By Basile Boulay (part 3 of 3)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Facilitating publication in English for non-native speakers is important: as we saw in the previous post<\/a> (1st post here<\/a>), they face numerous entry barriers that prevent them for having the same chances as their native peers on the \u2018research market\u2019. It\u2019s not the full story, however, and far from it. In this third article, I would like to stress how far this linguistic divide takes us on the terrain of structural inequalities, power dynamics, and, yes, intellectual reductionism. Although we cannot ignore the practical gains that English as a lingua franca<\/em> brings for research, we can\u2019t turn a blind eye to the fact that this hegemony creates serious problems for everyone, native speakers included.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n One of the most salient negative side effects of the predominance of English in research is that it creates a tendency to set Anglo-Saxon literatures as the theoretical gold standard. This has been well explained, for instance, in the special issue<\/a> published in 2019 by the International Journal of Urban Science<\/em> on the dominance of English in the field of economic geography. Its introduction<\/a> opens: \u2018A big part of social scientific research is the art of persuasion. (\u2026) Those who speak the lingua franca, English at least for now, as their native language have a clear advantage in that art of persuasion, which in turn gives them an advantage in advancing their theories and approaches. Researchers who were not brought up with English are likely to be left with the task of undertaking empirical and applied research<\/em>\u2019 (p.i).<\/p>\n\n\n\n We have already discussed how the evolution of the research ecosystem over the past decades has favoured the predominance of English through biased indexation on databases, largely anglophone editorial boards, and the growing marketisation and internationalisation of research. In addition, most researchers, including in non-native English countries, are trained with literature and textbooks produced by \u2018authorities\u2019 in the field, which more often than not emanate from the Anglo-Saxon institutions and contexts. According to Hassink et al.<\/em><\/a>, international conferences and \u2018agenda-setting\u2019 keynote addresses also play an important role, as they predominantly happen in English and feature scholars from the Global North.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Faraldo-Cabana<\/a> explains that theory is often equated with theory emanating from the \u2018core\u2019, with little or no attention paid to alternative theoretical views or concepts: \u2018Non-native scholars are treated as mere \u2018consumers of central scholars\u2019 knowledge\u2019<\/em> (p.170). In other words, they are theory-importers<\/em>, in the absence of a possibility to be exporters<\/em> of their own theoretical background. This might leave them with the only option to use constructs emanating from the \u2018core\u2019 as theoretical justification for their own research contexts and sites. The latter is in fact often required by editors and referees for publication: explicit reference to a theoretical framework considered sound and scientific enough is a necessary condition. The problem, of course, is that more often than not, \u2018sound and scientific enough\u2019 means \u2018from the core\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This leads to a critical issue for research: the strategic selection of topics and conceptual frameworks by non-native researchers, an ex-ante<\/em> move aiming at maximising the chances of getting published in \u2018good\u2019 journals. As a result, specific topics that do not \u2018sell\u2019 enough at the international level are left aside: \u2018In order to be accepted by Anglo-American editors and referees, they <\/em>[scholars] might choose research topics that dominate in the Anglo-American discourse at the expense of locally situated research topics<\/em><\/a>\u2019<\/em> (p.154).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The literature focusing on agricultural issues in the field of mainstream development economics is a good candidate for an illustration. Any dig into this literature will reveal the emphasis (not to say obsession) on concepts emanating from the Global North and in particular Anglo-Saxon scholarship, such as \u2018missing markets\u2019, \u2018incomplete markets\u2019, or the conceptualisation of \u2018households as firms\u2019. These are applied to a variety of developing contexts, from Latin America to the entire African continent, thus forcing an analytical grid on contexts for which it may be ill-suited. Although far from being a magical theoretical toolbox, and evidently ideologically and historically loaded, they are the norm. They are \u2018theoretically sound\u2019, as opposed to alternative theoretical concepts which are often relegated to the realm of anecdotal ideas and footnotes. As a disclaimer: this is in fact something I worked on myself, partly because I did not fully grasp the power ramifications of mainstream theory, partly because no one encourages you to look elsewhere if you want to consider a career in academia, based on the good old don\u2019t shoot yourself in the foot<\/em> wisdom\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, this does not mean that concepts and theories originating in Anglo-Saxon circles should not<\/em> be used or applied in other contexts. It simply means their use should not be a prerequisite<\/em> to be considered for publications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The self-selection of publishable topics and frameworks also opens a wider question about science, especially social sciences and Development Studies. Social sciences are at large concerned with understanding societies, contexts, and populations, with the implicit assumption that improved understanding may foster social change. Research largely focuses on populations, communities, and areas of interest, either directly (surveys, interviews, case studies etc.) or indirectly (use of secondary data). Paasi<\/a> explains that when research is conducted in English because of the discussed homogenisation practices, this affects not only the \u2018form\u2019 of research (i.e. articles in English) but also its epistemic content. There is a danger that any feedback mechanism with local populations studied gets weakened, that the latter simply get turned into yet another object of study for academics, without any possibility to enter into a meaningful feedback-relationship. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n A related problem has to do with loss of meaning: put simply, layers of meaning get lost in translation. The use of one standardised academic language for social science publications, which features a virtually infinite number of contexts and singularities, inevitably dilutes the original meaning of concepts\/ideas\/definitions. The use of umbrella terms such as resilience<\/em> or sustainability <\/em>has become very conventional in research, but masks precious differences and disparities across time and space as a result of homogenisation practices. In other words, we communicate better and faster, but on a potentially reduced intellectual plane, on a truncated space. We all know of a specific concept in our native language that simply does not translate easily in English.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For all these reasons, we all stand to lose, including English native speakers themselves. First, because we miss out on linguistic diversity, which brings valuable conceptual diversity. Second, we also lose efficiency, an argument not to be taken lightly in times of budgetary crunch. English native researchers are statistically less likely to speak and read foreign languages than non-natives are to speak and read English, and the inability to survey non-English literatures hides existing literatures to many researchers. In fact, entire schools of thought are often simply unacknowledged in English speaking circles, sometimes due to lack of translation, sometimes simply due to lack of interest. This can only lead to inefficiencies, the reinforcement of \u2018bubbles\u2019 of knowledge, and waste of precious resources in an ever-harsher academic environment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A last point, particularly relevant in the case of Development Studies and the decolonial critique context, is that of ethics. When no country in South America has English as an official language, when large regions of Africa operate in other internationally prominent languages, to name just a couple of examples, can we not in the name of ethical partnerships and fair collaborations move away from an all-English model? A strong and honest decolonial effort should also recognise the issue for the simple reason that \u2018Linguistic hegemony is a form of power that empowers some while disempowering others<\/em><\/a>\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A key issue revolves around the publishing ecosystem and the power exerted by journal rankings and other metric-based performance indicators. UK\/US based English-only journals are largely over-represented in databases. Publications featuring other languages should be encouraged, especially from the so-called diamond journals, which do not \u2018belong\u2019 to a publisher but are instead housed and managed by universities and institutions. For example, the Revue internationale des \u00e9tudes du d\u00e9veloppement<\/em> welcomes articles in French, English and Spanish. In terms of content, special issues can also be envisaged, with the aim to provide counter narratives and theoretical concepts emanating from non-English contexts, and current efforts of diversifying editorial boards should be intensified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The conference culture should embrace change and greater linguistic diversity, by welcoming more submissions in other languages, but also featuring keynote addresses and plenaries from non-English speakers. Providing translation services is increasingly easier in conferences, and artificial intelligence will surely help in this respect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is no easy way to think about this because of the advantages of using English as a lingua franca<\/em>. A collective effort is needed to deal with the resulting structural inequalities, and to imagine a more flexible and diverse model. The extra efforts that are a burden on the shoulders of non-native speakers are obvious, so equity concerns should motivate us to create tangible alternatives. At the personal level, researchers who only speak English could develop the capacity to read and engage in a second language to begin with, and eventually co-author with non-native partners in other languages when justified by circumstances, but also simply delve into the new possibilities this gives them. At the institutional level, organisations need to recognise that time and financial resources in the form of transfers that benefit non-native speakers may be needed (mentee\/mentor programme etc.). At a more societal level, a collective debate on the practices of publishers and referencing database would also be a healthy exercise to start with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Basile Boulay<\/strong> is Senior Executive at the EADI secretariat and holds a PhD in Development Economics<\/p>\n\n\n\n Image<\/strong>: Diego Delso<\/a>, CC BY-SA 4.0<\/a>, via Wikimedia Commons<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" We can talk in English, but can we talk about English? By Basile Boulay (part 3 of 3) Facilitating publication in English for non-native speakers is important: as we saw in the previous post (1st post here), they face numerous entry barriers that prevent them for having the same chances as their native peers on … <\/p>\nTheory is Anglo-Saxon theory. Or is it?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The (real) threat of self-censorship<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Who are we researching for anyway?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
We all stand to lose<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What can be done?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n