Volume 22, Issue 1
January 7, 2021
ISSN 1099-839X
Shaping the Futures of Learning in the Digital Age
A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism,
with Reflections on the Research Experience
Laura Geringer
Loyola University Chicago
Abstract: This article is both a research paper and a reflection piece, describing the core of a
research project about examining faculty experience and some of the author’s related self-learning
and reflection fueled by the project. This qualitative case-study asked: for bilingual faculty whose
native language and academic discipline is French, in what ways is language intertwined in their
experience of higher education in English-language universities in the United States Midwest?
Semi-structured interviews with three individuals suggested this multifaceted idea: for these
faculty members, their experience of higher education is intertwined with 1) their relationships
with individuals and groups of various linguistic characteristics; 2) complexities of
identity/personality; and 3) power dynamics. Parallel to this research about faculty experience was
the author’s experiential learning about the research process and reflections on her relationship to
research and practice in the field of education. This article sketches this learning alongside the
research study.
Keywords: Higher Education; International Higher Education; Faculty; French; Bilingual
Citation: Geringer, L. (2021). A collective case-study on navigating faculty bilingualism, with
reflections on the research experience. Current Issues in Education, 22(1). Retrieved from
http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1927 This submission is part of a special
issue, Shaping the Futures of Learning in the Digital Age, guest-edited by Sean Leahy, Samantha
Becker, Ben Scragg, and Kim Flintoff.
Accepted: 12/18/2020
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
1
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
Introduction
How is language intertwined in the experiences of bilingual faculty?
To what extent do I enjoy conducting research?
As a Masters of Education student at Loyola University Chicago, I initiated this
independent research project seeking clarity in two areas: first, a research question about
faculty and language, and second, the role that I want research to play in my professional work.
I took care to document and write up my findings for the first topic (to conclude this project in
fall of 2018) and I share much of that content here. Though I was open with my research
committee about the second, parallel research aim, I took less care in documenting my (arguably
more important) learning in this area. In this piece, I aim to share a bit of both — the core of my
research project and some of the related self-learning and field reflection it has fueled. This
article is ordered around the research process, using a likely recognizable paper structure and a
more formal tone of voice for these sections. My reflections and experiences in conducting the
research are interspersed throughout and marked with “[Reflections]” to indicate a more
personal narrative that reflects my parallel learning.
The Research Project
English is increasingly used as a language for academic scholarship globally. In
numerous contexts, it appears as a language for research and for teaching (Altbach, 2016). This
trend raises questions about the benefits, disadvantages, and complexities of the evolving
linguistic landscape (Altbach, 2016; Ives, 2010).
My research project took place in the context of broader discussions surrounding
language use in academia, particularly the use of a common language for scholarship across
various institutions and countries. Currently, English is the primary common language under
discussion, though these tensions may be seen with other languages in other contexts; for
example, Russian could be considered a common language among some post-Soviet countries
(Altbach, 2016; Cunska, 2010; Galbreath, 2006; Ives, 2010; Silova, 2015). A review of the
literature suggested a question that could further our understanding of this topic and as well as
considerations for the construction of the research project.
Literature Review
Altbach (2016) and Ives (2010) provided a high-level perspective on the influences and
complexities of English in the international higher education community and the relevant
theoretical context. Both authors provided a valuable foundation on the topic. Yet, their macro-
level foci could not address with precision nor depth the varied experiences of individuals and
organizations within this international higher education context.
Much of the current research surrounding linguistic use in higher education centers on
European countries and the European Union (EU). Gerhards’ (2014) study, especially when
considered alongside Gazzola (2016), highlights the question of how to define linguistic and
communicative ability in research. The theoretical framework presented in these articles was
helpful for my conceptualization of linguistic difference and suggested elements to look for in
my own research.
Significant research has been done on language use of faculty in various contexts. This
literature in particular shaped the content and the methods of my inquiry. Gentil and Séror’s
(2014) dialogue-based self-case study explored the linguistic experiences of researchers in
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
2
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
Canada’s bilingual context. Their work provided a strong methodological example for the
formulation of my study, and modeled thoughtful validity practices in a case study design.
