Table Of Content

education sciences Article Divergence of Languages as Resources for Theorizing ThiHongNhungNguyen CentreforEducationalResearch,SchoolofEducation,WesternSydneyUniversity,Penrith,NSW2751,Australia; [email protected]@gmail.com AcademicEditor:JamesAlbright Received:29September2016;Accepted:24January2017;Published:4February2017 Abstract: This paper investigates the potential of conceptual divergences within and between languages for providing intellectual resources for theorizing. Specifically, it explores the role of multilingualresearchersinusingthepossibilitiesofthepluralityofintellectualculturesandlanguages theyhaveaccesstofortheorizingInternationalServiceLearning(ISL).Indoingso,thisinvestigation of conceptual divergence within/between languages shows how it is possible for multilingual researcherstoextendtheircapabilitiesfortheorizing;tobringforwardpossibilitiesfortheorizingISL inlanguagesotherthanEnglish;andtopotentiallybringnewperspectivestoafieldofenquirywhich laysclaimtobeing“international”. Theprocessofdevelopingthecapabilityfortheorizingbeginsby exploringthedivergenceinlanguagesofkeyconcepts. Inthisinstance,theanalysisfocusesonthe Englishconceptof“servicelearning”whichisrenderedinTiếngViệt(i.e.,Vietnameselanguage)as ho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng. TheanalysisoftheconceptualdivergencerepresentedbytheseTiếngViệt conceptsopensupinsightsintowaysofdevelopingthecapabilitiesthatmultilingualresearchers havefortheorizing. Ineffect,thispapercontributestotheknowledgeabouttheoptionsmultilingual researchershaveforusingtheirfulllinguisticrepertoireforthepurposeoftheorizing. Thestudy hassignificantimplicationsformultilingualeducation,multilingualresearchandtheorizingISLin universitieswhichprivilegeEnglish-onlymonolingualism. Keywords: divergenceswithin/betweenlanguages;InternationalServiceLearning;multilingualism; theorizingcapabilities;TiếngViệt 1. Introduction The paper adds to cutting-edge research which is exploring the possibility that multilingual Higher Degree Researchers (HDRs) might develop their capabilities for theorizing through using theirfulllinguisticrepertoire. Specifically, thispaperisbasedonSingh’s[1]ground-breakingand thoughtprovokingpost-monolingualresearchmethodology. BasedonSingh’sgenerativeandhighly productive research and intellectual leadership in post-monolingual education and research, this paperprovidesanaccountoftheuseEnglishandTiếngViệt(Vietnameselanguage)inresearchinto International Service Learning (ISL). Specifically, Tiếng Việt concepts and an associated image are exploredfortheirpotentialvaluefordevelopingthecapabilitiesfortheorizingISL.Internationalizing education,ofwhichISLisasignificantpart,hasproduceddemographicchangesinuniversitieswhich operateonlyinEnglishthroughasubstantialincreaseinthepresenceofmultilingualHDRs.Giventhat thismultilingualpresenceisafunctionoftheinternationalizationofeducation,thispaperbringsto theforequestionsabouttheusesofmultilingualHDRs’fulllinguisticrepertoireandtheknowledgeit providesaccesstofortheorizingISL.Indoingso,itcontributestoeffortstopositionmultilingualHDRs’ languagesaseducationallyproductiveresourceswhichcanbeusedtodeveloptheircapabilitiesfor theorizing,andbroadentheEnglish-onlymonolingualapproachtointernationalizingAnglo-American centerededucation[1]. Educ.Sci.2017,7,23;doi:10.3390/educsci7010023 www.mdpi.com/journal/education Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 2of16 This paper explores ways in which Tiếng Việt concepts might contribute to internationalizing the theorization of ISL. A range of studies illuminate how the internationalization of universities from countries such as the USA, the UK and Australia promulgate their structures of knowledge/language/power through epistemic activities associated with the privileging of the English language and Anglo-America [2]. This research raises questions about ways to open up the possibilities for “declining” from theorizing from English-only monolingualism by inviting multilingualHDRstodeveloptheircapabilitiesfortheorizingusingtheirfulllinguisticrepertoire. Ontologically,research-drivenknowledgeproductionanddisseminationisnecessarilyconductedin aparticularlanguage. Inotherwords,languagesareintegraltotheoryandtheorizing. Multilingual HDRsareusingtheoreticaltoolsfromtheirlanguagesforanalyticalpurposestodeclassifythedivision of intellectual labor which assigns theory to English, and data to other languages [3]. Here the concept of “Tiếng Việt theoretic-linguistic tools” refers to concepts and images in Tiếng Việt which can be used as analytical tools in research into ISL which is largely written in English. However, itmustbeemphasizedthat“TiếngViệttheoretic-linguistictools”doesnotrefertoanyuniquenessof thesetoolsthatarepeculiartoNgườiViệt(Vietnamesepeople)orTiếngViệt. Theconcept“TiếngViệt theoretic-linguistic tools” is not used to claim any Người Việt ethno-national essence, but to the possibilityofgeneratingandusingconceptsinandfromthislanguage(andthusanyotherlanguages). Thus,theuseoftheterm“TiếngViệttheoretic-linguistictools’issimilartoJullien’snotionof“Chinese thought,[whichdesignates]thethoughtwhichhasbeenexpressedinChinese[... ]inthesameway ‘Greekthought’isthatwhichisexpressedinGreek”[4](p. 147). ThefocusofthispaperisondevelopingmultilingualHDRs’capabilitiesfortheorizing,inthis instance,throughusingTiếngViệttheoretic-linguistictoolstoconceptualizeISL.Conversely,thispaper isnottryingtogenerateaprecisemeaningforISLthroughtheuseofTiếngViệt. TheconceptofISL hasbeenafocusformuchcontestationovertheyears[5]. Ineffect,ISLisamuchcontestedconcept. Contestedconceptsare“notresolvablebyargumentofanykind,[but]areneverthelesssustainedby perfectlyrespectableargumentsandevidence”[6](p. 169). However,anappreciationofthevalue ofthecontestedconceptsusedtotheorizeISLisintegraltopost-monolingualresearchinthisfield. Thepurposeofthispaperistoinviteresearchers,bothNgườiViệtandNgườinướingoài(Foreigners) whoareproficientinTiếngViệttodeveloptheircapabilitiesforgeneratingtheoretic-linguistictoolsin thislanguage. To do so, this paper begins by defining theorizing. Then it explores the question of whether currenttheorizingofISLisreciprocalorpartisan. Aspartofthisliteraturereview,Singh’s[7]concept of“reciprocityinpost-monolingualtheorizing”isintroduced. Thesectionthatthenfollowsprovidesa briefexplanationandjustificationofthemethodusedintheresearchreportedinthispaper. Theresults sectionaddressesfourkeyfindings. ThetermsusedbyVietnameseuniversitiesforsubjects/courses relatingtoservicelearningofferabasisforexploringtheconceptualdivergencesbetweenEnglish andTiếngViệtasawaytoopenuppossibilitiesformultilingualHDRstodeveloptheirtheorizing capabilities.Throughanin-depthanalysisofho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng(servicelearning),itispossibleto movebeyondtranslationtotheorizing. Theanalysisofanotherconceptho.cdấnthân(servicelearning) providesresourcesforpreviouslyunseenconsiderationsfortheorizing[4]. Then,ananalysisofthe concepts used for service learning in Tiếng Việt media provides a focus for intercultural scholarly dialoguesattheleveloftheorizing. Thediscussionsectionexplorestheimportanceofintellectual reciprocity in ISL through post-monolingual theorizing. The paper concludes by considering the possibilitiesofmultilingualHDR’sintellectualresourcesfordeepeningtheirtheorizingcapabilities. 2. TheorizingCapabilities Whiletheconceptsof“theorizing”and“theory”maybeinterpretedasinterchangeable,theyare actuallydifferentinnature. Theorizingfocussesonthecapabilitiesforbuildingatheory,whiletheory istheproductofthisintellectuallabor[8]. Developingtheorizingcapabilitiesisthatpartofthework ofresearchthatinvolvesmaking“intelligiblewhypeoplearesayinganddoingwhattheyaresaying Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 3of16 anddoing”[9](p. 229). Twocrucialcapabilitiesrequiredofresearcherstoengageinfortheorizing aredisciplinedimagination[10,11]andcreativeness[8]. Thissectionelaboratesonthecapabilities researchersrequirefortheorizinginordertobetterunderstandandtofurtherclarifythechallenging tasksmultilingualresearchersconfrontinextendingtheirtheorizingcapabilities. FollowingtheagendaofBiestaetal.[9],developingone’scapabilitiesfortheorizingmaybegin withspeculativepropositionsabouteverydayexperiencesofISL,forinstance, intermsofmaking meaningoftherelationshipsbetweenpower,knowledge,languagesandgender. Thisstepincreasing one’stheorizingcapabilitiesisthegenerationofexplanationsofthemechanismsandpossiblecausative processesatworkinISL.Theseexplanatorypropositionsarethentestedagainstevidencetoascertain thepotentialempiricalsupportforandcredibilityoftheseclaims. Itmaybethattheinitialtheorizing ismisleadingandhastoberevisedinthelightoftheevidence. Thismightbesoevenifthemost recent,relevantresearchwasusedtoinforminitialtheorizing. Theabilitytomakesuchajudgementis animportantcapabilityaresearcherhastoachieve. Inotherwords,aresearcherhastorecognizethat theanalysisandinterpretationoftheprimarydatacollectedtotestone’sinitialtheorizingmightgive warrantforrevisions. Tominimizethevaguenessabouthowtoengageinandconstituteatheory,the focusnowturnstoalogicalandexplicitexplanationofthecrucialcapabilitiesrequiredfortheorizing. Researchershavetohavethecapabilitytoworkwithreferences,data,conceptsandpropositions. However,whilethesearenecessaryfortheorizing,theyarenotsufficient. Thus,longreferencelistsare notevidenceoftheorizing. Althoughthecapabilitiesforusingthesetoolsareintegraltotheorizing, theoryproductionrequiresmoreworkintermsofscholarship[12]. Theorizingrequiresresearchersto havethecapabilitytopresent“detailedandcompellingarguments[... ]explicatingthecausallogic theycontain”[10](pp. 372–373). Whilebeingabletolocateandgivecitationstoscholarlyliteraturein VietnamonISLmaybenecessaryforNgườiViệtresearchers,theyarenotsufficientforthistask[13–15]. Thechallengeremainsforresearcherstodevelopthecapabilitiestoadvancecrediblewitharguments throughinterestingtheorizing. Further,thecapabilityfortheorizingrequirestestingofanalyticaltoolsagainstdata,butdata byitselfdoesnot“constitutecausalexplanations”[10](p. 374). Oftenempiricalevidenceisusedto confirmortestanexistingtheoryofISLratherthanbeingusedtodeepenresearchers’capabilitiesfor generatingnewtheoreticalresources. Indevelopingnewtheoreticaltools,researchersdemonstrate theircapabilitiesformakingsenseofthedatausingconceptsorimagesto“explainwhyempirical patterns were observed or are expected to be observed” [10] (p. 374). Of course, the language(s) in which data are collected should be represented in any reports to demonstrate the researcher’s multilingual capabilities; to enhance the credibility of the evidence and to make it available for re-analysisforthoseproficientinthelanguage. Thecapabilityforvisualtheorizinginvolvesresearchersgeneratingimagesordiagramstocreate anexplanatoryframework. Toinitiatetheresearchers’developmentoftheirtheorizingcapabilities, diagrams can be used to illustrate the potential issues to be researched and be accompanied with anexplanationandjustificationofthereasonsforinvestigatingaparticularresearchproblemfrom a specific standpoint [10]. Diagrams or images help readers envision the chain of causation being explainedbyresearchersusingagiventheory. Visualaidswhichshowcausalrelationshipsandlogical ordermaybevaluableinhelpingtoclarifypatternsandconnections. Forinstance,thegivenimage belowofĐámcướiChuột(Mice’swedding)isanexampleofawood-cutpaintingproducedinĐông Hồ(PaintingVillage)inVietnam(Figure1). Inthispainting,somefamilymembersand/orguests ofthebrideandgroompresentgiftstoapowerfulcat,inanoverturetopreventthebridalcouple frombeingkilledbythemouser. IntermsofISL,thisimagerepresentsthenegotiationofdifferential power/knowledge/language/genderrelations. Thosewithlimitedpowerusetheirknowledgeto soothethedangersposedbypowerfulelitesinordertocarryontheirlives. Withregardstotheorizing capabilities,theimagemightbereworkedbyaNgườiViệtresearchertoschematicallyrepresentthecat asembodyingthebureaucraticpowerrevealedintheuniversityadministrationproceduresimposed onstudents,academicstaffandpartnerorganizationsthroughISL.Ifnoresistanceismade,academics Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 4of16 havetonegotiatethisbureaucraticpowerasmuchasthedemandsofthestudentswhosewelfareand Educ. eSdciu. 2c0a1t7io, n7, t2h3e yareworkingtosupport. 4 of 15 FiguFirgeu 1r.e P1o.wPoewr/ekrn/konwolwedlegdeg/eg/egnednedre rrerlealatitoionnss iinn DDoonngg HHoop paainintitnigngo foMf Micei’csew’se wddeidndg.ing. WhiWle hciolencceopntcse patrse aerveideevnidceen ocfe roefseraesrecahrecrhse drsevdeelvoeploinpign gcacpaapbaibliitliiteise sfofro rthtehoeroirziziningg, ,aa lilsits tofo fwell- definweedl l-cdoenficneepdtsc oonrc ecpotsnsotrrcuocntsst r“udcotse“sd nooest ncootncsotnitsutitteu tae aththeeoorryy”” [[1100]] ((pp..3 7367)6.)W. Whehnegne ngeeranteinragtainngd and defindienfign tihngeitrh oeiwrnow cnatceagtoegrioersi,e sr,erseesaeracrhcheersrs hhaavvee ttoo ddeevveellooppt htheec acpaapbaibliitlyittyo teox pelxapinlaainnd ajnudst ijfuystthifey the reasorenass foonrs sfeolrescetliencgti nagndan udsuinsign gspsepceicailallyly ddeessiiggnnaatteedd ccoonncceepptstsin inth tehieritrh tehoeriozrinizgi.nTgh. eTuhsee uosfec oonf cceopntscepts fromf rToimếnTgi ếVnigệtV, ifệot,rf oinrsitnasntacnec, em, migihgth tccaannvvaassss tthhee ssoocciiaall--hhisistotorirciaclacl ocnotnextetxotf othf etihrepirro pdurocdtiounc;tiwonh;a twhat bringsforwardconceptsfromTiếngViệttobeusedastheoreticaltoolsfortheirre-conceptualization; brings forward concepts from Tiếng Việt to be used as theoretical tools for their re-conceptualization; whatforcesconstrainttheiruseastheoreticaltools;whatchallengestheyposebywayofcritique,and what forces constraint their use as theoretical tools; what challenges they pose by way of critique, whatinterculturalintellectualconnectionstheirusesadvancesintheISLfield[16,17]. InSection3 and what intercultural intellectual connections their uses advances in the ISL field [16,17]. In section (Results),theconceptofISLisexaminedintermsoftheconceptualdivergencesmadepossiblebythe 3 (Results), the concept of ISL is examined in terms of the conceptual divergences made possible by TiếngViệt. the Tiếng Việt. Researchers’ theorizing capabilities extend to generating propositions to be investigated, sRuebsseeaqrucehnetrlys’r etvhiseeodriaznindge lacbaopraabteidlituiepso netxhtreonudg httoh egeestnaebrlaisthinmge nptorofpsiogsniitfiiocnans trteos eabrec hifinnvdeisntgigsa.ted, subseFqoureSnuttltyo nreavnisdedSt aawnd[ 1e0la]b(oprpa.te3d7 6u–p3o7n7) ,ththroeuseghp rtohpeo esisttiaobnlsisahrme e“cnot nocfi sseigsntaiftiecmanent trsesaebaoructh wfihnadtings. For Sisutetxopne catendd tSotaowcc u[r1”0]b u(ptpd.o 3n7o6t–3in77t)h, etmhesseelv epsrocponosstiittiuotnes aarthee “ocryo.ncTishee sthtaetoermizeinngts caapboabuitl itwiehsat is expeoctferde setoar cohcecrusri”n vboulvt edthoe nporto diunc ttihoenmosfewlveells- ccraofntesdtitcuotnec eap ttuhaeloarryg. uTmheen tsth. eIonritzhiensge ccoanpcaebpitluitailes of reseaarrcghuemrse nitns,vkoelyveco nthceep tsparolodnugcwtioitnh loogfi cawlealrlg-curmafetnetds thcaotnjucestpiftyuaaln dacrognusmideenrtcso.u nInte rathrgeusme ecnotsnacreeptual explicitlyexplained. Theorizingcallsforresearcherstohavethecapabilitytomovefromapreliminary arguments, key concepts along with logical arguments that justify and consider counterarguments are sensitizing conceptualization of research problems to detailed, logical explanations of patterns or explicitly explained. Theorizing calls for researchers to have the capability to move from a preliminary cause/effectrelationships. sensitizing conceptualization of research problems to detailed, logical explanations of patterns or Insum,understandingthetheorizingprocessisnoteasy. Moreover,actuallycarryingoutthe cause/effect relationships. process of theorizing is a further challenge. Doing both of these in an academic language which In sum, understanding the theorizing process is not easy. Moreover, actually carrying out the is not one’s own is even more thought-provoking. Learning to theorize in one’s own language process of theorizing is a further challenge. Doing both of these in an academic language which is not can be equally daunting. However, doing so is especially significant in terms of developing the one’sc aopwabnil iitsie sevfoenr tmheoorreiz itnhgouasghwt-epllroasvofokrinmga. kLinegaranninogr igtoin tahlecoornitzreib uinti oonneto’s konwownl eldangeguthargoeu gchan be equaullsyin dgaounnet’isnfgu.l lHlionwgueivsteicr,r edpoeirntgoi rseo. iTsh eesfpoellcoiwalilnyg ssigecntiifoincaenxtp lionr etesrtmhes iomfp doervtaenlcoepfionrgm thuelt iclianpgaubaillities for threesoerairzcihnegr satso wdeelvl ealos pfotrh emirackaipnagb ialniti eosrifgoirntahle coorniztirnigbuutsiionng ttoh ekirnofuwlllelidnggeu itshtircoruegpher utosiirnega nodneto’s full lingumisatkice roerpigeirntaolirceo.n Ttrhibeu ftioolnloswtoinkgn osweclteidogne einxpsluocrhesla tnhgeu aimgepso. rTthaencper ofpoor smitiuonltiilninvgesutaigl arteesdebaerclohwers to (Section3: Results)concernsthepossibilitiesthatmultilingualHDRsmightdeveloptheircapabilities develop their capabilities for theorizing using their full linguistic repertoire and to make original fortheorizingthroughusingtheirfulllinguisticrepertoire. Ifthisprovespossiblethroughfurther contributions to knowledge in such languages. The proposition investigated below (Section 3: research,thentheconceptualdivergencesofTiếngViệtmayprovideaddedvaluestotheorizingISLas Results) concerns the possibilities that multilingual HDRs might develop their capabilities for alocal/globalphenomenon,andcreatethepotentialforconstructingtheoreticaldialoguesbetween theorizing through using their full linguistic repertoire. If this proves possible through further intellectualcultures. research, then the conceptual divergences of Tiếng Việt may provide added values to theorizing ISL as a local/global phenomenon, and create the potential for constructing theoretical dialogues between intellectual cultures. 2.1. Partisanship and Reciprocity in Theorizing International Service Learning ISL is a pedagogy for integrating academic knowledge and civic engagement activities located outside students’ nation-state. Thus, ISL brings to the fore issues of intercultural intellectual engagement. There has been increasing amount of literature discussing conceptual diversity through implementation, the attributes and issues of this field in education [18,19]. Bringle and Hatcher [20] (p. 19) define ISL in the following terms: 1. have a structured academic experience in another country in which students; 2. participate in an organized service activity that addresses identified community needs; Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 5of16 2.1. PartisanshipandReciprocityinTheorizingInternationalServiceLearning ISLisapedagogyforintegratingacademicknowledgeandcivicengagementactivitieslocated outside students’ nation-state. Thus, ISL brings to the fore issues of intercultural intellectual engagement. Therehasbeenincreasingamountofliteraturediscussingconceptualdiversitythrough implementation,theattributesandissuesofthisfieldineducation[18,19]. BringleandHatcher[20] (p.19)defineISLinthefollowingterms: 1. haveastructuredacademicexperienceinanothercountryinwhichstudents; 2. participateinanorganizedserviceactivitythataddressesidentifiedcommunityneeds; 3. learnfromdirectinteractionandcross-culturaldialoguewithothers;and 4. reflectontheexperienceinsuchawayasto a. gainfurtherunderstandingofcoursecontent; b. adeeperunderstandingofglobalandinterculturalissues; c. abroaderappreciationofthehostcountryandthediscipline,and d. anenhancedsenseoftheirownresponsibilitiesascitizens,locallyandglobally. Sincetheturnofthecentury,ISLhasbecomeafeatureathighereducationinstitutionsaround theworld[13–15,21]. Pedagogically,integratinguniversitystudents’academicstudiesthroughISLis seenasprovidingthemwithmeaningfulexperientiallearningwhileaddressingcommunityneeds. ValuingthepositivebenefitsofISLforstudents,universitiesandcommunityorganizations,higher educationinstitutionshavebeguntoinstitutionalizethisinnovativemodeofteaching/learningin theircurricula. Nopreciseconceptswithcommonlyagreedmeaningsandcharacteristicsreflecting allaspectsofthiseducationalpedagogyhavebeendeveloped. Thisisbecausenamingthefieldof servicelearningiscontested. EvermoreliteratureaddstoBringleandHatcher’s[20]definitionand providesinsightsintothescholarlyconversationswheretheconceptualizationofISLisbeingdebated. Forinstance,HartmanandKiely[22](p. 56)definetheconceptofglobalservicelearning(GSL)as developing“students’interculturalcompetencethroughengagingwithcriticalglobalcivicandmoral imagination” in the context of the “global marketization of volunteerism”. Claiming the debates over the concept of ISL, Mitchell [5] classifies the concepts dichotomously, one being “traditional” servicelearningandtheother“critical”servicelearning. TraditionalISLaimsatstudents’personal developmentthroughchallengingthemwithvisionsoflifepossibilities,whilecriticalISLbringsinto focusthestructuresofpowerandprivilege,raisingquestionsabouthowtheymightcontributeto socioeconomicchange. ThiscriticalconceptionofISLissimilartothatofHartmanandKiely’s[22] definition. ForMitchell[5](p. 51), the key component that affects ISL practice and policies is the “political nature of service” which means acknowledging “the imbalance of power in the service relationship, [while challenging] the imbalance and [redistributing] power through the ways that service-learningexperiencesarebothplannedandimplemented”[5](p. 57). Incontributingtotheconceptualcontestationinthisfield,Crabtree[23](pp. 29–30)statesthat “ISLisaboutproducingglobalawarenessamongallparticipants,providingopportunitiestodevelop mutualunderstanding,andcreatingsharedaspirationsforsocialjusticeandtheskillstoproduceit”. NiehausandCrain[24](p. 32)arguethatthisdebateoverISLconceptsiscompoundedbecausethere is“littleresearchdirectlycomparinginternationalanddomesticservice-learning,mostofthisevidence comesfromthelargerstudyabroadliterature”. Moreover,McCarthyetal.