Native Speakerism in English Language Teaching Native Speakers More Likely To Be Invited As Conference Plenary Speakers

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20
Native-speakerism in English language teaching:

‘native speakers’ more likely to be invited as
conference plenary speakers
Marek Kiczkowiak & Robert J. Lowe
To cite this article: Marek Kiczkowiak & Robert J. Lowe (2021): Native-speakerism in English
language teaching: ‘native speakers’ more likely to be invited as conference plenary speakers,
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2021.1974464
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1974464
Published online: 06 Sep 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 830
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20
JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1974464
Native-speakerism in English language teaching: ‘native speakers’

more likely to be invited as conference plenary speakers
Marek Kiczkowiaka and Robert J. Lowe b
a
Independent Researcher; bDepartment of English Communication, Tokyo Kasei University, Tokyo, Japan
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The ideology of native speakerism and its effects on the professional lives Received 12 May 2021
of ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’ in English language teaching (ELT) Accepted 24 August 2021
have been widely documented. Nevertheless, little is known about the
KEYWORDS
impact native speakerism might have on the selection of plenary Native-speakerism; English
speakers for ELT conferences. Hence, through the analysis of plenary language teaching; plenary
line-ups of seven conferences in the EU and interviews with their speakers; critical applied
organisers, this study aimed to explore whether ‘native’ and ‘non-native linguistics
speakers’ were represented equally as plenary speakers. The results
show that overall only 25 per cent of the 416 analysed plenary speaker
line-ups were given by ‘non-native speakers’. At some conferences, over
80 per cent of all plenary speakers were ‘native speakers’. Apart from
one conference organiser who highlighted that steps had been taken
to ensure a more equal balance of speakers, the other organisers
seemed not to place much importance on equal balance of ‘native’ and
‘non-native speakers’ when inviting plenary speakers, preferring a
‘colourblind’ approach. This study suggests native-speakerism impacts
the choice of plenary speakers at certain ELT conferences, and that
conscious efforts must be made to alter this balance.
Introduction
Native speakerism is an ideology that positions those perceived as ‘native speakers’ as superior both
linguistically and pedagogically to those perceived as ‘non-native speakers’ (Holliday 2006). Under
this ideology, the institutes of the West and their ‘native speaker’ representatives are privileged in
discussions surrounding how the English language should be taught globally, and who should be
seen as the ideal teachers of this language.
In recent years, there has been extensive research on native-speakerism in terms of topics such as
recruitment policies (Kiczkowiak 2020a; Mahboob and Golden 2013), assignment of teacher roles and
duties, assumptions of deficit on the part of the teachers and learners from non-Western backgrounds
(Houghton and Rivers 2013), as well as its effect on English language teaching (ELT) training courses
(Kiczkowiak, Baines, and Krummenacher 2016) and pedagogy (Kiczkowiak 2020b). This research has
even led to such practices being denounced by major ELT organisations such as TESOL International
(2006). However, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no research into how native-speakerism
might affect who is invited to give plenary talks at ELT conferences and whether this might lead to a
low level of representation of those perceived to be ‘non-native speakers’ in conference plenary speaker
line-ups. While studies on other marginalised groups in other fields have been conducted, and are
reviewed in the next section, the topic of ‘native speaker’/’non-native speaker’ representation at con-
ferences is a striking omission from the current canon of research into native-speakerism, especially
CONTACT Robert J. Lowe robert-l@tokyo-kasei.ac.jp

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. KICZKOWIAK AND R. J. LOWE
given that professional spaces such as conferences are one place in which ideologies such as native-
speakerism can be either perpetuated and upheld, or challenged.
In order to address this issue, this paper reports on a study which investigated the balance of
plenary speakers at large European ELT conferences, with the goal of discovering whether there
was a representational disparity along lines of purported speakerhood and race, and the reasons
which lay behind this disparity.
The concept of the ‘native speaker’

Before reviewing research on the topic of native-speakerism, and the specific issue of conference
speaker representation, it is important to first acknowledge the fact that the labels ‘native speaker’
and ‘non-native speaker’ are heavily contested. This discussion is intended to problematise the con-
cepts of ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’, to signal and explain our disagreement with these
terms, and to justify our use of the terms in this paper despite these misgivings. However, our dis-
cussion here can only be brief, and we would refer the reader to a more thorough treatment of this
issue, such as Dewaele, Bak, and Ortega (2021) for more information.
In fields such as second language acquisition (SLA) the terms ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native
speaker’ have traditionally been positioned as neutral scientific labels, describing a purported psy-
cholinguistic foundation for the objective classification of speakers, primarily based on early
exposure to the language (Kramsch and Whiteside 2007), and despite challenges, SLA research
still implicitly accepts this view (Cook 2016). However, historical scholarship has revealed the
‘native speaker’ to be primarily a social and political construct, which arose in the context of city
states attempting to consolidate their power and develop ideas of shared identity among the citi-
zenry (Hackert 2012; Train 2009).
This connection between purported speakerhood, nationality, race, and inclusion/exclusion has
continued into modern discourses about language and identity in ELT, where Holliday (2013, 25)
points out that the labels are ‘ideological, chauvinistic and divisive’. Indeed, despite attempts to
objectively define the concept of a ‘native speaker’ (Davies 1991, 2003, 2012), the term is still heavily
inflected with subjective opinions and prejudices (Aboshiha 2015), with perceptions of speakerhood
being based on contingent, non-linguistic factors including nationality, race, name, and self-
identification (Amin 1997; Kubota and Fujimoto 2013; Ruecker and Ives 2015). While there has
been continuous resistance to discrimination against teachers based on their purported speaker-
hood, it has been argued that the continuous use of the labels routinises and normalises them (Hol-
liday 2013, 2018), and that ‘paradoxically, use of the terms even when defending the rights of the
NNS may have contributed to perpetuating the use of the term’ (Dewaele et al. 2020, 1).
In response to these criticisms, it has been suggested that the terms be replaced with more inclus-
ive labels such as an expert user (Rampton 1990), proficient speaker (Paikeday 1985), L1 and L2 user
(Cook 2001), mono- bi- and multilingual English user (Jenkins 2015), or L1 and LX user (Dewaele
2018). For example, Dewaele (2018, 238) argues that it is more appropriate to use the term LX to
refer to ‘any foreign language acquired after the age at which the first language(s) was acquired’.
Unlike the terms ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’, the terms L1 and LX include a recog-
nition that everyone speaks at least one language as their first language, and a recognition of linguis-
tic multi-competence. Importantly, they do not imply a relationship of superiority/inferiority.
These alternative labels move us away from a binary in which people are divisively classified
based on their relationship to a single language, and to its monolingual speakers.
Despite the development of these more neutral terms, the labels ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native
speaker’ have retained their power and influence (Cook 2016). As Kumaravadivelu (2016, 82) notes
regarding native-speakerism, ‘seldom in the annals of an academic discipline have so many people
toiled so hard, for so long, and achieved so little in their avowed attempt at disrupting the insidious
structure of inequality in their chosen profession’. As such, since the aim of this study is to inves-
tigate how the ideological nature of the labels ‘native’ and ‘non-native speaker’ influences who is
JOURNAL OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 3
chosen to give plenary talks at ELT conferences, we feel it is necessary to use the terms in our
analysis.
Given the subjective and ideological nature of the terms, the way in which we use them in this
paper is necessarily crude. We generally classify people as ‘native speakers’ if they come from what
Kachru (1985) calls the ‘inner circle’, or the nations where English has traditionally been spoken as a
first language. This is distinguished from the Outer Circle and the Expanding circle, where English
is primarily spoken as a second or a foreign language, respectively. Kachru’s model has been criti-
cised for not allowing for the hybridity, multilingualism, and multinationalism that characterise the
global use of English (Rose and Galloway 2019). We are not, however, using these terms as if they
were objective labels. We use this crude classification to reflect how people are crudely classified
under the ideology of native-speakerism which is so influential in ELT (Holliday 2018). As this
study investigates the effects of native-speakerism, using these ideological terms is a necessary
evil for our purposes. Our use of the terms is thus commensurate with Dewaele et al. (2020),
who investigated the extent to which perceptions of a teacher being either a ‘native speaker’ or a
‘non-native speaker’ influenced the judgements of pre-service EFL teachers. Following Holliday
(2005) in this study, we place the terms in inverted commas to remind ourselves, and our readers,
of their ideological and subjective nature.
Native-speakerism, and conference speaker representation

Native-speakerism is a widespread ideology in English language teaching (ELT) which has many
negative effects on the profession. The most noticeable of these is widespread discrimination in
language teaching recruitment policies (Kiczkowiak 2020a; Mahboob and Golden 2013; Ruecker
and Ives 2015), stereotyping of ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’ regarding the roles and duties
each group is suited for (Lowe and Kiczkowiak 2016; Selvi 2014), and a predominance of standard
‘native speaker’ voices in published materials (Si 2019; Syrbe and Rose 2016). Research also clearly
shows that in ELT being perceived as a ‘native speaker’ is closely connected to being white and Wes-
tern-looking. Thus, even so-called ‘native speakers’ of colour can be discriminated against on nom-
inally linguistic grounds (Javier 2016; Kubota and Fujimoto 2013). While ELT conferences are a
common phenomenon worldwide, and are a major conduit for the transmission of professional
knowledge and belief, research into them regarding native-speakerism is still lacking. We have
been able to identify one study which focused on the representation of people of colour in the
American Association for Applied Linguistics for years 1998–2017 (Bhattacharya, Jiang, and Cana-
garajah 2019). These researchers found that only 15.5% of all plenary speakers and 7.5% of invited
colloquia chairs were people of colour. However, this study focused only on one conference and did
not collect any data on the speakers’ ‘nativeness’.
Given this lack of research, little is known about the ethnic or ‘native speaker’ representation
among plenary speakers in ELT or SLA conferences. Nevertheless, the selection bias of conference
plenary speakers is well-documented in other disciplines, particularly as far as gender is concerned.
Gerull et al. (2020) showed that out of a total of 129 plenary speakers at 16 surgical conferences for
the years 2011–2016, only a fifth (19.4%) were women. Even more striking is the fact that 42.9% of
the conferences had no female plenary speakers at all and that the number of female plenary speak-
ers had not changed between 2011 and 2016. Fournier et al. (2020) found that less than a third
(28%) of the 1086 invited speakers to the International Stroke Conference between 2014 and
2018 were female. Finally, between 2001 and 2011 at the conferences of European Society for Evol-
utionary Biology, female plenary speakers accounted for only 25% of all plenaries and 15% of
invited talks (excluding plenaries) (Schroeder et al. 2013).
Less is known about the representation of ethnic minorities among conference plenary speakers.
However, Fournier et al. (2020), who analysed the gender and ethnicity of speakers invited to the
International Stroke Conference between the years 2014 and 2018, showed that white speakers pre-
dominated, with black and Hispanic speakers accounting for respectively only 3.1% and 4.3% of all
invited speakers. It is also notable that in that study no female invited speakers came from Africa,
while those from Asia made up less than a tenth (8%). In the field of applied linguistics, the only
study conducted to date showed that less than a fifth (15.5%) of invited speakers were people of
colour (Bhattacharya, Jiang, and Canagarajah 2019). Although no such data exists for ELT confer-
ences, anecdotal evidence suggests that white ‘native speaker’ individuals may be privileged. For
example, Dudeney (2017) admits that at some conferences ‘there is a bias towards male speakers,
and male speakers of a particular tribe (mostly white, middle-class, “native”, British)’.
Several explanations for the unequal representation of women and ethnic minorities at confer-
ences have been proposed. For example, studies clearly show that women (Casadevall and Handels-
man 2014; Gerull et al. 2020; Schroeder et al. 2013) and people of colour (Bhattacharya, Jiang, and
Canagarajah 2019) are greatly underrepresented among conference organising committees. While
some authors found no correlation between invited female speakers and female conference organ-
isers (Gerull et al. 2020; Schroeder et al. 2013), others showed that organising committees with at
least one female present were significantly more likely to invite female speakers (Casadevall and
Handelsman 2014).
Low diversity could also be explained by fewer women or minorities in the profession itself,
especially in high academic positions (Fournier et al. 2020). For example, in biomedicine in the
US 4% of full professors are ethnic minorities, even though they make up a third of the US popu-
lation (Hagan, Pollet, and Libertucci 2019). In the EU, only 15% of women reach higher academic
positions within Science and Engineering (European Commission 2019). Nevertheless, after com-
paring invited speaker male and female ratios with baseline populations, Schroeder et al. (2013) still
found that the line-ups were male-biased.
Implicit bias is also thought to play an important role. For example, male candidates are rated as
significantly more competent, despite having exactly the same CVs (Moss-Racusin et al. 2012). Such
implicit bias against those perceived as ‘non-native speakers’ is well-documented in ELT (Kiczko-
wiak and Wu 2018), negatively affecting their job opportunities (Ruecker and Ives 2015), self-
esteem (Bernat 2008), or student evaluations (Levis, Sonsaat, and Link 2017). Therefore, it does
seem plausible that native speakerism might also negatively impact the opportunities of those per-
ceived as ‘non-native speakers’ to be invited as plenary speakers.
As mentioned previously, only one study to date investigated balance among plenary speakers in
the field of applied linguistics (Bhattacharya, Jiang, and Canagarajah 2019). However, to the best of
our knowledge, no such research has been carried out for ELT conferences. No studies that inves-
tigated the representation of those perceived as ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’ could be found. In
addition, none of the previously mentioned studies attempted to contact conference organisers
themselves to inquire about the criteria used for selecting invited speakers or whether equal ‘native’
and ‘non-native speaker’ balance is considered.
It is clear then that there is a general lack of research on equal representation among invited
speakers at ELT conferences. Consequently, this study aimed to investigate ‘native’ and ‘non-native
speaker’ plenary speaker representation at ELT conferences in the EU. By interviewing conference
organisers, it also attempted to examine the criteria for the selection of invited speakers.
Methodology
Sample and sampling techniques
We were interested in documenting the representation of ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’ among
the plenary speakers of major ELT conferences over a ten-year period (2010–2019), and for this
project, we chose to limit the scope of our research to the European Union (EU). Using the search
term ‘conference for English teachers in [name of the country]’ we compiled a list of ELT confer-
ences for each country. To be included, the conference had to invite speakers from abroad and be a
general ELT conference on a national level. Conferences that did not invite speakers from abroad,
focused on a more specific field within ELT (e.g. EAP, Business English), or were held at a regional
level were excluded. This gave a list of 24 conferences (see Appendix 1).
From this, we randomly selected a list of eight conferences, in order to leave us with a manage-
able sample of data. However, as the conference programme for one of the selected conferences
could not be obtained from the website or the organisers, it was excluded from the sample. This
gave us a final list of seven conferences, which can be seen in Table 1.
As far as the qualitative sample is concerned, we used purposeful sampling and first attempted to
identify those who were responsible for organising the conference within the association. We then
contacted them via email. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study, signed a
consent form, and their data were anonymised. Out of the seven conference organisers contacted,
we received responses from four. Bearing in mind the small sample size, and to protect the anon-
ymity of the participants, they are referred to as conference organiser (CO) 1–4.
‘Native’ and ‘non-native’ plenary speakers

First, ‘plenary speakers’ were identified primarily from the information contained in the conference
programmes. When a speaker was not explicitly named a plenary or keynote speaker but their pres-
entation was the only one or one of two (concurrent plenaries) in each conference time slot, they
were counted as a plenary speaker. In some cases, conference programmes were not available on the
conference websites, while in others the archives did not go far enough back to complete the data
set. In these cases, the organisations were contacted directly to gather the missing information.
Once all the names of the plenary speakers had been compiled, we assigned them one of two
labels: ‘native speaker’ or ‘non-native speaker’. This was perhaps the most challenging part of the
process. We have elsewhere argued (Kiczkowiak and Lowe 2019; Lowe and Kiczkowiak 2016)
that, particularly within ELT, the terms ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ are not used as
objective labels based on a psycholinguistic reality, but are rather applied to speakers along a con-
tinuum based on identity markers such as race, nationality, name, accent, and affiliation with a
community of language users. The terms are thus not objective labels that can be applied
unproblematically.
However, they still hold a great deal of meaning within the field, particularly as they often delin-
eate who is accorded professional respect, who is considered an authoritative voice in the field, and
who is not. These questions were core to this project, and as such, we used these labels to categorise
our data with the understanding that we were using them as they are generally understood within
the field, with all the political implications of this already outlined.
Table 1. List of selected conferences.

No of analysed No of analysed
Conference name Organisation Country conferences speakers
TESOL Greece Annual TESOL Greece Greece 10 46
International Convention
TESOL Spain Annual National TESOL Spain Spain 10 26
Convention
International IATEFL Poland IATEFL Poland Poland 10 127
Conference
IATEFL International Conference IATEFL UK 10 47
and Exhibition
APPI Conference Associação Portuguesa de Portugal 10 60
Professores de Inglês
Annual International HUPE Croatian Association of Teachers Croatia 10 70
Conference of English
TESOL Italy National Annual TESOL Italy Italy 10 40
Convention
Total 70 416
To apply the labels of ‘native’ and ‘non-native speaker’, we first began by using the nationality of
the speakers to determine which of Kachru’s (1985) circles they belonged to (with the understand-
ing this is problematic; see Rose and Galloway 2019). We then looked for videos of interviews and
talks featuring the speakers to further determine if they would most likely be regarded as a ‘native’
or ‘non-native speaker’ by most ELT professionals, based on their language use and pronunciation.
Finally, in the small number of cases (ten in total) where we could not decide we reached out to the
speakers in question and asked for their self-identification. This was done separately by each of the
researchers to increase the validity of the labelling. The criteria thus used were: nationality, linguis-
tic ‘closeness’ to inner-circle varieties, and self-identification. We understand this is crude and pro-
blematic, but also feel that, as explained earlier, and as Bhattacharya, Jiang, and Canagarajah (2019)
argued in a similar paper, in order to carry out this kind of project, it is necessary to engage in some
crude form of labelling in order to examine the data.
Finally, bearing in mind the endemic racism in ELT (Kubota and Fujimoto 2013; Ruecker and
Ives 2015), which can also evidence itself on conference level (Bhattacharya, Jiang, and Canagarajah
2019), we also classified the speakers as ‘white’ or ‘non-white’. This followed the same process as
above when identifying ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’.
With regards to the qualitative strand, the conference organisers received 5 questions via email
concerning how plenary speakers were chosen at their conference and to what extent equal rep-
resentation of ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’, as well as ‘white’ and ‘non-white’ speakers, was
important. The questions can be found in Appendix 2.
Data analysis
The quantitative data was analysed in Microsoft Excel. The number of ‘native speakers’ and ‘non-
native speakers’ in each conference was counted. As already mentioned, this count was completed
separately by the two researchers, with the results then compared and harmonised through discus-
sion. The qualitative data were thematically coded, and exemplative data extracts which clearly
illustrated the themes in question were chosen for inclusion.
Results
Plenary speakers balance at conferences
Table 2 below shows the distribution of plenary speakers at all the analysed conferences by year and
by the speaker’s perceived ‘nativeness’ and race.
It is clear that ‘native speakers’ constitute an overwhelming majority (75%) of all plenary speak-
ers. However, only fourteen out of these 299 ‘native’ plenary speakers were ‘non-white’ (5%). In
Table 2. Plenary speaker distribution at all seven analysed conferences.

Speakerhood
‘Native speakers’ ‘Non-native Speakers’
Year Total no of plenaries ‘White’ ‘Non-White’ ‘White’ ‘Non-White’
2010 39 30 3 6 0
2011 37 32 1 3 1
2012 53 40 1 11 1
2013 42 31 0 10 1
2014 43 27 2 11 3
2015 41 31 1 7 2
2016 40 28 1 11 0
2017 42 27 2 13 0
2018 41 30 1 9 1
2019 38 23 2 10 3
Total 416 299 14 90 12
Table 3. TESOL Greece annual international convention.

Speakerhood
2010 5 2 0 3 0
2011 4 3 0 1 0
2012 5 2 1 1 1
2013 6 3 0 3 0
2014 5 2 1 1 1
2015 5 3 0 1 1
2016 4 3 0 1 0
2017 4 2 0 2 0
2018 4 3 1 0 0
2019 4 3 0 0 1
Total 46 26 3 13 4
total, only 6 per cent of all plenaries were given by ‘non-white’ speakers. Similar trends are evident
when each conference is analysed separately.
As can be seen in Table 3, there were 46 plenary speakers at the TESOL Greece Annual Inter-
national Convention between the years 2010 and 2019.
Two thirds (63%) of them were given by ‘native speakers’ and 83% by ‘white’ speakers. Among
the 26 ‘native’ plenary speakers, only three were identified as ‘non-white’. Overall, there are only
two years (2013 and 2010) when more ‘non-native speakers’ gave plenaries than ‘native speakers’.
Moreover, in five out of the ten analysed years all plenary speakers were ‘white’.
A similar representation among plenary speakers can be noted at TESOL Spain Annual National
Convention (see Table 4).
Sixty five per cent of all plenaries were given by ‘native speakers’ and 85 per cent by ‘white’ speak-
ers. It is also notable that among the 16 invited ‘native speakers’ only one was ‘non-white’. There
were also three years (2013, 2015, 2016) when no ‘non-native speaker’ was invited to give a plenary
and seven (2010, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018) when no ‘non-white’ speaker gave a plenary.
Very similar trends can be observed at International IATEFL Poland Conference (see Table 5).
Even though at this conference there were almost five times as many plenaries between 2010 and
2019 than at TESOL Greece, only 45 (35%) were given by ‘non-native speakers’. Moreover, a mere
three per cent were ‘non-white’, and among these, all were identified as ‘native speakers’. It should
be noted, however, that the ratio of ‘non-native speaker’ plenaries has risen from 0 and 10% in 2010
and 2011, respectively, to an almost equal representation in 2019. In fact, if the years 2010 and 2011
were removed from the analysis, the percentage of ‘non-native’ plenary speakers would be 43%.
Nevertheless, bearing in mind the fact that most English teachers are likely to be ‘non-native speak-
ers’ (Ling and Braine 2007), this ratio is still very low.
Table 4. TESOL Spain annual national convention.

Speakerhood
2010 2 1 0 1 0
2011 3 2 0 0 1
2012 3 2 0 1 0
2013 2 2 0 0 0
2014 2 1 0 0 1
2015 2 2 0 0 0
2016 3 3 0 0 0
2017 3 1 0 2 0
2018 3 1 0 2 0
2019 3 1 1 0 1
Total 26 16 1 6 3
Table 5. International IATEFL Poland conference.

Speakerhood
2010 15 14 1 0 0
2011 11 9 1 1 0
2012 11 7 0 4 0
2013 10 7 0 3 0
2014 16 8 0 8 0
2015 12 7 1 4 0
2016 12 5 0 7 0
2017 14 7 0 7 0
2018 13 8 0 5 0
2019 13 6 1 6 0
Total 127 78 4 45 0
As can be seen in Table 6, even though IATEFL International Conference and Exhibition has the
highest representation of ‘non-white’ plenary speakers, this ratio is still very low with 81% of all
plenaries having been given by ‘white’ speakers.
Likewise, almost eight in ten (79%) of all 47 plenaries between 2010 and 2019 were given by
‘native speakers’. However, similarly to the IATEFL Poland conference, the ratio of ‘non-native’
plenary speakers does seem to have become slightly higher. For example, between 2010 and 2012
there were no ‘non-native’ plenary speakers, while between 2014 and 2017 only one out of five plen-
aries each year were given by a ‘non-native speaker’. On the other hand, in 2018 and 2019 there was
almost an equal ratio of ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ plenary speakers. It is also interesting to note that
four out of six ‘non-native’ plenary speakers were ‘non-white’.
The bias towards ‘native’ plenary speakers is even more pronounced at other conferences. For
example, at APPI Conference between 2010 and 2019, a total of four ‘non-native speakers’ (7%)
gave a plenary, in contrast to 56 given by ‘native speakers’ (see Table 7).
In fact, between 2010 and 2019 seven out of the ten conferences had no ‘non-native’ plenary
speakers. This is despite the fact that the number of plenaries a year more than doubled from
three in 2010 to seven in 2019. Very notable is also the near-total absence of ‘non-white’ plenary
speakers at this conference, with only one out of sixty having been given by a ‘non-white’ speaker.
Likewise, the data in Table 8 shows that ‘native’ plenary speakers predominate at HUPE
conference.
Only one in five (20%) of all plenaries were given by a ‘non-native speaker’. Over the ten-year
period and 70 invited plenary speakers, there was also only one ‘non-white’ speaker. Moreover,
it seems that when the organisers do invite ‘non-native speakers’ to give plenaries, this typically
Table 6. IATEFL international conference and exhibition.

Speakerhood
2010 4 2 2 0 0
2011 4 4 0 0 0
2012 5 5 0 0 0
2013 5 3 0 1 1
2014 5 4 0 0 1
2015 5 4 0 0 1
2016 5 3 1 1 0
2017 5 2 2 1 0
2018 5 3 0 2 0
2019 4 2 0 1 1
Total 47 33 5 6 4
Table 7. APPI conference.

Speakerhood
2010 3 3 0 0 0
2011 4 4 0 0 0
2012 5 5 0 0 0
2013 7 7 0 0 0
2014 6 5 1 0 0
2015 7 6 0 1 0
2016 7 6 0 1 0
2017 7 7 0 0 0
2018 7 7 0 0 0
2019 7 5 0 2 0
Total 60 55 1 4 0
Table 8. HUPE conference.

Speakerhood
2010 6 5 0 1 0
2011 6 5 0 1 0
2012 20 16 0 4 0
2013 6 5 0 1 0
2014 6 5 0 1 0
2015 6 5 0 1 0
2016 6 5 0 1 0
2017 6 5 0 1 0
2018 5 4 0 0 1
2019 3 2 0 1 0
Total 70 56 0 13 1
is just one token ‘non-native speaker’ among the line-up of 3–6 plenary speakers. This was the case
in eight out of the ten analysed years.
Finally, plenary speakers at TESOL Italy National Annual Convention between 2010 and 2019
were also predominantly given by ‘native speakers’, who constituted 88 per cent of all plenary
speakers (see Table 9).
This bias seems to have only strengthened in recent years. Between 2015 and 2019 there were 18
plenary talks, but not even one of them was given by a ‘non-native speaker’. Even more striking is
Table 9. TESOL Italy national annual convention.

Speakerhood
2010 4 3 0 1 0
2011 5 5 0 0 0
2012 4 3 0 1 0
2013 6 4 0 2 0
2014 3 2 0 1 0
2015 4 4 0 0 0
2016 3 3 0 0 0
2017 3 3 0 0 0
2018 4 4 0 0 0
2019 4 4 0 0 0
Total 40 35 0 5 0
the complete absence of ‘non-white’ plenary speakers among the 40 plenaries given in the analysed
period.
It is also notable that certain ‘native speakers’ seem to be invited repeatedly, while ‘non-native
speakers’ are rarely given a chance to give a plenary talk. For example, at APPI Conference between
the years 2014 and 2019, the same ‘native speaker’ gave a plenary three times in 2014, 2015 and
2019. At International IATEFL Poland Conference between 2010 and 2019 one particular ‘native
speaker’ was invited on seven separate occasions to give a plenary.
All in all, the data clearly shows that ‘non-native’ and ‘non-white’ speakers are underrepresented
at the conferences analysed in this study. If all the conferences are taken together, only 25 per cent of
all plenaries were given by ‘non-native speakers’ and 0.06 per cent by ‘non-white’ speakers. It is
therefore important to examine how plenary speakers had been selected by the organisers and to
what extent conference organisers aimed to have a diverse line-up of speakers in terms of their
‘nativeness’ and ethnicity.
Conference organisers’ perspectives

Firstly, the organisers put forward what we might term a ‘colour-blind’ orientation towards their
choice of speakers. Most of our respondents suggested that the speakerhood and ethnic background
of speakers was something they did not even consider when choosing plenary speakers for their
conferences. This can be seen in the following representative example from CO1:
Whenever we at […] organise a conference and have to decide whom to invite to speak, we never consider
ethnicity and first language as ‘criteria’ to be observed. We happen to invite prospective speakers in terms
of what we know about the work done by these – i.e. projects, resources, sessions in other events, etc. –
and never in terms of their ethnicity and first language. After receiving their proposals to speak, our scientific
committee examine them and make a decision.
Similar claims were made by other conference organisers. CO2 claimed that ‘these factors are of
minor importance to us’ and that ‘Colour, race, challenged abilities, (…) have never been part of our
criteria in choosing plenary speakers’. CO3, on the other hand, suggested that ‘the organisation
prides itself in always trying to have a diverse line-up of speakers in terms of birthplace as well
as gender and related experience to the topic(s)’, thus offering a somewhat more positive answer
to the question and suggesting a more proactive orientation towards speaker representation.
On their face, these claims seem laudable. However, when contrasted with the numbers outlined
earlier, a discrepancy emerges. While the conferences claimed not to take race or speakerhood into
account when choosing speakers, and in some cases even positively stated a desire to achieve diver-
sity, in all cases an implicit preference towards white ‘native speakers’ in plenary line-ups can be
seen. In order to better understand this, we must turn to the criteria given for the selection of
speakers.
Once again, here we see unanimity in the answers provided. For example, the following claims
from CO2 provide some insight:
What is of importance to us is how known in the ELT world or a feeder field world the speakers are. Will they
attract our members and bring new members because they’re BIG names? AND, who would be sponsored by
the publishers. (…) It also has to do with the at the time interests and/or needs of our members, regarding a
specific area of ELT. For example, when TY learners was the main concern, we would try to invite speakers
who were known for their expertise in this specific topic. (…) we do want our plenary speakers to be fluent in
English and to be understood, but this doesn’t mean they have to be native speakers.
CO3 offered a succinct and similar answer when stating their criteria for choosing speakers was
‘popular (and, as said before, expert) in their field which is usually related to the main theme of
the annual convention’.
In summary, conference organisers tended to claim that their selection of speakers was based on
the popularity of a speaker, and the related (though not identical) quality of expertise was also cited
as a major influence. A second common justification was that the speakers were chosen if they rep-
resented the theme of the conference well and were able to respond to the needs of the attendees.
This meritocratic claim regarding the popularity, expertise, and relevant work done by the speakers
is once again unobjectionable on the surface. However, as before, when contrasted with the num-
bers, we see a notable discrepancy. Despite decisions about who to invite to speak being made based
on meritocratic considerations, the actual speakers chosen skewed heavily towards those who were
white ‘native speakers’ of English.
Finally, the organisers were asked if there were any factors which may have prevented a more
equal level of representation among their plenary line-ups. CO3 and CO1 both suggested that as
their organisation did not take factors such as race and speakerhood into account, the question
did not apply to them. CO2 claimed that one reason for a lack of balance was ‘lack of availability
of the first choice of speakers’. In other words, these conferences either denied that this kind of bal-
ance was a relevant goal, or gave logistical reasons for potential imbalances.
While these were the general trends, CO4 suggested a more active focus on diversity in their
organisation’s selection of plenary speakers, and a level of critical reflexivity not obvious in the
statements of others:
Ethnicity and first language are just two of several other things my organisation needs to consider given the
range diversity within our membership. For a long time, we have given priority to gender and first language
although in relation to the latter, there have been many more first language speakers on our plenary speaker
line up (…) we have also recently been made aware … that sexual orientation, is not fully taken into account in
our selection of speakers and that is something we need to work on.
These comments demonstrate a much more critical orientation towards the selection of speak-
ers, and show that the organisation was committed to diversity. While the organiser in question
admitted that this currently only extends to making sure they have one ‘non-native speaker’ in
their line-up each year, this conscious focus on diversity can be seen in the greater movement
towards balance in their speaker profiles. Additionally, CO4 noted that ‘we have now developed
a clear set of criteria for selecting plenary speakers which will come into effect at our 2022 confer-
ence’, suggesting that a more systematic approach will be taken to ensuring the representation of
those from marginalised backgrounds, including those who do not speak English as their first
language.
In sum, apart from the example above, the qualitative data gathered from the conference organ-
isers tended to suggest that most took a ‘colour-blind’ and meritocratic approach to selecting plen-
ary speakers. While there was some motion towards diversity on the part of some conferences such
as CO3, for many this was simply not an issue taken into consideration. This once again raises the
question of why this kind of ‘colour-blind’ approach so consistently led to line-ups which were
biased in favour of white ‘native speakers’. In the next section, we will provide an interpretation
and explanation of why this may have been the case.
Discussion
These results suggest that native-speakerism has a significant effect on who is selected to give plen-
aries at ELT conferences in the EU. The percentage of plenaries given by ‘native speakers’ ranges
from 63 to 93 per cent in our dataset. For all conferences taken together, ‘native speakers’ gave
75 per cent of all plenaries. This is despite the fact that ‘non-native speakers’ outnumber ‘native
speakers’ by at around 4.5 to one (Crystal 2019). While no data on the ratio of ‘native’ and ‘non-
native speaker’ teachers of English in the EU could be found, bearing in mind the fact that most
English teaching is conducted in state schools by local ‘non-native’ teachers, it can be assumed
that the latter would form the vast majority.
An even more profound bias exists against ‘non-white’ plenary speakers. Overall, 94 per cent of
all plenaries were given by white speakers. This racial bias is similar when ‘native’ and ‘non-native
speaker’ groups are analysed separately. No data on racial representation of English teachers could
be found. However, UK government data shows that in 2020, 15 per cent of all school teachers
identified themselves as ethnic minorities different than white British (Statistical First Release
SFR 2021). In the US, this figure was 20 per cent (National Center for Education Statistics 2019).
If these ratios can be extrapolated to English teachers from the UK and the US, even though
‘non-white’ ‘native speakers’ might be a minority, they are still severely underrepresented among
plenary speakers at ELT conferences.
Among the 70 individual conference line-ups that were analysed, it is striking that 67 per cent
had either no or merely one ‘non-native’ plenary speaker, with a third having none. Moreover, 49
(70%) had no ‘non-white’ plenary speakers. In contrast, certain ‘native speakers’ seem to be invited
on repeated occasions to conferences, suggesting there might be a certain select group of ‘native
speakers’. This is further confirmed by Dudeney (2017), himself a very frequent conference speaker
in the past, who observes that if we look at major conference line-ups, we will ‘see the same twenty
[‘native speaker’] names time after time’. It might also reflect the selection criteria of popularity
mentioned by the conference organisers. Indeed, certain ‘non-white’ plenary speakers seem to
also be invited repeatedly, with two speakers having been invited four times each, thus together
accounting for 33 per cent of the 24 plenaries given by ‘non-white’ speakers.
There are various possible reasons for this bias against ‘non-native’ and ‘non-white’ speakers.
First, it is possible that conference organisers were unable to find suitable plenary speakers
whose first language is not English or who are not ‘white’. Indeed, researchers in other disciplines
have suggested that a low percentage of women or people of colour among plenary speakers could
be correlated with a similarly low representation of these groups in these professions, especially in
high academic positions (Gerull et al. 2020). Nevertheless, it is unlikely that there are fewer ‘non-
native speakers’ in ELT than ‘native speakers’. The data for school teachers from the UK (Statistical
First Release SFR 2021) and the US (National Center for Education Statistics 2019) would also
suggest that ‘non-white’ speakers make up a significantly higher proportion of ‘native speakers’
than the invited 5 per cent. Finally, the lack of diversity among plenary speakers could also be
explained by a similar lack of diversity among conference organisers. For example, a study on gen-
der representation among conference speakers at the American Society for Microbiology confer-
ences found that an inclusion of just one female convener during the general meeting sessions
led to a 72% increase in the ratio of female speakers (Casadevall and Handelsman 2014). Since
we did not collect data on the speakerhood of the conference organisers, it is not possible to cor-
roborate these findings.
Turning to the claims of the conference organisers, the suggestion that choices of plenary speak-
ers were made based on meritocracy and ‘colour-blindness’ seem to reflect what we might term a
naive ‘liberal’ mindset. By this, we refer to a political orientation which focuses on universalism,
individual human rights, humanism, democracy, and equal treatment (Holliday and Aboshiha
2009). It is difficult to find fault with any of these values, and indeed we as researchers share
these values with our participants to a large extent. However, it has long been noted in critical soci-
ology that such an orientation can make people blind to systemic issues, preferring instead to see
each problem as isolated and solvable one at a time, rather than recognising them as being part of a
totality (Ollman 2003). This can be seen in a comment from one conference organiser, who pointed
out that lack of availability was the reason that one of the authors of this paper was not able to accept
an invitation to speak at their conference in the past. While this kind of reasoning can explain things
on a case-by-case basis, it does not explain the broader trend in which those who are positioned as
white ‘native speakers’ are so overwhelmingly favoured by the conferences in question.
In the case of this study, the approach taken by the conference organisers appears to have been to
meritocratically treat each participant on their own terms, using their popularity, expertise, and the
relevance of their work as selection-guiding criteria. However, such an approach can quite clearly be
seen to have resulted in largely unequal outcomes, which skew heavily towards white ‘native speak-
ers’. This contradiction between liberal values and biased outcomes in ELT has been noted
previously by scholars such as Holliday and Aboshiha (2009), Kubota (2002) and Kabel (2009). We
would suggest that in order to correct this kind of imbalance, conferences and conference organ-
isers may need to develop a more critical awareness of the ways in which ideologies of racism
and native-speakerism influence the choices being made, especially on a subconscious level. As Hol-
liday and Aboshiha (2009) note, there is a danger in adopting a ‘liberal naivety which, because of its
modernistic denial of ideology, does not possess the degree of criticality to find chauvinism within
its own structures’ (p.682).
However, the organisers of one conference did seem to have this kind of critical perspective in
mind when selecting plenary speakers, and this was reflected in a slightly higher level of balance
than that present in other conferences. This was further demonstrated through their work to
develop criteria for selecting plenary speakers which would add further equity and balance to
their line-ups. This seems like a promising approach for other conferences to take, retaining the
quality of speakers while also broadening the diversity of their line-ups and giving an opportunity
for a greater diversity of voices to be heard.
Conclusion
This study aimed to investigate to what extent native speakerism influences the selection of plenary
speakers at ELT conferences in the EU. The data collected here clearly show that native speakerism
is widespread, leading to a situation where out of a total of 416 plenaries, only 25 per cent were given
by ‘non-native speakers’ and 6 per cent by speakers of colour.
It is worth considering how native speakerism in plenary speaker line-ups at conferences could
be tackled. First, reporting such inequalities can have positive effects. Gerull et al. (2020) point out
that after research revealing gender bias in the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Reha-
bilitation, the percentage of female award recipients went up from 15.9% to 62.5%. Bhattacharya,
Jiang, and Canagarajah (2019, 5) also conclude that addressing such issues directly with conference
organisers can encourage them ‘to focus more closely on racial diversity and inclusion’.
Moreover, it can be helpful to develop lists of potential ‘non-native’ and ‘non-white’ plenary
speakers. This has already been done by Hagan, Pollet, and Libertucci (2019), who compiled lists
of scholars from ethnic minorities in chemistry, microbiology and immunology. Women of Colour
in ELT (Anon 2019) have developed such a list for ‘non-white’ female speakers. However, to the
best of our knowledge, no such list exists for ‘non-native speakers’ or ‘non-white’ speakers in gen-
eral. It would no doubt have to be compiled with caution to avoid excluding speakers; nevertheless,
such lists could help conference organisers find ‘non-native’ or ‘non-white’ plenary speaker candi-
dates more quickly and thus increase diversity.
This study is limited in its scope as only seven general ELT conferences in the EU were analysed.
Nevertheless, it is the first to attempt such analysis and might encourage future scholars to analyse
plenary speaker line-ups at ELT conferences in other regions or in more specific subfields (e.g.
business English). Another potential limitation of this study is that it did not collect any data on
the conference organisers. Future research could thus attempt to investigate whether the low diver-
sity among plenary speakers reflects a low diversity of the organising committee. Moreover, the
‘native’, ‘non-native speaker’, ‘white’, and ‘non-white’ categories were assigned by the authors.
Therefore, in the future, this data could be obtained from conference registration documents,
which might contain information about the first language or ethnicity as identified by the speaker
themselves. Finally, future research could aim to collect data on the specific countries the plenary
speakers came from in order to add more depth to the data.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Robert J. Lowe http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2411-0330
References
Aboshiha, Pamela. 2015. “Rachel’s Story: Development of a ‘Native Speaker’ English Language Teacher.”
In (En)Countering Native-Speakerism, Palgrave Advances in Language and Linguistics, edited by A. Swan,
P. Aboshiha, and A. Holliday, 43–58. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Amin, Nuzhat. 1997. “Race and the Identity of the Nonnative ESL Teacher.” TESOL Quarterly 31 (3): 580–583.
doi:10.2307/3587841.
Anon. 2019. “Database of WOC in ELT.” Women of Color in ELT. Accessed November 3, 2020. https://
womenofcolorinelt.wordpress.com/database-of-woc-in-elt/.
Bernat, Eva. 2008. “Towards a Pedagogy for Empowerment: The Case of ‘Impostor Syndrome’ among Pre-Service
Non-Native Speaker Teachers in TESOL.” English Language Teacher Education and Development Journal 11
(Winter): 1–8.
Bhattacharya, Usree, Lei Jiang, and Suresh Canagarajah. 2019. “Race, Representation, and Diversity in the American
Association for Applied Linguistics.” Applied Linguistics, 1–7. doi:10.1093/applin/amz003.
Casadevall, Arturo, and Jo Handelsman. 2014. “The Presence of Female Conveners Correlates with a Higher
Proportion of Female Speakers at Scientific Symposia.” MBio 5: 1. doi:10.1128/mBio.00846-13.
Cook, Vivian. 2001. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. 3rd ed. London: Arnold.
Cook, Vivian. 2016. “Where is the Native Speaker Now?” TESOL Quarterly 50 (1): 186–189. doi:10.1002/tesq.286.
Crystal, David. 2019. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Davies, Alan. 1991. The Native Speaker in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Davies, Alan. 2003. The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. 2nd ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Davies, Alan. 2012. “Native Speaker.” In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2018. “Why the Dichotomy L1 Versus LX User Is Better Than Native Versus Non-Native
Speaker.” Applied Linguistics 39 (2): 236–240. doi:10.1093/applin/amw055.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc, T. Bak, and L. Ortega. 2021. The Mythical Native Speaker Has Mud on Its Face. Edited by
N. Slavkov, S. Melo Pfeifer, and N. Kerschhofer. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc, Sarah Mercer, Kyle Talbot, and Max von Blanckenburg. 2020. “Are EFL Pre-Service Teachers’
Judgment of Teaching Competence Swayed by the Belief That the EFL Teacher Is a L1 or LX User of English?”
European Journal of Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1515/eujal-2019-0030.
Dudeney, Gavin. 2017. “The Problem with Conference Speaker Balance and What to Do About It – By Gavin
Dudeney.” TEFL Equity Advocates and Academy. Accessed September 20, 2020. https://teflequityadvocates.
com/2017/06/16/the-problem-with-conference-speaker-balance-and-what-to-do-about-it-by-gavin-dudeney/.
European Commission. 2019. She Figures. B-1049. Luxembourg: European Commission.
Fournier, Lauren E., Liang Zhu, Bruce Ovbiagele, Louise D. McCullough, and Anjail Z. Sharrief. 2020. “Females are
Less Likely Invited Speakers to the International Stroke Conference.” Stroke 51 (2): 674–678. doi:10.1161/
STROKEAHA.119.027016.
Gerull, Katherine M., Malik Brandon Wahba, Laurel M. Goldin, Jared McAllister, Andrew Wright, Amalia Cochran,
and Arghavan Sales. 2020. “Representation of Women in Speaking Roles at Surgical Conferences.” The American
Journal of Surgery 220: 20–26. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.09.004.
Hackert, Stephanie. 2012. The Emergence of the English Native Speaker. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hagan, Ada K., Rebecca M. Pollet, and Josie Libertucci. 2019. “Policy Should Change to Improve Invited Speaker
Diversity and Reflect Trainee Diversity.” BioRxiv, 785717. doi:10.1101/785717.
Holliday, Adrian. 2005. The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holliday, Adrian. 2006. “Native-Speakerism.” ELT Journal 60 (4): 385–387. doi:10.1093/elt/ccl030.
Holliday, Adrian. 2013. “‘Native Speaker’ Teachers and Cultural Belief.” In Native-speakerism in Japan. Intergroup
Dynamics in Foreign Language Education, edited by S. Houghton, and D. J. Rivers, 17–27. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Holliday, Adrian. 2018. “Native-Speakerism.” In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, edited by J.
I. Liontas. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Holliday, Adrian, and Pamela Aboshiha. 2009. “The Denial of Ideology in Perceptions of ‘Nonnative Speake’
Teachers.” TESOL Quarterly 43 (4): 669–689.
Houghton, Stephanie, and Damian J. Rivers. 2013. Native-Speakerism in Japan: Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign
Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Javier, Eljee. 2016. “‘Almost’ Native Speakers: The Experiences of Visible Ethnic-Minority Native English-Speaking
Teachers.” In LETS and NESTs: Voices, Views and Vignettes, edited by F. Copland, S. Garton, and S. Mann,
227–239. London: British Council.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2015. Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kabel, Ahmed. 2009. “Native-Speakerism, Stereotyping and the Collusion of Applied Linguistics.” System 37 (1): 12–22.
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. “Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English Language in the Outer
Circle.” In English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, edited by R. Quirk and
H. G. Widdowson, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Kiczkowiak, Marek. 2020a. “Recruiters’ Attitudes to Hiring ‘Native’ and ‘Non-Native Speaker’ Teachers: An
International Survey.” TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 24: 1.
Kiczkowiak, Marek. 2020b. “Seven Principles for Writing Materials for English as a Lingua Franca.” ELT Journal 74
(1): 1–9. doi:10.1093/elt/ccz042.
Kiczkowiak, Marek, Daniel Baines, and Karin Krummenacher. 2016. “Using Awareness Raising Activities on Initial
Teacher Training Courses to Tackle ‘Native Speakerism’.” English Language Teacher Education and Development
Journal 19: 45–53.
Kiczkowiak, Marek, and Robert J. Lowe. 2019. Teaching English as a Lingua Franca: The Journey from EFL to ELF.
Stuttgart: DELTA Publishing.
Kiczkowiak, Marek, and Ana Wu. 2018. “Discrimination and Discriminatory Practices Against NNESTs.” In TESOL
Encyclopaedia of English Language Teaching, edited by J. I. Liontas. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kramsch, Claire, and Anne Whiteside. 2007. “Three Fundamental Concepts in Second Language Acquisition and
Their Relevance in Multilingual Contexts.” The Modern Language Journal 91 (s1): 907–922. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2007.00677.x.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2002. “The Author Responds: (Un)raveling Racism in a Nice Field Like TESOL.” TESOL Quarterly 36
(1): 84–92. doi:10.2307/3588363.
Kubota, Ryuko, and D. Fujimoto. 2013. “Racialized Native Speakers: Voices of Japanese American English Language
Professionals.” In Native-speakerism in Japan. Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign Language Education, edited by
S. Houghton, and D. J. Rivers, 196–206. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2016. “The Decolonial Option in English Teaching: Can the Subaltern Act?” TESOL Quarterly
50 (1): 66–85. doi:10.1002/tesq.202.
Levis, John M., Sinem Sonsaat, and Stephanie Link. 2017. “Students’ Beliefs About Native vs. Non-Native
Pronunciation Teachers: Professional Challenges and Teacher Education.” In Native and Non-Native Teachers
in English Language Classrooms, edited by A. Martinez, and J. de Dios, 205–238. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Ling, Cheung Yin, and George Braine. 2007. “The Attitudes of University Students Towards Non-Native Speakers
English Teachers in Hong Kong.” RELC Journal 38 (3): 257–277. doi:10.1177/0033688207085847.
Lowe, Robert J., and Marek Kiczkowiak. 2016. “Native-Speakerism and the Complexity of Personal Experience:
A Duoethnographic Study.” Cogent Education 3 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2016.1264171.
Mahboob, Ahmar, and Ruth Golden. 2013. “Looking for Native Speakers of English: Discrimination in English
Language Teaching Job Advertisements.” Voices in Asia Journal 1 (1): 72–81.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Graham, and J. Handelsman. 2012. “Science Faculty’s Subtle
Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (41): 16474–16479.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2019. Spotlight A: Characteristics of Public School Teachers by Race/Ethnicity.
Ollman, Bertell. 2003. Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx’s Method. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Paikeday, Thomas M. 1985. “May I Kill the Native Speaker?” TESOL Quarterly 19 (2): 390–395. doi:10.2307/3586840.
Rampton, M. B. H. 1990. “Displacing the ‘Native Speaker’: Expertise, Affiliation, and Inheritance.” ELT Journal 44
(2): 97–101. doi:10.1093/elt/44.2.97.
Rose, Heath, and Nicola Galloway. 2019. Global Englishes for Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ruecker, Todd, and Lindsey Ives. 2015. “White Native English Speakers Needed: The Rhetorical Construction of
Privilege in Online Teacher Recruitment Spaces.” TESOL Quarterly 49 (4): 733–756. doi:10.1002/tesq.195.
Schroeder, J., H. L. Dugdale, R. Radersma, M. Hinsch, D. M. Buehler, J. Saul, L. Porter, et al. 2013. “Fewer Invited
Talks by Women in Evolutionary Biology Symposia.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 26 (9): 2063–2069. doi:10.
1111/jeb.12198.
Selvi, Ali Fuad. 2014. “Myths and Misconceptions About Non-Native English Speakers in the TESOL (NNEST)
Movement.” TESOL Journal 5 (3): 573–611. doi:10.1002/tesj.158.
Si, Jinghui. 2019. “An Analysis of Business English Coursebooks from an ELF Perspective.” ELT Journal Advance
Online Publication. doi:10.1093/elt/ccz049.
Statistical First Release SFR. 2021. School Workforce in England.
Syrbe, Mona, and Heath Rose. 2016. “An Evaluation of the Global Orientation of English Textbooks in Germany.”
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 12 (2): 152–163. doi:10.1080/17501229.2015.1120736.
TESOL International. 2006. Position Statement Against Discrimination of Nonnative Speakers of English in the Field of
TESOL.
Train, Robert. 2009. “Toward a ‘Natural’ History of the Native (Standard) Speaker.” In The Native Speaker Concept:
Ethnographic Investigations of Native Speaker Effects, edited by N. M. Doerr, 47–78. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Appendices
Appendix 1. List of all ELT conferences in the EU
Country Name of conference(s) Website(s)

Austria
Belgium BELTA https://www.beltabelgium.com/belta-day-2019
Bulgaria BETA http://www.beta-iatefl.org/annual-conference/conference-call/
Croatia HUPE https://www.hupe.hr/index.php/conference/past-hupe-conferences
Czech ATECR https://atecr.weebly.com/news/category/conference
Republic
Denmark
Estonia EVOL http://www.voorkeelteliit.eu/en/membership/founders?id=211
Finland SUKOL Info only available in Finnish
France TESOL France https://www.tesol-france.org/en/pages/141/colloquium-2018.html
Germany ELTAF (Frankfurt) https://eltaf.de/events/conference/conference-2019
HELTA (Hamburg) https://www.helta.de/index.php/events-_reader/events/EAW.html
Greece TESOL Greece https://tesolgreece.org/event/302/
Hungary IATEFL-Hungary https://www.iatefl.hu/node/604
Iceland
Ireland ELT Ireland https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/elt-ireland-annual-conference-2019-tickets-
46708428166#
Italy TESOL Italy http://tesolitaly.org/new/#
Latvia LAVSA http://www.late.lv/conference.htm
Lithuania LAKMA http://www.lakmaonline.lt/
Luxembourg
Malta ELT Council https://eltcouncil.gov.mt/en/Pages/7th-ELT-Malta-Conference.aspx
Netherlands ICELT https://waset.org/conference/2019/02/amsterdam/ICELT
Poland IATEFL Poland https://iatefl.org.pl/en/past-conferences.html
PASE https://pase.pl/
Portugal APPI http://www.appi.pt/conferences/
Romania RATE https://rate.org.ro/blog4.php
Slovakia ELT Forum Slovakia http://eltforum.sk/archive/
SCELT https://scelt.wordpress.com/conferences/1st-annual-ska-elt-conference-
teaching-together-learning-together-bratislava-2015/
Slovenia IATEFL Slovenia http://iatefl.si/past-conferences/
Spain TESOL-SPAIN Annual http://www.tesol-spain.org/en/pages/11/speakers.html
National Convention
ACEIA https://www.aceia.es/conferencia-anual-aceia-2018
FECEI https://congreso.fecei.org/en/
Sweden
United IATEFL https://conference.iatefl.org/past_future
Kingdom English UK https://www.englishuk.com/annual-conference
Appendix 2. Questions sent to conference organisers
(1) How important is it for your organisation that the conferences you organise have a diverse line-up of speakers in
terms of their ethnicity and first language?
(2) To what extent has equal balance of ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’ been considered by your organisation
when choosing plenary speakers? What about the balance of white plenary speakers and plenary speakers of
colour?
(3) What are the main criteria taken into account by your organisation when inviting someone as a plenary speaker?
(4) What might have prevented your organisation from having a more equal ethnic and ‘native’ to ‘non-native
speaker’ balance among plenary speakers?

Native Speakerism in English Language Teaching Native Speakers More Likely To Be Invited As Conference Plenary Speakers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Native Speakerism in English Language Teaching Native Speakers More Likely To Be Invited As Conference Plenary Speakers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Native-speakerism in English language teaching:

Marek Kiczkowiak & Robert J. Lowe

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1974464

Published online: 06 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 830

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Native-speakerism in English language teaching: ‘native speakers’

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Robert J. Lowe robert-l@tokyo-kasei.ac.jp

The concept of the ‘native speaker’

Native-speakerism, and conference speaker representation

‘Native’ and ‘non-native’ plenary speakers

Table 1. List of selected conferences.

Table 2. Plenary speaker distribution at all seven analysed conferences.

Table 3. TESOL Greece annual international convention.

Table 4. TESOL Spain annual national convention.

Table 5. International IATEFL Poland conference.

Table 6. IATEFL international conference and exhibition.

Table 7. APPI conference.

Table 8. HUPE conference.

Table 9. TESOL Italy national annual convention.

Conference organisers’ perspectives

Country Name of conference(s) Website(s)

Appendix 2. Questions sent to conference organisers

You might also like