Research Engagement in Language Education

Classroom-based research: a well-established paradigm

There is a burgeoning body of literature which documents the development of approaches adopted by language teachers who engage in research practices, such as Action Research (e.g., Burns 2019; Banegas and Consoli 2020); Teacher Research (Borg and Sanchez 2015; Wyatt and Dikilitaş 2016); Lesson Study (e.g., Cajkler et al. 2015); Reflective Practice (e.g., Mann and Walsh 2017), Exploratory Practice (e.g., Allwright and Hanks 2009; Dikilitaş and Hanks 2018), Exploratory Action Research (Smith and Rebolledo, 2018). These approaches have brought back to life the pivotal centrality of practitioners, that is, the core actors involved in the social enterprise of language education, including learners, teachers, and school managers and administrators (Allwright, 2005). Significantly, the past few years have witnessed a surge of events and initiatives which have promoted language practitioners’ research, thereby leading to an active scrutiny of the epistemological value of such research whilst also unpacking its locus at the interface of the fields of education and applied linguistics.1

The UK has been particularly proactive in creating spaces to examine, understand, and celebrate language practitioner research. For instance, since 2016 Richard Smith has been leading The International Teacher-Research Festival (Smith and Bullock 2018) with the aim of supporting teachers around the world in conducting classroom-based research which, in turn, has led to the classroom EVO experience – a virtual initiative to engage language teachers in research within their own teaching contexts (Gokturk Saglam, Evans, and Smith 2018). In 2019, the Centre for Language Education Research (University of Leeds) organised a successful BAAL-funded workshop to interrogate where practitioner research sits within the landscape of applied linguistics, thereby foregrounding numerous international perspectives on the value of language practitioner research (CLER, 2019). Other regions in the world have been strong supporters of practitioner research, too. For example, Kenan Dikilitaş has led the teacher research conference in Turkey for several years, and, as a result, has brought together many academics to support in-service and pre-service language teachers in developing research and teaching skills. The Rio Exploratory Practice Group, inspired by Exploratory Practice, have been fostering the notion of fully inclusive practitioner research in language education within Brazil (where it originated) and around the world, with strong assistance from Dick Allwright and Judith Hanks in Britain. Some exemplary work has also been accomplished in Ireland with the Irish Research Scheme for Teachers (IRST) which encourages English teachers to engage in classroom-based research such as Action Research to promote and understand teaching and learning within the Irish language education sector.

There is an internationally acknowledged sentiment which promotes language practitioner research, thereby encouraging teachers to engage in research that may help them understand and enhance their own practices. However, despite several calls for research that is more practice-driven or pedagogically-oriented (e.g., Muir 2020; Ortega 2005; Sampson and Pinner 2021; Rainey 2000), academic publications still seem to lag behind in recognising the work of language practitioners such as language teachers. There are, of course, some exceptions, notably Coles‐Ritchie and Lugo (2010), Dikilitaş and Hanks (2018) and Hanks (2019), who highlight the importance of including teachers’ and learners’ voices in published research papers. Nonetheless, more concerted efforts are required to illuminate the epistemological benefits of research engagement within language education.

Importantly, teachers may engage in forms of research which look less like Action Research or sister forms of practitioner inquiry. For instance, Borg and Sanchez (2015) introduce teacher research as a form of systematic self-study which teachers can conduct in their classrooms using methodologically flexible activities. In a similar vein, Johnson and Golombek (2002) argued for teachers’ engagement in narrative inquiry as a form of professional development, and maintained that ‘Inquiry into experience enables teachers to act with foresight. It gives them increasing control over their thoughts and actions; grants their experiences enriched, deepened meaning, and enables them to be more thoughtful and mindful of their work’ (6–7). What these dimensions of teacher research suggest is that by engaging in systematic research activities and processes, teachers can analyse and transform language education practices. In other words, in keeping with the transformative spirit of Action Research, teachers’ engagement in research practice can lead to practical understandings and/or changes which will, ultimately, enhance learners’ experiences and support teachers’ professional development (Cain and Harris 2013).

More recently, Rose (2019), commenting from the perspective of research in Teaching English as a Second Language (TESOL), has questioned the agenda of TESOL researchers and reminded us of the need to give the T in TESOL more prominence within our work. In a companion paper, McKinley (2019) revisits the concept of the teaching-research nexus, pressing for our research work to be informed by practitioners’ issues and priorities, ultimately highlighting the need for more partnerships between teachers, researchers and other TESOL stakeholders from the ‘practice’ world. These partnerships between academics affiliated to universities and practitioners working in the ‘practice’ world are still few and far between, and questions have been raised about how and if such partnerships are authentic and sustainable. Dörnyei (2007), for instance, lamented that most Action Research projects were conducted by teachers engaged in a postgraduate programme that involves a research component. This is echoed by Banegas and Consoli (2021) who also noted a dearth of pre-service or junior teachers who explore the value of research because research engagement tends to happen at postgraduate level, and even then, issues of privilege (e.g.,financial status and social class) may compromise some teachers’ access to postgraduate programmes and research training.

With this Special Issue we hope to raise difficult questions about the epistemological commitments within the fields of education and applied linguistics in relation to various forms of language education research. We put the spotlight on the ramifications that research has for language practitioners and the academic communities alike, scrutinising the concept of research, and problematising the sustainability of research practice as we know it.

What counts as research in language education?

The notion of research cannot be unpacked without acknowledging that it may be impossible to reach a consensus about its very essence and core characteristics. Smith and Rebolledo (2018) rightly claim that research looks different to different stakeholders and suggest, for instance, that language teachers may initially associate the idea of research with scientific laboratories. However, by focusing on the concept of teacher-research, and drawing on Holliday (1994), they equate classroom-based research to exploring ‘a rich and beautiful coral reef’ (2018, 15). Interestingly, this definition of teacher-research somehow echoes Neumann’s (1992) notion of ‘academic’ researchers viewed as professionals ‘who are curious to know why something is the way it is and who are, therefore, actively pursuing an answer to a question’ (162). On the other hand, with a focus on English for Academic Purposes (EAP), Ding and Bruce (2017) distinguish between scholarship, which relates to ‘developing and refining one’s overall knowledge of practice’ and research which concerns ‘a planned, systematic investigation that aims to inform one specialised aspect of the knowledge base’ (2017, 111). From the perspective of language education and the social sciences more broadly, Hanks (2017) offers a nuanced discussion of the core paradigmatic stances which have characterised the contested ontology of research over the years. More crucially, we wish to highlight Hanks’ (2017) notion of ‘good enough research’ which she develops from Yates’ (2004) ambitious, and potentially unattainable, definition of research. Whereas Hanks recognises the superb value of the kind of research promoted by Yates, she then introduces the concept of ‘good enough research’, arguing that much research exists which may not meet all of Yates’ criteria but is still good enough because it is able ‘to contribute to understandings in the field, good enough to build upon, good enough to inspire others’ (2017, 36). Therefore, good enough research is possible, meaningful, and beneficial, despite the technical and methodological limitations encountered by most (if not all) researchers, whether teacher-researchers, practitioners or ‘traditional academic’ researchers.

Following on from this debate, Consoli (2021) proposes the notion of ‘good enough data’ which may offer some insights into the phenomena, questions, problems or puzzles under investigation. This novel concept of data suggests that one does not need the status and resources of an established ‘traditional academic’ researcher, where traditional and academic refer to an individual affiliated to a research institution with the main remit of producing research outputs. Rather, the concept of ‘good enough data’ would welcome the efforts of any individual who, through whatever means and resources available to them, engages in the search for new useful and meaningful information. Good enough data can therefore contribute nuanced understanding(s) to the field despite possible complexities and limitations. These notions of good enough research and data align perfectly with the values of Action Research which foreground the need for research practice to be ‘self-reflective, critical and systematic’ (Burns, 2010, 2) with a prime focus on issues and phenomena that are meaningful and appealing to language practitioners (Burns & Westmacott, 2018). However, this discussion of good enough research and data calls for an examination of the identities of the very actors who do, consume, own, disseminate, and benefit from research in language education.

Who are language education researchers and what do they actually do?

