|
Articles Conference Reviews |
RNF Plenary SpeechesResearch Network Forum: A Review of the Plenary Speeches Paul Kei Matsuda: Got Multilingualism? Why and How of Integrating a Multilingual Perspective into Writing Research Emphasizing that the discipline needs to do more to study ESL issues, Matsuda began his plenary speech by discussing several arguments that scholars can draw on to persuasively solicit research funding. For instance, considering that the global economy is the most prominent issue noted in public conversation, Matsuda stated that scholars can describe writing as a foundational skill necessary for students to succeed in the workplace and in the global economy. Implied in Matsuda’s presentation is the suggestion that the discipline can possibly capitalize on the current economic crisis by articulating how the teaching of writing prepares students for their professional lives and—in turn—makes the United States more competitive in the global economy. In terms of research in composition studies, Matsuda recommended that scholars conduct sophisticated research studies that consist of a representative mix of students; that compare multi- and monolingual writers and the interactions between a mixed group of students; and that explore multilingual writers in context. To help ESL students succeed, Matsuda urged participants to clearly describe in the classroom both dominant and alternative discourses, identifying the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable deviations from conventions within particular writing contexts; moreover, he asked participants to provide their students with specific approaches for negotiating expectations and for developing and refining sophisticated code-switching strategies. Exhorting participants to take advantage of ESL professional development opportunities, Matsuda asked participants to become more knowledgeable about ESL issues by reading ESL research in ESL journals, monographs, and edited collections; by attending courses, workshops, and presentations that discuss ESL research, issues, and pedagogical strategies; and by collaborating with other colleagues, as well as students. He particularly encouraged participants to learn a new language so that they can better identify with ESL students and understand the challenges that they face in learning English. Matsuda concluded his presentation by calling on the discipline to resist the myth of linguistic homogeneity and to advocate for multilingualism. Although he did not name specific textbooks, he criticized prominent ESL textbooks for how they propagate the myth of linguistic homogeneity. According to Matsuda, ESL textbooks assume that their readers are already adept producers of dominant English, and as a result, the texts oversimplify cultural and linguistic differences, offering little constructive support to ESL students. All these factors have a centralizing, rather than globalizing, effect. In contrast, Matsuda emphasized that the composition classroom is a multilingual space populated by multi-competent English users. He encouraged instructors to see texts as sites where students can negotiate expectations in order to refine their multi-competent writing skills. Rebecca Rickly: Making Waves in the Research Culture of Graduate Programs Rebecca Rickly’s plenary presentation purposely made participants uncomfortable because it reminded them of how disorienting and dislocating primary research can be. Rickly noted that the field lacks quality primary research. Indeed, she hypothesized that this lack is possibly a result of the following: those that teach research methods to graduate students may not know how to conduct sophisticated research studies; additionally, primary research is not highly valued at some institutions or even within the discipline. Contesting the container myth of research, in which research is outlined as a set of hierarchical, predetermined steps, Rickly emphasized that research is inherently messy and recursive—full of stops, starts, and stutters. Using her graduate courses at Texas Tech as examples, Rickly described some activities that help graduate students process the messiness, the frustration, and the intimidation of research. She urged graduate programs to resist the glossing over of research methods; rather, she recommended that graduate programs provide a safe environment where graduate students can work through and fail at research. Such hands-on experiences will be time-consuming, Rickly noted, and they may even delay progress in pursuing a graduate degree. But, hands-on experiences will better prepare graduate students for their lives outside of graduate school as they pursue meaningful research that contributes to the field. In particular, Rickly advocated for an ecological framework for conceptualizing primary research in the discipline. An ecological framework views research as situated, rhetorical, and organic; it is flexible and reflexive and is not beholden to strict timelines. It emphasizes process and processing—the process of refining focus and methods and the processing of the data that is collected, as well as the interpreting of the significance of what has been collected. An ecological framework allows research to be messy and a bit chaotic; it explores disorder for the concealed insights that lay behind. Within an ecological framework, the unexpected is not necessarily a problem; however, an attempt to compartmentalize the research process, or narrowly portray it as linear, is problematic. Overall, Rickly’s presentation was reassuring, as it confirmed that our uneasiness felt when conducting research is normal and natural. Our apprehension is an effect of the process and of the realization—conscious or unconscious—that we don’t always have control of our research, that (sometimes, anyway) it has a mind of its own and leads us to wholly unforeseen results and unanticipated interpretations, a realization that can be disquieting for many. |