Multilingual scholarship and the paradox of translation and language in management and organization studies

Conceptual prolegomena

Il n’y a pas de langue-mère, mais prise de pouvoir par une langue dominante dans une multiplicité politique. (Deleuze and Guattari, 1980: 4)

In the first plateau on the Rhizome, Deleuze and Guattari (1987: 7) take up the condition of language as being heterogeneous: ‘There is no mother tongue, only a power takeover by a dominant language within a political multiplicity’. It is this quote we rely on to construct three crucial conceptual prolegomena that help us to take up Derrida’s paradoxical challenge.

First, for Deleuze and Guattari (1987), the mere existence of language implies multiplicity. They hold that language is connected with non-linguistic registers and is performed as a heterogeneity: ‘A semiotic chain is like a tuber agglomerating very diverse acts, not only linguistic, but perceptive, mimetic, gestural, and cognitive: there is no language itself, nor are there any linguistic universals, only a throng of dialects, patois, slangs, and specialized languages’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 7). ¹ There is not only political multiplicity, but also ontological and practical multiplicity. This view of Deleuze and Guattari connects with the ‘original’ poly-lingualism that Eco (1994) claims in his re-reading of the story of the tower of Babel. Rather than consider it as a sign of the confusio linguarum, Eco urges us to see this story as an invitation to construe the world through a multiplicity of languages. This conceptual multiplicity finds its parallels in the everyday multiplicity of languages; even such so-called monolingual countries as the United States and United Kingdom are exposed as multilingual spaces seen ‘the plural linguistic practices of its population’ (Blackledge and Creese, 2010: 5).

In a similar vein, Le Nevez (2008) challenges the notion that France is a linguistically homogenous nation; he observes linguistic diversity, plurilingualism and non-standard language practices as daily realities. Blommaert et al. (2009) suggest that multilingualism can no longer be conceptualized as parallel monolingualism but as a form of heteroglossia—a term derived from the work of Bakhtin (1981). Instead of language, the term emphasizes the interplay between voices and social languages—where registers, genres, styles, terminology and pronunciation are intertwined in the production of meanings, messages and identities. This multiplicity may be best illustrated by the emergence and establishment of the many varieties of English, both international and intranational. The evolving discussion on different world Englishes (Kachru et al., 2009) highlights that English is not homogenous, that there is no such thing as a universal English language or a World Standard English (WSE) but that people construct English as it suits their purposes in a given context at a given time.

Second, language use is the result of a political process: power, domination, negotiation and forms of resistance are core ingredients of the way language is performed. However, languages are not a priori more or less powerful. Any research on this political process needs to be conducted in situ, focusing on how the multiplicity of languages is enacted as a negotiated multilingualism (Dor, 2004) where prioritizing one language (such as English) does not mean excluding the use of other languages, but rather a different interplay and hierarchy between languages (Steyaert et al., 2011). The study of multilingualism is then not about coexisting linguistic systems and their adherent ideologies but instead situates language practices in social and political contexts, conceiving ‘language as social practice, speakers as social actors and boundaries as products of social action’ (Heller, 2007: 1). In our view, the point is then not to pragmatically accept the dominance of English and to passively comply with this situation, or to dismiss English as one-sidedly imperialistic. Instead, we emphasize studying the paradoxical use of (any) language, to become reflexive about the ways that we deal with language choices as we produce academic texts, and to become inventive in making visible the multilingual side of any form of everyday (monolingual) language use.

