Language Research in Multilingual Settings: Doing Research Knowledge Dissemination at the Sites of Practice (Communicating in Professions and Organizations) 3030346706, 9783030346706

Citation preview

COMMUNICATING IN PROFESSIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS

Language Research in Multilingual Settings

Doing Research Knowledge Dissemination at the Sites of Practice

Edited by Lubie Grujicic-Alatriste

Communicating in Professions and Organizations

Series Editor Jonathan Crichton University of South Australia Adelaide, SA, Australia

This ground-breaking series is edited by Jonathan Crichton, Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the University of South Australia. It provides a venue for research on issues of language and communication that matter to professionals, their clients and stakeholders. Books in the series explore the relevance and real world impact of communication research in professional practice and forge reciprocal links between researchers in applied linguistics/discourse analysis and practitioners from numerous professions, including healthcare, education, business and trade, law, media, science and technology. Central to this agenda, the series responds to contemporary challenges to professional practice that are bringing issues of language and communication to the fore. These include:

• The growing importance of communication as a form of professional expertise that needs to be made visible and developed as a resource for the professionals • Political, economic, technological and social changes that are transforming communicative practices in professions and organisations • Increasing mobility and diversity (geographical, technological, cultural, linguistic) of organisations, professionals and clients Books in the series combine up to date overviews of issues of language and communication relevant to the particular professional domain with original research that addresses these issues at relevant sites. The authors also explore the practical implications of this research for the professions/organisations in question. We are actively commissioning projects for this series and welcome proposals from authors whose experience combines linguistic and professional expertise, from those who have long-standing knowledge of the professional and organisational settings in which their books are located and joint editing/ authorship by language researchers and professional practitioners. The series is designed for both academic and professional readers, for scholars and students in Applied Linguistics, Communication Studies and related fields, and for members of the professions and organisations whose practice is the focus of the series.

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14904

Lubie Grujicic-Alatriste Editor

Language Research in Multilingual Settings Doing Research Knowledge Dissemination at the Sites of Practice

Editor Lubie Grujicic-Alatriste NYC College of Technology City University of New York New York, NY, USA

Communicating in Professions and Organizations ISBN 978-3-030-34670-6    ISBN 978-3-030-34671-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Aeriform / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Nathalie Bailey, my dearest Natalicus! Avicus! There would have been no scholarship path for me without you! To my high school Professor Agnesa Eremija who helped grow my love for languages: Thank you for all the wonderful poems you assigned to me in French!

Acknowledgments

This collection is a result of collaborative efforts among many researchers and stakeholders at multiple sites of real-life language use and practice. It represents engaged researchers and practitioners across Europe, Australia, and the United States. I am grateful to many scholars whose work has inspired me over the years, particularly Charles Antakis’ 2011 volume. Many people deserve heartfelt thanks from colleagues and students to professionals in the field. First acknowledged is the core group of researchers, Gabrielle Kahn, Liang Xia, Wei Wang, Clelia König, and Leslie Cochrane, who have sustained their commitment since the inception of this long-term project in 2010. To our core group, we have welcomed new researchers who have joined us for this second volume, and who, we hope, will continue on to the third volume being planned for not-so-­ distant future. I wish to thank the publishing team at Palgrave Macmillan, UK, particularly the series editor Jonathan Crichton for his instant support and recognition of our work, the commissioning editor Cathy Scott for her openness to review our work, and the assistant editor, Alice Green, whose punctuality and skill to get us to the finish line is impressive. I here recognize the support of my immediate family, my husband William, and my children Angelica Scarlett Stella and Joshua Keats Milan—who have grown to be teenagers over the time period I have been involved with this book project. Their “Mommy is always writing” phrase vii

viii Acknowledgments

came to epitomize my life. Our Siamese cat, Kiki, has been the greatest joy since she joined our family last year. Together with her purring, my days of writing were uplifted by the amazing music of Michael Nyman— particularly “Memorial for Ensemble!” Finally, this project would not be possible without the many families and friends of the researchers on this team. I am sure their support network was there for them and I wish to thank them all on their behalf! New York City September 2019

Lubie Grujicic-Alatriste

Contents

1 Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach and Dissemination to Reflexive Evaluation  1 Lubie Grujicic-Alatriste 2 Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic Focus Group 23 Yannik Porsché, Dörte Negnal, and Christiane Howe 3 How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch Language in Multilingual Belgium: A Research and Application Design 47 Catherine Bouko and Olivier Standaert 4 Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse of Manipulation 71 Liang Xia and Wei Wang 5 Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social Work Communication 95 Maureen T. Matarese

ix

x Contents

6 Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious Interactions125 Domenica Luvera DelPrete and Catherine DiFelice Box 7 Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom157 Leslie E. Cochrane 8 Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field183 Gabrielle Kahn 9 Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home Employment Settings217 Clelia König 10 Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle School Bilingual Youth249 Ruth Harman, Kate Batson, and David Forker 11 Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing Research Insights with Teachers as Stakeholders275 Lubie Grujicic-Alatriste Index305

Notes on Contributors

Kate Batson  is a doctoral student in the Department of Language and Literacy Education, with an emphasis in TESOL and World Language Education, at The University of Georgia (UGA). She holds a BA in Interdisciplinary Studies (Latin American Studies) from The University of Alabama (UA), an MA in Spanish Linguistics from UA, and an MA in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) from The University of Mississippi (UM). Her research interests include TESOL, applied linguistics, academic discourse socialization, second-­language writing at the graduate level, and the internationalization of higher education. Catherine Bouko  is Assistant Professor of Communication and French in the Department of Translation, Interpreting, and Communication at Ghent University (Research Centre for Multilingual Practices and Language Learning in Society and Center for Journalism Studies). Her general research interests lie in citizenship, media, and separatism in Europe, in media and social media. She takes a keen interest in the use of the second national language by Belgian journalists (French and Dutch speaking) and its role in the transmission and sharing of the other community’s culture on either side of the linguistic border in Belgium. Her methods of research include discourse analysis, content analysis, semiotics, and ethnography. xi

xii 

Notes on Contributors

Catherine  DiFelice  Box  is Lecturer in Educational Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. She studies the discourse of everyday communication, particularly in educational and familial settings. With Dr. Domenica Luvera DelPrete, she has conducted workshops on interpersonal and intercultural communication; she also leads workshops with public school teachers working with multilingual students and their families. She has taught courses in TESOL Methods, Academic Speaking and Writing Courses, and Discourse Analysis. She holds a Doctorate of Education from Teachers College, Columbia University, and also holds a Master of Arts degree in English from West Chester University. She is the co-editor of Talk in Institutions: A LANSI Volume (with Dr. Christine Jacknick and Dr. Hansun Zhang Waring), and her work has appeared in journals such as Learning and Individual Differences, The Journal of Language and Professional Practice, and the NYS TESOL Journal. Leslie  E.  Cochrane  Senior Lecturer in English and Linguistics at the College of William & Mary in Virginia, teaches courses in discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and field methods. She is a fellow of the Center for the Liberal Arts, which supports innovative liberal arts education in the university-wide undergraduate curriculum. She has twice been selected for the University Teaching Project, a program for teaching excellence. She holds the PhD in Linguistics with a concentration in Sociolinguistics from Georgetown University, where her dissertation examined identity construction in oral narratives told by and about people with lifelong physical disabilities. She holds the MSt in General Linguistics with a concentration in Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics from the University of Oxford where her thesis analyzed be + like as a pragmatic marker using corpus data. Her research focuses on identity and disability discourse. Domenica Luvera DelPrete  an adjunct assistant professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, is a discourse analyst who studies communication patterns in ordinary and institutional talk. She has given many workshops on effective interpersonal and intercultural communication, and has an interdisciplinary instructional background. She supervises pre-service teachers seeking initial K-12 TESOL certification at Teachers College, and teaches graduate-level courses in teacher training and academic writing. Her expertise also extends to teaching communi-

  Notes on Contributors 

xiii

cation courses, specifically communication in organizational settings and the psychology of communication. She received a Master and Doctorate of Education from Teachers College, Columbia University, and holds a Master of Arts degree in Italian Literature from Boston College. She is also on the faculty at William Paterson University as an instructor of Italian language and culture. David  Forker  is a PhD candidate in TESOL and World Language Education at the University of Georgia. His teaching and research interests include working with emergent bilingual leaners, discourse analysis, multimodality, content-based language instruction, and qualitative methodologies. He has taught courses regarding Cultural Issues in TESOL, TESOL Methods and Materials, Applied Linguistics, and Foxfire Course for Teachers. He has used his research interests and experiences to create socio-cultural awareness in linguistically and culturally diverse learning environments. Lubie Grujicic-Alatriste  is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the Department of English, City University of New York, College of Technology. Her main research interests include translation of discourse research into practice, (critical) discourse analysis, genre-based instruction, genre transfer, and teaching and learning of writing in tertiary institutions. She teaches linguistics and language courses, including college composition and second-language writing. Her select publication titles include Linking Discourse Studies to Professional Practice (2015); The Centrality of Communicative Purpose in Student Written Discourse; Framework for Application of Research Findings; and A Response to Towards a Theory of Adaptive Transfer. She is chair of New  York State TESOL higher education special interest group and founding co-editor and Editor-in-Chief of NYS TESOL Journal. She has served as reviewer for multiple international grants, including Fulbright, for AAAL strand on discourse and text, has presented at numerous international conferences, and has been a leader in transforming second-language teaching of writing across her university and beyond. She directs the Second Language Writing Lab and ESOL program at her home institution and serves as chair of the University Committee on Academic Affairs.

xiv 

Notes on Contributors

Ruth Harman  is an associate professor in the Department of Language and Literacy Education and an adjunct faculty in the Linguistics Department at the University of Georgia. She is President of the North American Systemic Functional Linguistics Association. Her research has focused on innovative socially, culturally, and semiotic pedagogical and research practices that promote academic literacy development, civic engagement, and critical semiotic awareness. She has written extensively in peer-reviewed journals, scholarly books, and encyclopedia such as Journal of Second Language Writing, Linguistics and Education, Language and Education, Teaching and Teachers Education and Youth International Journal of Multicultural Education, Equity and Excellence in Education and Youth Theater Journal. Dr. Harman has earned commendations for her university teaching including the Keith Osborn Award and the Public Service Engaged Scholar Award. Christiane Howe  sociologist, works in a research project about migration and security in cities at the University of Applied Sciences for Public Administration and Management of North Rhine-Westphalia in Münster (www.migsst.de), which is financed by the federal ministry of education and research. Her main research interests include ethnography, sociology of space, interaction theory, and reflexive grounded theory. She is interested in, and taught courses on, urban sociology, development of communities, gender, and migration. Her publications include a collaborative book entitled Polizeilicher Kommunitarismus. Eine Praxisforschung urbaner Kriminalprävention (Campus, 2017) and a co-­edited book Polizei und Gesellschaft. Transdisziplinäre Perspektiven zu Methoden, Theorie und Empirie reflexiver Polizeiforschung (2019). Gabrielle  Kahn Associate Professor of English at Kingsborough Community College, CUNY, obtained her EdD in Applied Linguistics from Teachers College, Columbia University. She teaches Introduction to Literature and English as a Second Language courses in the Learning Community Program, linking her English coursework to an interdisciplinary, content-based curriculum. As the co-editor of the journal Learning Communities Research and Practice with Janine Graziano, her research aims to bridge a sociocultural theoretical perspective with practical work in the field. Prior to her current position, she taught classes and

  Notes on Contributors 

xv

workshops in TESOL methodology as an adjunct instructor in TESOL Program Teachers College, Columbia University, while completing her doctoral work. Clelia  König has obtained her PhD in applied linguistics at the University of Neuchâtel (Switzerland). She works as a postdoctoral researcher in Germany at the University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, at the Institute for German Languages. Her main research interests are the study of L2 acquisition in institutional and non-institutional settings, the application of conversation analysis for the investigation of L2 learning processes, and the impact of CA-related research for the world of praxis. She is also working on her habilitation treatise on German-learning processes in Kindergarten. She has taught seminars for undergraduates: Conversation Analysis, Second Language Acquisition, Semantics and Pragmatics, and Introduction to German Linguistics (for future teachers). Her selected publications are a chapter in Linking Discourse Studies to Professional Practice (2015), and the forthcoming monograph, A Conversation Analysis Approach to French L2 Learning: Introducing and Closing Topics in Everyday Interactions. Maureen  T.  Matarese  Associate Professor of Academic Literacy and Linguistics at Borough of Manhattan Community College, City University of New York, has a doctorate from Teachers College, Columbia University in Language, Literacy & Technology: International Educational Development. She also holds Masters degrees in Applied Linguistics and English from Teachers College and North Carolina State University, respectively. Her primary research examines the social construction of policy in the everyday work of street-level practitioners in social work, educational, and forensic institutional settings. She is an editor and co-­ contributor to the 2014 book Social work communication: Discourse in practice published with Routledge, and her articles have appeared in the British Journal of Social Work, Text and Talk, Journal of Child and Family Social Work, Discourse Processes, and the Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice. Dörte  Negnal is Professor of Criminology at the Department of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Siegen. She teaches courses in sociology, ethnography, and social work. Her main research

xvi 

Notes on Contributors

interests include interaction theory, ethnography, stateness, and deviance with focus on construction processes of problem and risk in institutional settings. Latest publications: Die Konstruktion einer Problemgruppe. Eine Ethnographie über russischsprachige Inhaftierte im Jugendstrafvollzug” (2016); a collaborative book entitled Polizeilicher Kommunitarismus. Eine Praxisforschung urbaner Kriminalprävention (2017). She edited a book about problem groups and stateness (2019). Yannik  Porsché  PhD in Sociology, is a researcher and lecturer at the Bundeswehr University Munich, Germany. His research combines methods of interaction analysis, discourse analysis, and ethnography in the multimodal analysis of social interactions in institutional contexts. Porsché’s research focuses on categorization practices in prevention and deradicalization programs in the field of religious and political extremism. Previously, he worked as a postdoc at the Goethe University Frankfurt/Main and the Humboldt University of Berlin on social, cultural, and organizational forms of knowledge generation and circulation in criminal prevention work of the police. His PhD at the University of Mainz and the Université de Bourgogne in Dijon dealt with museum exhibitions about public representations of immigrants in France and Germany. His publications include a monograph entitled Public Representations of Immigrants in Museums  – Exhibition and Exposure in France and Germany (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) and a collaborative book entitled Polizeilicher Kommunitarismus. Eine Praxisforschung urbaner Kriminalprävention (2017). Olivier  Standaert  is an assistant professor at the Louvain School of Journalism, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. His research and teaching focus on methodological issues in journalism, journalism ­cultures, professional identities, and labor markets of media workers. As a former journalist, he previously worked for various Belgian newspapers and magazines. Wei  Wang  is a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney, Australia. Prior to his current position, he has worked as a postdoctoral research fellow and a lecturer in the TESOL program at the University of Sydney and Lecturer in Translation Studies at the Macquarie University. He has

  Notes on Contributors 

xvii

lectured at conferences and seminars at various universities in China as well as in the UK, the USA, Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands. Wang’s research concentrates on sociolinguistics and (critical) discourse analysis, especially on interdisciplinary studies of contemporary Chinese discourse. His projects include ethnic identity construction of the Kam people in southwest China and the media representation of migrant workers in China’s public media. Most recent publications are Media representation of migrant workers in China: Identities and stances (2017) and Contemporary Chinese Discourse and Social Practice in China in Benjamins series Studies in Chinese Language and Discourse (co-edited with Linda Tsung, 2015). He is on the editorial board of a number of journals and book series, including Journal of Chinese Language and Discourse, The University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, Discourse Studies Forum, Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, and a book series Nankai Discourse Studies. Liang  Xia holds a PhD in Chinese studies from the University of Sydney. His interdisciplinary dissertation deals with topics of Translation Studies, discourse analysis and media studies, as well as field research in a Chinese news agency—research that led to the publication of his monograph A discourse analysis of news translation in China (Routledge, 2019). Liang has taught translation theory and practice at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels at the University of Sydney since 2012. His principal research interests center on translation studies, Chinese language education, journalism studies, and multimodality. His project includes multimodal data analytics and the evaluation and interpretation of the results, with a focus on ­developing a toolkit for data analysis using statistical and machine learning algorithms.

List of Figures

Fig. 7.1 Words used in the definition of disability Fig. 7.2 Words used for new information learned

166 170

xix

List of Tables

Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 9.1 Table 10.1 Table 10.2

Multi-category model of disability Most interesting areas to include on a website Most helpful areas to include on a website A letter as an outreach instrument Research process Student texts and analyses

164 174 175 230 258 262

xxi

1 Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach and Dissemination to Reflexive Evaluation Lubie Grujicic-Alatriste

This chapter introduces the concept of translating data-driven research to sites of practice in a more transparent way. Since the publication of the first volume that proposed a more systematic framework for translating applied linguistics (AL) research to practice (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), a few other publications followed suit (e.g., Lawson & Sayers, 2016; McIntyre & Price, 2018), engaging the question of relevance and impact in the various fields of AL and interdisciplinary studies. The drive for measuring research impact has been central to the United Kingdom-­based AL projects (e.g., Brown, Sawyer, & Norris, 2016; Lawson & Sayers, 2016), possibly in response to broader societal forces pushing for ways to measure research impact in social sciences (the so-called impact movement). This volume differs from the ones that aim to measure impact in a pre-­ determined way because it focuses on the concrete steps undertaken by L. Grujicic-Alatriste (*) NYC College of Technology, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_1

1

2 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

language researchers themselves to disseminate their own findings at suitable sites of professional practice. Thus, it begins with the onset of outreach, not with the end result of impact. It discusses questions that arise from such onset efforts and provides meaningful, firsthand accounts of both the interaction with practitioners and the practitioners’ feedback. The authors in this volume use narrative accounts, case studies, and semi-­ ethnographies of focus groups and workshops to draw a fuller picture of dissemination, its intricacies, multiple stakeholders’ interests, reflexivity challenges, and future relevance. They do this within the scope of responsibility for all parties involved. Thus, praxis and practicality, including their challenges, are central to our volume as a whole, and to each individual chapter. The topic of translating research into practice is here seen as a multistep activity consisting of outreach, dissemination, engagement with practitioners, and feedback loop leading to future collaboration. These elements, in turn, can initiate change in real-world professional or public settings where language plays a key role. The initiatives to translate research findings into practice are not new in the areas of medical sciences, nursing, and counselling, and these disciplines have been leaders in moving their fields towards practice-oriented moors. Within discourse studies, in general, and conversations analysis (CA), in particular, Candlin and Candlin (2003) initially engaged with health care communication in their comprehensive overview of the role of discourse studies in intercultural professional interaction (see also Sarangi & van Leeuwen, 2003). Later, Antaki’s ground-breaking book Applied Conversation Analysis (2011) brought spotlight to intervention and change in institutional settings by successfully showcasing the key areas of ‘real-life’ language application where stakeholders can benefit from academic research (including medical sites such as a doctor’s office). Candlin and Sarangi (2004a) have been calling for reflexivity and relevance in applied linguistics for over two decades, contributing wholesomely to a substantial body of published research on the topic (e.g., 2010). Sarangi has expanded this work (e.g., 2014) by continuing to contribute to the Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice (ALAPP) and the annual conference with the same name.

1  Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach… 

3

In educational linguistics, recent attempts are noted with intent to bring more evidence-based practice to teacher education (e.g., Ding & Bruce, 2017). However, although application has been addressed, there seems to be no single volume that accounts for dissemination efforts from the initiation stage to collaborative praxis in multiple settings, as given by our volume’s authors—in real time at the sites of practice. In other publications, such sites tend to be assumed, or inferred, not openly presented, and thus, perhaps impeding the potential development of a broader understanding of dissemination and its value to the field of applied linguistics as a whole. In this vein, the current volume is an attempt to fill the gap between the end of research domains and the onset of dissemination of research findings. Researchers are here seen as ‘language research knowledge producers’ (Curry & Lillis, 2017), who try to offer a fairer, more equitable way of knowledge access, sharing, application, and its use. In line with the issue of fairness, we acknowledge recent movements that have raised awareness about knowledge sharing and responsibility of all parties involved (e.g., Ostman & Solin, 2015), and we include those issues across chapters when we assess our realistic outcomes and challenges. The sites of responsible exchange are here seen as bidirectional: researchers bring their findings to the stakeholders, and stakeholders, in turn, bring their knowledge, experience, and needs to these places of intersection. Both parties ‘negotiate’ the research findings, the ‘value’ they may have, or the issues they may raise for other stakeholders. In this bringing together, some modification of data sets and some adjustments to suit the target audience’s needs have been necessary, although they too need scrutiny and evaluation (Koulikov, 2011). We have also felt the need to adjust the data and approximate the knowledge-sharing targets to the needs of specific professional communities. Our volume endorses the stance that researchers and their actions need to be equitable and ethical (Cromdal & Tholander, 2014). In other words, knowledge and expertise, be it theoretical or practical, needs to be shared both ways. The data sharing also needs to be presented in ways that are respectful to the participants and practitioners alike. At the same time, the chapters account for challenges that remain. In fact, challenges and limitations are discussed throughout the book, both practically and

4 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

theoretically. Specifically, the chapters in this volume address the following: (a) active and equitable engagement of knowledge dissemination with many language users who have a stake in positive communicative outcomes; (b) reflexive professional interaction; (c) thoughtful examination of data-sharing opportunities and inequities; (d) facing the tough questions of one’s own research usefulness, practicality, and real-world reach; and (e) dealing with newly found truths about relevance of one’s work as perceived by different stakeholders. Many of these elements have their roots in Candlin and Sarangi’s insightful Editorial on motivational relevance in research and practice (2010) that we considered as our initial starting point in the previous volume (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), but are here expanded to include a more up-to-date theoretical and practical discussion. Although a completely new set of research studies is reported here, half of them are a continuation from the initial project reported in 2015 (Grujicic-Alatriste). In order to assist with full understanding of the interdisciplinarity and multilinguality of the new volume, with research being conducted in diverse professional multilingual settings on a chapter level (e.g., China, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, and Switzerland), and on the collection level representing six different languages, each chapter will refer to the same Framework for Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), and will use English as the main reporting language. However, other languages, such as Chinese, Spanish, French, Dutch, and German will be evidenced in the data sets. Therefore, although multilingual settings are represented in this volume, we do not engage the issues related to multilingual research, or translation from one language to English, but we do acknowledge here that a variety of concerns can be raised in relation to multilingualism versus English as a dominant language of the narrative in this volume. That in itself is a question of equity and access to knowledge and should be discussed more openly within the field of AL. The original, cutting-edge, multisetting discourse studies included in this volume have been conducted across different continents, thus ­providing a global orientation to the translation of research into practice—its promises, challenges, and impact. The research settings represent wide-ranging professional and personal/private contexts, including

1  Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach… 

5

the following: the streets of homelessness, home employment, disability in public spaces, second-language college classrooms, language policy departments, spaces of political engagement for citizenry, police training sessions, translation news bureaus, and private discourse settings of home and family. In order to clarify our goals, the scholarship in the area of application and translation to practice will be foregrounded in the next section, and the most pertinent recent work will be reviewed.

 eview of Recent Literature on Knowledge R Translation and Impact While a plethora of books appeared in the past 20 years either addressing language in the real-world settings or recommending applications of language research (for a detailed review, see Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015, Chapter One), only a handful of very recent books attempts to systematically engage dissemination and application of linguistic research beyond the world of academia. Few provide a framework for equitable knowledge sharing via focus groups, workshops, and info-sessions in professional settings, as this volume does. Here, we discuss five recently published titles that speak more directly to research relevance efforts and are considered complementary to our volume because they provide different aspects of the dissemination and impact issues. To begin with, in Applying Linguistics: Language and Impact Agenda, McIntyre and Price (2018) explore the challenges of demonstrating the sociocultural and economic impact of research in linguistics. The chapters provide a critical discussion of the concept of impact, as well as an examination of both the constraints and opportunities of the impact agenda (the measurable outcomes of research). However, our volume examines the ‘relevance’ of one’s own research findings, based on how the researchers and stakeholders themselves gauge it, not an outside m ­ easuring body. We also discuss the perceived relevance across multiple countries and multilingual contexts, as opposed to a single country/monolanguage context represented in McIntyre and Price. In this way, our volume is

6 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

challenging the mono nature of knowledge production and ownership. Finally, our notion of relevance is understood as the value and usefulness of one’s work for the populations that either participated in research or have some stakes in the findings (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004b). Therefore, it is the immediate closest stakeholders whose views we feature, making this distinction the key asset. The outreach is ultimately local as it is the local efforts and immediacy of collaboration that we view as key in the uptake of findings. Second, Lawson and Sayers’ Sociolinguistic Research: Application and Impact (2016) offers an overview of international impact projects, showcases possible outcomes, and offers insights and constructive critiques into the meaning of ‘impact’ in settings which appear to be of similar organization and type as the research settings in the earlier volume by Grujicic-Alatriste (2015). Lawson and Sayers frame the discussion within sociolinguists, whereas we have focused on interdisciplinary studies and fields across applied linguistics (with sociolinguistics as one such discipline included among others). Lawson and Sayers consider possible instances of research impact (most notably the UK REF project), and ways to achieve it, again more theoretically. In contrast, in the current volume, we actually engage diverse places of practice where dissemination and usefulness of one’s work are gauged by the feedback provided by the actual stakeholders, in real time, and bottom up. In this way, our volume expands and diversifies the notion of impact beyond the UK REF framework to show the need for sharing and applying across disciplines, languages, and continents, and viewing it from local research and stakeholders’ levels up, not imposed from the top down. The next title, Forms of Practitioner Reflexivity (Brown et  al., 2016), addresses different methods that professionals use to promote a critical reflexive stance among practitioners, leading to both reconceptualization of practice and its subsequent change. The authors seem to aim at increasing [professionals’] levels of cognitive differentiation and depths of professional consciousness about themselves. In that, the volume is more theoretical and engages a very specific aspect of AL work: cognitive ­awareness and attempts to consider one’s own practice more abstractly. So, they are singularly oriented towards practice alone. In contrast, we present a hands-on engagement of two groups of participants, professionals

1  Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach… 

7

and researchers, negotiating knowledge dissemination and its applicability while journeying from places of academia to the very diverse places of practice. Reflexivity plays an important part in this relationship of knowledge production and sharing done by scholars/researchers and practitioners, but it focuses on the bidirectional reflection related to a specific data-sharing event. In this way, the reflection is more concrete and targeted and less theoretical. Lastly, the recent volume titled Global Academic Publishing: Policies, Perspectives and Pedagogies (Curry & Lillis, 2017), although under the series title that might signal a practice-oriented volume, actually appears to be more of a theoretical engagement of the issue of ‘justice’ in language research. It does so by tackling notions of fairness and knowledge ownership in the era of English language dominance in publishing. This is an interesting and needed take on the state of international publishing, particularly in view of English-speaking world’s dominance in both areas of knowledge production and dissemination. However, our volume engages knowledge production markedly differently by describing actual relationships between researchers/scholars as knowledge producers and their real-­ life counterparts: the practitioners and stakeholders on the ground at the actual places of practice where the authors have made strides with outreach. Since we, as authors, represent those scholars engaged in knowledge creation and dissemination in many countries, the questions of justice and fairness in research translation into practice are both inherent and immediate to this volume. We provide accounts of our personal engagement with a fairer negotiation of knowledge dissemination and its real, or perceived, usefulness. Each chapter discusses this aspect systematically, in different ways, based on its data sets and settings. To these four volumes, we add one more on ethnographic research as a growing method in discourse and applied linguistics studies. Linguistic Ethnography of a Multilingual Call Centres (Woydack, 2019) presents an innovative institutional ethnography that examines the textual trajectory of ‘the life of a calling script’ from production to the end. Woydack brings back ethnography as the key methodology, focusing on a single setting, while we focus on multiple settings. Both volumes share the notion of the continuum, but for Woydack, it is from the beginning to the end of events in one location (the life of a calling centre), and in our case it is the

8 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

life of a researcher’s dissemination efforts from its onset to the final feedback session—thus, covering multiple events. In addition to ethnographic accounts, also represented in our volume are case studies, narrative accounts, and other types of data collection and reporting. In summary, this overview of the currently available publications is meant to provide an up-to-date reference, not an exhaustive critical review. It should highlight the uniqueness of our chapters. In the section that follows, some of the issues raised by recent scholarship on translation to practice will be discussed, with specific references to their significance for the broad field of AL and some interdisciplinary fields.

Brief Overview of Most Pertinent Work in AL Candlin and Sarangi’s launching of the Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice (ALAPP) in 2003 has created new and important directions in the ever-growing field of AL. As the field has increased exponentially since its inception in the early 1970s, the many new domains have developed sometimes as extensions of each other, but also as efforts to break away and start a new path in the field. These movements have brought into question the relevance of using the term AL, used in this volume (see Widdowson, 2004), or the terms that are part of AL, such as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and methods-related terms such as discourse analysis (e.g., Cook, 2011) and conversation analysis (e.g., Stiver & Sidnell, 2013). Although in this volume we do not theorize on terminology, we feel we need to at least acknowledge it here due to the existing contentions in the field (for a full discussion, see Grujicic-­Alatriste, 2015). This chapter engages the disciplinary boundary issues and concerns only as far as they relate to the translation of AL research into practice. It also views AL in loose relationships with other disciplines that are at the sites of practice reported in this volume. As language is ever present at most human activities and professional sites, we find our researchers situated at legal and law enforcement sites, counselling, g­ overnment settings, educational and social settings, as well as home settings. Thus, the literature in translating research to practice studies will be reviewed in some of these settings, specifically health care and medical settings.

1  Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach… 

9

 eview of Translation of Research into Practice: R Broader Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives The term ‘knowledge translation’ may have been more recently coined, but the notion of moving research findings into practice is not new. At the beginning of the twentieth century, French sociologist Gabriel Tarde (1902) made attempts to explain why some innovations got adopted and others did not spread throughout the society. The contemporary idea of knowledge translation seems to have evolved out of several different disciplinary perspectives, including knowledge utilization, diffusion of innovation, evidence-based practice, and quality improvement. In our volume, knowledge utilization and evidence-based improvement are of most relevance. The interest in knowledge translation has increased dramatically in recent years possibly because traditional knowledge translations, predominantly based on furthering education via professional development and the concept of ‘life-long’ learning (e.g., Billet et al., 2016; Kennedy et al., 2015), have not met with optimal results in many practical fields of health care and social work, as well as education. Medical translation studies have managed, over the years, to outline the key elements of translation and methods in order to overcome challenges. They have also examined translation in terms of procedures, methodologies needed to do it successfully in a sustained way, evaluations of efficiency of translating methods, and the analysis of challenges and failures. Researchers working in translation have identified a number of needed elements to be considered, developed, aligned, and executed in order for successful translation of knowledge to occur: the unit of knowledge to be translated into practice (dependent of stakeholder targets), the goals to be achieved, change agents, and methods of change. First, in order for translation to occur in health care research, one must determine the unit of knowledge to be transferred, as well as the level of importance that unit of knowledge may have to different audiences and stakeholders (Grimshaw et al., 2012). Evidence practice and policy gap reduction are also among the goals of translational research. Within the large numbers of planned knowledge translation initiatives for healthcare

10 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

professionals and consumers, quite a few publications voice concerns despite some elements of success (e.g., Rapport et al., 2017). In this article, authors address the contested and complex nature of what they call ‘implementation science’ or the study of methods of translating research findings into practical, useful outcomes. They argue that if change is the goal of translating research to practice, then change agents are key to successful implementation. Next, there also needs to be a methodical study of how researchers create implementation plans for output and, even more importantly, how they can maintain sustainable interventions. The following key elements are listed as needed for the onset of translation: the findings need to be readily disseminated, people (stakeholders) need to be specifically identified, and outcomes need to be systematically evaluated. Grimshaw et al. (2012) and Rapport et al. (2017) are among the many researchers grappling with formulating a more systematic framework for the translation of research to practice, as many attempts, however well intended, have not produced the expected results. They hold the view that the crucial part of this complex endeavour is the need to first clearly identify the key aspects of translation before it is set into motion. In other words, the planning and preparation stages must be completed prior to any onset of transfer. We second this view because our own initial planning projects (reported in Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015) met with many unforeseen or unexpected challenges from the very initial steps of embarking on outreach efforts. Faced with difficult hurdles before even leaving the academia for places of practice, we realized that a systemic, complex approach was needed, and thus the Framework for Application was created in order to assist with agents stakeholders identification, data selection for targeting specific audiences, and strategies for feedback. In other words, we conducted serious examination of the needs and possibilities for outreach before we began the translation efforts. Grimshaw and Rapport’s work has helped us confirm the direction of the course we have delineated together as researchers and authors throughout this long-term project. The elements that have been identified as key to translation stem from medical research (and health care more broadly), but it is safe to say that linguistic research in general shares some of the same concerns about evidence-based translation of knowledge in order to better understand

1  Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach… 

11

and improve practice. That betterment is understood here to mean the following: improvement of human communication in private and public spaces, problem-solving at the sites of communicative practices, and easing communicative misunderstandings or conflicts (e.g., in mediation work, social studies, or counselling). In some more recent discussions of the value of translating research to practice in the language sciences, two important goals have been identified using language education as a backdrop (Weiss, Bulgarelli, Navarro-Torres, & Morales, 2017): (a) ameliorating the deficits arising from atypical development and (b) promoting positive outcomes for typically developing learners of all ages. Although strictly related to language development (e.g., neurolinguistics, or other neuroscience areas), this work underscores the importance of research findings making their way into practice (see, e.g., early work by Slavin, 2004, in which the benefits of disseminating the findings are showcased). More general branches of linguistics are a bit farther behind with translational efforts. The most prominent and systematic work has been done in medical and forensic linguistics, particularly with contributions at health care communication research sites (e.g., Bhatia, 2010; Candlin & Sarangi, 2011). One reason for the field of applied linguistics being slower in reaching over to the practical world (across its many disciplinary domains) is the continuous preference for ‘pure’ knowledge, or the so-called blue skies research purposes. Pure research, or blue skies, is of course important (see Antaki in Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), but so should be application. Scholars and researchers should not have to choose one at the expense of the other. Although some recent publications have attempted to show how published research can be effectively used for practical purposes, it has been largely limited to educational settings (e.g., Gibbs, 2015; Hopwood, 2016; Perry, 2017). Given the many developments across varied disciplinary fields, this stance of ‘blue skies over applied knowledge’ in ­linguistics may need to include continuous practical applied visions, sooner rather than later, in order for the AL to remain relevant and contributory to the contemporary issues in our society. This point was made clear in Grujicic-Alatriste (2015) and remains central to the present volume, although it invites both criticism and praise. Blue skies in a science that can contribute so much to the betterment of the world outside of

12 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

academic moors should not be limited to academia. The authors in this volume engage both blue skies and the world of reality of language use. In fact, however much challenging we find the outside world, we feel it is the place where we should be doing our language research  outreach, application, and use.

Revisiting the Framework for Application The elements identified in medical sciences as being needed for successful translation to occur (as reported in the previous section), namely, clear identification of the unit of translation, recognition of specific stakeholders for whom the translation units are relevant, clearly planned steps and identification of goals, are aligned with what we have developed in our Framework for Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015). The Framework identifies two phases of application (here meaning ‘translation’) efforts: phase one is detailed planning and preparation of research findings for appropriate dissemination and identification of relevant places for outreach. Phase two focuses on engaging the stakeholders in the places where outreach was accepted, utilizing the most appropriate research data dissemination tools, and then, evaluating the results of the initial outreach efforts. In other words, the Framework reflects the aims set by Candlin and Sarangi’s frame for achieving relevance of the analyst’s work in the settings of practice (2004a) and is presented here in general terms: • Identification of a real-word setting where the findings may have relevance; • Consideration of the types and available modes of dissemination of results; • Strategies for approaching the practitioners and/or participants in those places of relevance (i.e., settings); • Mediums for sharing findings with participants and practitioners, with an eye on eliciting practitioners’ feedback; • Development and type of tools for feedback elicitation; and • Collaboration in planning future negotiated research or application based on elicited feedback and dissemination of findings.

1  Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach… 

13

We have adopted the idea of chronology from this model and have worked towards its expansion and implementation by systematically using the Framework for Application steps and phases (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015). The steps in the Framework’s first phase have two basic goals: (a) identifying and approaching the places where the results may have practical relevance; and (b) selecting the dissemination tools. The dissemination tools will allow for the following: (a) raising awareness about the findings and (b) making analyst’s discoveries available for further review and consideration of consequences. These initiatives can be accomplished within the framework by using the outreach tools that are in fact helping dissemination: basic reports (presented via e-mail or in person), simplified data printouts with accessible explanations, short data sets (not simplified), short written guides, and manuals (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015, p. 11). The feedback tools include the following: surveys of participants’ experiences during data collection and sharing, interviews with participants, questionnaires, open-ended questions, and recorded feedback (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015, p. 12). Although a specific, planned, and practical change is not directly identified in our volume, we do acknowledge that, in some cases, the chapters discuss the agents of change and advocate for it to various degrees.

Issues and Challenges As with any innovative attempts, the researchers/analysts may face multiple challenges. First, our initiatives to engage praxis may be received at various points on the continuum from welcoming to rejecting them (e.g., Candlin & Sarangi, 2004b; Roberts & Sarangi, 1999). Although the ­analysts may present the sites of triggers in their data, or may suggest to practitioners what to look for when utilizing the tools for dissemination, it is ultimately up to the practitioners to decide what is applicable to their daily practice (Roberts & Sarangi, 1999). So, the practitioners play an important role in this sharing and are seen in our work as powerful partners. We also recognize the dual reality of two groups of knowledge holders, each coming from a different professional stance, and we feel that any scholar/researcher who endorses applicability and research translation

14 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

needs to recognize and acknowledge such issues. In fact, such awareness is almost a prerequisite for conducting outreach. The next possible type of reaction is open rejection when attempting to offer data-driven insights. For example, there could be cases where practitioners may not want the researchers’ (analysts’) help or insights. There could also be cases where the analyst comes into a place of practice excited to share his or her research findings only to discover that the practitioners are well aware of those issues and have already developed their own mechanisms to deal with them (Bygate, 2004). Realizing that one’s research is stating what the practitioners already know from experience may render the analysts’ input useless, or may even lead to the analyst being viewed as preposterous (see also Stubbs for similar comments, 1983). But even when things do go right and we achieve collaboration, “in this consultative relationship one has to face up to the sometimes uncomfortable possibility that our findings may be part applied and part ignored, or even misapplied” (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004c, p.  227). Analysts need to be ready for this reality, so personal preparation and collaborative sharing of possible adverse outcomes should be a part of translational efforts, too. Many of these challenges outlined in the scholarly literature will be addressed in the proceeding chapters. However, within the challenges, we also report successful dissemination undertakings, such as initial planning, outreach, and plans for future praxis. Ultimately, reflexivity is a process and may involve multiple efforts at one dissemination site. Singular efforts, presented here, are just the first step in the direction of following the path of dissemination, from the planning stages to the first sharing opportunities and joint feedback sessions. Without a doubt, ­multiple efforts are needed in order to build a systematic approach that can be used across AL and related fields.

Chapter Overview Using a series of original research studies conducted in diverse settings, involving different languages, the authors engage the question of transferability of scholarly knowledge to more practical real-life venues. The

1  Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach… 

15

sites of translation are offered in detail, presenting the translation points at which interactions occurred between professional and familial communities, as well as other lay stakeholders. In all chapters, the initiation into outreach and collaboration followed the Framework for Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), and the information gathering instruments and feedback tools stem from the Framework in order to provide a uniform approach to outreach and dissemination. The studies have been conducted in different countries, such as Switzerland, Germany, France, Belgium, Australia, and United States, thus giving an international aspect to research translation, its promises, challenges, and impact. Similarly, multiple languages are represented as researchers include excerpts in the original language spoken at the research sites, including German, French, Chinese, Spanish, Dutch, and English. This chapter, the Introduction, sets the stage for the discussion of research translation initiatives. It traces the development of translation research across disciplinary borders by first examining medical sciences and transitioning to social sciences. Within the current UK research impact initiatives, this chapter reviews a few recent book titles and discusses their relevance to the current collection, highlighting how the present volume truly stands apart in its mission to reach out to the ‘people on the ground, to the practicing stakeholders.’ Similarly, ethical issues related to research are addressed and knowledge ownership and sharing are continually discussed in this volume. The introduction is meant to be specific enough to allow a deeper understanding of translation theory and elements, as well as the challenges recorded in the literature. The literature review is broad enough in order to be applicable to different fields of AL. This is a monolingual chapter, focusing on English. In Chapter 2, Porsche and collaborators examine the criticism directed towards the police force in Germany, referring to both German and English translation. They try to mitigate the issues raised by conducting focus groups in order to examine both the criticism directed towards the police and how the police respond to the research-based findings shared with them. As ethnographers, the researchers’ main concern is not which side to take or support. Instead, they move between an understanding approximation when accompanying participants in their daily work routines, and a gaining of distance when withdrawing from the field

16 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

periodically. This should not be understood as approval, or disapproval of police practices, though. Similarly, the researchers do not focus on the content of criticism of police work, but on the mechanisms of their production. They engage the doing-being critical by means of excerpts from ethnographic focus groups in which they discuss observations from field research with those practitioners who they accompanied in their daily work. In Chapter 3, Bouko and Standaert confront soon-to-be journalists with the realities of their future profession concerning the Dutch language (as researched and reported in previous studies). They aim to identify the representations of second-year students who do not have any practice-based experience of journalism and to disseminate the findings of their research related to the use of Dutch in newsrooms. The goal of the outreach effort of this kind is to prepare for their future working conditions in full knowledge of the facts about language issues in Belgium with regards to Dutch. They administered a qualitative questionnaire to second-year communication students who do not yet have any practice-­ based knowledge of the profession and whose representations of language and views have, therefore, not yet been confronted with the realities in the field. After asking them questions about their profiles and their own professional values and representations, the researchers shared the insights gained from the previous large-scale study findings in order to gauge to what extent the students shared the journalists’ views on language representation. Chapter 4, by Wang and Xia, explores the role language translation plays in the international news transmission not only by analysing the translated texts but also through observing actual processes of translation and news making, obtaining in-house documentation, and interviewing translators and other participants involved in the institutional process (referring to Chinese and English). Thus, the entire process from the end of research to engagement with the practitioners has been accounted here. A total of nine informants (two editors, three news selectors, and four translators) were interviewed on the condition that the team leader be present at each interview and consulted for any future use of data. Multiple research sites involved reviewing published and unpublished documents which set out regulations, principles, and policies of the

1  Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach… 

17

institution. This was important for two reasons: first, to reveal a detailed account of the paper’s working mechanism which helped the researcher obtain a full understanding of CKXX (the news publication under study acronym) from an internal perspective; second, to use as a reference to check the credibility of the interviews and suggest more important questions to be asked during the interviews. Both ethnographic interviews and close reading of in-house documentation were used for an in-depth analysis of how news reproduction by translation comes into being at CKXX. In Chapter 5, Matarese engages the difficult question of research findings on sites of homelessness in a large urban area and its relevance to social work application. She describes a series of discourse analysis workshops provided to students of social work and social work faculty and beyond as a means to integrate research findings with every day institutional practice. The data for these workshops comes from examining social work interaction in urban US homeless shelter among 5 shelter caseworkers and 18 homeless clients over a nine-month period. All meetings between caseworkers and clients were audio recorded and transcribed. Matarese also describes—in broad strokes—her many collaborations with social workers and social welfare researchers through discourse analytic roundtables she has lead annually at DANASWAC Conference (Discourse and Narrative Analysis of Social Work and Counselling) and the Society for Social Work Research (SSWR). The participants in this study were multilingual. In Chapter 6, DelPrete and DiFelice Box discuss the steps they undertook to disseminate their research from a more psychology-driven stance, with the origins in the full-scale research study on mother-adolescent daughter tense relationship (using conversation analysis in combination with other methods). They have proposed to the stakeholder audiences what they have termed discursive consciousness raising, or the awareness of the words used in interactions and their effects on the ensuing sequence. In both workshops and lecture-based settings with parents and au pairs, they have shared the findings of how the microfeatures of verbal exchanges work to diffuse, or ignite, conflict. Participant stakeholders of different professional profiles have provided feedback within those sharing sessions stating their realization of the discursive strategies the mother employs

18 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

with her adolescent daughter. These realizations seemed to have been very useful for personal self-reflection on the part of multiple stakeholders in the audience with regard to their own family talk. It also brought about a re-elevation of how they (laypeople in the audience) will modify the interaction with their own daughters, or the children in their care, in the future. The participants in this study were multilingual. Chapter 7, by Cochrane, discusses her efforts to disseminate disability discourse research to a wider audience. The motivational relevance that drives her participants with disabilities to take part in her research is their desire to correct misconceptions about physical disabilities and to raise awareness of their experiences among people without disabilities. Data used here (drawn from a larger study) are narratives told by wheelchair users. Each of the three participants tells a story about a time when a child asked about the participant’s disability. Each participant displays their willingness to engage people without disabilities in conversations about their disability experiences. Therefore, to achieve motivational relevance, it is necessary to correct misconceptions and raise awareness about the experience of physical disability. She has begun that work by teaching and evaluating a college lesson plan about disability discourse. As a researcher without a disability, she has also gathered input from the real-life community of disabled individuals towards creating a future website about disability discourse. Thus, the outreach and negotiation of stakes has been achieved with multiple stakeholders. This chapter reports the findings using English. Chapter 8, by Kahn, reports on her preliminary exploration with other educators of narrative discourse data elicited from her work as a second-­ language instructor and researcher. Kahn’s initial work, Narrative Discourse in the Second Language Classroom (see 2015), served as the starting place for this fieldwork. In the original study, Kahn drew upon sociocultural theory to create open-ended storytelling tasks for her adult ESL students representing Spanish, Russian, and Korean first-language speakers, and studied the emerging task-based discourse using conversation analysis (CA). Kahn’s chapter explores the procedures and results of this outreach effort. The author describes the steps she took to apply Grujicic-­ Alatriste’s (2015) dissemination framework, including samples of the tools she employed such as emails to administrators and handouts from

1  Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach… 

19

two workshop sessions with teachers and tutors. She also explores a central issue that challenged the project—time—from the logistics of scheduling workshop sessions to the need to provide enough time during the workshops to explore topics put forth by participants/practitioners. The author proposes a next fieldwork phase, which would continue to draw upon the project’s narrative focus by asking teachers to tell their stories from the classroom, transcribing these stories, and interpreting the narratives using Socio Cultural Theory (SCT) concepts. In Chapter 9, Harman and collaborators trace the work done by the researchers and high school students in immigrant communities in Georgia, USA. Using discourse analysis as a main tool, the author examines the findings in community engagement. The overall framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics is used to interpret data and engage social action towards change. The entire process of community engagement and research findings application are documented using narrative accounts. The participants are of multilingual backgrounds. In Chapter 10, König reports on an extensive outreach efforts she has made in order to disseminate the results of her large-scale conversation analytic research on everyday interactions between one au-pair girl, Julie, and her host-mother, involving French, German, and English languages. This chapter discusses the concrete steps taken by the author to initiate contacts with the real-world stakeholders in an ethnographic mode. The author reached out to au-pair girls, host-families, and recruiting agencies. The focus resides particularly in depicting the initiation of contact and the main problems that have arisen from each reflexive situation. She makes suggestions for future engagement of this important topic of home employment and house workers, such as au-pair girls, but this can be generalized to all other types of workers ‘on the margins’ of employment (nannies, house keepers, gardeners, etc.). In Chapter 11, Grujicic-Alatriste presents the dissemination efforts of her own genre-based research findings in a college writing classroom settings. She uses the theoretical basis of the Framework for Application she created (2015), and follows the blueprint of research dissemination plan from the said 2015 volume. The research translation initiative has been very large involving five distinct stakeholders, but for this chapter, Grujicic-Alatriste reports on her efforts to share the results of her initial

20 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

large-scale research study on argumentative writing, with college writing faculty, part-time lecturers, and full-time faculty. She uses various modes of dissemination from informal gatherings to workshops, professional development, electronic sharing, online surveys, and in-person interviews. The participants were originally of multilingual backgrounds, but the chapter report engages English.

References Antaki, C. (2011). Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Antaki, C. (2015). Afterward. In L. Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 311–314). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Mattes. Bhatia, V. (2010). Interdiscursivity in professional communication. Discourse & Communication, 4(1), 32–50. Billet, S., et al. (Eds.). (2016). Supporting learning across working life: Models, processes and practices. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Brown, H., Sawyer, R.  D., & Norris, J. (Eds.). (2016). Forms of practitioner reflexivity. New York: Springer Nature. Bygate, M. (2004). Some current trends in applied linguistics: Towards a generic view. AILA Review, 17, 6–22. Candlin, C., & Candlin, S. (2003). Health care communication: A problematic site for applied linguistics research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 134–154. Candlin, C., & Sarangi, S. (2004a). Making applied linguistics matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–8. Candlin, C., & Sarangi, S. (2004b). Making methodology matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 101–106. Candlin, C., & Sarangi, S. (2004c). Making inter-relationality matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 225–228. Candlin, C., & Sarangi, S. (2010). Applied linguistics and professional practice: Mapping a future agenda. Journal of Applied Linguistics (JALPP), 7(1), 1–9. Candlin, C., & Sarangi, S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of communications and professions. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Cook, G. (2011). Discourse analysis. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 431–444). London: Routledge.

1  Knowledge Translation at the Sites of Practice: From Outreach… 

21

Cromdal, J., & Tholander, M. (2014). Morality in professional practice. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 9(2), 155–164. Curry, M.  J., & Lillis, T. (Eds.). (2017). Global academic publishing: Policies, perspectives and pedagogies. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ding, A., & Bruce, I. (2017). English for academic purposes practitioner. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Gibbs, P. (Ed.). (2015). Transdisciplinary professional learning and practice. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Grimshaw, J.  M., et  al. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science. Retrieved June 2019. https://doi. org/10/1186/1748-5908-7-50 Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (Ed.). (2015). Linking discourse studies to professional practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hopwood, N. (2016). Professional practice and learning. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Nature. Kennedy, M., et al. (Eds.). (2015). Practice-based learning in higher education. Netherlands: Springer. Koulikov, M. (2011). Emerging problems in knowledge sharing and the three new ethics of knowledge transfer. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 3(2), 237–250. Lawson, R., & Sayers, R. D. (Eds.). (2016). Sociolinguistic research: Application and impact. London: Routledge. McIntyre, D., & Price, H. (Eds.). (2018). Applying linguistics: Language and impact agenda. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Ostman, J.-O., & Solin, A. (2015). Discourse and responsibility in professional settings. Sheffield, UK: Equinox. Perry, F. L. (2017). Research in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Rapport, F., et  al. (2017). The struggle of translating science into action: Foundational concepts of implementation science. Journal of Evaluation of Clinical Practice. Wiley Online. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12741 Roberts, C., & Sarangi, S. (1999). Hybridity in gate-keeping discourse: Issues of practical relevance for the researcher. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 363–390). Berlin, Germany: Mouton Gruyter. Sarangi, S. (2014, September). Situated communication ethics and the epistemology of professional practice. Paper presented at the ALAPP Conference 2014, Geneva.

22 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

Sarangi, S., & van Leeuwen, T. (2003). Applied linguistics and communities of practice: Gaining communality or losing disciplinary autonomy? In S. Sarangi & T. van Leeuwen (Eds.), Applied linguistics and communities of practice (pp. 1–8). New York: Continuum. Slavin, R. E. (2004). Translating research into widespread practice: The case of success for all. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (Grant No. R-117-D40005). Stiver, T., & Sidnell, J. (2013). Introduction. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 1–8). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Tarde, G. (1902). L’invention, moteur de l’evolution sociale. Revue Internationale du Sociologie, X(7), 562–574. Weiss, D. J., Bulgarelli, F., Navarro-Torres, C., & Morales, J. (2017). Translating research to practice in the language sciences. Translational Issues in Psychological Sciences, 3(1), 1–4. Widdowson, H.  G. (2004). Text, context, and pretext. Critical issues in DA. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Woydack, J. (2019). Linguistic ethnography of a multilingual call canter. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

2 Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-) criticism in an Ethnographic Focus Group Yannik Porsché, Dörte Negnal, and Christiane Howe

Police work has been criticized by many and in many ways. For instance, police action has been criticized as racist or disproportionate (see Cremer, 2013). The police are aware of such critique and include parts of it in their discussions and work practices. In addition, critical police officers complain about the conditions under which they must perform their duties. The feeling of being under constant scrutiny while doing their A previous version of parts of this chapter can be found in German in Scheffer, Howe, Kiefer, Negnal, and Porsché (2017: 249–262). There we present the results of our collaborative practice research project on crime prevention of the police more broadly (see http://codisp.de/?page_ id=90). We would like to thank Patrick Patterson for helping with the translation of this chapter. The main language of data collected is German. The language of research report is English. We acknowledge that in translating data there could be some issues raised as the translator’s paradox and views are certainly present in any translation. In the case of ethnographic field notes, researcher’s views are incorporated purposefully, and we aim to remain as close to the original German field notes as possible. In the case of transcripts of conversations, we provide both the original German and English translation that is kept as close to the original as possible. We deem the provision of the original transcript helpful to reconstruct subtleties such as manners of speaking and use of regional accents.

Y. Porsché (*) Department for Sociology of Globalisation, Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_2

23

24 

Y. Porsché et al.

work itself constitutes a challenging condition of police work (Behr, 2012). Critical lawyers and social scientists focus primarily on police claims to an institutionalized monopoly of force and identify misconduct (Künkel, 2014) or developments within the police that are not in line with the conditions of the legal framework (Eick, 2014). At times, internal criticism within the police cannot be distinguished clearly from criticism brought to “the police” from a third party. Finally, our object of research “Preventive Policing”, as well as our ethnographic approach, was met with criticism of various kinds. Our participatory style of ethnography incites questions about whether this research is being conducted “about”, “for” or even “with” the police.1 This also became visible in inquiries from the police about whether we could accompany them, offer constructive criticism and by doing so evaluate their work. When discussing our observations with the police in meetings that we call “ethnographic focus groups”, we were surprised that the police would criticize each other when discussing ethnographic material in which we presented thick descriptions of situations from their everyday working life. It appears that to criticize and be criticized, to be critical of oneself but also  to receive criticism and to counter it, is a constitutive practice of the  research field and its corresponding scientific community. Similar to Bohmann, Gertenbach, and Laux (2010), we do not regard critique as  statements being made from a detached point of view, but rather as  part of an interplay of approximations and distancing organized  The debate on the alleged duality of “research for” and “research on” (Mensching, 2004: 125) was carried out intensively about 10 to 15 years ago (among others by Ohlemacher, 2003; Ohlemacher & Liebl, 2000; Reichertz, 2003: 422ff.). 1

D. Negnal Department for Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany e-mail: [email protected] C. Howe University of Applied Sciences for Public Administration and Management of North Rhine-Westphalia, Münster, Germany e-mail: [email protected]

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic… 

25

­ ethodologically in ethnography (Breidenstein, Hirschauer, Kalthoff, & m Nieswand, 2013; Hirschauer, 2001). We understand our experience in the field, inquiries to our team as well as the police’s dealing with research about the police, as discursive practices that those who participate in, or deal with, “police work” have cultivated. The particularity of a variety of critical stances thus appears as an integral part of the ethnographic field under investigation.2 As ethnographers, our main concern is not which side we are on (“Whose side are we on?” Becker, 1967). Instead of taking sides we move between an understanding approximation when accompanying participants in their daily work routines and a gaining of distance when withdrawing from the field periodically—which neither means that we approve of nor that we condemn all police practices. In our discourse analysis, we do not focus on the content of criticism of police work and instead focus on the mechanisms of their production (Koeck, 1976: 272). While this doing of critique is essentially indifferent and can be determined independently from the value or adequacy of the success or practicability of the phenomena (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970: 345 f.), the fact remains that these evaluations have always been a part of police work and police research. A practice-theoretical approach allows observing the everyday dramaturgy of criticizing and being criticized (Breidenstein et al., 2013: 27) due to the fact that criticism needs both to be displayed (Goffman, 1959: 170) and to be performed (Sacks, 1984). In this chapter, we will focus on this doing-being critical by means of an analysis of us researchers discussing ethnographic field notes of “key sequences” of typical work activities together with the police officers. A conversation analysis of excerpts from these “ethnographic focus groups”, in which we discuss observations from our field research with those practitioners who we accompanied in their daily work, provides insight into how researchers and practitioners discursively situate the police work. We discussed our observations and steps of analysis every six months in joint data sessions with a group of, for the most part, same participants. In these discussion circles, which we call ethnographic focus groups, we invited or visited the research participants to discuss our empirical material; to explain our perspectives and methods of analysis;  For a more detailed critique within police research, see Negnal, Howe, and Porsché (2018).

2

26 

Y. Porsché et al.

and in the later sessions to discuss our findings. In these discussions, we emphasized that the purpose of this exercise was not to (re-)produce common and well-known critique of police work, but to try out an uncritical perspective that focuses on work situations and their practical challenges. Although we explained that the aim of asking how-to questions was to avoid looking at the anonymized field notes and transcripts from the perspective of an “assessor of performance” (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003: 280), the research participants used the practice descriptions consistently as an opportunity to voice criticism about their own, their colleagues’ and their network partners’ conduct. Hence, the research participants were not lacking in (self-)criticism with reference to what they considered appropriate conduct, to conceptual police standards or legal norms. We thus witnessed a consistently critical perspective that had been cultivated. Nevertheless, this kind of ad hoc criticism, which identifies deficits and proposes solutions, obscures everyday challenges, common procedures and alternative forms of action. This perspective also runs the risk of solidifying camps like those between defendants and accusers. The process of limiting the perspective to deficits or regretting a lack of sticking to concepts for work procedures makes it difficult to analyze the organization and hampers reflection on inherent logics, preconditions and practical solutions. Questions other than common criticism hardly come into focus, which make it difficult to approach processes of professionalization constructively. The ethnographic focus group created a space for reflection in which excerpts of data material, research foci and drafts for articles were used as impulses to talk about everyday work practices and to gain insight into requirements for, and conditions of, work practices. Without putting the “representatives of the supervisory state authority on the dock” (Meuser & Löschper, 2002: paragraph 12, our translation), we make these practices available for criticism. An ethnographic and in parts meticulous conversation analytic description of working practices allows analysis of mechanisms and participants’ prioritization that does not aim to compare these with existing standards but to understand the practitioners’ ideals (Herzog, 2016). In the following, we will present discussions in the ethnographic focus groups. These reveal routinized police interpretations and show how different kinds of criticism within the field of police work intertwine. Based

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic… 

27

on the question of how criticism is performed and negotiated, we started out by investigating systematics and functionality in everyday police work. This brought up topics such as police alliances, police knowledge and normative demands, which provide a basis for critique. Regarding this volume’s “framework for application of research findings”, our explorative procedure of conducting ethnographic focus groups can be considered (a) “[a tool] for sharing the findings with participants and practitioners”, (b) a “development of tools for feedback elicitation” and (c) an “employment of feedback tools” (Grujicic-Alatriste, Chapter 1, p. 11). In line with this framework, “raising awareness about the findings” (Grujicic-Alatriste, Chapter 1, p. 12) and making our observations, recordings and analyses “available for further reviews and consideration of both their consequences and their relevance for practice and actual use” (Grujicic-Alatriste, Chapter 1, p. 12) were central concerns of the ethnographic focus groups. With regard to the framework’s phase of dissemination and possible application, the focus group discussions showed to have an impact when discussions were frequently continued among the police in their respective units.

Doing Being Critical in the Police In the joint data sessions of law enforcement personnel and field researchers—the ethnographic focus groups—we first discussed field notes, and later on our findings and drafts. We met every six months. In reflecting these sessions, it became obvious that the police practitioners perform a doing-being critical while we researchers perform a doing-being uncritical. In the first focus group sessions, we presented the participants with excerpts from field notes and transcripts from social interactions of their institutional work, which we then discussed together. In later focus group sessions, we discussed our analyses and findings with the practitioners. Regarding the confrontation with observations and recordings, there were certainly moments of pleasant surprise when they became aware of the variety of things they accomplish in their activities. However, a considerable part of what the police staff’s comments focused on recognizing deficits and gaps in scenes from their everyday working life on articulating demands concerning working conditions and searching for solutions

28 

Y. Porsché et al.

for their working problems. Critique is articulated in different ways according to the particular situational descriptions, presentations of foci in police research and police practice and our presentation of drafts for research articles. In the discussions law enforcement personnel critically comment on scenes from their everyday work.

Identifying and Dealing with Problems In the following excerpt, we summarize a discussion of three examples from the police’s preventive work routine. The discussion is preceded first by us handing out three short extracts of field notes that we considered particularly significant or typical of what we had observed in our extended field stays. We then made suggestions of questions to consider while reading the extracts and what we mean by taking a non-evaluative perspective on the activities portrayed. Description of the three different situations have been distributed. They include a suggestion from the police to carry out an anti-violence seminar at a school (1), a clarification about the participation in a celebration by an association (2), and a request for an identity check (3). The guiding questions suggested to the readers are: What is going on here? What is striking? The researchers emphasize that it is not an evaluative analysis and that the analysis is not concerned with what went wrong. Rather than looking for blame the readers should look at what needs to be considered in prevention work, and what needs to be accomplished. After a short break, the present participants comment on the material. Initially, they are surprised by the inquiries made to the police and that the police staff in question pursue them further. In the first remark, a prevention official immediately states that it is not up to the police to keep watch during a school lesson. Aspects of prevention practice that are being criticized in the different examples concern that the role and task structure appear ill-defined and that there is a lack of work concepts (e.g. regarding who is the targeted demographic). Providing a slightly different perspective, one official argues that most importantly a relationship of trust between citizens and police must be worked out as a foundation for the following work. Police underline that the importance to develop a “reputation” as a contact person and that “contacts” are important for the police. They need to establish – and succeed in

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic… 

29

establishing – “reliable partnerships”. That is said to be key. At this point someone else points out that police officers act outside a conceptual framework and nobody in the examples appears to be aware of this. The claim is formulated that the “colleagues must move within a certain task framework”. Thus, in what follows, participants sometimes propose alternatives to set demarcations early on in an interaction with clients regarding the police’s limited responsibilities, e.g. by offering “help for self-­ help”. The police questions whether it “helps institutions if they give up their own responsibility” to the police. Police staff would turn to their colleagues for advice, but these would not always have the necessary “expertise”. It is said to be customary practice to get two or three opinions as well as finding suitable contact persons. Once again, participants address regulations and specifications within the scope of the responsibilities of the “cooperation agreement” between schools and police. In practice, schools would come to the police with concrete problems, even though the “responsibility lies clearly” with the school. In the example, the colleague hints at how a prevention official comments on the subject matter: “He has basically opened his drawers by now, already moved on, and has ideas where to start.” He functions as a kind of “world improver”.

It is noticeable that the police personnel begin the discussion of the material by expressing criticism. This constitutes their intuitive mode of looking at the described situations. They identify what actually lies beyond the scope of their working tasks, point out deficiencies (a lack of “concept” and “structure”) and “complain” that the colleagues would be so easily taken in by the subject matter. On the one hand, this mode can be seen as a reaction to the researcher’s task of paying attention to “what stands out” and what is “done” in prevention. In the field phase, we researchers learned that there is a ductus of “proper policing”, which is invoked immediately with this introduction to the focus group. Our ­initial question design invited participants to discuss the entire concept on a conceptual level without close connection to the descriptions of the situations. This seems to be furthered by the fact that policemen and scientists are inclined to carry out critical debates. In this activity all participants—us researchers and the police—are experienced. It is therefore possible that those present in the focus group assume that—despite their

30 

Y. Porsché et al.

avowals to do otherwise—the researchers would criticize the basic features of the police’s approach. The police anticipate criticism and preemptively articulate it. Even after several focus group sessions, in which a focus on concrete work practices of the police was sharpened, voicing criticism remained a common first reaction: finding faults, shortcomings and blanks, and filling them with solutions. This raises questions about the function of critique and its point of ignition. One way to employ the term critique is to refer to certain debates that prevention officers carry out conceptually and in their everyday working practice. These debates can be exemplified by four questions: (1) Who is responsible for what? (2) Where does my area of responsibility end? (3) How can I help? (4) Who else is involved? Our ethnographic descriptions of typical work situation show that these questions keep coming up in the work of police prevention and in inquiries to the police. These descriptions give rise to critical discussion about task profiles and expectations. Here, two aspects are key: (1) to create and maintain trust and (2) to be and remain a point of contact for citizens. Between anticipated expectations and own job specifications, participants ask questions about their role as part of the police. Participants frequently expressed concerns that this role is becoming increasingly ill-defined with fuzzy boundaries, if officials were to pursue all demands for cooperation or if they are not equipped with the necessary knowledge. To avoid the risk of acting outside a set job specification framework and thereby allowing shifts in responsibilities, some participants call for “concepts” to specify target groups and structures, while others only call for caution. Although participants emphasize the importance of “contacts” for their prevention work, officers in all three cases argue that their (or their colleagues’) conduct does not show sufficient attention to risks inherent to their work in alliances with actors outside of the police. They propose remedies such as “help for self-help” or “cooperation agreements”, which should bring police prevention back onto the right track. In such discussions, it is difficult to go beyond this sort of normative criticism and propositions for solutions in order to look at particular situations with their particular requirements. Although a prevention official at the end of the discussion says he can understand the approach of his colleague, the ascribed function of the “world improver” suggests criticism

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic… 

31

of supposed knowledge and over-commitment. Being critical here means discovering mistakes in the procedure, identifying misconduct and proposing solutions—measured by standards of the professional self-­image, the government’s mandate and the legal framework.

Expecting, Receiving and Responding to Criticism Prevention officers expect public criticism toward the police. In a focus group later on in the course of the project, we present preliminary themes that emerged from our analysis. One of these is the kind of prevention work we called “project work” (see Porsché & Kiefer, 2017): some of the preventive police work is organized in terms of projects that have more or less clear boundaries as to who participates in them and in what time frame they are carried out. This does not mean these programs are not continuously revised or elements of which might extend over an entire year, yet they have in common that they can be clearly identified as a preventive measure that connects several activities or events under the umbrella of a common concept or aim. The following transcript is an excerpt from a focus group discussion between two prevention officers from different local police units (LP) and a national police authority (NA). Here, it becomes obvious how participants in the presence of us ethnographic researchers (ER) and with reference to the transcript and ethnographic field notes criticize each other or preemptively respond to anticipated criticism. The excerpt begins with the member of the national police authority commenting that one would need to see the actual video recording in addition to the transcript to have more cues about how to understand a particular utterance. The transcript is about a briefing in which prevention officers instruct and motivate youth to support the police’s efforts to ensure a peaceful celebration that takes place every year in the city in connection with a political demonstration (see also Porsché, submitted). In the line of the transcript NA is referring to, he is wondering whether the prevention officer is telling the youth—without explicitly saying this—that the youth is supporting the police on that day or, to the contrary, whether the mentioning of the celebration is a way of saying “you are doing this for your neighborhood, not for the police”. The local

32 

Y. Porsché et al.

police officer responds to this by defending himself and his colleagues against a range of criticisms that he considers might be alluded to by the national authority.  1 NA:

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6  7 LP:

­  8  9

10

11

Wobei jetzt, jetzt glaub ich ganz entscheidend wäre ne Videoaufzeichnung zu At this point, now I think it would be important to see an video-­ recording of sehen wie's gesagt wurde, man kann das ja so interpretieren, dass Ihr uns (.) how it was said, after all one can interpret this in the way that you support >unausgesprochen< und das Fest unterstützt oder dass in diesem (.) das Fest (.) Us (.) >without saying so< and the celebration or that this (.) celebration (.) ne Relativierung liegt, ja? Also ne:, nicht eigentlich nicht uns sondern eher is a way of relativizing, you know? So no:, not actually us, but rather the so das Fest und .h das ist ähm (.) müsste man jetzt genauer dann eh (.) die .hh celebration and .h that is ehm (.) one would have to look more closely then eh (.) the .hh (()) [((laughing))] [Kann ich, kann ich ganz, relativ einfach erklären. Ähm, wir (.) wir, wir s-  ] [I can, I can explain this very, relatively easily. Ehm, we (.) we, we a-  ] wir sind immer zwei (.) zwei, gerade bei diesen (.) ganzen we are always two (.) two, in particular in these (.) all of these Vorbereitungsmaßnahmen sind (.) schweben immer zwei (.) große Eckpunkte eh über preparatory measures are (.) there are always two (.) big cornerstones hovering uns. Das eine ist, wenn's unbequem wird, ick sage das mal so, is it immer die above us. The one thing is, when it gets uncomfortable, I’ll put it this way, [XY]-festor(.)ganisation, ham wir nichts mit zu tun. Wir unterstützen das nur. it is always the [XY]-celebration(.)organization, we have nothing to do with

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic…  12

13

14

33

So machen wir das hier auch bei dem Projekt [XY]. Das ist ja nicht unser that. We only support that. That is also the way we do this here in the project Projekt (.) sondern wir sind hier (.) diejenigen die det maßgeblich [XY]. After all, this is not our project (.) but we are here (.) those who unterstützen, weil wir die einzigen sind. (.) significantly support that, because we are the only ones. (.)

The police officers expect criticism about their work. In order to mitigate or reject the criticism, responsibilities may be denied, messages proclaimed and allegations rejected for being inaccurate. A local preventive police officer in this excerpt describes the stance of the preventive police as formally denying responsibility for the project in question when it comes to trouble (“we have nothing to do with that”, line 11; “this is not our project”, 12/13). Prevention officers need to assure themselves of their position in relation to the partners they cooperate with and the projects they are part of. The police officer explains that the role of the police risks to become blurred in the course of the preparation and implementation of the project since they “are here (.) those who significantly support that” (13/14) up to the point that they feel they are “the only ones” (14) doing so. 15 16

17 18

19

20

Und, man kann aus diesen (.) hier And, from this (.) auch ableiten, dass ne Identifikation (.) mit dem Vorhaben, das durchzuführen, one can also infer, that an identification (.) with the intention of doing this mit Euch jemeinsam durchaus auch ableiten. Dat heißt also diewith you together you can indeed derive this from this. So that means theMitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter (.) identifizieren sich mit dem Projekt (.) female and male colleagues (.) identify with the project (.) they know how sie wissen wie wichtig det is. Det liegt dann auch daran, dass des det jeden important that is. This is also due to the fact that that they get to hear this Tag von mir dann auch zu hören kriegen, ob se wollen oder nicht. ((laugh?)) Da every day from me, whether they want to or not. ((laugh?)) There are

34  21

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29

30 31

32

33

34

Y. Porsché et al. gibt's ne Erwartungshaltung unserer Polizeiführung, dass wir die Jugendlichen expectations from our police leaders, that we get the youth into shape with dahingehend fit machen. Da sind wir der Gradmesser. Die Jugendarbeit (.) respect to that. Concerning this we are the barometer. Youth work (.) Bestandteil dieses Projektes (.) wesentliche Säule der Vermittlung von constitutive part of this project (.) elementary pillar for conveying of bestimmten Themen liegt in unseren Händen. Ehm (.) im Vorfeld sind ja schon certain topics lies in our hands. Ehm (.) after all in the run-up lots of janz viele Vorgespräche geführt worden. Dat heißt man taucht schon ganz tief preliminary talks have taken place. That means one already gets involved deeply (.) mit in die Entwicklung (.) in die Durchführung des Projektes mit ein. Und (.) in the development (.) in the carrying out of the project. And then the dann verschwimmen halt (.) die Zuständigkeiten. Zwischen den (.) responsibilities get blurred. Between the youth organisations (.) and the Jugendeinrichtungen (.) und der Rolle der Polizei. Und det spiegelt sich hier role of the police. And this is reflected here again in this utterance in which wieder in dem Spruch in dem dann eben schon so sagt, na wir jemeinsam machen you do say, well we are doing this project together. Well, actually it would be det Projekt. Na eigentlich wäre das so, als ob ich wie'n externer (.) that way, as if I were (.) bought like an external contractor, go into the einjekauft werde, gehe in eine Klasse, oder trete vor eine Gruppe, spule dort class, or stand in front of a group, run my program, raise my hand and say that mein Programm ab, hebe die Hand und sage dat kostet zweihundert Euro, dann geh costs two hundred Euros, then I go and am gone again. Well, no, that’s ick wieder und bin wieder weg. Nach mitnichten, so ist es eben nicht. So ist precisely not the way it works. That’s how it works theoretically. But (.) das rein formal. Aber (.) dadurch, dass janz viel rechts und links von diesem because many on the right and the left side of the project (.) are tied into

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic…  35

36

37 38

39

40

41

42

43

44 45

35

Projekt (.) in der Jesamtgestaltung miteinjebunden werden, indem man uns (.) the overall organization, since we are (.) asked how do we want to do this, how fragt wie woll'n wir det machen, wie könn wer det machen? Woll'n wir das hier can we do this? Do we want to do this here or there? (.) One is so deeply oder dort machen? (.) Ist man so tief da mit drin, dass ebent jenau (.) das involved, that exactly (.) that is reflected in this utterance. Without you sich in dieser Aussage auch wiederspiegelt. Ohne dass man es wirklich will und really wanting that and that you are also purely formally, officially able to dann auch rein formal, offiziell auch nach außen transportieren kann, weil (.) transport this to the outside, because (.) one also accuses us of, and says we man hält uns ja auch vor und sagt wir machen (.) solche Jeschichten nur, um do (.) such things only, in order to directly influence the [XY]-celebration, unmittelbar auf das [XY]-fest Einfluss zu nehmen, auf die Jugendarbeit, wir the youth work, we use the youth. .h and precisely in this respect we need to instrumentalisieren die Jugendlichen. .h Und jenau da müssen wir versuchen (.) try (.) to work politically correct, and to also behave like this in what we politisch korrekt zu arbeiten, und uns auch zu verhalten mit unseren Aussagen. say. Wat ja dann (.) eh nicht immer leicht ist. Könnte man auch, (janz) schön Something that then (.) is not always easy. One could also, interpret negativ auslegen, >rein theoretischpurely theoreticallypurely theoreticallybei Euch im Vorfeld< gar nicht diese What I find interesting, is that > in advance, among your colleagues< one did

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic…  47

48 49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59 60

LP:

37

Gedanken macht. Sondern dass das alles so automatisch (.) eh abläuft. (Weil) so think about these things. Instead, all of this (.) eh happens so automatically. aufgedröselt wird das ja vorher nicht. (Because) after all this is not unraveled in this way beforehand. Na doch, die Vorgabe gab's mal (.) und eh (.) wenn, wenn des einmal läuft, sag Well no, this guideline did exist at one point (.) and eh (.) once, once that ick mal, dann kümmern sich unsere, unsere Polizeiführer, unsere got going, I’ll put it that way, then our police leaders of course are no Entscheidungsträger natürlich nicht mehr um ((coughing)) diesen Teil longer concerned with ((coughing)) this part of youth work. Then they say, well Jugendarbeit. Dann sagen sie eben, na det is da ja en en in einigermaßen guten that is in in in more or less good hands, I do not need to be concerned with Händen, muss ich mich nicht drum kümmern. Da laufen jetzt, eh da gab's in den that. There are, eh in the last years there were no complaints on that front, letzten Jahren keine Beschwerden, also weitermachen. Die wissen schon dass so keep going. They know that ((coughing)) they do know eh, that that eh works ((coughing)) die wissen schon eh, dass det eh halbwegs funktioniert und dann more or less and then they le- let us be and do not interfere. Well there they lass- lassen se uns auch in Ruhe und mischen sich da nicht ein. Da jibt's dann have other things to work on (.) concept for bottles or extending eh the ebent andere Baustellen. (.) Flaschenkonzept oder Ausweitung eh des business concept or eh other stories, emergency and rescue paths in the Jewerbekonzepts oder eh andere Jeschichten, Flucht und Rettungswege innerhalb [XY]-celebration, that is then what they are currently worried about. (.) des [XY]-festes, det is dann dit wat wat ihnen dann brantaktuell auf den auf den Nägeln brennt. (.)

38 

Y. Porsché et al.

The conversation in lines 46–48 continues with the national police authority person replying in a way that could again be read as a neutral observation that the police officer’s reflections seem not to be made during the day-to-day work. Yet, the local police officer responds to this again by preemptively responding to several points of critique that could be implied in the national authority person’s suggestion. First, the local police officer points out that organizational guidelines—that are presumably based on similar reflections—do exist, thus defending his unit against a possible accusation that they did not think things through or clarify their responsibilities. Second, he explains the lack of control of guidance during the course of the project through the confidence his superiors have in the prevention officers’ work. The confidence (“that is in […] more or less good hands”, 52/53) is explained by a lack of complaints (“there were no complaints”, 54). In this routinized defense, the positive assessment of the own approach does not only constitute an act of legitimization. The official shows his colleagues as well as the researchers how he expects, receives and reciprocates criticism. 61 ER: .h aber die Frage ist ja auch, also was was ich jetzt rausgehört habe, ist .h but afterall the question is also, so what what I heard out of this, is 62 dieses, dass das was hie:r, was hier entstanden ist, und entste:ht, und auch this, that that what he:re, what emerged here, and is in the course of 63 immer wieder auch weiterentwickelt wird durch die Erfahrung, dass das nicht eme:erging, and that is always again developed further based on the experience, 64 vorher, sich so genau wirklich (?) wie machen wir das, sondern dass das bethat that was not beforehand, that that happens exactly in fact (?) how do we 65 bestimmte Zielsetzung gibt, bestimmte Ideen dazu und dann geht man halt rein do that, but that there exist ce- certain objectives, certain ideas about this 66 und guckt halt. Also weil Sie das ja auch so beschrieben haben, wir haben erst and then one goes there and sees. Well seeing that you also described it that

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic…  67

68

69

70

71

39

nur Frontalunterricht gemacht, dann haben wir festgestellt (.) mhm (.) kommen way, first we only did ex-cathedra teaching, then we realized (.) mhm (.) wir irgendwie gar nicht mit, wir müssen das irgendwie anders machen. Dann (.) somehow this does not work, we need to do this differently somehow. Then (.) hat man's anders probiert. Und, sozusagen, man hat so'n bisschen learning by one tried out something else. And, so to say, one proceeded a bit learning by doing, das so ent(.)wickelt und immer weiterentwickelt wie man (.) wie man das doing, that de(.)veloped that way and continuously one develops it further, how aufstellt. Und wie man, wie man die eben einfach auch gut bindet [...] one goes about it. And how one, how one simply gets them together in a good way. [...]

At the end of this excerpt, in lines 61–71, and beyond the excerpt several of us ethnographic researchers offer more positive and uncritical interpretations of the authority’s suggestion. We propose that continuous development, improvement and adaptation without an automatic and decontextualized procedure appear as a necessary and useful strategy to openly approach unknown territory regarding the unfamiliar audience the police works with. In our uncritical focus, we thus attempt to foreground the participants working competencies and the ways they deal with challenging situations—which does not deny that a situation can be considered problematic or that the strategies chosen have problematic consequences or implications.

 ranslating Results of Our Ethnographic Research T to the Practice of Police Work In ethnographic focus groups during the course of our research, we presented thick descriptions, analyses of their own working practices and

40 

Y. Porsché et al.

our results of this collaborative process to the practitioners. In addition to local preventive police officers, members of the police’s leadership took part in the focus groups, who work conceptually and with performance standards in mind. This composition changed the ideas and subsequent discussions among police staff to which we set the impulses. In some focus groups, prevention officials disagreed with our analyses, considered our conclusions to be problematic or, to the contrary, took them up and translated them into police practices. When discussing with us, they emphasized that they considered it difficult to disseminate insights gained from our collaborative research to their colleagues. In the focus groups, science is often described as the observer of practice, who can see and name problems, and sometimes also produce them. In fact, critical police research questions police practices and their working conditions (Belina, 2014: 62). As we have seen in the examples, efforts to find solutions to working problems are predominantly carried out in three ways: (1) Officials refer to standardizing concept papers for a certain format of prevention work, about what is “important” or do’s and don’ts (benchmarks, valuations), with which they (2) can reject the analyses presented by us (e.g. “nobody is being discriminated against” in our work) and reject our offers of how to interpret their work; or (3) practitioners choose to translate points of our discussion into a working logic of the police. With such repatriation and translation during focus groups, at times boundaries around the two professions of research and police are drawn by limiting them to “their” field of expertise and purpose. Although science is presented as being able to tell us what makes police work “exciting”, practitioners often expressed that they found it rather difficult to link statements, especially about the details of police work practice to theoretical academic concepts, for example, of a liminal phase (see Porsché & Negnal, 2017). At other times, participating practitioners said that the collaborative interpretations showed up aspects of their work that were otherwise discussed rarely, such as prevention officers’ implicit attitudes and evaluations or different demands and invitations to the police. Such responses can be understood as a skillful rejection of criticism—from which scientists might conclude that they have little or no audience. However, this also shows that the participants in the focus

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic… 

41

groups are considering how they can tie their and their colleagues’ working practices closer to their concept papers about prevention work. Participants collect ideas about further ways of cooperating with researchers (e.g. through evaluations) and discuss limits of such cooperation. Practitioners also discuss the role and position of the police, for example, in their alliance work with partners they work with, regarding, in particular, what police can and should do. The practitioners’ handling of our analysis primarily follows a logic of conceptual benchmark thinking in order to find ways of improving their work. Although surely at times fruitful, we propose that this perspective is limiting because an evaluating perspective—in particular, one that has its explanations for deficient conduct ready at hand—takes attention away from seeing how processes unfold and why, and what their idiosyncrasies, requirements and pitfalls are.

 onclusions on Critical Discussions in Ethnographic C Focus Groups with the Police Police action is critical in a number of ways: ritualized actions are evaluated by those who carry them out in acts of self-criticism, by colleagues and in the anticipation of criticism by these and others. Critical attitudes, ideas and replies are therefore not new to police officers and, in particular, to prevention officials. In fact, critical police research constitutes an established strand of research that monitors the police and its members and identifies specific problems. Such reviews are part of the research field we observed ethnographically and discussed with the police. The purpose of this chapter was not to contribute to the discussion of substantive criticism on policing, but rather to look at the mechanisms of its generation. For this, the ethnographic focus groups served as a framework. Here, the interlocutors at times carried out discourse one could call doing-being critical. Our supposedly uncritical question of what police does in its work and our insistence on situational conditions and requirements advanced to an unintentional crisis experiment (Garfinkel, 1967: 35–75): The focus groups invited various forms of criticism, showed up prevailing understandings of criticism with its normative standards about

42 

Y. Porsché et al.

concepts and values, and provided insight into methods of criticizing. The analysis of the accounts (Garfinkel, 1967: 1), that is, the remarks, comments, explanations and justifications, brings into view how this common doing of being critical is done: Recognizing and solving problems, expecting, accepting and responding to criticism, as well as rejecting and translating research. Practices in the social interaction of the ethnographic focus group can be studied in terms of careful or anticipated criticism, common accomplishments of managing face work with respect to the individuals present, the talked about police unit or the police as a whole. In addition to the practical problems of the actors that our ethnographic materials describe, these practices can also be analyzed regarding negotiations or struggles that they entail about the authority to interpret the ethnographic material. The anticipated criticism thus not only represents an exercise for the people present to save their face but—according to the participants’ explanations and our observations of their work—constitutes a challenge they have to deal with in their work outside of our ethnographic focus group circle. Whether or not the youth or visitors of the celebration and demonstration in the example in the extract do or do not raise this criticism, the police feel they need to be prepared for it. In methodological terms, what makes our ethnographic focus groups different to conventional focus groups is that focusing on thick descriptions or transcripts from situations all of those present in the discussion have experience with allows us—to a certain extent—to go beyond an interaction analysis of how people negotiate meaning in a focus group (Hollander, 2002; Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2000) or how they manage the unusual situation of a focus group discussion (Agar & MacDonalds, 1995; Puchta & Wolff, 2010). The ethnographic focus group is thus revealing for us in at least three respects: (a) the discussions represent data about how institutional actors of different rank, different working tasks and from different units interact; (b) how they present their work when interacting with us researchers, our representations and interpretations of their work as well as our theorization about it in our presented analyses; and (c) what practical working problems our ethnographic material points to that we might not have considered at all or in the same way. The ethnographic focus groups thus at the same time serve us to generate new data and to

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic… 

43

validate or modify our interpretations. Regarding the practitioner’s gains, the focus groups are supposed to allow them insight into the way we work—including quarrels, contradictions and changes some of which are no longer visible in written publications—provide them with a novel perspective on their own work (e.g. thick descriptions and transcripts) and give them a space to discuss their working practices in a constellation with colleagues and us researchers reflexively in the sense that they have the opportunity to take a step back and discuss their working practices. Critique in our research means the work with the criticism that appears in the field. Ethnographic focus group discussions served us to look at how performing critique—criticizing and being criticized—is carried out in the particular field of institutional police work where it is so common. Our examples also show that criticism has a stabilizing function. In the “experimental space of the focus group”, in which the constellation of participants is unfamiliar to all, and in which the ethnographic materials and transcripts, questions and discussions are unfamiliar to the practitioners, performing critique constitutes an activity both police officers and researchers are routinized in and (more or less) comfortable with. Fundamental and substantive criticism of police work—which was not the focus of our contribution—is important. However, we propose a critical perspective that focuses less on substantive deficits or suggestions for alternative behavior but first studies the logics of police practice and subsequently asks what risks and challenges the police get themselves into. A persistent concentration on concrete work situations allows for a collaborative thinking about achievements and alternative ways of conduct, thus opening up possibilities for a broader repertoire of police action. Using preventive police work as an example we tried to show that ethnographic focus groups can provide a reflexive forum from which practitioners and their organizations can learn and researchers gain insights into institutional work and its members perspectives on their and the researcher’s work. Regarding this volume’s “framework for application”, the question what impact discussions that were sparked in the ethnographic focus groups and that were carried on among the police will have is yet to be seen—and would constitute a fascinating subject of a future research project.

44 

Y. Porsché et al.

References Agar, M., & MacDonalds, J. (1995). Focus groups and ethnography. Human Organization, 54, 78–86. Becker, H. S. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14(3), 239–247. Behr, R. (2012). Die “Gewalt der Anderen” – oder: Warum es bei der aktuellen Gewaltdebatte nicht (nur) um Gewalt geht. In T. Ohlemacher, & J.-T. Werner (Eds.), Empirische Polizeiforschung XIV: Polizei und Gewalt (pp.  177–196). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Verl. für Polizeiwissenschaften. Belina, B. (2014). Was kritische Polizeiforschung sein könnte und sollte. Ein Beitrag zur Debatte. Sub\urban, 2(2), 61–64. Bohmann, U., Gertenbach, L., & Laux, H. (2010). Ein Spiel zwischen Nähe und Distanz. Formen der Kritik unter nachmetaphysischen Bedingungen. In K. Becker, L. Gertenbach, H. Laux, & T. Reitz (Eds.), Grenzverschiebungen des Kapitalismus (pp.  55–74). Frankfurt am Main, Germany/New York: Campus. Breidenstein, G., Hirschauer, S., Kalthoff, H., & Nieswand, B. (Eds.). (2013). Ethnografie. Die Praxis der Feldforschung. Konstanz/München, Germany: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft. Cremer, H. (2013). “Racial Profiling”  – Menschenrechtswidrige Personenkontrollen nach § 22 Abs. 1a Bundespolizeigesetz. Empfehlungen an den Gesetzgeber, Gerichte und Polizei. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, unter: http://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/ uploads/tx_commerce/Studie_Racial_Profiling_Menschenrechtswidrige_ Personenkontrollen_nach_Bundespolizeigesetz.pdf Eick, V. (2014). Pazifizierungsprobleme: Kriminalprävention macht Schule. Kriminologisches Journal, 46(4), S.232–S.248. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 338–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company. Herzog, B. (2016). Discourse analysis as immanent critique: Possibilities and limits of normative critique in empirical discourse studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 278–292.

2  Police Work Under Scrutiny: (Self-)criticism in an Ethnographic… 

45

Hirschauer, S. (2001). Ethnografisches Schreiben und die Schweigsamkeit des Sozialen. Zu einer Methodologie der Beschreibung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie Jg. 30 Heft 6. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, 429–451. Hollander, J.  A. (2002). Resisting vulnerability: The social reconstruction of gender in interaction. Social Problems, 49(I. 4), 474–496. Koeck, R. (1976). Das Problem der ethnomethodologischen Indifferenz. Ein Plädoyer für eine kritische Ethnomethodologie. Soziale Welt, 27(3), 261–277. Künkel, J. (2014). Intersektionalität, Machtanalyse, Theorienpluralität. Eine Replik zur Debatte um kritische Polizeiforschung. Sub\urban, 2(2), S.77–S.90. Mensching, A. (2004). Den Blick zurück nach vorn – Plädoyer für eine verstehende Polizeiforschung. Neue Kriminalpolitik, 4/2004, 125–127. Meuser, M., & Löschper, G. (2002). Einleitung: Qualitative Forschung in der Kriminologie (26 paragraphs). Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [Online-Journal], 3(1). Negnal, D., Howe, C., & Porsché, Y. (2018). Polizei & Kritik. Ein Beitrag der Ethnografie. In C.  Howe & L.  Ostermeier (Eds.), Polizei und Gesellschaft. Transdisziplinäre Perspektiven zu Methoden, Theorie und Empirie reflexiver Polizeiforschung (pp.  191–206). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Ohlemacher, T. (2003). Diesseits von für und über? Verstehende Polizeiforschung verstehen. Kommentar zu Jo Reichertz und Norbert Schröer: Hermeneutisch-­ wissenssoziologische Polizeiforschung. In J. Reichertz & N. Schröer (Eds.), Hermeneutische Polizeiforschung (pp.  139–146). Opladen, Germany: Leske+Budrich. Ohlemacher, T., & Liebl, K. (2000). Empirische Polizeiforschung: Forschung in, für und über die Polizei. In K. Liebl & T. Ohlemacher (Eds.), Empirische Polizeiforschung. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven in einem sich entwickelnden Forschungsfeld (pp. 7–10). Herbolzheim, Germany: Centaurus. Porsché, Y., & Kiefer, E. (2017). Projekt: Jugendlichen Verantwortung übertragen. In T.  Scheffer, C.  Howe, E.  Kiefer, D.  Negnal, & Y.  Porsché (Eds.), Polizeilicher Kommunitarismus. Eine Praxisforschung urbaner Kriminalprävention (pp.  55–76). Frankfurt am Main, Germany/New York: Campus. Porsché, Y., & Negnal, D. (2017). Die Erziehung zu gewaltlosen Bürgern. Rituelle Praktiken in polizeilicher Gewaltprävention. Soziale Probleme, 28(1), 101–125.

46 

Y. Porsché et al.

Puchta, C., & Wolff, S. (2010). Diskursanalysen institutioneller Gesprache – das Beispiel von ≫Focus Groups≪. In R. Keller, A. Hirseland, W. Schneider, & W. Viehover (Eds.), Handbuch sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse (Bd. 2). Forschungspraxis (4th ed., pp. 473–490). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS. Reichertz, J. (Ed.). (2003). Hermeneutische Polizeiforschung. Opladen, Germany: Leske + Budrich. Sacks, H. (1984). On doing being ordinary. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413–429). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sarangi, S., & Candlin, C. N. (2003). Introduction. Trading between reflexivity and relevance: New challenges for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 271–285. Scheffer, T., Howe, C., Kiefer, E., Negnal, D., & Porsché, Y. (2017). Polizeilicher Kommunitarismus. Eine Praxisforschung urbaner Kriminalprävention. Frankfurt am Main, Germany/New York: Campus. Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2000). Thinking differently about thinking positive: A discursive approach to cancer patients’ talk. Social Science and Medicine, 50(I. 6), 797–811.

3 How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch Language in Multilingual Belgium: A Research and Application Design Catherine Bouko and Olivier Standaert

In this chapter, we present a research and application design which seeks to confront soon-to-be journalists with the realities of their future profession concerning the Dutch language, which we identified in previous research. Our aim is twofold: firstly, we seek to identify the representations of second-year students, who do not have any practice-based experience of journalism yet (research objective). Secondly, we seek to raise awareness among them pertaining to the use of Dutch in newsrooms during this second research, so that they can prepare for their future working conditions with full knowledge of the facts (application objective). In doing so, C. Bouko (*) Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] O. Standaert Ecole de Communication, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_3

47

48 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

we hope to have a real impact on the students by disseminating our findings. Our chapter is divided into six sections. The first section focuses on epistemology in applied linguistics and on the need to distinguish between the intellectual positions of the researcher, the expert and the thinker. The second section centres around professional identity and languages of soon-to-be journalists. In section “The Representations and Uses of Dutch Among Belgian French-Speaking Journalists”, we summarize the findings we discovered in our previous research. Three of them were shared with the students during this research. Our method, based on qualitative questionnaires, is presented in section “Method”. The findings are explained in section “Findings”, before the conclusion.

 pplied Linguistics, Between Neutral Axiology A and Commitment in Society For Buckley and Du Toit (2010), the increasing knowledge-based economy coupled with the decrease in higher education funding have at least one advantage: “The days of the ‘ivory tower’ syndrome are over” (2010, p. 9). Indeed, the development of partnerships with industry to innovate in the production of new knowledge has become the universities’ “survival kit” (2010, p. 1). In the same vein, Lam (2010) points out how a now prevailing market ethos in academia is leading researchers to particularly adopt hybrid professional profiles, at the crossroads between traditional and entrepreneurial mindsets. Paradoxically, truly applied issues remain under-represented in applied linguistics, notably due to the relative prestigious status of theoretical research, which leads researchers to try to have an impact on their peers rather than on wider communities (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015; Lawson & Sayers, 2016). Based on Candlin and Sarangui (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004), Grujicic-Alatriste (2015) outlines in a practical framework how the relevance of research in practical settings could be improved at three levels: (1) partnerships in applied research should ideally be based on horizontal relationships with the informants, in which they are both

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

49

sources and recipients of insights; (2) the purposes of research should be concrete and practice-based and (3) the findings should be relevant and useful for the target participants. She also points out how impact might be achieved thanks to better dissemination outside academia’s networks. The efficiency of impact is central in Grujicic-Alatriste’s approach, who essentially seeks to fill gaps between theory and practice in order to avoid the ivory tower syndrome. However, the epistemic nature of impact is particularly sensitive and might need further preliminary reflection. Grujicic-Alatriste relies on Knapp & Antos’ definition of applied linguistics, in which they argue that “applied linguistics, as a social science, might need to provide more, or perhaps something else in addition to theory, basic research and pure knowledge” (Knapp & Antos, 2011). However, defining what more or what else should be provided in applied research is not only a question of adding elements to theoretical approaches; this question implies epistemic issues regarding the very definition of research in applied linguistics (and in humanities more broadly) and the role of the researcher in society. Indeed, the new business-based imperatives give rise to concerns regarding the risk that the role of the humanities in society might be altered significantly (Belfiore & Upchurch, 2013). The type of impact targeted in applied linguistics does not usually seek to improve industry performance; Lawson and Sayers argue how the main objective of most linguistic applications is ideological through improving the living conditions of more vulnerable groups: Of course, for many, perhaps all of us, interest in sociolinguistic application or impact does not derive solely from recent carrots or sticks, but from longer standing stirrings to “do justice” and “love mercy” (Micah 6:8), especially since the people “whose data fuel our theories and descriptions” (Rickford 1997: 186) are often poor, and oppressed or disadvantaged in schools, housing, courtrooms, interactions with the police, and opportunities to offer significant improvements to their children. These stirrings are reflected in Labov’s (1982: 172) principle of debt incurred (“An investigator who has obtained linguistic data from members of a speech community has an obligation to use the knowledge based on that data for the benefit of the community, when it has need of it”) and Wolfram’s (1993: 227) principle of linguistic gratuity (“Investigators who have obtained linguistic data

50 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

from members of a speech community should actively pursue positive ways in which they can return linguistic favours to the community”). (p. xiv)

Their definition of impact as “to effect positive social change” (2010, p. 16) also comprises this ideological dimension. This needs an epistemic examination that seeks to define the very outlines of research in applied linguistics before determining its practical applications. Charaudeau (2013) underlines how the researcher is torn by contradictory injunctions, that is, between a position of denunciation of what dominant discourses conceal and a stance of axiological neutrality, which rest on the opposition between a critical sociology, following on from the Frankfurt School, and a more pragmatic sociology. For Koren (2013), the neutral approach is the one chosen by most French researchers in linguistics. In this view, researchers must be careful not to evaluate their objects of research; otherwise they risk falling into denunciation or prescription, which are not within their area of competence and remit. Three intellectual positions are distinguished to highlight the specificity of research (Charaudeau, 2013; Doury, 2013; Heinich, 2002). For example, Heinich (2002) differentiates between the researcher, the expert and the thinker, in as far as they do not address the same audiences (peers, decision-­ makers, general public, respectively), do not set the same objectives (knowledge, action, discussion) and do not use the same methods to reach them (demonstration, advice, persuasion). In this line of thought, any researcher’s intervention in the field is related to the roles of expert and/or thinker and must be considered as a “second step” (Doury, 2013), which is possible only after epistemic attitude and the aim of neutrality specific to research. From that moment, the researcher fulfils another role, namely, that of expert or thinker. With its problem-oriented approach that seeks “not only to describe and explain, but also to root out a particular kind of illusion, […] to create awareness in agents of their own needs and interests” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009), critical discourse analysis (CDA) sees itself as “a form of intervention in social practice and social relationships” (Fairclough, Mulderrig, & Wodak, 2011). Following the French distinction of intellectual positions, we can consider that CDA researchers seek to play the roles of expert and thinker, to have impact that goes beyond the

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

51

­ roduction of knowledge, in favour of a “form of intervention” in society p (in terms of action and discussion). However, like in other areas in applied linguistics, the concrete application of the roles of expert and thinker, that is, “committed knowledge” in Bourdieu’s words, are often neglected in CDA too, especially since it has become an established discipline that is also affected by “rhetorical processes of marketization” (Billig, 2003). For Bourdieu, There is a dichotomy […] between scholarship and commitment - between those who are devote to scientific work, which is done in a scholarly manner for the benefit of other scientists, and those who are committed and transfer their knowledge to the outside world. The opposition is artificial and, in fact, one has to be an independent scientist who works according to the rules of scholarship to be able to produce committed knowledge, i.e. scholarship with commitment. And this knowledge is only acquired in the scholarly work, subject to the rules of academia. In other words, we must blow up a certain number of oppositions that are in our heads and that are ways of authorizing resignations: starting with the one of the scientist who withdraws in his ivory tower. The dichotomy between scholarship and commitment reassures the researcher in his good conscience because he receives the approval of the scientific community. It is as if scientists thought they were doubly learned because they do nothing with their science. (Bourdieu, 2002, our translation)

If the defenders of the researcher’s axiological neutrality in applied linguistics cited above probably do not all agree with Bourdieu’s injunction to transfer their knowledge outside academia, they recognize the legitimacy of this intervention, provided that it is carried out in a second time, when the researcher fulfils the role of expert or thinker. Bourdieu criticizes a dichotomy where the defenders of the researcher’s position see a difference in temporality rather than an incompatibility of roles. Indeed, the “communication contract” between any contributor (whether researcher, expert or thinker) and her recipients only allows for one role at a time (Charaudeau, 2013) in order to avoid any confusion of roles that could lead to abuse of power (when the researcher uses her scientific skills to convey—consciously or not—ideological convictions) or irresponsibility (when the researcher loses interest in the normative uses that

52 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

can be made of her analyses) (Heinich, 2002, p.  119). In line with Heinich, we seek to develop a two-step practice-based research, in which we act as researchers and then as experts in order to preserve axiological neutrality and to avoid any abuse of power or irresponsibility. The case study we present in this chapter concerns the approaches to languages by soon-to-be journalists.

Identity and Foreign Languages of Soon-to-Be Journalists The first step of Grujicic-Alatriste’s framework for applicability (2015) concerns the identification of the real-world settings where research insights might be relevant. We chose to focus on soon-to-be journalists for one practical, one psychological and two theoretical reasons. Firstly, Williams, Guglietti, and Haney (2018) point out how the shifts in media landscape (especially the impact of new technologies) challenge educators to adapt and anticipate the future of journalism practices in their curricula, and have often resulted in incompatible approaches regarding theory versus practice or industry versus academy (Clark, 2013). Williams et al. outline how the importance of critical thinking has shifted in favour of vocational skill-based training to the extent that some scholars now plea for a “blowing up” of the curricula (Williams et al., 2018, p.  821) to give critical thinking the central place it deserves. Secondly, limited research has explored the process of becoming journalists (Shardlow, 2009; Williams et al., 2018). Paradoxically, while critical skills seem on the decrease in journalism curricula, they appear to be surprisingly prevalent in students’ minds: during their research on journalism students’ professional identity in Canada, Williams et  al. were indeed “struck by the degree to which students were engaged with questions of objectivity, public service and ethics” (2018, p. 824), which they illustrate with metaphors such as a “crusade for the truth” (2018, p. 826), beyond collecting basic facts. Williams et al.’s findings concern one specific geographical area and cannot be strictly transposed elsewhere. Based on insights collected among journalism students from five countries

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

53

(Poland, Russia, Sweden, Estonia and Finland), Nygren and Stigbrand’s research illustrates how “it is not possible to talk about a single and similar professional identity, but rather hybrid forms of professional identities that combine some universal journalistic values with cultural heritage and social/political conditions of the different countries” (Nygren & Stigbrand, 2013, p. 841). Likewise, we argue that the specific political context of multilingual Belgium may play a role on how Belgian journalism students identify with this profession, especially regarding their use of Belgium’s official languages in professional settings. Therefore, our research seeks to identify how French-speaking students establish connections (or not) between their view of the profession of a journalist (especially its ideological dimension) and the inherent use of the country’s second official language (i.e. Dutch). We chose to focus on students given these research-related issues but also to ensure optimal application. Indeed, our previous research revealed to what extent journalists recognized that they would be more proficient today if they had been more proactive in their learning when they were students. This reveals the importance of raising awareness among soon-­ to-­be journalists, so that they take language learning into their own hands now, rather than wait until they apply for their first jobs. A practical reason also explains why we focused on students: these stakeholders are much more available than other ones (e.g. journalists in our case). This availability is practical—lecturers-researchers have very regular contacts with students—but might also be psychological. Indeed, as a researcher, it may seem easier to approach a student than a professional who is snowed under and who we do not like to disturb if we can help it. We call this mindset the “sorry-to-disturb syndrome”, which may be related to the “impostor syndrome” (Clance & Imes, 1978) and by which the researcher is not fully convinced of the interest professionals may have in the subject area and does not wish to bother them with it as a result. This sense of lack of real, concrete relevance outside academia contrasts with the “predation” attitudes that researchers are sometimes credited for, who “return to their ivory towers after using the field for their own personal gain” (Donnay, 2001, our own translation). Working closely with the stakeholders in the field from the very conception of the research design, and not just as data providers, can prevent this

54 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

e­ mbarrassment, and its consequences in terms of applicability. This also reveals how developing strategies for approaching practitioners (i.e. step 3 in Grujicic-Alatriste’s framework) also raises important issues.

 he Representations and Uses of Dutch T Among Belgian French-Speaking Journalists As we will see in section “Method”, we sought to compare students’ representations before and after they became aware of some language-related professional realities we identified in previous research (Bouko, Standaert, & Vandendaele, 2018; Standaert, Bouko, & Vandendaele, 2019), which we briefly describe in this section. In multilingual countries, where contact with the other language communities is potentially high, the question arises how proficient journalists are in the other national languages. This applies to Belgium, in particular, where some media aim to cover, at least partially, what is happening on both sides of the language border, mainly dividing Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia, and, to a lesser extent, the German-speaking community of Belgium. In previous research, we attempted to understand how these reporters deal with Dutch, the most widely spoken language in Belgium (60% of the population). It is difficult to assess the use of Dutch in the newsroom of a French-speaking media outlet using field methods such as observation. This is true, firstly, because the language is not systematically used and, secondly, because it is not easy to predict when the occasion will arise to use it. Its use depends on a number of factors such as the news stories to be covered, the availability of the journalists, their language ability and the area in which they are assigned to work. For example, journalists covering federal politics and national sporting events have to talk to comparatively more Dutch respondents than their colleagues who report on culture, society or foreign affairs. Consequently, we opted to approach the research question by means of 16 semi-directive interviews with journalists working for the television newsroom of RTBF, the French-speaking public service

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

55

b­roadcasting. The questions of our interview guide were organized around the following seven broad topics: • School experiences and potential language learning difficulties. • Comparison between the French- and Dutch-speakers’ language skills and explanation for possible differences. • Career projection when they were students, in particular, the place of Dutch in the future professional practices they imagined for themselves. • Media landscapes in Belgium (the distinction between Dutch- and French-speaking information). • The place of Dutch in the newsroom. • The chosen languages with Dutch-speaking interviewees. • Their own and their colleagues’ levels of Dutch. For the majority of the journalists, regardless of their levels, the Dutch classes at school and college or university failed to offer them a high level in Dutch. There was too much theory, not enough course hours and no linguistic immersion. This representation had been observed among French-speaking respondents 15 years ago (Wynants, 2001) and seems to have remained stable over time. However, one journalist insisted that one owes it to oneself to go beyond the courses and another respondent underlined that it is up to you to maintain your language skills. Indeed, we frequently observed the paradox, often conscious among journalists, between the desire to learn and the lack of motivation to do so. In their current professional lives, this lack of commitment can be attributed to time constraints (long working days and irregular time schedules) and by a pragmatic need to speak Dutch better, which is not demonstrated on a daily basis. Ideally, journalists would like to be more proficient in Dutch, but they manage to do their jobs with the level they currently have. Regardless of their levels, journalists perceive Dutch as a language that is “not difficult” or “not particularly difficult”. During the interviews, some of them pointed out the difficulties regarding syntactic forms (e.g. subject-­verb inversion). We hold the hypothesis that such syntactic differences with French partly explain the Francophones’ “disenchantment” and/or lack of interest with Dutch. Indeed, a Francophone will

56 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

i­mmediately notice his possible syntactic mistakes, while tense mistakes in English go undetected, for instance. Our respondents often argued that a practice that is not fully bilingual affects an ideal view of journalism, or at least a certain view of journalistic performance. Interviews in Dutch are less comprehensive, as illustrated in the following three extracts: “We only ask general questions, we have more difficulty anticipating what the source will say”, “I don’t know how to respond to a statement in the way I would like to”, “Because my mind is already occupied with holding the mike and checking the picture is centered, I only try to catch the gist”, three different journalists confessed. The loss of spontaneity or nuance in the live broadcasts is explained by a possible lack of vocabulary and difficulty focusing on the core message, the language in which it is communicated and technical constraints. The language issue can also potentially influence the choice of spokesperson, thereby interfering with the journalist’s gate-keeping function. We also outlined paradoxes and balances that are sometimes hard to strike in Dutch-related craft ethos. Unsurprisingly, our research revealed how most respondents would like to speak Dutch better. However, more specifically, most consider that a collective command of Dutch is crucial, while individual proficiency is only one skill among other journalistic skills. Sometimes, this seems to be an acceptable compromise between the idealized ethos of the journalist who can easily work in the other language of the country, and a more pragmatic ethos, for which day-to-day realities justify intermediate (or even basic) knowledge of Dutch. All respondents consider their Flemish peers’ level of French (much) higher than their level in Dutch, which reinforces their frequent embarrassment. Beating the representation of the monolingual Francophone, who starts to speak French to his interlocutors immediately, turns out to be very important for the journalists, for reasons of respect or human warmth but also to efficiently use one’s professional network (especially in politics). Our research revealed four major practices used by journalists when they have to cover a news story in Flanders or interview a Dutch speaker: ask a colleague for help with translations, ask the Dutch-speaking source to speak in French, prepare questions and topics more thoroughly, notably using automatic translating, or avoid performing a task and arrange

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

57

for another colleague to take care of it. An unspoken rule in the newsroom in our study seems to be that those journalists who are more proficient in a language assist those who aren’t. This solidarity appears expected by the hierarchy as it is accepted that not every journalist masters Dutch. At the RTBF, these translations are often performed in a hurry and/or thanks to last minute resourcefulness according to the availability of the journalists present in the newsroom when colleagues need help. The balance is not always easy to find between the TV viewers’ increased open-­ mindedness towards foreign languages and the extra work that subtitled translations imply, while the journalists already often have the impression that they have to work against the clock.

Method We decided to perform a content analysis of responses obtained with a written qualitative questionnaire. The respondents were 44  second-year communication students, who do not yet have any practice-based knowledge of the profession and whose representations have, therefore, not yet been confronted with the realities in the field. We chose in favour of convenience sampling, that is, where respondents are selected because of their convenient proximity to the researcher because we wanted to avoid the biases that a selection on a voluntary basis would have caused. In our research design, one class session with one of the two researchers was, therefore, devoted to answering the questionnaire, which allowed us to obtain data from all the students present (which corresponds to 50% of the enrolled students), without asking them to free up additional time. We favoured questionnaires over focus groups for two reasons. Firstly, we wanted to guarantee total axiological neutrality in exchanges and avoid any feeling of dictate on the part of the students. Indeed, if we are convinced of the importance of foreign languages and of the need of students’ proactive behaviour in this regard, we did not want to be the ones who put that thought in their minds at this stage; we only sought to verify if they asked themselves questions when reading the results we presented to them, if they themselves linked these insights to a certain view of journalism and/or if they projected themselves into their future careers in their

58 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

answers, without any push from their lecturers. Secondly and similarly, we wished to avoid any bandwagon effect that often occurs in focus groups, namely, the influence of other respondents on the students’ own responses. The questionnaire consists of three parts. The first part is composed of contextual questions to find out their profile in relation with their mother tongue and other languages that may be spoken at home, the number of class hours of foreign languages in secondary school, their level of passive and active knowledge of English and Dutch (based on the questions used for the Eurobarometer about languages), together with the most important foreign languages for their future career. In this section, we also asked them if they found Dutch to be a difficult language (also in comparison with English) and if they thought Belgian Dutch-speakers were better at French than Belgian French-speakers at Dutch. The second section centres around their view of the profession and included the following questions pertaining to their view of journalism, in particular, at the RTBF: • In your opinion, what are the five most important skills a journalist should have? • Do you think that journalists working for the RTBF are required to have a good command of Dutch in order to be hired and work there? • How often do you think journalists at the RTBF use Dutch for the activities listed below? Every day, every week, every month, several times a year, never? –– Consult Dutch-speaking media for media monitoring or in relation to a topic they have to cover –– Contact a source of information –– Understand an oral activity in Dutch (press conference, speeches, court cases, etc.) –– Interview a respondent in Dutch to be broadcast during the news –– Translate excerpts into Dutch that will be inserted in the news report The respondents were asked to complete the first two parts of the questionnaire and submit them to us before moving on to the third section in

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

59

order to separate their answers written before and after reading some insights from our research on RTBF journalists and Dutch. In the third section, we summarized our findings pertaining to the impact of (insufficient) proficiency in Dutch on journalistic performance, the unspoken rule regarding solidarity in the newsroom and the four major practices used by journalists when they have to cover a news story in Flanders or interview a Dutch speaker (see section “The Representations and Uses of Dutch Among Belgian French-Speaking Journalists”). Grujicic-Alatriste’s second step of her framework for applicability deals with the modes of dissemination of results. We decided to disseminate the findings from our previous research only through this third section of the questionnaire. In this research and application design, our objective is to raise general awareness. Therefore, our chosen mode of dissemination was not elaborate. Focus groups might be organized at a later stage, during which moderators would present the findings in a more finely grained way. For the moment, insights, as well as the students’ reactions, are only in writing. We asked them what they thought about these insights, whether they found them surprising or whether they were in line with their view of journalism. We also asked them if these results changed their expectations regarding the language courses in their curriculum. Not all second-­ year communication students intend to become journalists. To take this into account, we prepared two versions of the questionnaire, one on journalism and one on business communication. This second version, based on research conducted by other researchers, is not the subject of this chapter. The students had 50 minutes to complete the questionnaire. It took them between 25 and 45 minutes to fill it out anonymously.

Findings One-third of the students completed the questionnaire on journalism (17 out of 44). Among them, only one student is not Belgian. Given his/her lack of knowledge of the linguistic situation in Belgium, this questionnaire was not taken into account.

60 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

Our findings are divided into three parts. The first concerns the students’ language profiles and their representations regarding Dutch in general; the second one centres around the importance and the use of Dutch in professional settings. In the third part, we present the findings related to their points of view on the results of our previous research and the impact they have on their view of the profession.

 tudents’ Language Profiles and Their Representations S Regarding Dutch All the respondents are French-speaking and the vast majority live in a totally monolingual environment (13 out of 16). Six respondents claim they have no skills in Dutch; eight declare to have a basic command and two consider having a good command. The results are more positive for English: only one respondent declares to have no skills; five consider they have basic skills; eight a good command and two a very good command. The vast majority of the respondents (13) consider Dutch to be a difficult language due to its specific syntax (subject-verb order) or the discrepancies with French. English seems easier to them, given the multiple contacts they have with this language, whereas they do not have any contacts with Dutch. These representations are in line with the journalists’ points of view (see section “The Representations and Uses of Dutch Among Belgian French-Speaking Journalists”). Most of them (14) consider that Belgian Dutch-speakers are better at French than French-speakers at Dutch, which is in line with other research (Wynants, 2001) and with what the journalists of our research claimed.

 tudents’ Representations on the Importance S and the Use of Dutch in Journalistic Settings Half of the respondents consider that English is the most important language for their career and that Dutch is the second most important one. Only three students rank Dutch as number one, followed by English as

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

61

number two, whereas one respondent considers them as equally important. For the other five, Dutch is not considered an important language, to the benefit of Spanish. It is interesting to note that the importance of languages is not always determined in relation to their command of these languages: the three students who consider Dutch as the most important language declare that they only have a basic command of this language. They therefore go beyond their comfort zone by considering that a language in which they are not really proficient is the most important one. However, this issue may arise for English and Spanish. The following results concern their view of journalism. Eight respondents plan to work for a national/international news media, while two prefer local news media. Six students are still undecided. The three journalistic skills that are most often ranked as important are curiosity, writing skills and objectivity/neutrality (in relation to the journalist’s role as watchdog). Foreign languages are sometimes mentioned, but only in the fourth place. The majority (11) imagine that journalists must have a good command of Dutch to be hired and work at the RTBF. The other five do not know whether this is an important recruitment criterion. When they specify the level that is probably required, one-third of the respondents imagine a basic command (mainly comprehension skills) might suffice; another third describe an intermediate level through which the journalist is able to do his job in Dutch, even if he makes some mistakes. The last third assume that the command must (very) advanced, even sometimes almost perfect, which, according to them, makes it possible for the journalist to bounce back to the words of interviewees, for example. Most respondents overestimate the frequency with which RTBF journalists use Dutch in their daily tasks: thirteen of them think they monitor Dutch-speaking media every day (eight) or every week (five). Thirteen of them also imagine that they contact Dutch-speaking sources every week. According to eight of them, the journalists have to understand an oral activity in Dutch (press conference, speeches, court cases, etc.) every week; the other respondents’ responses are equally divided across the other categories. The majority (nine) think that they translate extracts into Dutch in order to broadcast them in the news every week. The other responses are equally divided between the other categories of frequency.

62 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

Unlike their responses regarding these first four journalistic tasks, their representations on the frequency of interviews with Dutch-speaking people are more contrasting: six of them think that journalists conduct such interviews every week, whereas five believe that they only do them a few times a year. One student even thinks that they never interview Dutch-­ speaking respondents.

 tudents’ Representations Confronted S with the Results of Previous Research The answers to the question of what they think of these results and what level of Dutch they consider necessary reveal three major approaches: • One-third of the respondents are comfortable with the disparity between the ideal scenario and reality: admittedly, ideally, journalists in a bilingual country should be bilingual. Several insist on this supposed self-evidence by using adverbs like “of course” or “obviously”. Most of the time, they consider that everyone should be bilingual, not only journalists. One student even states that “the best thing, of course, would be for everyone to speak the three national languages, but it remains a utopia” (our translation). Promoting extreme ideals—an entire trilingual country, for example—while recognizing them directly as unattainable, may be a sign of an attitude of defence, protection of identity and/or resignation, which means that it is not worth even trying to achieve the objectives. • Another third of the respondents insist on the importance of being proficient in French and Dutch, for citizens in general but sometimes for journalists, in particular, given that it would allow them to cover the news on both sides of the language border. These respondents feel concerned about the need to cover the news of the whole country and not only their own language community. One respondent pointed out that mastering both languages is also essential for the interviewees. After all, it allows them to respond in the language that suits them best. According to this point of view, it is up to the journalist to adapt, and not the other way round.

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

63

• The remaining third of the respondents consider that RTBF should set higher standards by hiring journalists with a better command of Dutch, or even, according to one respondent, by hiring journalists dedicated to Dutch. Most respondents insist that journalists should be helped, for example, by training them. We also wanted to explore their responses further and asked them whether these results surprised them or whether they were in line with their opinion of the profession, for each of the three results presented. We particularly observed three trends in the responses regarding the lack of journalistic skill, which seem to reveal three different levels of impact of these results on their own representations: • Half of the respondents argued they are not surprised by these results and explained their lack of surprise in a logical way: one is always less efficient in a foreign language. These respondents did not share any thoughts on the impact on the work of journalists and their role as watchdogs, which many had listed among the main skills of journalists, though. Some blame language education for this lack of competence. • Some are negatively surprised by this reality and consider that journalists should be able to work in both languages. Others say they are not surprised but point out that this reality does not meet their expectation of the profession. Unlike the first category, the respondents face up to reality with their opinion of the profession here. • Two students consider their own careers when reacting to these results. They regret the situation and would like to be able to conduct interviews in both languages, even though they are not capable of doing so. The reactions to the findings regarding the required command of Dutch at the RTBF also reveal different degrees of impact on the students. Half of the students report being surprised by the required level and find it insufficient. The other half find the level normal because Belgian public media are separated by language communities and because journalistic quality has to prevail over language skills. Only one student puts himself or herself on the line when finding out about the level

64 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

requested; (s)he says (s)he is reassured by the flexibility of the expected level. (S)he adopts a particularly honest stance, which points out the tension between a certain ideal and reality, when (s)he states “even if I know it is open to criticism, I say this to suit my personal interest” (our translation). Lastly, their reactions concerning the four major practices used by journalists when they have to cover a news story in Flanders or interview a Dutch speaker are essentially of two kinds: the respondents either consider that developing such tactics is a good pragmatic solution and that solidarity is positive, or they note that some of the tactics, especially delegating tasks, only delay the problem. Only one respondent addresses the issue from a personal point of view and states that he or she identifies with these methods of avoidance. In general, the impact of these results seems to be reflected in three types of management of the disparity between ideals and reality: (1) some students justify pragmatic procedures that do not correspond to a certain ideal but which, in a way, sometimes reassure them; (2) others deplore the insufficient command of some journalists, which can lead to these practices, but feel powerless to reverse this trend, even if they would like to do so; (3) less often, some respondents openly lament the tensions between their journalist ideals in Belgium and everyday practices. One student particularly crystallizes the complexity of the situation when (s) he states that “quite objectively, I would say that a command of Dutch and English is essential. But I think that a large proportion of journalists would no longer operate legitimately and that many new graduates would be in trouble” (our translation). Lastly, the vast majority of respondents pointed out that their language courses should be more demanding, given the reality in the field. Several respondents expressed the hope that the courses they will be taking over the next three years will prepare them to a sufficient level.

Concluding Thoughts The lack of contact between the French- and Dutch-speaking communities in Belgium fuels nationalist agendas. Three weeks before the Belgian federal elections of May 2019, Bart De Wever, the president of the

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

65

Dutch-speaking nationalist political party N-VA, picked up the issue of the language border again, for nationalist purposes, claiming that “Belgium, as a nation-state, has all but disappeared. Go see what your Facebook is, and you will see the language border, with a number of links to foreign countries, Wallonia but also to other regions around us. Analyze the telephone traffic in this country and you will see the language border. Analyze the matrimonial traffic in this country and you will see the language border. There are hardly any more marriages across the language border, if at all” (De Wever, 2019). Our work does not naturally have matrimonial ambitions; it seeks to counter separatism between the two main Belgian language communities by ensuring that future French-speaking journalists are as well prepared as possible for the realities of their future profession, so that they can cover Belgian news on both sides of the linguistic border, ideally in French and Dutch. At their level, journalists have a role to play in the other community’s language (and culture) representations and can balance the vicious circle, according to which the less you hear a foreign language, the less you feel comfortable when hearing it, and the less you wish to hear— and try to understand—that language. In this chapter, we presented the research and application design we imagined as a first step towards improving language skills of soon-to-be journalists who will work in a multilingual country. On the one hand, we sought to translate previous research into practice. Indeed, in our previous research, journalists reported they were well aware of the tension between their ideal scenario and the effort they were prepared, or able, to make to progress in languages. Language courses are not a panacea without regular practice, beyond academic requirements. Consequently, raising the students’ awareness about the importance of being proactive in their language learning is crucial. Therefore, apart from mere dissemination of our previous research, we also sought to make the students think about their representations by providing them with concrete professional considerations, and not only ideal-theoretical principles, which are less compelling. In this case, previous research in applied linguistics got translated into practice with students. On the other hand, we sought to gain research insights into the students’ representations. Despite the small sample, our research design

66 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

revealed a rich variety of soon-to-be journalists’ opinions and professional projections concerning Dutch. These often seem to result in defence or resignation mechanisms in response to an ideal proficiency that seems (too) far from their current level. The discrepancy between the two often seems to lead them to develop a “fixed mindset” (Dweck, 2006), that is, when you think that everyone has innate strengths or weaknesses, you can end up adopting a position of resignation. Therefore, you might think that you are definitely “not made for” this or that field, which can lead to the development of real obstacles. It will be particularly important to develop a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006) among students, that is, a mindset in which people see their qualities as talents that can be developed through their dedication and effort. This study showed that their representations mostly changed (either completely or to some extent) after reading our findings. Consequently, the students’ expectations of their language courses are now more important. These findings ask for concrete translation into practice. Now, it is time for us to move from the role of an axiologically neutral researcher to that of an expert who participates in decision-making and initiatives. In the short term, our research might help to elaborate concrete and practice-­ based activities that will help students in language learning in an effective manner. The following concrete inputs are based on Grujicic-Alatriste’s framework for applicability (2015): • Identification of real-world settings where the findings may have relevance: lecturers of English and Dutch would be the main stakeholders but experts in educational psychology would be involved too, given the psychological aspects that play a role in the learning of a foreign language, and particularly of Dutch in French-speaking Belgium (pointed out again in our research), in order to integrate insights from psychology in the language-learning activities. • Modes of dissemination of results: Executive summaries of our two researches (on journalists and soon-to-be journalists, respectively) would be available after an oral presentation of the insights to the language lecturers and experts in educational psychology. • Strategies for approaching the practitioners, mediums for sharing the findings and tools for feedback elicitation: We would avoid any top-­

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

67

down approach in which lecturers would only be recipients of findings. Therefore, we might organize a half-day seminar in which (1) our results would be presented and discussed with the lecturers; (2) the lecturers would take the floor to share their own experiences and points of view; (3) experts in educational psychology would share their insights and (4) small working groups would be set up to brainstorm concrete innovations for every specific issue. • Collaboration in planning future negotiated research: the objective would be to create and scientifically evaluate the impact of a language teaching model which takes the three types of findings into account (from our research, educational psychology and experience on the field).

References Belfiore, E., & Upchurch, A. (Eds.). (2013). Humanities in the twenty-first century: Beyond utility and markets. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Billig, M. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 35–46). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230288423_2. Bouko, C., Standaert, O., & Vandendaele, A. (2018). Being a journalist in a multilingual country: Representations of Dutch among Belgian French-­ speaking journalists. Multilingua. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0036. Bourdieu, P. (2002). Pour un savoir engagé. Le Monde Diplomatique, p. 3. Buckley, S., & Du Toit, A. (2010). Academics leave your ivory tower: Form communities of practice. Educational Studies, 36(5), 493–503. Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (2004). Making applied linguistics matter [editorial]. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–8. Charaudeau, P. (2013). Le chercheur et l’engagement. Une affaire de contrat. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 11. https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.1532. Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The impostor phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 15, 241–247. Clark, L. S. (2013). Cultivating the media activist: How critical media literacy and critical service learning can reform journalism education. Journalism, 14(7), 885–903. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913478361.

68 

C. Bouko and O. Standaert

De Wever, B. (2019, May 3). RTBF TV News. Donnay, J. (2001). Chercheur, praticien même terrain? Recherches Qualitatives, 22, 34–53. Doury, M. (2013). Positionnement descriptif, positionnement normatif, positionnement militant. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, (11). https://doi. org/10.4000/aad.1540. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Penguin Random House. Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies. A multidisciplinary introduction (pp.  357–378). Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/358173/Critical_ Discourse_Analysis. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2015). Framework for applications of research findings: An introduction. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 1–18). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Heinich, N. (2002). Pour une neutralité engagée. Questions de communication, (2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.4000/questionsdecommunication.7084. Knapp, K., & Antos, G. (2011). Introduction to the handbook series: Linguistic for problem solving. In C. N. Candlin & S. Sarangi (Eds.), Handbook of communication in organisations and professions. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Koren, R. (2013). Ni normatif ni militant : le cas de l’engagement éthique du chercheur. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, (11). https://doi.org/10. 4000/aad.1572. Lam, A. (2010). From ‘ivory tower traditionalists’ to ‘entrepreneurial scientists’? Academic scientists in fuzzy university—Industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 307–340. Lawson, R., & Sayers, D. (Eds.). (2016). Sociolinguistic research. Application and impact. London/New York: Routledge. Nygren, G., & Stigbrand, K. (2013). The formation of a professional identity: Journalism students in different media systems. Journalism Studies, 15(6), 841–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2013.834163. Shardlow, M. (2009). Becoming a journalist: A study of professional identity formation. PhD thesis, University of Western Australia. Retrieved from https:// research-repository.uwa.edu.au/files/3216167/Shardlow_Mignon_2009.pdf Standaert, O., Bouko, C., & Vandendaele, A. (2019). Just getting by? Francophone Belgian journalists dealing with Dutch-language sources in their public broadcasting service. Journalism Practice. Published online on June 16, 2019, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2 019.1631709.

3  How Francophone Soon-to-Be Journalists Perceive the Dutch… 

69

Williams, A., Guglietti, M. V., & Haney, S. (2018). Journalism students’ professional identity in the making: Implications for education and practice. Journalism, 19(6), 820–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917692344. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London/Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Wynants, B. (2001). Les Francophones face à leur image. Les représentations des compétences plurilinguistiques des francophones. Français & Société, 13, 3–41.

4 Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse of Manipulation Liang Xia and Wei Wang

In the context of researching institutional news translation that highlights the role of translation in the international diffusion of news (Bielsa & Bassnett, 2009), translation has been repeatedly included in the analysis of texts as the visible products of social or political interaction generated in political and mass media institutions. While much research has been focusing on examining the translated texts per se, scant studies have uncovered translation as manipulative elements in the international news transmission process and considered how the research findings can be disseminated in order to impact the real social practices. Drawing on an ethnographic approach to discourse analysis, our research (Xia, 2019; Xia & Wang, 2015) explores the role translation plays in the international news transmission not only by analysing the translated texts but also through observing actual processes of translation and news making, obtaining in-house documentation and interviewing translators and other participants involved in the institutional processes. This research

L. Xia (*) • W. Wang University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_4

71

72 

L. Xia and W. Wang

aims to deal with translation in a news institution in more depth, on the one hand, and to interpret and apply understandings of the effect of translation towards the place of practice, on the other. In this chapter, we consider the evaluation and dissemination of a study of news discourse translation that was conducted in 2012–2013 and published elsewhere (Xia & Wang, 2015). That initial work revealed that manipulation is an inevitable characteristic of news translation. It argues that news translation represents “the voice of the news institution”, which features decontextualized descriptions and exploitations of the source texts. It is noted that news translation institutions suppress some “voice of the source” by preventing the source information infiltration. Integrating an ethnographic approach and a contextual analysis into the textual analysis of news translation, that study discloses the hidden manipulation by the translators, selectors and editors in the global flow of news information. The study also shows that manipulation exists at every step in the translation process, for instance, from text selection to discursive expression and from information transference to culture communication. Here, taking translation as manipulation is a simple pre-­ judgemental acknowledgement of the nature of the process, neither positive nor negative. It recognizes the fact that the fundamental nature of translation as a human activity, including who does it, how they do it and for what purpose, is always embedded in a historical, social and cultural context. With a view of evaluating the above study and enhancing its social impact, we drew on the framework of application and the plan for dissemination (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), and re-conducted the interviews in 2015 with the major stakeholders including translators, selectors and editors after the initial contact in 2012 at the news institution Cankao Xiaoxi (hereafter CKXX). In this chapter, we will introduce some of the key aspects of application including the relevant findings from the initial body of work. The institution mentioned above will be used to provide a coherent link from the previous research to application, thus also showing the interrelations between research findings and possible intervention. This section will illustrate detailed outreach procedures with reflections on each initiative. It elaborates the sequential steps taken to apply the framework

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

73

for dissemination for conducting the application process. Then it will engage with the place of practice to share the findings and obtain feedbacks for assessing and distributing the intervention outcome. At the end of the chapter, we will sketch further steps for investigating news via translation with possibilities to further inform the practice. With the aim of bridging academic endeavours and real-world practice to make research relevant and applicable to professional community, the dissemination of the findings goes beyond raising  awareness to discuss the consequences, and, if possible, provide recommendations for changes in the real-world situations. As progression from the previously published work that offered a plan or a blueprint for dissemination (2015), the data presented in this chapter naturally involved the 2012 fieldwork in CKXX in China through the administration of field observation, in-house documentation and interviews, as well as new engagement through in-depth discussion of the enclosed findings.

Brief Overview In our preceding work, we took on the question of translation and manipulation of international news transmission related to contemporary China. It found that manipulation takes place from the moment the translation process begins. It starts with the selection of text to be translated, but can be narrowed down to specific strategies for the handling of linguistic problems, and even includes the presentation of the translated texts in a form of consumption. To describe these aspects in a general way, manipulation ranges from textual modification to communication promotion, to textual gatekeeping to management of information flow, to factual falsification to rewriting of the news. These phenomena are extremely complex; they are multifaceted and may be approached in many different ways. Nevertheless, we can try to highlight certain salient characteristics by comparing closely the source and target texts. Following the framework (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015) advocated in our previous publication concerning the dissemination and application of discourse studies, the researchers first contacted the news institution on

74 

L. Xia and W. Wang

which this research was based to locate relevant stake holders. The researchers then moved on to approach the practitioners individually or the in-groups, again with the research findings to help understand how to evaluate the translation products. In examining the product and process of news translation, there is a huge concern as to how the news producers and receivers perceive the purpose for which the translation is intended and further evaluate the mechanism of new manipulation in place. The degree of manipulation by news makers/translators does not depend on the source text authors, or its target readers. It often depends on what the institution would like the text to be. In particular, what information is controlled by the power, the degrees of reliability in the source text, and how much information is allowed to circulate will be of overriding importance. The strong grounding in investigating translated news in the context of production and interpretation of the texts makes it relevant and applicable to praxis in journalistic translation, news reproduction and consumption. The research findings cannot only raise awareness among the stakeholders, but also can inform the practice. This chapter is not intended as an overall guide to the topic and does not attempt to provide an exhaustive coverage of its applications, but rather it is carefully planned to reach out to news producers and news consumers as the major stakeholders in the news translation process and to help chart future research development. The following section will describe the actual steps taken for dissemination.

Framework for Dissemination We proposed elsewhere (2015) that the research findings are a valuable resource to at least three major stakeholders in the communication process: (i) the news agency in the competitive news market; (ii) the media professionals participating in the process of making reported news through translation; and (iii) the readers who are the ultimate receptors of the news. Negotiations on the application of the research findings stimulate a wider range of result dissemination. Based on the application framework proposed by Grujicic-Alatriste (2015), we identified real-­world

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

75

settings where the findings may have relevance and employed tools for sharing the findings and collecting feedback. The research findings have been disseminated to the major stakeholders in the processes of production and consumption of news translation. They are media professionals such as news selectors, translators and editors who participate in news reproduction through translation and the readers who are the ultimate receptors of the translated news. As the media professionals are in-house employees in the news institution CKXX, they act as representatives of the institution for translation, proofreading, editing, quality checking and other duties when required. The institution meanwhile has its own agendas to affect their practices as well. This study involves two rounds of data collection: the original fieldwork in 2012 and the tele-interviews in 2015, which provided valuable information for this chapter. The outreach tools in this research include: 1 . Email to express interest and purpose of the research to gain access 2. Ethical approval 3. Letter circular to recruit participants 4. Questionnaire for participants to prepare 5. Face-to-face interviews with tape-recording or note-taking 6. Field observations with in-house documentation research 7. Tele-interviews As in every fieldwork-based research, there are three sequential stages: (i) prior to fieldwork—preparation and documentation, (ii) during fieldwork—fieldwork procedures, (iii) after fieldwork—postfieldwork analysis and writing (Blommaert & Jie, 2010). Prior to fieldwork, several activities have to be prepared for outreach, for instance, reading the literature, writing a brief report for primary findings, designing a questionnaire and gaining access to interview CKXX staff. Before entering the field, the scholarly literature helped us understand the institutional concepts and was useful for preparing emotionally for the fieldwork. A large amount of text analysis helped us to be open to discovering new details of their practice. This lengthy familiarization exercise was important because it led not only to con-

76 

L. Xia and W. Wang

structing a practical questionnaire but also to convincing the CKXX staff members, to participate  by realizing the questions were  worth researching. Indeed, entering and gaining access to the CKXX institution then became possible: a formal acceptance letter from the English Department of CKXX was received. The staff and students who intend to conduct research involving human participants might need to apply for approval from the appropriate ethic review body. Detailed requirements vary from country to country. Due to the institution where researchers are affiliated and policy explained in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007, updated 2018), a fieldwork proposal was submitted to University Human Research Ethics Committee when preparations were completed. The university not only has stringent guidelines of ethical design and conduct of research, but also protects the researchers’ rights to conduct a legitimate investigation. The Committee assessed our proposal and recommended appointing a local contact readily accessible in China available to the participants to handle complaints about the research to clarify if there are any potential risks to the researcher or participants, and to identify how we were going to secure the collected data. The ethics approval was finally granted on 19 April 2012. After obtaining some preliminary findings, the research permits and ethical clearance, the next step was to follow the administrative procedures, for instance, visa requirements, needed to enter the field. In the first round of data collection we need to conduct observations, interviews and multiple-site research, with the permission of the Department of Cankao Xiaoxi in the Xinhua News Agency and the assistance from its English team. A Letter Circular was publicized which explicitly presented the aim of the research and a practical questionnaire to recruit participants who volunteered to participate in the interviews. A total of nine informants (two editors, three news selectors, four translators) were arranged for the researchers to interview on condition that the team leader be present at each interview and consent for future use of data. Participants will be referenced anonymously hereafter. Three interviews were scheduled during participants’ lunch break with three to

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

77

four interviewees each time. Field research interviews are essential parts of a discussion process that reveals subjective meanings. After establishing rapport at the beginning of the conversation, the interviewees were very open to the questions asked and provided their insights into evaluative or highly sensitive topics, which were the exact data we wanted. Audio records and notes were helpful supplements in the field research. Close attention was paid to observe and listen carefully in order to absorb all sources of information. It has been ensured that people understood, and agreed to, two things very clearly. First, the recordings would be used exclusively for academic purposes. They are scientific materials that will only be used for understanding the production process of the news translation. Second, the scientific use of these recordings would involve a process of data modification. That is, the interviewees’ names would be anonymous. Interestingly, sometimes the interviewees tried to keep their answers brief and to the point, formulating them in factual declarative sentences, giving brief explanations only if the researcher insisted on more details. However, many of the interviewees became very vocal and expressive as soon as the recorder was turned off, which signalled that the interview was finished and we could chat about whatever we like. Answering a formal list of questions also made them feel that they were being interrogated rather than simply talking to us which made the interactions awkward. The interviewees appeared more relaxed and talkative without a question list. The researcher was also allowed to observe their working procedures, but the authorization only allowed to observe them working, not to participate. One good point was that the researcher could ask them any questions in the interviews that had arisen from the observation. Direct observation and interaction with members in the news institution setting helped to get inside their perspectives. The institutional operation of news translation is more than just something that happens mechanically; instead, people create and define the news product through their interaction. In other words, various power relations hugely affect how participants see and act on their work. Multiple-site research involved reviewing published and unpublished documents. Many in-house publications set out regulations, principles and policies of the institution. This was important for two reasons: first,

78 

L. Xia and W. Wang

to reveal a detailed account of the paper’s working mechanism which helped the researcher obtain a full understanding of CKXX from an internal perspective; second, to use as a reference to check the credibility of the interviews and suggest more important questions to be asked during the interviews. Both ethnographic interviews and close reading of in-house documentation gathered first-hand information for in-depth understanding of how news reproduction by translation comes into being at CKXX. However, ethnographic research requires constant feedback from one stage to another. On the one hand, analysing the data from the field can stimulate new hypotheses which require investigators to go back for more fieldwork; on the other hand, the investigators must go back and collect more data for research to proceed to a new phase. Consequently, a second round of data collection was conducted three years later by interviewing three internal staff members at CKXX and three readers by phone and/or Skype in 2015. Two of the three internal news workers were selected because they had participated in the first round of interviews and provided information about the whole working procedure in the news institution. The third news selector who was also a translator was new, but was a perfect match for this project. He had worked in the institution for 11 years and had provided valuable evaluation and comments on the findings in our previous work (2015) and other publications. All three readers had been reading the newspaper CKXX for more than 20 years; their responses provided a special perspective on the reaction to manipulation. We developed an interview schedule for respondents to read questions and then participate in the tele-interviews. The questions included, but were not limited to, feedback on the findings, editorship and further development of the media. All the interviews were digitally recorded for analysing respondents’ perspectives. In order to fully understand and explain manipulation in both the processes and the products of news translation, the whole working mechanisms in the news institution, as well as what the interviewees thought and how their definitions of the situation might have affected their behaviours, needed to be taken into consideration.

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

79

Dissemination and evaluation of the research findings have much more value than simply promoting the evidence or supporting the research endeavours; being based on the needs of stakeholders, they improve awareness of the evidence and facilitate use of the evidence by stakeholders.

Report on the Results of Outreach This stage of the research extends the outreach to the news institution and invites staff members and readers to reflect on what we had discussed about news manipulation through translation. This section first reports on how and why the manipulation takes place and the participants’ perspectives in evaluating manipulation. Then, it discusses the fieldwork in interviews with various participants: translators, selectors, editors and readers. How to manipulate? The purpose of manipulation is arguably to influence target readers by skilfully framing foreign language sources through translation. Manipulated translation, in terms of the production of the given culture, inevitably reflects power relations between the participants involved. Power is exercised in every decision made in the translation process, whether the decision concerns selecting what to translate, which word to replace with a source word, what syntax is chosen or which publication channel is selected. These choices are influenced by the translator’s professional knowledge, expertise and power in the ideological and cultural production of translation, and are also controlled by institutions in setting up internal policies to regulate translators’ practice. Why manipulate? Manipulation is considered an intrinsic characteristic of translation from the point of view of the target culture norms. It is brought into play when a translator attempts to communicate to the target audience by bridging geographic, linguistic, ideological and cultural barriers in the process of translation. The translators’ behaviours and the messages transmitted and received are always situated in specific socio-­historical contexts. Individual or institutional manipulation of the message might be linguistic, ideological and/or cultural. Translation involves texts in two or more languages, each of which possesses its own distinct phonology, mor-

80 

L. Xia and W. Wang

phology, pragmatics, semantics and syntax. Manipulation in translation can be studied both as a medium of ideology and as a cultural phenomenon. Ideology is concerned with the ways meanings are construed and how they function. The ideological characteristics of translators can be analysed through consideration of the production, the construction and/or the conceptualization of messages. Manipulation in translation takes place within a culture, a system involving values, practices and beliefs—all of which influence how meaningful objects and expressions are produced for circulation and serve to sustain relations of power. How to evaluate manipulation? Manipulation in translation may be positive or negative, conscious and unconscious, mandatory or optional. Translation never happens in a purely linguistic world where translators focus only on equivalence, untranslatability, etc. Translation is also influenced by extralinguistic factors such as patrons, sponsors, market forces, and the expectations of the potential audience. While it inevitably involves the translator’s own ideology, the translation process is also unavoidably caught up in making explicit what was originally implicit, and vice versa. This can occur intentionally or under the influence of scarcely conscious habitual experience, resulting in an evaluation, planned or unplanned, on the part of the audience. Evaluating such manipulation as good or bad will, in general, depend on the specific socio-­historical context. A major concern is that news practitioners take for granted these manipulations that are evident in the divergent discourses of the target texts, resulting from a seemingly unconscious process or deliberate intentions. The analytic and intervention data presented below summarizes how translators, selectors, editors and readers responded to the manipulative activity in the institutional news translation.

Translators As argued by the interviewed translators, in a directly government-­ controlled media institution, translators quickly adapt to the requirements of the institution that employs them. They readily become part of the state’s institutional operational system. At CKXX, the translators’ subjectivity is also much constrained both by the Proper Names Translation

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

81

Office of Xinhua News Agency and the editors’ expectations. The Office has been given authority for translating specific technical terms and other common nouns by the central government in order to standardize ­foreign terms to avoid confusion.1 The roles played by editors and translators are vertically segregated along a management line where the translators are subordinate and must follow the editors’ instructions. The office was given authority over new words translation for two major reasons. First, the management of Xinhua News Agency demanded that the translation of new words corresponds to the version of the Proper Name Translation Committee.2 This administration command gave the office superior status in translation. Second, Xinhua News Agency is the only official channel for Chinese people to get access to foreign proper names. Domestic newspapers, radios or TV stations need to reprint the international news from Xinhua. Assigning Chinese names is cumbersome, but years of doing the job competently have resulted in Xinhua having a high reputation in the industry for news translation.3 Exercising a translator’s subjectivity depends on whether the task is at the level of the individual, or of the networks in which s/he finds himself. The news translators in the media institutions operate within a set of systems. The ways in which professionals within the media conceive of themselves and the ways in which that conception has an impact upon the operations they inhabit may be seen as a form of self-censorship. They follow the established and accepted patterns of working practices. The translators quickly  realize what the news selectors are looking for and they supply it. This willing acceptance means that the translators are readily following a system that operates ideologically. The individual ideology is replaced by the collective ideology, which represents a set of ideas and beliefs. The media practitioners operate within those dominant ideas, beliefs and values, and in doing so become part of their dissemination. More importantly, the interviewed translators agree that censorship can be imposed by the Chinese government, the news agency or by  Interview with senior newspaper translator A, Sept 2015.  Interview with senior newspaper translator B, Sept 2012. 3  Interview with senior newspaper translator A, Sept 2015. 1 2

82 

L. Xia and W. Wang

individual translators who engage in self-censoring. Governments can sensor information by pressuring not only media outlets but also individuals. There are practices in place at CKXX that push media staff members to self-censorship. These include the established criteria of recruiting staff, the weekly political theory study and the threat of staff dismissal. The translators’ awareness of self-censoring plays a vital role in the vast majority of translating shifts in the CKXX news making process. Methods of translation such as addition, omission and alteration are clearly useful to CKXX to manipulate the source discourse to repress any ideological contradictions, particularly in the case of translating politically sensitive texts initiated by a government. The notion of translators in this case is conceptualized as a team of people with shared skills and interests. Bearing this in mind, studying translated news texts should be viewed as “a collaborative or team work”. This work contributes to forming unconscious self-censorship, which will in the end be inherent in their working intuitions. Translators are under pressure to get used to the censorship and self-censorship, so that the public will receive the unanimous voice of the institution rather than the staff making their individual voice heard. There were occasions where translators voluntarily omit some contents in the face of their inability to produce a sensible translation under the pressure of dogmatism. The translators would silently choose not to translate or totally leave out a chunk of information. The interviewed translators believe that manipulation, not necessarily right or wrong, is a way of showing resistance in translation. It is a complex act involving complex lexico-grammatical expressions, textual reconstruction and ideological positioning. Manipulated translation can be a more appropriate rendition of the source texts as translators are familiar with the target culture and understand the readers’ expectation that receiving information is paramount, so that they manipulate the source texts for communicative purpose. This research found that translators are usually in a subordinate position to news editors and selectors in the media institution, and their subjectivity is highly constrained in the institutional translation practices. Translators, editors and selectors are located in the target culture working as a team in the institution in which various standards or guidelines need

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

83

to be adhered to. Both news selectors and editors put considerable efforts in preventing undesired source texts from being included in the translation process. The possible changes of translators’ behaviours are dependent on others’ practices.

Selectors The source news selectors believe that manipulation is mainly related to the two working principles that they work with in CKXX. The first is to find the news that the editors have ordered. The editors can request articles in advance on certain topics according to the current international situation. In this case, the news selectors would make a great effort prior to the due time. This selection always involves a large amount of deletion. When several news reports on the same theme collected by various selectors are to be passed on to the translators, the selectors will coordinate with the page editors to delete the repeated parts from various sources and identify the proper parts to be translated. They also review the distribution cover of source media periodically to ensure that their sources are widespread.4 This especially works well when the page editors want to find how non-Chinese media report on China-related affairs. The other working principle is that the news selectors will determine which news are to be selected for editors when reviewing news in other languages from around the world. The news selectors are quite subjective in this selection. They need to be skilled at locating news, reading at great speed and finding newsworthy information. It is also their job to write a “menu” list with a brief introduction in Chinese for the editors to decide which items will be translated. They will sometimes comment on the menu to suggest to the editors which parts  are highly recommended or important.5 The selectors will always choose the articles that the editors have ordered first. Most news selectors are bilingual/multilingual experts who have had translation experience at CKXX  Interview with senior newspaper selector B, Sept 2012.  Interview with senior newspaper selector A, Sept 2012.

4 5

84 

L. Xia and W. Wang

and got transferred to the news selection team. They sometimes assist translators with the translation job, or proofread the translated works.

Editors During the second round of interviews in 2015, the editors at CKXX made two main comments on manipulation during the process of preand post-translation in news production. First, they did not agree that they “manipulate” the source in a negative way as some examples illustrated; on the contrary, they believed they had to fix the “errors” in the source. At the CKXX, there has been a reminder going around about consolidating responsibility.6 A statement, published in its internal journal and circulated by the deputy editor-in-chief representing each section of CKXX, covers two key types of errors encountered in the previous issues of CKXX. They consist of factual errors and political errors. The former generally refers to wrong statements in the source and the latter usually suggests what CKXX believes was not politically accurate.7 Factual errors can appear in a report about an act or a condition in ignorance of, or imprudent deviation from, the factual evidence. They usually happen in regard to numbers, dates, locations, titles, names, quantifiers, picture descriptions, names of institution and other translation negligence or inaccurate facts in the source. Political errors refer to any negative political effects caused by the selected articles, pictures (including picture captions), headlines and newspaper layout. As the statement claims, CKXX insists on the dialectical unity of reporting functions and political influences. It is concerned with news objectivity, but it will never print reports of libel, defamation and the like, or reports sowing discord among countries; it is concerned with referencing but it will never print articles having ‘unhealthy’ effects on society; it is concerned with readability but it will never print pieces that are unscientific, of ‘vulgar’ interests, or pandering to low tastes.  Interview with senior newspaper editor B, Sept 2015.  Interview with senior newspaper editor B, Sept 2015.

6 7

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

85

Under these circumstances, CKXX rarely makes major political mistakes, but has had some political difficulties caused by factual or technical issues or inaccurate policy compliance.8 As summarized by an editor, there are different political errors that CKXX has made, but now they are warned to double check before printing.9 For instance, unapproved agenda of national top leaders randomly quoted by other media; quotes of government officials’ speeches on important and sensitive topics without making sure of their facts; printing of malicious slander of Chinese regime, policies and political system without providing technical details; unapproved criticisms of people whose names are mentioned, especially criticisms of the field of the judiciary; overstated information on Chinese military activities; negligent report due to misunderstanding political and historical background; negligent translation of fixed terms; etc. Second, the purposes of establishing CKXX include enlightening and engaging the public by giving them access to information about the international world. In other words, CKXX was created to serve politics. Its editors, as a result, need to fully understand the importance and necessity of learning and to improve their political consciousness and political sensitivity.10 All selectors, editors and translators have to follow instructions from higher up. Censorship in Chinese media results in many sensitive topics; instructions on how to report these topics provide guidelines for everyone who is engaging with them. The interviewed editors confessed they receive notices (Chinese: 通知; pin yin: tōng zhī) from time to time from higher up the hierarchy in their own system, telling them what and how to report certain sensitive topics in the paper.11 However, they would not disclose more details about the directives and instructions. They acknowledge it is a common situation for news institutions to receive directives and instructions in face-to-face meetings, by phone, by email and by fax.

 Interview with senior newspaper editor B, Sept 2015  Interview with senior newspaper editor B, Sept 2015. 10  Interview with senior newspaper editor A, Sept 2012. 11  Interviews with all the newspaper selectors, translators, and editors, Sept 2012. 8 9

86 

L. Xia and W. Wang

The routine work for an editor includes not only checking spelling, creating titles, and writing headlines, but also additional responsibilities above the fray. They are self-censored to correct errors in the process of news production according to the internal policies. They also follow instructions on what to publish and what not to, and what to edit and how to edit. From the report above, the process of manipulation can be defined as a group activity following institutional codes of conduct in specific cultural situations. The group activity will be gradually conducted by fewer participants. Textual manipulation under the institutional context becomes the work routine of individual persons. News is routinely manipulated in the translation process and is modified and interpreted to suit specific purposes. Institutionalization is found to be an important part of the process making translation a formalized system.

Readers The feedback from translators, selectors and editors has indicated that various manipulations are examples of institutional practices that result in the unanimous voice of the institution passed to the public. The targeted news consumers’ reactions on news manipulation reflected a fundamental dilemma: on the one hand, they expected translation that matches the original without additions, omissions or alterations. They call on the translators to accurately present  the original reports without deliberate distortion. On the other hand, they understand translation might have omitted the embarrassing sentences/parts to avoid a statement that may contradict other state-run media, although for the readers of the Chinese version, these omissions or alterations might not be detectable. Meanwhile, the audiences yearn for a reliable media outlet that is able to provide them with alternative versions of the stories that have been covered by other state-run media in China, though they accept that translated texts might be manipulated to achieve desired effects in readers. In addition, they might not be fully aware of lack of direct access to the international media. Thus, they can only rely on the translators’ professionalism.

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

87

The first predicament is probably due to the cultural situation as media in China is heavily monitored by the government. The second is because of the language barriers and lack of competitors when translated news is used as a means of retrieving information across linguistic and geographic boundaries. The readers being interviewed agreed that CKXX leads circulation in the print media because it ranks among the boldest, liveliest and most outspoken of publications in China during the restricted control of the CCP.12 CKXX can publish information that others are censored from doing. CKXX can provide more detailed descriptions, while others may only briefly report something even though there might be much more information to be provided. The significance of outreaching readers is threefold in its effort to help them understand the nature of translated news, and hence affect the reception of translated news. First, the translated texts were manipulated to achieve desired effects. The information they acquire from the newspaper is decided and regulated as what to release or how much to release to the public. Second, the deliberate manipulations are closely related to power at work. The powerful acts that create knowledge and all facets of translation—from text choice to translation strategy to publication—are connected with the use of power to sustain the desired effects. Third, the use of manipulation goes beyond linguistic, cognitive or affective necessities. The source texts are no longer a static entity with scheduled releases that exists in the source culture. Rather, it is a dynamic resource to be reconstructed and possibly abused in a new world of readers in a different language.

Recommendations on Future Praxis Tools for outreach and feedback adopted in the chapter involve field research in order to observe and explain the real social world. These tools as a whole “investigate the local culture of a particular social group viewed as a collective, with a goal of producing a holistic account of its shared 12

 Interviews with readers A, B and C, Sept 2015.

88 

L. Xia and W. Wang

conceptual world” (Smart, 2012, p.  147). They  provide a method for exploring the discourse practices of a particular group of people with the aim of learning their discursively constructed conceptual world. Outreaching the main participants in translation practices in intuitions contributes to an explanation of human behaviour and human ­surroundings in more depth: “Close description of the moment-bymoment constitution of social life in talk-in-interaction can both fundamentally enrich and be fundamentally enriched by broad descriptions of social behaviours, norms, and values” (Atkinson, Okada, & Talmy, 2011, p.  89). It can  enhance an understanding of the practices that people engage in when producing texts, as well as the ways of translating practices in a specific culture’s settings. The outreach leads to a social perspective of explaining manipulative nature of news translation and possible impact on future praxis. Research into the dissemination and application of the manipulative nature of news translation argues that institutional translation is a form of routinization and the institutional translators become implied authors. Therefore, it anticipates the responsibilities that future journalists might have to take.

Routinization This research can be descriptive and involves viewing translation as a working procedure, as a part of the institutional function with the ability to decontextualize it as an institutional practice, and a desire to provide service to customers. It can also be prescriptive to advise translators to fit into an organization and to approve or reject translation theories and practices. The research pays attention to the political and social conditions that cause the interplay between repeated, stable patterns of behaviours and the continuous attempts at pushing the boundaries of policy regulations. Therefore, at CKXX, routinization becomes the main working character of this news institution. Even though each translator is a unique human being with their own socialized personality, “routinization of experience indicates an ever-increasing socialisation, that is, understand-

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

89

ing of what is socially acceptable or required and adapting one’s behaviour accordingly” (Tyulenev, 2014, p. 15). As participants in the routine, news translators do not always have to understand the intentions as they sometimes have to translate already edited news. They do not necessarily have the chance or time to read the whole piece. Neither do the news collectors and editors have to understand the intention of the source texts, nor do they have to imagine what the source author may feel or think. Or perhaps they do have the ability to imagine others’ feelings and thoughts, but choose to serve their own interests instead. They take whatever they need from different pieces to build a new format in the target paper. The experienced members of the translation  occupation sometimes cannot precisely spell out the objectives, but can outline what needs to be done to achieve these objectives.

Implied Authors Our investigation of institutional translators recognizes that the translation is a “new narrative” (Baker, 2010) of the ST, which is reconstructed by the news translators from the source narrative. The translator(s) are not the first narrator, but rather they reframe the framed narratives. The news translator(s), either as individuals or a group, are the “implied author” (Booth, 1961)13 of the translation. That means, they are not the writers who author the reframed narratives, but rather stack them in a particular way. They just select things to happen in the new narratives in their words. The news and information related to the news are gathered from the already published news, processed by the translators, and disseminated by the news agency. In another sense, the translators become creative writers. They instruct readers silently, through the design of the whole of the translated work, by all the means they have chosen to let readers receive the message. To alter the source texts, the institution includes and excludes information. In doing so, they might have rewritten the news stories and invented new information in the target texts.  The concept of the implied author (IA) proposed by Wayne C.  Booth in his 1961 book The Rhetoric of Fiction to distinguish the narrator of the text from the real author. 13

90 

L. Xia and W. Wang

The implied author, although there might not be a single implied author as the target translation may have been composed by a team or revised by a translator with expertise or revised by random cooperation in the institution, does not apply the original ideological spectrum in the source news. The manipulative intention is obvious.

Future Journalists The dissemination of the findings to the news institution has resulted in rethinking the responsibilities of a journalist in the future. They are supposed to perform the treble function of selecting, editing and translating. Our research and interviews with several translators and editors working at CKXX illustrate the roles of the main news practitioners in the print media. Framing news from the source narrative into the target culture involves three major participants: editors, selectors and translators. Their roles intersect in the complex translation practice in the news institution. Editors are responsible for the news products as a whole. They supervise the process of how news is produced. They demand and check the content of the source for sense, clarity and value, and proofread the translated texts. The three major participants are located in the target culture working as a team in the institution in which various standards or guidelines need to be adhered to. Their practices are distinct and overlapping; distinct because selectors, translators and editors are responsible for segmented stages of the news translation process; overlapping because selecting is part of pre-editing to compile and organize source pieces. Self-conscious translating involves editing the translated version to meet the institutional norms; editing requires proofreading the news translation to check its translation quality. Therefore, future journalists (or future translators, or future news producers) working in news production institutions in China could be expected to take on the roles of news selectors, editors and translators. Future journalists will be required to perform the three functions of selecting, translating and editing. They are required to provide one-stop service transforming the published source news to target texts for printing.

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

91

This section briefly evaluated the positive outcomes of tools used to move the research towards reflexivity. It is necessary to incorporate outreach methods into discourse-based translation analysis to understand the complexity of translation, and to  further intervene or change the mechanism of translation activities. By incorporating praxis with a critical perspective of analysing news translation, the project moves from analysing the textual product to examining the workplace activities ­ involved in order to move the research into application. The next step would be to explore the working mechanisms of the institutionalization and evaluate whether the assumed expectations of future journalists could become the trend of development in the news producing industry.

Concluding Comments We have reported on how we developed and employed praxis in a project that aimed to raise awareness among the stakeholders who produce the news as well as to bridge the producers and consumers of news by engaging them in reflexive practice. In this section, we conclude this chapter with a plea for applied critical discourse analysis in the complex, power-­ dominated, sensitive field of news and media. The framework adopted in this chapter has been a  useful research guide  in both critical discourse analysis and translation studies. The tools, such as email, report and questionnaires to reach the target groups, the interviews with news producers and observations of actual work in the field, and reflections after the field proved practical and efficient in delving more deeply into correlations between the textual findings and the institutional practices. The researcher can directly observe and interact with members in the relevant field to get first-hand materials and to obtain an inside perspective of what has occurred. The model in this study not only gains access to a  real life experience by intensive observation and interviews, but also moves from what is heard or observed to what is meant. While acknowledging the above-mentioned areas, the exploration of translation as a social phenomenon is a fertile ground for future joint research efforts. In this study, we concluded that news is routinely

92 

L. Xia and W. Wang

manipulated in the translation process and is modified and interpreted to suit specific purposes. Institutionalization is found to be an important part of the process that places translation in a formalized system. However, when this study is positioned within a broad socio-political context, particularly concerning the role of mass media and the power relations, it needs further analysis of manipulation of powers at various levels. Viewing power as a motivating factor in cultural domains of translation has been widely accepted. The analysis of power relations has been extended to examining oppression or empowerment (Fischer & Nisbeth Jensen, 2012), agents using power or seeking empowerment (Tymoczko, 2007), and the power relations between a powerful culture and a weak culture (Tymoczko & Gentzler, 2002), but the question of how power itself operates has rarely been considered in detail. Consequently, we lack a clear concept of the working mechanisms of power relations in the news translation process. The following questions can thus be suggested as research topics to further elaborate: what are the possible ideological and power factors that impact newsmakers to select a news text from such diverse materials and to translate it as such? What kind of power relations can be illustrated in translated news discourse in and above an institutional setting? In other words, translation action needs to be analysed as a social practice to disclose further power relations that might manipulate the information in the newspaper. In summary, this work in the field of critical discourse analysis provides an example of how findings relating to the process and practice of manipulation in news translation at a government agency can be disseminated to practitioners and shows a way to engage with the news reproducers and the news receivers via a description of the manipulation as an evidence-based practice. The implications of the field study provided by the researchers to those directly involved in a real-life setting of this project indicate how the practitioners’ responses to and reflections on the research could be helpful to their professional practice. Further research focusing on the effectiveness of such an approach, along with the hidden power relations impacting media development, can contribute to enhancing research on news translation and relevant professional discourse studies.

4  Institutionalization in News Translation: The Use and Abuse… 

93

References Atkinson, D., Okada, H., & Talmy, S. (2011). Ethnography and discourse analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 85–100). London: Continuum. Baker, M. (2010). Reframing conflict in translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Critical readings in translation studies (pp. 113–129). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Bielsa, E., & Bassnett, S. (2009). Translation in global news. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Blommaert, J., & Jie, D. (2010). Ethnographic fieldwork: A beginner’s guide. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Booth, W. C. (1961). The rhetoric of fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fischer, B., & Nisbeth Jensen, M. (Eds.). (2012). Translation and the reconfiguration of power relations: Revisiting role and context of translation and interpreting. Zurich, Switzerland: LIT Verlag. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2015). Framework for application of research findings: An introduction. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 1–22). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. (2007, updated 2018). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Retrieved from https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethicalconduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018 Smart, G. (2012). Discourse-oriented ethnography. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 147–159). London: Routledge. Tymoczko, M. (2007). Enlarging translation, empowering translators. Manchester, UK: St Jerome. Tymoczko, M., & Gentzler, E. (Eds.). (2002). Translation and power. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Tyulenev, S. (2014). Translation and society: An introduction. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Xia, L. (2019). A discourse analysis of news translation in China. London: Routledge. Xia, L., & Wang, W. (2015). Reframed news discourse: The manipulative impact of translation on news making. In L. Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp.  270–289). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

5 Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social Work Communication Maureen T. Matarese

Discourse analysis has been a welcome bedfellow for the field of education, producing interdisciplinary journals, conferences, and even academic departments devoted to the exploration of classroom interaction. Likewise, medicine and health have joined with discourse analysis, fostering health communication departments and journals. However, while some fields have embraced discourse analysis as a productive methodology that sheds light on critical aspects of teaching and healthcare, the field of social work has proven reticent to the introduction of discourse analytic approaches, despite extensive research highlighting its utility. Be that as it may, for over ten years I have been conducting research on social work interaction, examining the ways in which communication functions between practitioners and clients in a discipline that is, in large part, dominated by the need for productive discourse. Early in my studies, I joined DANASWAC, a small group of scholars dedicated to M. T. Matarese (*) Borough of Manhattan Community College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_5

95

96 

M. T. Matarese

Discourse and Narrative Analysis in Social Work and Counseling who have generated hundreds of studies in social work interaction across the world, including a landmark book Analysing Social Work Communication: Discourse in Practice on which I was a contributing author and editor. As we argue in our introduction “good communication skills [are] an indispensable precondition for good social work” (1), While the field of social work often paints communication with a broad brush, advocating for good communication, without articulating how that is interactionally achieved, Juhila, Makitalo, and Noordegraaf (2014) suggest “we analyze how social work interaction proceeds in different real-life settings and concentrate on the participants’ ways of making sense of these settings ‘without being shackled by normative standards of ‘good’ communication’ (Silverman 1997: 27)” (Juhila et al., 2014, 10). Social work interaction research has largely been disseminated through cross-disciplinary publishing and through coursework offered by DANASWAC colleagues in social work faculty positions in Europe. Hall, Slembrouck, and Sarangi (2006) suggest that contributing to either evidence-­ based practice or reflective practice movements has problems. This chapter examines where social work students believe discourse analysis belongs in their schooling and how they feel it can impact their practice.

Brief Overview This chapter focuses on the dissemination of my research, which aims to explore social workers as a kind of street-level worker and describes how policy surfaces in the social work interactions between shelter caseworkers and their clients through small, seemingly mundane language. My work lies at the crossroads of interactional linguistics (CouperKuhlen & Selting, 2018), public policy studies (which situates the research in a sociopolitical context), and social work research (which provides a historically situated institutional context). I briefly summarize those influential bodies of scholarship before describing how I have shared results and discourse analysis more generally with social work practitioners, students, and faculty using Grujicic-Alatriste’s (2015)

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

97

“framework for the application of research findings.” This chapter describes dissemination of my work at the Society of Social Work Research (SSWR) conference, as well as in the social work academic classroom. Using short-answer surveys before and after an interactive social work communication presentation, this chapter describes how social work students and faculty envision discourse analysis fitting into existing curricula, detailing some of the theoretical and methodological challenges of doing so. I conclude by describing a proposal for a comparative study that would integrate discourse analytic training into three master’s level courses for social work students with the aim of understanding which approach to discourse analysis is best suited for social work students.

 he Paradox of Research Dissemination T in Applied Linguistics It not necessarily a given that research should be disseminated and have an impact in the field. In fact, several aspects of this issue are hotly contested. In social work, dissemination is divided between two camps, both of which have problems: evidence-based practice (EBP) and knowledge transfer. EBP comes out of the shift in social work in the 1980s toward new public management, in this case requiring a refocusing on using “scientific” bases for decision-making to ensure systematic and streamlined treatment. As Heinsch, Gray, and Sharland (2016) note: The emergence of [Evidence-base Medicine] –and its permutations, including evidence-based policy, EBP, evidence-based guidelines, and evidence-­ informed, evidence-aware, and evidence-influenced policy and practice, to name but a few—fitted well with the new public management embraced by neoliberal governments with their focus on accountability, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. (100)

Evidence-based practice has been widely criticized for making social work less individualized and more bureaucratic, and for creating preferences in the field for disseminating quantitative research over qualitative.

98 

M. T. Matarese

Some scholars in social work critique the unidirectionality of knowledge transfer and instead argue for a knowledge exchange (Bowen & Martens, 2005). Rather than research being disseminated from its locus outward into the world of practice, a knowledge exchange blurs the distinctions of “research” and “practice,” creating “hybridization” (Gredig & Sommerfeld, 2008), wherein “different forms of knowledge combine to produce a third sphere, and an endless cycle of knowledge production and utilization ensues as the process of using research leads to the creation of new knowledge” (Heinsch et al., 2016, 101). Thus, in this volume, we might do well to consider not only the ways in which our research moves outward into the world but how to encourage a dialogic research-practice relationship. Applied linguistics has another battle to contend with, another degree of separation between the research and the discipline. It is not always the case that we are both specialists in linguists and in the field to which we are applying our knowledge. Linguistics research findings may not easily be made relevant to the discipline, and a lack of disciplinary practice may prohibit the applied linguist from seeing beyond their theoretical and methodological lenses. Sarangi (2016) argues strenuously for collaborative research in order to bring various disciplinary viewpoints to the analytical table, offering “communities of interest” to describe individuals committed to a particular discipline in which “one may share ‘interests’ but not ‘practices’ ‘discourses,’ and ‘interpretations’” (29). Working collaboratively with disciplinary experts is, however, not without challenges, but can increase the extent to which our work is made relevant to the applied fields in which we work. While Antaki (2011) emphasizes the importance of using conversation analytic research in applied settings, Grujicic-Alatriste’s (2015) work explores how discourse studies are used in professional practice, and Sarangi (2016) reiterates the importance of cross-research collaboration in interdisciplinary research, there is also mounting resistance against the examination of dissemination and impact. Increasingly, grants are requiring follow-up studies measuring the impact of research on the field (McIntyre & Price, 2018), and in the United Kingdom, the new Research Excellence Framework (REF), which is a research quality survey, requires

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

99

all scholarly academic work be assessed in terms of impact (McIntyre & Price, 2018). McIntyre and Price argue in their book Applying Linguistics, “While both of us are committed to demonstrating the practical value of linguistic research, we are equally committed to defending the value of research that may have no conceivable application at all” (3). Like evidence-­based practices, this REF quality assessment is linked back to new public management, which integrates corporate and business approaches in non-business institutions. In an effort to assess efficiency and effectiveness, REF considers both output and outcomes of research (McIntyre & Price, 2018). McIntyre (2018) notes that the issue of “impact” is itself problematic, describing the infamous study by Al-Marashi (2002) that was twisted by the UK government to substantiate the war in Iraq. Is all use “good” use, is all impact “good” impact? Does dissemination in and of itself constitute a study’s success? How much control do researchers have over how their studies are used to substantiate changes? While Sarangi’s (2016) suggestions for collaboration are excellent, McEnery (2018) notes that “finding … a partner is easier said than done—the academic may be highly motivated to find a partner, yet the partner may not be highly motivated to work with them” (31). Ultimately, while dissemination and impact should not be a prerequisite for funding or a required outcome, those of us conducting applied work would do well to think about the best way to reach the applied audience(s). This chapter draws on interactional linguistics (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2018), which describes combines conversation analysis’ focus on sequential accomplishments in social interaction with an attention to the “linguistic structures [used] as interactional resources” in those conversations (16). These structures are “context-sensitive,” and is inclusive of linguistic forms capturing stance and positioning, which is particularly relevant to my research. However, unlike most conversation analytic and interactional linguistic analysis, my research is situated within and considered in reference to the sociopolitical frameworks offered by street-­level bureaucracy research in public policy and literature in social work.

100 

M. T. Matarese

Public Policy and Social Welfare My research draws on theories and research in political science, particularly regarding neoliberalism, new managerialism, and street-level policy implementation. While early studies in social work centered around issues common to practice, increasingly, studies have examined the shift in policy and practice stemming from neoliberal ideology (Soss, Fording, & Schram, 2011), which has been called “the financialization of everything” (Harvey, 2005). In social welfare organizational policy and administration, neoliberalism rears its head as new managerialism (Abramovitz & Zelnick, 2015) and/or new public management. Both approaches favor an institutional model based on business, emphasizing efficiency, speed of service, benchmarks, accountability, and performance measurement. While some suggest that neoliberalism has some positive qualities, others argue that the approaches instituted through new public management/new managerialism subvert the goals of social work itself (Scourfield, 2007; Soss et al., 2011). Abramovitz and Zelnick (2015) argue that these new managerial, neoliberal approaches minimize client voice, narrow client-practitioner relationships, and can lead to burnout. Soss et al. (2011) add that neoliberalism exacerbates previously existing moral categorizations in social work. They suggest “individuals … have a moral and political obligation to act as disciplined entrepreneurs. They must plan to meet their own needs, accept personal responsibility for their problems, and manage their daily affairs with prudence. The individual who does otherwise fails not just as an economic actor but as a moral and civic being” (22–23). Ultimately, what neoliberalism does is create a business-driven machinery that structures, repurposes, and intensifies already existing parts of social work. This machinery generates morally loaded fallout; moral categorizations of responsibility, for example, which always existed in social work, structured by a neoliberal architecture of benchmarks and performance management that put responsible action “at cross purposes” (Soss et al., 2011, 231–2), on one hand communicating how a client may improve his/her life and on the other serving as documentation of caseworker and client action, so that the performance of each can be assessed.

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

101

These “cross purposes” are central to the current study, which was introduced at both SSWR conferences and to students and based on my previously published research. My work investigates the way in which these neoliberal policy concepts organically surfaced in the practice of social workers with their clients in a United States urban homeless shelter. Previous analyses of neoliberal discourses begin their study with neoliberal theory already in mind (c.f. Fairclough, 2000, 2002). In this research, however, these themes surfaced through their frequency in the transcript, constructed in the moment, without prior attention to neoliberalism. Lipsky’s (2010/1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy provides a theoretical framework for examining the social construction of policy in situ. Lipsky maintains that street-level workers include any individual who puts policy into practice in their everyday work and who mediates between a client base and an administrative body. He argues that given the ample discretion workers have, they make in-the-moment decisions about how to implement policy. His work, which while not explicitly social constructionist, pairs nicely, providing the framework for examining how policy is constructed and implemented in the interactional moment.

Social Work and Social Work Interaction Prior to the late 1990s, research on social work practice had consistently reiterated the importance of quality communication without examining what “quality” talk looks like or how it is achieved. Kadushin (1990), for example, emphasizes the need for empathy, humor, and tact, noting the characteristics of tactful and tactless discourse from an experiential, rather than an analytic, perspective. Likewise, Epstein’s (1985) book “Talking and Listening: A guide to the helping interview” refers to discourse in a general, non-specific way. Garvin and Seabury’s (1997) references to discourse in social work include similar communication-based generalities. Using interactional linguistics, social work interaction research seeks to unpack these conversational generalizations. Most social work interaction research draws on social constructionism and ethnomethodological social theories, synthesizing Berger and Luckmann (1967)‘s theory that identities, attitudes, positions, and stances are actively constructed in the

102 

M. T. Matarese

social moment of their uttering with Garfinkel’s (1967) assertion that systems and structures are best understood in the satisfaction and in the breach of those structures. Social work interaction research, then, examines words that convey stance/attitude/social categories and the structure and sequential unfolding of talk, within which the satisfaction and flouting of social conversational rules and expectations bring analytical insight. In the late 1990s European social work research had its watershed moment. Hall (1997) took a conversation analytic approach to social work narratives, and Miller’s (1997) research, while not technically discourse analysis, used social constructionism and an attention to transcripts in her ethnography of institutional communication. Jokinen, Juhila, and Pösö’s (1999) edited volume included contributions from a social constructionist perspective using narrative, conversation analytic, rhetorical, and combination methodologies, and there has been a steady accumulation of social work interaction research since (c.f. Hall, Juhila, Matarese, & van Nijnatten, 2014; Hall, Juhila, Parton, & Pösö, 2003; Hall et  al., 2006; Hutchby, 2007; White & Stancombe, 2003). In social work interaction, research mirrored the larger discipline, beginning with a focus on social work practice—including navigating sensitive topics through delicate discourse (van Nijnatten & Suoninen, 2014), client insistence on non-institutional identities (Matarese & van Nijnatten, 2015), resistance (Juhila, Caswell, & Raitakari, 2014), and caring but not coping (Slembrouck & Hall, 2003), juvenile probation (van Nijnatten & Stevens, 2005), victim positioning (Partanen & Wahlström, 2003)—and shifting in the last decade toward examining social work in a neoliberal system. In recent years, Hjörne, Juhila, and van Nijnatten (2010), for example, used discourse analysis to examine the tension between the need to individualize services and be responsive to clients while also maintaining standards that treat everyone similarly. Analyses regarding blame and moral accountability (Hall et  al., 2006; Kurri & Wahlstrom, 2003; White, 2003) shifted toward understanding those moral accountability constructions as they enact new managerial policy through practice (Matarese & Caswell, 2017a, 2017b). Matarese and Caswell (2017a, 2017b) compare standardized interactional routines in social work with

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

103

more conversationally flexible ones, looking at how the interactional events are structured and the ways in which neoliberal requirements like accountability impact the structure of social work interaction, placing the focus on the management and completion of paperwork. Responsibilization, a term with neoliberal (or as they say “advanced liberalism”) foundations that has come to describe “an increasing emphasis on individual and community responsibilities rather than state responsibilities,” is the focus of Juhila, Raitakari, and Hall’s (2017) book (58). Their keyword analysis traces the existence of responsibilization across various social work interactions. My research draws from social work interaction research in terms of content and scope, and in its theoretical underpinnings (social constructionism and ethnomethodology). Following the aforementioned scholars, I am likewise interested in neoliberalism and responsibility. However, my work departs from theirs through its use of interactional linguistic methodology, which centers on uses and structure of language, and in the focus of the analysis, which goes beyond responsibility itself to the stance object of responsibility: performance management, benchmarks, time, speed, and efficiency.

The Study and Methodology My research comes from a 9-month interactional institutional ethnography in an urban US homeless shelter conducted in 2008. The original aim of this study, which my work maintains, was to describe social work interaction in this context and to examine constructions of responsibility. I collected 54, audio-recorded worker-client interactions, over 1000 pages of transcript data, from 6 shelter caseworkers and their 18 homeless clients. I recorded interactions beginning when clients entered shelter (or entered into interactions with one of the six caseworkers) and ending when they left shelter (whether due to housing placement or them leaving shelter and not returning). All data were transcribed, and all participants and locations were given pseudonyms to protect their identities. I also took fieldnotes and conducted interviews at intervals throughout my work with all clients and caseworkers. Transcribed data were analyzed

104 

M. T. Matarese

using a combination of interactional linguistics, which includes attention to specific language used in the sequential unfolding of social interaction, including stance (Hunston & Thompson, 2000). Stance identifies lexical and grammatical terms that indicate evaluation, positioning and attitude, as well as the subjects and content of those evaluations. As described in Matarese (2012, 2015), the focus of the presented analysis was on constructions of responsibility, which included attention to personal pronouns, deontic modals and verbs (e.g., you should’ve, you need to, you must), and an analysis of the connection between stances of responsibility and the accountability mechanism put in place to assess responsible performance for both worker and client. Less surprising findings revealed how caseworkers construct client responsibility in deontic terms. More surprising, however, was the frequency with which some caseworkers, in talking about their client’s responsibility, also invoked their own. As clients’ responsible action allows their caseworker to move forward with his case, his action furthers or impedes the worker’s performance. I also found that responsibility was constructed with reference to the mechanisms that assess it (benchmarks and performance management) and with reference to overall worker stress and burnout. The course lecture introduced students to discourse analysis more generally, discourse analysis in social work, and some relevant transcripts from my previously published work, using Jefferson’s (1984) approach, served as the foundation for discussion. While data from this study originally included individuals who speak languages other than English, this lesson focused on discussing already published articles on speakers who speak English and dialects of English.

Framework for Dissemination As Grujicic-Alatriste (2015) discusses in the introduction of her book, it seems like more often than not implication statements that conclude academic papers in applied linguistics are pro forma; they are often suggestions for application without necessarily much intention of actualizing them. This lack of follow through highlights the elitism and esoterism of the ivory tower, in which published research merely gives rise to other

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

105

research. While describing classroom or social work practices, those studies rarely fall into the hands of everyday practitioners. However, Grujicic-­ Alatriste notes that increasingly scholars are calling for collaborations between academics and institutional representatives and applying research in institutional settings. “The framework for application of research findings” presents an approach for moving research findings from the ivory tower to the front-­ lines of practice, asking scholars to find relevant spaces for their research, to consider how to disseminate results, to develop appropriate tools, to use them, and to “collaborate in planning future negotiated research or application based on elicited feedback and disseminated findings” (11). She suggests a two-phase process involving both an initial research inquiry and a second phase that utilizes findings from the first to develop further collaborative study. This chapter describes my Phase 1 dissemination of research, relevant findings and challenges, and the fruitful collaborative study and course (Phase 2) that are surfacing as a result of the initial study. Phase 1 includes communicating results to both scholars in the field of social work and social workers themselves.

Connecting with the Field Historically, the field of social work has had difficulty maintaining autonomy from related fields like psychiatry (Trattner, 1999), and methodologically it continues to give quantitative data preferential treatment because of the utility of such methods to provide support for evidence-­ based practice (Rycroft-Malone et  al., 2003). At the Society for Social Work Research (SSWR) conference, while there is a special interest group devoted to qualitative research, there are few, if any, discourse analysts, and while academics at the conference find the insights generated by discourse analysis useful, the idea of adopting a methodology requiring such extensive training is daunting. At the conference, I have both presented my scholarly work and conducted workshops. While I did not collect empirical data at the conference, these workshops and my research

106 

M. T. Matarese

­ resentations helped me forge important connections with scholars that, p in part, would facilitate expansion into the social work classroom. The workshops I conducted at SSWR over the years have been teaching discourse analysis as a methodology, using examples from the social work literature, including my own work. In these workshops, one of which I conducted with book contributor Rebekah Johnson, social work researchers are taught how to transcribe using Jefferson’s (1984) conventions. Attendees are then brought through introductory conversation analysis, including turn-taking, adjacency pairs, and preference structure. I introduce discursive psychology as well as previously studied social-­ work specific topics like accountability, delicacy, categorization, and resistance (Hall et al., 2014). Through informal discussion sessions after the workshops, colleagues suggested teaching social work students discourse analysis as part of standard reflective practice like process recordings, which are often part of social work practice. Out of these interactions, several social work programs invited me to speak to their students about my research and, in turn, about discourse analysis. This following section reviews pre- and post-lecture feedback from one masters-level social work class.

Connecting with the Students I was asked to give a short talk at my college about some research I had conducted and published in the past on social work and responsibility. Some colleagues at the college who developed a mentoring program for students attended the lecture. One of these colleagues was a masters-level social work student who, having been inspired by the lecture, took it upon herself to email several of her current professors to talk with them about my work. On her suggestion, I then created an outreach email to those professors. I sent an inquiry email, my curriculum vitae, and links to my articles and the book on social work interaction I co-edited and co-authored. While several faculty returned my email with interest, only one class at the time had availability in the curriculum to have me work with students on discourse analysis. This resonates with McEnery’s (2018) remark that dissemination and impact largely depend on willing

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

107

c­ ollaborators, in this case, a motivated student and a young, open-minded professor. I was thus invited to a masters-level social welfare policy course in a social welfare master’s program at a private New  York City university. Seventeen students were asked to read two articles prior to class: the introduction to Analysing Social Work Communication and one of my published articles. I utilized pre- and post-presentation surveys to ascertain students’ perceptions regarding where discourse analysis fit into their work and program. Students were given very brief pre-presentation surveys prior to the class to gauge their background knowledge in linguistics and discourse analysis. Pre-presentation surveys asked the following questions: 1 . Have you studied linguistics or communication studies before? 2. What did you know about discourse analysis prior to the readings for today? I used a powerpoint to introduce students not only to discourse analysis more generally but to social work interaction research and my own research, including six transcribed interactions. Having introduced discourse analysis to the students already, I allowed them to work on analyzing the transcripts themselves, reviewing each one after their group work, confirming observations and adding my own. After an hour moving between analysis and discussion, we settled into a larger discussion about social work interaction. At this time, I gave them post-presentation surveys, which queried: 1 . Can we use discourse analysis in social work research? If so, how? 2. Might we use discourse analysis in social work practice? If so, how? 3. What are the three concepts you learned today that you could take into practice? 4. Would you take a whole class on social work communication (e.g., language concerns like bilingualism and translation issues, discourse analytic approaches to understanding client narrative, advice-giving, resistance, client insistence, developing rapport, managing delicate issues, accountability, and responsibility)?

108 

M. T. Matarese

Afterward, students began discussing on their own the integration of discourse analysis into social work process recordings, a reflective practice required of many social work students. These comments, which I describe in the following subsection, resonated with scholars from the SSWR conference.

Outreach Results While 17 students is a small sample, this dissemination phase is the first of a larger dissemination project to be explained in detail at the end of this chapter. This initial phase, Phase 1, determined possibilities for where discourse analysis could fit into a social work program. The pre-­ presentation survey revealed that in a class of 17 students, 1 student had learned about discourse analysis before, in undergraduate school, 3 students had previous exposure to linguistics, and 3 claimed some knowledge of the field from journalism studies. The post-presentation survey received overwhelmingly positive results. As responses to questions 3 and 4 are easiest to summarize, I review responses to those first. All students (100%) were enthusiastically interested in a full course on social work interaction (question #4). One student went so far as to say, “YES!! It is the missing piece of social work education.” And student take-a-ways from the presentation (question #3) included becoming more aware of their talk, understanding responsibility in discourse, and understanding neoliberalism and its impact on street-level workers. As one student aptly summarized, “It’s not only ‘what’ we say but ‘how’; sometimes we say things unconsciously, without realizing how we are coming across; examine who we blame and where we place responsibility.” Responses to the first two questions (questions 1 and 2) sometimes blurred the distinction between research/practice differentiated in the wording of the questions. While all 17 students responded favorably to the first question, only 3 answers went into detail about using discourse analysis in social work research. One student suggested that discourse analytic research in social work contexts can allow workers to “assess social work across cultural groups.” Several comments created a link

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

109

between research and practice, emphasizing the goal of this chapter and the presentation itself, suggesting “researching how we say things can assist how much better we can do our job.” Another student, likewise, argued, “[u]sing evidence-based research that suggests the usage of certain language in order to build trust/bond with the client.” The latter comments drive home the central aim of this volume as a whole—connecting research with practitioners who can put it to use. Concerns regarding evidence-based practice, however, are addressed at the end of the chapter. The second question also received 17 positive answers from students, and comments about the utility of discourse analysis for social work practice spread across responses for questions 1 and 2. Comments, though similar, fell into three related categories: discursive mindfulness for social workers, reflective practice for students, and specific areas in social work education or in practice where discourse analysis could be integrated. Most comments addressed the utility of transcriptions and discourse analysis for reflective social work practice in order to “understand the meaning of our words and to implement different strategies.” One student suggested discourse analysis would be useful for “looking at what went well/what helped in specific situation.” Another student summarized integration this way, “I think discourse analysis would be extremely useful in social work to improve both communication skills and active listening/reflecting.” Most students addressed the everyday discursive mindfulness that could come from studying social work interaction. A couple of students addressed the kind of social work tasks in which discourse analysis would be useful. One student stated that it could be “[us]eful in client or group sessions.” Highlighting the potential to integrate discourse analysis into everyday practice, another student exclaimed, “Yes we use it to see how we interact with our clients on a daily basis!” Still others discussed how social work interaction could impact their learning process as students. One student remarked that discourse analysis can help students “[a]nalyze to what degree we put our ideas into practice.” Several students mentioned a more general application of discourse analysis in training and educating social workers. However, most comments in this category related to process recordings, a kind of reflective practice tool used in social work practice. Three students specifically

110 

M. T. Matarese

referred to integrating discourse analysis into process recordings saying, “Yes! Useful in process recording!”; “Yes, definitely! In process recordings it would be useful in analyzing the content and meaning of client’s and our own statements,” and, from one exuberant student, “ADVANCED PROCESS RECORDINGS!” Another student, alluding to process recording noted in response to the impact of discourse analysis in social work research, “Yes, being open to receiving feedback on consented recording conversations between clients and professionals.” Process recordings are an opportunity for students to re-construct meeting content and receive feedback on it from a field supervisor. The previous statement appears to connect to that feedback process. As I collected the surveys, students began to discuss the integration of discourse analysis in process recordings in more depth, agreeing that this reflective tool was perhaps the best place to fold social work interaction study into their coursework. Their comments reminded me of my social work colleagues at SSWR who had the same suggestion. This observation made by the students and my colleagues led to extensive research on process recordings, and the following subsection describes this reflective tool, how discourse analysis may be integrated, and Phase 2 of this dissemination project, which will entail a more formal study of social work interaction dissemination and the creation of a course on the subject at my college.

Process Recordings in Social Work Process recordings, “a record of the process that plays out between the worker and one or more persons,” are a standard reflective practice for many social work students (Fox & Gutheil, 2000, 41). Recordings began as early as the 1920s when social workers were asked to provide their administrators with a rationale for dispersing funding and services. These reflections soon became part of social work student reflection and learning. Whatever approach students use, process recordings minimally include a goal statement, a description of the content of the meeting, and some sort of reflection/response. Dwyer and Urbanowski (1965) recommended a process for recording reflections, including a description

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

111

of the purpose of the interaction, a narration of observations, a description of the content of the interaction, reflection on student’s feelings during the interaction, and possibly treatments and goal-setting for future meetings with the client. Scholars have re-organized such reflections into charts and have suggested small alterations to the approach (Wilson, 1980). Integrating discourse analysis into process recordings is not an effortless task for several reasons: (1) There is a tendency in social work to rely on memory to recall meeting content, and though it seems like audio-­ recording and transcription would solve this, (2) there is skepticism and concern in social work regarding audio and video-recording interactions, particularly when transcriptions themselves are subjective constructions, and (3) transcriptions seem to be adding a weight to a Sisyphean task.

Unreliability of Process Recordings Process recordings are generally predicated on the ability of the student to produce a written “verbatim transcript of the student-client interaction,” usually from memory sometime after the conclusion of the meeting (Neuman & Friedman, 1997, 237). Wilson (1980), for example, recommends “a word-for-word description of what happened” and “a description of any action of nonverbal activity that occurred” (19). The interactions are generally not recorded and transcribed. Many scholars, while noting limitations of the practice, ultimately support it, suggesting it facilitates reflective practice and allows for student assessment without the intimidating presence of the supervisor. Homonoff (2014) suggests that “the expectation of regular process recording can encourage interns to become more adept at remembering dialogue and accessing their own reactions” (2). However, transcribing from memory is no easy task. Research suggests that post-meeting reflections contain inaccuracies and often miss critical information. Lamb, Orbach, Sternberg, Hershkowitz, and Horowitz (2000) in comparing “verbatim” accounts of interactions with audio-­ taped versions in child abuse victim interactions found that important details made by the children were missed.

112 

M. T. Matarese

Investigator’s notes misrepresented both the information elicited from the young interviewees and the way the information was elicited. An alarming number of incident-relevant details (24% of the total) were not recorded at all in the investigator’s notes, with 17.8% of the central, i.e., allegation specific, details not reflected in the investigator’s notes. (704)

The researchers go on to note that even when notes were taken contemporaneously with the interview essential details were missed. These notes, which may be used in court, could critically impact a child’s life. This study, conducted by non-linguists in social work, child health, and forensics, highlights the importance of detail in case note-taking and the utility of audio-recorded transcripts for capturing more meeting content. Some social work scholars acknowledge that, while valuable in other ways, process recordings have been critiqued as inaccurate (Neuman & Friedman, 1997). Neuman and Friedman (1997) concede that while process recordings may not be accurate, they may reveal something about students’ experiences. More critical, Wilson (1980) argues that students may change their written reflections in order to save face. “The experienced field instructor is aware that most students cannot be expected to be totally honest in their process records, which at best represent a relative degree of honesty” (24). She argues that in reflecting a student may become aware of something that may come under supervisor scrutiny, something they are not proud of, and they may change their description of content to save face. Graybeal and Ruff (1995) reiterate these critiques in written process records. On the supervisor side, too, “verbatim,” commenting on discourse generated from memory may be inaccurate and not the best use of time. Supervisors are encouraged to comment on their student’s observations, including the language. Wilson (1980) gives the following examples of faculty/supervisor feedback: “the student makes statements that give false reassurance ‘I’m sure it wasn’t that bad’ or ‘I know ZYX Welfare Department can help you with that’… The student uses advice giving – ‘I think you should do this…’ or ‘what you should do is…’” (29). However, if the student is altering their talk, or if, as discourse analysts and others suggest, people are generally inaccurate at remembering their words in conversation, then commentary at the discursive level is less useful, unlikely to provide inaccurate feedback and perhaps not a good use of the supervisor’s time.

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

113

Audio-Recording and Transcription for the Win? It seems, then, that discourse analysis and transcription could be an ideal way to avoid both poor memory and a selective/guilty one. ten Have (2007) notes that a simple “verbatim” transcription would convey only words, clearing out seemingly superfluous noise and adjusting for mistakes, but it would provide the content of that interaction. “For analyzing talk-in-interaction, however, one wants to write down not only what has been said, but also how it has been said. And that is why transcription is so important and difficult for a research tradition like [conversation analysis]” (94). Most discourse analysts agree that a detailed transcription that displays what occurs in an interaction is essential to the analysis of talk (Wooffitt, 2005); although, they are also careful to note that the transcript itself is not the data, merely a representation of it (Wooffitt, 2005). The transcript assists our analysis of the data, which is the audio or video-recorded talk. Audio and video-recording are possible and acceptable in social work settings, though doing so seems to be the deviation rather than the norm. Nichols, Nichols, and Hardy (1993) note that “audio, video, and live observation were reported by almost two thirds of surveyed supervisors” in their study (170). Likewise, Wilson (1980), who extensively reviews audio and video-recorded process recordings, encourages their use, suggesting that the client is far more likely to be comfortable with it than the student researchers, who fear that that may be evaluated negatively.

Arguments Against Audio-Recording and Transcription However, while audio and video-recording have their strengths, they also create challenges. Graybeal and Ruff (1995) review seven ways to record process, including cognitive-verbal (a verbal description), cognitive-­ physical (role play, creative work), written, audio, video, live observation through a one-way mirror, and live observation (during a session). They suggest that the obvious advantage to audio and video-recording (accuracy and potentially reliability and validity) must be considered in light of the obvious disadvantage (potential breaches of confidentiality).

114 

M. T. Matarese

Wilson (1980) also contends that audio and video recordings can be subpoenaed and can endanger client confidentiality. Moreover, while transcription may bring a student closer to an accurate portrait of the interaction than memory, transcripts are also generally far from complete. Heritage and Atkinson (1984) explain [c]onversation analysts do not claim that the transcript system captures the details of a tape recording in all its particulars, or that a transcript should (or even could) be viewed as a literal representation of, or observationally adequate substitute for, the data under analysis. Like all transcription systems, the one used [in CA] is necessarily selective […] and indeed this system is particularly concerned with capturing the sequential features of talk. (12)

ten Have (2007) reiterates this point saying, “[i]n other words, a transcription might be best seen as a translation, made for various practical purposes” (94). He continues by noting that “no transcription system is perfect … since it represents the result of a series of compromises between heterogeneous considerations” (ten Have, 2007, 94). That said, Jefferson’s (1984) conventions for transcription have created what ten Have calls a “kind of ‘common language,’ with various” (95). Slight changes in transcription notation do not change the fact that transcriptions provide more information to consider than just the words on the page. Still, at the end of the day, if social workers are looking for objectivity, they will not find it in transcription and discourse analysis. Finally, it is worth noting that nearly every article I reviewed on process recording mentioned how frustrating and time-consuming the task is for students. Fox and Gutheil (2000) note, most social workers will cringe at the recollection of hours spent in their student years, laboring over verbatim transcripts of their work with clients. Many field instructors will sigh when they think of the student process recordings sitting on their desk, awaiting their attentive reading and comments. (39–40)

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

115

Graybeal and Ruff (1995), likewise, joke that “the phrase ‘process recording’ is likely to elicit at least a few groans from an audience of social workers or social work students” (169), and Neuman and Friedman (1997) suggest that “students often find process recordings tedious to complete” (237). Clearly, process recording is already an intense and challenging experience for practitioners. The extent to which teaching transcription and discourse analysis in process recording is useful and worth the work is an empirical one, which Phase 2 of this project addresses in the conclusion of this chapter.

Alternatives Another alternative, however, may be to eliminate transcription all together, focusing entirely on discursive mindfulness. Wilkinson (2011), who collaborated with colleagues to create a manual that teaches conversation analysis (CA) to clinicians in order to analyze, diagnose, and treat aphasia (c.f., Lock et al., 2001), suggests that given the heavy caseloads of clinicians and the length of time it takes to transcribe, transcription is often eliminated or. significantly modified compared to standard CA research practice. As such, the primary way in which CA has influenced the clinical practice of speech and language therapists, at least in the United Kingdom, is through therapists learning something of CA’s methods and findings and using this knowledge in their clinical management of people with communication disorders and their significant others. (52)

In describing the group training workshops organized for individuals taking calls on a childbirth helpline, Kitzinger (2011) notes: I have discovered it is best to require participants to work from the recordings and not to give them transcripts – since this more closely approximates the actual situation of counselling, and it also means that they listen more

116 

M. T. Matarese

carefully and discover for themselves the importance of features of the interaction…that are otherwise already provided in the transcript as potential features of interest. (106)

While the concept of “mindfulness” more likely brings to mind new age yoga and meditation than linguistics or social work, both of these quotes highlight the ways in which practitioners learning about discourse analysis helped them pay deliberate attention to discourse in practice. The author John Kabat Zinn calls mindfulness “The awareness that arises from paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment and non-­ judgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn, 2005, 180). This passive, non-judgmental awareness of language, given the tools of interactional linguistics, may allow social workers to evaluate language use and make useful, supportive change. Perhaps, given heavy caseloads and rigorous course schedules in social work programs, discursive mindfulness should be the goal rather than detailed research-oriented transcription and analysis. Action research is a vital part of practice, but given the constraints of a busy job and an already frustrating assignment, perhaps transcription is simply too much. As one student, when asked about how discourse analysis may be used in practice, said, “Yes, help us be mindful about the language we use in order to help clients reach goals.”

Suggested Further Steps and Final Thoughts Grujicic-Alatriste (2015), in the conclusion of her chapter on the framework for application of research findings, notes the various challenges and limitations of dissemination research. While students found my work incredibly relevant, the biggest challenge was that, ultimately, I communicated more to the students about how to use discourse analysis in social work than about my own research. Their lack of familiarity with the methodology and all its nuances made communicating the actual research findings more of a final capstone than a focus of the lecture. As such, I began work developing a Language in the Helping Professions course, which would introduce students majoring in Human Services at my own college to discourse analysis and language issues in social work.

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

117

In order to disseminate the research, students and practitioners need to not be alienated by the methodological framework. As such, going forward, more work needs to be done exposing social work students and faculty to the approach before or in tandem with discussing specific research findings. For Phase 2 of this project, I will be collaborating with a colleague in social work/psychology. Together we will examine three approaches for integrating discourse analysis into social work practice: (1) an audio-­ recorded, transcription-oriented approach to process recording with a discursive reflection portion of the assignment, (2) an audio-recorded discursive mindfulness approach to process recording, and (3) a discursive mindfulness approach to process recording from memory/notes. The pre and post questions for each course require honing and reworking given the shifting and narrowed focus of the study. As I conclude Phase 1 of the project and turn toward Phase 2, I am left with some lingering thoughts. Harrison (1999) argues that “evidence-­ based practice” in social work stems from new managerialist approaches that encourage what he calls “scientific-bureaucratic rationality,” which suggests that academic research findings be culled together and streamlined into best practices and guidelines for practice (3). White and Stancombe (2003) state that this “scientific” model. promises a secure knowledge base that can provide rational foundations for clinical decisions. It is bureaucratic in the sense that this knowledge is codified and manualized through the use of protocols, guidelines, and computer models, adherence to which may be monitored by managers or through internal and external audit. (25)

Hall et al. (2006), in their book on moral categorizations and accountability in child social work, are hesitant to connect the implications for their findings to evidence-based practice, given the obvious variability and discretion available to social workers. Evidence-based practice leaves little room for either. Reflective practice, on the other hand, is characterized by Hall et al. (2006) as the polar opposite, describing.

118 

M. T. Matarese

social work practice as characterised by uncertainty and rarely susceptible to the rational process of unambiguous evidence and clear choices … Rather than relying on external formal methods of analysis, practitioners are encouraged to make spaces to reflect on their practice and examine the dilemmas and concerns, with the help of colleagues or supervisors. (8–9)

While evidence-based practices are all standards and rigid approaches backed by empirical evidence, reflective practice is characterized as all flexibility, individual attention, backed only by intuition and thoughtfulness. Hjörne et al. (2010) suggest that this tension between standardization and individualization is at the very center of modern social work. However, might not reflective practices be seen as resistance to the rigidity of evidence-based practices? Where evidence base calls for standardization, reflective practice calls for individualization. Process recordings highlight and potentially ease this tension. Process recordings—a reflective process—originate from requirements for social work case reports in the 1920s. A requirement loathed by social work practitioners, writing and submitting case reports, a part of standardized assessment, has been repurposed by schools of social work as a reflective tool. In fact, some scholars argue that reflective process recordings have deviated so far from their origin that they will not help students when they graduate and are forced to write and submit case reports (Dwyer & Urbanowski, 1965). Required case reports, in one form or another, persist, but process recording creates the potential for a reflective space within a formal, bureaucratic one. The integration of discourse analysis into social work highlights the same tension. Audio-recording and transcription, providing potentially more accurate versions of conversational content, combined with discourse analysis, may be seen as a way to generate more empirically reliable and valid analysis of social work practices (contributing to the evidence base). Yet, these approaches can also be acts of resistance, asking practitioners to take a moment to consider their language use, which inevitably will vary from client to client. The evidence-based movement does not appear to be going anywhere. What we can do, perhaps, is consider the way our tools, whether process recordings, discourse analysis, or discourse analysis in process recordings, can accomplish two jobs for the price of one.

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

119

References Abramovitz, M., & Zelnick, J. (2015). Privatization in the human services: Implications for direct practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(3), 283–293. Al-Marashi, I. (2002). Iraq’s security and intelligence network: A guide and analysis. Middle East Review of International Affairs, 6(3), 1–13. Antaki, C. (Ed.). (2011). Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Bowen, S., Martens, P., & Need to Know Team. (2005). Demystifying knowledge translation: Learning from the community. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(4), 203–211. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dwyer, M., & Urbanowski, M. (1965). Student process recording: A plea for structure. Social Casework, 46, 283. Epstein, L. (1985). Talking and listening: A guide to the helping interview. St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing. Fairclough, N. (2000). New labour, new language? London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2002). Language in new capitalism. Discourse and Society, 13(2), 163–166. Fox, R., & Gutheil, I. (2000). Process recording: A means for conceptualizing and evaluating practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 20(1/2), 39–55. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Garvin, C.  D., & Seabury, B.  A. (1997). Interpersonal practice in social work: Promoting competence and social justice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Graybeal, C., & Ruff, E. (1995). Process recording: It’s more than you think. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(2), 169–181. Gredig, D., & Sommerfeld, P. (2008). New proposals for generating and exploiting solution-oriented knowledge. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(4), 292–300. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2015). Framework for application of research findings: An introduction. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hall, C. (1997). Social work as narrative: Storytelling and persuasion in professional texts. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.

120 

M. T. Matarese

Hall, C., Juhila, K., Matarese, M., & van Nijnatten, C. (2014). Analysing social work communication: Discourse in practice. New York: Routledge. Hall, C., Juhila, K., Parton, N., & Pösö, T. (Eds.). (2003). Constructing clienthood in social work and human services: Interaction, identities and practices. London: Jessica Kingsley. Hall, C., Slembrouck, S., & Sarangi, S. (2006). Language practices in social work: Categorisation and accountability in child welfare. London: Routledge. Harrison, S. (1999, September). New labour, modernization and health care governance. Paper presented at the Political Students Association/Social Policy Association conference: New Labour, New Health, London. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Heinsch, M., Gray, M., & Sharland, E. (2016). Re-conceptualising the link between research and practice in social work: A literature review on knowledge utilisation. International Journal of Social Welfare, 25(1), 98–104. Heritage, J., & Atkinson, J.  M. (1984). Introduction. In J.  M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action, studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hjörne, E., Juhila, K., & van Nijnatten, C. (2010). Negotiating dilemmas in the practices of street-level welfare work. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(3), 303–309. Homonoff, E. (2014). Gimme that old-time reflection: Process recording. Field Educator, 4(1), 2–6. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hutchby, I. (2007). The discourse of child counselling. New York: John Benjamins. Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jokinen, A., Juhila, K., & Pösö, T. (Eds.). (1999). Constructing social work practices. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Juhila, K., Caswell, D., & Raitakari, S. (2014). Resistance. In C. Hall, K. Juhila, M. Matarese, & C. van Nijnatten (Eds.), Analysing social work communication: Discourse in practice. New York: Routledge. Juhila, K., Makitalo, A., & Noordegraaf, M. (2014). Analysing social work interaction: Premises and approaches. In C. Hall, K. Juhila, M. Matarese, & C. van Nijnatten (Eds.), Analysing social work communication: Discourse in practice. New York: Routledge.

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

121

Juhila, K., Raitakari, S., & Hall, C. (2017). Responsibilisation at the margins of welfare services. London: Routledge. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2005). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. New York: MJF Books. Kadushin, A. (1990). The social work interview: A guide for human service professionals. New York: Columbia University Press. Kitzinger, C. (2011). Working with childbirth helplines: The contributions and limitations of conversation analysis. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kurri, K., & Wahlstrom, J. (2003). Negotiating clienthood and the moral order of a relationship in couple therapy. In C.  Hall, K.  Juhila, N.  Parton, & T.  Pösö (Eds.), Constructing clienthood in social work and human services: Interaction, identities and practices. London: Jessica Kingsley. Lamb, M., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K., Hershkowitz, I., & Horowitz, D. (2000). Accuracy of investigators’ verbatim notes of their forensic interviews with alleged child abuse victims. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 699–708. Lipsky, M. (2010/1980). Street-level bureaucracy, 30th Ann. Ed.: Dilemmas of the individual in public service: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lock, S., Wilkinson, R., Bryan, K., Maxim, J., Edmundson, A., Bruce, C., & Moir, D. (2001). Supporting Partners of People with Aphasia in Relationships and Conversation (SPPARC): A resource pack. Bicester, UK: Speechmark. Matarese, M. (2012). “Getting placed” in time: Responsibility talk in caseworker-­ client interaction. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 9(3), 341–359. Matarese, M. (2015). “Getting placed” in time: responsibility talk in caseworkerclient interaction. In A. Solin & J. O. Östman (Eds.), Discourse and responsibility in professional settings (pp. 120–140). Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing. Matarese, M., & Caswell, D. (2017a). “I’m gonna ask you about yourself, so I can put it on paper” analysing street-level bureaucracy through form-related talk in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 48(3), 714–733. Matarese, M., & Caswell, D. (2017b). Neoliberal talk: The routinized structures of document-focused social worker-client discourse. In S.  Schram & M.  Pavlovskaya (Eds.), Rethinking neoliberalism: Resisting the disciplinary regime. Routledge. Matarese, M., & van Nijnatten, C. (2015). Making a case for client insistence in social work interaction. Discourse Processes, 52(8), 670–688.

122 

M. T. Matarese

McEnery, T. (2018). Reflections on impact. In Applying linguistics (pp. 29–40). New York: Routledge. McIntyre, D. (2018). Assessing the value of research in linguistics. In Applying linguistics (pp. 17–28). New York: Routledge. McIntyre, D., & Price, H. (Eds.). (2018). Applying linguistics: Language and the impact agenda. New York: Routledge. Miller, G. (1997). Becoming miracle workers: Language and learning in brief therapy. New York: Routledge. Neuman, K., & Friedman, B. (1997). Process recordings: Fine-tuning an old instrument. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(2), 237–243. Nichols, W., Nichols, D., & Hardy, K. (1993). Supervision in family therapy: A decade re-study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16, 275–285. Partanen, T., & Wahlström, J. (2003). The dilemma of victim positioning in group therapy for male perpetrators of domestic violence. In C.  Hall, K. Juhila, N. Parton, & T. Pösö (Eds.), Constructing clienthood in social work and human services: Interaction, identities and practices. London: Jessica Kingsley. Rycroft-Malone, J., Seers, K., Tichen, A., Harvey, G., Kitson, A., & McCormack, B. (2003). What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(1), 81–90. Sarangi, S. (2016). Team work and team talk as distributed and coordinated action in healthcare delivery. Communication & Medicine, 13(1), 1–7. Scourfield, P. (2007). Social care and the modern citizen: Client, consumer, service user, manager and entrepreneur. British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 107–122. Silverman, D. (1997). Discourses of counselling: HIV counselling as social interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Slembrouck, S., & Hall, C. (2003). Caring but not coping: Fashioning a legitimate parent identity. In C.  Hall, K.  Juhila, N.  Parton, & T.  Pösö (Eds.), Constructing clienthood in social work and human services (pp.  44–61). London: Jessica Kingley. Soss, J., Fording, R., & Schram, S. F. (2011). The organization of discipline: From performance management to perversity and punishment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl 2), i203–i232. ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trattner, W. I. (1999). From poor law to welfare state: A history of social welfare in America. New York: Free Press.

5  Discursive Mindfulness Among Practitioners Analyzing Social… 

123

van Nijnatten, C., & Stevens, G. (2005). Juvenile participation in conversations with probation officers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(3), 483–499. van Nijnatten, C., & Suoninen, E. (2014). Delicacy. In C.  Hall, K.  Juhila, M. Matarese, & C. van Nijnatten (Eds.), Analysing social work communication: Discourse in practice. New York: Routledge. White, S. (2003). The social worker as moral judge: Blame, responsibility, and case formulation. In C.  Hall, K.  Juhila, N.  Parton, & T.  Pösö (Eds.), Constructing clienthood in social work and human services. London: Jessica Kingsley. White, S., & Stancombe, J. (2003). Clinical judgement in the health and welfare professions: Extending the evidence base. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Wilkinson, R. (2011). Changing interactional behavior: Using conversation analysis in intervention Programmes for aphasic conversation. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk. London: Palgrave and Macmillan. Wilson, S. (1980). Recording: Guidelines for social workers. New York: Free Press. Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

6 Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious Interactions Domenica Luvera DelPrete and Catherine DiFelice Box

Deemed one of the most conflictive, yet connective, bonds in a female’s life, the mother-daughter relationship has long been a focus of scholarship. A mere cursory glance at the bestseller list, Oscar-garnering films (e.g., Lady Bird), and television shows suggest that exploring this relationship is not confined to academia. Indeed, the examination of mother-­ daughter communication spans decades and disciplines (e.g., Apter, 2004; Caplan, 2000; Fingerman, 1996; Gordon, 2002, 2007; Hall & Langellier, 1988; Schiffrin, 2000; Tannen, 2006; Wodak & Schulz, 1986). How mothers and daughters interact—and more broadly, how families communicate—has proven fertile ground for counselors, caregivers, parents, and artists alike. However, while anecdotes, interviews, statistics, and images about family communication abound, a surprisingly

D. L. DelPrete (*) Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. DiFelice Box University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_6

125

126 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

small number of studies analyze mother-daughter interactions in naturalistic settings, looking at the discourse as it is actually produced in real time. Our research focuses on conversations between mothers and their adolescent daughters, as described below. Nevertheless, as we will discuss, our work has afforded us opportunities to reach audiences interested in both specifically mother-daughter interaction, and more generally, family communication. The findings of our discourse analytic research demonstrate the connection fostered when mother-daughter exchanges reflect traditional maternal and child roles, which challenges the lay notion that adolescents wish to be treated as adults. When the mother’s talk indexes the role of nurturer, conversations close without trouble. In contrast, when the mother steps out of a nurturing role, and engages the adolescent daughter in talk that echoes conversation among social and familial equals, disharmony ensues. While troubles telling has shown to be common conversational practice in female friendship groups, who wish to build solidarity or share a disconcerting experience (Coates, 1996; Fingerman, 2003; Tannen, 2006), it has a different interactional outcome for mothers and their teenaged daughters. Mother as troubles teller with her adolescent daughter not only results in failed social bonding but also engenders troubled interaction. We engage practitioners with our research through employing the Framework for Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), and as such, collaborating with stakeholders who directly and concretely benefit from research findings, the importance of which has been echoed in Lawson and Sayers (2016). Informed by the first phase of Grujicic-Alatriste’s framework, we engaged in a set of sequential steps to (1) identify those who would benefit from our research; (2) disseminate our work to relevant audiences, who in turn analyzed and applied findings; and (3) elicit feedback through designing feedback tools and analyzing the information generated therein. After initial contact and dissemination, we have continued our work through incorporating feedback from practitioners, as outlined in Phase 2 of the framework, to identify areas that merit further intervention at the level of practice, and ultimately, more pointed research questions that begin a new cycle of application.

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

127

As will be discussed in more detail, we give talks and conduct seminars with working American parents. We also facilitate workshops for multilingual caregivers working short term in the United States as au pairs. The first language(s) and home country of these caregivers vary depending on the year in which the workshop is given; the most common countries of origin include those in Europe and South America. We adapt our data, as well as the analysis techniques, in accordance with the Framework for Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015); we do so in order to make our work accessible to audiences with various areas of professional expertise. The claims and conclusions, originally shared with experts within our field and the walls of academia, promote sustained dialogue and inspired meaningful exchanges among the participants. It thus enables us, as applied linguists, who are also clinicians interested in practical solutions (Candlin & Sarangi, 2011; Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015; Sarangi & Candlin, 2003), to re-contextualize our intellectual work and engage in purposeful practices with individuals in local communities. From this perspective, our work is both relevant and reflexive. With respect to the former, it has meaningful application to individuals in their professional and personal life. In terms of the latter, it enables us (as researchers and practitioners) to re-visit our data from a fresh microanalytic lens. Thus, the discursive interaction is re-viewed in a simplified form (i.e., without extensive transcription details, see Grujicic-Alatriste’s Framework for Practical Application) and accommodated to a wider audience. Didactically, as practitioners, we learn how our theoretical framework and empirical data can be made comprehensible to individuals who share similar interpersonal experiences but have neither the same specialized knowledge nor use the same technical language. As such, bi-directional learning occurs. We have learned how to address the issue of “guaranteeing comprehensibility” (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004) by applying a differential voicing, which Candlin and Sarangi propose is needed to make applied linguistic work comprehensible (and thus relevant) to audiences inside and outside the walls of academia (although, we note that recent work [e.g., Candlin & Sarangi, 2011] has assumed that such audiences are representatives of formal professional institutions with less attention given to the familial arena). We reframe how we present our work, not only by modifying our data but also by elaborating our claims with video clips from popular

128 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

culture and collaborative tasks. These hands-on applications allowed for further engagement with the data, which, in turn, generated dialogue among the participants about its applicability to their own lives. Many even told personal, parallel accounts of how instances, such as “failed social bonding,” occurred with their children, partners, and friends. Along with these practical implications, applying the Framework for Practical Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015) generated what we termed as a discursive consciousness raising to our audience (see also Introduction, this volume). The impact created a raised awareness of the words used in interactions and their effect on the ensuing sequence. Our sessions delve into the ways that micro-features of verbal exchanges function to diffuse or ignite conflict. When giving feedback, attendees of our talks and our seminar participants have expressed that an understanding of both maternal roles and the discursive strategies the mothers employ when in these roles prompted self-reflection of their own talk and a re-evaluation of how they will ultimately interact with their daughters, or the children in their care, in future conversations. These outcomes provide, then, further evidence as to how reflexivity emerges when our discourse analytic work is made both relevant and comprehensible to individuals who are not our academic peers, yet can relate to the moments of conflict, troubles telling, and nurturing. While we may not all share the same knowledge base, our local and interpersonal experiences do dovetail, allowing for a wider understanding of our discourse analytic practices. This chapter first provides the theoretical background that informed the larger study, and then presents the data and analysis from the original case study. We selected this case study because it prioritizes the specific over the general and “can [thus] be seen as a project in applied research, which not only looks at the particular, but does so in a framework of collaborative action involving practitioners” (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003, p. 274). Based on this perspective, the use of a case study allowed us to extract relevant and specific incidences on mother-daughter talk that would have practical implications for our audiences when examining interpersonal relationships in general. A case study approach facilitated the dissemination of our findings by showing the “practical solutions” (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003) of our specific applied linguistic research. Next, we turn to what we consider to be an important aspect of

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

129

our work: the presentation of our findings to audiences outside of academia. This involves following the two phases of the framework as outlined by Grujicic-Alatriste (2015). It includes adaptation of our data for those of diverse backgrounds and professions, which affords new and exciting opportunities to frame our analyses in ways that are suited for wide audiences, adding to the field by broadening our understanding of discourse studies in general, and to the academic disciplines of interactional sociolinguistics (IS) and conversation analysis (CA) in particular. We also discuss the feedback we elicited and received from seminar and workshop participants, and we reflect on the importance of academics sharing their resources with wide audiences.

Theoretical Background This section provides a brief overview on discourse and psychological studies on mothers and daughters. Scholarship examining the mother-­ daughter relationship will first be presented, followed by a review of troubles telling—a conversational practice common among women friends seeking affiliation, social bonding, or simply to share a story.

 he Mother-Daughter Relationship: The Struggle T and the Bond Hirsch’s (1981) seminal article, “Mothers and Daughters,” credited feminist psychoanalytic literature for having provided the most comprehensive insight into the mother-daughter relationship. Decades later, psychologists (e.g., Fingerman, 1996, 2003; Henwood, 1993; Koerner Silverberg, Jacobs, & Raymond, 2000; La Sorsa & Fodor, 1990; Lefkowitz & Fingerman, 2003) and sociologists (e.g., Suitor & Pillemer, 2006) continue to examine the relational issues that plague and strengthen the relationship between mothers and daughters. In the late 1990s and into the twenty-first century, linguists have also begun to recognize the primacy of the mother-daughter bond in women’s lives. Consequently, a few publications in both scholarly journals (Schiffrin, 1996, 2000, 2002) and

130 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

in popular books (Tannen, 2001a, 2006) began to explore the language of mothers and daughters, characterizing it as one of deep connection yet replete with struggles for autonomy, individuation, and control. Within these works, the mother-daughter relationship is described as one fraught with intergenerational ambivalence (Schiffrin, 1996), loaded with evaluative judgments (Dedaić, 2001), and beset by strife (Tannen, 2006). Despite these relational challenges, linguists have also pointed out how the normative closeness of the mother-daughter relationship is discursively maintained and protected, even following the most difficult and life changing of circumstances (Schiffrin, 2000). Indeed, this particular parent and child are connected by an enduring bond that, paradoxically, forms the basis of the deepest love and the deepest resentment and anger that most women experience (Tannen, 2006). While most mothers and daughters have a close and supportive relationship, the unique bond they share is both a source of comfort and tension. Indeed, disagreements, intergenerational tension, and ambivalence among mothers and daughters has been well documented by psychologists (e.g., Fingerman, 1996, 2003; Fingerman, Chen, Hay, Cichy, & Lefkowitz, 2006; Koerner Silverberg et  al., 2000; Lefkowitz & Fingerman, 2003; Rich, 1990), as well as a few linguists examining this relationship (e.g., Schiffrin, 1996; Tannen, 2001a, 2006; Wodak & Schulz, 1986). Fingerman (1996) investigated sources of tension between aging mothers and their adult daughters. In her study, mother-daughter dyads participated in open-ended interviews and completed questionnaires. The data revealed that more daughters than mothers felt the other was intrusive, and that mothers’ intrusiveness was described in terms of making excessive demands, giving criticism, and offering unsolicited advice (Fingerman, 1996). The data also showed that mothers placed greater emotional value in their relationship than did daughters (Fingerman, 1996).

Troubles Telling Tensions arising from attempts at social bonding plague the mothers’ relationship with their adolescent daughter. In her case study on

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

131

­ other-­adolescent daughter interaction, Luvera DelPrete (2015) explains m how negative connection results when a mother engages her teenage daughter in troubles telling, or the sharing of difficult experiences with another person. By sharing her troubles with her child, mother, in the roles of troubles teller, thrust the adolescent daughter in a friendship and expert role that disrupts the parent-child hierarchy and assumes epistemic symmetries that do not exist give the daughter developmental stage. While the organization of troubles telling is not uncommon in institutional encounters (e.g., Ekström, Lindström, & Karlasson, 2013), it is known primarily as a type of rapport talk (Tannen, 1986, 1990, 1994, 2001a, 2006) that performs a pivotal function in conversations among women friends (Coates, 1996). Jefferson (1988) first analyzed the sequential organization of troubles talk in the form of “big packages,” or relatively “long sequences of talk” (p. 418), from a conversation analytic perspective. Delving further into the social and relational nature of this talk, interactional sociolinguists (e.g., Tannen, 1990, 1994, 2001a, 2006) explained how women tell their troubles (or share their personal stories) when they wished to establish connection and seek empathy from their conversationalists. While quite successful among female peers, troubles talk in mixed-sex groups or with men/fathers did not prompt the same narratives. Research on conversations between men and women showed how men/fathers view troubles telling as an implicit request to provide a solution to a problem rather than as an occasion for sharing a similar experience, providing empathy, or engaging in active listenership (Ochs & Taylor, 1992, 2001; Tannen, 1986, 1990, 1994, 2001a, 2006). Seminal studies in linguistic anthropology (e.g., Ochs & Taylor, 2001) examined mother’s self-problematizing, which also entailed telling a problematic situation about oneself. This narrative practice re-instantiated traditional gender asymmetries within the family structure by maintaining and reinforcing the same ones that prevailed in the 1950s sitcom Father Knows Best. While the mothers’ interactional goal was to create involvement and share important aspects of their day, their narrative practices “inadvertently [italics added] set fathers up as potential problematizers” (Tannen, 2003, p. 186). Recounting a disconcerting experience to a teenage daughter will lead to similar interactional outcomes for the mother (Luvera

132 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

DelPrete, 2015). In Luvera DelPrete’s case study on mother-adolescent daughter interaction, mother’s troubles telling to her adolescent daughter not only failed to garner empathy for the mother’s condition, but the interaction also closed disharmoniously. Evidence from these studies supports the hypothesis that troubles talk is most successful among female peers in everyday conversations. The next section outlines the methodological procedures used to collect and analyze the data set in the original study. We highlight three excerpts (i.e., I’m trying to watch TV, Mom; Answer the question; and Chicken noodle soup) and present our findings. Subsequently, we will discuss how these excerpts served as outreach tools to audiences outside of academia, encouraging a discursive consciousness raising stemming from an increased awareness of the micro-aspects of talk in everyday interpersonal encounters.

 riginal Case Study of Mother-Adolescent O Daughter Interaction Data Collection and Analysis The participants, a middle-aged mother (one of the authors) and her 15-year-old daughter, were videotaped in their family home over a two-­ week period. Approximately 7.5 hours of daily interaction was captured on video and transcribed. While a combined mother/researcher approach to a case study on family talk may have risked potential biases, discourse analysts (e.g., Simpson, 1997) have pointed to the methodological value of such a participant observer approach. First, it allowed the researcher to write with what feminist scholars have referred to as “the actual voice of mothers” (Thorne & Yalom, 1982, as cited in Simpson, 1997). Second, as a participant in the mother-daughter dyad, the researcher was able to “speak from an insider’s perspective” (Simpson, 1997, p.  203)—a perspective which is of central interest to the qualitative researcher (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006) and to discourse analysts (Seedhouse, 2004). This also allowed the researcher to overcome, to a large extent, the a­ nalyst’s

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

133

paradox by creating a balance between the analyst’s (expert) perspective and the participants’ insight, both of which are needed to inform analytic practice (Sarangi, Plenary Talk, CIRLIS, Bergamo, Italy, 2014). In short, the shifting roles of the participant-researcher enabled the researcher to take an “emic” approach (or insider’s/members’ perspective) as she analyzed the data from the outside role of discourse analyst. The recorded discursive interaction between the mother-daughter pair, and two other family members (a younger child and a father) were analyzed primarily from an Interactional Sociolinguistic (IS) perspective and informed by Conversation Analytic (CA) for transcription. The data showed the ways in which the mother’s talk indexed different maternal roles, and how these roles emerged and shifted in conversations with the teenage daughter. Mother as Troubles Teller and Mother as Nurturer were two of six maternal roles the mother discursively displayed (others included Mother as Critic, Mother as Target of Blame, Mother as Martyr, and Mother as Mind Reader). Findings revealed that when the mother is in a nurturing role interaction with her adolescent daughter is not contentious, regardless of the discursive strategies she employs. On the other hand, when the mother engages the daughter in troubles telling, and employs the same discursive strategies as in a nurturing role, the interaction becomes volatile. Repeated questioning, persistent engagement, and treating daughter’s responses as inadequate engender different interactional consequences depending on the maternal roles. We will showcase three excerpts from the original case study, contextualizing them by providing details on the setting and events prior to the taping of the particular moment. We will provide brief analyses originally intended for academic audiences. It should be noted that subsequent sections will demonstrate how we adapted these same extracts when working outside of academia. We choose to present these specific excerpts to our audiences because they contain particularly salient examples of how conflict can arise quickly and unexpectedly between a mother and daughter. Understanding when persistent engagement, repeated questioning, and not accepting a particular response as adequate can lead to disharmony and negative connection can help individuals, in general, and family members in particular, bypass potentially conflictive moments in similar interactional encounters.

134 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

Mother as Troubles Teller This first example illustrates the mother’s unsuccessful attempts to socially bond with her daughter, which results in the mother lamenting about the daughter’s lack of interactional interest (e.g., line 08). A series of verbal and paralinguistic cues from the daughter, such as (1) emphatic bald-on record refusals, (2) minimal and sotto voce acknowledgments, and (3) non-relational responses, signal the daughter’s inattentiveness to her mother’s repeated requests as well as the daughter’s desire not to be imposed on at that moment. These contextualization cues (Gumperz, 1982) act as “blocking responses” (Schegloff, 2007) from the daughter, but go unnoticed by the mother. Awareness of the repeated signals to disengage, rather than persistently engage, could have led the mother to close the interaction earlier and give her daughter the downtime she wanted. The video begins with the mother walking into the family room while the daughter is sitting on the couch watching TV, school laptop in front of her. The interaction begins with the mother’s attempt at connection through a common familial “telling your day” ritual (Blum-Kulka, 1997; Tannen, 2001a, 2001b, 2003) in line 03. As the data will show, this attempt fails. The patent lack of uptake from the daughter in line 04 suggests that any further effort to talk would also be an exercise in futility. Excerpt 6.1  I’m Trying to Watch TV, Mom 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

Mother: Daughter: Mother: Daughter:

How’s everything? °It’s good. ° °Yeah.° >How was your day? (Did you have) a meeting?< {mmhmm. ((looking directly at laptop. No eye contact with mother))} (2.0) Mother: ° What’s that? ° ((mother looks over at daughter’s computer screen)) (1.0) Mother: I haven’t seen you all day. Can I just talk to you for two minutes? Daughter: No:: Mother: W:hy:? Daughter: Cause I’m a .

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious…  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

135

Mother: OH let me see your schedule. It’s so colorful. Daughter: Oh it’s cool. (.2) I’m actually doing homework right now, so I can’t(.5) you’re just interfering. I don’t interfere when you’re writing. Mother: No. ( ) Mom, help me with-= Daughter: = > I mean< I CAN’T WATCH TV NOW. Mother: Awright. Good-bye Cristina. Daughter: I’m going to get up and go upstairs now because you just r:uined it. Mother: Ruined what? Daughter: I’m trying to wa:tch TV, Mom, it’s my only time to watch TV >because< tomorrow I’m going to hafta study for two tests and I have two more on Friday and a test today. Mother: I won’t bother you then. Okay. Watch your TV Daughter: {No. It’s off now ((uttered slightly muffled with hand over mouth and with gaze fixed on laptop screen))}.

While the daughter does display some attentive listenership, via a backchannel response in line 04 (mmhmm), she does so minimally by orienting only to the affirmation-seeking aspect of the question (i.e., did she have a meeting), and with no elaboration on her day nor any shift in focus from her computer. In fact, such minimal one-sentence responses show the conversationalist’s tacit resistance to the agenda of [a given] question (Clayman, 2001). The daughter’s lack of desire for interaction with her mother is further evident by the silence that follows in line 05. The absence of further talk at this point marks the closing of the question-­ answer sequence that preceded it. While social bonding may be on the mother’s agenda, it is not on that of the daughter. Consequently, the mother’s use of repeated questioning as an interactional tool to connect with the daughter will be to no avail. Lacking awareness of these conversational cues, the mother engages the daughter a third time with another question in line 06. She now expresses an interest in something the daughter is doing on her laptop. Her query (What’s that?) is met with more silence and, as expected, lack of any uptake. After several failed attempts to create connection, the mother issues a complaint in line 08 (I haven’t seen you all day. Can I just talk to you for two minutes?), which becomes the impetus for the accusation and blame that ensue.

136 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

Despite prefacing her lament first with an account (I haven’t seen you all day.), then a “pre-pre,” (Can I just talk to you for two minutes?), which sets the trajectory of the action that will follow (i.e., a request to talk) (Schegloff, 2007), the daughter issues a bald-on-record refusal (No::). Not only does the mother’s “pre-pre” arrive too late (assuming an earlier action projection utterance of this nature would alter the course of the recipient’s response), but the inclusion of the minimizing adverb just also has no effect at blocking the highly dispreferred response that follows. The daughter’s response is sequence closing and, thereby, indicative of her lack of desire for further interaction. Not accepting the daughter’s response as final, the mother re-engages with a post-expansion that challenges the daughter’s rejection. Articulated with elongated glides and in a rising intonation, the mother’s interrogative, W:hy:? opens a Pandora’s box in that it becomes the catalyst for the daughter’s subsequent negative responses. Furthermore, the phonetic lengthening in the mother’s interrogative word mirrors the daughter’s vowel lengthening in her refusal in the prior turn. Prompted by the mother’s wh-question, the daughter provides an account for not wanting to converse with her mother in line 11: Cause I’m a —a response that signals distance, non-relation, and disaffiliation. While the response I’m busy is not an uncommon one when a speaker wishes to preclude or forestall further talk (Schegloff, 2007), the slow articulation and self-referential inclusion of person indexes an identity in which the adolescent daughter is a separate subject, with her own sphere of interests and activities. In short, she expresses her subjectivity by responding that she is occupied with her own activities and does not have time to engage in “rapport talk” (Tannen, 2006) with her mother. Despite these lexical cues, the mother does not treat any of the daughter’s responses as final. She attempts connection again by shifting topics and commenting on the computer task in which the daughter is engrossed. In line 12, the turn-initial OH, uttered loudly, marks the receipt of this new information (Schiffrin, 1999) and registers “a noticing,” followed with naming of the object of the noticing (i.e., the daughter’s colorful schedule), which is then used as the basis for the topic of discussion (Heritage, 1998). Despite the daughter’s initial, positive uptake to the mother’s expressed interest in her task (Oh it’s cool), she reassumes her prior stance,

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

137

and shifts back to her previous state of mind—namely, that she is a busy person and needs to do her homework. The particle actually, in line 13, signals the speaker’s change of state by indexing a position that runs counter to a prior utterance (Clift, 2001). From these cues, it is evident that the daughter does not want to interact with the mother and ostensibly underscores the imposition when she states I’m actually doing homework right now, so I can’t-(0.5) you’re just interfering (lines 13 and 14). Despite some initial hesitation, as noted from the cutoff and intra-turn pause, the daughter criticizes the mother for interfering on her time and also gives an account to support the criticism she levels: I don’t interfere when you’re writing (line 14). The daughter’s irritation with the mother’s imposition is not only apparent. Her latch in line 16 preempts further talk from the mother, signaling again her annoyance and lack of interest in any mother-­daughter interaction: >I mean< I CAN’T WATCH TV NOW. Any attempt at connection is met then with rejection as she also exclaims how the mother’s inopportune presence prevented her from enjoying a moment of leisure. Even when the mother tries to provide her own account, via a modified form of ventriloquizing (i.e., a discursive strategy used to mitigate conflict among family members through animating the voice of another (Tannen, 2001b, 2004)) in line 15: Mom, help me with, this action is also deterred. Realizing her daughter will neither reciprocate nor commiserate with her need for some quality time together, the mother proffers first an acceptance token, awright, then a sequence closing farewell, good-bye Cristina, the mother attempts to terminate the interaction, yet displays her irritation by addressing the daughter directly by name. Interestingly enough, it is the daughter who will not allow the topic to close. She levels another blameworthy statement, in line 18, in which she reminds the mother of the extent and effect of her imposition: I’m going to get up and go upstairs now because you just r:uined it. While an ambiguous anaphoric reference may have prompted the mother to seek the antecedent to it when she asks in line Ruined what?, the question re-opened a window for further contention and blame. By re-engaging the daughter at this point, the mother essentially participates in her own downfall, as is evident from the account the daughter gives in her next turn: I’m trying to wa:tch TV, Mom, it’s my only time to watch TV/ >because< tomorrow I’m

138 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

going to hafta study for two tests and I have/ two more on Friday and a test today (lines 20–22). While the mother is simply seeking connection, and some quality time with the daughter, it is being done at an inappropriate time and, thereby, treated as an infringement by the daughter. Signals to end the interaction before it spirals into conflict abound in this excerpt. A microanalytic analysis unearths the available but unnoticed aspects of a mundane interaction in which a mother seeks connection with her adolescent daughter. Awareness of these subtle cues will help individuals to notice the red flags and perhaps change their conversational course. Parties in interpersonal encounters (familial, platonic, and romantic) may have more successful outcomes when they become more in tune to signals that the other party does not share (or wishes to purse) the same interactional interest. The next excerpt is another example of the mother’s attempt to engage the daughter in troubles talk, albeit unsuccessfully again. This time the mother tries to garner empathy from her daughter for an aspect of her physical appearance that comes with growing older—shrinking in height. While the mother’s persistent engagement and repeated questioning are similar to those in the previous stretch of talk, her questioning behavior is in the form of a critical self-assessment. Rather providing empathy in response to the self-deprecatory statement, the mother articulates in line 03, the daughter’s response is a dispreferred one. To the mother’s consternation, the daughter agrees with the mother’s negative assessment of herself. Not only does the mother still feel “short” physically, her attempts to arouse empathy fall short interactionally. The videotaped interaction begins with the daughter preening to get ready for Sunday mass. She is putting on make-up in her bathroom and is standing in front of a large wall mirror when the mother begins the conversation. Excerpt 6.2  You’re Just Short 01 02 03 04 05

Mother: That’s a pretty shirt. When’d you get that? Daughter: A long time ago. (.) uhm— Mother: You never wore it? (1.0){I think I’m shrinking. ((Mother stands directly behind daughter, who is still putting on make-up))} Daughter: I think so, too.

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious…  06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

Mother: Daughter: Mother: Daughter: Mother: Daughter: Mother:

139

>You think I am, too?< No, I think you’re just short to start out with. What? You’re just short to start out with and you’re in denial. 5′ 3½″ is not short. I hate to tell you. Yeah, it is. Well, if you’re 5′ 6″, maybe. {PPPP ((pokes daughter on upper right arm and makes a popping sound with lips))}.

The interaction begins with the mother complimenting and inquiring on the daughter’s dress attire. The daughter responds with an adverbial, in line 02, that conveys a vague time frame (a long time ago), suggesting that she has had the shirt for quite some time and the mother is just noticing now. The mother then launches into a critical self-evaluation about her physique in line 05: I think I’m shrinking, which is followed by a delay-free agreement from the daughter in the next turn: I think so, too. While the mother is soliciting an opinion from the daughter, this opinion relates to a negative self-assessment. The daughter’s turn initial I think functions as a hedge that weakens the epistemic force of the mother’s utterance. In other words, it projects a point of view that is not a fact but rather an uncertainty that seeks disconfirmation of the negative evaluation attached to it. Hence, the daughter’s agreement is a dispreferred response because it is the unexpected response to a self-critical evaluation. In fact, Pomerantz (1984) reminds us that recipients of negative self-­ assessments have two choices—to agree and endorse the prior critical assessment (hence the dispreferred response) or to disagree and, thereby, challenge its validity (hence the preferred response). Furthermore, the repetition, elliptical so, and agreement token all serve to ratify the mother’s perspective as well as strengthen its validity. Packaged together, we see then that the daughter not only issues an agreement to the mother’s self-­ criticism but also implicitly criticizes the mother as well. The mother’s dismay at the daughter’s agreement is noted in line 06, when she asks at an accelerated pace: You think I am, too? The daughter’s first dispreferred response about her mother’s height makes this a rhetorical question. Still not accepting that response as final, the mother’s ­challenges its veracity and thus seeks a confirmatory response. Hence, the

140 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

mother’s question is not as much a request for information, as it is a vehicle for implementing another action (Monzoni, 2009; Schegloff & Lerner, 2009). In this case, she seeks confirmation and expresses disbelief that the phenomenon she has yet to acknowledge may indeed be true. In the role of troubles teller, the mother’s questioning behavior has, then, a negative outcome. Furthermore, the mother’s question opens the window for more criticism from the daughter. While the daughter initially disagrees with the statement that the mother is shrinking by asserting that she is by nature short: No, I think you’re just short to start out with (line 07), she then articulates her own negative evaluation that targets the mother’s cognitive understanding of reality: You’re just short to start out with and you’re in denial (line 09). In each case, there is, however, an attempt to minimize the negative impact of the assessment with the inclusion of the adverb just. Not only does this “little word” downgrade the critical force of the utterance, but it also enables the daughter to issue it without appearing quite as hostile or aggressive (Beebe & Waring, 2004). Despite the mother’s disagreement in the next turn (5′3 ½” is not short. I hate to tell you), the daughter remains steadfast in her insistence that her mother is short, and thereby responds with a bald-on-record disagreement: Yeah, it is. Although the mother continues to reject the daughter’s negative evaluation of her stature, she introduces a child-like gesture at the end of the interaction—specifically, a poking gesture accompanied by a lip popping sound. Despite also the mother’s turn initial well in line 12, which marks a relational disaffiliation between the position taken by current speaker and previous speaker (Heritage, 2002; Schegloff & Lerner, 2009), the inclusion of the uncertainty adverb maybe, followed by a child-like non-­ verbal gesture, creates a mitigated misalignment between the mother and daughter. Through this combination of verbal and non-verbal, the mother attempts to keep the daughter’s disaffiliative actions at a non-contentious level—though still not accepting them as adequate. While this particular interaction ends altercation free, the fact that it unfolds while the mother is in the role of troubles teller, rather than maternal nurturer, still precludes any sort of positive connection between the mother and adolescent daughter.

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

141

In the preceding excerpts, the mother steps into a role that works well among female friends, but she is resisted by her daughter. Since “telling one’s troubles” assumes an egalitarian relationship between individuals, it undoubtedly undermines the inherent parental authority that the mother must retain, and the teenage daughter both relies upon and needs. Furthermore, when the topic is related to physical appearance, a peer-like interaction between a mother and adolescent daughter is bound to have an unfavorable end. The same discursive strategies do not prompt similar interactional outcomes when the mother is in a nurturing role. Indeed, the mother’s persistent engagement, repeated questioning, and not accepting the daughter’s response as adequate are not always tied to conflictive interaction. They can foster connection and relational harmony when the mother adheres to a traditional maternal role—one that displays nurturance, caregiving, and prioritizes the daughter’s needs. The next excerpt illustrates how the mother not only displays an interactional behavior that is in line with that of a nurturer, but also how the daughter orients to the mother’s behavior as one that is nurturing. Unlike in the previous roles, the mother is not seeking empathy or recognition. Instead, she is aware of her daughter’s food preferences, attentive to a particular meal time, validates her daughter’s ideas and opinions, and above all provides nurture and comfort when her daughter is not feeling well. Excerpt 6.3  Chicken Noodle Soup 01 Mother: 02 03 04 05 06 07

Daughter: Mother: Daughter: Mother:

08 09 10 Daughter: 11 12 Mother: 13 Daughter:

Cristina, >you want anything-< you want anything from the Market Basket? (.8) {WHAT? ((not visible on camera))} YOU WANT ANYTHING FROM THE MARKET BASKET? No: (.5) How about (.2) for lunch or anything? Some soup? You said you weren’t feeling well. (1.5) I’donno what the heck you’re sayin? ((comes out from pantry area and walks into kitchen)). What? ° I don’t know what you’re saying? °

142 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

14 Mother: You don’t want any soup or anything? 15 Daughter: ° No. ° Actually, yes. 16 Mother: What type do you want? Chicken noo:dle. There’s u::hm (1.0) turke::y 17 >like ya’know< like the rice one. 18 Daughter: °No.° Chicken noodle. 19 Mother: That sounds like a chicken. [huhu ]. 20 Daughter:            [Chicken noodle]. 21 Mother: Chicken noodle. °Okay.°

The interaction begins with the mother heading to a nearby gourmet grocery store. Before she leaves, she asks the daughter, who is organizing the pantry off the kitchen and is not visible on camera, if she wants something for lunch. Initially, the daughter does not hear the mother, but still refuses the mother’s offer in line 05 (No:), following a loud repeat of the question in line 04. The daughter’s refusal is delivered with no delay, and with an added vowel lengthening for emphasis. Interestingly enough, the daughter responds negatively even before she is certain of what the mother is asking, delivering an explicit dispreferred response that orients to the mother’s questioning behavior rather than the question’s actual content. Indeed, the daughter overtly admits to the latter in line 10 when she states: I’donno what the heck you’re sayin?, which is repeated in line 13, but with less emphasis (as noted with the omission of heck and in a quiet voice). The initial, more emphatic response was due to the fact that the daughter was involved in an arduous task (i.e., cleaning out a very large pantry), and the mother’s question was interrupting her domestic chore. Nevertheless, the sequence does not close after the daughter rejects the mother’s initial offer, nor does the mother accept the daughter’s initial refusal. Given the fact that it is lunch time, and knowing her daughter was not feeling well, the mother redesigns her initial question from line 01 (i.e., You want anything from the Market Basket?), to a wh-question, with increments (delivered with some initial hesitation) and adding an account: (How about (0.2) for lunch or anything? Some soup? You said you weren’t feeling well) (line 07). We see, then, how the mother orients to the inadequacy of the daughter’s response given her physical state (i.e., feeling sick) and articulates her own rejection of the daughter’s initial response. Through question elaboration and redesign, the mother main-

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

143

tains her nurturing role and thus pursues her maternal agenda—namely, understanding her daughter’s dietary needs at the time, and tending to her well-being when she is feeling under the weather. The mother maintains this role even after the daughter’s initial refusal, and despite the fact that the refusal was not directly related to the content of the offer. A second push on the mother’s part is seen in line 14 when she redesigns her question again: You don’t want any soup or anything? This time it is delivered as a negative polar (i.e., yes/no) interrogative with a candidate answer (i.e., soup) and an alternative (i.e., anything). Rather than seeking information, Heritage (2002) reminds us that this type of question expresses a position or point of view. In other words, it is more assertive than interrogative in nature (Heritage, 2002). While the daughter first orients to the question’s structural design, which prefers a negative response, and thus leads her to respond no, she then changes her mind and articulates an emphatic yes as seen in line 15: ° No.° Actually, yes. The discourse marker, actually, which precedes the daughter’s affirmative response, signals this change of state from the prior utterance. Interactionally and prosodically, there is then a shift in orientation. First, on the prosodic level, the soft articulation of the initial refusal signals uncertainty, as opposed to an emphatic articulation (as is the yes) that would mark a higher degree of certainty and confidence. Next, there is a pivot from the structural design of the question in the mother’s prior turn, which prefers a negative response, to the question’s intended action—namely, to solicit an agreement from the daughter to get her soup. Although the mother engages in repeated questioning throughout this excerpt, it occurs when she is acting within her traditional role of mother as nurturer. She tends to her daughter’s well-being, and does not accept the daughter’s initial rejection of her offer because it conflicts with what the mother believes is needed at the time for her daughter’s physical state. Her first guess on the type of soup her daughter would prefer is indeed accurate, as seen in line 16 (What type do you want? Chicken noo:dle. There’s u::hm (1.0) turke::y), primarily because we see the alternate suggestion in line 17 is delivered with disfluency and hesitation, indicating that she too is uncomfortable with that option (>like ya’know< like the rice one). The daughter agrees with the mother’s choice of chicken noodle

144 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

soup and the interaction ends on a positive note with the mother accepting the daughter’s choice as adequate. This is marked, in line 21, by the mother’s verbatim repetition of the soup choice, together with the action acceptance token Okay, which is designed to close the sequence and register acceptance of the previous action (for more on this type of “sequence closing thirds,” see Schegloff, 2007). In sum, the mother’s actions are clearly in line with a parent who understands the needs and well-being of her child and does not relent when her offer is outright refused. Aware it is lunch time, remembering that her daughter was feeling sick, and chicken soup is traditionally known to have health benefits, she draws instead on her individual nurturing capacity and pursues her agenda based on this maternal role. In the end, the daughter accepts the mother’s offer of chicken soup (line 15), and the interaction ends harmoniously. The next section will focus on the research dissemination process. First, we will describe the settings in which we successfully presented our work. Next, we will provide the rationale for the data selection. We will then describe the ways in which we adapted our data for these purposes, and report feedback from participants.

Outreach Outcomes In line with the Framework for Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), we “identified real-world settings where the findings may have relevance,” and “considered the types of modes of dissemination of results” (p. 11), corresponding to the first two steps of Phase 1. As such, we have presented our research in two veins: (1) we conduct workshops for au pairs as part of their continuing education experience in the United States, and (2) we lead both large-scale talks and small-scale presentations with working parents, mostly in the business world. This section will detail the method used for outreach for each category, followed by examples of adapted data. Finally, we will share feedback from our participants, reflecting the usefulness of our work to audiences outside of academia.

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

145

Research Dissemination As part of the au pair experience in the United States, caregivers are required by law to accrue educational credits. To that end, a local university offers continuing education credits. An administrator at the university attended an academic talk in which our data were displayed; she proposed that, based on our findings, we design a workshop for au pairs in the Continuing Education program. Together with the program manager, we developed a description for a weekend-long intercultural communication course. This collaborative work is suggested in the Framework for Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), in which researchers and practitioners work together to co-create manuals for dissemination, albeit here in a more abbreviated form than a traditional manual. We have included the blurb below, but have removed all identifying university course information: Intercultural Communication

(20-, 30-, or 40-hour CEUs)

Develop strategies for successful intercultural communication in professional and social settings. The course will examine and discuss the functional and practical components of communicative interactions and how discursive processes differed among cultures. Through activities as role playing, case studies, and analysis of videos and transcriptions, participants learned ways to creatively address intercultural challenges. Topics include socially appropriate ways to request, refuse, compliment, and hedge.

The program manager then sent a series of e-mail blasts to au pair placement agencies in the local area. This publicity was sufficient for the course to fill to capacity, which we believe demonstrates the appeal of discourse analytic work to audiences with varied backgrounds. A needs analysis, conducted via an ice-breaking questionnaire, distributed the first day of this workshop, revealed that these women had several children in their care whose ages ranged from pre-school aged (1–4 years), to elementary school aged (5–10  years), to middle school tweens (11–12 years), to younger adolescents (13–15 years). This workshop has

146 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

been conducted twice so far (2017 and 2018), and it will continue annually. In the last iteration of the workshop (Fall, 2018), the workshop participants listed the following as home countries: Germany, France, Russia, Colombia, Uruguay, and South Africa, with German, French, Russian, and Spanish identified as first languages. One student reported being bilingual in Afrikaans and English. We also lead workshops and seminars, aimed specifically for working mothers, although they have been attended by both men and women. By doing such, our research has concrete applications in the real world of practice, rather than the “potential for application”—the often-stated conclusion to reported research findings (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015). For example, in November 2017, we were guest speakers at an alumni event for Rutgers University Graduate School in Taxation (MAACY-Tax). In December 2017, one of us spoke at a local Rotary Club’s fund-raising event in Northern New Jersey. In June 2018, we were guest speakers at a small grassroots women’s organization that focuses on current political issues relating to feminism. Although no demographic data was collected from the audience members, informal interactions before and after the talks suggest that the majority of attendees were American and spoke English as a first language. The MAACY-Tax engagement was announced on social media prior to the event. A press release followed the lecture at the Rotary Club; the text is included in Appendix 1. Again, we believe these invitations to speak, and their robust attendance, exhibit the wide appeal of this type of scholarship.

Data Selection and Adaptation In all of our presentations, we showcase the first excerpt from the larger case study (I’m trying to watch TV, Mom). This exchange highlights a prototypical miscommunication between a mother who seeks to bond with her daughter and the daughter who rejects her. The interactional cues that color this example are typical across the data set. However, they are particularly salient here due to the patent initial rejection on the part of the daughter and the blatant disregard of that rejection on the part of the mother. Thus, we are able to show this piece of interaction without

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

147

extended explanations or contextualization. As the au pair workshop takes place over a weekend, excerpts two and three serve as springboards for group tasks. These moments contain clear interactional outcomes within a rather short spate of talk and, as such, were optimal for illustrating our claims concisely. Similar to scholars who have applied the Framework for Application in Volume 1 (e.g., Kitzinger, 2011, as cited in Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), we simplified data sets by removing certain technical conversation analytic conventions, such as timed pauses, arrows for fluctuations in intonation, and symbols denoting quickness of speech. For elongation of sounds, we added vowels and consonants (see Appendix 2 for example). To reinforce concepts evident in our texts, we supplemented with additional examples from popular culture, such as clips from well-known sitcoms (e.g. Friends, Everyone Loves Raymond). Often, we showed these clips prior to introducing our excerpts; the audiences’ familiarity with the characters and the sitcom, as well as the exaggerated phonology in the scripted talk, would facilitate recognition of a particular discursive concept. With our facilitation, the participants discussed the discursive strategies and maternal roles as they emerged from the data. Following the viewing and discussions of both clips and data, they often contributed their own related anecdotes, which served as the catalyst for lively and fruitful discussions, many of which continued after our talk or workshop concluded. Most importantly, we focused on raising the participants’ consciousness of discourse features that enhance, or conversely, hinder mother-daughter communication specifically, and interpersonal communication more generally.

Elicitation and Analysis of Feedback We elicited feedback in several forms. For the au pair workshops, an evaluation form was distributed at the conclusion of the workshop, in which we asked open-ended questions concerning the overall effectiveness of the workshop, as well as questions directed at suggestion for future improvement. For the presentation conducted with the grassroots organization, a follow-up conversation focused on how the

148 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

our data, and the tools we provided, aided the attendees by raising awareness of the subtle, oft-unnoticed micro-aspects of family communication. In all situations, informal elicitation of feedback was ongoing throughout the workshops and presentations, in the form of chats during breaks and group work, and spontaneous questions from both ourselves and participants regarding specific points of discussion. In our estimation, these more informal feedback elicitation techniques gathered particularly rich data. Both the formal and informal feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, demonstrating the usefulness of bringing discourse studies to audiences outside of academia. For example, written evaluations shared by the Program Manager host institution from the au pair workshop reveals the positive effect of discursive consciousness raising. One participant states: “I learned how to communicate better and to use better words.” Another wrote, the “course gave [her] an open mind related to intercultural communication and the problems that […] miscommunication can bring in a simple conversation.” One participants points to the appeal of this topic: “the instructor talked about everything I wanted to hear.” When asked what they would like to change about the course, nearly 65% of the participants from a workshop conducted in September 2018 stated “nothing.” We now conduct this workshop annually, revising and updating content based on current global events, the political climate, and happenings in pop culture. We also received recognition from local communities that welcome us as speakers for their annual fund-raising events. A newsletter generated following one such event, where one of the authors presented the data in a talk about effective communication, reported how the “fascinating program on effective communication…provided [the audience] with many hints on how we can communicate effectively with others in various face-to-face situations” (see Appendix 1 for complete article from the organization’s newsletter). While we are heartened by such positive reviews, we recognize more work is warranted, and phase 2 of Grujicic-Alatriste’s Framework for Application (2015) would be helpful in this regard. In the future, we would integrate the semi-structured interview with our audiences in order to triangulate their responses and thus see more precisely areas that require expansion and/or omission.

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

149

Concluding Thoughts The dissemination of our work has indeed provided “real world input” that has resonated in the personal lives of the stakeholders. The Framework for Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), and its suggested outreach and feedback tools, have not only “paved the road” to application, but they have also provided us, as the analysts and practitioners, with the sturdy legs to walk repeatedly on this path, connecting with the individuals we meet along the way. While we recognize that communication has become increasingly complex in a globalized world infused with social media, we contend interest in the mother-daughter relationship transcends disciplines and communication modes. This bond is timeless and universal, and it will promote dialogue across cultures and contexts. For this reason, disseminating our work on this topic has been fulfilling both for us (as both mothers and daughters) and for our audience members. The relevance and reflexive nature of our work emerges and flourishes with each dissemination. As practitioners, we tailor our work to the interpersonal needs of our audiences, making it relevant to their personal lives and histories, in answer the call issued by Candlin and Sarangi (2004). Each time we bring our work outside academia, we learn anew the impact our applied discourse analysis has on individual who do not share the same technical language. While our participants will always bring in their own stories, which will weave into our ensuing discussions and subsequent presentations, we will also incorporate issues from the current sociopolitical landscape. In this way, we hope that our work stays relevant across professional boundaries and most importantly, in people’s everyday lives.

Appendix 1 Adapted from the Wayne Rotary Newsletter, which was made available to the general public on December 14, 2017 Fascinating program on Effective Communication given by Dr. Donna DelPrete

150 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

So often we say what we mean, but others think we mean something else. Donna described that if you are meeting someone for the first time, and want to break the ice, if he/she mentions something, try answering back, “Oh” and extend the vowel, showing you are interested. Donna revealed that silence can be very important. Pick up the amount of silence the person is used to, and you’ll have a much better discussion. People from cultures that have trouble tolerating silence will “fill” it by talking. Other cultures see this as domineering [or] solipsistic. People from cultures that can tolerate silence are seen as uninterested, evasive or lacking leadership skills. This is the best hint. If a person says “anyway,” that is often to bring a topic to a close and shift to the next topic. I directed several TV shows for IBM that featured interviews with executives. Looking back, Donna is right. During interviews, that’s exactly what executives tended to do. It’s easy to see that Donna’s company could be quite helpful to people who often communicate with those from other cultures, and with high level executives who tend to be hard to understand what they really mean.

Appendix 2 Group Task: I’m Trying To Watch TV, Mom Intracultural miscommunication is as prevalent as intercultural. In fact, it often occurs in family relationships where there are generational differences. Mothers and daughters, especially adolescent daughters, experience more tension and miscommunication than any other parent-­ child pair. The following conversation is between a mother and her 15 year-old daughter. The daughter was organizing her school schedule while simultaneously watching TV. The mother walks into the room, sits next to her daughter, and begins to chat not noticing that the daughter is engaged in another task. The mother is seeking some social bonding time with her daughter, but the daughter wants some alone time. Read through this conversation, slowly, and make note of the cues that the mother could have noticed as signals to the daughter’s lack of interest in chatting with her at the moment.

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

151

01 Mom How’s everything? 02 Daughter: It’s good. ((spoken softly) 03 Mom: Yeah. ((spoken in a quiet voice)) How was your day? Did you have a meeting? 04 Daughter: mmhmm. ((looking directly at laptop. No eye contact with mother)). 05 (pause) 06 Mom: What’s that? ((A low voice, mother looks over at daughter’s computer screen)) 07 (pause) 08 Mom: I haven’t seen you all day. Can I just talk to you for two minutes? 09 Daughter: Nooooooo 10 Mom: Wwwhyyyy? 11 Daughter: Cause I’m a busy person ((last two words are pronounced slowly). 12 Mom: OH let me see your schedule. It’s so colorful. 13 Daughter: Oh it’s cool. I’m actually doing homework right now, so I can’t14 you’re just interfering. I don’t interfere when you’re writing. 15 Mom: No. ((inaudible)) Mom, help me with 16 Daughter: I mean. I CAN’T WATCH TV NOW. 17 Mom: Awright. Good-bye Cristina. 18 Daughter: I’m going to get up and go upstairs now because you just r:uined it. 19 Mom: Ruined what? 20 Daughter: I’m trying to watch TV, Mom, it’s my only time to watch TV 21 because tomorrow I’m going to hafta study for two tests and I have 22 two more on Friday and a test today. 23 Mom: I won’t bother you then. Okay. Watch your TV 24 Daughter: No. It’s off now ((uttered slightly muffled with hand over mouth and 25        with gaze fixed on laptop screen)).

References Apter, T. (2004). You don’t really know me. Why mothers & daughters fight and how both can win. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Beebe, L. M., & Waring, H. Z. (2004). The linguistic encoding of pragmatic tone: Adverbials as words that work. In D.  Boxer & D.  Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 228–252). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

152 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (2004). Making applied linguistics matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–8. Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of communication in organisations and professions. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter. Caplan, P. J. (2000). Don’t blame mother: Mending the mother-daughter relationship. New York: Routledge. Clayman, S. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society, 30(3), 403–442. Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language, 77(2), 245–291. Coates, J. (1996). Women talk: Conversation between women friends. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Dedaić, M. (2001). Stepmother as electron: Positioning the stepmother in a family dinner conversation. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 5, 372–400. Ekström, M., Lindström, A., & Karlsson, S. (2013). Managing troubles-talk in the renegotiation of a loan contract. Discourse Studies, 15(4), 371–394. Fingerman, K. (1996). Sources of tension in the aging mother and adult daughter relationship. Psychology and Aging, 11, 591–606. Fingerman, K. (2003). Mothers and their adult daughters: Mixed emotions, enduring bonds. New York: Prometheus Books. Fingerman, K., Chen, P. C., Hay, K. E., Cichy, K. E., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2006). Ambivalent reactions in the parent and offspring relationship. The Journals of Gerontology, 61B, 152–160. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle Rivers, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Gordon, C. (2002). “I’m mommy and you’re Natalie”: Role-reversal and embedded frames in mother-child discourse. Language in Society, 31, 679–720. Gordon, C. (2007). “I just feel horribly embarrassed when she does that”: Constituting a mother’s identity. In D. Tannen, S. Kendall, & C. Gordon (Eds.), Family talk (pp. 71–101). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2015). Framework for applications of research findings: An introduction. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 1–18). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

153

Hall, D., & Langellier, K. (1988). Storytelling strategies in mother-daughter communication. In B.  Bate & A.  Taylor (Eds.), Women communicating: Studies in women’s talk (pp.  107–126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Henwood, K. (1993). Women and later life: The discursive construction of identities within family relationships. Journal of Aging Studies, 7(3), 303–319. Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334. Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1427–1446. Hirsch, M. (1981). Mothers and daughters. Signs, 7, 200–222. Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35, 418–441. Koerner Silverberg, S., Jacobs, S. L., & Raymond, M. (2000). When mothers turn to their adolescent daughters: Predicting daughters’ vulnerability to negative adjustment outcomes. Family Relations, 49, 301–309. La Sorsa, V.  A., & Fodor, I.  G. (1990). Adolescent daughter/midlife mother dyad: A new look at separation and self-definition. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 593–606. Lawson, R., & Sayers, D. (2016). Where we’re going, we don’t need roads. In R. Lawson & D. Sayers (Eds.), Sociolinguistic research: Application and impact (pp. 7–22). London: Routledge. Lefkowitz, E. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2003). Positive and negative emotional feelings and behaviors in mother-daughter ties in late life. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 607–617. Luvera DelPrete, D. (2015). Mother-adolescent daughter interaction: How maternal roles affect discursive outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Monzoni, C. M. (2009). Direct complaints in (Italian) calls to the ambulance: The use of negatively framed questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2465–2478. Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. (1992). Mothers’ role in everyday reconstruction of “father knows best”. In K.  Hall, M.  Bucholtz, & B.  Moonwomon (Eds.), Locating power: Proceedings of the second Berkeley women and language conference (Vol. 2, pp.  447–589). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. (2001). The “father knows best” dynamic in dinnertime narratives. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 431–449). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

154 

D. L. DelPrete and C. DiFelice Box

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M.  Atkinson & J.  Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rich, S. (1990). Daughters’ view of their relationships with their mothers. In C.  Gilligan, N.  P. Lyons, & T.  J. Hanmer (Eds.), Making connections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School (pp.  258–273). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sarangi, S., & Candlin, C. (2003). Trading between reflexivity and relevance: New challenges for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 271–285. Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115. Schiffrin, D. (1996). Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of identity. Language in Society, 25, 167–203. Schiffrin, D. (1999). Oh as a marker of information management. In A. Jaworski & N.  Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp.  275–288). New  York: Routledge. Schiffrin, D. (2000). Mother/daughter discourse in a holocaust oral history: “Because then you admit that you’re guilty”. Narrative Inquiry, 10, 1–44. Schiffrin, D. (2002). Mother and friends in a Holocaust life story. Language in Society, 31, 309–353. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Simpson, A. (1997). It’s a game!’: The construction of gendered subjectivity. In R.  Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse (pp.  197–224). London: Sage Publications. Suitor, J., & Pillemer, K. (2006). Choosing daughters: Exploring why mothers favor adult daughters over sons. Sociological Perspectives, 49, 139–161. Tannen, D. (1986). That’s not what I meant! New York: Ballantine. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine. Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press. Tannen, D. (2001a). I only say this because I love you. New York: Random House. Tannen, D. (2001b). Power maneuvers or connection maneuvers? Ventriloquizing in family interaction. In D.  Tannen & J.  E. Alatis (Eds.), Georgetown

6  Navigating Mother-Adolescent Daughter (Dis)harmonious… 

155

University roundtable on language and linguistics: Linguistics, language, and the real world: Discourse and beyond (pp. 50–62). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Tannen, D. (2003). Gender and family interaction. In J. Holmes & M. Meyerhoff (Eds.), The handbook of language and gender (pp.  179–201). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Tannen, D. (2004). Interactional sociolinguistics. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Tannen, D. (2006). You’re wearing that?: Understanding mothers and daughters in conversation. New York: Random House. Wodak, R., & Schulz, M. (1986). The language of love and guilt: Mother-daughter relationships from a cross-cultural perspective. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

7 Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom Leslie E. Cochrane

In this chapter, I discuss ways to disseminate my discourse analysis research on disability to a wider audience.1 The motivational relevance (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004) that drives my participants with disabilities to take part in my research is their desire to correct misconceptions about physical disabilities and to raise awareness of their experiences among people without disabilities.2 A discourse analysis of English-language narratives told by wheelchair users is presented in “Positioning Selves with Physical Disabilities in Narrative” (Cochrane, 2015). In those data, each of the three participants tells a story about a time when a child asked about the participant’s disability. Each participant displays their willing I am grateful to my research assistants, Jessica Campbell and Abraham Kruger, for their help with collecting and coding the data for this chapter. 2  The terms regarding disability used in this chapter are currently widespread in academic writing; however, terminology often changes or becomes controversial. For example, some prefer to highlight group membership with “disabled people” versus “people with disabilities”. I have tried to use terms that are considered acceptable at present by people with disabilities, though there is no term agreed on by all. 1

L. E. Cochrane (*) The College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_7

157

158 

L. E. Cochrane

ness to engage people without disabilities in conversations about their disability experiences.3 Both in their willingness to participate in my project and in their attitudes displayed in the data, my participants demonstrate their goal of communicating about disability issues to people without disabilities. Therefore, to achieve motivational relevance, it is necessary for my research to correct misconceptions and raise awareness about the experience of physical disability (Labov, 1982; Schilling, 2013). I have begun that work by teaching and evaluating a lesson plan on disability discourse analysis in a monolingual college classroom. As a researcher without a disability, I have also gathered input from the community toward creating a website about disability discourse. I give a brief overview of Cochrane (2015) in the next section. I then discuss how the framework for dissemination proposed by Grujicic-­ Alatriste (2015) applies to my research. The main focus of this chapter is to describe the outreach I have done through my lesson plan on disability discourse analysis and the results of a questionnaire evaluating the lesson plan. The chapter concludes with the next steps for outreach: improving the lesson plan and designing a website to share my research with the disability community itself.

Overview of the Research Study I approach disability as an aspect of identity developed through lived experience and constructed in discourse. This approach to analyzing discourse stems from a larger view of disability as socially constructed. Scholars studying disability have long rejected the medical model of disability (cf. Altman, 2001; Oliver, 1990; Shakespeare, 2006). The medical model defines disability as a medical condition, locates it in an individual person, and predicts negative social consequences for the individual as a result of that condition. Societal (mis)understandings of disability often  Although many advocacy groups make the point that it is not the responsibility of individuals in marginalized groups to educate others about their experiences, the participants in my study all expressed their willingness to do so as an alternative to allowing others to be ignorant of their experiences. 3

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

159

reflect this outdated, medicalized thinking. In contrast, social construction models hold that negative social consequences originate in the social world and not in the individual. Disability is not understood as an individual problem to be solved; rather, a social construction approach focuses on the way in which people live their lives with long-term disabilities. Thus, this approach takes into account the wider sociocultural context and an individual’s interaction with it. People with visible physical disabilities are frequently called upon to communicate to able-bodied interlocutors what it means to live with a disability. In Cochrane (2015), I explore identity construction in English-­ language narratives told by monolingual adults with lifelong physical disabilities who use wheelchairs for mobility, whom I call Derek, Min, and Tawnya. The participants tell habitual narratives (Riessman, 1990) about typical encounters with children who ask them questions about their disabilities. In each narrative, parents prevent the teller’s character from interacting with the child, for instance, by pulling them away or telling them not to stare. I apply Bamberg’s (1997, 2004) model of positioning in narrative to examine how tellers position themselves vis-à-vis the able-­ bodied characters in the story world and the able-bodied researcher in the interaction. The tellers position the triad of characters—themselves, the children, and the parents—in comparable ways that show their positive orientation toward the children’s questions and their negative orientation toward the parents’ interference. Although three examples are not sufficient to make predictions, the fact that Derek, Min, and Tawnya all tell similar stories is suggestive. First, it shows that children coming up and asking questions happens all the time—a phrase used by all three participants— and thus is a shared experience for the participants with disabilities. Second, it reveals a shared response to the situation: the participants all express their willingness to interact with the children and respond to their curiosity. Derek puts it most strongly when he says he wants to tell people his story and that anything else breeds ignorance. This willingness was also expressed outside the recorded data during my recruitment of the participants with disabilities. Third, the narratives show that the parents are behaving in ways the tellers find counterproductive. Tawnya says “it makes [her] feel bad like […] it makes them…label [her] as some kind

160 

L. E. Cochrane

of monster”. Ultimately, the disability identities that the tellers construct are individual ones, formed by the moment-to-moment positionings they take up in stories and interactions. But I argue that, while the tellers construct individual disability identities, they all position themselves as eager to engage with able-bodied people who ask about disability. As Derek says, I wanna tell people uh…you know my story/I want to tell people […] what the situations are. This motivation to tell about the experience of physical disability provides a starting place for making the research relevant to the community in which it was done. The medical model of disability places responsibility for navigating life with a disability on the individual person, rather than acknowledging society’s share in maintaining or avoiding barriers. It isolates each individual’s lived experience rather than recognizing a community of people with disabilities. In contrast, the habitual narratives my participants tell highlight cross-community interactions with able-bodied strangers and children as a part of everyday life. The similarities among the narratives point to a common experience of disability that an emphasis on isolated individual obscures. It is clear that certain experiences of living with a disability are shared among the community. Another typical experience found in my data, that of struggling to access public transportation, provides an example in the lesson plan I use to disseminate my research to students.

The Framework for Dissemination Following the framework proposed by Grujicic-Alatriste (2015, Chapter 1, this volume), I have taken steps to disseminate my research. The first step in the framework is the identification of real-world settings where the findings may have relevance. This step presents a challenge when working with everyday disability discourse, as there is not an obvious geographical community or group of practitioners to address. The participants in the data are all lifelong wheelchair users, but, like most people with physical disabilities, they live and work within communities predominantly made up of people without disabilities. Indeed, my larger discourse analysis research incorporates people without disabilities who are part of the social net-

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

161

works (Milroy, 1987) of people with disabilities. Thus, I study how disability discourse takes place among people both with and without disabilities. My analysis (Cochrane, 2015) also focused on everyday narratives, rather than on stories about medical or educational encounters, which would yield findings relevant to professional practitioners. The motivational relevance (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004) to the participants themselves was not that the findings be communicated to practitioners per se; rather, the participants wanted to reach a more general audience of people without disabilities (Cochrane, 2015). Thus, when identifying settings in which my findings had relevance, I considered how best to reach both people with disabilities—the community in which the research was done—and people without disabilities—the community that the participants themselves want to educate about disability discourse. Identifying settings went hand in hand with the second step: considering available modes of dissemination of the results to both people with disabilities and people without them. In Cochrane (2015), I proposed that an online setting is the best way to reach the non-geographic community of people with disabilities. The final tool for sharing the findings with the participants’ community will be a website about my research. For the current phase of the outreach, I investigated what content on a website would have the most relevance to people with physical disabilities. In Cochrane (2015), I mentioned disseminating my findings in academic settings including the university courses I teach. Although I do have individuals with physical disabilities among my students, this audience is mostly comprised of people without disabilities. Moreover, this is an audience that has the knowledge of linguistics in general to ground a discussion of disability discourse in particular and, most importantly, a demonstrated interest in learning about different linguistic communities. In order to do outreach to people without disabilities, I developed a more targeted approach to teaching about disability discourse in the classroom following the steps of the framework. As a strategy for approaching this audience in the relevant setting, I created a lesson plan for a unit on disability discourse in my course Language and Culture. This is a course covering sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology for undergraduate students who have already

162 

L. E. Cochrane

taken an introductory linguistics course. The unit introduces a social, community-oriented approach to disability in contrast to an approach defined by the medical model, and it allows students to participate in the analysis of a narrative by a wheelchair user. The narrative itself is carefully chosen to reflect themes that I found in my larger data set, including the idea that an individual’s disability practices are a part of their everyday life and that societal barriers are often more problematic than an individual’s physical limitations. Other major parts of this phase of the outreach were the steps from the framework of developing tools for feedback elicitation and employment of feedback tools. To evaluate the class unit on disability discourse that shares the findings with students, I administered a questionnaire to both past and current students from the class to get feedback on how (predominately non-disabled) students understand disability before the unit, what they learn from the unit, and what they would like to know more about. To develop a website based on my research that will disseminate the findings to people with disabilities, I administered another questionnaire to people with physical disabilities about what would be most helpful and most interesting to that community. Both these feedback tools and the findings from them are discussed in this chapter. Finally, the final section of this chapter discusses the way forward for disseminating the research within the community.

Outreach About Disability Discourse Lesson Plan on Disability Discourse As a part of my research on disability discourse analysis, the goal of the lesson plan is to meet the motivational relevance to the community by correcting misconceptions and raising awareness about the experience of physical disability among people without disabilities. (Of the students in my class who participated in the questionnaire about the lesson plan, all responded that they do not have a physical disability themselves.) As part of a linguistics course, the goals of the lesson plan are to provide students

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

163

with a social model of disability, to connect the disability community to other linguistic communities studied in the course, and to engage ­students in analyzing discourse about the experience of having a disability. The major take-home points of the lesson plan are, first, that the experience of disability is affected as much or more by social interaction as by medical conditions of individuals, and, second, that having a disability can be understood as a socially constructed identity rather than as a tragedy of the individual. The first part of the lesson consists of a short lecture on the social model of disability and on communities of people with disabilities. I begin the lecture by introducing the outdated medical model of disability (Albrecht, Seelman, & Bury, 2001; Masala & Petretto, 2013; Shakespeare, 1996, 2006). The medical model equates the underlying medical condition with the entire experience of disability; it views disability as a problem located in an individual that inherently limits their activities and opportunities and that can only be resolved by a cure (or rather, in most cases, left unresolved as an incurable condition). I present the social approach to disability as the currently accepted alternative (Albrecht et  al., 2001; Shakespeare, 1996, 2006). Disability is socially constructed: people with disabilities are part of a larger community, and it is society that limits activities and opportunities for them. Many social approaches to disability use a multi-category model to show the connection between the individual person and social factors (Altman, 2001; Masala & Petretto, 2013). I provide students with the particular multi-category model I use in my research (Table 7.1) as an example of how the experience of disability can be understood by sociolinguists. I continue the lecture by discussing how sociolinguists can understand the disability community, pointing out that studying this community includes grappling with its non-geographic nature and incorporating all aspects of the community’s experiences (e.g., not merely medical and gate-keeping encounters). The second part of the lesson calls for students to break into small groups of about three in order to analyze an example of disability discourse. The example I have been using is a blog entry written by a woman who uses a wheelchair about her experience of taking a public bus (see

164 

L. E. Cochrane

Table 7.1  Multi-category model of disability Category

Medical condition(s)

Impairment(s)

Disability practices

Social factors

Habitual strategies Social conditions for that impact accommodation that an individual disability practices employs in everyday life Public transit, Scheduling rest Spasticity, architectural periods, using a inability to barriers, wheelchair, walk, muscle hiring policies employing a weakness and attitudes personal care toward assistant employees

Limitations in Definition Underlying or lack of disorders, function diseases, or injuries

Examples

Cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, paraplegic paralysis

Adapted from Cochrane (2014)

Appendix 1). She tells a narrative in which the bus driver is unable to use the accessibility features of the bus, a college student helps her secure her wheelchair, and other passengers complain about the delay. I chose this text partly because narratives about transportation difficulties show up frequently in all my studies of disability discourse and partly because the blog entry includes mentions of all four aspects of the multi-category model. (As I highlight in the lecture, my participants with disabilities mention their medical conditions and impairments far less often than they mention their disability practices and the social factors that affect them.) The lesson asks students to read the blog entry, identify mentions of the four aspects from the model, and apply the discourse analysis methods they have already learned in the course to the example. The final part of the lesson is a whole-class discussion in which students report back to each other and to me about the findings in their small groups. Students without disabilities often remark on the fact that they had not considered certain aspects of having a disability before. In particular, they express surprise at the negative attitudes shown to people with disabilities from society, especially in ways the students had not picked up on previously. The data from the class questionnaire, discussed below, include responses to a question about what students learned.

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

165

Questionnaire About the Lesson Plan The questionnaire about the lesson plan (see Appendix 2) included questions on the participants’ personal knowledge about disability (e.g., whether they have a disability themselves or know someone who does) and involvement in the class (e.g., whether they were taking the survey before or after they took the class). It also asked free response questions about their definition of disability before they participated in the lesson and what they had learned from it.

Responses Before the Lesson A key question asked of students who had not yet taken the class was: “How would you define disability?” The responses were coded for the negativity of their affect, the attitude they displayed toward disability; the categorization was agreed upon by three separate coders. Of the 22 responses to the question, three responses (13.64%) were coded 1 for very negative affect. These focused on negative aspects of having a disability, stated or implied that disability is a problem, and included words that were derogatory toward disabilities, for example, Disability is a crippling or hindering psychical [sic] or mental state that puts a person at risk (emphasis added). Six responses (27.27%) were coded 2 for negative affect. These focused on negative aspects of having a disability, stated or implied that disability is a problem, and tended to compare having a disability disfavorably to not having one, for example, A physical/mental condition that hinders one from living the life of an average person (emphasis added). Four responses (18.18%) were coded 3 for somewhat neutral affect. These focused on disability as a difference from a norm, for example, Not being able to perform an action or function that a majority of people can perform (emphasis added). Six responses (27.27%) were coded 4 for more neutral affect. These focus on the difference between ability and inability to do something: Disability can be defined as something that might inhibit one’s abilities; whether that be physically or mentally (emphasis added). Three responses (13.64%) were coded 5 for positive affect. These tended to define disability with an awareness that the concept of “­ normal”

166 

L. E. Cochrane

Fig. 7.1  Words used in the definition of disability

ability is culturally mediated: Disability as I see it is an identity or label for people who do not conform to normative expectations of what one should be physically able to do in everyday circumstances. Figure 7.1 provides a graphic representation of some of the words used to define disability by students who had not yet taken the class. Larger and bolder words were used more often than less prominent ones. This word cloud was limited to 50 words and the words someone and something were omitted along with functional words such as the. Among the more common words used to describe disability were ability or able (used by 9 participants), perform (used by 6), and normal or normally (used by 4 participants).

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

167

Of the 22 responses, 13 (59.09%) defined a disability as a difference from the norm, for example, A deficit in abilities relative to those of others; 12 (54.55%) defined a disability as potentially being physical or mental, for example, A mental or physical problem that hinders a persons [sic] physical activities or developmental challenge. Only one response defined disability as exclusively physical. Although my own research focuses on physical disability, the socially constructed, multi-category model of disability that I teach is meant to encompass all experiences of disability. Students appeared to be aware of both mental and physical disabilities before taking the class. A majority of responses showed a connection between disability and medical condition: 13 (59.09%) responses defined a disability as a medical condition, for example, a physical/mental condition that hinders one from living the life of an average person; 11 (50%) responses defined disability as that which causes an inability to do something, for example, a characteristic that prevents someone from performing a task that anyone without that characteristic could do. A smaller number of responses showed a connection between disability and impairment: 7 (31.82%) defined disability as the impairment, for example, a deficit in abilities relative to those of others; 7 (31.82%) defined disability as the inability to do something, for example, …may achieve a constant below average performance in one or more aspects of life compared with the average. Three responses also referred to the source of disability: …birth defects, injuries, or improper nurturing, an innate feature, …when a person is born with or by circumstance is impaired by a condition or disorder …. A medical model of disability equates the underlying medical condition and the resulting impairment. It is evident from these responses that the majority of participants understood disability as having to do with a medical condition and causing an impairment or as the impairment and resulting limitation in function; it is not clear that the participants would make a distinction between medical condition and impairment as multi-category models do. A much lower number of responses mentioned disability practices or social factors. Two responses referred to societal norms or attitudes: …people who do not conform to normative expectations… and …Someone

168 

L. E. Cochrane

who is differently abled might not be able to mobilize or utilize “standard”4 resources. The later response also objected to the use of the term disability and replaced it with differently abled, which is not currently in common use among people with disabilities themselves. Only one response referred to disability practices and it limited the definition to using assistance: the need for assistance to function normally. The low number of these responses suggests a need for the multi-category model taught in the lesson plan. Although there were not major differences between the responses of the eight participants who knew someone with a disability and the 14 who did not, there were a few points worth noting. One is that the three definitions that were coded to be most negative—using descriptions such as crippling, deficient, constant below average performance—came from participants who did not know someone with a disability. None of the definitions from participants who knew someone with a disability were so negative. In contrast, the three responses discussed above that mentioned disability practices and social factors all came from participants who know someone with a disability. In addition, 8 out of 14 (57.14%) of participants who did not know someone with a disability defined it as causing an inability to do something—equating the term with an underlying medical condition—as opposed to 3 out of the 8 (37.5%) of participants who did know someone with a disability. Because of the small number of participants, these differences may not represent larger trends, but they would be worth monitoring in future questionnaires about the class. The responses to this questionnaire indicate that students without disabilities are aware of both physical and mental disabilities before they take the class. Ideas about disability appear to be influenced by the medical model, which is commonly used in society but rejected by people with disabilities and scholars. Disability practices and social factors are aspects of disability experience that students seem less aware of, while these are the aspects that occur most often in the discourse of people with disabilities themselves.  The quotation marks (scare quotes) appear to indicate that the participant meant resources that are considered standard by society generally rather than resources that are objectively standard in some way. 4

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

169

Responses After the Lesson A key question asked of students who had taken the class already was “What (if any) new, surprising, or shareable information did you learn in the lecture and discussion?” Of the 20 responses, almost half (9 responses, 40.91%) mentioned learning about some specific aspect of language; for example, I didn’t know how much verbal abuse people with disabilities deal with in public spaces. These responses make sense for a lesson that mentioned language in a linguistic course. Five (25%) mentioned learning specific information that was not language-related. Five responses (25%) gave particular examples of information learned in the class; for instance, I learned about the ways individuals with disabilities use language to construct their personal identities. Two responses (10%) said the participant had not learned anything new or did not remember any new information. Because of the way the question was phrased, it was only new, ­surprising, or shareable information that was given in response, rather than a summary of all the information that was covered in the lesson including what a student already knew. However, knowing that two of the 20 students who responded to the survey did not learn or remember something new from the class is worth noting for planning future lessons. Figure 7.2 provides a graphic representation of words used to describe the information that participants learned in the class. The phrase people with disabilities was used in five responses (25%). When discussing people with disabilities, community was used in four responses (20%) and individual in three (15%). The point in the lesson that “people-first” language is currently preferred in the community seems to have been retained by students. One of the goals of the lesson in order to achieve motivational relevance for participants was to raise awareness about the experience of disability. Four responses (20%) mentioned issues caused by societal attitudes toward disability. For example: I hadn’t noticed how much people with disabilities are considered the exceptions to normal life and are treated as such. For example, whenever I saw a ramp on campus, I used to think that the school was being supportive of people with disabilities. Never did it cross my mind (until this lesson) how minimal the support

170 

L. E. Cochrane

Fig. 7.2  Words used for new information learned

given is; for example, even though there is one ramp into a building, there may be four other exits with stairs that I have the option of taking, while someone who uses a wheelchair can only use one.

While these responses indicate that some students learn and remember issues mentioned in class, the fact that the majority of students did not mention these as new, surprising, or shareable indicates that the lesson could be more effective in teaching this aspect of the experience of disability.

Further Steps for Outreach Lesson Plan My experience teaching the lesson and the responses to the questionnaire suggest several ways that the lesson plan can be improved to

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

171

advance the research goal—that is, to raise awareness of the experiences of people with disabilities. One way to do so is to connect the data used in the lesson to students’ personal experiences. The questionnaire showed that none of the students who responded had disabilities themselves, though a substantial minority know someone with a disability. It is entirely possible that I may teach students with disabilities in the future, as I have in other classes in the past. However, the fact that the majority of my students do not seem to have personal experiences of disability means that highlighting these experiences in my data may be a way to make the overall lesson more memorable. In the example quoted above, the student who remembered social and environmental aspects of disability connected these concretely to their own environment on campus. Featuring examples of relatable experiences, such as a narrative told by a college student who uses a wheelchair, could help students to connect the disability discourse data to their own lives. Making that kind of personal connection can make lessons more engaging and memorable (Shephard, 2008). Another way to further the goals of the lesson plan is to include the voices of people with disabilities themselves. I can do this figuratively by incorporating several more narratives from my data into the lesson plan but also literally by playing the audio and video recordings in the class. The existing lesson plan provides one blog narrative for students to analyze. Bringing in more voices of people with disabilities would meet the motivational relevance of the participants in the research by sharing their experiences with a larger audience. In the new lesson plan, the lecture portion will continue to include the multi-category model of disability and to use data that feature each category of the model for in-class analysis (see Appendix 1). The augmented lecture will highlight disability practices and social factors to demonstrate how these categories of the model make up the majority of disability discourse. The new lesson will incorporate voices from the disability community in audio or video recordings, such as audio clips from my narrative data. Since analyzing the survey data, I have added to the lecture a video of disability rights activist Stella Young (2014) protesting the objectification of people with disabilities as “inspirations”. This adds both a video of a person with a disability and academic analysis of disability

172 

L. E. Cochrane

discourse (Grue, 2016; Haller & Preston, 2017) to the lecture. The new lesson plan will also add new literature from disability studies scholars to be read in conjunction with the lesson. For example, I have recently tried as class readings both Al Zidjaly’s (2015) research on agency, disability, and technology and Garland-Thomson’s (2017) work on feminist disability theory. Anecdotally, students found both these readings engaging. Using both voices from the community and narratives with relatable experiences will make the lesson plan memorable to students without disabilities. Augmenting the lesson plan as well as having a whole-class discussion may require more than one class session, but doing so will achieve greater motivational relevance for the research and more lasting learning for students.

Website on Disability Discourse Research As I argued in Cochrane (2015), dissemination of my research results online is one of the best methods to share them with disability community members themselves. In preparation for developing a website about disability discourse, I administered a questionnaire to determine what information would be most interesting and helpful within the community. The participants who took the questionnaire are all members of an email list for university students with disabilities. The questionnaire was set up so that the participants who completed it all identified as having a physical disability or an equivalent term.5 A total of nine participants completed the entire questionnaire, including the questions about the future website. Although this is quite a small number, the responses were helpful for gaining insight into what aspects of disability discourse to present to a non-linguistic audience. The participants were not a homogeneous group. To the question “From what point in your life have you had a physical disability?”, three responded “since birth or early childhood”, five responded “since  To the question, “Do you consider yourself to be a person with a physical disability”, only one participant chose the given option “No, because I would use another term for myself ” rather than “Yes”. This participant responded that they use the term “chronically ill” and find the term “disabled” (which was not used in this questionnaire) to be offensive. 5

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

173

childhood or adolescence”, one responded “since early adulthood”, and one responded “later in life”.6 Eight had a physical disability related to mobility; two did not. Four had a visible physical disability; six did not. This last distinction is significant to people with disabilities because, among other reasons, it can change the attitudes that individuals encounter from strangers. Six participants regularly or always used an assistive device—including manual wheelchairs, power wheelchairs, scooters, and canes—which also affects their experience of disability. Participants were shown an example of the data from my research study: an oral habitual narrative told by one of the participants. The narrative, shown below, was edited to follow normal orthography rather than the original transcription conventions in order to make it more understandable to a non-linguistic audience.

Example Data Included in Survey Leslie:

So have you ever had someone like, I don’t know, a stranger or a kid or somebody just come up to you and say like, “Why are you using a wheelchair?” something like that? Derek: Yeah. I mean it happens all the time, um, but one of the things I cannot stand is when parents, you know … it’s one thing for parents to … you know … to say something, but the parents that pull their kids away like they did something bad, I have no patience for that. Um … because I think … it just breeds ­ignorance. Because I think … you gotta let your kids ask questions. Leslie: Yeah. Derek: If I don’t wanna answer ‘em, I won’t answer ‘em. Leslie: {chuckles} Yeah. Derek: It’s simple. But they’re not asking personal questions. I’ve hadI’ve had random people on the street ask me more personal questions. But I wanna tell- I wanna tell people uh … you know, my story. I want to tell people what uh what the what the  The participant who acquired their disability later in life also responded that their age is 35–45 years; all the other participants were between 18 and 35 years of age. 6

174 

L. E. Cochrane

situations are so. I mean you know it’s- it’s really- it’s really disheartening when you see a parent that actually … pulls their kid away and then you know as you’re rolling away they chastise them for for what? Curiosity? Leslie: Yeah. Yeah. Derek: Yeah. After reading the example from the data, participants responded to the question “What would be most interesting to include on a website about this study?” This question aimed to elicit what possible elements of a website would be most appealing to members of the community. The scale was: 1 “do not include”; 2 “not interesting”; 3 “somewhat interesting”; and 4 “very interesting”. Table 7.2 shows the responses of the nine participants. As Table 7.2 indicates, the most interesting elements for a website to include, according to the nine participants, are transcriptions of narratives told by participants, followed by transcriptions of conversations and information about participants’ preferences (for instance, about disability-­ related terms). Table 7.2  Most interesting areas to include on a website

Transcriptions of stories told by participants about their experiences Transcriptions of conversations between participants Information about the participants’ preferences based on the data Links to academic articles or presentations by the researcher Links to other websites

Standard Minimum Maximum Average deviation

Variance

3.00

4.00

3.67

0.47

0.22

3.00

4.00

3.44

0.50

0.25

2.00

4.00

3.44

0.68

0.47

1.00

4.00

2.78

0.92

0.84

2.00

4.00

3.22

0.63

0.40

175

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom  Table 7.3  Most helpful areas to include on a website

Transcriptions of stories told by participants about their experiences Transcriptions of conversations between participants Information about the participants’ preferences based on the data Links to academic articles or presentations by the researcher Links to other websites

Standard Minimum Maximum Average deviation

Variance

3.00

4.00

3.33

0.47

0.22

2.00

4.00

2.78

0.63

0.40

2.00

4.00

3.22

0.92

0.84

2.00

4.00

2.89

0.74

0.54

2.00

4.00

3.67

0.67

0.44

Table 7.3 shows the responses to a similar question with a different focus: “What would be most helpful to include on a website about this study?” This question aimed at assessing what elements of the website would be most useful to the community. The scale was: 1 “do not include”; 2 “not helpful”; 3 “somewhat helpful”; and 4 “very helpful”. With respect to helpfulness, the top element to include was links to other disability websites, followed by transcriptions of narratives. The difference in responses between the “interesting” question and the “helpful” question reflect participants’ ideas of what would be most appealing to read about—the narratives were rated most interesting—versus what would be most useful in a website—the links to other websites were rated most helpful. When asked in a free response question what other potential areas could be covered by a website, one participant mentioned resources about disability identity for the recently disabled and another mentioned disability-based scholarships, grants, or other monetary assistance. In addition, a participant commented that I think the firsthand stories of our experiences are very important. The rating of narratives as important and helpful is an encouraging result for sharing my research data. Links to other websites are an area that could be developed in further consultation with community members.

176 

L. E. Cochrane

Conclusion In the other chapters of this volume, the dissemination of research on discourse has been primarily among practitioners or among the community in which the research was done. While I have made steps toward future dissemination of my research among the community of people with disabilities, the motivational relevance for my research participants was to reach outside their community to correct misconceptions and share their experiences with people without disabilities. Teaching undergraduate students about my research has provided a productive avenue to meet this goal. It has caused me to come at my teaching practice in a different way than I would with only pedagogy in mind. Setting goals for a lesson plan and collecting student evaluations of a course are widespread techniques. Applying research goals to a lesson plan alongside pedagogical goals was a new exercise for me, however. Doing so before developing my lesson plan refined the way I taught about disability discourse analysis. Moreover, evaluating a single lesson plan to understand what students thought beforehand and took away afterward has been useful in ways that a general evaluation of the course is not. For instance, I would have predicted that more students without disabilities would find the definition of disability and the data they analyzed to be new, surprising, or shareable information. Both this questionnaire and research on affective learning (Shephard, 2008) point toward bringing in more narratives and “voices” from the disability community to connect to students’ own experiences and to make the lesson more memorable. The new lesson plan can be evaluated again with the questionnaire to measure improvement. The questionnaire about a future website also suggested that the narrative data I have collected is the most interesting and helpful aspect of my research to share with the community of people with disabilities. The immediate next step for disseminating my research is to share it with the community through a website. Other future steps may include using a less academic version of the lesson plan in outreach to people without disabilities outside of the classroom. Disseminating my research to as wide an audience as possible helps me to meet my responsibilities as a researcher and achieve the goals that motivated the participants with disabilities to help me with my discourse analysis research on disability.

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

177

 ppendix 1: Blog Entry Analyzed by Students A During the Lesson Plan Blog data excerpted from Cochrane (2011) Picture this. The bus pulls up. The driver looks at your power chair and says “Oh, I never operated the lift before” and then proceeds to prove that point by having to move the bus several times so the lift will go down properly. The driver then radios in that the bus will be late because there is a passenger in a wheelchair. […] You get on the lift. The driver raises it and tells you to hold on to the sides. You can’t hold on, because you have quadriplegia and your arms are paralyzed, but you know she doesn’t know what that is, so you just move your upper body a bit which, luckily, satisfies her. […] You do not think “Oh I wish I wasn’t paralyzed.” You think “I wish someone had trained this driver properly. What good is the equipment if there’s no training?” […] The bus takes off after an approximate delay of twelve to fifteen minutes, more than triple the time it took on the first ride. As one passenger disembarks, he says to you “Hope you’re never taking the same bus I take ever again.” You know you will. Because you have to get around, just like him.

Appendix 2: Questionnaires Questionnaire about a Class on Disability Discourse Dr. Leslie Cochrane The College of William and Mary The aim of this survey is to evaluate the impact of a class lecture and discussion in one of Dr. Cochrane’s courses for college students’ understandings of physical disability.

178 

L. E. Cochrane

Your participation in answering the following questions is entirely voluntary. You may withdraw at any time without penalty. Your name or other individually identifying information will not be associated with your answers to this survey. There are no foreseeable risks of this study, and there are no benefits aside from helping with the development of the class. None of your grades in any class will be affected by participating, not participating, or withdrawing your participation. If you have questions about this survey, please contact Dr. Cochrane at [email protected]. If you have concerns about your rights as a participant in the study or want to report dissatisfactions with any aspect of it, please contact Dr. Jennifer Stevens, Chair of the College of William and Mary’s Protection of Human Subjects Committee, at [email protected]. 1. Do you voluntarily agree to take this survey? • Yes • No 2. Are you 18 years of age or older? • Yes • No (An answer of ‘No’ to either question 1 or 2 terminates the survey.) 3. Do you consider yourself to be a person with a physical disability? • Yes • No • No, because I would use another term for myself (please provide the term) ____________ • Prefer not to say (If the answer to 3 is ‘Yes’ or ‘No, because I would use another term’, questions 4–6 are used:) 4. From what point in your life have you had a physical disability? • Since birth or early childhood (about 0–5 year) • Since childhood or adolescence (about 6–17 years)

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

179

• Since early adulthood (about 18–24 years of age) • Later in life (after 25 years of age) • Prefer not to say 5. Is your physical disability related to mobility? • Yes • No • Prefer not to say 6. Is your physical disability visible: can other people perceive it from the way you appear or move or from an assistive device you use? • Yes • No • Prefer not to say (For all answers to 3, the following questions are used:) 7. Are you close to anyone (else) with a physical disability? (check all that apply) • • • • • • •

Family member(s) Friend(s) Person/people I have lived with Person/people I have acted as an assistant to Other person/people I know well Not anyone I am close to or know well Not anyone I can recall

8. Have you ever studied physical disability from an academic perspective? (check all that apply) • Yes, within a course in which the major topic was disability • Yes, within a course on another major topic • Yes, in a less formal setting (for example, reading a book on disability) • No

180 

L. E. Cochrane

9. Have you participated in the class lecture and discussion on disability discourse in Dr. Cochrane’s course? • Not yet • Yes (If the answer to 9 is ‘Not yet’, questions 10–11 are used with free response spaces:) 1 0. How would you define disability? 11. What (if anything) would you be interested in studying about disability and language? (If the answer to 9 is ‘Yes’, questions 12–15 are used, 12–13 with free response spaces:) 12. What (if any) new, surprising, or shareable information did you learn in the lecture and discussion? 13. What else (if anything) would you be interested in studying about disability and language? 14. How long ago did you participate in Dr. Cochrane’s course? • • • •

This current semester (or this summer) Last semester About a year ago (this semester last year) More than a year ago

15. Did you complete a questionnaire before the class lecture and discussion? • Yes • No

References Al Zidjaly, N. (2015). Disability, discourse and technology: Agency and inclusion in (inter)action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Albrecht, G. L., Seelman, K. D., & Bury, M. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of disability studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

7  Teaching About Disability Discourse in the College Classroom 

181

Altman, B.  M. (2001). Disability definitions, models, classification schemes, and applications. In G.  L. Albrecht, K.  D. Seelman, & M.  Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp.  97–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Bamberg, M. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(104), 335–342. Bamberg, M. (2004). Form and functions of “slut bashing” in male identity constructions in 15-year-olds. Human Development, 47, 331–353. Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (2004). Making applied linguistics matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–8. Cochrane, L. (2011). Identity construction among bloggers who use wheelchairs. Paper given at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, DC. Cochrane, L. (2014). Telling disability: Identity construction in personal and vicarious narratives. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Cochrane, L. (2015). Positioning selves with physical disabilities in narrative. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Garland-Thomson, R. (2017). Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader. London: Routledge. Grue, J. (2016). The problem with inspiration porn: A tentative definition and a provisional critique. Disability & Society, 31(6), 838–849. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2015). Framework for application of research findings: An introduction. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (this volume). Knowledge translation at the sites of practice: From outreach and dissemination to reflexive evaluation (Chapter 1). In Lubie Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Language research in multilingual settings: Doing research knowledge dissemination at the sites of practice. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Haller, B., & Preston, J. (2017). Confirming normalcy: ‘Inspiration porn’ and the construction of the disabled subject? In K.  Ellis & M.  Kent (Eds.), Disability and social media: Global perspectives. London: Routledge. Labov, W. (1982). Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science: The case of the Black English trial in Ann Arbor. Language in Society, 11, 165–202. Masala, C., & Petretto, D. R. (2013). Models of disability. In J. H. Stone & M.  Blouin (Eds.), International encyclopedia of rehabilitation. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.

182 

L. E. Cochrane

Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan Press. Riessman, C. K. (1990). Strategic uses of narrative in the presentation of self and illness: A research note. Social Science and Medicine, 30(11), 5. Schilling, N. (2013). Sociolinguistic fieldwork. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shephard, K. (2008). Higher education for sustainability: Seeking affective learning outcomes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(1), 87–98. Shakespeare, T. (1996). Disability, identity, and difference. In C.  Barnes & G.  Mercer (Eds.), Exploring the divide (pp.  94–113). Leeds, UK: The Disability Press. Shakespeare, T. (2006). The social model of disability. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (pp. 197–203). London: Routledge. Young, S. (2014, April). I’m not your inspiration, thank you very much. TEDxSydney. Lecture. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/stella_ young_i_m_not_your_inspiration_thank_you_very_much

8 Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field Gabrielle Kahn

Telling stories is a universal human experience. Through narrative, we better understand what happens to us; our life events are given shape, order, and purpose. Stories are central to our lives as language users; however, published materials for second-language learners have prioritized grammar-based activities over work with discourse structures such as narrative (Archakis & Tsakona, 2012). In this era of standardized curriculum design and assessment practices in our schools, there is a critical need for educators to consider how storytelling tasks that emphasize students’ creative, personal, and conversational uses of language may play a role in learners’ development. In this chapter, I report on my preliminary exploration with other educators of narrative discourse data elicited from my work as an English as a Second Language instructor and applied linguist. Previous work involving multilingual learners (Kahn, 2015) served as the starting place for the fieldwork under discussion in this chapter. In

G. Kahn (*) Department of English, Kingsborough Community College, CUNY, Brooklyn, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_8

183

184 

G. Kahn

my original study, I engaged in the dual roles of teacher and researcher, two fields of practice too often removed from one another. For decades, scholarship in second-language acquisition has focused on the value of second-language learning tasks in facilitating learning. However, the major body of research on tasks for learners has been conducted in experimental settings rather than the classroom. Such mainstream studies have found that highly structured tasks with known outcomes are most beneficial for language education (Long, 2007; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993). These results seemed far removed from my experiences on the ground as an English language instructor, which pointed to the usefulness of open-ended tasks designed to elicit multilingual students’ personal voices. Responding to the unpredictability of these voices seemed central to my most successful lesson planning. Vygotskyan Sociocultural Theory (SCT) (1978, 1986), which takes the view that social activity is not merely a backdrop for learners’ development, but rather its source (Moll, 2014), reflected my understanding of meaningful task design. As a researcher in applied linguistics, I therefore grounded my study in an SCT approach and studied the discourse that emerged from second-­ language learning tasks. As a second-language teacher, I implemented these tasks in my classroom of adult learners, designed to encourage students to help direct the processes and products of our classroom activity. One of the open-ended tasks focused on storytelling. Students were asked to tell personal life lesson stories to one another, and were found to struggle with producing this complex speech event in their second language. Over time, and with assistance, however, learners’ storytelling abilities were shown to grow. Discourse data uncovered the case study of one student’s unfolding narrative as a joint rather than an independent production, developed through supportive means provided by her teacher, classmates, and other classroom resources throughout the semester. My use of conversation analysis (CA) as a transcription tool illuminated this finding, contributing to recent work in CA-for-SCT calling for the use of microanalysis to highlight learners’ turn-by-turn internalization processes in action (van Compernolle, 2016). My main objective in exploring excerpts from these narrative data with other second-language educators was to inform and develop their own classroom practices. The original research, which drew upon SCT

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

185

­ rinciples as a guide for instruction with the intent to develop students’ p second-­language capacities (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014; Poehner, 2016), served as a possible model for how educational theory and classroom activity might be unified in productive ways. Using sociocultural theoretical concepts in the various stages of the investigation—from implementing storytelling tasks to analyzing task-based interactions—had served as a rich source for my professional development. The discourse of students’ narrative productions in teacher-fronted interaction and in formats typically outside of my purview, such as group work and self-talk, revealed how closely participants were orienting to one another’s voices. Elicited from open-ended tasks, the content of this speech was not directed toward a predetermined “right answer” and could not have been predicted in advance. Discourse data from the investigation affirmed the SCT understanding of teaching and learning as a dynamic, relational activity at its core, a finding that drove my dissemination effort. The sections that follow explore the procedures and results of my initial attempt to share the knowledge I gained as a teacher and discourse analyst with other ESL educators. As will be shown, there were setbacks in conducting the outreach, and lessons learned. However, the full dissemination experience—challenges and successes—underscored the need for applied discourse research in second-language education, and its transformative potential for our classrooms. I first provide a brief overview of my narrative discourse study as it was described elsewhere (see Kahn, 2015). Next, I describe the steps I took to apply Grujucic-Alatriste’s (2015) dissemination framework. This section includes how I reached out to second-language teachers and tutors to discuss Vygotskyan Sociocultural Theory with reference to my conversation analysis data, and key findings that emerged from these sessions. I conclude by considering the value of the fieldwork results, and possible next steps toward engaging L2 educators in the practical exploration of their work using discourse analysis and knowledge of theory. As the project examined in this chapter is an extension of earlier data collection and analysis (Kahn, 2015), some previously published material will be reproduced to show the continuation of this research and to contextualize the project for readers who may not be familiar with it in its entirety.

186 

G. Kahn

Brief Overview of the Research Study The social roots of our stories can be seen in their interactivity. Narratives in conversation are not monologues, but dialogues. Stories are co-­ constructed as narrators pitch story content to audiences and respond to listeners’ emergent contributions (Mandelbaum, 2013). While social uses of language have been a growing focus of research in SLA scholarship, demonstrating the importance of students’ utterance creativity in second-language contexts, research in second-language acquisition has largely treated aspects of individuals’ communicative competence as fixed, internal properties (Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011). A central aim of my original study was to foreground the exploration of learners’ social activity, taking the view that learners’ interactions do not merely trigger a cognitive acquisitional process, but rather are interwoven with this process. I was interested in examining language learners’ storytelling as a fundamentally dynamic, interactive activity, reflective of what it means to be human. Let me briefly summarize the original study. The setting of the investigation was a community-based English as a Second Language class for beginning-level adult learners. Twelve of the 16 student participants were from Latin America; three had emigrated from Europe and one was from Asia. First languages represented were primarily Spanish but also included Russian and Cantonese. The course content drew upon narrative and other speech events that emphasized the development of students’ speaking and listening abilities. Students were asked to (1) examine the use of conversational language by native or proficient English speakers; (2) uncover linguistic patterns within the dialogues; and (3) use these patterns as resources for their own English language conversations (Archakis & Tsakona, 2012; Hatch & Hawkins, 1987; Riggenbach, 1999; Wong & Waring, 2010). As I was committed to making decisions about the shape and direction of our activities in situ, it was important for me to see how learners were responding to my activity blueprints. I therefore implemented open-ended tasks grounded in storytelling and the other focal speech events with the aim of exposing students’ thinking during our classroom activity.

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

187

Three sociocultural theoretical concepts were used to ground the study: the zone of proximal development (ZPD), intersubjectivity, and imitation. The ZPD concept highlights the need for assistors to at once understand a learner’s maturing capacities and provide individualized support to help develop these abilities. According to Vygotsky (1978), all higher cognitive functions “originate as actual relations between human individuals” (p. 57), made visible in the ZPD: “functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state” (p. 86). The foundational quality of intersubjectivity illustrates Vygotsky’s (1978) understanding of collaboration through dialogue as more indicative of learners’ development than what they can do alone. It was essential for storytelling tasks to allow for the building of states of intersubjectivity between learners and assistors—“a temporarily shared world” (Rommetveit, 1979, p. 94)—that would allow assistors to uncover learners’ ZPDs and provide mediating moves tailored to their unique learning needs. Imitation, a third phenomenon central to the investigation, was viewed by Vygotsky (1978) as a primary means for converting social activity into cognitive activity. From an SCT perspective, imitation is understood to be a self-generated behavior that may represent learners’ internal transformation, demonstrating what a learner might notice in another’s behavior and can do with this behavior as a model (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). Lesson plans for the study therefore included, not only learners’ tellings of personal life lesson stories but also life lesson stories of proficient and native English speakers as models that learners might draw upon in constructing their own. For the original research, approximately 20  hours of classroom discourse from the English as a Second Language class were roughly transcribed at the completion of the course. Moments in the data were then set apart where students appeared to be challenging their own or others’ linguistic competence. Excerpts that seemed to showcase learners’ attention to language became starting places for detailed conversation analysis transcription. Data selected for microanalysis included participants’ working through misunderstandings and students’ demonstrated attendance to particular language items, both in social speech and in self-talk. While the class was conducted in English, there were moments in these data when students from Latin America were found to be using Spanish.

188 

G. Kahn

The CA method—a data-driven approach with “as little appeal as possible to intuitive judgments” (Levinson, 1983, p. 287)—allowed me to use my proficient Spanish to provide a comprehensive analysis of such discourse at a micro level, noting the original Spanish as well as the English translation in transcription wherever possible. When an accurate rendering of such speech could not be captured—students using their first language could be found to be talking quietly to themselves or consulting privately with one another—this was noted in the transcript as well. Conversation analysis thus pointed to various resources that second-­ language speakers were drawing upon in their engagement with other speakers (Hall & Pekarek Doehler, 2011), and in their internal dialogues. Findings from the study pointed to the role of time, and a committed group, in developing one learner’s narrative. The case study of Juana (a pseudonym) emerged from the data and tracked the progress of a student’s work with life lesson storytelling over the term. Juana’s first attempt at the narrative task demonstrated her challenges with it; her interpretation of the life lesson storytelling activity was different than the assigned task. However, at the course’s completion, Juana was found to demonstrate control over elements of narrative grammar in her second language. Her growing self-regulation at life lesson storytelling in English was exemplified by her ability to manage her telling conversationally. Juana was shown to navigate the components of a story in collaboration with other participants as they shared control over the speaking floor and reacted to one another’s emergent contributions. Through multiple attempts at storytelling in English, with the personalized support of resources in her classroom allowing for collaboration and imitation in Juana’s ZPD, participants’ work with narrative appeared to build intersubjectivity between them, providing Juana with assistance that was highly attuned to her developmental needs. As a result of the ongoing dialogue elicited by an open-ended narrative task, the student was shown to grow her abilities as a conversant (as reported in Kahn, 2015). The teacher’s responsive lesson planning and peer assistance were found to be central factors in Juana’s development as a narrator. When I first brought the life lesson storytelling task to the classroom, I expected students to produce the narrative products I had assigned. When I found that many students, including Juana, had misinterpreted the assignment,

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

189

I considered abandoning our work with narrative in favor of a less challenging activity. However, I saw promise in students’ attempts at the task; they seemed invested in sharing aspects of their lives in their resulting texts. While life lesson storytelling in English was clearly too difficult for Juana and others, students were found to be engaging with this complex speech event on their own terms, drawing upon resources in their classroom to recreate it according to their current abilities. Seeing the potential for students’ language development in this activity, I made a commitment to enhancing their understandings of the life lesson storytelling goal through a series of more simplified tasks to give the learners repeated opportunities to engage with components of narrative structure. One narrative structure that Juana and others were found to attend to and produce over time was the coda—a closing sequence used by a teller to return a story to its main theme (Labov & Waletzky, 1967; Norrick, 2000). For one activity, I invited students to bring cultural sayings in their native languages to class, which translated into English could serve as possible codas for life lesson stories from their own lives in their second language. Juana’s multiple opportunities to perform this open-ended storytelling task with the support of her teacher’s responsive lesson planning paved the way for more target-like performance. Besides her teacher, Juana’s peers were also shown to mediate the development of her story. The classmates surrounding Juana provided meaningful models for imitation of language structures they had employed to enrich their tellings and helped build her narrative on a turn-by-turn basis through collaborative assistance. The development of Juana’s conversational narrative was therefore shown to be an extension of an ongoing classroom conversation. It was through the give and take of a series of interactions within a dedicated group that Juana reconceptualized and recreated her telling. In this extended dialogue, Juana was not found to mimic others in rote ways. Rather, discourse data showed her to be actively and intentionally drawing upon the voices around her. Gradually, units of narrative that had been present in the stories of other classroom participants were found to surface in Juana’s own story. These findings uncovered through conversation analysis provided support for Vygotsky’s theory that the external activity between people becomes reconstructed as knowledge inside a

190 

G. Kahn

learner, and that this internalization process occurs gradually, “the result of a long series of developmental events” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57). Having been presented firsthand in the original study with a view of education as a fundamentally social experience, I took this perspective to my dissemination effort. I was committed to sharing highlights from my research that would invite other language educators to join me in conversation. Together, as possible stakeholders in the study findings, we would consider how discourse data from a real classroom might inform past present, present, and future professional practices in our respective school settings. The section that follows describes the steps taken in conducting this outreach.

Framework for Dissemination In my previous work (Kahn, 2015), I proposed a conversational approach to the dissemination of my study findings. Using my classroom-based narrative discourse data to ground our discussions, I would invite dialogue with other language instructors at their educational institutions about our approaches to teaching. I provided a brief overview for these procedures: (1) examine key excerpts from my study with practitioners, (2) elicit participants’ interactive feedback on these excerpts, and (3) encourage further conversation about the potential relevance of the open-­ ended narrative task framework to our classroom practices and professional lives. Below, I share the artifacts I employed to set up and implement these sessions.

Tools Used I employed the following tools in the dissemination project: 1. The telephone 2. Email outreach

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

191

3. Workshop session handouts, including: (a) an agenda for the workshop; (b) theoretical background for the study; and (c) samples of narrative discourse from the study. 1. The telephone. As an educator with experience teaching at multiple institutions, I drew upon my personal connections to familiar educational settings by reaching out to school administrators at two known sites over the phone. One of these sites was the community-based English as a Second Language program where I had been previously employed and where my original study data had been collected; the other was the tutoring center at the community college where I was currently teaching. I selected these particular sites due to the seeming relevance of my data to the educators working at both places. As teachers in the community-based language program still provide free English classes to beginning-level students, I thought that instructors in this program might be interested in the past classroom-based experiences of a participating teacher. As a former teacher in a branch of this program, I had the flexibility to design my own curriculum that emphasized the development of students’ speaking and listening abilities. Current teachers, I hoped, would gain new knowledge about how open-ended tasks might be productively used with their students, and how narrative activity could be brought into their classrooms to support their pedagogy. I was also hopeful that English as a Second Language tutors in the community college setting would find personal meaning in my work with open-ended tasks. While tutors at this institution work side by side with teachers, their primary purpose is not to follow a course curriculum, but to support students in their coursework and provide them with individualized assistance on class assignments. I thought that my study findings about the key role of turn-by-turn collaboration for development might speak directly to the kinds of dialogues that tutors promote with students, and encourage their reflections on these interactions. Additionally, the English as a Second Language program at this institution promotes the use of digital storytelling as a

192 

G. Kahn

teaching tool. The work with narrative exhibited in the original study data might enrich tutors’ understandings of the value of storytelling for language education and about ways that students might be encouraged to share aspects of their past experiences for the digital story assignment. On the phone with administrators at both educational sites, I spoke about my background as a teacher and researcher, and my interest in inviting the instructional staff at each place to participate in a professional development workshop using discourse analysis. Both administrators said they would speak with their respective staffs about attending such a session. I then offered to send administrators a follow-­up email that would provide a brief overview of my workshop proposal in writing that they could share with the educators at their institutions. The administrators said they would welcome this email and would be back in touch with me about possible workshop dates once they received responses from the educators. 2. Email outreach. I followed up the phone calls with emails to the administrators that outlined my proposal for the workshop sessions with the intent of setting up a workshop date at each site. An excerpt from the email I sent to the administrator at the community-based language program is reproduced below: It was great touching base with you over the phone recently. I very much appreciate your willingness to explore the possibility with your instructors of my visiting your school to meet with them. As I used to teach… in your program, I see this as a meaningful opportunity for us to talk about our teaching. I am interested in exploring how discourse analysis can apply to real-world settings. While I was a doctoral student…and teaching at your…program, I recorded some verbal data from beginning and low-­intermediate-­ level students who were working in small groups on a storytelling task. Over the course of the semester and the recordings, the students were found to arrive at a deeper understanding of this task. My dissertation looked at how this occurred by examining students’ language through the lens of sociocultural theoretical concepts.

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

193

I envision a workshop with your teachers (ideally 2 hours) that addresses how a close study of student discourse, guided by theory, might help deepen our craft. If your instructors express interest in such a workshop, I would love to schedule something. The email I sent to the administrator at the tutoring center had a more informal tone as I worked with this individual and knew her well. An excerpt from this email read as follows: A colleague at NYC Tech would like to publish a book about how discourse analysis can (or cannot) apply to real world settings, and I thought our tutor group would be really great participants for exploring this…. thinking I could show them some conversational data I collected on storytelling with some low-level ESL students…and ask them to look at the discourse, and see if it speaks to their own experiences in the classroom. I thought this might also connect with work they’ve done in the links on digital storytelling….might there be a slot in mid-late January that could work for this? 3. Workshop session handouts. To ground the discussions with educators, I also prepared three handouts for the workshop sessions. These included (a) a session agenda, (b) theoretical background for the original study, and (c) samples of narrative discourse from the study. The agenda put forth the following questions and ideas as a starting place for these conversations. (a) Agenda Central question How might we guide our interactions with students to maximize opportunities for learning? • Can theory help us? • Can a close study of our interactions with students, and students with one another, help us? Considering our experiences What do we do when a student misinterprets a classroom task? How do we help the student change this conception to complete the task successfully?

194 

G. Kahn

Some concepts Vygotsky’s sociocultural view of how we learn: Activity on external plane (interpsychological activity) becomes activity on the internal plane (intrapsychological activity) • Actual Developmental Level vs. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) • Open-ended activity • Collaboration in the ZPD • Imitation in the ZPD • Intersubjectivity Narrative • Coda I planned to begin each session by passing out and reviewing the above agenda. I would then pass out a second handout (b) for participants to read (see Appendix 1) taken from my dissertation (Kahn, 2008, pp. 32–35) that discussed key Vygotskyan concepts and served as background for the study (Kahn, 2008, 2012, 2015), including the ZPD and intersubjectivity. At the community college workshop session with the tutors, the version of this handout differed slightly than the version I distributed at the language school. For the tutors, I included a paragraph that specifically addressed ZPD-based research with tutors by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) (Appendix 1, paragraph in bold type). My objective in including this additional text was to make the theoretical material we were working with as relevant as possible to the tutors, highlighting the fact that prior scholarly work using Vygotsky’s ideas had been done with individuals with the same professional title. While the handout was long in both versions, I thought it was important to address the theoretical concepts in some detail to help workshop participants gain an appreciation for the complexity of our work as educators from an SCT perspective. After reading about the theoretical background for my case study on narrative, and talking with workshop participants about the main theoretical concepts used to implement the classroom-based research, my plan was to introduce discourse data from the investigation. As a third

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

195

handout, I prepared three discourse samples taken from the original study (Kahn, 2015, pp. 156–168). As it was my intent to show the progressive unfolding of one learner’s complete story through turn-by-turn microanalysis, this third handout was also a lengthy one. In the event that time allowed us to examine more study data, I brought copies of a fourth handout (see Appendix 2) containing five additional excerpts from Juana’s work with narrative with her classmates during another class session (as cited in Kahn, 2015, pp. 160–164). Before introducing each discourse excerpt, I planned to speak with the educators briefly about how decisions were made about the design and implementation of each task that elicited these data. I explained to educators during the workshops that Excerpt 8.1, “Happiness Job and School,” showed the learner Juana’s first attempt at our narrative task. Juana was paired with two classmates to share personal lessons they learned in their lives and the stories behind these lessons. Before doing their tellings, students had heard a model story told by Greta, a recent graduate of the class (see Appendix 3), entitled: “Happiness is a journey not a place” (as cited in Kahn, 2015, pp. 173–174). Juana’s submission, in her peer’s handwriting, was as follows (text edited for spelling and capitalization): (c) Task: Life Lesson Storytelling Excerpt 8.1

Happiness Job and School She work, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday 24 hours. She is home attendant. Monday and Wednesday she going to school take ingles class. On Tuesday take a citizen class 164 St. Amsterdam. Monday, Tuesday Wednesday from 8 AM to 4 PM go to the shopping. After reviewing Excerpt 8.1 with the educators, we talked about the finding that instead of a life lesson story—sequence of past events highlighting a lesson learned—Juana’s initial attempt at the task showed a weekly life report. Because of the mismatches I saw between the task I

196 

G. Kahn

assigned and the activity that Juana and other students performed, I shared with workshop participants that I subsequently simplified students’ task demands in an attempt to help them better understand the narrative activity goal. I explained that students were asked to listen to a life lesson story from my experience (as cited in Kahn, 2015, p. 174)—a short and linguistically simple model (see Appendix 4)—and to discuss the meaning of a select aspect: the life lesson statement, or coda (“I have learned that haste makes waste”). I also shared with the educators that by having students explore the new story’s closing statement, I aimed to promote students’ more in-depth understanding of the narrative speech event as a whole. Excerpt 8.2 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Teresa: Yang: Teresa:

Juana: Teresa: T: Juana: Jose: T: Juana: Teresa: Leo: T: Juana: Jose: T: Teresa:

What does it mean? mmm::::: (0.2) don’t know how to say it tha(h)t goo(h)d heh ( ) heh (5.0) no no time. She’s no- she’s no have time. (7.0) She no have she’s no have ti::me, (2.8) fast (0.8) she’s fast, (3.2) t[ake your time >take your [time<  [oh::( )                                 [take your t↑i:[:::::me.=                          [ti::me ti[me no, =[↑ah::::::: (0.2) fast? (.) ti:me= =NO FAST. heh [heh heh heh [heh .hhhh    [No fast.             [No fast. Ri↑(h):ght. Take it ↑easy. heh heh

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

197

In Excerpt 8.2, Juana demonstrated that exploring one aspect of narrative, a coda, in another’s life lesson story was within her ability. I pointed out to the workshop participants that while Juana was not ­developmentally ready to produce her own story in English when the task was first introduced, with her teacher’s more assistive lesson plan, and her classmates’ turn-by-turn help, Juana is shown to attend to a key narrative element as she grapples with the meaning of the expression “haste makes waste.” Excerpt 8.3 introduced the educators to Juana’s last attempt at the life lesson storytelling task. Throughout the term, I had worked to heighten students’ awareness of narrative structure and language through our open-ended activity, and Juana’s peers had shared their tellings and offered their assistance as resources for her story text. The reverberations of this collaboration could be seen in Juana’s developed conversational narrative. I reproduced this final telling in full for the workshop participants. Excerpt 8.3 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Juana: T: Juana: T: Juana: T: Juana:

T: Juana: T: Juana:

Ss: Juana: Ss: Juana:

↑so I from Colombia right? (.) Y[ES     [( ) from Colombia, um hm, (0.5) my daughter and me::, um hm, eh:: (0.8) I we were living wi-with my mother en in her house. (1.5) ↑One day, my mothe:r, este ((referring to text)) °I- must go:, with my mothe:r,° >were living with my< mother:, for eleven months. °um hm° eh: >°in her house.° Okay< one day, my mother talked to me, (.) J↑uana (0.5) eh: look eh look up for (a) new apartment. Uh (h) huh ah::::: (1.5) eh ((referring to text)) (0.5) you:, ((impersonating mother with high pitch)) you see yeah? Look at my ap↑artment. I say ↑o:kay:. (0.2) I:: my- so I went look (0.8) for apartment, I found o:ne, I::: (1.8) I ↑pay eight hundred dollars. ((expressing disbelief “wow” “oh” “tsk tsk” “ooh”)) for rent ((“oh” “ooh”)) Now: what is my surprise. (0.5) (Now) I pay (.) ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED

198  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 68 69

G. Kahn Teresa: Why= T: =WHA:T? Juana: DOLLARS Wh-why [you payJose: Juana:       [Uh huh my RENT= =You pay? [You pay? Jose: (Antonio):        [( pay) Maya: °Fifteen hundred d[ollars° Juana:                [now, Coco: ah ((expressing disbelief))) Jose: [now: too high now [what happened] Juana:   [now              [too high] yes too high= Jose: =what ↑happened. Juana: .hhhh I don’t know I go to the the office, talk to me explain me eh why what is the problem for= Jose: =yeah ri:ght (.) very good for you [you know Coco:   [( ) it was the it was uh puh- uh Juana: (surprise) T: surprise huh ((students commenting)) Juana: the secretary says me problem the:: maybe problem (with) the computer. (.) Antonio: Oh yE[A::H?      [eh::: I’ll send I will send letter for you Juana: fo:r explain.= =for the background ye[ah Jose: Juana:                      [yeah (.) right (.) the= Jose: =yeah yeah yeah (yeah) Antonio: how many months you pay (.) one hundred fifty dollars? How many months. Juana: Six months= Antonio: =oh [( )] oh right= Juana: [( )] =six months (.) T: um[mm [ah::: sorry  Jose: ↑okay my life lesson (it’s) important the Juana: i↑:nde↓pendence, T: um [hmm   [eh:::m ((referring to text)) to work for Juana: our selves.

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

199

Description of Outreach and Dissemination  The tools described in the previous section are meant to illustrate one possible plan of preparing classroom discourse data for dissemination. In designing their own approaches to outreach, educators must make choices that work to address the seeming needs of their particular stakeholder populations. In this section, I will provide a detailed account of the active effort I made to meaningfully employ the above tools in my dissemination effort. As noted above, my dissemination process began with phone calls and emails to two administrators in educational settings with language programs. These particular sites were selected for the initial outreach as I had a personal connection to both, and reasoned that practitioners in these schools might relate to the content of my classroom discourse study. At one site, a community college tutoring center, tutors work with second-­ language learners individually, and the college’s English as a Second Language program assigns a digital storytelling project. I thought that my data showing classroom participants building a narrative in their moment-­ by-­moment dialogue over time might be relevant to tutors’ daily activities with learners. My research also seemed uniquely suited to instructors working in the community-based language program. I had collected the data for my research while teaching in a division of this very program. Another factor in choosing these particular outreach sites was access. My personal history with these institutions, I hoped, would increase the likelihood that my workshop invitations would be accepted. As an English as a Second Language professor and administrator at the community college, I had worked with the administrator at the tutoring center, and could reach out to the administrator of the community-based language program as a previous employee. I was not contacting these sites blindly. However, despite my contacts at the outreach sites, there were challenges in scheduling the workshop sessions. A central issue that arose was time. Some educators who received the invitation reported that they did not see the workshop as a valuable use of their time. While one of the administrators I contacted quickly committed to a meeting date, the other forwarded my outreach email to instructors in the program to have them work with me in setting up a session. A number of teachers subse-

200 

G. Kahn

quently replied that this kind of workshop did not seem to be “right” for them “right now,” with one suggesting that there might be more helpful opportunities for professional development. In the end, I was able to meet one-on-one with an instructor at this site who noted her personal interest in discourse analysis. Overall, the experience of scheduling time with other practitioners was a humbling one. Some resistance to my classroom-based research was expressed even before I had the opportunity to distribute the data. It seemed that it was especially difficult for the educators to set time aside to reflect with other professionals on their craft during the semester while they were working with students. At the two workshop sessions I was able to hold, I found that while the meetings opened up conversations about how discourse-based research might inform classroom practice, more time was required for in-depth discussion. My workshop plan called for first reviewing the agenda and asking practitioners to share preliminary responses to two of its questions, drawing upon their own experiences with second-language learners: “What do we do when a student misinterprets a classroom task? How do we help the student change this conception to complete the task successfully?” The intent was to introduce a notable problem at the outset of the session that arose from my discourse data and that other practitioners might identify with. Asking educators to reflect on how they might have approached a challenging yet inevitable reality in our profession was also an invitation to explore possible shared experiences and build trust. Educators at both sites were highly engaged in these discussions, sharing personal examples from the field about times they had worked to find common ground with students when task-based misunderstandings occurred. While these conversations seemed meaningful, I felt pressure to shift the discussion to the next agenda item due to time constraints. The administrator at the tutoring center had scheduled a two-hour session for the meeting with tutors, and the teacher at the community-based language program had 75 minutes for our session. To provide participants with some of the theoretical background undergirding my study, the next phase of the workshop involved a review of the handout addressing key SCT concepts. Participants read the document, and we talked about their initial reactions to Vygotsky’s ideas. Following these discussions, I distributed the discourse samples one by

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

201

one, asking participants to assist me in reading the transcripts aloud. I explained CA transcription conventions as we examined the data, and parts of excerpts were read more than once to allow participants to experiment with how these conventions may have come alive in the original classroom speech. While I knew it would be impossible for practitioners to master conversation analysis conventions in one meeting, it was important for participants to get a feel for how turn-by-turn analysis captured pivotal interactional details and uncovered the social distribution of Juana’s activity with her classroom companions. As we examined participants’ actions in the discourse, we referred back to Vygotskyan concepts on the handout as needed, as well as the terms narrative and coda on the workshop agenda (Labov, 1972). At the conclusion of the sessions, I presented the central question on the agenda: “How might we guide our interactions with students to maximize opportunities for learning?” with two subquestions: “Can theory help us? Can a close study of our interactions with students, and students with one another, help us?” During this workshop phase, I was most interested in assessment: gauging the usefulness of the session to practitioners, and obtaining feedback that would allow me to continue to map out paths forward in my applied discourse research. Finally, I thanked the educators for their time and participation. While I knew that the workshop agenda would serve only as a map for our activity, and we were able to address all of the agenda items in both sessions, I walked away from the workshops feeling a strong need for more time with the educators. Because of the limits placed on our time together, there was tension during the meetings between covering the topics on the agenda and honoring the unanticipated directions that conversations with the educators were taking. The practitioners seemed to be expressing a strong desire to talk about their experiences with students, and I found myself working throughout both sessions to draw connections between the stories they were sharing from their work in the field and the content of my research. For example, at the start of one workshop, a practitioner was eager to share feedback on a lesson she had conducted that very day that left her questioning her students’ language competencies. She wondered out loud how to order and prioritize their exposure to language that would best meet their developmental needs. I

202 

G. Kahn

decided to introduce the concept of open-ended tasks through the lens of her experience. We brainstormed some possible tasks that could be designed to be at once challenging and supportive, with enough flexibility built in for learners to have opportunities to engage with new language structures, and make their thinking visible through their use—or not—of these forms. Less time was spent during this session looking at discourse data, and more was time spent addressing the educator’s immediate question with the aid of SCT conceptual material. Listening closely to the educators, and considering ways that their contributions might relate to my research project, required my complete attention; I had planned to take extensive notes during the sessions to track our workshop activity, but this notetaking was minimal. Grujicic-Alatriste (2015) notes, citing Cicourel (2003), that an understanding of stakeholders’ institutional practices is not enough in our applicability work—what is also required is an “intimate connection [italics added] with the values, procedures, and knowledge base of those with whom we seek to explore these purposes” (p. 4). In conducting the data-­ sharing sessions, I realized that as an educator myself I had some understanding of participants’ professional practices and that this knowledge was useful. However, I was lacking intimate connections with who the practitioners were as individuals. It was by not being wedded to a static set of dissemination procedures that I was able to begin to forge these connections, thereby taking first steps into the kind of deeply relational work I had advocated for in my original classroom discourse study.

Results of Outreach Increasingly, investigators in fields as diverse as healthcare, intellectual disability (ID) studies, psychotherapy research, and second-language education are using CA to expose real-world problems and to shed light on how stakeholders in these fields might make use of their findings (Antaki, Richardson, Stokoe, & Willcott, 2015; Sutherland, Peräkylä, & Elliott, 2014; Waring, 2016; Zayts & Sarangi, 2013). These applied linguistics studies take a wider view than research conducted primarily for an audience of investigators’ academic peers, forefronting the interests of

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

203

the larger community by raising awareness, cross-checking findings, and developing new research questions that work to address the identified needs of professionals on the ground (Bygate, 2015). In my own research using CA, I had taken up this calling in a fundamental sense. I had dual roles to play: investigator and practitioner. As a participant in the data I also examined as an analyst, dissemination and application were “as unmediated and direct as it is possible to be” (Antaki, 2015, p. 313). At the completion of my original study, I understood this work to make a contribution both to my professional practice as an educator and to the field of second-language research more broadly. Applied discourse research had helped me consider what it means to do language teaching well. The investigation also contributed to theory by showing SCT to be a powerful pedagogical and explanatory tool. In working to extend the reach of my research, however, I was not as successful in achieving harmony between analyst and practitioner. While my study had been initiated as a bottom-up venture, developed to explore specific questions that were directly relevant to my classroom practice, as the initiator of outreach to other educators, I was now taking a top-down approach to application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015). My plan for dissemination, rather than being initiated by stakeholders in the field, was created by me as a researcher. With findings—answers I believed in and was advocating for—my role as analyst became foregrounded. From the start of the outreach project, I experienced some resistance to this orientational shift when a number of teachers, questioning the relevance of my findings to their needs, opted out of meeting. The issue of relevance also cropped up during the workshops I was able to schedule. While participants’ feedback on our sessions was overwhelmingly positive, the educators reported varying degrees of personal investment in the SCT ideas we were exploring. One practitioner talked about having already developed her own theory of development, not reflective of Vygotsky’s, based upon her experiences as a language learner (in field notes taken after this session I ask: “openness to new theory?”). Another practitioner spoke about the seemingly valuable link between theory and practice in my narrative activity with beginning-level learners but expressed doubt that this same theory could inform the assignments she needed to complete with students at the college level. A researcher may also be a practitioner in the

204 

G. Kahn

field, but I found that individual practitioners have complex histories, questions, and needs that can dovetail with, and also differ from, those of investigators. Application was a challenging world to navigate: “neither simple nor straightforward” (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015, p. 3). In the process of bringing my study findings to other educational stakeholders, I found that I needed to take a more tentative stance in relation to these findings. Rather than viewing myself as a “bringer of solutions” (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004, p. 4), practitioners needed to decide for themselves what in my discourse data might matter to them. Participants reported that these data did provide them with relevant insights. The same practitioner who expressed resistance to a new educational theory also reported that the discourse of Juana and her classmates helped her consider the role of agency, attunement, and self-regulation in learning. Another practitioner reflected that it was useful to see the language of students being put “under the microscope,” confirming her view of her job as one primarily of “detective work.” A third educator stated that my data from the field “put a name to what we already do,” noting the importance to her of providing examples for her students, encouraging students to pool their knowledge, and being “hands on” in her role in the classroom. The outreach experience may have been less impactful to the pedagogy of other educators than my research process had been to mine, but one apparent outcome remained the same: raising awareness about how microanalysis can be employed to inform an understanding of the characteristics of useful teaching tasks. The dissemination experience also initiated the forging of new relationships with other educators that I hope will serve as a foundation for the next phase of this project.

Suggested Further Steps Upon completion of the phase of dissemination explored in this chapter, I found myself returning to the question: “What count as good data and are thus worthwhile analysing?” (Susskind, as cited in Wagner, 2015, p. 83). As an analyst interested in good practice, the data I chose to share in my outreach were snapshots of classroom discourse that could be seen to represent successful instructional practice over time. To increase the

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

205

likelihood of relevance to practitioners, data selected for dissemination were collected in places where similar activities as the educators’ were seemingly taking place, or that served learners with comparable English language needs. At the same time, the educators I met with raised questions about the applicability of my discourse data to their unique classroom experiences. I was bringing these educators into the details of my world, but was largely unaware of the particulars of theirs. This insight led me to consider the kinds of data that might have served my colleagues in the field in more direct ways. Where might such data have come from? It became apparent through the outreach experience that rather than using my classroom data and findings as a starting place for application, a bottom-up approach to application was called for. This effort would entail collaborating with teachers on identifying real-life issues that could be investigated at their places of practice (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), and using data from their classrooms for our analysis. Because of my commitment to the principles of Vygotskyan Sociocultural Theory and the tool of conversation analysis, my plan for the next phase of this project is to work with practitioners to consider exploratory questions for their classrooms that might be viewed through these complementary lenses. During my sessions with practitioners, I was struck by the powerful anecdotes they were sharing from their work with students, and the questions they were struggling with that were communicated through these stories. In their work as language teacher educators, SCT scholars Johnson and Golombek (2016) advocate for narrative inquiry—“a systematic exploration that is conducted by teachers and for teachers through their own stories and language” (p. 123, emphasis in original)—as a meditational tool to support teachers’ learning. They provide a model a­ ssignment whereby language teachers create written stories in response to openended questions about aspects of their instruction that may have surprised, challenged, or left them feeling unsatisfied, and to explore the nature of this dissonance and how it was addressed to facilitate new understandings about their teaching. Echoes of my classroom-based work on narrative with English language learners were heard in Johnson and Golombek’s (2016) description of narrative inquiry, affirming the role that storytelling can play in surfacing rich reflective worlds that can at

206 

G. Kahn

once track and promote individuals’ development in educational settings (Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2015). As a result of this outreach project, I am considering ways I might bring together the work of narrative, conversation analysis, and Vygotskyan Sociocultural Theory as part of a revised framework applying discourse research to educational practice. Asking language teachers to tell their stories from the classroom, transcribing these stories, and interpreting them using sociocultural theoretical concepts might serve to bring together work in applied linguistics and education in profound ways, “opening up teacher thinking, feeling, and doing to expert guidance” (Johnson & Golombek, 2016, p. 117). As a next step, I plan to consult with one or more of the practitioners I met with about the possibility of collaborating on such a project. Promisingly, a number of workshop participants have expressed an interest in developing our preliminary fieldwork. This narrative-based research would add to recent studies in SCT-L2 with the aim of merging theory and practice through praxis (Lantolf & Poehner, 2014), actively utilizing Vygotsy’s ideas in educational settings with the intent to promote participants’ development (Kahn, Calienes, & Thompson, 2016; Poehner & Infante, 2015; Poehner & Swain, 2016). Uniting practices and principles in psychology, narrative studies, discourse analysis, and language education, this continued endeavor in the field has the potential to contribute to the growing body of research applying the work of discourse analysts to real-world settings.

Final Thoughts This knowledge dissemination project gave me the opportunity to step out as an applied linguist to gauge the possible relevance of one discourse study to educators’ professional practices in the field. Findings demonstrated that while there is great promise in doing applied discourse research with other practitioners, time and commitment are essential components for outreach. A meaningful exploration of the findings that had been revealed to me through a rigorous research process required the kind of relationship building with teachers and tutors that I was advocat-

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

207

ing for in our work with students. There was a repeated acknowledgment during the workshop sessions of the increasing demands being placed on us as language educators, especially with the current focus in our schools on quantitative outcomes as administrative measures of our successes. Practitioners seemed intrigued by the potential for discourse analysis to allow us to take a needed step back to consider the quality of instructional practices in our second-language classrooms. The same findings from my original study on open-ended narrative activity were found to apply to my initial dissemination activity. Lesson plans should be flexible. Responsivity is critical. The development of new knowledge occurs in small steps, through collaboration (Vygotsky, 1978). Participants’ stories should be told.

 ppendix 1: Theoretical Background A for the Study The Zone of Proximal Development and Intersubjectivity In addressing the dynamic relationship between social interaction and learning, Vygotsky (1978) questions the typical manner by which mental development is assessed—through an individual’s solitary performance on a test or task. Doing so, according to Vygotsky, will manifest a learner’s “actual developmental level”—abilities that have already been established in the learner. Suggesting that “what children can do with the assistance of others might be … more indicative of their mental development than what they can do alone” (p. 85), Vygotsky draws a contrast between a learner’s actual developmental level and the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD)—capacities that may not have completely developed, but are moving towards development. In Vygotsky’s words: The zone of proximal development defines those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state. These functions could be termed the “buds” or “flowers” of development rather than the “fruits” of development. (pp. 86–87)

208 

G. Kahn

According to Vygotsky (1978, 1986), for educators to promote instructional success and “good learning,” exposing a learner’s zone of proximal development is critical. As he writes, “instruction must be oriented toward the future, not the past” (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 189). It is through the child’s collaboration with adults or more capable peers during problem solving tasks, Vygotsky argues, that a child’s internal developmental trajectory is revealed, uncovering what is, at a given point in time, in the process of maturing for that child. Thus, instruction in a learner’s zone of proximal development: calls to life in the child, awakens and puts in motion an entire series of internal processes of development. These processes are at the time possible only in the sphere of interaction with those surrounding the child and in collaboration with companions, but in the internal course of development they eventually become the internal property of the child. (Vygotsky, 1956, as cited in Wertsch, 1985, p. 71)

Scaffolding learners in their individual ZPDs has been depicted as a complex activity that at once addresses the demands of the task participants and their simultaneous, shifting needs as they perform it. As Wood et  al. write, it is through tutors’ moment-by-moment interpretation of task, learner, and learner language that they become able to guide learning in ways that “will be … appropriate for this tutee in this task at this point in task mastery” (p. 97). For a ZPD to emerge, we cannot assume that any interaction will show evidence of the process: dialogues must be built that are at once “developmentally appropriate” and cognitively challenging (Ohta, 2001). Interactions must be directed towards moving the learner into a new level of developmental potential. While this description appears straightforward, the interactive reality is far from simple. Individuals have their own personalities and ­perceptions. The understandings that experts and novices bring to a task setting—from the objects found within it to the goals for the activities that take place there—are often very different (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wertsch, 1985). A central question, then, becomes how assistors can help learners perform a task when their task interpretations may not be synchronized.

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

209

At the heart of the matter is intersubjectivity. For interaction in the zone of proximal development to occur, learners and assistors must negotiate their understandings of the task setting so that a “temporarily shared social world,” or a state of intersubjectivity (Rommetveit, 1979, p. 94), becomes possible. This shared world is apparent in participants’ negotiation of their very task as it unfolds. As Tharp and Gallimore (1988) explain: A child (or an adult learner) may not conceptualize the goal of the activity in the same way that the adult assistor does … As interaction proceeds, different goals and sub-goals emerge and change as the participants work together. The adult may shift to a subordinate or superordinate goal in response to ongoing assessment of the child’s performance. The child’s goals will also shift in response to adult help and their growing intersubjectivity. (p. 34)

In building intersubjectivity with one another, learners and assistors thus create a joint for learning. This process rests in shared dialogic control between learners and their assistors. Activity goals are found, neither in the mind of one person or another, but rather become “negotiated in the interaction itself ” (Saxe, Gearhart, & Guberman, 1984, p. 29). As participants orient towards each other in this way, an “intangible workplace” (Antón & DiCamilla, 1998, p. 328) is created that enables assistors to provide help that meets learners’ developmental needs. From a sociocultural perspective, then, tasks ought to be designed with openness and flexibility so that assistors and learners can find one another and work productively together. Note: Language in bold type was included only in the handout distributed at the workshop with tutors.

 ppendix 2: Five Additional Discourse Excerpts A from Juana’s Work with Narrative [Excerpt 3-1] 01 02 03 04 05

[Juana 1] (reading)) I am, I’m Juana. (.) My: life lesson. (.) ↑Two friends, (.) and one girl, (.) she likes, (.) someone but he not understand her and another one t↑ell her, I’:m, (.) in love you, and she said ↑it’s okay.

210 

G. Kahn

[Excerpt 3-2] 01 02 03 04 05

[Maya 1] ((reading)) when I came from Puer-from the island of Puerto Rico, .hhh I went shopping with my neighbor. She did something that I didn’t like it, then I wai:t for her outside the store. I never trust ↑her to go noplace at all.

[Excerpt 3-3] 01 Juana: 02 Yali: 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

[Yali 1] my name, ((reading)) my name is Yali. Uh: ((quiet laughter with classmate)) when I was come to the New York City everything looks different (.) and so modern and new to ↑me:. I (should) not have any problem but (.) settle down a few months. hh one day, I finish my work come back to home, a thief follow me in the apartment i::n front of the door. hhh he ask me g↑ive him money and bag especially when he wa-want wants to rob my handbag. My neighbor hear some noi:se, (.) hh he shout ss sssomebody ss down, downstair? No English. This Chinese. hh uh thief was run out door but long long t↑ihhhme I was heh heh nervous ((quiet laughter)) but I know now I have to feel comfortable live in New York.

[Excerpt 3-4] 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

[Maya 2] Maya Ortega hhh my expression i:s, (.) .hh teh-tell me who you a:re, (0.5) tell me who you walk ↑with .hh and you tell me who you are. .hhhhhh I came from Puerto Rico, from the island of Puerto Rico. I went shopping with my neighbor. .hhh she did something that I didn’t like it then I wait for the- for her outside. Outside the st↑o:re. I never trust her to go to- to noplace at all.

After fumbling with the tape recorder, in partial overlap with what appear to be her classmates’ voices, Maya’s telling continues. 09 10 11 12

uhhhh I deduct my: from my::: (0.2) li:fe, .hh (0.8) uh is that, .hh (.) I went shopping with with my neighbor. .hhh And then she did something, (.) I didn’t ↑like it (.) .hhh if-if >she did something I

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field  13 14 15 16 17 18 19

didn’t like it in the< sto:re. .hh uh (.) I think if the manager see me with her saw saw he- (.) saw me with her maybe he think I do the same ↑thing (0.5) >that’s< I- de- I- I uh: deduct from my story. (1.2) Because (this) my-my .hh (0.2) my life i:s, (.) tell me who you you walk (.) with and you tell me who you ↑are

[Excerpt 3-5] 01 Juana: 02 03 04 05 06 07 Maya: 08 09 Maya: 10 Juana: 11 12 Maya: 13 Juana: 14 Maya: 15 Juana: 16 Maya: 17 Juana: 18 19 Maya: 20 Juana: 21 Maya: 22 23 Juana: 24 Maya: 25 26 27 (Yali): 28 Juana: 29 Maya: 30 31 Juana: 32 33 (Teresa): 34 Juana:

[Juana 2] my name is Juana. Uh huh Torres. My-this is (.) my life lesson. Two friends, and one girl. She likes someone (.) but he not understand (0.2) hher, and another one tell her (0.5) I:’m in love you, and she said it’s okay. Uh the explain is, (1.0) the explain is, (1.8) eh[::::]      [(explain is,)] (0.2) uh:: (.) one of the guys, one of the guys, (1.0) (((consulting quietly with Teresa in Spanish))) SLEEP= =sleep one of the guy sleep um hm and another guy, eh::: (.) eh: (0.5) and th[e    [eh::: be eh:::m wake up heh heh [heh heh=                    [yeah yeah yeah] =heh heh heh] .hhh wake up, .hh for [eh::                   [(and) he told her I love you. (0.2) uh? I- [eh: he-] he told her I love you. heh heh heh  [he told her,] (((quietly reproducing Spanish saying))) definition is the shrimp who sleep running into the water. yes $okay$

211

212 

G. Kahn

Appendix 3: Model Narrative 1 Narrative 1: Happiness Is a Journey Not a Place (Greta) My husband is a real optimistic guy, sometimes overoptimistic. Most of the time of his life he is like this. Sometimes he can be even like this. I’m a pretty optimistic person. Most of the time I’m like this. Sometimes I’m even like this. But if something is going wrong and I have problems, I can also be like this. Then I can get pretty depressed. When this happens, my husband Robert reins me in with his optimism and says: “Es ist keine Schande hinzufallen, aber es ist eine Schande liegen zu bleiben” In English this means: “Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but rising every time we fall.” Since we are in NYC a lot of our friends have already visited us. All of them have liked it here very much. But there is always an exception to every rule. One of them didn’t like NYC—my friend Ina. Before she came here, she got some impressions about New York from “Sex and the City.” When she came, she compared the New York lifestyle with what she saw on this TV show. Nothing in New York was the same. The town was too noisy for her. There were so many people everywhere. The bars were too kitschy. She couldn’t find any clothes. She couldn’t sleep, the food was bad and she didn’t feel well. In general, she sees the glass half empty. As I told you about my husband’s optimism, he sees the glass half full every time. This means those two aren’t that good a match. So her visit was kind of complicated and afterwards I got really depressed, maybe like her. My husband comforted me as usual, this time with a little present, which shows a healthy philosophy of life and a good life lesson for my friend Ina: “Happiness is a journey, not a place.” I want to point out that Ina is still my friend as the picture shows.

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

213

Appendix 4: Model Narrative 2 Narrative 2: Haste Makes Waste (Gabrielle) Haste makes waste. I learned this when I first got married. My husband is very organized. He wakes up early, makes the coffee, and reads the paper in the morning. He is always on time and is never late. I usually oversleep, press the snooze button on my alarm clock, and am always in a hurry. One day, as usual, I was rushing to get out of the house. It was 8:00 AM and I was running late for work. My husband was sitting at the table, eating breakfast. I was packing my bags, sipping my coffee, and trying to find my keys at the same time. As I ran out the door, my husband yelled out: “You forgot to kiss me! Haste makes waste!” Now, every day I get up early—not as early as my husband, of course. But I always leave enough time to kiss my husband goodbye. I have learned that haste makes waste.

References Antaki, C. (2015). Afterword. In L. Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 311–314). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Antaki, C., Richardson, E., Stokoe, E., & Willcott, S. (2015). Police interviews with vulnerable people alleging sexual assault: Probing inconsistency and questioning conduct. Journal of SocioLinguistics, 19(3), 328–350. Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314–342. Archakis, A., & Tsakona, V. (2012). The narrative construction of identities in critical education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bygate, M. (2015). Foreword. In I. L. Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. xi–xiv). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (2004). Making applied linguistics matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–8.

214 

G. Kahn

Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2015). Framework for application of research findings: An introduction. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 1–22). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hall, J.  K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp.  1–15). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hatch, E., & Hawkins, B. (1987). Second-language acquisition: An experiential approach. In S.  Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Reading, writing, and language learning (pp.  241–283). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2016). Mindful teacher education. New York: Routledge. Kahn, G. (2008). The social unfolding of task, discourse, and development in the second language classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(08), 227A. (UMI No. 3327123). Kahn, G. (2012). Open-ended tasks and the qualitative investigation of second language classroom discourse. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 6, 90–107. Kahn, G. (2015). Narrative discourse in the second-language classroom. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 153–175). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kahn, G., Calienes, C. M., & Thompson, T. A. (2016). A dynamic program assessment framework for learning communities. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 4(2), Article 2. Available at: https://washingtoncenter. evergreen.edu/lcrpjournal/vol4/iss2/2 Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education. New York: Routledge. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

8  Bringing Narrative Discourse to the Field 

215

Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.  492–507). West Sussex, UK: Blackwell. Moll, L. C. (2014). L. S. Vygotsky and education. New York: Routledge. Norrick, N.  R. (2000). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Poehner, M.  E. (2016). Sociocultural theory and the dialectical-materialist approach to L2 development: Introduction to the special issue. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3(2), 133–152. Poehner, M. E., & Infante, P. (2015). Mediated development: Inter-psychological activity for L2 education. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 161–183. Poehner, M. E., & Swain, M. (2016). L2 development as cognitive-emotive process. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 3(2), 219–241. Riggenbach, H. (1999). Discourse analysis in the language classroom: Vol. 1. The spoken language. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Rommetveit, R. (1979). On the architecture of intersubjectivity. In R. Rommetveit & R. M. Blakar (Eds.), Studies of language, thought and verbal communication (pp. 93–107). London: Academic Press. Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Guberman, S. R. (1984). The social organization of early number development. New Directions for Child Development, 23, 19–30. Sutherland, O., Peräkylä, A., & Elliott, R. (2014). Conversation analysis of the two-chair self-soothing task in emotion-focused therapy. Psychotherapy Research, 24(6), 738–751. Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. van Compernolle, R. (2016). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

216 

G. Kahn

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, S. (2015). Asymmetrical aspects of knowledge in mediation talk. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 65–85). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Waring, H. Z. (2016). Theorizing pedagogical interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. New York: Routledge. Wertsch, J.  V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. New York: Routledge. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. Zayts, O., & Sarangi, S. (2013). Modes of risk explanation in telephone consultations between nurses and parents for a genetic condition. Health Risk & Society, 15(2), 194–215.

9 Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home Employment Settings Clelia König

This chapter engages dissemination of research previously conducted and it is a continuation of the work that outlines the outreach efforts (see Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015a, 2015b). The rarely discussed working life of au-pair girls in Switzerland is analysed using CA methods and different sections of the original large study were previously reported by Pochon-­ Berger, Pekarek Doehler, and König (2015). The initial collaborative analysis describes what happens at the margins of this specific workplace, namely, when the au-pair girls engage in storytelling practices with the host-parents. Applying a conversation analytical approach to the multilingual data (the au-pair girls speaks different first languages and are in Switzerland for improving French), the authors have investigated how the au-pair girls participate in the co-construction of storytellings with the host-parents. The fine-grained, turn-by-turn analysis of three excerpts

C. König (*) Institute of German Language, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_9

217

218 

C. König

of free-occurring moments of telling between the German-speaking au-­ pair girl Julie and her French-speaking host-mother Marie has shown, in first line, how Julie participates in the conversational process of telling a story about a child’s misconduct. Specifically, we have found traces for a sometimes competitive, sometimes affiliating role distribution. In fact, both speakers always tended to present oneself as good caregivers, thus acting in a way as to respect underlying normative expectations related to the specific context of taking care of young children. Moreover, storytellings are moments in which different types of asymmetries can arise and being talked about by the interactants. For example, asymmetries in relation to previous knowledge, but also in relation to long- vs. short-time experience with children are discussed and occasionally challenged by the two women. Co-participation in storytelling has also been shown to provide a possibility for strengthening the social relationship between the participants. Julie and Marie have often constructed a relationship of complicity through their respective affiliating responses throughout the conversations. Finally, the analyses revealed the importance of informal conversation in workplace settings “at the margins of the working agenda” (p. 102), that is, after the working day or during coffee-breaks. In fact, storytellings are occasions for the following to occur: for the participants to create or corroborate their personal relationships; for the au-pair girl to better understand what is expected from her; and for the host-parents to informally check on the work and duties they expect the au-pair girl to attend to. In our previous publication (2015) we undertook  a further step using the Framework for Application, in which we extrapolated the most useful and applicable aspects of our analyses. Generally, we think that our data highlight the importance to make future au-pair girls and host-­ parents more aware of the centrality of informal conversations, and especially of storytellings in multilingual contexts, during their time together. Such informal talk leads to a better understanding of all the participants’ duties regarding the children who are cared for. It also provides a more relaxed working and learning environment for the au-pair girls. More specifically, we suggested some possibilities for contacting all the stakeholders concerned in the organization of future au-pair girls’ stay abroad.

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

219

The main goal is to disseminate detailed information not only to the families or the au-pair girls, but also to the recruiting agencies that will contact and prepare future au-pair girls. This chapter is thus the natural continuation and application of the framework we proposed previously, and it adds to the field of AL and CA by broadening our understanding of discourse studies in general. I herewith report on my outreach attempts between June and October 2015 to disseminate CA-SLA research results in the professional world of au-pair girls. The need for dissemination of research output in this professional domain is particularly large. In fact, employing an au-pair girl is becoming a very normal way for working parents for having someone at home who takes care of their children for a relatively affordable cost (Hess & Puckhaber, 2004). However, the ways in which this professional relationship is organized and managed are not always clearly defined in advance, especially for the au-pair girls. This means that they often become au-pairs for families that are, for example, friends of friends or of relatives. In so doing, there is not always the possibility to discuss a work contract (with the consequence that it sometimes also does not exist at all), or the duties and responsibilities that an au-pair will be expected to carry out (Cox & Nerula, 2003). Since this type of difficulties was already discussed in the previous paper by Pochon-Berger et al. (2015), I now want to show how I have continued the focus on application and tried to disseminate our CA-SLA research results following the Framework for Application. I structure this chapter as follows: with a brief overview, I present  the main results of the paper in the first volume, highlighting especially the framework for application with the suggestions made at that time for a possible outreach to the “real-world” stakeholders. I then describe the framework for dissemination, that is, I explain how I contacted the stakeholders and I provide a report on their feedback. A subsequent section contains the summary of my outreach attempts. The final section closes this chapter with some reflections on what can be done further for the dissemination of CA-SLA research results, and the next steps I intend to take for reaching out to more stakeholders in the au-pair girls’ professional situation.

220 

C. König

 verview: Research Findings O and Their Applicability The interest in research at the interactions of home workplace settings has been rather scarce until recently. Two main directions have been followed: many studies have been conducted on dinner table conversations in families (see, among others, Erickson, 1990; Hall, 1993; Ochs & Taylor, 1992; Riedinger, 2012; Tannen, 2004; Vuchinich, 1990) and others have focused on conversations at the workplace. These studies have investigated the domains of news interviews and broadcasts, doctor-patient talks or work meetings (see, among others, Atkinson, 1982; Drew & Heritage, 1992; Greatbatch, 1988; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1991; Raymond, 2000). However, only few studies have brought together both aspects, family life and workplace including a discussion of the language learning issues at hand (see König, 2013, 2014). Pochon-Berger et  al. (2015) is one of the most complete articles addressing specifically this hybrid social and L2-learning context. It presents a conversation analytical investigation of storytelling between the au-pair girl Julie and her host-mother. Julie was an 18-year-old German-­ speaking au-pair girl, who spent ten months in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. The excerpts we discussed in the paper provided important insights in Julie’s daily routine. We focused on storytelling activities for different reasons: they happen very often, since they are the perfect way of reporting about the daily activities with the children. They also happen during “non-working moments”, such as while Julie and the host-mother are eating or drinking a tea. Moreover, telling a story is an interactional achievement that involves the participation of both speakers. This is particularly true when they realize a co-telling activity (see ex. 3  in Pochon-Berger et  al., 2015: 98), in which their stance taking as regards the events told and the conduct of a good caregiver are talked into being. Storytelling can be co-constructed as follows (I propose the first example of our chapter in the volume from 2015). In this example, Julie is talking about a habit of the child Jordan, who always has to go to the toilet right before leaving home:

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

221

(1) “pipi”, Julie 23.03.2010 01 JUL ah mais ts. jordan qui doit toujours faire au oh but    Jordan  who always needs to use the toilets 02 dernier mome:nt=eh (.) (h) (ha) [(h) ou: (h)ais(h)] at the very last moment 03 MAR            [(h)(...)  ] 04 (h) (h) 05 (2.8) 06 MAR ouais c'est un peu: (.) yeah it's  a bit 07 +pis- pis lui il prend du temps lui   and and it takes him    a long time 08 quand il le fait donc [euh: (hh) ] ((vibrating voice))+     when   he does it   so   ehm 09 JUL     [°oui° (.)]                 yes 10 >pis souvent il=dit< (.) j'ai fini=pis >°°je=dis  and often   he says    I'm done   and   I say 11 °°t'as fait v↑ite.<      oh that's  good you-     you  were  quick 12 (.) 13 JUL pis deux minutes après (.) .h +en fait euh j'ai pas encore: and two minutes  later       actually   ehm I'm not 14 ((slightly whispery voice))+ forcém(h)ent (h)fi(h)ni(h) .hh                    really      done yet 15 +je dois encore une fois ((slightly whispery voice))+ +aller: aux   I  have to go one more time             to the 16 toilettes.((low and creaky voice))+ toilet 17 MAR      pis c'est marrant, ça c'est- depuis qu'il est and   it's   funny     this it's-  it’s since  he was 18 tout petit [c'est toujours la même chose a little boy     it's    always   the same  thing 19 JUL [(ouais.)          yeah 20 JUL ouais=.h mais cette fois après il s'est vraiment dépêché, yeah=.h   but   this   time  after  he really hurried up 21 il est- il est couru euh les escaliers en-bas,   he     he     ran  ehm  down the stairs 22 et il a pris sa vEste, et puis il était dehors. and he took   his  jacket   and then  he   was  out

222 

C. König

The first aspect that is highlighted in this example is the way of presenting oneself as a good caregiver, while the child is doing something wrong or inappropriate. This happens by means of structural and prosodic cues (lines 13–16). Moreover, Julie and Marie create a growing sense of complicity through their affiliating responses in the story (lines 17 and 18)—especially Marie agrees with Julie’s stance taking, adding that Jordan has always done it since he was very young. Finally, different experiential knowledge is talked into being: while Marie can tell about long-term experiences with her child, Julie engages on a report about the events of that specific day. In this sense, the basic concept of how to deal with a child’s misconduct is interactionally challenged by the two speakers, who confront different experiences the child himself had. Our study highlighted the importance of such exchange-moments in the work of the au-pair girls. In so doing, we partially corroborated the already existing literature on storytelling activities at the workplace (cf. Bangerter, Mayor, & Pekarek Doehler, 2011; Hafferty, 1988; Orr, 1996) and partially confirmed the results of the previous studies done on spontaneous storytelling in families, such as Blum-Kulka (1997), Ochs, Smith & Taylor (1989) and Ochs, Tylor, Rudolph, and Smith (1992). However, we delineated also a peculiarity of our data, namely the hybridity of the L2 learning context when working as an au-pair girl. This aspect is reflected in different traits of the family conversations: in the collected data, we have found conversational moments in which the interactants orient towards an agenda, for example for organizing the next day’s activities, and other moments in which storytelling about one’s past experiences are oriented to by the collectivity. These two traits, more formal vs. more informal talk, intersect in daily interactions the au-pair girls have with their host-families, and they make the L2 learning contexts of these girls very different from, for example, the language classroom (cf. König, 2014). Our research thus sheds light on a learning environment that has also been somewhat neglected. In fact, the data we used stems from a larger research project, which was conducted at the University of Neuchâtel between 2010 and 2014. Collecting real conversations in the host-families proved to be difficult. On the one hand, the families themselves were reticent to let their talks

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

223

be recorded, and this was especially true because of the presence of minors. On the other hand, the au-pair girls often explained to us that they did not really have conversations with the host-parents, particularly because the parents worked a lot. Nevertheless, at the end of the project, we had collected about 54 hours of dinner table conversations between the au-pair girls and their host-families. The usefulness of such particular data is two-fold. First, they show how the L2 learning process takes place on a daily basis and how it is talked into being by the interactants themselves. This aspect relates to the development of interactional competence in a second language (see Hall, Hellermann, & Pekarek Doehler, 2011). As it has been shown in a growing body of research, the concept of L2 interactional competence must become more central in the domain of second language acquisition. L2 interactional competence is namely observable in the way(s) L2 speakers participate in conversations with the resources they dispose of at a certain moment. The object of analysis becomes, then, the method for participating in interaction: the questions to ask are for example how does the L2 speaker open or close a conversational task (cf. Hellermann, 2008)? How does s/he manages the conversational topics (cf. König, 2013, 2014; Pekarek Doehler, 2004)? How does s/he shows her (dis)agreement with her interlocutors (cf. Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2011)? How does s/he collaborate in  the construction of an object of learning (cf. Majlesi & Broth, 2012)? Shifting the attention from a mere linguistic level to the interactional level means, thus, to investigate a multilayered competence that cannot be reduced to vocabulary or grammar improvement. The daily participation in  L2 interactions contributes to the L2 learning process also because it contributes to the socialization of an “outsider” in the new language, culture and family. Recent CA-SLA studies have demonstrated how the development of L2 interactional competence is observable through the lens of one specific action (or actional microcosm, Fasel Lauzon, Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2009) since it can be shown to be achieved in a different way from the beginning to the end of a period of observation (cf. Cekaite, 2007; Hellermann, 2011; König, 2013; Nguyen, 2011; Rine & Hall, 2011). Second, the collected data can have a great value if it can reach the stakeholders concerned with the employment of au-pair girls. It is in fact

224 

C. König

true, or it is at least the impression we got after spending four years t­ alking to some au-pair girls, that the professional world in which they find themselves in is not really concerned with the didactic or pedagogical aspects related to the period abroad. This is deeply striking, since most of the girls go abroad because they want to learn or to improve a second language. This process is sometimes supported by a language course, which is attended by the au-pairs when they do not have to work. However, the greatest work they do for improving their L2 language skills is at home, with the members of the host-families. It is therefore surprising that the daily routines of au-pair girls—especially their conversations with the families—still remain underinvestigated. In this sense, the possibility of exploiting real conversational data is an attempt to expand the knowledge we have about the professional world of home employment. This is particularly true regarding the social and didactic aspects concerned. In the next section, I describe my efforts to contact some of the stakeholders concerned with the employment of au-pair girls. Then, I concentrate on the feedback I was able to get from the subjects I managed to engage.

Framework for Dissemination Initially, in Grujicic-Alatriste (2015a, 2015b), we were concerned with one major problem: “reaching out to the stakeholders in the domain of home employment because  we experienced difficulties  at the beginning of our research, since families are ‘out there’ in the world” (Pochon-Berger et  al., 2015: 105). Since we had to propose some practical steps to take in the direction of dissemination of our research results, we were sceptical about how to do that in the first place. We finally came up with three areas in which practical information might be needed, and with a plan of action for how to contact stakeholders at hand. We identified the following areas of concern: the moments in the families during which parents and au-pair girls can share their daily experiences while, for example, drinking coffee or tea, or just sitting on the sofa;

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

225

the usefulness for parents to enhance in those moments conversational storytellings about the au-pair’s daily experiences and duties; the ­importance of an increased awareness about the different roles of parents and au-pairs for themselves, that is, how their roles influence their duties, expectations and entitlements in the family workplace setting (employer-­ employee, host-guest, family member-outsider, etc.) (see Pochon-Berger et al., 2015: 104). In our opinion, especially two stakeholders could profit from the dissemination of our analytical work: the recruiting agencies and the host-­ parents. These are the two points on our second list: (i) the recruiting agencies might benefit from specific and goal-oriented trainings through which they, as mediators, can develop a deeper awareness of all the issues at stake for the au-pair girls during their period abroad, that is, not only organizational aspects but also social and L2-learning-related ones; (ii) the future host-parents should become more aware of all the issues at hand while they employ an au-pair girl since they are responsible for a positive and helpful working as well as learning environment at home. In addition to these two groups of stakeholders, I now add a third group, namely the au-pair girls themselves. The most important aspect of the dissemination work is related to the fact that the dissemination is relevant  for future stakeholders, that is, for au-pairs and families who might use this form of home employment for the very first time. The importance of dissemination and good information for these two groups is very clear: neither group knows what to expect from the onset of the relationship. Au-pair girls do not know what they will be confronted with when living for a long period of time in another family, nor do the hostfamilies know what is at stake when they accept to host a foreigner in their family, who will not only take care of their children, but also daily participate in their family routines. The possibility of discussing real data with these two groups might considerably improve their understanding of different aspects related to the home employment experience.

226 

C. König

As far as recruiting agencies are concerned, it can be of help to them to also “experience” what their clients daily share with each other. It will obviously be only a sort of an indirect experience, but it can show them what is at stake during such a stay abroad for the au-pairs and for the families. In so doing, they will be able to delineate a better strategy for preparing and informing both the au-pairs and the families, so that these two stakeholders can profit from this experience from the very beginning. In the next section, I outline my framework for dissemination and present the au-pair girls and recruiting agencies I contacted. Since I had no contact with host-families, I will not discuss this group of stakeholders.

Planning Early Stages for Dissemination The planning for the dissemination was chronologically organized and also separated for every stakeholder I wanted to contact. My first steps went in the direction of the au-pair girls and in June 2015 I was able to personally meet two ex-au-pair girls, that is, two girls who had already gone through this experience abroad. In the meantime, I checked on the Internet for au-pair recruiting agencies and associations. At first, I searched in every region, for example, in European countries but also worldwide. When possible, I left messages, wrote letters and tried in any way I could to contact the stakeholder I found interesting agencies or au-pair girls. Only two groups of stakeholders gave me some responses, the au-pair girls and the recruiting agencies. I will next present  a detailed  description of my outreach efforts  and the reactions (or lack thereof ) from the stakeholders.

Au-Pair Girls One of our initial goals was to reach as many stakeholders as possible. Although we were oriented towards recruiting agencies and host-­families, I thought that it would be very interesting and useful to directly contact future au-pair girls.

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

227

However, it should be noted that it is very difficult to contact prospective au-pair girls. As I have already explained above, this type of employment is mostly organized via private contacts, such as friends, relatives and acquaintances. In so doing, it is not always possible to know in advance the girls that will make this experience abroad, since this would be possible only if I, myself, knew families or other persons who were searching for an au-pair girl. This is a question I have asked many families I know with children between 1 and 5  years old,1 unfortunately with no success. Another possibility is to use flyers in schools in order to capture the attention of girls that might be thinking of doing an experience as au-­ pairs. The issue with a flyer is that, on the one hand, it should be interesting and have an “eye-catching” layout, however, on the other hand, it should also contain enough information for being considered serious. Otherwise, the school directors would not allow for it to be distributed in the schools. That is the reason why I have not used any flyers up to now, but this remains a possible dissemination way I can use in the future. The last possibility I have exploited was to contact the “Deutsch-­ Französisches Jugendwerk” (henceforth: DFJW).2 Since this is a transnational association, I thought that I could find some interesting contacts. Unfortunately, I was informed that they are not allowed to distribute the contact information of their members to third parties. I was allowed to write a post on  their announcement page, with which I have tried to stimulate the curiosity of prospective au-pair girls and host-families, specifically addressing the possibility of knowing in advance what they might encounter in their future au-pair experience. I also thought that maybe the girls who have already had this experience might be of help for my research. In fact, I knew one German I have chosen this age-range since in Germany, where I live, it is common that mothers stay at home from work for the first year of their children, so that there would be no need for an external help. When a child is 5 or 6 years old, s/he might start with school, so that s/he would be away most of the time in a day. This also influences the choice of not hiring an external caregiver. 2  This is the German-French Office for the Youth (my translation), which is a transnational cultural association with the aim of stimulating the contact between the youth and the adults in the domain of teaching of both German and French. More information can be found in their homepage: https://www.dfjw.org/aufgaben 1

228 

C. König

American girl that an au-pair girl in France a couple of years ago and who now lives in my town. So, I have decided to contact her. I will call her Helene.3 She is 23 years old and she spent one year in France just after finishing school. Moreover, through the help of my husband, I have been able to contact also Clara, a 19 years old German-Spanish girl, who spent one year in Finland as au-pair when she turned 18. This girl is the daughter of a colleague of my husband and she agreed to meet me to share her experience and look at my data. The contact with the recruiting agencies did not work so smoothly however, as I will show in the next section.

Recruiting Agencies The market of home employment is nowadays worldwide known and used. The data for our research project stems from French-speaking Swiss families. Since now I am living in Germany, I contacted German recruiting agencies and not Swiss ones: I thought to make  contacts first on a local basis, so that it would be easier for me to visit the agencies if they accepted to look at my data. In fact, I have found several private recruiting agencies in southern Germany that offer support for au-pair girls who want to spend a period of time in France. The connection between Germany and France seems to be well consolidated in this professional domain. Apart from the DFJW, I have contacted the following four agencies: –– Au pair World: http://aupairworld.de/english/index_e.html –– Au pair Agentur Merkel: http://aupair.agentur-merkel.de –– Au pair Vermittlung Anna-Maria Schlegel: http://www.aupair-ams. de/# –– Au pair Vermittlung und Beratung Giebner: http://www.aupaironline. info

 The au-pairs’ names I use in this paper are fictive for the sake of preventing their privacy.

3

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

229

All these agencies offer not only to match the families with prospective au-pair girls, but also to provide advice about administrative or insurance-­ related issues. I chose these particular agencies because they were located nearby. In so doing, I thought, if the agencies were interested in meeting and learning about my project and my data, then it would be easier to arrange a meeting, since I did not have to travel far. The contact worked through the contact form on their web pages. I sent them a formal letter, in which I briefly introduced myself and my research, indicating the links for getting more information about the research project at my home university in Switzerland. Subsequently, I explained why I contacted them: for showing them my data and discussing with professionals in the domain of au-pair girls. I did not make any suggestions for praxis since it was too soon for addressing possible changes, or possible ways for including me in their preparation work for prospective au-pair girls and host-families. One of the letters I used as an instrument for outreach is reproduced in Table 9.1 for easy access. After letting all these contact attempts work for a while, I was able to collect feedback from some of the stakeholders. In the next section, I describe in detail how the dissemination attempts worked.

Report on the Dissemination Attempts As described above, I went in two parallel directions: contact with the au-pair girls and contact with the recruiting agencies. The contact attempts took place between June and October 2015. Prospective au-pair girls could not be contacted; however, I had some very informative feedback from two girls, who had previously gone through this working experience. For the sake of clarity, I structure this section as the preceding one, that is, I report on the feedback from the au-pair girls and then about the feedback from the recruiting agencies.

230 

C. König

Table 9.1  A letter as an outreach instrument Sehr geehrte Damen, Sehr geehrte Herren,   ich heiße Clelia König und bin Doktorandin im Bereich der Gesprächsforschung an der Universität Neuenburg (Schweiz). Seit dem Anfang meiner Promotion arbeite ich mit Konversationen zwischen Au-Pair Mädchen und ihren Gastfamilien. Die Au Pairs haben die Konversationen freiwillig und selbstständig aufgenommen und sie mir dann regelmäßig weitergegeben. Ich habe diese Daten transkribiert und analysiert.   Seit einem Jahr beschäftige ich mich mit der Anwendbarkeit meiner gesprächsanalytischen Forschung für die beteiligten Parteien: Au Pairs, Gastfamilien und Agenturen bzw. Vermittlungsstellen. In einem bald zu erscheinenden Artikel schlagen meine Mitautoren und ich vor, uns mit den beteiligten Akteuren des professionellen Kontexts der Au Pairs in Verbindung zu setzen und mit ihnen über unsere Daten zu reden.   Aus diesem Grund nehme ich mit Ihnen Kontakt auf: Ich möchte Ihnen meine Daten zeigen (Transkription und Audiodatei) und mit Ihnen darüber reden. Idealerweise, würde ich gerne dieselben Daten auch künftigen Au Pairs und Gastfamilien zeigen. Eine bis zwei Stunden Zeit reichen mir schon. Meine Daten sind auf Französisch, d.h. sie eignen sich bestens für Au Pairs, welche diese Sprache als Muttersprache oder Zielsprache haben. Ich kann aber auch gerne eine Übersetzung der Transkriptionen machen, so dass auch andere Sprachen bzw. Au Pairs berücksichtigt werden können (ich kann Italienisch, Deutsch und Englisch anbieten).   Lassen Sie mich bitte bis zum 20.07.2015 wissen, ob Sie sich mit mir treffen möchten – ich wohne in Ehningen und bin relativ flexibel. Wenn Sie weitere Auskünfte brauchen, erreichen Sie mich per E-Mail ([email protected]) oder unter der Telefonnummer XXXX XXXXXXXX.   Ich hoffe, Ihr Interesse geweckt zu haben und freue mich auf eine baldige Zusammenarbeit mit Ihnen!

Au-Pair Girls The dissemination efforts as regards to  prospective au-pair girls were, unfortunately, not successful at all. Neither from the DFJW nor from any other personal contacts was I able to meet any possible new au-pair girl. However, I had interesting feedback from the past au-pair girls, although their feedbacks differed  in many respects (length, precision and evaluation). Helene gave me almost no feedback at all, limiting herself to say that it was a very bad experience. Since she organized everything privately, she had no work contract, had to take care of four children and had almost no contact with the host-parents, who were always away because of their

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

231

jobs. She seemed so upset  with  the host-family and  refused to tell me more about them. Clara’s feedback was fortunately more vivid and optimistic. She, too, organized everything privately: she met a girl from Finland while on holiday who knew a family searching for an au-pair girl. Clara contacted the Finnish family and received a regular work contract from them. Generally speaking, she had a very positive experience, during which she particularly appreciated spending a lot of time with the children (two children: six months and four years old). Moreover, she was able to start learning Finnish, though the host-parents engaged her for speaking German with their children. Finally, due to the precisely written working contract, she got extra income for extra working-hours and a very nice room with a private bathroom and an independent entrance. The most negative point concerned her relationship with the host-­ parents was the fact that they were never at home, not even during the weekends. This made it impossible for her to establish a relationship with them. They saw each other only for a moment in the morning, then the parents left home and Clara had to take care of the children. When the parents came home in the evening, Clara was rather relieved to let them be with their children and to go back to her room for having a break and some peace because she was very tired. However, under these conditions, no real relationship could be created between her and the host-parents. Since she seemed very interested in my research, I showed her two different excerpts from my data. I presented the first one just above, in which the au-pair girl Julie is telling a story to her host-mother about Jordan’s habit of always having to use the toilet right before leaving home. The second excerpt stems from the corpus of another au-pair girl, called Oksana. She is a 22-year-old Polish-speaking au-pair girl who spent six months in the bilingual part of Switzerland (German and French were the languages in the host-family). Her host-family presented a particular situation because the parents lived apart. Oksana lived in the house with the host-father and had to take care especially of the younger daughter, Nadège (two years old). The older daughter, Agnès, was not always present. In the following excerpt, the au-pair girl Oksana is playing with Nadège. The game consists of picking a sticker from the table and describing the picture on it.

232 

C. König

(2) “cochon” (pork), Oksana 22.10.2010 01 Oks eh::: quoi maintenant tu veux quelle . uh   what  now    you want which  sticker 02 Nad °°°ça°°°.    this 03 (.) 04 Oks °↑ça°.   this 05 (..) 06 Oks et c'est quoi ça? and what is this 07 (1.2) 08 Oks c'est::- (.) l'a(r)::bre, (..) cocho::n, (.) mexicain. it’s        the tree       pig       mexican 09 °°arbre°°.    tree 10 Nad +CO↑CHON? ((shouting))+    pig 11 (.) 12 Oks h.=oui c'est- .hh (..) cochon. >oui=oui< c'est comme ça?    yes  it’s       pig    yes yes    it’s like this 13 (...) 14 Oks c'est le nom de:: (.) de ce::- ↑cette? it’s    the name of    of  this-F.sing. 15 (..) 16 Oks poisson? fish 17 Nad AH. 18 (...) 19 Oks [attends eh.   wait   uh 20 Nad [(°°xx°°). 21 (.) 22 Oks où est cette poisson. where is this-F.sing. fish 23 (3.2) 24 Oks ((singing)) 25 (...) 26 Oks peut-être ic↑i:: peut-être ici. maybe   here  maybe   here 27 (..)

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home…  28 Nad

233

(vois).     see

29 (1.0) 30 Oks c'est ici ou non? °c'est comme ça°. it’s   here or not    it’s like this 31 (..) 32 Oks OUI c'est ça c'est l'↑a(r)bre (.) cochon mexicain. yes this is it  it’s    the tree     pig  mexican 33 (..) 34 Nad +AH:: COCH::ON? ((laughing voice))+   uh     pig 35 Oks ((laughter)) oui: ((laughter))         yes 36 Nad c'est o- cochon c'est ↑rose. it’s      pig   it’s   pink 37 (1.5) 38 Oks oui je sais mais c'est juste le no::m de c::e(tte) yes  I  know but   it’s  only  the name  of  this-F.sing. 39 poisson c'est pas co↑chon oui parce que c'est ↑poisson. fish    it’s  not  pig   yes because   it’s  fish 40 (..) 41 (1.2) ((Chi and Oks laugh))

To summarize, here is what seems to be happening in this exchange. Oksana is playing a game with the child, for which one has to pick a sticker and describe what is on it. The child picks a sticker that illustrates a very strange type of fish, for which Oksana does not really have a name or a precise description (lines 01–32). In the end, the child does not seem very convinced of Oksana’s explanation and asks for clarification (lines 33–41). I have chosen these two excerpts for two reasons: first, Julie’s excerpt was presented and discussed in Pochon-Berger et al. (2015). We stated that the activity of storytelling is central in the field of home employment, since it creates the possibility of exchanging one’s experiences and of establishing and maintaining the relationship between the aupair and the host-parents. Moreover, during the telling the interactants take stances as regard the reported situation, for example, a child’s mis-

234 

C. König

conduct. In this case, it is interesting to observe how two different subjects, the mother with a longer experience and the au-pair girl with the newer and daily one, take stances through the activity of storytelling and how both depict themselves as being good caregivers. I therefore wanted to check whether Clara was also aware of such issues or not. Second, Clara told me that she spent a lot of time alone with the two children and that she had therefore the chance to learn a bit of Finnish, a language she knew very little before travelling to Finland. The excerpt from Oksana’s dataset shows, in my opinion, a similar situation: Oksana has an intermediate level of French L2 and she is playing with the 2-year-­ old daughter. Since the game is one with cards representing different objects or animals, Oksana is “forced” to learn some new French words with the little child. Indeed, Clara was very impressed by both excerpts, especially the one with Oksana, since she had experienced a similar situation. She found the two excerpts very inspiring: on the one hand, because they came from real situations, on the other hand, because she would have been very happy to have looked at them before going abroad. To sum up Clara’s feedback, she had a rather positive experience in Finland. However, she highlighted how much she missed the creation of a relationship with the host-parents. This fact led to the consequence that they had almost no occasions for exchanging their opinions or experiences about the children, which is a very important aspect of being an au-­ pair. Although her work contract was well defined, no one really explained to Clara what the responsibilities she was assuming were for taking care of the children. She had no previous experience with babies (one child was only six months old), and she needed a lot of time and patience in order to create her own daily routine in which she had the time both for the baby and the older child. In the end, Clara made  two important suggestions. First, she thought that I should use my data for preparing future au-pair girls, since the data can really show them what will come up in a family. Second, she suggested that I should look for au-pair groups on Facebook. She meant

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

235

that, in so doing, I would come in contact directly with interested persons and families without having to go through the agencies.4

Recruiting Agencies The contact with the recruiting agencies was already put forth in Pochon-­ Berger, et al. (2015) as one of the most important steps to take for the dissemination of CA-SLA research output. In their role as mediators, recruiting agencies, we argued, need to develop a deeper awareness of all the issues at stake for au-pair girls and host-families during their time together. It is not only a matter of organization or insurance-related aspects. The future relationship between the girls and the host-parents, the L2 learning environment and the clarity as regards duties and responsibilities play a crucial role during the whole sojourn abroad. Interestingly, however, such aspects still seem to be neglected during the preparation period. As noted by Grujicic-Alatriste in her general Framework for Application in the 2015 volume: “The outreach can be planned to target the actual original setting of research […], a similar setting in professional places or,  I have indeed found four au-pair girls’ groups in Facebook and have sent them a message, also publishing it in a post on their pages (i.e. I have contacted them twice). The four groups are: “Au Pair en France”, “Au Pair International”, “Au Pair World” and “Au Pair Europe”. I have contacted them on 7 July with the following message: Hello everybody! My name is Clelia König and I am a PhD student at the University of Neuchâtel (Switzerland). For my dissertation and two articles that I want to write, I am searching for future au pairs and host-families to have a look at some interesting audio-data. In Switzerland, I have collected real conversations between au pairs and their families (all are anonymised) and now I wish to use these data for future au pair and families. Wouldn’t it be nice and interesting to listen to what is talked about daily? Could this be of use to better understand what is coming up? I would like to collect as much feedback as possible on the data ... so thank you for helping me! To be sure I am a serious researcher, you can find my thesis here: http://www2.unine.ch/islc/page-­ 34729.html (search for Clelia König), and the description of the whole research project here: http:// www2.unine.ch/islc/page-35039.html I can also send you per e-mail the articles I have already published about au pairs and second language learning, if you wish so. Please, feel free to contact me via e-mail with every question or clarification request you might have! My e-mail address is clelia.koenig@ unine.ch. I speak fluently Italian, German, English and French ☺ I hope to read from you soon! Best regards, Clelia Unfortunately, I received only one answer, but the person who wrote me was not identifiable, so that I could not trust her account and I decided not to include her answer in my research. 4

236 

C. König

more generally, related to places with stakeholders and practitioners who may be interested in the findings” (p. 12). Since the practice of employing an au-pair girl seems widespread, we proposed that the dissemination to the recruiting agencies should be done in the first line. For this reason, I chose some agencies that were not related to our research project, but that nonetheless specialize in the recruitment of au-pair girls. My choice was firstly dictated by the geographical location of the agencies: I thought that choosing some nearby would allow for an easier arrangement in case of a meeting. The first and most remarkable feature of this group of stakeholders is that they never responded to me. My contact forms and letters remained ignored. However, looking more carefully at their websites, I have found some letters and posts from the au-pair girls that they had worked with. The au-pairs have sent to the agencies some sort of report about their experiences abroad. I have collected a total of seven reports from the au-­ pair girls: three from France, one from England, one from Ireland, one from Spain and one from Germany (a Ukrainian girl spending a year in Germany). On the one hand, they all show some common features, that is, that the beginning of the experience abroad is rather difficult, especially because of the language and because they mostly have a separate room or a small apartment. Consequently, they do not really have much contact with their host-parents (these impressions confirm the observations in the studies by Calleman, 2010; Chuang, 2012; Hess, 2008; Macdonald, 1998; Schultes Kuroczycka, 2010). On the other hand, the au-pair girls also tell that they meet a lot of people, especially other au-­ pairs, that they visit many places and cities nearby (with friend or also with the host-family), and that they learn a lot about assuming responsibilities for someone else and organizing themselves for the whole day (see the publications by the “Millennial Traveller” report series, to be found on the Web Page of the International Association for Au-Pairs https:// www.iapa.org/research/publications/). During my dissemination attempts, two opposite situations have crystallized: negative experiences, or experiences that are very hard at the beginning but can turn to be better over time, and positive experiences from the very beginning. I therefore separate them when I present my results now.

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

237

Negative (or Difficult) Experiences In Pochon-Berger et al. (2015) we have pointed out that the relationship between the au-pair girl and the host-parents is sometimes difficult, because the parents work late, or because they do not think of planning a “debriefing moment” with the au-pair (while having a cup of tea or coffee and discussing the events of the day). I now show some excerpts from the reports I have introduced above, since the au-pair girls share  similar ­problems. The following reports stem from the webpage of the agency “Anna-­Maria Schlegel”. For example, Tatiana is a Ukrainian girl who spent one year in Germany. In her report, she highlights two main problems: the first concerns the difficulties related to her visa, since she needs it for living in Germany, and the second concerns the very complicated situations she found herself in. She namely had to change two host-families before finding one in which she felt well: In dem Moment, als ich nach Deutschland, nach Frankfurt am Main kam und ich durch meine Gastfamilie enttäuscht wurde, hatten Sie mir eine neue Familie gefunden. Aber als auch in der nächsten Familie in Heidelberg Probleme entstanden, war ich hoffnungslos und in völliger Frustration …. (In the moment, when I came to Germany to Frankfurt am Main and I was disappointed by my host-family, you found me a new one. But when there were problems also in that family in Heidelberg, I was hopeless and completely frustrated …)

Tatiana does not tell anything more precisely about the kind of problems she had with the first two host-families. Of all the reports I have found, this is also the worst one, that is, no other au-pair girl claims to have changed the host-family. In Tatiana’s report, the difficulties related to her visa play a crucial role: later on, she writes that she was happy with the third family, but since they had to move from one city to the next, she had again difficulties in getting all the documents she needed for staying in Germany. Moreover, she concludes saying that she will fly home for Christmas but that, although she has already bought her plane ticket, she still has no permission from the authorities for taking the plane. Tatiana, then, lives a very particular situation for which maybe not only the

238 

C. König

recruiting agencies but also the political, administrative and local authorities should grant a better support. The report of Annette, who spent one year in Paris, contains an initial claim that also goes in a rather negative direction. She writes: Bevor ich hier angekommen bin, hatte ich eine sehr idyllische Vorstellung von meinem zukünftigen Dasein als Au Pair. Die wurde bereits in den ersten Tagen und Wochen zerstört, leider! Es hat sich nämlich ­herausgestellt, dass die Kinder sehr verwöhnt und respektlos sind, zumindest der Junge. Am Anfang hatte ich es daher echt schwer, ich hatte einige Zweifel am Sinn meines Aufenthalts. […] Mit den Eltern habe ich mich meist gut verstanden, jedoch habe ich recht wenig Kontakt zu ihnen, da sie sehr viel arbeiten, insbesondere der Vater. Da ich in einer Gartenhütte im Garten der Familie wohne […] bin ich nicht so sehr in der Familie integriert wie ich mir das anfangs gewünscht hätte. (Before I came here, I had an idyllic conception of my future being as au-pair girl. This conception was destroyed already in the first days and weeks, unfortunately! It namely turned out that the children were very spoiled and irreverent, at least the boy. At the beginning it was therefore very difficult for me, I had doubts about the sense of my stay. […] I got along well with the parents, but I had really few contact with them, because they worked a lot, especially the father. Since I live in a small house in the family’s garden […] I am not very integrated in the family as I hoped for me at the beginning.)

The lack of contact with the host-parents is stated clearly in Annette’s report. Moreover, as reported also by Clara in the previous section, the au-pair girl had a little apartment on her own. If this is, on the one side, a positive aspect because she can enjoy some quiet after the whole day with the children, it is, on the other hand, a further obstacle to her integration in the family. If one takes the starting point of many host-families as being the hard working parents, who are away from home the whole day, then it is not too surprising to find such observations in the reports of the au-pair girls.5  In a similar way, the report of another au-pair girl in Paris, whose name is not included in the paper, indicates the major difficulties to be at the beginning of her stay: on the one hand, because she does not speak the L2 very well, on the other hand, because she is an outsider and the reticence of the children to spend time with her is a big issue to cope with. 5

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

239

Positive Experiences Fortunately, in addition to some challenges, my outreach also brought positive outcomes. During the dissemination and feedback gathering, I have met some au-pair girls who were really happy from the very beginning with their families. Interestingly, their comments on this point ­converge in a striking way by referring to their feeling like a member of the family. This is for example the case of Tecla, a German-speaking aupair girl, who spent one year near Paris. In her report, she states: “ich werde dort behandelt wie eine Tochter bzw. wie ein vollwertiges Familienmitglied” (I am treated like a daughter there respectively like a full family member). Another au-pair girl, who spent one year in Marbella (Spain), wrote to be very happy since she had a splendid relationship with the boy she took care of. This is another important point about the wellbeing of au-pair girls: since they have to spend almost all the day with the children, it plays a crucial role to achieve a trusting and stable relationship with them. Many of the girls are willing to study in the domain of pedagogy or education and it is very interesting to note that most of them have a deep sensitivity towards the difficulties of young children to socialize with foreigners. Consequently, they know that a lot of patience is needed to build a stable and trustworthy relationship with the children. To sum up, my dissemination efforts were not as successful as I had hoped, but they delivered nevertheless some important feedback that can be useful for the upcoming work with the CA-SLA research outreach. The effort to contact prospective au-pair girls has failed for now. However, since I have not used all the contact possibilities, it can be improved in the near future. From past au-pair girls I have received a very important feedback about the way the au-pair professional world works nowadays (especially through new exchange platforms like Facebook), and I therefore have new possibilities to exploit for searching prospective au-pair girls. Moreover, the telling of one’s past experience as au-pair girl has brought to light some aspects of this work that I had also found in my data. These are the possibility of learning a new language with children, the difficulties related with the establishment of a relationship with the host-parents and the growing awareness about

240 

C. König

the responsibilities one assumes when working as caregiver for children. These aspects are also treated in the reports I have found on the websites of the recruiting agency “Anna-Maria Schlegel”. As I feared from the beginning, the contact with the agencies revealed itself to be very difficult, and I think that it is because the agencies must handle the data in their possession in a very discrete way. However, I can try again in the future to contact more of them, without limiting myself to Germany. I discuss in more detail the next steps to be taken in the final section.

Suggestions for the Future Steps In order to present the full scope of dissemination, both the initial outline (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015a, 2015b) and the outreach and dissemination need to be considered. In Pochon-Berger et al. (2015), we suggested some steps for starting a dissemination of our research results in the “real world” of au-pair girls. Specifically, we identified two major possibilities: • contacting the recruiting agencies offering them support in form of, for example, trainings or workshops; and • contacting future host-families for better preparing future host-parents growing in them the awareness of the socialization issues going on during the time they spend with their au-pair girl. In addition to this, as suggested before, I thought that maybe a direct contact with prospective au-pair girls might be good for making them more aware of what is to expect in the new family abroad. When I started contacting the au-pair girls and the agencies, I did not really know what to expect. I knew this would be a difficult step, as it is often the case when scientific results need to reach “the real world” (Bygate, 2004; Roberts & Sarangi, 1999). I was a little disappointed about not getting a greater feedback from the agencies I contacted and also about not

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

241

reaching prospective au-pair girls. However, I was also happy to hear some positive comments both on my data and on the au-pair girl experience itself from Clara. Her contribution was useful for the reflexivity part of my study. I think that it is possible to draw one important conclusion and some suggestions for the continuation of this practical work. The conclusion concerns the work that still needs to be done for the dissemination of CA-SLA and discourse studies research results. It is central to get in contact with more stakeholders. The reaching trials need to be extended in several different directions. For instance, more German agencies can be contacted, without geographical limitation. Possibly, the southern and western countries might be more interested in French data because of their nearness to France. However, also agencies in bigger German cities like Berlin, Hamburg or Frankfurt could be a good match, since they could be interesting locations for prospective au-pair girls. In addition to German agencies, also French and American ones should be considered. French recruiting agencies might be interested in looking at the data since they will not have problems understanding them. Their counsellors might herewith develop reality-related feelings and impressions about the life of the au-pair girls abroad in a multilingual context. American recruiting agencies may be a bit more open-minded than European ones and this could facilitate the exchange and the contact. Moreover, answers and feedback from European and American agencies could become a starting point for a major comparison work of different preparation strategies, information flows and so on. I will start a research on the Internet or mobilize some of my personal contacts both in Europe and in the USA for getting in contact with the recruiting agencies. After presenting myself and my research, I can  try to share and discuss the data with their counsellors. A bigger effort should be made to reach prospective au-pair girls. The use of flyers in schools or universities and maybe also the use of announcements in  local newspapers can be of great help. Furthermore, a closer look at Facebook groups can reveal important aspects about such an experience abroad. Even if it is not always possible to contact the subjects, it may be feasible to read their reports, or questions, or doubts and to use

242 

C. König

it as a basis for improving the use of real conversational data in the preparatory phase before they leave their home country. When some contacts are created, then it is of great importance to stimulate the stakeholders’ attention as regard the educational issues related to such an experience abroad. As I have highlighted before in this chapter, most of the support provided by the recruiting agencies is limited to administrative or health-insurance aspects of travelling abroad. If these aspects are also important for being able to live and work in another country, two further aspects need to be included in the preparation: the L2 learning issue and the family-socialization issue. These are intertwined aspects: the L2 learning process takes place in the family, for example, during lunch or dinner. This means that the au-pair girls are not only learning a new language, but they are also being socialized in and through the new language. This is not at all a minor aspect, since it has been shown that au-pair girls having a regular contact with their host-parents also show an improved L2 interactional competence at the end of their sojourn (Berger & Pekarek Doehler, 2015; Farina, Pochon-Berger, & Pekarek Doehler, 2012; König, 2013). Informing the prospective au-pair girls and host-families about these two aspects should be one of the most important goals of the supporting mechanisms  made of institutions (schools and language schools, political authorities, recruiting agencies) and free-working subjects (experts from the domains of linguistics and sociology, for example, could be more integrated in the preparation of future au-pairs and families). The work with the stakeholders should not be too long or complicated, since families are very busy. Practically, I suggest to plan one meeting with the future host-parents, possibly with more than one family at a time. During the meeting, the organizers can start talking about the families’ expectations or ideas about the future period with the au-pair girl. Then I would let them look at the data, with only few comments and information in advance. In so doing, they will probably be less biased toward what they hear. After the listening, a more detailed work on the data can be done, elicitating the parents’ comments and impressions about what happens during the excerpts they hear. Finally, with simple words, the organizers can explain to them

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

243

the importance of planning some informal moments of exchange with the au-pair girls, first for creating a good work relationship, second for supporting her L2 learning process in the family. One meeting might be insufficient, but it can be enough if it is possible to discuss with interested host-parents what is at stake when they accept to host an outsider in their families. To raise the parents’ awareness centrality should be given to the positive aspects of this experience, such as the possibility of exchanging with the future au-­pair during a coffee-break or in the evening. In a similar way, prospective au-pair girls can be better prepared before their sojourn. If it is possible to contact them through associations or agencies, then with one meeting it is already possible to show the data, discuss it and see what first impressions the girls may have. In both cases, that is, with the host-families and with the prospective aupair girls, also counsellors from associations and recruiting agencies can be invited to the meetings: they will then be able to supervise the work of the organizers and to directly get feedback from the other stakeholders. I conclude by saying that a lot of work still remains to be done. The dissemination part is always more complicated than the research in itself, and it takes a lot of time and planning. This is so because it is with the dissemination that the researchers get in contact with the “praxis world”, which they might not know well (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004). It is then of great importance to present oneself and one’s research in an inviting way, so that the concerned people can see to what extent they can profit from it. It is however not merely a matter of “selling oneself well”. The CA-SLA research I have shown so far has the potential to indicate new ways of living daily routines and experiences. It shows especially how socialization happens and influences the construction of communities in families or other people’s groups (see also Hall, 1993). Socialization, then, is a central issue of our everyday life and it needs to be put forward when someone decides, like au-pairs do, to live and work, for a while, in another country and in another family. Informing them, their future host-families and their supporting recruiting agencies is a social responsibility of researchers and should be carried out with care.

244 

C. König

References Atkinson, J. M. (1982). Understanding formality: Notes on the categorization and production of “formal” interaction. British Journal of Sociology, 33, 86–117. Bangerter, A., Mayor, E., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2011). Reported speech in conversational storytelling during nursing shift handover meetings. PRO, 48, 183–214. Berger, E., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2015). Direct reported speech in Storytellings: Enacting and negotiating epistemic entitlements. Text & Talk, 35(6), 789–813. Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bygate, M. (2004). Some current trends in applied linguistics: Towards a generic view. AILA Review, 17, 6–22. Calleman, C. (2010). Cultural exchange or cheap domestic labour? Constructions of ‘au pair’ in four Nordic countries. In L. Widding Isaksen (Ed.), Global care work. Gender and migration in Nordic societies (pp. 69–96). Lund, Sweden: Nordic Academic Press. Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (2004). Making inter-relationality matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 225–228. Cekaite, A. (2007). A Child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 45–62. Chuang, J. (2012). The U.S. Au pair program: Labor exploitation and the myth of cultural exchange. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 36, 269–343. Cox, R., & Nerula, R. (2003). Playing happy families: Rules and relationships in au pair employing households in London. England. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 10(4), 333–344. Drew, P., & Heirtage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Erickson, F. (1990). The social construction of discourse coherence in a family dinner table conversation. In B.  Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its development (pp.  207–238). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Fasel Lauzon, V., Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2009). Identification et observabilité de la compétence d’interaction: le désaccord comme microcosme actionnel. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée, 89, 121–142. Farina, C., Pochon-Berger, E., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2012). Le développement de la compétence d’interaction: une étude sur le travail lexical. Tranel, 57, 101–119.

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

245

Greatbatch, D. (1988). A turn-taking system for British new interviews. Language in Society, 17(3), 401–430. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2015a). Framework for application of research findings: An introduction. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 1–24). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (Ed.). (2015b). Linking discourse studies to professional practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hafferty, F. W. (1988). Cadaver stories and the emotional socialization of medical students. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 344–356. Hall, J. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 145–166. Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hellermann, J. (2011). Members’ methods, members competencies: Looking for evidence of language learning in longitudinal investigations of other-­ initiated repair. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp.  147–171). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Heritage, J., & Greatbatch, D. (1991). On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmermann (Eds.), Talk and social structure (pp.  93–137). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hess, S. (2008). The boundaries of monetarizing domestic work: Au pairs and the moral economy of caring. In S. Metz-Gockel, M. Morokvasi, & S. Münst (Eds.), Migration and mobility in an enlarged Europe. A gender perspective (pp. 141–156). Opladen: Farmington Hills. Hess, S., & Puckhaber, A. (2004). Big sisters’ are better domestic servants?! Comments on the booming au pair business. Labour migrations: Women on the move, special issue of. Feminist Review, 77, 65–78. König, C. (2013). Topic management in French L2: A longitudinal conversation analytic study. In L.  Roberts, A.  Ewert, M.  Pawlak, & M.  Wrembel (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Vol. 13, pp. 226–250). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. König, C. (2014). Competenza interazionale in francese L2: l’esempio della “parola ripresa” nella conversazione familiare. Linguistica e Filologia, 34, 135–165.

246 

C. König

Macdonald, C.  L. (1998). Manufacturing motherhood: The shadow work of nannies and Au pairs. Qualitative Sociology, 21(1), 25–53. Majlesi, A. R., & Broth, M. (2012). Emergent learnables in second language classroom interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 193–207. Nguyen, H.  T. (2011). Achieving recipient design longitudinally: Evidence from a pharmacy intern in patience consultation. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S.  P. Doehler (Eds.), L2 Interactional Competence and Development (pp. 172–205). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ochs, E., Smith, R., & Taylor, C. (1989). Detective stories at dinnertime: Problem-solving through co-narration. Cultural Dynamics, II(2), 238–257. Ochs, E., & Taylor, C. (1992). Family narrative as political activity. Discourse & Society, 3(3), 301–340. Ochs, E., Taylor, C., Rudolph, D., & Smith, R. (1992). Storytelling as a theory-­ building activity. Discourse Processes, 15, 37–72. Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Une approche interactionniste de la grammaire: réflexions autour du codage grammatical de la référence et des topics chez l’apprenant avancé d’une L2. Acquisition et Interaction En Langue Etrangère (AILE), 21(1), 123–166. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). Developing methods for interaction: A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in French L2. In J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 206–243). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pochon-Berger, E., Pekarek Doehler, S., & König, C. (2015). Family conversational storytelling at the margins of the workplace: The case of au-pair girls. In L. Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 86–108). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Raymond, G. (2000). The voice of authority: The local accomplishment of authoritative discourse in live news broadcasts. Discourse Studies, 2(3), 354–379. Riedinger, K. (2012). Family connections: Family conversations in informal learning environments. Childhood Education, 88(2), 125–127. Rine, E. F., & Hall, J. K. (2011). Becoming the teacher: Changing participant frameworks in international teaching assistant discourse. In J.  K. Hall, J. Hellermann, & S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 244–267). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

9  Outreach and Collaboration with Au-Pair Girls in Home… 

247

Roberts, C., & Sarangi, S. (1999). Hybridity in gatekeeping discourse: Issues of practical relevance for the researcher. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 363–390). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Schultes Kuroczycka, A. (2010). “I’m not a maid!” – A critical look at Au pairs vis-à-vis migrant domestic workers. Journal of Research on Women and Gender, 1, 75–97. Tannen, D. (2004). Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 37(4), 399–420. Vuchinich, S. (1990). The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict talk. Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations (pp.  118–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. List of contacted recruiting agencies: –Au pair World.: http://aupairworld.de/english/index_e.html –Au pair Agentur Merkel.: http://aupair.agentur-merkel.de –Au pair Vermittlung Anna-Maria Schlegel.: http://www.aupair-ams.de/# –Au pair Vermittlung und Beratung Giebner.: http://www.aupaironline.info

10 Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle School Bilingual Youth Ruth Harman, Kate Batson, and David Forker

In the height of the post-Civil Rights era, applied linguists saw ethnography as an optimal way to represent and research social inequities in the schooling of bidialectal and bilingual students (Heath & Street, 2008). Ethnography of communication (EOC), for example, provided researchers with a lens to explore language socialization of immigrant learners into the sociocultural assumptions and values of a dominant discourse community (e.g., Cazden, John, & Hymes, 1972). Despite the focus on institutional and societal inequities, however, the research rarely explored the underlying power differentials among researcher/teacher/language

R. Harman (*) Department of Language and Literacy Education, University of Georgia, College of Education, Athens, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. Batson • D. Forker Department of Language and Literacy Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_10

249

250 

R. Harman et al.

learner and other community members (Harman, 2013). Instead, the participant-observer in classroom ethnographic research tends to be conceptualized as a “potential contaminant, something to be separated out, neutralized, minimized, standardized and controlled” (Fine, Weis, Weseen & Wong, 2000). To support shifts in these research and school discursive practices, critical qualitative research on Latinx youth literacy has been informed predominantly by sociocultural perspectives on equity and power dynamics (Martínez-Roldán & Fránquiz, 2009). In this vein, Gutierrez (2008) called for the creation of an educational third space where voices of researchers, teachers, and students are co-articulated through collective literacy processes and a cultural-historical approach to schooling. For similar reasons, researchers have focused on developing transformative approaches to youth participatory research (YPAR). Informed by Freire’s (1970) concept of praxis—that is the recursive connections between reflection and action—YPAR positions students as active researchers and agents of change in their schools and communities (Cammarota & Fine, 2008a, 2008b). As Cammarota and Fine (2008a) state, YPAR “is explicitly pedagogical, with implications for education and youth development. Students study their social contexts through research and apply their knowledge to discover the contingent qualities of life” (p. 6). Within this framework, arts-based processes such as theater, poetry, and dance can be used to generate collective action and interest in local community issues (e.g., Davis, 2009; Ginwright, 2008; Harman, Varga-Dobai, Bivins, & Forker, 2013). Through the use of theater, storytelling, social action, and discussion, minoritized youth use their developing academic and social English to voice sociopolitical and cultural interests (Davis, 2009). This chapter reflects on our arts-based participatory research with Latinx middle school students and their teachers in the Southeast of the USA, which took place over the course of eight years. Specifically, informed by the theoretical framework of this edited volume (Grujicic-­ Alatriste, 2015), we share our process of first finding access to the school, deciding on how to work with our participants, how to collect and analyze data over time, and how to disseminate the work. We also explore

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

251

how this approach helped (or not) to disrupt traditional power ­differentials in classroom action research (e.g., researcher/participant; student/teacher; university professor/ESOL teacher). To also disrupt the conventional academic format of chapters of this nature, but in line with our collaborative approach to research and teaching, we have divided our narrative into two distinct voices: Voice One provides a firsthand narrative account of our research processes and challenges; Voice Two provides meta-commentary on the narrative, drawing from qualitative literature research and Grujicic-Alatriste’s (2015) Framework for Application as we discuss our dissemination process and engagement with research stakeholders. We hope this format provides readers with an understanding of the different stages of our research and if and how this type of approach can be taken up and implemented in other schools or community contexts.

Why Conduct This Research? Voice 1 To imitate bell hooks (1994) in Teaching to Transgress, I would first like to cast an autobiographical eye on my own formation as a creative writer and educational researcher to explain why I am particularly interested in the research I conduct with multilingual youth and educators in and out of school classrooms. The purpose of my culturally sustaining systemic functional linguistics praxis (see Harman, 2018) is to support youth in conveying their insights and dreams, to become civic and artistic leaders in their communities, and to break from their often minoritized subjugation in institutional discourses. I have seen firsthand how the dynamic cultural, multimodal, and linguistic repertoires of bilingual and bidialectal youth get shut down through policing practices that scrutinize their every move. For example, at the school we discuss in this chapter, children are required to line up along the walls during class breaks and move in semi-circular patterns to the next classroom without talking to or touching anyone.

252 

R. Harman et al.

I come from a divided nation, where Protestants and Catholics still fight for British recognition or Irish nationality, especially with the current debate about Brexit. As a woman from a postcolonial country whose native language (Irish) is not used and whose country has been split in two since 1922, I harbor anger against social inequity and lack of language rights. In the USA, where I research and live, I am an immigrant but one that is positioned favorably because of my freckles and red/white skin. I see how my skin color and class prevail over my immigrant status and feel humbled in front of my Latinx middle and high school youth participants whose lives are continually threatened by new waves of mean-spirited immigration and language policies.

Access and Relationship Building Voice 1 When moving to the Southeast from the Northeast of the United States, I became acutely aware that the sociopolitical context was completely different from the north. I realized I would need to spend time in schools getting to know the institutional practices of the schools as well as the cultural and linguistic resources of the bilingual learners before conducting any action research. I was fortunate in meeting a highly talented English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teacher, Kelli Bivins, during my first semester at the University of Georgia. She invited me to spend time with her at Chestnut Middle School, which afforded me with the opportunity to get to know her classes of emergent bilingual learners, other teachers, and the social context of the school. It was through the relationship that I developed with Kelli that I began to engage with the lives and school experiences of mostly Spanish-speaking bilingual learners from El Salvador, Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras. In our first year working together, Kelli designed and taught a long curricular unit on children’s human rights. My first research assistant and I spent long hours with her at the school, learning to appreciate her Freirian (Freire, 1970) approach to teaching while taking field notes to document the classroom and school practices.

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

253

It was after my first full year at the research site that Kelli and I decided to co-construct an arts-based curricular approach to English Language Arts that we hoped would position her students as dynamic co-­researchers of civic issues self-selected by the students. In my previous work with middle school students and teachers in Massachusetts, I developed a critical performative pedagogy with a colleague (Harman & French, 2004; Harman & McClure, 2011). Our approach used the arts to interrogate social equity issues in embodied ways. Kelli felt a similar approach in her ESOL classes would support her bilingual learners in building a strong community of practice. Because I was at the school for long hours each week working with teachers and students, planning for projects, and teaching a graduate-­ level course onsite, I got to know other teachers and the administrators as well. This relationship building was pivotal in establishing what became a ten-year partnership at the school, one that would grow each year into new sets of relationships, research projects, and connections between the school and the university. Indeed, I was also fortunate at Chestnut to meet David Forker, third author of this chapter, who joined our research team as the other ESOL teacher at the school. David had been teaching at Chestnut for several years and had been recently accepted into the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and World Language Education doctoral program as one of my advisees. As David worked very closely with Kelli at the school and with me at the university, I quickly realized that his part in the project was going to be very complex. I advised David to begin his graduate studies by taking a course focused on content-based language instruction which I was teaching onsite at Chestnut. Because David was also a teacher at Chestnut, I leaned heavily on him to help arrange spaces for our classes and meetings, communication with the building administrators, and access to other teachers and classrooms in the building. While all of this developed quite smoothly, I later realized that the position David was in created a fair amount of tension with consideration to capacity and power dynamic. Of course, as a school employee, David had to be sure he attended to his duties and responsibilities such as a full teaching schedule as well as various other duties and responsibilities throughout the building. In addition, he was

254 

R. Harman et al.

frequently called upon for assistance with interpretation needs with families as he was one of only a few Spanish-speaking adults in the building. Fortunately, each year the research team from the university became a larger group and the number of teachers working with us on youth projects and professional development workshops in the school also increased.

Voice 2 Ruth’s journey described above illustrates the importance of remaining in the field long before beginning one’s own research. Through Ruth’s fortunate encounter with Kelli, which developed into a friendship spanning more than a decade, Ruth gained access to Chestnut Middle School. Kelli acted as an initial gatekeeper for Ruth to the research site, helping Ruth “access the community through introductions and by establishing a relaxed or appropriate environment for the research process” (Jenson, 2008, p. 2). Since researchers may not always have the type of relationship and support that Ruth developed and received from the community they wish to enter, those looking to gain access to a site should remember that establishing and maintaining relationships with community members is an active and challenging process. The strength of those relationships may have significant implications of how much site access is granted (Mason, 2018, p. 153). Furthermore, although Ruth had developed into an insider from her continuous presence in the school for more than a year, participatory action research also requires intense researcher initiative to not only sustain site access but also build trust and rapport with those already established community members in the site which entrance was sought. Ruth’s relationship with David Forker, for instance, was an important point of contact with many teachers in the school, especially as he took her course on site while also teaching at the school. However, as a full-time teacher, David and other teachers involved in the project were often exhausted and split between time commitments to the youth research team and to their regular work at the school. Ruth’s relationship with David and others was crucial in gaining knowledge and understanding of the school practices. However, the ideal school-university partnership relationship

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

255

would be for teachers to be supported through financial or time compensation when taking part in what the school acknowledges as beneficial for its students. Another issue for university researchers is that often they are viewed as outsiders to the community, and the community may be reluctant to accept a researcher as a participating member, rather than a researcher simply providing a service. This issue is exacerbated when researchers fail to attend to the “participatory” nature of their action research, not realizing the expectation of how much participation is necessary for communities under study (Gray, Finch, Davis, & Phillips, 2000). In the same vein, it must also be recognized that conducting research employing a participatory methodology does not necessarily erase or equalize the power relations that are at play between professional researchers, teachers, and student participants (Jordan, 2008, p. 602). Thus, in employing a methodological approach that is participatory in nature, one must acknowledge those power relations and attempt to dismantle the researcher-participant divide. It is evident that building relationships are fundamental to successful participatory action research (Gray et al., 2000), and that the formation of those relationships significantly impacts the success or failure of the application of research findings (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015). Achieving such an atmosphere within the school required that Ruth presents her research expectations in a transparent manner, takes time to learn about the community before beginning research, builds informal and strong relationships with community members, navigates power relations, and maintains honest and open discussion with those directly, and indirectly, involved in the research (Bradbury, 2015). Overall, gaining research site access was a multilayered and complex process. On one hand, there was the consideration of access to the physical site. This access required adherence to institutional guidelines such as Internal Review Board (IRB) requirements, participant forms such as consent and assent forms, as well as various other requirements and permissions as determined by participating institutions. On the other hand, there was a process of gaining site access that was concerned with collecting meaningful qualitative data. This notion included relationship building and carefully planned use of resources (e.g., recording devices,

256 

R. Harman et al.

notebooks). It was our aim as researchers in a new site to minimize the effects we and any of our recording devices had on research participants. In doing so, we attempted to eliminate, or at least minimize, any contaminating effects (Speer, 2002) our work and presence as researchers might have had on gathering data and relationship building with our youth and teacher members.

 esigning and Conducting Research D with Youth Voice 1 When we began our research at Chestnut High School in 2010 and 2011, anti-immigration policies had made the lives of immigrant students and the pressure on their teachers highly challenging in Georgia. For example, a recent ban in October 2010 by the Board of Regents prevented– and still does–talented undocumented students from gaining admission to the higher ranked universities in the state. Other types of anti-­ immigration legislation also were being proposed and passed in the state legislature (e.g., see HB 87, 2011). Understandably, such anti-­immigration policies and practices triggered huge anxiety among the home communities of student participants in this study. When we worked with the ESOL classes in 2010 and 2011, many of our immigrant students lived in constant fear that their parents or friends would be taken away at night by immigration, resulting in the children being put in state custody (Harman Notes, April 2010). Because of the increasingly anti-immigration climate in the state and the arbitrary language policies in their school, Kelli Bivins and David Forker were anxious to use a critical arts-based approach that would support their students in voicing and researching their sociopolitical and cultural interests while developing academic literacy. Our team embraced the view that students’ potential to learn, as Lave and Wenger (1991) state, is determined by how they are positioned within the “social structure of the community of practice, its power relations and its conditions

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

257

for legitimacy” (p.  98). Together we began designing our arts-based approach where we used performance, storytelling, lectures on immigration, and writing of a school newspaper to position students as civic agents of their learning (see Harman & Varga-Dobai, 2012). The purpose of our arts-based participatory approach in Spring 2010 and Fall 2010, with ten Latina and one Italian/Senegalese language learners, was to support all of us in experiencing literacy as a collective social process that would include exploration, research, and dissemination of the students’ burning social issues. Arbitrarily placed in a single-sex ESOL classroom, the 11 girls in our focal ESOL classroom in Spring 2010 had been in the US educational system for three years or less and struggled daily with the complex literacy demands of the mainstream middle school curriculum. They belonged to a growing number of students who participated in a non-English discourse community at home but who received little or no academic instruction in their first language and often inadequate literacy support in English (Menken & Kleyn, 2009). In fact, the student participants in this study only received scheduled ESOL instruction for 50 minutes on two or three days a week based on an alternating schedule even though most were newcomers to the United States. Because our new student population was often marginalized and effectively silenced by the mainstream communities in their home lives (e.g., primarily trailer parks where they lived had no public transportation to the town), the research team felt their voices and sense of agency needed to be key instruments in determining the curricular approach we used. Similarly, Davis (2009), in working with second language youth in Hawaii, focused on how students investigated linguistic and power differentials in “third spaces” of identity formation through participatory action research and critical discourse analysis. Davis argued for a re-­ envisioning of agency as a process that supports the right of youth to engage in a critical inquiry that holds promise for policy and pedagogical transformations. Kelli, Kinga Varga-Dobai, David, and I met for a month before the beginning of school to plan the curriculum as much as we could, given that the students would decide what to focus on in our work together. We also met each week during the project to determine how to support the work that our youth members wanted to accomplish. Outlined below is

258 

R. Harman et al.

Table 10.1  Research process History of our names through theater games Sharing of student and teacher family narratives (e.g., about La Llorona) Boal’s (1979) theater techniques used to identify social issues; voting and decision on what social action to use to address identified social issues Key concepts about informational writing and examples from local newspapers as models for expository writing Research, community interviews, immigration lecture, and drafting of informational texts Publication of newsletter and public performance for families on Cinco de Mayo Creation of theatrical script and power point for conference Presentation at Women’s Studies Conference and university forum (Fall 2010)

how this research process supported our group decision-making as to how and what we would do in our six-month partnership together (Table 10.1). What the curriculum outlined above illustrates is the process that the adults and youth decided to follow in our work together. The youth members determined the social action they wanted us to do such as writing a newsletter, performing for community audiences, and presenting at a conference. In later instantiations of the youth work at the school, the youth built models of what they wanted to see added to the school resources and presented their arguments for how these resources should be implemented in front of the principal of the school (see Harman, Siffrinn, Mizell, & Bui, in press). The adult researchers acted as facilitators of the process, developing mini-lessons, for example, on how to create a newsletter online or how to build a 3D design of a building. Over the years at the research site, the first smaller arts-based project with Kelli and other teachers opened a pathway at the school for increasingly larger projects with more youth and graduate students taking part. The first project set the seed for our learning about youth culture and for the school to become accustomed to having our type of arts-based projects at the school. In subsequent years, we ran a storytelling and performance project where youth shared their stories with the larger city community (see Harman, Johnson, & Chagoya, 2016). We also ran inquiry projects that supported youth and adults in delving into urban environment and design (Harman et al., in press).

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

259

Voice 2 The research context in the projects described above at Chestnut Middle School all involved youth from marginalized communities. As such, it was important to use a participatory approach that supported youth in seeing themselves as a full center of the research, as sources of knowledge, and as civic agents who could bring about social and institutional change. Distinguishable from critical youth studies, YPAR at its core is a form of resistance—one that makes a call for both systematic and institutional transformation (Cammarota & Fine, 2008a, 2008b). Research on YPAR has documented how this methodology can lead to changes in institutional culture. Romero et  al. (2008) present a YPAR project known as the Social Justice Education Project (SJEP), a social science curriculum in which Latino/a students conducted research on educational injustices, later presenting their findings to school system officials in the form of presentations, newsletters, video documentaries, and reports. Berg, Coman, and Schensul (2009) demonstrate the potential for YPAR to support youth in engaging with social action in their schools. Through their Youth Action Research for Prevention (YARP) intervention, minoritized youth researched prevalent issues (e.g., risky sex, teen dropouts, hustling) that affected teens in their town of Hartford, Connecticut. The youth’s research produced changes at the institutional level—youth presentations to health educators yielded additional consideration into efficient and relevant ways of presenting health education topics to youth. Youth researchers also developed a youth-led job service in a school counseling center. As Grujicic-Alatriste (2015) illustrates, the academy has far too long neglected the voices of real-world people within the research. This is not to say that those people—such as students, teachers, and practitioners— are not central to current research, but rather they are rarely positioned as pivotal voices in the research process. In other words, we need to develop trusting relationships and collaborative partnerships with our participants if our work is to have meaning and impact within educational institutions or other communities of learning. Thus, YPAR as a methodology inherently rejects the top-down analyst driven use of findings and centers the youth and their teachers as researchers who employ their own research findings to promote, enact, and change.

260 

R. Harman et al.

Data Collection Voice 1 During the first year of my research project with Kelli in 2010, we focused on videotaping all interactions of youth and adults and on collecting all written artifacts of students. Our purpose in doing this was to explore if and how our youth participants changed their writing and oral interactions over time. Because the first project was within the school day, we felt that written and oral literacy development needed to be an important investigation. We wanted to have evidence to bring back to administrators in the school and a larger audience to show if and how higher investment levels and learning agency supported shifts in language and literacy development. Our subsequent projects with youth at the school were held after school, which provided us with more freedom in terms of focus. In these projects, we focused more on multimodal assemblage, and as a result, we collected all the drawings, maps, 3D buildings, and other artifacts made in different materials and modes. Our focus of research also changed in the later projects, so our focus of analysis moved more to verbal interactions among adults and youth and on multimodal construction. In other words, the purpose of our research changed when we moved from within the school day to a freer after-school space.

Voice 2 Projects like the ones briefly touched on above demonstrate how qualitative research projects can develop methodologically within longitudinal studies. Through the germinal project conducted at Chestnut Middle School, initial insights and information led to the emergence of new data collection and analysis procedures. As the project goals and research ­questions Ruth and others aimed to answer changed, it was necessary to alter the research design (Fetterman, 2008). Although Ruth and fellow researchers had gained access and were considered “insiders” in the Chestnut Middle School community, the emergent and dynamic nature

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

261

of qualitative research nevertheless required that researchers negotiate between “both an ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ research identity” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2010, p. 4). As researchers immersed in action research projects within Chestnut Middle School over many years, Ruth and collaborators were indeed insiders. Yet, as the research design changed over time, so did their positionality, becoming “explorers, outsiders who pose new research questions with unfamiliar research techniques” (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2010, p.  4). With each new project, it was important that researchers remained adaptable and flexible in the research design, following new paths and leads as they came to judge and better understand the observations and responses from the site.

Data Analysis Voice 1 When Kelli and I designed the first arts-based youth project, we wanted to explore how the students participated in the project through investigation of their oral and written texts. We also wanted to explore their burning insights about what needed to be challenged and addressed in their communities and schools. The first stage of our analysis was a thematic exploration of all the data we had selected, focusing on the type of issues raised in discussion, the stories that we shared over time, and the presentations and performances. After that, we used systemic functional linguistics (SFL) to analyze linguistic and rhetorical patterns in the oral and written classroom discourse (see Eggins, 2004; Halliday & Matthiesen, 2004). We looked at ideation (i.e., representation of ideas, experiences) and appraisal (i.e., implicit and explicit evaluation) to explore how these patterns construed the subject matter and evaluative stance over time. Analysis of the drafts of student writing and discussions that revolved around the research process and the writing of the community newsletter highlighted the strong sense of commitment and interest the students felt in conducting their research. For example, a linguistic analysis of the students’ freewriting about the topics that they had decided to develop

262 

R. Harman et al.

Table 10.2  Student texts and analyses Clarita’s free write about abrupt deportation

Rosa’s free write about abrupt deportation

Abrupt deportation means that the I feel bad of abrupt deportation because it is happening at Walmart and I don’t immigration people are taking like when they say the police well not Hispanic people to where they the police but the Migra was at were born. What that happens it WalMart. And I don’t want {I want} to makes me feel sad, scared and live in GA because is very beautiful and angry because I don’t want {it} to because we can send money to my happen to people that I know. family my parents and uncle got a job, Sometimes the immigration people but I feel very sad. Sometimes I ask take the parents and leave the myself why does immigration deport children the Hispanic people but I feel very sad Analysis Analysis: Lexical choices highlight Use of repetition (bad/sad) and the evaluative stance of writer expressions of negative emotion (I (take them to where they were don’t like, I don’t want, I ask myself born; leave the children) and why) to express an opinion about the explicit expression of emotion (sad, issue. Heteroglossic inclusion of family scared, angry) members also in the text (my family, my parents, and my uncle)

showed that they used high appraisal (e.g., exclamation points, modality and affect) to convey their views on the topics they had chosen. The illustration below shows two of the girls’ texts that demonstrate such use and the subsequent analyses (Table 10.2). In our subsequent projects held after school, our focus was different. We were now more clearly focused on questions of the environment. We wanted to explore the limitations and affordances of the modes we introduced in the after-school arts programs (e.g., mapping, building with clay and blocks, drawing, and designing 3D artifacts). In these more recent programs, we also were more concerned about analyzing the overall curriculum design of the project as we wanted to see how our sequenced use of curricular activities and resources supported cumulative knowledge generation among youth participants in our programs. For this reason, our SFL focus on language expanded in the later iterations to a focus on Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF MDA). For example, we used the SFL construct of mode (i.e., digital, face-to-face channels of communication) to explore how focal youth participants

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

263

availed of nonverbal and verbal semiotic resources on a continuum from less to more verbal (e.g., students’ use of gestures and action to accompany their verbal explanations). Similarly, we coded the data to illuminate how intersemiotic meaning-making occurred. For instance, the analysis revealed how students constantly drew on a range of multimodal resources to expand and elaborate on their ideational meaning (e.g., students’ use of maps in articulating the school’s spatial dimensions). Overall, our extended period of research collaboration with youth and teachers at Chestnut Middle School provided us with a rich environment to build on our research from year to year. What started out in terms of data collection and analysis in the project with Kelli Bivins was a simple discourse analysis of the texts produced by students and the qualitative exploration of the study supported us in situating those texts in their context of production and dissemination. In the later projects, our focus shifted to exploration of the research design itself and how our work could be refined each time. We wanted to support our youth learners in re-mixing modes and embodied expression in freer and less constrained ways.

Voice 2 As is evident above, discourse analysis, a methodology that has various applications across disciplines, can be used to serve very different purposes. Initially, discourse analysis of the students’ written work and class discussions assumed the most general sense of “discourse”—the study of language as it expressed through conversations or within documents (Cook, 2008, p. 216). In later projects, SF MDA was used to analyze the multiple semiotic resources that students drew upon to make meaning. SF MDA takes into account the functions and meanings of various modalities jointly with the meaning that arises from the combination of these modalities (O’Halloran, 2004). Thus, discourse analysis can be employed to analyze language as an isolated phenomenon or language together with other semiotic resources. Digital recorders played a key role in the SF MDA analysis of the semiotic resources students used during meaning-making and helped in the

264 

R. Harman et al.

trustworthiness of the overall design (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). It is important to note, however, that approval to use digital recorders—especially the use of video recorders—required approval from IRB. In addition to gaining consent from IRB to gather this type of data, we as researchers had a strict ethical responsibility to ensure that our data collection methods and management, first and foremost, protected the confidentiality of the participants.

 issemination of Our Research and Response D from School Site Voice 1 Our ways of sharing our research to the school and beyond varied according to the purposes of our research. For example, in my first research study at the school, we wrote a report to the school district and to the university on the results of our analysis because it was required as part of the grant we had received. We also presented several times with our youth participants at various conferences (e.g., we spoke about selection of burning issues, use of the arts to convey our emotions about these issues, and our distribution of a community newsletter). On one occasion, we rehearsed with our youth members over a month for a national conference presentation. We also shared our work at a university forum on diversity and inclusion. Reactions to our work were mixed. At the national conference, the youth and adults were quite disappointed by the lack of interest in the insights of youth, even though the theme of the conference related to women and equity. At the university, the reception was warmer, with faculty asking questions and giving feedback that was thoughtful. In our first project, we did not share our research process in any direct way with the school as the administrators seemed overwhelmed and had little time to take part in our work. However, some of them did come to a Cinco de Mayo performance and heard what the youth had written. In our subsequent youth programs at Chestnut, we included the administrators as part of our project. Specifically, we invited members of staff to engage with arguments prepared by our youth with their co-­

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

265

researchers at a final performance. The youth shared through artistic and multimodal delivery their vision of a better school campus. Because some of our youth members returned to our programs from year to year, we also had the opportunity to attend national conferences with our youth and co-present with us on our findings about the importance and limitations of youth arts programs. We also gave workshops and wrote chapters about our work with our youth members (e.g., Harman et al., 2016).

Voice 2 As described above, the research team worked from the principle that the youth and teachers needed to be vital members of the dissemination process. As Grujicic-Alatriste (2015) and Keen and Todres (2007) have found, researchers for far too long have largely ignored a variety of alternative dissemination formats in favor of the all-too-common peer-­ reviewed journal. Other scholars, including Mullen (2003) and Barnes et al. (2003), have also pointed out that common modes of dissemination often favor academic audiences and unintentionally discourage any form of researcher action or application. Unfortunately, often application of research tends to “be more representative of rhetorical devices” than actual proposed action that will bring about some type of change (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015, p. 2). In the research presented above, researchers attempted to attend to Grujicic-Alatriste’s framework, keeping in mind that their action research necessitated action-based dissemination techniques. In particular, researchers focused efforts on the framework’s recommendations for tailoring dissemination approaches according to the intended audience and preparing tools that would be used not only to share findings with participants but also to include them in the dissemination of findings. YPAR positions participants as active researchers themselves. In considering the different modes of dissemination of research findings, we paid careful attention to tailoring our mode to intended audiences in hopes that the preferred research presentation format that stakeholders valued would elicit greater response and action. For example, keeping in mind that the representation of research will directly affect

266 

R. Harman et al.

which stakeholders the research will attract (Butler-Kisber, 2008), research findings from the initial project were presented as a report to the school district and university officials who may be more accustomed to and comfortable with that format. For subsequent projects, the preferred mode of dissemination was ultimately decided on by first centering the message source. In other words, as Saldaña (1999) notes, “the most appropriate mode of presentation for qualitative research must be ‘discerned’ by the researcher/artist” (p. 61). The message source, the wonderful youth researchers were collaborators over numerous projects, helped adult researchers decide which dissemination mode would be most powerful for the work that they (both adults and youth) had completed. Through the arts-based dissemination formats such as performances, the youth drew on all semiotic aspects of meaning construction (Norris, 2000) and made their voices and stories, which were once silenced, heard. The research processes described in this chapter also included the framework’s constitutive element of developing and employing tools that would promote active discussion and feedback on disseminated findings (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015). Yet, it was at this point in the projects that the researchers were often particularly surprised at the lack of interest by school district stakeholders in discussing the research findings and by scholars at the national conferences in interacting directly with the youth. Community members at the local level were much more engaged in the research proceedings and provided valuable feedback to the research team. As a goal of the researchers was to promote action, change, and discussion within the community, the researchers believe that the presentational formats for the research were successful.

Challenges and Limitations Voice 1 Our work at Chestnut Middle School was wrought with challenges, some caused by institutional factors and some caused by our own research and personal limitations. I highlight these difficulties in this section not to

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

267

discourage others from entering the field in similar ways but because the work humbles us continually. It is always a struggle, it is always a challenge. Institutional discourses and practices are resilient and highly constraining. Our small projects can be enlightening, and they can foster dynamic community partnerships; but at night we go home to middle-­ class neighborhoods, and youth participants take the bus to isolated trailer parks where not even a public bus service gives them the freedom to walk around downtown (see Chayoga & Harman, 2018). One major limitation in all our youth projects at Chestnut Middle School was the lack of insider adult community members in our projects. All adult members of the team were middle-class educators, whether teachers, graduate students, or professors. Although some of the adults were immigrants, people of color, and/ or bilingual learners, none of us lived in the home communities of the students. Unfortunately, because of the lack of public transportation in this city, it was impossible to recruit adult community members to become involved as they lived far from the school. Ideally, with grant money and more time to spend recruiting local community members and making sure they could come to the school, we could have conducted research in ways like the university/community partnership on the Texas-Mexico border (May et al., 2003). When conducting research with local community members called “promotoras” by the group, the university team trained the local members in conducting research, and the promotoras trained the university researchers in identifying key health issues that needed addressing. At first, the academic authorship was relegated to the university members, and the community-­ based research was relegated to the promotoras. However, by the end of the study, the power relations shifted with more equalized power among the researchers and community members. Another key limitation for us in conducting this research was the power differentials between adult and student learners. Because of their marginalization in mainstream classes at Chestnut and their lived experiences of racism and linguicism in their home communities, the youth members often felt silenced and threatened by Euro American teachers and administrators in the school. Although the arts-based approach encouraged them to trust the adult participants in the group and to see literacy as a collective process that could result in social action, there was

268 

R. Harman et al.

obviously still a great imbalance between us. For Ladson-Billings (2000), the social identities of the researcher inevitably shape the knowledge produced in ethnographic research projects: I assert that along with the gender of the knower, the race, ethnicity, language, class, sexuality, and other forms of difference work to inform (the researcher’s) relationship to knowledge and its production. (p. 413)

In the first project at Chestnut Middle, the imbalance of teacher and youth identities was exacerbated by our roles as language teachers within the school day. Instead of creating a third space for all classroom activities, there was a divide between the more collective processes such as the voting and the writing of the newsletter where Kelli and the other adult participants supported the youth in writing in an informational genre. In the subsequent projects at the school, the fact that we almost had a ratio of one-to-one graduate student and youth in our project helped to shift the dynamic because there were more time and resources to spend on relationship building. However, the power differentials continued to exist, especially given that we held the programs at the school.

Voice 2 YPAR has the power to transform, empower, improve, and push back. Nonetheless, this mode of scholarly inquiry is not without its downfalls. The implementation of YPAR alongside university and school institutional members meant there was tension between YPAR’s positioning of youth as co-researchers and civic agents and engrained institutional beliefs that maintain “dominant epistemological and methodological understandings of who can conduct research, how, and for what purposes” (Mirra & Rogers, 2016, pp. 1257–1258). An additional challenge in the projects undertaken and detailed above was the difficulty of implementing certain elements of the Application for Framework, including negotiating and collaborating on future research projects with stakeholders (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015). For these projects, although researchers had identified possibilities for local community

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

269

members to collaborate with researchers on joint research projects, the previous—and current—lack of available community resources (e.g., transportation) to get them to the research site nonetheless hindered them in engaging in this joint research.

Conclusion Overall, on a praxis-pedagogical level, the incorporation of student voices and the inclusion of authentic purpose and audience for writing encouraged the students to use a range of genres in their oral discourse (e.g., storytelling, dramatic replay, and discussion) to communicate their emotions and research about immigration issues. This multilayered arts-based approach connects to the second language literacy practices advocated by many researchers in the field who believe that the combined use of explicit scaffolding and authentic audience and purpose promotes students’ engagement and learning of academic literacy (e.g., Comber & Simpson, 2001; McCarthy, Giardina, Harewood, & Park, 2003). The study also shows an embryonic but failed use of a critical participatory approach advocated by Gutierrez (2008). The findings in the study highlight how the approach needs to be informed by an expanded multicultural community involvement and realized through more extended periods of time with students and their families. It also necessitates much more reflexivity on our part in terms of thinking of how to shape participatory processes so that the power is shared and not controlled. In this current anti-immigration hostile environment, we envision refining and reshaping our approach but not abandoning it. Our ­arts-­based participatory approach, in the context of multicultural and second language education, aims to support students and teachers in grappling with local power relations, which are dialectally connected to broader institutional and societal practices that marginalize students and teachers based on race, class, and gender and other markers of difference (Nieto and Bode, 2019). Despite the challenges we have described, our hope is that this embodied practice, the imaginative use of theater, collective research, and storytelling, can lead to a heightened awareness of literacy as a collec-

270 

R. Harman et al.

tive and social action process among emergent bilinguals, teachers, and researchers. All students should have the opportunity to share their words and then act upon those words. As Audre Lorde says, we must take the risk of transforming our silence into language and action. We only hurt ourselves by staying silent (1984, 2007).

References Barnes, V., Clouder, D., Pritchard, J., Hughes, C., & Purkis, J. (2003). Deconstructing dissemination: Dissemination as qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 3(2), 147–164. Berg, M., Coman, E., & Schensul, J. J. (2009). Youth action research for prevention: A multi-level intervention designed to increase efficacy and empowerment among urban youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43, 345–359. Boal, A. (1979). Theater of the oppressed. New  York: Theater Communications Group. Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2015). The Sage handbook of action research. Washington, DC: Sage. Butler-Kisber, L. (2008). Representational forms of dissemination. In L.  M. Givens (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 756–760). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (Eds.). (2008a). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York: Routledge. Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2008b). Youth participatory action research: A pedagogy for transformational resistance. In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 1–12). New York: Routledge. Cazden, C., John, V., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College. Comber, B., & Simpson, A. (Eds.). (2001). Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cook, K. E. (2008). Discourse. In L. M. Givens (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 216–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Davis, K. (2009). Agentive youth research: Towards individual, collective, and policy transformations. In T. G. Wiley, J. S. Lee, & R. Rumberger (Eds.), The

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

271

education of language minority immigrants in the USA (pp. 202–239). London: Multilingual Matters. Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum. Fetterman, D. M. (2008). Fieldwork. In L. M. Givens (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (p. 347). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. (2000). For whom? Qualitative research, representations, and social responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.  107–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Ginwright, S. (2008). Collective radical imagination: Youth participatory action research and the art of emancipatory knowledge. In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion (pp. 13–22). New York: Routledge. Gray, R. E., Finch, M., Davis, C., & Phillips, C. (2000). Challenges of participatory research: Reflections on a study with breast cancer self-help groups. Health Expectations, 3, 243–252. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2015). Framework for application: An introduction. In L.  Grujicic-Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 1–22). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gutierrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. Halliday, M., & Matthiesen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold. Harman, R. (2013). Qualitative literacy research. In C.  Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp.  4768–4773). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Harman, R. (2018). Transforming normative discourses of schooling: Critical perspectives on systemic functional linguistics. In R. Harman (Ed.), Bilingual learners and social equity: Critical approaches to systemic functional linguistics (pp. 1–20). London: Springer. Harman, R., & Dobai-Varga, K. (2012). Critical performative pedagogy: Emergent bilingual learners challenge local immigration issues. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14(2), 1–17. Harman, R., & French, K. (2004). Critical performative pedagogy: A feasible praxis in teacher education? In J. O’Donnell, M. Pruyn, & R. Chavez (Eds.),

272 

R. Harman et al.

Social justice in these times (pp.  97–116). Greenwich, UK: New Information Press. Harman, R., Johnson, L., & Chagoya, E. E. (2016). Bilingual youth voices in middle school: Performance, storytelling and photography. In S.  Greene, K. Burke, & M. McKenna (Eds.), Youth voices, literacies, and civic engagement (pp. 210–234). London: Routledge. Harman, R., & McClure, G. (2011). All the school’s a stage: Critical performative pedagogy in urban teacher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(3), 379–402. Harman, R., Siffrinn, N., Mizell, J., & Bui, K. (in press). Promoting reflection literacy in pre-service language teacher education: Critical SFL praxis with multilingual youth. In L. Alatriste & C. Crosby (Eds.), Second language writing across PK16 contexts: Intersections of teaching, learning, and development. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Harman, R., Varga-Dobai, K., Bivins, K., & Forker, D. (2013). Critical performative literacy in an ESL middle school classroom: Latina girls speak out for undocumented workers. In S. Chapell & C. Faltis (Eds.), The arts and English language learners: Building culturally responsive, critical and creative programs in school and community contexts (pp. 133–142). New York: Routledge. HB87. Assem. Reg. Sess. 2011–2012. (GA, 2011). Heath, S. B., & Street, B. V. (2008). Ethnography: Approaches to language and literacy research (Language and Literacy Series). New  York: Teachers College Press. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2010). Pushing on the methodological boundaries: The growing need for emergent methods within and across the disciplines. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 1–15). New York: Guilford Press. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. London: Routledge. Jenson, D. (2008). Access. In L. M. Givens (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 2–3). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Jordan, S. (2008). Participatory action research (PAR). In L. M. Givens (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 601–603). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Keen, S., & Todres, L. (2007). Strategies for disseminating qualitative research findings: Three exemplars. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3), 1–15.

10  Reflections on Art-Based Participatory Research with Middle… 

273

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lorde, A. (1984, 2007). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches by Audre Lorde. Berkeley, CA: Crossing Press. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Martínez-Roldán, C., & Fránquiz, M.  E. (2009). Latina/o youth literacies: Hidden funds of knowledge. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp.  323–342). New  York: Guilford Press. Mason, J. (2018). Qualitative researching (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. May, M. L., Bowman, G. J., Ramos, K. S., Rincones, L., Rebollar, M. G., Rosa, M. L., et al. (2003). Embracing the local: Enriching scientific research, education, and outreach on the Texas-Mexico border through a participatory action research partnership. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(13), 1571–1576. McCarthy, C., Giardina, M., Harewood, S., & Park, J. (2003). Contesting culture: Identity and curriculum dilemmas in the age of globalization, postcolonialism and multiplicity. Harvard Educational Review, 73(3), 449–465. Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2009). The difficult road for long-term English learners. Educational Leadership, 66(7), 26–29. Mirra, N., & Rogers, J. (2016). Institutional participation and social transformation: Considering the goals and tensions of university-initiated YPAR projects with K-12 youth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(10), 1255–1268. Mullen, C. (2003). Guest editor’s introduction: “A self-fashioned gallery of aesthetic practice”. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(2), 165–181. Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2019). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (6th ed.). New York: Pearson. Norris, J. (2000). Drama as research: Realizing the potential of drama in education as a research methodology. Youth Theatre Journal, 14, 40–51. O’Halloran, K. L. (2004). Introduction. In K. L. O’Halloran (Ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives (pp.  1–10). New  York: Continuum.

274 

R. Harman et al.

Romero, A., Cammarota, J., Dominguez, K., Valdez, L., Ramirez, C., & Hernandez, L. (2008). “The opportunity if not the right to see”: The social justice education project. In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research (pp.  131–151). New  York: Routledge. Saldaña, J. (1999). Playwriting with data: Ethnographic performance texts. Youth Theatre Journal, 13, 60–71. Speer, S. (2002). Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 511–525.

11 Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing Research Insights with Teachers as Stakeholders Lubie Grujicic-Alatriste

As a practicing teacher and a scholar engaged in second language writing and composition studies at tertiary level, I am keen on establishing relationships with the many stakeholders in the intricate nexus of teaching, researching, and collaborating. Therefore, this chapter reports on my efforts to disseminate scholarly research from real-life data settings in a way that brings meaning and use to at least the immediate groups of stakeholders initially identified in planning dissemination (Grujicic-­ Alatriste, 2015). For the purpose of clarity, the term ‘stakeholders’ here includes all individuals or groups that seem to have a ‘stake’ in the process, or something to gain or lose from the research results. The stakeholders in genre-based research can be a number of different entities including the writing teachers who are the practitioners, the teacher-­ trainers in MA and PhD programs, the teacher trainees, the institutional

L. Grujicic-Alatriste (*) NYC College of Technology, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3_11

275

276 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

assessment and research teams, and the students themselves. However, in this chapter, only teachers, in various positions in the educational ­institution, are engaged as stakeholders.1 To achieve this goal, I used the results of an earlier larger study on genres and communicative purposes, and following the Framework for Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015), I reached out to the stakeholders and included them in this consultative dissemination of research findings and negotiation of their relevance. The data set shared with practitioners/teachers from the original research study (2015) was collected in English, and the student writers were taking a second language writing class. However, there was a large variety of first languages spoken by the many students who took part in the initial project. Although the research data did not capture other languages, for the purposes of this volume, and in line with other chapters’ multilingual settings, it is important to note that this chapter is monolingual in the language of reporting and in the data collected and shared. Translating research knowledge to practice in education has been a long-standing effort, although with mixed results. In his 2004 large US federal grant report, Slavin summarizes the educational research efforts to infuse practice with scholarly findings. His stance is that widespread translation of research into practice is possible, but there are many elements that need to be considered. Success for all is the ultimate goal of this research-application paradigm. However, the daily reality of the field of education may hinder, or slow down, this goal. Although Slavin’s study was conducted over a decade ago, it still holds elements that are both relevant and contemporary sounding today. He makes a specific reference to the tendency in education to follow fads, which is probably true for many social sciences, too. Faddism brings ideas to the practice that are purely theoretical proposals and have not been researched. Here is his eloquent observation: The difficulty of translating research into practice in education is one of the most important problems in education reform. The problem is not so  For the purposes of this chapter, only data referring to teachers in various positions in the educational institution are being engaged as stakeholders. The many other stakeholders will be part of separate publications (in progress now). 1

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

277

much that educators are resistant to change; on the contrary, certain kinds of innovation can be widely adopted, and educators are sure to cite research to support whatever innovation they advocate. Yet the connection between the findings of research and the practices of educators more resembles the faddism of art or fashion than the steady progress over time characteristic of medicine, agriculture, or technology. Research eventually appears on these innovations, but whether the research supports of fails to support innovation, interest in it declines within a few years. (Slavin, 2004, p. 1)

His own translation project incorporated a mix of the following elements: daily consultations with practitioners, extensive support and negotiation of research initiatives, and evaluation of translation efforts, including obstacles his team encountered. Such large-scale initiatives that involve a consultative ongoing and growing relationship with practitioners are generally rare. Slavin’s (2004) initiative has relevance to this chapter because it is a pertinent example of an attempt of a researcher/practitioner at close and thoughtful collaboration with practice, including extensive evaluation and feedback focus. Second, his views on faddism may also relate to linguistic research. Often we hear about new theories that are then spread top-down in language classes, but classroom research is slower to follow. In this chapter, it is the actual research results that are the starting point of the effort to share the findings, not only with teachers but also with other stakeholders (as is being reported in other pieces now in press). Although linguists tend to publicly promote the idea of sharing research and strategies with practitioners, for example, collaboration is one of the favored words, this sharing on the ground, in the actual places where teaching is practiced daily, is not so common and certainly not systematic. Most researchers use daily classrooms for data gathering, but it is questionable if they ever return to those same classrooms to discuss the outcomes of research, to obtain the teacher’s feedback and perspective on the findings, or to inform the participants, post research, of the results. This is in part dictated by the semester structure of education programs, so researchers sometimes cannot reach the students, or do not have the permission to do so, thus they often lose track of participants. Still, a lot more could be attempted in this regard.

278 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

The data shared in the present chapter was taken from genre-based discourse research, initially appearing in Grujicic-Alatriste (2015). The centrality of genre purpose and the extreme ‘sensitivity’ genre types exhibited in relation to their length was deemed a key finding in the research study. This type of ‘new’ knowledge should be shared beyond research journals and scholarly publications because it has the potential to facilitate stronger writing success in the classroom. One way to do it is to share it with the people ‘on the ground’—the practitioners who engage daily in the teaching practice of writing. That is precisely what I undertook and described for this chapter. In what follows in this general introduction, I will first review two areas pertinent to this chapter: genre theory and the translation of knowledge in language and writing contexts. Then, I will introduce the ethnographic accounts of the translation efforts and discuss the qualitative methods used to gauge the outcomes.

Review of Relevant Literature The original larger written discourse study focused on examining a particular school genre (Johns, 2002), the college admissions genre, for its elements and communicative purpose. Since genre is the key term under study, I will first review seminal scholarship on genre in relationship to writing classroom instruction and application.

Genre Theory Genre studies is a fast-growing field within a broader umbrella of written discourse studies. Given the continuous development and change of terminology in the field of discourse (both spoken and written, including conversation analysis), I here acknowledge the choice of using genre analysis as a term referring to analyzing written discourse. Next, I engage the term genre since many genre definitions have been cited. A genre is a class of communicative events related to a specific discourse community and its participants who share some set of ­communicative

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

279

purposes (Swales, 1990). Each discourse community is a group of genre producers and users who can be on the continuum from experts to novices. A college or university setting is one such situated practice where academic genres are used by the academic discourse communities for diverse, but very specific purposes, for example, to inform, evaluate, recommend, and instruct. These purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community, and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre (Swales, 1990, p. 58). Experts have mastered the various genre forms utilized by the specific discourse community and they can guide apprentices, or novices, into genre use within the same discourse community or site of writing practice. The New London Group elaborated on Swales’ early 1990 work, but stayed closely aligned with genre ‘purpose.’ In the view of the New London Group, genres “arise out of particular social configurations or the particular relationships of the participants in an interaction…and reflect the purposes of the participants in that interaction” (1996, p. 75). In other words, when considering any genre type, one must bear in mind the role of the environment in genre production and reception. The general term ‘environment’ includes the discourse communities (in this study, the professors and students, and beyond—the readership of the specific genre realization) who frequently use a particular genre in situated practices. The present study aligns its genre view with Swales and the New London Group. Genre purpose is seen as central to communicative written competence and will be used as the key finding to be disseminated in the world of practice, particularly as it relates to the short genres’ move and step restrictions. Over the past decade, genre scholars have also addressed genre flexibility and its place in the writing process. For example, Bawarshi and Reiff argue that “genres situate and distribute cognition, frame social identities, organize spacial and temporal relations, and coordinate meaningful, consequential actions” (2010, p. 95). In their view, genres are dynamic and not static. Certainly, the suggestion that genres change seems reasonable as most forms in life change. Previous theoretical work tended to trace genres historically, over time, not simultaneously, when being used at one point in time by multiple users. The focus on genre examination in contemporary concurrent use by multiple users across situated practices

280 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

(Parks, 2001; Prior, 2007) resulted in seeing genres as being malleable and changeable regardless of who the users are (DePalma & Ringer, 2011). This view has been challenged by the evidence from extensive English for Specific Purposes (ESP) research that genres are social vehicles mostly driven by powerful users, although many other members use them. Therefore, most change in genre structure tends to be top-down (Bhatia, 2004; Grujicic-Alatriste, 2013), and could be ‘harmful’ to on-­ the-­job genre users if they are not power-holders (Roberts, 2010), but are attempting to alter genre structure to suit their own purpose in shared practice. In education, genres have come to occupy a more visible place in the curriculum. With the recent increasing importance of high-stakes testing specifically in the USA, the federally approved literacy teaching has come under new scrutiny. Gebhard and Harman (2011) argued for turning to genre-based instruction as a promising conceptual tool for addressing the achievement gap that disadvantages English-language learners, but also, one may add, the ‘underprepared’ or ‘marginalized’ groups of learners in the USA (particularly in urban areas). A wave of genre initiatives spread throughout the second decade of the millennium with notable contributions by de Oliveira and Silva focusing on elementary and secondary school settings (e.g., 2013, 2016). With this expansion of genre endorsement came genre criticisms (e.g., Bastian, 2010, 2017), ranging from concerns about formulaic writing and the use of genre models to accusations that genre teaching may interfere with creative expression. However, the actual research showing the ‘negative’ impact of genre is hard to come by. In fact, the opposite is the case: ESP and the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) have shown considerable success with genre-based instruction (Johns, 2011; Rose & Martin, 2012). In this chapter, genre-based pedagogy and benefits will be discussed in light of the research results shared via dissemination. The initiative to bring genre awareness and communicative purpose to the attention of all stakeholders, be they teachers, students, or administrators, could enhance success with teaching and administering college entrance writing exams. It could also demystify some of the elements of genre theory and make them accessible to those who seem to be more immersed in the process approach to writing (expressivist branch), and thus less trusting of aspects of ‘direct’ teaching of writing.

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

281

Translation of Research Knowledge into Practice Translating ‘new’ findings or ‘new knowledge’ into practice gained spotlight in applied linguistics with Candlin and Sarangi’s early work calling for linking applied linguistics to professional practice (e.g., 2004a). Discourse studies examining genre are loosely connected to the larger idea of professional practice. However, efforts to translate discourse research in general higher education have also been slower in coming. Recently, genre research has made inroads into composition studies, now more commonly referred to as First Year Writing. It has been acknowledged by major professional writing associations as a legitimate way of understanding writing, and helping students recognize that they (and other people in real life) write for a purpose and that different types of purposes require different genres (e.g., Conference on College Composition and Communication, National Council of Teachers of English). However, genre work has been engaged by notable genre scholars since the early 1990s and yet a lot of that early scholarship by Bazerman (1993), Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995), Berkenkotter and Ravotas (1997) does not always get a deserved mention. Similarly, genre-based teaching and learning materials in the form of college textbooks, or other instructional resources in tertiary education focusing on composition studies, are harder to come by (e.g., Grujicic-Alatriste, 2010). With all of the recent genre development, questions still remain when discussing genre pedagogy. For example, how do genre research results affect the people on the ground, the teachers who are daily in the classrooms? What decisions do such teachers make when faced with student writing challenges or pressures of test preparation? Professional development (PD) has been considered for years as the primary vehicle of knowledge innovation transfer, but there is more evidence that PD is not the most effective way to bring about change, or systematic improvement (Grimshaw et  al., 2012). There are almost no efficient ways to gauge the actual usefulness of scholarly genre research that would allow for a different balance of power in the relationship where the researcher does not necessarily come as someone holding the ultimate knowledge, but as a negotiator who is willing to listen to the feedback provided by

282 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

the ­practitioners (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004b). In this newly forged relationship, endorsed in this chapter and volume, the practitioners’ (here meant teachers’) perspectives are valued and taken into consideration when deciding what can be translated into materials development, professional development, or teacher-training programs.

Research Sharing in This Chapter Recognizing the need to share new knowledge beyond academia, as a researcher and analyst, having completed a discourse analytic study, I have identified five domains of stakeholders who have something to gain or lose by the research sharing: • writing teachers who practice teaching daily; • teacher educators who teach future teachers; • students who are at the receiving end of research via the methodologies used in the classroom; • offices of educational policy and assessment at a university who have a direct impact on all groups including students because of their decision-­making power; • teachers-in-training who are both at the receiving end of current trends and practices and who will themselves practice teaching in the future. Although all these groups may have different individual goals and needs, they all may receive shared benefits from research translation. As Grimshaw et al. point out, each group of stakeholders can have a distinct interest in the ‘findings’ (2012), and will have distinct feedback to provide to the researcher. Some of the key items needed for the translation to occur are detailed planning and accurate identification of stakeholders who will have an interest in hearing about the innovations (Grimshaw et al., 2012). Although Grimshaw and collaborators worked within the medical field, the elements they identified as needed for translation of research findings to occur resonate with the elements included in the Framework for Application (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015).

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

283

Additionally, identifying the initial plan for dissemination is one of the key elements in the entire movement to translate research into practice. In Candlin and Sarangi’s work (2004a), elements that need to be considered for reflexivity and praxis were discussed but not the initial dissemination staging. In fact, the details about the onset of these praxis relationships are typically not afforded, nor are ethnographic accounts of the initial stages presented. This is precisely where the present volume contributes to the body of literature on translation with this specific chapter engaging the early steps in reaching out to stakeholders. This often ‘hidden’ area contains valuable insights and lessons for both the current researchers and those who wish to move toward application and praxis.

The Initial Larger Study and Its Findings As I reported elsewhere (e.g., Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015, Introduction), surprisingly little real-life research on genre pedagogy and teaching seems to reach the stakeholders outside of the academia. This statement still holds true today, although genre importance has been acknowledged beyond the ESP and SFL even in mainstream powerful composition and rhetoric studies in the USA (e.g., Blake Yancey et al., 2014). Aside from the Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice Annual conference (ALAPP), other major professional conferences do not feature genre pedagogy often enough, and the accounts of praxis seem to have been sidelined. There is a need to bridge this gap and reach out to stakeholders other than researchers themselves. The study, done at a large urban university in the northeast of the USA, was conducted over a few semesters gaining access to student initial writing diagnostic essays that were based on the admissions test (live topics) during the very first class in a pre-freshman college writing course. The students were incoming ‘conditionally’ admitted students who did not pass the college entrance writing exam. The goal of the study was to examine the role of genre knowledge in successful written communication. It also focused on student ability to recognize and use, effectively, the moves

284 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

and steps of the argumentative letter genre selected to act as a writing test for admissions to college. This test was asking writers to respond to a proposal and argue for their choice of proposed initiatives in order to carry out the clear aim: to persuade the readers. The data (over 100 essays) was initially randomly selected (the actual data pool was much larger), but only second language writers were selected to be participants in the study. Data was analyzed using genre analysis following Swales’ CARS model (1990) that was updated and expanded (Grujicic-­Alatriste, 2005) to fit a ‘small school genre’ called the hybrid letter (Mayberry, 1999) and argument (the argumentative letter or CATS: see Appendix 2). The results of the study revealed that short argumentative genres, such as the hybrid letter genre, are extremely sensitive to the order of moves in the organizational structure of the paper. Student novice writers did not realize that the larger ‘units’ of meaning in this genre, called the moves, had to have a strict chronological order of Move 1, Move 2, and Move 3 (the numbering was created for the purpose of the study; M1, M2, M3, from now onward). The students tended to introduce moves in random or repeated pattern order (e.g., M1-M2-M1-M2-M3), thus reducing the communicative purpose of the letter because they were making their ideas either repetitive or confusing to the readers. For example, they would initiate one argument, and just as they started developing it, midpoint they would revert to making a stand again (considered the beginning of the argumentative thesis in M1), or to repeating their rationale. In other words, they would be ‘going in and out’ of the required moves or creating ‘weaving’ structures (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015). The discovery of the restrictive structure allowed for the following conclusions: short genres tend to be very specific because in the ‘short’ space the writer needs to communicate the main purpose of writing a paper and explain and illustrate it. Short genres are potentially harder to write as they may ultimately require large amounts of information and thinking ‘packed’ in smaller writing spaces. Thus, as shown in Grujicic-Alatriste (2015) move order is highly restrictive and highly sensitive to any changes. The novice writer, unsure of how to organize the steps, keeps weaving in and out of moves. This ‘weaving,’ in turn, minimizes the communicative purpose of each move. As a result, none of the moves seem to reach full

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

285

development, thus making the purpose of the letter incomplete and, at times, unclear. A schematic vertical representation is offered here as a visual aid of students’ most common ‘weaving’ pattern. Example 1: Discourse Structure Move Repetition Problem Establishing a Territory (1) Establishing a Stand (2) Establishing a Territory (1) Establishing a Stand (2) Establishing a Territory (1) Establishing a Stand (2) A more common genre pattern would be the following (see Appendix 1 for Descriptors): Establishing a Territory Establishing a Stand Confirming a Stand Writer awareness of this type of restriction on move order is central to a successful genre representation, and yet, if not explicitly taught, this awareness is not likely to be part of classroom experience. The step position is also restricted in very short genres such as this one (for more detailed discussion of move and step restriction, see Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015). This finding is considered ‘new knowledge’ because, for the first time, it identifies discourse features that are responsible for considering a genre type ‘successfully’ written. The schematic representation of moves and steps is deemed useful for its visual capabilities, so students can more easily track the changes needed in their own papers. It can become a useful teaching resource and a helpful guide in building successful communicative written discourse. Perhaps its strongest benefit may be the potential to explain why some written samples are more successful than others—something beyond a grade difference, which typically tends to be more elusive or harder to pinpoint.

286 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

In addition to showing a need for genre-based instruction, this finding encourages a broader awareness-raising, so that all stakeholders understand how genre choices can affect writing development and teaching success, particularly when it comes to college entrance writing tests. Since genres, as social vehicles, are used to achieve social action (Miller, 1984), here seen as upward mobility, they can also be used as gate-keepers (see Grujicic-Alatriste, 2005). Therefore, these findings are considered important, not only in general educational terms (i.e., learning to write in different genres) but also in terms of ability to successfully place into college sequences and, even more broadly, to have access to education. In conclusion to Grujicic-Alatriste (2015), I proposed an outline for dissemination using the Framework for Application. The outline is summarized here and will be used as a starting point of outreach.

Initial Plan for Dissemination In planning the dissemination (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015) among writing practitioners, a number of initial challenges were identified. First, most writing instructors typically have their own working ideas of how to teach college writing and what is needed to achieve a measure of success with own students. Thus, they could perceive the researcher approaching them and sharing data as imposing (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004c). Another projected challenge was the process of designing dissemination tools for diverse stakeholder groups. The outreach and data tools were considered key to successful dissemination, so finding the most appropriate design was a top priority. Finally, data selection was expected to be a challenge, as discourse analysis tends to be a detailed and technically rich account that may not easily cross over to brief workshops or focus groups with teachers. For outreach, the initial proposal suggested to target the local level of stakeholders most easily reachable via informal gatherings with colleagues at roundtables and workshops. Such gatherings were expected to have a looser organizational framework, as presentation and discussions with latitude would characterize the initial stage. A questionnaire was ­considered to be the best tool because it is designed to gauge the responses

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

287

and reactions of other practitioners. Here are the three initial question designs (Grujicic-Alatriste, 2015, p. 150): 1 . As a teacher, are you aware of genre-based instruction? 2. Do you use model student writing in your classroom? 3. Do you discuss the purpose of each specific writing task? The questions were designed in a general-to-specific structure. Thus, the broad field of genre-based instruction was supposed to tap into instructors’ prior awareness or knowledge, and to move to teaching practice of using models of student writing. The last question targets the new knowledge, as it is understood here: the purpose of a specific writing task. After the general questionnaire, data would be used by introducing a student writing sample, followed by a set of questions (for examples of handouts containing writing samples, see Appendix 3): a) Looking at the sample, do you find any features that may be relevant to teaching organization? b) The sample shows move numbers. Is this something you would be comfortable using? c) Is the restructured sample useful? If yes, can you explain how? d) If no, can you explain why not? e) Does a sample with schematic representation have a place in your classroom? Why or why not? These items from the original plan for dissemination were the starting point of the translation of the key findings from my research. Since the translation is a research process in and by itself, the researcher paradox (Cicourel, 2007) is acknowledged here as the dissemination and research efforts were conducted by the same person.

Current Research Translation Efforts Although the full ethnographic account related to the data arrived from the study reported in Grujicic-Alatriste (2015) involves five different types of stakeholders, for the purposes of this chapter  only teachers

288 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

divided into two groups will be introduced: the currently practicing writing teachers who are full-time faculty who are also researchers, and part-­ time faculty who are practicing writing teachers in college environments. Ethnography was chosen for its strength to provide the reflection on the relationships that the researchers build with the participants in their study. The entire translation effort was seen as the ethnographic account of the project from the planning stages to the final feedback session. As the central aim of ethnography is to provide rich, holistic insights into people’s views and actions, as well as the nature of the location they inhabit, through detailed observations and interviews (Reeves, Kuper, & Hodges, 2008), it was considered the best vehicle for understanding and documenting stakeholders’ views and reactions. Newer developments in ethnographic inquiry include autoethnography in which researchers’ own thoughts and perspectives from their social interactions form the central element of a study (Reeves et al., 2008). Since my goal was to elicit highly candid answers from the stakeholders, and then engage my own position and thoughts related to the negotiated responses, using ethnographic-like details would allow for a lot of material to be then considered as part of reflexivity. The first step in outreach is the identification of stakeholders who would have some type of stake in meeting with me and volunteering to learn about my research. I first made lists of various groups of instructors. I divided them into scholars/researchers who are full-time faculty and practicing teachers, and part-time faculty who are not researchers, but are practicing writing teachers. This is the first division that could reach differently positioned practitioners who would come to data sharing from different perspectives. Their educational background and position in the place of work is not equal, but their daily engagement in teaching writing makes them have an equal stake in sharing ideas. Thus, I set about designing separate outreach letters and handouts to meet—what I perceived as—different initial orientation needs.

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

289

Data language modification and other adjustments have been noted in the literature as both needed and wanted (Candlin and Sarangi, 2004c). More recently, the field of technical communication has addressed the concerns on how to communicate field-specific complex information with specialist and non-specialist users when using multimodal documents or complex documents (Henze, Miller, & Carradini, 2016). In order to share specific often technical notions, communicators need to consider a number of elements, among them the following: translating special subject matter in a shared language that is understood by the target group, considering unpredictable characteristics of varied groups when presenting the same materials, lack of expertise by some groups, possible high-stakes risks, and complex organizational or institutional contexts. Each of the tools for dissemination of findings was considered within these questions. As a result, both dissemination and feedback tools had to be ‘re-tooled’ to meet diverse comprehension needs of diverse groups. Adjustments were being made after each dissemination session, due to the feedback obtained by the stakeholders and participants.

Group A: Part-Time Practicing Writing Teachers Starting to work on dissemination was an intimidating process. I first created a guide for myself that included listing items in chronological order and projecting time frames needed for each step. This was a guide shared with all the volume contributors. I decided to first focus on teacher practitioners in my own working environment, as it seemed the most logical step to go back to the actual place of data gathering and research efforts. I thought of planning an informal faculty session, but I still had to use an outreach letter and data selection. It would be possible to directly talk to stakeholders if one knows them, but I opted for a systematic approach to all stakeholders. The first letter I composed was formal.

290 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

Exhibit 11.1:  Outreach Letter to Teacher Practitioners (Version 1) Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to share with you the results of a research study I conducted a few years back. The results are in press with Multilingual Matters, but academic sharing is just one way of sharing information, knowledge, or resources. The second way is that I advocate as editor of the volume Linking Discourse Studies to Professional Practice: outreach to the stakeholders in the places of practice. I see you, the teachers, as practitioners who should have more of a voice in teaching methodologies but also in ways of responding to existing research findings and possibly the planning of the future ones. I would like to suggest an informal gathering/workshop format where I can introduce the vision of sharing existing research and collaborative planning of the future one. My study was based on original student written discourse produced for a major university’s entrance exam. Attached is a brief overview of the study and a sample finding. The ability for teachers to share genre structures with their students is seen as a major benefit for instruction in a college classroom (but possibly other classrooms too). Each type of writing, here an argumentative letter, has a certain restriction on the way ideas are organized. When that fixed order is disregarded, the discourse is not effectively achieving its communicative purpose. Please let me know if you would be interested in attending this gathering and looking over some data. It will be a collaborative equitable session that can benefit both of our views on writing instruction and our future practices. The participation is purely voluntary and has no known risks. You can opt out any time and your identity will not be either collected or needed. There is no professional harm involved.

This letter shows careful wording and scaffolded information. Plenty of background was included in order to justify the invitation and perhaps to deflect from any self-importance (Candlin & Sarangi, 2004c) that the letter itself could cast, since I am a member of the teaching staff and program director. The intent was to be open, accessible, and fair. I placed a copy of this letter in the mailboxes of five colleagues (four female and one male) who were instructors in the Second Language Writing program in the English Department. Two female and one male colleague responded, and we agreed on the time frame. Typically, in the

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

291

department we would have brown-bag lunches, so we agreed that this could be one such brown-­bag session where we could share ideas and I could present the data. Creating a datasheet turned out to be an extensive process, too. It was a challenge to decide what elements to select since there were a number of strong samples that exemplified the key findings of move order, but they were all rather long and detailed. For this first dissemination session, I created a handout with examples of student writing and samples showing analytical codes. I considered the indications of moves and steps a key aspect of the data since the study was on genre. The two-page handout contained the student sample and the restructured sample (see Appendix 3). This handout underwent a number of substantive changes.

Narrative Account of the First Data Sharing Session The session was held in one of the department’s classrooms. I thought that a classroom was more egalitarian than the use of my office space. It would also be less intimidating, as establishing equitable and comfortable relationships with stakeholders has been cited in the literature as an important pre-condition. After some small talk, I distributed a handout with the three questions, identified in the initial plan as an important introduction to sharing sessions. Each person volunteered answers to the questions by providing additional explanations. In response to the first question (see p. 287 for all three questions) about genre-based instruction, all instructors said they vaguely knew about it but were not sure that they actively used it as classroom methodology. For question two about models of writing, all said that they typically used examples of ‘good’ writing to share with students, sometimes the original student writing, and other times their rendition of a successful paper. Thus, indirectly, they were providing models whenever they thought they should, but not in any systematic or structured way. The question three about the communicative purpose of a writing task brought about some confusion. The instructors were unsure about the meaning of this term. I explained the notion of purpose using genre theory. I worried about the sharing session becoming a lecture, so I tried to be brief. In fact, the language I was using

292 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

seemed to be too abstract. We decided to leave this question aside and perhaps return to it once we have looked at the data. The data session part was planned carefully, as I imagined it to be a pair-discussion first, and then an open sharing of impressions about the student models. However, this plan never materialized. Once I distributed the data handouts, the instructors took a long time going over the two-page handout with two examples. They seemed to be looking closely, talking to each other, and asking clarification questions. They found the data coding interesting but complex, and they felt they needed more background information about the study, the students, and the coding system. Time was taken up answering their questions in a respectful yet neutral way. In this exchange of questions and responses, I as a researcher/ instructor felt the strain. They were expressing concern with the level of detail and wondering if data sharing should have been staged differently to include first a theoretical overview and then, samples with plenty of time built in for questions. Our one-hour brown-bag lunch was coming to a fast close and we did not manage to discuss application, let alone any plans on future collaborations. The instructors were requesting an additional session, but due to time conflicts, we agreed to follow up online in informal email exchanges.

Takeaways from the Session: The Feedback Looking over the notes taken, the session showed both the initial growing pains and some very valuable insights. First, faculty need time to orient themselves into a research study. As they pointed out, they needed to understand how the data was arrived at in order to be able to think about its usefulness and possible collaborative plans in the future. They also felt that the data was too detailed. Perhaps, they suggested, only the representation of the weaving of the moves should be used, as it is a larger concept and more easily handled. Finally, they needed quiet time to read student sample, so a set of working questions to help them get through the data would have been useful, they said. This first session was important in a number of ways. It was the very first attempt at discourse data sharing in a known setting, with part-time

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

293

instructors as stakeholders. I had shared data at conferences, but the audience here shifted, and the normally assumed prior knowledge was not there on the part of the practitioners. The feedback that the instructors provided throughout was constructive and organic, though. It came out of the hands-on data discussion. It was clear that a lot more backgrounding was needed to prepare stakeholders for the sharing session. Kitzinger’s (2011) data-sharing sessions with hotline agents was one attempt at presenting Conversation Analytic data. Although not similar to my data, I wondered how the level of detail was managed in her sessions. Experiential knowledge that comes from undertaking dissemination is what may, in fact, be the most helpful outcome of this translation effort. It must be an obstacle that most researchers would face. Finally, the time allocated was completely insufficient, but the practitioners showed willingness to engage the new knowledge and to consider its application. They were curious as to how this would be translated into daily lessons, and how the communicative purpose could actually make abstract ideas concrete. This was seen as a positive first step in this consultative process.

Group B: Full-Time Practicing Teachers The second group selected was to be teachers of linguistics and writing who were full-time faculty. I considered a list of possible participants based on college type, that is, two-, or four-year college, the program of study, and their own involvement with scholarship. I was hoping to tap into the needs of a different group of instructors who were more likely to be theory-conscious as they themselves were scholars and researchers. Eight emails were sent to eight people. Only two could meet at a set time. They were full-time faculty so of the same rank and position as me, thus the session would be conducted among equals. This time, the initial outreach mode was an email letter. I revised the initial outreach tool to reflect a different stakeholder, that of an instructor/scholar. I explained my teaching and scholarship efforts and asked them if they would consider meeting with me to look at the data. Version 2 of the Outreach Email is provided here.

294 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

Exhibit 11.2:  Outreach Letter to Faculty Practitioners/Researchers (Version 2) Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 2:48 PM

To: Cc: Lubie Alatriste; [email protected] Subject: Quick Question Dear H. and P., Over the past year, I have been working with a group of international scholars on finding ways to reach out to professionals in our field and to share some of our latest research with those actively involved in practice. My own work is in teaching academic writing to college ESL students. The results of my study seem to indicate a need to reach out to other professionals and briefly discuss ways in which we test students for college admissions. Our decisions are typically top-down and students (as stake holders), but teachers too, have rare opportunities to give any input in this process. Since you are both practitioners (in a sense that you are scholars but you actively teach too), I would like to have a brief opportunity to share a page of my data with you and to obtain some feedback from you based on the data and findings I will share. Would it be possible to meet tomorrow at 11:15 am (before our meeting), to discuss the findings and talk about the possibility of bottom-up practice. Please let me know. It may take up to 60 minutes for our meeting. I would be truly grateful. This participation is fully voluntary and carries no known professional or personal risks. Your identity will be kept confidential. You can decide to withdraw from the conversation at any point.

Following this email invitation, both colleagues responded and a mutually agreeable time was negotiated, though not without difficulties due to time constraints.

Narrative Account of the Second Data-Sharing Session For the purposes of anonymity, the female colleague will be referred to as Hannah and the male colleague as Peter. Hannah teaches at a twoyear community college and Peter at a four-year college at my home

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

295

university. The time for the meeting was specified in the email and we promptly met after the meeting we all attended. Some time elapsed while we actually managed to secure a quiet area of the conference room and settle down. I had presented the questions and data in a second follow-up email, but  neither had a chance to look at it. This time I wanted to provide some lead time, and an opportunity for each person to orient him/herself into the data on their own terms and time, but this strategy was dependent upon the stakeholders’ commitments. I decided to focus on the interview questions first. We had about 30 minutes to discuss the questions, and although we completed the questions faster than expected, the conversation and sharing continued. I took notes while they were offering their opinions and expanding on questions. Surprisingly, what started a bit formally developed into a lively conversation between the two of them. I was listening and taking notes, only responding to direct questions. This time, the session resembled a more open-ended discussion and reflection on the teaching practices. Since my notes were copious, I here present a summary of their responses based on questions. Question 1: “As a teacher, are you aware of genre-based instruction?” Both practitioners were aware of genre-based instruction, but more due to having read Swales and Feak’s (1994) work on genre, as they stated. Peter pointed out that students like genre type of teaching as “it is helpful, particularly to ESL students.” Hannah was particularly enthusiastic: “ESL students would also like this [genre models]. Students look for the fastest way to get out of school, and genres allow for faster teaching.” Question 2: “Do you use model student writing in your classroom?” They both reported to have used genre models more in “developmental and lower level writing courses than in linguistics courses.” In courses where students need to complete writing tasks faster, or to pass a particular exam, including entrance or qualifying exams, genre-based ­instruction would work best, they both concluded. It is a bit surprising to notice the hidden assumption that upper level students ‘know’ all genres and do not need additional help with model genres. This is a common assumption across tertiary levels, shown to be needing scrutiny by Swales and Feak (1994).

296 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

Question 3: “Do you discuss the purpose of each specific writing task?” The answers to this question seem to have been somewhat folded into the previous question 2, and the participants felt that again “time is the key factor when deciding whether to focus on form or purpose in writing.” Clearly, the question of time is paramount, as most practicing teachers know because the curriculum tends to be extensive and time is strictly controlled in order to ‘cover it all.’ The data handout (see Appendix 3) was spontaneously referred to because the participants/practitioners wanted to look at how the student responded to the question. This part of sharing was taken over by the practitioners. I briefly explained the coding system, and then they continued to express their views on research and data in general. Mostly, they were engaging each other in the conversation while I was taking notes. I made no comments on their views, but only offered additional explanations, when asked. In retrospect, this was a good strategy as it allowed for the ‘opinion gates’ to be open. They both shared views on data usefulness and application. In general, both Peter and Hannah found the data interesting but hard to engage in the short period of time. My initial plan to go over moves that show purpose got sidetracked with both participants engaging more philosophical questions about student writing, feedback, and difficulties in guiding very ‘weak’ ESL students.

Takeaways from the Session: The Feedback Although this dissemination effort was designed to be unimposing or non-intrusive, the outcomes were significant because they showed the interest and willingness to find more practical ideas. The challenge that presented itself is how to make it systematic and available, be it in print or in-person sharing. They also seemed to be more interested in clearly targeted needs. Creating a vehicle to provide support from data-driven research on a more continuous and frequent basis may be one of the takeaways from this session. The handouts I used needed major revision. Some of the limitations in this session were: the format that might have been too unstructured, and time allotted to sharing. The format

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

297

seemed useful for eliciting candid responses to the question of more general value of research findings, but it was not sufficiently data-focused. Looking at data to recognize the value of the findings may need to be made more immediate to the experiences of participants. For example, the questions may need to be formulated to use the language of practice, such as: “How would you respond to this section of the student sample if meeting the student for a consultation?” Examples or smaller subsections of questions may need to be built in. It was clear that the time allocated was insufficient. At least double the amount envisioned (two hours instead of one) would have been more productive. This group of practitioners wanted to look at the data more closely, and had there been a longer time allocation, it would have yielded more concrete feedback. Both practitioners expressed a strong interest in having sessions where they can also bring their own research data and share. We wondered what models of application or praxis we could develop from this session. They expressed an interest in continuing and suggested a multi-sharing workshop approach.

Successes and Challenges This chapter reported the very first steps in dissemination efforts. The two sessions described included the extensive planning of the outreach tools and the data-sharing tools, following Slavin (2004). It became clear, early on, that the staging was both crucial and limiting because it was only when I was with the stakeholders that I could gauge their interests and inclinations toward data use and application. Their feedback provided me with directions for re-tooling the tools used for dissemination and outreach in these first two attempts. In fact, the shortcomings of one tool became the strength of the next set of tools. Thus, my engagement with the practitioners allowed for reflection and renegotiation of the initial plan, so tool flexibility came out as a single most important variable. Second, personal reflexivity to measure one’s own success at presenting data and conducting dissemination is a training of sorts. Being part of sharing has certainly allowed for direct experience of working with prac-

298 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

titioners on this level, which is very different from formal professional development workshops or conference discussions. In short, the challenges were real and had to be addressed in each subsequent step. Perhaps this is what makes the researcher-practitioner engagement so valuable. The predictions cited earlier about possible outcomes of dissemination were not directly met at this stage because this was a preliminary contact-setting stage. However, it could be said that the instructors who are the main teaching force, the part-time adjuncts in the USA terminology, were more ‘weary’ of the process and perhaps, in Sarangi’s words, they felt that they knew what they needed to get the job done. The outright rejection was not present in these efforts possibly due to general familiarity with the practitioners and shared friendliness. Still one could sense some reservation. The future challenges would entail a more systematic effort across colleges and programs in order to continue to gauge the possibilities for a larger project on praxis. In this future project, the steps that followed the ones described here could be to engage a very broad range of teachers. Additionally, student writers, graduate students, and the office of Institutional Assessment all need to be engaged in dissemination efforts, each time with re-tooled outreach and dissemination instruments.

Appendix 1 Move Type and Purpose Move M1: Establishing a territory

M2: Establishing a stand M3: Confirming a stand

Purpose (descriptors) Orients the audience to the topic/issue Prepares the territory for stating the stand; making clear what argumentative stand will be developed in the next move. Strengthens the choices Builds the claims Strengthens the choices Reinforces the connections with the audience

Grujicic-Alatriste (2005, p. 90)

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

299

Appendix 2 Create an Argumentative Space Model (CATS): Step Position in Moves Move [M1] Establishing a Territory [M2] Establishing a Stand

[M3] Confirming a Stand

Step type S-1A S-1B S-2A S-2B S-1A S-1B S-1C S-2A S-2B S-2C S-3 S-1A S-1B S-2A S-2B

Communicative purpose Introducing a situation Presenting choices Taking a stand Giving reasons Counter-claiming Question-raising Showing a (lack of) need Building Claim 1 Building Claim 2 Building Claim 3 Making a projection Making an appeal for choice Positive evaluation of choice Expressing hope Expressing appreciation

Grujicic-Alatriste (2005, p. 63)

Appendix 3 Data-Sharing Session Attached is a short page with two samples of argumentative letter. One is an exemplar or a model sample, and the second one is the set of genre elements represented in the sample. The ability for teachers to share genre structures with their students is seen as a major benefit for instruction in a college classroom (but possibly other classrooms, too). Each type of writing, but here an argumentative letter, has a certain restriction on how the ideas are organized. When that fixed order is disregarded, the discourse is not effectively achieving its communicative purpose. Please let me know if you would be interested in attending this gathering and looking over some data. It will be a collaborative equitable session that can benefit both of our views on writing instruction and our future practices.

300 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

Ajay’s Argumentative Letter Dear College President, I believe that students [who] receive college credit for working full time for a year will expand their life experience. While students work, they can learn how to treat people around them who ha[ve] many different opinions [−] some are opposite of theirs [or] some are [the] same as their opinion. These experiences will [help students] develop [knowledge] how to get along with people and [how to] to support their opinion strongly. Also, the proposal of this opinion is expanding student’s life. Most of students will work after they graduate. The college gives students that opportunity to exercise their knowledge [.] They can [understand] why they need to study the courses they are taking and they will try harder than before they ha[d] [the opportunity to get] these experiences. I strongly argue that giving college credit for working full time [for] a year will enhance the desire to study. Moreover, this option will provide students with a better educational experience. Sincerely, Ajay Move and Step Representation of Ajay’s Letter Letter opening (greeting) [M1] Take a stand

[M2] Build Claim 1

[M2] Make a projection

[M1] Give a reason for stand [M2] Build Claim 2

[M3] Make a projection

Dear College President, I believe that students [who] receive college credit for working full time for a year will expand their life experience. While students work, they can learn how to treat people around them who ha[ve] many different opinions [−] some are opposite of theirs [or] some are [the] same as their opinion. These experiences will [help students] develop [knowledge] how to get along with people and [how to] to support their opinion strongly. Also, the proposal of this opinion is expanding student’s life. Most of students will work after they graduate. The college gives students that opportunity to exercise their knowledge [.] They [will] [understand] why they need to study the courses they are taking and they will try harder than before they ha[d] [the opportunity to get] these experiences.

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing…  [M1] Take a stand

[M3] Positive evaluation of choice Letter closing

301

I strongly argue that giving college credit for working full time [for] a year will enhance the desire to study. Moreover, this option will provide students with a better educational experience. Sincerely, Ajay

References Bastian, H. (2010). Exploring the unfamiliar. Composition Studies, 38(1), 27–50. Bastian, H. (2017). Student affective responses to “bringing the funk” in the first-year writing classroom. College Composition and Communication, 69(1), 6–34. Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, research, and pedagogy. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press. Bazerman, C. (1993). Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–104). Bristol, PA: Taylor and Frances. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture and power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Berkenkotter, C., & Ravotas, D. (1997). Genre as tool in the transmission of practice over time and across professional boundaries. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 4(4), 256–274. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre view. London: Equinox Publishing, Ltd.. Blake Yancey, K., et al. (2014). Writing across contexts: Transfer, composition and sites of Writing. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press. Candlin, C., & Sarangi, S. (2004a). Making applied linguistics matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–8. Candlin, C., & Sarangi, S. (2004b). Making methodology matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 101–106. Candlin, C., & Sarangi, S. (2004c). Making inter-relationality matter. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 225–228.

302 

L. Grujicic-Alatriste

Cicourel, A. V. (2007). A personal retrospective view of ecological validity. Text and Talk, 27(5), 735–752. de Oliveira, L. C., & Silva, T. (Eds.). (2013). L2 writing in secondary classrooms: Student experiences, academic issues, and teacher education. New  York: Routledge. de Oliveira, L. C., & Silva, T. (Eds.). (2016). Second language writing in elementary classrooms: Instructional issues, content-area writing, and teacher education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DePalma, M. J., & Ringer, J. M. (2011). Towards the theory of genre transfer: Expanding disciplinary discussion of ‘transfer’ in second-language writing and composition studies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 134–147. Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reform in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 45–55. Grimshaw, J.  M., et.al. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science. Retrieved June 2019. https://doi. org/10/1186/1748-5908-7-50 Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2005). Genre analysis of the argumentative letter: The case of ESL novice writers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, UMI, Columbia University. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2010). Urban reader for college writers. Dubuque, IL: Kendall Hunt Publishers. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2013). A response to “towards a theory of genre transfer: Expanding disciplinary discussions of transfer in second language writing and composition studies,” disciplinary dialogues. Journal of Second Language Writing (JSLW), 22(4), 460–464. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2015). The centrality of communicative purpose in student written discourse. In L. G. Alatriste (Ed.), Linking discourse studies to professional practice (pp. 105–122). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Henze, B., Miller, C., & Carradini, S. (2016). Technical communication. Posted on GXB or genre across borders, an international, interdisciplinary network of researchers, theories, and resources. Retrieved December 2018. https://genreacrossborders.org/research/technical-communication Johns, A. M. (Ed.). (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Johns, A. M. (2011). The future of genre in L2 writing: Fundamental, but contested, instructional decisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 56–68.

11  Genre Writing and Communicative Purpose: Sharing… 

303

Kitzinger, C. (2011). Working with childbirth helplines: The contributions and limitations of conversation analysis. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Intervention and change in institutional talk (pp. 98–118). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Mayberry, K. J. (1999). For argument’s sake: A guide to writing effective arguments. New York: Longman. Miller, C.  R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 157–178. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social features. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Parks, S. (2001). Moving from school to the workplace: Disciplinary innovation, border crossings, and the reshaping of a written genre. Applied Linguistics, 22, 405–438. Prior, P. (2007). Writing disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy (Rhetoric, knowledge and society series). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press. Reeves, S., Kuper, A., & Hodges, B. D. (2008). Qualitative research methodologies: Ethnography. Practice Qualitative Research. Retrieved February 2019, 337, a1020. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1020. Roberts, C. (2010). Language socialization in the workplace. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 211–227. Rose, D., & Martin, J.  R. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Sheffield/Bristol, UK: Equinox. Slavin, R. E. (2004). Translating research into widespread practice: The case of success for all. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (Grant No. R-117-D40005). Swales, J.  M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Index

A

Action research participatory action research, 254–256, 259 youth participatory action research, 250, 257–259, 264–265, 268 Agents of change, 13 Application, 278, 283, 292, 293, 296, 297 Application of research, 95–97, 105, 109, 116, 185, 200–206, 255, 265 Applied linguistics (AL), 1, 7, 11, 14, 95–101, 281 Argumentative genres, 284 Argumentative letter, 284, 290, 299 Arts-based participatory research, 250 critical arts-based approaches, 256, 269

curricular approaches, 252, 253, 257, 262, 267–269 processes, 250, 258 Awareness raising, 286 B

Bilingualism, 249–253 C

Change agents, 9, 10 Coda, 189, 193–196, 201 Codes of conduct, 86 Collective ideology, 81 Community engagement, 19, 268–269 Composition studies, 275, 281 Communicative purpose, 275–298 Construction of communities in families, 243

© The Author(s) 2020 L. Grujicic-Alatriste (ed.), Language Research in Multilingual Settings, Communicating in Professions and Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34671-3

305

306 Index

Consultative dissemination of research findings, 276 Consumption of news translation, 75 Contextual analysis, 72 Conversational storytelling, 225 Conversation analysis (CA), 18, 23–43, 132 Conversation analytical approach, 217 Conversation analytical investigation, 220 Critical performative pedagogy, 253 Critical police research, 23–43 Critical qualitative research, 250 Critical reflexive stance, 6 Culturally sustaining systemic functional linguistics, 251

Discourse community, 249, 257, 278, 279 Discursive consciousness raising, 17, 128 Discursive strategies, 17, 128, 133, 141, 147 Dispreferred response, 136, 139, 142 Dissemination, 3–8, 12–14, 72–75, 79, 81, 88, 90, 128, 144, 145, 149, 158, 161, 176, 263–266, 275, 276, 280, 283, 286–287, 289, 291, 293, 296–298 Dissemination framework, 1, 5, 158, 160, 190–202 Dissemination tools, 12, 13, 105, 286 Doing being critical, 27, 41 E

D

Data sharing tools, 297 Dinner table conversations, 220, 223 Disability discourse, 18, 157–164, 170–173, 176, 177, 180 Disability model, 158–164, 167–168, 171 Disability, physical, 18, 157, 158, 160, 162, 167, 172, 173, 177–179 Disability practice, 162, 164, 167, 168, 171 Discourse analysis, 17, 91–92, 148, 157, 158, 164, 257, 261–264 critical discourse analysis, 257 systemic functional multimodal discourse analysis (SF MDA), 262 Discourse analytic studies, 282

Educational research, 276 Education linguistics, 3 Ethnographic account, 278, 283, 287, 288 Ethnographic approach, 71, 72 Ethnographic focus group, 16, 23–28, 40 Ethnographic interviews, 17, 78 Ethnographic research, 78 Ethnography, 23–43, 249, 268, 288 Ethnography of communication (EOC), 249 Evidence-based practice, 3, 9, 105–110 Evidence-based translation of knowledge, 10 F

Faddism, 276, 277 Family-socialization, 242

 Index 

307

Family talk, 18, 132 Feedback, 128, 129, 144–148 Feedback tools, 15, 162, 289 Focus group, 23–43 Framework for Application, 10, 12, 13, 15, 97, 116, 250–251, 265, 268

Interactional competence in a second language, 223 Interactional linguistics, 99 Interactional sociolinguistics (IS), 133 Intercultural communication, 145, 148 Intersubjectivity, 187, 194, 207–209

G

J

Genre analysis, 278, 284 Genre awareness, 280 Genre-based instruction, 280, 286, 287, 291, 295 Genre-based research, 275 Genre knowledge, 283 Genre purpose, 278, 279

Journalistic translation, 74 K

Knowledge creation, 7 Knowledge dissemination, 7 Knowledge innovation transfer, 281 Knowledge ownership, 7 Knowledge production, 7

H

Home employment, 224, 225, 228, 233 Host-parent(s), 217, 223, 225, 230, 231, 233, 234, 236–240, 242, 243 I

Identity, 158, 159, 166, 175 Ideology, 79–82 Imitation, 187–189, 194 Impact, 1, 2, 4–6, 27, 164, 177 Implementation science, 10 Individual ideology, 81 Innovation, 277, 281, 282 Institutional practice, 17, 23, 26, 27, 43 Institutional setting, 2 Institutional translation, 82, 88

L

Language socialization, 249 Language translation, 16 Learning environment, 218, 222, 225, 235 Literacy, 256, 260, 269 L2 interactional competence, 223, 242 M

Marginalization of youth, 249–254, 257, 259, 267–270 Mechanism of new manipulation, 74 Media professionals, 74 Monolingual, 276 Mother-daughter interaction, 126, 137

308 Index

Motivational relevance, 4, 18, 157, 158, 161, 162, 169, 171, 176 Move order, 284, 285, 291 Multilingual contexts, 218, 241 Multilingual data, 217 Multilingual settings, 4, 276 Multimodality, 251–253, 260–265 N

Narrative accounts, 2, 19 Narrative discourse, 18, 157–162, 164, 170–176, 183–190, 193 Narrative inquiry, 204–206 Narrative practice, 131 Neoliberalism, 100, 103 News consumers, 74, 86 News discourse translation, 72 News practitioners, 80, 90 News reproduction, 74, 75, 78 News translation process, 74, 90, 92 News transmission, 16 Novice writer, 284 O

Open-ended storytelling task, 18 Open-ended tasks, 183–192, 202 Outreach (efforts), 2, 14, 18, 158, 161, 162, 170, 176 Outreach procedures, 72 Outreach tools, 75, 132, 293, 297 P

Peer assistance, 188–189, 195 Persistent engagement, 133, 138, 141 Places or practice, 5, 6

Police, 23–43 Power relations, 255–257, 267–270 Practice-based experience, 3 Practices, 6, 23, 24, 42, 126, 127 Practitioner, 2, 12, 126, 127, 149, 275–278, 282, 286–290, 293–298 Praxis, 2, 13, 14, 206, 283, 297, 298 Process approach to writing, 280 Process of the news translation, 77 Process recordings, 106–112 Professional interaction, 4, 26, 29 Professional practice, 281 Prosodic cues, 222 Psychology-driven stance, 17 Q

Qualitative method, 278 R

Raising awareness, 13, 162 Recruiting agencies, 219, 225, 226, 228, 235, 238, 240–243 Reflection, 7 Reflective practice, 108–112, 117, 118 Reflexive stance, 6 Reflexivity, 14, 43, 91, 127, 283, 288, 297 Relationship building, 199, 206–208, 253–256, 259, 268 Relevance, 2, 4–6, 12, 190–192, 194–195, 203–205 Repeated questioning, 133, 135, 141, 143 Research impact, 1, 6, 27 Researcher paradox, 287

 Index 

Research result, 275, 277, 280, 281 Research translation, 13, 40, 282, 287–289 Response from school site, 264–266 Responsivity, 188–189, 207 Role of time for development, 185, 188, 200 in dissemination effort, 199–201, 205 Routinization, 88 S

Second language acquisition, 223 Second language writing, 275, 276, 290 Self-censorship, 81–82 Self-problematizing, 131 Self-reflection, 128 Self-regulation, 188, 204 Semiotic resources, 262–265 Site access, 249–256 Situated practice, 279 Small school genre, 284 Social action, 286 Social bonding, 126–135 Socialization, 223, 240, 243 Social work, 95–118 Sociocultural impact, 5 Sociocultural theory, 18 Source author, 89 Source narrative, 89, 90 Source text, 72, 74, 82, 83, 87, 89 Spontaneous storytelling, 222 Stakeholders, 72–75, 79, 265, 266, 268, 275–299 Stance taking, 220, 222 Step restriction, 279, 285

309

Storytelling, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 233 Storytelling activities, 222 Storytelling cues, 222 Storytelling practices, 217 Systemic functional linguistics, 19, 261 T

Task-based discourse, 18 Task-based research, 200 Task misinterpretation, 188, 195, 200 Teachers’ feedback, 277 Technical terms, 81 “Third space,” 257, 268 Tools for dissemination, 289 Translated news, 74, 75, 82, 87, 92 Translated texts, 71, 73, 86, 87, 90 Translating research knowledge to practice, 276 Translation products, 74 Troubles teller, 131, 133, 134, 140 Troubles telling, 130–144 U

Unit of knowledge, 9 Untranslatability, 80 V

Vygotskyan Sociocultural Theory (SCT), 183–189, 194, 200–208 W

Written discourse, 275, 285, 290

310 Index Y

Z

Youth as co-researchers, 249, 253–259, 262–270 Youth work, 31, 33–39, 43

Zone of proximal development (ZPD), 187, 194, 207–208