Non-English Nativeness As Stigma in Academic Settings

The crucial status of the English language in scholarly publication and indeed in the careers of management academics is well-documented, yet we know little about the complexities of the psychological context in which scholars vie for publication. Submissions are usually judged according to Anglophone norms of communication-a situation that would seem to privilege good English, and thus, often, although not always, privileges native speakers. Building on insights from stigma research, my work here examines how Anglophone conventions affect experiences of scholars in peer-review processes. This study advances a framework that considers personal and situation-specific dispositions surrounding feelings of vulnerability associated with less than excellent English expression. Specifically, the study distinguishes between communicative competence, stigma consciousness, self-efficacy, and identity-threat appraisal. Using data from 27 interviews and 411 surveys of international business scholars, I find that scholars agree that peer-review processes privilege native speakers. What differentiates scholars, however, is the degree to which they worry about bias toward good English. And worry leaves scholars with a sense of insecurity about their capacity to compete in Anglophone settings. The study concludes with suggestions as to what professional associations, journal editors, and higher education organizations can do to reduce these undesirable effects.