• Nicholas Faraclas
  • Ellen-Petra Kester
  • Eric Mijts
Part of the Language Policy book series (LAPO, volume 20)


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.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Canagarajah, S. (2002). Reconstructing local knowledge. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 1, 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Gegeo, D. W. (1998). Indigenous knowledge and empowerment: Rural development examined from within. Contemporary Pacific, 10, 289–315.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Pederson, R. W. (2002). Language, culture, and power: Epistemology and agency in applied linguistics. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Ryon, D. (2002). Cajun French, sociolinguistic knowledge, and language loss in Louisiana. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 1, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Williams, G., & Morris, D. (2000). Language planning and language use: Welsh in a global age. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Faraclas
    • 1
  • Ellen-Petra Kester
    • 2
  • Eric Mijts
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EnglishUniversity of Puerto Rico at Río PiedrasSan JuanPuerto Rico
  2. 2.Department of Languages, Literature and CommunicationUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of ArubaOranjestadAruba

Personalised recommendations