research methods for linguistics

• Directories
• Books & Ebooks
• Gray Literature
• Encyclopedias & Dictionaries
• Online Language Reference
• Data Resources
• Citations & Writing
• Research Methods
• Language Learning and Teaching
• Start Your Research
• Research Guides
• University of Washington Libraries
• Library Guides
• UW Libraries
• Linguistics

Linguistics: Research Methods

Selected research methods texts.

Methods in Contemporary Linguistics (online)

The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (online)

Research Methods in Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide (online)

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (online)

The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork (online)

Linguistics research methods.

Research Methods Database: SRMO

• SAGE Research Methods Online (SRM) Guide to SRM, database featuring articles, books, case studies, datasets, and video. Covers practices of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research methodologies.

3 Research Approaches in Applied Linguistics

Patricia Duff is professor of language and literacy education and Distinguished University Scholar at the University of British Columbia. She is also director of the newly established Centre for Research in Chinese Language and Literacy Education there. Her main areas of interest are language acquisition and language socialization, qualitative research methods, classroom discourse in a variety of educational contexts, including second/foreign language courses, mainstream and L2-immersion content-based courses, and the teaching, learning, and use of English and Chinese as international languages. Her recent work includes three books and many book chapters and articles primarily dealing with language socialization across bilingual and multilingual settings; quantitative research methods (especially employing case study and ethnography) and generalizability in applied linguistics; issues in teaching and learning English, Mandarin and other international languages; the integration of second-language learners in high schools, universities and society; multilingualism at work; and sociocultural sociolinguistics and sociopolitical aspects of language(s) in education. She can be reached at http://[email protected].

• Published: 18 September 2012
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

In a field as vast as applied linguistics (AL), representing the range of topics featured in this volume and across the many fascinating subdisciplines in the field, an overview of research approaches must be highly selective. This revised and updated article discusses recent quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches to AL research, especially in the areas of second language learning and education. It also highlights important new ways of conceptualizing, analyzing, and/or representing knowledge about language issues and at the same time embracing new contexts of language learning and use and a wider range of research populations in the twenty-first century. This article further discuses the various research approaches involved in applied linguistics. Contrasting, combining, and expanding paradigms all are taken into consideration and explained in details. Quantitative research is often associated with experiments, surveys, and other research, whereas qualitative research is associated with ethnography, case study, and narrative inquiry in applied linguistics

Introduction

In a field as vast as applied linguistics (AL), representing the range of topics featured in this volume and across the many fascinating subdisciplines in the field, an overview of research approaches must be highly selective. Duff ( 2002a ) described many of the developments in research approaches in AL in the 1990s and early 2000s. In this revised and updated chapter, I discuss recent quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches to AL research, especially in the areas of second language learning and education. I also highlight important new ways of conceptualizing, analyzing, and/or representing knowledge about language issues and at the same time embracing new contexts of language learning and use and a wider range of research populations in the twenty-first century.

More comprehensive and in-depth recent discussions of research methods in AL can be found in recent volumes by Dörnyei 2007 ), King and Hornberger 2008 ), A. Mackey and Gass 2005 ), and Wei and Moyer 2007 ), with respect to second-language acquisition (SLA), bilingualism, and language education in particular. Many other publications have highlighted specific analytical approaches or methods for conducting research, typically within a particular realm of AL, such as the following:

L2 classroom research and classroom-based discourse analysis (McKay, 2006 ; Zuengler and Mori, 2002 )

Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (Markee, 2000 , 2004 ; Seedhouse, 2004 )

Case study research (Duff, 2008 )

Corpus linguistics (Barlow, 2005 ; Biber, Conrad, and Reppen, 1998 ; Myles, 2005 ; Gries, 2008 )

Ethnography (Duff, 2002b ; Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007 ; Toohey, 2008 )

Language analysis (R. Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005 )

Stimulated recall (Gass and Mackey, 2000 )

Data elicitation methods (Gass and Mackey, 2007a )

Discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1989 , 2003 ; Wooffitt, 2005 )

Critical applied linguistics more generally (Pennycook, 2001 )

Multimodal semiotic analysis (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2002 )

Complex systems approaches (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, 2008a , 2008b )

Survey methods (C. Baker, 2008 )

Scholars have also given careful consideration to the processes of drawing inferences or making generalizations in applied linguistics research:

Across a variety of types of research (Chalhoub-Deville, Chapelle, and Duff, 2006 )

To meta-analysis and other important approaches to research synthesis regardless of paradigm (Norris and Ortega, 2006a , 2006b , 2007 )

To the benefits of longitudinal research (Ortega and Byrnes, 2008 ; Ortega and Iberri-Shea, 2005 )

J. D. Brown ( 2004 ) produced a recent overview chapter on the theme of research approaches in AL in another handbook in applied linguistics, and Hinkel's ( 2005 ) Handbook also reflects the current range of approaches to second-language/AL research. Finally, a number of journals and handbooks are also dedicated to such particular research methods or approaches as critical discourse analysis or narrative research. In addition, the recently revised 10-volume Springer Encyclopedia of Language and Education contains many chapters on current or emerging approaches to research in language and education.

Research Approaches: Contrasting, Combining, and Expanding Paradigms

Most research methodology textbooks in education and the social sciences (e.g., Cresswell, 2005 ; J. P. Gall, M. D. Gall, and Borg, 2005 ; M. D. Gall, J. P. Gall, & Borg, 2003 ), as well as in some of the AL overview textbooks referred to above, continue to distinguish between quantitative (nomothetic) and qualitative (hermeneutic) research, as two distinct but by no means mutually exclusive approaches to systematic and rigorous inquiry in the social sciences. They also emphasize that the approach or method is crucially linked to the kind of research question or problem under investigation, to the purpose of the study (e.g., exploratory, interpretive, descriptive, explanatory, confirmatory, predictive), and to the type of data and population one is working with. Quantitative research is often associated with experiments, surveys, and other research with large samples of people or observations, whereas qualitative research is associated with ethnography, case study, and narrative inquiry, often with a smaller number of participants but fuller and more holistic accounts from (or of) each one. However, each paradigm actually represents a collection of approaches to research that share some common principles but at the same time reflect major differences.

Any research paradigm or approach reflects a number of components:

A philosophical basis or belief system regarding epistemology, or the nature of truth and of knowing (e.g., that research is ideally objective, unbiased, and value free versus more subjective)

An ideology concerning ontology, or the nature of reality (e.g., that an objective reality exists, or that reality is constructed socially and multiple perspectives on reality exist)

A corresponding methodology (e.g., one that is experimental/manipulative and hypothesis testing, or is not) with various designs, methods, techniques, and devices for eliciting and analyzing phenomena (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005a , 2005b ; Duff, 2008 )

Therefore, there are many levels at which research can be analyzed and categorized. Comparison and categorization in AL has traditionally been based primarily on methods or techniques, with less reflection on epistemological and ontological issues. Quantitative approaches tend to be associated with a positivist or postpositivist orientation, a realist ontology, an objectivist epistemology, and an experimental, manipulative methodology. Qualitative approaches, on the other hand, are more often associated with an interpretive, humanistic orientation, an ontology of multiple realities, a nonobjectivist epistemology and a naturalistic, nonmanipulative methodology (Guba and Lincoln, 1994 ). However, what is ostensibly quantitative research may involve qualitative analysis (e.g., discourse analysis) and vice versa. Case study, for example, normally considered qualitative research, may actually reflect a more positivist approach than an interpretive one, or it may be part of a quantitative one-shot (experimental) case study or a single- or multiple-case time series design (Duff, 2008 ). Similarly, statistical techniques can be used in both quantitative and qualitative research, but inferential statistics are mostly associated with quantitative research (Gall et al., 2003 , 2005 ).

Quantitative research includes a variety of approaches and designs, as well as such tools as correlations, surveys, and multifactorial studies, in addition to experimental or quasi-experimental studies. Qualitative research, on the other hand, encompasses a broad, expanding assortment of approaches, including narrative research, life history, autobiographical or biographical accounts, content analysis, historical and archival studies, conversation analysis, microethnography, and discourse analysis. These types of research draw on a variety of theoretical traditions as well, such as ethnomethodology, symbolic interactionism, structuralism, interpretivism and social constructivism, poststructuralism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, feminism, social/educational anthropology, and cultural studies (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005b ).

In recent years, government-funded quantitative research in the United States has enjoyed a privileged status within education and the social sciences because it is considered by some authorities to be more robust, rigorous, “scientific,” theoretical, and generalizable and, therefore, it is argued to have more to contribute to knowledge, theory, and policy than qualitative research (Freeman et al., 2007 ). Of course, claims of rigor or generalizability should not be taken for granted in quantitative research—they must, rather, be demonstrated by the researcher. Neither should it be assumed that qualitative research is atheoretical, unscientific, lacking in rigor or generalizability (transferability), or intellectually insignificant. However, again, the onus is on the researcher to demonstrate the credibility and importance of the methods and findings (Duff, 2006 ). Fortunately, qualitative research of different types has gained a major foothold in AL in the past 10 years, creating a better balance between quantitative and qualitative publications in the major AL journals than had been reported earlier (Lazaraton, 2000 ).

Critical (or “ideological”) research is sometimes accorded a category of its own, separate from quantitative and qualitative paradigms. According to Pennycook ( 2008 ), critical applied linguistics is

an emergent approach to language use and education that seeks to connect the local conditions of language to broader social formations, drawing connections between classrooms, conversations, textbooks, tests or translations and issues of gender, class, sexuality, race, ethnicity, culture, identity, politics, ideology or discourse. (p. 169)

Perhaps critical research is considered an independent category because certain approaches to research constitute explicitly ideological lenses or frames (e.g., critical or feminist) through which any data or situation can be analyzed using a variety of methods, quantitative or qualitative. Thus, critical perspectives can be applied to ethnography or to census data, and feminist perspectives can be applied to test score data or case studies. Alternatively, it could be claimed that these overtly ideological perspectives constitute different approaches, purposes, underlying assumptions, methods, subject matter, and reporting styles and that they are therefore not simply new lenses, frames, or values to be applied to otherwise orthodox academic pursuits with reified categories and objectification.

