Cover not available

In:Ethical Issues in Applied Linguistics Scholarship
Edited by Peter I. De Costa, Amr Rabie-Ahmed and Carlo Cinaglia
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 7] 2024
► pp. 122–135

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

Chapter 7
The zero-sum game of beneficence

Conducting ethical critical inquiries in K-12 schools

 | Lehigh University
Published online: 21 November 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.7.08kan
Abstract
Critical research by nature is emancipatory, seeking to disrupt existing structures of systems, such as those in K-12 schools, that privilege particular groups while disenfranchising others. With such critical frameworks in research studies, however, competing interests among participants can emerge, exacerbating broader issues of privilege and oppression. Yet, applied linguists in the earliest years of their doctoral studies and careers are left ill-equipped to manage such conflicts and the ethical dilemmas they present. This chapter aims to lessen this oversight in training in two ways. First, the chapter draws upon the experiences that one critical applied linguist encountered in her research in schools. The researcher discovered that attempting to safeguard the well-being of all participants in a study is an untenable endeavor, especially when participants have disparate interests that contend with one another. Drawing upon illustrative examples from her research on multilingual learners with disabilities, the chapter lays bare the ethical dilemmas often present in critical inquiries and yet that do not surface in typical empirical publications. Second, the chapter offers recommendations for doctoral students and early-career applied linguists to consider as they conduct critical studies in schools with minoritized student groups.
Article outline
  • Ethics-in-context
  • Ethically important moments up close
    • Ethically important moment #1: Bureaucratic errors
    • Ethically important moment #2: Teacher burnout
  • Recommendations for researchers
    • 1.Count on competing interests
    • 2.Develop productive coping mechanisms
    • 3.Consider individuals over institutions
    • 4.Collaborate with transparency
    • 5.Do what you can, the best you can
  • Conclusion
  • References
References (27)
References
Bernstein, K. A. (2019). Ethics in practice and answerability in complex, multi-participant studies. In D. S. Warriner & M. Bigelow (Eds.), Critical reflections on research methods: Power and equity in complex multilingual contexts (pp. 127–142). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burke, A. M., Morita-Mullaney, T., Singh, M. (2016). Indiana emergent bilingual student time to reclassification: A survival analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1310–1342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative research. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Costa, P. I. (2015). Ethics in applied linguistics research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 245–257). Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Costa, P. I., Lee, J., Rawal, H., & Li, W. (2020). Ethics in applied linguistics research. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 122–130). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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
Haney, C., Banks, W., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69–97.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford prison experiment. American Psychologist, 53(7), 709–727. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harklau, L. (2016). Bureaucratic dysfunctions in the education of Latino immigrant youth. American Journal of Education, 122(4), 601–627. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kangas, S. E. N. (2014). When special education trumps ESL: An investigation of service delivery for ELLs with disabilities. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(4), 273–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). “That’s where the rubber meets the road”: The intersection of special education and bilingual education. Teachers College Record, 119(7), 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Breaking one law to uphold another: Service provision for English learners with disabilities. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 877–910. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Counternarratives of English learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 43(3), 267–285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kangas, S. E. N., & Cook, M. (2020). Academic tracking of English learners with disabilities in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 57(6), 2415–2449. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Learning disabilities as external individual differences in second language acquisition. In V. De Wilde & C. Goroit (Eds.), Second language learning before adulthood: Individual differences in children and adolescents (pp. 9–30). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kieffer, M. J., & Parker, C. E. (2016). Patterns of English learner student reclassification in New York City Public Schools. REL 2017–200. Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved on 25 Jue 2024 from [URL]
Komesaroff, P. (1995). From bioethics to microethics: Ethical debate and clinical medicine. In P. Komesaroff (Ed.), Troubled bodies: Critical perspectives on postmodernism, medical ethics and the body (pp. 62–86). Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kubanyiova, M. (2008). Rethinking research ethics in contemporary applied linguistics: The tension between macroethical and microethical perspectives in situated research. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 503–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mellor, D. (2013). Critical theory of education. In J. Ainsworth (Ed.), Sociology of education: An a-to-z guide (Vol. 1, pp. 165–167). Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
National Research Act of 1974. 42 U.S.C. § 289 (1974).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sahakyan, N., & Ryan, S. (2018). Long-term English learners across 15 WIDA states: A research brief (WIDA Research Brief No. RB-2018–1). WIDA at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved on 25 June 2024 from [URL]
Shin, N. (2020). Stuck in the middle: Examination of long-term English learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 14(3), 181–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spall, S. (1998). Peer debriefing in qualitative research: Emerging operational models. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 280–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sterling, S., & Gass, S. (2017). Exploring the boundaries of research ethics: Perceptions of ethics and ethical behaviors in applied linguistics research. System, 70, 50–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, S. B., & Quinn, S. C. (1991). Public health then and now: The Tuskegee syphilis study, 1932 to 1972: Implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the Black community. American Journal of Public Health, 81(11), 1498–1505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue