Blog Assignment#2: Ethnographic Methods in Language Policy

    The work of Canagarajah places LPP from a top-down perspective to that of a bottom-up perspective by including it (LPP) in ethnography.  The two (LPP and ethnography) may be coming from opposite polarities but it was soundly argued that “in scholarly discourse and the field of LPP itself point to the concerns of ethnography and LPP merging” (Canagarajah, 2006).  In my case (as an ordinary classroom teacher), it might be viewed that we cannot influence the language policies that “trickle down” from the authorities (experts) from above who according to Canagarajah failed to consider the grassroots.  One reason is that it is a messy business (language relationships are difficult to predict and manage, community needs are ambivalent, and a lot of things are considerably ideological in nature).  However, with the emergence of “critical” ethnography and the methods that go with it and its merging with LPP,  that perspective (powerless teachers and uniformed non-grassroots language policies) might just be changed.

    Again, it is not an easy task.  I do agree that a researcher can go to field work with a committed political decision as opposed to a "neutralized" simple descriptive research. (i.e. objective and value-free orientation).   One can argue that a research should not be politically charged--but in the case of LPP where lives are affected, one has to take a committed political stance (in favor of the oppressed). At this point it sounds like a sweeping statement, but as Canagarajah pointed out in the difference between critical ethnography and traditional ethnography in which the former espouses a “neutral” and descriptive stance, and the latter, with an orientation of a non-foundational, socially constructed, and power differences implicated kind of knowledge (Canagarajah, 2006).  Thus, as critical thinkers, we unravel the power play in the system and expose the hegemonic consequences of current language policies, and bring about change in the system.

    In concrete terms, for example, in the classroom or in a community, the teacher-researcher uses critical ethnographic methods of research.  Relating this to the research I have in mind and in the previous blog entry  I made, I said that I let my students code-switch in order for them to explain what they want to say.  With the help of critical ethnographic research methods, I can try justifying how and why I find this strategy In so doing, I contribute to the body of research that helps identify the effectiveness of different pedagogies and curricula, as well as in the understanding of how language policies (top-down model) trickle down to classrooms (Freeman in Canagarajah, 2006).

    Lastly, if I will commit myself with a political stance and proceed with my ethnographic research, the one big problem I see is how am I going to share this with the community (my school- students, teachers, and parents) and “enlighten“ them about the importance of participating in the decision-making process of LPP.  With all the other concerns in school (concerns of parents, teachers, and students), such thing could be easily brushed off by other “bigger” concerns.  

    Intuitively, my answer for this challenge is to keep “talking” about it so as to make it to the mainstream consciousness of the people concerned.  In the end, we may have achieved the first step in the improvement of our own communities.