Abstract
This chapter summarizes our reflections concerning the entire research project, with a focus on how a community based approach was incorporated at as many stages and at as many levels as possible in our work. This we do with a particular focus on the implications of our experiences in Statia in relation to key questions that frame current debates within such domains of study and praxis as language policy and planning. We then comment on how our adoption of a community based research framework maximized the quantity and quality of the results and maximized the chances for a successful transition from Dutch to English as the language of instruction in Statian schools. Finally, we mention some new questions that our research on Statia has raised for theorists and practitioners in the areas of language policy and planning and community based research.
We make the road by walking.
Horton and Freire (1990)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Literature
Blommaert, J. (1996). Language planning as a discourse on language and society: The linguistic ideology of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems and Language Planning, 20, 199–222.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Reconstructing local knowledge. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 1, 243–259.
Esteva, G. (2001). Mexico: Creating your own path at the grassroots. In V. Bennholdt-Thomsen, N. Faraclas, & C. von Werllhof (Eds.), There is an alternative: Subsistence and worldwide resistance to corporate globalization (pp. 155–166). London: Zed Books.
Gegeo, D. W. (1998). Indigenous knowledge and empowerment: Rural development examined from within. Contemporary Pacific, 10, 289–315.
Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). In B. Bell, J. Gaventa, & J. Peters (Eds.), We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Pederson, R. W. (2002). Language, culture, and power: Epistemology and agency in applied linguistics. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
Pérez-Milans, M., & Tollefson, J. (2018). Language policy and planning: Directions for future research. In J. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 727–741). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ryon, D. (2002). Cajun French, sociolinguistic knowledge, and language loss in Louisiana. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 1, 279–293.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
Tollefson, J. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 42–59). Malden: Blackwell.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Gegeo, D. W. (1999). Culture, discourse and indigenous epistemology: transcending the current models in language policy and planning. In T. Huebner & K. A. Davis (Eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA (pp. 99–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Williams, G., & Morris, D. (2000). Language planning and language use: Welsh in a global age. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Faraclas, N., Kester, EP., Mijts, E. (2019). Conclusions. In: Community Based Research in Language Policy and Planning. Language Policy, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23223-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23223-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23222-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23223-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)