Graham Crookes, Dept. of ESL, University of Hawai’i

1997. TESOL Journal, 7(3), 6-10.

Recently, Christian Faltis asked if I would address some aspects of the relationship between research and teaching with the TESOL Journal in mind - the topic being one I had addressed before - and the result you have in your hands. I mention this to emphasize that I did not decide to put my unrequested thoughts on this matter in front of you (and him) out of some misguided sense of my authority in this matter; but if someone says to a professor, What do you think about X? - well, no one should be surprised if a professor were to profess... Nevertheless, I did have some reluctance at first. Though there are aspects of the matter which I believe deserve attention in print, the presence of the academic's voice (which you're hearing now) and the absence of the teacher's (a common absence in the academic literature) is part of the problem.

If the relationship were simple, or not a source of concern, I don't think it would come up so often (cf. Crookes, 1997; Ellis, 1997). But it seems that where a domain of social action (like ours) has both academic and professional/practical dimensions, the relationship between the two is often difficult; as it is in mainstream education, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, architecture, nursing (Rice & Richlin, 1993), social work (Wenger, 1987), and counseling (Morrow-Bradley & Elliott, 1986; Peterson, 1991). In our area, we really know less than we should about the relationship. In this discussion, I want to focus on the relationship mainly in its social aspects. I will review some things that probably make it weaker than it ought to be, then some which might make it stronger, and conclude with the familiar call for more research, but which in this case is a request for any research on this important relationship.

In our area, researchers are generally university-employed teachers (hereinafter called academics) who have as part of their job responsibilities the production of writings known as "research". There are considerable differences, however, in the extent to which academics in different cultures and education systems are required to do research. First, I want to remind readers that in many parts of the world, academics would like to have the chance to do research, but are prevented by the lack of resources, political motivated efforts to control universities, or simply by salaries that do not cover living expenses. The other side of the picture is a stronger generalization: It is a generally-accepted belief that teachers working in primary and secondary educational institutions, or in the adult education sector, don't do research. Here I want to remind readers of the growing number of teacher-researchers who explicitly combine teaching with research, despite shortages of time and resources.

Have I adequately separated these two groups so we can go on to think about their relationships? No, because another problem remains–one of personal history. In the S/FL area, many people who become academics start their careers in education as instructors, whether at primary, secondary, or tertiary level, and then with the accumulation of degrees move from one set of working conditions and demands to another. But their academic questions may stay with them across the contexts: Many a piece of academic SLA research, for example, started life as the concern of a S/FL teacher about his/her students' learning (Pica, 1994, but cf. Clarke, 1994). Furthermore, research-oriented academics do actually teach, though unfortunately they are not rewarded for paying more than minimal attention to their teaching, and it is often said that academics who get too close to the world of teaching find their careers suffer as a result.

But what about this relationship, then? SL learning (or SLA) is one of a number of areas of academic study that might on the face of it be relevant to teaching and teachers, and thereby have a relationship with either of those two words (and what they represent). Other areas would include second language teaching, second language analysis, and second language use. There certainly have been discussions of the relations of teachers or teaching to the other two areas, with the relationship of teaching to the analysis area coming in for some criticism from time to time. If there has been more discussion, both questioning and affirming, of the SLA-to-T connection, than of the others, I will assert that this is because of the lead that SLA gained in the late 1970s and 1980s in establishing itself as the more academically credible part of a would-be academic area. Some have suggested that it is only by distancing itself from teaching that SLA can continue this trend. So distancing moves by some, and perhaps jealousy in other quarters, might have put a putative connection under strain. Just as academics associated with education find themselves pulled in two directions, one towards the university research community, and the other towards teachers, with financial and career rewards only in the first direction, so it may be that SLA, in particular, will always be pulled in two directions, as well. That is, so long as there is one or more academic disciplines influencing the content and style of research concerning second and foreign languages, and how they are learned, which have no concern with teaching (the obvious candidates here being linguistics and psychology) such research is likely to be pulled away from what Ellis (1988) calls an "educational" approach - that is, pulled away from an SLA that "seeks to illuminate language pedagogy through studies of what takes place in the name of instruction and how this affects acquisition" (Ellis, 1992, p. 15; cf. Long & Crookes, 1986; Pica, 1994).

