Search results

A narrative inquiry was conducted to explore the complexities of learning English and Korean as subject matter in cross-cultural contexts in contributing to teacher identity, with possible tensions of identity teachers experience as ethnic Koreans teaching at an international school in Korea that promotes non-Korean, international education in English as a “language of inclusion” and instruction. With expansions of international schools in South Korea, also growing are numbers of Korean teachers teaching at such schools as returnees, individuals with cross-cultural experience. Stories of one Korean language and literature teacher with international schooling experience were examined.

While identifying the practical benefits of acquiring English, she expresses her concern for the presumed loss of Korean as a product of the prioritized use of English on campus. Equally recognized are the diverse opportunities not commonly available at Korean public schools that the participant upholds from her own experience. She acknowledged that her opportunities for the development of English language skills to a high level of proficiency through international education is not commonly accessible to all students in the Korean public school system. She also considered possible impacts associated with prioritizing the use of English over Korean in her international education experience, including their influence on: her sense of identity as a teacher and as Korean; her cultural knowledge as Korean; and her teacher knowledge as she supports her students' learning of English as subject matter in ways that might, in turn, also impact their sense of identity as Korean.

Using data from a feminist discourse analysis of comments on Facebook news articles, this research outlines backlash and regulatory practices directed towards youth activists Greta Thunberg, X González and Malala Yousafzai. A conceptual framework of semiotic violence highlights how these comments function to silence, delegitimise, vilify and punish sociopolitically active girls who challenge the status quo. The first mode of semiotic violence works to symbolically annihilate girl activists by silencing or rendering their political contributions invisible. The most obvious manifestation of this is instructing girls to shut up and go away. Additionally, their activism is ignored by refusals to acknowledge it as appropriate through suggestions they focus on gender-normative activities, such as domestic chores, playing with dolls and finding boyfriends. Undermining girls’ agency by describing them as puppets, mouthpieces, script readers, pawns and tools is also common. Here, girls’ contributions are rendered invisible through implications that they are being brainwashed and manipulated. The second mode of semiotic violence reinforces ideologies that girls are not politically competent and punishes them for being outspoken. This includes explicitly discrediting girls’ knowledge and abilities. Regulating their emotionality is also prevalent. This is consistent with Liberal political theory which justified women’s exclusion from public life by associating men with reason and women with emotion. Finally, insults degrade them for transgressing into a space demarcated as an adult and masculine realm. The semiotic violence directed towards these ‘girl power’ figures highlights that many people do not believe girls have the right to assert their sociopolitical opinion.

Since 2018, millions of students have mobilised as organisers, advocates and activists for action on global warming in movements like the School Strike 4 Climate. In Australia, an estimated 500,000 school students, some as young as five, and predominantly girls and young women, have taken part in coordinated school strikes, protest actions online and in cities and towns around the country (Hilder & Collin, 2022). While children and young people have long been central to politics, this more recent mass mobilisation raises new questions about how the various new forms of political participation and expression adopted by young people are significantly reshaping political norms, values and practices in ostensibly liberal democratic regimes like Australia. In this chapter, we propose that close attention be given to whether young people’s political views and demands for political recognition, rights and climate justice is re-constituting politics and whatever passes for ‘democracy’ in contemporary societies. Drawing on a study of the student climate movement in Australia, this chapter briefly describes the emergence of the movement globally and locally. Deploying Isin’s notion of ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin, 2008), we examine the ways young climate activists are engaged in critical, performative, political practice, making claims for political recognition, rights and climate justice.

Drawing on a larger study of coaches, parents, and children involved in nonelite sport in New Zealand, this chapter examines Jay Coakley's (2021) concept of the “Great Sport Myth” (GSM), whereby a strong belief in the innate purity and goodness of sport produces a reluctance to criticize it. This chapter emphasizes the developmental outcomes that parents and children believe are gained through sport and demonstrates the ways that parents relinquish control to coaches and reinforce the dominance of the coach as the decision-maker through their belief in the strength of the GSM. These findings are significant, given the large number of abuse cases that have come to light in sport in recent decades where the absence of parental intervention is marked. Not only are children socialized by their time in sport, but so too are parents, who are taught that they are “good” parents if they trust the work of the coach. The findings are also at odds with a prevailing neoliberal emphasis on individualization, especially in education policy and practice, where parents are more likely to intervene to assert the individualized needs of their children. This study is unique in addressing the relatively neglected experiences of those who play at the competitive, but not serious or elite, end of sport.

First-generation college students in the United States are a unique demographic that is often characterized by the institutions that serve them with a risk-laden and deficit-based model. However, our analysis of the transcripts of open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 22 “first-gen” respondents suggests they are actively deft, agentic, self-determining parties to processes of identity construction that are both externally imposed and potentially stigmatizing, as well as exemplars of survivance and determination. We deploy a grounded theory approach to an open-coding process, modeled after the extended case method, while viewing our data through a novel synthesis of the dual theoretical lenses of structural and radical/structural symbolic interactionism and intersectional/standpoint feminist traditions, in order to reveal the complex, unfolding, active strategies students used to make sense of their obstacles, successes, co-created identities, and distinctive institutional encounters. We find that contrary to the dictates of prevailing paradigms, identity-building among first-gens is an incremental and bidirectional process through which students actively perceive and engage existing power structures to persist and even thrive amid incredibly trying, challenging, distressing, and even traumatic circumstances. Our findings suggest that successful institutional interventional strategies designed to serve this functionally unique student population (and particularly those tailored to the COVID-moment) would do well to listen deeply to their voices, consider the secondary consequences of “protectionary” policies as potentially more harmful than helpful, and fundamentally, to reexamine the presumption that such students present just institutional risk and vulnerability, but also present a valuable addition to university environments, due to the unique perspective and broader scale of vision their experiences afford them.

This performance autoethnography may or may not be interpreted as a continuation of a conversation regarding the experiences of those with devalued statuses in academic settings. The authors rely on “strange accounting” to consider their experiences in the academy from various standpoints: before and after promotion, before and after leaving academia. While reflecting on our past experiences, we introduce the concept of “everyday precariousness” as a way of explaining the normalization of instability, insecurity, and negative affect that is part of everyday life for those with devalued statuses in academic settings and beyond. Everyday precariousness is an embodied experience for those in vulnerable positions. Normalized exposure to risks, such as discrimination, harassment, bullying, or structural instability, produces an undercurrent of threat that permeates academic culture. Our stories of everyday precariousness span race, ethnicity, class, academic roles, and gender boundaries (among many others). Analyzing these experiences furthers previous work on the uses of strange accounting as well as the dynamics of status silencing. In the final analysis, unresisted and unabated, everyday precariousness and status silencing can lead to institutional failure and resonance disasters.