








































Article 

 

Elise Brittain is a doctoral fellow in Culture, Literacy, and Language at the University of Texas at San 
Antonio; email elise.brittain@gmail.com. 

 

Reinforcement of White Native-
Speakerism: An Analysis of English 
Language Teacher Training 
Materials 

GATESOL in Action Journal 
2020, Vol. 30(1), pp. 16–31 

ISSN: 2331-6845 

 
 
Elise Brittain 
Culture, Literacy, and Language, University of Texas at San Antonio 
 

Abstract 
This article draws awareness to Whiteness as a centered phenomenon in ELT which contributes to 
discriminatory practices through reliance on and privileging of White norms on a global scale. This 
study sought to address this issue through a critical discourse analysis of 14 English as a foreign 
language (EFL) open-source teacher training modules with the following guiding question: How 
are ideologies that reinforce White native-speakerism demonstrated in open-source English 
teaching methodology training materials designed for global ELT audiences? Critical Whiteness 
Studies (CWS; Nayak, 2007), the concept of native-speakerism (Holliday, 2006), and the ‘native 
speaker’ frame (Lowe, 2020) informed the theoretical assumptions of the study. Critical Discourse 
Studies (CDS; Wodak & Meyer, 2015) provided an analytical lens to examine discourses of power 
and framing of ideology in the texts. The main thread that emerged from the analysis was an 
avoidance of stance, demonstrated through contradictory, simultaneous representations of 
resistance to and reinforcement of ideologies of White native-speakerism. This avoidance of stance 
is exemplified through representation of language varieties, the emergence of a monolingual view 
of teaching, representations of culture, and the framing of authenticity. 
 
Keywords 
White native-speakerism, Whiteness, English teacher training, training materials, English as a 
foreign language (EFL), English language teaching (ELT), reinforcement, resistance 

 
Background 
The 2020 murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery by police officers in the 
United States incited the most recent wave of nationwide anger about the brutal treatment of 
African Americans in the U.S. and reignited an awareness across organizations and racialized 
communities of the need to address systemic racial divides. Our international field of English 
language teaching (ELT) is no exception to the presence of systemic racism which privileges 
Whiteness. A statement from English Language Programs, which oversees some U.S. Department 
of State-funded international English teaching programs, expressed a call for an antiracist stance: 
 

Now, more than ever, the world needs compassion, exchange, and mutual understanding. The death 
of George Floyd was a horrendous tragedy that has mobilized the world to stand up for justice and 
human rights in solidarity with communities of color everywhere. (English Language Programs, 
2020) 
 

mailto:elise.brittain@gmail.com


Brittain 17 
 

 

This call recognizes a need to reexamine ELT in teacher preparation as well as U.S. public and 
cultural diplomacy efforts around the world as part of the work to address systemic racism as a 
collective challenge to discrimination.  
 This article draws awareness to Whiteness as a centered and reinforced phenomenon in 
global ELT which contributes to discriminatory practices against English educators and learners 
who do not conform to White norms1 (Charles, 2019; Gerald, 2020a, 2020b; Kumaravadivelu, 
2016; Lowe & Lawrence, 2018; Matias & Mackey, 2016; Ruecker, 2011; Schreiber, 2019; 
Zacharias, 2019). Language is not a neutral tool (Pennycook, 2017) and carries political 
implications in the ideologies that accompany its use, learning, and teaching. This study examines 
the reinforcement of Whiteness in ELT through a critical analysis of an open-source teacher 
training program developed for English as a foreign language (EFL) teacher audiences which is 
available as part of U.S. Department of State English teaching initiatives. The following question 
guided the study: How are ideologies that reinforce White native-speakerism demonstrated in 
open-source English teaching methodology training materials designed for global ELT audiences? 
 
Whiteness and the Native Speaker 
Whiteness is a socially-constructed, fluctuating, racialized ideology based on exclusion of socially-
constructed racialized groups (Gerald, 2020b; Nayak, 2007; Ruecker, 2011). It is not only 
appearance but also doing—actions, behaviors, and thinking standardized and centered as norms 
(Jenks & Lee, 2020). Primarily, the naturalization of Whiteness in relation to an Other is 
propagated by White people but can also be internalized by People of Color (Matias & Mackey, 
2016). White individuals may be unaware of or deny their racial identities and privilege (Picower, 
2009). Robin DiAngelo described the implication of this in her conversation with Layla Saad on 
the Good Ancestor podcast, saying, “If I can’t hold what it means to be white, I cannot hold what 
it means not to be white” (Saad, 2019). Resistance to acknowledgement of White racial identity 
and privilege may manifest as strategic tools of Whiteness that act as a protection of hegemonic 
views (Picower, 2009). This self-protection aligns with Robin DiAngelo’s (2018) concept of white 
fragility which originates in “superiority and entitlement” and reinforces “white racial control and 
the protection of white advantage” (p. 2), resulting in avoidance of the inequality that emanates 
from the ELT field because of the discomfort that accompanies this recognition (Gerald, 2020a, 
2020b). This may take the form of an “altruistic shield” applied to White educators in ELT (Gerald, 
2020a, p. 22), or “native speaker saviorism” (Jenks & Lee, 2020, p. 2) or the ‘white savior’ role, 
which places Whiteness as the destination for non-White students and the White educator as the 
guide to salvation (Matias & Mackey, 2016).  
 The term native speaker encompasses a racial component along with a linguistic 
component (Ruecker, 2011; Sung, 2011). Native speakers of English are often described as people 
born in countries with a majority White population and closely associated with Whiteness 
historically (Phillipson, 1992; Ramjattan, 2019; Ruecker, 2011; Ruecker & Ives, 2015); however, 
                                                      
1 The work of decentering Whiteness in my life, both as a person who identifies as White and as a White teacher and 
scholar in ELT, is new for me, and this article and the analysis described marks a beginning to an ongoing process of 
growth, learning, and action toward supporting Black lives and the lives of marginalized peoples. For those interested 
in forming accountability and action groups and continuing the conversation of decentering Whiteness in ELT, in 
academia, or beyond these institutions, we can form groups toward this work together, and I invite correspondence 
toward this endeavor. I strongly encourage readers to follow the work and training developed by Dr. Della V. Mosley 
and Pearis Bellamy (2020) and their colleagues at academics4blacklives.com and #Academics4BlackLives to first and 
foremost support your Black colleagues, and through such work also support your non-Black People of Color 
colleagues and non-native English speaking colleagues. 

http://academics4blacklives.com/


18 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 
these associations may be greater with countries such as the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia, 
and Canada (Charles, 2019; Iams, 2016; Kramadibrata, 2016; Ruecker, 2011) with others forgotten 
or excluded (e.g., South Africa, Ireland) (Ruecker, 2011). The label native speaker may be assigned 
primarily to a homogenous, stereotyped, and essentialist view of White native speakers, and the 
nuanced experiences of teachers representing non-White racialized groups, notably Black teachers 
of English, are not considered (Charles, 2019; Kubota, 2018). The exclusion of race from the 
conversation about native-speakerism ignores the internalized image of a racialized White native 
speaker as the ELT ideal (Sung, 2011). This study applies these understandings to examine 
reinforcement of the White native speaker image and influence in teacher training materials 
designed for EFL audiences and distributed with a public and cultural diplomacy agenda. 
 
Theoretical Framework 
Critical Whiteness Studies (CWS), the concept of native-speakerism (Holliday, 2006), and the 
native speaker frame (Lowe, 2020) formed the theoretical basis for the study. CWS is described 
by Nayak (2007) as consisting of the following foundational beliefs: 
 

1. Whiteness is a modern invention; it has changed over time and place. 
2. Whiteness is a social norm and has become chained to an index of unspoken privileges. 
3. The bonds of whiteness can yet be broken/deconstructed for the betterment of   

humanity. (p. 738) 
 

This lens brings forward the social construction of Whiteness in ELT; the privileges and disparities 
associated with conforming or not conforming to White-centered norms; and the need for 
resistance to these naturalized and internalized norms.  
 Native-speakerism is an ideology that privileges those considered to represent the notion 
of the Western native speaker of English (Lowe & Lawrence, 2018). The use of the term is 
“characterized by the belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’ from 
which spring the ideas both of the English language and of English teaching methodology” 
(Holliday, 2006, p. 385). Holliday’s conceptualization of native-speakerism has been critiqued for 
exclusion of intersecting identities of native speakers who may experience privilege of native 
speaker status but also marginalization based on race, such as Black teachers of English (Charles, 
2019) and other biases (e.g., ableism, heteronormativity, ageism). “Native speakerness and 
Whiteness work in tandem to signify competence and intelligence and thus superiority, negatively 
affecting the experiences of non-native or native English-speaking teachers of color” (Kubota, 
2018, p. 3654). This study employs the term White native-speakerism to denote the privileged 
White Western norms which exclude non-native speakers of English and People of Color, 
including Black, Asian, Indigenous, Indian, and the myriad ethnic and racialized identities of 
native speakers of English.  
 Lowe’s (2020) definition of ideologies is “widespread systems of knowledge and belief” 
(p. 51). These systems are “socially-constructed and cognitively-stored” (Jumiah, 2016, p. 17), 
making them unobservable (Lowe, 2020). Lowe (2020) indicates that ideology can be interpreted 
by identifying frames, which are more readily observable. The native speaker frame refers to a 
lens which “has a monolingual and monocultural approach to language teaching” and, though not 
necessarily explicitly, “devalue[es] and den[ies] the contributions and traditions of other cultures 
and educational systems” but may also be influenced by additional localized ideologies and 
discourses (Lowe, 2020, p. 57). Although distinguishing the two, Lowe aligns the native speaker 



Brittain 19 
 

 

frame to the White racial frame which centers White norms, resulting in the perpetuation of 
systemic racism. Lowe (2020) indicates the following examples of dominant discourses 
reinforcing the native speaker frame: the idealization of the ‘native speaker,’ Western 
methodological superiority over non-Western approaches, methodological standardization of best 
practices, English-only in the classroom, and cultural deficiency of students. These 
conceptualizations formed the basis of the assumptions of this study. 
 
White Native-Speakerism Research in ELT 
Research regarding teacher identity has explored the complex experiences of Black teachers of 
English abroad, revealing a navigation of native speaker status privilege and simultaneous 
marginalization (Charles, 2019). White preservice teachers preparing for culturally diverse 
classrooms in the U.S. have expressed a realization of their own White discourse stance through 
Critical Whiteness Studies (Matias & Mackey, 2016), while also demonstrating the employment 
of tools of Whiteness to justify their biases (Picower, 2009). White native speaker teachers with 
experience abroad have reflected on their White native speaker privilege through autoethnography 
(Iams, 2016) and duoethnography (Lowe & Lawrence, 2018). Other studies have explored White 
teachers’ navigations of morality in South Korea (West, 2019) and native speakers’ reactions to 
changes in local policy which threatened their privileged positioning in English teaching in South 
Korea (Jenks & Lee, 2020). Non-native teachers have shared their experiences navigating their 
self-value as educators and as non-native speakers (Sung, 2011; Zacharias, 2019). Non-native 
speaking MA TESL students in Sri Lanka and native U.S. undergraduates also reported 
challenging their own misconceptions about each other through a cultural exchange project 
(Schreiber, 2019).  
 Exclusion based on White native-speakerism was demonstrated through Lowe and 
Lawrence’s (2018) description of Yamanaka’s (2006) research which showed the exclusion of 
certain varieties of English from contexts which use English as a native language. Mohamed 
(2015) also exemplifies exclusion in a Libyan EFL text’s reading passage which reduced an image 
of poor Black South Africans to exoticism and Othering. Textbooks typically include standard 
dialects of English (e.g., American Standard English) while other native English language dialects, 
such as African American Vernacular English, are excluded (Jumiah, 2016). The view of textbooks 
as authentic representations of all English language use perpetuates a hidden curriculum that 
renders deviations as illegitimate English use (Jumiah, 2016). Jumiah also notes that the producers 
of textbooks are generally from where English is spoken as a native language, i.e. Inner Circle 
countries as named by Kachru (2006) or center countries according to Phillipson (1992). Teaching 
methods are recommended from the dominant center, providing White, Western countries with the 
authority to dominate the development and distribution of texts even though local developers are 
able to produce them (Kumaravadivelu, 2016). Kumaravadivelu (2016) critiques the notion that 
the critical examination of textbooks from White native speaker dominant countries should fall on 
local teachers and students: “It would be naive to think that the passive tactics of the weak can 
deter the aggressive strategies of the strong” (p. 75). Leaving the local context to critically break 
down White native-speakerism is a task of challenging a dominant internalized discourse.  
 Textbooks and materials may be presented and received as neutral, generalizable tools 
(Jumiah, 2016; Mohamed, 2015). However, the perspective of language as an ideology (e.g., 
Bourdieu, 1991 & Foucault, 1972, as cited in Jumiah, 2016) positions texts as “ideology-driven 
and serv[ing] certain interests” (Jumiah, 2016, p. 58). Jumiah (2016) found Western social and 
economic ideologies which serve the interests of White Western publishers and society in high 



20 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 
school EFL texts developed for Saudi Arabia. Topics in generalized texts include neutral topics 
(e.g., clothing, food) and exclude controversial topics (e.g., religion, racism), indicating a belief 
that removal of these topics renders a text neutral (Jumiah, 2016). Mohamed (2015) understands 
textbooks as ideology in their reflection of the writers’ cultural perspective which is then 
reinforced among textbook users. The attempt to generalize the content of textbooks removes the 
development of the negotiation of cultural identity in English, demonstrated by Jumiah (2016) who 
criticized the minimal inclusion of Islamic texts in Saudi EFL textbooks as an omission that 
removes students’ opportunity to use English to express an integral part of their identity, thereby 
deepening the divide between English language and the local culture. 
 White native speaker status may be either ascribed or not ascribed based on students’ 
and parents’ perspectives. Charles (2019) described how one Black teacher of English in South 
Korea did not openly state she was teaching Black history to avoid potential conflict with parents. 
Iams (2016) described referring a friend to a job who was not considered because students expected 
native speakers. Kramadibrata (2016) showed that students indicated a preference for a White 
teacher when seeing videos with the image and voice of a White or Indian teacher. Sung’s (2011) 
observations in Hong Kong included parents’ preference for White native speaker teachers, 
exemplified through a parent’s doubt regarding an Asian American teacher, only appeased by the 
monolingual status of the teacher, indicating a bias equating bilinguals with inferiority as English 
teachers. Ramjattan (2019) named the use of such preference to justify discriminatory hiring 
practices as “inequality as customer desire” (p. 134). 
 
White Native-Speakerism in Teaching Methodology 
Kumaravadivelu (2016) describes English teaching methodology as “the most crucial and 
consequential area where hegemonic forces find it necessary and beneficial to exercise the greatest 
control, because method functions as an operating principle shaping all other aspects of language 
education: curriculum, materials, testing, and training” (p. 73). Methods, such as Communicative 
Language Teaching (CLT), emanate from White-dominant developers, presented as universal 
solutions to EFL teaching needs (Kumaravadivelu, 2016). Although methodologies such as CLT 
are simply approaches, they may be accompanied by “some sense of cultural superiority or cultural 
chauvinism” (Lowe & Lawrence, 2018, p. 180). Delivery of methodologies as best practices to 
different cultural contexts without attention to local cultural and methodological practices imposes 
White native speaker developed methodologies as the ideal (Lowe & Lawrence, 2018). Even 
historical methods highly criticized now, such as grammar and translation, still widely employed 
in EFL contexts, are “Western ideological imposition[s] on non-Western countries” which 
reinforce the ideology “that only English teaching techniques from the West are appropriate, and 
[native English speakers] are most suitable to teach the English language because it is their native 
language” despite variance in culture and educational techniques (Charles, 2019, pp. 6–7).  

White native-speakerism is reinforced through this hidden curriculum which influences 
teachers’ socialization into English teaching (Lowe & Lawrence, 2018). English programs may 
reinforce and normalize such ideologies through the hiring of only teachers trained in Western 
institutions or conducted by Western staff, orientation processes, classroom observations, and 
professional development sessions (Lowe, 2020). Kiczkowiak et al. (2016) discuss how demand 
for native speakers for teacher training activities prioritizes the methodologies of White-dominant 
English-speaking countries without challenging lack of contextual knowledge or potential 
monolingual biases. Even native speakers with no teaching qualification or experience are 
considered to have valuable teaching methodology contributions for EFL contexts, demonstrated 



Brittain 21 
 

 

in a recount of a White teacher’s induction into the Peace Corps as an inexperienced teacher trainer 
(Iams, 2016).  
 The White ‘native speaker’ may be considered inherently linguistically equipped to teach 
English, while those categorized as Other are not. Iams (2016) noticed trends in publication titles 
which demonstrated the ideology generalizing native speaker teachers as linguistic ideals with 
non-native teachers indicated as linguistically challenged in teaching but more pedagogically 
qualified. These generalizations primarily include Standard English, which is associated with 
White middle and upper class status (Jumiah, 2016). Black teachers of English in Korea sought to 
dismantle the myth of White-centered monolithic English use in ELT (Charles, 2019). Native 
speakers may hold ideas that they are the best pronunciation teachers, which reinforces the 
ideology that to be perceived as a “good” English speaker, one must sound like a native, excluding 
the multiple accents, varieties, and uses of English around the world (Charles, 2019). This echoes 
beliefs expressed by native teachers, who also mocked non-standard-conforming accents in 
Korean uses of English, that only native speakers could lead English-only zones, which they 
believed necessary for proper development of English (Jenks & Lee, 2020). 
 Standards of English are based on an unspoken accommodation of the White listener 
(Flores, 2020; Gerald, 2020b; Rosa, 2016). Rosa (2016) argues that the standards set for academic 
language development for students are based in raciolinguistic ideologies which favor White 
native speaker judgment. Studies of ELT textbooks show how White supremacist ideologies 
manifest in the materials through “the racialization of the English language and associating the 
idealized native speaker’s identity of English to whiteness” (Jumiah, 2016, p. 150). Flores (2020) 
criticizes the assumptions that Mexican-origin students in the U.S. lack academic language in both 
Spanish and English, an assumption marking their uses of language as inferior. This ascribed 
“languagelessness” is in reality a nonconformity with dominant standards and a perception that 
users are “incapable of producing any legitimate language” (Rosa, 2016, p. 163). There is a need 
to combat such ideologies through raising language awareness among educators (Kiczkowiak et 
al., 2016).  
 
Reinforcement of White Native-Speakerism 
The ELT policies of specific countries can reinforce White native-speakerist ideologies. For 
example, South Korea has enforced visa laws requiring English teachers to hold passports from 
countries strongly associated with White native speaker status (Charles, 2019; Jenks & Lee, 2020; 
West, 2019). The visa requirements of South Korea have expanded to include English teachers 
from other countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and India; however, these 
teachers are required to possess teaching credentials that are not required for teachers from 
countries strongly associated with Whiteness (Charles, 2019). Jumiah (2016) describes a societal 
internalization of light skin status and alignment of identity with Whites’ power and wealth access 
in Saudi Arabia that is reinforced through EFL textbooks and circulating ideologies that position 
American and British standard varieties of English as more prestigious and connected with 
economic and social opportunity. Schreiber (2019) describes the policies and practices of English 
use in Sri Lanka where English is used regularly in an official capacity as a result of British 
colonization history despite the official languages being Sinhala and Tamil, with unequal English 
access across the country resulting in a social hierarchy associating English use with higher status 
(Schreiber, 2019). Job advertisements and hiring practices of English teachers in China have been 
shown to favor native speakers (Sung, 2011). The reinforcement of White native-speakerism 
through the societal ideologies and official policies of specific countries and communities may 



22 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 
impact resistance to hegemonic policies and practices in ELT, especially when seen as “the way 
things are” and legitimizing inequality (Ramjattan, 2019).  
 Notions of authenticity are entwined with White native speaker norms (Lowe & Pinner, 
2016). A label of authenticity places materials, language use, etc., in a state of authority which 
upholds the power attributed to White native speakers (Lowe & Pinner, 2016). Culturism, or 
Othering, can occur in how references to authentic materials refer to native speakers and Other 
users of English, essentializing Western norms in contrast to the local culture, just as native-
speakerism others the non-White Western English speaker (Lowe & Pinner, 2016). Authenticity 
may be seen as cultural capital, or the view that learning certain varieties of English results in gain 
of status, connecting knowledge with Western standards (Lowe & Pinner, 2016). 
 
Positionality 
My embodied Whiteness and use of Standard American English as an ESL instructor both inside 
and outside the U.S. have reinforced ideologies of White native-speakerism. Students asked to 
learn how to speak “like me” and described me as a “real American” to compare me to U.S. citizens 
of non-White racialized identities. I was invited to conferences outside my expertise, introduced 
as an “American native speaker” and not as a credentialed and experienced teacher. My native 
speaker status granted me privileges, moving myself and my companions through border checks 
and granting me publishing and speaking opportunities. As I address my lack of active resistance 
to my own privilege, my neglect in empowering non-White colleagues, and my taking for granted 
my understandings of teaching methodology, I acknowledge that my process of change is ongoing 
and in flux. In undertaking this analysis, I did not remove my own Whiteness and internalization 
of White norms in ELT. I recognize that my perceptions of language, speakers of English, and 
English teaching are strongly entwined with internalized White native-speakerism that requires a 
lifelong unlearning. As such, undertaking this process of change has shaped and will continue to 
evolve my interpretations as I confront my internalized truths. 
 
Methodology 
The critical lens turned toward Whiteness in ELT is called for by scholars that have identified 
Whiteness as “the central driving force behind ELT” which either explicitly or implicitly excludes 
those seen as non-White or non-White conforming (Gerald, 2020b, p. 45). Critical Discourse 
Studies (CDS) (Wodak & Meyer, 2015) provided the analytical lens to examine discourses of 
power and framing of ideology in the texts. From this lens, discourses are understood as more than 
uses of languages but placed within the context which frame language use, as “relatively stable 
uses of language serving the organization and structuring of social life” (Wodak & Meyer, 2015, 
p. 5), and include written, oral, and visual texts. Dominant ideologies are understood in how they 
“appear as ‘neutral,’ linked to assumptions that remain largely unchallenged” (Wodak & Meyer, 
2015, p. 8). Power is “in the way discourse (re)produces social domination…mainly understood 
as power abuse of one group over others, and how dominated groups may discursively resist such 
abuse” (Wodak & Meyer, 2015, p. 9). Theoretical and empirical analyses are essential to each step 
of CDS, “imply[ing] a circular and recursive–abductive relationship between theory and 
discourse” (Wodak & Meyer, 2015, p. 14). In this study, this relationship between theory and 
discourse was addressed through an ongoing review of literature prior to and during analysis to 
connect interpretations from empirical studies to the researcher’s interpretations of discourses in 
the training modules. CDS informed the analytical approach to examining discourses in the 
modules which reinforce or resist the social division of different racialized identities in ELT, 



Brittain 23 
 

 

understood both through what is said and what is left unsaid and therefore presented as inferable 
(Gee, 2014). CDS in this study guided the analytical focus to textual and visual discourses that 
frame or resist ideologies of White native-speakerism, both present and not present and that have 
been demonstrated in previous studies to unequally position the roles of different groups, their 
racialized identities, and uses of languages and language varieties within the context of global EFL 
teacher training. 
 
Data Sources 
The materials are 14 open-source teacher training modules available on 
AmericanEnglish.state.gov, developed through the University of Oregon for the U.S. Department 
of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Office of English Language Programs (Opp-
Beckman & Klinghammer, 2006). Each module consists of a video segment available on YouTube 
that is between ten and fifteen minutes and a text facilitation guide with handouts to accompany 
the videos. The videos begin with a narrated introduction of the module focus, followed by video 
clips of classroom teaching or interviews with teachers. The footage represents primary, 
secondary, and adult level classes, with English classrooms in the U.S., Egypt, Costa Rica, and 
Thailand. The facilitation guides, approximately 10 pages of text each, begin with notes for the 
trainer, “Before Viewing” discussion prompts and vocabulary related to the content focus or video 
segments, reflection questions, and steps for teachers to create an action plan for teaching. The 
guides also include suggested answers to the reflection questions on the video segments. Each 
module focuses on one of the following topics: contextualizing language, building language 
awareness, integrating skills, pair and group work, learner feedback, managing large classes, 
learning strategies, authentic materials, critical and creative thinking, alternative assessment, 
individual learner differences, younger learners, peer observations, and reflective teaching. The 
modules were designed for a general EFL teacher audience whose goals are, according to the 
introduction, “to build an academic or ‘pedagogical’ foundation in language teaching” and “to 
improve language teaching classroom practices” (Introduction, p. 7). These materials are likely to 
be used by EFL teachers in countries in which the U.S. sponsors English language programs. The 
modules are designed for flexible use and could be facilitated by an experienced teacher trainer or 
by teachers in individual or group professional development. The modules are designed to be used 
either in the order presented or selected individually based on interest. Users are encouraged to 
consider how they might immediately apply what they learned to their own contexts. The modules 
were designed to address a lack of teacher training materials with examples from EFL teaching 
contexts.  
 
Data Analysis  
The application of CDS guided the focus of coding on discourses which framed ideologies of 
White native-speakerism, including both what was said and not said, and potential inference in the 
context (Gee, 2014). The analysis included identifying positioning of power: between participants 
and facilitators, between teachers of different racialized identities, between varied teaching 
methodology choices, and the wording and framing of questions and definitions (e.g., culture, 
authentic materials). Both what the module developers chose to include and not include were 
considered. The common ideologies regarding White native-speakerism gleaned from the 
literature review guided interpretation of discourses in the text, which included a consideration of 
the potential premises that led to the choices in phrasing by the developers (e.g., “other speakers 



24 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 
of English” vs. “non-native speakers”) and possible interpretations of these choices by target 
audiences (Fairclough, 2016; Gee, 2014).  
 An initial review of literature provided guidance in uncovering discourses which framed 
normative White teaching practices against a deficient Other and the framing of success as the 
achievement of a native-like (i.e., White) norm. All data source materials were reviewed prior to 
coding to gain a general sense of the modules. A textual analysis of the facilitation guides was 
conducted first: The instructions for facilitation, questions for participants, and suggested 
responses to the video discussion prompts framed the textual materials as guiding documents. The 
prior and ongoing literature review informed the initial stage of deductive thematic coding of the 
written texts which resulted in the development of topic coding and in vivo codes (Richards, 2015). 
Emergent themes were then categorized for the second round of coding, targeting the framing of 
the discourses evidenced in initial themes and the development of analytical codes (Richards, 
2015). This resulted in topical categories, including culturally-related, language-related, program-
related, and teacher-related codes, authenticity, and adaptation to the local context. Refinement of 
these categories included text searches of the textual data sources for words and phrases including 
“authentic,” “culture,” “effective,” “it is important,” “real world,” and “speakers” to identify 
instances of repeated discourse patterns related to themes which developed in the first rounds of 
coding. The researcher wrote ongoing analytic memos for each coded theme to reflect on and 
develop interpretations.  
 At this stage, the developed categories revealed contradictions which interconnected 
themes across categories and prompted the next round of categorization. This analysis centered on 
the premises on which discourses were based, how these discourses might be received, what was 
left as inferable, and alignment with the visual and audio representations in the videos. A video 
analysis was used to confirm themes which arose from the textual data, especially regarding visual 
and audio representations of teachers and cultures which were not present in the textual materials. 
These representations included accents, language varieties, demonstrations of culture in 
classrooms, racialized identities of teachers, how teachers were positioned relative to each other, 
and the relationship of this positioning with language varieties and racialized identities. A memo 
for each module video was created to record the number of featured teachers (those interviewed 
or showcased in their classrooms), their racialized identities and possible nationalities (inferred 
from the 4 represented countries in the modules: Egypt, the U.S., Thailand, and Costa Rica), their 
accents or English varieties used, gendered identities, and presence or positioning relative to other 
teachers in the videos. In some cases, content from the interviews were noted as relevant to the 
facilitation guides and coding material (e.g., the use of the word pidgin to describe students’ 
English use). Classroom visual and linguistic landscapes were also noted, including wall charts 
which represented languages or culture themes, oral language use in the classroom, student 
products of activities, and items used in the classroom. Native language use was also noted. 
 The computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software NVivo 12 (QSR International Pty 
Ltd, 2020) was used to organize all analyzed data sources, manage codes and the coding process, 
and search the full range of analyzed texts using the text query feature. 
 
Findings and Discussion 
The overarching theme that emerged from the analysis is an avoidance of stance, demonstrated 
through contradictory, simultaneous representations of resistance to and reinforcement of 
ideologies of White native-speakerism. This avoidance of stance is marked by a deference to 
participants and their contexts. The repetition of the following sentence on the first page of each 



Brittain 25 
 

 

of the module facilitation guides except Modules 5 and 12 indicates this emphasis on participant 
contexts: “It is important that teachers apply the concepts in the module to their own classrooms 
and situations.” The importance placed on context provides agency to participants to adapt training 
material to their own contexts; however, this deference to the context may falsely place the impetus 
onto participants to resist marginalizing ideologies that hierarchize language and teaching 
methodologies. The idea that teachers and learners can resist native-speakerism in dominant 
teaching materials and marketing diminishes the real control that the dominant discourse maintains 
(Kumaravadivelu, 2016). These contradictions position ELT training as neutral ground and 
reinforce a naturalized preference for Whiteness and White-centered ELT methodology. This 
avoidance of stance is further exemplified through representation of language varieties, the 
emergence of a monolingual view of teaching, representations of culture, and the framing of 
authenticity. 
 
Representation of Language Varieties 
Resistance to White native-speakerism is demonstrated through references to English use. 
Questions for participants ask them to reflect on how students might use English and apply English 
use as a basis to inform lesson design. The modules reference not only native speaker varieties of 
English as benchmarks but also explicitly include “other users of the target language” (Module 2, 
p. 21) and “any of the various forms of native speaker English and/or examples of native and non-
native English that are likely to be used in the learners’ environment” (Module 8, p. 85). This 
highlighting of the existence of multiple legitimate varieties of English for communication resists 
the ideology that only native varieties are suitable. A majority of the 14 module videos (86%) 
featured the voices of teachers of varied racialized identities using standard and non-standard 
accents in contrast to the percentage of videos which featured White teachers (57%). There is clear 
inclusion of teachers of color, both native and from EFL contexts, which visually and aurally 
resists the White native speaker ideal. 
 Alongside this resistance is reinforcement of the ideology that English ownership is not 
extended to these users. The term native speaker is placed first and in opposition to other users. 
This phrasing may have been chosen to specifically resist a native-speakerism ideology denoting 
only sources from native speakers as authentic; however, the term native speaker is loaded in ways 
that may delegitimate multiple native speaker identities. This may serve to reinforce White native-
speakerism held by a community or individual due to the lack of directly recognizing the complex 
meanings of native speaker and other users of English.  
 
Monolingual View 
The monolingual perspective views language learners as multiple monolinguals in one, separating 
languages into distinct functions of use; however, bilinguals and multilinguals (the majority of the 
world population) utilize their full linguistic repertoire (Baker & Wright, 2017). English only 
methodology advantages English-speaking monolingual speakers and advocates for a monolingual 
approach to language learning unaligned with the multilingual realities of many language learners 
around the world (Baker & Wright, 2017).  
 Few instances in the training modules demonstrated an acknowledgement that languages 
other than English will be used in the classroom. One acknowledgement was through observation 
reflection questions that asked the participant to note the percentage of time English is used during 
an observed lesson, which can be understood as in comparison with the percentage of other 
language use. This type of questioning could allow for an analysis of language use in the classroom 



26 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 
from a holistic view of language; however, without explicit purpose, it is open to interpretation 
from a monolingual view of bilingual development. Four out of the fourteen video modules include 
the use of a word from a native language or writing in the native language on classroom visual 
supports. The video narrator’s suggestion that class rules be posted in both English and the native 
language as a management technique positions the L1 as a disciplinary tool rather than a tool for 
learning. Other references point to an “English-only” paradigm; for example, regarding a teaching 
demonstration on the use of realia, the guide states: “Note that [the teacher] uses only English, and 
the children are able to follow along very well” (Module 8, p. 90). This comment, and the limited 
representation of the L1, point to an application of English only in the classroom, indicating White 
native speakerist ideology (Lowe, 2020). 
 
Representations of Culture 
A definition of culture embedded in one of the facilitation guide activities portrays culture in an 
inclusive, non-essentialist manner: 
 

If we think of “culture” in the broadest possible sense—something like “a shared set of behavior 
patterns” among any group of people—then we can see that it applies as a concept not only to 
ethnic cultures, but to workplace cultures and even classroom cultures as well. (Module 4, p. 38)  
 

This definition provides a view of culture in the facilitation guides beyond ethnicity and brings the 
concept of culture into everyday lived experience. However, in a later guide (Module 8), references 
to “not culture-specific” materials imply that there are objects from people’s everyday life that are 
universal. The idea that the objects or practices of people can be “not culture-specific” aligns with 
deculturization of White practices as the neutral standard to compare with the Other 
(Kumaravadivelu, 2016).  
 Most of the coded references to topics and activities in the facilitation texts (approximately 
50) were topics presented generally to apply across contexts, aligning with the general one-size-
fits-all approach for all English learning contexts (Jumiah, 2016). However, specific references to 
White U.S.-based topics include the Pilgrims, American Thanksgiving, Uncle Sam, a news story 
about a U.S. event, planning a trip to D.C., and famous people in the target culture. The Pilgrims 
and Thanksgiving examples specifically reference a White-centered historical group of people and 
holiday. Examples demonstrating inclusion of students’ cultures were more predominant in the 
video segments, including a teacher describing her use of folk stories from students’ cultures to 
build upon their prior knowledge, students explaining a project which leveraged both locally 
relevant sources along with English-language sources to create a book about the students’ city and 
culture, and a class-created poster in English on the wall highlighting local Thai desserts. The non-
U.S. contexts in the modules do not match the U.S. cultural examples in number or specificity, 
reinforcing the ideology that cultural content in English teaching should be related to White history 
and culture. Despite the importance placed on the module content to be adjusted for participants’ 
contexts, teacher participants do not see non-White, locally relevant culture legitimated in the 
English classroom and thus do not see themselves represented. As the audience is a predominantly 
EFL context, the lack of specific examples incorporating local culture into the classroom 
homogenates EFL contexts and essentializes U.S. culture. 
 
Framing of Authenticity 
Among the many applications of the term authentic in the modules are “authentic classroom 
scenes,” “authentic items,” “authentic language,” “authentic context,” “authentic opportunities,” 



Brittain 27 
 

 

“authentic text,” “authentic purposes,” and “authentic sources.” “Authentic materials” occurs most 
often (30 times). Authentic materials, the topic of Module 8, are explicitly defined as “Materials 
used in the target culture for actual communicative needs. They should enable the learner to hear, 
read, and produce language as it is used in the target culture” (Module 8, p. 84). The criteria for 
choosing authentic materials include that they be “in a style of English learners will hear and use” 
(p. 85), inviting different varieties of English to be represented in the classroom but also potentially 
reinforcing particular varieties as cultural capital: more authentic, more authoritative, and 
contributing to gain of status and connection (Lowe & Pinner, 2016). The linking of authenticity 
with the target culture negates the authenticity of English use in the local context and the myriad 
ways English is used around the world. In contrast, authentic use (11 occurrences) refers to 
“us[ing] language to communicate purposefully.” The definition of authentic tasks (3 occurrences) 
also denotes language use: “Tasks or activities that are used in the ‘real’ world for actual 
communication needs” (Module 8, p. 84). Real world (10 occurrences) is “The world in which we 
live—outside the classroom” (Module 1, p. 12). Here, the target culture is not mentioned, the focus 
instead on students’ language use. The contrast between authentic materials (objects) and use 
(action) weaken the construction of authenticity, which avoids a clear stance through deferring the 
task of interpreting authenticity to participants. In pointing to the target culture in describing 
objects, activities, and sources as authentic, authority is reinforced for whichever image has been 
determined as the target, i.e., White-dominant culture. These references to the target culture as 
authentic may also establish culturism through the separation and essentialization of Western 
norms from the local culture in ELT (Lowe & Pinner, 2016). 
 
Implications 
Taking White-centeredness as a given in teacher training materials and ELT as a field needs to be 
explicitly resisted, with these ideologies confronted head-on in teacher training. To establish 
awareness of the presence of such ideologies, their impacts, and resistance, Gerald (2020a) 
strongly advocates for educators to step out from behind the ELT altruistic shield to challenge 
White supremacy in the field rather than ignoring it beneath a justification of the “goodness” of 
our work. Teacher training must incorporate explicit questioning of White native-speakerism 
(Kiczkowiak et al., 2016), including understanding that training materials are not neutral—they 
are influenced by the ideologies internalized in the field. Training materials need to advocate for 
teachers to develop skills as producers of knowledge rather than passive recipients of knowledge 
and materials from the target culture (Kumaravadivelu, 2016). Rather than the colorblind approach 
to ELT and teacher training, explicit acknowledgement of race and culture, impacts experienced 
by ELT teachers of color, and the highlighting of the voices and experiences of ELT teachers of 
color need to be opened up in teacher training (Charles, 2019), along with fostering critical 
assessment skills for both ELT teachers and students to reveal hidden curricula (Jumiah, 2016; 
Lowe & Lawrence, 2018). Greater incorporation of a multicultural and multilingual approach in 
ELT is also suggested to combat the widespread monolingual approach to teaching (Kiczkowiak 
et al., 2016). Along with suggestions for greater inclusion of a wide variety of World Englishes to 
resist these ideologies (Jumiah, 2016; Kubota, 2018; Ramjattan, 2019), explicit and ongoing 
discussions that raise awareness of and break down White native-speakerist ideology are necessary 
to combat essentialism (Kubota, 2018) and need to be explicitly included in training materials 
rather than left to individual users. 
 
 



28 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 
Impacts 
Continuing to reinforce silently-centered Whiteness in ELT causes harm to those who are 
racialized as non-White (Gerald, 2020b). Non-White teachers and non-native speaking teachers 
are positioned as deficient, inferior, illegitimate, and unequal (Ramjattan, 2019). This harm, while 
perhaps not intentional, is under the responsibility of various stakeholders, one of which is teacher 
training developers and programs, who contribute to this harm through neglecting to address 
disparity-causing issues such as White native-speakerism (Jenks & Lee, 2020). The profit motive 
for perpetuating White native-speakerism, as ELT is a money-making enterprise benefiting White 
native speaker dominant countries and communities, also reinforces the perpetuation of this 
ideology (Gerald, 2020b). This leads to further economic disparity among race divides through 
privileging White native speakers in employment access and White publishers and materials 
developers (Gerald, 2020b) along with professional recognition and advancement in the field 
(Kubota, 2018; Kumaravadivelu, 2016). There are also impacts on students when the standard for 
their legitimacy as English users and speakers is reliant on a standard that is largely dependent on 
birth (Gerald, 2020b) and the impetus for marginalized racialized communities to remove 
themselves from oppression is placed on their ability to modify their language practices (Flores, 
2020). Teachers may internalize a negative self-image if they do not meet the White native speaker 
standard and do not see themselves represented as legitimate in the profession (Lowe & Pinner, 
2016; Zacharias, 2019). Such ideology may include a form of Othering of Western native speakers 
and “reduc[e] them to tokens and commodities” (Lowe & Lawrence, 2018, p. 164). These impacts 
indicate the complexity of implications and consequences of native-speakerism ideology and the 
importance of addressing its reinforcement.  
 
Limitations and Future Research 
This analysis cannot be generalized to all materials and is based on the researcher’s interpretation 
which excludes comprehensive contextual knowledge about the texts’ development (Wodak & 
Meyer, 2015) and how trainers have employed the materials beyond the researcher’s experience. 
The centering of Whiteness in this study is meant to bring awareness to and challenge White 
native-speakerism in EFL teacher training; however, this endeavor does not do justice to the need 
for the voices of teachers and students of color from a wide variety of contexts, identities, and 
experiences to break down this construct. This study does not look at intersections of oppression 
(Crenshaw, 1989) in ELT, such as the relationship of race with classism, sexism, homophobia, 
ableism, transphobia, fatphobia, immigration status, religion, or other ways teacher training may 
oppress along the intersections of commonly separated identities. Future studies that incorporate a 
larger sampling of texts may provide insight into the generalization of these findings. Further 
research should include the perspectives of developers, trainers, and teachers from varied contexts 
who have utilized these materials; how individuals and communities may internalize or resist these 
ideologies; and how other factors, such as national or institutional policies and practices, influence 
individuals’ reception of such materials. 
 
Conclusion 
These materials are clearly designed to honor teacher agency and context and promote teacher 
development grounded in theory and practice. This can be acknowledged while also understanding 
how these materials may reinforce White native-speakerism in ELT. White native-speakerism is 
firmly rooted, “hidden and normalised” within the field of ELT (Lowe, 2020, p. 152). Resistance 
is in direct action, and when it comes to racism, there is no middle ground; there is a racist stance 



Brittain 29 
 

 

and an anti-racist stance, and those in power will act based off of what benefits the dominant group 
(Kendi, 2017). An anti-racist stance will actively call out White native-speakerism in ELT; 
empower teachers of color and their varied language varieties, accents, and dialects; de-exoticize 
culture; and reexamine the assumptions of English teaching methodology. 
 
 
References 
 
Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (6th ed.). 

Multilingual Matters. 
Charles, Q. D. (2019). Black teachers of English in South Korea: Constructing identities as a native 

English speaker and English language teaching professional. TESOL Journal, 10(4), 1–16. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.478 

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique 
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago 
Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. 

DiAngelo, R. J. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism. 
Beacon Press. 

English Language Programs. (2020, June 11). [Image]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/ 
elprograms/photos/a.10153768841096184/10156970781271184 

Fairclough, N. (2016). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social 
research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., 
pp. 86–108). SAGE Publications. 

Flores, N. (2020). From academic language to language architecture: Challenging raciolinguistic 
ideologies in research and practice. Theory Into Practice, 59(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/ 
10.1080/00405841.2019.1665411 

Gee, J. P. (2014). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. Routledge. 
Gerald, J. P. B. (2020a). Combatting the altruistic shield in English language teaching. NYS TESOL 

Journal, 7(1), 22–25. http://journal.nystesol.org/jan2020/3_AP.pdf 
Gerald, J. P. B. (2020b). Worth the risk: Towards decentring whiteness in English language 

teaching. BC TEAL Journal, 5(1), 44–54. 
Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ 

ccl030 
Iams, S. (2016). Unpacking the native speaker knapsack: An autoethnographic account of privilege 

in TESOL. Korea TESOL Journal, 12(2), 3–21. 
Jenks, C. J., & Lee, J. W. (2020). Native speaker saviorism: A racialized teaching ideology. 

Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 17(3), 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587. 
2019.1664904 

Jumiah, A. A. (2016). Language, power, and ideology in high school EFL textbooks in Saudi 
Arabia. University of New Mexico. 

Kachru, B. (2006). English: World Englishes. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & 
linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 195–202). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-
2/00645-3 

Kendi, I. X. (2017). Stamped from the beginning: The definitive history of racist ideas in America. 
Bold Type Books. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.478
https://www.facebook.com/%20elprograms/photos/a.10153768841096184/10156970781271184
https://www.facebook.com/%20elprograms/photos/a.10153768841096184/10156970781271184
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1665411
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1665411
http://journal.nystesol.org/jan2020/3_AP.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/%20ccl030
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/%20ccl030
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.%202019.1664904
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.%202019.1664904
https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00645-3
https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00645-3


30 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 
Kiczkowiak, M., Baines, D., & Krummenacher, K. (2016). Using awareness raising activities on 

initial teacher training courses to tackle ‘native speakerism.’ English Language Teacher 
Education and Development Journal, 19, 1–9. 

Kramadibrata, A. (2016). The halo surrounding native English speaker teachers in Indonesia. 
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.17509/ 
ijal.v5i2.1352 

Kubota, R. (2018). Racial, ethnic, and cultural stereotypes in teaching English. In J. I Liontas (Ed.), 
The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). John Wiley & Sons. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0298 

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2016). The decolonial option in English teaching: Can the subaltern act? 
TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.202 

Lowe, R. J. (2020). Uncovering ideology in English language teaching: Identifying the ‘native 
speaker’ frame. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
46231-4 

Lowe, R. J., & Lawrence, L. (2018). Native-speakerism and “hidden curricula” in ELT training: 
A duoethnography. Journal of Language and Discrimination, 2(2), 162–187. 
https://doi.org/10.1558/jld.36409 

Lowe, R. J., & Pinner, R. (2016). Finding the connections between native-speakerism and 
authenticity. Applied Linguistics Review, 7(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-
2016-0002 

Matias, C. E., & Mackey, J. (2016). Breakin’ down whiteness in antiracist teaching: Introducing 
critical whiteness pedagogy. The Urban Review, 48(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 
s11256-015-0344-7 

Mohamed, M. A. S. (2015). The role of English language textbooks in the reproduction of racism. 
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 3(1), 95–108. 

Mosley, D. V., & Bellamy, P. L. (2020). Academics for Black survival and wellness. 
https://www.academics4blacklives.com 

Nayak, A. (2007). Critical whiteness studies. Sociology Compass, 1(2), 737–755. https://doi.org/ 
10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00045.x 

Opp-Beckman, L., & Klinghammer, S. (2006). Shaping the way we teach English: Successful 
practices around the world. Office of English Language Programs. 
https://americanenglish.state.gov/resources/shaping-way-we-teach-english-successful-
practices-around-world 

Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315225593 

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press. 
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: How White teachers maintain and 

enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197–215. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320902995475 

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020). NVivo (Version 12) [Computer software]. QSR International 
Pty Ltd. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home 

Ramjattan, V. A. (2019). The white native speaker and inequality regimes in the private English 
language school. Intercultural Education, 30(2), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 
14675986.2018.1538043 

Richards, L. (2015). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. 

https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i2.1352
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i2.1352
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0298
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.202
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46231-4
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46231-4
https://doi.org/10.1558/jld.36409
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-0002
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-0002
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-015-0344-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-015-0344-7
https://www.academics4blacklives.com/
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00045.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00045.x
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315225593
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320902995475
https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1538043
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1538043


Brittain 31 
 

 

Rosa, J. D. (2016). Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies 
across communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26(2), 162–183. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12116 

Ruecker, T. (2011). Challenging the native and nonnative English speaker hierarchy in ELT: New 
directions from race theory. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8(4), 400–422. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2011.615709 

Ruecker, T., & Ives, L. (2015). White native English speakers needed: The rhetorical construction 
of privilege in online teacher recruitment spaces. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 733–756. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.195 

Saad, L. F. (Host). (2019, December 12). Robin DiAngelo on White fragility (No. 011) [Audio 
podcast]. In Good Ancestor. http://laylafsaad .com/good-ancestor-podcast/ep011-robin-
diangelo 

Schreiber, B. R. (2019). “More like you”: Disrupting native speakerism through a multimodal 
online intercultural exchange. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 1115–1138. https://doi.org/ 
10.1002/tesq.534 

Sung, C. C. M. (2011). Race and native speakers in ELT: Parents’ perspectives in Hong Kong: 
Chinese parents in Hong Kong err in their perceptions of racial background and the native 
speaker of English. English Today, 27(3), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/ 
S0266078411000344 

West, G. B. (2019). Navigating morality in neoliberal spaces of English language education. 
Linguistics and Education, 49, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.12.004 

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2015). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). SAGE 
Publications. 

Zacharias, N. T. (2019). The ghost of nativespeakerism: The case of teacher classroom 
introductions in transnational contexts. TESOL Journal, 10(4), e499. https://doi.org/ 
10.1002/tesj.499 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________________________________________ 
 

Received: August 15, 2020 | Accepted: September 30, 2020 | Published: October 29, 2020 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12116
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2011.615709
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.195
http://laylafsaad.com/good-ancestor-podcast/ep011-robin-diangelo
http://laylafsaad.com/good-ancestor-podcast/ep011-robin-diangelo
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.534
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.534
https://doi.org/10.1017/%20S0266078411000344
https://doi.org/10.1017/%20S0266078411000344
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.12.004
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.499
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.499