Kuteeva and Airey (2014) and López-Navarro, Moreno, Quintanilla, and Rey-Rocha
(2015) explored some of the complexities related to language use and academic discipline. These
two studies suggested academic discipline as an important factor in bi/multilingual faculty
experiences. With this in mind, my study focused on faculty whose academic discipline is
French. Muresan and Pérez-Llantada (2014) examined the publication language(s) used by
Romanian scholars. This study modeled a qualitative-first mixed methods study and suggested
the use of self-assessment of language proficiencies in my study (Muresan & Pérez-Llantada,
2014). This study, along with López-Navarro et al. (2015), also suggested the inclusion of
publication-related questions in my semi-structured interview protocol.
Research Question
The goal of my research study was to better understand, on both a specific and personal
level, the multilingual faculty experience within English-language universities in order to further
contribute to the larger ongoing discussion surrounding the experience and roles of language in
international higher education. Specifically, the central question of this study was: for bilingual
faculty whose native language and academic discipline is French, in what ways is language
intertwined in their experience of higher education in English-language universities in the United
States Midwest?
A review of the literature suggested several research opportunities that I considered in
constructing a project to expand our understanding of higher education. Much of the existing
research focuses on language use for publication, faculty use of English in non-English speaking
regions or institutions, and language in Europe and the European Union. My research builds
upon the existing work and contributes to our understanding of some outstanding related
questions. First, my study included questions about publication, but its focus went beyond
academic writing. Second, this study was conducted in an English-speaking national and
institutional context with a focus on faculty whose native language does not match their current
environment. Third, this study was situated in the United States, where much research has been
done on international or multilingual students (see Marshall et al., 2012; Shi, Harrison, & Henry,
2017; Tardy, 2004), but very little on bilingual faculty. In addition to contributing to the quantity
of knowledge on this topic, this study could contribute to future theoretical developments or
refinements. Finally, the experience of participating in this study and thoughtfully exploring the
research question impacted the researcher, and perhaps also the research participants.
[Reflections]. Yes, it definitely impacted the researcher.
Positionality
Particularly because this project follows a qualitative case-study design, it is important to
acknowledge my positionality as a researcher. This project focused on language and academia
and touched on ideas of linguistic ability, identity, and power. In the introduction to my first
interview with each participant, I shared a little of my own linguistic background. My native
language is English and my second language is French; I can be described as an advanced
independent French speaker. Conversely, the study participants’ first language is French and
their second language is English. I invited each participant to change the language of our
conversation from English to French if they preferred, but there was likely some form of pressure
on the participants to continue our conversation in English. This means that our conversations
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
3
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
took place almost exclusively in my primary language and their secondary language. As one
participant, Martine, suggested: there is arguably power in speaking your primary language. My
other identities also shape my positionality relative to this research, including the following:
white, cisgender woman (her, her, hers pronouns), heterosexual, and U.S. American.
Additionally, I discussed with each faculty member their experiences in academia while I was
simultaneously a participant in academia as a graduate student, intern, and recent staff member.
Because of this, it is possible that my relationship with each research participant contained
elements of a researcher-research subject, student-professor, and staff-faculty dynamic. My
position as a student may even have aided me in conducting this higher education research.
Acknowledging elements of my positionality is an important step toward the goals of fairness
and trustworthiness in this study.
Methodology
This study followed a qualitative collective-case study design consisting of three
individual faculty cases. Participants were selected through a non-random convenience sampling
technique from the population of francophone multilingual faculty at two research-active
English-language universities (Johnson & Christensen, 2013). To collect data, I conducted two
semi-structured interviews with each participant and analyzed the first round of data to inform
the second round of interviews. This study aimed to explore the experiences of faculty
participants in order to understand how language is intertwined in their academic lives. Because
the primary goal of the study is exploration, an in-depth consideration of several case studies was
the most suitable of the qualitative methods. The focus of the research question is such that
generalizability is of minimal interest, and random sampling is not possible. For these reasons,
quantitative methods were not the best choice for this study (Johnson & Christensen, 2013). This
study method facilitated the investigation of the research question in a way that was feasible and
valuable.
Definitions
This study considered the experience of bilingual or multilingual faculty whose native
language and academic discipline is French, asking in what ways language is intertwined in their
experience of higher education in English-language universities in the United States Midwest.
