44,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: GMLZ - Guides to Research Methods in Language and Linguistics
- Sprache: Englisch
This is the first volume exclusively devoted to research methods in language policy and planning (LPP). * Each chapter is written by a leading language policy expert and provides a how-to guide to planning studies as well as gathering and analyzing data * Covers a broad range of methods, making it easily accessible to and useful for transdisciplinary researchers working with language policy in any capacity * Will serve as both a foundational methods text for graduate students and novice researchers, and a useful methodological reference for experienced LPP researchers * Includes a series of guidelines for public engagement to assist scholars as they endeavor to incorporate their work into the public policy process
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 587
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015
Ähnliche
CONTENTS
Cover
Title page
Notes on Contributors
Foreword
References
1 Introduction: The Practice of Language Policy Research
References
Further Reading
Part I: Fundamental Considerations
2 Selecting Appropriate Research Methods in LPP Research: Methodological Rich Points
Introduction
LPP as an Evolving Theoretical and Methodological Terrain
Methodological Rich Points
Conclusion
References
Further Reading
3 Researcher Positionality
Introduction
Knowledge-Constitutive Interests, Disciplines of Inquiry, and Researcher Positionality
Disciplines of Inquiry and Researcher Positionality
An Example: The Case of Hong Kong
On the Necessity of Becoming a Reflexive “Tweener”
References
Further Reading
4 Ethical Considerations in Language Policy Research
Introduction
Background
Whose Interests?
Researcher Identity
Representation of Knowledge
Conclusion
References
Further Reading
5 Language Policy and Political Theory
Introduction
Addressing Key Issues
Addressing Key Topics
References
Further Reading
6 Language and Law
Introduction
Justification and Rights
Law Against Linguistic Diversity
Should the State Speak the Language of the Population?
Contemporary International Law: Some Positive Developments
The Law’s Crucial Role in Ensuring Linguistic Rights and Freedom
References
Further Reading
Part II: Methodological Approaches to Language Planning and Policy Research
7 Exploring Language Problems through Q-Sorting
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
8 Ethnography in Language Planning and Policy Research
Introduction
Developing (Good) Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study: The Native Language Shift and Retention Study
Concluding Thoughts
References
Further Reading
9 Classroom Discourse Analysis as a Lens on Language-in-Education Policy Processes
Introduction
Choosing Contexts
Developing Research Questions: Designing a Research Project
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
Concluding Comments
References
Further Reading
10 Applying Corpus Linguistics to Language Policy
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
11 The Economics of Language Policy: An Introduction to Evaluation Work
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
12 Analyzing Language Policiesin New Media
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
13 Historical-Structural Analysis
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
14 Interpretive Policy Analysis for Language Policy
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Generation and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
15 Intertextuality and Language Policy
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
16 Mapping Language Ideologies
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Feasibility and Choice of Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
17 Investigating Relationships between Language Attitudes and Policy Issues
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
18 Using Census Data and Demography in Policy Analysis
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
19 Making Policy Connections across Scales Using Nexus Analysis
Introduction
Developing Research Questions
Choosing Contexts
Methods for Data Collection and Analysis
Case Study
References
Further Reading
Public Engagement and the LPP Scholar
Appendix A: Interacting with Schools and Communities
Working in the School Environment
Opportunities for LPP Consulting in Schools
Developing Effective School/District Language Policies
References
Appendix B: Participating in Policy Debates about Language
References
Appendix C: Interacting with Politicians and Policymakers
1 Early Phase
2 Planning Phase
3 Interaction Phase
4 Reflection Phase
Appendix D: Managing Media Appearances
What Works…
What Doesn’t Work…
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 03
Table 3.1 Human interest, knowledge, and research paradigms.
Chapter 07
Table 7.1 Italian - Perspective 1: Fix it, but ask us!
Table 7.2 Japanese - Perspective 1: Let’s use it much more!
Chapter 09
Table 9.1 Designing a research project around the tripartite set of policy processes: creation, interpretation, and appropriation: an illustration.
Chapter 11
Table 11.1 Gross and net yearly earnings differences in %, Quebec, men, 1970 and 2005, seven sets of language skills.
Table 11.2 Gross and net impact of English-language skills on monthly earnings, Switzerland, men.
Table 11.3 Summary of results on the costs and benefits of the Official Languages Act, Canada, 2006.
Chapter 13
Table 13.1 A descriptive framework of historical-structural research.
Chapter 18
Table 18.1 Percentage of minorities speaking Chinese and minority languages.
Table 18.2 Percentage of minority groups shifting to Chinese and being Chinese-minority bilinguals.
List of Illustrations
Chapter 08
Figure 8.1 Sample ethnographic observation protocol.
Figure 8.2 Example of elaborated field notes (modified from original notes to protect participants’ anonymity).
Chapter 17
Figure 17.1 The interdependent steps involved in choosing the research context.
Figure 17.2 Questionnaire sample.
Figure 17.3 Attitudes of male and female students.
Figure 17.4 Distribution of attitudes between female and male students.
Chapter 18
Figure 18.1 Mongolian illiteracy rate across age cohorts and periods (1940s to 1990s).
Figure 18.2 Kazakh educational attainments across age cohorts and periods.
Chapter 19
Figure 19.1 Intersection of discourse types in nexus analysis of language policy.
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
ii
iii
iv
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
233
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
Guides to Research Methods in Language and Linguistics
Series Editor: Li Wei, Birkbeck College, University of London
The science of language encompasses a truly interdisciplinary field of research, with a wide range of focuses, approaches, and objectives. While linguistics has its own traditional approaches, a variety of other intellectual disciplines have contributed methodological perspectives that enrich the field as a whole. As a result, linguistics now draws on state-of-the-art work from such fields as psychology, computer science, biology, neuroscience and cognitive science, sociology, music, philosophy, and anthropology.
The interdisciplinary nature of the field presents both challenges and opportunities to students who must understand a variety of evolving research skills and methods. The Guides to Research Methods in Language and Linguistics addresses these skills in a systematic way for advanced students and beginning researchers in language science. The books in this series focus especially on the relationships between theory, methods and data- the understanding of which is fundamental to the successful completion of research projects and the advancement of knowledge.
Published
The Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism
Edited by Li Wei and Melissa G. Moyer
Research Methods in Child Language: A Practical Guide
Edited by Erika Hoff
Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide
Edited by Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey
Research Methods in Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics: A Practical Guide
Edited by Nicole Müller and Martin J. Ball
Research Methods in Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide
Edited by Janet Holmes and Kirk Hazen
Research Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide
Edited by Eleni Orfanidou, Bencie Woll, and Gary Morgan
Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide
Edited by Francis M. Hult and David Cassels Johnson
Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning
A Practical Guide
Edited by Francis M. Hult and David Cassels Johnson
This edition first published 2015© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Offices350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of Francis M. Hult and David Cassels Johnson to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data
Research methods in language policy and planning : a practical guide / edited by Francis M. Hult and David Cassels Johnson. – First Edition. pages cm. – (GMLL- Guides to Research methods in Language and Linguistics) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-118-30838-7 (hardback) – ISBN 978-1-118-30839-4 (paper)1. Language policy–Research–Methodology. 2. Language planning–Research–Methodology.3. Language and languages–Research–Methodology. I. Hult, Francis M. II. Johnson, David Cassels, 1974– III. Title. P40.5.L35R43 2015 306.44′9–dc23 2015004133
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Cover image: arctic solid ice landscape with track of ice-breaker ship / © Maxim Tupikov / Shutterstock
Notes on Contributors
Adnan Ajsic is a PhD candidate in applied linguistics at Northern Arizona University. His research interests include language ideology, corpus linguistics, critical discourse analysis, English as a global lingua franca, and language policy in post-colonial and post-communist societies. His writing has appeared in Language Policy, English for Specific Purposes, and the Journal of Language and Politics. Adnan is currently working on his dissertation which investigates language ideologies and ethnonational identities in the Balkans.
Lava D. Awasthi holds a PhD from the Danish University of Education, Copenhagen. He is director general of the Department of Education in Nepal. He is also a visiting faculty member at Tribhuvan University and Kathmandu University of Nepal, where he teaches advanced research methodologies and diversity education as well as language planning. His areas of interest include social transformation, educational reform, multilingual education, language and ethnicity, oriental cosmologies, and educational research.
Suresh Canagarajah is Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Applied Linguistics and English at Penn State University. He teaches language socialization, World Englishes, and teacher development in writing. His latest publication is Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations (2013). He is a former editor of TESOL Quarterly and president of the American Association of Applied Linguistics.
Shannon Fitzsimmons-Doolan holds a PhD from Northern Arizona University and is Assistant Professor in the English Department at Texas A & M University–Corpus Christi. Research interests include investigating the roles of language ideologies in language policy processes, exploring models of content-based instruction, and applying corpus-based linguistics. Her publications have appeared in Language Policy, Language Awareness, Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, Corpora, and in edited volumes.
Rebecca Freeman Field is the director of the Language Education Division of Caslon Publishing. She conducts action-oriented research in bilingual schools and communities and has published two books, Bilingual Education and Social Change and Building on Community Bilingualism. She focuses on developing leadership on ELL issues and she co-edited English Language Learners at School: A Guide for Administrators. She also works with educators in the areas of language policy and planning, language education program development and implementation, academic language and literacy development, and assessment and accountability in language education programs.
François Grin has taught in Montreal, Seattle, and Lugano, and served as deputy director of the European Centre for Minority Issues in Flensburg (Germany). He is Professor of Economics at the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting at the University of Geneva. His work in language economics and language policy is reflected in numerous publications. He has carried out several large-scale research projects for scientific agencies, national governments, and international organizations. He is the coordinator of the MIME Project (“Mobility and Inclusion in Multilingual Europe,” 2014–2018) financed by the European Commission.
Nancy H. Hornberger is Professor and Chair of Educational Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, USA. Her research interests include language policy, sociolinguistics, anthropological linguistics, ethnography, biliteracy, Indigenous language revitalization, multilingualism, and multilingual education. A widely published author and editor, her recent volumes include Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages? Policy and Practice on Four Continents (2008) and Sociolinguistics and Language Education (with S. McKay, 2010).
Ari Huhta is Professor of Language Assessment at the Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä. He specializes in diagnostic testing of second/foreign language proficiency. His interests also include self-assessment, feedback, assessment procedures for SLA research, and the development of L2 vocabulary.
Francis M. Hult is Associate Professor at the Lund University Centre for Languages and Literature. He is the co-editor (with Kendall A. King) of Educational Linguistics in Practice (2011), editor of Directions and Prospects for Educational Linguistics (2010), and co-editor (with Bernard Spolsky) of The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (2008). Working at the transdisciplinary crossroads of sociolinguistics, discourse studies, and education, he investigates the management of linguistic diversity in policy and practice.
David Cassels Johnson is Assistant Professor of Language Education at the University of Iowa. His research focuses on the interaction between language policies and educational opportunity for minority language users. Numerous articles appear in journals such as Applied Linguistics, TESOL Quarterly, and Language Policy. He is the author of Language Policy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).
Helen Kelly-Holmes is Senior Lecturer in Sociolinguistics and New Media at the University of Limerick, Ireland. Her research interests focus on the interrelationships between media, markets, and languages. Recent publications include Multilingualism and the Periphery (edited with Sari Pietikäinen, 2013) and Thematising Multilingualism in the Media (edited with Tomasso Milani, 2013).
Kendall A. King (PhD, University of Pennsylvania) is Professor of Second Languages and Cultures Education at the University of Minnesota, where she teaches and researches in the areas of applied linguistics and language policy. Recent journal research publications appear in Modern Language Journal, Applied Linguistics and Journal of Language, Identity and Education. She is an editor of the forthcoming Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 10: Research Methods in Language and Education.
Dimitry Kochenov is Professor of EU Constitutional Law, University of Groningen. His research focuses on EU citizenship and the principles of law. Recent publications include Europe’s Justice Deficit? (edited with G. de Búrca and A. Williams, 2014) and European Union’s Shaping of the International Legal Order (edited with F. Amtenbrink, 2013).
Angel M.Y. Lin is a full Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. She is well respected for her interdisciplinary research in classroom discourse analysis, bilingual education, language policy in postcolonial contexts, and critical cultural studies. She has published over 90 research articles and co/authored/edited six research books.
Joseph Lo Bianco is Professor of Language and Literacy Education at the University of Melbourne. He authored Australia’s official National Policy of Languages, in 1987 and has served as language policy advisor in many countries, currently serving as research director, Peacebuilding and Language for UNICEF in Southeast Asia. He has written many publications. In press are Aldo and the Meridian Line, a novel, and a volume on language and identity in post-revolutionary Tunisia (with Fethi Hilal).
Marilyn Martin-Jones is Emeritus Professor and former director of the MOSAIC Centre for Research on Multilingualism, University of Birmingham, UK. Over the last 35 years, her research has focused on multilingual discourse practices and literacies, in classrooms and in community contexts, and on the ways in which such discourse practices and literacies are bound up with local and global relations of power. She is currently editor of the Routledge series, Critical Studies in Multilingualism.
Stephen May is Professor of Education in Te Puna Wananga (School of Maori Education) in the Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, New Zealand. He has written widely on language rights, language policy, and language education,. To date, he has published 15 books and over 90 academic articles and book chapters in these areas. These include his award-winning Language and Minority Rights (second edition, 2012) and his most recent edited collection, The Multilingual Turn (2014). He is general editor of the third edition of the 10-volume Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2016), a founding editor of the interdisciplinary journal, Ethnicities, and associate editor of Language Policy. His homepage is http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/stephen-may.
Teresa L. McCarty is the George F. Kneller Chair in Education and Anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research, teaching, and outreach focus on Indigenous education, language planning and policy, youth language, and ethnographic studies of education. Her recent books include Language Planning and Policy in Native America: History, Theory, Praxis (2013), and Indigenous Youth and Multilingualism: Language Identity, Ideology, and Practice in Dynamic Cultural Worlds (with L.T. Wyman and S.E. Nicholas, 2014).
Mary McGroarty is Professor in the Applied Linguistics Program in the English Department at Northern Arizona University. Her research interests lie in language policy, planning, and pedagogy, with articles in Language Learning, Language Policy, TESOL Quarterly, and several anthologies. A past president of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, she has edited the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics and served on several editorial boards.
Sarah Catherine K. Moore is Program Director at the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), Washington, D.C., where she conducts research regarding educational and language policy implementation, and works to promote educational equity for emergent bilingual students and communities. She is editor of Language Policy Processes and Consequences: Arizona Case Studies (Multilingual Matters, 2014).
Åsa Palviainen is Professor of Swedish in the Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä. Her expertise is in the language political situation of Swedish in Finland and in teaching and learning of Swedish as a second language. Her most recent focus is on language policies of bilingual families and pre-schools.
Thomas Ricento is Professor and Research Chair, English as an Additional Language, in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada. He is the editor of An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method (2006); Ideology, Politics, and Language Policies: Focus on English (2000); co-editor (with Barbara Burnaby) of Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities (1998); and editor of Language Policy and Political Economy: English in a Global Context (2015).
John R. Rickford is the J.E. Wallace Sterling Professor of Linguistics and the Humanities, and Professor by courtesy in Education, at Stanford University. He is the author of numerous books and articles on sociolinguistics, focusing on language and ethnicity, social class and style, language variation and change, pidgin and creole languages, African American Vernacular English, and the application of linguistics to educational problems. His most recent books include Language, Culture and Caribbean Identity (co-edited with Jeannette Allsopp) and African American, Creoles and Other English Vernacular Englishes in Education: A Bibliographical Resource (with Julie Sweetland, Angela E. Rickford, and Thomas Grano). He is the 2015 president of the Linguistic Society of America.
Phiona Stanley is a Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of New South Wales, Australia. She convenes the Masters of Education program in the School of Education and her research is primarily about transnational identities in cross-cultural educational contexts, including the development of intercultural competence through international education. She is currently working on a book on backpacker language learners’ acquisition of intercultural skills and Spanish in Latin America.
James W. Tollefson is Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong and Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington. His research focuses on language policy, language ideology, and mass media coverage of language issues. His most recent book is Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues.
François Vaillancourt is a Fellow at the CIRANO research center and Emeritus Professor (economics), University of Montreal. He has published extensively on fiscal federalism, taxation, and language policy. He has been a Shastri lecturer (India), a Fulbright scholar (USA), and a visitor at various universities in Australia, Canada, the United States, Belgium, and France. He has consulted on language policies (Canada, New Zealand, Quebec) and intergovernmental and local finance for various Canadian bodies and international organizations (AFD; EC; OECD; UNDP; World Bank).
Fernand de Varennes is Visiting Human Rights Professor at the universities of Pretoria, Hong Kong, and Vytautas Magnus University in Lithuania. Most of his research work focuses on human and minority rights, and the prevention of ethnic conflicts. Recent publications include Language Rights … and Wrongs (2014) and “R2P and the Protection of Minorities,” in Die Schutzverantwortung: Ein Paradigmenwechelsel in der Entwicklung des Internationalen Rechts? (2013).
Terrence G. Wiley is president of CAL and Professor Emeritus at Arizona State University. At CAL, he is organizer of LPReN and closely involved with projects focused on language policy development and implementation. He has published extensively in peer-reviewed venues and is co-editor of both the Journal of Language, Identity, and Education as well as the 2014 Review of Research in Education thematic issue on language policy published by the American Educational Research Association.
Minglang Zhou teaches Chinese linguistics, Chinese, and China studies at the University of Maryland, College Park. His research focuses on bilingualism, language contact, language education, and ethnic relations in China, and Chinese as a second language. He has published extensively on these topics.
Foreword
In my book, An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method (Ricento 2006b ), I wrote “language policy and planning (LPP), as an interdisciplinary field, requires an understanding and use of multiple methods in exploring important questions about language status, language identity, language use, and other topics that fall within the purview of research” (Ricento 2006a , 129). I also agreed with James Paul Gee ( 1999 , 5), who noted “any method always goes with a theory. Method and theory cannot be separated, despite the fact that methods are often taught as if they could stand alone.” Furthermore, as LPP tends to focus on practical, “real world” issues that involve language, researchers approach their work with strategic goals in mind; for example, a goal of research might be to explain how high-stakes exams in US public schools are de facto language policies, and often lead to disproportionately negative outcomes for language minority students (Menken 2008 ). Researchers who choose to investigate this topic already have strong views, often influenced by their own experience, on matters such as the nature and purpose of schooling, theories of language acquisition and learning, ethical concerns about fairness and validity in assessment practices, and so on, that will influence the questions they ask and the particular research methods they employ to answer those questions. In short, researchers in LPP usually have strategic goals in mind when they formulate research questions, goals that are strongly influenced by their particular beliefs and (often unstated) theories on a range of phenomena. It follows that the methodological tools that a researcher uses will be strongly influenced – if not determined – by his or her theories on the “objects” that are to be investigated, to be scrutinized for particular “properties” and relationships that the researcher believes, a priori, are worthy of investigation because they believe these are the properties that matter most, because their theories and beliefs lead them to believe so. Furthermore, regardless of the research methods we select from our toolkit, in the end, all social science research is always interpretive: despite our best intentions and efforts to achieve “objectivity,” or “neutrality,” or “validity” through our carefully selected research methods, as social scientists we are always interpreters of complex phenomena that are beyond our ability to understand and characterize in any definitive way.
These observations are in no way meant to diminish the importance or usefulness of research in LPP. Rather, they point to the essential fact that good research, from the inception of hypothesis generation, to the gathering and analysis of data, to the discussion of the findings and implications for policy and future research, is value-laden, and this is a good and necessary thing. Social science research that is worthwhile can never be a sterile exercise in gathering facts and reporting observations conducted in a social vacuum; the best research in LPP is overtly mindful of why we ask the questions we ask, in whose interest we conduct research, and how individuals and society will benefit from our research.
The object(s) of our research arise from the social contexts – including belief systems – in which we are socialized and educated, and especially through the epistemological lenses acquired through our particular disciplinary training, subject to ongoing questioning and revision. Because LPP is an interdisciplinary field, researchers must become knowledgeable in subject areas outside their disciplinary specialization(s), a daunting task given the difficulties of gaining such knowledge and incorporating it in research questions and methods in non-ad hoc ways. Given the inherent challenge to understanding complex social phenomena that involve language, society, and policymaking and evaluation, the task of characterizing what we study and why we study it leads to perpetual debate and controversy. It is not surprising that much effort is spent on defining what, exactly, the field of LPP is, and what it is not. John Petrovic ( 2015 ) suggests that a productive way to think about “language policy” is not as a singular construct but as “language” and “policy,” each considered as a separate construct. This is because, according to Petrovic, different readings of “language” inform the shape that “policy” takes, while policy usually constructs language in particular ways. The implication from this formulation is that our theory of language precedes and informs our research questions that involve investigating policies on language in society. But, as Petrovic notes, if policy implies a theory of politics, then we cannot proceed very far in research unless we acknowledge “where we are coming from,” politically. This means, for example, that we cannot simply declare ourselves to be “liberals” without considering what sort of liberalism we embrace and what that could mean for our analysis of a particular policy or policy approach in particular contexts or social domains. Petrovic’s deconstruction of “language policy” is but one example to illustrate the challenges that obtain in the ongoing quest to develop a robust, coherent, and empirically informed field of intellectual inquiry under the heading “language policy and planning.” In response to these challenges, a number of scholars (François Grin, Peter Ives, Stephen May, Yael Peled, John Petrovic, and myself, among others) are endeavoring to generate conversations and collaborations across disciplinary boundaries in an effort to develop better theoretical and explanatory models amenable to empirical validation or refutation.1
To summarize, there are no truly “naive” research questions in the social sciences; rather, the questions we ask and the methods we choose to investigate those questions are the products of deeply held beliefs on a broad range of phenomena, informed by theoretical constructs that claim to explain how and why things are “in the world,” and, in the case of LPP, how the world might be improved by applying the knowledge gained through empirical research. David C. Johnson ( 2013 , 95) notes that “While the field of language policy is theoretically rich, empirical data collection on language policy creation, interpretation, appropriation, and instantiation has, historically, not matched the theoretical and conceptual robustness. In part, this is a natural result of the inchoate nature of the field.” I would add that our empirical research findings will certainly lead to better theorizing and conceptualizing, and that will require not only the appropriate use of a variety of social science research methods described in this volume, but, of equal importance, greater awareness and infusion of appropriate theories and conceptual frames from diverse disciplines, including political theory, political science, economics, social theory, and related policy sciences.
This volume is a very useful addition to the developing, if “inchoate,” field of language policy and planning; but it seems to me that what is now required is an updated and expanded volume on theory2 that would include coverage on the aforementioned disciplines in order to provide greater balance and coherence to a field that, historically, has paid more attention to sociolinguistics and ethnography than it has to politics, economics, or sociology.
Thomas RicentoCalgary, CanadaSeptember 2014
References
Gee, J.P. 1999.
An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method
.
London: Routledge.
Johnson, D.C. 2013.
Language Policy
.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Menken, K. 2008.
English Learners Left Behind: Standardized Testing as Language Policy
.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Petrovic, J. 2015.
A Post-Liberal Approach to Language Policy in Education
.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ricento, T., ed. 2006a. Methodological perspectives in language policy: An overview. In T. Ricento, ed.,
An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method
, 129–134. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ricento, T., ed. 2006b.
An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method
.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ricento, T., ed. 2015.
Language Policy and Political Economy: English in a Global Context
.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ricento, T., Peled, Y., and Ives, P., eds. 2014. Language policy and political theory.
Language Policy
13(4). (Thematic issue.)
Notes
1
Examples of disciplinary boundary crossing can be found in a recent thematic issue of the journal
Language Policy
, ‘Language Policy and Political Theory’ (Ricento, Peled, and Ives 2014 ), and in Ricento 2015 .
2
Ricento 2006b covers some of this territory, but more extensive treatment in a number of subject areas is warranted.
1Introduction: The Practice of Language Policy Research
Francis M. Hult and David Cassels Johnson
Applied linguistics is an intellectual space – a transdiscipline – where theories and methods from multiple fields intersect around language issues (Halliday 2001). Language policy, as Spolsky has pointed out, is a “paradigmatic example of applied linguistics in that it must draw on a range of academic fields to develop practical plans to modify language practices and beliefs” as well as to investigate policy processes empirically (Spolsky 2005, 31). Theories and methods are not merely imported from this range of academic fields, but refined and strategically combined in order to conduct research that is problem-centered, or issue-focused (Hult 2010a). Specialists in language policy and planning (LPP) have drawn upon a broad constellation of research methods that have roots in diverse disciplines such as anthropology, law, linguistics, political science, social psychology, and sociology (of language), among others, in order to conduct inquiry on problems or issues related to policy formation, interpretation, implementation, resistance, and evaluation.
Beginning in the 1960s, early language planning was primarily something that a handful of scholars did, and only later became an object of study (Spolsky 2005). These early scholars were called upon to develop strategies and frameworks for language-planning initiatives and produced many of the theoretical frameworks that we use today, very notably the distinction between status planning (focused on the functions of language) and corpus planning (focused on the forms of language), and, later, acquisition planning (focused on language learning) (see review in Hornberger 2006).
The 1980s and 1990s saw a growing group of critical scholars who explicitly engaged with language planning as a hegemonic mechanism potentially imbued with dominant and marginalizing discourses (e.g. Ruiz 1984; Tollefson 1991). Tollefson, for example, proposed the historical-structural approach, which focuses on the historical and sociopolitical processes that lead to the development of language policies. Around the same time, sociolinguistic researchers who utilized ethnography began to take an interest in LPP. Hornberger’s (1988) ethnographic investigation of language planning and bilingual education in Peru is one of the first to examine how language planning impacted language use in schools and communities.
Since the 1990s, and especially beginning in the 2000s, there has been a rapidly increasing number of researchers who utilize ethnographic and discourse-analytic methods to examine LPP processes “on the ground,” so to speak, with a focus on how policy texts and discourses relate to language practices in schools and communities (e.g. Davis 1994; Freeman 1998; King 2001). While this line of LPP research is prominent, as evidenced by recent edited volumes (e.g. McCarty 2011; Menken and García 2010), many other scholars have applied a broad spectrum of research methods from their respective fields to LPP studies, including economics (Grin 2003), political science (May 2001), and law (Leibowitz 1984; de Varennes 1996), among many others.
Over the last half-century of inquiry, then, research methods have been taken beyond their disciplinary foundations and honed specifically for LPP investigations. Thus, the field of LPP is maturing as scholars are paying more and more attention to diverse and critical ways of approaching LPP issues and, concomitantly, to research rigor (Johnson 2013; Menken and García 2010; Ricento 2006). As such, we believe the time is right for a volume that consolidates research approaches to LPP.
Our initial motivation for developing this book emerged from two distinct experiences: (1) during our dissertation fieldwork we felt a need for a resource like this book, and (2) our supervision of students leads us to believe that they, as well, would benefit from a book that helps them design and conduct language policy studies. Although students take qualitative and quantitative research methods courses during MA and PhD coursework, their application to studies of LPP is often left unexamined. It would, of course, be difficult for any college or department to offer advanced research methods courses in every domain in which students might do thesis or dissertation work. Indeed, part of the process of conducting independent work is to build on a general foundation of research methods to develop the details of a specific study. To this end, students in the early stages of developing a master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation embark on substantial reading of methodological literature, in addition to other relevant topical and theoretical sources, to begin framing their own original studies.
In guiding our students, we have found it easy to recommend texts that address core principles and social theory related to language policy (e.g. Cooper 1989; Kaplan and Baldauf 1997; Ricento 2006; Shohmay 2006; Spolsky 2004, 2009); however, suggesting foundational texts on research design in language policy is much more challenging. There are many excellent methods texts in general areas such as discourse analysis, ethnography, and sociolinguistics, and empirical studies of language policy abound in journals and edited volumes. Going from general research methods to designing one’s own language policy study, though, can be a long conceptual leap for novice researchers – this book is intended as a springboard.
As Nancy Hornberger (2013; this volume) points out, in contrast to theoretically or disciplinary-driven research where methods follow more directly, researchers engaging with problem-centered or issue-focused inquiry must rely on “methodological rich points.” These are points of reflection at all stages of the research process where one considers whether or not one has access to the most appropriate method(s) in relation to one’s research question(s). Such reflection requires a critical awareness of what methods are available, the kinds of research questions for which they are epistemologically appropriate, and the sorts of data and analysis they facilitate. Without such a methodological overview, there is a risk that a novice researcher will design a study using only the methods to which they were exposed in methods courses, forcing them to fit research questions for which the methods are less than ideal or, perhaps worse, altering the research questions to fit the methods instead of the issue or problem in need of investigation. Alternatively, students must invest considerable time and energy on their own to gain the scope of methodological perspective needed to select appropriate methods and extrapolate their potential applications to LPP issues.
Accordingly, we have designed the present volume as an attempt to offer readers a bird’s eye view of a range of research methods as they can be applied to LPP. Inspired by our own students’ needs, we have kept the novice reader in mind at all phases of developing the book. In selecting topics, we have considered both the fundamentals of approaching LPP as a domain of inquiry and specific methods for designing and implementing a study. All chapters, written by leading language policy researchers known for their attention to methodological rigor, are intended as entry points for readers with little or no familiarity with the topics. As such, the contributions in this volume are not meant to be comprehensive in their coverage, but rather to provide the reader with an overview of key methods and methodologies to consider thereby helping the reader make informed methodological decisions as they conceptualize LPP studies and continue to read more deeply about specific methods.
The first section includes five chapters that address fundamental considerations when embarking on a language policy study. These include issues that arise during the conceptualization and implementation stages of inquiry such as the deliberate critical thinking process of selecting research methods as well as reflexive issues related to researcher positionality and ethics when investigating sociopolitical issues around language policy. The first three chapters, thus, offer guidance on how to develop a language policy study and then how to carry it out in a responsible manner. The section also includes chapters that address, respectively, two fields of scholarship that have an especially salient connection to politics and policy: political theory and law. While these are by no means the only scholarly perspectives from which to approach language policy, political theory and law are two fields that place politics and policy as the focus of inquiry (and they are also fields in which politicians and legislators often have training), making them useful to understand, whether one chooses to embrace a political or legal orientation or to follow one of the many other traditions of inquiry.
The second section, in turn, comprises thirteen chapters, focusing on different methods for language policy investigation from a diverse range of epistemological and disciplinary traditions. The chapters in this section are written as basic how-to guides for planning and implementing studies. Each is organized with the same structure to facilitate comparison, helping readers easily determine what each method offers and how different methods might complement each other. As readers will quickly notice, many of these methods can work together, and we have tried to illuminate these connections with cross-references throughout. Each chapter begins with a brief introduction that situates the method intellectually and explains its relevance to language policy. Next, the development of research questions is considered with special attention to the kinds of questions that align with the method. Methods for data collection and analysis are then discussed, emphasizing the practice of conducting research. Each chapter concludes with a brief case study that illustrates how the method has been applied in an LPP study along with a short list of sources for further reading about the method.
The final section of the volume is an appendix that offers advice about public engagement with language policy initiatives and debates. Language policy researchers often wish to make a positive social impact in addition to, or as part of, their inquiry. As scholars, we receive training in research but seldom in the professional skills needed for successful engagement with public policy. With this in mind, the four appendix contributors offer advice based on their own experience with engagement in sectors that are of special interest to LPP researchers: communities and schools, political debate, government, and media. Each contribution offers hands-on tips for how to get involved and how to interact productively with policy stakeholders.
As language policy continues to diversify as a field, its strength going forward lies in the methodological rigor of well-conceptualized and systematically conducted studies. It is in this way that the field will make its most meaningful social contributions through research that can inform the creation and sound implementation of equitable language policies. In all, it is our hope that the present volume will contribute to the rigor of the field by offering a practical methodological toolkit for students who are new to language policy and a reference for established LPP researchers.
References
Cooper, R.L. 1989.
Language Planning and Social Change
. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, K. 1994.
Language Planning in Multilingual Contexts: Policies, Communities, and Schools in Luxembourg
. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
de Varennes, F. 1996.
Languages, Minorities and Human Rights
. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Freeman, R. 1998.
Bilingual Education and Social Change
. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Grin, F. 2003. Language planning and economics.
Current Issues in Language Planning
4(1): 1–66.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2001. New ways of meaning: The challenges to applied linguistics. In A. Fill and P. Mühlhäusler, eds.,
The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology, and the Environment
, 175–202. New York: Continuum.
Hult, F.M. 2010a. Theme-based research in the transdisciplinary field of educational linguistics. In F.M. Hult, ed.,
Directions and Prospects for Educational Linguistics
, 19–32. New York: Springer.
Hornberger, N.H. 1988.
Bilingual Education and Language Maintenance
. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.
Hornberger, N.H. 2006. Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento, ed.,
An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method
, 24–41. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hornberger, N.H. 2013. Negotiating methodological rich points in the ethnography of language policy.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language
219: 101–122
Johnson, D.C. 2013.
Language Policy
. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaplan, R.B. and Baldauf, R.B. 1997.
Language Planning: From Practice to Theory
. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
King, K.A. 2001.
Language Revitalization Processes and Prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes
. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Leibowitz, A.H. 1984. The official character of language in the United States: Literacy requirements for immigration, citizenship, and entrance into American life.
Aztlan
15(1): 25–70.
May, S. 2001.
Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism, and the Politics of Language
. Harlow, UK: Longman.
McCarty, T.L., ed. 2011.
Ethnography and Language Policy
. London: Routledge.
Menken, K., and García, O. eds. 2010.
Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers
. New York: Routledge.
Ricento, T. ed. 2006a.
An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method
. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ruiz, R. 1984. Orientations in language planning.
NABE Journal
8(2): 15–34.
Shohamy, E. 2006.
Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches
. London: Routledge.
Spolsky, B. 2004.
Language Policy
. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2005. Is language policy applied linguistics? In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W.G. Eggington, W. Grabe, and V. Ramanathan, eds.,
Directions in Applied Linguistics
, 26–36. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Spolsky, B. 2009.
Language Management
. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tollefson, J.W. 1991.
Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the Community
. London: Longman.
Further Reading
Hult, F.M. 2010b. Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language
202: 7–24.
Johnson, D.C. 2013.
Language Policy
. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaplan, R.B., aand Baldauf, R.B. 1997.
Language Planning from Practice to Theory
. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ricento, T. ed. 2006b.
An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method
. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rubin, J., Jernudd, B.H., DasGupta, J., Fishman, J.A., and Ferguson, C.A., eds. 1977.
Language Planning Processes
. The Hague: Mouton.
Part IFundamental Considerations
2Selecting Appropriate Research Methods in LPP Research: Methodological Rich Points
Nancy H. Hornberger
Introduction
LPP issues arise every day and everywhere. In the media and in day-to-day human encounters, concerns recurringly surface around literacy levels in the workplace; plain language in advertising and government; linguistic diversity and multilingual education in schools; English-only policies at school, city, state, and national levels; English as a global language; and Indigenous and immigrant groups’ rights to use and teach their own languages and to maintain or revitalize them. Innovative (and failed) attempts to solve problems, enable equal access, and/or recognize minority rights through language policy are regularly launched and, more often than not, aborted too soon. Answers to the essential LPP question remain tantalizingly diverse and unpredictable:
Why do individuals opt to use (or cease to use) particular languages and varieties for specified functions in different domains, and how do those choices influence – and how are they influenced by – institutional language policy decision-making (local to national and supranational?
(Ricento 2000, 208)
All of this LPP researchers seek to study and illuminate. And they do so from widely interdisciplinary bases and in all social domains.
How then do LPP researchers select appropriate research methods to study these questions? Drawing from a data collection toolkit that includes survey questionnaire, census and demographic data, linguistic corpora, interviews, policy documents, participant observation and participatory action; and an analytical toolkit embracing statistical, experimental, ethnographic, linguistic, and discourse-analytic approaches and their many variations, there appears to be a dizzying array of choices confronting the would-be LPP researcher. The choices may appear all the more perplexing when we consider that our research methods and approaches are linked to the questions we are asking or the problem we are addressing.
The second half of this book takes up the particularities of specific methodological approaches and conceptual terrains; here, I attempt to raise more general methodological considerations to guide our selection of methods, drawing attention to what I have called methodological rich points, or
those times when researchers learn that their assumptions about the way research works and the conceptual tools they have for doing research are inadequate to understand the worlds they are researching. Methodological rich points make salient the pressures and tensions between the practice of research and the changing scientific and social world in which researchers work.
(Hornberger 2013, 101)
While my experience and examples draw mostly from ethnographic work in educational LPP, I believe the rich points they illustrate point to similar concerns for all LPP research. We begin with a brief look back at the evolution of LPP research and then take up methodological rich points organized under the heuristic for sociolinguistic analysis first offered by Fishman (1971, 219), adapted here as: who researches whom and what in LPP, where, how, and why?1
LPP as an Evolving Theoretical and Methodological Terrain
Ricento (2000) traces the evolution of LPP research since World War II in three phases with their respective sociopolitical, epistemological, strategic (and I will add methodological) concerns: an era of decolonization and state formation in the 1950s–1960s, when LPP research was conducted under a mainly structuralist paradigm and oriented toward problem-solving; widespread failure of modernization in the 1970s–1980s, accompanied by the rise of critical research paradigms, including critical LPP research focusing on inequalities of access to education and socio-economic mobility; and beginning in the 1990s, the emergence of a new world order characterized by massive population migrations, the re-emergence of local ethnic identities, and the globalization of capitalism, along with the flowering of postmodern research paradigms and attention to linguistic human rights in LPP.
There is a methodological parallel to this trajectory, with LPP research methods moving generally over time from large-scale national census, demographic survey, and self-report language use/language attitude questionnaires directed toward informing language policy to solve problems at national or regional levels; to incorporation of economic, legal, and political analyses directed toward reforming structures of unequal access; to more ethnographic on-the-ground methods directed toward illuminating the complexities of enacting language policy in local contexts. However, it is not the case that earlier methods have been discarded along the way; rather, the LPP field has embraced a steadily expanding methodological toolkit.
Joshua Fishman stands as a giant in the early period of cross-national comparative projects, international conferences with published proceedings, and the launch of LPP publications; but his genius also always lay in his profound commitment to linguistic human rights and what he affectionately called the “little languages” of the world, a commitment born of his own heritage as a Yiddish speaker and activist. The still vital International Journal of the Sociology of Language and the Contributions to the Sociology of Language book series (both of which Fishman founded) are emblematic of the field, with their encyclopedic documentation of multilingual national contexts and the fate of language policies therein; and methodologies in the early years favoring large-scale census, survey, and questionnaire studies. Fishman was also one of LPP’s “Big Four” (J. Rubin, personal communication, October 6, 1988), along with Jyotirindra Das Gupta, Joan Rubin, and Björn Jernudd, who undertook the 1969–1972 Ford Foundation-funded International Research Project on Language Planning Processes in Israel, India, Indonesia, and Sweden, respectively (Fishman, Ferguson, and Das Gupta 1968) and went on to provide leadership for the field for several decades, right up to the present. Also launched relatively early was the journal Language Problems and Language Planning, in 1977, whose title makes clear the problem-solving orientation in LPP research at the time – an orientation that is still with us, although the problems and their solutions are understood in arguably more nuanced and complex terms (see Lo Bianco, this volume). By the 1980s and 1990s, with the failure of the modernization development paradigm and the rise of critical research perspectives in the social sciences, there was a general sense that the LPP field was theoretically and methodologically adrift (Cooper 1989; Ricento 2000; Schiffman 1996; Tollefson 1991), but no real alternative emerged until the turn of the millennium.
The year 2000 saw the launch of three new LPP journals edited by well-known LPP researchers: Language Policy, edited first by Bernard Spolsky and then by Kendall King and Elana Shohamy; Current Issues in Language Planning, edited by Robert Kaplan and Richard Baldauf; and the Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, edited by Thomas Ricento and Terry Wiley. These journals infused new intellectual energy into the field with increased theoretical attention to critical, postmodern, complexity, and globalization perspectives and increased methodological contributions from ethnographic and discourse-analytic approaches. Considerations of language ecology, language ideology, and language identity in relation to LPP offered new conceptual arenas in which to bring these theoretical and methodological insights to bear. Reflecting these developments, the present volume embraces a wide spectrum of methodological approaches emergent over the multi-decade trajectory of LPP research, from census/demographic and language attitude survey methods to legal, economic, historical-structural, ideological, and political analyses, to classroom ethnography, corpus linguistics, media analysis, and intertextual analysis. Given a field whose scholarly concerns and methodologies today are so varied, how then does a researcher know or select which methodological approach and which methods to use?
Methodological Rich Points
One way to think about that question is to frame it in terms of the paradigmatic heuristic for sociolinguistic analysis first offered by Fishman (1971, 219), and adapted here as: who researches whom and what in LPP, where, how, and why?
In what follows, I take up some methodological rich points that arise in relation to this heuristic, and which can, I think, serve to guide LPP researchers in our ongoing selection and revisiting of research methods.
Who researches whom in LPP?
At the most basic level, LPP researchers focus attention on language users – individuals and groups, teachers and students, community members and policymakers, among others. LPP is after all, as Cooper once wisely observed, centrally concerned with “deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their language codes” (Cooper 1989, 45). Participants are central to LPP, and methodological rich points around our collaborations with and representations of our research participants are unavoidable.
In essence, the considerations for LPP researchers here revolve around respecting and being with research participants as fellow human beings while also “studying” them. Educational ethnographer Page writes that increasing recognition of limits to “the qualitative claim that researchers [can] document and explain, fully and accurately, another’s life-world as it is” (Page 2000, 5) presents both a political challenge as to whose representations are the ones put forward and an aesthetic challenge as to how knowledge is represented in texts.
The slogan “research on, for, and with subjects,” put forward by Cameron and colleagues (1992), captures some of the tensions around collaborating with and representing aspects of our research participants’ lives and language use. After first discussing issues of power and of positivist, relativist, and realist paradigms of research, the authors introduce what could be considered a continuum from an ethics-based approach (research on subjects), which seeks to balance the needs of a discipline in pursuit of knowledge with the interests of the people on whom the research is conducted but in which subjects have no real role in setting the agenda; to an advocacy-based approach (research on and for subjects), which despite its commitment to participants nevertheless still tends toward a positivist notion that there is one true account; and finally to an empowerment-oriented approach (research on, for, and with subjects), which uses interactive, dialogic methods and seeks to take into account the subjects’ research agenda, involve them in feedback and sharing of knowledge, consider representation and control in the reporting of findings, and take seriously the policymaking implications of the research.
Paying more attention to collaboration and representation in LPP research may take a number of forms – it may be about working with multiple members of a research team including members of the community being researched; it may also be about researcher-researched relationships; and may range from consultative to fully participatory methods and relationships. It may be about collecting and analyzing data; it may also be about writing up and reporting findings. It is without doubt about reflecting critically on all of these, on the ethics of our relationships with those we research (see Canagarajah, this volume) and on our own positionality as researcher (see Lin, this volume).
What do LPP researchers study?
LPP researchers are concerned with the creation, interpretation, and appropriation of policy on language status, corpus, or acquisition in particular contexts – we seek to understand, illuminate, and influence policy-shaped/policy-shaping texts, discourses, and practices. We concern ourselves not only with overt and explicit policy, but also with policies that are covert or implicit—i.e. hidden agendas (Schiffman 1996; Shohamy 2006); not only with state- or institutional-level policies, but also local classroom, family, or community policies (King and Mackey 2007; McCarty 2011; Ricento and Hornberger 1996); not only with top-down dictums but also bottom-up processes and interactions (Canagarajah 2005; Hornberger 1996); not only with languages per se but with communicative practices, repertoires, and even “bits of language” (Blommaert 2010). Perhaps we have become especially interested over time in uncovering the indistinct voices, covert motivations, embedded ideologies, invisible instances, or unintended consequences of language policy emergent in context (Hornberger and Johnson 2011); and methodological rich points are likely to arise precisely around the adequacy of our contextualization of policy and our authority to interpret the hidden voices, ideologies, and consequences of policy (Hornberger 2013).
Contextualization is about taking seriously the common-sense notion that “context matters.” LPP researchers often take up the “what” of language policy as it plays out in education – focusing on policy and planning around language teaching and learning, or language in learning and teaching. We may investigate, for example, policies on language learning and instructional practices in classrooms at elementary, secondary, or tertiary levels; on language acquisition and use in classroom interaction; or on methods of assessing what a language learner knows and can do. In every instance and whatever the context, context is crucial to analyzing, interpreting, and generalizing findings.
