Problematizing English as Master(y) Language for Qualitative Research

• In Event: Trans(re)lating Diversity in Academic Terrains

Abstract

Objectives: Singh (2018) proposed that mastery is not something to overcome but something to survive. Approximately 98% of science communication is in English (Ramirez-Castañeda, 2020) and “the dominance of English is like a snowball, too big to prevent” (Xue & Zuo, 2013, p. 2262). In this conceptual paper, I problematize the role of the master(y), and hegemony of English as the academic world language.

Perspective and points of view: Traditionally language in qualitative research is used to describe, create understanding, facilitate empathy, connect unknown to know, claim identities and power, and translate potentially incompatible worlds. Spivak (2005) warned us about the imminent death of diverse host language when/which will be/ replaced by English translations. For Spivak translation is an active site of conflict, which always carries with itself traces of other, histories, languages, and cultures. The master(y) language sets up boundaries and various forms of violence toward the other, minor, and different because mastery calls for “this split and hierarchized relation be extended in time” (Singh, 2018, p.14).
To counter and potentially replace mastery, radical imagination could function as a powerful tool to imagine world of becoming and togetherness. Researchers could work in solidarity with social movements to build their capacity for resilient and transformative struggle (Haiven & Khasnabish, 2014) while remembering that difference is a different operational mode – more-than-mode (Manning, 2020). One could also shift from order-words (moves through knowledge and creates historical order to language and words, to keep the saying in check) to pass-words (collectively invented and then forgotten, components of passage not stoppage) (see Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Manning, 2020) and see what might happen? Everything cannot be understood and desire for understanding could be interpreted as a desire for mastery. It is also important to remember that access does not mean care and guarantee empathy. We could use languages and discourses from below i.e., feminine, postcolonial, queer, and other otherness-es (see Harding, 2008) to replace the master(y). Might it be desirable to construct oneself as a seeker (rather than knower) who questions, brings own experiences to the process, continuously pursues other knowledges, and constructs understandings each time differently (see also Hsu, 2008)?

Mitä sinä sanoisit lukijoille suomeksi? Ehkä kiittäisit tästä mahdollisuudesta ilmaista itseäsi omalla äidinkielelläsi. Ehkä välittäisit vähemmän siitä pystyykö joku ymmärtämään suomen kieltä koska halusit stimuloida provokointia, erilaisia tunnetiloja, ja arvaamattomia kokemuksia. Ehkä kirjoittaisit siitä epävarmuudesta ja epätarkkuudesta mikä usein littyy vieraalla kielellä kirjoittamiseen. Ehkä kapinoisit kirjoittamista vastaan ja piirtäisit tai säveltäisit pienen kappaleen.

Scholarly significance: The absence of assumed linguistic mastery can promote more diversified and accessible knowledges and processes. Qualitative scholars could invite and sustain other languages in different publication venues, mix languages to create discomfort and deeper articulative tools, and reconsider publication practices e.g., peer reviews and monolingual journals. Rather than enabling language to constitute colonizing practices, demand for linguistic perfections, disempowered identities, and highly problematic power relations, the refusal of (colonial/research) language could enable qualitative researchers to invent, create, and enact languages differently in various dynamic and continuously changing contexts.

Author

• Mirka E. Koro, Arizona State University