Rethinking Research Ethics

in Contemporary Applied Linguistics:

The Tension Between Macroethical
and Microethical Perspectives
in Situated Research
MAGDALENA KUBANYIOVA
University of Birmingham
School of Education
Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT
United Kingdom
Email: [email protected]

The prominent current tendency in applied linguistics to situate its theory and research has
seen parallel shifts in the type of research methodologies being employed. Increasingly, decon-
textualized laboratory methodologies are giving way to more holistic approaches, and these,
in turn, involve a significant shift in the researchers’ roles, relationships, and ethical respon-
sibilities. By providing examples of specific ethical dilemmas that arose in the process of a
longitudinal classroom-based research project, I aim to illustrate that adherence to general
“macroethical” principles established in professional codes of ethics may be inadequate for en-
suring ethical research in the situated era, which warrants the expansion of the ethical lenses
and consideration of alternative microethical models. I conclude with a call for developing
a more contextualized code of practice that would integrate both perspectives and recognize
the ability to reflect on the ethical consequences of research practice as a core competence of
applied linguists.

THERE IS A PROMINENT TENDENCY IN created a new landscape of ethical dilemmas and

almost all areas of contemporary applied lin- tensions, which warrants a thorough reconsidera-
guistics to situate theory and research, and this tion of what kind of ethical framework would suit
shift has had an impact on the type of research applied linguistics research in the 21st century.
methodologies being employed. Increasingly, de- Although general ethical principles summa-
contextualized laboratory methodologies are giv- rized by professional codes of ethics and Insti-
ing way to more grounded research approaches tutional Review Board (IRB) protocols have been
that are believed to better account for some of increasingly in place worldwide to ensure that the
the complex sociocognitive processes involved in welfare of human subjects is safeguarded, there
second language acquisition (SLA) and instruc- are two main problems associated with adhering
tion. The adoption of classroom-based, case study, to them in situated research. First, if they are
and ethnographic designs also has brought about taken to represent strict procedural rules to follow
a shift in the researchers’ roles, relationships, and instead of serving as useful signposts, they can be-
responsibilities. The main argument of this article come little more than part of an unnecessary bu-
is centred on the belief that this new situation has reaucratic rubber-stamping exercise, which does
not address the real needs of the research context
(Hallowell, Lawton, & Gregory, 2005; Seale, Gobo,
The Modern Language Journal, 92, iv, (2008) Gubrium, & Silverman, 2004). No wonder that
0026-7902/08/503–518 $1.50/0 “ethical correctness” in this sense sometimes has

C 2008 The Modern Language Journal
been seen as a hindrance, an issue that recently
504 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)

has been highlighted by Dörnyei (2007). Second, awareness of macroethical principles, sensitivity to
one may mistakenly get the impression that sat- microethical challenges of the particular research
isfying macroethical principles will automatically contexts, and a readiness and ability to approach
ensure ethical research conduct. It is this second these responsibly.
assumption that this article intends to challenge.
More specifically, the aim of this article is to ar- SITUATED APPLIED LINGUISTICS
gue that certain macroethical principles are in- RESEARCH
adequate to offer guidelines for situated research
practices and can in fact be at odds with microeth- The field of applied linguistics has seen a grow-
ical considerations. Therefore, I believe that the ing tendency to situate its research in the socio-
field needs an extended discussion to map the cultural context, triggered by attempts to account
whole landscape of research ethics, which ven- for the social aspects of knowledge construction
tures well beyond the macroethical territory by in an integrated manner. This trend is obvious
exploring the microethical dimension of the ac- in almost all areas of investigation, particularly
tual research practice. This article is intended to in the SLA domain, in which the traditionally
contribute to this discussion. cognitivist approach is being increasingly com-
In order to create the necessary terminology for plemented by situated perspectives of learning,
initiating such a new, alternative discourse, I will such as sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Thorne,
follow Guillemin and Gillam (2004), who distin- 2006; Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002), so-
guished between macroethics and microethics. The ciocognitive perspectives (Atkinson, 2002; Ohta,
former refers to the procedural ethics of IRB pro- 2001), or poststructuralism (Pavlenko, 2002; see
tocols based on general ethical principles, which also reviews in Block, 2003; Zuengler & Miller,
are also incorporated in professional codes of 2006). Language socialization has been suggested
conduct, whereas the latter term refers to every- as a new paradigm for SLA that embraces the sit-
day ethical dilemmas that arise from the specific uated perspective (Watson-Gegeo, 2004), and so-
roles and responsibilities that researchers and re- cially informed approaches have been employed
search participants adopt in specific research con- in testing and assessment (McNamara & Roever,
texts. Additionally, I rely on two established ethical 2006; Poehner & Lantolf, 2005), in the study of
frameworks discussed by Haverkamp (2005) that tasks (Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004; Platt &
constitute useful alternatives in discussing the mi- Brooks, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 2000), and class-
croethics of situated applied linguistics research: room discourse in general (Kasper, 2006; Mar-
the virtue ethics (i.e., developing the researcher’s kee & Kasper, 2004; Zuengler & Mori, 2002).
ability to discern ethically important situations A focus on situated constructs has become the
and make ethical decisions) and ethics of care (i.e., norm in research on individual differences, in-
ethics that recognize the relational character of cluding language aptitude and second language
research). (L2) motivation (Dörnyei, 2005), and the social
This article is divided into three main sections. perspective is inherent in the expanding body
I first chart the territory of recent tendencies in of research on L2 identity (Norton, 2000; Nor-
applied linguistics and briefly discuss the episte- ton & Toohey, 2002). In L2 teacher cognition re-
mological shifts and consequent methodological search, the sociocultural perspective has played
decisions that characterize recent research prac- a major role in the reconceptualization of the
tice. I then go on to argue that these shifts in- L2 teacher education knowledge base (Johnson,
evitably create a new landscape of research ethics 2006).
and call for the need to consider both macroethics Methodological shifts have been inevitable in
and microethics of research practice. In the third response to this expanding range of more “eco-
section, I outline a longitudinal classroom-based logical” (van Lier, 1997, 2000) research inter-
research project that triggered and motivated the ests within the field of applied linguistics. As
current ethical deliberations, highlighting three a result, qualitative approaches, including lon-
specific areas that presented ethical challenges in gitudinal ethnographies, case studies, narratives,
my research. In doing so, I also will document and diary studies have become more prominent
the reflexive process I adopted in dealing with, than ever (Duff, 2002), and a substantial vol-
although not necessarily resolving, these issues. ume of quantitative and experimental research
Finally, I conclude with a call for rethinking re- has moved from laboratories to schools and class-
search ethics in applied linguistics and developing rooms, which have been recognized as important
a more contextualized framework for ethical de- research environments for exploration of theoret-
cision making, central to which is the researchers’ ical questions (Pica, 2005; Spada, 2005).
