Methodology and Structure

As far as methodology is concerned, the present dissertation is divided into two main components: a desk-research part involving the analysis of a corpus of scientific texts for each side of the debate, as well as of official publications and

6

reports, and an empirical research part involving a series of interviews with three experts in the domain. The latter serves as a complement to the former with the aim to examine the subject more closely and delve deeper into a set of crucial points.

More specifically, this dissertation is structured as follows:

• In Chapter 2, I will carry out a historical overview of the Irish language so as to present the key facts and events that caused its decline over time. I will also refer to a number of relevant aspects of Ireland’s political history in order to provide the bigger picture, in particular with regard to the Irish revival.

• Chapter 3 will be devoted to a description of the current language policy framework for Irish. Here, I shall detail recent and present-day measures and undertakings, as well as their legal foundations, and address the role of the language in the education system.

• Chapter 4 will provide a glimpse into the challenges that Irish faces today.

First, I shall draw a demographic profile of Ireland with an emphasis on data pertaining to the language. Then, I will describe the main issues that emerge from the literature. I will also look at these points against the background of present-day policy goals. Finally, I shall introduce and contextualise the debate between community-oriented language policy and ‘new speakerness’.

• Chapters 5 and 6 will focus on community-oriented language policy and ‘new speakerness’, respectively. More precisely, I will detail the theoretical anchoring of each approach and the main arguments and recommendations of its advocates, including relevant research findings.

• In Chapter 7, I shall present two interviews conducted with two leading experts representing each side of the debate, namely Professor Conchúr Ó Giollagáin of the University of the Highlands and Islands (community-oriented language policy) and Professor Bernadette O’Rourke of the

7

University of Glasgow (‘new speakerness’). Moreover, I will provide an institutional perspective to allow a comprehensive analysis of the subject and complete the information detailed in the previous chapters and sections.

To this effect, I will present an interview with Edel Ní Chorráin, Deputy Chief Executive/Director of Education Services of Foras na Gaeilge.

• Chapter 8 will be devoted to an analysis of the debate as outlined in the preceding chapters. Here, I will focus on an assessment of the two approaches and on an analysis of the challenges and opportunities they entail. For this purpose, I will draw a comparison rooted in policy evaluation on the basis of three criteria. I shall attempt to answer my research question and evaluate the possibility of adopting a global approach encompassing both research strands. This will provide a stepping stone towards a discussion on future perspectives.

• Finally, in Chapter 9 I will present the conclusions and summarise the findings of this dissertation. Here, I will also discuss the limitations of my work and the need for further research, as well as possible implications for other minority languages.

1.4.1 Methodology for the Interviews

I conducted the interviews presented in this dissertation via Skype, on the basis of a series of questions that I sent to the respondents a few days in advance.

Professor Ó Giollagáin was interviewed on 15 June 2020, Professor O’Rourke on 22 June 2020, and Ms Ní Chorráin on 21 August 2020. I recorded each interview for the purposes of the present dissertation and stored the recordings privately for further reference. Then, I sent each respondent the excerpts containing their own answers, so that they could review and approve them. I did not include a transcript of the interviews in the present dissertation.

8

The idea of these interviews was not to compare the respondents’ reaction to the same set of questions, nor to collect quantitative data. Rather, my aim was to engage in a conversation with the interviewees by using the questions as a starting point, so that they had the opportunity to explain their opinion and comment on it freely.

Hence, to delve deeper into the arguments proposed by each side, I adapted every interview by choosing different questions – ten in the case of Professor Ó Giollagáin, eight (plus one extra question) in the interview with Professor O’Rourke, and eight (plus one extra question) in the case of Ms Ní Chorráin⁶. In addition, where I deemed it useful, I included some contrasting arguments to stimulate the discussion on the topic, as well as to find common points and differences.

It goes without saying that these interviews are not intended to be representative of the opinions of all Irish language policy experts. Their purpose is rather to deliver a more detailed interpretation of the situation from the viewpoints of experts who are familiar with the same issue, but see it from different angles. A list of all questions can be found in Annex 1.

6 The difference in the number of questions is due to time constraints: the first interview took longer than expected, so two questions were removed from the second and the third one in order to ensure correct timing. Where possible, extra questions were then asked spontaneously on the basis of the discussion.

9