IF 4 2区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Timothy Hampson, Jim McKinley
{"title":"Systematic review, systematic bias? An example from EMI research","authors":"Timothy Hampson, Jim McKinley","doi":"10.1017/s0261444824000338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Based on the rigorous systematicity assumed in systematic review methodology, it is no surprise that a prominent review such as Macaro et al.'s (2018) on English medium instruction (EMI) has been used as a basis for subsequent EMI research. However, in this article, we explore the ways in which the focus of systematic reviews can be necessarily narrowed and how this poses a risk to research when readers perceive them as offering definitive conclusions on all aspects of a subject. This article addresses two significant trends in applied linguistics. First, systematic review – that is, the use of formalised systems when reviewing literature – has become far more prominent and therefore more impactful than traditional reviews as a methodology (Chong &amp; Plonsky, 2023). Second, there has been an explosive growth in interest in EMI research (Curle et al., 2024). There are further parallels between the two trends, given that both systematic review and EMI are umbrella terms that cover a wide range of research types. As we will see, there is perhaps more disagreement over how to conduct a systematic review than lay readers would suspect. Similarly, EMI is a broader field of research than appears in its most prominent systematic review article. Studies into EMI have explored policy, language learning, the effect on subject knowledge, attitudes towards EMI, ownership of English, and so on. Thus, while EMI is a growingly recognised field of study, it is not always clear what it means to ‘study EMI’.</p>","PeriodicalId":47770,"journal":{"name":"Language Teaching","volume":"61 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444824000338","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于系统性综述方法所假定的严格系统性,像 Macaro 等人(2018 年)关于英语语言教学(EMI)的著名综述被用作后续 EMI 研究的基础也就不足为奇了。然而,在本文中,我们将探讨系统性综述的重点必然会被缩小的方式,以及当读者认为这些综述为某一主题的所有方面提供了确定性结论时,这会如何给研究带来风险。本文探讨了应用语言学的两个重要趋势。首先,系统性综述--即在综述文献时使用正式系统--已经变得更加突出,因此作为一种方法论,其影响力远远超过传统综述(Chong & Plonsky, 2023)。其次,人们对 EMI 研究的兴趣呈爆炸式增长(Curle 等人,2024 年)。这两种趋势之间还有更多相似之处,因为系统综述和 EMI 都是涵盖多种研究类型的总括术语。正如我们将看到的那样,在如何进行系统性综述的问题上存在的分歧可能比普通读者想象的要多。同样,EMI 的研究领域也比最著名的系统综述文章所涉及的范围更广。对 EMI 的研究探讨了政策、语言学习、对学科知识的影响、对 EMI 的态度、英语所有权等问题。因此,尽管 EMI 是一个日益得到认可的研究领域,但 "研究 EMI "的含义并不总是很明确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic review, systematic bias? An example from EMI research

Based on the rigorous systematicity assumed in systematic review methodology, it is no surprise that a prominent review such as Macaro et al.'s (2018) on English medium instruction (EMI) has been used as a basis for subsequent EMI research. However, in this article, we explore the ways in which the focus of systematic reviews can be necessarily narrowed and how this poses a risk to research when readers perceive them as offering definitive conclusions on all aspects of a subject. This article addresses two significant trends in applied linguistics. First, systematic review – that is, the use of formalised systems when reviewing literature – has become far more prominent and therefore more impactful than traditional reviews as a methodology (Chong & Plonsky, 2023). Second, there has been an explosive growth in interest in EMI research (Curle et al., 2024). There are further parallels between the two trends, given that both systematic review and EMI are umbrella terms that cover a wide range of research types. As we will see, there is perhaps more disagreement over how to conduct a systematic review than lay readers would suspect. Similarly, EMI is a broader field of research than appears in its most prominent systematic review article. Studies into EMI have explored policy, language learning, the effect on subject knowledge, attitudes towards EMI, ownership of English, and so on. Thus, while EMI is a growingly recognised field of study, it is not always clear what it means to ‘study EMI’.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Language Teaching
Language Teaching Multiple-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Language Teaching is the essential research resource for language professionals providing a rich and expert overview of research in the field of second-language teaching and learning. It offers critical survey articles of recent research on specific topics, second and foreign languages and countries, and invites original research articles reporting on replication studies and meta-analyses. The journal also includes regional surveys of outstanding doctoral dissertations, topic-based research timelines, theme-based research agendas, recent plenary conference speeches, and research-in-progress reports. A thorough peer-reviewing procedure applies to both the commissioned and the unsolicited articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信