: 71). The interviews were held in English, digitally recorded and lasted around 10 to 25 minutes. During the interviews, the participants were asked a wide range of questions about their experiences in the host country and experiences at home after their study abroad. To illustrate some, there were questions about their experiences of adaptation into the host countries and the challenges they felt, the new skills and competences they thought they have gained due to their overseas education and how they viewed their overseas education in general in terms of their personal and professional development. Likewise, the participants were asked to talk about their feelings and experiences at home after returning from study abroad, particularly in the workplace as an overseas-trained academic, the challenges and benefits of being a Western-educated scholar in the Turkish higher education system and whether they felt happy about returning home or not.

Data analysis

The analytical framework consisted of an amalgamation of quantitative and qualitative tools of analysis. First, descriptive statistics were used to analyse the questionnaire data. With descriptive statistics, it is aimed to get an overall picture of the participants’ overseas experiences and how these experiences would contribute to their current personal and professional development in their home-country context.

The qualitative data were analysed through content analysis, comparing and relating emerging codes to one another to identify main categories relating to the participants’ experiences abroad (e.g. social-cultural networks established as adaptation strategies, personal and professional gains, academic and research experiences, competence development, perceived transnational identities and transnational practices) and the influences of such experiences on their personal and career development at home. Through content analysis, the ultimate goal was ‘understanding the perspective(s) of the producers of these words’, i.e. the overseas Turkish scholars, from different angles (Berg, 2001: 242).

Findings and discussion

Sequential explanatory design necessitates the interpretation of quantitative results using qualitative results. Therefore, the findings below are presented by merging quantitative results with qualitative ones so that the underlying factors behind quantitative results can be adequately disclosed. While doing so, much focus will be on the qualitative data because the questionnaire findings just capture the general snapshot and rely on the responses of the majority using mean scores. However, what the less-heard minorities might have to say in the interviews personally about the issues under discussion can turn out to be more useful and important than what the majority feel. That is, besides seeing the big picture through the questionnaire findings, it is crucial to go into details about the lived experiences of the participants at the individual level.

Perceived gains from overseas educational experiences

Dual or multiple identifications and diaspora consciousness

The results showed that many returnees developed a high state of diaspora consciousness manifested in different manners during and after their study abroad periods. They implemented various practical strategies while abroad and upon their return to overcome the challenges during their adaptation. Their responses marked awareness of being ‘here’ and ‘there’, i.e. diaspora consciousness, among them. With this awareness, they simultaneously had a sense of being Turkish and a sense of belonging to a global community. Marking the development of such consciousness among them, the questionnaire results showed that around 57% perceived themselves to be more informed about their own self, their national backgrounds and home culture compared to those without overseas background. Turkish returnees’ sense of ‘home culture’ and ‘being elsewhere’ appeared in their interview accounts, too, particularly when elaborating on their psychological and intellectual challenges. In this respect, speaking of differences in educational systems and intellectual challenges felt during the process of fitting into a Western education system, a scholar with a PhD who had lived in the UK for seven years noted:

I found it hard at first to be responsible for my own learning and think critically as I came from a teacher-fronted context . . . obedience and reverence to lecturers is a sign of being a good student in my home . . . making students dependent on their teachers is not useful in the long term, they cannot step outside the aura of their teachers. (Male, Chemistry, Assistant Professor)

Further, in the questionnaires, around 95% of respondents reported developing an international outlook and awareness. This finding is consistent with the results obtained earlier (e.g. Barnawi and Phan, 2015; Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015; Guo and Lei, 2019; Karakaş, 2013). It also supports evidence from previous observations that overseas education culminates in changes in returnees’ personality, perceptions, competences, world views and identity formation (e.g. Aslan and Jacobs, 2014; Aydın, 2012; Endes, 2015; Galijasevic and Hadzibegovic, 2012; Guo and Lei, 2019; Nonaka, 2020; Phan and Mohamad, 2020, this Special Issue; Trilokekar and Rasmi, 2011).