Such other types of research as program evaluation research and action research can take the form of either—or both—quantitative and qualitative research.

Developments in Quantitative Research

The last 3 decades have been very productive for the development, explanation, and application of quantitative research design and statistics and other analytical techniques in AL research using a variety of types of research: experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, survey, and other carefully controlled, sometimes multivariate designs. As a result, careful attention has been paid to the reliability and validity of research constructs, instruments, scales, rating protocols, and analytical procedures; sampling procedures; measurement; variables and parametric and nonparametric statistics and power effects (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991 ; Lazaraton, 2000 ). Some additional developments are reported in this section.

N. C. Ellis ( 1999 ) discusses three quantitative approaches to cognitive and psycholinguistic research: observational research (e.g., using language corpora), experimentation (e.g., in studies on form-focused instruction and SLA; Doughty and Williams, 1998 ), and simulations (e.g., connectionist models of SLA; Kempe and MacWhinney, 1998 ). Although there is a greater understanding among applied linguists of the criteria of good quantitative research currently, it is also evident that true experimental research is often difficult to conduct for logistical and ethical reasons, particularly in research with children or adults in educational contexts. In many institutions, for example, pretesting, random assignment to treatment types (e.g., instructional interventions or experimental stimuli), and control or normative/baseline groups may be difficult to arrange. Norgate ( 1997 ) provides an interesting example of this dilemma in research on the L1 development of blind children. Rather, quasi-experimental research examining cause-effect relationships among independent and dependent variables and research looking for other kinds of relationships among variables predominate. Experimental SLA laboratory studies are an exception; that research often involves artificial or semi-artificial L2 structures, control groups, random assignment, and pre- and posttesting (e.g., Hulstijn and DeKeyser, 1997 ). The downside of this carefully controlled research is that it lacks ecological validity because the language(s), contexts, and activities do not represent those ordinarily encountered by language learners and users.

In another area of AL, language testing, which has made great strides in tackling issues of validation, ethics, and psychometric precision in recent years, Kunnan ( 1999 ) describes new quantitative methods, such as structured equation modeling, that permit sophisticated analyses of relationships among groups of learner (test taker) variables such as L2 proficiency, language aptitude, and intelligence. Chalhoub-Deville and Deville ( 2008 ) also note developments in testing based on generalizability theory, multidimensional scaling, multifaceted Rasch analysis, rule-space methodology, and computer-based and computer-adaptive testing, typically found in articles in the journal Language Testing .

In L1/L2 survey research, C. Baker ( 2008 ) describes large-scale and small-scale initiatives in Europe, South America, and elsewhere, dealing with such issues as language vitality among minority language groups and social-psychological variables (e.g., attitudes and motivation) connected with successful L2 learning. He also illustrates how more readily available census data with specific items about language has facilitated certain kinds of analysis for language policy and planning purposes. Finally, Baker notes that a growing trend in European research lies in examining practices related to community (heritage) language schooling and surveying attitudes toward trilingualism and multilingualism (which others might refer to as language ideologies).

Developments in Qualitative Research

Whereas qualitative AL research in the past may have leaned toward (post)positivism and structuralism, relying on researchers' structured elicitations, analyses, and interpretations of a relatively narrow band of observed linguistic (or other) behavior sometimes designed to test specific hypotheses, current strands of research lean toward more unapologetically subjective, dialectical accounts, incorporating different, sometimes contradictory perspectives of the same phenomenon and grappling more intentionally with issues of positioning, voice, and representation (Duff, 2008 ; Edge and Richards, 1998 ). The omission of qualitative research methodologies from many textbooks, key journals, graduate courses, and programs in applied linguistics even a decade ago has been corrected to a significant degree in the interim (K. Richards, 2003 , 2009 ), particularly with the social and narrative turns that applied linguistics has witnessed during this decade in second language learning research as well as in language testing. Baker ( 2008 ), the researcher in bilingualism referred to above, dryly observes, “within language and education, the methodological pendulum has partly swung towards a preference for qualitative, ethnographic and phenomenological types of approach. Although quantitative approaches have been much criticized within the study of language and education, it is unlikely that they will disappear” (p. 65).

A growing enthusiasm for qualitative poststructural, postcolonial, and critical L2 research (e.g., Pennycook, 1999 , 2008 ) is indeed evident in many areas of AL. Critical and poststructural perspectives have been applied to ethnographies (e.g., T. Goldstein, 1997 , 2001 ; Madison, 2005 ; Talmy, 2008 ), to in-depth studies of language and social identity (e.g., Norton, 2000 ), and to research on language and gender (e.g., Cameron, 1992 ; Ehrlich, 1997 ; R. D. Freeman, 1997 ; Mills, 1995 ), some of which is explicitly feminist, emancipatory, reflexive, and postmodern. Yet a comprehensive overview textbook of qualitative research approaches in AL still seems to be lacking, though a plethora of generic qualitative textbooks exist in education and the social sciences.

The “Research Issues” section of the TESOL Quarterly , which I edited for 12 years, featured many qualitative developments: in narrative research, interview and focus group research, corpus research, classroom observation, testing, research guidelines, and software tools for qualitative data analysis. Special issues of the Modern Language Journal in 1997 and 2007, centering on the so-called Firth and Wagner debates, also marked salient turning points in both theory and methodology in AL. The current expansion of qualitative approaches in AL reflects trends across the health sciences, social sciences, humanities, and education in recent years (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005a , 2005b ) and a growing interest in ecological validity and the social, cultural, situational, embodied, and performative nature of language, knowledge, representation, and learning. Journals that have been established in AL this decade, such as the Journal of Language, Identity and Education , as well as many other journals with qualitative or narrative in their titles, are further evidence of the emphasis on more subjective, discursive aspects of learning that are often approached through interpretive, inductive, and sometimes critical methods. I have observed, however, that in many parts of the world (e.g., in East Asia and Central Europe) the status of qualitative research is still considerably lower (and often poorly understood) in comparison with quantitative research, a situation that has fortunately changed in North American AL. Sociocultural research in those same geographical domains also seems to have had less visibility or traction than it has, for example, in the United Kingdom, Canada, United States, and Australia.

However, in such traditionally very quantitative subfields as language testing, more nonpsychometric and qualitative studies have been published in recent years in the English-speaking world, particularly in such journals as Language Assessment Quarterly (Chalhoub-Deville and Deville, 2008 ). Lazaraton ( 2008 ) describes the kinds of (qualitative) discourse or conversation analysis that have been done of transcribed oral-proficiency interview talk (including her research) and especially of interviewers' accommodations of interviewees (test takers), based on such factors as the test takers' proficiency level or the familiarity of test takers and testers. Other studies she reviews deal with test takers' discourse and their negotiation for meaning, the dynamics of interaction and discourse in tests that pair up test-takers, or use group formats (e.g., on Cambridge ESOL proficiency tests). The qualitative analyses prove very useful for test validation and especially to ascertain whether the interaction during testing has an inadvertent effect on test takers' scores. Other research that Lazaraton reviews describes the use of think-aloud protocols (verbal reports) by test raters and of research that looks at the impact or consequences of testing through ethnographic observation or case study.

Ethnography, Case Study, and Interview Research

Ethnographies of language learning and teaching, literacy practices, and workplace encounters, as well as methodological discussions about cultural aspects of knowledge and behavior, have become more prominent and commonplace since Watson-Gegeo's influential (1988) article first appeared in the TESOL Quarterly . Harklau ( 2005 ), Heath and Street 2008 ), and Toohey ( 2008 ) provide recent reviews of ethnographic research in AL. Ethnographic research typically describes the cultural patterns of groups as they evolve and settle over time, such as language learners in a class or workers at job sites. It aims to elicit insiders' ( emic ) perspectives as well as those of the researcher, undertaking participant observation ( etic ) perspectives. Increasingly, too, this research looks at the positioning of research participants not only by the others they interact with in their natural settings but also by how the researcher herself positions the participants and their behaviors—and herself. Harklau noted that relatively little ethnographic research has been conducted outside of the United Kingdom or North America by non-White, non-Anglophone researchers on languages other than English and their cultures. However, L. C. Moore ( 2008 ) subsequently described numerous ethnographic accounts of multilingual socialization in a variety of non-Western, non-English-dominant settings, including her own work in French postcolonial Africa. Indeed, many of the other invited chapters in the Springer 2008 Encyclopedia of Language and Education series likewise involved researchers reviewing describing practices in communities where various languages are spoken.

Case studies remain one of the most common forms of qualitative research in AL, on their own or in combination with quantitative research (Duff, 2008 ; Gomm, Hammersley, and Foster, 2000 ; Merriam 1998 ; Yin, 2009 ). Like ethnographic research, case studies typically place great importance on contextualization and holistic accounts of individuals, groups, or events. In some instances researchers are also able to track participants longitudinally, as Kanno 2003 ) did with several Japanese students who had previously studied English and other curriculum content abroad and then returned to Japan. Morita 2004 ), in her multiple-case study of Japanese women studying at a Canadian university, documented their academic and linguistic socialization as well as the meanings and factors behind, and social construction of, their apparent silence in some of their classes. The study revealed that far from representing a monolithic group based on ethnicity, gender, first-language, and academic status, each woman's experience in her new English-speaking academic environment was highly situated, contingent, and unique and also changed over time.

Another common approach to research at present concerns involved interviews as an important mediating tool and site for linguistic processes and for social semiotic action. Although interviews are used in many kinds of research for different purposes, the actual interactional structures, positioning, footings, framing, and so on are commanding renewed attention by AL researchers and others in the social sciences, in medicine, and in other fields (Campbell and Roberts, 2007 ; Kvale, 2006 ; Talmy and Richards, forthcoming; Gubrium and Holstein, 2002 ; Silverman, 2001 ). Some of the work compares a content analysis of interview discourse with other kinds of analyses of the interview itself as a speech event.

Narrative Inquiry and Art-Based Research

Personal accounts and narratives of the experiences of language teachers, learners, and others—often across a broad span of time, space, experience, and languages—have increasingly become a major focus in some qualitative research. Evidence includes first-person narratives, diary studies, autobiographies, and life histories of learning, teaching, or losing aspects of one's language and identity (e.g., Belcher and Connor, 2001 ; Kouritzen, 1999 ; Pavlenko and Lantolf, 2000 ; Schumann, 1997 ). At present, studies also examine individuals using language in and across social contexts that had been investigated to a lesser degree in the past (e.g., in professional or academic settings, in the home/family, in the community, in the workplace, and in other social institutions). New meta-methodological discussions about the range of directions, data collection approaches, forms of analysis, and criteria for good narrative research are presently abundant both in AL (Coffey and Street, 2008 ; Pavlenko, 2007a , 2007b ) and in the social sciences and education (Atkinson and Delamont, 2006 ; Clandinin, 2007 ; Clandinin and Connelly, 2000 ; Polkinghorne, 2007 ; Riessman, 2008 ). In addition to these narrative approaches to exploring linguistic experience, other important but less emic accounts of language and behavior have attracted renewed attention from scholars across disciplines, particularly in studies of the discursive structure and social-interactional accomplishment of narrative texts (e.g., Bamberg, 1998 ). Arts-based research involving dramatic enactments, representations through nonprint visual modes of representation, multimodal analysis, poetics, and fictionalized accounts are gradually gaining visibility in AL as well (e.g., T. Goldstein, 2001 ; M. C. Taylor, 2008 ).

Although often compelling and highly engaging as both a process and as research output, these emerging approaches do not supplant existing ones (whether quantitative or qualitative) but rather complement them and provide new topics, genres, analyses, and conclusions, as well as different notions of authenticity and legitimacy (Edge and Richards, 1998 ). There is a growing emphasis on social, cultural, political, and historical aspects of language and language research, in addition to narrative aspects (Creese, Martin, and Hornberger, 2008 ; Hinkel, 1999 ; McKay and Hornberger, 1996 ; Norton and Toohey, 2004 ; Duff and Hornberger, 2008 ). Categorical labels and unacknowledged bias have therefore been the subject of analysis and critique (in connection with race, class, culture, language, gender, heterosexism, native versus nonnative speakers, inner and outer circle in World Englishes [or Chineses], and indigenous versus nonindigenous voices and knowledge[s]). Drawing on different (psychological) traditions but also concerned with social aspects of language and literacy are neo-Vygotskyan, sociocultural, and constructivist accounts, which have been adopted by growing numbers of applied linguists over the past decade (Lantolf, 2000 ; Lantolf and Thorne, 2006 , 2007 ), particularly in research in classrooms, in therapeutic, counseling, or dynamic assessment encounters, and in community settings. Like other primarily qualitative approaches, sociocultural research often involves conversation analysis, discourse analysis, narrative analysis, and microethnography, and examines language and content in an integrated manner.

Reflecting another change in AL research approaches and objects of study, at the present time text and discourse analyses investigate not only the structure of, say, scientific research articles, but also the linguistic messages, symbols, and genres associated with ostensibly nonscientific media and interactions—for example, in popular culture, mass media, and everyday social encounters (e.g., dinnertime discussions). Some of this research is framed in terms of critical or poststructural theory and the constructs of literacy and discourse like that of identity have been theorized and analyzed as plural—not singular—entities, and as social, multifaceted, and fluid (Gee, 1996 ; Norton, 2000 ). Finally, the concern for understanding contextual features of linguistic phenomena—the hallmark of much qualitative (or at least nonquantitative) AL research—has also been applied to analyses of the historical, political, social, cultural, rhetorical, and intellectual contexts and consequences of AL theories, research, and practice/praxis (Rampton, 1995 ; Thomas, 1998 ).

Developments in Mixed-Method Research

Quantitative and qualitative approaches are currently viewed as complementary rather than fundamentally incompatible, and more mixed-paradigm research is recommended (Bergman, 2008 ; Dörnyei, 2007 ; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998 , 2003 ; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009 ). However, a balanced combination of the two is not yet commonplace in AL research. According to Denzin 2008 ) and Lincoln and Guba ( 2000 ), the paradigm “wars” of the last two decades have transformed into paradigm “dialogs.”

An example of mixed-method research in foreign language learning is the full-length research monograph by Kinginger 2008 ), a multiple-case study of American students in French-language study abroad programs in France. Another example is an evaluation of a Japanese foreign-language elementary school program by Antonek, Donato, and Tucker ( 2000 ) in the United States. Both studies provided measurement (test) data for students at different points in their programs but also included case studies of focal participants as well as the students' experiences and perspectives together with an analysis of their narrative or interview data to help shed light on the quantitative findings.

The Impact of Technological Advances on Research Approaches in Al

At the present time, technological and computational advances play a crucial role in most AL research, whether for collecting, inputting, managing, coding, storing, and retrieving data or for analyzing it. The availability of high-quality, affordable tape recorders, digital video cameras, personal and handheld computers, scanners, smart pens/boards, wikis, and means of incorporating data of different types from multiple sources in computer files and in publications (e.g., with accompanying compact disks or linked websites) has major practical and theoretical implications for education, testing, and research. Developments in digital technologies have been particularly useful in applied psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, and testing (N. C. Ellis, 1999 ; Markee, 2007 ). Videotaped data or other audiovisual representations of data can presently be posted online, can be linked to more traditional print-based reports, or can appear in stand-alone online publications. In research involving graphic imaging or analyses of the intersection of sound and image or multimodal analysis, this development is very important and enriches what would otherwise be limited to static, black-and-white, print- and transcript-based written accounts of linguistic phenomena that are often primarily oral but are represented through writing. New technologies have also enhanced research with minority populations in AL, such as the blind and deaf (Hornberger and Corson, 1997 ) and have enabled diaspora communities to remain connected and able to communicate freely using the languages and sometimes hybrid symbol systems at their disposal (Lam, 2008 ). Technology has also facilitated the documentation of endangered languages. Increasingly AL research involving computer-mediated communication conceives of language and literacy as social practice in which linguistic, social, and other identities can be constructed, displayed, and transformed (or resisted) and in which rich intertextuality, multimodality, and creativity are the norm and are the object of analysis (Snyder, 2008 ).

In addition, the use of data management and analysis software designed specifically for qualitative research has become more accessible and more widely used in AL than it had been earlier (e.g., Dörnyei, 2007 ; Séror, 2005 ). Furthermore, the development and accessibility of such L1 and L2 databases as TalkBank by MacWhinney ( 2001 ) at Carnegie Mellon University ( http://www.talkbank.org ) represent a significant language database of vocal interactions of humans and animals that is continually being updated and currently incorporates child language data (CHILDES) and data related to aphasia, conversation analysis, bilingualism, and second language acquisition, with linked digital audio and video data. This electronic database provides a tremendous resource for researchers as well as tools for analyzing their own and others' data. In addition, corpora and concordances for collecting and analyzing oral and written texts (Biber, Conrad and Reppen, 1998 ; Thomas and Short, 1996 ) and new databases resulting from the use of computers in language testing, as well as online language interactions in CALL or other electronic networks, have also engendered new possibilities for AL research. Thus, such diverse subfields as language acquisition, text analysis, syntax and semantics, assessment, sociolinguistics, and language policy are affected. Research involving functional neuroimaging tools (e.g., functional magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) provide valuable real-time information about the inner workings of the brain, especially in relation to different languages and tasks among monolinguals, bilinguals, and multilinguals (Wattendorf and Festman, 2008 ). The relationships between age of additional-language acquisition, proficiency level, and differential cortical functioning and localization of functions have long been of interest to neurolinguists and neurobiologists, and these new technologies literally provide a window into the brain's inner workings.

In addition to the Journal of Language Learning and Technology , which has become one of the most respected journals for digital technologies in applied linguistics, the recent survey of research across applied linguistics mediated by technology in Markee's ( 2007 ) special issue of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics is particularly helpful. Possibilities are changing almost daily with what is presently known as Web 2.0 and the many other applications and tools for linguistic research in laboratories and in natural everyday settings and texts. Digital tools are ubiquitous for conversation analysis, teleconferencing, self-access podcasting, detecting plagiarism, modeling pronunciation and other aspects of speech or writing, tracking one's own or others' activities and progress online, text messaging, and test taking, and scoring tests.

Future AL research will no doubt continue to be greatly influenced by ongoing technical developments in natural language processing, machine and other translation systems, artificial intelligence, brain imaging techniques, CALL, gaming, aural/visual recognition, (eye gaze and other) tracking, and transcription devices. AL-tailored statistical packages and procedures will also become more sophisticated. Also, as more research focuses on languages other than English—including signed languages and those with different orthographies or with no orthographies at all—and seeks to accommodate a greater range of information about messages (e.g., phonetic, temporal, visual, contextual, material, embodied), new electronic tools and theoretical insights are bound to result.

Participants and Populations in Applied Linguistic Research

Although the populations that are the focus of applied linguistics are distinct from research approaches , the characteristics of groups under investigation certainly have implications for both methodology and theory. For example, work about/with indigenous language learners, their communities and cultures, and their languages, literacies, and other symbol systems, long underrepresented in applied linguistics, is currently beginning to flourish. Important developments have also occurred in the past decade in indigenous and postcolonial/decolonizing epistemologies and knowledges (e.g., Denzin, Lincoln, and Smith, 2008 ; L. T. Smith, 1999 ). Expanding the research participant pool and the languages they represent has implications for the way the research is theorized, conducted, interpreted, and disseminated with these populations as well as the form it ultimately takes. Given the endangered status of many such indigenous languages and related cultures and ideologies, this work is urgently needed.

However, just as great care is being taken to expand the collective research agenda to include a wider range of language users and geolinguistic contexts and to reflect on their experiences, poststructural and critical scholars remind us not to essentialize or reify these same populations. Applied linguistic and sociolinguistic research on gender and language, for example, has been carried out for more than a generation. But many scholars are at present very cautious about making grand claims based on gender (or sexuality, race, ability/disability, nativeness, etc.) as a set of predetermined, stable, always relevant, mutually exclusive categories (e.g., male/female) to which certain behaviors and perspectives can be uniquely ascribed (e.g., Bucholtz, 2003 ; Kyratzis and Cook-Gumperz, 2008 ). Rather, scholars are at present increasingly seeking evidence of how membership in such categories is socially coconstructed and performed through discourse not as a “preformed” category (Pennycook, 2008 ) but as a situated identity and by the various ways in which interlocutors position one another and themselves through their interactions and other behaviors and discourse and how they may also negotiate and transgress the expectations placed on them in relation to these social categories (Cameron and Kulick, 2003 ; Pavlenko, 2008b ; Pavlenko and Piller, 2007 ).

Elderly learners and users of language are also being included in more AL research as are people with degenerative cognitive or physical conditions affecting their language and communication capacities. Groups that in the past were not given special attention, such as generation 1.5 learners, heritage-language learners, transnationals, asylum seekers or refugees, very young or very old language learners/users, multilingual/multiliterate people, and the so-called generation of digital natives (youth and young adults immersed in new digital information and communication technologies) have, when included as research participants in AL (e.g., in SLA, language testing, language policy, sociolinguistics, and language/literacy education), yielded important new theoretical understandings that have often required new methodological approaches not previously used because these populations were excluded from earlier research.

In this chapter, I have provided a brief overview of both dominant and emerging approaches to AL research, particularly those typically described as quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method, and as how these have been discussed and utilized in the field. The research topics and approaches discussed, much like the field of AL, involve various philosophical and theoretical commitments as well as methodological preferences and practices. AL research this past decade has demonstrated greater pluralism and rigor, an increased sensitivity to the contexts of research, the characteristics and diversity of research participants, the need to draw meaningful theoretical insights from findings and to consider carefully constraints on generalizability (or transferability) of results. Explicit discussion and reflection on researchers' own histories, investments, and roles in the research process are also expected to a greater degree than before not only in AL but across the humanities and social sciences more generally (Duff, 2008 ). Explicit discussion of criteriology in the assessment of research has underscored the responsibility that scholars have to know not only how to conduct and assess work in their own immediate areas of scholarship but also the different criteria, norms, genres, and expectations in other areas in AL (Edge and Richards, 1998 ; Lazaraton, 2003 ; cf. M. Freeman et al., 2007 ). There is a growing recognition of and respect for fundamental issues of ethics, fairness, and validity in AL research and practice (e.g., Cameron et al., 1992 ; Davies, 1997 ; Davis, 1995 ; Ortega, 2005 ), attention to the consequences of research for educational policy and practice, and an awareness that some issues, populations, languages, and geographic areas have received considerable research attention (and funding) whereas others have remained invisible or on the margins. This last point not only suggests imbalances in the global research enterprise, but also has implications regarding the limitations of the theoretical conclusions drawn from work confined to particular areas, languages, and participants at the expense of others.

The development of criteria for exemplary quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research and reporting has resulted in many carefully conceived studies and programs of research. In addition, a greater collective awareness and understanding of different research methods and areas of study is occurring. Collaboration among researchers looking at similar phenomena in different (socio)linguistic, cultural, and geographical contexts (as in earlier work by Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper, 1989 , with respect to interlanguage pragmatics) would certainly benefit theory development and practical applications. Combining the expertise of applied linguists espousing different research paradigms in complementary types of analysis of the same phenomenon would also yield richer analyses of complex issues (Koshmann, 1999). One recent project reflecting multiperspectival research was undertaken by Barnard and Torres-Guzman 2009 ), who had chapter authors present their own analyses of classroom discourse and language socialization in schools in various parts of the world and then asked other researchers to do a “second take” (an independent analysis) of the same data to see how their analyses and interpretations differed. More multiperspectival research and theoretical triangulation involving researchers either from the same or from different traditions and disciplines (e.g., anthropology, psychology, education, and linguistics) examining the same data from their own frames of reference would enrich applied linguistics.

