Pramod Sah will be defending his dissertation research proposal on Monday, November 19 from 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM in PCOH Room 2012 (6445 University Boulevard).
All are welcome to attend.
Supervisory Committee:
Dr. Guofang Li (Supervisor),
Dr. Jim Anderson (Committee Member),
Dr. Ryuko Kubota (Committee Member)
Title: “A critical ethnography of English-medium instruction (EMI) policy implementation in Nepal’s secondary schools: Unsettling language policy, political economy, and inequalities”
Abstract:
This critical ethnography of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) policy in secondary schools in Nepal investigates “ideological and implementational spaces” (Hornberger, 2003) of EMI policy. Due to the increasing global demand for the English language, many low- and middle-income countries are increasingly developing a de facto EMI policy in the backdrop of neoliberal forces (Hamid, Nguyen & Baldauf, 2013)—often overshadowing existing mother-tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) policy. EMI is even being perceived as “linguistic capital” (Bourdieu, 1977) to potentially provide liberation for socioeconomically marginalized groups. In contrast, the research on EMI policy practices has revealed several unplanned policy outcomes and has raised concerns about the poor access to and quality of English education for children from lower socioeconomic status, in addition to the issue of linguistic human rights (Bhattacharya, 2013; Haider, 2017; Sah & Li, 2018). So, drawing on the theories of “critical language policy studies” (Hymes, 1964; Tollefson, 2006), “political economy” (Gal, 1989), and “symbolic capital and social reproduction” (Bourdieu, 1977, 1991), the study seeks to understand: a) the ideologies and agency of multiple policy actors (e.g., policymakers, administrators, teachers, parents, and students) in the development and enactment of EMI policy; and b) the effects of such policy for different social groups along the line of class, ethnicity, and gender. Utilizing “critical ethnography” (Anderson, 1989) as a research method, the study aims to unpack the discourses of EMI policy while also seeking to “correct inequitable outcomes” with the poor and marginalized populations (Fraser, 2008, p. 28). The data will be collected via participant observations, field notes, interviews, focus group discussions, and critical discourse analysis of language policy texts. The findings will offer insights into the implementation of EMI policy in secondary schools, policy discourses, as well as the gap between national level policy and local teaching practices.