Nov 01 2009
(Critical) Language Research: A Waste of Time?
Critical mass (noun)
Definition 1. point of change: a point or situation at which change occurs
A bit of a gap
I had said to myself, and to others recently, that I wouldn’t be writing anything for a while as there’s been a lot going on that has been blocking my creative ‘flow’. Won’t bore you with the details, but here I am on a Saturday night having been out for a really nice dinner and having consumed a couple of glasses of red wine with my nearest and dearest…I also spent a great afternoon talking to a good friend, and it’s had a positive affect on my feelings about doing a blog post. So here it is!
Is research on language a waste of time?
This one is inspired by quite a lot of blog posts around and about this month on the subject of research. Actually it has been inspired by the fact that in some blogs that I admire (and in the postings of bloggers who I follow), there’s a sort of assumption that a) language research is something that is only carried out in university settings (some even declare they are not ‘academic’ sites and want to distance themselves from this type of research) and b) that language research is a bit of a waste of time. The other thing that is evident is that there is an over-emphasis on defining research more in terms of quantitative (countable) results than that which is less easy to pin down and define but asks questions about the “why” of language and the way it is used socially – which in turn could help us to understand better the way language is taught and used in the EL classroom (and beyond). Now there is a long and very interesting debate in the whole quantitative/qualitative conversation, but that’ll be one for another time as it needs a different approach. I am personally of the view that the best method to answer the research question(s) should be picked and remain open minded as to potential uses of both.
A few questions….
So this one is more about whether there is any value in language research, and particularly critical language research. To ask what the point of it is really. And if it has any use beyond the people who carry it out and their peers – this is a sort of self-interrogation for me as I have invested a lot of time in the last 10 years in doing just that – researching language and its use. I am asking myself if it will be destined (if I ever finish it) to briefly circulate in the journals and conferences that research generally ends up being circulated in? After all they are often quite expensive and not accessible to everyone. Blogging is an important antidote to that perhaps. But I do believe that research-informed teaching is likely to cover more bases, and notice more depths of a language classroom.
My research journey
Teenager
When I started my relationship with ‘research’ or ‘asking questions about the world around us’ as I prefer to see it, I was aged about fifteen. I had a school project on Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in the UK (for murdering her lover). It’s quite a story which is brought to life in the film “Dance With A Stranger” if you fancy watching it. It is possible to give the film and events a really interesting class and gender analysis – and a good performance from Miranda Richardson in the film which helps explain the contradictions in what was called a crime of passion. I went to the British Library (with my mum) and sat there amongst the dusty old microfiches (remember those) all day and found some ancient newspaper articles and court transcripts – it fascinated me. I wrote my essay with all the excitement of a teenager (well I was) and it was just so much more alive for me having been to see that authentic material. It also included some things Ruth herself had written.
University
Shuttle forward a fair few years….then when I went to university in Liverpool to study “Literature, Life and Thought” (cutting edge as it was even in the name), and I did a different sort of research of the literary kind – looking at novels, poems, plays and films and what “critics” had said about them. Oh how I loved that time – with brilliant courses like “voices and votes” (about the literature of women’s suffrage) or “political Shakespeare” (looking at contemporary interpretation of the Bard’s work) or “literature and madness” (about the literature of the mind). My memory of doing a course on “gothic literature: documents of darkness” and being taken on a guided tour of the Liverpool cathedral graveyard sticks out as inspired – all the lecturers were so with it and contemporary. What a great experience! ‘Research’ in that setting involved asking questions about literary expression and what it could mean. No field work……just thinking about people’s writing and analysing it.
Certificate-level training
Next stop a few years later was my Certificate level training. My natural urge to do research (or ask questions) was supressed by the sheer speed and intensity of the course. Every time I put up my hand to ask a question it was as if the moment had passed. I am sure it pissed off the trainers no end – they required compliance as there was so much ‘material’ to get through – questions were not really part of the agenda unless they related to the point in focus. They wrote on my post-course report that I was a ‘bright’ student with an ‘inquisitive’ mind who would do well in life (hmmmm…..always felt just a tad patronised by that last comment. In the manner of a naughty 2 year old). Truth be known, they didn’t really have the answers to some of my more annoying questions about language and its use…or teaching and its practice. They referred me to “The Practice of English Language Teaching” which thankfully helped answer some of my incessant wonderings (don’t often plug but thank you Jeremy as that book was a lifesaver in some of the assignments that I toiled over but didn’t make much sense to me in terms of their usefulness)….but much remained unanswered and off I went into the classroom. Lucky I had a bit of social awareness otherwise I would have been dangerous and probably started playing pass the parcel with my students or treating them to the “silent method” (very popular at the time of my course). Thankfully certificate level training has moved on I think – please share experiences about changes. And of course its all about the trainers – that is for sure. Just like teaching, the trainer is the one who can shape the way the trainees experience the course. I need to say that as I know lots of great trainers who I am sure do a good job – but having said that, there are clearly limitations at that level of training aren’t there? I mean where else in the world of education can a month’s intensive course qualify you to start teaching?
Diploma-level training
A few years down the line I embarked on my Diploma – great, I thought….more space for asking questions. Well, not really. I read a lot and started to include some of that in my assignments, but to my dismay I was told that I was using too many sources! “It needs to be more focused on practice” they said…..”but doesn’t that need to be informed by some sort of framework?” said I. All the lesson planning etc was focused on practice but I felt uncomfortable pulling those lessons out of a magic (and to my mind slightly taken for granted) ELT hat. Although it was a great experience, I felt that once again my need to ask complicated questions, which at that time were to do with the dominance of the native speaker model or language varieties or access -well they just didn’t really have a place to be aired. That may well have changed now a bit….but then, what was being requested was practice within a range of acceptable theories (that were often unstated). I remember very well someone saying to me “Oh no, you don’t want to do any reading…..just one publication and then get on with the lesson planning and rationale”. That always struck me as odd on a training course. Odd and a bit short sighted. Isn’t there some way of incorporaring both? Would love your views on this as no doubt those who can be bothered to read this post will have been through something similar. What I did learn though on my Diploma was how to do good materials quickly. And that has stayed with me. But I would have said perhaps less content, more time for reflection may have been a good way to go.
Back to University – Master’s
Some time later (and once I had recovered from all those teaching observations and the most difficult exam ever in the DELTA)….I decided to do a Master’s degree in ELT. A whole new world opened up to me – that of critical research. Research with a social and questioning purpose. I remember the first time I read “Linguistic Imperialism” I felt that all my uncomfortableness with the limitations of “EFL” (as it was called in the Greek setting) were explained. Even though I realise the gaps in the work (and that it is not very empowering for Non-NESTs who resist things in ways that are not evident in the book), it broke the ice on a debate that was SO needed in ELT and provided a framework for understanding English in its colonial context, which is all it ever really set out to do. And for stating clearly that language and language teaching are also political and social processes. After that it was a veritable feast of other people who seemed to blow the lid off the (in my view) liberal ELT world and its bouncy bouncy pairwork (please take this comment in the humourous spirit it is intended). People like Alastair Pennycook, Bonny Norton, Marnie Holborow and Ryuko Kuboto. Amazing commentary, sharp insight….so important.
To explain: reminds me of a comedy sketch I saw, I think it was French and Saunders – one is a language teacher and the other a student. The student is crying on the stairs and the language teacher asks what’s wrong – said student explains that she has had some bad news of a family death and starts to cry harder. Said language teacher says “no Paula, its not ‘he die’ it’s ‘he has died’ remember?’. All wrong – no matching of language as a tool of social communication with language teaching. I got to go out and do some field work and was introduced to a new kind of research. Asking people questions, investigating their ‘views’, accepting views as socially constructed and representative of various positions – looking at that as a way of examining how things are understood and also implicit in changing and shaping the world around us – all of which happens through language. It seemed to match all my interests in perfect harmony. People learn language, people use language. I developed a lot of new perspectives -but was there any point really? I did lots of research myself and it has informed my teaching practice, but what next?
I won’t talk about my PhD as the process is not yet over and is still too raw to talk about, but its an extension of the above really. More on that later down the line perhaps.
What has all this research taught me?
I still think (critical) research is essential and it has taught me some important things about language and thought. Most notably, nothing is simply explained. Everyone has a ‘theory’ they refer to in their explanation. There is no such thing as neutrality as neutrality itself is a theory and position. Most language teaching theory plays it safe in the middle ground which is socially and politically acceptable and is often unstated in materials design. Critical research can help to widen perception and understand multiple perspectives better. It doesn’t need to be done in a university – community research is just as valid. Understanding how people think about language can inform teaching and make it richer. Language teaching is about people – some people are exploited. We shouldn’t be ignoring that. Critical language research helps provide living evidence of how language use, policy, teaching, examining etc. affect the people who are on its receiving end and how we as teachers are implicated in those processes.
Over to you!
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
Excellent post – and I’m immediately struck by how similar our “journeys” have been. I too started with literature, then did school teaching, worked through CELTA and DELTA, into teacher training and now university.
My feelings about research now are in many ways a bit mixed. On the one hand, I find that the search for understanding (and if possible answers) keeps the more mundane aspects of teaching (I’m thinking esp marking) at bay. I need to have something to find out, something to know more about. The rigours of doing this systematically, and knowing how it fits into a larger picture, gives me confidence that my own humble contribution can actually be worthwhile.
On the other hand, in UK unviersities at the moment there is an increasing emphasis on research because “research is good”. There is a mad rush to formulate a project because a funding opportunity has been offered. We seem to be moving towards a hierarchy within staff – those who are “research active” get the cudos, the promotion, and the bigger say in what happens; the people who “just teach” are becoming second-class.
Above all, I find that more and more I simply don’t have enough time to do anything as well as I would wish. Teaching workloads are being increased, and at the same time I’m expected to engage in more research. We are told that students choose universities because of the reputation, which is based on the relative standing of the university, which is basedon the RAE points; but when students arrive they expect that these “brilliant and well-known” members of staff will be teaching them.
If someone has an answer, please let me know!
[Reply]
sjhannam Reply:
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Thanks Ruby. You raise some really interesting points of how research is being shaped and affected by commercialisation. I find myself wondering what will happen post-RAE as it does seem that a lot of universities are in the red financially now aren’t they? What is your experience there?
I agree with you that part of the strength of research is enabling teachers to do their jobs better and know that what they are doing fits in with a wider framework of thinking on the subject. Research led teaching seems to me to be really important.
Great to see you here!
[Reply]
[...] Critical language research Posted in critical appraisal, discussions. Leave a Comment » [...]
Good luck with your project!
It’s quite fascinating how any type of critical study will take you down similar lanes. For me after studying history and political theory, I ran exhibitions and worked with visitors and project groups. That made me want to go for a PhD and more theory, but frankly I got lost in a sea of it. There were so many ‘religions’ out there, and head honchos to match, and I saw a little good in all of them, to a certain extent, and a lot of baloney too, and simply couldn’t find my way out of the forest. So I quit.
By comparison, teaching English seemed so simple and straightforward, so humanistic. A student needs language? Hey, I got language! But of course the whole long cultural and social and economic and psychological and institutional schlong comes in again through the backdoor.
So, again, I think you’ve got good reason to be a seeker. As for me, I don’t think I’ll be going the way of theory again. After my negative experience I decided that we learn by being completely awake to and aware of what is going on in a given situation. OK, the books and discussions are also all good. But at least as I saw it you then yourself away then for months and years to write a massive thesis. What for? Blogging is better.
[Reply]
Sorry about the mixed metaphors and especially the confusing typo; I meant “you then shut yourself away for months”
[Reply]
sjhannam Reply:
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Thanks Anne. I know what you mean. I wonder if there is some way that theory could be made more accessible to people as I do think its important. We all have theories after all. But when someone’s only chance of having the time to look at that in depth is through a PhD it is likely to be at a level that then discludes the majority of others from taking part in the discussion. Blogging is one solution. But I am sure there are others to do with how research could be carried out at a community level by teachers, learners and users.
[Reply]
I started out with a history degree, and although at the time I was more preoccupied with subsidised lager and dishwashing rotas, I realise in hindsight how much I learnt about research. I wrote my dissertation on the Spanish Civil war, went to the Southampton TGWU offices to look through their records, interviewed one of the Southampton dockers who had loaded up the ships in support of Bilbao, read up in the local libraries and archives (through microfiche!) on the Basque refugee camp in Eastleigh… (no internet then, I used an electric typewriter!). What I learnt above all was to question who wrote what, when and why – as we all know, history is written by the victors but everyone has an agenda. History is a terrific grounding in research and in how to think critically, I think.
I did my DELTA and MA simultaneously. They both have their strengths and if you have the time, money and energy to do both they compliment each other. The DELTA is a very prescriptive, nuts and bolts, classroom based qualification, but the MA (for me) was a chance to do narrative interviews and gather information which in many ways is unquantifiable (something I’m hoping to develop with my blog in future).
PhD – not yet, two kids under three deserve attention, and I am not organised or self-discplined enough to take that much on right now!
But is research worth it? As an individual, life is research, and everything we undertake adds to our mental scaffold, is filtered through our existing knowledge, to change us a tiny bit. And as a group, the same thing is writ large. You might say that your paper disappears into the morass, but someone reads it, thinks about it, adds to it, and collectively the profession of language teaching moves forward.
[Reply]
sjhannam Reply:
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Thanks Darren for an interesting insight into your own journey. History is indeed the best place to start if you want to notice how bias interpretation is! I think you deserve a medal for doing a DELTA and Master’s at the same time. Well done! I wonder if there is some way to bring together the strands more effectively as I do think knowledge is falsely divided into “academic” and “non-academic”. Perhaps that is what people find off putting about research sometimes? Of course I do think its worth it, but would like to see it being more useful at the same time. Is the profession moving forward do you think?
[Reply]
Darren Elliott Reply:
November 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I think it is Sara, partly because the internet is making it more democratic, easier to connect, and easier to find, disseminate and react to ideas. People have the confidence to undertake their own research now, in whatever form it takes. That is not to say that scientific research – the kind of SLA stuff that gives me a headache – is dead. It is just more accessible.
[Reply]
Think I can solve this one for you without further to-do: good research is useful (not necessarily meaning “practical” though) and bad research isn’t.
I don’t have the patience to either do research nor read the original research papers, but the bits that get through to books like How Languages Are Learned are always interesting and do make me reflect on my teaching more than just “teaching ideas”, or indeed the kind of opinion piece blog posts that I write! The problem is, though, that you can find research, or at least opinions of researchers, to support almost any position you want to take. Even the basic amount of research that does go into a DELTA Part One (if that’s still what it is called) is therefore a bit of a joke, because most people just take one of their classic lessons and then find some juicy quotes to support it.
[Reply]
sjhannam Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
You and your “good” and “bad” research division Alex! (For everyone else Alex and I had a monumental discussion on Lindsay’s six things about this!). I am of the mind that it’s better when research has practical applications, but sometimes it’s also good that research develops theoretical understanding of society and its workings and doesn’t immediately get commercialised – so my divide wouldn’t be based along those lines personally. It’s all about the questions being asked, by whom, on behalf of whom, and what world view they reflect etc. You are right that research merely reflects positions already evident amongst the teaching community and that it is biased in that sense. The idea is to try and read widely around different “positions” whilst having an open mind to the possibility of the shortcomings of your own position. The fact that research is subjective is not a reason not to engage for me as all human thinking is subjective really isn’t it? The problem with the diploma level training that I did was that it didn’t take on board its own biases or assumptions. They were presented as self-evident. That is to do with the approach (intensive, practical focus) but also to do with the material being used coming from the EL literature “canon” which largely remains unquestioned. Thanks for your thoughts though. I always enjoy our discussions
[Reply]
Alex Case Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I think we’re agreeing again Sara! Like you, I was trying to say that most research should have practical applications but it isn’t always necessary. I also think that reading things you disagree with and trying the opposite of whatever you do is important, but I wonder how that could be built into the DELTA apart from giving some credit for experimentation, which I think is already in there. Absolutely agree that there is too much emphasis on the “canon”, and in fact went into a 10 minute rant during a DELTA input session on “What is the point of knowing who said what about what? What evidence is all this based on??”, after which my DELTA tutor said “Well, that was interesting”, and got on with discussing whatever they were on at the time. I can understand that there isn’t much time to discuss the limitations of the DELTA, though, as after all the number of classroom hours and observations is actually less than a CELTA! Ditto with teaching the basics of how to judge research results in a qualification which is supposed to be mainly practical. As in many things, the main solution is to take away the critical role of the CELTA and DELTA by having an industry wide system of CPD, but that has been attempted and is just never going to happen.