[25](p. 2)contendthat parochialismhasanegativeimpactonconceptualizationofthefield,insofaras“ISLgenerallyremains alesswelldevelopedareaofconcernintheUSA”. Therefore,thereisaneedtoanalyzetheplaceof theoreticalreciprocityandpartisanshipinISL. For the reasons of social justice, reciprocity [20,26] is important for ISL when working with international community partners and participants. For instance, Bartleet et al. [27] propose a frameworkthatmakesreciprocitycentraltoISLpartnershipsandresearch. Minimally,reciprocity Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 6of16 means ISL projects work respectfully with international partner organizations and communities. Likewise, Halimi et al. [14] argue for fully reciprocal relationships in co-creating ISL knowledge and practices. In a similar study, Basel [21] reports that the very continuation of ISL endeavors occurs because of the reciprocity international partner organizations and communities with the university, academics and students with whom they work. However, as Tranviet [15] found stakeholders’perceptions,experiencesandconceptionsofreciprocityareshaped,constrainedand enabledby(a)socio-economicandculturaldifferences;(b)historicallegaciesandpersonalbackgrounds; (c)programlocation;and(d)country-to-countrydynamics. Thesefactorsshapehowdifferentactors understandtheirownbenefitsandthoseofotherstakeholders. ThereareproblemsandtensionsintermsofthereciprocalversusthepartisanbenefitsofISL.ISL isastructuredacademicexperienceundertakeninanothercountry. Thisraisesquestionsaboutwhat scholarlydialoguesareoccurringacrossintellectualculturesthatmightenhancetheappreciationof thepeoplefromthatcountryformakingmeaningofISL.Thatinturnleadstothequestionofjusthow “international”ISLis[15]whenitismainlytheorizedusingjustonelanguage(i.e.,English). Whatare thepossibilitiesfortheoreticalreciprocityinafieldthatclaimstobe“international”or“intercultural”? LetusbrieflyinterrogatewhetherISLtheoristspresentevidenceofengagingintheoreticaldialogues acrosslanguagesandintellectualculturesaboutISL. Bringle et al. [20] provide a conceptual framework for ISL that draws on knowledge from service-learning and community engagement programs in the USA. Their study does include a SouthAfricantheorizationofISLinterventions. However,overallitstheorizingispartisan,contained onlywithinUSacademicknowledgeandtheEnglishlanguage. ForISL,togaincredibility,thereisthe needtobuildcloserintellectualconnectionswiththosewhoactasintentionalcommunitypartners, toworkwiththeirtheorizationsofthefield. Thisisespeciallysignificantifnotionsofintercultural mutualityandthevalueoflisteningaretohaveanysubstantivescholarlyvalue. ConsiderforamomentofCrabtree’s[23]argumentthatbecauseISLisamultifacetedendeavor, its theoretical foundations should be informed by multiple disciplinary and interdisciplinary literatures. Crabtree [23] reports that intellectuals from “southern” nations theorized ISL in relation to sustainability, democratization, biodiversity, Indigenous people’s rights, gender, race, and (im)migration. Porter and Monard’s [28] applied the Andean concept of Ayni (reciprocity) to analyze what a shared understanding of sustainable development might mean, and argued for developingstudents’relationalandequitabletheorizationofISL.However,Crabtree[23]concludes thatfewISLeducatorsengagethetheoriesandmodelsofISLdevelopedintheinternationalintellectual cultureswheretheseprogramsareconducted. ForCrabtree,thispartisan,US-centrictendencyfor theorizingISLis“particularlytroublinginthecaseof‘international’servicelearning”[17](p. 22). Moreresearchisneededtobetterunderstandthepossibilities,dynamicsandeffectsofbuildingon existinginterdisciplinarytheoreticalframeworksforISLtousingconceptualtoolsfromthedivergences oflanguageswheretheseprojectsareundertakentotheorizeISL.ThiswouldgosomewaytogiveISL asubstantive“international”scholarlydimension. 2.2. ReciprocityinISLTheorizing To honor reciprocity in ISL, it would be meaningful for multilingual researchers to use their full linguistic repertoire to engage in theorizing ISL [7]. In this paper, reciprocity in theorizing [7] assumesthattheconstitutionofconceptualframeworkforISLislikelytobenefitfromengagingwith theconceptualdivergencesofwithin/betweenthelanguagesofprojectparticipants. Inthisway,ISLis definedasafieldthat, amongotherthingsconstructingtheoreticaldialoguesbetweenintellectual cultures,eventhoughexperiencingthemonolingualpressforEnglishmediuminstructionresearch andtheorizing[29]. ThisisaverychallengingtaskforallresearchersinvolvedinISL,monolingualandmultilingual researchers alike. For multilingual HDRs who speak Tiếng Việt, doing their doctoral research in a university which takes English-only research and education for granted, they expect to start Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 7of16 their research career as intellectual inferiors who must learn existing theories available in English. Theyhavenoexpectationsthattheymightmakeanoriginalcontributiontoknowledge,certainlynot acontributionwhichusesTiếngViệttogenerateresourcesfortheorizing. Moreover,becauseofthe privilegingofEnglish-onlymonolingualismintheuniversitiesinwhichtheyarestudying,boththeir diverselinguisticscapabilitiesandthetheoreticalresourcesavailableintheseareignored. BothEnglish and theories in English have a taken-for-granted privilege. The path multilingual HDRs travel to developtheirtheorizingcapabilitiespresentsmanydifficulties. Thesechallengesincludeinitiating thewritingofTiếngViệtideasasiftheycouldbeusedanalytically,aswellasfacing“conflictsand contradiction”[10](p. 372)frombothmonolingualandmultilingualresearchcommunities. Support formultilingualresearcherstoengagetheseisnecessarytobuildtheirself-confidenceinusingtheir intangibleassets,theirintellectualculturesandlanguagesasresourcesforgeneratingtheoreticaltools. Asearlycareerresearchers,multilingualHDRsneedtheawarenessandreassuranceofsupportive research educators so they can make an original contribution to knowledge by bringing forward theoretical assets from their complete linguistic repertoire [29]. Thus, it is very important that English-speakingmonolingualresearchershelptheirmultilingualresearchcolleaguesinovercoming theanxietyofbeingaloneindevelopingtheirtheorizingcapabilitiesandinbuildinganycredibleand worthwhiletheoreticalresourcesfromTiếngViệt. NotallmultilingualHDRshavethewilltoengageinsuchachallengingundertaking. Withthe riseofEnglishasthegloballanguageofresearch,suchintellectualengagementrequiresbraveryor foolishness[1]. ThoseHDRSwhotakeupthischallengehavetobepreparedforthepainofarduous intellectuallaborinherentinatheorizingprocessandtheinjuryassociatedwiththetrialsanderrors of supervisors’ feedback and peer reviews [30]. Specifically, theorizing is a time-consuming and energy-intensiveprocess. Moreover,itmayendwiththefailuretomeetthestrictcriteriaofhighly reputed journals. Multilingual HDRs may be discouraged because “even when a well-articulated theory that fits the data, editors or reviewers may reject it or insist the theory be replaced simply becauseitclasheswiththeirparticularconceptualtastes”[10](p. 372). MultilingualHDRshaveto havegoodstrategiesfordisseminatingthetheorizingtheyproducebecause“withoutpublications,that scientist’sworkwillhavebeenlargelywasted”[31](p. 390). Sowhatmightmakeitworthwhilefor multilingualHDRstoengageinthechallengesoftheorizingbyusingtheirintellectualresourcesfrom multiplelanguages? Withoutsuchcapabilities,TiếngViệtandNgườiViệtintellectualculture(s)will continuetobedatacollectionsites,merelyprovidingevidencetobetestedusingtheoriesgeneratedin English[29]. ForHDRswhospeakTiếngViệt,itisimportantthattheydevelopthecapabilitiesrequired fortheorizinginthislanguageinorderto: 1. improveISLprogramsintheNgườiViệtcommunitieswithwhichtheywork; 2. betterunderstandwhattheoryis;and 3. useTiếngViệtforthehigherorderintellectualworkoftheorizing[7]. This important scholarly debate in the field of ISL gives warrant to further investigation of multilingualHDRs’usesoftheoreticalresourcesfromtheirfulllinguisticrepertoireintheresearch and education they undertake in universities that privilege English and theoretical knowledge in English. Inordertoaddressthisresearchproblem,keyconceptsfromJullien’s[4]researchareusedfor analyzingISLasexpressedinTiếngViệtconcepts. ForJullien,theconceptualdivergenceswithinand betweenlanguagesopenuppossibilitiesfornewthoughts,includingalternativesfortheorizingISL. Inotherwords,conceptualdivergenceswithinTiếngViệtandbetweenitandEnglishgivesmultilingual HDRsanewlenstoexploreanddeployinmakingsenseofrealworldISLprograms. Thismeans movingbeyondemployingexistingtheoriesofISLsuchasthoseofBringle,HatcherandJones[20] inexpected,ordinaryandpredictableways. Inresearch,languagesareoftenpresentedasbarriers. Translationisusedtotransferevidencegeneratedinonelanguage(e.g.,TiếngViệt)toanother(English), whereinitistheorized. Thus,translation“doesnotinitselfsayeverything”regardingtheintellectual matterexchanged“betweenlanguages”[4](p. 82). Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 8of16 Incontrasttotranslation,thecapabilityfortheorizingentailsexploringtheconceptualdivergences within/between language(s) by crossing the frontiers of language [4] (p. 49). Theorizing through the conceptual divergences of language requires the elaboration and in-depth re-examination of conceptsinotherlanguagestomakeexplicittheirtheoreticalvalueorotherwiseexplicit. Theconcept of“divergencewithin/betweenlanguage(s)”invitesmultilingualHDRstoexplore“theunthought” in our linguistic repertoire, the unthought in our theorizing [4] (pp. 118, 120), and then to create “conditionsforanintelligentdialogue,between[intellectual]cultures”[4](p. viii). Accordingly,the followingsectionprovidesabriefexplanationandjustificationofthemethodusedintheresearch reportedinthispaper. Inparticular,itfocusesontheanalyticaltoolsusedtomakemeaningofthe possibilitiesfortheorizingISLusingTiếngViệt. Theanalyticallensemployedinthisstudyusesthe conceptualdivergenceswithinTiếngViệt,andbetweenTiếngViệtandEnglishtoelaborateorotherwise elongatetheconceptualizationofISL[4]. 2.3. ResearchMethod Employing “post-monolingual research methodology” [32,33] enables multilingual HDRs to explorepossibilitiesforextendingtheircapabilitiesfortheorizingbyusingtheirfulllinguisticrepertoire andtherebyperhapsmakingoriginalcontributionstoknowledgebyformulatingnovelanalytical tools. Thisstudyaimstoestablishascholarlyrelationshipbetweenselectedconceptsorimagesin onelanguage(TiếngViệt)andanotherlanguage(English)asameansforconsideringpossibilitiesfor theorizingISL[29]. Thisentailsexploringtheconceptualdivergenceswithin/betweenoflanguages intheuseoftheconceptservicelearninginTiếngViệtandEnglish. Throughfurtherresearch,such theorizingmayenablethefutureproductionofanalyticalconceptsusedthatcanthenbetoformulate novelpropositionsaboutISL[7,34]. Todoso,theconceptofdivergencewithin/betweenlanguages[4] isusedasatooltoanalyzepreviouslyunthoughtpossibilitiesfortheorizinginTiếngViệtasabasisfor furtherworkinthefieldofISL.Importantly,thisstudyindicatesthatpost-monolingualtheorizingcan beundertakenuniversitieswhichprivilegeEnglish-onlymonolingualism[29]. Forthepurposeofthiscasestudy,evidenceofTiếngViệtconceptsfromthreeuniversitiesrepresent instances of the larger phenomenon of theorizing ISL in Tiếng Việt. This case study addresses the followingresearchquestions: 1. Might the term used by Vietnamese universities for service learning open up possibilities fortheorizing? 2. IsitpossibletomovebeyondtranslatingEnglishconceptsforservicelearningtouseTiếngViệt fordevelopingtheorizingcapabilities? 3. MightconceptsinTiếngViệtaboutservicelearningrevealpreviouslyunheardofpossibilities fortheorizing? 4. Might concepts in Tiếng Việt about service learning provide a focus for intercultural dialogicaltheorizing? ThedatasetforthisstudyincludestheTiếngViệtnamesusedbyuniversitiesandthemediain Vietnamforservicelearningsubjects/courses. Ofthe412highereducationinstitutionsinVietnam, threeuniversitieswerefoundimplementingservicelearningprograms,namely,HoaSenUniversity, HoChiMinhCityUniversityofSocialSciencesandHumanities,andHoChiMinhCityUniversityof Science[35–37]. Ontheirwebsites,thesethreeuniversitiesclaimthattheirservicelearningprograms arethefirsttobeembeddedincurriculuminVietnamesehighereducationsystem. Thetermservice learningwasusedinVietnambasedonthephilosophyofeducationandpedagogyfromtheUSA asanexpressionofinternationalizationofeducation. TheconceptHo.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồngisthe standardizedTiếngViệttranslationoftheEnglishterm“servicelearning”. Forthesethreeuniversities, service learning is an innovative educational approach to engage students in real-world learning experiencesandpreparethemforinternationalcitizenship. Students’contributionstothecommunity informtheirhighereducationstudiesandenhancingtheiremployability. Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 9of16 AlistofvariousconceptsusedbytheVietnamesemedia(n=2)forservicelearningprogramswas alsocreated. Thewebsiteswereselectedbecausetheygivefocused,relevantconceptsandinformation aboutservicelearninginVietnam.Thesewebsitesaretheonlinenewspapersandthemediachannelsin Vietnamwhichreportnewsandpublishofficialreportsonsocialissuesandcurrentaffairs. Thelistof conceptsforservicelearningoffersinsightsintodivergencesinTiếngViệt,movingbeyonditsfamiliar translationfromEnglish. Data were analyzed using the process of evidentiary conceptual unit analysis [38] (p. 182). ThisprocessbeganbyselectingtheTiếngViệtconceptsforISLastheevidentiaryunit. Conceptual commentariesweregeneratedtoanalyzeorotherwiseexplainormakemeaningofthedata. Thiskey conceptwasthenusedtogenerateaconceptualstatementtointroduceandfocusontheevidentiary unitofconceptualanalysis. Orientinginformationwasprovidedtocontextualizethedatasources. Inthisway,eachofthefollowingfourevidentiaryunitsofconceptualanalysishasbeencraftedto explainandjustifytheinterpretationmadeoftheevidence. 3. Results TheorizingISLusingTiếngViệtconceptsprovedtobeamessyprocessoftrial-and-errorinwhich theconceptswereinterrogated,refined,elaboratedandrepolished. Lists,typologicalcategories,and diagramswereusedtoaidtheconceptualizationofevidence-basedlogicalexplanationspresented below[13]. Tosharpenthetheorizingundertakenheretheconceptualizationoftheevidencehasbeen stretched through reasoned arguments which have been further extended with the explicit use of citationstorelevantreferences. Allofthisisintegraltobuildingthecapabilitiesrequiredforreciprocal ratherthanpartisanorientationtotheorizingofISL. 3.1. DivergenceofLanguage Asnotedabove,thereisnolackofdifferentwaysofdefiningservicelearninginEnglish. Service learningisamuch-contestedconcept. Eachdefinitionofservicelearningissupportedbyinformed arguments and credible evidence, providing little grounds for resolving these debates given the reasonable grounds for these disagreements. Understanding that service learning is a contested conceptisusefulformultilingualHDRswhoareconfrontedwiththechallengeoffindingwaysto makefamiliarortaken-for-grantednotionsofservicelearningstrangeinordertomakeanoriginal contributiontoknowledge. ThisperspectivemakesitpossibleformultilingualHDRstolookbeyond thepredictabledebatesoverservicelearninginEnglish, byusingtheirfulllinguisticrepertoireto detachtheirtheorizingfromexpectedwaysofreadingnotionsofISLinordertoleveragenewinsights. ToinvestigateotherpossibilitiesforunderstandingsofISL,multilingualHDRScanexplorethe conceptualdivergencewithin/betweenlanguagessoas“toprobewherethesesingularitiescango andwhatby-waystheyopenupinthought”[4](p. 147). Theconcept“divergencewithin/between oflanguages”isusedheretoopenuppossibilitiesforseeingISLinanewlight,andtorevealother possibilitiesforunderstandingISL.Divergencewithin/betweenlanguagesallowstheorizingofISLin waysthatmovebeyondthemeretranslationofservicelearningfromEnglishintoTiếngViệt. Thethree universitiesmentionedabove,namely,HoaSenUniversity,HoChiMinhCityUniversityofSocial SciencesandHumanitiesandHoChiMinhCityUniversityofScienceusethetermho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộng đồngforservicelearningsubjects/courses.“Theexpected,theordinaryandthepredictable”[4](p. 147) understandingofISListhetranslationofthisconceptasho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng,makingtheTiếngViệt equivalenttotheEnglishterm. However,adivergencebetweentheselanguagesisevidentintheuseof twowordsinEnglishforthisconceptwhileittakessixwordsinTiếngViệt. Thus,thereismoreatstake herethanthemeretranslationofanEnglishconceptintoaTiếngViệtconcept. Table1belowprovides anin-depthanalysisofho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng. Theorizinggoesbeyondtranslationtechniquesfor movingaconceptfromonelanguagetoanother. Recognizingthisopensuppossibilitiesforseeing ISL in a new light, for understanding ISL from different perspectives. Rather than being fixed by translationthroughthe“reignofuniformity”[4](p. 14),theorizingbroadenstheresourcesavailable Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 10of16 formakingmeaningofISL.AttendingtothedivergencesbetweenISLandho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng offerspossibilitiesfortheorizingwhichtendedtobeignoredthroughafocusonthestandardization effectedthroughtranslation. Istruggledtodetachmyselffromexpectedwaysoftranslatingthenotion ofISLintoTiếngViệt. Gradually,meaningofthedivergencewithin/betweenlanguagesitselfcame intofocusmakingitpossibletoanalyzetheconceptualdivergencesbetweentheEnglishandTiếngViệt concepts,openingupsmallbutpossiblysignificantnewunderstandingsofISL. Table1.In-depthanalysisofTiếngViệtconceptHo.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng(servicelearning). WordSplitting EnglishMeaning imitate(bắtchước),followagoodexample(theogương),learnandenquire(Ho.chỏi), ho.c study,research(nghiêncứu),receiveteaching/education(tho. giáo) tập practice dosomeone’sownwork doworkthatbenefitssocietyorothers phu.cvu. servesomeoneinaservice servesomeonewhohasmoreauthority cộngđồng ofallgroups,addingthecommonthings,together 3.2. BeyondTranslationtoTheorizing ForJullien,“totranslateistothink[and]tothinkisalwaysalsototranslate”[4](p. 164),here, translation is understood as a mechanism for moving towards post-monolingual theorizing, and post-monolingualtheorizingisawaytomovebeyondtranslation.Unliketranslation,theorizingisnota matterofconversionbetweenlanguages.Theorizinggoesbeyondtranslationtoformingandinforming conceptsfromcommunicatingacrossintellectualcultures. Inotherwords,theorizingrequiresmore thantransferringlanguage“contentaccordingtoother,notionalandsyntactical,expectations,crossed the frontiers of the source language, taking its universalization with it” [4] (p. 49). In contrast, theorizinggainsitssignificancewhenusedtoengageininterculturaleducationaldialogues. Table2 shows that the Tiếng Việt concept ho.c (learn) can be translated into three categories of meaning in English. Onestrandofho.cfocusesonlearningandenquiry;thesecondonimitating,followingagood example or receiving teaching/education, and the third strand focuses on study and research. Of course,thelistofmeaningsattributedto“servicelearning”presentschallengeswhichdonotonly applytoTiếngViệtand/ordonotonlyoccurbecauseoftranslation[10]. However,thefocusofthis studyisnotonthecontestedmeaningofthis“servicelearning”. Instead,thefocusisonexploringthe capabilitiesrequiredfortheorizingISLusingTiếngViệtconcepts. Table2.In-depthanalysisofHo.cdấnthân(engagedlearning). WordSplittinginTiếngViệt EnglishMeaning imitate(bắtchước),followagoodexample(theogương), learnandenquire(Ho.chỏi), ho.c study,research(nghiêncứu), receiveteaching/education,perceive dấn engage thân body Table1indicatesthatthepotentialforlearning(ho.c)throughserving(phu.cvu.)isvariableand complicated. Theconceptofphu.cvu. (serve)canspeaktotheideologyofservingaccordingtodifferent societalinterpretations. Forsome,servingmayapartofpeople’sworkwhereasforotherstheremay beahierarchicaldividebetweenworkingandserving. Working(làmviệc)isseenasmakingasocietal

ebook img

ERIC EJ1135097: Divergence of Languages as Resources for Theorizing PDF

2017·0.56 MB·English
by  ERIC
#additional_collections #ericarchive
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Upgrade Premium
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview ERIC EJ1135097: Divergence of Languages as Resources for Theorizing

