Changing fieldwork roles in Community-Based Language Research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper examines several fieldwork situations from a community-based language revitalization project taking place in British Columbia, Canada. Through this examination I intend 1) to exemplify possible types of roles played by linguists and community members, with a view to expanding linguists’ perspectives on fieldwork, and 2) to touch upon several interesting implications of changing the roles and relationships of linguists and community-members in fieldwork. There is a growing movement amongst linguists to conduct linguistic research on small Indigenous languages in collaboration with community members (e.g., Yamada 2007, Stebbins 2003). A consequence of conducting research collaboratively is that the roles which outsider linguists and community members take on in fieldwork situations are no longer simply expert/informant types of roles in which a linguist is the outside expert and a speaker is a language-data source (see Rice 2006: 140-145 for discussion of roles). For example, in a Community-Based Language Research model, research on a language is conducted for, with and by the language-speaking community within which the research takes place and which it affects (Author 2008; cf. Grinevald 2003). This model allows for the possibility that community members participating in fieldwork research will be explicitly recognized as experts and as researchers, not simply as informants, consultants, teachers, or even collaborators. As experts, the community researchers direct and lead the research; outsider linguists, in contrast, take on supporting roles. In one fieldwork situation that I discuss, for instance, two elders and their community research assistant defined the focus of their fieldwork and their working methodology. Only once the fieldwork was underway was a linguist asked to provide support in specific aspects of the fieldwork, such as helping to organize a database. One interesting aspect of this fieldwork situation is that the roles that the community members and the linguist have taken on do not fit standard roles assumed by Human Research Ethics Boards and university Research Services. This in turn raises ethical and intellectual questions about ownership and authorship, and practical questions such as whether the elders should sign the usual informed-consent forms to participate in the grant-funded project and how Memoranda of Understanding between the community and university apply to the research. As this example suggests, collaborative research requires linguists to re-define themselves as fieldworkers and researchers, to re-think research roles, and to address new issues. This paper aims to contribute to the redefinition and rethinking.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,052 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,061 | 0,049 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,021 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».