In a recent interview with Professor Kam Cheong Li from the Hong Kong Metropolitan University (Issue 18), Dr. David Lim, Editor of inspired, aptly raised the issue concerning the role of English in scholarly conversations in the Asian community of open, distance, and digital education (ODDE), asking Professor Li whether the lack of a lingua franca might lead to the balkanization of scholarly discourse. As a researcher and gatekeeper of both the domestic (that is, mainland China) and international ODDE communities, I would say that the balkanization phenomenon has long existed from the perspective of international communication.

A recent study entitled “Invisible Borders in Educational Technology Research? A Comparative Analysis” (2023) published in Education Technology Research and Development <https://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s11423-023-10195-3#Sec> shows that even “research articles written in English by non-English authors often do not reflect the same meanings in each country, despite using the same words”. Therefore, it goes without saying that multilingualism will definitely further accelerate discourse balkanization in academic communities, including the ODDE sector.

Last year, I was invited to deliver a keynote speech in an ODDE webinar. In the Q&A session, a researcher said that she was engaged in a project on 开放教育 实践 (which translates literally into “open educational practice” in English) and asked me to recommend a list of Open Educational Practice (OEP) literature to her, a theme of my speech which I knew was new to Chinese researchers and practitioners. She said that 开放教 育实践 was an important component of open and distance education curriculum and that she wanted to explore effective ways students could put what they had learnt from course materials to actual use. OEP is a terminology in the English literature which has very little, if any, to do with what this colleague referred to. Examples of this kind are too many to list!

Anyone who is proficient bilingually in English and their mother tongue can easily notice the nuances or even striking differences in meaning between the terminology used in the mother-tongue-medium literature and the original English words and expressions. This is especially the case when it comes to communication between different ecocultural clusters which are formed and distinguished in the light of “the combined role of language, religion, and geography” according to a paper entitled “Mapping World Cultures: Cluster Formation, Sources and Implications” by Simcha Simi Ronen and Oded Shenkar who identify eleven clusters: Arab, Near East, Latin America, East Europe, Latin Europe, Nordic, Germanic, African, Anglo, Confucian and Far East <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jibs.2013.42>

research articles written in English by non-English authors often do not reflect the same meanings in each country, despite using the same words

The balkanization of discourse impedes ODDE glocalization. Arguably, anything international is predicated on something local. All ODDE initiatives are both local and international, and should be glocalized. ODDE basically evolved from non-Asian “locals” in terms of both theory (building) and practice. Almost all the established ODDE theories were developed in non-Asian contexts, and mostly in English. For example, the theory of independence, the theory of transactional distance, the community of inquiry model, and connectivism were established by researchers from the USA and Canada of the Anglo cluster, the industrialization theory of teaching and learning was proposed by Otto Peters from Germany of the Germanic cluster, and the guided didactic conversation theory was developed by Börje Holmberg from Sweden of the Nordic cluster. We are justified in claiming that all theories and practices are contextualized at the beginning and will be adopted and applied in other contexts if they prove to be of relevance and value. Nevertheless, generalization is not the end but another means by which theories and practices are re-contextualized so as to keep moving the field forward. This is a contextualization-generalization-recontextualization cycle that Professor Insung Jung at Seoul National University advocates which is also a glocalization process in my eyes. Today, no one would deny the fact that ODDE is a glocal enterprise because no local ODDE initiative is local in the true sense. To glocalize ODDE, we must avoid the balkanization of discourse, making sure the same words mean the same things.

However, it should be borne in mind that the use of a lingua franca, or English, to be specific, need not be encouraged by discouraging research in other languages. It is neither feasible nor fair to ask non-English-speaking researchers to publish their research outcomes only in English-medium publication outlets. Knowledge production and sharing in local languages are far more important to the local communities than in English. That said, the latter medium is essential to contributing to the glocalization of ODDE. For example, if Otto Peters’ industrialization theory had only been available in German and Börje Holmberg’s conversation theory had not been published in English, they could not have made such a huge contribution to the development of global ODDE.

As far as Asian ODDE researchers are concerned, we face a double challenge. On the one hand, we should not isolate ourselves by turning a blind eye to or slighting research and practice in other countries. We will do a better job if we can benefit from the work of our international counterparts. To this end, we need to master English. For example, not infrequently, in my capacities as reviewer and editor, I have noticed claims of originality and innovations by Asian researchers which are not new at all in the English literature, the coinage of new terminologies for “old” ideas and concepts, and misinterpretations of English-medium studies. Unless we have good research, we will not be able to contribute to the glocal enterprise of ODDE.

On the other hand, even if we have good research and best practices, we need to be able to share and disseminate them with international colleagues as well as to participate in agenda-setting and opinion-leading to fulfil our responsibilities as members of the international ODDE community. Generally speaking, this would not be possible unless our works are published in English, hence accessible to international colleagues.

The world today is a global village. ODDE is among the most globalized enterprises. We need a common language. The use of English in academic activities should not be politicized, for example as a threat to identity or national pride. English is only a tool if we use it as a tool.