Search results

We present a comprehensive literature review and critique of union decertification research, and develop a theoretical framework that should prove useful for future research. The framework incorporates three theoretical viewpoints from several research traditions: the expected utility, social‐political, and workplace voice perspectives. We provide suggestions for how each viewpoint can be modeled in future research. Additionally, although some previous decertification research was theoretically rich, the empirical findings across prior studies were ambiguous and inconsistent. We analyze the reasons for the ambiguous and inconsistent prior findings, and note how future research can avoid or minimize the empirical problems of the past.

This chapter discusses how immigrants adopt translanguaging practices (i.e., the flexible use of linguistic resources by bilinguals or multilinguals to make sense of their worlds inside and outside classrooms) to scaffold learning, clarify concepts, facilitate communication, and promote academic understanding. Even inside the campus, outside the classroom discourse, translanguaging can be used to navigate bureaucratic systems, such as filling out forms, engaging in social gatherings, or accessing library services, that require proficiency in the language of the host country. Whereas the academic context is not always a positive space for translanguaging practices, everyday communications usually create a positive space for translanguaging. This chapter discusses translanguaging practices in academic and nonacademic contexts. We also provide an overview of the negative pedagogical attitudes toward translanguaging in higher education institutions, where challenges commonly faced by mobile and immobile non-native English scholars pertain to strict strategies. Reflections on the restrictive publishing policies that constitute a negative translanguaging space, acceptable and nonacceptable translanguaging practices in academic publications and the role of translanguaging facilitators, such as artificial intelligence (AI) applications, are also deliberated based on the field experience of a professional copy editor.

This paper presents a follow-on study that quantifies geolingual markers and their apparent connection with authorship collaboration patterns in canonical Digital Humanities (DH) journals. In particular, it seeks to detect patterns in authors' countries of work and languages in co-authorship networks.

Through an in-depth co-authorship network analysis, this study analysed bibliometric data from three canonical DH journals over a range of 52 years (1966–2017). The results are presented as visualised networks with centrality calculations.

The results suggest that while DH scholars may not collaborate as frequently as those in other disciplines, when they do so their collaborations tend to be more international than in many Science and Engineering, and Social Sciences disciplines. DH authors in some countries (e.g. Spain, Finland, Australia, Canada, and the UK) have the highest international co-author rates, while others have high national co-author rates but low international rates (e.g. Japan, the USA, and France).

This study is the first DH co-authorship network study that explores the apparent connection between language and collaboration patterns in DH. It contributes to ongoing debates about diversity, representation, and multilingualism in DH and academic publishing more widely.