Article published in:
Transdisciplinarity in Applied Linguistics
Edited by Daniel Perrin and Claire Kramsch
[AILA Review 31] 2018
► pp. 5380

Full-text

On, for, and with practitioners
References

References

Agar, M. H.
(2010) On the ethnographic part of the mix. A multi-genre tale of the field. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 286–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arber, A.
(1964) The mind and the eye. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A.
(1974) Theory in practice. Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
[ p. 77 ]
Bergman, M. M., Eberle, T. S., Flick, U., Förster, T., Horber, E., Maeder, C., … Widmer, J.
(2010) A statement on the meaning, quality assessment, and teaching of qualitative research methods. Bern: Swiss Academy for Humanities and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. H.
(2015) Transdisciplinarity. A review of its origins, development, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1).Google Scholar
Brunsson, N.
(2002) The organization of hypocrisy. Talk, decisions and actions in organizations (2nd ed.). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag / Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
Burns, A.
(2016) Action research. In J. D. Brown & C. Coombe (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to research in language teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, D., Frazer, E., Rampton, B., & Richardson, K.
(1992) Researching language. Issues of power and method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. S.
(1995) Coherence, continuity and cohesion. Theoretical foundations for document design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P.
(2006) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education, and policy. 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364.Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S.
(2016) Say more and be more coherent. How text elaboration and cohesion can increase writing quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 351–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A.
(2007) An introduction to applied linguistics. From practice to theory (2 ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
De Souza, L. M. M.
(2017) Epistemic diversity, lazy reason, and ethical translation in postcolonial contexts. The case of Indigenous educational policy in Brazil. In C. Kerfoot & K. Hyltenstam (Eds.), Entangled discourses. South-north orders of visibility (pp. 189–208). New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, N. K.
(2010) Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(419), 419–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehrensberger-Dow, M., & Perrin, D.
(2009) Capturing translation processes to access metalinguistic awareness. Across Languages and Cultures, 10(2), 275–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Applying a newswriting research approach to translation. Target, 25(1), 77–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fürer, M.
(2018) Modeling, scaling and sequencing writing phases of Swiss television journalists. (PhD dissertation), University of Bern, Bern.Google Scholar
Gibbons, M.
(1994) The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Gnach, A., Wiesner, E., Bertschi-Kaufmann, A., & Perrin, D.
(2007) Children’s writing processes when using computers. Insights based on combining analyses of product and process. Research in Comparative and International Education, 2(1), 13–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gravengaard, G.
(2018) Transforming knowledge. Cooperation with journalism’s stakeholders. In C. Cotter & D. Perrin (Eds.), Handbook of language and media (pp. 489–504). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guiso, L., & Viviano, E.
(2013) How much can financial literacy help? Review of finance, 19(4), 1347–1382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guo, Y., & Beckett, G. H.
(2007) The hegemony of English as global language. Reclaiming local knowledge and culture in China. Convergence, 40(1–2), 117–132.Google Scholar
[ p. 78 ]
Gustavsen, B.
(2006) Theory and practice. The mediating discourse Handbook of action research (pp. 17–26). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Habermas, J.
(1973) Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M.
(2004) Action research. A contradiction in terms? Oxford Review of Education, 30(2), 165–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harcup, T.
(2012) Questioning the ‘bleeding obvious’. What’s the point of researching journalism? Journalism, 13(1), 21–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Joyce, D., Pohl, C., … Zemp, E.
(2008) The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. In H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, G. Hirsch Hadorn, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann & E. Zemp (Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 19–39). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jantsch, E.
(1970) Inter- and transdisciplinary university. Systems approach to education and innovation. Policy Sciences, 1(4), 403–428. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D., & Stubbe, M.
(2004) Communication and the reflective practitioner. A shared perspective from sociolinguistics and organisational communication. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 185–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kemmis, S.
(1988) Action research. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research methodology and measurement. An international handbook (pp. 42–49). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Klein, J. T.
(2008) Education. In H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, G. Hirsch Hadorn, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann & E. Zemp (Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 399–410). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C.
(2015) Applied linguistics. A theory of the practice. Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 454–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kühl, S.
(2008) Coaching und Supervision. Zur personenorientierten Beratung in Organisationen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, B.
(2016) The decolonial option in English teaching: Can the subaltern act? TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 66–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leavy, P.
(2011) Essentials of transdisciplinary research. Using problemcentered methodologies. Walnut Creek: Left Coast.Google Scholar
Loughran, T., & McDonald, B. D.
(2014) Measuring readability in financial disclosures. Journal of Finance, 69(4), 1643–1671. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Makoni, S.
