Research Methodology in Second

Language Studies: Trends, Concerns,

and New Directions
KENDALL A. KING
University of Minnesota
Second Language Education Program
159 Pillsbury Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Email: kendall@umn.edu

ALISON MACKEY
Georgetown University
Department of Linguistics
1421 37th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20057
Email: mackeya@georgetown.edu

The field of second language studies is using increasingly sophisticated methodological approaches to
address a growing number of urgent, real-world problems. These methodological developments bring
both new challenges and opportunities. This article briefly reviews recent ontological and methodological debates in the field, then builds on these insights to consider some of the current dilemmas faced
by researchers of second language teaching and learning, including concerns regarding fragmentation,
generalizability, and replication. Through a review of recent research, we argue that one means of addressing these ongoing questions is to continue to focus collectively and collaboratively on solving realworld problems of language learning, while also layering our perspectives. By layering, we mean considering the central philosophical challenges, often those that are basic values in our methodological
approaches, such as objectivity and bias, from varied epistemological stances. We argue that recognizing
these differences and using a layered approach will enhance and improve our attempts to address the
pressing problems in our field.
Keywords: mixed methods; qualitative; quantitative; technique; paradigm; ethnography

ON THIS, THE CENTENARY OF THE MODERN

Language Journal, the field of second language
studies is defined both by the diversity and
richness of research paradigms and methods at hand. In recent years, the field has
benefited from sustained and serious discussions
of research methodology (e.g., Blom & Unsworth,
2010; Drnyei, 2007; Gass, 2015; Mackey & Gass,
2012; Polio, 2014; Porte, 2010; Richards, Ross,
& Seedhouse, 2012), which include advances in
the ways in which methods are used in a complementary fashion (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011;
Drnyei, 2007; Riazi & Candlin, 2014; Teddlie
& Tashakkori, 2009) and combined into mixedapproach paradigms (e.g., Hashemi & Babaii,
The Modern Language Journal, 100 (Supplement 2016)
DOI: 10.1111/modl.12309
0026-7902/16/209227 $1.50/0

C 2016 The Modern Language Journal

2013). A dominant although not particularly

productive strand throughout many discussions
of methodology has been the debate around
quantitative versus qualitative methods, sometimes characterized as a division between more
cognitive and more social approaches to studying
second language learning. Indeed, a great deal of
ink has been spent on the relative merits and limitations of supposedly dichotomous paradigms,
approaches, and methods, a tension which characterized many social science fields and applied
linguistics in particular in the 1990s (e.g., Beretta
et al., 1994; Firth & Wagner, 1997; van Lier,
1994) as well as more recently (e.g., Gregg, 2006;
WatsonGegeo, 2004).
As the field increasingly grapples in methodologically sophisticated ways in the attempt to
address a growing number of urgent, real-world
problems, we are pleased to note that contemporary conversations now take a more open,

210
productive, and conciliatory tenor on both sides.
This was apparent in 2014, when a group of applied linguistics scholars were paired for a much
anticipated invited colloquium at a major annual
event, the American Association for Applied Linguistics conference, with the aim of building a bridge
across the so-called gap in the study of second
language teaching and learning with researchers
favoring cognitive approaches and quantitative
methods, often including experimental designs and inferential statistics, on one side, and
researchers utilizing qualitative methods and anthropologically oriented approaches such as case
study and linguistic ethnography on the other.
While this colloquium resulted in a provocative
dialogue and meaningful discussion, the overwhelming reaction of the participants was to
reject the premise of needing a bridge, and
to argue that there is no single, monolithic
social-cognitive gap in L2 learning and teaching research (Hulstijn et al., 2014, p. 414).
As DeKeyser argued in his section of a jointly
authored piece that presented varied positions
of all participants, published in Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, the quantitative-qualitative
distinction does not belong here at all. Counterexamples abound of the cognitive equals
quantitative and social equals qualitative equations (Hulstijn et al., 2014, p. 366).
In this MLJ anniversary review article, rather
than revisiting these increasingly historic tensions, we instead build on these most recent
insights by considering some of the current
challenges faced by researchers of second language teaching and learning. We are scholars
whose primary research is conducted in different
paradigms: King takes a more anthropologically
oriented approach using mostly qualitative methods, while Mackey is more cognitive and quantitative in research orientation. Yet, reflecting the
field, we have both also carried out research in a
range of paradigms, and neither of us is wedded
to a particular paradigm. Here we aim to reflect
the spirit of dialogue and mutual engagement
currently taking hold with the goal of promoting deeper understanding of the field as a whole.
As second language research in community settings, classrooms, and laboratories has advanced
and become markedly more sophisticated in recent decades, we argue that taking such a crossfield, collaborative perspective is essential for us
to fully and adequately address pressing, unresolved problems on both academic and practical
fronts. The challenges of engagement with multiple perspectives and paradigms are many and
varied. Importantly, as we highlight here, they are

The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

also experienced differently by those engaged in
particular types of research, a point that also
comes through in the Douglas Fir Group article
(this volume).
One means of addressing some of the recent
challenges in our field is to judiciously and skillfully draw from the wealth of paradigms already
at hand in the dynamic field of second language
teaching and learning; this is sometimes referred
to as a mixed method approach. In our field,
mixed methods has tended to refer to utilization
of distinct research techniques in a single study,
for instance, a qualitative diary study accompanied by quantitative pre- and posttest assessments,
or classroom observations combined with student
interviews and longitudinal target-like accuracy
counts. While mixed methods approaches capture much of value, we believe that second language researchers need to go further, and engage in what we term layering. A layering approach
goes beyond integration of techniques, but rather,
demands the explicit consideration of research
problems from a range of distinct epistemological
perspectives. This differs from mixed method research, at least as it is often practiced in our field.
As evident in a recent analysis of published work,
although a considerable number of articles used
both qualitative and quantitative methods, only a
small number achieved high degrees of integration at various stages of the study (Hashemi &
Babaii, 2013, p. 828; see also Brown, 2014).
Layering is both less common, and we argue,
more challenging, than combining varied data
collection techniques into one study. Layering involves considering the central philosophical challenges, often those that are basic values or goals
in our methodological approaches, for instance,
replication or objectivity, from varied epistemological stances. We attempt to do this in the current article with the goal of illustrating some of
the potential benefits. Prior to highlighting some
of these current challenges and considering how
they might be productively addressed through layering, it is helpful to remind ourselves that some
of the key findings and rich lines of investigation
in second language research have emerged from
the layering of multiple research perspectives.
EARLY EXAMPLES OF LAYERED
PERSPECTIVES IN SECOND LANGUAGE
RESEARCH
Looking at the history of the field of second
language learning through a broad lens, we can
see that the roots of inter- and multidisciplinarity have always been present. For example, one

Kendall A. King and Alison Mackey

of the key underpinnings of cognitively oriented
second language research is Schmidts Noticing
Hypothesis (1990), which developed into an influential theory of attention and awareness. This
important line of work emerged from a qualitative introspective diary study of an authentic
teachinglearning situation (Schmidt & Frota,
1986) based on Schmidts experiences learning
Portuguese in Brazil. Examination of the diary entries and assessments of his growing knowledge
of Portuguese led Schmidt to detect an interesting pattern. He consciously noticed forms in the
input shortly before acquiring them. Various aspects of noticing, attention, and awareness are
now debated, operationalized, and tested in different configurations, in studies utilizing methodologies and techniques from a range of disciplinary perspectives, most notably drawing from
complementary research in psychology and neuroscience, including, for example, brain scanning
studies, eye tracking research, reaction time, and
confidence ratings. In addition to these experimental and quantitative approaches, more introspective, qualitatively oriented methods such as
think-alouds and stimulated recalls have also been
productively utilized. This example points to the
ways that our fields study and understanding of a
central construct in the second language field, in
this case noticing, began with a qualitative study;
evolved over time; and, crucially, is now being
refined and advanced with tools borrowed and
adapted from many other disciplines.
A similar story of interdisciplinarity exists
within the area of second language classroom discourse. In the interaction approach, the original
formulation of the hypothesis grew from the insight that conversational interaction was associated with second language learning because of
the input, interaction, and output opportunities
that it afforded (Long, 1996; Mackey, Abbuhl, &
Gass, 2012). These included conversational adjustments, such as negotiation for meaning between interlocutors. The approach was primarily
cognitive in nature, with the metaphor for learning being computational. More recently, however, Swain and Lapkin introduced the idea of
language-related episodes (LREs), based on Vygotskys work (Swain & Lapkin, 1995, 1998), and
many interaction studies now incorporate examination of LREs as part of the coding and analysis procedure. Others have drawn attention to social factors such as the relationships between the
learners, as well as cultural and power dynamics in
the classroom, and their influence on the interaction and hence, the learning opportunities. For
example, interaction researchers drew insights

