Introductory textbooks play a role as a main reference that guides students to legitimized knowledge, beliefs, and ideologies echoing important history and values. These textbooks are foundational in framing academic disciplines. Moreover, they present students with an approved collection of knowledge and culture (Luke, DeCastell, and Luke 1983; Fitzgerald 1986). Some scholars have argued that textbooks are essentially social constructions of reality, where authors and publishers determine what “correct” knowledge is (Luke et al. 1983). Textbook writing and textbook content are therefore infused with elements from politics, thus affecting the ways students come to view the world (Griffen and Marciano 1979; Watt 2007).
Berger and Luckmann (1996) introduced the following three processes in the construction of meanings: externalization, objectivation, and internalization. Externalization is a process by which meanings are communicated to the external world. The second process objectivation refers to treating non-objects as objects, thus giving them new meanings. Lastly, internalization means accepting and internalizing the externalized and objectified meanings as universal truths. That is, the objectified reality of the world becomes the reference framework of the valid truth. Berger and Luckmann (2002) go on to argue that the objectivity of the institutional world is humanly produced. They conclude that (1) “society is a human project,” (2) “society is an objective reality,” and (3) “man is a social product” (Berger and Luckmann 2002). Applying this argument to textbook publishing and textbook content, it can be argued that the forms of knowledge presented in textbooks are meanings being communicated to the world, specifically to introductory-level students. Students then internalize what they perceive and learn from textbooks and use that knowledge as a framework for their thoughts and understanding of a discipline.
It is also important to pay attention to who dictates which bodies of knowledge are depicted in these textbooks. Textbooks are assumed to be neutral in value and to provide objective information. However, building on Foucault (1972), I would argue that powerful, reputable scholars in the field, specifically those who get to publish textbooks, along with textbook publishers, are the ones who influence what and how knowledge should appear in introductory textbooks. People in positions of power can control the language of the content in a way that allows them to set the discourse and narrative of society in a way that agrees with their points of view and upholds their power (Foucault 1972). In other words, textbooks are infused with power and influence. Content and discourse analysis of textbooks will allow comparison and inspection of the language used in constructing legitimate knowledge.
Given the pressures related to publishing a textbook, such as conforming to the cookie-cutter expectations of a textbook set by the market and the big, traditional publishers, it is crucial to look at whether the content in OER and traditional textbooks is similar or different. It is also important to evaluate the criteria of a “good” textbook. For example, how important is a professional-looking textbook? If quality in textbooks is defined as visual appeal and professionalism, does that provide a better educational experience for everyone or only to those who can afford the high textbook price?