Journal of Language, Identity & Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hlie20

(Mis-/Under-)Representations of Gender and

Sexuality in Locally-Produced ELT Materials

Ali Fuad Selvi & Ceren Kocaman

To cite this article: Ali Fuad Selvi & Ceren Kocaman (2021) (Mis-/Under-)Representations
of Gender and Sexuality in Locally-Produced ELT Materials, Journal of Language, Identity &
Education, 20:2, 118-133, DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2020.1726757

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1726757

Published online: 24 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1006

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hlie20
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, & EDUCATION
2021, VOL. 20, NO. 2, 118–133
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1726757

(Mis-/Under-)Representations of Gender and Sexuality in

Locally-Produced ELT Materials
Ali Fuad Selvia and Ceren Kocamanb
a
Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus; bLudwig-Maximilian-Universität Munich

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The current study examines how gender and sexualities are represented in the ELT; gender; identity;
ELT instructional materials (i.e., handouts) developed and used “locally” in an language teaching materials;
Intensive English Program housed at a major state university in Turkey. The representation; sexuality
findings revealed that these materials stood on the biased end of the gender
representation spectrum both in quantitative and qualitative terms, and that
heterosexuality is the norm. It showcased the tendency to bolster dichoto-
mous juxtaposition of genders and sexualities, and strengthened essentialized
ways of being and becoming. We contend that (mis-/under-)representations of
gender and sexuality in locally-produced ELT materials in an under-researched
context like Turkey is a highly sensitive matter since the constructs of gender
and sexuality still remain at the crux of socio-educational debates. It is argued
that the pressing issue of tackling heteronormativity and sexism should be
considered as “a distributive process” involving major actors involved in the
teaching-learning process.

Introduction
The instructional materials or, more specifically, language teaching materials used by teachers around the
world have a profound impact on foreign/second language learning and teaching. In essence, language
teaching materials refer to “anything that can be used to facilitate the learning of a language, including
course books, videos, graded readers, flash cards, games, websites and mobile phone interactions”
(Tomlinson, 2012, p. 143). What makes language teaching materials a prominent phenomenon for
language teachers and scholars is the dual role they play as curriculum artefacts and cultural artefacts
(Gray, 2013). The former refers to the idea of constituting the basis of instruction by (in)forming the
teaching-learning process (Richards, 2001). The latter refers to powerful testaments as to how teachers
themselves perceive the world, how they guide their students into seeing the world, and how values and
attitudes are conveyed through language. Collectively, they serve as an indispensable pedagogical
component of classroom discourse by opening up a window onto the perception of the world.
Our current understanding conceptualizes the English Language Teaching (ELT) classroom as
a dynamic space of/for the (re)production, (re)invention, and constant negotiation of multiple identities
(e.g., linguistic, racial, gender, sexual and other) (Waller, Wethers, & de Costa, 2017). It is in this highly-
fluid context that language teaching materials stand out as important discursive tools which encapsulate
“regime[s] of representation” (Gray, 2013, p. 5) that tend to construct, endorse and reproduce existing
power relations, particularly with regard to class, race, gender and sexual orientation.
Although it is true that “much of the language teaching that occurs throughout the world today
could not take place without the extensive use of commercial materials” (Richards, 2001, p. 251),
institutions and teachers continue to replace or supplement existing published materials with locally-
produced (in-house, home-made or non-commercial) materials (e.g., handouts), particularly to

CONTACT Ali Fuad Selvi selvi@metu.edu.tr Teaching English as a Foreign Language Program, Middle East Technical
University, Northern Cyprus Campus, Academic Hall 2, SZ-35, Kalkanlı, Güzelyurt, 99738 via Mersin 10, Turkey.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, & EDUCATION 119

increase greater local relevance and engagement (Tomlinson, 2012). However, there is a clear paucity
of research scrutinizing the representation of discourses of identity in locally-produced materials
either developed by teachers themselves or material development units in institutional settings.
Therefore, the current study examines how gender and sexualities are represented in the ELT
instructional materials (more specifically, handouts) developed and used locally in an Intensive
English Program at a major state university in Turkey. More specifically, it addresses the following
research question:

● How are gender and sexualities represented in locally-produced supplementary materials (i.e.
handouts) used across the curriculum of an Intensive English Program in Turkey?

There are several important rationales behind our deliberate focus on gender and sexualities in
handouts in the context of Turkey. From a professional standpoint, our understanding about
language teaching materials is limited when it comes to locally-produced materials since the existing
research predominantly concentrates on commercially-produced materials (e.g., coursebooks)
mostly in Anglo-American contexts (Sunderland, 2000a). From a contextual standpoint, the gender
gap and inequality prevalent in almost all domains of the society (e.g., Turkey ranking 130/144 in
Global Gender Gap Report 2016 by World Economic Forum) suggests that the notion of gender and
sexualities stand out as major fault lines in this part of the world. Although some steps have been
taken towards preventing violence and discrimination against women (e.g., government-supported
projects, legislative reforms), patriarchal mentality continues to manifest itself in the form of
(domestic) violence, gender gap in education, and limited participation in the labor market and
political arena (see Bozkurt (2013) for an overview). The situation is even worse for LGBTQ+
communities who are stuck between discourses of sickness, sin, and conservatism, and systematically
subjected to harassment, discrimination, violence, and lack of expression and association. Thus, we
believe that the present study bears the potential of making a contribution to the ongoing discussions
at the intersections of sociolinguistics, gender studies and ELT by using “the [Global] South as
geopolitical reality and heuristic vantage point” (Milani & Lazar, 2017, p. 308) and discursively
analyzing dynamics of gender and sexuality from a Southern (Turkish) perspective. In doing so, it
begins to engage in tensions and complexities with these glocal connectivities and divergences.
Therefore, a systematic investigation of gender and sexualities in a blind spot (i.e. locally-produced
materials) of an under-researched/theorized area of inquiry (i.e. language teaching materials) used at
a defining period in shaping individuals’ ideological stance (i.e. university education) situated in
a context of flux (i.e. Turkey) will make an important contribution to the growing literature both at
local and global scales.

Literature review
Representations of gender in ELT materials
The current literature focusing on the concept of gender within the realm of language teaching
materials presents three overarching findings: First, there is a clear paucity of research into ELT
materials created locally by teachers or educational institutions themselves, and used in conjunc-
tion with coursebooks (with the exception of Amare (2007) who looked into online grammar
exercises). In other words, most research in this domain, both in Turkey and around the world,
focuses on coursebooks that are (a) produced, distributed and used internationally (e.g., Arıkan,
2005; Bulut & Arıkan, 2015), (b) the local editions of coursebooks by major publishers (e.g., Lee &
Collins, 2008), (c) produced and used locally, some of which are written and endorsed according to
standards set by the respective Ministry of Education (e.g., Aydınoğlu, 2014; Bağ & Bayyurt, 2016;
Demir & Yavuz, 2017; Lee & Collins, 2009; Nofal & Qawar, 2015). Second, researchers around the
world report a bias, predominantly against women. However, the examination of men is rather
120 SELVI AND KOCAMAN

unsystematic. Previous research focusing on the notion of gender is often juxtaposed in categorical
binaries of “sex” in heteronormative terms (Gray, 2013; Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004). Thus,
sexuality remains largely under-researched/-theorized, and, at times, lacks discussion around
broader definitions and representations of gender. Third, although earlier research is largely
characterized by poor, disenfranchised, sexist and derogatory representation of women whose
personal and professional identities are boxed into stereotypical characterizations (Porreca, 1984;
Sunderland, 2000b), there seems to be a slow and limited path of progress towards equality
concerning women as well as other traditionally invisible or “negated” (Hooks, 1992, p. 117)
groups such as the elderly, disabled, and those (self-)identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender
and queer (LGBTQ+) (Gray, 2013). Scholars documented this progress in two distinct forms: (a)
quantitative increase of women in ELT materials (see Demir & Yavuz (2017) for Turkey; Gray
(2013) for the UK; Lee & Collins (2009) for Hong Kong); and (b) non-stereotypical representations
(exceptions or refreshing examples), such as men as secretaries (Porreca, 1984), affectionate
husbands (Amare, 2007), as well as women as police officers and managers (Lee & Collins, 2009)
—a trend corroborated in the local context (Bulut & Arıkan, 2015; Demir & Yavuz, 2017). It should
be noted that progress in terms of representation in instructional materials is neither universal nor
uniform since the changes over the years in one setting (e.g., Anglo-American world) may not
always be reflected in other settings (e.g., Turkey). This understanding underscores the importance
of contextualized accounts of feminist language reform and the extent to which it impacts instruc-
tional materials used in various settings therein.

Omission
Categorized under omission, visibility, or female-to-male ratio, the quantitative (a)symmetry between
women and men is a widely used approach in the investigation of gender representations in ELT
materials. This is usually reported through keeping a tally of gender specific nouns (e.g., woman,
man), proper nouns (e.g., Sally, John) as well as pronouns (e.g., she, his). Researchers around the
world have found that to a large extent, women are significantly less visible than men (Amare, 2007;
Lee & Collins, 2009; Syarifuddin, 2014), though, at times, balance has also been documented (Lee &
Collins, 2008; Syarifuddin, 2014). Studies from Turkey echoed the prevalent asymmetry between
women and men (e.g., Aydınoğlu, 2014; Bulut & Arıkan, 2015), with some outliers (e.g., Demir &
Yavuz, 2017). The majority of the existing research is far from recognizing the socially and culturally
constructed nature of gender, which is why systematic and consistent omission of LGBTQ+
individuals could be perceived as a form of “violent erasure” (Hooks, 1992, p. 119).

Stereotypes
Since a quantitative symmetry does not ensure a qualitative one, and the limited value of “mention-
ing” is often treated in a tokenistic fashion (Gray, 2013), it becomes imperative to have a closer look
at any stereotypical portrayals of women and men. As Talbot (2003) highlights, stereotypes are
reductive and simplistic yet instrumental in maintaining social and symbolic order by drawing
a distinction between the normal and the abnormal, excluding the latter. More specifically, women
are portrayed as emotional, interested in fashion, their appearance and decoration, and are relegated
housework and responsibilities including child-rearing duties. On the other hand, men are interested
in sports, their strength and are inclined to take part in criminal activities. They are not associated
with traditionally women-related tasks, roles, activities or domains. However, improvement has also
been reported such as both women and men shown to clean the house or women as superheroes,
pilots and scientists (Bağ & Bayyurt, 2016) or as active individuals, doing activities men do
(Aydınoğlu, 2014; Demir & Yavuz, 2017).
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, & EDUCATION 121

Occupational roles
This category mainly investigates the frequency of women and men’s portrayal in working life as well
as how varied their jobs are. Previous research shows that men are more frequently portrayed to hold
a job both in texts (Bağ & Bayyurt, 2016; Porreca, 1984) and in images (Lee & Collins, 2009) found
in coursebooks. Women are often depicted as individuals holding lower-ranking jobs (e.g., secretary
or nurse) as opposed to the higher-ranking jobs (e.g., doctor or president) allocated almost
exclusively for men (Amare, 2007; Lee & Collins, 2008; Porreca, 1984). Some promising examples
of women being presented comparably to men, however, can also be found (Pakuła, Pawelczyk, &
Sunderland, 2015). The worldwide trend in unfair job distribution between women and men was
corroborated in studies focusing on the Turkish context. Scholars argued job distribution between
women and men is not fair either in quality or quantity (Aydınoğlu, 2014; Bağ & Bayyurt, 2016;
Bulut & Arıkan, 2015; Demir & Yavuz, 2017) although both Demir and Yavuz (2017), and
Aydınoğlu (2014) comment that there is a stride toward breaking gender stereotyping through
assigning women more non-traditional roles.

Linguistic sexism
Linguistic sexism refers to gender bias manifested in the language and thereby often “privileges men
and devalues women” (Amare, 2007, p. 165). Exploring the linguistic sexism in English per se,
researchers demonstrated the gender bias caused by order of mention, or firstness (e.g., he/she,
mother and father, etc.), as well as the use of generic constructs (e.g., mankind). Research suggests
that generic use of he or man is limited to only a few instances (Syarifuddin, 2014) and that there is
a growing trend in splitting pronouns (Lee & Collins, 2009; Pakuła et al., 2015). Regarding linguistic
sexism, researchers also focused on titles, labels, and names to highlight linguistically feminized
words (e.g., hostess, Mrs.) (Amare, 2007; Lee & Collins, 2008; Syarifuddin, 2014). Studies showed
that ELT materials often utilize the male pronoun first in cases of paired pronouns (e.g., he or she,
boys and girls) with the exception of the fixed phrase ladies and gentlemen (Lee & Collins, 2009;
Porreca, 1984), or in cases where there is a senior female (Lee & Collins, 2009). Lee and Collins
(2009) underscored a slow but steady trend in decreasing the use of generic pronouns and proposed
singular they as a step towards avoiding linguistic sexism. Interestingly, research conducted in
Turkey has not included generic constructs as a category.

