Samuel Reid, Tokyo Kasei University<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reid, S. (2025). Problematizing the concepts of genuineness and authenticity in language [Download paginated PDF version]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n *This page reflects the original version of this document. Please see PDF for most recent and updated version.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This article discusses the use of terms denoting a language advisor\u2019s real<\/em> or authentic<\/em> feelings and behavior. It argues that many uses of these ideas in the literature on language advising can be problematic. First, these concepts may be theoretically confusing and unworkable when given as a guiding principle of language advising. Second, attempting to follow these principles may place an unrealistic burden on language advisors. Finally, identifying what constitutes these feelings is inherently slippery. The article argues for viewing honesty<\/em> as a bonus rather than a theoretical principle in language advising, and suggests subsuming these ideas under the concept of professionalism<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keywords<\/em>: authenticity, genuineness, honesty, professionalism<\/p>\n\n\n\n The literature on language advising sometimes uses a set of terms related to the idea of emotional realness<\/em>. The field of language advising, as defined by Carson & Mynard (2012), refers to using skilful dialogue to assist learners with \u201cpersonally relevant aspects of their language learning development\u201d (p. 4). These terms include words such as authentic<\/em>, genuine<\/em>, honest<\/em>, open<\/em>, and the like. During my training to become a language advisor, I was struck by how often writing either states directly or implies that advisors should strive for authenticity. The use of these concepts seems to stem from two beneficial places. First is the influence of positive psychology on language advising. The discourse of language advising draws on both language teaching and humanistic counselling (Carson & Mynard, 2012, as cited in Tweed, 2019, p. 183). Humanistic counselling is founded on \u201cunconditional positive regard, genuineness and empathy\u201d (Kelly, 1996, as cited in Tweed, 2019, p. 183), hence the seemingly natural fit. The second reason for the use of such terms is most likely the human connections that inevitably occur in the process of language advising. In the course of such one-to-one relationships, it is natural that advisors develop feelings of concern for, and interest in, the wellbeing of learners. The importance of humanistic counselling is unquestionable, as is the value of genuine engagement with learners. However, I feel the use<\/em> of this group of terms can be problematic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I believe the issues I will describe have arisen out of the second of the influences above, namely human connections. Of course, there is nothing wrong with these feelings, but I want to argue that we need to be more careful about their role in language advising theory. In making this argument, I will necessarily have to quote from authors in the field. In advance, apologies to the authors I quote, and to the way I have read a lot into their use of words. I do not want to argue they are misguided or wrong, but I do want to argue for clarity in terminology. I know that language advising is characterised by a supportive and positive community, and criticising may be going against the grain. To be clear, my intention is not to dispute the value of anyone\u2019s work. It is to strengthen the theoretical underpinnings of language advising.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem of labeling <\/strong>genuineness<\/em><\/strong> as a strategy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The first issue is with the meaning of words such as genuine<\/em>. Mozzon-McPherson and Tassinari (2020) provide a list of advisor skills they have identified in literature on language advising (this list is a comprehensive resource that I myself have found useful over recent months). One skill is titled \u201cGenuine concern\u201d (p. 128). Two other skills require the advisor to \u201cshow genuine commitment and concern for the learner\u2019s needs\/problems\u201d (p. 127), and result in the advisor \u201csignalling genuine concern\u201d (p. 128). On the surface, the idea here of \u2018feel care\u2019 is clear, and it is hard to argue against this. However, I would argue that this is a disposition<\/em>, not a skill. I believe a skill to be an observable and controllable behaviour, akin to Shelton-Strong\u2019s (2020) description of language advising skills as \u201cintentional use of language\u201d (p. 4), the key word here being intentional<\/em>. Feeling care is not something that can be turned on or off. Being genuine is obviously desirable, but being genuine either exists or does not exist. Concern involves naturally or unconsciously liking some people, with the implication of naturally not liking others. Otherwise, there would be no word for concern, because it would be assumed that we cared about everyone equally. I believe an advisor\u2019s genuine feelings cannot therefore be a strategy, tactic or advising technique. <\/p>\n\n\n\n During my own advising sessions, for example, when I have made breakthroughs with students, it has been through a well-placed comment to engender a perspective shift in the student, or a probing question to get behind what a student is feeling. This is a case of me following practicable advice in the language learning literature. I have felt satisfaction that I have helped my students, but I have not experienced any feeling of genuineness<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem of assuming positive advisor feelings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Another point concerns what seems to be an implicit assumption that advisors will have positive feelings towards learners. Shelton-Strong and Tassinari (2020) write, \u201cThe baseline of advising is openness, authentic interest in the learner, empathy, authenticity, and transparency to build a safe relationship based on reciprocal trust\u201d (p. 198). They also argue, \u201cWhen advisors express themselves in naturally and authentically transparent ways, the learner may be encouraged to act similarly. This transparency fosters an atmosphere in which trust is shared, and the truth is valued\u201d (p. 196). As argued above, authenticity is not something that can be generated artificially. There is another problem when we consider the point they make, however, which is that the advice to be authentic assumes that authenticity is always a positive<\/em> emotion. I assume that I am like most people who have chosen teaching as a career: I like the majority of my students. However, I envy the teacher who has never come across a student they dislike! <\/p>\n\n\n\n If we take acting authentically or genuinely as a principle, should we therefore show disinterest or lack of concern if we do not connect with the learner? If it is a case of genuine concern, this implies we might not do it for some students, but might for others. Imagine we believe a learner has a bad idea, or an offensive attitude, or we simply do not gel with the learner for some reason. If we are to be genuine, authentic, or open, then, should we therefore make this clear to the learner? I know this is a ridiculous straw man argument: none of these writers are advocating this or mean to imply this. However, if we follow the logic, this can be where it leads. Language advising needs to have theoretically coherent principles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem of identifying what is <\/strong>authentic<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The third point I want to make is about the difficulty of labelling some behaviours authentic. For instance, Morrison and Navarro (2012) discuss language advisor\u2019s reflections, which <\/p>\n\n\n \u201cshow that to question well, students need to be given the space to respond, and the LA needs to relinquish control to the advisee so that the LA genuinely responds to the student and asks questions modified to their responses\u201d (p. 356). <\/p>\n\n\n The use of genuine<\/em> implies that other kinds of response might be inauthentic<\/em>. I do not believe there are many advisors who would claim to be responding inauthentically to their learners. This leads to the point that if there is genuine and non-genuine behaviour, how do we know the difference? Can they be clearly distinguished enough to make this a workable principle? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, the advice to be genuine clashes with an important principle of language advising, that of suspending judgment and meeting the learner where they are. For instance, Kato and Mynard (2016) propose three principles of Transformational advising, the second of which is to \u201cKeep an open mind\u201d and the third of which is to \u201cTake a neutral position\u201d (p. 18). Personally, this advice has been very helpful for me. Although I have worked in Japanese university settings a long time, there is a big difference in the expectations of a university student in my own country and in Japan. It is always useful for me to remember how students\u2019 educational experiences might have formed their attitudes. This is on top of the age gap, because as digital natives, students may have different perspectives and different pulls on their attention. To me, the principle of suspending judgment seems like an exhortation to hold back on<\/em> instinctual reactions. A degree of detachment is necessary for advising to take place. I imagine that most advisors would say that rather than being inauthentic, they are using skilful discretion in order to successfully perform their role. This may manifest in behaviours like listening nonjudgmentally to a learner\u2019s situation, in prompting, or in steering a learner in a certain direction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In my own case, I try to stay very controlled when doing language advising. A basic reason for this is that I am relatively new, and I still need to bear in mind the principles I should follow. Juggling listening to what students say and thinking about how to deploy theory effectively does not leave me much room for emotion. This reflects my inexperience and is not an argument against emotion. More importantly, however, I find that a certain non-emotional distance makes it easier to analyse what the student is saying and consider my best response. I see the advising session as a puzzle, with my trying to find the best way to help. Objectivity is helpful in this regard. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A bonus, not a principle<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Reflections by advisors illustrate that genuineness is something many strive towards, as shown in the following statements: <\/p>\n\n\n \u201cThe trick is to genuinely listen, avoiding making personal judgements and giving direct advice; the students will let the Trojan horse in only if they find out the answer themselves, and switch their viewpoints towards the issue\u201d (Esen, 2019, p. 330) I believe openness is better seen as a bonus<\/em> than a principle. An advising session may work better with a genuine connection, but this is the cherry on top. If a student perceives the advisor\u2019s genuine care, this is obviously desirable, as it may increase the student\u2019s emotional investment in the process. Ultimately though, the goal is for the student<\/em> to increase their self-awareness or make changes in their behaviour. The advisor\u2019s feelings are secondary to the goal of advising. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another worry I have when seeing exhortations to genuineness<\/em> is that they place an unrealistic burden on advisors. They may even create pressure to feel a certain way. Other techniques of language advising do not require this kind of deliberate manipulation of one\u2019s own emotions. To exemplify this with Mozzon-McPherson and Tassinari\u2019s (2020) list of advisor skills referenced above, ice breaking<\/em> involves starting a session with simple relatable topics, and probing questions<\/em> aim to uncover specific deeper information. In my opinion, a language advising session could be perfectly successful with the advisor skilfully using a multitude of advising techniques, while having no genuine interest in the learner. This is an extreme argument, and hopefully unpalatable to anyone reading this. The point stands, however. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Genuineness as <\/strong>professionalism<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Language advising has solid theoretical foundations and is demonstrably effective, but in order to encourage the spread of language advising, it is important to clarify advice, which may be taken the wrong way. I would say that many practitioners are attracted to language advising because they are predisposed to its underpinnings in humanistic psychology. It intrinsically makes sense to them. However, there is another set of people who may not naturally lean towards a wholistic or humanistic view of education. In my case, having studied many of these principles at undergraduate level, I was a receptive audience and needed little convincing. Such people may feel intimated or put off. They may feel they lack the emotional involvement necessary for language advising. It would be a shame to lose out on this section of potential advisors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I suggest substituting the terms I have discussed here for professional<\/em>. The concept of professionalism<\/em> covers many cases. It includes times when we genuinely feel a connection with a learner, times when there is no special personal connection but we instinctively follow language advising principles, and times when we are simply doing our best because of professional pride. Personally, I care about the success and empowerment of learners, and have a pride that I will do a good job. We can say that we are authentically performing our job to the best of our ability. We can say that our professionalism is genuine. I would say that my concern for my students manifests in my trying to give the best possible advising session. This is about trying to use the most appropriate techniques, not about my experiencing a sense of emotional honesty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To reiterate, my argument is not against honesty<\/em> per se. If language advisors never experience genuine feelings of concern for their learners, they are in the wrong job. It is not that authenticity<\/em>, genuineness<\/em>, openness<\/em>, and transparency<\/em> are undesirable (who is against honesty?). Rather, when discussing principles of language advising, these words have an intrinsic appeal that we need to be wary of. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Notes on the contributor<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Samuel Reid is an Associate Professor in the Department of English Communication at Tokyo Kasei University. His research interests are Critical Discourse Analysis, and critical thinking in a second language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Carson, L. & Mynard, J. (2012). Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue,<\/em> Kato, S. & Mynard, J. (2016). Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. <\/em>Routledge. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4324\/9781315739649<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Morrison, B. R. & Navarro, D. (2012). Shifting roles: From language teachers to learning advisors. System, 40,<\/em> 349-359.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mozzon-McPherson, M. & Tassinari, M. G. (2020). From Language Teachers to Language Learning Advisors: A Journey Map. Philologia Hispalensis, 34(1),<\/em> 121-139. https:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.12795\/PH.2020.v34.i01.07<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sag\u00e1stegui, G. (2019). The Difference Between Teaching and Advising. Relay Journal, 2(2),<\/em> 394-397. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Shelton-Strong, S. J. (2020). Advising in language learning and the support of learners\u2019 basic psychological needs: A self-determination theory perspective. Language Teaching Research<\/em>, 26<\/em>(5), 963-985. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1362168820912355<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Shelton-Strong, S. J., & Tassinari, M. G. (2022). Facilitating an autonomy-supportive learning climate: Advising in language learning and basic psychological needs. In J. Mynard, & S. J. Shelton-Strong (Eds.), Autonomy support beyond the language learning classroom: A self-determination theory perspective<\/em> (pp.185-205). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2307\/jj.22679762.15<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Tweed, A. D. (2019). What Learning Advisors Bring to Speaking Practice Centers. Relay Journal, 2(1), <\/em>182-188.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Samuel Reid, Tokyo Kasei University Reid, S. (2025). Problematizing the concepts of genuineness and authenticity in languageadvising. Relay Journal, 8(2), 71-76. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.37237\/relay\/080204 [Download paginated PDF version] *This page reflects the original version of this document. Please see PDF for most recent and updated version. Abstract This article discusses the use of terms denoting a language … Continue reading “Problematising the concepts of genuineness and authenticity in language advising.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"parent":4057,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4059"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4059"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4059\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4239,"href":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4059\/revisions\/4239"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4057"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
advising. Relay Journal, 8(2), 71-76. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.37237\/relay\/080204<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn spite of the differences in role of an advisor and that of a teacher, there are several skills that can be transferred into the classroom. One of the most important, is being able to establish an open and genuine dialogue with learners\u201d (Sag\u00e1stegui, 2019, p. 396). <\/p>\n\n\n
<\/em>tools and context. <\/em>Routledge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n