This question includes several terms that are important to clarify:
• bilingual: in this study, the self-reported ability to function well in two languages;
• native language: in this study, the self-reported first language and/or the language
of the individual’s home, country, culture, or family; and
• academic discipline: in this study, a broad topical and theoretical area of scholarly
specialization.
Participants
Context & Population
Participants for this research study were selected from two English-language universities
with high levels of research activity in the United States Midwest. Multiple universities were
included to both increase the size of the target population and increase the diversity of experience
represented. The specific institutional culture and experience was not of interest to this study. I
chose to focus on research-active universities because research involvement appeared as a
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
4
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
component of faculty experience in the literature review (López-Navarro et al., 2015; Muresan &
Pérez-Llantada, 2014). Specifically, I selected two R1 research institutions as defined by The
Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Education (The Carnegie Classification, n.d.).
The Midwest region of the United States was chosen for convenience.
Within this context, the sample was selected from the population of faculty who met the
criteria specified by the research question. While I originally intended to focus on tenure-track
faculty members, this came to be impractical during the recruitment phase. I did, however,
exclude temporarily visiting faculty from institutions outside the United States.
Sampling
This qualitative collective case-study employed nonrandom sampling techniques:
convenience and snowball sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2013). I selected the sample for
convenience from the population with the necessary characteristics and used snowball sampling
to identify additional potential participants. Participant selection was designed to maximize
variation in the following areas:
• Self-reported gender identity and
• Self-reported ethnicity and/or country of origin.
The purpose of these techniques was to increase population inclusivity and, to the extent
possible for such a small number of cases, provide a holistic picture of the ways in which
language is intertwined in the experience of francophone faculty. Additionally, these sampling
methods were chosen for feasibility — to create a study that I could reasonably complete based
on temporal and funding constraints — while maintaining the usefulness of this study.
The primary weakness of these sampling practices and sample size was that they restrict
the generalizability of the study. Generalizability of these findings could be increased over time
through the accumulation of literature that replicates these findings with other populations.
However, generalization was not a goal of this study, and the research question could be
addressed with a sample size of three faculty members.
Recruitment
To recruit participants, I first identified two potential research sites to which I could
obtain access and verified the existence of my target population using online resources. After
receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board at Loyola University Chicago, I
proceeded to recruit individual participants.
I relied on online resources and readily available information to identify potential
participants, and used snowball sampling to identify additional potential subjects (Johnson &
Christensen, 2013). For those faculty interested in participation, I shared additional information
about the project and verified that they fit the selection criteria. Unfortunately, only three
potential participants both met the criteria and were interested in participating, limiting my
ability to maximize variation in the selection of participants. I invited these three to participate
and arranged the initial meetings and consent form reviews.
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
5
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
[Reflections]. I underestimated both the time required and the frustration of identifying
and recruiting research subjects, and was perhaps too hesitant to leverage my professional
network in this endeavor. I argued, both in my research proposal and in the final write-up, that
an exhaustive search for all faculty who met the study’s criteria was unnecessary and
impractical, and yet I pressured myself to do as much of this as I could.
Procedure
Data Collection
Data was collected following a semi-structured interview instrument. This protocol was
developed based on relevant literature and revised with feedback from my research supervisory
committee. The choice of a semi-structured interview approach allowed for a thoughtful but not
restrictive exploration of the topic.
For each subject, I conducted two semi-structured interviews in a location of the
participant’s choosing, approximately one month apart. The first-round interviews were all in-
person, but, due to travel and illness, two of the second-round interviews were conducted via
phone/video conference. With the participants’ consent, I audio recorded each interview.
The first semi-structured interview for each participant focused on the individual’s story
of becoming bilingual and their relationship with language in professional settings. In this and
subsequent conversations, I used member checking to verify that I correctly understood the
participant’s comments.
After a round of data analysis, I conducted the second semi-structured interview with
each participant. The focus of these interviews was to verify that I correctly understood the
participant’s comments from the first interview, discuss emerging themes from the first round of
data analysis across all cases, and provide each participant the opportunity to share anything else
they wanted me to know.
[Reflections]. As I talked with these individuals and analyzed the qualitative data, I found
myself frustrated by the barrier between my world and theirs. In my role as researcher, I was the
observer; I could not act in the space occupied by my participants. They shared challenges,
raised questions, and described interesting interpersonal dynamics within their professional
worlds. I listened and learned from their sharing but could not impact their experience of
international higher education. In other roles within higher education I have felt energized, and
often internally compelled, to address the leadership, communication, and teamwork challenges
of the groups of which I have been a part. This research process was unique in that my potential
agency was purposefully and necessarily limited to a pre-defined sphere and the role of
researcher. Looking to the future, I am drawn to the possibilities of projects that challenge and
deconstruct the barriers between researcher and research subject, practitioner and client,
educator and learner. As my first research experience, I perhaps overly cautious in maintaining
the formality of our interactions; I’m still not sure I have the perspective to determine this. It’s
left me wondering how I could have enacted the principles of ethical and respectful research
while letting more of my humanity, my complexity shine through in those interactions.
Analysis Process
Data analysis occurred during and after the data collection process. Interim analysis
between the first and second round of interviews enabled me to better focus the next stage of
data collection. Throughout this process, I used memoing to record my emerging thoughts
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
6
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
and interpretations. Audio data from interviews was transcribed by an automated
transcription service, and I corrected the transcripts. Next, I coded the data using inductive
codes and looked for co-occurring codes. A factsheet including demographic data was
attached to each transcript. Borrowing from grounded theory coding procedures, I followed a
process of open, axial, and selective coding that led me to several themes shared across cases
(Johnson & Christensen, 2013). I focused on thematic analysis and identifying suggested
relationships between the categories that arose in the data. I reviewed themes and categories
between single-case data sets and then analyzed these themes across cases, searching for
shared and unique experiences of these bilingual faculty (Johnson & Christensen, 2013).
These study-wide themes and their associated questions and complications make up the
findings for this study.
[Reflections]. I loved finding themes in my interviews, connections and contradictions
in the experiences of my different participants, and possibilities to explore. Rather than
systematic coding, I wanted to spread everything on the floor and attack it with colored
markers and scissors; to follow the bounds and swerves of intriguing ideas without having to
document my path, and then turn my attention to what I could do with these ideas. Instead, I
coded the data, and tried to be as procedural as possible. I wonder about the intersection of
fluid, nonlinear analysis and systematic coding for future projects.
Limitations
The primary limitation of this study is generalizability. The non-random, small-scale,
convenience case-study sampling approach used greatly restricts my ability to generalize
findings to a larger population. Generalizability is relevant to this study only insofar as it may
assist in shaping future discussions of theory. As the research community accrues additional
studies, generalizability may become increasingly feasible.
Nevertheless, it was necessary to address several validity considerations for this study to
be trustworthy and valuable. My primary strategies for increasing validity were reflexivity and
member checking as triangulation (Johnson & Christensen, 2013). First, to reduce and illuminate
my impact on the data and analysis, I engaged in written and non-written reflexivity. In searching
for themes and answers to the research question, I looked for elements that did not meet my
expectations or that disagreed with the themes I developed, specifically by asking my research
participants for feedback on emerging themes. Second, I used member checking as triangulation
to increase the validity of my results. I communicated with each study participant at various
stages in the data collection, analysis, and writing process to verify that I was accurately
representing their experiences and associated meaning-construction. While I am the sole
investigator on this study, a research project supervisory committee provided a degree of critical
oversight (Johnson & Christensen, 2013).
[Reflections]. With the perspective of a year’s break from this project, I am willing to say
that this study would be improved by expanding the scope — speaking with more people and/or
speaking with the three participants an additional time or two. It was frustrating to feel like I had
barely scratched the surface; that my findings we a long way from being actionable; and that I
had succeeded in accumulating more questions and weariness than findings. As my learning
around that second, personal research question grew, my willingness to expand my pursuit of the
first research question — at least in this research process — diminished.
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
7
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
Findings
Subject Introductions
The three participants in this study, Martine, Thomas, and Françoise have several
characteristics in common. They are all native French speakers, have strong English language
skills, and identify as white. Each participant is a faculty member working in an English-
language university context in the U.S. Midwest, with an academic discipline of French. The
subsequent paragraphs contain a brief overview of each participant’s linguistic history.
Martine
Martine has been a faculty member for 31 years and has lived in an English-speaking
country for 33 years. She describes her English skill as fluent. Martine identifies as a woman
(her, her, hers pronouns), Belgian, and is 64 years old.
Martine grew up in Belgium and learned French as her first language. She attended
school in France and began studying English in high school. After high school, she spent a year
in the United States as an exchange student. Having learned British English, it took her some
time to become comfortable with American English. Upon returning to Belgium, Martine
initially had some difficulty with French but it came back to her quickly. Her university studies
in Belgium were in French. When she moved back to the United States, she had no trouble with
English the second time. It did take some time for her to feel linguistically and culturally
comfortable in the United States. After teaching in the United States for a while, Martine went
back to school in the United States to get a master’s degree, and so began using English
academically.
Thomas
Thomas has been a faculty member for 1 year and has lived in an English-speaking
country for 9 years. His second language is English. Thomas identifies as a gay man (he, him, his
pronouns), French, and is 40 years old.
Thomas grew up in France and learned French from his family and from his
surroundings. He attended school in France in French until his later move to the United States. In
secondary school, he studied German as his first foreign language and English as his second
foreign language. During his last year of high school, Thomas took an intensive English class.
He lost most of his English ability in subsequent years due to lack of practice. During his
doctoral work in France, Thomas decided to come to the United States to start a second PhD in
English. He worked to learn English on his own while still living in France. When he arrived in
the U.S., he found it difficult to speak and work in English, and to some degree, still finds it
difficult. Thomas completed both of his PhDs and found a job as a faculty member.
Françoise
Françoise has been a faculty member off-and-on for about 33 years, 26 years at her
current university. Françoise has lived in an English-speaking country for 46 years. She describes
her English skills as fluent in most contexts. Françoise identifies as a woman (her, her, hers
pronouns), French, and is 65 years old.
Françoise grew up in France and learned French as her native language. She had some
exposure to the English language through English family members. Though she did not speak
English, Françoise spent a week in England just before high school at the English-language
school where her aunt taught. She started studying English in high school. Françoise moved to
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
8
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
England shortly after high school. She engaged in intellectual discussions and read philosophy in
English and completed her university studies in French. She later moved to Canada and then to
the United States. Most of Françoise’s English language ability comes from living in English-
speaking countries.
Themes
My interviews with Martine, Thomas, and Françoise suggested this multifaceted idea:
their experience of higher education is intertwined with relationships with individuals and groups
with various linguistic characteristics, complexities of identity/personality, and power dynamics.
While my research question implied a focus on the professional lives of bilingual faculty, it was
difficult to maintain a separation of professional and personal linguistic experiences in
conversation, and arguably this distinction is an unnecessary or false dichotomy. For these
reasons, examples related to participant’s personal and professional lives are included.
Relationships
In the experiences of Martine, Thomas, and Françoise, language and interpersonal
relationships are deeply connected, both within and beyond higher education. Specifically, the
language these faculty use in communicating with someone is shaped by their interlocutor’s
characteristics and norms of the relationship between them — and this in turn may shape the
relationship itself.
The language that Martine, Thomas, and Françoise use is influenced by the language
ability and linguistic comfort of their audience. In general, Françoise speaks French with her
French-speaking colleagues and English with other colleagues. In her personal life too, she takes
her audience’s preferences into account. As Thomas put it, “if I can speak English or if I can
speak the language of my interlocutor, I think it's polite to do so. And I think also that if it's more
efficient that way, I will go to efficiency.” Martine’s experience is similar: “I guess it’s just
uncomfortable to speak whatever language they speak, French, with somebody who does not
speak very well, if you’re not in a teacher-student relationship where it’s quite natural”
(Martine).
Furthermore, Thomas, Françoise, and Martine all described relationships in their personal
and/or professional lives that take place specifically in one language, even if they shared multiple
languages with an interlocutor. For these faculty, speaking with someone in a language other than
the established language feels uncomfortable. As Martine put it,
In general, I feel that when you establish a language with a person, you stick with
it. It's often difficult to change. If you've established a relationship in French, it's
kind of a little awkward to continue in English, or the other way around (Martine).
Thomas suggested that the performance of who you are changes when you switch languages. “If
you change the language the interaction cannot be the same” (Thomas). Françoise shared similar
observations in her personal and professional life. For colleagues with whom she speaks French,
“if one of us tried to speak English to the other systematically it would actually be offensive”
(Françoise).