Representations of sexual identities in ELT materials

With diversity, social justice and equality gaining much-deserved recognition in education over the
past couple of decades, it becomes imperative for language teachers to recognize the multisexual
composition of language classrooms where “sociosexual meanings infuse language, social interac-
tions, and public discourses (which crisscross national borders and linguistic contact zones)”
(Nelson, 2006, p. 4). This multiplicity in terms of sexualities are particularly prominent in under-
standing the representation of gender in ELT materials since, as Pakuła et al. (2015) argue, “gender
cannot properly be explored without looking at sexuality” (p. 95).
The specific attention on infusing queer inquiry1 (Nelson, 2006) into instructional materials
and classroom practices has been gaining popularity in ELT (Gray, 2013; Nelson, 2006; Paiz,
2017). In response to this dire need for further research, researchers embarked upon investiga-
tions documenting several key themes. First, representations of clearly identified LGBTQ+
individuals are systematically omitted and made invisible (Hooks, 1992, p. 117). In the same
vein, the notion of heteronormativity2 permeates ELT materials, especially coursebooks, mostly
due to commercial motives (Goldstein, 2015; Gray, 2013; Merse, 2015; Pakuła et al., 2015). The
capitalist nature of the neoliberal market economy dictates that publishers maximize profits,
meaning that “sensitive content” is left out of the materials, even in less conservative markets.
122 SELVI AND KOCAMAN

Such an exclusion of LGBTQ+ lives, in turn, “privileges heteronormativity and derives profit from
it” (Gray, 2013, p. 52). Second, parallel to the literature on gender representations, the rather
limited literature on sexualities places almost exclusive emphasis on coursebooks. Finally, ELT
pedagogy and materials stand out as a powerful gateway to introduce sexual literacy through
the second language curriculum (Paiz, 2017; Sunderland, 2000b). This is especially a pressing
concern considering how communication has altered in our day and age to include “being able to
communicate about sexual diversity matters, and with sexually diverse interlocutors” (Nelson,
2009, p. 206).
Though there is a long-established and increasingly visible LGBTQ+ movement in Turkey,
research into LGBTQ+ issues are rarely conducted by scholars and instead are almost exclusively
done at the grassroots level. Kaos (2010), one of the oldest and largest LGBT organizations in
Turkey, has reported that there is a clear exclusion of LGBTQ+-related topics in undergraduate,
graduate and PhD programs and course content, including psychology, counseling, sociology,
medicine and education programs. Even when such issues are mentioned as part of these programs,
it is either framed negatively or superficially.

Theoretical framework
Having one foot in cultural studies (representation as a cultural process) and the other in linguistics
(language as a representational system), the term representation refers to “signifying practices and
symbolic systems through which meanings are produced and which position us as subjects”
(Woodward, 1997, p. 14). From this perspective, the notion of representation becomes an integral
dimension of, what Du Gay, Hall, Janes, Mackay, and Negus (1997) refer to as, “circuit of culture,”
opening a new window onto a set of complex issues including regulating cultural content, the nature
of representations and the identities associated with English made in these textbooks (Gray, 2010). In
her discussion of gendered discourses, Sunderland (2004) underscores representation as of “something
or someone … is usually used when the subject is other rather than self [and] occurs (and can be
seen) in spoken, written, and visual texts in the form of discoursal ‘traces’” (p. 24). As Azimova and
Johnston (2012) acknowledge, “representation always involves selection; that which is not selected
becomes invisible” (p. 339). From the specific focus of our study, we argue that instructional
materials, and more specifically locally-produced materials, are prone to encapsulating identities in
a gendered manner. Thus, we hope to shed a brighter light on these materials as artifacts influencing
language learning processes and representing manifestations of gender and sexualities across lin-
guistic borders of being and becoming.
We adopted a feminist as well as a queer orientation that foregrounds the dynamic, socially
constructed, and constantly negotiated nature of gender and sexuality at the crux of our inquiry. This
view is in line with the notion of gendering since it conceptualizes the term gender as a process—
ongoing, in constant state of flux and (in)formed by individuals’ agency (Pakuła et al., 2015). Our
understanding of sexuality is also informed by queer theory as a means to “question the solidifying
of sexualities into sexual identities by deliberately blurring the boundaries between clear-cut cate-
gories and highlight their constructedness (as opposed to their naturalness)” (Nelson, 2016, p. 352).
Within the scope of our study, we define gender representation as how women and men, thereby the
range of femininities and masculinities are constructed and depicted. Instructional materials embody
a rich set of “representational répertoire” (Du Gay et al., 1997, p. 39) including various semiotic
resources—elements of content (grammar, lexis, phonology) and modalities. They offer (in)advertent
choices (from an inventory of existing choices) about representational idea(l)s, regimes and practices
through ideas, images, genres and linguistic elements, facilitating the process of co-construction of
meanings in readers (Gray, 2013). The rationale for this choice is that the concepts of gender and
sexuality as conveyed through and enacted by locally-produced instructional materials present
insight into “a regime of representation” (Gray, 2013, p. 5) constructing the world through the
English language.
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, & EDUCATION 123

Methods
Context
The present study focuses on the locally-produced materials (i.e. handouts) used to supplement the
curriculum in an Intensive English Program (henceforth, the Program) of a major public institution of
higher education in Turkey whose medium of instruction is English. This program aims to equip students
with the necessary academic English knowledge and skills to commence their respective programs. The
curriculum used in the Program utilizes a combination of commercially-produced materials (i.e. course-
books), level-specific reading books3 published by the University and handouts geared towards promoting
further development in specific skills prepared by the Material Development Unit of the Program.

The handouts
In the most basic sense, handouts, for this study, refer to supplementary documents with a particular
focus (presentational, instructional, participatory, and interactive). They have been locally developed
by the Material Development Unit of the Program over the years, individually photocopied and
distributed to students. The handouts (n = 198) utilized in the Program are divided into four parts–
grammar, listening, reading, and writing and typically follow a similar format–starting with input, if
applicable, followed by language/skill practice.
In this study, we specifically scrutinized these handouts from the perspective of representation of
gender and sexualities since these materials (a) reflect the institutional voice with regards to these
constructs, (b) are open to feedback from instructors who use them on an everyday basis, (c) can
easily be adapted according to local needs, challenges and dynamics, and (d) are revised, reprinted
and redistributed every year. A prime advantage of these materials is that they are flexible in terms of
adaptation (as opposed to published materials); thus, it is hoped that the results of the current study
will inform the reflection and revision processes.