Magdalena Kubanyiova 505
However, greater contextualization or “situat- conducting research, particularly in North Amer-
edness” of research involves a marked shift in the ica, but it also has been increasingly adopted in
researchers’ roles and relationships regardless of British and other European institutions, especially
the actual method pursued, which inevitably in- where research is funded through external fund-
creases the likelihood of ethics-related challenges. ing bodies (e.g., the Economic and Social Re-
This is in stark contrast to the fact that discussions search Council and the Arts and Humanities Re-
of ethical issues in applied linguistics have until search Council in the United Kingdom). A closer
very recently rarely made it to research methods look at this macroethical territory is therefore
manuals (see review in Duff, 2007) and have of- warranted.
ten been left implicit or avoided altogether in re- The general macroethical criteria are typically
search reports (Dörnyei, 2007; Ortega, 2005b). derived from three core principles that serve as
One possible reason for the low prominence of moral standards for research involving humans:
research ethics may have been that applied lin- respect for persons, which binds researchers to pro-
guistics research does not generally pose as seri- tect the well-being of the research participants
ous ethical threats as some sociological or clini- and avoid harm and/or potential risks; beneficence,
cal research may do and, therefore, adhering to that is, ensuring that the research project yields
well-established ethical codes of conduct may have substantial benefits while minimizing harm; and
been seen more as a matter of routine than a con- justice, or in other words, a fair distribution of
scious decision-making process worthy of elabo- research benefits (Christians, 2000). Complying
rate reflection. Whether or not this has been an with the first macroethical principle, the respect
adequate view, it is my belief that the expand- for persons, has generally been a matter of rou-
ing landscape of situated applied linguistics re- tine practice in applied linguistics research. This
search has resulted in an altogether new situation is clear from the TESOL Quarterly Research Guide-
in this respect and has created an unquestion- lines, for instance, which require researchers to
able need for a well-defined ethical framework produce evidence of informed consent, of mea-
to help deal with ethically critical episodes. The sures taken to protect the participants’ privacy and
following section examines various aspects of this maintain anonymity and, ideally, that participants
framework from both a macro-perspective and a benefit in some way from taking part in the study.
micro-perspective. As the final requirement suggests and a glance at
standard IRB application forms confirms, far less
THE LANDSCAPE OF RESEARCH ETHICS attention has been paid to the principle of benefi-
cence (see also Rounds, 1996; van Lier, 1994), par-
In mapping the terrain of research ethics, I ticularly in the sense of usefulness to communities
first examine this landscape from the “bird’s-eye” that participate in our research and to which its
perspective of macroethics (i.e., the general ethi- results are supposed to serve. One reason for this
cal guidelines incorporated into ethical codes of absence may be that, in the macroethical sense,
practice and IRB protocols). I then take a more producing scientific knowledge is generally seen
fine-grained approach and explore the micro- as beneficial in its own right, which may explain
perspective of ethical decision making, referred why beneficence of scientific inquiry often has
to here as microethics. Finally, an alternative ethical been implicitly assumed. Unsurprisingly, then, the
framework is presented in which both macroethi- explicit documentation of how the proposed re-
cal and microethical perspectives meet. search is believed to benefit society in general and
research participants in particular does not seem
Macroethics of Principles to be required by most IRB applications, and if
so, it is usually only to offset potential risks—in
As indicated earlier, the term macroethics em- other words to establish the so-called “risk/benefit
braces two aspects of research ethics: (a) procedu- ratio”(see sample documents in Mackey & Gass,
ral ethics (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004), which is the 2005). Similarly, the principle of justice has been
process of seeking approval from a relevant ethics consistently overlooked in SLA research, which
committee (e.g., IRBs) to undertake the proposed is manifested in the persistent neglect of cer-
research project, and (b) ethical principles artic- tain types of L2 populations with research pro-
ulated in professional codes of conduct; for example, duced, as a result, with the aim of serving only
the American Educational Research Association a privileged minority of L2 speakers (Ortega,
(AERA, 1992), and the American Psychological 2005a).
Association (APA, 2002). Clearance from one’s in- Recently, there has been a welcome and long-
stitutional ethics committee is an essential step in due discussion of this neglected side of ethics in
506 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
applied linguistics, SLA research in particular. In actual practice of conducting research (Guillemin
a special issue of The Modern Language Journal , Or- & Gillam, 2004; Haverkamp, 2005; Helgeland,
tega (2005a) considered the social utility of SLA 2005). The tensions arise because “big” princi-
research to the communities being served as be- ples are grounded in the utilitarian tradition of
ing no less important than maintaining method- “greater good” (Haverkamp), and the attempts
ological rigour and examining epistemological as- of review boards to regulate research practices
sumptions. The calls for considering social value by imposing an a priori, context-independent
as criteria of quality of both quantitative and quali- definition of what constitutes “greater good”
tative research resonate across the special issue pa- largely ignore the relational character of situated
pers (e.g., Chapelle, 2005; Crookes, 2005; Spada, research.1 As a result, relying on the majority-
2005). friendly abstract definitions of macroethical prin-
These recent attempts to open up the debate of ciples in ethical codes of conduct does not ensure
ethical research in applied linguistics must be ap- that harm is not done to individuals. Hence, the
plauded, and further engagement with the topic next discussion will consider a more contextual-
should be encouraged. Even with the best in- ized approach to research ethics that acknowl-
tentions, however, satisfying the general princi- edges the value of macroethical guides yet does
ples of respect for persons, justice, and benefi- not rigidly cling to them, but recognizes instead
cence does not automatically guarantee that the the particularity of each research context and, ac-
researcher will be able to “sleep well at night” cordingly, of each ethical decision.
(Esterberg, 2002, p. 44). In a highly contextual-
ized case study, for example, how does one secure Microethics of Research Practice
confidentiality and anonymity of research partic-
ipants (principle of respect for persons) without The examples of tensions I suggested earlier are
compromising the responsibility to produce accu- associated with what Guillemin and Gillam (2004)
rate knowledge (principle of beneficence)? Con- term “ethically important moments,” which arise
versely, can the researcher’s integrity always be in the course of a situated research project and
exercised without causing psychological harm to for which macroethical principles may hold am-
the research participants? Or, to give another ex- biguous, contradictory, or no answers at all. It is
ample, whose definition of social utility should we precisely this context of particular on-the-spot de-
pursue in our research enterprise when what is cisions and actions of the researcher in relation to
believed as socially desirable by the research com- the research participants that warrants a consider-
munity may neither be valued nor desired in the ation of ethics that is situated rather than general
researched context? More specifically, what if by and abstract. Guillemin and Gillam suggested the
the best intentions to serve the researched com- term microethics as a useful discursive tool in this
munity (principle of beneficence) we actually vio- respect, originally coined in clinical practice by
late the participants’ right for self-determination Komesaroff (1995, cited in Guillemin & Gillam)
(principle of respect for persons)? in an attempt to highlight the need to distin-
Indeed, there are emerging voices in applied guish between the “big” ethical issues in bioethics
linguistics research that have started to draw atten- such as euthanasia or cloning and ethics involved
tion to some of these ethical tensions in situated in everyday doctor–patient interactions in clini-
research practice (see, e.g., Dörnyei, 2007; Duff, cal practice. In order to propose a microethical
2007; Duff & Early, 1996; Polio, 1996; Richards, framework for the ethical decision-making pro-
2003; Rounds, 1996). It has been pointed out cess in applied linguistics research, I wish to bor-
that there might be issues of relevance and lim- row two theories that have been suggested in the
its in consent depending on the specific context, literature as alternatives to the ethics of principle
that the matter of privacy is not resolved after (i.e., macroethics): ethics of care and virtue ethics.
access has been negotiated, that the principle of The ethics of care model’s underlying premise
confidentiality presents challenges particularly in is that research is primarily a relational activity de-
contextualized case studies, that even the best- manding the researcher’s sensitivity to and emo-
meaning practices could lead to coercion, or that tional identification and solidarity with the peo-
data might not fully belong to the researcher. ple under study (Helgeland, 2005). Rather than
It appears, therefore, that although the prin- being given labels, such as “vulnerable persons”
ciples of macroethics are necessary, functioning who require the kind of protection set out in
as important signposts in the researcher’s prac- the macroethical principles, the research partici-
tice, they are by no means sufficient (and unam- pants are seen as “specific individuals, located in
biguous) guides in making ethical choices in the specific situations that require actions based in
Magdalena Kubanyiova 507
care, responsibility, and responsiveness to con- process. The following is a summary of the salient,
text” (Haverkamp, 2005, pp. 149–150). If, for ex- and for the purposes of this article, particularly
ample, it emerges that despite what is generally relevant, features of this code of ethics:
considered the “standard” practice of obtaining
1. Integration of macro-perspectives and micro-
informed consent, the previously agreed upon
perspectives of ethical research practice. Four core
research methods cause a particular individual
principles are formulated, including the principle
significant discomfort, alternative action must be
of “Respect for the dignity of persons,” “Responsi-
taken to respond to this ethically significant situa-
ble caring,” “Integrity in relationships,” and “Re-
tion appropriately. Thus, ethical practice that rec-
sponsibility to society.” Ethics of care and virtue
ognizes the relational character of the research
ethics are applied throughout the code when
endeavour does not involve sticking labels and
the researcher’s sensitivity to particular concerns
ticking boxes but is, instead, concerned with the
of particular research participants is emphasized
particular decisions and how these affect the spe-
and the need for competence, self-knowledge,
cific people being studied.
and self-reflection is stressed.
