Feature Article

Power, Coordination & Talking Shop:
An Analysis of Communication
Among EFL Instructors

Sharif MebedRyûkoku University, Fukakusa Campus
This paper discusses a study of teachers working in a coordinated English program at a
private university in central Japan. The researcher recorded conversations of various teachers
discussing problems and concerns in the day-to-day management of their coordinatedprogram. The data of this paper is the transcription of those verbal interactions as well as
e-mail interviews. The objective of the present study is to ascertain how the unequal power
relations within a university department play out in the operation of a program wheremultiple teachers are under the constraint of having to teach the same content simultaneously
in a number of classrooms in order to prepare students for the same conversation and writing
test. The writer aims to discover how full-time teachers communicate with part-time teachers
to implement the coordinated program. A second aim of this paper is to discover how parttime teachers react to the constraints placed upon them from above. The results of the study
show that teachers in this program do not oppose the intrusion of authority but generally
welcome the guidelines incorporated into their courses from outside. The researcher foundthat the reasons for this include a desire among the part-time teachers to have more concretecourse objectives that do not exist in non-coordinated language programs, a desire to haveopportunities for improvement as teachers within a coordinated program, and the fact that
their own ideas may also be incorporated within the course guidelines under which they areoperating. The implications of these findings are taken up in the discussion section.
本稿は、日本の中部地区にある私立大学の英語教育プログラムにおける教員の仕事上の会話を分析する質的研究である。これらの教員は、共同語学教育コース(coordinated language education)で授業を行なっている。著者は教員達の授業運営や教室の問題などについて会話を録音、文字化し本研究のデータとして使っている。本研究の目的は大学の英語教育の現場で、専任教員

19

Mebedと非常勤講師の力関係において、仕事に関する会話はどのように展開するのかについて調べることである。特に関心の的は、まず専任教員はどのように非常勤講師の協力を得ることが出来るのかということである。次に、非常勤講師の教室内の活動が専任教員からの指示によって少なからず制限されるのであり、非常勤講師はどのように対応するのかに注目する。この研究の結果
として、非常勤講師はデータの中で、教育の自由を少なからず制限する専任
教員の指示を歓迎することが分かった。その理由の一つとして、非常勤講師
は、他の英語プログラムには存在しないその共同語学教育プログラムの具体的な授業目標を役立つと考えていることがある。その理由の二には、本研究で取り上げる共同語学教育プログラムでは、教育能力を高める機会があると非常勤講師が指摘していることがある。その三として、非常勤講師の教育方針をコースのガイドラインに組み込む機会があると述べていることである。
これらの結果をディスカッションの中で考察する。

This is a short qualitative research study of work-related interaction between
instructors teaching English courses to non-English majors at a private university
in central Japan. This analysis seeks to clarify the process through which
program coordination is realized on a daily basis through negotiation of course
content (class activities), discussion of evaluation (grading and testing) and an
ongoing dialogue concerning course goals. That process occurs during teacher
meetings, e-mail exchange, and informal chats before and after class. Looking attranscriptions of teacher interaction, the researcher aims to present a part of theprocess through which coordination of an English program is negotiated among
the teachers participating.
In this article I analyze discourse between people on two different sides ofthe power continuum. In a position of power are the full-time professors who
enjoy a range of benefits, including relatively high salaries, health insurance,
housing benefits, research budgets, expenses-paid study trips abroad, and private
offices. These instructors are the English program coordinators. In contrast,
the part-time teachers are paid much less, receive no benefits, and are charged
with teaching only specific courses on yearly contracts. Moreover, full-timeteachers control the educational program. Although officially a power held by
the administration, at the university where the present research was conducted,
full-time teachers effectively hire and dismiss the part-time staff: a fact that makes
20

Power, Coordination & Talking Shop, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 19-39

clear the hierarchical dynamics.
The present research analyzes four examples of discourse between membersof these two groups as they discuss work-related topics. The goal of the study is
to allow the reader to perceive how varying ranks of teachers negotiate the power
relationship within a language program at a Japanese university. The researcher
hopes to present a vivid picture of the dynamics of human interaction in a context
that would normally be closed to the outside. Transcripts of teacher interaction
have been included because basing this study on explication without examples of
discourse would deprive it of its vivid nature and deny the reader a clear pictureof how problems are dealt with on-site. Examples of discourse provide clarity
concerning how full-time teachers assert their power to direct the program on a
day-to-day basis, and how part-time teachers attempt to counter-assert their own
power from inferior positions to meet goals that they feel are appropriate.

