To embrace, or not to embrace scholarship? Autoethnographic reflections of two EAP practitioners’ experiences in the Argentinian context

Daniela Moyetta
School of Languages and School of Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba

Verónica Muñoz
School of Humanities and School of Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto

 

ABSTRACT
A considerable body of research exists on English for Academic Purposes teaching and research. Despite its global development, researchers have reported a significant lack of attention to the EAP practitioner and practitioner-related issues (e.g., Ding and Bruce, 2017). Therefore, this piece of work recounts two Argentinean EAP practitioners’ experiences, mainly in relation to scholarship. Using an autoethnographic approach, we aim to unravel some of the national, institutional and disciplinary contextual conditions that have shaped our scholarship. In doing so, we hope to provide readers with a view of the challenges EAP Argentinean practitioners have to face, as well as to contribute to the emerging literature on EAP practitioners’ identity and status.

KEYWORDS: EAP, scholarship, university, practitioners, Argentina

 

INTRODUCTION
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has become a well-established international academic discipline within the field of Applied Linguistics (Bell, 2021a; Bruce and Ding, 2021; Ding, 2019, 2022; Ding and Bruce, 2017; Hyland, 2019; Hyland and Jiang, 2021). As a disciplinary culture, EAP is identified to be an academic field with a sound theoretical framework based on the contribution of different disciplines, defined research paradigms, as well as communities of practitioners who work in specific cultural, social and institutional contexts across the world. This dynamic interplay between epistemological and cultural elements is, in fact, the foundation of all disciplinary cultures (Becher, 1981, 1989, 1992, 1994; Becher and Trowler, 2001; Becher and Parry, 2005; Christie and Maton, 2011; Hyland, 2000; Krishnan, 2009; Trowler, 2012a, 2012b, 2014a, 2014b; Trowler et al., 2012). Following Becher’s (1989) famous metaphor, it is possible to state that EAP should be described not only in terms of its territory (the epistemological basis) but also in terms of its tribes (the participants who inhabit that territory). It is precisely on the latter, EAP practitioners/professionals, that we focus in this paper.

EAP professionals occupy a central role in facilitating university students' development of academic and disciplinary literacies and, therefore, their access to and participation in the discourse community of each disciplinary area (e.g., Bond, 2020; Bruce, 2011; Ding and Bruce, 2017; Hamp-Lyons, 2011; Hyland, 2018, 2019, 2022; Murray, 2016; Pérez-Llantada and Swales, 2017). However, despite the scientific status of EAP and the paramount importance of EAP practitioners for their roles not only as teachers (assisting students in literacy development) but also as researchers (constructing knowledge and theory), these scholars do not enjoy, in general, the same recognition, professional respect, and working conditions as scholars in other academic and scientific disciplines (Bell, 2016).

In addition to the institutional and contextual challenges faced by EAP practitioners, it is important to state that there is scant academic literature on EAP professionals coupled with limited literature focusing specifically on the conditions in which they work and attempt to engage in scholarship. Studies have mostly described practitioners’ roles (Malik, 2014; Mehta, 2012; Muhrofi-Gunadi, 2016), training needs (Alebaid, 2020), specialized knowledge development (Cheng, 2015), perceptions and teaching practices (Dwee et al., 2016), teaching beliefs (Alexander, 2012), teaching views (Campion, 2016), decision-making processes (Kuzborska, 2011), cognitions and practices (Atai and Taherkhani, 2018), emotions and identities (Derakhshan et al., 2023), education needs (Basturkmen, 2019), knowledge base, practices and challenges (Kaivanpanah et al., 2021b), professionalization through apprenticeship (Ghanbari and Rasekh, 2012), competences, practices and professional development (Kaivanpanah et al., 2021a), as well as professional identity construction (Atai et al., 2022; Tao and Gao, 2018; Trent, 2024).

Previous studies and theoretical discussions have also focused on some of the problems faced by EAP practitioners in the construction of their academic and institutional status. EAP professionals tend to be perceived as “butlers” (Raimes, 1991), “intellectually vacuous” (Turner, 2004), and “linguistic service technicians” (Hadley, 2013). As a disciplinary area, EAP has also been depicted as peripheral and marginal (Bell, 2021b; Bond, 2022; Ding, 2022; Ding and Bruce, 2017; le Roux, 2022; Sizer, 2019; Tibbetts and Chapman, 2023). Even when EAP practitioners’ academic status and roles have been portrayed as variable across different contexts (Charles and Pecorari, 2015; Ding and Bruce, 2017) and the field has been characterised as geographically diverse and heterogeneous (Bruce, 2021), few studies have described the Latin American situation (Holmes and Celani, 2006; Salager-Meyer et al., 2016). What is more, little is known about the EAP practitioner status and the EAP field in Argentina.

Despite the progress made in this new line of research focused on EAP practitioners, information regarding the obstacles and challenges in their attempt to engage in scholarship is limited. More specifically, to the best of our knowledge, there is no published study that explores the contextual conditions in which EAP practitioners seek to engage in scholarship in Argentina, especially as revealed from stories told by practitioners themselves. Therefore, adopting an autoethnographic approach, we aim at voicing our experiences in our way to scholarship in two Argentinean public universities, more specifically, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC) and Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto (UNRC). We hope that the description of our personal experiences from an autoethnographic perspective (Ellis et al., 2011) can shed light on the cultural experiences of EAP Practitioners in Argentinean national universities in an attempt to better understand the EAP disciplinary culture in our country. With this in mind, we will first present the wider context for our descriptive narratives so that we can bring to light the conditions in which our scholarship has developed. We will outline the external forces that have largely influenced our scholarship and have paved the way to our present position as EAP Practitioners. We will then narrate, in first person, our own autoethnographic accounts. In so doing, we hope to provide our colleagues with a view of the challenges EAP Argentinean practitioners have to face.

 

THE WIDER CONTEXT
In Argentinian universities, as in the rest of the world, teachers engage in diverse practices, science and technology being one of the main activities which directly impact on the situations that define universities (Koncurat and Montenegro, 2003). Argentinian universities’ function, then, is oriented not only to professional and vocational training but also to research. In fact, all throughout Latin America, the vast majority of the scientific structure belongs to universities, which host most of the research activities and scientists (Altbach, 2009). The major role of universities in science is, indeed, one of the central practices that define them institutionally and socially, as the university does not only transmit knowledge but is also responsible for the production, management, processing, application and popularization of knowledge as well as for the generation of new ideas and discoveries (Duderstadt, 2010; López Segrera, 2006). Not only do universities generate scientific knowledge and produce technological developments but also they are, in most countries, the main institutions for the training of researchers and scientists, a basic function of universities (Altbach, 2009; Escotet et al., 2010). Yet, Argentinian teachers face different difficulties to balance research and teaching given the many responsibilities and tasks required by universities, depending on the hierarchical position teachers have and their working conditions (“simple”, part, or full-time). These challenges, and the pressure to overcome them, become a serious problem, especially considering the system of external and internal institutional evaluation of universities based on their performance in research, teaching and outreach, implemented since the enactment of the Higher-education Federal Law in 1995 (Fernández Lamarra, 2007). In addition to coping with unreal work demands, university teachers have to orchestrate their own motivation with the lack of resources and insufficient funds, resulting from the economic crisis as well as the government’s restrictions on public spending required by the World Bank’s neoliberal policies (de Sousa Santos, 2007; Escotet et al., 2010; Fernández Lamarra, 2007; Leher, 2010; López Segrera, 2006), a world-wide phenomenon that started in the 90s and a major concern in developing countries like Argentina.

The UNC context
Globalization and, in turn, internationalization in Higher Education have led to the use of English as a medium of instruction. In fact, English for Academic Purposes Units have become part of universities in English and non-English speaking countries (Hadley, 2015; Hyland and Shaw, 2016). In the UNC, and as a direct consequence of globalization, foreign language instruction became mandatory in the curriculum of its different schools. In 1999, by means of the 167-1999 Resolution of the Honorable Consejo Superior, the university’s highest governing authority, the subject Módulo de Idioma Inglés was created. In one section of this regulatory text, reference is made to the national and international context of globalisation and to the new scientific-professional profiles that “in this new state of affairs” society demands. This statement makes it possible to form a wide picture of the ideological, economic, social and political context in which the Módulo de Idioma Inglés originated, which undoubtedly has influenced the positioning of EAP as a field, and consequently, the positioning of the EAP practitioner. In another section of the regulation, it is stated that the Módulo de Idioma Inglés should not exceed one year in duration and that the maximum time stipulated leads to the need to prioritise the knowledge and skills to be developed. Thus, Article 3 of this Resolution establishes that English language teaching “shall be primarily oriented towards the development of reading comprehension”. Besides, Article 7 states that the different academic units should include the language module as compulsory for those entering from the year 2000 onwards. In addition, Article 2 states the School of Languages should be in charge of administering the teaching of the subject; therefore, the EAP Department was physically located at this school. The EAP professors were then ELT professionals appointed by the School of Languages and were asked to teach in different schools. As can be seen, EAP as an undergraduate compulsory subject has a young tradition in the UNC context.

According to Dudley-Evans and St. John (1998), English for Academic Purposes courses can take place in four different situations, determined by the course contents and methods. The subject Módulo de Idioma Inglés can be said to be within situation 4, since all subject courses are taught in the national language (Spanish), but English is important for auxiliary reasons (academic studies). Within situation 4, Martínez (2011) identifies what she calls the “Latinate situation”. In this particular context, the practitioner is usually a non-native speaker of English (most of the times a native speaker of Spanish) and teaches EAP in Spanish. The modality adopted in most academic units for undergraduate students is reading comprehension. This is due to different causes: the need to facilitate university students’ access to bibliographic materials written in English, the need to optimize the teaching-learning situation, since classes are usually overcrowded to try anything else (Salager-Meyer et al., 2016), the lack of institutional policies, the lack of interest from the university’s authorities and the lack of funding/budget.

As a consequence of the above, EAP as a profession tends to enjoy a low status in the UNC. Even when “foreign language reading courses complement the conceptual work carried out in all the subjects included in the degree course, since they are aimed at the integral formation of the student” (Klett, 2019, p.40) (our translation), the central role that EAP Practitioners play in facilitating students' access to and participation in the discourse community of each subject area (Murray, 2016) is frequently downplayed.

The UNRC context
A similar situation is identified at Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto (UNRC), a much smaller and younger university than Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. English has been taught as a mandatory subject in different course syllabi for the development of disciplinary literacies at undergraduate level since the foundation of the university early in the 70s (1971). At this time, the English Teaching Program and the English Bachelor were not academic majors offered by the university, English classes being taught only in the first career programs offered by the university, in disciplines such as engineering and agriculture.

At present, most of the EAP courses are administered by the Department of Languages, School of Humanities, to careers in the social sciences and humanities, natural and physical sciences, veterinary and agriculture, as well as formal sciences. Except for the School of Engineering and the School of Economy, which have their own EAP teacher staff, the Department of Languages teaches EAP undergraduate courses as a “service” to most of the careers at Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. EAP, together with other Languages for Specific Purposes (LSP) (French, German, Italian and Portuguese) are, in fact, one of the main teaching activities in the Department of Languages, School of Humanities. The institutional area in which all these languages are organized is internally and informally referred to as “Support Area” (Área de Apoyo) within the Department of Languages. This “area” has never been officially recognized and has never been granted official status within the School of Humanities, regardless of the importance, the role and the potential it has across the whole university. Despite the efforts and the presentation of a project by LSP teachers in 2013 requesting the inclusion of the area in the institutional structure of the Department of Languages, eleven years later the situation remains exactly the same.

The instrumental relevance of LSP, as claimed by the university itself, is the need to respond to globalization in both academic and work communities and guarantee good-quality scientific and academic education at undergraduate as well as graduate level. In addition, as argued by Hyland (2018), LSP reading and writing courses are, in general, the only opportunities university students have for receiving explicit instruction and developing academic literacies with the assistance and scaffolding of teachers, a competence that can be transferred to other subjects and learning situations. This, it is argued, will enable the university to compete with international standards for the work market. However, to date the institutional policies fail to guarantee and protect, both academically and professionally, LSP teachers and their work, for the reasons we will discuss later in this work.

As for English in particular, all EAP courses are focused on reading at undergraduate level, with the aim of helping students access disciplinary-specific literature. This emphasis on single-skill courses oriented to the development of reading competencies at undergraduate level has been a traditional practice not only in Argentina but also all throughout Latin America (Salager-Meyer et al., 2016). At UNRC, EAP courses are also lectured at graduate level, centred on the teaching of both the reading and writing of academic and scientific genres, with the purpose of helping research apprentices, teachers and researchers develop literacies for participating in international scientific communities by publishing in prestige journals, for example. Teaching scientific writing and reading in Doctorate and Master Programs in different disciplines is, in fact, a situation common to many national universities in Argentina (Porto, 2014). At UNRC most undergraduate and graduate courses are targeted to English for Academic Purposes, although more and more courses are oriented now, also, to English for Professional Purposes, particularly at this moment of curriculum changes in the academic syllabi of the different careers.

This development of EAP in both institutions has determined the conditions that shape our disciplinary culture in our universities and, therefore, who we are as EAP Practitioners.

EAP symbolic capital in our universities
Many authors have argued, from a Bourdieusian standpoint, that the EAP field lacks capital (Bell, 2016, 2021a,b; Ding and Bruce, 2017; Ding, 2022; Jones, 2020). More specifically, Bell (2016, 2021a,b) states that in academia “the most obvious manifestation of symbolic capital are those forms of capital linked with formally recognised academic achievement, most typically represented by higher level qualifications” (p.8, 2021b). Therefore, the key forms of cultural capital for most academics are a PhD and peer recognition of scholarly activity and research, two forms of capital from which EAP practitioners tend to be excluded because of their contractual terms and conditions (Bell, 2021a,b). In our country, as other studies have also reported (Courtois and O’Keefe, 2015; Leigh, 2020), when we look at the location of the EAP unit, the contractual status and the subject status, this lack of capital becomes apparent.

In the first place, lack of symbolic capital is revealed in the location (Ding, 2022). The location of the EAP unit in the university impacts on contracts, pay and work conditions (Jones, 2020). Tao and Gao (2018, p.7) add that “the lack of a supportive social and physical environment” promotes professional isolation and consequently, hampers professional identity development.

In UNC, except for the School of Exact Sciences and the School of Agronomy, which have their own EAP unit, the EAP Department, as mentioned above, was located at the School of Languages. For not very clear reasons, it was recently decided to move the department at the Rectorado, the office for the university authorities; that is, Rectorado is not a “teaching unit” but a “government unit”. This transferring has not contributed to helping the EAP staff feel as an integral part of any academic community. Moreover, the shift from on-site teaching to online teaching as a result of the confinement by COVID-19 meant that the course content and assessment needed to be adapted for virtual instruction. This sudden restructuring of the subject paved the way for the definitive adoption of remote teaching in some academic units. Being devoid of a tangible, physical place, the digital realm makes it difficult to work alongside colleagues who resumed the traditional face-to-face instruction. Needless to say, navigating this new “virtual” reality and the fact that the EAP Department is placed in a site different from the sites where the subject is taught have negatively impacted on the EAP practitioner’s identity, since it has deepened the invisibility of the subject and the practitioners themselves.

As for UNRC, the so-called “Support Area”, which administers LSP courses to most schools, except for the School of Engineering and the School of Economy, belongs to the Department of Languages in the School of Humanities. The lack of official recognition of the area, as explained before, brings about different academic and administrative problems and obstacles, such as lack of uniform criteria in the subject names and codes, lack of resources to guarantee the necessary staff organization in each subject (at least a senior teacher responsible for the course and an assistant teacher), lack of institutional instruments to protect teachers’ rights, lack of resources to protect teachers as well as courses from institutional policies and decisions both in the School of Humanities and in the other schools. In relation to this last point, it is important to say that EAP teachers who teach courses for careers outside the School of Humanities have to struggle against the many times unfair decisions and rules imposed by other schools which are benefited by the “academic service” provided by the School of Humanities.

In both universities, UNC and UNRC, work overload makes us, EAP practitioners, vulnerable. The different schools where EAP is taught take decisions and impose rules which pressure us to accept unfair work practices (le Roux, 2022). For example, we are obliged to respond to different academic calendars in each school; thus, our tasks frequently overlap and interfere with other professional duties. This makes it nearly impossible to fulfil all the mandatory academic requirements. Besides, as EAP practitioners, we are usually left outside the official communicative channels. For instance, we tend not to receive information about institutional support for research funding. Also, as EAP professors, we are not always seen as being real academics (Leigh, 2020). Many times we are not treated equally as the discipline-specific teachers; therefore, we are usually not invited to participate in academic decisions, for example, related to curriculum design. To make matters worse, not only does our area lack official institutional status but it also lacks an office where teachers can meet and different academic and administrative activities can be carried out.

Being placed outside the structure of the schools where the subject is taught contributes to strengthening the view EAP as a “service activity” (Hyland, 2002). Further, it reinforces the perception of EAP Practitioners as service providers. In this position, it is not surprising for us not to be afforded “the same kudos, professional respect and working conditions as academics in other disciplines” (Bell, 2016, p.93). Besides, being located separately from the school where we teach prevents us from building ties with different academic departments. Consequently, it becomes hard to create stronger links with colleagues from different subjects. This marginalised position only adds to “the sense of being undervalued and poorly recognised within institutions” (Jones, 2020, p.101).

In the second place, lack of capital can be seen in the practitioners’ contractual status (Ding, 2022). Even when EAP in Argentina is not necessary for attracting and maintaining a steady flow of international students (Hadley, 2017 in Bahrami et al., 2019), but a curricular subject, EAP teachers are generally recruited as teaching-only staff (Bahrami et al., 2019).

In the particular case of the Department of Languages for Academic Purposes at UNC, the figure of the full professor is non-existent. To date, the only figure that exists is that of profesor asistente. And until 2022, profesores asistentes coexisted with teachers employed on casual contracts. Consequently, the profesores asistentes of this Department have to bear many responsibilities: developing all the contents of the syllabus of the subject; carrying out all teaching tasks, both theoretical and practical; designing mid-term and final exams; keeping a record of all the tests done by students; submitting teaching performance reports and chairing examination boards. This irregular situation not only violates the regulations established by the UNC Statute regarding teaching duties, but also significantly increases our workload.

At UNRC, EAP practitioners face similar as well as different work problems. Some have temporary work contracts, though in general this situation is regularised within a relatively short span of time. Most practitioners are part of the permanent staff, that is they have gone through a process of peer evaluation for getting a position at university. However, not all EAP practitioners work full-time in the Department of Languages. In fact, several EAP practitioners are part-time teachers, who divide their work time between the Department of Languages and other institutions. This situation is more complicated considering that in either case (full-time as well as part-time teachers), most EAP practitioners are required to teach both EAP courses and also courses for the English Teaching Program and the English Bachelor. The varied nature of the subjects in which each teacher participates makes work hard, dispersed and overwhelming. Some practitioners have to organise their time to respond to different requirements imposed by different areas other than the Support Area, for instance attending different meetings scheduled during the week, co-working in different courses with several colleagues simultaneously, as well as interacting with students of different backgrounds, ages, disciplines and interests.

When most of our time is spent on lesson planning, course evaluation and fulfilling administrative requirements in both universities, “other material labour which might serve to distinguish us as professionals or academics, such as research, scholarship or writing for publication, must be done in our own time and at our own expense, if it can be done at all” (le Roux, 2022, p.169). As a consequence, being faced with the extra task of trying to engage in research can be quite demanding or even impossible.

In the third place, lack of capital is also exposed in the status of the EAP courses. At UNC, English for Academic Purposes is the only subject that has international exam equivalency. This opens up another issue of debate since, to begin with, an international exam does not necessarily assess the ability to understand specialised disciplinary genres. What is more, in some academic units, the subject is passed by means of a proficiency test, which is usually focused on reading strategies and vocabulary. To make matters worse, equivalence of the subject is also granted to those students who can prove that they have successfully passed some of the internationally recognised exams, such as TOEFL, CAE or CPE, stated in Ordenanza 11/2012 by the Honorable Consejo Superior.

Moreover, as the literature in the field has echoed, no academic prerequisite to enter the field of EAP is needed (Ding and Bruce, 2017; Ding and Campion, 2016). Consequently, and certainly not exclusively a situation in Argentina, academic colleagues tend to believe that teaching EAP does not require any specialised skills (Murray, 2016). What is particularly striking in our country is that anyone who considers himself/herself to be competent in English believes he/she can teach EAP. This is clearly evidenced in the jury composition, who are supposed to be academic peers in the field, appointed to evaluate candidates for university posts. It has been frequently observed that many times there is only one specialist in EAP and the other two members of the jury are believed to be proficient in English because, for example, they write papers in this language, but have no pedagogical or methodological training in this field. Thus, they can be considered unable to correctly assess the candidates competing for the post. Another commonplace practice is that universities appoint English teachers of academic backgrounds other than the EAP field, thus having as jury teachers specialised in English history, sociolinguistics, or general English, for example. These teachers, however respected in their fields, do not have the relevant theory, qualifications and training to assess the specific competences needed for and in the EAP field. In a similar way, the members of the jury assigned to assess the level of proficiency in English by PhD candidates in different fields, for example Biology, Geology, Engineering, are Biologists, Geologists and Engineers, not EAP Practitioners. Similarly, when there is more than one candidate for a post, the jury, even when integrated by EAP Practitioners, tends not to evaluate specialised knowledge (Ferguson, 1997) but seniority in teaching.

A closely related problem at UNRC is that EAP is, literally, a sort of “wildcard” in the Department of Languages. Many times, teachers are told to teach EAP courses as an extra teaching requirement for their position. Once these teachers have got their position, after peer evaluation (contest), they are required to teach EAP courses as an ancillary work prerequisite. However, in the peer evaluation process, these teachers ́ resumes are not assessed on the basis of their qualifications and scholarship in the EAP field; nor are the teachers told to teach an EAP oral mock lesson to be evaluated by the jury. Therefore, there are teachers specialised in English History, for example, teaching EAP courses just to fulfil a teaching requirement. These teachers have not developed scholarship in the EAP discipline (and will never do), nor do they do research in the field simply because this is not their area of academic interest and specialization. The institutional underlying assumptions are that anyone can teach EAP and that no academic specialisation is needed to participate in the field, thus denying and ignoring the disciplinary status of EAP in the academy. All of this clearly demonstrates that the authorities who make these kinds of decisions have difficulty in distinguishing EAP from EGP. In Bell’s (2021b, p.5) words “for those outside the field, the idea that EAP and General English teaching are much the same thing is pernicious and this misinterpretation continues to persist. Such misunderstandings are a contributory factor to the problems that EAP has faced regarding its academic status in […] Higher Education”.

As we have argued, EAP practitioners in UNC and in UNRC suffer the consequences that lack of capital entails in different ways. Bell (2016, 2021a, 2021b), Ding and Bruce (2017), and Flowerdew (2019) believe that EAP professionals in Higher Education may raise their academic status and move from the edge to a more central position within academia by upgrading qualifications, engaging more proactively with research and scholarly activity, building stronger ties with academics in other subject areas. The question is how can we, as EAP practitioners, acquire cultural capital through qualifications, research, scholarly activity and build stronger ties with academics in other subject areas when the university itself does not create policies that strengthen the training and professionalisation in our disciplinary culture?

 

OUR OWN EXPERIENCES
Vignette 1: Daniela
I began to take an interest in ESP when I did Didáctica Especial II, a subject in the English Teaching Training course of studies. In this subject, we had to study teaching children in the first semester and teaching EAP in the second semester. I remember reading Barnard and Zemach’s chapter about ESP materials design in Tomlinson (2003) that left me with a lifelong interest in the field. After reading the chapter I became aware of the challenges, constraints and opportunities ESP practitioners may encounter when developing tailored in-house materials. More importantly, I became aware of the significance of elaborating materials guided by research supported principles and being informed by subject specialists.

It was a couple of years after my graduation that I had the opportunity to apply for a teacher selection process for English reading comprehension courses at the university. After passing an evaluation, I got a teaching casualised contract to work at the Faculties of Architecture and Psychology. After eight years in a precarious position, I could have access to a permanent post as profesora asistente. At this point, I believe it is worth pointing out that I am a member of the Department of English for Academic Purposes, which was located in the Faculty of Languages and is now located in the Rectorado, and teach ESP in two different faculties.

When I entered the field, the goal of the course I was assigned to teach was not to on “exploring the language as a carrier of disciplinary and professional values” (Hyland, 2009, p.203), but on learning “the correct grammar” of English using texts that contain some information about any topic related to the field of study and considered of interest by the teacher. For example, an excerpt from a book about “The Chicago School'' was used to teach the simple past. Therefore, the structures were not examined “in the light of how individual learners will need to use them” (Upton, 2012, p.15) or, what was worse, “as a result of the frequency and importance to the community that employs them” (Hyland, 2009, p.203).

Together with grammar and vocabulary, there was an emphasis, and there still is, on reading strategies. The limitations and weaknesses of this approach became clear as I went deeper into reading about materials design in EAP. By 2006 I decided to continue my studies and applied for the MA in applied linguistics that the Faculty of Languages offered. The MA included a Genre Analysis seminar, in charge of Ileana Martínez, who had studied in Birmingham under the supervision of Tony Dudley-Evans. This was a really enlightening experience that introduced me to the classics: John Swales, Vijay Bhatia, Ken Hyland, among others. As I felt that the MA program was a bit disarticulated and that many of the courses and seminars did not really interest me, I decided to do the Specialised Texts and Terminology seminar as an external student in another MA program. I was fortunate in that I had the chance to meet two great Argentinian linguists: Inés Kuguel and Guiomar Ciapuscio. It was here that I encountered concepts such as “specialised text”, “term” and approaches such as “multilevel analysis” that, together with the concept of “genre”, provided me with a strong toolkit to engage in in-house materials development from a research-based point of view, and to design activities linked with the disciplinary context, using authentic language data and aiming at raising students’ awareness of the prototypical, disciplinary genres they need to know. These two eye-opening seminars were the beginning of a growing interest in genre analysis and genre-based pedagogy. This interest led to the writing of the MA thesis in which I applied Swales’ CARS model to text analysis. I explored the rhetorical organisation of Discussions Sections of English and Spanish research articles in Psychology and proposed a template for this section in these two languages. Feeling that I did not have all the answers about in-house materials design, I hit upon the idea of starting my PhD studies. The ultimate goal I pursued was to determine the degree of specialisation of the texts in order to establish sound criteria for text selection and sequencing, which can help provide the basis for creating the teaching materials used in my reading comprehension classes. I was fortunate enough to begin working under the supervision of Dr Inés Kuguel. Sadly, Inés suffered from an incurable disease and passed away two years after we began our work together. This unfortunate event coupled with many administrative constraints meant the end of my PhD journey.

