Between Recognition and Belonging: Gifted Adults with a Migration Background Across the Lifespan

1. Introduction

Giftedness has traditionally been conceptualized as an individual attribute, often associated with high cognitive ability and exceptional performance. Although contemporary models increasingly emphasize developmental and multidimensional perspectives, such as talent development frameworks, these approaches continue to pay limited attention to how sociocultural contexts shape the recognition and development of giftedness [1,2]. Recent theoretical developments highlight that giftedness unfolds through dynamic interactions between individual potential and environmental opportunities [3,4]. However, the role of sociocultural positioning in shaping these processes remains insufficiently integrated [5,6].

This limitation becomes particularly visible in the context of migration. Research consistently demonstrates that individuals with a migration background encounter structural inequalities within educational systems, including under-identification, limited access to advanced learning opportunities, and biased teacher expectations [5,7,8]. These disparities reflect broader processes in which dominant cultural norms shape definitions of ability and merit [6,9]. These inequalities not only affect access to educational opportunities but may also influence broader developmental processes related to recognition, belonging, and motivation across the lifespan [10]. As a result, giftedness is not only unevenly recognized but also socially constructed in ways that privilege certain groups, reinforcing patterns of inequity in gifted identification [5,6].

At the same time, migration-related experiences introduce additional developmental complexity. Individuals navigating multiple cultural contexts often face challenges related to belonging, identity formation, and social positioning [11,12]. A sense of belonging has been identified as a fundamental psychological condition influencing well-being, identity development, and social functioning [13]. Experiences of discrimination can further affect well-being and developmental trajectories [14,15]. For individuals with high ability, these dynamics intersect with characteristics associated with giftedness, including heightened sensitivity, strong internal standards, and intensified meaning-making processes [16,17].

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and later bioecological developments [18,19] provide a framework for understanding these dynamics by situating development within interacting environmental systems. Complementing this perspective, talent development frameworks emphasize how access to opportunities and support structures shapes the realization of potential over time [1,3,20]. Together, these frameworks suggest that giftedness cannot be understood independently of the contexts in which it develops.

Despite these advances, research on giftedness and migration has largely evolved in parallel rather than in integration. Existing studies predominantly focus on children and adolescents and often treat migration background as a contextual variable rather than as a structuring dimension of development [21,22]. Consequently, there is limited insight into how these dimensions interact across the lifespan. A narrative review of the literature [23] showed the importance of recognition, cultural context, and belonging in the experiences of gifted adults with migration backgrounds [23].

The current study addresses this gap in the literature by examining the lived experiences of gifted adults with a migration background. It explores how recognition, development, and identity are shaped within this intersection, contributing to a more context-sensitive understanding of giftedness.

Specifically, this study tries to answer the question: How do gifted adults with a migration background experience the interplay between recognition, development, and identity across the lifespan?

2. Materials and Methods

Research Design

This study employed a qualitative research design to explore how giftedness is experienced by adults with a migration background. Given the exploratory nature of the research question and the focus on lived experience, a qualitative approach was chosen to capture the complexity of participants’ meaning-making processes across the lifespan. Rather than treating giftedness as a predefined construct, the study sought to understand how participants themselves articulate their experiences of giftedness. An inductive thematic analysis was used, allowing patterns to emerge from the data while remaining grounded in participants’ narratives [24]. Although themes were developed inductively, the analysis was informed by relevant theoretical perspectives, enabling a conceptually coherent interpretation without imposing a rigid predefined framework or reducing individual variation.

Participants

Participants were adults living in the Netherlands between the ages of 18 and 65 who recognized themselves in characteristics commonly associated with giftedness and had a migration background.

Participants were recruited through purposive sampling using social media plat-forms, professional networks, and community-based channels targeting individuals with experiences related to giftedness and migration. Eighteen criteria included having a migration background, proficiency in the Dutch language, and self-recognition in characteristics commonly associated with giftedness. These characteristics included high cognitive ability, strong intellectual curiosity, heightened intensity of experience, advanced cognitive development at an early age, or an independent and complex way of thinking. Some participants reported early educational indicators associated with giftedness, such as grade skipping or participation in enrichment programs.

The final sample consisted of 30 participants, including 4 men and 26 women, .. years to … years old, with a mean age of 43 years. Participants were recruited from several regions in the Netherlands, including Zuid-Holland, Gelderland, Utrecht, and Noord-Brabant. The sample included first-, second-, and third-generation individuals with diverse migration backgrounds, including Indonesian/Indian, Moluccan, Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese (including Hindustani-Surinamese), Antillean, and former Yugoslavian backgrounds. This diversity contributed to a broad range of perspectives and experiences.

The sample encompassed individuals with varied migration histories and educational trajectories, providing an opportunity to explore how different sociocultural contexts shape the experience and recognition of giftedness. Participants also differed in the timing and context in which giftedness was recognized, ranging from early identification in educational settings to recognition later in adulthood. These differences provided insight into how recognition processes shape developmental trajectories across the lifespan.

Given the qualitative nature of the study, the sample was considered sufficient to address the research question. During data collection, no substantially new themes or insights emerged in the later interviews and focus groups. Data collection was therefore concluded when thematic saturation was reached, defined as the point at which additional data no longer generated new relevant themes or insights [25].

Data Collection

Data were collected through a combination of in-depth, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Combining both methods allowed for the exploration of personal lived experiences while also capturing shared reflections and interactional dynamics between participants. Individual interviews offered a more private setting for discussing sensitive or emotionally personal experiences, whereas focus groups facilitated recognition, exchange, and collective meaning making among participants with similar backgrounds.

Interviews lasted approximately 60 to 75 minutes. This format enabled participants to reflect on their life histories while providing flexibility to probe themes that emerged during each conversation. The retrospective nature of the interviews enabled participants to connect experiences across different developmental phases [26]. The interview guide covered several interconnected domains, including educational experiences, moments of recognition and lack of recognition, experiences of belonging, and identity development. Participants were encouraged to discuss how these domains interacted at different life phases. The open-ended nature of the interviews allowed detailed, personally meaningful narratives to emerge, yielding a nuanced understanding of each participant’s experiences.

Data Analysis

Data were analysed using an inductive, iterative thematic analysis. The analysis began with detailed coding of interview transcripts to identify meaningful units of data. These initial codes were then grouped into broader categories based on conceptual similarity. Through constant comparison across cases, patterns were refined and organized into overarching themes. The process involved moving back and forth between individual accounts and cross-case analysis to ensure that themes remained grounded in the data and were analytically coherent. Particular attention was paid to the relationships between themes, given that participants’ experiences of recognition, belonging, and identity were closely interconnected rather than discrete.Throughout the analysis, the researchers engaged in reflexivity to remain as close as possible to participants’ accounts while acknowledging that all interpretations were influenced by the researchers’ perspectives. Rigor was maintained by adhering to a systematic and transparent analytical process. Coding procedures were applied consistently, themes were developed and refined through careful team discussions, and variations across participants were closely examined. These measures were taken to ensure that the findings are credible and analytically robust.

Ethical Considerations

The research complied with the Light Track frameworks (i.e. the study involves minimal-risk research) of the Ethic Committee of Radboud University (reference number: ECSW-LT-2025-5-2-63329). All participants provided informed consent, and anonymity and confidentiality were maintained throughout the study. Given the personal nature of the topics discussed (e.g., identity and experiences of exclusion), interviews were conducted in a sensitive manner with attention to participants’ well-being.

3. Results

The analysis showed that participants did not experience giftedness as a fixed personal trait. Instead, giftedness emerged as a context-dependent phenomenon, shaped by interactions with educational, social, and cultural environments. Three strongly interconnected dimensions – recognition, belonging, and identity – were identified across participants’ life trajectories. These dimensions continuously interact rather than operating as separate domains. Table 1 provides an overview of the main themes and subthemes derived from the analysis.

3.1. Conditional Recognition of Giftedness

Participants consistently described recognition of their giftedness as contingent on context rather than automatic. In educational settings, for example, linguistic differences, cultural biases, and behaviour norms influenced whether their abilities were acknowledged or overlooked. Many recalled that their high abilities were not identified during childhood; instead, their performance was often misinterpreted through stereotypes. One participant observed, “It’s that stereotype of the gifted child… the white child… If you don’t fit that image, you are simply not seen.” As a result, several participants internalized self-doubt and assumed their struggles or achievements were due to personal shortcomings rather than unrecognized giftedness. A recurring element in the narratives was the perceived need to prove their abilities. Recognition was experienced as something requiring extra effort or validation, not as an inherent status. This left participants with the feeling that giftedness was not a stable identity, but something defined by whether others “saw” them.

