motivation survey background survey results · 2017. 5. 12. · language documentation &...
TRANSCRIPT
• Motivation • Survey background • Survey results –Attitudes about collaboration –Amount and kinds of collaboration –Factors that correlate with collaboration –Factors that correlate with non-
collaboration
• Discussion
Overview
Motivation
Motivation
• Collaboration is becoming the ideal in language documentation
• Field linguists are expected to collaborate with members of the community whose languages they document
• The ideal model is one which empowers the community (Cameron et al. 1992)
Issues • Cultural expectations about collaboration are
highly variable (see Dobrin 2008, Holton 2009)
• Collaborative projects are less likely to be the kind that are rewarded in academia
• Dissertations cannot be co-authored
• Outsiders new to a community are not aware of local politics
Issues • Writings on collaborative fieldwork come
mostly from Australia & the Americas (e.g., Czaykowska-Higgins 2009, Grinevald 2003, Rice 2006, 2010)
• Australia and North America: • First world
• Educated
• Often easier to identify community leaders
• Languages are very highly endangered
• History of colonial suppression of languages
Survey Background
Survey Background
• Over 200 field linguists completed the survey
• December 2012
• advertised on LinguistList, Facebook, email, and other linguistics listservs
• conducted online with surveymonkey
Survey Background
Survey Background
work in higher education
54%
student in higher
education 26%
other 20%
Survey Background
PhD 62%
Masters degree
29%
College graduate
9%
Survey Background
United States 40%
Australia 12%
Canada 9%
United Kingdom 5%
Other 34%
In what country do you primarily reside/have employment?
Survey Background residence region
Oceania 17%
North America 49%
Asia 7%
South/Central America
2%
Africa 3%
Europe 22%
Survey Background
North America 20%
South/Central America
16%
Oceania 27%
Africa 12%
Europe 9%
Asia 16%
Fieldwork region
Survey Background
speakers contacted
directly 5%
speakers contacted
someone else 18%
community member
3%
chose without knowing anyone
31%
field methods 4%
spoken nearby 11%
other 28%
How did you initially become involved with this language?
Survey Background Vitality of language
dormant 3%
very endangered
26%
endangered 13%
threatened 44%
vital 10%
other 4%
Survey Background most typical education level in community
no school someprimary
pimary somemiddle
middle some HS HS somecollege
college
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Survey Results
Attitudes about collaboration
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
yes no
Do you agree with the following statement? Documentary linguists must engage in collaborative work with the communities whose languages they document.
Attitudes about collaboration
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
yes no
Do you agree with the following statement? Documentary linguists must compromise scholarly goals to meet the community’s needs.
Types of collaboration
54%
51%
51%
41%
33%
29%
29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
changed a plan of research to meet the needsor wishes of community members
participated in language revitalization orlanguage maintenance efforts
trained a community member in another way
worked on a language project that wasoutside your area of expertise
collaborated with community members on aproject that was not language-related
trained a community member to uselinguistic software
conducted an orthography workshop
yes
attempted
plan to in future
Types of collaboration
22%
21%
19%
18%
17%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
conducted research initiated bycommunity member
conducted research initiated by acommunity leader
trained a local teacher to teachthe language
taught the language to languagelearners
co-authored a paper with acommunity member
helped a community memberobtain a degree in linguistics
yes
attempted
plan to in future
Amount of collaboration
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Number of types of collaboration
Median = 3
Collaboration is more likely when:
Collaboration is more likely when:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Language is spoken in the USA, Canada, or Australia
Ave
rage
um
be
r o
f ty
pe
s o
f co
llab
ora
tio
n
Collaboration is more likely when: Language is spoken in the USA, Canada, or Australia
p < .001 Rest of the world US, CA & Aus
Nu
mb
er
of
typ
es o
f co
llab
ora
tio
n
Collaboration is more likely when:
Speakers are educated?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
never someprimary
pimary somemiddle
middle some HS HS somecollege
college
most typical education level for community members
NOT SIGNFICANT
Ave
rage
um
be
r o
f ty
pe
s o
f co
llab
ora
tio
n
Collaboration is more likely when:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
speakerscontacted
directly
speakerscontactedsomeone
else
communitymember
chosewithoutknowinganyone
fieldmethods
spokennearby
other
Language research was initiated by speakers
Ave
rage
um
be
r o
f ty
pe
s o
f co
llab
ora
tio
n
Collaboration is more likely when: Language research was initiated by speakers
p < .001
Nu
mb
er
of
typ
es o
f co
llab
ora
tio
n
researcher initiated speakers initiated
Collaboration is more likely when: Language is dormant
p < .001
Nu
mb
er
of
typ
es o
f co
llab
ora
tio
n
dormant very endangered endangered threatened vital other
Collaboration is more likely when:
Fieldworker has worked on a language for many years
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
number of years working with language
Ave
rage
um
be
r o
f ty
pe
s o
f co
llab
ora
tio
n
Collaboration is more likely when: Researcher has worked on a language for many years
Nu
mb
er o
f ty
pe
s o
f co
llab
ora
tio
n
years
Collaboration may be more likely when:
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4
Human Development Index
Language is spoken in a first world country
Collaboration may be more likely when: A
vera
ge u
mb
er
of
typ
es
of
colla
bo
rati
on
Language is spoken in a first world country
p < .001
Collaboration may be more likely when:
Nu
mb
er o
f ty
pe
s o
f co
llab
ora
tio
n
1st world other
Language community has clear leaders
p < .01
Nu
mb
er o
f ty
pes
of
colla
bo
rati
on
no yes
Collaboration may be more likely when:
Collaboration is less likely when:
Collaboration is less likely when: researcher is a student
Nu
mb
er
of
typ
es o
f co
llab
ora
tio
n
work in higher ed student p < .001
Collaboration is less likely when: researcher resides in Asia (inc. Middle East)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Nu
mb
er
of
typ
es
of
colla
bo
rati
on
collaboration of respondents by region of residence
Collaboration is less likely when: researcher resides in Asia (inc. Middle East)
p < .001
China (1) India (4) Jordan (1) Nepal (1) Singapore (1) South Korea (2) Taiwan (4) Thailand (2) UAE (1) N
um
be
r o
f ty
pes
of
colla
bo
rati
on
Asia Rest of the world
Discussion
• Survey respondents believe that they must collaborate, but not that they must compromise scholarly goals
• Fieldworkers are engaged in more research for than research with
• Students are less likely to be involved in collaborative work
Discussion
• Fieldwork involves more collaboration if the community initiates the relationship
• Collaborative research is dependent on the culture of both the speakers and of the researcher
• Collaborative research is more common the longer the researcher has spent in the field
Discussion
Acknowledgements
US National Science Foundation grant NSF-SBE 0936887
A very special thanks to all the fieldworkers who filled out the survey!
Thank you to Fermin Moscoso for help with the statistics
References Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 2009. Research models, community engagement, and linguistic fieldwork: Reflections on working within Canadian indigenous communities. Language Documentation & Conservation 3(1). 15-50.
Dobrin, Lise. 2008. From linguistic elicitation to eliciting the linguist: Lessons in community empowerment from Melanesia. Language 84(2). 300-324.
Grinevald, Colette. 2003. Speakers and documentation of endangered languages. In Peter K. Austin (ed.) Language Documentation and Description Vol. 1, 52-72. London: SOAS.
Guérin, Valérie and Sébastian Lacrampe. 2010. Trust me, I am a linguist! Building partnerships in the field. Language Documentation & Conservation 4. 22-33.
Holton, Gary. 2009. Relatively ethical: A comparison of linguistic research paradigms in Alaska and Indonesia. Language Documentation & Conservation 3(2). 161-75.
References Rice, Keren. 2006. Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork: An overview. Journal of Academic Ethics 4. 123-155.
Rice, Keren. 2010. The linguist’s responsibilities to the community of speakers. In Lenore A. Grenoble and N. Louanna Furbee (eds.) Language documentation: Practice and values, 25-36. Amsterdam: John Bejamins.
Yamada, Racquel-María. 2007. Collaborative linguistic fieldwork: Practical application of the empowerment model. Language Documentation & Conservation 1(2). 257-282.