211
from studies such as Duffs (2002) examination
of language socialization in high school ESL social studies classes, which demonstrated how ESL
students were often excluded from discussions
and situated as outsiders. Philp and Mackeys
(2010) study reflected this move, asking the question of how the relationships amongst the participants in the interaction impacted their output and feedback, and consequently, their learning opportunities. Study participants commented
that they felt more comfortable speaking in small
groups or pairs and more relaxed when among
friends; moreover, in small groups of friends,
learners reported they were more likely to take
risks with their language use and provide peerto-peer feedback. These varied relationships had
significant impacts on the students participation,
motivation, and overall enjoyment of task-based
interactions. (See Storch [2002] for a further
example of empirical analysis of how participant
relationships can drive interactional characteristics and language learning opportunities.) In
short, across this work it is evident that an approach that was rooted primarily in a cognitive
model has evolved into one where social factors
are now regularly considered and researched as a
part of the agenda.
A third example of longstanding and productive interdisciplinary work is that examining codeswitching. This line of research
initially derived from linguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives on language (e.g., Poplack,
1980), often utilizing quantitative, variationist
approaches. Over time, however, it became clear
that codeswitching could not be fully explained
or interpreted without deep, systematic attention
to context and culture and, in particular, the
adoption of anthropological approaches such as
the ethnography of communication, discourse
analysis, case study, and language socialization (e.g., Heller, 1988). Current research in
codeswitching is approached from a wide range
of methodological stances and productively utilizes many approaches that differ dramatically
from those utilized at the outset of this line of
research. For instance, Lins (1996) long-term
qualitative work in Hong Kong illustrated how
classroom codeswitching was in fact teachers
and students local pragmatic response to the
symbolic domination of English and a language
education policy context in which many students
struggled to participate in English-medium education. More recently, Wodak, Krzyzanowski, and
Forchtner (2012) adopted a critical discourse
analytic approach, including observations, field
notes, recordings of official and semiofficial

212
meetings, and interviews to show how multilingual codeswitching practices in the transnational
institutional spaces of the European Union
are best understood through close attention to
power asymmetries and their impact on language
production.
This brief historical review underscores two important points. First and most obviously: Multiple methods and interdisciplinary work have long
been, and continue to be, fundamental to the
field. This is perhaps now the case more than ever,
and we believe it should be fully recognized and
embraced on this 100th anniversary occasion. Second, research methods are both dependent on
and independent of the questions we ask. Put differently, on the one hand, the questions we ask often constrain or determine the methods utilized
to answer them, while on the other, initial findings can drive adoption of new methodological
approaches and collection of varied, even novel
types of data. One approach can quite productively lead to the other. In each of these previous
examples, a range of methodological approaches
is currently being brought to bear to better understand concepts that have emerged, with the
questions asked being fine-tuned as the varied approaches have shed ever-brighter light on the targets of investigation.
CURRENT WORK IN SECOND LANGUAGE
STUDIES: A BROAD, AMBITIOUS, AND
BLOSSOMING AGENDA
While the field of second language studies
has always been multi- and interdisciplinary,
our review of current work suggests that this is
especially the case now, as the field grows simultaneously wider in scope and more ambitious. As
the questions and objectives of our area expand,
researchers are increasingly pushing methodological boundaries to gain a clearer picture
and deeper insights into the processes of second
language learning. Research is intensifying at
both the individual level, through a better understanding of learners internal cognitive processes,
and at the social level, with greater understanding
of the impact of transnational flows, ideologies,
and international connectedness on language
learning processes. An example of the former: As
scans of electrical activity showing areas of mental
activation come into sharper focus, we see brain
imaging, eye tracking, and other sophisticated
measures of cognition and the brain becoming
increasingly common (e.g., MorganShort &
Ullman, 2012). Concomitantly, as the myriad
ramifications of globalization play out, we see

The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

greater attention to how related processes, such
as language endangerment and the commodification of language and identity, critically impact
the ways that second language learning, teaching,
and use are locally practiced and discursively
constructed. Using ethnographically informed
methodologies such as deep-dive case studies
and introspective and narrative analyses (e.g.,
Bayley & Tarone, 2012; Lantolf, 2012), we have
a growing knowledge of how these processes
profoundly shape language learning. In other
words, second language research as a field is
utilizing myriad methods and techniques to
address ever more ambitious sets of questions
with respect to processes and products of second
(and additional) language learning. The field has
expanded, and indeed blossomed dramatically in
recent years, and in many respects, is, as others
have suggested, at a methodological turning
point (Byrnes, 2013). While the expansion of
the field has been received (predominantly) as a
positive development, one of the main drawbacks
of this development is the increasingly difficult
communication between the specializations. We
continue to gain more detailed insights into
various aspects of our field, but concomitantly,
the number of researchers who are able to understand and interpret these findings becomes
increasingly smaller. As we argue here, the field
in light of its energetic expansionneeds to
prioritize communication between the specializations in order to encourage and enable the
adoption of layered research perspectives.
Examples of this methodological blossoming are evident in the way second language
researchers have been working, often in concert
with neurolinguists, to understand how second
languages are stored, processed, and used in
the brain. As pointed out in Mackey (2015),
MorganShort and Ullman (2012) explain
how brain imaging measures are beginning to
answer and ask questions in second language
research, for example, the relationship between
implicit or explicit learning processes as drivers
of second language development. As they note,
event-related potentials (ERPs) can assess electrophysiological responses to a stimulus. Functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measures
changes in blood oxygenation. Neurolinguists argue this reflects changes in cognitive processing.
Neuroscientists often use artificial mini-languages
to test their hypotheses; for example, Tagarelli
(2014) used mini-Basque to investigate the neural structure and cognitive processes involved
in adult SLA. In her study, 15 native speakers
of English were trained from initial exposure to

Kendall A. King and Alison Mackey

high proficiency on a subset of Basque. During
training, the researcher obtained behavioral
and fMRI measures. Results demonstrated that
fMRI activation was found in areas associated
with first language processing; however, other
areas were also engaged, suggesting L1 mechanisms alone are not sufficient for learning an
additional language. In another example of
a study like this, MorganShort et al. (2012)
looked at what they called implicit and explicit
language training, and its relationship to neural
and behavioral language processing. Two conditions, explicit and implicit, received training in
the new language. The explicit group received
metalinguistic explanations of grammatical rules
while the implicit group learned without any
metalinguistic explanation. Although the authors
found that performance did not differ between
the implicit and explicit training groups, ERP
measures indicated that with implicit training,
participants neural patterns included the full
spectrum of native-like EPR components. They
conclude that while adult language learners
can develop native-like brain mechanisms, their
attainment might be dependent upon the conditions under which they learned the L2, with
implicit training showing more promising results.
Although second language researchers have long
been interested in how language is processed and
learned in the brain, it is only relatively recently,
and in partnership with neuroscience, that these
questions have been asked and answered directly.
Of course, brain-based research is not without its
critics. Some argue that too many assumptions
are made in interpretation while others point out
that imaging is excessively expensive in terms of
equipment and time.
Advances related to language technology are
taking place throughout the area. For example,
Wilsons (2014) interesting ultrasound study
showed Japanese learners of English exactly what
their vocal tracts look like in the production
and distinction between the English l and r
sound. While this sort of technology is currently
used in the laboratory, the development of applications that can show learners spectrograms
or diagrams indicating how closely their production approximates the target, in the form
of infinitely patient software where learners can
repeat as often as they want to, is likely not far
off.
Other methodological tools that came initially from psycholinguistics but are increasingly
common in the second language research
field include the use of confidence judgments
(Rebuschat & Williams, 2013) and eye tracking.

