“Othered” in the classroom page 1
RUNNING HEAD: “OTHERED” IN THE CLASSROOM
“Othered” in the classroom: Using Community Autoethnography to better understand non-native
and perceived non-native teacher-student interactions
Paper submitted to the Instructional/Developmental Communication Division, 2015 International
Communication Association, in Puerto Rico, San Juan
“Othered” in the classroom page 2
SA: I tell them I’m from Chicago. But they continue to ask where I’m really from.
Introduction
The narrative form is particularly well-suited to articulating the significance of
positionality in the power dynamics of the college classroom (Vargas, 2002). Because experience
is informed by identity, both self-constructed and ascribed, such narratives are unique to each
narrator. However, through the compilation of individual narratives, we can begin to recognize
patterns that emerge throughout such individual experiences, allowing us to contextualize these
unique lived experiences within larger frameworks of social identity, the classroom, and
academia as a whole (Ellis & Bochner, 1996).
For these reasons, we undertake to avoid isolating our experiences in individual
classrooms by looking outward, toward each other, and on the experiences of teachers from
minority or marginalized populations is compartmentalized in terms of a single ethnic or cultural
designation (Hendrix, 2007). Thus we use community autoethnography in order to include the
experiences of educators expressing varied identities. Community autoethnography allows at
once for collectivity, capturing the “insider” experience (Toyosaki, Pensoneau-Conway, Wendt,
& Leathers, 2009), while allowing each informant to maintain an outsider’s perspective on the
individual experiences of the other participants. This dual perspective promotes engagement with
multiple standpoints and inhibits the tendency of self-reflective inquiry to conflate individual
meanings with universal experience.
We are male and female, from various ethnic, social, national, and religious backgrounds,
but we are each self-identified as members of marginalized or minority groups. We share our
separate and collective experiences with each other and with the larger community in the hope of
rearticulating what it means to negotiate multiple identities in the classroom. It is of course our
“Othered” in the classroom page 3
ultimate goal to question how and whether our otherness might be reimagined as a confounding
element in the structure of academia, an element that allows our students to contemplate the
potential for remaking academia in a way that provides a space for each of them.
Literature Review
SH: I sometimes take advantage of being the other. I also take advantage of Asian
stereotypes, like being smart, being good at math…
The Self and the Other
Otherness, or othering, in social theory refers to the self-identification process which is
led by differentiating the self (an individual or a group) from the other. The other is a person (or
a group) who is considered as not having the fundamental characteristics of the group and thus
not belonging to the group. The idea of the other is first introduced in Hegel’s book,
Phenomenology of Spirit (1977). Hegel states that an individual’s dominance over the other starts
when two different entities encounter each other. When one meets the other, he or she is
threatened by the feeling of a separation and alienation and thus tries to negate the other in order
to secure his or her own existence. During this struggle with the other, one develops one’s own
self-consciousness.
While the term otherness has a highly philosophical background, it has been applied to
explain specific social phenomena, such as social conflicts between different races, classes,
nationalities, religions, and sexual orientations. With Orientalism, Said (1978) explains how the
process of othering has resulted in the current knowledge system dominated by the “Western”
view. He states that the stronger group’s othering process is a way of reinforcing the
stigmatization of the weaker group, and controlling knowledge is a critical part of the process, in
terms of maintaining power. Said further asserts that Western knowledge of the East, such as
“Othered” in the classroom page 4
philosophy, history, and literature, is generated based not on fact, but on a set of distorted
archetypes generated in the service of emphasizing the superiority of Western culture.
In classroom settings, the distinction between the self and the other can be applied to the
relationship between an instructor and students. According to the otherness framework,
instructors and students are in clearly conflicting positions, perceiving each other as the other.
The power dynamics between these two groups, however, is rather complicated. In general, the
instructor is in the superior position because he or she has more knowledge and a higher
educational degree than the students and also has the power to decide the students’ grades. On
the other hand, the students can be empowered by their numerical superiority. In addition, the
students can affect the instructor’s career by completing teacher evaluations. When the instructor
comes from an ethnic minority group, or a different nationality, the degree of his or her otherness
would be perceived as greater by the students. This challenge becomes more complex in teaching
communication courses because the othering between the instructor and the students can be a
significant barrier to the communication flow between them. If the communication instructor
fails to communicate with the students, it will critically damage his or her credibility as a teacher
(McCroskey, 1992), which is the most important component of student perception of university
professors.
Self-Identity Theory
A person’s self-identity is determined by how he or she defines the other. Even though
Hegel considers that the conflict between the self and the other is inevitable, we still have an
opportunity to decide where to position ourselves; to which group we should belong. This idea
that individuals make decisions in their own social categorization is derived from self-identity
theory, proposed by Tajfel (1972). According to Tajfel (1972), social identity is defined as “the
“Othered” in the classroom page 5
individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional
and value significance to him of this group membership” (pg. 292). That is, based on diverse
characteristics in the groups, such as ethnicity, gender, religion, or socio-economic level, people
find diverse social categories within the society. In addition, by considering their own positions
in the social system, people compare themselves to other members and categorize distinctiveness
between in-group and out-group (Turner, 1975). Hogg and Abrams (1988) also suggest that
people derive their identity from the social categories to which they belong. For example, self-
identification to the specific social category becomes salient when people feel themselves part of
the group members through sharing representations of how others in the group behave.
Social identity theory consists of three psychological processes: social categorization,
social identity and social comparison (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). First, social categorization
represents that people categorize diverse groups according to the group’s characteristics, such as
attitudes and normative expectations of the group. Instead of emphasizing personal features,
people initially consider the nature of the specific group membership. Second, social identity
indicates an individual’s self-concept that reflects the groups to which he or she might belong
(1986). After categorizing diverse groups among society, a person tries to categorize himself
within a specific group. Third, social comparison explains that people tend to compare their own
group to any other groups that seem relevant (1986). That is, an individual’s self-identity can be
frequently changeable based on their satisfaction with being a group member.
When people are dissatisfied with the selected social identity, they tend to decide one of
three strategies to improve their social identity: social mobility, social competition, and social
creativity. First, the social mobility strategy explains the trend that people try to join into the new
group when they perceive their in-group provides them with negative outcomes, such as
“Othered” in the classroom page 6
prejudice against them. That is, when people perceive some issues from being in the specific
group, they are motivated to avoid those negative outcomes and identify themselves with the
new or better group, which does not bring them problems and provides them with improved
social identity. Second, the social competition represents that individuals continuously compare
their in-group and out-groups. In case they perceive their in-group is inferior to out-groups, they
are motivated to improve their in-group and attack out-groups. Third, social creativity implies
that people use diverse mental tricks to reduce the perceived gap between in-group and out-
groups. Through social creativity, they are able to perceive some positive outcomes from the
group to which they belong.
The instructor and student relationship can be also portrayed by this self-identity theory.
As individuals actively examine and choose the group they want to belong, instructors can also
adopt various social-identification strategies in classrooms. But different strategies have different
strengths and weaknesses. If the instructor positions himself or herself to be the same group as
the students, he or she can reduce the emotional distance with the students and promote a
friendly learning environment. However, being in the same group with the students might harm
the instructor’s authority and result in lack of discipline. Holding a vague position could also
cause some boundary issues. On the contrary, if the instructor indentifies himself or herself as
the other, it would be more convenient for him or her to have control in a classroom. Yet, a strict
learning environment and lack of interaction with students can also decrease teacher credibility,
which is often associated with perceived caring (Teven and Hanson, 2004) and affinity seeking
(Frymier and Thompson, 1992).
In case of the foreign-looking or foreign instructor who is already marked as the other by
the students, self-identification strategies become more complicated. The instructor has to add
“Othered” in the classroom page 7
another dimension, the foreign versus the native, to this problem and evaluate the consequences.
Do we have to admit the difference and fight the prejudice, or do we use the difference as our
unique teaching opportunity? Or are we the ones who are othering ourselves from the students?
Do we have to try to blend in and get closer to the students? The question of how our multi-
cultural identities will be reflected in the relationship with the students should be addressed as
well. How should a Pakistani-American who identifies herself as a Chicagoan and also a
Muslim, grew up in a white neighborhood, and teaches ethnically diverse students position
herself as an instructor? How should a Korean who is accustomed to the one-way lecture style
prevalent in Korea, but now doing graduate study in the United States, adapt to the expectations
of American students?
With this study, we don’t necessarily seek to answer these specific questions. Rather, the
goal is to articulate them and to acknowledge their validity, while bringing to the fore the issue
of negotiating one’s multiple identities. In this way, we seek to illuminate the often perilous
negotiation of conflicting identities that position us as at once powerful (the instructor, the
classroom authority figure) and powerless (the foreigner, the female, the suspect minority, the
model minority).
Method
SA: I have a Midwestern accent. My parents do not, they have a Pakistani accent.
JJ: My daughter will never use broken English.
SH: I worry my students don’t understand me.
Autoethnography
Much autoethnographic work begins from a defensive position. Scholars engaged in
autoethnography often find themselves dedicating a great deal of their writing to justifying their
methodological choices in far greater detail than is required of those using more traditional
“Othered” in the classroom page 8
methodologies and to re-answering common criticisms. While we have taken pains to outline our
methodology, we have chosen not to indulge critics or advocates by including a lengthy attempt
at validating autoethnography as a method. Our contention is that the discipline of
communication has a long history of successfully adapting and refining the methodologies of
other disciplines. The uses of first-person narrative are well-established in other fields (Suleri,
1996) and we leave the task of defending its utility within communication research to those
scholars who wish to enter the fray.
Authoethnography is the preferred method for this paper because it allows us to use
personal narratives to explore culturally specific situations about being perceived as “the other.”
Reed-Danahay (1997) says autoethnographic writing involves highly personalized accounts from
one’s own experiences, which can be used to gain a deeper understanding of a particular subject
or cultural phenomenon. Autoethnographic research places the researcher at the center of the
study and re-focuses the writing around the way the ethnographer interacts with the culture being
examined. As communication scholars and researchers in an ever growing field, we have the
unique opportunity to turn the research lens in our direction. By writing about ourselves and our
experiences we become subjects of the ensuing research and have the ability to “participate in
each other’s existence” (Bochner & Ellis, 1995).
Holt (2003) found the methodology to be an uninterrupted way to bring the audience into
the researcher’s inner world. It allows us (the researchers) to confront dominant discourses on
representation and power structures by using emotional and personal narratives to reclaim those
spaces for marginalized peoples and groups. Buzard (2003) furthers this notion by discussing
autoethnography as “the study, representation, or knowledge of a culture by one or more of its
members.” In our particular case, as instructors who are the other, or perceived as such, we have
“Othered” in the classroom page 9
inadvertently created our own culture wherein we share our experiences dealing with students in
our own classes or as teaching assistants working with students in large survey courses.
Autoethnography gives othered researchers multiple voices in the Western, or Western-
style, university. In autoethnography, it could become the “native’s” choice of how much or how
little of text or title page to share with the traditional Western ethnographer (Buzard, 2003).
Personal storytelling creates a space for the “native” researcher to heal the wounds that non-
native scholars and researchers have opened. It gives the native an opportunity to respond with
an inner truth that can dissolve the dominant discourse surrounding those particular subjects. As
a matter of reflexivity, it can break down the non-native’s dominant narrative and replace it with
the native’s. “Autoethnographic performance creates a space for the detached voice and the
“profane” body to dialogue reintegrating the head and the heart into academic writing, and
challenging the construction of master narratives,” (Spry, 2001).
In the context of this narrative, we refer to ourselves as “natives”; however, that term
does not mean that we are all foreign-born scholars and instructors. Rather the term “native” is
meant to distinguish us from our students who may perceive us as being “the other” when in fact
one of the instructors is U.S. native, while the other members are Korean-born. We find that the
use of narrative vignettes creates glimpses of everyday lives that can further a “contextual
richness” within subjects (Humphreys, 2005).
Community Autoethnography
To best explore the idea of the instructor as “the other”, the current paper will use
community autoethnography (Toyosaki et al., 2009) to create a multi-layered look at how we feel
we are being perceived as the other by our students. Interactive interviewing (Ellis, Kiesinger, &
Tilmann-Healy, 1997) can reveal insights, not only about us, but also helps to define our
“Othered” in the classroom page 10
relationship with the participants and future findings. Being able to share our stories with each
other creates a safe place where we can learn about the kind of instructors we are and the kind
we could become. Sharing experiences will allow us to learn from each other and to establish a
certain level of empathy for each other (Broome, 1991).
Ellis et al (1997) examination of bulimics offers an in-depth look at how personal and
interactive interviewing is transformative to both researchers and participants. Reflexive stories
often have the power to unlock potential research areas that have remained untouched by other
methodologies, which in the past have been concealed from the research world. Most important,
this type of analysis also gives the formerly silent researcher a voice where he or she can share
personal experiences that have influenced his or her research (1997).
Storytelling also “opens and frees one’s private interpretive market or the self, inviting
competing views of the self and others,” (Toyosaki, 2007). Sharing stories also opens us up to
redefining our identities by letting others reinterpret our narratives within their own selves,
creating opportunities for growth. However, silence will stunt that growth. When researchers
refuse to share their experiences, they close the door to the possibilities of learning and growing
as instructors (2007).
Through the avenue of community autoethnography, Toyosaki et al (2009) use the
concept of storytelling as a performance to investigate the possible criticisms involving their
teaching and learning of whiteness. The very nature of sharing experiences with a community
dictates that the end result will not be an “outsider product,” rather, it will come from the “emic”
or insider perspective of the group. In addition, community autoethnography creates a sense of
community. As researchers, we are collaborating on a team-building activity that will lead to the
“Othered” in the classroom page 11
furtherance of future knowledge (2009).
Process
We have not engaged here with larger questions of what it means to be the other within
the structure of academia. While this is an important and necessary conversation, our focus in
this piece is on classroom interaction, precisely because the negotiation of identities within this
context precedes understanding of oneself within the larger context of the university and of
academia. Classroom interaction is more directly personal than interaction with vaguely defined
social, bureaucratic, and administrative machineries. For this reason, we find that the
autoethnographic method is particularly suited to our purpose.
The following community autoethnographic performance deals with the subject of the
instructor as the other. In our case, we have three participants: SA, a second-generation Pakistani
American who is also Muslim; JJ who was born and raised in South Korea; and SH, also born
and raised in South Korea. SA is an Assistant Professor at a large Midwestern university that is
teaching focused, JJ is also an Assistant Professor at a teaching university in the East coast and
finally SH, who decided to leave the U.S. and academia go back to South Korea and focus her
efforts on seeking corporate/government related employment. SH’s experiences about teaching
will focus on her time during her doctorate when she was teaching large survey courses.
We met several times to discuss our experiences of otherness intersecting with our
position as instructors. We transcribed and reviewed these conversations together, then set out to
craft our individual narratives, which were informed by our community discussions. We shared
our individual narratives, then placed these within the framework of existing literature on the
subjects of otherness, pedagogy, and identity.
“Othered” in the classroom page 12
JJ
JJ: Yes, I have learned English for a long time, but I often experience that some students
do not understand my typical accent at all. For these students, it seems that I am
stigmatized as a foreign professor, who has a totally different cultural background and
has limited understanding about the U.S. culture.
Holding a cup of coffee on my hand, I go into the classroom. Some students who already
came to the class say hello to me, but they look very tired. “Did they have midterm exam in other
classes?” It is possible, but I know this class is just a requirement for my students and they
actually do not have a lot of interest in today’s topic. A few more students come in, and one of
them brings me questions about the assignment and due date. Although I made announcements
about them a couple of times during the class and the information is available from the syllabus
as well as our course website, I kindly spend a few minutes answering this question.
Reflecting on my undergraduate years in South Korea, I wonder why this student did not
read the syllabus before asking such a simple question. But I also know that students often pay
relatively little attention to their syllabi (Becker & Calhoon, 1999). This has me thinking about
whether I should modify the current syllabus to be more concise, so that all students can easily
read and understand it for their success. Or, is this the so-called American classroom culture –
asking questions freely before they try to find answers by themselves? As a non-native English
speaker, I am anxious about my ability to speak clearly which may result in students
misinterpreting me (Rajagopalan, 2005). I am afraid hearing from my student “Oh, I
misunderstood the assignment and deadline.” I also recognize that some students want to
challenge the authority and power of a minority professor (Ladson-Billings, 1996).
I start my class with “let’s get started,” as always. During my lecture, I do my best to
make them easily understand the concepts in the textbook. I show a movie clip to demonstrate
the concepts that I want to explain, and it seems my students really enjoy watching this clip. Yes,
“Othered” in the classroom page 13
I knew it would work. I prepared all these for a long time and simulated the whole class last
night and this morning. This video is really a good example of a core concept I am addressing. In
addition, my students might have further insights about the video which may foster more fluidic
discussion. So far, so good. Things go as I have planned.
After watching the video, I asked a question, “From the movie, were you able to find any
evidence of effective “non-verbal” communication? Is there anyone who can speak about unique
characteristics of “non-verbal” communication methods?” From the faces of my students, I feel
most of them have difficulty understanding my question. I rephrased the question again, and now
it is clear that they do not understand the question itself. Oh my God. I really did not expect this
situation at all. One student carefully raised her hand and asked. “Professor, you just said none
barbar, and what is barbar by the way?” I repeated “verbal” several times. After checking that
she was not able to get my “verbal” pronunciation, I wrote this word on the blackboard. Finally,
the student was laughing and said, “Oh, you meant verbal!!!! Now I see, thank you.” When I
asked other students in the class if my pronunciation of “verbal” is really that not-
understandable, most students laughed a lot. I feel sorry that I was not able to pronounce this
word more clearly.
Gil (2009) suggests that non-native English speakers are perceived by students as less
qualified than their native English speaking counterparts. Native speakers were born into the
language and as a result understand the syntax and grammar associated with the language (2009).
Further, language contains cultural idioms and non-native speakers who are not familiar with the
cultural may have difficulty grasping multiple connotations (2009).
An example of cultural differences are reflected in my previous experience with another
class. The day’s lecture was focused on Health Communication. I explained the pitfalls of
“Othered” in the classroom page 14
managed care system in the States by showing them a power point slide about typical hospital
stay for new moms. Comparing U.S. health care system to South Korea, I explained “New moms
in South Korea often stay in the hospital for a week while new moms in the U.S. are discharged
after 48 hours. Don’t you think 2 days are too short to be discharged?” One student raised his
hand showing his disagreement. “In OUR culture, resting at home brings us a private recovery.
We cannot rest at the hospital for such a long time because it is a shared place.” I mentioned “Ok,
you mean this is because of the cultural difference between western and oriental culture?” The
student agreed and added more comments. “Yes, I believe that home is the best healing place in
western culture.” “Ok, then how can you explain this?” I showed them the next slide. “Take a
look at this slide. All the European countries, Asian countries, and most industrialized countries,
as long as they are so called developed/industrialized countries, they all allow longer hospital
stays for new moms than the States. Your last name shows that you have a French background,
right? In France, they allow a new mom to stay at the hospital for 5 to 14 days. Do you think you
can still explain this situation with the difference between your culture and my culture?”
Having these classroom experiences, I wonder if my students could understand my
lecture better if I spoke fluent English with perfect pronunciation. In addition to fluency of the
English language, I might be able to better explain these concepts more effectively if I
understood U.S. culture better (Rueda & Stillman, 2012). I pointed out the U.S. healthcare
system is one of the most expensive and least effective in the world. How will my students
perceive this statement? Will they view their professor as an insider who criticizes their system
working towards a positive change or as an outsider who is humiliating their system? A lot of
thoughts run through my mind for the duration of the class.
“Othered” in the classroom page 15
After class, one of the students approaches me. “You said you came from South Korea,
right? Is that the name of the country or is it some part of China or what? I actually played ping-
pong with my Chinese friends. They are all very good players and they all look like you.” As a
Korean, I am very shocked with this question – not even knowing that my beautiful homeland is
really a country. On the other hand, I also appreciate that she felt comfortable enough to speak
frankly with me. Although I am aware that an American from a European background would
most likely not be posed such a series of questions: “You said you are from the U.S., right? Is it a
name of the country, or is it some part of Europe? You just look like my friends from other
European countries.” I remembered from my graduate school days when a staff member did not
know whether I was from South Korea or North Korea. Every time she filled out a form for me,
she complained, “Why do you have two countries? Are you from south or north?” While I am
thinking of the staff for a few seconds, a student is waiting for my answer. I answer, “South
Korea is a country, not a province of China.” I also explain, “Although many Asians look very
similar to your eyes, most of us actually have a sense to distinguish our nationality based on our
appearances. So, if you believe I look like your Chinese friend, it is like I cannot distinguish
Americans and Canadians because they all look very similar to a foreigner like me.
I decide to tell that her questions might be perceived as rude. I also started my question,
“Ok, you said you are from U.S.A., right? Let me ask you a question. Is it a name of the country
or is it some part of England or what?” She looks at me very weird. And she replies, “What do
you mean?” By asking this question, I just hope she learns her questions might be rude for some
people. Not responding my question any more, her questions continue. “Do you have any
specific foods? What do you eat? Can I try your food somewhere around here? I have never tried
any Asian foods other than the Chinese restaurant across the street. But, Chinese food looks so
“Othered” in the classroom page 16
greasy.” She seems really serious and oblivious to how her questions and comments might be
perceived. I recognize that she just wanted to get to know me and my culture better, but it was
clear she did not know how to approach the topic without sounding offensive. During the
conversation, I think, “Thank you for paying such attention to me, anyway.” The student might
expect that her professor would like her more or grade better due to this conversation about my
cultural background (Murphy, Araiza, Cardenas, & Garza, 2008).
As a professor, I wish to be a good communicator. However, I continue to doubt my
ability to become a great communicator. Living as an alien in a foreign country means that my
past experiences, personal stories, humor, and even knowledge about American celebrities may
be perceived negatively by native students. When your mom, dad, daughters of dad’s friends,
and sons of mom’s friends are ALL Korean, and when your teachers, peers, and colleagues for
the last 30 years have all been Korean, it is really hard not to be a “typical” Korean. For the most
part, that is me. Of course, minus the last ten years in the U.S. from when I started graduate
school. Based on my experiences, I feel some students really seem like frogs in the well. The
frogs in the well know nothing of the great ocean, which exist outside of the well. These people
just do not pay attention to international issues. It might be true that these students do not need to
know about all the issues in the world in detail. But am I effectively helping them reach their
potential as learners though effective communication in the classroom?
Do I communicate with my students? Yes, I definitely say that I can communicate with
my students and deliver my knowledge about the field of Communication. But do I really
communicate well with my students? That’s what I am afraid to answer. I am learning thiurgh
my experiences, as well as from my students. When my students talk about “50 Cent,” I initially
“Othered” in the classroom page 17
thought they seemed strangely attached to such a small amount of money. But now I know they
are talking about a famous rapper.
SH
SH: What if you’re a foreigner and English doesn’t come naturally to you?
I know many Korean instructors who currently teach at universities in the U.S., and
regardless of their disciplines, the one common problem they are all struggling with is the
anxiety about communicating in English. One of them confessed that he had been teaching for
five years and still felt nervous every time he stood at the podium. He even got chronic gastritis
because of anxiety. Although his case is extreme, almost all Korean instructors share similar
experiences of varying stress levels.
The fundamental reason why Korean instructors feel so insecure about English
proficiency originates from the cultural characteristics of Korea. In Korean culture, teaching is a
highly respected and honorable profession. Being a teacher means more than teaching
knowledge, but also educating values, courtesy, and of course wisdom, comprehensively.
Students expect a lot from their teachers, as well. A professor should be able to answer every
question students ask, and also arguing with teachers is considered impolite and inappropriate
behavior. As an old Korean expression says: Students should not even dare to step on their
teacher’s shadow. Think about the master and student relationship in Chinese Kun Fu movies.
That is considered the ideal relationship between a teacher and a student. In addition to that, we
have a culture of face saving (Lee, 1999). As one’s honor represents the whole family and
community’s honor, shame potential means social disaster. Korean instructors who teach in the
U.S. have high expectations for themselves. Their goal is to be the perfect professor, highly
respected by American students. If they failed to be “the perfect teacher,” it could bring shame to
“Othered” in the classroom page 18
their family and even to their country. But their imperfect English often prevented them from
becoming the “perfect teacher” as they were so intent on becoming.
I also faced similar challenges when I taught in the U.S. As a student, I had experienced
the U.S. education system for eight years, but when teaching became my job, I had difficulty
breaking my own expectations of becoming “the perfect teacher.” Yet my circumstances were
not helping. First of all, I was still a student when I taught, which means that I did not have a
Ph.D. to support my expertise and confidence. Also, of course, my English was not as perfect as
my students’. So, I decided to give up my dream of being the perfect teacher. I remember the
moment of surprise when I first saw one of my American professors couldn’t answer my
colleague’s question. The more surprising fact was that the professor did not appear to be
ashamed of it. Admitting the fact that she couldn’t always give an answer to all questions seemed
unexpected, but it made sense to me. My new image of the perfect teacher has evolved into a
mixture of the Kung Fu master and the American professor. I want to show confidence in my
expertise in teaching, stimulating students’ ideas and hopefully teaching them the wisdom of life,
but also to be honest about my limitations with my students and with myself.
On the first day of my teaching an introductory film course, which was my first large-
sized class (more than 70 students), I explained what I could offer to my students specifically. I
said, “My background is in media studies, so this class is likely to interpret a film as a social
medium focusing on the film’s influences on its audience and our society rather than its literature
or artistic values. I will teach you systematic methods to analyze films in terms of languages,
theories, ideologies, and movements, but I’m not the expert in movie history or production.
Some of you probably have more knowledge on those particular areas, so your opinions and
ideas are always welcome in this class. And another thing I want you to know in this class is that,
“Othered” in the classroom page 19
as you can see, I am a foreigner, which means English is my second language. When you don’t
understand my accent, feel free to let me know and correct my accent.”
The strategy of admitting my strengths and weaknesses had worked well. I shared my
knowledge as much as I could, and I also let my students share their knowledge with other
classmates through live discussions. To teach the subjects that I didn’t know much about, I used
various documentary films featuring those areas. When I didn’t understand a student’s question,
I asked to repeat the question or ask back the rephrased question to the student for clarification.
Since I already mentioned about my lack of English proficiency on the first day of the class, I
could be less embarrassed and stayed calm when I made grammar mistakes or had
communication problems.
I also tried to give my students the benefit of having a foreign instructor by providing
them an international perspective of the films. Showing foreign movies in class was one way to
introduce different cultures to students. One time we watched a Korean movie, Lady Vengeance,
which had completely different cinematic styles from those of Hollywood movies. I was glad
when one student commented that Lady Vengeance was the weirdest movie she had ever seen
because it proves that she was experiencing diverse cultures even if she found them weird and
strange at first. Providing a different view to look at U.S culture in class is another advantage of
being a foreign instructor. During the discussion of ideologies of film in class, I shared my
personal experiences about race and ethnicity in the U.S. and asked students to discuss their
personal opinions about race. Students were actively engaged in the discussion, and I remember
that class was very enjoyable for both my students and me.
Being a foreign instructor in communication courses was challenging. Language and
cultural barriers were not easy to overcome. Yet I think the more difficult thing to break through
“Othered” in the classroom page 20
was my own perceptions and expectations of myself. Switching my focus from what I expect
from myself to what students expect from me was the first step to overcome the difficulties of
being a foreign instructor. Now I know that I do not have to be a perfect teacher to be a good
teacher.
SA
SA: I’ve had students comment about my ability to speak English so well. I was born and raised
in the United States.
Thinking back to my graduate school days I can recall that even before stepping foot on
campus, I was already being labeled as “the other.” My acceptance into the doctoral program
was contingent on several major factors involving The Office of International Students and
Scholars (OISS). These issues were: My student visa status, housing situation, TOEFL scores,
current immunization records, including whether I had my tuberculosis shot at the university’s
medical center. All of this would have made perfect sense if I had just said my goodbyes to
teary-eyed relatives from Karachi; however, in my case, I had just made the 30-minute drive
over from the suburbs. All of the issues the OISS had were for their namesake: The International
Student. I was a Midwesterner, born and raised in Chicago. My transcripts from undergraduate
and graduate school were from Chicago, so was my place of birth, yet my name was not Jenny,
Beth, or Kathy, it is perceived as foreign and different. According to The Director of Media
Studies, an Armenian-American, my name is why the Communication Department at the
university flagged me as an international student.
Years later, I am now an Assistant Professor at a teaching intensive school. I recognize
my privilege. Larger proportions of faculty of color are represented in the lower ranks of
academia as lecturers, instructors and adjuncts (Bernal & Villalpando, 2010). Further, “women,
“Othered” in the classroom page 21
regardless of race, occupy the lowest academic ranks (lecturer and instructor) in larger
proportions than men” (2010, pg. 170). As a result, I am keenly aware that few of my colleagues
of color and even fewer of my female colleagues of color have made it through the interview
process and attained the “golden ticket” Assistant Professor rank. Students are not accustomed to
seeing professors that look like me. Thus, to break the ice, on the first day of classes I ask
students: How many of you thought I was a male? More than half the class raise their hands and
laugh. Humor works for me, especially since I teach a 4/4 load with an average of 30 students
per class with little previous teaching experience.
My education is from a large research intensive university where I spent the first two
years working in a media production-based assistantship. Unlike my classmates who spent their
years teaching, I spent my first two years hidden away in darkened editing bays and on location
shoots. When finally given the task to teach I asked myself questions like: Would I be able to
stand in front of that many students and lecture? Will they respect me as an instructor? How
about as a grown-up? Will I be able to connect with them on any level? Will they think I’m a
foreigner or an American? Will they think I am Pakistani or Indian? Should I care?
Unlike SH and JJ, I don’t have an “accent.” Although Muslim, I don’t wear the hijab
(head covering). However, I do have an olive complexion and I do come from privilege. I am
what the U.S. government refers to as the “model minority” (Dhingra, 2003). Lumped into a
much larger category with every other Asian, I do not fit within the black-white paradigm
because my middle-class status supposedly shields me from racism (2003). Looking at the crowd
of students filing into the classroom on the first day of class, I note that there are few Asian
(South or East) faces.
I grew up in predominantly white areas and dealt with the racism that ensued during the
“Othered” in the classroom page 22
first Gulf War and continued intermittently through 9/11. As Dhingra (2003) says: “The fact that
many-though clearly not all-Asian Americans are well educated, from middle class or above, and
live in mostly White neighborhoods further distances them from other minorities” (pg. 120).
Teaching at a school that was predominantly White was a challenge simply because of my own
preconceived notions of these students. Further, many female faculty of color continue to deal
with students who challenge their knowledge. As Chesler and Young (2007) suggest, “white and
male faculty members can make—and can assume that students will make—assumptions about
the high level of their subject matter expertise” (pg. 12). However, female faculty, especially of
color, will be regular challenged regarding their expertise and authority in the classroom (2007).
This becomes more evident as I compare my experiences with the colleague who I share my
office with.
As a tenured-white-male, he is rarely challenged by students regarding his expertise in his
subject area. In several occasions, students would ask me for his schedule, mistaking me for his
secretary. I cannot help but feel a certain level of resentment. Incidences like this and others (two
males students talking over me while I was lecturing) undermine my authority. Despite my
proven teaching and research records, I am mistaken for a secretary or forced to contact the male
students’ male coaches to help me deal with their behavior.
Additionally, as an authority figure, I am unsure of myself, can I take risks in the
classroom (Luthra, 2003)? While my white, male colleague is a tenured professor, I am on the
tenure-track. Thus, taking chances in the classroom becomes a larger risk, (I do not want to elicit
negative student evaluations), while maintaining a challenging learning environment.
I recognize that while education is liberatory, it often glosses over the fact that the
perceived norm is a white, male teacher (2003). Although my desire is to make the classroom a
“Othered” in the classroom page 23
place for breaking that dominant image, I find challenging students to step away from the norm
all while trying to create a legitimate space for myself is difficult (2003). Yet I continue to strive
to meet my students learning needs. As the chair of my department once said to me, “you bring
an international perspective to the students and it’s something they need.”
Conclusion
The narratives we have offered here demonstrate both the diversity of experience among
teachers from traditionally marginalized groups. This, of itself, is not unusual. What is unusual in
these narratives is the shared refusal to be bound by our otherness. We focus not on what our
students might think of our differences, but on the possibilities offered them through their
experience of our otherness.
We present this community autoethnography in the hope of showing through our
individual narratives and communal conversations that the possibility of using difference—of
sexuality, ability, ethnicity, religion, and race—is possible within many contexts. The specific
constructed or ascribed identity, the subject matter of the course, the pedagogical method, may
all vary. The opportunity presented to us to use our otherness as an asset in the classroom,
however, remains the same. We can choose to avoid falling into the trap of defensiveness and
blame, of resenting our students’ constricted view of the world and instead become vulnerable
and offer our differences to students and allowing them to experience them with us.
“Othered” in the classroom page 24
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self esteem in social
identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(4),
317-334.
Becker, A. H., & Calhoon, S. K. (1999). What introductory psychology students attend to on a
course syllabus. Teaching of Psychology, 26(1), 6-11.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Billings, L. S. (1999). Black sheep and expectancy violation:
Integrating two models of social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology,
29(4), 523-542.
Bochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. (1995). Telling and living: Narrative co-construction and the
practices of interpersonal relationships. In T. L. Glasser, H. E. Sypher (Series Eds.), &
W. Leeds-Hurwitz (Vol. Ed.), The Guilford communication series: Social approaches to
communication. (pp. 201-213). New York: The Guilford Press.
Broome, B.J. (1991). Building shared meaning: Implications of a relational approach to empathy
for teaching intercultural communication, Communication Education, 40, 235-249.
Buzard, J. (2003). On auto-ethnographic authority, The Yale Journal of Criticism, 16(1), 61-91.
Dhingra, P.H. (2003). Being American between black and white: Second-generation Asian
American professionals’ racial identities, Journal of Asian American Studies, 6(2), 117-
147.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (1996). Composing ethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Sage.
Ellis, C., Kiesinger, C. E., & Tillmann-Healy, L. M. (1997). Interactive interviewing: Talking
about emotional experience. In R. Hertz (Ed.), Reflexivity and voice (pp. 119-150).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
“Othered” in the classroom page 25
Frymier, A. B. & Thompson, C. A. (1992). Perceived teacher affinity seeking in relation to
perceived teacher credibility. Communication Education, 41, 388-399.
Gil, J. (2009). English as a Global Language: Study Guide. Adelaide: School of Humanities
Flinders University
Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. A. V. Miller, trans. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Holt, N. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and autoethnography: An autoethnographic writing
story, International Journal or Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 18-28.
Humphreys, M. (2005). Getting Personal: Reflexivity and Autoethnographic Vignettes
Qualitative Inquiry, 11(6), 840- 860.
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1996). Silences as weapons: Challenges of a black professor teaching white
students. Theory into Practice, 35(2), 79-85.
Lee, Z. N. (1999). Korean culture and sense of shame. Transcultural psychiatry, 36(2), 181-194.
Luthra, R. (2002). Negotiating the minefield: Practicing transformative pedagogy as a teacher of
color in a classroom climate of suspicion. In L. Vargas (Ed.), Women faculty of color in
the white classroom: Narratives on the implications of teacher diversity (pp. 109-123).
New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
McCroskey, J. S. (1992) An introduction to communication in the classroom. Edina, Minn.:
Burgess International.
Murphy, S. W., Araiza, I., Cardenas Jr, H., & Garza, S. (2008). When I grade a paper, I do not
look at the name. I grade the paper for content”: Teacher Perceptions of Students at a
Hispanic Serving Institution. Journal of Border Educational Research, 7(1), 134-144.
“Othered” in the classroom page 26
Rajagopalan, K. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers of English and their anxieties: Ingredients
for an experiment in action research. In Llurda E. (Eds.), Non-Native Language
Teachers: Perceptions, challenges, and contributions to the profession (pp. 283-303).
New York, NY: Springer US.
Rueda, R., & Stillman, J. (2012). The 21st Century Teacher A Cultural Perspective. Journal of
teacher education, 63(4), 245-253.
Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Spry, T. (2001). Performing autoethnography: An embodied methodological praxis". Qualitative
Inquiry, 7(6), 706- 732.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization (English translation of "La categorization sociale"). In S.
Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction a la psychologie sociale, vol. 1: 272-302. Paris: Larousse.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). An integrative theory of intergroup relations. Psychology of
intergroup relations, 7-24.
Teven, J. J. & Hanson, T. L. (2004). The impact of teacher immediacy and perceived caring on
teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 52, 39-53.
Toyosaki, S. (2007). Communication sensei’s storytelling: Projecting identity into critical
pedagogy, Cultural Studies<=>Critical Methodologies, 7(1), 48-73.
Toyosaki, S., Pensoneau-Conway, S., Wendt, N.A., & Leathers, K. (2009). Community
autoethnography: Compiling the personal and resituating whiteness, Cultural
Studies<=>Critical Methodologies, 9(1), 56-83.
Turner, J. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup
behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5(1), 1-34.
Vargas, L. (2002). Women faculty of color in the white classroom (pp. 2-20). New York: Peter
Top Related