(2003) Review of A Davies, An introduction to applied linguistics, From practice to theory, and A Pennycook, Critical applied linguistics, A critical introduction. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 130–137.Google Scholar
Massey, G., & Ehrensberger-Dow, M.
(2011) Technical and instrumental competence in the translator’s workplace. Using process research to identify educational and ergonomic needs. ILCEA Revue, (14). http://​ilcea​.revues​.org​/index1060​.html. Crossref
Matsuhashi, A.
(1987) Revising the text and altering the plan. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in real time. Modeling text production processes (pp. 197–223). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
McNamara, T.
(2010) Personal communication, Brisbane 2010–0705.Google Scholar
Morales, M. M.
(2017) Creating the transdisciplinary individual. Guiding principles rooted in studio pedagogy. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 6(1), 28–42.Google Scholar
Padmanabhan, M.
(2018) Introduction. Transdisciplinarity for sustainability. In M. Padmanabhan (Ed.), Transdisciplinary research and sustainability. Collaboration, innovation and transformation (pp. 1–32). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
[ p. 79 ]
Palmieri, R., Perrin, D., & Whitehouse, M.
(2018) Introduction: The pragmatics of financial communication. Part 1: From sources to the public sphere. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(4), 127–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascale, R. T., Sternin, J., & Sternin, M.
(2010) The power of positive deviance. How unlikely innovators solve the world’s toughest problems. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Pasmore, W.
(2006) Action reserach in the workplace. The socio-technical perspective Handbook of action research (pp. 38–48). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A.
(2010) Language as a local practice. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perrin, D.
(2003) Progression Analysis (PA). Investigating writing strategies at the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(6), 907–921. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Language policy, tacit knowledge, and institutional learning. The case of the Swiss national broadcast company. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4(2), 331–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) The linguistics of newswriting. Amsterdam et al.: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perrin, D., & Wildi, M.
(2012) Modeling writing phases. In M. Torrance, D. Alamargot, M. Castello, F. Ganier, O. Kruse, A. Mangen, L. Tolchinsky & L. Van Waes (Eds.), Learning to write effectively. Current trends in European research (pp. 395–398). Bingley: Emerald. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pohl, C., Kerkhoff, L., Hirsch Hadorn, G., & Bammer, G.
(2008) Integration. In H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, G. Hirsch Hadorn, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann & E. Zemp (Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 411–424). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M.
(1966) The tacit dimension. Garden City NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H.
(2006) Introduction. Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research. Participative inquiry & practice (pp. 2–14). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Roberts, C.
(1997) “There’s nothing so practical as some good theories”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 66–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, P.
(2011) The marginalization of feminist epistemology and what that reveals about epistemology ‘proper’. In H. E. Grasswick (Ed.), Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. Power in knowledge (pp. 3–24). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, R. W., & Steiner, G.
(2015) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes. Part II. What constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustainability Science, 10, 653–671. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H.
(2012) Intercultural Communication. A Discourse Approach (3 ed.). Cambridge: Wiley.Google Scholar
Severinson-Eklundh, K., & Kollberg, P.
(1996) Computer tools for tracing the writing process. From keystroke records to S-notation. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van den Bergh & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Current research in writing. Theories, models and methodology (pp. 526–541). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S.
(2004) Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 828–847. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stokols, D.
(2006) Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1), 63–77.Google Scholar
[ p. 80 ]
(2014) Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. In M. O’Rourke, S. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode & J. D. Wulfhorst (Eds.), Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Los Angeles: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, M.
(2017) Financial analysts and their role in financial communication and investor relations. In A. V. Laskin (Ed.), Handbook of Financial Communication and Investor Relations (pp. 117–126). New York: Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, M., & Perrin, D.
(2015) Comprehensibility and comprehensiveness of financial analysts’ reports. Studies in Communication Sciences, 15(1), 111–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G.
(2001) Coming to terms with reality: Applied linguistics in perspective. AILA Review, 14, 2–17.Google Scholar
(2006) Applied linguistics and interdisciplinarity. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 93–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zampa, M., & Perrin, D.
(2016) Arguing with oneself. The writing process as an argumentative soliloquy. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 5(1), 9–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Fujio, Misa
2021. Transdisciplinarity in Japanese business communication. AILA Review 34:1  pp. 79 ff. Crossref logo
Graf, Eva-Maria & Frédérick Dionne
2021. ‘Knowing that’, ‘knowing why’ and ‘knowing how’. AILA Review 34:1  pp. 57 ff. Crossref logo
Haapanen, Lauri
2020. Problematising the restoration of trust through transparency: Focusing on quoting. Journalism  pp. 146488492093423 ff. Crossref logo
Matic, Igor, Gianni De Nardi & Felix Steiner
2021. Analysing and optimising Informed Consent in cooperation with ethics committees and medical researchers. AILA Review 34:1  pp. 37 ff. Crossref logo
Merminod, Gilles
2020. Narrative analysis applied to text production. AILA Review 33  pp. 104 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.