213
For instance, Winke, Gass, and Sydorenkos
(2013) study investigated factors influencing the
reading and interpretation of video captions by
foreign language learners using sophisticated eye
tracking equipment to examine the direction and
fixation of learners gazes. In other words, we no
longer have to assume that learners are paying
attention to what they report to us they are paying
attention to; we can see what they look at and
for how long, and we can use this information
in isolation or to triangulate learners reports.
Results from Winke et al. (2013) indicated that
students learning Arabic spent more time reading
captions than learners of Spanish and Russian.
The eye-tracking technology also uncovered an
interaction between language and content familiarity, namely that Chinese learners spent less
time reading captions when the content of the
video was unfamiliar, while learners of other languages spent comparable times reading captions
on both familiar and unfamiliar videos. By triangulating these quantitative findings with student
interview data, the authors shed light on how
the benefits of captioning are constrained by L2
differences.
Concomitantly, as this focus on the brain and
cognition intensifies, important strides are being
made by researchers in shedding light on how
so-called macro or global forcesincluding,
for instance, how dynamics of race, gender, class,
sexuality, and political inequalityimpact what
have been described as micro-level language
learning processes. For example, Moore and Macdonald (2013), in a recent MLJ article, utilized
ethnographic methods and grounded theory to
demonstrate how the history of language loss,
and more recently the trajectory of language revitalization in British Columbia, has impacted the
teaching and learning of Halqemylem, a First
Nation language. The authors identified the ways
that the processes of language endangerment,
and in particular the limited fluency of teachers
of Halqemylem, has influenced the teaching of
Halqemylem in a Head Start preschool program
by creating a need for heavy reliance on environmental print, translated names, translated songs,
and interactive text-based computer games. In
a similar fashion, Back (2013), utilizing case
study and discourse analytic methods, examined the different ways that certain symbols and
histories were used by a Spanish speaker attempting to claim and practice his second language
(Quichua). These attempts were resisted and
rejected by community members. Backs work
demonstrates how one individual attempted
and failed to become a legitimate member of his

214
target community by performing a series of contextual symbolic competences and his attempts
at speaking Quichua in this discourse event and
others did not result in either ratification or
pedagogical interaction, and eventually led to his
marginalization (p. 393). Other work has utilized
longitudinal, case study, and discourse analysis
to analyze second language learning within families. For instance, Kings (2013) study of three
sisters demonstrated how each daughter was
positioned and positioned herself discursively
as a language learner and user, and how locally
held beliefs about language and learning shaped
the ways in which identities and family roles were
constructed and enacted. This work sharpens
our understanding of how widely circulating ideologies of language learning and race can shape
family language practices and influence language
learning. These broad, so-called macro forces
have been taken into account in experimental
SLA designs, thus representing an important
potential area of future work.
In broad terms, this ambitious line of research
adopts a view of language as social practice, and as
such, language and discourse are taken to simultaneously constitute and be constituted by social
structures. These approaches take all aspects of
language as intrinsically ideological, that is, what
is defined as good or bad language, or even as
Spanish, Hindi, or Chinese is an artifact of
social, cultural, and political processes. As such,
language plays a central role in normalizing, producing, and reproducing the structures of society,
including its inequalities. Much of this sort of
work has been shaped by concerns about social
justice and, accordingly, has been associated with
criticism of current social, political, and cultural
structures and practices (McNamara, 2011). It is
also rooted in an engaged and critical political
stance, as articulated by many researchers, including Pennycook (1990), who argues that, if we
are concerned about the manifold and manifest
inequities of the societies and the world we live
in, then (. . .) we must start to take up moral and
political projects to change those circumstances.
This requires that we cease to operate with modes
of intellectual inquiry that are asocial, apolitical
or ahistorical (p. 25). This is quite different from
the position taken by many cognitive researchers,
who aspire to objectivity and who view second language learning as data that can provide a direct
window into mental processes of acquisition.
Collectively, taking together both these highly
cognitive and intensely social and political perspectives, we argue that our field, at this particular
moment, shows signs of expansion and maturity.

The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

The field is simultaneously becoming more sophisticated methodologically and theoretically
through this expansion of the scope of its concerns, all of which is fully evident throughout the
other contributions to this special centenary issue.
Yet, as we suggest in what follows, these developments bring new challenges and opportunities.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
FOR LAYERED PERSPECTIVES
Thus far we have argued that our field is in its
prime. It has left behind the largely unproductive, so-called paradigm wars between those supporting quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Both cognitively and socially oriented researchers
are showing greater awareness of the importance of incorporating a range of perspectives.
The field is pushing methodological boundaries
in many directions (King & Lai, 2016; Mackey,
2015), borrowing from other disciplines, and has
researchers increasingly recognizing the importance of working in partnership with those trained
in different approaches from themselves, for example, neurolinguistics, cognitive psychology, political science, and cultural studies.
However, it would be nave not to acknowledge that there are challenges and risks inherent in these developments. For instance, some researchers have voiced concern that pushing the
boundaries too far leads to separation and risks
the loss of a core, shared center of the field.
Along similar lines, others express concerns about
fragmentation (Hulstijn et al., 2014) and worry
that as the questions asked by second language
researchers increasingly address, for instance, issues central to the field of neurolinguistics on the
one hand, or linguistic anthropology on the other,
there might be less shared ground and little perceived relevance of these splintering lines of work.
We believe that one way to address these very legitimate concerns is to carefully consider the objectives of our research, including asking what sorts
of questions we can address, as well as how we can
address them. This current, field-leading issue of
the Modern Language Journal takes that approach.
Another means of addressing the potential
problem of fragmentation is to adopt what we
referred to previously as a layered approach. We
argue that there are issues of concern within all
areas of second language research that would
benefit from examination and analysis from
multiple perspectives. Layering involves considering theory as well as practice and, in particular,
considering varied epistemological stances every
time one looks at a traditional problem, not the

Kendall A. King and Alison Mackey

obvious one, or even the next most obvious, but
as many as possible. With that notion in mind,
we now turn to some of the contentious and
challenging issues currently facing the field,
including objectivity, replication, generalizability,
and the definition of our objects of study. More
specifically, we try to explain how adopting a
layered perspective might shed productive light
on these particular challenges.
A LAYERED TAKE ON REPLICATION
Repligate
Following a general trend in the cognitive and
social sciences toward greater awareness of the
need to conduct replication research, there are
a growing number of calls for more replication
studies within applied linguistics (as well as in
other disciplines). These calls were punctuated by
a recent high-profile scandal with consequences
for replication research across the social sciences: the case of UCLA graduate student Michael
LaCour, who published a paper in the journal
Science, When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay
equality, in December 2014. The study, which
contradicted previous research and seemed to
show that simply talking about an issue with a canvasser effectively encouraged people to rethink
their positions, received significant media attention, including from This American Life, The New
York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington
Post, The Los Angeles Times, Science Friday, Vox, and
Huffington Post. After LaCour admitted to falsely
describing at least some of the details of the data
collection, his co-author retracted the article. LaCours work was initially flagged as a problem
when two graduate students attempted to replicate and extend the original study and realized
that there were serious credibility issues with the
data. While this is an extreme case of data collection fraud (e.g., some of the data seem to have
been simply fabricated by the researcher), it also
highlights the importance of doing replication
studies as the results are potentially beneficial for
the research community as a whole.
Porte (2012) points out that in several other
fields, such as the physical sciences, replication
is regarded as an essential element in carrying
out the everyday work of science (p. 3), while
replication research in the social sciences, including applied linguistics, is conspicuously lacking.
He has argued that the lack of replication research in applied linguistics stems in part from a
general misunderstanding of what replication research is. Further, research in second language

215
studies poses specific challenges for replication
due to the nature of studying human subjects and
behaviors. Participant background factors such as
first language, age of L2 acquisition, educational
experience, time spent living in the region where
target language is widely used, as well as other
individual differences prevent much research
from being easily replicated. As a result, many
studies calling themselves replication studies are
in fact conceptual rather than actual replications extending previous research to new contexts rather
than repeating it exactly as it was originally done.
As discussed subsequently, one way to avoid this
and to facilitate true replication studies in the social sciences might be a general moderation when
reporting results, that is, the avoidance of overgeneralizing results for a population that has only
been represented by a highly selective sample.
An additional hurdle is that replication studies do not often find their way into the published
pages of the second language research literature.
Original research is more valued by editors of
books and journals and by tenure and funding
committees, as well as potentially less controversial. For this reason, not all replications identify
themselves as replication work. Many studies do
not explicitly frame, position, or label themselves
as such for a variety of reasons, including the
ones recently borne out in the field of social psychology. In a controversy that has become known
as Repligate, a special issue of the journal Social Psychology published reports on 27 attempts
to replicate seminal psychology studies (Unkelbach, 2014). After one landmark study by Schnall,
Benton, and Harvey (2008) failed to replicate (Johnson, Cheung, & Donnellan, 2014), a
tirade of tweets, blog posts, and Facebook posts
launched attacks on both sides of the replication
process. Schnall argued that her reputation and
work had been defamed while Johnson, Cheung,
and Donnellan were attacked as replication bullies (Bohannon, 2014) after a blog post that was
linked to in a tweet (later apologized for), Go big
or go home (Donnellan, 2013) was widely circulated, essentially implying Schnalls findings were
an artifact of low participant numbers. This Repligate controversy reflects and drives concerns of
researchers in many scientific fields, including applied linguistics. While replication is an essential
part of the scientific method, it also opens researchers up to criticism and brings to the surface
central dilemmas of social sciences and applied
linguistics work. However, as shown previously in
the LaCour case, replications can also be very valuable to research, whether they confirm and extend findings, or whether they identify problems.

216
Replication From an Anthropological Perspective
Anthropologically oriented researchers view
Repligate in a very different light, largely
due to their own, extended, very well reported
replication crisis and the many resultant opportunities to analyze the lessons therein. By far the
most high-profile replication crisis is one that
rocked anthropology, a foundational field to the
applied linguistic subfields of the ethnography
of community and language socialization among
others, and called into question the reputation of
one of the most widely known anthropologists to
date, Margaret Mead. Her Coming of Age in Samoa
(1928) described adolescence in Samoa, emphasizing this as a relaxed, playful period of sexual
experimentation. In essence, Mead claimed to
be conducting a controlled experiment in the
field, testing the universality of stressful adolescence by examining a counter instance empirically (Clifford, 1986, p. 102). Her central finding,
that adolescence was conflict-free and sexually
promiscuous in Samoa, prompted her to argue
that adolescence was not universally strife-ridden
(as was conventionally conceived in the United
States). These arguments were highly influential
within the field of anthropology and across the
general public, taken up in the 1960s as part of the
sexual revolution. Several decades later (in the
1940s and again in the mid-1960s), Derek Freeman conducted fieldwork in Samoa, and his book,
Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth (1983), published after Meads death, presented extensive evidence
that Samoan society was permeated by authoritarian regulation, with parents tightly controlling
their children and fiercely guarding girls virginity. Freemans account resulted in a public crisis for the field as Mead was by far the most famous, perhaps the only famous, anthropologist in
the United States at the time, and addressed in
part by a special section of the American Anthropologist, the flagship journal of the field (Brady, 1983).
A rough consensus eventually emerged that the
stark differences in the accounts by Mead and
Freeman were the result of (a) differential access to populations and types of people, (b) overgeneralizations from one (differing) island to the
entire Samoan population, and (c) failure to provide detailed accountings of how data were collected and analyzed, including searches for negative instances. Moreover, their fieldwork periods
were spaced a few decades apart, so some change,
including increased Western influence, had no
doubt taken place as well. For anthropologists,
this controversy served as a very public and hum-

The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

bling reminder of the value of being attentive
to the ways in which the researchers identity inevitably impacts what data is accessed, how it is collected and analyzed, as well as being circumspect
in ones claims about generalizability.
While the MeadFreeman debate is by far the
most well aired, other replication controversies
have reinforced these lessons. These include the
ethnographic description of an Italian American
slum in Whytes Street Corner Society. Originally
published in 1943, Whyte pioneered long-term
participant observation within sociology, and his
resulting work described the organization of criminal life and gang membership. As he wrote, the
middle-class person looks upon the slum district
as a formidable mass of confusion, a social chaos.
The insider finds in Cornerville a highly organized and integrated social system (p. xvi). In
1992, Boelen published a detailed critique of
Whytes work, largely based on her interviews
with Whytes original participants, arguing, for instance, that Whyte exaggerated the poverty and
difficulty of the living conditions and misunderstood much due to his lack of Italian language
knowledge. Whyte refuted her account (1996),
and a factual, realist debate ensued, largely about
empirical details of the description (e.g., where
and whether indoor plumbing existed), not unlike the to and fro about statistical processes in
the Schnall social psychology debate.
The RedfieldLewis debate, in contrast, centered less on the accuracy of empirical details but
focused attention on the importance of the researchers questions, stance, approach, and positionality. Robert Redfield (1930), a well established anthropologist whose work had portrayed
a rather romantic and happy picture of village
life in Tepoztln, Mexico, was challenged by Oscar Lewis (1951), whose later work in the same region emphasized inequality, conflict, crime, and
violence. One early interpretation of these two divergent accounts is researcher personality, positionality, and approach. Margaret Mead suggested
this work provides
a most interesting example of the difference in
perception and selection of materials between two
ethnographers. Redfield was interested in harmony;
he was interested in what made things go well.
[Lewis] (. . .) was interested in what made things go
badly. As a result, those two studies, which are very
interesting and very informative, are excellent statements about the temperaments of those two men.
(1974, cited in Rigdon, 1988, p. 41)

While the interests and proclivities of the

researchers no doubt played a role in these

Kendall A. King and Alison Mackey

divergent accounts, so too did their analytical
stances and study objectives. While Redfields account depicts the idealized, formal belief system
of the community (the so-called front stage),
Lewis analyzes the informal or actual system (what
happened backstage). From this vantage point,
both accounts can be seen from an anthropological perspective as valid though incomplete and,
thus, even complementary.
Echoes of these early debates continue to reverberate. A recent example can be seen in the
widely publicized critiques (and rebuttals) concerning Alice Goffmans 2014 book, On the Run,
an ethnography depicting the often violent and
police-evading lives of the 6th Street Boys in a
struggling Philadelphia neighborhood. Of central
concern is Goffmans relationships with her participants, in particular her potential role in the
conspiracy to commit murder and, more broadly,
the lack of transparency and accessibility surrounding her original data collection processes,
her (now destroyed) field notes, and even the dissertation itself (which, despite winning a best dissertation award from the American Sociological
Association [ASA, 2014], has been permanently
embargoed), as well as contradictions between
her book and Goffmans subsequent statements
concerning important details (e.g., police use of
hospital visit logs to track community members
wanted by the law, and community wishes for violent retribution for gang killings; Lubet, 2015).
The defenders and detractors of Goffmans work
have evoked many of the core tenets of rigorous qualitative work, that is, of credibility (e.g.,
established through prolonged engagement in
the field); transferability (e.g., purposeful sampling and low inference, thick description); dependability (triangulation), and confirmability
(via practiced reflexivity); and, in some instances,
their quantitative counterparts: internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002; Kirkham
& Mackey, 2016).
Lessons Learned and the Value of Layering
These controversies in ethnographic research
share much in common with the Repligate and
spin-off debates in current social psychology.
Most notably, nearly all instances, regardless of
the specific time period, are characterized by a
gotcha tenor, with more than a whiff of personal
attack on the credibility or competence of the
researcher (e.g., Go Big or Go Home, the
making of an anthropological myth, the fateful
hoaxing). This element of personal attack tends

217
to garner, and to be amplified by, broad attention
within and beyond the academy, engendering
many of us to engage in the scholarly equivalent
of rubbernecking. The nature and pace of these
attacks, rebuttals, and counterattacks is both
more frenzied and probably more mean-spirited
with the widespread use of social media, blogs,
and online comments in recent years. Yet in
nearly all cases, the debates quickly become
mired in details of, for instance, statistical technique or, as previously mentioned, the nature of
the plumbing (in the Italian slum case) or hospital visitor logs (in the 2015 Goffman debate)
and are never entirely resolved in a satisfactory
way.
Adopting a layered perspective, we can see that
researchers of second language learning are likely
to view these issues surrounding replication in
quite different lights. For anthropologically oriented scholars, for instance, this most recent social psychology controversy and calls for replication serve as public reminders that some of the
longstanding assumptions inherent in some social science work are problematic. Indeed, from
a social constructionist viewpoint, the replication
crisis points not to the failure of researchers to
closely delineate or carefully adhere to particular
protocols, but to the fundamental impossibility of
erasing any researchers human bias (or humanity) in shaping the research process and product.
From this vantage point, the absence of replicability is neither surprising nor particularly problematic as no researcher can legitimately claim
to present an objective, neutral truth. Rather,
each account, from an anthropological perspective, is simply another partial truth (Clifford
& Marcus, 1986). As Duff (2008) notes in relation to case studies but as is also applicable to
most anthropological approaches of second language learning, it is this recognition of diverging observations and multiple realities that underlies interpretivism, which is arguably the most
common approach to qualitative case studies in
the social sciences (including applied linguistics)
at present (p. 29, emphasis in the original).
In slightly different terms, this entails, as Talmy
(Hulstijn et al., 2014) has argued, taking all social
science researchquantitative, qualitative, and
mixed method researchfor what it is: the outcome of the interpretive activity of particular people working from particular disciplinary and theoretical orientations in particular social contexts
and historical moments (p. 364). From this vantage point, rigorous research is that which is credible, transferable, dependable, and confirmable
(Anfara et al., 2002).

