Introduction

“Basic research is very useful, but it should be more geared toward application than it was before,” says French virologist and Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier (Begun & Gregoire, 2014 p. 145). This quote points to the fact that being able to apply theories in pragmatic contexts is of no less importance than formulating the theory. In light of such, this section aims at studying the issues pertinent to applied linguistic researches, such as the genre of research, participation of researchers and reflexivity.

Reflexivity and Relevance

To commence with, we shall shed light on how an applied research is different from a pure research. On the one hand, a pure research, which is also named as a basic or traditional research, appears to be academically motivated and relevant. On the other, an applied research is defined by a high extent of practicality and functionality. Whilst a pure research seeks intellectual and general solutions, an applied research is in the quest of practical and specific answers. There is, however, no clear-cut division between the two, as they exist on a continuous spectrum rather than as disconnected dichotomies. The nature of a research largely depends on the context as well as the position of the researcher (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003, p.272). For instance, a research that offers a theoretical framework on a particular area of interest for future researchers to analyze authentic data could not be regarded as purely basic in nature, as its underlying motive is to assist later practical research. Correspondingly, a research analyzing authentic data can hardly be considered as an applied one if the research findings have never been put into practice.

The position of the researcher and his or her scale of participation decide on the range and degree of primary data he or she may be able to obtain. More often than not, researchers can only act as outsiders when conducting an ethnographic research because they presumably have no thorough knowledge about the ongoing professional practice. Each profession has its “zones of mastery”, as proposed by Schön (1987, p.25). This kind of exclusiveness troubles researchers as such denial to that particular non-transparent professional practice causes unawareness of tacit change in discourse and workplace practice. In response, Sally Candlin (2003, pp. 386-394) suggests that the idea of “collaborative interpretation” should be taken seriously in order to surmount such an obstacle (pp. 386-394). It means the researcher and the researched jointly review and analyze the collected data to ensure the transcription is accurate and the interpretation of the data is free from misunderstanding induced by the lack of insiders’ knowledge.

Collaborative interpretation, however, comes with both pros and cons. It benefits researchers by granting them access to participants’ perspectives and hence, achieving better comprehension of the activity. More importantly, collaborative interpretation functions as a channel through which researchers can validate their data by seeking participants’ recognition. Nevertheless, interaction between participants and analysts may challenge the analysts’ discernment to look for an appropriate point between etic and emic ways of interpretation, which means looking at the issue from the point of view of the observer and from that of the subject, respectively. Whilst the former tends to understand the language in a non-structural and objective sense, the latter scrutinizes the internal features and their role. It is called “the analysts’ paradox,” as termed by Sarangi (2002, p.117). Though it is essential to an extent, collaborative interpretation may lure researchers to align their stance with that of the participants. In other words, it may compromise objectivity and exert undesirable influence on the observation results and the analysis.

This sort of mutuality also prompts the discourse on reflexivity. When they are working, professional practitioners and applied linguists often undergo two kinds of reflective action, which are ‘reflect in’ action and ‘reflect on’ action. Reflection in action refers to the immediate deliberation in the course of action, and reflection on action means reflecting upon what has happened, at a later time. The advantages of such reflexivity during and after the professional practice are mutual and bilateral. Researchers do not only obtain result scrutiny through reflexive referral to the professional practitioners. They can also help assess the quality of the practice and service provided. They are able to provide observations that are arguably not preconceived, which can account for the reasons for success or failure. Sometimes, researchers can even offer “hot feedbacks” i.e. immediate feedbacks so that professional practitioners can apply the research findings into their practice as soon as possible.

Therefore, it is manifest that the roles of researchers are more complex than merely being outsiders or insiders. In addition to the temporal dimension, the synergy between participants and analysts can be understood in relational terms, too. According to Sarangi and Candlin (2003), researchers can also act as resource, befriender, target audience and assessor of performance, and expert and agent of change (pp. 278-281). Most of the roles are self-explanatory, whilst some require further explanation. In brief, the notion of insider or outsider puts emphasis on the distance between the researchers and the participants, which again involves the dichotomy between emic and etic terms. As befrienders, they serve to put participants at ease and stimulate ideas’ formation. As target audience, they are assumed to be at a position to systematically survey and evaluate the performance of the participants. As experts, they are expected to possess expertise and be able to come up with incisive insights. The roles, however, are not fixed or static, and researchers are “required to move between them in context-sensitive ways” (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003, p. 281). That is to say, instead of “being” any particular roles, researchers are supposed to “do” different roles depending on the context. Besides, the respondents researched are never homogeneous, too. To cope with different situations and to manage different participants, the roles of researchers are demanded to be dynamic.

Figure 1. The dynamic role(s) of the researcher

Having examined the relation between researchers’ participation and reflexivity, it is manifest that researchers have the need to pay attention to two important points if they wish to attain a more productive and constructive data collection and hence, analysis. First and foremost, they have to be aware of the role they play in relation to the context and to the subject investigated. On top of that, they shall avoid undermining analytical independence during necessary collaborative interpretation.

Case Study

In order to better understand the topic in question as well as other topics related to language in the workplace, an ethnographic observation in a medical and healthcare setting has been conducted. We have had the opportunity to attend a top-tier nursing meeting, the quarterly Nursing Committee meeting, of a major local hospital, in April 2016. The decision-making and endorsement meeting was chaired by the General Manager of Nursing (GMN) and attended by Department Operations Managers, Senior Nursing Officers, Nurse Consultants, and more. There were around 30 participants in total. The data collected predominantly associates with the discourse of leadership, politeness, and reflexivity.

The chairwoman of the meeting, Amanda, showcased her leadership in manifold ways, which echo the theoretical framework. From the outset, the hierarchy was co-constructed and could be observed in the way they called each other. Whilst most of the participants called each other by their respective first names, such as Paul, Jessica and Scarlett, they shared a tacit consensus to call Amanda by her last name i.e. Ms Chan. Calling one’s superior by his or her first name only is generally regarded disrespectful and not accepted in Chinese workplaces. In addition, only she was given a microphone stand despite the need of all to use microphones all the time.

In addition, Amanda also defined her leadership through active participation in propelling the progression of and contributing to the meeting. She introduced, explained and concluded each agenda while keeping time. She constantly provided additional information and personal analysis to the issues discussed in a holistic point of view, responded to concerns, and more often than not, made the ultimate decisions after inviting her co-workers to give comments. She interrupted others’ speeches to ask for immediate clarification and to add her own views whenever she deemed necessary. She intended to convey her identity as a leader through displaying her control, and expertise and practical knowledge of most of the issues. Her use of face-threatening acts also underpinned her identity as the leader of the group. She designated duties by giving direct and clear instructions, which is a way she did power and manifested her higher status.

Figure 2 & 3. Meeting in progress.

Moreover, her use of humour that serves the “bonding” function was extensive in her speeches, which presumably aims at creating a sense of belonging and fostering solidarity (Schnurr, 2009, p. 1127). Though, it was made possible only because the use of humour is generally allowed in their community of practice, and that no ostensible tension was noted during the meeting. The use of humour was a means through which she disguised her attempt to show her connections and influence within the nursing community. Nonetheless, Amanda cannot represent all leadership styles. A more thorough discussion about leadership and politeness can be found in the sections “Leadership” and “Politeness”.

Nonetheless, the visit has exemplified the functionality of collaborative interpretation. Prior to and after the meeting, Amanda and Jennifer, one of the participants, explained to us the nature of the meeting and the meaning of certain key terms that were often mentioned in the meeting. Without their assistance, the constant use of jargons and abbreviation during the meeting would have completely denied our access to their workplace practice and discourse shift. In this particular meeting, participants were required to use name stands to indicate their names and titles. Their kindness in providing supplementary information helped validate our data and analysis. It is strongly believed that analytical independence was not at risk, though, as controversiality of the issues discussed is minimal and we were largely free from the trouble of the “analysts’ paradox”. Our roles were mainly befrienders and outsiders, in spite of the resources given. Interestingly, one of the participants initially treated us as target audience and assessor of performance. After our self-introduction that explains our motivation and objectives, she responded in a slightly hostile manner, and said, “Welcome, feel free to assess”.

Last but not the least, although “hot feedback” was not possible due to temporal and relational constraints, reflection on action can still be possibly achieved. As aforementioned, reflexivity is bilateral. Data collected and the analysis can help participants improve their professional practice, too, particularly when a great portion of the findings are connected to the issues of leadership and politeness, two factors that are central to the fruitfulness of a meeting. For instance, in view of her dominance, Amanda may consider taking fewer turns to speak and encourage more widespread interaction. Through an outsider’s perspective, the professional practitioners may obtain objective assessment of the quality of their practice. These are ways that reflexivity and collaborative interpretation were manifested in this ethnographic research.

Reflection

Conducting linguistics research involves reflection in many different, senses, ranging from pondering on philosophical questions such as the value and purpose of linguistics research to reflecting on practical issues such as data collection and the (mis)interpretation of data. Developing an awareness of reflection is essential because otherwise researchers may end up conducting research for the sake of doing so rather than for an aspirational goal. Similarly, failing to reflect on practical issues may result in inaccurate or misleading research findings. While the issues discussed in this section are by no means exhausive, but are hopefully reflecting areas researchers may explore within the field of linguistics.

References

Begun, A.L., Gregoire T., (2014) Conducting Substance Use Research. Oxford: Oxford University
           Press.

Candlin, S. (2003). 'Issues Arising When the Professional Workplace is the Site of Applied Linguistic
           Research', Applied Linguistics 24 (3): 386-394.

Sarangi, S. (2002). Discourse practitioners as a community of interpersonal practice: some insights
           from health communication research. In C.N. Candlin (ed.): Research and Practice in
           Professional Discourse. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. pp. 95-135.

Sarangi, S., and Christopher N.C. (2003) 'Trading Between Reflexivity and Relevance: New
           Challenges for Applied Linguistics', Applied Linguistics 24 (3): 271-285.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and
           Learning in the Professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schnurr, S. (2009) 'Constructing Leader Identities Through Teasing at Work', Journal of Pragmatics
           41 (6): 1125-1138.