education sciences Article Divergence of Languages as Resources for Theorizing ThiHongNhungNguyen CentreforEducationalResearch,SchoolofEducation,WesternSydneyUniversity,Penrith,NSW2751,Australia; [email protected]@gmail.com AcademicEditor:JamesAlbright Received:29September2016;Accepted:24January2017;Published:4February2017 Abstract: This paper investigates the potential of conceptual divergences within and between languages for providing intellectual resources for theorizing. Specifically, it explores the role of multilingualresearchersinusingthepossibilitiesofthepluralityofintellectualculturesandlanguages theyhaveaccesstofortheorizingInternationalServiceLearning(ISL).Indoingso,thisinvestigation of conceptual divergence within/between languages shows how it is possible for multilingual researcherstoextendtheircapabilitiesfortheorizing;tobringforwardpossibilitiesfortheorizingISL inlanguagesotherthanEnglish;andtopotentiallybringnewperspectivestoafieldofenquirywhich laysclaimtobeing“international”. Theprocessofdevelopingthecapabilityfortheorizingbeginsby exploringthedivergenceinlanguagesofkeyconcepts. Inthisinstance,theanalysisfocusesonthe Englishconceptof“servicelearning”whichisrenderedinTiếngViệt(i.e.,Vietnameselanguage)as ho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng. TheanalysisoftheconceptualdivergencerepresentedbytheseTiếngViệt conceptsopensupinsightsintowaysofdevelopingthecapabilitiesthatmultilingualresearchers havefortheorizing. Ineffect,thispapercontributestotheknowledgeabouttheoptionsmultilingual researchershaveforusingtheirfulllinguisticrepertoireforthepurposeoftheorizing. Thestudy hassignificantimplicationsformultilingualeducation,multilingualresearchandtheorizingISLin universitieswhichprivilegeEnglish-onlymonolingualism. Keywords: divergenceswithin/betweenlanguages;InternationalServiceLearning;multilingualism; theorizingcapabilities;TiếngViệt 1. Introduction The paper adds to cutting-edge research which is exploring the possibility that multilingual Higher Degree Researchers (HDRs) might develop their capabilities for theorizing through using theirfulllinguisticrepertoire. Specifically, thispaperisbasedonSingh’s[1]ground-breakingand thoughtprovokingpost-monolingualresearchmethodology. BasedonSingh’sgenerativeandhighly productive research and intellectual leadership in post-monolingual education and research, this paperprovidesanaccountoftheuseEnglishandTiếngViệt(Vietnameselanguage)inresearchinto International Service Learning (ISL). Specifically, Tiếng Việt concepts and an associated image are exploredfortheirpotentialvaluefordevelopingthecapabilitiesfortheorizingISL.Internationalizing education,ofwhichISLisasignificantpart,hasproduceddemographicchangesinuniversitieswhich operateonlyinEnglishthroughasubstantialincreaseinthepresenceofmultilingualHDRs.Giventhat thismultilingualpresenceisafunctionoftheinternationalizationofeducation,thispaperbringsto theforequestionsabouttheusesofmultilingualHDRs’fulllinguisticrepertoireandtheknowledgeit providesaccesstofortheorizingISL.Indoingso,itcontributestoeffortstopositionmultilingualHDRs’ languagesaseducationallyproductiveresourceswhichcanbeusedtodeveloptheircapabilitiesfor theorizing,andbroadentheEnglish-onlymonolingualapproachtointernationalizingAnglo-American centerededucation[1]. Educ.Sci.2017,7,23;doi:10.3390/educsci7010023 www.mdpi.com/journal/education Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 2of16 This paper explores ways in which Tiếng Việt concepts might contribute to internationalizing the theorization of ISL. A range of studies illuminate how the internationalization of universities from countries such as the USA, the UK and Australia promulgate their structures of knowledge/language/power through epistemic activities associated with the privileging of the English language and Anglo-America [2]. This research raises questions about ways to open up the possibilities for “declining” from theorizing from English-only monolingualism by inviting multilingualHDRstodeveloptheircapabilitiesfortheorizingusingtheirfulllinguisticrepertoire. Ontologically,research-drivenknowledgeproductionanddisseminationisnecessarilyconductedin aparticularlanguage. Inotherwords,languagesareintegraltotheoryandtheorizing. Multilingual HDRsareusingtheoreticaltoolsfromtheirlanguagesforanalyticalpurposestodeclassifythedivision of intellectual labor which assigns theory to English, and data to other languages [3]. Here the concept of “Tiếng Việt theoretic-linguistic tools” refers to concepts and images in Tiếng Việt which can be used as analytical tools in research into ISL which is largely written in English. However, itmustbeemphasizedthat“TiếngViệttheoretic-linguistictools”doesnotrefertoanyuniquenessof thesetoolsthatarepeculiartoNgườiViệt(Vietnamesepeople)orTiếngViệt. Theconcept“TiếngViệt theoretic-linguistic tools” is not used to claim any Người Việt ethno-national essence, but to the possibilityofgeneratingandusingconceptsinandfromthislanguage(andthusanyotherlanguages). Thus,theuseoftheterm“TiếngViệttheoretic-linguistictools’issimilartoJullien’snotionof“Chinese thought,[whichdesignates]thethoughtwhichhasbeenexpressedinChinese[... ]inthesameway ‘Greekthought’isthatwhichisexpressedinGreek”[4](p. 147). ThefocusofthispaperisondevelopingmultilingualHDRs’capabilitiesfortheorizing,inthis instance,throughusingTiếngViệttheoretic-linguistictoolstoconceptualizeISL.Conversely,thispaper isnottryingtogenerateaprecisemeaningforISLthroughtheuseofTiếngViệt. TheconceptofISL hasbeenafocusformuchcontestationovertheyears[5]. Ineffect,ISLisamuchcontestedconcept. Contestedconceptsare“notresolvablebyargumentofanykind,[but]areneverthelesssustainedby perfectlyrespectableargumentsandevidence”[6](p. 169). However,anappreciationofthevalue ofthecontestedconceptsusedtotheorizeISLisintegraltopost-monolingualresearchinthisfield. Thepurposeofthispaperistoinviteresearchers,bothNgườiViệtandNgườinướingoài(Foreigners) whoareproficientinTiếngViệttodeveloptheircapabilitiesforgeneratingtheoretic-linguistictoolsin thislanguage. To do so, this paper begins by defining theorizing. Then it explores the question of whether currenttheorizingofISLisreciprocalorpartisan. Aspartofthisliteraturereview,Singh’s[7]concept of“reciprocityinpost-monolingualtheorizing”isintroduced. Thesectionthatthenfollowsprovidesa briefexplanationandjustificationofthemethodusedintheresearchreportedinthispaper. Theresults sectionaddressesfourkeyfindings. ThetermsusedbyVietnameseuniversitiesforsubjects/courses relatingtoservicelearningofferabasisforexploringtheconceptualdivergencesbetweenEnglish andTiếngViệtasawaytoopenuppossibilitiesformultilingualHDRstodeveloptheirtheorizing capabilities.Throughanin-depthanalysisofho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng(servicelearning),itispossibleto movebeyondtranslationtotheorizing. Theanalysisofanotherconceptho.cdấnthân(servicelearning) providesresourcesforpreviouslyunseenconsiderationsfortheorizing[4]. Then,ananalysisofthe concepts used for service learning in Tiếng Việt media provides a focus for intercultural scholarly dialoguesattheleveloftheorizing. Thediscussionsectionexplorestheimportanceofintellectual reciprocity in ISL through post-monolingual theorizing. The paper concludes by considering the possibilitiesofmultilingualHDR’sintellectualresourcesfordeepeningtheirtheorizingcapabilities. 2. TheorizingCapabilities Whiletheconceptsof“theorizing”and“theory”maybeinterpretedasinterchangeable,theyare actuallydifferentinnature. Theorizingfocussesonthecapabilitiesforbuildingatheory,whiletheory istheproductofthisintellectuallabor[8]. Developingtheorizingcapabilitiesisthatpartofthework ofresearchthatinvolvesmaking“intelligiblewhypeoplearesayinganddoingwhattheyaresaying Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 3of16 anddoing”[9](p. 229). Twocrucialcapabilitiesrequiredofresearcherstoengageinfortheorizing aredisciplinedimagination[10,11]andcreativeness[8]. Thissectionelaboratesonthecapabilities researchersrequirefortheorizinginordertobetterunderstandandtofurtherclarifythechallenging tasksmultilingualresearchersconfrontinextendingtheirtheorizingcapabilities. FollowingtheagendaofBiestaetal.[9],developingone’scapabilitiesfortheorizingmaybegin withspeculativepropositionsabouteverydayexperiencesofISL,forinstance, intermsofmaking meaningoftherelationshipsbetweenpower,knowledge,languagesandgender. Thisstepincreasing one’stheorizingcapabilitiesisthegenerationofexplanationsofthemechanismsandpossiblecausative processesatworkinISL.Theseexplanatorypropositionsarethentestedagainstevidencetoascertain thepotentialempiricalsupportforandcredibilityoftheseclaims. Itmaybethattheinitialtheorizing ismisleadingandhastoberevisedinthelightoftheevidence. Thismightbesoevenifthemost recent,relevantresearchwasusedtoinforminitialtheorizing. Theabilitytomakesuchajudgementis animportantcapabilityaresearcherhastoachieve. Inotherwords,aresearcherhastorecognizethat theanalysisandinterpretationoftheprimarydatacollectedtotestone’sinitialtheorizingmightgive warrantforrevisions. Tominimizethevaguenessabouthowtoengageinandconstituteatheory,the focusnowturnstoalogicalandexplicitexplanationofthecrucialcapabilitiesrequiredfortheorizing. Researchershavetohavethecapabilitytoworkwithreferences,data,conceptsandpropositions. However,whilethesearenecessaryfortheorizing,theyarenotsufficient. Thus,longreferencelistsare notevidenceoftheorizing. Althoughthecapabilitiesforusingthesetoolsareintegraltotheorizing, theoryproductionrequiresmoreworkintermsofscholarship[12]. Theorizingrequiresresearchersto havethecapabilitytopresent“detailedandcompellingarguments[... ]explicatingthecausallogic theycontain”[10](pp. 372–373). Whilebeingabletolocateandgivecitationstoscholarlyliteraturein VietnamonISLmaybenecessaryforNgườiViệtresearchers,theyarenotsufficientforthistask[13–15]. Thechallengeremainsforresearcherstodevelopthecapabilitiestoadvancecrediblewitharguments throughinterestingtheorizing. Further,thecapabilityfortheorizingrequirestestingofanalyticaltoolsagainstdata,butdata byitselfdoesnot“constitutecausalexplanations”[10](p. 374). Oftenempiricalevidenceisusedto confirmortestanexistingtheoryofISLratherthanbeingusedtodeepenresearchers’capabilitiesfor generatingnewtheoreticalresources. Indevelopingnewtheoreticaltools,researchersdemonstrate theircapabilitiesformakingsenseofthedatausingconceptsorimagesto“explainwhyempirical patterns were observed or are expected to be observed” [10] (p. 374). Of course, the language(s) in which data are collected should be represented in any reports to demonstrate the researcher’s multilingual capabilities; to