Why "Native Speaker" is a Barrier to Better Science

What’s the problem?

“Native speaker” is used across disciplines, often to mean an "ideal" language user. But, it's actually a social construct, even though it's not usually treated that way. 

If you care about scientific rigor and advancement, the idea of "nativeness" has two key problems.

Lack of coherence

First, "native speaker" is not a coherent category. For example:

• No one agrees on a definition.

• It’s highly heterogeneous.

• It's mistakenly treated as a natural, biologically-determined phenomenon (see also: race, ethnicity, gender, etc.).

Exclusionary effects

Second, "native speaker" contributes to exclusion. For example:

• It’s used as an imaginary benchmark for “good” research/writing, often judged based on institutions or names — not the actual writing.

• It reduces diverse perspectives in science.

Altogether, “nativeness” beliefs influence gatekeeping decisions in research, academic admissions, hiring, promotion, and peer-review.

Take action

We can choose to move past “native speaker” for a more robust and inclusive science.

As a scientist, here are three things you can do:

• Recognize and accept linguistic diversity.

• Measure specific factors instead of using proxy categories.

• Be aware of "native speaker" biases when evaluating writing.