Personal and cultural transformation

Likewise, some returnees narrated about the cultural and personal changes they experienced. Certain cultural and personal changes, such as ‘achieving individuality’, ‘developing a sense of self’ and ‘learning more about themselves’ were often mentioned. In this respect, the questionnaires indicated that about 93% perceived themselves as being more tolerant of different ideas and behaviours. Talking of these changes, a scholar with a PhD reported that:

. . . the liberal environment in the UK and getting familiar with different people helped me to realize that I can form my own ideas and respect those of others at the same time . . . I gradually noticed the perceived differences among us is a culmination of our previous life experiences shaping who we are now . . . I started to question my prejudices about the western world and values I think became more tolerant and understanding towards the unknown. (Female, Computer Science, Assistant Professor)

The reported perceived changes can be explained in part by the differences in educational and value systems of the home and host countries. It is because these differences seemed to enable the returnees to build awareness of an ‘international self’ under dual or multiple identities, as in a Turkish self and other-selves (Vertovec, 2009). Particularly, assuming the international self in the host country, they probably felt that they had to act by Western educational principles and approaches and gain new competences and skills required in those contexts to complete their studies (cf. Phan and Mohamad, 2020, this Special Issue). Most probably, this became possible thanks to the participants’ developing their consciousness about the intellectual demands in the host country and developing a ‘difference’ perspective rather than a ‘deficit’ one against unfamiliar educational values.

Double consciousness: Privilege and marginalization

It also emerged that the participants developed a sense of double consciousness, as in having two modes of perception, one from the way they perceive themselves and the other from the way they think others see them. In this sense, returnees became aware of how they perceived their personal and professional development shaped by their overseas education and of how others saw them and their new competences, particularly in their home-country contexts. For example, a returnee said that

I know many people would like to put themselves in my shoes . . . In Turkey obtaining a degree abroad is a great prestige . . . members of academia who do not gain their degrees abroad are narrow-minded and envious . . .you work with the best scholars well-known in the field . . . our language skills are far better than those afraid to break out of their comfort zone . . . I believe I have undergone total cultural immersion abroad. (Female, Economics, Assistant Professor)

This participant views herself as privileged in terms of her knowledge, linguistic and cultural capital and even feels superior to those who obtained their qualifications locally. She also marginalizes the others due to her Western educational qualifications, as was also the case for Western-educated Saudi teachers (see Barnawi and Phan, 2015). This finding suggests that ‘privilege intersects with marginalization’ in Western-educated returnees’ educational journeys (Park, 2015: 108). However, unlike other contexts, such as those of Saudi and Chinese (Zweig at al., 2004) where ‘the dominant discourses of privilege attached to Western qualifications’ (Barnawi and Phan, 2015: 266) prevail in the real sense, in the Turkish context, such discourses of exclusive privileges or any forms of rewards are not associated with Western qualifications in the workplace, as shall be discussed in detail later. Instead, the issue is often returnees’ aspiration as to how they and their qualifications should be perceived by others, especially by those who had not been overseas.

Embeddedness

Additionally, returnees’ developing a sense of diaspora and double consciousness, particularly seeing their transitional identity from the perspectives of others seems to result in an emotional link among returnees with those sharing the same fate (Saldivar, 2006). Upon their return, 87% felt a difference in the way of thinking between themselves and those who never stayed abroad for a lengthy period. 69% reported having developed new friends whose experiences are better matched to their own. Similarly, 56% reported being in less contact with the friends they had had before going abroad. To elaborate on such changes in returnees’ personal lives, Gu and Schweisfurth (2015: 960) averred that the driving force behind the profound change in returnees is probably the case of feeling ‘part of a new, renationalized diaspora of people who had shared transnational educational experiences’. Comparison of this finding with those of other studies (e.g. Çelik, 2012; Galijasevic and Hadzibegovic, 2012; Guo and Lei, 2019) confirms that the sense of double consciousness reshapes returnees’ daily life and professional activities, propelling them to connect with those sharing similar fates and disengage themselves from those whose experiences and competences are not matched to theirs.

Cosmopolitan skills and qualities

The returnees felt improved in the areas of creative thinking (95%), being more independent in analysing and solving problems (94%), thinking critically (92%), having a broadened interest in life (88%), and having more positive attitudes towards life (78%). These findings broadly support other studies in this area, linking study abroad with overseas scholars’ personal, socio-cultural, professional development (e.g. Barnawi and Phan, 2015; Erden, 2013; Phan and Mohamad, 2020, this Special Issue; Zweig et al., 2004). The interviewees also pointed to the growth of these skills among their selves thanks to the nature of education in Western-countries, which, the returnees think, encourages creativity, independent thinking, critical thinking, and problem-based learning. It materialized that their experiences in the Western countries functioned as a revelation helping them to compare the educational approaches at the home-context and Western countries. In this respect, one returnee noted:

I studied educational psychology in Europe [in the UK] and got the chance to compare Turkish and European educational values and approaches. Two-sided learning occurs in Turkey no way for alternatives. . . we were not encouraged to express our own ideas and views . . .in Europe critical thinking, creativity are like super elements of learning. (Female, Educational Sciences, Assistant Professor)

The returnees also felt development in cosmopolitan professional skills and competences. The majority believed that they became more comfortable about working in teams (84%), more confident about taking on leadership at work (72%), and more confident about working under pressure (55%). However, when it came to being flexible at work, 36% felt themselves to be more flexible at work. The reason for the majority feeling less flexible at work can be attributed to the characteristics of more restrictive working conditions, where qualifications and competences are overlooked at the expense of favouritism and pre-established networks by seniors and superiors (Guo and Lei, 2019; Kuzhabekova et al., 2019; Nonaka, 2020, this Special Issue).

Self-assured and intercultural communicator

As for communication and language skills, 97% felt becoming more confident about their English skills and 78% reported being more confident about their (intercultural) communication skills. This suggests that linguistic and cultural improvement – that is, linguistic and cultural capital – are among the major by-products of study abroad (e.g. Çelik, 2012; Erden, 2013; Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015). Two interviewees further elaborated on the language/communication progress as follows:

Western [Canadian] lecturers were always open to listening to, understanding and respecting different views. They could use their body language, eye contact and tone of voice very effectively . . . I try to be friendly, open-minded, confident, and emphatic like them . . . I attempt to colour my messages with gestures, clear and concise words . . . (Female, Molecular Biology, Assistant Professor)

I took pre-sessional English courses and improved my language skills, especially academic writing and speaking . . . I had to survive in the UK through English because it was the only working language in communication . . . Feeling a real need for English for the first time in my life, I did my best to improve my English and engaged with British culture and other cultures. (Male, Sociology, Research Assistant)

Network building

Some returnees added further comments using the space in the questionnaire, drawing attention to how overseas experiences have increased their network building for their future studies and personal relations. Here is what a scholar with a PhD said on this aspect: ‘There was no question about networking. I think this is the most important benefit’ (Female, Urban systems, Research Assistant). Similarly, another returnee noted ‘as I have so many friends from all around the world, from Ghana to Taiwan, Mexico to Thailand . . . I feel like I have a house wherever I go’ (Female, International law, Lecturer). From these remarks, one can conclude that benefiting from networking – that is, strong simultaneous embeddedness (Yeoh et al., 2003) – is closely tied to returnees’ international outlook. Additionally, the findings suggest that overseas scholars acquire personal and professional sophisticated skills and competences as by-products of transnational education, which are highly demanded and valued in some societies (e.g. Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015; Zweig et al., 2004). Nonetheless, this was not the case in Turkey, as will be discussed in the following sections.

Perceived effects of overseas educational experiences on returnees

Diaspora consciousness and embeddedness as a coping strategy

The returnees reported some perceived gains of study abroad on their personal lives during and after their studies. The responses disclosed some coping strategies the returnees have developed to facilitate their transition to the Western educational system/lifestyle and their fitting back to the home country. Among the most cited strategies is embeddedness, being the willingness to connect with diverse networks both at home (mostly virtually) and while abroad (physically).

Several participants mentioned getting help from their co-nationals during their first few weeks abroad. If available, some immediately became a member of the societies that reflect their personal, national and cultural values. Some students reported having a sense of belonging to different student societies with different purposes due to their malleable identities. Regarding this, a returnee noted, ‘I was looking for some Turkish students there to ask some questions about classes, residence halls and whether I can find any Turkish market or food around the city’ (Male, Applied Linguistics, Assistant Professor). Similarly, another returnee explained how he could connect to other Turkish and international students with similar values as follows:

I would go to the prayer room and meet several Turkish and other students there . . . Sometimes I heard students speak Turkish on campus but they were not like real Turkish. I’ve never seen them in prayer room even at Jumua prayers . . . not all Turkish students were close friends . . . I had much better friends from Pakistan, Thailand and Mexico. (Male, Social Policy, Research Assistant)

Their contact with ‘home’ was continuous, as well. Another coping strategy to avoid the negative influences of being a foreigner in an unknown land was to regularly contact family members and close friends. Albeit being physically abroad, they were attached to home virtually. A returnee commented, ‘I followed the news in the home country, watched football games; I was still interested to know what’s happening there’ (Male, Mechanical Engineering, Research Assistant). Such findings reflect those of Karakaş (2013) who also found that Turkish students embedded themselves in different socio-cultural networks through joining in different student clubs in their host-institution, yet without totally detaching themselves from home.

Returnees applied a similar strategy in their daily practices at home. They preferred to be surrounded by those with similar experiences. However, such kind of strategy also appeared to have some negative influences on their efforts to fit back into the Turkish lifestyle; 54% felt they were not fitting back in the daily life comfortably and 61% found themselves lonely upon their return. Even worse, around 79% reported feeling themselves a stranger in society. Some returnees averred that they were not the same after their study abroad. Their perceived that their transformed identity and expanded worldview were at odds with those who have never left Turkey. Talking about these issues, one returnee with a PhD degree from the USA put it this way:

People around me even my family members are so narrow-minded . . . they never question anything . . . they believe in everything they hear in the media . . . whenever I raise some questions regarding the decisions of politics and their detrimental impacts on the county I’m blamed for being an opponent . . .their world is too small . . . I guess this is the end-product of our educational system. (Female, Politics, Associate Professor)

To overcome this alienation in the home-context, the majority searched different ways of expanding their network, especially by becoming friends with people sharing similar experiences, worldviews and lifestyles. Some returnees mentioned opening a Facebook account to bond with returnees and those still abroad for their studies. One returnee reported ‘I’m a member of different Facebook groups, including my university’s official Facebook account. Students ask several questions ranging from issues about accommodation, school stuff, to work-related issues upon return. I try to help them as much as I can’ (Female, Art and Design, Research Assistant).

In essence, these accounts were indications of returnees’ formation of positive attitudes towards mixing with others from different backgrounds, as was reported in earlier studies (e.g. Guo and Lei, 2019; Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015). It can be also inferred that some participants are suffering from a reverse culture shock, and experiencing emotional and psychological distress upon their return home (cf. Nonaka, 2020; Phan and Mohamad, 2020, both in this Special Issue). These remarks also show how double consciousness ‘encouraged returnees’ active identification with a range of social networks in which they became embedded during and after their studies’ and such networks subsumed ‘connections to home, affiliations with groups in the UK [and the USA], and an increasing integration into supranational networks including religious groups and subject-specific academic communities’ (Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015: 960). Especially, their attempt to look for co-nationals or those sharing similar religious views may be due to their efforts to find a social context where they can rehearse and affirm their cultural identity and familiarize themselves with the new context and educational environment without much trouble (Bochner, 1977).

Privileges of being an overseas-trained academic in the workplace

Consistent with the literature (e.g. Barnawi and Phan, 2015; Karakaş, 2013; Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015; Kuzhabekova et al., 2019), returnees were found to form great expectations about some forms of capital and privileges based on their transnational capital marked by new competences, skills and transnationalized identity. For instance, 60% reported having high expectations of their jobs in terms of salary and position. Interestingly, 76% felt that they would take advantage of their overseas experience at work, and around 90% thought that they would be able to benefit from the intellectual development they had experienced abroad in their professional activities.

However, the interview results on these issues disagreed with the questionnaire results since the results were divided into two camps. In the first camp, there were those happy with their western qualifications in the workplace. In this regard, several participants expressed that they owed their current positions and status to their Westernized education, which, to them, enabled them to improve their work performance, consequently resulting in getting earlier promotions. They further added that they could easily outdo their colleagues in terms of academic performance (e.g. conference attendance, publishing works and involvement in international projects). For instance, a returnee voiced the perceived influence of his academic English on his career as follows:

I have several publications in SCI journals. most of my colleagues even professors do not have such publications . . . I feel lucky because I mostly work with my supervisor and my former classmates to publish joint articles. . . I’ve improved my academic writing a lot while I was doing my PhD in the USA. (Male, Marine Engineering, Assistant Professor)

Equally, another returnee emphasized how easily she could attend conferences and give presentations in English and make several networks in such scholarly gatherings. She told how her networking and research travels ended in being part of a large-scale project:

Once, I attended a conference in Belgium on pharmaceutics . . . met several key scholars . . . I was invited to be part of a European project . . . they even produced an edited book based on the results of the project . . . I had a lifetime chance to publish a book chapter with key scholars in the field in a very popular publishing company. (Female, Pharmacy, Lecturer)

Benefiting from embeddedness in the workplace

Several returnees drew attention to how they benefit from their established embeddedness in their host countries in their career development. They reported sustaining their relations with those still abroad and appealed to their help when necessary, particularly while doing research. A returnee remarked ‘we cannot access some articles for free in Turkey . . . most university libraries have no subscription to major publishing companies; in such cases I contact my friends in the UK and ask them to send those articles’ (Male, History, Research Assistant). Some mentioned exchanging course materials, curriculum plans and ideas for joint works with their colleagues working in different settings.

The results make it clear that the returnees want their added value and human capital to be rewarded somehow in the workplace and utilize their real-time virtual and actual embeddedness in different groups and networks to their own advantage, yet again marginalizing and othering those lacking overseas experiences (Guo and Lei, 2019; Park 2015; Zweig et al., 2004).

Regretting returning home

However, in the second camp, the majority of the overseas-trained academics felt that their cosmopolitan skills, competences and multiple identities that might greatly contribute to their professional activities were not deemed so important in their workplaces, although in some contexts returnees’ personal and professional sophisticated skills and competences are in high demand and valued (Barnawi and Phan, 2015; Zweig et al., 2004). Feeling that their investment in gaining new skills and competences abroad was not so valued in Turkey, many respondents agreed that they were happy in their host countries (96%), whereas 49% reported being happy to leave the host countries and return to Turkey. This shows that contextual, even institutional, differences emerge as to how societies and institutions approach and value returnee scholars.

Feelings of being unappreciated and forgotten about by authorities

More evident in the interviews was that what makes them sad is the work conditions where they cannot successfully demonstrate their competences and skills. Several returnees identified issues as regards their dissatisfaction with their institutions, programs and colleagues:

I am supposed to work at a university in Turkey but the appointment procedures are frustrating. They don’t care about your skills or qualities. They kill all your enthusiasm for teaching, and this is sad for my country. (Female, Computer Engineering, Research Assistant, 6 years in the UK for PhD)

I have studied hydrogen energy abroad. Now I am a lecturer in orthopaedics! That is a lifetime of a joke. (Male, Orthopaedics, Lecturer, 7 years for PhD in the USA)

Some participants reported that they even had to be involved in administrative work, which had nothing to do with their academic qualifications/specialities gained abroad. Some complained about their institutions’ reluctance to improve the regulation of the promotions of returnees. Typically, as they reported, they were sent abroad to equip themselves in certain areas of scientific fields and to work as academics in higher education upon their return. Two returnees expressed their dissatisfaction with their current jobs as follows:

I still work as a research assistant for over 7 years after PhD and 4 years after postdoc. So in practice I work as a lecturer who only gives undergrad courses. So I am not entitled with any grad students and grad research work which makes the international experience practically irrelevant. (Female, Research Assistant)

I have never been part of the higher education workforce prior to returning back to Turkey. I thought it would be similar to the UK. However, I was wrong. In the Turkish Higher Education context, what is valued is not your skills but rather how closely you are connected to certain people. (Male, Lecturer, 5 years for PhD in the UK)

Finding themselves in such despair, some returnees even expressed that they feel that their professional and career development does not seem possible under current conditions and their competences and skills developed in Western universities would fade away soon.

I see the government has no plan for us. They do not benefit from our experience. They could have grouped us who worked on similar subjects so we could build internationally famous labs on related topics. Most of us are doing a job that anyone else could do without having a PhD from high ranked universities. (Female, Assistant Professor, 7 years for PhD in the USA).

However, despite feeling resentful upon their return to Turkey due to the low regard attached to their transnational competences, skills and transformed ‘selves’ in their institutions, on reflection, most returnees still considered their overseas experiences worthwhile to a great deal (87%). Nevertheless, they also spoke of regretting returning to Turkey, expressing their wish to go back abroad again. Referring to the aforementioned problems in the workplace some stated:

I came back to Turkey since my family lives here. I will always keep my regrets about coming back. (Male, Assistant Professor, 6 years in the USA)

If I had a chance and know everything will be like this I would never return to Turkey. (Male, Research Assistant, 8 years in the UK)

Taken together, it is obvious that returnees’ expectations about working conditions in academia were not met. Their new selves and transformed identity, as well as cosmopolitan competences and skills, were subordinate to the pre-existing networks in their institutions established based on nepotism (granting privileges to friends, relatives), favouritism (unfair preferential treatment of one individual or groups) and seniority. Similar findings were also reported earlier by Turkish and non-Turkish scholars (e.g. Çelik, 2012; Gümüş and Gökbel, 2012; Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015; Kuzhabekova et al., 2019). Especially, in a study on Turkish overseas students, the overseas scholars thinking about an academic career after their return reported having some fears about finding ‘themselves in an “unproductive environment”’ in Turkey, confirming the work-related concerns of most participants in this study (Tansel and Demet-Güngör, 2033: 64). The findings here echo the experiences of transnational expatriate native-English speaking teachers working in Saudi Arabia, who felt professional non-fulfilment and endured emotion(al) labour as a result of not effectively using their so-thought desirable capital for the benefits of their learners due to some factors originating from differences in cultural, racial, religious and linguistic backgrounds and institutional expectations (Alshakhi and Phan, 2020, this Special Issue).

Unlike some studies (e.g. Barnawi and Phan, 2015) which show how returnees’ transnational capitals are rewarded and valued, the results presented thus far indicate that most Turkish returnees felt marginalized in the workplace by their colleagues and superiors (Park, 2015). It is apparent that these returnees suffer from ‘transnational-national identity clash’ in that the contextual requirements in the professional life set down in accordance with local values and expectations are incompatible with the returnees’ added value and expectations of prestige and rewards. It is perhaps for this reason that most returnees struggle to strongly embed themselves in their workplace networks, thereby wishing to return to the Western countries where they feel they can better reveal their transnational ‘self’ through strong embeddedness in a variety of groups and that the knowledge, human and cultural capital and competences they accrued are potentially treasured in those communities (Guo and Lei, 2019; Gu and Schweisfurth, 2015; Yeoh et al., 2003).

Bringing in my autoethnography as an overseas-trained returnee scholar

This part of the article presents a description of my overseas experiences and my positioning as an overseas-trained academic in a Turkish university, marking several parallels regarding the changes and experiences many of the overseas-trained academics reported having gone through after returning home. When the guest editor (Professor Phan) contacted me to ask whether I would be willing to contribute to this special issue, albeit transnationalism being not my primary area of expertise, I was quite excited about the theme of the issue and agreed to be part of it. This was because the theme was rather pertinent to what any overseas-trained academics have, more or less, lived through in the Turkish context, based on my experiential knowledge as an overseas-trained academic. However, there was no mention of the lived experiences of these scholars in scholarly research in the Turkish context. And this became my main motivation for contributing to this special issue.

As did most participants, I felt myself very privileged when I was granted the scholarship to undertake my PhD in Applied Linguistics in a UK university in 2011. Also, as were most participants, I was bound by a refundable scholarship scheme to return home after completing my studies and to work for my current institution, which financially supported my overseas education. Within this scheme, since returning home in 2016 I have been working as an academic at a teacher-training program and have been teaching a wide range of courses on academic writing and listening, language teaching methods and approaches, language teacher education and Global Englishes to prospective and in-service English language teachers.

Turning now to my overseas experiences, these were similar to the those the participants in the study had while abroad, although I first avoided my co-nationals during the first few months in the UK, considering this the best way to improve my English and build new networks from different national and cultural backgrounds. I noticed that instances of my everyday interactions (mostly indirect and virtual) with Turkey constantly reminded me of my Turkishness, driving me to find some co-nationals in the university, particularly for purposes of mutual support and understanding in an alien setting. Therefore, as many participants did, I became a member of the Turkish Society and attended its regular social gatherings. Nonetheless, that ‘I am Turkish’ did not prevent me from searching for other networks based on faith, culture and international values, among others, which all served different functions in satisfying my different needs. That is, my external diaspora consciousness abroad was displayed through my embeddedness across a different web of relations, empowering me to assume multiple positionings without giving up my Turkish background. This identity (trans)formation raised my consciousness that identity is a not a fixed but a hybrid and fluid construct (e.g. Duff and Uchida, 1997; Phan, 2008) as I could and still can manifest different ‘selves’ of mine at different locations and times. However, I am aware that some were/are more foregrounded than others depending on contexts and their partakers (e.g. a Turkish Muslim in the prayer room/among Christians, an overseas scholar/academic in the workplace, but an international academic in a conference). I also acknowledge that my overseas education did not only help me affirm a transnational identity but also equipped me with new competences, skills, knowledge (e.g. critical thinking, working in teams, intercultural awareness) and a web of networks by merging my academic experiences and my living in a Western and highly developed country. In other words, thanks to my overseas education, I feel I have been equipped with linguistic and cultural assets, which most colleagues entirely lack in the workplace.

As also reported by most returnees, after returning home for work purposes I envisaged that my transnational skills that can facilitate changes and meet the human capital demanded in the home context would/should be appreciated. However, as noted by many returnees, the Turkish higher education context is generally far from rewarding or granting privileges to such transnational individuals, although there are a few exceptions in which returnees benefit from rewards or obtain privileges. This often stems from the institutional approach to Western-educated scholars. The seniors, particularly the superiors, marginalized me while working as a research assistant. To them, I was just a ‘research assistant’ with a PhD, and they did not care about my competences and skills gained during my overseas education. It was only when my professional identity shifted from being ‘a research assistant’ to an assistant professor that I became a ‘valued/respected’ member of the faculty. Namely, what made me visible as an academic was not my transnational capital but my new tenure track position, thanks to which my work-related relations with colleagues and administrative staff changed dramatically. For instance, while even the department secretary would call me to his/her office to sign some official documents previously, upon my being appointed an assistant professor, he/she started bringing the documents to my office. It is also worth mentioning that my office furniture was not refurbished until I was assigned as an assistant professor.

I have never favoured such marginalization and otherization of colleagues based on their positions/ranking; therefore, I often embedded myself in networks in which I could cluster with transnational colleagues and those with whom I share similar work ethics, social relations and outlooks on life at and around work and daily life, simultaneously avoiding the others whose line of reasoning, ideas and practices do not mesh with my transnational self and world views. Therefore, my (re)engagement with the hegemonic local knowledge and practice at home were at times painful and conditional, like that of Azmi, (Phan and Mohamad, 2020, this Special Issue) but through various forms of embeddedness (internal diaspora consciousness) I could manage to make pedagogical decisions (e.g. course design, materials design/selection and assessment) in line with my transnational identity and competences going beyond the traditional roles of a university lecturer in Turkey. Additionally, as in the case of most returnees, I took advantage of my overseas education through different embeddedness in several networks in my professional career, such as being invited as a panellist, being part of a book project, writing joint articles and getting access to sources not available in Turkey.

Conclusion

In discussing the experiences of Turkish overseas scholars during and after their studies in Western countries, and how their overseas experiences influence their identity and their personal and professional lives in their country of origin, my aim was to better explain the transformations the scholars have undergone and their struggles to fit back into their home and work culture in light of their cosmopolitan competences and malleable identities. As for RQ1, taken together, the Western educational system, values, views of life and embedment into diverse linguacultural networks underlie the perceived changes in returnees’ personality, cosmopolitan competences, awareness and their new selves. Relating to RQ2, it becomes evident that with these perceived changes, returnees seem to have a different view of life, with much awareness about themselves, their home culture and values together with an international outlook that distinguish themselves from those around them in their personal and professional undertakings. It also appeared that in the face of challenges in the workplace, the returnees developed some coping strategies (e.g. embeddedness) to overcome the reverse culture shock and others’ marginalization.

Based on the findings and discussion, it has become apparent that the analytical boundary of transnationalism and transnational education is too broad and cannot be drawn with a couple of concepts previously used in studies on transnationalism. To gain insights into the lived experiences of overseas scholars abroad and at home, adopting a multi-perspective approach characterized by the interrelatedness of the notions, such as transnationalism, double consciousness, diaspora consciousness, identity construction and marginalization, is essential. The reason is that each of these notions helps us understand how returnees’ study abroad and reintegration experiences have shaped their personal and professional inclinations from different angles. The concepts of transnationalism used in this research are supplementary to one another in terms of recounting returnees’ experiences from cognitive (their perceptions, intellectual development), psychological (feelings, emotions, expectations) and socio-behavioural (social relations, identity, belonging) perspectives.

The current study also makes notable contributions to the study abroad literature and transnational education (more broadly transnationalism) by highlighting the possible effects of Westernized education on Turkish returnees’ personal and professional growth. It also sheds light on the potential challenges likely to result from their transnationalized identities in the process of assimilating into the local culture. The study also offers some implications for those authorities that have a say in the decision-making processes at universities. As suggested by many returnees, their appointments should be made in accordance with their specialization (e.g. skills, knowledge and competences) and to the positions where they can exercise their qualifications, thereby relieving the shortage of qualified human resources in higher education in line with the foremost objective of sending students abroad through state scholarship.

On a final note, since this research just concentrated on Turkish scholars who studied internationally in countries in the English-speaking West, collecting data through questionnaires and interviews, future research can continue to examine the experiences of returnees who obtained their degrees from non-English speaking countries. It would also be useful to enrich the data collection tools with more qualitative tools, such as field observations and participants’ CVs and official documents gathered from the host institutions’ websites. Similarly, Turkish university leaders and scholars without an overseas background can be included in future research to provide evidence for the triangulated interpretation of overseas scholars’ experiences.