Literature review

There exists literature on staffroom interaction and staffroom ethnography
pertinent to the present study. Kainan (1994) investigates how the staffroom isused in an Israeli secondary school. She reports on how the use of space and thepatterns of interaction function to establish and sustain power relations, and howthat space is used to help teachers achieve their professional goals.
Another study related to the present research is Holmes, Stubbe, andVine (1999). Holmes and her colleagues investigated interaction occurring ingovernment offices in New Zealand. They recorded interaction between superiors
and subordinates to discover how professional identity is constructed withinconversations. According to their findings, participants used different kinds ofpragmatic orientations in their speech to achieve different goals. For example,
superiors sometimes used polite language forms when addressing subordinatesin order to create alliances and build trust. However, at other times, even in thesame conversation, superiors were found to use rather straightforward orders, or
remind workers of their own positions of authority to elicit action. Holmes et al.
argued that these adjustments were made in order to meet specific, ever-changing
communicative goals. They also noted that the subordinates themselves often
21Mebedshored up their superiors’ positions of authority in conversations by agreeing
with the superiors’ discourse, or cooperating to finish sentences. The ambivalentrelationship among participants resulting in cooperative speech-acts appearing inclose proximity with coercive and resistive moves will also be found in the datafrom the present study.
Richards (2006) reported on research he conducted at two educational
institutions and one research facility, where he recorded staffroom interaction. He
found that setting agendas and turn taking in more formal meetings were strictly
controlled by unwritten rules of interaction, and transgressors of the rules were
often ignored or chastised. Turn taking and its role in spoken communication
among teachers will be of interest in this paper as well.

Context

As stated earlier, the present research was conducted at a private university incentral Japan. Prichard (2006) pointed out that university teachers at every level(from part-time teachers to full-time professors) in Japan enjoy a great deal ofindependence to design, teach, and grade their classes. Many English teachersin Japanese universities work free of constraints and often have little more thana course title like “English Conversation I” to guide them (Cowie, 2003). In
informal observation, the researcher notes that at Japanese universities wherecoordinated programs have not been implemented, English classes are taught inisolation, with little influence or stimulation from other language teachers in thesame institution. Full-time teachers are often busy in their offices or elsewhere,
and in many cases part-time teachers have little time or motivation to discuss
their classes in the staffroom. However, Venema (2008) describes a movement
in some Japanese universities in which English instructors are endeavoring tomove away from that kind of isolation and work in tandem with one another.
According to Venema, instructors at his Japanese university coordinate courses toensure the acquisition of specific knowledge and skills. Similarly, the department
examined in the present paper went through a transformation from a laissez-faireenvironment with almost no guidelines or course goals, to a highly coordinatedEnglish program during the two years leading up to the beginning of this study.
22

Power, Coordination & Talking Shop, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 19-39

Coordination there was realized through the creation of stated course goals
for each of the three courses, unification of course materials (textbooks andhandouts), and a unification of all student evaluation (grading) for the four
required English courses students take in the first and second years of their
university education. Although both full-time and part-time teachers retained
the right to design class activities and control the class on a day-to-day basis, bothfull- and part-time teachers entered upon an obligation to prepare their students
for a high-stakes interview test and essay exam, conducted by an outside examiner(another teacher on the same team) who marked the students’ performancebased on a predefined rubric. The purpose of having outside examiners was tomaintain accountability. The amount of work-related discussion among teachers
between classes increased immeasurably as compared with before the institutionof coordination, as teachers found they had common goals and problems. Bothfull-time and part-time teachers found it necessary to remain “on the same page”
as one teacher described it. The bulk of the interaction discussed below was anatural result of the coordination system and not planned or foreseen before theprogram had begun.
Each course in the program was designed in part through the cooperation of
all participant instructors during a series of meetings held over the year preceding
the beginning of coordination. In the planning meetings all teachers, regardless ofstatus, were encouraged to contribute freely in discussions about the educational
process and testing activities. However, some key components, including
textbooks, testing procedures, and many of the course goals, were decided
beforehand by the full-time teachers, referred to in this article as Wilcox andPhilips (pseudonyms). As will be seen below, they function as the coordinatorsand motivating forces for close coordination in this teaching context.

