Cover not available
Part of
A Language Management Approach to Language Problems: Integrating macro and micro dimensions
Edited by Goro Christoph Kimura and Lisa Fairbrother
[Studies in World Language Problems 7] 2020
► pp. 237–254

Chapter 12
The bridging role of the researcher between different levels of language management

The case of a research project at the German-Polish border

| Sophia University
This paper focuses on the socially oriented activities of the researcher of language management in order to clarify what kind of role these activities can play as part of the overall language management processes that are researched. A research project on interlingual communication at the German-Polish border is analyzed as a case study. The focus is on the process of how the researcher tries to transfer findings from research on micro-level situations to various macro-level decision makers and stakeholders. The consideration of the unique potential of the researcher to bridge different levels suggests that the public engagement of researchers should be recognized as an integral part of application-oriented language management research.
Keywords: researcher role, interlingual communication, public engagement, German-Polish border, management process, micro-macro cycle
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Integrating the researcher into the framework of LMT
    • 2.1Levels of management: The micro-macro management cycle
    • 2.2Stages (phases) of management: The management process cycle
  • 3.Case study: A researcher’s activities at the German-Polish border region
    • 3.1The research project
    • 3.2The researcher in the management process cycle and the micro-macro cycle
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.7.12kim
References (27)
References
Bucholtz, M. (2003). Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(3), 398–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy (pp. 153–169). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cranwell-Ward, J. (2002). Problem solving. In M. Warner (Ed.), International encyclopedia of business and management (pp. 5400–5405). London: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Gabriel, Y. (2017). We must rescue social science research from obscurity. [URL] (retrieved January 1, 2018).
Gorter, D. (2012). Minority language researchers and their role in policy development. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25(1), 89–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirataka, F. (2005). Sōgōseisakugaku toshite no gengoseisaku [Language policy as policy management]. Working Papers on Policy Management, 83. Keio University Graduate School of Media and Governance.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2011). The ethnography of language policy. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography and language policy (pp. 273–289). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hult, F. M., & Johnson, D. C. (Eds.). (2015). Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Jernudd, B. (1997). The [r]evolution of sociolinguistics: A personal retrospect of the early 1960s. In C. B. Paulston & G. R. Tucker (Eds.), The early days of sociolinguistics: Memories and reflections (pp. 131–138). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jernudd, B. H., & Neustupný, J. V. (1987). Language planning: For whom? In L. Laforge (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning (pp. 69–84). Québec: Les Presses de L’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Kimura, G. C. (2014). Language management as a cyclical process: A case study on prohibiting Sorbian in the workplace. Slovo a slovesnost, 75(4), 255–270.Google Scholar
(2015a). Gengokanririron ni okeru kenkyūsha no ichizuke: yoroppa tōgō ni kansuru chōsa jirei kara [Locating the researcher within language management theory: A case study on a research project on European integration]. In H. Muraoka (Ed.), Accumulation and evaluation of interaction in contact situations. Language management in contact situations Vol. 10 (Report on the research projects No. 292, pp. 87–96). Chiba: Chiba University, Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
(2015b). Grundzüge interlingualer Kommunikationsstrategien – dargestellt am Beispiel der deutsch-polnischen Grenzregion [Basic characteristics of interlingual communication strategies – from the case of the German-Polish border region]. Sophia Journal of European Studies, 7, 59–88.Google Scholar
(2018a). How to cross linguistic borders: Theoretical possibilities and their realization at the German-Polish border: With special attention to alternative interlingual strategies. In B. A. Jańczak (Ed.), Language contact and language policies across borders: Construction and deconstruction of transnational and transcultural spaces (pp. 73–88). Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
(2018b). Rezeptive Zweisprachigkeit in der deutsch-polnischen Grenzregion [Receptive bilingualism in the German-Polish border region]. In B. Hufeisen, D. Knorr, P. Rosenberg, C. Schroeder, A. Sopata & T. Wicherkiewicz (Eds.), Sprachbildung und Sprachkontakt im deutsch-polnischen Kontext [Language education and language contact in the German-Polish context] (pp. 219–240). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kimura, G. C. (2019). Interlinguale Strategien im Vergleich: allgemeine Eigenschaften und deutsch-polnische Anwendungen [Interlingual strategies in comparison: General characteristics and German-Polish applications]. In C. R. Brosch & S. Fiedler (Eds.), Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik 2019 [Yearbook of the Society for Interlinguistics 2019] (pp. 43–57). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Lanstyák, I. (2014). On the process of language problem management. Slovo a slovesnost, 75(4), 325–351.Google Scholar
(2018). On the strategies of managing language problems. In L. Fairbrother, J. Nekvapil, & M. Sloboda (Eds.), The language management approach: A focus on research methodology (pp. 67–97). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nekvapil, J. (2000). Language management in a changing society: Sociolinguistic remarks from the Czech Republic. In B. Panzer (Ed.), Die sprachliche Situation in der Slavia zehn Jahre nach der Wende [The situation of Slavic languages ten years after the transformation] (pp. 165–177). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2009). The integrative potential of language management theory. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (Eds.), Language management in contact situations: Perspectives from three continents (pp. 1–11). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Neustupný, J. V. (1997). Gengokanri to komyunitī gengo no shomondai [Language Management and the problems of community languages]. In Kokuritsu kokugo kenkyūjo (Ed.), Tagengo, tabunka komyunitī no tameno gengokanri [Language management for multicultural communities] (pp. 21–37). Tokyo: Bonjinsha.Google Scholar
(1999). Nihon no gengomondai [Language problems in Japan]. Shakaigengokagaku [Japanese Journal of Language in Society], 2 (1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Ōe, M., & Hirataka, F. (2006). Mondaikaiketsu jissen to sōgōseisakugaku [The practice of problem solving in policy management]. In M. Ōe, M. Okabe, & M. Umegaki (Eds.), Sōgōseisakugaku [Policy management] (pp. 157–182). Tokyo: Keio University Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, J., & Jernudd, B. (1979). References for students of language planning. Honolulu: East-West Center.Google Scholar
Shen, Q. (2016). Saving Shanghai dialect: A case for bottom-up language planning in China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5–6), 713–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ten Thije, J. D., & Zeevaert, L. (Eds.). (2007). Receptive multilingualism: Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar