LA VELOCIDAD DE DEFORMACIÓN DURANTE EL CONFORMADO

Within qualitative research, ethnography is “predicated on a view of social life as continuously created through people’s efforts to find and confer meaning on their own and others’ actions” (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011, p. 14). It aims to develop partial truths (Clifford, 1986) that are detailed and context-sensitive, which honor insider perspectives and recurring patterns, while also looking for what is left out. Ethnography, which moves away from a priori assumptions and strives to understand how people make sense of their own lives, is a well-suited methodology for my study, allowing me to complexify, rather than simplify youth experiences and meanings (McCarty, 2015;

Wolcott, 1987). Attention to reflexivity, “directing one’s gaze at one’s own experience” (Foley, 2002, p. 473), means that as ethnographers we also consider how our personal and academic selves shape what and how we research, as well as the contingent and power-wrought nature of field relations, interpretation and representation practices (Abu Lughod, 1991; Agar, 1980; Fabian, 1983; Stacey, 1988).

Ethnography has a long and rich tradition in the fields of educational linguistics, sociolinguists and linguistic anthropology not only as a set of research methods, but, also as a democratic and counter-hegemonic theoretical paradigm (Blommaert, 2009; Hymes, 1980). Since its origins, ethnography enabled the study of language as inextricably linked to social life, a view at the heart of this study. The ethnography of language policy

(Hornberger & Johnson, 2007, 2011), with origins in this earlier sociolinguistic

ethnographic research, is one of the methodologies that informs my research. In brief, the ethnography of language policy seeks to inform and illustrate the various types of

planning and policy processes, illuminate the various links across layers of LPP activities, and reveal “covert motivations, embedded ideologies, invisible instances or unintended consequences of LPP” (Hornberger & Johnson, 2011, p. 275). The multilayered and locally-grounded orientation of the ethnography of language policy is well suited to inform my exploration of language practices and ideologies across high schools, homes, and various other sites and scales. The ethnography of language policy further marries a critical exploration of the interrelationships between social practices and structures that maintain inequalities and their effects, as well as a concern for illuminating and

During my fieldwork, I became inspired by the work of youth ethnographers concerned with challenging inequities faced by disenfranchised youth and dominant representations through research findings and the research process itself. Paris (2011) argues for the importance of humanizing research, one based on “dialogic consciousness- raising and the building of relationships of care and dignity for both researchers and participants” (p. 139-140) (see also discussion of McCarty, Wyman and Nicholas (2013) and Tuck (2009) on Chapter 2). Thinking alongside this body of youth research pushed me to consider the types of relationship I developed with youth, based on care and respect, and kept me wary of reproducing inequalities and stigmatizations I witnessed in everyday interactions (especially hurtful youth discourses, more on that later). I carried these reflections with me as I began analyzing and writing, aiming to respect the

multiplicity of youth experiences and heterogeneity of voices, though this was not always an easy task as I navigated vast amounts of data.

Additionally, my readings of culturally-responsive and decolonizing

methodologies (Berryman, SooHoo, & Nevin, 2013; Chilisa, 2012; Smith, 2012) also pushed me to seriously consider the relational endeavor ethnography is, or can be. I aimed to develop caring relationships not only from the position of participants and ethnographer, but as people relating to one another. Caring about the wellbeing of those who participated in my project beyond their direct involvement in my research project was one of my ways to do so, as well as sharing many aspects of my personal self, not only my professional self, and breaking the boundaries of distance and neutrality sometimes assumed to be necessary for ‘rigorous’ scientific research (Glynn, 2013).

Ethnographic monitoring (De Korne & Hornberger, 2017; Hornberger, 2014a; Hymes, 1980; Van der Aa & Blommaert, 2011), community based action research (McCarty et al., 2009), practitioner research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) and

participatory action research (Chataway, 2001; Cooke & Kothari, 2009), are some other methodologies that inform my understanding of researchers as social actors who can address inequalities and of research as an endeavor that has the potential to engage with participant needs and goals as well as include participants in the research processes. Aware that not all participants might want to engage in this way with me, nor wanting to impose this style of participation, I kept a loose participatory stance during my

preliminary research and first months of fieldwork. With time, as I describe below, the main participatory component of my research focused on collaborative actions with one high school teacher, though I also included youth in some aspects of data collection and analysis.

While there are deep-seated and longstanding structural inequalities at the root of Indigenous language education that escape any one solution or that can be understood by any single study, through my research I aim to illuminate the inequalities and possibilities involved in the social processes I describe and promote research-based implications supportive of both youth’s aspirations and the maintenance of Quechua. Regarding the dissemination of research-based implications, I have shared preliminary findings and recommendations with the high school teachers and principals who participated in this study. I also continue to share my work in academic and some non-academic spaces in Peru and more broadly, Latin America. While there is still a lot to do, I will continue to

disseminate the findings of this research in my teaching, service, and presentations, and aim to publish parts of my work in Spanish to make it accessible to a wider audience.

Engaging in this ethnographic and participatory project involved dealing with uncertainty and embracing unexpected changes as the project developed. As mentioned by Creswell (2013), ethnography is an inductive and iterative endeavor. As such, being attentive to learning from participants and about the contexts I participated in meant day to day methodological decision-making, some of which happened on the spot, following my gut, and some which I pondered over writing memos, and in conversations and email exchanges with my advisor, committee members and fellow ethnographer friends. Finally, my research involved many of the strains and stresses of fieldwork well known to ethnographers (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007), as well as many gratifications, which made my dissertation fieldwork one of the most enjoyable stages of pursuing a PhD.