218
Layering perspectives and taking an interpretivist perspective allows us to see that for some researchers, this approach avoids the so-called god
trick, or an understanding of objectivity in scientific research, in that it is impossible to achieve
completely (Haraway, as cited in Talmy, 2010,
p. 30). Many quantitative paradigms, in turn,
tend to see objectivity as a fundamental value in
relation to how scientific truths are discovered, in
other words, essential to the scientific method (cf.
Layder, 1997). Central to the scientific method is
the idea that researchers strive to the extent possible to eliminate personal biases, a priori commitments, and emotional involvement. An interpretivist reading of objectivity, in turn, is rooted in the
anthropological understanding that researchers
themselves are central instruments for data
collection and analysis. For instance, when second language researchers analyze unwritten
sociolinguistic rules for using faux Spanish in a
U.S. elementary school (Link, Gallo, & Wortham,
2014), or describe the language practices of
multilingual Smi youth as they perform a school
book rap (Pietikinen & Dufva, 2014), what data
the researcher has access to, notices, and records
is largely dependent on her particular social
and observational skills, analytical strengths, and
aspects of her personal identity (e.g., Does her
appearance allow her to pass as a student/peer?
Does she share a first language with the students?
Can she develop a strong rapport with the teachers?; Seale, 1999). Given the centrality of the
researcher in data collection, from an anthropological perspective, it is expected that different
researchers, even if conducting research at the
same time in the same context, would have access
to different types of data and divergent insights
into its analysis.
Classroom researchers are often poised (or
torn or pulled) between these varied understandings of objectivity. Any researcher who has also
been an instructor of the class they have studied
knows that classrooms are, as Orwin (1994) has
suggested (of coding and quantitative analysis of
classroom data), complex, messy, context-laden
and quantification resistant (p. 140). For experimentally oriented researchers, classrooms are
full of variables that cannot be fully controlled,
while for others, understanding this ecology rather
than controlling variables within it is the aim. In
turn, cognitively oriented researchers, like those
running multiple experiments on reaction times
in laboratories, for instance, are more likely to
assume that objectivity is attainable given careful attention to particular protocols. Yet, while
variables in the laboratory tend to be easier to

The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

control and data more quantifiable, this does
not mean that laboratory research is objective.
Instead, this quest for objectivity has its costs with
the effort to control for variables resulting in
weaker ecological validity.
Nevertheless, even in the laboratory environment, the researcher and the research questions
can all act separately or together to influence
participants and shape the research process and
product in important ways. For instance, intervention studies often depend on researcher judgments about the treatment dosage (the type and
nature in terms of quality and quantity and timing of the instruction, for example), the design of
the assessments, as well as the use, or not, of a delayed posttest (and again, the time period). Even
after data collection, a researchers approach to
analysis, and for instance, the potential to confirm biases or ignore or overinterpret null results
can further shape the outcome of even a carefully planned study. These research decisions involve personal judgments, and without question,
are shaped by expectations of reviewers and editorial boards of the competitive, academic journals
where most researchers aspire to publish their
work. As widely discussed (Konnikova, 2014), in
recent years, in some lines of research, there is
a tendency to report, submit, and publish positive
findings (showing a significant result) over inconclusive or negative ones (supporting the null hypothesis). This tendency has undoubtedly skewed
our knowledge base of many academic fields.
Unevenness in how researcher objectivity is
viewed is both reflected and reified in standing
guidelines in the field. For instance, TESOL Quarterlys research guidelines diverge considerably in
how they advise different types of researchers to
address investigator bias. The quantitative research guidelines note that researchers should
describe the methods used to deal with experimenter bias if you collected the data yourself,
thus working from the assumption that experimenter bias (a) is only an issue if data is collected
by the researcher and (b) can be dealt with
through adequate techniques (TESOL, 2015).
The qualitative guidelines for ethnographic research, in turn, are much more detailed, assuming that researcher bias can never be entirely neutralized, but demanding extensive discussion of evidence of how the power differences between [researcher] and the informants/subjects were negotiated, [researchers]
attitudes and biases toward the community and
its culture, and researchers practiced reflexivity
with respect to consideration of the researchers
own background, identities or subjectivities, and

219

Kendall A. King and Alison Mackey

assumptions that influence data collection and
interpretation (TESOL, 2015). A layered perspective would mean that quantitative researchers
would also consider these issues, including the impossibility of fully dealing with bias, and more
broadly, that this unevenness in our recommendations and practices would be addressed. To some
extent, our institutional review boards (IRBs)
have moved in this direction in the last decade,
for instance, by requiring all social science research projects to undergo review (i.e., ethnographic research as well as experimental), a fit
which many who do engaged anthropology work
find problematic (e.g., Stillo, 2011), and demanding changes in language that emphasize humanity
and individuality (e.g., study participants rather
than subjects).
Overall, we can see that these varied approaches, as well as being methodologically quite
distinct, offer very different insights. Much of
the richness and value of the anthropological approach comes from the close depictions of context, including the ways in which multiple social,
linguistic, and cultural factors interact to produce
particular sorts of outcomes (e.g., Zentella, 1997).
From this vantage point, human actions cannot
be understood unless the meaning assigned to
them is understood (Marshall & Rossman, 2010,
p. 91). Thus, language learning and use cannot be
understood without close analysis of the context
that provides that meaning. As one line of current research in second language learning seeks
to deepen understanding of how language ideologies, explicit and implicit language policies, and
the broader political economy both shape and
are shaped by language learning and use, context is crucial. These contexts of course change
over time, and at best are only partly knowable, so
even if the same researcher returned the following year to the same site, the findings would not
be expected to be perfectly replicable.
In sum, the most recent Repligate controversy
underscores the need for all applied linguistics researchers to engage critically with both the context of the study and the researcher as the key instrument of research, both in terms of data collection and analysis. For some second language
researchers, more replication is essential if foundational findings are to be furthered, so that the
field stands on a solid base. For others, applying standards and expectations of replicability to
anthropologically oriented interpretive work is
nave and unrealistic. However, there is a more appropriate goal for this research. This is internal reliability, which is generally defined as the degree
to which other researchers would match given

constructs to data in the same way as the original researchers (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). This
is not a radically new insight or approach, but one
that has been a solid basis for research for many
decades. More than 30 years ago, LeCompte and
Goetz (1982, as cited in Seale, 1999) detailed five
features of qualitative data that facilitate this: (a)
use of low inference descriptors, (b) collaboration
across multiple researchers, (c) meaningful partnerships with participant researchers, (d) routine
peer examinations, and (e) recording data mechanically. While many of these are in wide practice in our field (e.g., use of audiovideo to record
and analyze data), as others have suggested, we
could continue to do more to partner meaningfully with other researchers and community members at every stage of research process. Furthermore, adopting a layered perspective demands triangulation in the fullest sense. While triangulation is often taken to mean gathering data from
different sources (e.g., audiorecordings, field
notes, observations), authentic triangulation establishes rigor through verification and confirmation of findings across time, space, and perspective as well as source. Indeed, it is productive to remember that there are four types of triangulation:
methodological (e.g., collecting data via interview
and assessments), source (using same method to
collect similar data across time or context), analytical (involving different researchers in analysis),
and theoretical (viewing data from varied theoretical and analytical perspectives; Patton, 2001).
For more experimentally and cognitively oriented researchers, a layered perspective means
taking into account the human and contextual
factors that are part of all research. This in part
means carefully considering the notions of replicability and objectivity. The work of language
teaching and learning is never devoid of context,
which is inherently changing and nonstable, nor
human contact, which inevitably demands human
interpretation. A layered perspective allows us to
recognize the importance of replication where it
is appropriate, and helps us not to become mired
in controversial, heated debates that ultimately do
not advance the field of second language studies. In order to have a more nuanced and sophisticated view on replication, these qualitative, anthropological perspectives are very helpful.
LAYERED PERSPECTIVES
ON GENERALIZABILITY
Micro, Macro, and Theoretical Heterogeneity
As suggested previously, many anthropologically oriented researchers of second language

220
learning have been concerned with understanding the relationships between so-called macrolevel forces (e.g., globalization, national language
policies, beliefs about languages) and microlevel processes (e.g., interactional patterns or
codeswitching practices) and how these impact
second and additional language learning. For instance, King and De Fina (2010) demonstrated
the ways in which broad societal forces, in this
case, U.S. immigration policy and the stigmatization of Spanish, impact local understandings, decisions, and practices surrounding English language learning among undocumented
Latina women. Leslie Bartlett (2008), in turn,
used case study data with one emergent bilingual high school student to demonstrate the
ways in which broader ideologies around bilingualism and biliteracy determined how she was
positionedand positioned herselfas a successful language learner, ultimately shaping language
learning opportunities.
While many scholars have conducted similar
sorts of analyses in the attempt to connect macro
and micro (e.g., Fogle & King, 2015; King &
Punti, 2012), one now widely evident challenge
with this work is the absence of definition and
delimitation of exactly what constitutes macro
and micro. As Warriner (2012) argues, these
terms are often used as if their meanings are selfevident and also as if the relationship between
them is well-theorized and well understood (p.
173). Furthermore, she rightly notes that there
has been relatively little awareness that the terms
themselves profoundly shape what counts as data
(and knowledge), how such data are analyzed,
and what the consequences might be for theorizing and investigating language, learning, and
identity (p. 173).
With the increasing recognition that such dichotomies are problematic and unproductive,
some analysts suggested reframing with classic
constructs of agency and structure. The construct of agency provides a means to account
for change over time and the emergence of new
or unexpected behaviors; in turn, consideration
of structure captures the powerful constraints at
work in all language learning contexts. However,
as Wortham notes (2012, p. 130), this reframing
does not satisfactorily resolve the core problem
of where exactly does such structure reside? Indeed, just as microanalysts too often explain their
core insight about emergence with reference to
one homogeneous factor like agency or interactional creativity, however, macroanalysts too often explain their core insight about constraint
with reference to structure (p. 130). As he and