Research questions

The following research questions have been formulated in order to focus thepresent research:
1. How do full-time teachers (coordinators) interact with subordinate parttime teachers in discussions to fulfill their educational goals in a highly
23

Mebedcoordinated English program?
2. What discursive acts do teachers in subordinate positions use within formal
and informal meetings to institute educational activities that they want tocarry out? Finally in the process of the research, a third question arose:
3. Why do part-time teachers seem to cooperate in a system that institutes theirsubordination, when they had previously enjoyed great freedom and equality?

Methodology

The data for this research was obtained by recording conversations between
university instructors during short casual interactions and formal meetings, which
occurred after the new coordinated program was begun. There were a total of nine
instructors teaching three different courses. The teaching staff included sevennative English speakers and two Japanese nationals who had near-native fluency
in English. The three courses taught were a reading course for first-year students
meeting once a week, an oral communication and writing course for first-year
students meeting twice a week, and one four-skills course for second-year students,
which also met twice a week. Some teachers do not appear in any of the transcriptsthat were used in this paper. The researcher was a participant in the two lattercourses. The digital recorder used for data collection was in view of the participants
at all times (emerging from the shirt pocket when standing or on the table whensitting). Before any recordings were made all teacher-participants agreed to havetheir voices recorded and were informed that the researcher hoped to do researchconcerning coordination, and that the ultimate goal was to present the findings
in an academic paper. However, the exact nature of the research, reflected in the
research questions above, was not revealed to the participant-teachers.
In order to transcribe the recordings the researcher relied on concepts
originating in conversation analysis (CA), developed primarily by Sacks (1992).
CA calls for data collection that is limited to recordings of authentic interactions
and was influenced by ethnomethodology, a kind of anthropology that analyzes
everyday verbal interactions to discover how people in groups view their world
through commonsense knowledge (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998). CA researchersattempt to grasp the context they are studying through explanation of the kind24

Power, Coordination & Talking Shop, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 19-39

of turn taking that goes on, studying pre-sequences and looking at repair moves(Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998).
However, the present research does not follow a purely CA methodology.
This study is also concerned with pragmatics, or the study of how language isused to create meaning within the context of human interaction (Yule, 1996).
Pragmatics developed out of Austin’s (1962) work on the philosophy of speechacts. There are many concepts that fall within the parameters of pragmatics.
This study is primarily concerned with conversational implicature and theoriesof politeness, focusing on how teachers in superior positions use language toencourage cooperation among subordinates (Thomas, 1995). In addition to
CA and pragmatics, the researcher interviewed teachers via e-mail, described indetail later, to clarify points raised in the recordings. This eclectic approach isencouraged by Silverman (1999), who suggested that it may be necessary to mix
methodologies to produce valuable research outcomes.

Data and analysis of informal interaction

Below, four transcripts are analyzed. Each transcription presented is an excerpt
from longer transcripts, the details of which will be indicated below. The
transcriptions were made following practices developed by Jefferson (2004). Her
transcription system attempts to realize the nature of human communication
beyond just the particular words spoken. Figure 1 shows the transcription

Figure 1. Transcript conventions

25

Mebedconventions used in this paper, which were adapted from Jefferson’s.
The first transcript comes from an informal meeting between classes.
Transcript 1(Original recording: approx. 3 minutes 30 seconds; 65 lines)

001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
011
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029

Stewart: Today we did the speaking a bit and ( ) we put nine of thesentences jumbled up, and then they got tested. Basically they had toremember the nine sentences and then in the other class they had totalk about the picture using that sentence plus two others as they are
speaking now, and [that the that…
Wilcox: [That sounds reasonable.
Stewart: That’s giving them things to remember plus some that they
make on their own. I was just wondering what you think about that.
Wilcox: The only issue (0.1) the only issue, I mean I am in favor of that, theonly issue is that you make sure it’s not the case that one teacher isdoing it and the others aren’t. Because if you have a kid saying,“well, that teacher gave the answers but our teacher makes us come up
with it…so….” What you need to do is to talk to the other writing
teachers and maybe e-mail them and say, “this is what I’m doing. And
it’s fine for everybody to do that I suppose...
Stewart: Well…I…I want to try it out and see [if it works,
Wilcox: [But it’s natural that the
speaking is ( ) because they haven’t panicked yet and they
haven’t gone away and do a( ) or practice which they need to…it’s funny, I just did awonderful class. I did nothing basically. I was just … I was justthe supporter. I did nothing but run aroundand answer questions. I said you have 30 minutes, start on “TheTourist,” and off they go.
Stewart: But we’re not…we haven’t talked about any (.1.) like…
techniques of memory training or things like that that we could
teach them, ‘cause that might be …
Wilcox: Yeah interesting there are different ways of doing it aren’t there. They
could learn it backwards for a start…definitely want them learning