It was probably the lack of a doctoral-level qualification and the impossibility of being hired for a tenured position that made me see myself as the poor relations when compared to colleagues from the disciplines in which I teach. This feeling led me to enquire about the possible causes of this disadvantaged position. While trying to voice my concerns that I came across Ding and Bruce’s (2017) “The English for Academic Purposes Practitioner. Operating on the edge of the academia”. Reading this groundbreaking work meant a turning point for my academic studies. It encouraged me to go beyond applied linguistics and see “how Social Theory/ies operates within each of (…) the key EAP elements of the practitioner knowledge-base” (Ding, 2022, p.2). Their influence also encouraged me to thoroughly examine, using their lens, the EAP practitioner positioning at my university. More specifically, I am currently looking into how EAP practitioners implement strategies (from a Bourdieusian perspective) to position themselves in the university field.

In a nutshell, the precarious conditions of my university position, the underprivileged position we occupy in relation to other disciplines, the fragmented identity that started developing as a result of the “dual-dependency”, the marginalisation of the field and the pressure to accept unfair work practices, the use and abuse of power by powerful decision-makers within the university and institutional practices that tend to arbitrarily favour those considered to be friends or allies regardless of their academic credentials, encouraged me to “twist the screw the other way” (Ding 2022, p.155). The feeling of being supported by publications on Social Theory has made it possible for me to begin writing about the precarious working conditions of the ESP/EAP practitioners at Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.

Vignette 2: Verónica
Thinking and reflecting upon my scholarship leads me, immediately and unavoidably, to a metaphor: a rollercoaster. I cannot think of the process in any other way, with ups and downs, the good and the bad, strengths and weaknesses. The metaphor of the rollercoaster reflects not only the institutional challenges I had to face (and therefore the backwards and forwards in my career) but also my own perceptions and emotions struggling with the ambiguities of the system. This is a system that requires university teachers to engage in scholarship (mainly through research and graduate education), but paradoxically at the same time does not guarantee the necessary conditions and policies to help us teachers achieve the required academic goals, and does not adequately reward us for our academic achievements. In this context, we teachers many times wonder whether it is actually worth struggling hard to embrace scholarship, given the lack of support and the not-so-clear and even unfair reward systems. In what follows I will focus on those moments that significantly impacted my academic trajectory, mainly referring to those experiences under adverse circumstances which I could eventually overcome and which most clearly helped me become aware of my identity as an EAP practitioner.

Just like many of my Argentinian colleagues, I got into the field of EAP incidentally in 2003, very young, when I had just got my undergraduate degree as an English teacher. At that time, I did not have a clear idea of what I wanted to do professionally and academically. I even do not remember thinking about this explicitly. In 2003, most probably by inertia, I started the English Bachelor Program after I graduated as an English teacher in 2002. Although I have always been really fond of reading and studying, we were told, at that moment, that doing the Bachelor would give us more qualifications to be university English teachers. I assumed this would be the case, although I was not really thinking and expecting to become a university teacher. But I decided to apply for a temporary position as a teacher assistant. Therefore, immediately after my graduation, I got a 10-hour-a-week contract as a teacher assistant (Ayudante de primera), the lowest position in the Argentinian university hierarchy. I also worked in a high-school and in a private institution that offers English lessons to children, teenagers and adults. Saying this simply and shortly, that was when my scholarship journey started, how it all began, though not really consciously. Thinking retrospectively about my scholarship, I can identify graduate education and research as the two main academic activities that really marked my identity as a university teacher and researcher and, in particular, as an EAP practitioner. I will focus on these because both were key in my process into becoming a scholar in the field of EAP.

As for graduate education, still an English Bachelor student, I enrolled in the English Master Program (Applied Linguistics) on campus, this time not really out of inertia but more consciously, with the idea of applying for a permanent position in the Department of Languages (School of Humanities). Graduate certificates are supposed to be valued for university positions in the peer evaluation process (they say). In 2006 I finished the English Bachelor Program and I continued my Master studies. This was a hard process, having three jobs (at university, in a high-school and in a private institution) and doing my best to make time for work, for study, and for personal life. At the moment I was a Master candidate, the Department of Languages did not have policies (not even informal agreements) to help teachers who were doing the Master Program. There was not, literally, any kind of institutional support, despite the requirements imposed by the university for teachers’ individual evaluation and for institutional evaluation. Therefore, I was not allowed to ask for some time off work so that I could focus on my studies. I did not receive any help from the institution or from my colleagues. In fact, I was not even exempted from marking exams or teaching some classes, for example. Despite these unfavourable circumstances, I worked hard and I graduated from the Master Program (my own individual achievement, with no institutional support). I do not feel that the Master Program in itself had an impact in my academic life, but it did mean, for me, a sort of bridge, a way into the very beginning of the development of my academic identity, a stage in my professional life that I will develop in the next paragraphs.

The subsequent period in my scholarship is what really shaped my place in the academic world. Still an English Master student, I was admitted in the PhD Program in Language Sciences (Applied Linguistics) at Universidad Nacional de Córdoba in 2011. I enrolled in the program when I was granted a five-year scholarship by CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), the government’s research institution that is the main official support for scientific development at national universities in Argentina. Different from the Bachelor and the Master stages of my scholarship process, applying for the PhD program was an act of complete self-awareness and conviction, firmly rooted in my willingness to become a researcher. I had the privilege to be supervised by Dr. Guiomar Ciapuscio, who motivated me, always, to engage in academic endeavours for my professional development. When I completed the Master Program in 2012 (after six years, with an interruption of a nine-month Fulbright scholarship to work in the United States), I could focus on my doctorate studies, which I finally finished in 2017. Synthesising this academic period of my life into words may seem a simple process, but the circumstances were far from simple because not all went smoothly. If my Master studies were complicated in the Department of Languages, the Doctorate stage was even harder. I was the first (and until now the last) CONICET intern in the history of the Department. Based on my experience as a Master candidate, I decided to apply for a scholarship in CONICET so that I could get a monthly stipend. This money allowed me to quit my jobs in the high-school and in the private institution where I worked, thus being able to focus on my work at university. By this time, I did have a clear idea of what I wanted to do professionally and academically: I wanted to become a researcher, in addition to being a teacher.

At the beginning I thought that the CONICET scholarship would help me to fully concentrate on my doctorate studies. However, it was not that simple. The main challenge was to draw a line between my part-time job at university and my duties as a CONICET intern. Again, I did not get any institutional support (neither officially nor informally), which I still cannot understand considering that very few teachers in the Department of Languages had a PhD degree (still at present) and that graduate certificates are said to be valued for academic advancement. I remember spending hours and hours on campus trying really very hard to focus on my doctorate: collecting papers for literature review, reading, designing and building two corpora, collecting and analyzing data, having meetings with my supervisors, interviewing key informants, and, of course, starting the first drafts of my thesis chapters. The fact that I was on campus led many colleagues to assume that I was a full-time teacher in the Department of Languages. It was very difficult for me to set limits. The situation was so difficult and stressful that I went through three decisions: first asking for reduction in my work hours as a teacher (from 20 hours a week to 10 hours, reducing my salary, of course), then asking for a two-year time off work (with no salary), and finally resigning my job. As my resignation was a turning point in my academic and professional career, I will focus on this specifically in the next paragraph.

When my two-year time off finished, the Vice Dean of the School of Humanities informed me that I was not allowed to get more time for my doctorate studies, not even considering that a substitute teacher had a contract with my own salary. In my university teachers can get unlimited time off work (with no salary) to work as a politician or to do on-campus administrative activities, for example. However, teachers can only have two years off work for study purposes. Under these unfair conditions, the options were for me to return to work (my previous negative experience when doing the Master Program) or to quit my job. Therefore, I decided to resign (full of determination and conviction), probably the best decision in my entire career at university. After presenting my resignation note, I was called by the Dean of the School of Humanities. I remember coming into her office and meeting her, the Vice Dean and the Academic Secretary. The three were looking at me with full of surprise, as they did not understand how and why someone could resign a job at university. The purpose of this meeting was to explain the reasons for my resignation and to confirm that I was sure of my decision. I explained my situation, trying to be as ethically correct as possible. I said clearly that if I did not leave my job, I could never finish my doctorate studies (omitting the details of my daily life in the Department of Languages). One of these authorities said something that still resonates in my mind and that I will never be able to understand: “doing graduate studies is an act of selfishness, something for you, not for the university”. I still cannot understand the perspective from which this person claimed this, an opinion totally decontextualized from the very essence of university education in Argentina. In this meeting, I reaffirmed my decision because I was totally convinced. It has been ten years now since that moment and I can convincingly state that if I had not resigned, I would have never got my PhD degree. Despite all the obstacles and challenges, like with my Master degree, I finally finished my Doctorate studies. This was a turning-point in my career, with a profound impact on who I am (or want to be) in the academic community.

As for research, I think that my real and serious research training started when I became a member of the team led by Iliana Martínez in 2005. I learned a lot listening to and looking at her, following many (but not all) of her pieces of advice, reading a lot as well as following my own instinct and intuition. I also learned by disagreeing with her, based on my own reading and ideas. Gradually, I found out what research was about and I came to understand the very essence of scientific endeavour. Research became key in my scholarship, despite the struggles to combine teaching, research and so many other duties required by my university.

Because of space, I cannot go into further details about the ups and downs of my scholarship. I have therefore referred to the most salient moments in the trajectory of my academic life. I would like to end my narrative saying that despite the somehow unfair work conditions, the obstacles and the lack of support that I have received institutionally, I am proud to have matured as an EAP practitioner and to have become a member of the local EAP disciplinary community. My graduate studies, especially the doctorate program, and my research have been really illuminating for me to genuinely discover my academic interests and, therefore, the territories I wish to navigate. Both my doctorate studies and research allowed me to read and discover theories as well as scholars, to establish academic bonds with mentors and peers, and to reaffirm my willingness to participate in the academic community as an EAP practitioner. Considering all this, then, and returning to the question in the title of this paper, I believe that embracing scholarship is always personally rewarding, though not always institutionally rewarding given that the cultural rules established by universities may not be totally clear and fair.

 

FINAL THOUGHTS AND CLOSING REMARKS
Following an autoethnographic approach and a reflexive perspective, this writing has aimed to unravel some of the national, institutional and disciplinary contextual conditions that have shaped our scholarship. We firmly believe that our position as EAP Practitioners can in no way be understood in isolation from the broader social events that have conditioned our discipline in particular and the universities where we work in general. Thus, we have tried to depict our experiences by briefly describing the local context and the social structure that condition us. We hope that the descriptive narratives of our experiences can trigger further academic debate about the challenges and obstacles faced by EAP Practitioners globally in their struggle to engage in scholarship as a way of building not only an individual academic identity but also a collective disciplinary identity and ethos of the international EAP community.

Budgetary restrictions, the faulty organisation of EAP chairs, failures in the functioning of contests, lack of transparency in appointments, lack of social, cultural and symbolic capital, among others, create invisible barriers to the development of scholarship. Therefore, if the mechanisms of power that enable or restrict the access, permanence and promotion of EAP practitioners in the academic profession are not explored and disentangled, any strategy to promote scholarship will be insufficient and questionable.

This autoethnographic account of our professional field in the Argentinean context leads to complex questions which, we believe, are difficult, if not impossible, to answer on the basis of sound theoretical arguments. Nevertheless, in sharing these enquiries, we hope to offer some insights into the experiences of EAP practitioners navigating complex contexts throughout the world, where the same or similar issues can be identified: If teachers’ scholarship is the foundation of scientific and technological development as well as academic and educational excellence, why are the reward systems used by Argentinian universities based on teachers’ age and work years rather than productivity and academic merit? Why are we trapped in a system of fierce competition, unreal work deadlines, intensive multi-tasking roles, and a chaotic range of in-campus and out-of-campus activities if public universities do not reward teachers, both academically and economically, for their work? If research and innovation are fundamental axes in the modern university’s mission, why are teachers’ research qualifications under-rated in the different evaluation systems used by universities? If research and professional development are based mostly on teachers’ scholarship, why do Argentinian universities fail to facilitate teachers’ academic work through serious and clear institutional policies? Why are merit-based achievements usually outweighed by personal contacts and membership of social-academic networks?

 Addresses for correspondence: [email protected] and [email protected]

 

REFERENCES

Alebaid, M.Y. 2020. Training needs of ESP practitioners in vocational education. Multi-Knowledge Electronic Comprehensive Journal for Education and Science Publications. 32, pp.1-20.

Alexander, O. 2012. Exploring teacher beliefs in teaching EAP at low proficiency levels. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, pp.99-111.

Altbach, P.G. 2009. Educación superior comparada. El conocimiento, la universidad y el desarrollo. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Palermo.

Atai, M.R. and Taherkhani, R. 2018. Exploring the cognitions and practices of Iranian EAP teachers in teaching the four language skills. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 36, pp.108-118.

Atai, M.R., Nazari, M., and Hamidi, F. 2022. Novice EAP teacher identity construction: A qualitative study from Iran. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 59, pp.101-162.

Basturkmen, H. 2019. ESP teacher education needs. Language Teaching. 52(3), pp.318-330.

Becher, T. 1981. Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. Studies in Higher Education. 6(2), pp.109-122.

Becher, T. 1989. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Becher, T. 1992. Las disciplinas y la identidad de los académicos. Universidad Futura. 4(10), pp.56-77.

Becher, T. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education. 19(2), pp.151-161.

Becher, T. and Parry, S. 2005. The endurance of the disciplines. In: Bleiklie I. and Henkel M. eds. Governing knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.133-144.

Becher, T. and Trowler, P. 2001. Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bell, D. 2016. Practitioners, Pedagogies and Professionalism in English for Academic Purposes. The development of a contested field. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham.

Bell, D. 2021a. English language teachers in higher education. A different tribe? University of Nottingham. [Online]. [Accessed 11 October 2021]. Available from: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Bell, D. 2021b. Accounting for the troubled status of English language teachers in Higher Education. Teaching in Higher Education. 28(8), pp. 1831-1846.

Barnard R. and Zemach, D. 2003. Materials for Specific Purposes. In: Tomlison, B. ed. Developing Materials for Language Teaching. London: Continuum, pp.306-323.

Bond, B. 2020. Making language visible in the university. English for academic purposes and internationalisation. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.

Bond, B. 2022. The positioning and purpose of EAP across the university curriculum: Highlighting language in curriculum policies. In Bruce, I. and Bond, B. eds. Contextualizing English for Academic Purposes in Higher Education. Politics, policies and practices. London: Bloomsbury, pp.109-128.

Bruce, I. 2011. Theory and concepts of English for academic purposes. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Bruce, I. 2021. Towards an EAP without borders-Developing knowledge, practitioners and communities. IJEAP. 2021(Spring), pp.23-36.

Bruce, I. and Ding, A. 2021. Countering commodification in EAP: the need to explore, innovate and transform. In: Evans, M. Bond, B. and Ding A. eds. Proceedings of the 2019 BALEAP Conference. Innovation, exploration and transformation. Garnet, pp.281-298.

Campion, G. 2016. ‘The learning never ends’: exploring teachers’ views on the transition from general english to EAP. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 23, pp.59-70.

Charles, M. and Pecorari, D. 2015. Introducing English for academic purposes. London and New York: Routledge.

Cheng, A. 2015. Rethinking the paths toward developing ESP practitioners’ specialized knowledge through the lens of genre analysis. English as a Global Language Education Journal. 1(1), pp.23-45.

Christie, F. and Maton, K. 2011. Why disciplinarity? In: Christie, F. and Maton, K. eds. Disciplinarity: functional linguistic and sociological perspectives. London and New York: Continuum, pp.1-9.

Courtois, A. and O’Keefe, T. 2015. Precarity in the Ivory Cage: Neoliberalism and Casualisation of Work in the Irish Higher Education Sector. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies. 13(1), pp.43-65.

De Sousa Santos, B. 2007. La universidad en el siglo XXI. Para una reforma democrática y emancipadora de la universidad. La Paz: UNAM / CEIICH.

Derakhshan, A., Karimpour, S., and Nazari, M. 2023. ‘Most of us are not feeling well’: exploring Iranian EAP practitioners’ emotions and identities. Ibérica. 45, pp.317-344.

Ding, A. 2019. EAP practitioner identity. In: Hyland, K. and Wong, L.L.C. eds. Specialised English. New directions in ESP and EAP research and practice. London and New York: Routledge, pp.63-75.

Ding, A. 2022. Bourdieu and field analysis: EAP and its practitioners. In: Ding, A. and Evans, M. eds. Social Theory in English for Academic Purposes. London: Bloomsbury, pp.155-175.

Ding, A. and Bruce, I. 2017. The English for Academic Purposes practitioner. Operating on the edge of the academia. Cham: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Ding, A. and Campion, G. 2016. EAP teacher development. In: Hyland, K. and P. Shaw, P. eds. The Routledge handbook of English for Academic Purposes. London and New York: Routledge, pp.547-559.

Dudley-Evans, T. and St. John, M. 1998. Developments in ESP: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duderstadt, J. 2010. Una universidad para el siglo XXI. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Palermo.

Dwee, C. Y., Anthony, E., Salleh, B.M., Kamarulzaman, R., and Kadir, Z.A. 2016. Creating thinking classrooms: perceptions and teaching practices of ESP practitioners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 232, pp.631-639.

Ellis, C., Adams, T.E., and Bochner, P. 2011. Autoethnography: an overview. Historical Social Research. 36(4), pp.273-290.

Escotet, M.A., Aiello, M., and Sheepshanks, V. 2010. La actividad científica en la universidad. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Palermo.

Ferguson, G. 1997. Teacher education and LSP: The role of specialized knowledge. In: Howard, R. and Brown, G. eds. Teacher education for languages for specific purposes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp.80-88.

Fernández Lamarra, N. 2007. Educación superior y calidad en América Latina y Argentina. Los procesos de evaluación y acreditación. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero.

Flowerdew, J. 2019. Power in English for Academic Purposes. In: Hyland, K. and Wong, L. eds. Specialised English. New directions in ESP and EAP research and practice. London and New York: Routledge, pp.50-62.

Ghanbari, B. and Rasekh, A. E. 2012. ESP practitioner professionalization through apprenticeship of practice: the case of two Iranian ESP practitioners. English Language Teaching. 5(2), pp.112-122.

Hadley, G. 2013. Global textbooks in local contexts: An empirical investigation of effectiveness. In: Harwood, N. ed. English language teaching textbooks: Content, consumption, production. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, pp.205-238.

Hadley, G. 2015. English for Academic Purposes in neoliberal universities: A critical grounded theory. Switzerland: Springer.

Holmes, J. and Celani, M. 2006. Sustainability and local knowledge: The case of the Brazilian ESP Project 1980-2005. English for Specific Purposes. 25(1), pp.109-122.

Hyland, K. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Essex: Pearson.

Hyland, K. 2002. Specificity revisited: how far should we go? Journal of English for Specific Purposes. 21(4), pp.385-395.

Hyland, K. 2009. Specific purpose programs. In: Long, M. and Doughty. C. eds. The Handbook of Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 201-2017.

Hyland, K. 2018. Sympathy for the devil? A defence of EAP. Language Teaching. 51(3), pp.383-399.

Hyland, K. 2019. English for specific purposes: some influences and impacts. In: Gao X. ed. Second handbook of English language teaching. Switzerland: Springer, pp.337-353.

Hyland, K. 2022. English for specific purposes: what is it and where is it taking us? ESP Today. 10(2), pp.202-220.

Hyland, K. and Hamp-Lyons, L. 2002. EAP: Issues and directions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 1, pp.1-12.

Hyland, K. and Shaw, P. 2016. The Routledge handbook of English for Academic Purposes. Oxon and New York: Routledge.

Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. 2021. Delivering relevance: The emergence of ESP as a discipline. English for Specific Purposes. 64, 13-25.

Hyon, S. 2018. Introducing genre and English for Specific Purposes. London and New York: Routledge.

Jones, K. 2020. The position and professional status of the tutor of English for Academic Purposes in Higher Education. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.

Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S.M., Bruce, I., and Hejazi, S. Y. 2021a. EAP in the expanding circle: Exploring the knowledge base, practices, and challenges of Iranian EAP practitioners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 50, pp.1-13.

Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S.M., Bruce, I., and Hejazi, S.Y. 2021b. Iranian EAP practitioners’ competences, practices, and professional development. ESP Today. 9(2), pp.272-296.

Klett, E. 2019. Cursos de lectocomprensión en lengua extranjera: una justificación teórico-práctica. Polifonías Revista de Educación. 14, pp.37-53.

Koncurat, M. and Montenegro, R. 2003. Ciencia, tecnología e interdisciplina. In: Mancini, A. and Machiarola, V. eds. Docencia universitaria. Miradas críticas y perspectivas. Río Cuarto: Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto.

Krishnan, A. 2009. What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate. University of Southampton, National Centre for Research Methods.

Kuzborska, I. 2011. Teachers’ decision-making processes when designing EAP reading materials in a Lithuanian university setting. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 10, pp.223-237.

le Roux, M. 2022. The Predicament of PEAPPs: Practitioners of EAP in precarity. In: Bruce, I. and Bond, B. eds. Contextualizing English for Academic Purposes in higher education. Politics, policies and practices. London: Bloomsbury, pp.165-180.

Leigh, E. 2020. English for Academic Purposes: the Cinderella of higher education socialisation structures. EdD tesis, University of Nottingham.

Leher, R. 2010. Capitalismo dependiente y educación: propuestas para la problemática universitaria. In: Leher, R. ed. Por una reforma radical de las universidades latinoamericanas. Buenos Aires: Homo Sapiens, pp.19-94.

López Segrera, F. 2006. Notas para un estudio comparado de la educación superior a nivel mundial. In: López Segrera, F. ed. Escenarios mundiales de la educación superior. Análisis global y estudios de caso. Buenos Aires: Clacso, pp.21-106.

Malik, M.Y. 2014. Imbalances in the professional growth of ESP practitioners in Pakistan. Journal of Professional Research in Social Sciences. 1(2), pp.65-83.

Martínez, I. 2011. Capitalizing on the advantages of the Latin American EAP situation: Using authentic and specific materials in EAP writing instruction. Ibérica. 21, pp.31-48.

Mehta, V. 2012. Pivotal roles of ESP teachers: a study at Arni University. Journal of Business Management and Social Sciences Research. 1(2), pp.92-97.

Muhrofi-Gunadi, K. A. 2016. ESP practitioners’ role and their ethnography: a case study of ESP practitioners at the Indonesian tertiary level. International Journal of Education. 9(1), pp.1-9.

Murray, N. 2016. An academic literacies argument for decentralizing EAP provision. ELT Journal, pp.1-9.

Pérez-Llantada, C. and Swales, J. 2017. English for academic purposes. In: Hinkel.E. ed. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Vol. III. New York and London: Routledge. pp.42-55.

Porto, M. 2014. The role and status of English in Spanish-speaking Argentina and its education system: nationalism or imperialism? SAGE Open. 4(1), pp.1-14.

Raimes, A. 1991. Instructional balance: From theories to practices in the teaching of writing. In: Alatis, J. ed. Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics. Georgetown University Press.

Salager-Meyer, F., Llopis de Segura, G. and Guerra Ramos, R. 2016. EAP in Latin America. In: Hyland, K. and Shaw, P. eds. The Routledge handbook of English for Academic Purposes. Oxon and New York: Routledge, pp.109-124.

Sizer, J. 2019. Is teaching EAP a profession? A reflection on EAP’s professional status, values, community and knowledge. Professional and Academic English: Journal of the IATEFL English for Specific Purposes Special Interest Group. 52, pp.26-34.

Tao, J. and Gao, X. 2018. Identity constructions of ESP teachers in a Chinese university. English for Specific Purposes. 49, pp.1-13.

Tibbetts, N. and Chapman, T. 2023. A guide to In-sessional English for Academic Purposes. Paradigms and practices. London: Routledge.

Trent, J. 2024. The struggle for pedagogical recognition in higher education: short stories of tension and triumph in the professional identity construction of an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) practitioner in Hong Kong. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. 23, pp.251-269.

Trowler, P. 2012a. Disciplines and interdisciplinarity: conceptual groundwork. In: Trowler, P., Saunders, M. and Bamber, V. eds. Tribes and territories in the 21st century: rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London and New York: Routledge, pp.5-29.

Trowler, P. 2012b. Disciplines and academic practices. In: P. Trowler, M. Saunders, and V. Bamber. eds. Tribes and territories in the 21st century: rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London and New York: Routledge, pp.30-38.

Trowler, P. 2014a. Academic tribes and territories: the theoretical trajectory.https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1016-765X_Osterreichische_Zeitschrift_fur_Geschichtswissenschaften OsterreichischeZeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaften. 25(3), pp.17-26.

Trowler, P. 2014b. Depicting and researching disciplines: strong and moderate essentialist approaches. Studies in Higher Education- 39(10), pp.1720-1731.

Trowler, P., Saunders, M. and Bamber, V. 2012. Tribes and territories in the 21st century: rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London and New York: Routledge.

Turner, J. 2004. Language as academic purpose. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 3, 95-109.

Upton, T. 2012. LSP at 50: Looking back, looking forward. Ibérica. 23, pp.9-28.