Françoise also described relationships that are not characterized by a single language.
With her daughters, and one daughter in particular, it is normal to switch between French and
English within a conversation. Perhaps, this is an example of relationships without a set
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
9
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
linguistic nature, or perhaps it is a relationship with an expectation of switching. My
conversation with Françoise touched briefly on both possibilities: “You could say that our
linguistics sphere is one of switching. It's never one of mixing” (Françoise).
All three research participants commented on the discomfort inherent to breaking the
linguistic expectations of a relationship. One such complication occurs when another person
joins the conversation, someone whose presence causes a language switch. The impact of this
switch on the relationship of the original conversation pair seems to vary. For Françoise, this
switching does not make the relationships between their first conversation partner feel ‘weird.’
Thomas described something about the initial relationship shifting. Martine describes it as “a
little strained.”
In conducting this research, I shared two languages with each participant. I initiated
communication in English in the recruitment emails. As part of the first interview, I switched
momentarily to French to invite each participant to change the language of conversation if they
preferred. Nobody chose to switch languages with me for more than a couple words here or
there. Perhaps this is because my French language ability was inferior to their English language
skill; because of a language-power dynamic; or perhaps because our initial communications were
in English, setting a linguistic expectation for our relationship.
Identity Expression
Martine, Thomas, and Françoise suggest that a person may have a different identity or
personality in French and in English. My interviews with these three faculty members raised
several interesting ideas around this topic, but there is also room for confusion and ambiguity
particularly about the meanings of terms like identity and personality. Additional research in this
area could be useful to clarify.
For Thomas, who he is is different in each language and he has a wider vocabulary, wider
possibilities to express an identity in French than in English. Specifically, he performs a different
identity in each language.
I don't believe that we have any identity that pre-exists what we perform. So, it
means that the identity I perform in French isn’t the same as the one that I
perform in English. Of course, there is a lot of commonalities between the two,
but I would never go as far as to say there is my true self and I express this true
self differently in French and in English…. And so, I would say even though there
is no true self beyond what we performed, there is room for many
misunderstandings (Thomas).
Françoise suggested that personality is how you are with other people. “I suppose then I have
two different personalities with the two different languages and there's no way around it”
(Françoise). Françoise feels that she is more outgoing in French than in English, probably
because the expectations for conversation are different in French and in English. She feels she is
less talkative in English, perhaps in part because she does not want to interrupt or break the
conversational expectations in English. Furthermore, when she uses language in her professional
sphere, her identity is not at stake.
Martine has noticed some people who have a different personality in each language. She
suggested that language could be thought of as an integrated part of a person's personality, and so
someone’s personality really can be different from one language to another. “I do think that the
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
10
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
language definitely assimilates, probably, a part of your personality that can be different
according to the language” (Martine).
Power
In the research participants’ professional settings, there appeared to be relationships
between power and language. Power dynamics likely interact with other language-experience
factors like relationships and identity expression. The participants’ experiences raise interesting
questions and highlight the need for further research, but do not provide enough information to
make claims about common power experiences or specific power-language relationships in
higher education. Below are some of the observations and experiences that they shared.
All three of the study participants work in departments that teach other language(s) in
addition to French. In each, English is used in official communication and official meetings,
regardless who was involved. However, Martine shared an example that complicates this picture:
teaching-track faculty meetings often take place in French, even though official meetings take
place in English. This raises the question of what makes a meeting or communication ‘official,’
who decides what language is appropriate, and how this language choice shapes who has power
within the group.
Participant experiences similarly suggest language-power complications that go beyond
official situations. Thomas shared a couple of examples of language excluding or including
people in professional conversations, and perhaps being used intentionally to do so. Martine
suggested that when communicating with someone with whom you share multiple languages,
choosing to speak in your native language asserts power. “Say I speak with an American
colleague, if I decide to speak French I'm the dominant one. If they speak English, they are the
dominant one” (Martine).
Furthermore, each participant noted different levels of French language competence and
comfort among their colleagues who teach French subject matter. This raises questions about the
way in which language interacts with, facilitates, or obstructs connections between people in
professional settings, and how this intersects with power and career success. Martine also
suggested that historic relationships between countries or between peoples are carried by
individuals, and sometimes this comes out in how individuals interact with each other. She
shared an example of a grammatical disagreement in which French speakers from France seemed
to have more linguistic authority than French-speakers from other countries. One important
unanswered question is how a faculty member’s linguistic identity intersects with their other
identities, and what influence this has on their higher education experiences.
Conclusion
This qualitative case-study aimed to better understand the bilingual faculty experience
within English-language universities, and in this way, contribute to the ongoing discussion of
language in higher education. Interviews with three francophone faculty members working in
English-language universities suggested that their experience of higher education is intertwined
with 1) their relationships with individuals and groups of various linguistic characteristics; 2)
complexities of identity/personality; and 3) power dynamic. This research suggests several
directions for further inquiry and raises questions about the implications of these faculty’s
experience for several aspects of higher education.
Exploration of several variables and topics could deepen our understanding of bilingual
faculty experience. First, because my research participants shared an academic discipline, this
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
11
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
study cannot speak to the potential relationship between subject matter and faculty experience.
Second, the relationships between language and academic publication — an important feature of
existing literature — appeared only minimally in the experience of these faculty members,
possibly because of their academic discipline or job positions. Third, the topics of power,
identity, and intersectionality are touched on to various degrees in this project, but warrant
additional study.
An expanded understanding of individual faculty experiences raises questions about
group experience, department function and purpose fulfillment, and leadership. What role does
language play in connecting faculty members and in the power dynamics of these relationships?
For example, do sub-groups of faculty form within a French department based on language skill,
with different groups dominating in different types of internal meetings? What does this mean
for department function and the fulfillment of its teaching or research missions? For example,
perhaps students sense an implied hierarchy of French-speakers based on the interactions of
faculty from different countries. Finally, what are the implications of these faculty experiences
for the ways faculty and staff engage in formal and informal leadership, both within and beyond
a multilingual department? Who has power over departmental functions and educational
activities in different situations? How does leadership take place across official English-language
meetings, informal conversations in various languages, and other professional interactions? Do
bilingual faculty use different leadership processes inside and outside their department? Further
research could expand our understanding in these areas.
[Reflections]. I love the learning that sits at the heart of research and have immense
respect for researchers; yet my energy faded in the face of the incremental pace, methodological
demands, and isolation I experienced in this project. Most of all, I struggled with the purpose
and value of my research — why do this if it had little hope of positively impacting the lives of my
research participants, who volunteered their time and thoughts?
I am irrevocably drawn to the ‘why’ behind my efforts, and the alignment of my work with
purposes and values that I believe is a driving force behind my career shifts. This project
illuminated and sifted some of these ‘whys’, helping me distinguish between purposes that appeal
to me intellectually and ones that speak to my mind and my energy. For example, in my flexible
time I found myself repeatedly deprioritizing my research project tasks — preferring to grab
some brainstorming supplies or dig into a leadership textbook in response to a challenge or
opportunity in my other education contexts. Over the course of this research project, I pinpointed
a core point of friction for me: the mission of addressing my research question was less
intriguing to me than the dream of joining my research participants in their context and working
together to shape their experiences within higher education.
I have learned that I am drawn to scholarship that is very close to practice and to
practice that is intertwined with intentional discovery and learning. I am driven to engage in
education leadership and change processes, and to do so in a way that is grounded in theory and
scholarship. The intriguing combination of educational practice and action/participant research,
or less formal “research” speaks directly to the frustration I felt with this project, and describes
a compelling path for me, and I expect, others in the field.
References
Altbach, P. G. (2016). The imperial tongue: English as the dominating academic language. In P.
G. Altbach, Global perspectives on higher education (pp. 140-145). Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
12
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
Chen, S. X., & Bond, M. H. (2010). Two Languages, two personalities? Examining language
effects on the expression of personality in a bilingual context. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1514 - 1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385360
Cunska, Z. (2010). Where is demography leading Latvian higher education? Baltic Journal of
Economics, 10(1), 5-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1406099X.2010.10840468
Galbreath, D. (2006). From nationalism to nation-building: Latvian politics and minority policy.
Nationalities Papers, 34(4), 383-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905990600841918
Gazzola, M. (2016). Multilingual communication for whom? Language policy and fairness in the
European Union. European Union Politics, 17(4), 546 – 569.
http://di.dox.org/10.1177/1465116516657672
Gentil, G., & Séror, J. (2014). Canada has two official languages - Or does it? Case studies of
Canadian scholars’ language choices and practices in disseminating knowledge. Journal
of English for Academic Purposes, 13, 7-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.10.005
Gerhards, J. (2014). Transnational linguistic capital: Explaining English proficiency in 27
European countries. International Sociology, 29(1), 56-74.
http://di.dox.org/10.1177/0268580913519461
Ives, P. (2010). Cosmopolitanism and Global English: Language politics in globalisation debates.
Political Studies, 58(3), 516-535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00781.x
Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. (2013). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Kuteeva, M. & Airey, J. (2014). Disciplinary differences in the use of English in higher
education: reflections on recent language policy developments. Higher Education
67(5), 533-549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9660-6
López-Navarro, I., Moreno, A. I., Quintanilla, M. Á., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2015). Why do I publish
research articles in English instead of my own language? Differences in Spanish
researchers’ motivations across scientific domains. Scientometrics, 103(3), 939-976.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1570-1
Luna, D., Ringberg, T., Peracchio, L., Deighton, J. (Ed.), & Aaker, J. (Assoc. Ed.) (2008). One
individual, two identities: Frame switching among biculturals. Journal of Consumer
Research, 35(2), 279-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/586914
Marshall, S., Hayashi, H., & Yeung, P. (2012). Negotiating the multi in multilingualism and
multiliteracies: Undergraduate students in Vancouver, Canada. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 68(1), 28-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.68.1.028
Muresan, L. & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). English for research publication and dissemination in
bi-/multiliterate environments: The case of Romanian academics. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 13, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.10.009
Ramírez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S. D., Benet-Martínez, V., Potter, J. P., & Pennebaker, J.
W. (2006). Do bilinguals have two personalities? As special case of cultural frame
switching. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(2), 99-120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.09.001
Shi, H., Harrison, J., & Henry, D. (2017). Non-native English speakers' experiences with
academic course access in a U.S. university setting. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 28, 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.06.004
Silova, I. (2015). Latvia: Educational and post-Socialist transformations. In T. Corner (Ed.),
Education in the European Union Post-2003 Member States (pp. 133-150). Bloomsbury
Academic.
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
13
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
Tardy, C. (2004). The role of English in scientific communication: Lingua franca or
Tyrannosaurus rex? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 247-269.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.10.001
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d.). About Carnegie
Classification. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php.
Author Notes
Laura Geringer, MEd
Arizona State University, Content Strategist + ShapingEDU Community Manager
Loyola University Chicago, International Higher Education M.Ed Alumna
Laura.Geringer@asu.edu
Guest Editor Notes
Sean M. Leahy, PhD
Arizona State University, Director of Technology Initiatives
sean.m.leahy@asu.edu
Samantha Adams Becker
Arizona State University, Executive Director, Creative & Communications, University
Technology Office; Community Director, ShapingEDU
sam.becker@asu.edu
Ben Scragg, MA, MBA
Arizona State University, Director of Design Initiatives
bscragg@asu.edu
Kim Flintoff
Peter Carnley ACS, TIDES Coordinator
kflintoff@pcacs.wa.edu.au
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
14
Geringer: A Collective Case-Study on Navigating Faculty Bilingualism, with Reflections on the Research
Experience
Volume 22, Issue 1
January 7, 2021
ISSN 1099-839X
Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the
author(s) and Current Issues in Education (CIE), it is distributed for non-commercial purposes only, and no alteration
or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or CIE. Requests
to reprint CIE articles in other journals should be addressed to the author. Reprints should credit CIE as the original
publisher and include the URL of the CIE publication. CIE is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at
Arizona State University.
Editorial Team
Consulting Editor
Neelakshi Tewari
Lead Editor
Marina Basu
Section Editors
L&I – Renee Bhatti-Klug
LLT – Anani Vasquez
EPE – Ivonne Lujano Vilchis
Review Board
Blair Stamper
Melissa Warr
Monica Kessel
Helene Shapiro
Sarah Salinas
Faculty Advisors
Josephine Marsh
Leigh Wolf
Current Issues in Education, 21(2)
15