In much of my experience with linguistics research, I have found that much of it does not go far enough: I wish that more of the researchers reaching that point so far down the track had thought through their investigations and findings more, for instance following some advice I consistently give my own seminar students (and others) - 'So what?', or 'Therefore what?'. This relates partly to linking research with practice, significating what has often laboriously been researched, reported and presented.

Have I ever thought that my own research has been misunderstood or undervalued? Of course. Have I ever wondered why some of my investigation which at the time has seemed challenging and deep then later seems so inconsequential and short-focused? Naturally. Have I ever been conscious of my research, and views formed based on it, have been perceived wrongly or misconstrued? Almost every time. Then of course, even if I lose confidence and motivation, the only way forward is up. Am I alone among researchers in or outside of linguistics? Absolutely not.

One aspect of linguistics and applied linguistics focus is inwards, similarly to how a microscope focuses in the opposite way to a telescope. FOr instance, I like pragmatics and text analysis - fascinating stuff really. A key part of it is conversation analysis. To record and encode data for just a short segment -say two or three turns of people speaking, or 5 to 15 seconds worth - may be done in a multitude of ways all primarily determined by what the investigator is looking for. Then to describe, analyse and discuss it fairly thoroughly may take five, ten thousand words and then some. All for just a short series of sensory, cognitive, emotive and motor stimulations and responses which people do very regularly, usually unthinkingly. Unthinkingly, therefore unconsciously. Then, when there is a time to think and be conscious, many people become astounded at the complexity, and also at the sometimes inconclusive nature of interpretation and generalistion. To show people all the things going on while they are speaking can be a shocking revelation. And it can be so much work to reach that point, and most people do not know that and do not want to know that, unless of course like other researchers in the field they have motive.

So, after I have finished all this, and I meet somebody and am asked what I do, and I answer researcher or that I work with linguistics - and then am asked what is that - eventually I am asked if I am an English teacher!

The point above about Fulbright Scholarships awards in Pakistan being for Humanities scholars, in that studying Humanities changes one fundamentally (but science doesn't) is interesting. I can identify with that, and then it is easy to feel that nobody out there understands what I do, what I know and that I shall never be able to convey to people what I really think as a result. So what can I do? The answer is easy: either get on with it, or get out. ANd I am definitely not going to get out, until I am ready, and on my terms.

And I shall continue to try to relate what I investigate and find to real life and so on. I need to always be conscious of that point, even if I am not always successful.

Perhaps I am more self-motivated than motivated by external pressure or need. Anyway, I hope that this introspection by me now can shed some light for other people reading. My only other advice is to try to finish your work, your project/s. Then you will feel better.

I don't have the impression, that language and cultural studies are regarded as unimportant. At least, if I see how many students are interested in applied linguistics, it must be quite attractive! Also if you talk with journalists, they are often quite interested in our work, because we deal with the hot topics of our society: second language acquisition -> migration; cultural studies -> construction of identities; applied sciences -> corporate communication, discourse in politics and society etc.

Of course, I think our research is changing a lot at the moment. At least in my field we use a lot of quantitative methods, empirical (text) data see ourselves as part of the digital humanities. I think this is a thrilling shift which will strengthen the humanities in general.

Thank you, I am very glad to hear that. I wonder, though, if there is a difference between Europe and Australia?

Thank you Maria, I love that argument!

This is definitely what "they" think. I mean that the public often thinks that hard science is more important because of its practical uses for everybody.

However I do want to oppose the idea that hard sciences are traditionally better valued: Humanists during Renaissance time were concerned with many scientific aspects, among which literature, language, philosophy, arts were very important. It might sound that we live in a bubble when we study this, and some (or a large part) of the public does not recognise our work as much as the other hard scientists. The truth is, we have as hard a job as they do, mostly because the results are much less "black or white" than in hard science.

I have nothing against hard sciences and scientists, but I do feel that some of them believe that they hold the truth about life or reality, and I love the fact that Humanities researchers are often open-minded and curious about everything. That makes them excellent material for work reconversion at any given time, whereas hard scientists are very specialised and might have a harder time changing branches. Then again I do not wish to generalise too much.

Depending on the country you will definitely find people and organisation that value your work for its true value! It is often believed to be harder to obtain scholarships or grants in our branch, but in reality it is just less defined and categorised as in hard sciences, and a good, well-built research project has every chances to be funded depending on the current trend underlying funding of course.

That said, it is only my opinion and I am only a first year PhD!

Thank you for your very detailed response Josepha. It is very encouraging to see that there are people out there who do believe in what they do, and of course I share the same views as all of you who have responded. The reason why I posted the question is that talking with some of my colleagues I have had this impression, that quite a few people feel that our research is not highly valued by Administrators. To some extent, it is true that if you look at the way research projects are funded through public schemes here in Australia, the criteria do favour some of the areas that are more likely to be able to establish industry links and obtain external funding from big companies (e.g. pharmaceutical, etc.). I do believe that it is a matter of attitude, though, and that if you find creative ways to present your project and look out for opportunities to collaborate with colleagues within our areas as well as in other areas (e.g. business for intercultural communication research), you can be successful in obtaining even large grants.

In much of my experience with linguistics research, I have found that much of it does not go far enough: I wish that more of the researchers reaching that point so far down the track had thought through their investigations and findings more, for instance following some advice I consistently give my own seminar students (and others) - 'So what?', or 'Therefore what?'. This relates partly to linking research with practice, significating what has often laboriously been researched, reported and presented.

Have I ever thought that my own research has been misunderstood or undervalued? Of course. Have I ever wondered why some of my investigation which at the time has seemed challenging and deep then later seems so inconsequential and short-focused? Naturally. Have I ever been conscious of my research, and views formed based on it, have been perceived wrongly or misconstrued? Almost every time. Then of course, even if I lose confidence and motivation, the only way forward is up. Am I alone among researchers in or outside of linguistics? Absolutely not.

One aspect of linguistics and applied linguistics focus is inwards, similarly to how a microscope focuses in the opposite way to a telescope. FOr instance, I like pragmatics and text analysis - fascinating stuff really. A key part of it is conversation analysis. To record and encode data for just a short segment -say two or three turns of people speaking, or 5 to 15 seconds worth - may be done in a multitude of ways all primarily determined by what the investigator is looking for. Then to describe, analyse and discuss it fairly thoroughly may take five, ten thousand words and then some. All for just a short series of sensory, cognitive, emotive and motor stimulations and responses which people do very regularly, usually unthinkingly. Unthinkingly, therefore unconsciously. Then, when there is a time to think and be conscious, many people become astounded at the complexity, and also at the sometimes inconclusive nature of interpretation and generalistion. To show people all the things going on while they are speaking can be a shocking revelation. And it can be so much work to reach that point, and most people do not know that and do not want to know that, unless of course like other researchers in the field they have motive.

So, after I have finished all this, and I meet somebody and am asked what I do, and I answer researcher or that I work with linguistics - and then am asked what is that - eventually I am asked if I am an English teacher!

The point above about Fulbright Scholarships awards in Pakistan being for Humanities scholars, in that studying Humanities changes one fundamentally (but science doesn't) is interesting. I can identify with that, and then it is easy to feel that nobody out there understands what I do, what I know and that I shall never be able to convey to people what I really think as a result. So what can I do? The answer is easy: either get on with it, or get out. ANd I am definitely not going to get out, until I am ready, and on my terms.

And I shall continue to try to relate what I investigate and find to real life and so on. I need to always be conscious of that point, even if I am not always successful.

Perhaps I am more self-motivated than motivated by external pressure or need. Anyway, I hope that this introspection by me now can shed some light for other people reading. My only other advice is to try to finish your work, your project/s. Then you will feel better.

Brilliantly put, Howard, thank you (in a way that only someone who deeply understands how communication works can :-)

Oh well, thank you Antonella! Maybe a bit more than self-motivation now.

Well, I think I am going to turn this into a little research project (talking about being proactive and creative in finding new opportunities for research :-)

I'll keep you posted...

Hi, Antonella, here, in Brazil, we feel the same thing,

Thank you Eliana. Is that related to funding and the criteria for allocation of grants?

Howard Doyle has said more than a mouthful. I agree with much of it. However,

(1) the social-political and economic structures of most academic institutes have, in fact sidelined the humanities.

(2) in turn the humanities and academia have deemphasized the role of ESL and applied linguistic sciences within the universities often.

(3) likewise, moneys have been typically siphoned from ESL and applied science program for other more fungible projects.

Am I not correct in these three points in your experience?

La investigación en ciencias sociales se funda en principios epistemológicos diferentes de las ciencias naturales y por ello, es necesario hacer énfasis en las diferencias de las disciplinas y su impacto social. En Chile, la investigación en ciencias sociales ha aumentado y generado importantes avances en las disciplinas relacionadas. Respecto de la difusión del conocimiento, ello no puede supeditar la actividad y producción académica. Existen muchos núcleos de circulación del conocimiento independientes, en los cuales se pueden presentar ideas originales. La investigación en ciencias sociales en el siglo XXI se constituye en un ámbito de transformación social y posicionamiento de ideas y propuestas innovadoras. Tiendo a sospechar de la producción excesiva y los indicadores de "impacto".

