Dear Jack and Alan

Alan, you make a critical point that impacts on all enquiry. And having raised the question of 'language', this inclines me to address the 'appropriacy' of the 'language' of research reportage in 'authentic' enquiry in the oral tradition and / of indigenous knowledge. By language here, I am referring to the language used by the researcher to write his or her thesis. As a matter of principle, we, as a research team, hold that the 'appropriate' language for the writing of 'authentic' research is the language in which the knowledge is originated, recorded in memory and expressed in community, which in most of the instances that I am currently engaged with is Zulu. But I also have, and am, supervising people whose 'mother-tongue', 'language of the heart(h)'is Afrikaans, and there have been instances of Tamil, Gouro, Xhosa, and other. So what we are advocating is that theses should be written in the language of origin for it to be 'appropriate' and 'authentic'.

And this raises a number of points. What happens when the university language policy rules that the thesis must be written in the language of instruction? Indeed! What does happen that the 'authenticity', and therefore the 'quality', of the research is seriously compromised. At this point, I would like to refer to the conversation that David Wilson and I and others have recently had about translation, because it is precisely here that the 'traitorous' nature of translation comes into play. By way of precise example, I have been asking my research team to write about 'ubuntu' and 'ukuhlonipha' as values which make their lives meaningful. And I have asked that they write in Zulu, and then translate into English, for all of the folk in the world who do not speak and understand Zulu. And we are finding that the 'translation' becomes an impossibility. They tell me that there are no English expressions which adequately express the notions of 'ubuntu' and 'ukuhlonipha' in a way that satisfies them, viz, meets the criterion of 'authenticity'. So we are now working with 'equivalence', and finding this much more acceptable as it makes no pretence of translation in the exact sense. What emerges here is that they are realising that they "live in two worlds" (Theo Nyawose), a 'Zulu world' and an 'English world'. (And many live in many more than two worlds as they are multilingual.) So they are able to express and explain what 'ubuntu' and 'ukuhlonipa' means to them in Zulu, and then again what these concepts mean to them in English. I see this as an example of the use of multiple perspectives, lenses and worldviews. What is most interesting about this situation is that I have been told that by advocating the use of the authentic language of the origin of the person and the knowledge in the writing of theses in the way that I have described above, that I am 'lowering academic standards'. The ironies are exquisite, particularly in the light of the fact that some of my most vehement critics are monolingual and monocultural.

Another point that is raised here is the 'appropriate' and 'authentic' 'mode of expression'. By 'mode of expression' I am referring to the use of spoken expression, sung expression, moved expression, visual expression, musical expression and so on .... This is particularly pertinent in the case of the oral tradition and/of indigenous knowledge which is predominantly conceptualized and recorded in memory, and expressed in performance. In respect of the oral tradition, there are many instances where the knowledge is conveyed by precise movement, by the use of a precise gesture, by the use of a precise intonation. I am indebted to my ex-student and now colleague teaching at the University of Abidjan, Dr Tra Bi Goh, for teaching me the significance of tonal gestual languages, such as Gouro, Goh's mother tongue. In African rural communities, this kind of language predominates. Goh showed me how in Gouro each 'word' could have up to five different meanings depending on the inflexion of the voice and the gesture that went with it. How does one write this down? If one does indeed write this kind of information down one has to resort to the use of movement notation for the physical movement and sound notation for the movement of the voice. And the research 'product' becomes so technical and specialized that it becomes inaccessible. There have been attempts at using scribal alphabetic writing to record the nuances of intonation, but none with any degree of success, or generalisability. In a nutshell, writing these kinds of texts down is impossible, as noted by John Miles Foley in a series of lectures which he gave at the University of Natal, Durban in 1996, titled "The impossibility of the oral canon." This issue was also addressed by Ted Chamberlin in his keynote address of the fifth international conference on the oral tradition in 1997 also at the University of Natal, Durban: "Doing things with words: putting performance on the page." (1998, Voices 1.) I see this as another example of the need for multiple perspectives, lenses and worldviews, if research is going to be 'appropriate' and 'authentic'.

Also in this vein, I am mindful of the work of David Maracle, Mohawk scholar at the University of Western Ontario, who has over the past three decades made an indepth study of Mohawk and has created a form of pictographic writing which accommodates the various forms of spoken Mohawk.

Yet further, it is important to bear in mind that both the physical and the aural movement in the expression of oral traditional texts are critical to its faithful memorial record, and memory is critical for memory is all that the oral tradition has by way of truly 'authentic' record. All  examples of the need for multiple perspectives, lenses and worldviews if our research is going to be 'appropriate' and 'authentic'.

So ... when we suggest that we use other than scribal alphabetic writing for the record of scholarship for the award of senior degrees, I am told again and again that theses 'must be written to be scholarly'. I argue that it is 'inappropriate' to require that the three dimensional dynamic performance of knowledge be recorded in two inert dimensions, and I am told that I am 'lowering academic standards'. Once again, the ironies are exquisite, particularly when some of my most vehement critics are people influenced predominantly by the literate tradition.

And it is clear here why I am much encouraged by Jack's use and promotion of multimedia in 'Living Theories Methodologies', which allow me to record some small aspect of the vastness of the knowledge, something of the age-old values, and multiple worldviews held in the oral traditions of knowledge closest to me.

Which brings me to yet another important point that I choose to factor into my work in this arena. I have found that it is detrimental to my work to allow the perception that the orality-literacy interface is an 'us and them' situation, a divided house. This is not so. I see that ALL human beings are both oralate and literate in a flexible and constantly changing dynamic. I believe that we benefit from becoming aware of both our oralate and literate selves and operations. I believe that this kind of self-awareness heightens my capacity to perceive the capacities in others, so that I can see when someone understands the world differently from the way that I do, or I understand the world differently from someone else. I take my lead in this respect from Marcel Jousse (1886-1961). In a lecture at Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Marcel Jousse records, in about 1940, "I am very happy to see the emergence, universally, of civilizations which cannot be termed savage or primitive, or any other such term. These are civilizations. We must not attempt the impossibility of understanding them; instead we must understand that we do not understand them, and that in itself will be a step towards mutual appreciation which could develop into accord. Some twenty years ago, I found myself on this very spot with someone we would term a Chinese Mandarin, who told me "You are the first European I have met who understands that you do not understand us." (Anthropology of Geste and Rhythm, 1997, pp56/57.) Jousse was writing of an incident that took place in about 1920, fully 90 years ago. That is almost a century ago. It is not unreasonable to expect that we would have learned what we needed to know to create a peaceful world by now. Clearly we have not. I am reminded again and again of the value of "humble awareness" (identified in the work of Vinaver, by Edgard Sienaert in his obituary) in the business that I am about. I find the caution provided by the Criteria for Rigour which we developed in 2003 useful in this regard. And Self Study and Living Theories Methodologies a boon and a blessing.

Thank you for listening ...
Joan


-----Original Message-----
From: Practitioner-Researcher [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Rayner (BU)
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 3:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Your AERA paper

Dear Jack and Joan,

"I'm not too sure if Alan was meaning that the use of such criteria can be
part of an unwitting support for an intransigent use of language.  I'll ask
him."

No way! I was writing in support of those criteria, especially with regard
to reflecting rigorously about the appropriateness of choice of verbal
language in relation to its intended meaning. I do notice that it is very
easy, in order to be 'accepted', to use language in a way that is not
appropriate to a transigent ('open') intention and hence to allow an
intransigent ('closed off') interpretation to hold sway. This is a big
problem when seeking liberation from over-definitive (absolutely
categorical, alienating) paradigms.

Warmest

Alan


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Whitehead" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Your AERA paper


On 4 Apr 2010, at 13:18, Joan Lucy Conolly wrote:

> Dear Jack
>
> Here is the resend ... this is what Alan was referring to ...
>
> I hope that you get it this time.
> Joan

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Joan - got it.  I like the criteria for rigour - They will complement
Richard Winter's six criteria - the more individuals (and validation groups)
can focus on using these criteria the more they will help to enhance the
qualities of validity and rigour in the self-study/action research accounts.
I'm not too sure if Alan was meaning that the use of such criteria can be
part of an unwitting support for an intransigent use of language.  I'll ask
him.

Just about to have a Sunday roast dinner - Rebecca and Simon have come round
and Rebecca is waiting, non too patiently for the arrival of her first
offspring!

Love Jack.

"This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click http://www.dut.ac.za"