Methods of analysis
The data analysis followed the principles of formal qualitative content analysis by relying on both
quantitative and qualitative approaches. We found this method to be particularly instrumental since it
affords “a detailed and systematic examination of the contents of a particular body of materials for the
purpose of identifying patterns, themes, or biases” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001, p. 155). Furthermore, while
the quantitative approach was necessary in order to see the proportional frequency of (in)visibility of
women and/or LGBTQ+ individuals, the qualitative content analysis approach was instrumental in
seeing how and the extent to which such (in)visibility is perpetuated, and/or problematized, by focusing
on manifest (or surface) and latent (or inferred) meanings in context-dependent fashion while being
sensitive to the sociocultural and institutional contexts therein (Selvi, 2019). Since both existing review
of literature and our research data echoed a binary conceptualization of gender, we followed the same
path in our investigation of data. We examined the following features to inform our understanding of
gender representation in handouts used in the Program (Table 1).
For the second part of the study, we utilized the questions posed by Gray (2013, pp. 47–48) as
a framework to inform our understanding of the representation of sexualities in the handouts:

● Are there any representations of clearly identified LGBT characters?

● If so, what forms do they take?
● Is there any treatment of a topic related to sexual diversity (e.g., gay marriage), or the teaching
of lexis related to sexual diversity (e.g., lesbian, gay, straight, civil partnership, homophobia,
etc.)?
● If so, what form does it take?
124 SELVI AND KOCAMAN

Table 1. Methods of analysis for gender representation: Categories, criteria and codes used in the study.
Categories Criteria Codes
Female/male ratio Frequency of gendered words: Female
proper nouns (e.g., Jane, John) Male
gender-specific nouns (e.g., daughter, boy)
pronouns (e.g., her, him)
Negative representation Existing gender stereotypes perpetuated for both genders in Female-marked
tasks and interests (e.g., household chores) Male-marked
feelings and personality (e.g., authoritative)
appearance (e.g., beautiful)
Positive representation Existing gender stereotypes challenged for both genders (i.e., Female-marked
exceptions) Male-marked
Occupational visibility Frequency of women and men portrayed as participating in work Female-marked
life and the variety in their occupations in different domains (e.g., Male-marked
education, health)
Generic he/man Frequency of the use of generic constructs (e.g., mankind) He
Man
Firstness Order of mention (e.g., he/she, girls and boys) Female first
Male first

To complement the existing research (e.g., Gray, 2013; Pakuła et al., 2015), we also recorded any
mentions of marriage, partnership, romantic involvement and vocabulary for kinship so as to get
a clearer picture of whether heteronormativity was the dominant discourse in these materials.
As a powerful analytical method increasingly used by researchers in ELT and applied linguistics
(see Harwood’s (2010) inquiry on instructional materials), qualitative content analysis afforded us
with an interpretative orientation to inform our sense-making processes with regards to meanings,
values and ideologies associated with and manifested through the manifest and latent language in
these materials. In the light of recent concerns centered around the issue of reliability, particularly in
scholarship focusing on gender and sexuality through content analysis, the analysis began by each
author serving independently as a reviewer who identified and coded the instances of gendered
discoursal traces in handouts (any identifiable reminiscences of essentialized representations of
genders in affecting, perpetuating and normalizing our language and assumptions about genders).
The formal approach to qualitative content analysis enabled us to derive the coding categories from
the relevant existing theory (Selvi, 2019). When the coding was completed, we compared our
individual reviews and opened up a space of discussion to reach a consensus on any instance on
which our initial reviews diverged. As a result, we generated a pivot table to inform our quantitative
analysis of representation under each category. Finally, the quantitative findings were matched with
qualitative examples with an intention to analyze and portray various facets of representations.

Results and discussion

Representations of gender
The analysis reveals that the materials stand on the biased end of the gender representation
spectrum, more so against women than men, and underpin the notion of heteronormativity as
a running thread across these materials. Collectively, these findings corroborate the notions of
exclusion, subordination and distortion, degradation (Sunderland, 2000b) and systematic “erasure”
(Hooks, 1992, p. 119).

Female-male ratio
Regardless of the language domain, all handouts consistently revealed a quantitative asymmetry
between women and men (Table 2). Men had more visibility than women (58% vs. 42%) and male
characters outnumbered females in all handouts at different ratios (ranging between 6-27%).
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, & EDUCATION 125

Table 2. Instances of female-male ratio.

Female Male Total Difference
Grammar 489 (43.2%) 641 (56.7%) 1130 152 (13.4%)
Writing 172 (47.1%) 193 (52.8%) 365 21 (5.7%)
Reading 155 (36.5%) 269 (63.44%) 424 114 (26.8%)
Listening 268 (40.9%) 387 (59%) 655 119 (18.1%)
TOTAL 1084 (42.1%) 1490 (57.8%) 2,574 406 (15.7%)

Although these findings echo some studies from the local context (Bulut & Arıkan, 2015) and
diverge from others (Demir & Yavuz, 2017), they certainly showcased a demographical inconsistency
since the male population in Turkey accounts for only 2% more than that of the female.

Negative and positive representations of women and men

The quantitative asymmetry between women and men translated into a qualitative asymmetry and
revealed a more stereotypical treatment of women. To be more specific, 20% of all female mentions
were found to be negative, and only 3% were found to be positive. Male negative representation, on
the other hand, was slightly better with 11% although positive representation of men account for
only less than 1% (Table 3).
Since gender stereotypes often “reproduce naturalized gender differences … [and thereby] func-
tion to sustain hegemonic male dominance and female subordination” (Talbot, 2003, p. 472), we
divided representations to have a microscopic look using three categories: tasks and interests,
feelings and personality, and appearance (Table 4). For each gender, we reported the top three
recurring themes with the belief that when looked at as a whole, negative representations are
perpetuated and positive representations are made stronger through repetition.
The top recurring theme for women in tasks and interests was the role of caregiver/homemaker,
a finding which is echoed in the literature (Amare, 2007; Bağ & Bayyurt, 2016; Bulut & Arıkan, 2015;
Pakuła et al., 2015). Women are frequently relegated the role of taking care of the house, child-
rearing and educating children, often as a mother. Women are also interested in fashion and
shopping, which they usually do unwisely. Perpetuating the bad boy image, men are interested in
a number of illegal activities, ranging from murder to road rage, as also indicated by other
researchers (Amare, 2007; Lee & Collins, 2008; Pakuła et al., 2015). Men are interested in fast
cars, motorbikes and computers, and are often experts on these. Besides engaging in acts of violence,
men take an interest in sports and entertainment in the handouts. Seen in tandem, these stereotypes
are equally destructive for both males and females for carrying stereotypical assumptions incon-
gruent with our experiences and perceptions.
In terms of feelings and personality (Table 5), women are characterized as victims or individuals
who are helpless and in need of protection. This further came to foreground as the handouts portray
women to cry when they are stressed out, adding to their weakness and helplessness under difficult
circumstances. In other times, they are described as nice. On the other hand, men are defined as
figures of authority. They are often portrayed as irresponsible, negligent, careless and lazy. It could
be argued that women’s victimhood is complemented by men’s recurring portrayal of being violent
and abusive. Taken together, these narrow representations of women and men not only contribute to

Table 3. Negative and positive representation of women

and men—A summary.
She He
Positive 34 (3.1%) 12 (0.8%)
Negative 217 (20%) 165 (11%)
TOTAL 1084 (100%) 1490 (100%)
126 SELVI AND KOCAMAN

Table 4. Negative representation of women and men—Tasks and interests.

No. of
Category Examples instances
Women
Caregiver/homemaker/selfless mother ● When your room is untidy, what does your mother do? 42
(chores, child tasks, child-rearing, booking, ● I’m just a housewife and a mom. I never thought that one day
etc.) I could have my own business.
Shopping (usually unwise) ● The results of the survey showed that women were more likely to 12
use retail therapy as a way to cope with stress than men.
Fashion ● She is single. Kazumi likes music and fashion. Her clothes are 5
beautiful.
Men
Illegal activities, trouble making (murderer, ● It is hard to know just how or when John Muhammad crossed over 35
road rage, drug addict, etc.) from being a bossy father to become a homicidal person who led
a teenage accomplice into mass murder.
Cars, motorbikes, computers ● He is not only a fast driver but also a good one. 21
Sports and entertainment ● My brother loves sports; therefore, he plays football, basketball, 6
rugby and golf.

the continuation of the problematic ways in which femininity and masculinity are defined, but also
leaves little room for any alternative definitions.
As summarized in Table 6, the final category, appearance, showcased the emphasis on the
frequent reference to women’s weight and beauty as well as their physical weakness. Men, on the
other hand, are frequently described as strong and little focus is placed on their looks, even referred
to as unimportant.
One example that specifically focuses on women’s appearance states that a young woman “never
loved her face” and that she would consider cosmetic surgery despite the risks. In a world where women
are hyper-conscious of their body image and where the ideal body image for women is beyond reach,
female characters hating their bodies the way they naturally are is simply unacceptable.
As realistic as stereotypes might be, what makes them questionable lies not only in the perpetua-
tion of a particular way of being, but also eliminating alternative ways of being and becoming.
However, instructional materials may also represent women and men positively—outside the norm
or beyond pervasive stereotypes. Unfortunately, our data reveals little evidence in this regard. That
any positive representation constitutes 3% of all mentions of women and less than 1% for men
further highlights the gender bias in these materials. Among the themes that constitute a positive
representation of women were their interest in physics, math, economy and statistics. Women were

Table 5. Negative representation of women and men—Feelings and personality.

No. of
Category Examples instances
Women
Helpless, vulnerable, victim, ● My sisters were afraid of bugs, but they loved fireflies. 13
scared ● Her husband subjected her to years of physical abuse.
Complaining ● Most mothers complain about not being appreciated, and I’m sure you’re no 6
exception.
Crying ● When her camera fell and broke down, Jane started to cry. 6
Nice ● My English teacher is very nice, and I really like her. 6
Men
Authoritative ● Sue: (…) My dad wanted me to walk the dog and didn’t want to hear any 10
excuses.
Irresponsible/negligent ● Every time I ask him to do something, my husband seems to ignore what 10
I say.
Careless/lazy ● Jack is not a good student. He is lazy, and he never studies. 8
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, & EDUCATION 127

Table 6. Negative representation of women and men—Appearance.

No. of
Category Examples instances
Women
Appearance- ● Wearing black has some advantages. Especially women prefer black to look slimmer. Also, 12
obsessed businessmen wear black to look more formal.
Attractive/(not) ● Women in miniskirts look more attractive. 6
beautiful ● She is rather short so she can’t become a model.
Weight ● Man: Would you like some cookies with your coffee? 6
Woman: Me? I am on a diet. Thank you.
Weak ● She tried to carry all the boxes by herself, but she couldn’t. 3
Men
Strong* ● With a sudden burst of adrenaline, John was able to lift the car off the child’s leg. 3
*Other than being strong, male appearance was mentioned twice—once as “not important” and once in reference to their
appearance obsession.

also interested in running and, on the rare occasion, cars, trains, dinosaurs and computers. The top
recurring theme in men’s positive representation was their involvement in chores and child rearing.
Men were sometimes portrayed as interested in child care and sharing household chores as their
wives work or are temporarily away. However, bearing in mind that positive representations
constitute less than 5% of all female and male mentions, it would be safe to say that these are,
indeed, exceptions, as Amare (2007) concludes.
It is important to note that positive representations rarely occurred in isolation. In most cases,
positive and negative representation appear side by side, with one part of the sentence or text
debunking gender stereotypes whereas another completely perpetuating them. A striking example
for this is a female bullfighter mentioned in a listening handout. The speaker explains how the
bullfighter started her career, the hardships that she had to endure as a woman, the reaction and
the support she got from her family, only to conclude that she looks more like a ballerina than
a matador outside the arena and that she is elegant and feminine with her long blond hair. It is as
if the text wants to highlight that the reader need not be intimidated by a strong female character
because she is, in fact, still the kind of woman we all love and aspire to be—fragile and beautiful.

Occupational visibility
All instances of occupations in the data were tallied for both genders and then grouped thematically.
The analysis of data (Table 7), involved the top three occupations with the highest count of
occurrence as well as occupational domains with the highest difference in female and male mention.
Setting aside the generic worker category, the top three mentioned occupational domains were
education, family, and arts, entertainment, and media. In education-related occupations, the data

Table 7. Occupational visibility.

Female Male Total Difference
Generic worker 48 (41%) 69 (59%) 117 21 (18%)
Business 20 (41.7%) 28 (58.3%) 48 8 (16.7%)
Health 5 (23.8%) 16 (76.2%) 21 11 (52.4%)
Education 90 (49.7%) 91 (50.3%) 181 1 (0.6%)
Engineering and sciences 16 (14.7) 93 (85.3%) 109 77 (70.6%)
Arts, entertainment and media 37 (27.4%) 98 (72.6%) 135 61 (45.2%)
Law and order 3 (13%) 20 (87%) 23 17 (73.9%)
Leader 21 (22.6%) 72 (77.4%) 93 51 (54.8%)
Other 9 (17.7%) 42 (82.4%) 51 33 (64.7%)
Sports 11 (42.3%) 15 (57.7%) 26 4 (15.4%)
Illegal activities 1 (4.2%) 23 (95.8%) 24 22 (91.7%)
Family 97 (40.5%) 66 (59.5%) 163 −31 (−19%)
128 SELVI AND KOCAMAN

revealed no quantitative asymmetry; however, men held slightly more varied occupations than
women. Whereas women were lecturers, professors, teachers and students, men were counselors,
advisors and had PhDs in addition to what women did. In the arts, entertainment, and media
category, not only was the difference relatively high, but also the jobs mentioned lacked variety for
women. Among the common occupations were actor, author, musician, painter, photographer and
radio host. Women were additionally models, celebrities, designers and singers whereas men were
composers, film critics, journalists, editors, and screenwriters among other things. The family
category was the only category in which women’s participation outnumbered that of men.
Although there is no striking difference in numbers when compared to other occupational domains,
that there were no men given the role of homemaking and that the only ones to take on this
responsibility were women reifies women’s invisible labor in the domestic sphere.
The data also revealed some occupational domains with a significant quantitative difference. The
highest difference in terms of occupational visibility appeared in areas of illegal activities, law and
order, and engineering and sciences. Men were epitomes of illegal activities almost without an
exception in each mention of such activities. They were depicted as burglars, drug dealers, and
terrorists. Similarly, men were more present in occupations related to law and order, which included
the works of detective, lawyer, judge, police, soldier, security guard, etc. Women, on the other hand,
were only portrayed as lawyers, police officers and soldiers. Yet another area that was dominated by
men was engineering and sciences. Women’s occupations were confined to anthropologist, astro-
naut, scientist, and sociologist while men were architects, computer software designer, inventors,
mathematicians, and social psychologist in addition to everything that women did.
One aspect that the data highlighted was that men were often experts. In the interview sections of
the listening handouts, in which a person is interviewed as part of a radio program, men were with
almost no exception the person interviewed, often in the position of an expert. Therefore, the data
reveals manifestation of a clear bias in social and domestic life onto working life as well. Overall,
men’s portrayal in work life was more visible and multi-dimensional, except for occupations related
to family.
Obviously, what is expected from the materials is not the portrayal of women in such extreme
jobs that women in these positions become the anomaly, or the exception. However, the materials
could, indeed, draw a more realistic picture of the true occupational composition of the society,
which surely extends beyond homemaking or teaching for women and criminal activities for men.

Generic he/man
Despite being fairly avoidable, linguistically-ambiguous and stereotypically-loaded, generic con-
structs prevailed in the handouts. Use of generic man (e.g., businessmen, Frenchmen, man-made,
policemen, and mankind) occurred frequently in the materials. Other uses included set phrases and
expressions (e.g, “man’s best friend”) as well as several references to the human kind (e.g., “The
Moon is the only planet which man has visited”). The word father was also employed in a generic
fashion (e.g., “father of the nation”). Even if the people referred to with such phrases were only men,
the implication is that such a position can only be held by men.
When generic he was used, it was used in stereotypically male jobs or roles. For example, in a text
about the Korean culture, a woman talks about how she would look at his mouth or chin and not
directly into his eyes if she were to talk to her boss or an older person although there is no reference
that these were men. Another example supports the finding that males are typically troublemakers by
using generic he in a sentence where juvenile delinquency is mentioned. The results suggest that the
improvements in terms of linguistic sexism in other (Western) contexts does not necessarily
translate to the local context.
Interestingly, the pronoun she was also used generically (Lee & Collins, 2009) and as an inevitable
extension of gender roles. To illustrate, anytime a friend is on a diet, this friend is referred to as
a she. Likewise, in a grammar exercise, students are asked to fill in the blanks with the correct
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, & EDUCATION 129

reporting verb. All sentences start with the subject he, except for the verb complain. The use of fixed
expressions such as mother tongue or use of she for ships (e.g. “Titanic looked like her older sister
Olympic”) were also noted.
In many instances, the generic use of such structures is confusing for the reader. For instance, in
the sentence “The only man who should get this position is Mr. Black,” it is not clear whether the
said position is for men only. Similarly, the sentence “The theory of space flight was studied by many
brilliant men … ” implies that space wasn’t studied by women, not to mention the insinuation of
women’s myth-like wit and brilliance.
Not only do such uses render women invisible and denote the ‘male as norm,’ it may also “leave
women and girls feeling excluded” (Sunderland, 2000a). Thus, it is imperative for students to
recognize alternative forms, such as singular they, which the materials analyzed in this study did
not include.

Firstness
In cases where generic he was substituted with the gender-inclusive alternative of splitting (e.g., “he
or she,” “he/she”)—an alternative to generic constructs (Lee & Collins, 2009)—or where both
a female and a male character was mentioned, the male pronoun or noun was mentioned first
76.9% of the time, perpetuating the second-class status of women. Male firstness appeared in forms
such as “brothers or sisters,” “he or she,” “husbands and wives,” and “Jim and Sue.” Females were
given first mention 23.1% of the time in forms such as “she or he,” “woman/man,” and “s/he.” There
were two instances where the fixed expression “ladies and gentlemen” was used, which was not
included in female firstness.

Representations of sexualities and sexual identities

The second phase of our analysis revealed that the materials included no LGBTQ+ characters, visibly
identified or otherwise, or any topics, issues or lexis related to sexual diversity. Aligned with existing
research, this suggests that heterosexuality prevails as the norm, and LGBTQ+ lives and experiences
are non-existent in the materials, thereby drawing a skewed view of the world. This further
contributes to the institutionalized silencing of LGBTQ+ individuals and their experiences (Gray,
2013; Moore, 2016).
The materials lack the queer perspective of gender fluidity and ignore LGBTQ+ experiences on
several occasions. A simple question such as “Are you male or female?” or a statement such as “This
company makes no distinction between the two sexes” perpetuates the heterosexist binary juxtaposi-
tion of gender, and ignores individuals who may see themselves on various points along the gender
spectrum (e.g., intersex, trans, queer, among others).
Similarly, any assumption of marriage being between a woman and a man, or any emphasis on
the nuclear family erases same-sex experiences, examples of which were plenty. The subject of
marriage is broached several times in the handouts; however, these mentions were exclusively
heterosexual, such as in the example of a text on how social, economic, religious and cultural
changes have changed our understanding of marriage, specifically for the roles that husbands and
wives assume. The text focuses on how marriages used to be an economic transaction between
families and are now more based on loving relationships and only goes as far as to suggest that the
male domination in marriages and the unfair division of labor are being challenged. Beyond the
unquestioned heterosexuality of husbands and wives, the text also paints an unrealistic and outdated
view of the world by failing to mention the ways in which the LGBTQ+ movement has altered the
institution of marriage and by leaving out discussions around alternative definitions of being
a family—oblivious to single parents, queer couples, and those who choose their own families due
to the oppression they face from their biological ones. The one positive representation in this regard
is when a character defines his two dogs as family. Issues of divorce and single parenting are rarely
130 SELVI AND KOCAMAN

mentioned, if at all, which perpetuates the notion of the sacred nuclear family. The only exception to
LGBTQ+ invisibility is the sentence “Since legalizing same sex marriages in 2013, California has
become a major center of weddings.” Unfortunately, the sentence does not go beyond stating a fact–
yet affording a queer teaching moment (Goldstein, 2015; Gray, 2013; Merse, 2015).
Perhaps the most problematic of all examples in acknowledging a wider range of gender identities
present in societies and the queer notion of sexual identities as performative acts (Nelson, 2006) is
pseudo-scientific mentions of sex differences. There are several texts about differences between
female and male brains, communication styles, food intake and even driving styles. For instance,
one text claims that based on research, it is more likely that in the world of business, women share
power and try to enhance other people’s self-confidence, and that they are more sensitive about how
their employees feel. Men, on the other hand, are more authoritative. Another text asserts that
women have fewer accidents in traffic because they are more patient whereas men are more
aggressive. Such texts further validate existing gender stereotypes and more importantly, deny the
fluid nature of gender and sexuality by confining gender to woman and man through the misuse of
science. Contextualizing such differences purely in science, combined with a lack of meaningful
discussion to raise awareness to the chosen topic means that the materials do not go beyond
biological essentialism, exclude and perpetuate stigmas around gender identities that fall beyond
the heteronormative categorizations of woman and man. This is especially problematic considering
how notions of biological sex and gender are being challenged by the trans and intersex movements
and new definitions of femaleness and maleness are now being taken into consideration. Bringing
these findings together, these materials depict a monosexual society, and assume that the classroom,
too, is composed of a monosexual teacher and student cohort as opposed to a multisexual one
(Nelson, 2006). Moreover, the materials fall behind current discussions around gender, failing to
prepare students for communicating with sexually diverse interlocutors about sexual diversity
matters (Nelson, 2009). That open discussion of LGBTQ+ issues is increasingly becoming harder
in the face of banned pride events and the oppressive policies in Turkey make it all the more
necessary to create a space for discussion through the use of locally-produced materials.

Conclusions and implications

In this study, we explored how gender and sexuality are represented in handouts which were
prepared locally by the Material Development Unit of an Intensive English Program in a higher
education institution in Turkey. The findings revealed that the handouts stand on the biased end
of the gender representation spectrum both in quantitative and qualitative terms, and that
heterosexuality is the norm. In line with previous research, materials showed a heavy gender-
bias against women and “there is a blanket avoidance of any representation of clearly identified
LGBT characters” (Gray, 2013, p. 49) and thus failed to reflect the multisexual composition of
societies today. Taken together, it showcased the tendency to bolster dichotomous juxtaposition
of genders, sexualities, and roles, and strengthened essentialized ways of being and becoming.
The current study underscored the critical role that instructional materials play as artifacts (in)
forming the (un-/re-)learning processes. A growing and compelling research base highlights the
importance of teacher-selected materials to meet context-specific needs and to move beyond
heteronormativity ascribed by global and localized coursebooks (Merse, 2015; Pakuła et al.,
2015). In this complex process, teachers have a paramount role in promoting, validating, and
transforming traditional/alternative discourses of identity in classrooms as discursive spaces
(Waller et al., 2017). As Sunderland (2000b) argues, a gendered text does not necessarily yield to
a gender-biased thinking in the minds of the students, and that the text can be rescued by the
teacher through critical reading. One way to talk around the text (Sunderland, 2000b) is to treat
these gendered texts as queer teaching moments (Goldstein, 2015; Merse, 2015). Research and
discussion on queer pedagogies and ways of being more inclusive in the ELT context is much
needed in “work[ing] against the exclusion and silencing of queer identities as an effect of
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, & EDUCATION 131

heteronormativity” (Merse, 2015, p. 14). There is a growing need for a queer-inclusive approach
which would enable students of all sexualities to have a voice in the classroom (Merse, 2015).
Otherwise, such a lack in diversity in materials or classroom practices may, in different ways,
hinder learning, classroom participation, and student motivation (Gray, 2013; Moore, 2016;
Nelson, 2016; Paiz, 2017).
In the ongoing systematic oppression and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in Turkey
(see ILGA, 2017 for a detailed account), it is imperative to seek ways of creating safer spaces for
students and teachers in classrooms and beyond. A call for more inclusive curricula has long been
made by grassroots organizations supported by lived experiences from LGBTQ+-identified students
emphasizing the negative effects of discriminatory and excluding practices on their learning (Kaos,
2010). Some strategies to achieve this goal may include creating instructional materials embracing
diverse experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals and utilizing locally-produced materials as institutional
tools to incorporate sexual literacy into the curriculum (Nelson, 2009). A common thread that runs
through these implications is the critical role of teacher education in equipping pre-/in-service
teachers with the knowledge and skills to tackle with representations of gender and sexuality
found in any instructional materials. In a recent study with pre-service ELT teachers, Güney
(2018) positively reported the enthusiasm that her participants had for learning about queer-
related issues and how best to integrate these into their instruction. Therefore, it is needed for
teacher education programs to devise ways in which they could attend to a wide variety of issues
pertinent to gender and sexuality and the ways teachers could handle such issues in/beyond the
classroom.
The present study provides glimpses of a state of “liminality” of the local context, “being neither
here nor there” or “being betwixt and between the positions” (Turner, 1969, p. 95). Examining
discursive representations of gender and sexuality through instructional materials sheds some light
onto dynamics, paradoxes and idiosyncrasies of Turkey—a country in a continuous state of a search
for identity and always defined in terms of sociogeographical in-betweenness complexified by
mutual existence of nation-state reflexes, conservatism and ideals of transnationalism/transcultural-
ism propagating inclusivity and hybridity. This interesting case of the local context serves as
a motivation to examine “global connectivities and divergences between the North and the South,
and within the Global South, in terms of flows and the recontextualisation of meanings and
practices” (Milani & Lazar, 2017, p. 311). Given the inextricably intertwined relationship between
socioeducational practices and the political milieu in the country, the issue of representation within
the broader framework of equality, diversity and plurality will continue to remain a space of tension
and struggle.
In closing, the ongoing struggle to represent (and to be represented) in non-stereotypical
forms emerges as an extension of efforts on inclusivity and equal rights, and as a response
against institutionalized silencing, erasure, misrecognition and tokenistic mentioning of histori-
cally under-privileged groups, including women, workers, and LGBTQ+ communities (Gray,
2013). However, we contend that (mis-/under-)representations of gender and sexuality in locally-
produced ELT materials in an under-researched context like Turkey is a highly sensitive matter
since the constructs of gender and sexuality still remain at the crux of socio-educational debates
(Sunderland, 2000b). For this reason, the pressing issue of tackling heteronormativity and
sexism, and various forms and manifestations of (in)equity, marginalization, discrimination
and negotiation of gender and sexualities should be considered as a distributive process involving
major actors involved in the teaching-learning process—materials development units, school
administrators, and teachers/teacher educators both in pre-/in-service education contexts.
Complementary research into teachers’ and students’ knowledges and practices, for example
how they treat the materials in the classroom, is highly needed, thus contributing further to
engagements in the field with local or Southern orientations to gender and sexuality.
132 SELVI AND KOCAMAN

Notes
1. “Queer inquiry” refers to “turning our attention to sexual matters … within everyday patterns of thinking,
speaking, learning, and working … [and] highlighting straight, lesbian, bisexual, and gay perspectives, along
with the paradoxes of producing such categorizations” (Nelson, 2006, p. 7).
2. “Heteronormativity” refers to “those structures, institutions, relations and actions that promote and produce
heterosexuality as natural, self-evident, desirable, privileged, and necessary” (Cameron & Kulick, 2003, p. 55).
3. Despite being locally-produced, the reading books used in the Program were excluded from the study as they
are published supplementary course books.

References
Amare, N. (2007). Where is she? Gender occurrences in online grammar guides. Research in the Teaching of English, 42
(2), 163–187. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171724
Arıkan, A. (2005). Age, gender and social class in ELT coursebooks: A critical study. Hacettepe University Journal of
Education, 28, 29–39.
Aydınoğlu, N. (2014). Gender in English language teaching course books. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158,
233–239. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.081
Azimova, N., & Johnston, B. (2012). Invisibility and ownership of language: Problems of representation in Russian
language textbooks. The Modern Language Journal, 96(3), 337–349. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01356.x
Bağ, E., & Bayyurt, Y. (2016). Gender representations in EFL textbooks in Turkey. In A. S. Mustapha & S. Mills (Eds.),
Gender representation in learning materials: International perspectives (pp. 64–85). London, UK: Routledge.
Bozkurt, E. (2013). Gender equality and Turkey’s 2023 goals. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 12(2), 27–36.
Bulut, M., & Arıkan, A. (2015). Socially responsible teaching and English language coursebooks: Focus on ethnicity,
sex, and disability. E-Journal of Yaşar University, 10, 13–20. doi:10.19168/jyu.46053
Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Demir, Y., & Yavuz, M. (2017). Do ELT coursebooks still suffer from gender inequalities? A case study from Turkey.
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 103–122.
Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman.
London, UK: Open University/SAGE.
Goldstein, B. (2015). LGBT invisibility in language learning materials. Language Issues, 26(2), 35–40.
Gray, J. (2010). The construction of English: Culture, consumerism and promotion in the ELT global coursebook.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gray, J. (2013). Introduction. In J. Gray (Ed.), Critical perspective on language teaching materials (pp. 1–16). New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Güney, Ö. (2018). Queering teacher education programs: Perceptions of pre-service EFL teachers towards queer issues
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
Harwood, N. (2010). English language teaching materials: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Hooks, B. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Boston, MA: South End Press.
ILGA. (2017). Annual review of the human rights situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people in Europe.
Retrieved from https://www.ilga-europe.org/sites/default/files/Attachments/annual_review_2017_online.pdf
Kaos, G. L. (2010). Eğitimde cinsel kimlik ayrımcılığına son [End gender identity discrimination in education]. Edited by
S. Tuncel. Ankara, Turkey: Ayrıntı Publishing.
Lee, J. F. K., & Collins, P. (2008). Gender voices in Hong Kong English textbooks – Some past and current practices.
Sex Roles, 59, 127–137.
Lee, J. F. K., & Collins, P. (2009). Australian English-language textbooks: The gender issues. Gender and Education, 21
(4), 353–370. doi:10.1080/09540250802392257
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Merse, T. (2015). Queer-informed approaches and sexual literacy in ELT: Theoretical foundations and teaching
principles. Language Issues, 26(1), 13–20.
Milani, T., & Lazar, M. M. (2017). Seeing from the South: Discourse, gender and sexuality from southern perspectives.
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(3), 307–319. doi:10.1111/josl.12241
Moore, A. R. (2016). Inclusion and exclusion: A case study of an English class for LGBT learners. TESOL Quarterly, 50
(1), 86–108. doi:10.1002/tesq.208
Nelson, C. D. (2006). Queer inquiry in language education. Journal of Language, Identity, & Education, 5(1), 1–9.
doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0501_1
Nelson, C. D. (2009). Sexual identities in English language education: Classroom conversations. New York, NY:
Routledge.
 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, & EDUCATION 133

Nelson, C. D. (2016). The significance of sexual identity to language learning and teaching. In S. Preece (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of language and identity (pp. 351–365). New York, NY: Routledge.
Nofal, M. Y., & Qawar, H. A. (2015). Gender representation in English language textbooks: Action pack 10. American
Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), 14–18.
Paiz, J. M. (2017). Queering ESL teaching: Pedagogical and materials creation issues. TESOL Journal. doi:10.1002/
tesj.329
Pakuła, L., Pawelczyk, J., & Sunderland, J. (2015). Gender and sexuality in English language education: Focus on Poland.
London, UK: The British Council.
Porreca, K. L. (1984). Sexism in current ESL textbooks. TESOL Quarterly, 18(4), 704–724. Retrieved from https://www.
jstor.org/stable/3586584
Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Selvi, A. F. (2019). Qualitative content analysis. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research
methods in applied linguistics (pp. 440–452). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Shardakova, M., & Pavlenko, A. (2004). Identity options in Russian textbooks. Journal of Language, Identity and
Education, 3(1), 25–46.
Sunderland, J. (2000a). Issues of gender representations in textbooks: A state of the art studies. Language Teaching, 33
(4), 203–223. doi:10.1017/S0261444800015688
Sunderland, J. (2000b). New understandings of gender and language classroom research: Texts, teacher talk and
student talk. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 149–173. doi:10.1177/136216880000400204
Sunderland, J. (2004). Gendered discourses. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Syarifuddin, S. (2014). Sexism in EFL textbooks used in Indonesian schools. Lingua, 9(1). doi:10.18860/ling.v9i1.2558
Talbot, M. (2003). Gender stereotypes: Reproduction and challenge. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The
handbook of language and gender (pp. 468–486). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 1–37.
doi:10.1017/S0261444811000528
Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Waller, L., Wethers, K., & de Costa, P. I. (2017). A critical praxis: Narrowing the gap between identity, theory, and
practice. TESOL Journal, 8(1), 4–27. doi:10.1002/tesj.256
Woodward, K. (1997). Identity and difference. London, UK: SAGE.