enhance the credibility of the evidence and to make it available for re-analysisforthoseproficientinthelanguage. Thecapabilityforvisualtheorizinginvolvesresearchersgeneratingimagesordiagramstocreate anexplanatoryframework. Toinitiatetheresearchers’developmentoftheirtheorizingcapabilities, diagrams can be used to illustrate the potential issues to be researched and be accompanied with anexplanationandjustificationofthereasonsforinvestigatingaparticularresearchproblemfrom a specific standpoint [10]. Diagrams or images help readers envision the chain of causation being explainedbyresearchersusingagiventheory. Visualaidswhichshowcausalrelationshipsandlogical ordermaybevaluableinhelpingtoclarifypatternsandconnections. Forinstance,thegivenimage belowofĐámcướiChuột(Mice’swedding)isanexampleofawood-cutpaintingproducedinĐông Hồ(PaintingVillage)inVietnam(Figure1). Inthispainting,somefamilymembersand/orguests ofthebrideandgroompresentgiftstoapowerfulcat,inanoverturetopreventthebridalcouple frombeingkilledbythemouser. IntermsofISL,thisimagerepresentsthenegotiationofdifferential power/knowledge/language/genderrelations. Thosewithlimitedpowerusetheirknowledgeto soothethedangersposedbypowerfulelitesinordertocarryontheirlives. Withregardstotheorizing capabilities,theimagemightbereworkedbyaNgườiViệtresearchertoschematicallyrepresentthecat asembodyingthebureaucraticpowerrevealedintheuniversityadministrationproceduresimposed onstudents,academicstaffandpartnerorganizationsthroughISL.Ifnoresistanceismade,academics Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 4of16 havetonegotiatethisbureaucraticpowerasmuchasthedemandsofthestudentswhosewelfareand Educ. eSdciu. 2c0a1t7io, n7, t2h3e yareworkingtosupport. 4 of 15 FiguFirgeu 1r.e P1o.wPoewr/ekrn/konwolwedlegdeg/eg/egnednedre rrerlealatitoionnss iinn DDoonngg HHoop paainintitnigngo foMf Micei’csew’se wddeidndg.ing. WhiWle hciolencceopntcse patrse aerveideevnidceen ocfe roefseraesrecahrecrhse drsevdeelvoeploinpign gcacpaapbaibliitliiteise sfofro rthtehoeroirziziningg, ,aa lilsits tofo fwell- definweedl l-cdoenficneepdtsc oonrc ecpotsnsotrrcuocntsst r“udcotse“sd nooest ncootncsotnitsutitteu tae aththeeoorryy”” [[1100]] ((pp..3 7367)6.)W. Whehnegne ngeeranteinragtainngd and defindienfign tihngeitrh oeiwrnow cnatceagtoegrioersi,e sr,erseesaeracrhcheersrs hhaavvee ttoo ddeevveellooppt htheec acpaapbaibliitlyittyo teox pelxapinlaainnd ajnudst ijfuystthifey the reasorenass foonrs sfeolrescetliencgti nagndan udsuinsign gspsepceicailallyly ddeessiiggnnaatteedd ccoonncceepptstsin inth tehieritrh tehoeriozrinizgi.nTgh. eTuhsee uosfec oonf cceopntscepts fromf rToimếnTgi ếVnigệtV, ifệot,rf oinrsitnasntacnec, em, migihgth tccaannvvaassss tthhee ssoocciiaall--hhisistotorirciaclacl ocnotnextetxotf othf etihrepirro pdurocdtiounc;tiwonh;a twhat bringsforwardconceptsfromTiếngViệttobeusedastheoreticaltoolsfortheirre-conceptualization; brings forward concepts from Tiếng Việt to be used as theoretical tools for their re-conceptualization; whatforcesconstrainttheiruseastheoreticaltools;whatchallengestheyposebywayofcritique,and what forces constraint their use as theoretical tools; what challenges they pose by way of critique, whatinterculturalintellectualconnectionstheirusesadvancesintheISLfield[16,17]. InSection3 and what intercultural intellectual connections their uses advances in the ISL field [16,17]. In section (Results),theconceptofISLisexaminedintermsoftheconceptualdivergencesmadepossiblebythe 3 (Results), the concept of ISL is examined in terms of the conceptual divergences made possible by TiếngViệt. the Tiếng Việt. Researchers’ theorizing capabilities extend to generating propositions to be investigated, sRuebsseeaqrucehnetrlys’r etvhiseeodriaznindge lacbaopraabteidlituiepso netxhtreonudg httoh egeestnaebrlaisthinmge nptorofpsiogsniitfiiocnans trteos eabrec hifinnvdeisntgigsa.ted, subseFqoureSnuttltyo nreavnisdedSt aawnd[ 1e0la]b(oprpa.te3d7 6u–p3o7n7) ,ththroeuseghp rtohpeo esisttiaobnlsisahrme e“cnot nocfi sseigsntaiftiecmanent trsesaebaoructh wfihnadtings. For Sisutetxopne catendd tSotaowcc u[r1”0]b u(ptpd.o 3n7o6t–3in77t)h, etmhesseelv epsrocponosstiittiuotnes aarthee “ocryo.ncTishee sthtaetoermizeinngts caapboabuitl itwiehsat is expeoctferde setoar cohcecrusri”n vboulvt edthoe nporto diunc ttihoenmosfewlveells- ccraofntesdtitcuotnec eap ttuhaeloarryg. uTmheen tsth. eIonritzhiensge ccoanpcaebpitluitailes of reseaarrcghuemrse nitns,vkoelyveco nthceep tsparolodnugcwtioitnh loogfi cawlealrlg-curmafetnetds thcaotnjucestpiftyuaaln dacrognusmideenrtcso.u nInte rathrgeusme ecnotsnacreeptual explicitlyexplained. Theorizingcallsforresearcherstohavethecapabilitytomovefromapreliminary arguments, key concepts along with logical arguments that justify and consider counterarguments are sensitizing conceptualization of research problems to detailed, logical explanations of patterns or explicitly explained. Theorizing calls for researchers to have the capability to move from a preliminary cause/effectrelationships. sensitizing conceptualization of research problems to detailed, logical explanations of patterns or Insum,understandingthetheorizingprocessisnoteasy. Moreover,actuallycarryingoutthe cause/effect relationships. process of theorizing is a further challenge. Doing both of these in an academic language which In sum, understanding the theorizing process is not easy. Moreover, actually carrying out the is not one’s own is even more thought-provoking. Learning to theorize in one’s own language process of theorizing is a further challenge. Doing both of these in an academic language which is not can be equally daunting. However, doing so is especially significant in terms of developing the one’sc aopwabnil iitsie sevfoenr tmheoorreiz itnhgouasghwt-epllroasvofokrinmga. kLinegaranninogr igtoin tahlecoornitzreib uinti oonneto’s konwownl eldangeguthargoeu gchan be equaullsyin dgaounnet’isnfgu.l lHlionwgueivsteicr,r edpoeirntgoi rseo. iTsh eesfpoellcoiwalilnyg ssigecntiifoincaenxtp lionr etesrtmhes iomfp doervtaenlcoepfionrgm thuelt iclianpgaubaillities for threesoerairzcihnegr satso wdeelvl ealos pfotrh emirackaipnagb ialniti eosrifgoirntahle coorniztirnigbuutsiionng ttoh ekirnofuwlllelidnggeu itshtircoruegpher utosiirnega nodneto’s full lingumisatkice roerpigeirntaolirceo.n Ttrhibeu ftioolnloswtoinkgn osweclteidogne einxpsluocrhesla tnhgeu aimgepso. rTthaencper ofpoor smitiuonltiilninvgesutaigl arteesdebaerclohwers to (Section3: Results)concernsthepossibilitiesthatmultilingualHDRsmightdeveloptheircapabilities develop their capabilities for theorizing using their full linguistic repertoire and to make original fortheorizingthroughusingtheirfulllinguisticrepertoire. Ifthisprovespossiblethroughfurther contributions to knowledge in such languages. The proposition investigated below (Section 3: research,thentheconceptualdivergencesofTiếngViệtmayprovideaddedvaluestotheorizingISLas Results) concerns the possibilities that multilingual HDRs might develop their capabilities for alocal/globalphenomenon,andcreatethepotentialforconstructingtheoreticaldialoguesbetween theorizing through using their full linguistic repertoire. If this proves possible through further intellectualcultures. research, then the conceptual divergences of Tiếng Việt may provide added values to theorizing ISL as a local/global phenomenon, and create the potential for constructing theoretical dialogues between intellectual cultures. 2.1. Partisanship and Reciprocity in Theorizing International Service Learning ISL is a pedagogy for integrating academic knowledge and civic engagement activities located outside students’ nation-state. Thus, ISL brings to the fore issues of intercultural intellectual engagement. There has been increasing amount of literature discussing conceptual diversity through implementation, the attributes and issues of this field in education [18,19]. Bringle and Hatcher [20] (p. 19) define ISL in the following terms: 1. have a structured academic experience in another country in which students; 2. participate in an organized service activity that addresses identified community needs; Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 5of16 2.1. PartisanshipandReciprocityinTheorizingInternationalServiceLearning ISLisapedagogyforintegratingacademicknowledgeandcivicengagementactivitieslocated outside students’ nation-state. Thus, ISL brings to the fore issues of intercultural intellectual engagement. Therehasbeenincreasingamountofliteraturediscussingconceptualdiversitythrough implementation,theattributesandissuesofthisfieldineducation[18,19]. BringleandHatcher[20] (p.19)defineISLinthefollowingterms: 1. haveastructuredacademicexperienceinanothercountryinwhichstudents; 2. participateinanorganizedserviceactivitythataddressesidentifiedcommunityneeds; 3. learnfromdirectinteractionandcross-culturaldialoguewithothers;and 4. reflectontheexperienceinsuchawayasto a. gainfurtherunderstandingofcoursecontent; b. adeeperunderstandingofglobalandinterculturalissues; c. abroaderappreciationofthehostcountryandthediscipline,and d. anenhancedsenseoftheirownresponsibilitiesascitizens,locallyandglobally. Sincetheturnofthecentury,ISLhasbecomeafeatureathighereducationinstitutionsaround theworld[13–15,21]. Pedagogically,integratinguniversitystudents’academicstudiesthroughISLis seenasprovidingthemwithmeaningfulexperientiallearningwhileaddressingcommunityneeds. ValuingthepositivebenefitsofISLforstudents,universitiesandcommunityorganizations,higher educationinstitutionshavebeguntoinstitutionalizethisinnovativemodeofteaching/learningin theircurricula. Nopreciseconceptswithcommonlyagreedmeaningsandcharacteristicsreflecting allaspectsofthiseducationalpedagogyhavebeendeveloped. Thisisbecausenamingthefieldof servicelearningiscontested. EvermoreliteratureaddstoBringleandHatcher’s[20]definitionand providesinsightsintothescholarlyconversationswheretheconceptualizationofISLisbeingdebated. Forinstance,HartmanandKiely[22](p. 56)definetheconceptofglobalservicelearning(GSL)as developing“students’interculturalcompetencethroughengagingwithcriticalglobalcivicandmoral imagination” in the context of the “global marketization of volunteerism”. Claiming the debates over the concept of ISL, Mitchell [5] classifies the concepts dichotomously, one being “traditional” servicelearningandtheother“critical”servicelearning. TraditionalISLaimsatstudents’personal developmentthroughchallengingthemwithvisionsoflifepossibilities,whilecriticalISLbringsinto focusthestructuresofpowerandprivilege,raisingquestionsabouthowtheymightcontributeto socioeconomicchange. ThiscriticalconceptionofISLissimilartothatofHartmanandKiely’s[22] definition. ForMitchell[5](p. 51), the key component that affects ISL practice and policies is the “political nature of service” which means acknowledging “the imbalance of power in the service relationship, [while challenging] the imbalance and [redistributing] power through the ways that service-learningexperiencesarebothplannedandimplemented”[5](p. 57). Incontributingtotheconceptualcontestationinthisfield,Crabtree[23](pp. 29–30)statesthat “ISLisaboutproducingglobalawarenessamongallparticipants,providingopportunitiestodevelop mutualunderstanding,andcreatingsharedaspirationsforsocialjusticeandtheskillstoproduceit”. NiehausandCrain[24](p. 32)arguethatthisdebateoverISLconceptsiscompoundedbecausethere is“littleresearchdirectlycomparinginternationalanddomesticservice-learning,mostofthisevidence comesfromthelargerstudyabroadliterature”. Moreover,McCarthyetal.[25](p. 2)contendthat parochialismhasanegativeimpactonconceptualizationofthefield,insofaras“ISLgenerallyremains alesswelldevelopedareaofconcernintheUSA”. Therefore,thereisaneedtoanalyzetheplaceof theoreticalreciprocityandpartisanshipinISL. For the reasons of social justice, reciprocity [20,26] is important for ISL when working with international community partners and participants. For instance, Bartleet et al. [27] propose a frameworkthatmakesreciprocitycentraltoISLpartnershipsandresearch. Minimally,reciprocity Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 6of16 means ISL projects work respectfully with international partner organizations and communities. Likewise, Halimi et al. [14] argue for fully reciprocal relationships in co-creating ISL knowledge and practices. In a similar study, Basel [21] reports that the very continuation of ISL endeavors occurs because of the reciprocity international partner organizations and communities with the university, academics and students with whom they work. However, as Tranviet [15] found stakeholders’perceptions,experiencesandconceptionsofreciprocityareshaped,constrainedand enabledby(a)socio-economicandculturaldifferences;(b)historicallegaciesandpersonalbackgrounds; (c)programlocation;and(d)country-to-countrydynamics. Thesefactorsshapehowdifferentactors understandtheirownbenefitsandthoseofotherstakeholders. ThereareproblemsandtensionsintermsofthereciprocalversusthepartisanbenefitsofISL.ISL isastructuredacademicexperienceundertakeninanothercountry. Thisraisesquestionsaboutwhat scholarlydialoguesareoccurringacrossintellectualculturesthatmightenhancetheappreciationof thepeoplefromthatcountryformakingmeaningofISL.Thatinturnleadstothequestionofjusthow “international”ISLis[15]whenitismainlytheorizedusingjustonelanguage(i.e.,English). Whatare thepossibilitiesfortheoreticalreciprocityinafieldthatclaimstobe“international”or“intercultural”? LetusbrieflyinterrogatewhetherISLtheoristspresentevidenceofengagingintheoreticaldialogues acrosslanguagesandintellectualculturesaboutISL. Bringle et al. [20] provide a conceptual framework for ISL that draws on knowledge from service-learning and community engagement programs in the USA. Their study does include a SouthAfricantheorizationofISLinterventions. However,overallitstheorizingispartisan,contained onlywithinUSacademicknowledgeandtheEnglishlanguage. ForISL,togaincredibility,thereisthe needtobuildcloserintellectualconnectionswiththosewhoactasintentionalcommunitypartners, toworkwiththeirtheorizationsofthefield. Thisisespeciallysignificantifnotionsofintercultural mutualityandthevalueoflisteningaretohaveanysubstantivescholarlyvalue. ConsiderforamomentofCrabtree’s[23]argumentthatbecauseISLisamultifacetedendeavor, its theoretical foundations should be informed by multiple disciplinary and interdisciplinary literatures. Crabtree [23] reports that intellectuals from “southern” nations theorized ISL in relation to sustainability, democratization, biodiversity, Indigenous people’s rights, gender, race, and (im)migration. Porter and Monard’s [28] applied the Andean concept of Ayni (reciprocity) to analyze what a shared understanding of sustainable development might mean, and argued for developingstudents’relationalandequitabletheorizationofISL.However,Crabtree[23]concludes thatfewISLeducatorsengagethetheoriesandmodelsofISLdevelopedintheinternationalintellectual cultureswheretheseprogramsareconducted. ForCrabtree,thispartisan,US-centrictendencyfor theorizingISLis“particularlytroublinginthecaseof‘international’servicelearning”[17](p. 22). Moreresearchisneededtobetterunderstandthepossibilities,dynamicsandeffectsofbuildingon existinginterdisciplinarytheoreticalframeworksforISLtousingconceptualtoolsfromthedivergences oflanguageswheretheseprojectsareundertakentotheorizeISL.ThiswouldgosomewaytogiveISL asubstantive“international”scholarlydimension. 2.2. ReciprocityinISLTheorizing To honor reciprocity in ISL, it would be meaningful for multilingual researchers to use their full linguistic repertoire to engage in theorizing ISL [7]. In this paper, reciprocity in theorizing [7] assumesthattheconstitutionofconceptualframeworkforISLislikelytobenefitfromengagingwith theconceptualdivergencesofwithin/betweenthelanguagesofprojectparticipants. Inthisway,ISLis definedasafieldthat, amongotherthingsconstructingtheoreticaldialoguesbetweenintellectual cultures,eventhoughexperiencingthemonolingualpressforEnglishmediuminstructionresearch andtheorizing[29]. ThisisaverychallengingtaskforallresearchersinvolvedinISL,monolingualandmultilingual researchers alike. For multilingual HDRs who speak Tiếng Việt, doing their doctoral research in a university which takes English-only research and education for granted, they expect to start Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 7of16 their research career as intellectual inferiors who must learn existing theories available in English. Theyhavenoexpectationsthattheymightmakeanoriginalcontributiontoknowledge,certainlynot acontributionwhichusesTiếngViệttogenerateresourcesfortheorizing. Moreover,becauseofthe privilegingofEnglish-onlymonolingualismintheuniversitiesinwhichtheyarestudying,boththeir diverselinguisticscapabilitiesandthetheoreticalresourcesavailableintheseareignored. BothEnglish and theories in English have a taken-for-granted privilege. The path multilingual HDRs travel to developtheirtheorizingcapabilitiespresentsmanydifficulties. Thesechallengesincludeinitiating thewritingofTiếngViệtideasasiftheycouldbeusedanalytically,aswellasfacing“conflictsand contradiction”[10](p. 372)frombothmonolingualandmultilingualresearchcommunities. Support formultilingualresearcherstoengagetheseisnecessarytobuildtheirself-confidenceinusingtheir intangibleassets,theirintellectualculturesandlanguagesasresourcesforgeneratingtheoreticaltools. Asearlycareerresearchers,multilingualHDRsneedtheawarenessandreassuranceofsupportive research educators so they can make an original contribution to knowledge by bringing forward theoretical assets from their complete linguistic repertoire [29]. Thus, it is very important that English-speakingmonolingualresearchershelptheirmultilingualresearchcolleaguesinovercoming theanxietyofbeingaloneindevelopingtheirtheorizingcapabilitiesandinbuildinganycredibleand worthwhiletheoreticalresourcesfromTiếngViệt. NotallmultilingualHDRshavethewilltoengageinsuchachallengingundertaking. Withthe riseofEnglishasthegloballanguageofresearch,suchintellectualengagementrequiresbraveryor foolishness[1]. ThoseHDRSwhotakeupthischallengehavetobepreparedforthepainofarduous intellectuallaborinherentinatheorizingprocessandtheinjuryassociatedwiththetrialsanderrors of supervisors’ feedback and peer reviews [30]. Specifically, theorizing is a time-consuming and energy-intensiveprocess. Moreover,itmayendwiththefailuretomeetthestrictcriteriaofhighly reputed journals. Multilingual HDRs may be discouraged because “even when a well-articulated theory that fits the data, editors or reviewers may reject it or insist the theory be replaced simply becauseitclasheswiththeirparticularconceptualtastes”[10](p. 372). MultilingualHDRshaveto havegoodstrategiesfordisseminatingthetheorizingtheyproducebecause“withoutpublications,that scientist’sworkwillhavebeenlargelywasted”[31](p. 390). Sowhatmightmakeitworthwhilefor multilingualHDRstoengageinthechallengesoftheorizingbyusingtheirintellectualresourcesfrom multiplelanguages? Withoutsuchcapabilities,TiếngViệtandNgườiViệtintellectualculture(s)will continuetobedatacollectionsites,merelyprovidingevidencetobetestedusingtheoriesgeneratedin English[29]. ForHDRswhospeakTiếngViệt,itisimportantthattheydevelopthecapabilitiesrequired fortheorizinginthislanguageinorderto: 1. improveISLprogramsintheNgườiViệtcommunitieswithwhichtheywork; 2. betterunderstandwhattheoryis;and 3. useTiếngViệtforthehigherorderintellectualworkoftheorizing[7]. This important scholarly debate in the field of ISL gives warrant to further investigation of multilingualHDRs’usesoftheoreticalresourcesfromtheirfulllinguisticrepertoireintheresearch and education they undertake in universities that privilege English and theoretical knowledge in English. Inordertoaddressthisresearchproblem,keyconceptsfromJullien’s[4]researchareusedfor analyzingISLasexpressedinTiếngViệtconcepts. ForJullien,theconceptualdivergenceswithinand betweenlanguagesopenuppossibilitiesfornewthoughts,includingalternativesfortheorizingISL. Inotherwords,conceptualdivergenceswithinTiếngViệtandbetweenitandEnglishgivesmultilingual HDRsanewlenstoexploreanddeployinmakingsenseofrealworldISLprograms. Thismeans movingbeyondemployingexistingtheoriesofISLsuchasthoseofBringle,HatcherandJones[20] inexpected,ordinaryandpredictableways. Inresearch,languagesareoftenpresentedasbarriers. Translationisusedtotransferevidencegeneratedinonelanguage(e.g.,TiếngViệt)toanother(English), whereinitistheorized. Thus,translation“doesnotinitselfsayeverything”regardingtheintellectual matterexchanged“betweenlanguages”[4](p. 82). Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 8of16 Incontrasttotranslation,thecapabilityfortheorizingentailsexploringtheconceptualdivergences within/between language(s) by crossing the frontiers of language [4] (p. 49). Theorizing through the conceptual divergences of language requires the elaboration and in-depth re-examination of conceptsinotherlanguagestomakeexplicittheirtheoreticalvalueorotherwiseexplicit. Theconcept of“divergencewithin/betweenlanguage(s)”invitesmultilingualHDRstoexplore“theunthought” in our linguistic repertoire, the unthought in our theorizing [4] (pp. 118, 120), and then to create “conditionsforanintelligentdialogue,between[intellectual]cultures”[4](p. viii). Accordingly,the followingsectionprovidesabriefexplanationandjustificationofthemethodusedintheresearch reportedinthispaper. Inparticular,itfocusesontheanalyticaltoolsusedtomakemeaningofthe possibilitiesfortheorizingISLusingTiếngViệt. Theanalyticallensemployedinthisstudyusesthe conceptualdivergenceswithinTiếngViệt,andbetweenTiếngViệtandEnglishtoelaborateorotherwise elongatetheconceptualizationofISL[4]. 2.3. ResearchMethod Employing “post-monolingual research methodology” [32,33] enables multilingual HDRs to explorepossibilitiesforextendingtheircapabilitiesfortheorizingbyusingtheirfulllinguisticrepertoire andtherebyperhapsmakingoriginalcontributionstoknowledgebyformulatingnovelanalytical tools. Thisstudyaimstoestablishascholarlyrelationshipbetweenselectedconceptsorimagesin onelanguage(TiếngViệt)andanotherlanguage(English)asameansforconsideringpossibilitiesfor theorizingISL[29]. Thisentailsexploringtheconceptualdivergenceswithin/betweenoflanguages intheuseoftheconceptservicelearninginTiếngViệtandEnglish. Throughfurtherresearch,such theorizingmayenablethefutureproductionofanalyticalconceptsusedthatcanthenbetoformulate novelpropositionsaboutISL[7,34]. Todoso,theconceptofdivergencewithin/betweenlanguages[4] isusedasatooltoanalyzepreviouslyunthoughtpossibilitiesfortheorizinginTiếngViệtasabasisfor furtherworkinthefieldofISL.Importantly,thisstudyindicatesthatpost-monolingualtheorizingcan beundertakenuniversitieswhichprivilegeEnglish-onlymonolingualism[29]. Forthepurposeofthiscasestudy,evidenceofTiếngViệtconceptsfromthreeuniversitiesrepresent instances of the larger phenomenon of theorizing ISL in Tiếng Việt. This case study addresses the followingresearchquestions: 1. Might the term used by Vietnamese universities for service learning open up possibilities fortheorizing? 2. IsitpossibletomovebeyondtranslatingEnglishconceptsforservicelearningtouseTiếngViệt fordevelopingtheorizingcapabilities? 3. MightconceptsinTiếngViệtaboutservicelearningrevealpreviouslyunheardofpossibilities fortheorizing? 4. Might concepts in Tiếng Việt about service learning provide a focus for intercultural dialogicaltheorizing? ThedatasetforthisstudyincludestheTiếngViệtnamesusedbyuniversitiesandthemediain Vietnamforservicelearningsubjects/courses. Ofthe412highereducationinstitutionsinVietnam, threeuniversitieswerefoundimplementingservicelearningprograms,namely,HoaSenUniversity, HoChiMinhCityUniversityofSocialSciencesandHumanities,andHoChiMinhCityUniversityof Science[35–37]. Ontheirwebsites,thesethreeuniversitiesclaimthattheirservicelearningprograms arethefirsttobeembeddedincurriculuminVietnamesehighereducationsystem. Thetermservice learningwasusedinVietnambasedonthephilosophyofeducationandpedagogyfromtheUSA asanexpressionofinternationalizationofeducation. TheconceptHo.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồngisthe standardizedTiếngViệttranslationoftheEnglishterm“servicelearning”. Forthesethreeuniversities, service learning is an innovative educational approach to engage students in real-world learning experiencesandpreparethemforinternationalcitizenship. Students’contributionstothecommunity informtheirhighereducationstudiesandenhancingtheiremployability. Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 9of16 AlistofvariousconceptsusedbytheVietnamesemedia(n=2)forservicelearningprogramswas alsocreated. Thewebsiteswereselectedbecausetheygivefocused,relevantconceptsandinformation aboutservicelearninginVietnam.Thesewebsitesaretheonlinenewspapersandthemediachannelsin Vietnamwhichreportnewsandpublishofficialreportsonsocialissuesandcurrentaffairs. Thelistof conceptsforservicelearningoffersinsightsintodivergencesinTiếngViệt,movingbeyonditsfamiliar translationfromEnglish. Data were analyzed using the process of evidentiary conceptual unit analysis [38] (p. 182). ThisprocessbeganbyselectingtheTiếngViệtconceptsforISLastheevidentiaryunit. Conceptual commentariesweregeneratedtoanalyzeorotherwiseexplainormakemeaningofthedata. Thiskey conceptwasthenusedtogenerateaconceptualstatementtointroduceandfocusontheevidentiary unitofconceptualanalysis. Orientinginformationwasprovidedtocontextualizethedatasources. Inthisway,eachofthefollowingfourevidentiaryunitsofconceptualanalysishasbeencraftedto explainandjustifytheinterpretationmadeoftheevidence. 3. Results TheorizingISLusingTiếngViệtconceptsprovedtobeamessyprocessoftrial-and-errorinwhich theconceptswereinterrogated,refined,elaboratedandrepolished. Lists,typologicalcategories,and diagramswereusedtoaidtheconceptualizationofevidence-basedlogicalexplanationspresented below[13]. Tosharpenthetheorizingundertakenheretheconceptualizationoftheevidencehasbeen stretched through reasoned arguments which have been further extended with the explicit use of citationstorelevantreferences. Allofthisisintegraltobuildingthecapabilitiesrequiredforreciprocal ratherthanpartisanorientationtotheorizingofISL. 3.1. DivergenceofLanguage Asnotedabove,thereisnolackofdifferentwaysofdefiningservicelearninginEnglish. Service learningisamuch-contestedconcept. Eachdefinitionofservicelearningissupportedbyinformed arguments and credible evidence, providing little grounds for resolving these debates given the reasonable grounds for these disagreements. Understanding that service learning is a contested conceptisusefulformultilingualHDRswhoareconfrontedwiththechallengeoffindingwaysto makefamiliarortaken-for-grantednotionsofservicelearningstrangeinordertomakeanoriginal contributiontoknowledge. ThisperspectivemakesitpossibleformultilingualHDRstolookbeyond thepredictabledebatesoverservicelearninginEnglish, byusingtheirfulllinguisticrepertoireto detachtheirtheorizingfromexpectedwaysofreadingnotionsofISLinordertoleveragenewinsights. ToinvestigateotherpossibilitiesforunderstandingsofISL,multilingualHDRScanexplorethe conceptualdivergencewithin/betweenlanguagessoas“toprobewherethesesingularitiescango andwhatby-waystheyopenupinthought”[4](p. 147). Theconcept“divergencewithin/between oflanguages”isusedheretoopenuppossibilitiesforseeingISLinanewlight,andtorevealother possibilitiesforunderstandingISL.Divergencewithin/betweenlanguagesallowstheorizingofISLin waysthatmovebeyondthemeretranslationofservicelearningfromEnglishintoTiếngViệt. Thethree universitiesmentionedabove,namely,HoaSenUniversity,HoChiMinhCityUniversityofSocial SciencesandHumanitiesandHoChiMinhCityUniversityofScienceusethetermho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộng đồngforservicelearningsubjects/courses.“Theexpected,theordinaryandthepredictable”[4](p. 147) understandingofISListhetranslationofthisconceptasho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng,makingtheTiếngViệt equivalenttotheEnglishterm. However,adivergencebetweentheselanguagesisevidentintheuseof twowordsinEnglishforthisconceptwhileittakessixwordsinTiếngViệt. Thus,thereismoreatstake herethanthemeretranslationofanEnglishconceptintoaTiếngViệtconcept. Table1belowprovides anin-depthanalysisofho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng. Theorizinggoesbeyondtranslationtechniquesfor movingaconceptfromonelanguagetoanother. Recognizingthisopensuppossibilitiesforseeing ISL in a new light, for understanding ISL from different perspectives. Rather than being fixed by translationthroughthe“reignofuniformity”[4](p. 14),theorizingbroadenstheresourcesavailable Educ.Sci.2017,7,23 10of16 formakingmeaningofISL.AttendingtothedivergencesbetweenISLandho.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng offerspossibilitiesfortheorizingwhichtendedtobeignoredthroughafocusonthestandardization effectedthroughtranslation. Istruggledtodetachmyselffromexpectedwaysoftranslatingthenotion ofISLintoTiếngViệt. Gradually,meaningofthedivergencewithin/betweenlanguagesitselfcame intofocusmakingitpossibletoanalyzetheconceptualdivergencesbetweentheEnglishandTiếngViệt concepts,openingupsmallbutpossiblysignificantnewunderstandingsofISL. Table1.In-depthanalysisofTiếngViệtconceptHo.ctậpphu.cvu. cộngđồng(servicelearning). WordSplitting EnglishMeaning imitate(bắtchước),followagoodexample(theogương),learnandenquire(Ho.chỏi), ho.c study,research(nghiêncứu),receiveteaching/education(tho. giáo) tập practice dosomeone’sownwork doworkthatbenefitssocietyorothers phu.cvu. servesomeoneinaservice servesomeonewhohasmoreauthority cộngđồng ofallgroups,addingthecommonthings,together 3.2. BeyondTranslationtoTheorizing ForJullien,“totranslateistothink[and]tothinkisalwaysalsototranslate”[4](p. 164),here, translation is understood as a mechanism for moving towards post-monolingual theorizing, and post-monolingualtheorizingisawaytomovebeyondtranslation.Unliketranslation,theorizingisnota matterofconversionbetweenlanguages.Theorizinggoesbeyondtranslationtoformingandinforming conceptsfromcommunicatingacrossintellectualcultures. Inotherwords,theorizingrequiresmore thantransferringlanguage“contentaccordingtoother,notionalandsyntactical,expectations,crossed the frontiers of the source language, taking its universalization with it” [4] (p. 49). In contrast, theorizinggainsitssignificancewhenusedtoengageininterculturaleducationaldialogues. Table2 shows that the Tiếng Việt concept ho.c (learn) can be translated into three categories of meaning in English. Onestrandofho.cfocusesonlearningandenquiry;thesecondonimitating,followingagood example or receiving teaching/education, and the third strand focuses on study and research. Of course,thelistofmeaningsattributedto“servicelearning”presentschallengeswhichdonotonly applytoTiếngViệtand/ordonotonlyoccurbecauseoftranslation[10]. However,thefocusofthis studyisnotonthecontestedmeaningofthis“servicelearning”. Instead,thefocusisonexploringthe capabilitiesrequiredfortheorizingISLusingTiếngViệtconcepts. Table2.In-depthanalysisofHo.cdấnthân(engagedlearning). WordSplittinginTiếngViệt EnglishMeaning imitate(bắtchước),followagoodexample(theogương), learnandenquire(Ho.chỏi), ho.c study,research(nghiêncứu), receiveteaching/education,perceive dấn engage thân body Table1indicatesthatthepotentialforlearning(ho.c)throughserving(phu.cvu.)isvariableand complicated. Theconceptofphu.cvu. (serve)canspeaktotheideologyofservingaccordingtodifferent societalinterpretations. Forsome,servingmayapartofpeople’sworkwhereasforotherstheremay beahierarchicaldividebetweenworkingandserving. Working(làmviệc)isseenasmakingasocietal

See more

The list of books you might like

Upgrade Premium
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.
DMCA & Copyright: Dear all, most of the website is community built, users are uploading hundred of books everyday, which makes really hard for us to identify copyrighted material, please contact us if you want any material removed.
Copyright @ PDFdrive.to, 2022 | We love our users