Although much AL research is chiefly concerned with abilities, behaviors, or sociolinguistic conditions and phenomena at one point in time (typically the present and/or immediate past), research sustained over larger periods of time, space, and activities is also needed, especially in developmental studies, studies trying to establish the long-term effectiveness of particular interventions, or those related to (academic) language socialization or language loss (Heath, 2000 ). Ortega and Byrnes's ( 2008 ) study represents a real contribution to AL precisely because it deals with both longitudinal research and research on advanced language learners. Replication studies, meta-analyses, cross-linguistic, cross-generational, and cross-medium (e.g., oral/written) studies have been used in limited ways in AL, with particular combinations of languages, media, and age groups. Recent work by Tarone, Bigelow, and Hansen ( 2009 ) highlights the theoretical benefits for SLA of examining alphabetic literacy levels of learners in studies of oral language development and processing. Thus, looking beyond one modality of language ability and use to see connections across modalities is very important.

More multimethod AL research would provide a greater triangulation of findings and help identify and interpret “rich points” in research (Hornberger, 2006a ). Research has started to take into account in more significant ways not only individual (e.g., cognitive, linguistic, affective) and (social) group aspects of language behavior and knowledge, but also sociocultural, historical, political, and ideological aspects. Consequently, more emphasis is being placed on the multiple, sometimes shifting identities, perspectives, and competencies of research participants and researchers, as well as the multiple contexts in which language is learned, produced, interpreted, translated, forgotten, and even eliminated (Norton, 2000 ; Duff, 2008 ).

Finally, all basic or pure research is meant to contribute to the knowledge base and theoretical growth of a field; thus, with more conceptually sound research, new discoveries, insights, and applications are certainly in store for the field of AL. In applied research that aims to yield a greater understanding of phenomena in the mind/world and also help to improve some aspect of the human condition, increased social and political intervention and advocacy is required. These, then, are just some of the issues and challenges that applied linguists must address in the future from different perspectives and using a variety of approaches. Indeed, as new perspectives, genres, and media for reporting and disseminating research are transformed, new areas for AL research and new challenges, too, will surface for the evaluation of innovative, nontraditional forms of research.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Research Methods for Complexity Theory in Applied Linguistics

• Phil Hiver and Ali H. Al-Hoorie
• X / Twitter

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Copyright year: 2019
• Keywords: complexity theory ; research methods for applied linguistics ; practical templates and methods for research ; qualitative and quantitative methods ; CDST
• Published: December 6, 2019
• ISBN: 9781788925754

The  Penn State Workshops in Research Methods for Applied Linguists started in 2020 as a means to support researchers in designing, carrying out, and reporting research studies. Not only are research methods at the heart of any piece of research that we do, but the ways in which we design and use our research tools can have important consequences for the nature of a study’s findings and conclusions. In addition to these understandings, open science initiatives are encouraging us to be more transparent in how we plan, conduct, and share our research (e.g., sharing data collection materials, pre-registering analyses before data collection). In order to support researchers in carrying out high-quality applied linguistics research, our aims for these workshops has always been to provide free and accessible training in a variety of research methods used in the field, including considerations for research design, data collection, data analysis, reporting, interpretation, and publishing. Our workshops involve all stages of the research process and are led by international experts. In fall 2023, we are pleased to offer the following workshops:

• Kathryn Roulston , University of Georgia
• September 15, 2023 (2-5pm, New York Time)
• Laura Gurzynski-Weiss , Indiana University
• September 29, 2023 (2-5pm, New York Time)
•   Jesse Egbert , Northern Arizona University
• October 6, 2023 (2-5pm, New York Time)
• Ethan Kutlu , University of Iowa, and Rachel Hayes-Harb, University of Utah
• October 20, 2023 (2-5pm, New York Time)
• Becky Huang , Ohio State University
• November 3, 2023 (2-5pm, New York Time)

Participants can choose to attend any number of workshops (e.g., all five, two). All workshops will take place online and are free to attend . We welcome you to learn more about the courses using the tabs at the top of this page. Spaces are limited and are reserved on a first come, first serve basis using the registration form . Links to attend each workshop will be provided as we get closer to the event.

Organizing team

Kevin McManus , Director of the Center for Language Acquisition, Penn State

• Search Portfolio
• Reports and Publications
• About Portfolio

NSF Convergence Accelerator Track D: Data & AI Methods for Modeling Facial Expressions in Language with Applications to Privacy for the Deaf, ASL Education & Linguistic Research

Project Number 2040638 Agency/Funding Organization NSF Funding Year 2020 View Full Project Details for NSF Convergence Accelerator Track D: Data & AI Methods for Modeling Facial Expressions in Language with Applications to Privacy for the Deaf, ASL Education & Linguistic Research