Gibb, R. and Danero Iglesias, J. (2017) Breaking the silence (again): on language learning and levels of fluency in ethnographic research. Sociological Review, 65(1), pp. 134-149. (doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.12389)
|
Text
118658.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. 992kB |
Abstract
Ethnographic research is often multilingual, requiring the researcher to work in two or more different languages, if necessary with the assistance of an interpreter. Given this, surprisingly few ethnographers have attempted to discuss in detail how their own knowledge of different languages and their decisions to use interpreters and/or translators during fieldwork have affected the research they have conducted. Drawing on material from our own research, as well as from published accounts by other ethnographers, we aim in this article to dispel some of the ‘silence’ or ‘mystique’ surrounding such matters. More specifically, we argue for the importance of documenting and analysing not only the process of language learning in ethnographic research but also the ways in which levels of fluency in a second or additional language can affect the research process, including the writing of ethnographic fieldnotes and forms of self and other identification. We suggest that a heightened awareness of these issues can help researchers make more informed choices when carrying out and writing up ethnographic research using different languages.
Item Type: | Articles |
---|---|
Status: | Published |
Refereed: | Yes |
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID: | Gibb, Dr Robert and Danero Iglesias, Dr Julien |
Authors: | Gibb, R., and Danero Iglesias, J. |
College/School: | College of Social Sciences > School of Social and Political Sciences > Sociology Anthropology and Applied Social Sciences |
Journal Name: | Sociological Review |
Publisher: | Wiley |
ISSN: | 0038-0261 |
ISSN (Online): | 1467-954X |
Published Online: | 25 January 2017 |
Copyright Holders: | Copyright © 2016 The Authors |
First Published: | First published in The Sociological Review 65(1):134-149 |
Publisher Policy: | Reproduced under a Creative Commons License |
University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record