Issues related to academic involvement in language revitalization

While linguists and other academics can be valuable aides in language revitalization programs, there are also instances where academic and community institutions come into opposition due to conflicting alignments, loyalties, priorities, methods, and goals.

Different people and groups may have different attitudes or ideas regarding their language, and it is not the role of the objective researcher to take sides, or to make a decision for them. A researcher may choose to involve themselves deeply in a community, doing research “with” them rather than “on” them. This approach can yield valuable linguistic data as well as help support the community in revitalization efforts However, researchers must be aware that they are moving from being an objective scientist to a biased advocate and must consider the potential issues and concerns that come from such.

Objectivity

Academic researchers are intended to be objective, in order to provide the most neutral data and analyses. In collaborating with language communities, a researcher is subject to the community's predispositions and attitudes, which may not align with the objectivity necessary of scientific research. In an account of his fieldwork with an Aboriginal community in Australia, David Wilkins described how his actions and activities were controlled by the leaders of the community and being subject to their interests and politics. In one instance, Wilkins was disallowed from interviewing a certain subset of the linguistic community because said group was considered to lie outside the cultural or political community. This was a non-scientific decision to intentionally exclude data based on the internal politics of the Aboriginal community. Additionally, the community leaders not only controlled the sources of Wilkins’ data, but they also controlled his methodology. Wilkins writes, “I had input to, but did not determine, the research methods which would yield the information which I was to work with”. Community leaders are typically not (and in Wilkins’ case, were not) trained in proper academic methodology. If a researcher has to listen to the community regarding methodology, this risks them having to use improper, incomplete, or subjective practices. This sort of influence can compromise the validity of the research. By aligning too much with the community, a researcher also risks making promises they cannot keep, or losing the funding for the research.

Impartiality

Language communities can also contain within them many different attitudes, alignments, and ideologies regarding language. In involving the community with research, a researcher is forced to choose one of these, typically the one supported by the majority or the leadership, to align with. In doing so, the researcher involves themselves in internal community politics which do not concern them, which may place them at odds with subgroups and tacitly support the perspectives of the institutions of power in the community, which may have non-academic political agendas, including exclusion or marginalization of minority subgroups or viewpoints. Aligning with these institutions can grant their views additional social validity and power.

An example of this is linguist William Labov’s testimony regarding American Vernacular Black English (AVBE) in the Oakland Ebonics resolution, in which he stated that AVBE diverged significantly from Standard English. Though this was his opinion as a linguist, by giving this testimony, Labov made a statement regarding the African-American community, of which he was not a part of and did not speak for the entirety of. Labov made a choice of which community viewpoint to support, those that had non-linguistic motives to emphasize the divergence of AVBE from Standard English.

Indigenous Self-Determination

As indigenous communities continue their struggle for recognition, a large part of this is often self-representation or a larger say in the state policies and practices that concern them. The colonial systems typically stripped power away from these communities, with colonizers making decisions for them under the guise of civilization. By deeply involving themselves with a community, a researcher risks recreating these roles. A researcher can be looked to as an expert, by either the community itself, or by outsiders such as the state, to comment on some relevant issue. By taking a stance, the researcher in effect engages in academic colonialism, influencing indigenous matters through their privileged education and station. According to Cameron et al., “if members of those communities do not possess the information needed to engage in internal debate, there is a danger that external advocates will end up making their choices for them".

Improper or Ineffective Tasks

If a linguistic researchers becomes beholden to the wishes of the community, it can often place them in a position outside of their expertise. A linguist wishing to make a grammar of a language may agree to help in creating more practical or applied resources for the community, such as pedagogical or classroom materials, or to assist in training language instructors or designing language curricula. These activities lie outside of the field of linguistics, and a language documenter is unlikely to be properly trained in them. Instead, they should be left to those specialists who have the proper background knowledge to complete them effectively. A linguist, however well-meaning they may be, risks spending valuable time and resources to create ineffective materials, counter to both their aims and the aims of the community. Researcher David Wilkins relays this in his recount of his own experiences in Australia, stating “My linguistic training had not really prepared me for these tasks …and decisions ... would ideally have been made by a teacher-linguist who was thoroughly trained in both linguistics and education”.