The concept of native-speakerism refers to an ideology that positions native speakers of English as the ideal linguistic authorities and teachers while marginalizing non-native professionals [3].

A substantial body of research has challenged the assumption that native speakers are inherently better teachers. Studies consistently demonstrate that effective teaching is shaped by pedagogical training, reflective practice, and contextual sensitivity rather than nativeness alone [7][8]. Nevertheless, analyses of job advertisements and recruitment policies indicate that native-speaker status continues to be explicitly or implicitly prioritized in many ELT contexts [4][6].

Recent reviews of NNEST research confirm that native-speakerism remains a structurally embedded feature of TESOL hiring rather than a residual or declining phenomenon [5]. These authors argue that nativeness often functions as a symbolic shortcut for quality assurance, particularly in privatized and market-driven ELT sectors.

Native-speaker bias frequently intersects with race and appearance. Kubota and Lin (2009) argue that English teaching is racialized, with whiteness implicitly associated with linguistic legitimacy and professionalism [9]. Teachers who do not conform to these visual expectations may face additional scrutiny or exclusion, regardless of their linguistic competence or professional qualifications.

More recent studies conducted in Asian and Middle Eastern ELT markets suggest that such racialized expectations persist in the post-pandemic era, even as institutions adopt more flexible teaching modalities [10]. These dynamics complicate the experiences of NNESTs, for whom language background, nationality, and racialized appearance interact in shaping hiring outcomes.

From a Global Englishes perspective, English is understood as a shared communicative resource rather than the property of native speakers [1]. Within this framework, NNESTs are recognized as legitimate users and teachers of English who often bring distinctive pedagogical strengths to the classroom.

Research highlights several advantages commonly associated with NNESTs, including explicit knowledge of grammar, heightened metalinguistic awareness, empathy grounded in personal language-learning experience, and the ability to serve as realistic role models for learners [5][8]. Despite this recognition in scholarship, such strengths are rarely foregrounded in recruitment practices.

This study adopted an exploratory qualitative research design aimed at understanding how non-native English-speaking teachers interpret and make sense of their experiences in the global TESOL job market. A qualitative approach was considered particularly appropriate because issues of discrimination, legitimacy, and professional identity are deeply subjective and context-dependent.

The study involved 12 non-native English-speaking teachers from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Russia, and Mongolia. Participants were recruited through professional networks, online teacher communities, and snowball sampling. Inclusion criteria required that participants self-identify as NNESTs and have applied for at least one teaching position outside their home country within the previous five years.

The sample reflects a specific regional focus on Central Asia and Eastern Europe, regions that remain underrepresented in TESOL hiring research. Participants held internationally recognized teaching qualifications (e.g., CELTA, TEFL, TESOL certificates) and had between two and over ten years of teaching experience in secondary, private, and higher education contexts.

Data was collected in two stages. First, participants completed written questionnaires distributed via email. Second, follow-up conversations were conducted online via video calls and voice-based messaging platforms such as Zoom and WhatsApp. These conversations were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and supplemented by analytic field notes. The follow-ups allowed participants to clarify questionnaire responses and expand on issues such as native-speaker requirements, passport-based restrictions, employer feedback, and emotional responses to rejection.

Data were analyzed thematically using an iterative process of familiarization, coding, and theme development. Questionnaire responses, interview transcripts, and field notes were read multiple times, and preliminary codes were generated manually. These codes were then grouped into broader themes related to hiring criteria, professional identity, emotional impact, and perceived pedagogical value. Themes were refined through constant comparison across cases to ensure they reflected shared patterns rather than isolated experiences.

All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. Pseudonyms were used, and identifying details were removed to protect anonymity. The author’s professional engagement with NNESTs is acknowledged as a reflexive lens through which the research was conducted.

A consistent theme across participants’ accounts was the role of native-speaker status as an initial screening criterion. Approximately half of the participants reported being rejected at the application stage without an interview due to explicit native-speaker requirements.

One participant from Belarus explained:

“I never got an interview. The rejection email simply said they were only considering native speakers, even though my qualifications matched the jobrequirements.” (Figure 1Figure 1)

Figure 1. Example of a rejection email citing native-speaker requirements.

Several participants emphasized that hiring decisions were shaped not only by language background but also by racialized and visual expectations.

A teacher from Kazakhstan noted:

“It feels like it’s not only about language, but about what an English teacher is supposed to look like.”

Participants frequently referred to passport-based hiring policies that restricted eligibility to citizens of specific countries. These policies were often explained by employers as requirements imposed by immigration authorities. While some participants acknowledged the legal realities underpinning visa regulations, they nevertheless perceived these restrictions as reinforcing existing hierarchies within ELT.

Several teachers noted that job advertisements rarely clarified whether nationality requirements were legally mandated or institutionally preferred. This lack of transparency contributed to frustration and uncertainty, as applicants were often unsure whether submitting an application was worthwhile. From the participants’ perspectives, clearer communication about such requirements could reduce unnecessary emotional and professional strain.

Participants also reported encountering passport-based hiring policies, often justified by visa regulations. From the teachers’ perspectives, these policies were experienced as arbitrary and disconnected from professional ability. While some acknowledged the legal constraints faced by institutions, they expressed frustration at how these restrictions were communicated—or not communicated—during recruitment.

In contrast to the barriers they faced, participants articulated clear pedagogical strengths linked to their non-native status (Figure 2Figure 2). Several emphasized their explicit knowledge of grammar and ability to anticipate learner difficulties:

Figure 2. Reported reasons for rejection and countries where participants applied for teaching positions.

“Because I learned English myself, I know exactly where students struggle and how to explain things step by step.”

Others highlighted empathy and role modeling:

“Students trust me because they see that learning English well is possible. I’m proof of that.”

Beyond practical consequences, repeated rejection had a noticeable emotional impact. Participants described feelings of self-doubt, frustration, and diminished professional confidence, particularly when feedback was absent.

One teacher reflected:

“After a while, you start wondering if your skills actually matter.”

These emotional responses highlight how hiring practices shape not only career trajectories but also teachers’ professional identities.

The findings reveal a persistent misalignment between TESOL scholarship and hiring practices. While Global Englishes and NNEST research emphasize multilingual competence and pedagogical expertise, recruitment systems often continue to rely on native-speaker status as a proxy for quality [5][6].

Participants’ perceptions of hiring practices can be understood through theoretical frameworks that conceptualize English as a commodified global resource. In market-oriented ELT systems, English teachers function not only as educators but also as symbols of authenticity and value. Hiring a “native speaker” thus operates as a form of institutional risk management, offering reassurance to students, parents, and clients [11].

Post-pandemic research suggests that economic uncertainty has further intensified reliance on such marketable symbols, reinforcing native-speakerism rather than diminishing it [10]. Within this context, NNESTs are positioned as higher-risk hires regardless of qualifications.

The emotional consequences reported by participants echo recent NNEST identity research, which documents how repeated exclusion can lead to internalized doubt and diminished professional confidence [12].

Although online teaching and transnational mobility have reshaped aspects of TESOL employment, native-speaker bias remains embedded in hiring discourse. The findings therefore remain highly relevant to post-pandemic TESOL debates concerning equity, legitimacy, and professional recognition.