To continue the previous example, becoming
2. Acknowledgment that principles may conflict
aware of this particular research participant’s dis-
and may therefore need to be balanced in ethical de-
comfort (even if it is not verbalized) represents
cision making . The core principles are put in a
virtue ethics in action. This model of ethical the-
hierarchical order according to the weight each
ory originates in Aristotelian ethics and stresses
should be given when a conflict occurs, with the
the researcher’s ability to recognize the microethi-
principle of respect for the dignity of persons be-
cal dilemmas as they arise in the concrete research
ing the highest and the principle of responsibility
practice (Haverkamp, 2005). Virtue ethics, then,
to society being the lowest priority.
does not place emphasis on following principles
3. Acknowledgment of the potentially complex pro-
but rather on the development of the moral char-
cess of ethical decision making . Unlike any other
acter of the researcher, his/her ability and willing-
code of ethics, the CPA (2000) suggests a 10-
ness to discern situations with potential ethical
step decision-making process that can help the
ramifications as they arise in the research prac-
researcher assess the nature of the ethical conflict
tice, and his/her ability to make decisions that are
and the best way to resolve it.
informed by both macroethics of principles and
4. Admission that the complexity of dilemmas in
microethics of care. The researcher’s reflexivity
qualitative research precludes firm prioritising of prin-
is considered to be an important tool in pursu-
ciples. Some tensions will be hard to resolve, and
ing ethical decisions, which facilitates the under-
the decisions will have to be a matter of personal
standing of both the nature of research ethics and
conscience. Even those, however, are expected to
how ethical practice can be achieved (Guillemin
be a result of a conscious decision-making process
& Gillam, 2004).
that draws on “a reasonably coherent set of ethi-
cal principles” and that is open to public scrutiny
An Alternative Ethical Framework: Symbiotic (CPA, 2000, p. 2).
Relationship of Macroethics and Microethics
I would like to suggest that ethics in situated
Whereas some major ethical codes of practice applied linguistics research be approached with
(such as AERA, 1992; APA, 2002) have started the aforementioned parameters in mind. On the
to recognize the situated nature of ethics, few one hand, there are the macroethical principles
provide specific guidance for situations in which of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice
macroethical and microethical practice seem to that ethical research must adhere to, and this arti-
clash. The most successful attempt by far to deal cle does not deny their importance. On the other
with the tensions has been the Canadian Code of hand, as has been argued, the macroethical prin-
Ethics for Psychologists developed by the Canadian ciples are neither absolute nor can they be applied
Psychological Association (CPA, 2000). It is my in a uniform manner with no further ethical con-
belief that a modified version of this framework sequences. On the contrary, situated research re-
could work equally well in the situated research quires a balanced, ethical decision making that
of applied linguistics. Although requiring consid- draws on the three “cornerstones” of ethical prac-
eration of the discipline’s formal principles and tice (Haverkamp, 2005): macroethical principles,
standards, the CPA code at the same time acknowl- ethics of care, and virtue ethics. Consulting all
edges the relational and contextual dimension of three can generate new solutions for approach-
ethical dilemmas and the role subjectivity as well ing situations in which conflicts occur. What fol-
as conscience play in the ethical decision-making lows is an illustration of this kind of reflexive
508 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
process I needed to adopt when confronted with (cf. Johnson, 1999) but also is required by the re-
ethical tensions in the context of a longitudinal search methods typically employed in studies with
classroom-based project looking into the devel- a focus similar to mine. Yet, due to a combination
opment of English as a foreign language (EFL) of contextual factors, a reflective approach was
teachers. not part of the teaching culture in the present con-
text and, consequently, was a foreign idea to most
participants (for empirical support and a more de-
ETHICALLY SIGNIFICANT MOMENTS IN
ACTION: THE CASE OF A SITUATED tailed discussion of these issues, see Kubanyiova,
CLASSROOM-BASED RESEARCH PROJECT 2006).
In the following section, I illustrate ethically
The research project in which I was confronted critical episodes that I encountered with regard
with the ethical dilemmas and challenges to be to three interrelated areas: research design, research
described was situated in Slovakia and explored treatment, and research relationships. By providing
the impact of an in-service teacher development examples from my data, I hope to illustrate that
course on 8 EFL teachers’ professional develop- seemingly easy-to-satisfy general ethical principles
ment. The course was specially designed for re- can in fact pose a greater challenge when research
search purposes with the aim to promote teacher participants’ particular backgrounds, needs, con-
development in strategies of motivational teach- cerns, and interests are considered. Although it
ing and was delivered in four 5-hour input sessions is beyond the scope of this article to provide ex-
(about 6 weeks apart), followed by classroom vis- tensive empirical evidence for the claims made
its between September 2004 and June 2005. The throughout the next section, let me stress that
field visits included spending a day with each of they are based on an in-depth data analysis rather
the participating teachers at their teaching sites, than intuitive assumptions.
conducting classroom observations, having infor-
mal conversations, and conducting more formal Ethical Tensions in Pursuing a High-Quality
in-depth qualitative interviews with the teachers Research Design
focussing on a variety of relevant issues, such as
the observed classes, the teacher’s appraisal of It recently has been pointed out that the ba-
the course, her personal and professional history, sic criterion for ethical research is its social utility
and her beliefs. My involvement in this project (Ortega, 2005a), and only high-quality research
was manifold, and apart from being a researcher, I is believed to satisfy that requirement (Chapelle,
also adopted the roles of course organizer, syllabus 2005; Crookes, 2005; Richards, 2003), with quality
designer, trainer, and mentor. All research partic- typically being equated with technically sound re-
ipants volunteered to participate in the project in search design. Yet, as we will see here, there may
response to a call for participation at a promo- be ethical tensions involved in pursuing techni-
tional conference organized for EFL teachers in cal excellence because this may be at odds with
the region. All but one taught in the state school respect for persons.
system, and their teaching backgrounds varied
from beginning to highly experienced. When Technical Rigour Must Be Compromised in
In order to contextualize the ethical dilemmas Pursuit of Respect for Persons. The original, care-
illustrated here, let me mention two issues particu- fully crafted design of the current research project
larly pertinent to the current discussion. First, it is was based on a review of the language teacher cog-
important to emphasize that in addition to exam- nition literature (cf. Borg, 2006) and included
ining the impact of the aforementioned teacher data collection methods that have been proved
development course, the primary purpose of this effective for my research purposes, including reg-
research study was to actively promote language ular reflective journals by the research partici-
teacher development. A transformational agenda pants, stimulated recall, and in-depth qualitative
was therefore an underlying feature of the project, interviews. However, I soon became more aware
informing the overall design of the programme. of the less-than-ideal conditions the state-school-
However, as was revealed in the course of the based research participants faced on a daily basis,
study, most of the research participants did not as described by one of the teachers with frankness:
share this agenda, despite their enthusiasm and During breaks, I barely have time to reach our staff
commitment, and their participation was moti- room and change the books before another class
vated by a variety of other reasons. Second is starts. And to be quite honest with you . . . when the
the issue of reflection, which has not only been classes are over . . . my priority is to be ready for teach-
found critical in bringing about teacher change ing tomorrow. And to get out of here as soon as
Magdalena Kubanyiova 509
possible. I’m really happy when I have some little time on the verge of invading the participants’ privacy
that I can use for not thinking about teaching . . . . (In- and disrespecting their normal ways of working.