The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

others have noted, a narrow focus on micro or
macro, agency or structure will thus fail to explain
many phenomena (p. 131) with respect to the
anthropology of education as well as second language learning.
In response to this challenge, a number of
alternatives have been proposed and/or applied
to our field, including practice theory (Ortner,
2006), timescale approaches (Lemke, 2002),
and nexus analysis (Scollon, 2004). Warriner, in
her more recent work, notes that these two sets
of factorsmicro and macrocannot be taken
as opposites, but rather, argues that it is more
productive to think of them collectively as a
set of mutually beneficial resources (2012, p.
173). A different approach has been suggested by
Lemke (2000), who argues that human semiotic
processes are characterized by interdependence
among processes at widely varying timescales
(cf. Archer, 1995; Layder, 1997). Collins (2012)
adopts this approach in his analysis of family
and school language learning among indigenous
Mexican immigrants in New York. His close
description highlights the ways in which processes that are happening at global scale (e.g.,
migration, increasing stratification of economic
and social capital) constrain local events (e.g.,
use of Spanish in public spaces and signs), often reproducing and intensifying inequality. As
Wortham (2012) notes, this work does not posit
macro scales as naturally and eternally central
to all social processes. Instead, [Collins] relates
large-scale processes to the more local scales that
they are mediated through (p. 135).
A Layered Perspective
While these approaches have provided insights
into the ways that broader societal and cultural
forces potentially impinge upon second language
learning patterns, processes, and outcomes, a layered analysis of this work forces us to ask how representative or generalizable these cases are. While
there are varied definitions of generalizability, in
most research, generalizability is based on the use
of a sample that is sufficiently representative to allow for claims to be made to a wider population,
and traditionally, and in many paradigms, an important aspect of claiming generalizability is utilization of a fairly large sample or number of cases.
Many qualitative and anthropologically oriented
researchers reject both of these premises, arguing instead for the value of deep, rich, thick descriptions, and close analysis of a small number
of cases. Such an approach aims not for generalizability (or external validity), but rather for

Kendall A. King and Alison Mackey

transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) from one
context to the next, and to theoretical generalization (as opposed to statistical or empirical generalization; Mitchell, as cited in Seale, 1999). From
this vantage point, then, the power of cases is not
in their typicality, but their power to explain and
to throw general examples into sharp relief. The
validity of the extrapolation depends not on the
typicality of the case, but on the strength of the
theoretical reasoning (Seale, 1999, p. 109). In
slightly different terms, qualitative research, according to Duff (2012), seeks depth rather than
breadth in its scope and analysis. Its goal is not
to universalize but to particularize and then yield
insights of potentially wider relevance and theoretical significance (p. 96). Additionally, as Coupland (2007) suggests, qualitative case studies do
not necessarily shed light on typical phenomena
but instead reveal one particular instance of one
possible phenomenon.
Nevertheless, for anthropologically oriented
researchers, the wide range of methodological
and theoretical frameworks presents something
of a challenge here. As suggested previously,
qualitatively oriented researchers of second language learning might take up practice theory,
timescale approaches, nexus analysis, discourse,
narrative, or conversational analysis, and language socialization, among many others, alone
or in some combination. A large and seemingly
ever-growing number of theoretical approaches
characterize strands of qualitative research (e.g.,
phenomenology, autoethnography, queer theory,
semiotics, narratology, and so on). In practice, the
wide range of theoretical orientations sometimes
means that researchers are more likely to make
claims that are highly theorized and speak to
a particular academic discourse community, and
less likely to make claims that contain widely generalizable insights, and contribute more broadly
to second language theory-building. While qualitative research does typically not aim to be generalizable in the strictest, traditional sense, it
should, we suggest, continue to provide insights
that are applicable and understandable to the
broader field of second language learning.
Taking a layered perspectivewhich here
means thinking seriously about theoretical
generalizabilityqualitative researchers in this
regard perhaps could do more to build cases and
descriptions in a way that would allow more easily
for comparisons, meta-analysis, or comprehensive
reviews that give clearer directions to practitioners and researchers working in other paradigms
(Duff, 2008; Eisenhart, 2009). Duff (2014), following Yin (2014), notes, generalization in relation to

221
a case is the opportunity to shed empirical light
about some theoretical concepts or principles (. .
.) that go beyond the setting for the specific case
(p. 40). Further, we suggest that in recent years,
some of these lines of research have perhaps
become overly mired in debates within the web
of poststructural theory, including definition and
refinement of constructs such as translanguaging
(Garca & Li Wei, 2014), performativity (Butler,
1990), cultural hybridity (Bhabha, 1994), and
transnational diaspora (Appadurai, 1996) among
many others. Some of these collective reflections
have undoubtedly been productive in advancing
the field and bringing to light more nuanced understandings of taken-for-granted constructs (e.g.
native speaker, second language, gender,
codeswitching), as well as productively generating new constructs helpful in understanding
second language processes (e.g., transculturation
[Zamel, 1997]; interculturality [Kramsch, 1993];
crossing [Rampton, 1995]; investment [Norton
Peirce, 1995]). Concomitantly, some of these
highly theorized presentations also have the
potential to distract applied linguistics from its
essential goal and purpose: to better understand
second language learning processes and outcomes. One potential means of keeping this
goal front and center is for anthropologically
oriented researchers of language learning to
layer concerns about theoretical generalizability
or transferability into their agendas right from
the start.
The concerns about generalizability play out
very differently in research that is more cognitive
in nature, where generalizability is taken without
question as a central issue. Typical challenges in
cognitive studies are small sample sizes, comparability of learners, and the lack of transferability or generalizability of results to other contexts
(ChalhoubDeville, Chapelle, & Duff, 2006). Insufficient sample size is often a concern raised
at the end of research papers (Paltridge & Phakiti, 2010), and can leave the researcher with the
uncertainty of understanding the results (p. 15).
Additionally, if the difference in sample sizes between groups is too great, the results may not
be comparable. Without a large enough sample
size, the results from studies lack both the validity to tell us anything substantial about the nature
of language learning and the generalizability of
the results to other contexts or learners. A layered perspective here demands that we move beyond the rather obvious issue of sample size when
examining studies for rigor, but also consider
the studys credibility, transferability, dependability (often established through triangulation), and

222
confirmability (Anfara et al., 2002). The bottom
line is that researchers need to take care to ensure
that the statistical tests they utilize are appropriate
for the number of subjects in their sample.
Looking at generalizability from another, layered perspective, we have seen a relatively recent emergence of emphasis on synthesis and
meta-analysis in the more cognitively oriented approaches. This is allowing applied linguistics to
address broader research questions than those
in the original, individual reports (Norris &
Ortega, 2006; Plonsky, 2013, 2014; Plonsky & Oswald, 2012). Meta-analyses are helping to define
the next generation of research questions as well
as provide helpful answers to the ones already
asked. Obviously, meta-analyses are not without
their own methodological drawbacks. As several
researchers have pointed out (e.g., Plonsky, 2013,
2014; Ziegler, 2013), it is important to not only
carefully consider the methodologies used within
the sampled studies, but also the techniques used
by the meta-analytic researchers. It is particularly
crucial that the criteria for inclusion and exclusion be carefully considered, explained, and justified. In addition, care must be taken to obtain
a representative sample and empirically investigate the possibility of publication bias in order to
produce a reliable and accurate aggregate effect
size (Norris & Ortega, 2006). This is not an objective process: There are interpretations involved
in making all these decisions. Nevertheless, there
are strong examples, such as recent meta-analyses
by Li (2010) and Ziegler (2016), which exemplify
the sophisticated and rigorous methods needed
to provide robust and reliable conclusions. Work
such as this, which clearly lays out its foundations,
is helpful in facilitating and guiding future replications. The integration of data from quantitative,
qualitative, meta-analysis, and replication studies
provides rich resources for future researchers to
resolve real-world language teaching and learning
problems.
Back to the Future: Application in Applied Linguistics
The future of applied linguistics, and we argue
one means of addressing ongoing questions concerning fragmentation, generalizability, and replication, is to continue to focus collectively and collaboratively on solving problems of not just how
second languages are learned, but also, how what
we know about learning translates into how language might best be taught. Doing this well demands that we layer our perspectives. Of course
this is not to suggest that basic questions on the
more cognitive side of language learning, such as

The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

the brain-based research, or on the more social
side, such as the sociocultural organization of language, are not also important and worthy of our
attention. Our point is that layering methodological perspectives and simultaneously focusing on
pressing practical issues can productively advance
and center the field. In other words, we advocate
for focus on authentic, real-world language learning problems that demand input and collaboration from the many lines of research across the
field of second language studies. Most applied linguists would agree, we believe, that focusing on
issues of learning and teaching keeps all of the
groups in dialogue, allowing us to sidestep the real
(and/or perceived) problems of splintering and
fragmentation.
There is no shortage of pressing, real-world
problems that need our collective, and layered, attention. Addressing many of these problems entails working in contexts and communities that
have often been overlooked by applied linguists,
including language learners with limited formal
education backgrounds, who migrate from/to,
or reside in, economically poor countries; who
are elderly; and who speak or are attempting to
learn an indigenous or highly endangered language. As just one example: Ojibwe, an endangered North American Indigenous language, is
quickly losing ground to English. With only about
500700 native speakers remaining in the United
States/Canada (Hermes & King, 2013), effective
second language teaching and learning solutions
are urgently needed. Anthropologically oriented
researchers have identified many of the ideological, emotional, and contextual constraints on language learning (King & Hermes, 2014). For instance, many learners face anxiety around learning in formal classroom contexts as a result of
their prior negative experiences in formal school
while others have developed memorization and
scripted performance strategies honed through
experiences at ceremonies and celebrations.
While this ethnographically informed research
helps us to understand the context, constraints,
and challenges of learning Ojibwe, a layered perspective might help define effective solutions.
To take just one possible example: One way
of doing this might be to consider the line of research known as aptitudetreatment interactions
(ATI), which explores how learners individual
differences (e.g., aptitude, motivation, styles,
strategies, working memory, cognitive creativity)
are related to the effectiveness of varied kinds
of instruction. ATI studies (e.g., Goo, 2012; Li,
2015a, 2015b; Sheen, 2007; Yilmaz, 2013) utilize aptitudetreatment interaction to provide

Kendall A. King and Alison Mackey

insights on language learning processes so that
L2 instruction can be optimized to fit the individual needs of the learner. These studies usually
combine methodologies using laboratory and
classroom methods, and analyses often employ
correlations and comparisons of means. Although ATI research is more often experimental
or quasi-experimental, its findings could productively be considered in response to central
real-world challenges within applied linguistics,
such as Ojibwe language revitalization. For example, learners with particular styles or motivations
for learning might be directed toward particular
online instruction tasks and activities, with the
effectiveness of these being a further important
topic of investigation. This example illustrates
how collectively focusing on very real and urgent
language problems demands input and collaboration from the many lines of research but also
has the potential to productively drive the field
forward. Applied linguistics, we argue, is at its
best when focused squarely on solving problems
of language learning.
CONCLUSION
While there has been greater discussion of
methodology in recent years, some of which has
been very fruitful, we believe going forward, we
can do more to draw from insights learned from
across our field to address methodological challenges. We use this centenary occasion to draw attention to the possibilities therein. To that end,
we believe that the field would benefit from more
internal engagement and discussion. It is all too
infrequent that high-profile controversies and debates manage to get to the deeper, more important issues for the field and the future of our work.
More broadly: Two facts drive the problems
highlighted in this review. The first is the simple,
obvious one that researchers are human beings;
to fail to understand that human motivations influence how research is conducted is to ignore
mountains of data. We recognize that this is a hard
pill (for some) to swallow as it calls into question
the foundation of the scientific method, but we
believe some degree of recognition of this will be
necessary for the advancement of our field. The
second concerns our tendency to not frame our
individual findings as part of a broader shared
evidence base of sustained empirical regularities.
There are strong incentives for all researchers to
promote one particular finding from one study
as entirely new, groundbreaking, and definitive.
Conversely, there are few incentives to replicate,
to emphasize connections with prior research,

223
to narrate how new data articulates with and
confirms past work, and the assumptions built and
reflected therein.
How could taking a more layered approach
help us to view these issues with a clearer lens? It
is important for researchers to realize that some
qualitative approaches, such as case studies, have
attracted important questions about their legitimacy as data sources. For example, there are often potential tensions between the researchers
roles as an observer and a participant. According
to Duff (2012), researchers must ask themselves,
what is your relationship to the participant or the
target population (or even the phenomenon being analyzed) and how might this influence your
recruitment, analysis, and findings or interpretations? (p. 106). And, of course, as has long been
known, the researchers participation in the case
study can change the nature of the event under
study (Labov, 1966). However, this is not an issue for qualitative researchers alone; as we have
argued here, all researchers must carefully consider how their position and perceptions might
influence the data collected and explicitly address
these concerns in any published report (Mackey,
2015). This will not only enable researchers to
make stronger claims, but also allows others to interpret the research and determine its generalizability or transferability. Clearly, Repligate does
not induce the same type of crisis and angst for all
researchers of applied linguistics. While replication in the strictest sense is not a central concern
for most anthropologically oriented researchers,
all research in second language learning could
and should do more to make clearer the connections between their case and context on the one
hand, and the broader body of work in that area,
on the other.
To close, in this anniversary review, we have
aimed to promote deeper cross-field understanding while addressing some outstanding challenges
in the field. We have argued that one means
of effectively addressing some of the current issues, including preventing fragmentation, is to
judiciously and skillfully draw from the wealth
of paradigms and perspectives already at hand
in the dynamic field of second language studies, and for researchers to develop and utilize
their skills as disciplinary bilinguals (Rampton
et al., 2002, p. 388). We have referred to this
as layering, meaning explicit consideration of
research problems from distinct epistemological
perspectives within the field. This is both less common, and we believe, more challenging than simply utilizing varied techniques in a single study.
Layering involves consideration of the central

224
philosophical challenges discussed previously,
such as replication and generalizability, from a
varied, or layered perspective. We look forward to
watching how the field takes up these challenges;
works toward addressing pressing, real-world language learning challenges and inequalities; and
continues to evolve over the next hundred years
of the Modern Language Journal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank two anonymous reviewers for detailed and
helpful comments and Heidi Byrnes for the invitation
and encouragement to write this piece.

REFERENCES
American Sociological Association (ASA). (2014). Alice Goffman Award Statement [Web site]. Accessed
16 July 2015 at http://www.asanet.org/about/
awards/dissertation/Goffman.cfm
Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002).
Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research
process more public. Educational Researcher, 31, 28
38.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Back, M. (2013). La orquesta: Symbolic performance
in a multilingual community of practice. Modern
Language Journal, 97, 383396.
Bartlett, L. (2008). Bilingual literacies, social identification, and educational trajectories. Linguistics and
Education, 18, 215231.
Bayley, R., & Tarone, E. (2012). Variationist approaches
to second language acquisition. In P. Robinson
(Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 679682). New York/London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Beretta, A., Crookes, G., Gregg, K., & Long, M. (1994).
Comment on van Lier 1994. Applied Linguistics, 15,
347.
Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New
York/London: Routledge.
Blom, E., & Unsworth, S. (2010). Experimental methods in language acquisition research. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boelen, W. M. (1992). Street corner society: Cornerville
revisited. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 21,
1151.
Bohannon, J. (2014). Replication effort provokes
praiseand bullying charges. Science, 344, 788
789.

The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

Brady, I. (1983). Speaking in the name of the real: Freeman and Mead on Samoa. American Anthropologist,
85, 908948.
Brown, J. D. (2014). Mixed methods research for TESOL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York/London: Routledge.
Byrnes, H. (2013). Notes from the editor. Modern Language Journal, 97, 825827.
ChalhoubDeville, M., Chapelle, C., & Duff, P. A.
(2006). Inference and generalizability in applied
linguistics: Multiple perspectives. Philadelphia/
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clifford, J. (1986). On ethnographic allegory. In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 98121). Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Collins, J. (2012). Migration, sociolinguistic scale, and
educational reproduction. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43, 192213.
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and
conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Donnellan, B. (2013). Go big or go home: A recent replication attempt [Blog]. Accessed 16 July 2015 at
https://traitstate.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/
go-big-or-go-home-a-recent-replication-attempt/
Drnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duff, P. A. (2002). Pop culture and ESL students: Intertextuality, identity, and participation in classroom
discussions. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
45, 482487.
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics.
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Duff, P. A. (2012). How to carry out case study research.
In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods
in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp.
95116). Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell.
Duff, P. A. (2014). Case study research on language
learning and use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 233255.
Eisenhart, M. (2009). Generalization from qualitative
inquiry. In K. Ercikan & W.M. Roth (Eds.), Generalizing from educational research (pp. 5166). New
York/London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA
research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285300.
Fogle, L. W., & King, K. A. (2015). Gender, sexuality
and multilingualism in the language classroom.
In B. Spolsky, O. InbarLourie, & M. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Challenges for language education and
policy (pp. 281293). New York/London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Kendall A. King and Alison Mackey

Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Garca, O., & Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gass, S. (2015). Methodologies of second language acquisition. In M. Bigelow & J. EnnserKananen
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 922). New York/London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Goffman, A. (2014). On the run: Fugitive life in an American city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445474.
Gregg, K. R. (2006). Taking a social turn for the worse:
The language socialization paradigm for second
language acquisition. Second Language Research, 22,
413442.
Hashemi, M., & Babaii, E. (2013). Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied
linguistics. Modern Language Journal, 97, 828852.
Heller, M. (1988). Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hermes, M., & King, K. A. (2013). Ojibwe language revitalization, multimedia technology, and family language learning. Language Learning & Technology,
17, 125144.
Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M.,
DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N. C., Lantolf, J. P., Mackey,
A., & Talmy, S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second
language learning and teaching. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 36, 361421.
Johnson, D. J., Cheung, F., & Donnellan, M. B. (2014).
Does cleanliness influence moral judgments? A direct replication of Schnall, Benton, and Harvey
(2008). Social Psychology, 45, 209215.
King, K. A. (2013). A tale of three sisters: Language ideologies, identities, and negotiations in a bilingual,
transnational family. International Multilingual Research Journal, 7, 4965.
King, K. A., & De Fina, A. (2010). Language policy and
Latina immigrants: An analysis of personal experience and identity in interview talk. Applied Linguistics, 31, 623650.
King, K. A., & Hermes, M. (2014). Why is this so
hard? Ideologies of endangerment, passive language learning approaches, and Ojibwe in the
United States. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 13, 268282.
King, K. A., & Lai, Y. (Eds.). (2016). Encyclopedia of
language and education, Volume 10: Research methods in language and education (2nd ed.). New York:
Springer.
King, K. A., & Punti, G. (2012). On the margins: Undocumented students narrated experiences of
(il)legality. Linguistics and Education, 23, 235249.
Kirkham, S. & Mackey, A. (2016). Research, relationships, and reflexivity: Two case studies of

225
language and identity. In P. DeCosta (Ed.). Ethics
in applied linguistics research: Language researcher narratives (pp. 103120). New York/London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Konnikova, M. (2014). Is social psychology biased against
Republicans? [Web article]. Accessed 16 July 2015
at
http://www.newyorker.com/science/mariakonnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Labov, W. (1966). The effect of social mobility on linguistic behavior. Sociological Inquiry, 36, 186203.
LaCour, M. J., & Green, D. P. (2014). When contact
changes minds: An experiment on transmission of
support for gay equality. Science, 346, 13661369.
Lantolf, J. P. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In M. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 5772). New York/London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Layder, D. (1997). Modern social theory: Key debates and
new directions. London/Bristol, PA: UCL Press.
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 3160.
Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems.
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7, 273290.
Lemke, J. L. (2002). Language development and identity: Multiple timescales in the social ecology of
learning. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 6887). New
York: Continuum.
Lewis, O. (1951). Life in a Mexican village: Tepoztln revisited. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in
SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309
365.
Li, S. (2015a). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition:
A meta-analytic review of five decades of research.
Applied Linguistics, 36, 385408. Accessed 28 October 2015 at http://hdl.handle.net/2292/26831
Li, S. (2015b). Working memory, language analytic ability, and L2 recasts. In Z. E. Wen, M. B. Mota, &
A. McNeil (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing (pp. 139159). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lin, A. M. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance and code
switching in Hong Kong schools. Linguistics and
Education, 8, 4984.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Link, H., Gallo, S., & Wortham, S. (2014). gusme
klt!: Faux Spanish in the New Latino Diaspora. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 255273).
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment
in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &

226
T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413468). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Lubet, S. (2015). Ethnographers on the run (Not). [The
Faculty Lounge blog]. Accessed July 16 2015 at
http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2015/06/
ethnographers-on-on-the-run-not.html
Mackey, A. (2015). Practice and progression in second
language research methods. AILA Review, 28, 80
97.
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approaches. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 723). New York/London: Routledge/Taylor
& Francis.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide.
Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
McNamara, T. (2011). Managing learning: Authority
and language assessment. Language Teaching, 44,
500515.
Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa: A psychological
study of primitive youth for Western civilization. New
York: W. Morrow & Company.
Moore, D., & Macdonald, M. (2013). Language and literacy development in a Canadian native community: Halqemylem revitalization in a St: lo head
start program in British Columbia. Modern Language Journal, 97, 702719.
MorganShort, K., Steinhauer, K., Sanz, C., & Ullman,
M. T. (2012). Explicit and implicit second language training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 933947.
MorganShort, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2012). The neurocognition of second language. In S. M. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 282299). New York/London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2006). Synthesizing
research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment,
and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 930.
Ortner, S. B. (2006). Anthropology and social theory: Culture, power, and the acting subject. Durham/London:
Duke University Press.
Orwin, R. G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In H.
Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 139162). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (Eds.). (2010). Continuum
companion to research methods in applied linguistics.
London: Continuum.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation
methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pennycook, A. (1990). Towards a critical applied linguistics for the 1990s. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1, 8
28.

The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016

Philp, J., & Mackey, A. (2010). Interaction research:
What can socially informed approaches offer to
cognitivists (and vice versa)? In R. Batstone (Ed.),
Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 210228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pietikinen, S., & Dufva, H. (2014). Heteroglossia in
action: Smi children, textbooks and rap. In A.
Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as
practice and pedagogy (pp. 5974). Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Springer.
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment
of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in
quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 35, 655687.
Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (19902010): A methodological synthesis
and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98,
450470.
Plonsky, L, & Oswald, F. (2012). How to do a metaanalysis. In A. Mackey & S. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 275295). Malden, MA: Wiley
Blackwell.
Polio, C. (Ed.). (2014). Topics in research methods. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, vvi.
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes Ill start a sentence in
spanish y termino en espanol: Toward a typology
of codeswitching. Linguistics, 18, 581618.
Porte, G. K. (2010). Appraising research in second language learning: A practical approach to critical analysis
of quantitative research. Philadelphia/Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Porte, G. K. (Ed.). (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity
among adolescents. London: Longman.
Rampton, B., Roberts, C., Leung, C., & Harris, R.
(2002). Method in the analysis of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics, 23, 373392.
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (2013). Implicit learning
in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle
(Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (Vol. 20).
WileyBlackwell.
Redfield, R. T. (1930). Tepoztlan, a Mexican village: A study
of folk life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching,
47, 135173.
Richards, K., Ross, S., & Seedhouse, P. (2012). Research methods for applied language studies. New
York/Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Rigdon, S. (1988). The culture facade: Art, science, and politics in the work of Oscar Lewis. Urbana, IL: University
of Illinois Press.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second
language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129
158.

Kendall A. King and Alison Mackey

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic
conversational ability in a second language: A case
study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day
(Ed.), Talking to learn (pp. 237326). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008). With a
clean conscience cleanliness reduces the severity
of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19, 1219
1222.
Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the
emerging internet. New York/London: Routledge.
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 465478.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attributes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301322).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stillo, J. (2011). The Trobriand Islanders never friended
Malinowski on Facebook [Blog]. Accessed 16
July 2015 at https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/
cacophony/2011/11/30/the-trobriand-islandersnever-friended-malinowski-on-facebook/
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair
work. Language Learning, 52, 119158.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and
the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second
language learning: Two adolescent French immersion learners working together. Modern Language
Journal, 82, 320337.
Tagarelli, K. M. (2014). The neurocognition of adult second
language learning: An fMRI study. (Unpublished dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington,
DC.
Talmy, S. (2010). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, and ideology in a
speech event. Applied Linguistics, 32, 2542.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed
methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
TESOL Quarterly. (2015). TESOL Quarterly Research
Guidelines. [Web site]. Accessed 16 July 2015 at
http://www.tesol.org/read-and-publish/journals/
tesol-quarterly/tesol-quarterly-researchguidelines

227
Unkelbach, C. (Ed.). (2014). Social Psychology [Special
Issue], 45.
van Lier, L. (1994). The classroom and the language learner.
London: Longman.
Warriner, D. S. (2012). When the macro facilitates the
micro: A study of regimentation and emergence
in spoken interaction. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 43, 173191.
WatsonGegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and
epistemology: Toward a language socialization
paradigm for SLA. Modern Language Journal, 88,
331350.
Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society: The social structure
of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Whyte, W. F. (1996). Qualitative sociology and deconstructionism. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 242244.
Wilson, I. (2014). Using ultrasound for teaching and researching articulation. Acoustical Science and Technology, 35, 285289.
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2013). Factors influencing the use of captions by foreign language
learners: An eye-tracking study. Modern Language
Journal, 97, 254275.
Wodak, R., Krzyzanowski, M., & Forchtner, B. (2012).
The interplay of language ideologies and contextual cues in multilingual interactions: Language
choice and codeswitching in European Union institutions. Language in Society, 41, 157186.
Wortham, S. (2012). Beyond macro and micro in the
linguistic anthropology of education. Anthropology
& Education Quarterly, 43, 128137.
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit
feedback: The role of working memory capacity
and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics,
34, 344368.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods
(5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Zamel, V. (1997). Towards a model of transculturation.
TESOL Quarterly, 31, 341352.
Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican
children in New York City. New York: Blackwell.
Ziegler, N. (2013). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A research synthesis
and meta-analysis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington,
DC.
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated
communication and interaction: A meta-analysis.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition.