Curated Theme: Making academic practices in linguistics more sustainable: reducing negative impact on the environment and society: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(nothing big yet, it is still only a bunch of points that I will organize later) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Problem definition == | == Problem definition == | ||
What academic practices could/should have a reduction of impact? | What academic practices could/should have a reduction of impact? | ||
sustainability of linguistics (academic practices, flying, topics chosen by linguists, collabs, etc) vs. linguistics of sustainability (the way we talk about sust topics). --> definition of sustling. | |||
==== Impact ==== | ==== Impact ==== | ||
| Line 31: | Line 33: | ||
The positive impact of linguistic fieldwork can be increased by collaboration with the speaker community and their decisions about what shall be the results of of the work of a linguist in their community. For example, this can take the form of the creation of educational material in their language. | The positive impact of linguistic fieldwork can be increased by collaboration with the speaker community and their decisions about what shall be the results of of the work of a linguist in their community. For example, this can take the form of the creation of educational material in their language. | ||
increase representativity and inclusivity of perspectives > more internal "interdisciplinarity" | |||
in order to really understand language endangerment (as well as language in general), we need more views about it. | |||
e.g. about division of nature/culture made in Western societies, which "does often not correspond to the way in which many Indigenous cultures view this relation, which affects their views on language" (lecture on ecolinguistics, week 3, slide 46) | |||
e.g. TEK (traditional ecological knowledge) (see also slides Wk6_EcolingII) | |||
See also the [[Curated theme: Making academic practices in linguistics more sustainable: collaborating within and beyond disciplines.|Curated theme: Making academic practices in linguistics more sustainable: collaborating within and beyond disciplines]] | See also the [[Curated theme: Making academic practices in linguistics more sustainable: collaborating within and beyond disciplines.|Curated theme: Making academic practices in linguistics more sustainable: collaborating within and beyond disciplines]] | ||
Four arguments for language maintenance | |||
* social justice, political reasons to stop speaking a language. | * social justice, political reasons to stop speaking a language. | ||
* epistemic sustainability: "A dying language is a burning library of knowledge" | * epistemic sustainability: "A dying language is a burning library of knowledge" | ||
* indigenous wellbeing / wellbeing of minorities (not only language minorities but minorities in general) | * indigenous wellbeing / wellbeing of minorities (not only language minorities but minorities in general) | ||
** spiritual, land-based, cultural identity, emotional health, physical health, educational, economic, restorative<ref>Angelo et al. 2019: 12. Dimensions of the WILE framework. // Angelo, D., C. O’Shannessy, J. Simpson, I. Kral, H. Smith, and E. Browne (2019). Well-being and indigenous language ecologies (wile): a strengths-based approach: Literature review, national indigenous languages report, pillar 2</ref> | |||
* linguistic diversity | |||
* what matters to people? what matters to linguists? is it possible to combine both? what are the interests of all parties? | * what matters to people? what matters to linguists? is it possible to combine both? what are the interests of all parties? | ||
* Who has expertise? on what? How can we combine the expertise of different people to have a positive impact together? | * Who has expertise? on what? How can we combine the expertise of different people to have a positive impact together? | ||
Revision as of 18:13, 18 January 2023
not finished
Problem definition
What academic practices could/should have a reduction of impact?
sustainability of linguistics (academic practices, flying, topics chosen by linguists, collabs, etc) vs. linguistics of sustainability (the way we talk about sust topics). --> definition of sustling.
Impact
Do we want to reduce negative impacts, or to increase positive impacts?
Reduce negative impacts
- Working proposal on sustainable linguistics by Rodriguez Louro et al. (2019)[1]
- reduce flights (e.g. conferences)
- develop remote participation in conferences and reduce other academic travel
- encourage more sustainable ways of traveling and compensate the emission with carbon offset
- reduce unnecessary merchandising
- environmentally friendly catering
- stop investing in fossil fuels and everything that is not sustainable
- use of open source programs
- disciplinarity (vs. inter- or multidisciplinarity. compartementalization of academia)
increase positive impacts
If we want to increase positive impacts, this can be done by including more diversity in the origin, medium and structure of the sources used in academic research. <HC: add a few terms and sources of IND-311, e.g. pluralism> frameworks, theories, interdisciplinarity, representativity, inclusivity of people and views, collaborative work. the solutions are not waiting on a university desk. acknowledge one's own background
Other people outside of traditional "Western" linguistics have points of view and methods of research that are also valuable to the research of language - i.e. linguistics.
e.g. considering nature and society as two different things (which the SDG do) is a eurocentric thought.
impact on prestige of minority languages and attitudes towards them
The positive impact of linguistic fieldwork can be increased by collaboration with the speaker community and their decisions about what shall be the results of of the work of a linguist in their community. For example, this can take the form of the creation of educational material in their language.
increase representativity and inclusivity of perspectives > more internal "interdisciplinarity"
in order to really understand language endangerment (as well as language in general), we need more views about it.
e.g. about division of nature/culture made in Western societies, which "does often not correspond to the way in which many Indigenous cultures view this relation, which affects their views on language" (lecture on ecolinguistics, week 3, slide 46)
e.g. TEK (traditional ecological knowledge) (see also slides Wk6_EcolingII)
See also the Curated theme: Making academic practices in linguistics more sustainable: collaborating within and beyond disciplines
Four arguments for language maintenance
- social justice, political reasons to stop speaking a language.
- epistemic sustainability: "A dying language is a burning library of knowledge"
- indigenous wellbeing / wellbeing of minorities (not only language minorities but minorities in general)
- spiritual, land-based, cultural identity, emotional health, physical health, educational, economic, restorative[2]
- linguistic diversity
- what matters to people? what matters to linguists? is it possible to combine both? what are the interests of all parties?
- Who has expertise? on what? How can we combine the expertise of different people to have a positive impact together?
Impact on society
- fieldwork ethics
- find the relevance of linguistics through what it brings to people and society.
Impact on environment:
Concrete solutions
Possible pages and categories to link
specific SDG's
- ↑ Rodriguez Louro, C., M. Ponsonnet, M.-E. Ritz, and L. Miceli (2019). Sustainable linguistics: A working proposal. Draft, version 3.
- ↑ Angelo et al. 2019: 12. Dimensions of the WILE framework. // Angelo, D., C. O’Shannessy, J. Simpson, I. Kral, H. Smith, and E. Browne (2019). Well-being and indigenous language ecologies (wile): a strengths-based approach: Literature review, national indigenous languages report, pillar 2