When people do research, they produce oral and written accounts of a social practice. These discourses and texts are surrounded by other social practices which support the differences these texts have from other less-privileged ones, like, for example, the conversations teachers have in the staff room. They are not generally easy for those without familiarity with their genres to understand, as is true of much such language. In our area, since these texts appear to be about matters such as language, teaching, and learning–that is, the things teachers are close to–some teachers might expect them to be accessible, but many aren't. Why? Besides the effects of detail or level of abstraction of the accounts, these books, articles, and conference presentations, items apparently separate one from another, are not separate at all; they are short utterances in a very long, polyvocal discourse–a conversation decades long. As anyone who has tried to pick up a conversation part way through knows, figuring out what's being talked about can be pretty difficult.

Some of the criticisms of published research on grounds of accessibility or relevance have focused on the journal literature. But if teachers are going to get anything from research, are they not more likely to get it from publications that try to provide a more substantial chunk of information than the single piece of the puzzle provided by most journal articles?

Grumbles are sometimes expressed (though not very often in print) by teachers about the inaccessibility of research-related discourses. Academics have been known to be worried about such grumbles, sometimes, and irritated by them, other times. This has led to attempts at various levels to make published research more accessible to the teacher. Articles which contain text that differs most markedly from ordinary prose have come in for explicit concern–hence, for example, JD Brown's (1991) efforts to make statistics comprehensible to readers of the TESOL Quarterly.

Some have hoped that the accessibility problem could be handled by increasing professional training in the area of research, since accessibility is an interactive matter. I think that for those teachers who go through a fairly academic MA program, much that was inaccessible becomes clearer. To continue the description in terms of texts and so on, one can say, following Gee (1992) that they have successfully apprenticed to a discourse (cf. Ellis, 1997). Some might hope that the move towards qualitative research, with its apparently more direct forms of writing (and certainly its limited use of inferential statistics) would make research or theory more accessible. But of course, it's very difficult to generalize about this sort of thing. Some quantitative studies are very simple, and even simply reported; and some qualitative studies are impenetrable because of their conceptual presuppositions, or because of their length (Eisenhart & Borko, 1993).

Another development or two in the kind of literature that's becoming available in our field might be worth considering in discussions of relevance or accessibility. It is increasingly recognized that disciplines previously assumed to be neutral accumulations of findings of relevance to teachers, such as psychology, may contain assumptions about, for example, human nature, that are actually political, or have political effects. We also increasingly see research concerned with issues of power in SL learning and teaching. This is sometimes associated with the word "critical", which in an increasingly loose usage refers to critiques of society based on radical democratic values (which might be anarchist, libertarian marxist, socialist, feminist, green, communitarian, though perhaps not merely liberal). Could these orientations produce work that would strengthen the relationship by maximizing the relevance problem and minimizing the accessibility problem? It depends which groups of teachers you ask, of course. Teachers with a strong social conscience might find reading periodicals like Radical Teacher or LibEd comfortable, though obviously those who've never considered themselves as active citizens and are now expatriates ("I'm not political, I just want to make big bucks in Japan") will find such writings just as inaccessible or irrelevant as others might find studies of theoretical pragmatics. And unfortunately, some sections of this literature have an academic super-structure every bit as discoursally-impenetrable as language testing or Hallidayan linguistics is to the uninitiated.

The problem is not one to be resolved solely as a result of squabbling between academic factions over which theoretical or methodological approach should be followed in SLA research, or equivalently, in research conducted directly on SL teaching or in the analyses of language. It isn't even going to be solved by those like myself who as a result of their professional responsibilities concern themselves with philosophical, political, and moral dimensions of S/FL teaching and teacher preparation . In my view, though aspects of accessibility at the textual level always deserve attention by writers ("who am I writing for?") and by readers ("am I part of the targeted audience, or am I going to have to either make a serious effort to understand this or look for a different treatment of it?"), a more important concern is with the professional conditions of S/FL teachers as limiting perceived relevance and accessibility of research.

Though thankfully we can all think of counter-examples, far too many S/FL teachers are working under unprofessional conditions. Having said that, let me comment on the contested term "professional". It's not necessarily the case that we should desire those characteristics which make the archetypal professions professional (Ginsburg & Kamat, 1995, Smyth, 1995). The legal profession, or at least its members, has an extremely bad image in much of North America, and this is at least partly because it is seen as having a monopoly on access to important skills (discourses, even)–a monopoly which is not entirely legitimate. In the medical profession, too, much that should be simply moral is hopelessly conflicted with issues of power and control. However, I am happy for S/FL educators to use the term "professional" as a club to beat down those who would force us into working conditions which above all provide no time for reflection; and no time for the non-classroom parts of our job which are essential if we are to grow and develop as human beings and enable us to fully discharge our responsibilities, humanistically-conceived.

When it becomes much more widely accepted that ES/FL teaching which adequately responds to the local needs of specific populations of students, and to the changing demands of programs, and to the various different cultural conditions around the world in which English is taught, must be tied in with curriculum development, program evaluation, and human resource development, it is quite possible, I believe, that we will have fewer of the sort of articles I am presently trying to write (though from the academic end of things, the increasing shift away from always emphasizing the universally-true as the only legitimate form of knowledge is an important movement). But local forms of knowledge, locally-valid generalizations, have been used by those taking action to solve problems and improve matters, whether in business or in society, for a long time now. And the action research movement, with its concern for locally-generated solutions to problems, is in my view the ideal vehicle to bring together such terms as professional growth, curriculum development, course evaluation and program self-study, and provide increased legitimation for these aspects of teachers' work.

Many teachers never have a chance to do work that contains any of these things, however - so of course academic research remains far from their concerns. They don't have the time to read it, even if they wanted to. Others, a much smaller proportion of the S/FL business, do engage in materials writing and the like, but perhaps without the long-term stability of a program in which this is part of cyclical process of course evaluation and program improvement. And again, of those that do, how many conceptualize what they are doing in research terms? If research has primarily presented itself to them only as something which aims at universal generalizations divorced from specific contexts, it is asking too much of S/FL teaching programs alone to bridge the conceptual divide.

The distance can be narrowed, however, by a variety of means.

At the most formal level, there are sometimes university-school partnerships, mainly in the developed countries, which can both strengthen the relationship between the teachers and academics involved, as well as aiding the uptake of research. But where this sort of thing is needed most, the university skills are often missing (in the third world, or U.S. ghettos, for example).

Less formal connections are also important: Research on the communication networks between researchers and practitioners suggests that contact among individuals in a network of socially or professionally related educators and researchers increases the utilization of research findings by practitioners (Huberman, 1990), though direct teacher input in the formulation of reports is also important (Florio-Ruane & Dohanich, 1984; see Muir 1980 for an early teacher account of this sort of thing).

Very small-scale partnerships are increasingly reported, a well-known one being that of Branscombe and Heath. When teacher Amanda Branscombe had completed some in-service coursework on teacher research, she invited Stanford University researcher Shirley Heath to her classroom to do a joint investigation of high school writing, and a variety of interesting and highly accessible papers ensued (1987; cf. Branscombe & Thomas, 1992) and other collections were developed to promote this kind of connection (e.g., Branscombe, Goswami, & Schwarz, 1992). A number of joint efforts can be found in our field (see Edge & Richards, 1993; Hudelson & Lindfors, 1993), including those early ones that Allwright and Bailey (1990) flag, like Florio & Walsh (1981). Allwright and Bailey, who have advocated various forms of action research over the years, say

A problem, however, is that there are few professional rewards available to the individuals on both sides that derive directly from such partnerships. At present, although service is officially part of an academic’s responsibilities in the US, it is rarely the deciding factor in hiring or promotion. And most regular teachers gain little professional or financial benefit from investigations they might do towards improving their classroom practice. Despite exceptions, the educational institutions on both sides of the relationship are tacitly supporting the divide rather than helping individuals to cross it.

The connection can be made yet closer, simply by making teachers and researchers the same people, and by recognizing teachers' knowledge of their students' learning as research having some, though perhaps not all of the desirable characteristics of academic SL research (generality, or detail, or duration), just as academic SL research doesn't have all of the desirable characteristics of teachers' knowledge (insider perspective, applicability). This is the position of the teacher-researcher movement. Teacher research (a.k.a action research) has been advocated in our area by prominent figures over a long period (Ellis, 1997; Long, 1983; Nunan, 1996; van Lier, 1990; cf. Wallace, 1998). These days it is usually qualitative research, whose reports "more closely resemble the narrative forms already used by practitioners to communicate their knowledge" (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994, p. 20). In addition, when it is also critical (cf. Auerbach, 1993; Crookes, 1993; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988) it can take teachers from solving immediate technical problems to jointly investigating and ameliorating the sociopolitical pressures that prevent them from having professional working conditions.

What in reality sustains the relationship has hardly been studied by those involved in it. However, knowledge utilization and information dissemination are empirical fields of study. Here are some questions that lie within this domain:

Does the fact that many ESOL teachers have no time to read the TESOL Quarterly (for example) truly mean that they can not relate to research, or that their pedagogy is really uninformed by it? What really goes on in this respect when teachers talk or think about classrooms? (See Bailey, 1992.)

Which parts of TESOL textbooks reflect SLA/T research and which do not? Some textbooks in our field do now contain ideas not present explicitly in texts in the past, and which have appeared first in research writings (cf. Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; e.g., learning strategies: Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975; Rubin & Thompson, 1994; Chamot, 1987). What are the roles of researcher, materials writer, and publisher in bringing in some things and keeping out others? What is the comparable role of the teacher resource book?

Assuming that the relationship between SL research and the average classroom teacher, if and when it exists, is almost certainly a mediated one, with various agents (including textbooks) standing between the two groups, is it always only one-way–from the research community to teachers? Shouldn't we document the thought I've heard my colleagues express, that even academic research follows, rather than precedes, classroom practice? Or shouldn’t it better be conceptualized (and documented) as a passing back-and-forth of concepts?

If the relationship, insofar as it exists, is a mediated one, what specific ways of strengthening the forms of mediation have been tried? Can we document occasions of "continuous personal contact" that Fullan (1991, p. 53) says are necessary for teachers to become aware of and follow up on innovative ideas? In this context, where there is SL action research going on, what administrative support and encouragement is necessary to support it, and/or what other conditions foster it? (cf. Edge & Richards, 1993; Markee, 1996).

Relatedly, what is happening in the area of in-school professional development with respect to ES/FL, and how do school administrations address their responsibility for teacher development? Are there staff development programs in our area which have gone beyond developing individuals’ skills to "enhancing the collective capacity of people to create and pursue overall visions" in "learning communities" (Senge, 1995)?

Does the decontextualized nature of mainstream SLA research contribute to the problem of relevance or uptake, and if so, what should be done? That is, if your primary source disciplines discard as irrelevant the social and political aspects of language and learning, and assuming that teaching is a social and political act, are you thereby ensuring the production of research writings that teachers will find irrelevant? Turning that around, could S/FL research in general become more accessible through questioning aspects of source disciplines which reflect individualist philosophies, or which arise from conceptions of humanity based on the male or the Westerner alone? Would this aid its relevance to ESL teachers in countries where the status and working conditions of teachers are poor, in which ESL is for refugees and migrants?

On the other hand, in those EFL countries where English is a middle-class aspiration and the birthright of the rich and powerful, would such work be seen as irrelevant? Or is it the case that even in these countries, the working conditions of teachers in elite institutions are by no means always favorable and that empirical studies in this tradition, focused on specific contexts, might thereby be relevant?

Most published research, not only in SLA but also in applied linguistics, is done by academics. This is even the case in strongly teacher-oriented journals such as English Teaching Forum. When teachers do research, as in the more academic training programs, what sort of informal relations between researchers and teachers, such as mentoring, are needed for them to break into print?

What is the role of teacher education programs in strengthening the relationship? Do we provide adequate opportunity for student teachers to digest the research component of academic coursework so as to be able to relate it to their teaching (cf. Wallace, 1991, Freeman, 1992, Richards and Lockhart, 1994)? Do student teachers ever make use of it after they graduate?

Too much relevant information is physically inaccessible: The two indices most focused on TESOL (Second Language Instruction/Acquisition Abstracts (SLIA) and Language Teaching) are not on-line and are very expensive, so teachers again cannot draw on research. In ESL, can we replicate initiatives like that of one teachers’ union which funded teachers to assist the in-school delivery of research, materials, and information, and to link bring together colleagues with common interests and needs (Kent, 1985)?

What are the successful (and unsucessful) strategies used by teachers who organize their workplaces to struggle for more respectable working conditions? Where did they learn their successful techniques? (And if it wasn't in our, or my, ESL teacher education classes, why not?)

I for one would love to read answers or responses to those questions, whether written in academic language or sent in brief narrative accounts over the e-mail networks of teacher-researchers, and in any formats lying in between. To improve the relationship between research and teaching in TESOL, the work conditions of S/FL teachers, the conception of a teachers’ responsibilities, and the conception of schools’ responsibilities in sustaining professional practice and development must change. At the same time, perhaps both the academic concepts as well as the responsibilities of those academics engaged in the preparation of S/FL teachers should also change. And we badly need to turn our academic and teacher-researcher attention to empirical exploration of the complex and important relationship under discussion here.