Len’s Blog Assignment #5 (Canagarajah)

Canagarajah’s work discusses how LPP and ethnography may be brought together, despite their converging directions. Ethnography may be used to aid the formulation, implementation, and development of language policies. Instead of a top-down approach which is usually employed in LPP, a more bottom-up process may be utilized through ethnographic methods. It may be a useful method in uncovering the gaps between policies and practices on the community level, and thus, it may serve as a helpful instrument in exposing tensions and resolving issues. Critical ethnography is proposed to allow the ethnographer and the local group to evaluate policies affecting them.

A researcher may have a committed political position in conducting fieldwork. As an ethnographer though, there are several challenges that she has to face. First, she may encounter resistance from the community she is working with because her advocacy may conflict with the views of her informants. If this is the case, she has to uncover where they are coming from. She needs to unveil their attitudes, values, and beliefs. Second, she may fall into the trap of forcing her advocacy by imposing her views on them or misrepresenting their ideas in the course of her study. She has to be aware of her inclinations and acknowledge them in the presentation of her study. Third, she may be confined by the parameters of the position she has taken. Though she has a particular purpose in conducting the study, she has to be open-minded and explore possibilities and options. Finally, she has to see the study both from her perspective and the perspectives of her informants and somehow find a way to reconcile them by involving them from the beginning to the end of the study. In many instances, informants are left clueless about the results of the study and what the outcome signifies for them. There should be a venue for presenting, discussing, and evaluating the findings that involve the informants themselves. The results may be used to raise the awareness of the informants, challenge them to question their own paradigms, and help them find out for themselves the steps that need to be taken to resolve issues.

This process reminds me of my experience in conducting my MA thesis. As an ELT researcher, I had a very clear purpose: introduce a materials design framework that may integrate the elements of the Ateneo de Manila High School English Program because after having an initial survey of the syllabi and materials, I saw several inconsistencies. The framework seemed to be the appropriate solution to improve the program according to the results of my study. As the chair back then, I discussed the findings with the teachers (also the informants of my study) and introduced the framework. However, I sensed that most of them felt there was some imposition on my part because the solution came from me and not from them. Apparently, they were not convinced that the framework would actually work. Thus, I asked the year level coordinators who saw promise in the framework to conduct a demo class to show how it could work in the classroom. The teachers acted as students and many of them realized the benefits of using it after the workshop. My original position was to implement the framework right away. However, I realized that they had to own the framework first. Thus, the first year became our experimental year. At the end of the year, we evaluated its use and we decided to improve our policies and programs according to that framework. The researcher and informants had to work together to get it done.

Reference:

Canagarajah, S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.) An introduction to language policy: theory and method (pp. 153-169). Malde, MA: Blackwell Publishing.