terview, January 2005) In this case, a conscious ethical choice was made
to prioritize the principle of respect for persons
One would be hard-pressed to believe that im- and responsible caring over the macroethical stan-
plementing the original plan with the aforemen- dards of technical rigour. Allwright’s (2005) con-
tioned methods would have comfortably fit into clusion about conducting action research has, I
this context without any further ethical ramifi- believe, broader implications for ethically sound
cations. The compromises, some of which are situated research in applied linguistics: “Research
described later, had to be made not simply be- in the human field of language teaching and
cause pursuing the original plan was not feasi- learning is necessarily and essentially, first and
ble in the present context, which is, after all, a foremost an ethical and an epistemological mat-
typical concern in classroom-based research (see, ter. If that leaves us apparently vulnerable on
e.g., Dörnyei, 2007; Hobbs & Kubanyiova, 2009; the technical side, we are comfortable with that”
Pica, 2005; Rossiter, 2001; Spada, 2005), but be- (p. 362).
cause attempting to implement it would be disre-
spectful to the lives of the research participants Negative Consequences of “Harmless” Research
by invading their privacy. However, although the Methods. It is evident that some research meth-
amendments I made to my research design were ods may be harmful to research participants and
believed to protect the welfare of the research par- IRB protocols, and professional codes of prac-
ticipants, they at the same time involved obvious tice rightly require researchers to “carefully con-
compromises to the technical rigour required of sider and minimize the use of research techniques
researchers. that might have negative social consequences”
For instance, it is not difficult to see how retro- (AERA, 1992). The following examples are to il-
spective notes from my hurried conversations with lustrate that while such an obligation is straightfor-
the teachers would not pass for systematically de- ward at the macro-level, a microethical approach
signed and meticulously administered stimulated to research practice can reveal that even a “be-
recall protocols. Yet, such conversations were for nign” method, if not handled with care, can have
several research participants the only alternative harmful effects on research participants by under-
that would pass for ethical research practice in mining their professional self-esteem and leaving
the given context. Similarly, if the only way to con- them with feelings of profound inadequacy.
duct the originally planned in-depth interviews The first example concerns a research partic-
without violating the participants’ right to privacy ipant who found it extremely uncomfortable to
was during the 20-minute break in the noisy corri- reflect more deeply on her teaching during a qual-
dor while the teacher was on duty, then the design itative interview. Although she was a delightful
that counted on more in-depth data from this type conversation partner and had no problems with
of source simply had to be revised and replaced describing general no-risk issues, she showed signs
with alternative, more ethically appropriate meth- of deep discomfort by carefully selecting words,
ods. Finally, my initial call for keeping a reflective leaving sentences half finished, giving one-word
teaching journal was only taken up by two research answers, and even refusing to comment when-
participants and then almost instantly given up by ever some important teaching issues were dealt
one of them. With the increasing knowledge of with or more in-depth reflection on her work was
the everyday concerns the research participants invited.
faced, this was already a loud enough signal that Another participant was, in contrast, generally
any further attempts to elicit data in this way would willing to engage in themes concerning critical
breach the rules of ethical conduct in this micro- aspects of her professional and personal life and
context. (Of course, this is not to say that their ready to embark on more in-depth deliberations.
decision to engage in this exercise would have However, reflection elicited on certain aspects of
automatically ensured ethical practice; this prob- her lessons caused her, too, a great deal of anxiety
lem is further illustrated by the dilemma of co- and embarrassment. Although she was generally
ercion resulting from positive rapport described able and willing to describe the lesson activities
later.) and comment on whether she thought they were
Even though the research participants had orig- successful, she often was taken aback by some of
inally agreed to take on responsibilities stemming my, what I originally considered innocent, inter-
from their participation in the project, it became view questions. One such situation is illustrated in
obvious that some of the research methods were a postobservation interview excerpt:
510 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
Interviewer: So, basically, if you were to summarize, as a call for ethical research at the micro-level
do you think you have fulfilled your original aim for because, by anticipating problems, some of the
this class? dilemmas described here could be preempted.
Teacher: (4.0) Hmmm. (3.0). Well, I’m not sure (2.0) I wish to emphasize, however, that the point I
if I have managed to fulfil it. (nervous, embarrassed am making is slightly different from the practical
laughter). Because I’m not really sure whether from concerns debate. I would argue that despite an-
that one exercise, they are supposed to be able to use ticipating practical challenges and adjusting the
the form of the tense, I think they would need more research design accordingly before the fieldwork,
drill. (November 2004) some data collection techniques may, neverthe-
Even though it is less well captured in the tran- less, emerge as unethical in the actual research
script, this and similar face-to-face interactions practice. Thus, although research experience will
were marked by a deep sense of uneasiness on undoubtedly assist in anticipating more appropri-
the part of the research participants. As I grad- ate and ethical choices, it cannot provide an a pri-
ually came to understand, this was due to the ori guarantee that the research design will comply
fact that reflection was a foreign concept in the with the microethical criteria and, therefore, the
given context, and most research participants had exact nature of research methods will still have
hardly ever thought—let alone spoken—about to be negotiated in the here-and-now research
their classes in the way I had wanted them to. Em- situation.
ploying research methods that ignored this spe-
Interim Summary 1: A Revised Definition of High-
cific research context could have called the par-
Quality Research. The aforementioned examples
ticipants’ expertise into question, left them with
reiterate Pica’s (2005) conviction that research
a sense of inadequacy and, consequently, under-
methods must “resonate” with the research par-
mined their self-esteem. Thus, even though, at the
ticipants’ experiences, backgrounds, and ways of
macroethical level, interview as a research method
working. No researcher, however well-meaning
would have been considered ethically “safe” in this
his/her intentions, has the ethical right to erode
context, some of its aspects could—and indeed
these by inappropriately selecting methods, which
almost did—prove psychologically harmful to the
may be thought to yield data with social utility
particular participants and thus unethical at the
for the wider community of researchers, practi-
micro-level. Although I continued to use this re-
tioners, and policymakers on the one hand, but
search method where particular contexts allowed
which have the potential to invade the partici-
it (see the previous subsection), the desire to ap-
pants’ privacy and undermine their professional
ply the principle of “responsible caring” (CPA,
and personal self-esteem on the other. The exam-
2000) demanded that I approach the method with
ples illustrate that ethics of care, which recognizes
microethical sensitivity and abandon themes with
the relational character of the research, should
potential dire consequences for the welfare of the
come to the forefront in defining the quality of
specific research participants.
research design. Therefore, I wish to propose that
The aforementioned examples point to the fact
a high-quality situated research design be defined
that although a typical question appearing in
as one in which macro-level criteria of social util-
IRB application forms (e.g., “Will the subjects en-
ity, methodological rigour, and epistemological
counter the possibility of stress or psychological,
soundness (see Ortega, 2005a) are informed by
social, physical, or legal risks?”) can be fairly rou-
the microethical priorities of the specific research
tinely answered by ticking the “right” box, even
context.