Knowledge of any sort cannot be transferred effectively between different people with different cultural, social, and intellectual backgrounds without language. How many times are scientists misunderstood by adherents of religion and vice versa? How often are kids in school utterly bored with learning because they don't understand it? How often do politicians and statesmen across the world fight and argue without understanding where they actually agree and what the fundamental problem is? None of these issues would be a problem if people understood the act of communication, primarily through the written word and human speech, better. Language is the glue that holds ALL academic pursuits together, and linguistics is the study of that. The suffix -logy that appears on almost all academic disciplines comes from the Greek word λογία meaning "sayings, utterances." From a religious standpoint, the Bible says that God spoke the world into existence. From a biological / information-technological standpoint, binary code and quaternary DNA code, which can be translated into human language and archived in data storage, fundamentally determine how advanced machines and life forms function. The study of linguistics should be mandatory pursuit for all scholars if they hope to convey their ideas to a wider audience.

When it comes to the decades-old comparison of hard and soft sciences, much has been said and written. We should bear in mind that quantitative approach to research originally belongs to all those hard sciences like biology, chemistry and physics. When a social scientist tries to use this approach to solve a social issue, from the outside I see a person trying to drink soup with a fork. Those of us who have handed out questionnaires to people, collected them back and carried out serious statistical analyses with the outcomes will understand this analogy better. Imagine a detective who is suffering to solve a case by handing out questionnaires rather than interviewing with the people who are involved in the incident. Funny huh? Maybe we should put the fork away for a while and listen more carefully to what qualitative research paradigm has to offer. Because, after all, we are all interested in the unpredictable human nature.

In response to Timothy's statement immediately above, I would have to state that I agree wholeheartedly to much of his statement.

Ihsan raises the issues of units of analyses, though. This leads us to reflect on what facets of language or languages are (1) dominated by elites, (2) spun by their minions, and (3) who can create a "who-cares?" phenomena when communicating.

For example, many USA presidents--and university presidents-- can quote a lot of written texts from sages and Bible verbatim from memory(others like W. Bush rewrote them malapropistically) but the key for them is how to spin it, i.e. create the right trajectory of reception. ... AND then WHO DEFINES WHAT RIGHT IS for whom.

Notably, society--including educational institutions--function in different ages differently based upon common understandings--not just because they are familiar with common material, data, on culture, language and nuances--but because it has been agreed upon that certain ideas are more right than others.

EXAMPLE OF UNIVERSITY CREATION MODEL THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED

This means for example that a recent call of mine to return to the small prairie model of university or college went unanswered even though thousands of square miles of lands and MILLIONS of peoples in this world still have little access to both technical and humanities education, which most of us have seen our great-grandparents witness to receiving already. In my call, I asked prairie based schools and colleges in Midwest USA to review and recritique the models of the 1870s and 1890s in the USA where a dozen hearty souls in each group traveled with great educational, social, scientific knowledge (but living at first in lowly conditions) moved out onto the prairies and set up schools which became colleges and then became universities.

NOTE: I raise this issue of returning back to one's roots in terms of how to develop a college with less overhead and better communication amongst staffs and departments because the world needs this--just as much as it needs technological solutions to the information gap and information overload matters which confront us on the internet--and have been rehashed in other parts of this Researchgate.

Has the model of the prairie college creation been thrown out just like many of the former mission colleges around the world have? If so, has the baby--the spirit and soul--of institutional education creation been thrown out in the wash because it did not function or because economic and political interests were at work? Likewise, is the hyperfocus on benchmarking today just another craze taking us further and further from the real core educationals, social, psychological and spiritual needs of our world.

NOTE: I write this from a rural area in Oman on the Arabian peninsula where there are no small private colleges. I am building a home in the Philippines in a village on a coast separated from good roads--which also has no small private nor small public college model in place. On Lombok island, in Indonesia where I have a time share, a similar dearth of educational opportunities and competition for education ideas is missing and under-developed. In short, even though technology is with us--education has been looking towards growing bigger and not smaller. The economic model is not meeting the thinking needs of man and society in many places. There is not a great market place of ideas--regardless of the language and due to the fact that there is no discussion, no model and no experience on hand to redevelop the landscape.

Thank you everyone for your comments. I find it fascinating that this discussion has moved away from what was originally a modest, narrow-focused, spur-of-the-moment question, and into a deep discussion on the role of the humanities in society.