Diplomatic negotiation in an international organisation: an exploration of expert status and power
This paper will explore the status and characteristics of ‘expert’ membership within an international organisation and its influence on the development of ‘exosomatic resources’. Invoking the framework of the ‘Community of Practice’ (Wenger, 1998), it is argued that status and power are realised in the development and interpretation of policy and conventions within the organisation, through the ‘negotiation of meaning’ and through the ‘politics of participation and reification’. Negotiations and decisions may take place over a period of time but are also situated within plenary debates. As such it is argued that power and hierarchy are not fixed structures but are emergent and fluid discursively over time and space. The paper defines the characteristics of ‘expert’ membership encompassing a consideration of the command of participatory and interactional norms, as well as knowledge of the status and content of reified products. To illustrate these characteristics a critical analysis of the discourse of one delegate is provided. This exemplifies how expert knowledge is applied within a debate to influence and inform the development and interpretation of texts and subsequently to contribute to the (re)production of shared meaning and agreement on issues under debate. It is argued that in considering both the forms of asymmetry in organisations and the practice of decision-making, research should focus on: the type of knowledge that is required and valued in any context; how this knowledge is accessed, enacted and exploited; and which members are instrumental in its construction, representation and reproduction.
“Leave no one behind”: linguistic and digital barriers to the dissemination and implementation of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals
In September 2015 the United Nations (UN) adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offering an internationally agreed blueprint for economic, environmental and social development. However those most in need and specifically targeted by the SDGs face significant barriers in accessing information and knowledge about the goals and sustainability in a language or medium that can be understood. Drawing on previous research on the UN’s language policy and practice (McEntee-Atalianis, 2006, 2015, 2016) and analyses of recent UN reports and resolutions on multilingualism, information policy and practice and the SDGs, this paper examines the current status of multilingualism and information transfer within the Organisation. Significant linguistic and digital barriers are identified. It is argued that the UN must plan in more linguistically plural and inclusive ways by developing a tri-sectoral communication network strategy involving civil society, public and private sectors in order to facilitate knowledge transfer and participation, thereby ensuring that ‘no one is left behind’.
Meaning making, communities of practice, and analytical toolkits
Eckert and Wenger argue that we should not build particular assumptionsabout hierarchies of social power into the notion of a‘community of practice’(hereafter‘COP’).What sortof hierarchyexists withinanyspecific COPshouldbe left as a matter to be discovered through ethnographic observation.This isto say that any particular hierarchy is not definitive of what a COP is, ratherdifferentCOPsincorporatedifferentsortsof hierarchies.I agree with this point, but I also believe it applies more generally. It is notalways clear what features are best takenas definitive of a COPand which arebest leftas matters of variationacross different COPs, features tobe uncoveredthrough empirical investigation, not assumed present by definition. Take, forinstance, the very notion of practice itself. Can we ^ should we ^ separateacceptancebyaCOPfromsomeformofparticipationintheCOP?Daviesargueswe can and should; Eckert andWenger argue we can’t. One tack we can takehere is to say that anactivitycounts as a practice ina given COP just invirtueof its role inallowingapersontobe accepted (recognized)as a memberof theCOP(likewearingtherightcolorof lipstickinEckert’sexample).Onthissortoftackwereallycannotseparateacceptance,participation,practice,and learninginaCOPframeworkastheyareallmutuallyimplicated.Butconsideranextreme case,sayagroup of Neo-Nazis. Herman isacentralparticipant in every way, let us assume, but one day it is discovered thatHerman isJewishand has hiddenthis matter from his colleagues. Now, allofasudden, all of Herman’s activities that once counted as practices within theNeo-Nazi COP, don’t count. Herman is no longeraccepted and his doings don’tanylongercount.He’sanimposter.Herman’sbeingJewishneednot,fortheNeo-Nazis, reside in any particular practice in which Herman participates insome other COP ^ any more than someone’s black skin need reside in anycompeting practice in order to get them excluded from being a Neo-Nazi. Hisfailure to count now has to do not with practice per se, but with a (social andhistorical)attributeandtheworkingsof belief/ideology.So,itwouldseem,theextent to which practices are wholly constitutive of a COP and definitive ofacceptanceisitselfamattertobediscovered.