Taking together the two conceptual prolegomena above, we arrive at the statement by Deleuze and Guattari that ‘there is no mother tongue’. The way we use and adopt languages is never natural; instead, it is the effect of a complex process with cultural, historical, institutional and political dimensions. Certain standard explanations or widespread discourses have been prioritized, implying that we have to be wary of any kind of naturalization in language practices. Even if it has become ‘natural’ to use English in academic performances and to refer to certain discourses to account for this practice, we need to be aware of the many translations and transformations throughout the research process that have preceded the final outcome of the English journal article. This is ingeniously expressed in Derrida’s paradox: even if we are guided by seemingly monolingual practices, a broader specter of multiple languages is implied in the monolingual practice. Thus, Derrida is alerting us to the possibility of speaking otherwise—which forms the condition for being able to speak one language properly (Rapaport, 2003). It is this simultaneity of contrary options—publishing in English, but pointing at the impossibility of such monolingualism and affirming its dependence on multilingualism—that we want to draw upon to develop academic practice as a multilingual scholarship.

Scandalization: against naturalization

The greatest scandal of translation: asymmetries, inequities, relations of domination and dependence exist in every act of translating, of putting the translated in the service of the translating culture. Translators are complicit in the institutional exploitation of foreign texts and cultures. (Venuti, 1998: 4)

A first strategy that can constitute reflexivity in the use of languages and translation is scandalization; its aim is to provocatively point out the flagrant problems with the current policies and practices in academia. It is our belief that there is currently too little awareness of and agony about the hegemony of English based on a kind of pragmatism that prevents us from being more imaginative and experimental about ways to include other languages and language differences. Such ‘outrage’ was formulated eloquently by Snell-Hornby (2010), a well-known scholar within translation studies, who realizes that even a discipline like translation studies is going Anglo-Saxon: ‘What is overlooked are the communication problems caused by idiosyncratic usage and the ensuing misunderstandings involved in a lingua franca of this kind, but in particular the stultifying effects of immensely complex cultural and linguistic material being monopolized by a single language’ (p. 102). In labeling this strategy ‘scandalization’, we refer to Venuti’s ‘the scandals of translation’ where he ponders why translation remains in the margins of debate. We now elucidate some of the scandals in the MOS field, not trying to be representative but rather giving some indication of the range of problems that scholars indicate or specifically fail to address.

Our first illustration is an article by Deetz (2003), one of the most often cited articles in Organization, as it explicitly refers to the linguistic turn. In it, Deetz tries to reclaim the linguistic turn as he observes that it has reached the status of ‘taken for granted’ (p. 421). However, this reclaiming in no way implies a consideration of the language in which this text has been produced. The main sources Deetz draws upon, namely Husserl and Heidegger, are sources translated from German—but this translation process is taken for granted. Deetz makes one reference to context, saying he ‘stays within the continental tradition’, and this is then the question that emerges for us: can anyone situate him/herself within the continental tradition without entering the discussion on the myriads of languages and dialects that flow across ‘the continent’? To overstate this point provocatively—read: let’s make this into a scandal—we find it incomprehensible that someone who is ‘mourning’ that ‘little of the original insights that the “turn” made possible’ (Deetz, 2003: 421; emphasis added) seem to have an influence on the current applications in the aftermath of the linguistic turn, is so little precise in dealing with the ‘original’ German texts and does not include this as part of the agenda to reclaim the legacy of the linguistic turn. While Deetz is right in proposing a focus that is oriented at ‘an investigation of the social/political processes of the construction and distribution of meanings and their disguise as natural’, it is no less useful to remember how such social and political processes explain equally much why his text is written in a particular version of the American language, something which seems also disguised as natural. Thus, for us, the question is simple: can one really claim to have done the linguistic turn without taking into account how languages are at play when worlds are linguistically produced? It seems that if one follows this logic—and this text by Deetz is the rule rather than the exception—organization studies has made the linguistic turn only halfway.

Certainly, we could have picked many other articles. For the 30th birthday of Organization Studies, Meyer and Boxenbaum (2010) explored how open scholars and journals are to grand thinkers from various linguistic communities; their figures are stunning, revealing a wide and systematic lack of attention to language and translation. Despite the discursive turn and the growing awareness that ideas are translated when they travel (Czarniawska-Joerges and Sévon, 1996), Meyer and Boxenbaum show the limits of continental scholars’ language as this reduces their chances of publishing in the English-speaking realm; also they point out how marginalized non-English or non-translated intellectual traditions and developments have been, such as those in Spain and Italy, or especially Eastern Europe, not to mention South America or Africa. Also Czarniawska (2007: 28) in a reflection on the future of Organization Theory and the dominance of scholars in North America and Europe, refers explicitly to the problem of translation as organization theory travels across the globe; she remarks that ‘Anglo-Saxon works are translated on a massive scale, but almost no original research is being done’ (as is happening in Eastern Europe and Russia). Indeed, the scandal is mounting. Further, Meyer and Boxenbaum (2010) mention how the linguistic pluralism of academic journals has in fact decreased. In the first five years of Organization Studies, 13% of book reviews were of non-English books, but in the five years up to their study, no book written in a language other than English was reviewed in the journal.

Another illustration suggests that work published in books tends to say little or nothing on the issue of multilingualism. The Sage Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization aims to be ‘a prospective trend setter, a book of newness and freshness from leading edge MOS thinkers’ (Barry and Hansen, 2008: 1). We take it up not to single it out but to show how natural it is in the MOS field to disguise language and translation. In the introduction, Barry and Hansen reflect extensively on the relationship between the United States and the continent (their only reference in French is misspelled), but they never indicate the multilingual character of the continent and how this might alter the context of academic research. Although this book claims to be relational and to practice contextualization, localization and embeddedness (p. 7), thus trying to bridge some of the divides in the history of organization studies, it hides the heterogeneous and particular sources it draws upon and effaces diversities and differences by not acknowledging that it constantly draws upon translation. In particular, the contributions on international (Tung and Michailova, 2008) and global themes (Guillen, 2008)—where one would expect this issue to be included—do not discuss language or translation. Also, the interesting chapter by Magala (2008) on cross-cultural issues draws on a discussion of the history of knowledge production and mentions (intercultural) translation as part of this process. But the author, who uses a Popperian perspective, never mentions how he relates to the context of his sources as he presents their work on secondary sources (such as Karl Popper, Carl Schmitt, Søren Kierkegaard). In this same handbook, Hugo Letiche (2008) adopts a different approach. Drawing upon a rich range of philosophers, he mostly cites translated texts from Agamben, Arendt, Foucault, Heidegger and Husserl. Additionally, he constantly translates sources himself (such as Kristeva from French) or mixes in French or German words. Such practices draw our attention to the multilingual background that makes possible this chapter written in English and the various linguistic ambiguities the author (and reader) has to deal with. Overall, though the handbook probably sells well and might even become published in other languages, it rarely admits that it draws upon translation to deal with the multilingual sources it depends upon. This might not quite be called a scandal, but it is definitely not setting a positive trend.

Scrutinization: inquiring into linguistic negotiations and its effects

I wonder how the general trend toward uniformity of communication will be negotiated in terms of the multiplicity of language. (Spivak, 2001: 16)

While there might always be a necessity to create some protest through scandalization, there is simultaneously a need for more specific scrutinization, examining how certain linguistic resources are prioritized in the field and inquiring into the various consequences of that choice. Searching for illustrations of this strategy, we arrived at instances where scholars discuss the difficulty of translating concepts that do not have an English equivalent. For instance, studying the political conflict over the appropriate management of natural disturbance in the Bavarian Forest in Germany, Müller (2011) reflects on the meaning of the German term Heimat and its multiple connotations to identify the nuances which would get lost when simply translating it as ‘home’. Similarly, Clegg and Lounsbury (2009) make a point out of the politics of translating Weber, indicating several problems with core Weberian concepts such as Herrschaft translated as either authority or domination and with the (partial) reception of his work overall. And Spivak (1993) illuminated the translation of Foucault’s central notion of pouvoir-savoir as power/knowledge. She pointed out that not only does pouvoir refer to power; one can also say ‘can’ in French (as in being able), thus giving the notion a sense of ‘can-do’-ness: ‘Pouvoir-savoir—being able to do something—only as you are able to make sense of it’ (p. 34).

Other possibilities of scrutinization are to be found in the emerging body of literature on the linguistic performance of academic scholarship (Haines and Ashworth, 2008; Merilainen et al., 2008; Temple, 2008; Tietze, 2004, 2008a, 2008b; Welch and Piekkari, 2006; Xian, 2008) where the importance of language is discussed throughout the different phases of a research process. Scrutinization may then become an inquiry into methodological reflexivity or ‘a localized critique and evaluation of the “technical” aspects of the particular methodology deployed rather than the underlying meta-theoretical assumptions that justify that methodology in the first place’ (Johnson and Duberley, 2003: 1284). In this respect, several studies (Blenkinsopp and Shademan Pajouh, 2010; Temple, 2008; Temple and Young, 2004; Welch and Piekkari, 2006; Xian, 2008) have emphasized how researchers need to reflect on their methods when they are doing interviews and analysing textual data gathered in a language other than the presentation language. They highlight how often researchers undertake to translate data themselves without making possible ambiguities part of the set up and reflection of the article, giving in to some kind of essentialist code-switching. But foreign language use in qualitative interviewing also moves beyond the technical concerns associated with translation and equivalence of meaning. Welch and Piekkari (2006), for instance, refer to the complex analysis stage within a multi-country research collaboration when local languages rather than the project language are used for interviewing, giving researchers who understand all the used languages considerable control over the data and its use.

Moving from interviews to text analysis, Temple (2008) connects methodological with epistemological considerations in addressing the problem of cross-language narratives and how to analyse written texts produced by researchers in a language that the participants did not use. She argues that, even if a change of language can lead to changes in how people perceive themselves and are addressed by others, reflexivity is not extended to include the move across languages. Indeed, ‘it is rare for reflexivity to extend to an examination of the lives of bilingual or multilingual researchers or participants’ (Temple, 2008: 357). Usually she sees an uncritical positioning of language, extended with a short comment on the use of back translation. But language shifts are not just a matter of a change of words; they are linked to different linguistic repertoires, cultural scripts, frames of expectation, autobiographical memories and levels of proficiency and emotionality. Moreover, when the language used in interviews is not that of the transcripts, ‘researchers have a responsibility to investigate how they are representing people in the translation process’ (Temple, 2008: 360).

Other forms of scrutinization can be related to what Johnson and Duberley (2003) call epistemic reflexivity. Based on Bourdieu’s view (see Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992), this entails ‘a systematic reflection by the social scientist aimed at making the unconscious conscious and the tacit explicit so as to reveal how his/her formative social location or habitat, to which there is a corresponding habitus or set of embodied dispositions, influence any account’ (Johnson and Duberley, 2003: 1289). Here, the focus is on the network of practices and interests that produces particular interpretations of knowledge and norms of researching. In particular, it involves an effort to study how our own institutions operate and to focus on the political processes through which a certain research habitus can remain unquestioned. Studying the academic work of management scholars in 14 different, mainly European, countries, Tietze (2008a) shows how English language use in bilingual and multilingual universities reflects institutional practices that are underpinned by hegemonic processes and assumptions. In particular, she empirically documents the increasing pressure to disseminate studies in English. This creates problems for non-English researchers in expressing their thoughts and adopting particular styles of writing—and turns scholarly work into an emotional and intellectual struggle. When international journals set out particular themes, scholars face pressure to choose them as their research focus rather than topics based on their own contextual preferences. Therefore, studies which look into the institutional forces that promote Englishization or the spread of English as the lingua franca in academic work can be seen as signals of ‘the beginning of a systematic research agenda into issues of language, hegemony and knowledge’ (Tietze and Dick, 2009: 121).

Finally, we found examples of scrutinization which Johnson and Duberley (2003) call deconstructive reflexivity. This form of inquiry refers to practices that display and overturn constructive processes in order to invoke alternative voices. It draws most extensively upon the linguistic turn by documenting how certain differences and voices are made invisible or disempowered. While this form of scrutinization may be the least practiced so far, it gains momentum when we look from post-colonial theory towards organizational and/or cross-cultural research. Two illustrative articles we can mention here are those by Thomas et al. (2009) and Sliwa (2008). Reflecting on the ‘we’ of a cross-cultural research collaboration, Thomas and colleagues highlight how personal and power dynamics play out and illustrate how the ways distances and differences between researchers, such as culturally and theoretically determined patterns of thinking, are managed can have significant implications for the research product. Sliwa studies the relationship between language spread and linguistic imperialism in Poland, showing how resistance to the russification and germanization of Polish society historically contributed to certain social changes such as collective action that transcended class divisions; at present, however, the spread of English is socially accepted but is reproducing and reinforcing social inequalities.

Whereas the linguistic performance of academic scholarship tends to be primarily reflected on in the context of cross-cultural and international research, we have to realize that much European research that is published in English is based on data acquired in a different language. Even more, the transformation of the data from the field to a journal is a translation, maybe not between different (foreign) languages, but definitely between different cultures and their idiosyncratic wordings and concepts. Therefore, following Temple (2008), we argue that scrutinizing language use is an ethical issue, not merely a detail for a methodological note. In particular, the great many researchers who focus on identity in organization studies might take notice of Temple’s remark that no self is tied to any language in pre-determined ways: ‘narrative identities are formed using languages, so it matters which languages are used, in what contexts and for what purposes’ (Temple, 2008: 362).

Invention: making multiplicity visible

… Et puis, il y a celles qui jettent un language contre un autre… [qui] prennent pour projectile le texte originale et traitent la langue d’arrivée comme un cible. Leur tâche n’est pas de ramener à soi un sens né ailleurs; mais de dérouter, par la langue qu’on traduit, celle dans laquelle on traduit. (Michel Foucault, 1964: 22) ²

Our third strategy suggests playing more inventively with the paradoxical side of multilingual scholarship. This requires experimenting to think about other ways to perform the academic scholarship which in a pragmatic sense draws upon the English language, yet constantly also makes visible the various translations going on and re-affirms the multilingual background as an inherent condition for writing and publishing.

First, we can suggest one strategy of invention by drawing upon the rich tradition of translation studies (Janssens et al., 2004; Tietze, 2008b). In itself, this field forms a neo-discipline offering many resources to think of translation less as an instrumental nuisance and more as a creative practice of transformation and difference. Translation is not about reducing linguistic differences but rather about making visible the different linguistic universes and the various ways they can be connected. Furthermore, translation need not be limited to the linguistic register; it can be understood as much more encompassing, something which has become self-evident with the increasing impact of actor-network theory (Latour, 2005). One of the early statements of ‘belief’ in the force of translation was formulated by James March (2004); in contemplating parochialism in the evolution and future of organization studies, he reflects on ways to create a multidisciplinary, multinational and—especially—multilingual community. March sees languages as part of a more complex exchange among scholars as they try to get out of geographically concentrated enclaves. According to March (2004: 18–19), this ‘exchange of knowledge across disciplines, nations and languages is a source of change in meaning, a risky activity for those who seek the safety of established conventions, straightforward problems and unambiguous words’. This riskiness has to do with translation which ‘—whether across languages or within a language—is fundamentally a creative act, a primary source of meaning in scholarship’. He believes the genius of written scholarship lies in its ability to amplify the echoes that written meaning produces ‘through a deliberate use of evocative ambiguity’ (p. 18). In a similar vein, Czarniawska (1998: 274) has made a plea for plenty of translation, not just in a linguistic sense, but referring to all actions that transfer us from one place and time to another, because ‘[p]lenty of translation makes the field vibrant and lively, it energizes it, rather than putting it to a (commensurate) sleep’.

A recent vivid example of ‘plenty’ of translation occurred at the Critical Management Studies Conference in Naples (2011), where a keynote speaker presented his lecture in Italian with simultaneous interpretation. As this was the first time that this conference was held outside the UK, this was an important precedent; it not only made the audience aware of the different linguistic context to which they had travelled, but especially helped them to experience live the ongoing problems and ruptures that occur as one is interpreting but are usually hidden ‘after’ translation. However, many attendees saw this practice as time-consuming and a nuisance; we heard many complaints afterwards. While translation between two languages is indeed a slow, complex process, it remains one of the ‘easiest’ ways to document some of the most fundamental ideas of the linguistic turn. It seems, though, that organization and management scholars are not so keen on lively translations. However, our plea is precisely that the field bother, again and again, with making differences visible.

Throughout our reading of translation studies, we came across techniques that might help scholars and journals to become more sophisticated in performing multilingual scholarship. One avenue to problematize translation vis-à-vis an audience is to rely on the technique called ‘holus-bolus’ (Müller, 2007). Holus-bolus refers to a visual setting-apart and deliberate alienation of the target language (in this case English) by keeping source-language expressions as markers of difference in the target language text. While many translators use this technique only when they face a certain expression that is simply untranslatable, it can also serve as an instrument to problematize the fixation of meaning and draw attention to the contingency of meaning. As Müller (2007, p. 211) points out, ‘holus-bolus translation makes necessary an explication of the meaning ascription by the translating geographer, it circumvents the tacit imposition of meaning typical of conventional translation and foregrounds the authorial component in translation’. Peirano-Vejo and Stablein (2009) use this technique in an article in Organization; in a footnote they explain their decision to leave in the Spanish term ‘Don’ rather than translating it to the English Sir or Mr, as the latter terms miss the indication of respect. Another, related, translation technique is foreignization (Temple, 2008; Venuti, 1998). Within translation studies, scholars have pointed to the existence of an assumed English language baseline which Venuti (1998) has called ‘domestication’, a process of translation where differences become erased and made invisible. Instead, as Venuti proposes, translated texts should become foreignized to indicate issues that were of concern or choices made during the translation process so that readers are reminded of the ambiguities involved.

But invention does not only mean making other languages heard and understood; it also implies making one’s own language understood to others. At some point, virtually all non-native English scholars have experienced confusion when listening to English speakers who make no distinction between a paper they present in an all-Anglophone context and at an international conference. If native English speakers expect non-native English speakers to follow and discuss their presentation, it would be helpful to adjust their language use. Belina (2005) makes several humble recommendations: speak slowly, do not use context-specific abbreviations and avoid metaphors specific to one’s language.

Multilingual scholarship, however, cannot be limited to the reflexivity of the scholars themselves; institutional changes will also be required to guard the linguistic plurality of journals. For instance, Tietze and Dick (2009) suggest an audit of alternatives to map out the range of non-English journals. To counteract the finding by Meyer and Boxenbaum (2010) that book reviews on non-English books tend to disappear, journal editors may make it an explicit policy to include such reviews. Or they may even read non-English articles and offer advice on translation to an English version; Jean-Claude Thoenig, the European editor of ASQ did this once (Meyer and Boxenbaum, 2010), and editors of the journal International Political Sociology still do so. And perhaps, one day, Organization might be issued in a bilingual or multilingual form, like the journal Social Geography, and the policy on acceptance of articles might be based partially on the reflexive use of translated sources.

Conclusion

Our review on language multiplicity in organization and management studies has made it clear that we are at the margins of the field. But despite the discouraging invisibility, negligence and exclusion we are experiencing, we argue that the issue is not a matter of being in favour of or against English. Instead, we hold that our linguistic uses and choices need to be made visible. Even if English is the main language, this does not prevent us from protesting when the multilingual background of a text is ignored, from inquiring into the power effects of linguistic negotiations, and maybe more importantly, from playing inventively with the paradoxical side of multilingual scholarship in order to make multiplicity visible in the performance of ‘English only’.