This contribution is based on an ongoing sociolinguistic ethnography on the doing of inclusion in Norwegian higher education. Inclusion has been on the educational agenda for many countries in the OECD, gaining currency in political and academic debate over the last five decades (Tomlinson and Basit, 2012). In parallel, demands for social justice such as equality and inclusion in institutions have become embedded in legislation along with institutions around the world signaling their commitment to the UN sustainable development goals. In Norway, higher education institutions have signaled their commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion developing a range of bodies, policies, and initiatives, targeting underrepresented groups such as women and individuals with so called immigrant background (OECD, 2009). Yet from a critical sociolinguistic perspective, the processes, challenges and effects of implementing said initiatives in Norwegian universities remains under researched.
This is relevant as linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistic scholarship shows how within diversity discourses in higher education, 'culture' appears as enregistered as a way of not talking about race, and racialized minority students are seen as 'being' and 'doing' diversity (e.g. Urciuoli, 2009; 2018). While there is increasing circulating discourses on equality, diversity and inclusion in Europe and generally the global north, research on Spanish educational context also highlights how students with an immigrant background are excluded from education systems that categorize particular ways of speaking and knowing as 'good' and those that do not fit as 'others' (e.g. Martin-Rojo, 2008).
With this in mind, in this paper I discuss the preliminary data findings from my fieldwork in an established university in Norway, where I investigate how inclusion is understood, articulated and enacted in the everyday life of the university. The paper draws from observations, interviews and fieldnotes on how social actors doing inclusion work in my chosen university make meaning of inclusion and the work that they do. The paper focus on the communicative practices and linguistic resources my participants employ to make meaning of inclusion. This includes paying attention to the effects the doing inclusion has for individuals and the institution itself in the broader context of universities' commitment to society and social responsibility.
This paper, therefore, contributes to discussions concerned with the role language and communicative practices play in the (re)production of social inequality and how social actors and institutions make meaning of social responsibility.
References:
Tomlinson, S., and Basit (2012). 'Introduction'. In Tomlinson S., and Basit, T. N.(eds) Social Inclusion and Higher Education. Bristol: The Policy Press, pp.1–16.
Martin-Rojo, L. (2008) 'Competent vs. Incompetent students: Polarization and social closure in Madrid schools' in Delanty, G., Wodak, R., and Jones, P. (eds.) Identity, Belonging and Migration. Liverpool University Press, pp. 279-300.
OECD (2009). Reviews of Tertiary Education: Norway. OECD Publishing. Accessible on: https://www.oecd.org/norway/37457548.pdf
Urciuoli, B. (2009) 'Talking/Not Talking about Race: The Enregisterment of Culture in Higher Education Discourses' Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Vol. 19, Issue 1, pp. 21–39. doi: .1111/j.1548-1395.2009.01017.x.
Urciuoli, B. (2018). 'The Irony of Diversity Numbers'. Signs and Society. 6. doi: 88-110. 10.1086/694418
