Dear Angel--
Sorry for the delay. I very much agree with your observations. I want to
share a letter that I wrote to one of US journal in response to a review of
one of Russian colleagues (I removed any remote possiblities of identities
of the journal and presumed authro of the submitted paper)
" Dear Editors of [US journal],
I want to share some of my thoughts with you regarding the
manuscript and its author...
[The author of the submitted manuscript] is a prominent Russian
scholar specializing in child and educational psychology. I have read many
of [the author's] publications in Russian. In my view, [the author's]
papers and books are extremely well written and scholarly sounded in
Russian. While reading [the author] current paper in English as well as
reading manuscripts of some Russian scholars in English, I have made an
observation that Russian academic discourse expressed in publications
appears to be different from American academic discourse. Russian academic
discourse seems to be more philosophical, publicist, and rhetorical. The
main concern for Russian academic author and reader is articulating the
author's point rather than its ground and support like in American academic
discourse. Here is how another prominent Russian psychologist Vladimir
Sloutsky describes the difference:
Though there is much variation among Russian psychologists, many of them
tend to test ideas against other ideas… [and] tend to use data only as
examples. For instance, looking at Lev Vygotsky's theories of how social
and cultural factors affect individual development, Americans usually would
want to examine those ideas against empirical evidence. But Russian
psychologists might prefer to test Vygotsky's ideas against B. F. Skinner's
views. And they might conclude that Vygotsky's ideas describe human
behavior and activity better and more consonant with their Russian
epistemological values and beliefs. (APS Observer, 1995, 8 (3), p.35)
I think that the differences go far beyond stylistic differences in academic
writing and are rooted in differences in academic and other sociocultural
practices in Russia and the US. By no means, I want to claim myself an
expert in either Russian or American academic discourses. However, it seems
to me that these cultural differences are important and they exceed the
simple notion of which academic discourse is more efficient for carrying on
author's ideas. Despite a popular belief that science is an international
endeavor, I think academic readership and demands from a broader society are
different in different countries.
My concern is not to communicate the Russian author... that Russian academic
discourse style is deficient and American academic style is better (or even
the best). Russia, in general, and Russian educational and psychological
science, in specific, are right now is in a difficult economic situation;
while the US in general and American academic institutions are economically
and ideologically are leading force in the world. It is easy for Russian
scientists who are looking for professional, moral, and financial support in
the West to slip in considering Russian academic discourse as deficient and
primitive. I concern that current economic crisis in Russia can push
Russian scholars to blindly assimilate Western (mainly US) style of academic
discourse.
In the context of this review, I see one possible solution in clear
communicating to the author the expectations of American academic readers
for an American academic publication, stressing the idea that each national
academic community has worked out its own style of academic discourse that
works best for the community. In my view, [the author's] paper is an
eclectic mixture of Russian and American discourse styles. If I am right in
my observations and analysis, perhaps, it is better for a Russian scholar to
separate the academic discourse styles for Russian and American academic
readerships. "
What do you think?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Angel Lin [mailto:enangel@cityu.edu.hk]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 12:08 AM
To: ch-sig@yahoogroups.com
Cc: XMCA
Subject: Re: [ch-sig] Re: other voices
Hi Eugene and everybody,
I very much echo what you said about the domination of U.S. discourses in
academia below. For instance, US journals are classified as "international
journals" whereas other Asian journals are called "local" or "regional"
journals, sadly and ironically by the universities authorities themselves in
Hong Kong, and in their annual appraisal of their teaching staff's
publication record. You are literally penalized for publishing in local and
regional journals and for researching on issues in your own sociocultural
contexts. In the human disciplines, especially in education, if you study
local contexts (or Asian contexts in my case), you are seen as not
"international" enough in your research, and those "international journals"
are typically concerned with issues in the U.S., not in the rest of the
world; e.g., if you look at top journals in the TESOL field, the
"mainstream" state of art articles are set in N.American contexts, studying
typical ESL contexts (and very often tertiary ESL contexts); EFL contexts
(e.g., EFL learning and teaching in schools) are not of much interest to
them (though a very few no. of journals are starting to accept articles that
research on non-N.American contexts; e.g., Suresh Canagarajah's upcomgin
special issue on Local Knowledge and Education in the Journal of Language,
Identity and Education) they are still the exceptions rather than the rule).
Asian academics are doubly disadvantaged, they live in an institution which
self-imposes U.S. norms to re-colonize their own academia; I cannot think of
a more pathetic case than the Hong Kong one!
More sad is that the "international" mainstream academic discourse will
not benefit from the diverse experiences and cultural and intellectual
traditions of outside-of-U.S./N.America places. For example, if you want
your paper to be "publishable" in those "top international journals", you
have to phrase your research questions, your methodology, your DISCOURSE, in
THEIR DISCOURSE. Literally, it's fitting contexts and data from a different
ecology into the U.S. mainstream academic discourse; otherwise, they would
say you "don't have a theory", etc. Have you ever seen an article on an
outside-of-U.S. context published using theories beyond those acceptable to
N.American academia (e.g., Confucianist, Daoist, Zen Buddhist Discourses?)??
Just some thoughts. I feel that the domination of the U.S. discourse in
academia is not good for the U.S. nor for "Others" living outside the U.S.
Yet, this domination has patially been self-imposed by the ruling elite in
the "post-colonial" societies!
Angel Lin
>>>>
>> > > :-). It is not a top military secret that US academia has been
>> > historically
>> > > designed to fit white middle- and upper-class males. Also, US
>> > economic and
>> > > political domination in the world makes US academia almost the
>> > academia. It
>> > > is interesting to explore how "others" feel, think, and live in
>> > that regime,
>> > > what problems "they" have and that "our" place in addressing the
>> > problems.
>> > >
>> > > Any other ideas? What do you think?
>> > >
>> > > Eugene
<<<<
***************************************************************
Angel Lin, Ph.D.(Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of
Toronto)
Assistant Professor, Department of English and Communication
City University of Hong Kong
Tat Chee Ave., Kowloon, Hong Kong
Fax: (852) 2788-8894; phone: (852) 2788-8122
E-Mail: enangel@cityu.edu.hk
http://www.cityu.edu.hk/en/staff/angel/angel.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:48 PDT