030

chunks, so “how long have you been…” should be a chunk.
26

Power, Coordination & Talking Shop, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 19-39

The above exchange was initiated by Stewart (pseudonym), a part-timeteacher, but the turn-taking structure shows that Wilcox held the floor for as
long as he wanted it. He was almost never interrupted in the recordings made forthis research, and after an initial explanation, Stewart’s contribution was limited.
Once Wilcox had made his statements, he often determined who would get thenext turn as can be seen below. It appears that Wilcox is not only in control of the
program, but also in control of the discourse about the program.
At the outset, Wilcox gave support to Stewart by saying that he “favors”
the action. However his position of power was clear when he used two types of
expressions to exert control over the situation. The first of those (“the only issue
is you make sure…” (line 009-012)) was in effect a directive for Stewart to get thecooperation of the other teachers who were not present. The second example of
Wilcox’s use of language to control the situation was: “what you need to do is”+ verb (line 013) which is basically a direct order. However, Wilcox was not justan authoritarian in this situation; he was careful to clarify his reasons. The longclarification in the transcription above can be interpreted as expressing Wilcox’s
desire for consensus and cooperation to get things done. This kind of halfordering, half negotiating may be characteristic of a power structure appropriate
to a context where as recently as one year prior, all instructors (full-time andpart-time) were not only free to make all educational decisions about their own
classes, but held it as a prerogative.
Stewart’s response to Wilcox’s directive to get the permission of his peers(“Well…I…I want to try it out and see if it works…”) represents an attempt at
resisting the order. However, Wilcox made no response to that statement,choosing to return to a previous topic. This displays Wilcox’s ability to control
the topic. Moreover, Stewart did not push his point, and his decision to give up
his protest is symbolized by his participation in the new topic a few lines later.
Transcript 2 features Wilcox, a part-time teacher referred to as McPherson(pseudonym), and O’Neill (pseudonym), who is also a part-time teacher. During
an informal meeting in the hall between classes, O’Neill proposes a multi-weektask for inclusion in the following year. This excerpt shows a struggle, albeit ona small scale, for power between a full-time teacher and two part-time teachers
27

Mebedwho share similar opinions on a particular issue.
Transcript 2(Original recording: approx. 2 minutes 30 seconds; 51 lines)

050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
060
061
062
063
064
065
066
067
068
069
070
071
072

Wilcox : One of the things I want to do more than anything is pronunciation,
just really really ( ) on pronunciation, …. do the recording test
and a listening test.
O’Neill: Right.
Wilcox: …so we’ll do a longer recording test and again “limited range”
we’re gonna say, “it’ll be one of these.”
O’Neill: So what do you think about the students doing a poster presentation?
Wilcox: What students?
O’Neill: Sophomores.
Wilcox: (.2.) No. We ( ) gotta, gotta keep it simple.
O’Neill: But last time … two years ago, it went pretty well.
Wilcox: Did you think?
O’Neill: … and the students tend to get into it.
Wilcox: It wasn’t bad.
O’Neill: …and it’s something the students have to do in the future…might
have to do in the future, I mean I taught at…
Wilcox: I am just trying to avoid work with these sophomores.
McPherson: I don’t, I don’t think a poster presentation is very labor intensive
for us.
Wilcox: You wanna do it then?
McPherson: I think it’s a good idea.
Wilcox: How do you want to grade it?
O’Neill: I think we should consider it. We could draw up a rubric pretty

073

easily.

In line 053 O’Neill strengthens Wilcox’s position with “right.” However,O’Neill’s next move was to suggest that poster presentations should be brought
in as a key activity in the second-year program during the next school year, which
was in contrast to Wilcox’s vision. Wilcox countered with “what students?” butbased on the context this move could be interpreted as feigned ignorance. Despite
28

Power, Coordination & Talking Shop, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 19-39

that, O’Neill continued to argue for the activity’s inclusion. This time, Wilcox
responds with a more straightforward rejection (059). After the rejection, he didstate his reason, but O’Neill took that opportunity to continue debate. O’Neill
was able to quickly argue the perceived success of poster presentations in previous
years across three turns. In addition to O’Neill’s argumentation, the interventionof McPherson, and his willingness to teach the poster presentation (lines 067068) may have helped to carry the argument to a successful conclusion for thepart-time teachers.
In the above situation, we see part-time teachers participating in the formationof the program they are working in, while holding less power within the system. It
is clearly not impossible for a part-time teacher to press an argument and have his
idea adopted into the program. Moreover, in the second transcript, we see thatcollaboration among part-time teachers may strengthen arguments. However,cooperation among part-time teachers does not always succeed in persuading thefull-time professors, as will be seen in the following informal conversation.
Transcript 3(Original recording: approx. 2 minutes 10 seconds; 46 lines)

100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114

Stewart: Um, when Paul Nation was here, he suggested that … at the
beginning of each class students should study vocabulary for 10
minutes.
Wilcox: Well they can do it if you have time.
O’Neill: “if you have time? The…the first thing to go is always the
vocabulary study,
Wilcox: …Because they don’t need us to do it. They could absolutely be doing
it on their own time.
Stewart: Well you see they COULD be doing it, but…
O’Neill: If we do it in class…
Stewart: If we do it in class we might get better results…
O’Neill: The students would know, “oh, vocabulary is important!”
Wilcox: The only downside of it is that they think “Oh I have done [ it.”O’Neill: [You’re right.
Stewart: That’s speculation. You don’t know that.
29Mebed
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122

O’Neill: Another thing…Another… {O’Neill’s speech is ignored}
Wilcox: {to Stewart, incredulously} You want to give them 10 minutes tostudy in each class?
{No response}
O’Neill: At { name deleted } University, they get 5 minutes at the beginningof each class… {O’Neill ignored}
Wilcox: But they could be doing it … doing it on their own. [2.0] So…what
are we doing today?

The “strength in numbers” which was successful in Transcript 2 proves lessthan effective in Transcript 3. Part-time teacher Stewart brought up the topic,
and initially Wilcox did not appear to be strongly opposed to it. However, atthe suggestion that it should be institutionalized, the coordinator put up strong
resistance (106-107, 112). Stewart called Wilcox’s argument against in-classvocabulary study time “speculation,” but Wilcox used an incredulous tone in line
116 connoting that 10 minutes at the beginning of a 90-minute class was not agood use of time. That tone may be what prevents any response to the question
from Stewart. In addition to his use of tone, Wilcox also chose to ignore O’Neillin line 118 and in 120, bypassing a possible face-threatening situation (Thomas,
1995). Again, Wilcox was able to ignore his subordinates because of his stronger
professional position. Finally, Wilcox quashes the proposal by changing the
subject. Wilcox uses tone, turn allotments, and finally a topic change to retain
control of the discussion. It is also interesting to note that O’Neill argued strongly
for the institutionalization of vocabulary study at the beginning of the discussion
but then agreed with and shored up Wilcox’s argument in line 113, strengthening
Wilcox’s position as leader within the hierarchy. This shows the willingness ofa less empowered teacher to go along with the rule of the empowered group in
this context, and could possibly be representative of other teachers in similar
situations.
In Transcript 1, Wilcox attempted to decentralize authority, placing thedecision to allow any “reasonable” teaching activity in the hands of all theteachers. As he relinquishes some of his authority to subordinates, he may
30Power, Coordination & Talking Shop, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 19-39

be subtly strengthening his power by creating stronger ties with the parttime teachers. However, he still made requests and attempted to shape themodifications part-time teachers make in terms of how they affect the programas whole. Wilcox avoided giving orders and used pragmatic speech that could
be described as gentle persuasion. In Transcript 2, Wilcox accepted a proposal
to include a major alteration in the program, after a part-time teacher argued
his point effectively and received backup from another part-time teacher. Thus
Wilcox was willing to accept ideas that originated from part-time teachers even
if they initially went against his own course planning. Finally, in the Transcript 3,
where the topic of fixing time for vocabulary practice at the beginning of lessons
was discussed, Wilcox dismissed the idea despite strong arguments from the parttime staff. The third transcript makes it clear that although any topic is open todebate, the coordinator indeed exercises disproportionate power. It is, therefore,clear here that in this context coordination does not imply a one-teacher one-votedemocracy.

Data and analysis of formal interaction

Unlike the transcripts above, the fourth and final transcript is from a formal
meeting centering on the materials that are to be covered before a mid-term test.
Formal meetings are distinguished from the informal interactions seen above inthree major ways. They are called in advance, often occurring during holidays, orafter students have departed. Teachers sit down at a table, and there is an agenda
from which they discuss administrative matters, course goals, activities across thesemester (as opposed to particular lesson activities), and testing. Finally, formal
meetings in this program take place with all team members present, whereas
informal talks, like the ones above, are often held between only two or threeteachers. The transcript below features a different team than seen above, made up
of different teachers: Philips a full-time professor, Conrad (pseudonym) a parttime teacher, and a full-time teacher on limited-term contract referred to here as
Kondo (pseudonym). Kondo’s standing in the current context is much weaker
than Philips who is the designated team coordinator. A fourth part-time teacher
is present but says nothing during the quoted exchange and therefore does not
31Mebedappear on the transcript.
Transcript 4(Original recording: approx. 25 minutes; 480 lines)

150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168

Philips: Tomorrow they’re doing {chapter} seven and then next week they’re
doing eleven too…
Conrad: So nine will be next month.
Philips: Because it makes sense to put them all together…. Um so we are all
OK for that. (0.2) And then the yellow book, how are we going withthat?
Kondo: I just finished section uh (0.2) topic two.
Philips: Today
Kondo: Today.
Philips: You’re one ahead of me.
Kondo: Including the questions page.
Philips: I’m just finishing section seven today, so I’m going to start section
two tomorrow.
Conrad: Me too, I haven’t started two. (0.2) So tomorrow.
Philips: I don’t know how you guys do it, but I usually start a section on
Friday and then continue – review it with it on the following
Thursday (0.3)
Do you, you think you can finish through to eight then?
Kondo: I think definitely yes.

Since four groups of approximately 35 students each would be taking thesame exam, it was necessary to confirm that all of the students had covered thesame material. In lines 150-151 Philips used the present progressive to indicatethat there is an existing plan of action. Using the present progressive carries with it
the connotation that no debate is necessary. Conrad’s statement (152) worked toexpress the logical outcome of Philips’ statement. Although the speech in the first
four lines was composed of only one sentence, it was expressed by two different
speakers across three turns. The reason for such cooperative communication
may be related to the fact that unlike the previous examples, the discussion
transcribed here was non-contentious. No teacher in this group appears to have32Power, Coordination & Talking Shop, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 19-39

had an opinion about the order in which the sections of the textbook were to
be introduced, provided that all students got the same material before the test.
Thus, making quick decisions and avoiding disagreement was one goal of thisinteraction, and having a hierarchy in which Philips was in control is expedientand functional for all involved. Teachers cooperated in the dialogue to a highdegree, not just agreeing with each other but also finishing their coworkers’
sentences. The speakers strengthened the hierarchy as they dealt with theirbusiness. The reason for this high level of cooperation, or even collusion with thepowers that be, will be further considered in the next section.

Teachers’ voices in e-mail feedback

At the university where this research was conducted, the advent of the coordinatedprogram signaled a loss in the degree of freedom part-time teachers enjoyed.
Previously part-time teachers were at their discretion to choose class materials
and course goals. Under coordination, many of the actions of part-time teachers
are all but dictated by full-time professors, or by group decisions that particularmembers are obligated to follow even if they disagree. From the transcripts, it
is clear how full-time teachers use language to achieve teaching goals within
other teachers’ classrooms, but it is not clear why the part-time teachers are socooperative in a system that has reduced their freedom. Are teachers genuinely
hoping to be controlled, do they feel that they have no other choice, or are there
other factors involved?
Since this question could not be resolved through the transcripts alone, fivepart-time teachers were asked to write freely on their experiences teaching in the
newly coordinated program. The researcher requested participants to write their“…opinion concerning positive and negative experiences of working at [namedeleted] university both before and after the introduction of the coordinatedprogram.” Four teachers responded. The four responses were made via e-mail,and sections of two pertinent examples have been quoted below. The responses
that were not included here did not contradict those provided below. All
responses were written after the first year of the new program. The first responseis from Conrad, who appears in Transcript 4. The original e-mail was 225 words
33

Mebed(capitalization has not been changed from the original). Conrad works at anumber of universities on a part-time basis.
First of all, it makes work easier for part-time teachers, because we are runningfrom school to school and don’t have enough time to prepare classes, but withthe coordination, most of the materials are made FOR you, and the qualityof the class goes up.
With the work well defined, it helps the students. They are divided into
4 groups of 35 students each and expected to have the same results, but eachteacher is different. In a program that is not coordinated it is not fair, because
they are judged in the same way with different materials. Another good pointof a coordinated program is that since the objectives and materials are laidout, you can improve as a teacher, because you have to make an effort to try
new things. There is pressure (I don’t know if that’s the right word) but if
there is no connection with the outside, it is easy to just do almost nothing in
the class. It’s human nature.
The Negative point is that it kills the creativity of the individual teacher.
He might do something creative, but he can’t because he needs to stay withthe plan.
Another response was provided by Sato (pseudonym), a Japanese part-timeteacher in the program, who did not appear in any of the transcriptions above.
She indicated the following two points in an e-mail addressed to the researcher,quoted almost in its entirety here. The original e-mail was 152 words.
Before this coordinated program had been introduced, the most serious
difficulty I was facing was that I did not know what my students had studied
the previous year with what kind of textbooks. It could have happened that
I would have chosen the same textbook that they had used. Also I wasn’t
aware of the school or department expectation of their English classes. Now
with this coordinated program, I feel comfortable and confident about what
we are doing because there are people I can always ask concerning how to34

Power, Coordination & Talking Shop, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 19-39

teach. Since we are doing the same thing most of the time, we have quite
similar problems to deal with, so we can help each other and make our lessons
interesting.
Both Conrad and Sato share the opinion that classes in a coordinatedprogram are more effective, by which I mean that students are perceived by theteachers to be improving more. Conrad and Sato indicate that they are able touse their time more efficiently and have better teaching materials, as they tradeand share their resources. As course goals are predefined, teachers can feel more
comfortable that what they are teaching is in line with what the department
is expecting. Sato appreciates the systematization that prevents redundancy inteaching and materials.
However, more interesting is her comment about multiple teachers teachingsimilar skills at the same time. According to Sato, she has the opportunity tolearn about new teaching techniques and activities. This suggests that within thecoordinated program, part-time teachers enjoy a higher level of job satisfaction
related to an improved ability to do their work.
Based on the data collected on the voice recorder and feedback from parttime teachers via e-mail, it appears that the coordinated program has relieved one
problem of university teaching mentioned earlier in this paper, which is isolation.
Teachers can expect that as other teachers are introducing the same topics to theirstudents at the same time, they will encounter many of the same problems, andthat they will be able to assist peers.
In his e-mail, Conrad also discusses the concept of “improving as a teacher,”and he writes that teachers are forced to “make an effort to try new things” that
he may have otherwise avoided if all teaching decisions had been left to him.
However, this could link back to Sato’s comment, since teachers can feel more atease teaching new or different language skills when there are others teaching thesame items close by.

35

MebedDiscussion

I would like to point out that there are a number of limitations to the present
study. Firstly, there were only four interactive discourses and two e-mails
presented. Additionally, it may be the case that the instructor-participants
appearing in the transcripts are not representative of part-time English teachers atother universities in Japan, and the findings may not necessarily be extrapolated
to universities elsewhere. However, despite the limits in scale, the present study
does provide insight into how power is negotiated within a coordinated language
program at one particular Japanese university, and other universities may havesome degree of similarity.
If we revisit the first research question, it appears that some light has
been thrown on the issue of how full-time teachers fulfill educational goals inclassrooms where they are not actually present by interacting with the part-timeteachers who actually teach the courses. In the present study, it was shown thatfull-time instructors used a variety of strategies to build consensus, most notably
a range of pragmatic language patterns that allowed full-time teachers to avoid
dictating actions, while still encouraging desired outcomes. In the transcripts,
full-time teachers tended to rely on highlighting specific goals in order to ally
part-time teachers who were then left to take independent action in line with thefull-time teacher’s wishes.
On the other hand, the transcripts indicated that part-time teachers were able
to input their own ideas and shape the English program as a whole from below,
in a limited way, through negotiation in informal meetings. However, the fulltime teachers retained the right to quash ideas within the discourse by ignoringteachers, or even direct verbal rejection. This, in part, answers the second researchquestion, which queried, “What discursive acts do teachers in subordinate
positions use within formal and informal meetings to institute educational
activities that they want to carry out?” The coordinated teaching environment
examined in this article allowed part-time teachers to cooperate (on a limited
basis) in course planning and test planning on an ongoing basis.
Additionally, within the data, there was evidence of bottom-up transmissionof teaching ideas and educational activities from the part-time teachers. Those
36

Power, Coordination & Talking Shop, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 19-39

teachers backed up arguments with reference to EFL scholarship and their own
teaching experience. They also looked for assistance within the negotiation fromother part-time teachers.
Finally, the data showed that part-time teachers were eager to cooperate with
the newly imposed coordinated program, despite the fact that it had truncatedmany of the freedoms that they had hitherto enjoyed. This led to the third
research question, which asked why part-time teachers appeared very cooperative
within the coordination program. Although coordination of English classes inthis context meant that the former laissez-faire teaching culture had been lost,
teachers indicated that they appreciated what they received in return. The e-mailfeedback indicated that it is not the abridgement of freedom that they wereembracing, but the opportunity to be more effective, and to improve as teachers.
It appears that, at this university, coordination has led to teacher-toteacher communication, which in turn has led to (perceived) opportunities for
professional growth and edification, opportunities which may not have existed
prior to coordination or existed only to a limited degree. In other words, based on
the comments about coordination from Sato and Conrad, we can conclude that
although the part-time teachers have sacrificed some freedom in terms of course
planning and classroom activities, they have gained a place in what could becalled a community of language educators, rather than merely language educators
in close proximity.
The present research suggests a number of further research themes. Firstly,is this positive view of coordination common at other universities wherecoordination has been instituted? If not, what are the factors contributing to its
acceptance in the context studied here? Another topic for further study is whether
or not the perceived improvements in education are verifiable in measurementsof the students’ English skills. Also, this research focused on the opinions of parttime instructors, but what are the perceptions of the full-time teachers? What istheir motivation for building consensus rather than merely giving orders? Finally,in the future a deeper analysis of longer interactions may be necessary to ascertain
the nature in which goals are met in coordinated teaching programs that aim toemphasize cooperation over mandated top-down control.
37

MebedReferences

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Cowie, N. (2003). Strawberry picking in Japan: Management, leadership, andchange in a national university. In A. Mackenzie & T. Newfields (Eds.),
Curriculum, innovation, testing, and evaluation (pp. 41-52). Tokyo, Japan:
Association for Language Teaching College and University Educators
Special Interest Group, Testing and Evaluation Special Interest Group.
Holmes, J., Stubbe, M., & Vine, B. (1999). Constructing professional identity:“Doing power” in policy units. In S. Sarangi (Ed.), Talk, work andinstitutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings(pp. 351-383). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Cambridge, England:
Polity.
Kainan, A. (1994). The staffroom: Observing the professional culture of teachers.
Aldershot, England: Avebury.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.
H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis (pp. 13-23). Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins.
Prichard, C. (2006). Determining the balance between teacher autonomy andcurriculum coordination. The Language Teacher, 30(6), 9-14.
Richards, K. (2006). Language and professional identity: Aspects of collaborativeinteraction. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 2). In G. Jefferson (Ed.),
Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Silverman, D. (1999). Warriors or collaborators: Reworking methodologicalcontroversies in the study of institutional interaction. In S. Sarangi (Ed.),
Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical mediation andmanagement settings (pp. 401-425). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Essex,
England: Longman.
Venema, J. (2008). Negotiating objectives in a language program. The Language
38

Power, Coordination & Talking Shop, OnCUE Journal, 7(1), pages 19-39

Teacher, 32(3), 9-13.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Author’s bio

Sharif Mebed has taught English in Japan since 1992. He is currently teaching
language and literature at Ryûkoku University in Kyoto, Japan. His fields of research
include cooperative teaching and technology in university education. In addition to
EFL, Sharif is pursing a PhD in Modern Japanese literature. shmebed@gmail.com

Received: November 24, 2011
Accepted: March 14, 201439