3.2. Negotiating Belonging and Misalignment

Experiences of belonging (or lack thereof) emerged as a central theme in the participants’ lives. From an early age, nearly all participants reported a persistent sense of being “different” that spanned cultural, social, and intellectual domains. They described navigating multiple worlds – home, school, peers, and broader society – each with distinct expectations. This often led to misalignment: what was valued or accepted in one context seemed to be misunderstood or frowned upon in another. For instance, intense curiosity or advanced vocabulary could be appreciated by certain teachers but discouraged at home or vice versa. Many participants became adept at adjusting their behaviour and self-presentation depending on the setting. This adaptability was sometimes seen as a strength, but more often it was experienced as tiring and alienating. As one participant explained, “I can feel at home everywhere and at the same time nowhere completely.” This quote reflects the in-between position many described – feeling only partially at home in various contexts but not fully belonging to any single one. Belonging thus was not a given; it had to be actively negotiated, often by downplaying either their cultural difference or their giftedness to fit in. While these strategies helped participants function across contexts, they also led to feelings of invisibility and a disconnection from their authentic self.

3.3. Identity Development Across the Lifespan

Participants’ identities evolved in response to these early experiences of lack of recognition and conditional belonging. In fact, giftedness was rarely part of their self-concept in childhood or adolescence, especially when their abilities went unrecognized. For many, formal or self-recognition of being gifted occurred much later in life, sometimes only after a period of crisis such as academic or career burnout. This late discovery of their high ability was often a pivotal moment that prompted a profound re-evaluation of the past. One participant recalled, “I cried for two years, because everything suddenly made sense.” Such reflections illustrate how adult recognition brought both relief – finally having an explanation for lifelong feelings of difference – and regret over missed opportunities and support in their earlier years. Following late recognition, participants described a gradual process of identity integration. They began to reconcile previously fragmented parts of themselves (their cultural background, intellectual profile, and personal experiences) into a more cohesive self-concept. Instead of feeling forced to choose one identity over another, they adopted a more layered understanding of who they were. As one participant put it, “I see myself as layers… everything belongs.” In this way, identity development was an ongoing process: participants revisited and reinterpreted prior experiences, and their sense of self became more coherent as they integrated the various aspects of their identities.

3.4. Intersecting Identity Dimensions

In addition to culture and giftedness, some participants identified other personal factors that added further layers to their experience. For instance, participants with an adoption background had initially understood their feelings of being different primarily through the lens of adoption, until they later realized that high ability was “another layer” of difference affecting their lives. One such participant explained, “I always thought I was different because I was adopted… later I realised there was another layer.” This exemplifies how multiple identity dimensions intersected to shape a particularly complex self-narrative. Likewise, participants who were actively engaged in religious or spiritual practices noted that these provided an additional framework for meaning making. For these individuals, faith or spirituality offered language and community that helped them interpret experiences of not fitting in or finding purpose. These adoption- and religion-related aspects, while not universal to all participants, underscore the layered nature of identity: they interacted with cultural background and giftedness to intensify the challenges and reflections around feeling different and discovering one’s place.

3.5. Summary of Findings

In sum, participants’ life stories demonstrate that what it means to be “gifted” with a migration background is co-defined by whether and how one’s abilities are recognized, the ongoing quest for belonging, and the development of identity over time. Early lack of recognition and pressures to adapt have enduring effects, but in adulthood many participants re-framed their narratives – actively integrating the disparate parts of themselves and seeking contexts where they could authentically belong.

4. Discussion and Conclusion

This study examined how giftedness is experienced by adults with a migration background and demonstrates that giftedness cannot be understood as a stable individual characteristic. Instead, it emerges as a context-dependent and relational phenomenon, shaped through continuous interaction with sociocultural environments across the lifespan. The findings indicate that recognition, belonging, and identity development are not separate processes but dynamically interconnected dimensions of development.

A central contribution of this study lies in the finding that recognition of giftedness is conditional rather than inherent. Participants’ narratives show that their abilities were not consistently identified, but were interpreted through the lens of institutional practices, cultural norms, and implicit expectations. This aligns with research documenting underrepresentation and unequal identification of gifted students from minority backgrounds [5,8,9], as well as studies demonstrating the role of biased teacher expectations [7]. However, the present findings extend this body of work by showing that lack of recognition is not limited to school settings, but continues to shape self-understanding, identity formation, and developmental trajectories into adulthood. In other words, recognition of giftedness in this context appears not as an objective fact but as a socially mediated process influenced by timing and environment.