the most straightforward methods may not be
harmless at the micro-level. What is more, neg- Conflict Between Macroethical and Microethical
ative consequences of research methods cannot Perspectives of Beneficial Research Treatment
always be anticipated, but may only be discerned
through deliberate reflection on the direct rela- Educational research, whose purpose is to pro-
tional encounter with the specific research par- mote change in teachers with the aim to im-
ticipant in the particular research context. Even prove the conditions for student learning, seems
so, we need to acknowledge that there is an to satisfy the fundamental macroethical princi-
interaction between practical and microethical ple of beneficence. In the context of the par-
considerations. For example, “the anticipatory ticular research project discussed in this article,
mindset” that Borg (2006, p. 247) proposed re- it was my ethical responsibility to provide ben-
searchers adopt to ensure the practical utility of eficial “research treatment”—in other words, to
their research methods also can be interpreted design and run the teacher development course
Magdalena Kubanyiova 511
in a way that has been found effective in bring- The following journal entry documents my (quite
ing about meaningful teacher change. However, emotional) coming to terms with this ethical ten-
as argued in the previous section, the interpreta- sion: my dilemma of wanting to promote change
tion of the macroethical principle of beneficence through the training processes but at the same
can become problematic when confronted with time also respect the participants’ right to self-
the specific research context. The following two determination2 :
subsections examine the ambiguity of beneficial
I’m not really sure whether I actually have the right to
research treatment in light of the two contextual
make them question their attitudes . . . . Who am I to
features mentioned earlier: the absence of the jump into their lives and start eroding something that
transformational agenda in the research partici- they have believed in for years, something that has
pants and the absence of a teacher development been part of their teacher identity, of the identity they
culture in the specific teaching environment. The enjoy, they strive for . . . . It was Tamara’s dream to be
former suggests that there can be a thin demar- a teacher because she wanted to feel important. Who
cation line between beneficence and coercion, am I to tell her that this attitude is actually hindering
whereas the latter indicates that what may be seen her from taking up the motivational teaching prac-
as beneficial at the macro-level may have harm- tice? . . . Improving teaching practice does not seem to
ful effects when the micro-context is taken into be part of Lenka’s intentions at all. Who am I, then,
to make her ask questions about her teaching? . . . I
consideration.
will leave, but they will stay! (personal journal, March
2005)
A Blurred Borderline Between Beneficial and
Coercive Research Treatment. Thanks to an ongo- There is no easy way out of this dilemma be-
ing reflection on the research context and the cause if the trainer had no right to transform
data I was gathering, at one point during the the trainees through the training practices, there
project I started to realize that, contrary to my would be no value in teacher education in gen-
expectations, most teachers’ motivations to join eral, let alone in the growing body of research
the project were not related to what I previously on language teacher cognition. Yet the present
believed was our common agenda of change, even research context urges us to pause and ponder
though it may have been the declared goal of to what extent we are allowed to pursue “benefi-
some (see Kubanyiova, 2006). As I noted in my cial” research treatment when the emerging evi-
journal, dence points to its coercive effect in the specific
micro-setting. In other words, can the threat to
Hardly anybody seems to be even thinking of change. research participants’ right to self-determination
They are not concerned with change . . . . The word be justified by our quest for the “greater good,”
change has simply not become their agenda . . . And or, put more bluntly, are we allowed to be “cruel
so it probably should stop being mine . . . . They par-
to be kind?” These are age-old dilemmas that sur-
ticipate voluntarily, for their own reasons and not be-
face during situated research, and its high promi-
cause they want to change something. They are not
unhappy about the way they teach (most of them any- nence in contemporary applied linguistics simply
way) and so I have absolutely no right to talk about does not allow us to eschew these debates.
“change.” That’s not the word of this project—or, per- As suggested earlier, applying an a priori def-
haps, shouldn’t be? (March, 2005) inition of “greater good” in the way it is done
in macroethical codes of conduct cannot guar-
The participants’ missing agenda of change antee ethical research practice, as it overlooks
represents an ethically significant moment, partic- the consequences of our choices on the partic-
ularly when the teacher change literature is con- ular individuals. In light of my overall call for
sulted. The findings make it clear that a teacher closer attention to the relational character of
development course that strives to promote sig- research practice while recognising the impor-
nificant teacher change needs to go beyond of- tant macroethical criteria, I reached the follow-
fering a collection of motivating activities with ing compromise: Although I continued design-
the aim of providing momentary inspiration to ing the course tasks and processes in ways that
the participants, but it inevitably involves changes have been shown to best support teacher learning
at deeper, personal levels in the teacher (Fullan (the principle of beneficence), such as interactive
& Hargreaves, 1992). At the macro-level, such a mini-lectures with participants’ input, experien-
treatment can relatively easily be justified ethi- tial activities followed by reflection time, case stud-
cally, but how does the situation change at the ies, scenarios, discussions, group-teaching tasks,
micro-level if it turns out that this transformation debates, and the like, some modifications of
is actually against the will of most participants? the originally planned research treatment were
512 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
warranted. In particular, tasks with a more explicit was not the case when the task required more
focus on change were considered unacceptable, serious and more explicit reflection. Several par-
as they had the greatest potential to impose the ticipants felt visibly uncomfortable when, for in-
agenda that was not shared by the research partic- stance, asked in one discussion activity to reflect
ipants. For instance, action plans originally aimed on the groups they were teaching. Many of them
at facilitating the teachers’ concrete decisions for either used their right to pass or contributed with
classroom implementation were excluded from a mere “I agree with everything that has been
the course syllabus. Furthermore, the mentoring said before.” Evidence in my data suggests that
component of postobservation interviews, which the highly threatening nature of such reflective
was considered an extended research treatment, activities could have been the reason why one par-
was only undertaken when professional conversa- ticipant got close to dropping out of the project
tion about particular teaching problems was ex- in its third phase. Certainly, as mentioned earlier,
plicitly initiated by the teachers. I continued to design activities that have been
shown to promote teacher learning. However,
Negative Consequences of “Beneficial” Research these episodes prompted me to revise activities
Treatment. It was not only the lack of a mutual that did not match the participants’ backgrounds
agenda of change but also the absence of re- and experiences and thus proved to cause a great
flective/teacher development culture that bore deal of anxiety, and to find instead alternative,
implications for ethical research treatment in less threatening ways that could potentially start
this project. The problem and the implications the process of reflection among those who chose
are similar to those discussed earlier in the sec- to enhance their teaching practice without threat-
tion on negative social consequences of research ening their self-esteem.
methods. Therefore, instead of further analyzing
the nature of the dilemma, I provide two exam- Interim Summary 2. Although the purpose
ples of ethically significant episodes that occurred of the current project was manifold, facilitat-
throughout the project. ing change was central. The corresponding re-
Activities aimed at promoting continuing pro- search treatment was designed to benefit both
fessional development by encouraging teachers the research participants (to provide access to
to engage in social and professional networks out- knowledge, to create opportunities for continu-
side of the teacher development course were an ing professional development, and to enhance
important part of the research treatment. How- their professional satisfaction) and the larger soci-
ever, some of these efforts were met with research ety (to improve the language learning experience
participants’ feelings of inadequacy and alien- for learners in a particular context). However, so-
ation. For example, although my suggestion that cial utility, it seems, is a highly situated, context-
the participants describe some aspects of their bound construct that needs to be approached
teaching at a conference for language teachers at the microethical level. What can be consid-
was met with enthusiasm by some participants, ered beneficial in general terms may be uneth-
providing them with constructive feedback on ical in relation to specific persons involved in
their proposals caused psychological harm. When the project either because they do not share the
asked by one research participant to look at the agenda of the research project or because the
conference proposal she put together, I had the intervention does not match their experiences,
best intention to guide her through the revision knowledge, and skills, thus putting their expertise
process, acting as a critical friend. However, be- under threat. The researcher’s ethical compe-
cause such type of professional conversation was tence requires heightened sensitivity to such po-
simply not part of her routine, she interpreted tentially unethical (i.e., coercive), psychologically
constructive comments as a threat to her profes- threatening and disempowering practices in or-
sional self-esteem. As a result, her initial enthu- der to be able to make ongoing decisions that min-
siasm faded away completely by the end of the imize harm to individual research participants.
exchange, she never submitted her proposal, and
she even withdrew personal contact for several The Ethical Tensions in Research Relationships
weeks.
Certain activities aimed at promoting focussed Establishing trustworthy, positive researcher–
reflection during the course also proved to be researched relationships often is seen as a way of
problematic. Although the course sessions were ensuring that the research is ethical. Although this
marked by a pleasant atmosphere, with teach- project was characterized by warm rapport with
ers enthusiastically engaging in most tasks, this the participants, a positive relationship did not
Magdalena Kubanyiova 513
offer a passport to ethical-dilemma-free research. She said I could stay for the observation if I wanted to
In fact, as the following discussion illustrates, close (with the previous questionnaire class, I felt she was
rapport can paradoxically violate the principle of uneasy about the observation and so without asking
respect for persons and problematize the ethical her if I could observe it, I said immediately I didn’t
necessarily have to stay for the observation). About
principle of researcher integrity.
this second class, she said, “actually this is my best
Coercion Resulting From Positive Rapport. Al- class and so you can stay if you like.” (field notes, May
though negative consequences of close rapport 2005)
with research participants have been acknowl- Coercion, it seems, was happening on two levels
edged in the research literature (see, e.g., Russell, with this research participant. On the first, there
2005), Haverkamp’s (2005) warning resonates was a perceived pressure to “deliver,” even though
particularly strongly with the dilemmas I encoun- the project did not require the participants to de-
tered: “The more adept we are at creating a sense part from their normal teaching routines. As the
of connection and engagement, the more we need quote illustrates, due to a combination of factors
to be attentive to issues of power, influence, coer- (e.g., groups’ overall achievement and task en-
cion, and manipulation” (p. 152). Even though gagement patterns, specific group composition,
informed consent was obtained and the partici- and the teacher’s familiarity with and/or attitude
pants’ right to withdraw was emphasized, there toward the specific teaching materials), delivering
is no doubt that coercion, although unintended, a “satisfactory performance” may have required
did take place and the problem appeared more more effort of the teacher in some groups than in
serious the stronger the rapport. Two examples others. When she was confident about her ability
are provided for illustration. to achieve adequate results with relatively little ex-
Toward the end of the project, it was obvious tra effort (as was the case with the second group
that the involvement in the project, especially re- I was invited to observe), my presence was not
garding classroom observations, was becoming a perceived as unwelcome. In contrast, where the
burden for one participant. This was, undoubt- teacher sensed difficulties, the pressure to per-
edly, partly caused by her new personal commit- form to a certain self-set standard was becoming
ments. However, because she felt a high degree less and less bearable for her. On the second level,
of responsibility for the project due to our close there was a strong feeling of obligation to remain
relationship, she found it difficult to admit her involved in the project, which was undoubtedly a
desire to withdraw. I began to sense this during result of warm rapport and thus perceived higher
the penultimate phase of data collection: responsibility toward the researcher.
Thus, it seems that closer relationships that are
At one point she said: “We might need to ask XY
[her colleague] to replace me in the project.” I’m inherent in situated research can paradoxically be
not sure whether these were the exact words, but I a source of pressure on the research participants
know that it was a very indirect comment. However, I to live up to certain perceived expectations. In eth-
could sense that she doesn’t really want to continue ical research, therefore, not only must the right
and perhaps doesn’t know how to tell me? I tried to to withdraw participation be safeguarded, but the
assure her that I admired her commitment especially researcher must also be “responsive to non-verbal
given her circumstances and that it was absolutely fine indications of a desire to discontinue if a person
and I would understand completely if she decided to has difficulty with verbally communicating such
withdraw, but she would not hear about it. (field notes,
a desire . . . or, due to culture, is unlikely to com-
March 2005)
municate such a desire orally” (CPA, 2000, I.30).
During the final phase, therefore, I only asked This also relates to the problem of methodological
her if I could administer the questionnaires to rigour mentioned earlier. Indeed, the decision of
her groups again as was done at the beginning of research participants, whether teachers or learn-
the school year, to which she had no reservations. ers, to engage in certain data elicitation meth-
Because I did not want to push this research par- ods has to be further examined, as it may be that
ticipant to the stage in which she would have to rather than taking up the invitation to participate
admit her unwillingness to be observed, I simply of their own will, they feel pressure to comply with
said that I did not need to stay on and would leave the researcher’s requirements despite the signifi-
the classroom after the questionnaire administra- cant burden that the method places on them. Lan-
tion. Although not verbalized, her relief was diffi- guage learners are particularly vulnerable in this
cult to mask. Interestingly, several hours later, she respect if they feel that their disengagement might
invited me to stay to observe her second group, as have further consequences, for example, in terms
captured in the following field note extract: of assessment. Applying virtue ethics is therefore
514 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
essential for identifying ethically important mo- That this indeed could have been the reason is
ments, particularly in the absence of straightfor- not difficult to prove by providing an objective
ward clues such as the teachers’ direct refusal to description of the type of tasks the students were
keep journals in my context. asked to engage in during the class. However, the
teacher refused, consciously or otherwise, to fol-
Conflict Between Exercising Integrity and Respect low this line of inquiry during the interview and
for Persons in Reporting Research Findings. Report- chose to pursue her own instead. As a mentor, I
ing research results is not without ethical chal- refrained from explicitly sharing my observation
lenges, some of which have been documented and accepted her agenda. This, eventually, turned
in the literature (see, e.g., Shohamy, 2004). The out to be beneficial, as this research participant
ethical dilemma discussed here concerns a clash was gradually able to identify a possible problem,
between distinct ethical responsibilities involved albeit different from my observation, and even
in distinct researcher roles and relationships in- managed to come up with her own action plan
herent in this research context. On the one to implement in the future. By adopting a role
hand, there is an ethical principle of integrity of mentor, then, I was giving her space to make
to which a researcher should aspire (APA, 2002; sense of her teaching and the course input in light
CPA, 2000). This involves honestly reporting of her own experience, knowledge, and beliefs.
research results (Duff, 2007) and contributing However, the absence of meaningful input in her
to the field by producing knowledge (O’Leary, classes proved to be so crucial in the data set that
2004). On the other hand, there is also a relation- without explicitly reporting on it later, I could not
ship unique to the particular research context: give justice to my obligation as a researcher to
in our case the researcher being a teacher ed- produce knowledge.
ucator/mentor/critical friend, adopting a non- This does not appear to be much of an ethical
judgmental role, which is believed to facilitate dilemma until one is confronted with an excited
teacher development (e.g., Edge, 1992; Malderez exclamation from the same participant— “I can’t
& Bodóczky, 1999). The following contextual- wait to read your report!”—a recollection of which
ized example demonstrates the ethical tension be- always leaves me in a state of panic, as my interpre-
tween these two aspirations. tation of the data does not correspond with the
As mentioned earlier, one of the interview image of the “converted teacher” that this par-
themes concerned the observed classes. The pur- ticular participant seems to have construed for
pose was twofold: to gain insight into the teachers’ herself. Explicitly stating this in my report could
thought processes and to facilitate the teach- have dire consequences for the participant’s self-
ers’ development. In other words, not only did esteem. (This issue even arises in the current
these interviews represent a research method for article!)
eliciting data, but they also constituted a part Although I had learned to appreciate the teach-
of the research treatment. Postobservation inter- ers’ sociocultural context and to respect and
views were, therefore, a most obvious place where accept their views and practices in a nonjudg-
the two roles, that of researcher and mentor, mental way, I was, at the same time, processing
converged. the information through the lens of a researcher
Where it was not against any ethical principles who is trying to make sense of the project and
(see the earlier discussion), I would typically elicit holds a responsibility toward the academic com-
the research participants’ appraisals of the ob- munity to honestly report the research findings
served class and pursue their line of inquiry by as s/he understands them. The problem is that
encouraging them to elaborate on their thoughts what needs to be reported out of responsibility
without offering any evaluative comments. Of to academia is not necessarily what needs or even
course, this does not imply that I had no personal should be explicitly articulated in trusting rela-
views on what transpired or that I always agreed tionships. There, one accepts the view that hu-
with how the participants were interpreting the mans have the right to develop in their own way
classroom events. For instance, by asking one re- (Edge, 1992) and regards judgments on people’s
search participant to describe the rationale and actions and opinions as well as any form of so-
setup of the activities she employed in her class, cial comparison as unsupportive. However, a cer-
I had a clear purpose: to direct her toward the tain level of judgment explicitly expressed, accom-
possibility that the meaningful output that she ex- panied by deliberate cross-case comparisons, is
pected but was disappointed not to see from the unavoidable and, in fact, highly desirable in re-
students in that particular class could have been porting research results to the academic commu-
a result of the absence of any meaningful input. nity. The dilemma that remains largely unresolved
Magdalena Kubanyiova 515
for me, then, concerns how to be ethical in my CONCLUSION
relationships with both the research participants
and the academic community. There does not Applied linguistics research has witnessed a
seem to be an obvious way out of this Catch-22 growing tendency to situate its investigations
situation. and employ more holistic, ethnographic, or
The problem of a possible clash between the classroom-based approaches, which are believed
researcher’s and the research participants’ inter- to better account for the social dimension of
ests is hinted at in the literature; it has been learning an L2. However, when research becomes
pointed out that the welfare of the research partic- highly situated, it is as if suddenly a can of ethi-
ipants should have priority above the researcher’s cal worms is opened, and what seemed straight-
(Dörnyei, 2007) or the discipline’s interests (CPA, forward and logical at the macro-level suddenly
2000) and that the researcher must not write becomes ambiguous and problematic in the ac-
what would not be communicated in the face- tual research practice, rendering existing ethi-
to-face situation (Hornstein, 1996, cited in de cal guidelines inadequate. Recently, a call for a
Laine, 2000). Yet, if one accepts such advice un- more contextualized approach to research ethics
reservedly, there is a risk that this type of situated has been voiced in the field of applied linguis-
research (also including quantitative and exper- tics (Dörnyei, 2007). By locating the discussion
imental designs that are situated in classroom in the particular research context, this article has
environments), which is fraught with similar mi- attempted to illustrate what such a situated ap-
croethical dilemmas, could never contribute fully proach may involve in practice.
to the advancement of theoretical knowledge in More specifically, I have examined the tension
any discipline. between macroethical and microethical perspec-
Personally, I have made the decision to report tives in three areas of situated research: research
the research findings as I understand them, while design, research treatment, and research relation-
making the best effort possible to adhere to the ships. First, I have illustrated that satisfying re-
principles of respect for persons and responsible quirements for technical excellence in research
caring by applying some of the advice suggested design, which is considered a macroethical pre-
in the literature (see, e.g., Polio, 1996; Richards requisite for socially beneficial research, may in
& Morse, 2007). Even so, I cannot guarantee that some contexts be at odds with the principle of
in the process, some feelings of individual partici- respect for persons at the micro-level. I have sug-
pants will never be hurt, nor can I rule out the gested that ethics of care should come to the fore
possibility of unwittingly subjecting them to pub- in defining high-quality research design. In this
lic shame if they can be recognized by others in my way, we can speak of high-quality situated research
reports. It seems, then, that this is the type of ethi- only when the criteria of methodological rigour
cal dilemma that precludes straightforward prior- respect concerns, needs, and aspirations of con-
itization of principles, and the final decision how crete individuals in the specific context. Second,
to approach it will have to remain a matter of the it has been pointed out that although it is essen-
researcher’s personal conscience (CPA, 2000). As tial to consider the often neglected principle of
de Laine (2000) pointed out,“When various par- beneficence with regard to research treatment,
ties with different interests and expectations clash social utility is, nevertheless, a highly situated con-
there can arise an ethical and practical dilemma struct. Research treatment that is seen as bene-
for which there is no satisfactory solution, but only ficial at the macro-level, may, in fact, constitute
a compromising experience that must be lived coercive, psychologically harmful, and disempow-
through and lived with” (p. 2). ering research practices in particular contexts. I
have argued that, because in research harm done
Interim Summary 3. Positive research relation- to individuals cannot be justified by the pursuit
ships, although highly desirable in situated re- of any generally defined “greater good,” relevant
search, do not guarantee ethical-dilemma-free provisions in the research treatment that are re-
research. On the contrary, close rapport may vio- sponsive to the microethical priorities of the par-
late the principle of noncoercion or threaten the ticular research setting must be made. Finally, al-
researcher’s integrity. Although some of these ten- though highly desirable, rapport between the re-
sions can be resolved by exercising a high degree searcher and the research participants appears to
of sensitivity, there are others for which no satis- provide no guarantee of ethical conduct. As illus-
factory general solution can be offered, and the trated, closer research relationships may, paradox-
resolution reached by the researcher needs to be ically, violate the principle of respect for persons
a matter of personal conscience. and pose a threat to the researcher’s integrity
516 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
in reporting research results. Whereas some of encouraging feedback and constructive suggestions on
these dilemmas can be sensitively approached by earlier drafts of this article.
applying ethics of care, others do not seem to
offer a satisfactory solution, and the choice the NOTES
researcher makes after engaging in a systematic
decision-making process will need to be a matter 1 However, in contrast with how utility is embraced by
of personal conscience. ethics review boards and human subjects committees,
This article has attempted to illustrate that eth- some strands of utilitarianism do allow for situated defi-
ical research practice extends beyond the con- nitions of greater good that are not imposed top–down
fines of macroethical principles. These are im- but negotiated in the actual context of ethical decision
portant guidelines that every applied linguistics making. I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer who
researcher needs to consider; however, situated alerted me to this important distinction.
2 The names used in this excerpt are pseudonyms.
research practice often brings about a host of
specific ethically significant moments for which
macroethics holds ambiguous, contrasting, or no
answers at all. By exercising one’s reflexivity, the REFERENCES
researcher should develop the ability to discern
ethically significant moments as they emerge in AERA. (1992, 2000). The ethical standards of the Amer-
the research practice and, in dealing with them, ican Educational Research Association. Retrieved
apply the “ethics of care,” which recognizes the re- September 21, 2006, from http://www.aera.net/
uploadedFiles/About_AERA/Ethical_Standards/
lational character of situated research. The devel-
EthicalStandards.pdf
opment of this ability is fundamental to ethical de-
Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practi-
cision making and needs to become a career-long tioner research: The case of exploratory practice.
commitment of applied linguistics researchers. Modern Language Journal , 89 , 353–366.