[Reply]
sjhannam Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Alex thanks. I don’t think we do agree completely as we have established we have different views on what ’science’ siginifies, but that is OK. I like you just the way you are and actually it is the differences that make the interesting debate! Now, as for diploma level training. As the whole thing is geared up to be done a) quickly and b) expensively it is hardly surprising that the actual pedogogical model is only developed superfically. It is a metaphor of the confusion of ELT. Like a qualifications factory gone wrong? I don’t think the diploma *can* allow space for criticality simply by virtue of its own make up. Despite that it is really hard and has a very high failure rate (perhaps more retakes = more fees?). Cynical I know but a fair point. On my cohort of the 10 or so who started, only 4 took the exam and finished on time and only 2 of us passed the whole thing the first time. I don’t say that to blow my own trumpet as I worked my sorry little A*S* off more than normal and sensible people who had a life! In terms of sheer hard work, it was much more difficult than any other qualification I have ever done, including PhD! Now is that right? When you consider its level and what it claims to be acheiving? Too much content, not enough analyis perhaps? Less steps, less stress, more depth?
Alex Case Reply:
November 16th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
… but then my CELTA was much harder than my degree, and learning to juggle was harder than either, i.e. impossible. Just shows that if you are not a natural teacher (and boy am I not a natural teacher!) it’s more difficult to pick up a skill than any amount of theory. Not sure what can be done about it to be honest, although the new modularism (if that isn’t a word it should be) probably at least takes away the time pressure.
Now, back to our endless discussion…
The way I see it, we both agree that lots of Social Science, e.g. most educational research, shouldn’t try to follow the methodology of Natural Sciences. You feel that widening the definition of science to include most (all?) good research would take away the pressure to copy the high status Natural Sciences. I think that if you want to change the definition of science you need a new definition and that will inevitably leave people outside who want to get in, and if you widen the definition of science to include everyone you no longer have a workable definition. Still, I think the agreement on the inadvisability of most TEFL researchers trying to turn their research into particle physics, and inevitably doing that badly and missing better ways of doing it, is by far the most important point.
Yes a very important post. Whilst we Marxists would take issue with the elitist nature of the universities, we do not subscribe to the anti-illectualism of many “practitioners”.
The idea that teachers will arrive at enlightened teaching practices merely by trial and error is highly erroneous. Indeed, Phillip Kerr’s piece on Brain GYm over on TEFL.net was reminiscent of the recent expose of Walt Disney’s Baby Einstein series, where such a product was found by researchers to have no educational value whatsoever and was, in fact, prejudicial to a child’s intellectual development. The fact that teachers have recommended both Brain Gym and Baby Einstein, surely testifies to the need for more critical thinking and reference to extensive research amongst our ranks.
While Anne makes some valid points about “baloney” in academia, we believe blogs by their very nature (too short and light) are no substitute for academic papers and peer reviews. The point is, we have to make these papers more accessible both physically and in the actual language employed.
Sara appears to make a point of grounding her academic work in in crucial issues facing language teachers and language learners and for this we eagerly await her research into Language Policy in the Balkans.
Good to have you back.
[Reply]
sjhannam Reply:
November 9th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Thank you Marxist ELF for your usual clarity and sense. Yes for me it is about accessability of research findings and also criticality with regard to the findings which is always needed to ensure that the field notices its own shortcomings. Thanks for the thumbs up re: my PhD research. I hope we all live to see the day when it is completed – I am having a bit of a crisis of the last mile at the moment which I hope will soon pass – not writer’s block as the writing is all done – more not being able to see how to organise the monster into the format required! Will keep you posted
[Reply]
[...] the Berlin Wall via the film Goodbye Lenin, and so does Janine by playing Walls Come Tumbling Down. Sara on language and thought. Dave on Melanie Phillips. Rustbelt Radical remembers James Connolly. Fit [...]