The Theory Question in Research Capacity Building in Education: Towards an Agenda for Research and Practice

New forms of intellectual inequality have become evident with the internationalisation of higher degree researchers (HDRs) education, in particular theoretical dominance and dependency. However, the linguistically and theoretically based inequalities associated with local/global currents of standardized monolingual English HDRs education are gradually opening up to scholarly debates. In the field of education, bilingual HDRs have the potential disposition, and some have the capabilities for multilingual theorizing. Some make use of their knowledge of more than one language to extend the possibilities for theorizing educational phenomena or otherwise naming and making sense of problems. This multilingual theorizing may provide another path to transform the problems with uniformized, Anglophone HDRs education. With this concern, this paper reconsiders the universalisation of Euro-American theories through their embodiment in monolingual English in HDR education. A Dui Hua (对话) standpoint to other languages and theoretical knowledge is outlined and debated to highlight the divergences of languages and thoughts. Thus this paper probes into the possibilities of multilingual educational theorizing, whereby bilingual HDRs generate original conceptual tools that benefit the wider educational research community.

Section: Discussion: Multilingual Educational Theorizing Challenges Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction: Theories In English As the Dominant Resources mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Dui Hua (对话) Standpoint to Multilingual Educational Theorizing

Shen

2017

“…Researchers are discussing the place of theorizing in research methods and ways for researchers to develop their capabilities for theorizing [21]. The meaning of theory and theorizing are contested across HASS disciplines and among researchers, with rational disagreements about what theory and theorizing are supposed to be or ought to be [22]. For instance, a theory might be seen as a critical, plausible and coherent account of social phenomenon that provides a persuasive explanation of how arose and why it might be dealt with in specified ways [23].…”

Section: Current Research Informing Post-monolingual Research Methodomentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Monolingual Research Methodology: Multilingual Researchers Democratizing Theorizing and Doctoral Education

Singh

2017

This paper reports on the ground-breaking research in the study of languages in doctoral education. It argues for democratizing the production and dissemination of original contributions to knowledge through activating and mobilizing multilingual Higher Degree Researchers' (HDRs) capabilities for theorizing through them using their full linguistic repertoire. This paper contributes to this study's development of post-monolingual research methodology which provides a theoretic-pedagogical framework for multilingual HDRs (a) to use their full linguistic repertoire in their research; (b) to develop their capabilities for theorizing and (c) to construct potentially valuable theoretical tools using metaphors, images, concepts and modes of critique. This paper is based on a longitudinal program of collaborative research whereby monolingual Anglophone and multilingual HDRs jointly developed their capabilities for theorizing through producing Anglo-Chinese analytical tools, and the associated pedagogies for using their languages in doctoral research. This longitudinal research program has been undertaken in the field of doctoral education to further a defining feature of democracy, namely linguistic diversity. This research has been conducted with the aims of promoting the multilingualism of Australian universities and activating linguistic communities of scholars to use their full linguistic repertoire in their research. The main finding arising from this program of research has been the development of post-monolingual research methodology which (a) uses the divergences within and between languages to undertake theorizing and (b) in co-existence with the tensions posed by monolingualism, especially the insistence on using extant theories available in only one language. Doctoral pedagogies of intellectual/racial equality provide multilingual HDRs with insights into the debates about the geopolitics governing the use of languages in the production and dissemination of theoretical knowledge and the capabilities for theorizing. Often, from an English-only monolingual mindset, difference and divergence are seen as a recipe for deficits and dissonance. However, this paper challenges such mistaken beliefs by showing that multilingual HDRs can deepen and extend their capabilities for theorizing by using their own linguistic repertoires. Post-monolingual research methodology is to be of enormous benefit to multilingual researchers and scholars engaged in intellectual labor in predominantly English-only monolingual universities.

“…Theorizing focusses on the capabilities for building a theory, while theory is the product of this intellectual labor [8]. Developing theorizing capabilities is that part of the work of research that involves making "intelligible why people are saying and doing what they are saying and doing" [9] (p. 229). Two crucial capabilities required of researchers to engage in for theorizing are disciplined imagination [10,11] and creativeness [8].…”

Section: Theorizing Capabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Divergence of Languages as Resources for Theorizing

Nguyễn

2017

This paper investigates the potential of conceptual divergences within and between languages for providing intellectual resources for theorizing. Specifically, it explores the role of multilingual researchers in using the possibilities of the plurality of intellectual cultures and languages they have access to for theorizing International Service Learning (ISL). In doing so, this investigation of conceptual divergence within/between languages shows how it is possible for multilingual researchers to extend their capabilities for theorizing; to bring forward possibilities for theorizing ISL in languages other than English; and to potentially bring new perspectives to a field of enquiry which lays claim to being "international". The process of developing the capability for theorizing begins by exploring the divergence in languages of key concepts. In this instance, the analysis focuses on the English concept of "service learning" which is rendered in Tiếng Việt (i.e., Vietnamese language) as ho . c tập phu . c vu . cộng đồng. The analysis of the conceptual divergence represented by these Tiếng Việt concepts opens up insights into ways of developing the capabilities that multilingual researchers have for theorizing. In effect, this paper contributes to the knowledge about the options multilingual researchers have for using their full linguistic repertoire for the purpose of theorizing. The study has significant implications for multilingual education, multilingual research and theorizing ISL in universities which privilege English-only monolingualism.