Although I do not suggest ignoring macroethi- APA. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and
cal standards, I believe that our research practice code of conduct. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from
needs to be informed by a code of ethics that http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
caters to the specific needs of our discipline and Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach
that acknowledges, at the same time, the situated to second language acquisition. Modern Language
nature of research and hence the situated na- Journal , 86 , 525–545.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language ac-
ture of ethical decision making. Such a code will
quisition. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University
need to make allowances for the need to prior-
Press.
itize macroethical principles when systematic re- Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education:
flection on the research process reveals a conflict Research and practice. London: Continuum.
at the microethical level of the research practice. Chapelle, C. A. (2005). Graduate-level quantitative re-
At the same time, more specific guidance needs search methods textbooks: Options and issues.
to be provided on how to approach conflicts that Modern Language Journal , 89 , 482–488.
do not lend themselves to easy prioritization, ac- Christians, C. G. (2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative
knowledging the role of subjectivity and particu- research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
larity of ethical decisions on the one hand and Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 133–
155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
the researcher’s responsibility on the other. The
CPA. (2000). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists
CPA (2000) has successfully demonstrated that
(3rd ed.). Retrieved November 12, 2006, from
this proposal for the integration of macroethical http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/
and microethical dimensions is not an impossi- Canadian%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20for%20
ble one. Therefore, to facilitate the process of de- Psycho.pdf
veloping a similar, more relevant, contextualized, Crookes, G. (2005). Resources for incorporating action
and dynamic code of ethical research practice in research as critique into applied linguistics gradu-
our field, we need to engage, with a new urgency, ate education. Modern Language Journal , 89 , 467–
in an open scrutiny of what constitutes ethical re- 475.
search practice in action in the diverse domains de Laine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice:
Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research. Thou-
of our field.
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Individual differences in second language acquisition.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguis-
I am grateful to Zoltán Dörnyei, the anonymous tics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodolo-
reviewers, and the editor, Leo van Lier, for their gies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Magdalena Kubanyiova 517
Duff, P. (2002). Research approaches in applied linguis- McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing:
tics. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook The social dimension. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
of applied linguistics (pp. 13–23). Oxford: Oxford Mondada, L., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second
University Press. language acquisition as situated practice: Task ac-
Duff, P. (2007). Case study research in applied linguistics. complishment in the French second language
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. classroom. Modern Language Journal , 88, 501–
Duff, P., & Early, M. (1996). Problematics of class- 518.
room research across sociopolitical contexts. In J. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gen-
Schachter & S. Gass (Eds.), Second language class- der, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, UK:
room research: Issues and opportunities (pp. 1–31). Pearson Education.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2002). Identity and language
Edge, J. (1992). Cooperative development: Professional self- learning. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford hand-
development through cooperation with colleagues. Har- book of applied linguistics (pp. 115–123). Oxford:
low, UK: Longman. Oxford University Press.
Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social re- Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes
search. Boston: McGraw-Hill. in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ:
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher de- Erlbaum.
velopment and educational change. London: Falmer. O’Leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, London: Sage.
and “ethically important moments” in research. Ortega, L. (2005a). For what and for whom is our re-
Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 261–280. search? The ethical as transformative lens in in-
Hallowell, N., Lawton, J., & Gregory, S. (2005). Reflec- structed SLA. Modern Language Journal , 89 , 427–
tions on research: The realities of doing research in the 443.
social sciences. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Ortega, L. (2005b). Methodology, epistemology, and
Press. ethics in instructed SLA research: An introduc-
Haverkamp, B. E. (2005). Ethical perspectives on qual- tion. Modern Language Journal , 89 , 317–327.
itative research in applied psychology. Journal of Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to the
Counseling Psychology, 52, 146–155. study of social factors in second language learn-
Helgeland, I. M. (2005). “Catch 22” of research ing and use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2
ethics: Ethical dilemmas in follow-up studies of user (pp. 277–302). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
marginal groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 549– Matters.
569. Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and re-
Hobbs, V., & Kubanyiova, M. (2009). The challenges search: A task-based perspective. Modern Language
of researching language teachers: What research Journal , 89 , 339–352.
manuals don’t tell us. Language Teaching Research, Platt, E., & Brooks, F. B. (2002). Task engagement: A
13(1). turning point in foreign language development.
Johnson, K. E. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Language Learning , 52, 365–400.
Reasoning in action. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assess-
Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its ment in the language classroom. Language Teach-
challenges for second language teacher educa- ing Research, 9 , 233–265.
tion. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 235–257. Polio, C. (1996). Issues and problems in reporting class-
Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair: Conversation analy- room research. In J. Schachter & S. Gass (Eds.),
sis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review, 19 , 83– Second language classroom research: Issues and oppor-
99. tunities (pp. 61–79). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kubanyiova, M. (2006). Developing a motivational Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Bas-
teaching practice in EFL teachers in Slovakia: ingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Challenges of promoting teacher change in EFL Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2007). Readme first for a
contexts [Electronic version]. TESL–EJ, Contexts, user’s guide to qualitative methods (2nd ed.). Thou-
10(2), A–5. Retrieved October 13, 2006, from sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
http://tesl-ej.org/ej38/a5.pdf Rossiter, M. J. (2001). The challenges of classroom-
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural the- based SLA research. Applied Language Learning ,
ory and the genesis of second language development. 12, 31–44.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rounds, P. L. (1996). The classroom-based researcher
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: as fieldworker: Strangers in a strange land. In J.
Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schachter & S. Gass (Eds.), Second language class-
Malderez, A., & Bodóczky, C. (1999). Mentor courses: A room research: Issues and opportunities (pp. 45–59).
resource book for trainer-trainers. Cambridge: Cam- Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
bridge University Press. Russell, L. (2005). It’s a question of trust: Balancing
Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An the relationship between students and teachers
introduction. Modern Language Journal , 88, 491– in ethnographic fieldwork. Qualitative Research, 5,
500. 181–199.
518 The Modern Language Journal 92 (2008)
Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J. F., & Silverman, D. standing in different ways. Applied Linguistics, 15,
(2004). Introduction: Inside qualitative research. 328–346.
In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silver- van Lier, L. (1997). Observation from an ecological per-
man (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 1–11). spective. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 783–787.
London: Sage. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-
Shohamy, E. (2004). Reflections on research guidelines, interactive learning from an ecological perspec-
categories, and responsibility. TESOL Quarterly, tive. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and
38, 728–731. second language learning (pp. 245–259). Oxford:
Spada, N. (2005). Conditions and challenges in develop- Oxford University Press.
ing school-based SLA research programs. Modern Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and episte-
Language Journal , 89 , 328–338. mology: Toward a language socialization paradigm
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer– for SLA. Modern Language Journal , 88, 331–
peer dialogue as a means of second language 350.
learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and so-
171–185. ciocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds?
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second lan- TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.
guage learning: The uses of the first language. Zuengler, J., & Mori, J. (2002). Microanalyses of
Language Teaching Research, 4, 251–274. classroom discourse: A critical consideration of
van Lier, L. (1994). Forks and hope: Pursuing under- method. Applied Linguistics, 23, 283–288.

Forthcoming in The Modern Language Journal, 93.1

Merrill Swain, Sharon Lapkin, Ibtissem Knouzi, Wataru Suzuki, & Lindsay Brooks. “Languaging: Univer-
sity Students Learn the Grammatical Concept of Voice in French.”
Dilin Liu & Ping Jiang. “Using a Corpus-Based Lexicogrammatical Approach to Grammar Instruction
in EFL and ESL Contexts.”
Phil Benson. “Qualitative Research in Language Teaching and Learning Journals, 1997–2006.”
Shawn Loewen, Shaofeng Li, Fei Fei, Amy Thompson, & Kimi Nakatsukasa. “Second Language Learners’
Beliefs About Grammar Instruction and Error Correction.”
Alan Brown. “Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Effective Foreign Language Teaching: A Compar-
ison of Ideals.”
Julia Menard-Warwick. “Co-Constructing Representations of Culture in ESL and EFL Classrooms: Dis-
cursive Faultlines in Chile and California.”