"当我们使用这种语言时......有人就要坐牢了":初步研究接触中的关系性和审美诠释

IF 2.1 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Ingrid Rodrick Beiler, Joke Dewilde
{"title":"\"当我们使用这种语言时......有人就要坐牢了\":初步研究接触中的关系性和审美诠释","authors":"Ingrid Rodrick Beiler, Joke Dewilde","doi":"10.1515/applirev-2024-0085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to investigate ethical and aesthetic dimensions of negotiating linguistic differences between researchers and participants in the initial research consent process, based on data from a collaborative research project in adult basic education for immigrants, in which a large number of students initially refused to participate. First, we interpret negotiations of consent as relational acts, where teachers and multilingual staff facilitated moral proximity through their affinity or shared biography with students, allowing us to move from anticipated difference to events of subjectivity. Second, we analyze research ethics protocols, notably the standardized consent letter, as aesthetic signs that evoked an affective response, which variously recalled unfavourable subject positions within neoliberal or authoritarian governmentality, including memories of trauma. The dynamic connection between aesthetics and relational ethics highlights the shortcomings of current institutional ethics requirements, since aesthetic interpretation cannot be fully anticipated and instead requires meaning-making in concrete relational encounters.","PeriodicalId":46472,"journal":{"name":"Applied Linguistics Review","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“When we use that kind of language… someone is going to jail”: relationality and aesthetic interpretation in initial research encounters\",\"authors\":\"Ingrid Rodrick Beiler, Joke Dewilde\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/applirev-2024-0085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this article is to investigate ethical and aesthetic dimensions of negotiating linguistic differences between researchers and participants in the initial research consent process, based on data from a collaborative research project in adult basic education for immigrants, in which a large number of students initially refused to participate. First, we interpret negotiations of consent as relational acts, where teachers and multilingual staff facilitated moral proximity through their affinity or shared biography with students, allowing us to move from anticipated difference to events of subjectivity. Second, we analyze research ethics protocols, notably the standardized consent letter, as aesthetic signs that evoked an affective response, which variously recalled unfavourable subject positions within neoliberal or authoritarian governmentality, including memories of trauma. The dynamic connection between aesthetics and relational ethics highlights the shortcomings of current institutional ethics requirements, since aesthetic interpretation cannot be fully anticipated and instead requires meaning-making in concrete relational encounters.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Linguistics Review\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Linguistics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2024-0085\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Linguistics Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2024-0085","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的目的是根据一个针对移民的成人基础教育合作研究项目的数据,探讨在最初的研究同意过程中,研究者与参与者之间语言差异谈判的伦理和美学维度。首先,我们将同意的协商解释为关系行为,教师和多语种工作人员通过与学生的亲和力或共同的传记促进了道德上的接近,使我们能够从预期的差异转向主体性事件。其次,我们分析了研究伦理协议,特别是标准化的同意书,将其视为唤起情感反应的美学符号,这些情感反应以各种方式唤起了新自由主义或专制政府中不利的主体地位,包括创伤记忆。美学与关系伦理学之间的动态联系凸显了当前制度性伦理学要求的缺陷,因为美学解释无法完全预期,而需要在具体的关系接触中进行意义建构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“When we use that kind of language… someone is going to jail”: relationality and aesthetic interpretation in initial research encounters
The aim of this article is to investigate ethical and aesthetic dimensions of negotiating linguistic differences between researchers and participants in the initial research consent process, based on data from a collaborative research project in adult basic education for immigrants, in which a large number of students initially refused to participate. First, we interpret negotiations of consent as relational acts, where teachers and multilingual staff facilitated moral proximity through their affinity or shared biography with students, allowing us to move from anticipated difference to events of subjectivity. Second, we analyze research ethics protocols, notably the standardized consent letter, as aesthetic signs that evoked an affective response, which variously recalled unfavourable subject positions within neoliberal or authoritarian governmentality, including memories of trauma. The dynamic connection between aesthetics and relational ethics highlights the shortcomings of current institutional ethics requirements, since aesthetic interpretation cannot be fully anticipated and instead requires meaning-making in concrete relational encounters.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
81
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信