Kommande forskningsseminarier på Högskolan för lärande och kommunikation.

Fredag 17 september - 10.00 - 12.00

Every research method is underpinned by particular assumptions. As such, each method has inherent limitations. It is not a question of chastising one method or another, but rather making explicit the breath of the scope of a method so as to not be stuck within a comfortable stance of philosophical issues of truth, interpretation and responsibility (Lather 2006). Moreover, research and findings can be more about mean-making process than outcomes, more about questions than answers, more about connecting and living than arriving, and more about exploration than delivery” (Koro-Ljungberg, 2015, pp. 18-19). The goal of this research seminar is to share and debate how it was that three different academic research articles, that could be argued to be onto-epistemologically conflicting with each other, and as such unfit to be submitted as a cohesive doctoral thesis, in fact articulated well and offered a more comprehensive understanding of the qualitatively distinct forms in which S-TVET2 students experience an information interaction activity within digital environments.


1. Triangulaxivity entails both triangulation and reflexivity (Koro-Ljungberg, 2015). These concepts have meant different things throughout different periods, and mean different things in different contexts and fields (Koro-Ljungberg, 2015). In the doctoral thesis that will be used as an example during this seminar, for example, investigator triangulation was used during the phenomenographic study so as to bolster the credibility and trustworthiness of emerging categories (see Bolaños & Salinas, 2020). Koro-Ljungberg (2015), however, employs them within the field of research methodology. For her, and within such a field, triangulation implies the use of several approaches (methodology) so as to better comprehend a phenomenon (Koro-Ljungberg, 2015). And reflexivity is referent to a researcher’s own pensive practice throughout the process and a desire to probe even if the methodologies that will eventually be used are not thought to be sound between one another (Koro-Ljungberg 2015). As long as the approach and the method used to study are sound in one leg of the journey, the next leg can in fact venture into different approaches and methods: “meanings could also be thought of through plurality. For meaning does not necessarily need to close down dialogue, and meaning can, indeed, be multiple” (Koro-Ljungberg, 2015, p. 18).

2. Secondary Technical and Vocational Education and Training (S-TVET). In the case of this study, more specifically, Chilean students enrolled within the S-TVET system.


Bolaños, F., & Salinas, A. (2020). Secondary vocational education students’ expressed experiences of and approaches to information interaction activities within digital environments: a phenomenographic study. Education and Information Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10322-0.

Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35-57.

Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2015). Methodological language creates “realities”; labels and language matter. In K. DeRosa (Ed.), Reconceptualizing Qualitative Research: Methodologies Without Methodology (pp. 11-43). United States of America: Sage

Fredag 1 oktober - 13.00 - 15.00

Nelson L. Flores, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract: This presentation proposes raciolinguistic genealogy as a methodological approach to the study of language education. It briefly defines three components of this approach: 1) a genealogical stance that brings attention to the discursive construction of race within the context of European colonialism; 2) a materialist framing of white supremacy that focuses on the material inequities made possible by multiple generations of racial oppression; and 3) a raciolinguistic perspective that examines the role of language ideologies in the production of race and the justification of these material disparities. It offers the case of bilingual education in the United States as an illustration of the affordances of raciolinguistic genealogy in researching language education policy.

Fredag 15 oktober - 13.00 - 15.00

Cristine Severo, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

Title: Colonial Linguistics and the relation between Brazil and Africa

Abstract: In this presentation I explore the colonial relation between Brazil and Africa by focusing on Missionary/Colonial Linguistics and the invention of Indigenous and African languages in Brazil. Colonial Brazil was characterized by a massive production of grammars and dictionaries of Indigenous languages expedited by the use of translation which resulted in the diversification of genres to serve new social purposes. Colonial Brazil was also a site of racialized discourses in the context of slavery that contributed to define racialized languages. In postcolonial Brazil, the relationship between language and Brazilian nationality was a source of conflict surrounding which variety of Portuguese could be used to imagine Brazil as a nation. I argue Colonial and Post Colonial Linguistics can contribute to expand the notion of language in relation to how they have been historically invented.

Readings: SEVERO, Cristine Gorski; MAKONI, Sinfree. B.. African Languages, Race, and Colonialism: The Case of Brazil and Angola. In: H. Samy Alim; Angela Reyes; Paul V. Kroskrity. (Org.). The Oxford Handbook of Language and Race. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020, v. 1, p. 153-166.

SEVERO, Cristine Gorski; MAKONI, Sinfree. B. . Discourses of language in colonial and postcolonial Brazil. Language & Communication, v. 34, p. 95-104, 2014. Disponível em: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271530913000682