Power and Status in Majority - Minority Relations

Social psychological processes underlying intergroup behaviour should be placed in their sociostructural contexts. Previous experimental studies have usually created groups that do not differ on sociostructural dimensions such as group numbers, power, and status. The impact of these factors on intergroup behaviour constituted the major aim of the present research. Predictions were formulated assuming that individuals are motivated to achieve a positive social identity (Tajfel & Variants of the "minimal group" paradigm see Tajfel & Turner, 1979) were used, first, to replicate previous minimal group results, and second, to assess the independent and combined effects of power, status, and group as in previous studies, allocation matrices developed by Tajfel and his colleagues were the main dependent measures. Unlike previous studies, these were supplemented with extensive possession questionnaire items that included items on social identifications and various intergroup perceptions. First, the classic minimal group discrimination effect, replicated under conditions of equal group numbers, power, and status, was eliminated when group members had little or no power (study 2). Categorization per se was net sufficient for intergroup discrimination. Without usable power, minimal group members did net discriminate. However, categorization per se was sufficient in eliciting prejudice. Second, results of this research clearly shewed that increases in group status and group power led to concomitant increases in matrix discrimination. Membership in minority groups polarised these patterns of behaviour (and perceptions) more than membership in majority groups. Status was the best predictor of social identification (and related perceptions), while power best predicted actual behaviour. In conclusion, evidence from these studies indicated that group numbers, power, and status, independently and in combination, have a strong impact on intergroup behaviour and perceptions.ThesisDoctor of Philosophy (PhD

Community languages in higher education : towards realising the potential

This study, Community Languages in Higher Education: Towards Realising the Potential, forms part of the Routes into Languages initiative funded by the Higher Education Funding Council in England (HEFCE) and the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). It sets out to map provision for community languages, defined as 'all languages in use in a society, other than the dominant, official or national language'. In England, where the dominant language is English, some 300 community languages are in use, the most widespread being Urdu, Cantonese, Punjabi, Bengali, Arabic, Turkish, Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, Gujerati, Hindi and Polish. The research was jointly conducted by the Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (Scottish CILT) at the University of Stirling, and the SOAS-UCL Centre for Excellence for Teaching and Learning 'Languages of the Wider World' (LWW CETL), between February 2007 and January 2008. The overall aim of this study was to map provision for community languages in higher education in England and to consider how it can be developed to meet emerging demand for more extensive provision

Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty writing research articles for English-medium journals: the impact of proficiency in English versus publication experience

Previous quantitative studies suggest that the burden researchers who use English as an additional language perceive when writing research articles (RAs) for publication in English (as L2) is 24% greater than the burden they perceive when they write RAs for publication in their L1. It remains unclear precisely which aspects of research article (RA) writing in English present these writers with the greatest challenge and just why they perceive this increase in difficulty. A structured questionnaire comprising thirty-seven questions about researchers’ publication experiences in scientific journals in English and in Spanish was designed and sent out to all (n = 8,794) Spanish postdoctoral researchers at one research-only institution and four universities in Spain, yielding responses from 1,717 researchers. Our first results show that the discussion is the section that is perceived as more difficult to write for English-medium journals, across the four broad knowledge areas in a way that cannot be fully explained by their lower level of proficiency in English (as L2). This article proposes the rhetorical transfer hypothesis as a possible explanation for their additional difficulty. Our results also reveal that their increased perceived difficulty writing RA discussions in English (as L2) does not decrease noticeably until Spanish researchers report high or very high levels of proficiency in English (as L2) for academic or general purposes or have published on average at least 37 RAs as corresponding author in English-medium journals over the last ten years. Implications for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) research and pedagogy are discussed

Identifying Spanish researchers’ needs for training in English for Research Publication Purposes: Methodological aspects of a large-scale online survey

This paper mainly aims to report on the survey method employed in Phase 1 of the ENEIDA project to fulfil the following aims: a) locating those researchers at the five institutions participating in the project who might be interested in receiving ERPP training and in collaborating in subsequent phases of the project; b) identifying their specific needs vis-à-vis ERPP; and c) providing a context for future studies of Spanish-English intercultural rhetoric for research publication purposes. The paper also offers an overall characterisation of the informants to our survey, discusses some of the results to assess the relevance and viability of further phases of the project, and evaluates the database thus created. 24 researchers were first interviewed in-depth from one research-only institution and two universities. Interview responses were then used to design a structured questionnaire comprising thirty-seven questions related to both English and Spanish for research publication purposes. The questionnaire was piloted with 200 researchers selected from the total population of staff with doctorates (8,794) at the three institutions mentioned above, plus another two universities. The questionnaire was then sent out to the total population, yielding responses from 1717 researchers, which are kept in the ENEIDA Database. The findings suggest high levels of interest in ERPP amongst participants in that not only were 64% of respondents interested in future ERPP training, but also in that 96% of them were willing to receive information about how to participate in subsequent phases of the project. It is hoped that the information contained in the ENEIDA Database will allow us to: a) carry out precise needs analyses of specific groups of informants (e.g. according to specific disciplines); b) carry out in-depth studies of how relevant factors affect writing for research publication purposes of Spanish researchers, and c) design multiple case studies of their difficulties writing for research publication purposes grounded in sound researc

Spanish Researchers Publishing In Scientific Journals: Motivations, Views, Strategies, Experiences and Training Needs

In recent decades, there has been a growing move towards publication in English-medium journals among multilingual researchers and a growing demand for materials (Swales and Feak, 2004) and courses in skills relevant to publishing in English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP) (Moreno 2011). Research into academic writing has also flourished world-wide (Swales 2004), with crosscultural and intercultural studies of academic discourse across various languages and English being an area of increasing interest (Moreno 2010). Despite this, little is known about the training needs vis-à-vis ERPP of writers for whom English is an Additional Language (EAL) and how teaching resources might best address them (Swales 2002). The present project focusses on a neglected population of EAL writers, Spanish researchers, and advocates for a critical pragmatic approach that addresses access and difference simultaneously. Thus the project highlights the importance of giving priority to those aspects of ERPP writing with which specific groups of Spanish researchers tend to have difficulties when communicating with an international audience (the intercultural perspective). Additionally, based on revealing results from Spanish-English crosscultural studies of academic discourse, the project seeks to explain some of Spanish researchers’ writing problems by virtue of the contrastive rhetoric hypothesis, according to which writers from different cultural and language backgrounds have distinct preferences for articulating messages with share a similar purpose (the crosscultural perspective). It is believed that raising Spanish researchers’ awareness of crosscultural differences in ERPP writing related to audience types (national/local versus international) will help them to produce more successful texts in the eyes of English-medium journal gatekeepers. Convinced that this type of research would benefit from interdisciplinary collaborations, the ENEIDA (Spanish team for Intercultural Studies of Academic Discourse) research group was officially set up in 2010. It consists of researchers with background and expertise in supplementary research fields from one Spanish research-only institution (the CSIC), four Spanish universities (Universidad de León, Universidad de La Laguna, Universitat Jaume I and Universidad de Zaragoza) and three foreign universities (The University of London, The University of Michigan and the Open University). The first phase of the ENEIDA project on “Rhetorical Strategies to Get Published in International Journals from a Spanish-English Intercultural Perspective (I)” (Ref.: FFI2009-08336) sets out to collect relevant data to investigate Spanish researchers’ writing difficulties publishing in English-medium international journals by means of a large-scale confidential online survey. The present panel aims to give account of the methodology used to carry out this survey and to offer first descriptive results on the basis of the responses given by the whole sample of participants