Above we mentioned debates which have brought back to life the teaching-research nexus (Neumann 1992, 1996) and the concept of a holistic academic (Macfarlane, 2011) who wears several hats, including a researcher, a teacher and manager. As suggested by McKinley (2019), a language education community driven by a balanced teaching-research nexus, populated by holistic academics would be ideal. Unsurprisingly, this is not the case. After all, whereas we see the value of an academic researcher being a teacher or a teacher doing research and assuming a practitioner researcher role, we recognise that current institutional constraints and contracts are not the only factors pulling us away from this ideal reality. We must also accept that while there are some colleagues who teach and wish to engage in research, and others who mainly research and miss being active teachers (Rose, 2019), there are also colleagues who like being teachers or teaching-track academics, and colleagues who identify primarily as researchers. Acknowledging, respecting, and valuing these professional identities does not constitute the end of good, meaningful research for the language education community. After all, despite some concerns about the validity of language education research for ‘real world’ issues and practices (e.g., Ushioda, 2020), there is evidence which fuels the hope that strong collaborative endeavours between traditional academic researchers, teachers and practitioner researchers are possible (e.g., Banegas and Consoli 2021; Dikilitaş and Wyatt 2018). After all, the rich tradition of Action Research in language education shows that teachers are capable agents of change who can generate powerful transformations and insights through research engagement. However, such research involvement and their efforts in producing meaningful impact must be recognised within their contexts and valued by relevant institutions and stakeholders (Edwards and Burns 2016). One of the defining and most empowering features of Action Research lies in affording language teachers and learners the opportunity to challenge top-down policies and approaches with an eye to generating spaces for social emancipation (Villacañas De Castro 2017). However, this sense of empowerment and emancipation becomes possible if it is nurtured and promoted by the whole community of language education, including senior management, academic partners and teacher training institutions. The risk, otherwise, is that some of us may continue to encourage teachers to see the benefits of doing research but without much recognition which, in turn, may lead to frustration (Edwards and Burns 2016). Rather, we need to collectively promote a research culture which supports the social dimensions of language education research. For instance, Action Research stresses the importance of transformation, but this is only possible ‘if the processes and outcomes of action research are shared within the community of practice where action research is located’ (Banegas & Consoli 2020,184). For this social dimension of language education research to thrive, collective efforts are required from both the teaching and academic communities. In other words, partnerships of social educational action and research practice are the sole path for meaningful impact that may benefit all.

If we briefly turn our attention to mainstream education, we note that educational research has been criticised for decades because even high-quality research would rarely be accessed by practitioners (Corcoran, Fuhrman, & Belcher, 2001) or deemed irrelevant to address the critical educational challenges faced by society (Cousins & Simon, 1996). In a similar vein to language education, these criticisms have emerged from a marked divide between practitioners and researchers, a chasm largely fuelled by a lack of convergence between teachers’ and traditional academic researchers’ agendas (Vakil et al., 2016). This status-quo would resonate with Rose’s (2019) metaphor of the ‘ivory tower’ which clearly embodies these rifts within the educational community. However, mainstream education shows us that concerted research enterprises which lead to meaningful and impactful research for the ‘real world’ of education are possible. This has been the case of ‘research-practice partnerships’ (RPPs), new models of collaboration between researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and community members at large with the aim of addressing real-world problems facing practitioners. Crucially, RPPs are long term. In other words, RPPs endure beyond a single study or project and aim to create long-term relationships between these different educational stakeholders, giving priority to practitioners’ questions and challenges rather than finding gaps in the academic literature (Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2003).

Also, RPPs are intentionally arranged to draw on diverse expertise whereby researchers are not the only ones viewed as ‘knowledgeable’. For instance, some RPPs involve researchers and practitioners in designing solutions together and then jointly investigate the outcomes in practice. Others RPPs may encourage practitioners to take the lead in planning the research, then collecting and analysing the data with support from the researchers (Coburn, Penuel, & Farrell, 2021). In sum, in mainstream education there is a well-established tradition of collaborative educational research, such as Action Research, where different members of the community, with their own identity as researchers, practitioners, or other, work together to shape research in such a way as to impact directly on ‘real world’ educational practices. This kind of collaboration would therefore support Rose’s call for ‘ecological validity’ and Mercer’s (2021) call for ‘ecological efforts’ from the whole community, celebrating individual roles and expertise, and leading to meaningful and impactful research without the need for a holistic academic.

With this Special Issue, we thus seek broader recognition for the legitimacy of numerous approaches and identities to language education research. These include the practitioner researcher who conducts classroom-based research with their own students, the academic professor who supervises a PhD student who is a teacher doing practitioner research, a community of practitioner researchers working together to inform their professional knowledge base, and research faculty members mentoring practising language teachers through classroom research such as Action Research and Exploratory Practice.

Contents of this special issue

In his paper, ‘Identity dilemmas of a teacher (educator) researcher: Teacher research versus academic institutional research’, Gary Barkhuizen explores and maps out some of the tensions characterising the identity of a teacher (educator) becoming an early-career researcher who needs to comply with neoliberal standards of academic institutional research. Through a narrative short story approach, Barkhuizen unpacks the several characters in the professional life of his participant which involved her work as a teacher, teacher educator, PhD candidate and (action) researcher. In particular, this paper puts the spotlight on some dilemmas which may resonate with other teachers (or teacher educators) working towards an academic research career at university who are faced with moral and emotional questions about what constitutes meaningful or meaningless research. These questions result in major dilemmas about a sense of belonging or being accepted by the ‘institutional academic community’. Barkhuizen offers some suggestions which may help language practitioners navigate these identity dilemmas whilst encouraging research institutions to revisit their gatekeeping systems to institutional academic research.

Framing teacher researchers as a professional community of practice in his paper ‘Knowledge flow in Argentinian English Language Teaching: A Look at Citation Practices and Perceptions’, Dario Banegas scrutinizes dimensions of research impact through the concepts of knowledge production and knowledge flow. In particular, he looks at the context of ELT in Argentina and openly challenges the long-established confines which divide, rather than unite, the Global South and North, illuminating some of the reasons why this gap seems to be perpetuated. Banegas ultimately suggests that action research projects and dissemination of action research findings ‘may help the local ELT communities value their own potential, find answers and pose new questions within their contexts’. Most crucially, by encouraging the production of ‘local’ knowledge, these local communities of teacher researchers will be in a stronger position to establish their own conceptual frameworks, leading towards more recognition, trust, and respect for local intellectual and pedagogical expertise. This process, however, is not without difficulties, and this paper unpacks several questions which help us understand the dynamics of ‘academic imperialism’ more clearly, whilst offering some suggestions for ‘local’ teacher researchers to legitimise their own knowledge production.

In her innovative conceptual article, ‘The ecological impact of Action Research on Language Teacher Development: a review of the literature’, Emily Edwards offers a review of studies which have yielded insight into dimensions of impact of action research. Significantly, Edwards adopts an ecological lens to analyse this emerging body of literature which, in turn, leads to a systematic overview of themes concerning the ways in which impact manifests at micro-level (the individual teacher), meso-level (the institutional setting), and macro-level (broader system). This review is testimony to the longstanding tradition of action research in our field and points to numerous ways in which it benefits teachers individually (e.g. cognitive and identity development), thereby shedding light on the interplay between the impact of action research and teacher development. The ramifications of impact extend to the teachers’ institutions and the wider education sector, which in turn, illustrate the potential for action research to influence language education more holistically. Crucially, this paper raises some questions about the sustainability of action research whilst sounding a call for more support and recognition from critical stakeholders. In this light, Edwards suggests new avenues for further empirical work and more collaborative or ‘scaffolding’ partnerships between teachers and academic mentors.

With his paper, ‘Evolving Understandings of Practitioner Action Research from the Inside’, Richard Sampson offers a highly sincere and reflexive account of his journey as a language teacher who became interested in classroom-based research early in his teaching career. Through his engagement in several action research projects, Sampson sheds some light on the rich complexities which characterise the development of his identity as a teacher and as a practitioner researcher. In particular, he reveals the tensions and dilemmas which emerge from the interplay of caring attitude towards the pedagogical responsibilities and ethical duties of a teacher and the thirst for empirically informed understandings. Sampson argues that action research can offer opportunities for systematic and valuable ‘change-action’ as well as findings which may benefit not only the local immediate community of learners and teachers but the wider international landscape of language education. However, while his action research experiences resulted in a range of positive impacts for him professionally, and for his learners academically, this was not without difficulties. In fact, he poses some questions which expertly invite the community to reflect upon sustainable ways to promote practitioner research by departing from ‘standard’ approaches and creatively adapting to one’s specific classroom ecology.

Moving away from a single practitioner researcher perspective, in the paper Dialogic Research through Podcasting as a Step towards Action Research, Robert Lowe, Matthew Schaefer, and Matthew Turner offer a new approach to reflective and data-led teacher research through collaborative autoethnography. They report on the experience of running a successful podcast project, called The TEFLology Podcast, which consists of public discussions of both research and practice-related topics in language education. The innovation of this project lies in bringing together the authors, also language teachers, in a novel and untraditional cycle of research engagement, reflecting, planning, acting, and observing. Through a series of vivid vignettes, they demonstrate how engaging in this research podcast work facilitated deep understandings which, in turn, led to more dialogic and exploratory collaborative practitioner activities that, at times, resulted in classroom action. Through the lens of autoethnography, this paper reveals the positive effects of exploratory dialogue as the starting point for a cycle of research practice which leads to heightened awareness and redefined attitudes and beliefs. Ultimately, this article positions podcasting as an innovative methodology which may enhance traditional literature search methodologies whilst offering Action Researchers and other practitioner researchers some alternative processes to produce meaningful and practice-oriented research.

In their article Teachers as Practitioners of Learning: The Lens of Exploratory Practice, Miller, Cuhna and Allwright unpack the concept of practitioner research. In particular, they revisit the Five Propositions of Learners and emphasise that teachers are learners too. As such, through a rich discussion of the core aims of various approaches, including Action Research, they raise complex questions about the locus of research and the privileges and frustrations attached to practitioner classroom research and academic research. They propose that both teachers and learners are communities of learning practitioners, and, by drawing on Exploratory Practice, a form of practitioner research which calls for fully inclusive practitioner inquiry, they argue that learners and teachers can work together for deep understandings of their ‘quality of life’. This, in turn, allows teachers to explore and appreciate new dimensions of their identities as practitioners of learning who can, with their practice-driven inquiries, advance the domain of language education through meaningful experiences which integrate research and pedagogy, thereby fostering ‘intellectual collegiality to grow in their classrooms’. However, this approach or ‘movement’ is not without challenges. Teachers and learners need to find the courage to develop trust and ask difficult questions in order to ‘work for deeper understandings’. Also, teachers need to embrace the uncertainties of practitioner research and the new emerging questions rather than seeking conclusive solutions.

In her paper Co-production and multimodality: learners as co-researchers exploring practice, Hanks, foregrounds new epistemological, ethical, and methodological questions which take the notion of collaboration to a whole new level. She positions learners as co-researchers who can contribute meaningful and impactful insights into critical issues and puzzles of language education. This study puts specific emphasis on the novelty of drawing on multimodal data which can further enrich our understandings of language teaching and learning. Hanks shows that by fostering research partnerships between teachers and learners we may arrive at research questions and puzzles which will not only have a positive impact on the quality of life of the practitioners involved in such research, but will also allow a seamless fusion of research and practice where the two spheres support and inform one another sustainably. While identifying some ethical and epistemological tensions which need further attention and more recognition from the language education community, Hanks proffers a new research paradigm whereby practitioners’ stories and voices are not only acknowledged but fully embedded within the agendas and works of academia.

Through Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), in their paper, English language teachers collaborating in practitioner research and loving it, Bugra and Wyatt share insights into collaborative practitioner research conducted by English language teachers at a Turkish university. Despite some challenges and tensions concerning the teacher-researchers’ engagement in such collaborative research work, this paper demonstrates the need for enthusiastic mentorship and ‘psychological support’, staple ingredients for healthy and sustainable practitioner research. In particular, the authors points to some evidence of self-initiated and collaboratively sustained teacher solidarity in the face of various contextual challenges; this in turn corroborates discourses of trust in educational research practices whilst raising questions about the real determinants which usually stop language teachers from engaging in similar research activities. This paper thus offers a rich illustration of the numerous benefits which language practitioners may reap by engaging in collaborative research practice which does not lie outside the scope of the language teaching profession, but, rather, sits within the educational system which promotes self-professional development and trust amongst the institutional community.

Finally, Richard Pinner offers a nuanced review of Judith Hanks’ book Exploratory Practice in Language Teaching: Puzzling About Principles and Practices, highlighting the relationship which links Exploratory Practice to the well-established family of Practitioner Research, including Action Research and Reflective Practice. In particular, this review stresses the evolution of the concept of research in language education with special emphasis on the evolving agency of learners and teachers within a community that is invested in promoting a research culture based on trust, emancipation and diversity.

Concluding remarks

Inspired by the paradigm of Action Research as an approach to explore and identify educational problems or needs for transformation and/or empowerment, this special issue documents and further legitimises several dimensions of the multi-layered arena of language education research. The contributors, with their own expertise in various forms of practitioner research and/or more traditional academic research, share challenges, tensions and dilemmas as well as critical insights and successes about key domains of language education inquiry, including teacher education and professional development. This special issue also outlines new opportunities for closer partnerships between academia and the ‘real world’ of language education. The concept of the teaching-research nexus is revisited and redefined as a more fluid and dynamic construct which does not follow binary epistemologies and methodologies but welcomes a range of approaches of collaboration between language practitioners, practitioner researchers and academic researchers, thereby reconciling the agendas of different stakeholders in the language education enterprise. Ultimately, with this issue, we wish to crystallise the hope and desire that if we promote and recognise the multitude of identities and skills within our teaching, learning and research communities, we may empower all involved, leading to meaningful research which responds to the needs of the many rather than the few.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).