"
Team:Imperial/The i in iGEM
From 2014.igem.org
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
<p>Other effects of the language barrier can be seen in international scientific collaborations. It is established that the growing importance of international scientific collaborations requires not only common knowledge and understanding of the scientific terminology, but also clear communication. Using a common language is the intuitive way to achieve this and English has been filling that role (Hwang 2012). Again, non-native speakers are at a disadvantage, Babcock and Du-Babcok (2001) explain that “in communication encounters, low proficiency second-language speakers contribute fewer ideas than do fluent second-language speakers or first-language speakers”. Interestingly a study conducted by Ylvanez and Shrum in 2009 showed that a reason behind the collaboration between Philippine and Japanese scientists and engineers was their similar, low levels of English competency (Ylvanez & Shrum 2009), reflecting perhaps a method of compromise so the voices of both sides can be heard equally. | <p>Other effects of the language barrier can be seen in international scientific collaborations. It is established that the growing importance of international scientific collaborations requires not only common knowledge and understanding of the scientific terminology, but also clear communication. Using a common language is the intuitive way to achieve this and English has been filling that role (Hwang 2012). Again, non-native speakers are at a disadvantage, Babcock and Du-Babcok (2001) explain that “in communication encounters, low proficiency second-language speakers contribute fewer ideas than do fluent second-language speakers or first-language speakers”. Interestingly a study conducted by Ylvanez and Shrum in 2009 showed that a reason behind the collaboration between Philippine and Japanese scientists and engineers was their similar, low levels of English competency (Ylvanez & Shrum 2009), reflecting perhaps a method of compromise so the voices of both sides can be heard equally. | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
Revision as of 14:04, 17 October 2014
The i in iGEM
Overview
As an international competition, every year iGEM welcomes teams from a great range of countries, with a variety of languages spoken amongst its teams and judges. This part of our Policy & Practices seeks to understand the effect of English as the lingua franca of science on the participation and outcome of the competition. In order to achieve this we have looked into the different nationalities of the teams and finalists and the different lingual backgrounds of teams and finalists over the years. We derived our conclusions by comparing this data with factors such as academic output and impact of their countries of origins, the lingual background of the iGEM judges, the international rankings of their universities and the English Proficiency Index of their countries of origin.
Key Achievements
Introduction
iGEM stands for ‘International Genetically Engineered Machine” and as the first word of this acronym indicates, countries and universities from all over the world are well represented. The iGEM competition has grown into a diverse community with a great range of nationalities, cultures and languages represented. The competition took its name in 2005, when 14 teams from 4 different countries came together to develop novel ideas based on synthetic biology. At that time, German and English were the only two languages represented. Since then, the competition has grown, reaching the 100 team milestone in 2009 and climbing to a staggering 245 teams from 32 different countries with 20 language this year, its 10th anniversary. The competition has been expanding in all directions. Different teams compete in different tracks, for different awards and there is now a separation between undergraduate and overgraduate teams.
The language that all the teams communicate their project is English, as per lingua academica. In the spirit of synthetic biology, where standardization and application of the same principals throughout the discipline is promoted, it is certainly essential that all the stakeholders have a common language of communication. Rapid international expansion and the necessity of a single language however present many challenges which need to be addressed.
English as the lingua franca of science
The vast volume of scientific information available in today’s “Information Age” demands effective management and distribution to individuals and institutions. Such communication of ideas in across cultures and national borders requires the use of a common language. Within the 20th century , English has become the primary language for international communication in science and business (Tardy 2006) and English-speaking countries (mainly US and the UK) are the major players in the distribution and generation of knowledge, as demonstrated by their domination in the university and journal rankings.
The status of English as lingua academica does not come without its controversies. In non-English speaking countries, the main role of English is the reporting of professional knowledge, rather than direct communication between scholars. Whilst non-native English speaking scientists may have a good level of competency in jargon and understanding written English they are still at a disadvantage when called to communicate their complex ideas in an international setting. According to SCImago Journal & Country Rankings (SJR 2014), the majority of high impact journals are in English. This forces many non-English speaking scientists and engineers to communicate their science in English, in order to gain status and recognition. This is an additional disadvantage the researchers, who are trying to conduct high impact science from a nation with peripheral status (Tardy 2006).
Other effects of the language barrier can be seen in international scientific collaborations. It is established that the growing importance of international scientific collaborations requires not only common knowledge and understanding of the scientific terminology, but also clear communication. Using a common language is the intuitive way to achieve this and English has been filling that role (Hwang 2012). Again, non-native speakers are at a disadvantage, Babcock and Du-Babcok (2001) explain that “in communication encounters, low proficiency second-language speakers contribute fewer ideas than do fluent second-language speakers or first-language speakers”. Interestingly a study conducted by Ylvanez and Shrum in 2009 showed that a reason behind the collaboration between Philippine and Japanese scientists and engineers was their similar, low levels of English competency (Ylvanez & Shrum 2009), reflecting perhaps a method of compromise so the voices of both sides can be heard equally.
Study Methods
Language data was collected as follows: We looked into all the teams that participated in iGEM over the years (iGEM 2004 – 2014) and looked into the country. If the country has only one official language, that is considered the language of the team. For countries with more than one official languages, we looked into the specific language of the institution, as well as the location of the institution within the country (for example, in India and Canada, different languages are spoken in geographical regions). In order to get a better insight in the finalists of previous years, we contacted students of this year’s team from the same university and, when possible, members of the finalist team. That gave us a good insight in the teaching methods of their university and attitude to iGEM and how that reflects to the result of the competition. QS rankings was our university ranking system of choice, because it put a lot of gravity in Academic reputation of the institutions and citations per faculty, while it did not ignore the universities’ diversity, by looking into the international student ratio and the international staff ratio (QS 2014).
For data on judges The iGEM organization publishes the names of the participating judges from the year 2009 up to 2013. Between 2011 and 2013, when the regional jamborees occurred, there is a record of judges that were part of the regionals, as well as the championships. We first assumed is that all judges speak English. We then took each name and tried to match it to an individual and via online CVs, LinkedIn, academic and business profiles we tried to discover the lingual background of the particular individuals. The best case scenario was people listing the languages they can speak (and their level of competency) in their CVs and LinkedIn. If that was not the case, we moved to the university they come from and where they gained their undergraduate degree from. Finally, some judges mentioned their country of origin in their business/ academic profiles and the language was matched. While we recognize that a lot of mistakes could have been made in the process, we tried to be as precise as possible throughout the procedure.
Case Studies
CS1
Mauris mauris ante, blandit et, ultrices a, suscipit eget, quam. Integer ut neque. Vivamus nisi metus, molestie vel, gravida in, condimentum sit amet, nunc. Nam a nibh. Donec suscipit eros. Nam mi. Proin viverra leo ut odio. Curabitur malesuada. Vestibulum a velit eu ante scelerisque vulputate.
CS2
Sed non urna. Donec et ante. Phasellus eu ligula. Vestibulum sit amet purus. Vivamus hendrerit, dolor at aliquet laoreet, mauris turpis porttitor velit, faucibus interdum tellus libero ac justo. Vivamus non quam. In suscipit faucibus urna.
The Countries and Continents
Over the years, 43 different countries have participated in the competition. North America is home to iGEM and the continent with most participating teams. With 33 of its universities in the top 100 of the QS rankings, it’s arguably the leading continent in academia. Over the years, 453 teams originate from the continent, mostly from the United States. Over the years, the US has had teams in the finalists (top 6), 9 times. Alongside North America, Europe was one of the initial participants in the competition when it became international in 2005. It has been represented by 343 universities and colleges over the years. Home to 41 of the 100 top universities in the world, according to QS rankings, Europe attracts a large student population from around the world to its academic institutions. Universities in the UK and Germany have had particularly strong presence in iGEM. European teams have been finalists in the competition an amazing 26 times, more than any other continent in the history of the competition. The best year for Europe was 2009, when all the finalists originated from the continent. Last year, all of the Undergraduate finalists and 2 out of the 3 overgraduate finalists where European teams.
Asia is the continent whose participation in the competition has seen the most rapid increase. Between 2010 and 2014 the participation of Asian teams has grown 115% percent, compared to the 76% of Europe, 79% of North America and the 91% growth in the competition overall. The key player here is China, which has seen a huge 455% increase in number of teams, significantly more than any other participating country. Despite the growth of the continent in the competition, this has not translated into finalists. Only 12% of finalists come from Asia, a mere 5 out of 41 previous finalists. No more than one Asian team has been a finalist per year.
The Language
Another dimension of the internationality of iGEM is the different languages represented in the competition. In the last 5 years, at least 20 different languages are represented. The usual, widely spoken internationally, are English, Mandarin, Spanish, German and French, while some less widely spoken languages, such as Finnish, Kazakh, Nepalese and Hungarian have made appearances.
