See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248617222

Critical English for academic purposes

Article in Journal of English for Academic Purposes June 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.09.002

CITATIONS READS

39 372

1 author:

Sarah Benesch
City University of New York - College of Staten Island
27 PUBLICATIONS 685 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

My forthcoming book, Emotions and English Language Teaching: Exploring Teachers' Emotion Labor
(Routledge) is in production and will appear in early April. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sarah Benesch on 08 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of
ENGLISH for
ACADEMIC
PURPOSES
ELSEVIER Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8 (2009) 81-85
www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Theorizing and practicing critical english for academic purposes

Sarah Benesch
College of Slaten Island. City UlliH!rsily of New York

This JOllrnal ofEnglish/or academic pllrposes special issue on critical EAP (CEAP) explores a few key questions:
How might critical be theorized in EAP contexts in today's globalizing world? What are some ways CEAP is currently
being practiced? What does CEAP contribute to EAP, from the perspectives of theory, research, and pedagogy?
The vitality of CEAP is seen in the variety of ways these questions are answered in this special issue. Yet, despite
the range of contexts, methodologies. and pedagogies, the authors share certain assumptions about criticality and its
relationship to EAP. All subscribe to a theory of language as discourses(s). Praxis, the reciprocal relationship between
theory and practice, is a central concem for all. A reflexive stance toward praxis is apparent in each contribution. And,
all situate praxis in the daily lives of students, instructors. and the institutional contexts in which they meet.
A spirit of reflexivity and interrogation is perhaps the most important of the shared assumptions. Some authors pose
explicit questions; others embed their questions more implicitly. Yet all report their findings tentatively, avoiding
definitive claims and answers. They demonstrate humility about the limits of knowledge and acknowledge incomplete
understanding of the complex issues addressed.
In this introduction to the special issue I situate CEAP in its wider sociopolitical context, by discussing the
exigencies of globalization and their impact on EAP students, teachers, and curricula. This is followed by a discussion
of criticality in EAP, including its realization in the authors' praxis.

1. Globalization as rationale for critical EAP

Critical EAP widens the lens of academic purposes to take the sociopolitical context of teaching and learning into
account. This is not to say that CEAP overlooks on-the-ground requirements of academic genres and classroom
interactions but, rather, that they are explored in relation to EAP students' and teachers' complex and overlapping
social identities: class, race, gender, ethnicity, age and so on. Critical EAP considers hierarchical arrangements in the
societies and institutions in which EAP takes place, examining power relations and their reciprocal relationship to the
various players and matelials involved. This social tum necessitates a reckoning with contemporary globalization and
its possible effects on the institutions and classrooms in which EAP is carried out.
Definitions of globalization abound. However, whether celebratory or camionary, most acknowledge significant
growth in the "scale, penetration, and velocity of global capital" and "momentous changes in state sovereignty"
(Appadurai, 2005, p.l8). Due to the speed and flexibility with which capital and, in some cases, humans now flow,
nation-states can no longer be considered self-contained sites with stable populations sharing a common culture.
Coming to terms with these changes and processes in education requires, according to Rizvi (2000), an "integrated
approach, which illuminates the changing global economic relations in terms of the changing social, pOlitical, and
cultural landscapes" (p. 207), one leading to greater understanding of "the emergence of new cultural formations"
(p. 208).

E-fliatl address: bene~ch@mail.csi.cuny.edu

1475-1585/$ - see fr()m mailer 2008 Elsevier LId. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.10 161j jeap.2008.09 .002

