Cover not available

Article published In: Questionable Research Practices in Applied Linguistics
Edited by Luke Plonsky
[Journal of Second Language Studies 8:2] 2025
► pp. 313–343

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Research ethics awareness among practitioner-researchers of an intensive English as a foreign language program

 | Northern Arizona University, United States
 | King Saud University, Saudi Arabia
Published online: 14 November 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00055.dun
Abstract
The field of applied linguistics is currently undergoing a methodological shift, specifically in raising accountability towards ethical research practices (Plonsky, L., Brown, D., Chen, M., Ghanem, R., Arvizu, M. N. G., Isbell, D. R., & Zhang, M. (2024). “Significance sells”: Applied linguists’ views on questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 100099.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, Yaw, K., Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Sterling, S., & Kytö, M. (2023). Research ethics in applied linguistics. Language Teaching, 56(4), 478–494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). The current study aimed to discern the perceptions of research ethics of intensive English practitioners affiliated with a university and are positioned to contribute to the scholarly record. A 40-item Q-sort was used to ascertain participants’ (n = 51) perceptions of ethical, unethical and questionable research practices, which resulted in 6 distinct perceptions: ethically informed, unethically informed, uninformed, misinformed, ethically inclined, and QRP misinformed. Cross-referencing participants’ previous research experiences showed no correlation between educational attainment and perceptions of ethics but indicated a trend of theoretical and practical research as a coursework requirement at all degree levels. Overall, instruction of ethics can be supported in multiple ways to encourage and engage practitioner-researchers to contribute to the academic record.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Rigor in applied linguistics
      • 2.1.1AL research and ethical practices
      • 2.1.2Questionable research practices
    • 2.2Researcher qualifications and publication expectations
    • 2.3Current study
      • 2.3.1Positionality statement
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Measures
      • 3.2.1Educational attainment survey
      • 3.2.2Q-sort items
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Demographic descriptives
    • 4.2Factor score ranks
    • 4.3Factor interpretation
      • 4.3.1Factor 1- Ethically informed
      • 4.3.2Factor 2- unethically informed
      • 4.3.3Factor 3- uninformed
      • 4.3.4Factor 4- misinformed
      • 4.3.5Factor 5- ethically inclined
      • 4.3.6Factor 6- QRP uninformed
    • 4.4Research experience and factor loadings
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Perceptions of research practices
    • 5.2Effect of research experience
    • 5.3Recommendations
      • 5.3.1Practical recommendations
      • 5.3.2Further research: Addressing limitations
  • 6.Conclusions
  • References
References (34)
References
AAAL Ethics Guidelines Task Force. (2017). AAAL ethics guidelines. Retrieved from [URL]
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). [URL]
Atai, M. R., Karimi, M. N., & Asadnia, F. (2018). Conceptions of research publication among Iranian doctoral students of applied linguistics: Cherish the wish to publish or rush to perish. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), 21(1), 29–65.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
British Association for Applied Linguistics, (2016). Recommendations on good practice in applied linguistics (report). [URL]
Banasick, S. (2023). Ken-Q Analysis (Version 2.0.1) [Computer software]. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bardi, M. (2015). Learning the practice of scholarly publication in English: A Romanian perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 371, 98–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, K., & Davies, A. (2002). Doctors’ orders for language testers: The origin and purpose of ethical codes. Language Testing 191, 296–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Costa, P. I. (Ed.). (2015). Ethics in applied linguistics research: Language researcher narratives. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dikilitaş, K., & Bostancıoğlu, A. (2019). Inquiry and research skills for language teachers. Springer Nature. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S., Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2021). Coming of age: The past, present, and future of quantitative SLA research. Language Teaching, 541, 245–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilliland, B., Kunkel, M., Nguyen, T. H., Urada, K., & Christenson, C. (2023). Ethical dilemmas of teacher research in applied linguistics. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100072. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Government of Saudi Arabia. (2016). Vision 2030. Saudi Government. [URL]
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 21, e124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Isbell, D. R., Brown, D., Chen, M., Derrick, D. J., Ghanem, R., Arvizu, M. N. G., Schnur, E., Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L. (2022). Misconduct and questionable research practices: The ethics of quantitative data handling and reporting in applied linguistics. The Modern Language Journal, 106(1), 172–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 231, 524–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
King Saud University. (2015). Rules governing the ethics of scientific research (policy). [URL]
Kubanyiova, M. (2008). Rethinking research ethics in contemporary applied linguistics: The tension between macroethical and microethical perspectives in situated research. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 503–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kwan, B. S. C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 591, 55–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Sterling, S., Kytö, M., Yaw, K., & Wood, M. (2023). On the frequency, prevalence, and perceived severity of questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100064. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. B. (2013). Q methodology. Sage publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
National Council on Bio Ethics. (2011). The law of ethics of research on living creatures. [URL]
Pirotto, C., & Dykes, R. (2019). Quantitative methods: Mistakes to avoid. JALT CUE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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(4), 655–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., Brown, D., Chen, M., Ghanem, R., Arvizu, M. N. G., Isbell, D. R., & Zhang, M. (2024). “Significance sells”: Applied linguists’ views on questionable research practices. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 100099.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sijtsma, K. (2016). Playing with data — Or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika, 811, 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 221, 1359–1366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shagoury, R., & Power, B. M. (2023). Living the questions: A guide for teacher-researchers. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
TESOL Research Professional Council, (2023). TESOL RPC Research Priorities Survey 2022: Report on Findings (Technical Report). TESOL International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2009). Ethical issues in the study of second language acquisition: Resources for researchers, Second Language Research, 25(4), 493–511. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, M., Sterling, S., Larsson, T., Plonsky, L., Kytö, M., & Yaw, K. (2024). Researchers training researchers: Ethics training in quantitative applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, S., & Li, Z. (2024). How semantic prosody is acquired in novel word learning: Evidence from the “Double-Date Tree” effect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(5), 531–541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yaw, K., Plonsky, L., Larsson, T., Sterling, S., & Kytö, M. (2023). Research ethics in applied linguistics. Language Teaching, 56(4), 478–494. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue