ESBB 2018 Plenary

Our presentation at the ESBB 2018 conference (March 23-25) at the University of Toyama will be a plenary. I, Naoki Fujimoto, Julius Martinez and Bruce Lander will present the findings from the Collaborative Autoethnography on Sunday 25th March. Our presentation summary is as follows:

This study explores issues surrounding English language academic publication among Japan-based scholars engaged in university English language teaching. Previous studies reveal publication-related problems among specific ethnolinguistic backgrounds of researchers of English as an Additional Language (EAL) (Flowerdew, 2001, 2007, 2008; Lillis & Curry, 2010; Salager-Meyer, 2008, 2013). In contrast, this study considers the experiences of a more diverse cross-section of Japan-based scholars (n = 8), including a balance of Japanese and non-Japanese, males and females, and experienced and less experienced scholars. The Collaborative Autoethnography (CAE) (Chang,Ngunjiri &. Hernandez, 2013) methodology of gathering data about publication experiences and perceptions intentionally encourages participants to both write their own narratives and help co-construct those of others on a closed Google Drive site similar to a conversation. The study was conducted over 6 months in 2017 and has a dual purpose: to gather co-constructed data about publication issues in Japanese academia, and to form a community of (publication) practice (CoPP), in which participants can interact and inform each other in the longer term. Findings reveal a diversity of experiences in the process of writing for academic publication for both national and international journals. A common narrative was that academic writing problems were shared by Japanese and non-Japanese scholars. Commonalities were also evident in experiences among experienced and less experienced scholars in dealing with journal editorial feedback, particularly the pressure exerted by editors on authors to cite works by the editors themselves, and also a lack of mediation by supervising editors when reviewers’ feedback differs. Further to this, the CAE saw frequent advice given on the choice of target journals and publishers. Of final note is the potential formation of a longer-term community of (publication) practice among the participants, some of whom have already started to collaborate beyond the parameters of this study.