This study examines the representation of cultures and communities in the world across five editions of New Headway elementary level textbook (NHE). It conducts a diachronic content analysis to explore how the representation of cultures and communities has evolved in NHE across five editions since its first edition’s publication in 1993. Adapting Kachru’s model of concentric circles for data analysis, we utilized Yuen’s adaptation of ACTFL’s (1996) standards for language teaching via the categories of persons, perspectives, products, and practices. Our findings mainly indicate that the Inner Circle has maintained its dominance in NHE’s content over five editions. We found that there was an imbalance favoring European cultures against non-European cultures in the Expanding Circle. On the other hand, Expanding Circle / Non-European and Outer Circle are underrepresented with around 10% of the textbook content. These findings show that NHE’s cultural focus is on the Western, European, and Anglo-American world of English-speaking communities. Such an imbalance in representation of world cultures leads us to conclude that NHE’s writers do not sufficiently raise English learners’ global cultural consciousness since there has been little engagement with multicultural view of English language varieties. We invite teachers, learners, and material developers to critically approach, analyse, revise, and/or adapt textbook content as discursive constructions which shape the imagination of cultures and communities.
In this methodological review, I explore how recent autoethnographic studies in the field of applied linguistics have used autoethnography as a research methodology. I examine 40 autoethnographies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2010 and 2020. The findings show that a large number of the researchers employed autoethnography as “an umbrella term” without opting for a specific type of autoethnography. Second, a great majority of the autoethnographers diverted from traditional third-person academic prose, although most of them approached their stories with an analytic lens. Third, the absence or scarcity of (auto)biographical information decreased both the evocative and analytic qualities of autoethnographic studies. Lastly, the authors provided little or no justification of their methodological choices as to why they specifically opted for autoethnography rather than other qualitative methodologies. Likewise, most authors provided little or no explanation about their selection of data collection tools and procedures as well as their data analysis methods and strategies. In light of these findings, I suggest future autoethnographers familiarize themselves with the types, epistemological foundations, and methodological affordances of autoethnography so that they may find the most appropriate voice and affordances to tell their stories in their own way.
In this paper, I first discuss what autoethnography is elaborating on an autoethnographic spectrum. Then, I draw on several scholars’ understanding of what a “good” autoethnography is and propose a list of suggestions to contribute to autoethnography’s conceptualization and operationalization in qualitative educational research in the future. Believing that a good autoethnography is the work of a scholar who aims for the witty hand of an artist and the sharp/critical mind of a social scientist, I suggest that a good autoethnography (a) creates a sense of transformation through a story of illumination, healing, understanding, and/or learning, (b) engages readers as a companion rather than passive audience through commonalities and particularities, (c) goes beyond personal confessions by mindfully offering autobiographical and background information, (d) uses appropriate tools and sources and explains why using them makes sense, (e) denaturalizes social issues by making invisible power dynamics visible, and (f) embraces the subjectivity of memory and interpretation. I explain each suggestion in more detail in subsections and provide some guiding questions for future autoethnographers to help them make mindful decisions before and during their autoethnographic endeavors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.