In addition, the results highlight belonging as a central developmental mechanism. Participants described persistent experiences of misalignment across cultural, social, and intellectual domains, reflecting the complexity of navigating multiple contexts simultaneously. Belonging emerged not as a static state but as a negotiated and often conditional process, dependent on recognition and contextual fit. This resonates with research on migration and identity, in which belonging is conceptualized as dynamic and context-dependent [11,12]. In line with [13] the findings suggest that a sense of belonging is a fundamental psychological condition shaping both well-being and development. By positioning belonging as a mediating process between context and identity, this study adds conceptual clarity to its role in the development of gifted individuals.

The findings further underscore the importance of adopting a lifespan perspective. For many participants, recognition of giftedness occurred relatively late in life, leading to a retrospective re-interpretation of earlier experiences. This process of re-evaluation contributed to a more coherent sense of self, while simultaneously highlighting discontinuities in earlier developmental phases. These findings are consistent with research on gifted adults, which emphasizes the significance of timing in recognition and identity development [17]. They also illustrate how early experiences of lack of recognition can have cumulative and long-lasting effects on motivation, self-concept, and emotional well-being. This underscores that only a longitudinal view can fully capture how early experiences continue to shape developmental outcomes.

Importantly, the results indicate that these processes are embedded in broader structural conditions. Research has shown that the development of high ability is strongly shaped by access to opportunities and support, which are unevenly distributed across sociocultural contexts [1,3]. Recent findings by [10] further demonstrate that even among high-ability students, motivation and development are significantly influenced by socioeconomic context. This supports the interpretation that the experiences described in this study are not solely the result of individual differences but rather reflect broader patterns of structural inequality that influence both recognition and developmental opportunities. From an educational policy perspective, these results underscore the need to mitigate such structural barriers by implementing culturally responsive identification criteria, and support practices that ensure that high-ability individuals across diverse sociocultural backgrounds are more effectively recognized and supported.

The presence of additional identity dimensions, such as adoption and religion, further illustrates the layered nature of identity development. These dimensions intensified processes of reflection and meaning making, indicating that identity is shaped by the interaction of multiple, intersecting influences. This finding supports perspectives that conceptualize giftedness within broader frameworks of identity and social positioning (e.g., considering the intersection of culture and ability) rather than as an isolated attribute.

From a theoretical perspective, the findings support ecological models of development [18] and talent development frameworks [1,3], while also pointing to their limitations. Specifically, the results suggest that these models need to account more explicitly for sociocultural positioning and identity processes. Rather than treating migration background as a negligible contextual variable, the findings indicate that it functions as a structuring dimension that shapes how giftedness is recognized, expressed, and developed. Theoretical models should therefore integrate constructs like cultural identity, belonging, and intersectionality to better explain how high ability unfolds in diverse contexts.

This study moves beyond a descriptive account by proposing an integrative, lifespan-oriented conceptualization in which recognition, belonging, and identity development are dynamically interconnected processes. In this conceptualization, sociocultural context shapes recognition; recognition influences individuals’ adaptive responses; and these processes together structure experiences of belonging and identity across time. Such a framework captures the fluid and reciprocal influences seen in participants’ lives more effectively than static or decontextualized models.

Several limitations should be considered. First, the retrospective nature of the data introduces the possibility of recall bias [26], as participants recalled events that occurred many years prior. Second, the qualitative design, with a relatively small sample, limits the generalizability of the findings to all gifted migrants. In addition, participants self-identified with characteristics associated with giftedness, meaning that individuals who may display similar characteristics but do not recognize or label themselves as gifted were likely not represented in the sample. Nonetheless, the depth and consistency of the narratives provide insight into processes that are difficult to capture through quantitative approaches. Future studies might address these limitations by using longitudinal methods that minimize recall issues, or by employing mixed methods designs to link subjective experiences with broader outcome patterns.

Future research could build on these findings by adopting longitudinal designs to examine how recognition, belonging, and identity evolve over time. Such studies should observe, for example, how early recognition (or lack thereof) impacts later adult outcomes in real time. In addition, comparative research could explore how these processes manifest across different sociocultural contexts, shedding light on which dynamics are universal and which are context specific. Finally, intervention studies might evaluate whether culturally attuned identification and support strategies can buffer or alter the developmental challenges identified here. By pursuing these directions, researchers can contribute to a more comprehensive and inclusive understanding of giftedness, ensuring that models and practices account for the diversity of gifted individuals’ life experiences.