;.:
 82 S, Bencsch i JOIl17wl <,( Ellglisll J(W Academic PW1JOSeS 8 (2009) 8/-85

Alongside critical educators' interest in examining new cultural formations, however, are concerns about possible Along
negative effects of globalization on students' daily lives. Appadurai (2005), for instance, decries the "spiraling identitie,.
processes of ecological degradation and crisis" (p. 17) due to unfettered development and a lack of oversight by state subject f
regulatory agencies. He also points to the growing disparity between haves and have nots both within and across therefore
countries, a result of "unviable relations between finance and manufacturing capital, as well as between goods and the deviant t
wealth required to purchase them" (p. 17). For his part, Rizvi wams about the social costs of globalization, including suppressl
"alienation, displacement, and uncertainty" brought about by "detell'itorialization" (p. 210). According to Rizvi, (p. 121).
"the detachment of culture from territory has unleashed a povierful force that affects us all, and not just those who are
directly involved" (p, 210). 3. Critic
The social changes resulting from globalization are fertile ground for critical EAP to explore the relationship
between academic English(es) and the larger sociopolitical context. With EAP teachers and students "now collec The te
tively occupy[ing] global, interconnected spaces" (Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005, p. 152), CEAP's mandate is discussio
"cultivating a citizemy that is able to negotiate and critically engage with the numerous texts, modalities, technologies Australia
coming at learners" (p. 152). To explore how these aims might be carried out, I next discuss some general principles between
of, and strategies for, critical teaching and leaIl1ing in EAP. uncomfo:
they shoH
they inste
2. Principles of critical teaching and learning
gender e(
For the clitical to happen, there must be some actual dissociation from one's available explanatory texts and Apple
the vario
discourses - a denaturalization and discomfort and "making the familiar strange" (Luke, 2004, p. 26-7).
"greater
Morgan, in this issue, asks whether it's even possible to teach critical questioning, including attention to power of "cult!.:
relations and inequalities. He asks, "Is it innate? Does it come about by chance? Or is it a unique product of family and area of u
community expelience?" Morgan believes that critical questioning can be taught, but perhaps not in ways that serve ment", A
the teaching of "more conventionalized content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge". Teaching critical other din
questioning, according to Morgan, offers "possibilities rather than certainties" aimed at encouraging students and teachers'
instructors to reconceptualize traditional "roles and responsibilities". The parameters of traditional roles/responsi engaged
bilities, whether of student, teacher, worker, parent, or other subject positions, are socially constructed and therefore Apple'
open to questioning and refonn, in light of new possibilities. welcome,
The type of reconceptualizing called for by Morgan is a process Luke (2004) describes as " ... the out-of-body looks and
experience of watching oneself watch oneself as an object of power and naming oneself as such" (p. 28). Luke credits accounts
Freire with the legacy of 'being critical' (p. 23), yet cautions that the economic and social conditions Freire was showing
responding to with his critical pedagogy differed from those of the contemporalY globalizing world. The context of demonstr
. Freire '5 praxis was the "actual time of decolonization" and "addressed a binary dialectical universe of oppression and process 0
liberation, hope and despair" and a Marxist understanding of "one's conscioLls relationship to the means of don't alw
production" (p. 23). It offered marginalized people tools, such as naming and problem-posing, so that they might This t)
better understand their position vis a vis their colonizers and achieve "historical self-detelmination" (p. 23), indi of Chul1.
vidually and collectively. actions. 1
While retaining Freire's notion of naming and problematization, Luke (2004) updates these pedagogical and "ne\\
processes, taking into account the "textual/linguistic/semiotic turn" (p. 22) of poststructuralism. This tum is Chun.
required because contemporary life calls for an understanding of "how naming constitutes the world through textbook
text and discourse" (p,22). Setting this critical process in motion pedagogically entails "an analytic move to EAP stud
self-position oneself as Other" which Luke describes as "a sense of being beside oneself or outside oneself in chapter d
another epistemological discourse, and political space than one typically would inhabit" (Luke, 2004, p. 26). If and glaze
students are able to position themselves as Other, they might then engage in "textual analysis and the use of colleague
analytic metalanguage - the 'doubling' discourses that name and rename experience and the social and physical intelligen
world" (p. 27). gender ro
Learning to engage in the self-Othering proposed by Luke involves, according to Morgan and Ramanathan (2005), show em<
making 'subject-in-discourse' the "primary unit of analysis" (p. 153). They further explain, from the theoretical caltoon \'
perspective of language-as-discourse, that "individual and collective understandings ...do not preexist their linguistic underlyin
expression but are, instead, created and contested through dominant and subversive language practices" (p. 153). This Why isn'
understanding includes a notion of identity as "fluid and emergent" (p. 153). laborator:
 S, Benesch / Journal of English for Academic PIII7)OSeS 8 (1009) 81-85 83