The dominant language of the competition is English, with about 40% of the participants coming from English-speaking universities. That means that 60% of the participants come from different lingual backgrounds. The second greatest presence is Mandarin (spoken by Chinese and Taiwanese teams) and there is a strong presence of Romance and Germanic languages (Spanish, French, German, Dutch), coming from the European and Latin American participants.
Insight into the finalists
We had a chance to speak to all but two of the non-English speaking finalists in order to get a better insight into the challenges of the language barrier. The overwhelming majority of the successful European teams (examples include Paris Bettencourt, Groningen, Bielefeld and TU Delft) have noted that their teams include many international students. Additionally classes are taught in both the language native to their university and English, with students offered a choice on the language of their thesis or having to write in English (Valencia). In cases where courses were not taught in English (Bielefeld), seminars that included both home and international students where Anglophone. Additionally, due to the composition of their research labs in some certain cases communication between the team members is in English. Speaking with a former member of a past team of Slovenia gave us a different picture compared to the rest of the European teams. As explained to us, the team was consisted purely by home students with Slovenian being the language of communication within the team. The majority of the material at their university has been taught in their native language, although the teaching material was in English, exposing the students in English scientific writing. Additionally, their advisors where all Slovenian PhD students that carried the majority of their studies in the native country. It needs to be noted though that when asked, it was noted that the team members were able to communicate their projects in English with ease. That could possibly be explained by Slovenia’s high ranking in the PE English Proficiency Index (10th place).
When we spoke to the Asian teams, they painted a different picture. The teams are composed exclusively by home students (in the case of ZJU China, this was because their team was composed mainly by undergraduate students, when most of the international students are postgraduate) and the primary teaching and communication is done in their native language. On the other hand, some of the teaching mediums (textbooks, Powepoint slides) are in English. The exception to this was Peking. In their university material is taught in both Chinese and English, while the students participate in classes of English for academic writing. Finally, the team composition (for this year, at least) is not entirely of home students, as an exchange student from an American university has joint. In addition to language differences, other contrasting attitudes towards the competition emerged which may also be factors affecting team performance. European teams may start brainstorming throughout their Spring term, but official work in their project is conducted mainly during an intense summer term. On the other hand, for the Asian teams iGEM is a more spread out, year-long endeavor, with the project starting even before registration for some (SYSU China).
Case Studies
CS1
Mauris mauris ante, blandit et, ultrices a, suscipit eget, quam. Integer ut neque. Vivamus nisi metus, molestie vel, gravida in, condimentum sit amet, nunc. Nam a nibh. Donec suscipit eros. Nam mi. Proin viverra leo ut odio. Curabitur malesuada. Vestibulum a velit eu ante scelerisque vulputate.
CS2
Sed non urna. Donec et ante. Phasellus eu ligula. Vestibulum sit amet purus. Vivamus hendrerit, dolor at aliquet laoreet, mauris turpis porttitor velit, faucibus interdum tellus libero ac justo. Vivamus non quam. In suscipit faucibus urna.
The Judges
Another aspect we have considered this year is the nationality and languages of judges recruited for the competition. As an international competition, it is expected and desired for the judges to reflect this. The majority come from participating universities and of course have a background in Synthetic Biology as scientists, engineers or social scientists in the field. From 2009 to 2013, approximately 40% of the judges are able to speak one or more languages in addition to English. Although this is generally good, specific languages are often under represented amongst the judges. A good example is the representation of Mandarin, in 2013 less than 5% of the judges were speakers, whereas 20% of the teams (over 40 from China and Taiwan) were speaking the language, the percentage is more balanced in other years however.
Over the years, the percentage of multilingual judges has remained relatively constant. The dominant second languages are Mandarin or French with German and Japanese also being well represented. All these languages are spoken in countries with a consistent presence in the competition.
A case could be made that the lingual abilities of judges should not be playing a role in the competition. This is partially true, as all of the teams are expected to present their projects in English, up to the standards of the international scientific community. On the other hand we can argue that it is easier for scientists with a foreign background to understand and appreciate the additional challenges for teams where English is not their first language. Like the teams, these scientists are also called to break through language barriers in order to gain their rightful recognition in the field.
Recommendations
Through the data and observations considered here and discussions with linguists and universities that deal with a large influx of international students, we offer a list of recommendations that could reduce the language barrier in iGEM and it could help non-English speaking teams to communicate their projects in a more effective way.
For the Teams
For iGEM
References
