While previous research has suggested there are dominantly two reading practices in critical literacy, namely, reading with and against texts, this study introduces the approach of ambivalence as a third way of reading texts critically. For the purpose of this study – establishing ambivalence as a reading practice in critical literacy – four international postgraduates at an Australian University volunteered to participate in a collective case study. They read four national and politico-religious texts and showed their agreement, disagreement, and ambivalence about the texts. They also partook in individual interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). The data obtained from 16 rounds of reading texts, 40 interviews, and four FGDs were analysed using Foucault’s conceptualization of discourse, power relations, subjectivities, and technologies of the self. The findings advocate that the participants read texts ambivalently in three directions: spontaneously when reading texts, after the initial agreement with texts, and after an earlier disagreement with them. The conclusive data discuss that: (1) participants’ state of perception, which is ambivalence, is associated with their identities and subjectivities and is in the range of active critical engagement with the texts rather than indifference or passivity; (2) ambivalence is informed by participants’ technologies of the self as well as FGDs and reading opposing texts, which buttressed their arguments by attaching their interpretations to existing or non-existent topics in the texts; and (3) ambivalence is tied with participants’ understanding of truth, which helped them not only critique texts but also modify their presuppositions and earlier interpretations of texts. Relevant pedagogical implications including a concrete question set and the adoption of a new technical term, ambivalent reading, are proposed.
ArchakisA.TsakonaV. (2018). A critical literacy proposal for exploring conflict and immigrant identities in the classroom: Or how not to sweep conflict under the multicultural classroom carpet. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 6, 1–25.
3.
BaconC.K. (2017). Multilanguage, multipurpose: A literature review, synthesis, and framework for critical literacies in English language teaching. Journal of Literacy Research, 49, 424–453.
4.
BallS.J. (2013). Foucault, power and education. Routledge.
BehrmanE.H. (2006). Teaching about language, power, and text: A review of classroom practices that support critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49, 490–498.
8.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
9.
CarpovM. (2013). Why interaction? In BontaE. (Ed.), Perspectives on interaction (pp. xi–xiii). Cambridge Scholars.
10.
ChoH. (2018). Critical literacy pedagogy for bilingual preservice teachers. Springer.
11.
ChoH.JohnsonP. (2021). ‘We have to focus on improving our and our next generation’s rights!’ Exploring critical literacy in a third space for Korean female high school students. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 18, 174–202.
12.
ComberB. (1994). Critical literacy: An introduction to Australian debates and perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 655–668.
13.
ComberB. (2015). Critical literacy and social justice. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58, 362–367.
14.
CookeN.A. (2018). Fake news and alternative facts: Information literacy in a post-truth era. ALA Editions.
15.
CushingI. (2018). ‘Suddenly, I am part of the poem’: Texts as worlds, reader-response and grammar in teaching poetry. English in Education, 52, 7–19.
16.
DemoinyS.B.Ferraras-StoneJ. (2018). Critical literacy in elementary social studies: Juxtaposing historical master and counter narratives in picture books. The Social Studies, 109, 64–73.
17.
DenzinN.K.LincolnY.S. (2011). The sage handbook of qualitative research. 4th edition.Sage.
18.
DuffD. (2006). Beyond generalizability: Contextualization, complexity, and credibility in applied linguistics research. In Chalhoub-DevilleM.ChapelleC.A.DuffP. (Eds.), Inference and generalisability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 65–95). John Benjamin.
19.
EkvallU. (2013). Towards critical literacy? A national test and prescribed classroom preparations. Education Inquiry, 4, 243–260.
20.
FaircloughN. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
21.
FelskiR. (2008). Uses of literature. Blackwell.
22.
FelskiR. (2015). The limits of critique. University of Chicago Press.
23.
FoucaultM. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. Tavistock.
24.
FoucaultM. (1980). Truth and power. In GordonC. (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (pp. 109–133). Pantheon Books.
25.
FoucaultM. (1981). The order of discourse. In YoungR. (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader (pp. 48–78). Routledge.
26.
FoucaultM. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8, 777–795.
27.
FoucaultM. (1984). The history of sexuality: The use of pleasure: Volume 2. Vintage Books.
28.
FoucaultM. (1988). Technologies of the self. In MartinL.H.GutmanH.HuttonP.H. (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michele Foucault (pp. 16–49). The University of Massachusetts Press.
29.
FoucaultM. (1997a). Polemics, politics and problematizations. In RabinowP. (Ed.), Ethics, subjectivity and truth: The essential works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984: Volume 1 (pp. 111–119). The New Press.
30.
FoucaultM. (1997b). The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom. In RabinowP. (Ed.), Ethics, subjectivity and truth: The essential works of Michel Foucault 1954–1984: Volume 1 (pp. 281–301). The New Press.
31.
FoucaultM. (1998a). Speaking and seeing in Raymond Roussel. In FaubionJ.D. (Ed.), Aesthetics, method, and epistemology (pp. 21–32). The New York Press.
32.
FoucaultM. (1998b). A preface to transgression. In FaubionJ.D. (Ed.), Aesthetics, method, and epistemology (pp. 69–88). The New York Press.
33.
FoucaultM. (1998c). Theatrum philosophicum. In FaubionJ.D. (Ed.), Aesthetics, method, and epistemology (pp. 343–368). The New York Press.
34.
FraserN. (2008). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalising world. Polity Press.
35.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed: With an introduction by Donaldo Macedo. Continuum.
36.
FreireP. (1972). Education: Domestication or liberation?Prospects, 2, 173–181.
37.
FreireP. (1985). Reading the world and reading the word: An interview with Paulo Freire. Language Arts, 62, 15–21.
38.
HanssonS.HellbergS. (2014). Power, freedom and the agency of being governed. In HanssonS.HellbergS.SternM. (Eds.), Studying the agency of being governed (pp. 21–33). Routledge.
39.
HazzardD. (2021). Challenging misrecognition: A case for critical literacy. International Journal of Education Research, 106, 101725.
40.
HigateP. (2014). From ‘squaddie’ to ‘bodyguard’: Towards a remilitarised agency? In HellbergS.HanssonS.SternM. (Eds.), Studying the agency of being governed (pp. 151–164). Routledge.
41.
Hovsepian-BearceY. (2017). The political ideology of Ayatollah Khamenei: Out of the mouth of the Supreme Leader of Iran. Routledge.
42.
HueS. (2016). Instructional model of critical literacy in an EFL context: Balancing conventional and critical literacy. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13, 210–235.
43.
HuhS.SuhY.M. (2018). Preparing elementary readers to be critical intercultural citizens through literacy education. Language Teaching Research, 22, 532–551.
44.
JanksH. (2010). Literacy and power. Routledge.
45.
JanksH. (2018). Texts, identities, and ethics: Critical literacy in a post-truth world. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 62, 95–99.
46.
KatouzianH. (2010). The Persians: Ancient, medieval, and modern Iran. Yale University Press.
47.
KingN. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In CassellC.SymonG. (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 257–270). Sage.
48.
KoM. (2013). A case study of EFL teacher’s critical literacy teaching in a reading class in Taiwan. Language Teaching Research, 17, 91–108.
49.
KochT. (1994). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 976–986.
50.
LazereD. (2015). Political literacy in composition and rhetoric: Defending academic discourse against postmodern pluralism. Southern Illinois University Press.
51.
LeeY.J. (2015). First steps toward critical literacy: Interactions with an English narrative text among three English as a foreign language readers in South Korea. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17, 26–46.
52.
LukeA. (2004). Foreword. In McLaughlinM.DevoogdG. (Eds.), Critical literacy: Enhancing students’ comprehension of text (pp. 4–5). Scholastic.
53.
LukeA. (2012a). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51, 4–11.
54.
LukeA. (2012b). After the testing: Talking and reading and writing the world. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56, 8–13.
55.
LukeA. (2018). Regrounding critical literacy: Representation, facts, and reality. In AlvermannD.E.UnrauN.J.SailorsM.RuddleR.B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (pp. 349–361). 7th edition.Routledge.
56.
LynchR.A. (1998). Is power all there is? Michel Foucault and the ‘omnipresence’ of power relations. Philosophy Today, 42, 5–8.
57.
ManarinK.GareyM.RuthburnM.RylandG. (2015). Critical reading in higher education: Academic goal and social engagement. Indiana University Press.
58.
McDougallJ.BritesM.J.CoutoM.J.LucasC. (2019). Digital literacy, fake news and education. Culture and Education, 31, 203–212.
59.
McLaughlinM.DeVoogdG. (2004). Critical literacy as comprehension: Expanding reader response. International Reading Association, 48, 52–62.
60.
MelocheA.LeeV.J.GrantA.NeumanD.DeCarloM.J.C. (2020). Critical literacy as a lens for students’ evaluation of sources in an AP world history class. The Social Studies, 111, 189–204.
61.
MooreT. (2016). Manoeuvring through the maze of methodology: Constructing the research-ready embodied RHD student. In DanaherP.DervinF.DyerC., et al. (Eds.), Palgrave studies in education research methods (pp. 73–88). Macmillan.
62.
NamY. (2020). Disrupting the commonplace: Critical literacy practices in the ESL reading classroom. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 11, 131–153.
63.
NassajiH. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52, 439–481.
64.
NowellL.S.NorrisJ.M.WhiteD.E.MoulesN.J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13.
65.
Olin-SchellerC.TenbergM. (2017). Teaching and learning critical literacy secondary school: The importance of metacognition. Language and Education, 31, 418–431.
66.
OlsonC.D.T. (2009). Perfect enemy: The law enforcement manual of Islamist terrorism. Charles C Thomas.
67.
PapenU.PeachE. (2021). Picture books and critical literacy: Using multimodal interaction analysis to examine children’s engagements with a picture book about war and child refugees. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 44, 61–74.
68.
ParkY. (2011). Using news articles to build a critical literacy classroom in an EFL setting. TESOL Journal, 2, 24–51.
69.
PirzadehA. (2016). Iran revisited: Exploring the historical roots of culture, economics, and society. Springer.
70.
RabinowP.RoseN. (2003). Introduction. In RabinowP.RoseN. (Eds.), The essential Foucault: Selections from the essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (pp. vii–xxxv). The New Press.
71.
RashtchiM. (2019). Scaffolding argumentative essay writing via reader-response approach: A case study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4, 12.
72.
RengannisI.IbrahimT.DarmayantiM.JuwitaW.M. (2019). Criticising the phenomenon of shark exploitation using a critical literacy approach in primary schools. In YulindraariH.AdrianyV.RahmawatiY.HutagalungF.D.GálvezS.AbdullahA.D. (Eds.), Early childhood education in the 21st century (pp. 177–185). Taylor & Francis.
73.
RobinsonO.C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11, 25–41.
74.
RosenblattL.M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.
75.
SaldanaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 3rd edition.Sage.
76.
SeoS. (2020). ‘We see more because we are not there’: Sourcing norms and routines in covering Iran and North Korea. News Media and Society, 22, 283–299.
77.
ShinJ. (2019). Journey to the unexplored world: An English Learner’s L2 reader-response journals. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 14, 173–190.
78.
ShokouhiH.ZainiA. (2022). Cultural and politico-religious challenges impacting critical reading of text for Iranian postgraduates in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 76–97.
79.
SimmonsA.M. (2018). Students use of SFL resources on fantasy, canonical, and non-fiction texts: Critical literacy in the high school EAL classroom. In HarmanR. (Ed.), Bilingual learners and social equity: Critical approaches to systemic functional linguistics (pp. 71–90). Springer.
80.
StakeR.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN.K.LincolnY.S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). 3rd edition.Sage.
81.
StevensL.P.BeanT.W. (2007). Critical literacy: Context, research, and practice in the K-12 classroom. Sage.
TsengA.S. (2018). Students and evaluation of web-based misinformation about vaccination: Critical reading or passive acceptance of claims?International Journal of Science Education (Part B), 8, 250–265.
84.
VasquezV.M. (2017). Critical literacy across the K-6 curriculum. Routledge.
85.
VasquezV.M.JanksH.ComberB. (2019). Critical literacy as a way of being and doing. Language Arts, 96, 300–311.
86.
VerschurenP.J.M. (2003). Case study as a research strategy: Some ambiguities and opportunities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 121–139.
WeeS.J.KimK.J.LeeY. (2019). ‘Cinderella did not speak up’: Critical literacy approach using folk/fairy tales and their parodies in an early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Development and Care, 189, 1874–1888.
89.
WhittingtonK.E. (2019). Speak freely: Why universities must defend free speech. Princeton University Press.
90.
Yoon (2016). Critical literacies: Global and multicultural perspectives. Springer.
91.
ZainiA. (2018). Word processors as monarchs: Computer-generated feedback can exercise power over and influence EAL learners’ identity representation. Computers and Education, 120, 112–126.
92.
ZainiA. (2022). Co-text and critical reading for international postgraduates in Australia. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 40, 353–372.
93.
ZainiA.OllerheadS. (2019). Reverse contrastive rhetoric in expository writing: Transfer and power relations at work. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 37, 41–61.
94.
ZainiA.ShokouhiH. (in press). Power dynamics and pragma-cultural sources of unsourced evidentiality in Persian. Pragmatics (IPrA). https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21029.zai
95.
Zia-EbrahimiR. (2016). The emergence of Iranian nationalism: Race and the politics of dislocation. Columbia University Press.