~', possible Along the same theoretical lines of language learners as subjects-in-discourse negotiating fluid and emergent
'"piraling :Jentities, Canagarajah (2004) conceptualizes language leallling as processes by which "learners negotiate competing
','.: by state ;;ubject positions in confiicting discourse communities"(p. 117). A possible aim of critical language teaching is
j across rherefore to facilitate "a safe way of adopting alternative identities without being penalized for (what is perceived as)
~,and the deviant behavior" (p. 120). Implementing critical pedagogy, including CEAP, might allow students to "celebrate
~,.::Iuding "uppressed identities and go further to develop subversive discourses that inspire resistance against their domination"
= " Rizvi, (.p. 12l).

~ ',':ho are

3. Critical EAP research and praxis

,.: c.::onship
2ollec The tension between dominant and subversive discourses is nicely illustrated by Appleby in this special issue. Her
~::jate is discussion of interactions between EAP students in East Timor and their white middle-class female teachers from
,:)Iogies Australia around gender issues, in an international development context, is an important example of the relationship
--::ciples between suppression and resistance. Appleby discovered, through interviews, that the teachers were at times
uncomfortable in their role as "Westem" women and uncertain about how to respond to gendered situations: should
they should accept what appeared to them as gender inequality in the behavior and language of their students or should
they instead challenge it? Would challenging the status quo be an imposition of their own culturally-specific notions of
gender equality and therefore serve as a dominating discourse?
:;\!s and Appleby concludes from her research that EAP teachers might channel their uncertainty about how to reconcile
the vmious gender discourses circulating inside and outside the classroom into lessons intended to generate
"greater awareness of the struggle over multiple differences". She suggests that teachers resist assuming a posture
of "cultural superiority" in the face of competing discourses and, instead, embrace a position "within the grey
area of uncertainty". Calling the context in which her Australian subjects taught "the contact zone of develop
ment", Appleby proposes "opening a space for questioning, and an exploration of the ways in which gender and
other dimensions of difference are played ollt in students' experiences and perceptions; and an exploration of
teachers' own gendered, yet ambiguously complicit, experiences in the contact zones between communities
engaged in development".
Appleby's suggestions for engaging students in critical EAP contact zones, based on her research findings, are
welcome. To move these kinds of proposals into the realm of praxis requires descriptions of what critical teaching
looks and sounds like in the classroom, at what Cadman (2005) calls the "micro-ethnographic level" (p. 354). These
accounts would not serve as prescriptions or models for readers to follow, but rather as examples of trial and error,
showing the messiness of teachers and students expelimenting with critical processes. These accounts would
demonstrate what Pennycook (2004), referring to critical teaching, has called "an ongoing, moment-by-moment
process of slowly prodding for possibilities" (p. 341) and "the quiet seeking out of moments, the results of which we
don't always know" (p.342.).
This type of moment-by-moment pedagogical decision-making is captured in this special issue in the contributions
of Chun, Grey, and Phan Le Ha. Each presents students' responses to materials, assignments, and classroom inter
actions. They also discuss how responses were taken up dialogically to explore "possibilities rather than certainties"
and "new roles and responsibilities". called for by Morgan.
Chun, for example, asked students to respond to EAP textbook material on "emotional intelligence", touted in the
.~,~0ugh textbook chapter as a skill required to improve one's chances in the job market and in one's personal life. Finding his
:':e to EAP students uninspired by the emotional intelligence premise, Chun invited them to respond to a CaItoon in the
:~df in chapter dichotomizing intelligence vs. emotion in its depiction of "a 'genius' scientist (signified by his unkempt hair
and glazed bespectacled eyes) deep in thought, mumbling a complex mathematical equation in response to a female
colleague's friendly greeting of 'good morning'." Chun asked students to ignore the framing device of emotional
intelligence and simply discuss the caltoon in groups. The students began "offering observations about the specific
gender roles these scientists were made to perform. Comments such as 'women are caring' and 'men don't like to
show emotion' began to circulate, presenting the opportunity to statt examining the genderized messages in the
cartoon with the class". As the class discussion continued Chun found his students "questioning the assumptions
underlying the CaItoon: why is the female scientist the one to be 'emotionally intelligent' and not her male colleague?
Why isn't intellect sufficient for these professionals to function properly in their work environment of the
laboratory?"
84 S. Benesch I JOllrnal Ilf English for A('{/demic PWlJOses 8 (2009) 8/-85

Like Chun, Grey engaged her EAP students in examining social roles and difference. She gave them an assignment lives of stue
to "photograph their understandings of diversity in different communities where they would encounter uncertainty engagement.
and contradiction", using mobile phones. digital cameras, and writing material. The students, who Grey calls AnexamJ:
"nomadic ethnographers" were invited to present their ethnographic material to the class. Focusing on one photo 2007, in pre
graph, a hybrid image of a digitally-composed face comprised of features from each group member, Grey describes licly-funded
students' reactions, questions, and concems. She also includes her own internal thoughts and vocalized contributions the U.S. gO\!
to the class discussion of the photo. Grey claims that the image "subverted hegemonic understandings of race and about "fast-t
gender and produced nonsense, not common sense, thus disrupting Ollr thinking about gender, race and diversity". In had been ap]
the context of an EAP business course, this assignment was "an ethical one" given "changing globalized circum article debat
stances" in which Grey and her students find themselves. Concerned, above all, about her international students' the EAP cla:
likely detelTitorialization, Grey aimed to take risks, to "lose 'control' of the curriculum" so that her students might Chinese, Pol
"expeIience the highs and lows of engaging with the politics of difference". was importa,
Phan Le Ha, too, took risks in her own academic writing and in her work with Arianto, a graduate student from the most pal
Indonesia. Drawing on her prior experience as a graduate student from Vietnam who had struggled with Australian language for
academic writing conventions and genres, the author responds to Arianto's request to help him appropriate English for Because r
his own purposes. Phan Le Ha describes the tensions each faced around the following issues: What are the conventions tools, to dea
that must be followed in academic English? What might be areas of appropriation? How do non-native speakers gain types of com
support for their writing among graduate advisors and journal editors, especially when defying convention? which they!
The critical component of the interaction between Phan Le Ha and Arianto is apparent in moments of contradiction. I hope thi
Both find themselves imposing academic conventions on their students (he on his writing students, she on Alianto), described in
ones that they aimed to challenge in their own academic writing. Arianto raises the following concern in his jOUlllal: and its liten:
"Maybe the nonns are so powerful and the students have been soaked in these norms the moment they learnt writing in Finally, 1
English. What should I do?" Rather than offering a definitive answer to Arianto's question, the author retains a stance this issue. T
of healthy ambiguity. She offers the metaphor of needs and rights, reminding Afiamo of the impol1ance of making Cadman, Cl:
students "aware of possibilities in having a voice and writer identity" yet at the same time respecting their choices Pennycook.
because "any act of writing involves becoming, whichever directions it could take". Her conclusion is that the editorial ad\
"'becoming path" is one that addresses both institutional needs and students' individual and collective rights.
References
~. Final reflections: critical EAP as hopeful praxis and situated connection
Appadurai. A.
Morgan poses several challenging questions about critical EAP in his contribution to this issue. One is, "'Do we Duke Uni\;
Benesch. S. (A
inadvertently promote pedagogies of despair and pessimismT In his answer, Morgan points to telms such as linguistic
meeting
imperialism and 11101IOcultllraU:an'oll that could discourage students from CEAP teaching because of the hopelessness Benesch. S.
and pain conveyed. To prevent alienating prospective CEAP teachers, he recommends avoiding an overly pessimistic Materials
stance, one that invites no agency or prospect of changing unfavorable conditions. In the interest of inspiring hope, he Cadman. K{2
advises critical EAP teachers and teacher educators to include "texts that speak to the many joys oflanguage teaching". 4. 353-3tt
Canagarajah. S
Morgan's focus on affectivity in the EAP classroom is shared by Cadman (2005) who proposes a "pedagogy of
gu~~ies {lnt:
connection", as a way to promote joyful and productive learning. A pedagogy of connection is a feature of Cadman's Luke. A. \~OO~
critical EAP praxis, one lhat mediates the often contested relationship "between students' learning and institutional Cambridg<
perceptions of success" (p. 355). Above all, Cadman is concenled with creating the conditions for "comfortable Morgan. Bn {,;
negotiation of desire, agentive stance, and multiple identity positions" (p. 365). She attempts to achieve these Lingllsitics
Pennycook. A,
conditions through a hospitable classroom environment, "a place where students "''am to be" because they can
(pp. 327-:
connect to the teacher and other students through humor and a sense of belonging. Rizvi. E (200(
I'm reminded by Morgan's and Cadman's attention to affectivity of the centraliiy,ituatedness in critical praxis. edllmtiol1.
That is, critical teaching is not intended to mine the world for problems which are:::e:l presented to students as hot
topics for debate, e.g., abortion, pollution, identity theft. These general and c;',e:: :r""bling topics may not be of
interest to or concern in students' daily lives and, even if they are, there may b e : :'::,;;:\t for their engagement in the
classroom or institution in which EAP is offered. Nor should CEAP bor.;"c:' .::.::-~ EAP teachers with decontex- I On July.'.

tualized and abstract notions. such as hegemony, that, as Morgan points c~:::. _~_:. students with despair and turn Armed Forces
eligible for nr:
them away from teaching. ificalion for th
On the other hand, critical EAP does not avoid difficult issues :night initially elicit discomfort. were engaged
Instead, grounded in the theoretical construct of situatedness. critic;o: in the daily and academic on a date desi
 S. Bellesch f Journal of English for Academic PUI1JOses X (2009)81-85 85

ill m;signment lives of students, presenting those topics respectfully to promote deep emotional connection and intellectual
~r uncertainty engagement.
:0 Grey calls An example of situatedness in my own critical EAP praxis is a lesson I developed on military recruitment (Benesch,
m one photo 2007, in press). This topic was a direct response to the presence of military recruiters on the campus of the pub
rey describes licly-funded college where I teach in the U.S. According to law, educational institutions receiving any funding from
contributions the U.S. government must permit access to recruiters. Being aware of their presence at the college and concerned
s of race and about "fast-track citizenship" I, a reclUitment tool targeting immigrants, I wondered whether any of my EAP students
diversity". In had been approached and, if so, how they had responded. As it turned out, after introducing the topic, through an
:ized circul11- article debating the pros and cons of military recruitment on college campuses, I discovered that out of 15 students in
::1:11 students' the EAP class 2, one Latin American and one Nigerian, had been approached by recruiters on campus. None of the
.:.:dents might Chinese, Polish, or Russian students, who comprised the rest of the class, had been approached. This finding, in itself,
was important and led to a lively class discussion of which immigrant groups might be targeted and why. Though, for
student from the most part, students did not think that recruiters should be barred from campus, many welcomed strategies and
::: Australian language for deflecting recruiters' advances.
:~ English for Because military recruitment was situated in students' lives, engaging with it seemed to give them hope, along with
e.:mwentiol1s tools, to deal with it. That is, examining difficult issues need not fill students with despair. It may instead create the
~;;;;akers gain types of connections called for by Cadman (2005) by responding to a situation students face in their daily lives yet one
which they might not be equipped to address.
,,~radiction. I hope this JEAP special issue on critical EAP inspires teacher/researchers to engage with the theories and practices
.:"I;anto), described in the contributions. I look forward to their accounts of CEAP so that its praxis may be further demystified
~. ::'is journal: and its literature grow.
_-:-:t writing in Finally, I'd like to express deep appreciation to the accomplished scholars who agreed to review manuscripts for
:-"i os a stance this issue. Thanks to the following for their prompt and generous feedback to the contributors: Elsa Auerbach, Kate
~= of making Cadman, Chris Casanave, Tara Goldstein, DaJT)'1 Hocking. Ryuko Kubota, Brian Morgan, Brian Paltridge" Alastair
:":-.eir choices Pennycook, Jane Sunderland, and Steven Tal my. And special thanks to Ken Hyland and Kathy Leung for their
:: is that the editorial advice and support.
::?hts.
References

Appadurai. A. (2005). Grassroots globalization and the research imagination. In A< Appadurai (Ed.). GloiJali:alioll (pp. 2-2[). Durham. NC:
e i>;. "Do we Duke University Press.
~ ciS lillguistic Benesch. S. (April. 2007). Ctilical praxis as materials development: Countering military recruitmcm on a U.S. campus. In Paper presenle(1 at the
meeting of Il1Iematiol1ol Society jill" Language St[(dies COllference (ISLS). Honolulu. HI.
::opelessness Benesch. S. (in press). Critical prJxis as materials development: Responding to military recruitment on a U.S. campus. Tn N. Harwood (Ed.).
~ pessimistic MlIlerials ill ELT: Tlteory & practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
hope, he Cadman. K. (2005). Towards a 'pedagogy of connection' in critical research education: A REAL story. iOIll"lwl of English for Academic PlIIposes.
;e teaching". 4.353-367.
Canagarajah. S. (2004). Subversive identities. pedagogical safe houses. and critical learning. In B. Norton, & K, Toohey (Eds.). Critical peda
pedagogy of
80gies <Illd language learning (pp. 116-137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
.)f Cadman's Luke. A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton. & K. Toohey (Edq, Critical pedagogies alld language l('al"lliI18 (pp. 21-29). Cambridge:
institutional Cambridge University Press.
';:omfortable Morgan. B .. & Ramanathan. V. (2005). Critical perspectives and language education: Global and local perspectives. Annual Rel"iell' of Applied
.:hieve these Lillgllsilics.25.151-169 .
Pennycook, A. (2004). Critical moments in a TESOL praxicum. In B. Norton. & K. Toohey (Eds.). Critical pedagogies and language leaming
Jse they can
(pp. 327-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rizvi. E (2000). International education and the production of global imagination. In N. C. Burhules. & C. A. Torres (Ed.'>.), Globalization and
:tical praxis. educatioll: Critical pl'rSpI!Clil'es (pp. 205-225). New York: Routledge.
ldents as hot
~y not be of
:ement in the
:h decontex I On July 3. 2002, George Bush signed Executive Order 13269 declaring tllat: "Those persons serving honorably in activeduty status in the

pair and tum Armed Forces of the United Slates. during the period beginning on September II, 200 I. and terminating on the date to be so designated. are
eligible for naturalization in accordance with the statutory exception to the naturalization requirements ...For the purpose of determining qual
ification for the exception from the usual requirements for naturalization, I designate as a period in which the Armed Forces of the United States
t discol11 fort. were engaged in anned conflict with a hostile foreign force the period beginning on September! I. 2001" Such period will be deemed to terminate
ndacademic on a date designated hy future Executive Order" (hnp:/lwww.fas.orglirp/uffdocs/eo/eo-13269.html.

View publication stats