研究语言与教育的伦理:专业指南话语的启示

Theresa Austin , Rosa Alejandra Medina Riveros Ph.D
{"title":"研究语言与教育的伦理:专业指南话语的启示","authors":"Theresa Austin ,&nbsp;Rosa Alejandra Medina Riveros Ph.D","doi":"10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>How do the guidelines provided by language and literacy professional organizations configure the ethical stances of their members, who are practitioners and researchers? As part of a larger project involving the lived experiences of teacher educators and researchers who work with multilingual populations, we present an initial critical discourse study of four professional organizations’ ethical codes of conduct. This article focuses on ethics as it materializes through contemporary textual analysis of public guidelines readily accessible to educational linguistics professionals during the 2021–2024 timeframe. It examines how ethical statements operate on the imagination of professionals desiring membership. We employ critical discourse analysis (CDA), where Van Dijk’s (1993) definition of discourse conceptualizes how language use creates power to dominate, resist, and build social hierarchies. We characterize each code as within deontic ethics by interpreting how the choice of modality guides members’ actions and values. During 2021–24 our corpus included documents detailing guidelines from AERA (2011), MLA (1992), LRA (2016), and AAAL (2017).</div><div>Our findings highlight the characteristics of these ethical codes and their differences. These documents configure an assemblage that affects members through assumed values and obligations. Furthermore, we identify unexamined ethical needs that arise in actual lived realities of researchers that require more fluid, contingent, and responsive ethics; hence, we propose a critically and dialogically engaged stance open to periodic yet continual reformulations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":101075,"journal":{"name":"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics","volume":"4 2","pages":"Article 100221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethics for researching language and education: What the discourse of professional guidelines reveals\",\"authors\":\"Theresa Austin ,&nbsp;Rosa Alejandra Medina Riveros Ph.D\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>How do the guidelines provided by language and literacy professional organizations configure the ethical stances of their members, who are practitioners and researchers? As part of a larger project involving the lived experiences of teacher educators and researchers who work with multilingual populations, we present an initial critical discourse study of four professional organizations’ ethical codes of conduct. This article focuses on ethics as it materializes through contemporary textual analysis of public guidelines readily accessible to educational linguistics professionals during the 2021–2024 timeframe. It examines how ethical statements operate on the imagination of professionals desiring membership. We employ critical discourse analysis (CDA), where Van Dijk’s (1993) definition of discourse conceptualizes how language use creates power to dominate, resist, and build social hierarchies. We characterize each code as within deontic ethics by interpreting how the choice of modality guides members’ actions and values. During 2021–24 our corpus included documents detailing guidelines from AERA (2011), MLA (1992), LRA (2016), and AAAL (2017).</div><div>Our findings highlight the characteristics of these ethical codes and their differences. These documents configure an assemblage that affects members through assumed values and obligations. Furthermore, we identify unexamined ethical needs that arise in actual lived realities of researchers that require more fluid, contingent, and responsive ethics; hence, we propose a critically and dialogically engaged stance open to periodic yet continual reformulations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101075,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"4 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 100221\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772766125000424\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772766125000424","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

语言和扫盲专业组织提供的指导方针如何配置其成员(从业者和研究人员)的道德立场?作为一个更大的项目的一部分,我们对四个专业组织的道德行为准则进行了初步的批判性话语研究,该项目涉及教师、教育工作者和与多语言人群打交道的研究人员的生活经验。本文重点关注伦理学,因为它通过2021-2024年期间教育语言学专业人员容易获得的公共指南的当代文本分析而具体化。它考察了道德声明如何对渴望成为会员的专业人士的想象力起作用。我们采用批判性话语分析(CDA),其中Van Dijk(1993)对话语的定义概念化了语言使用如何创造支配、抵抗和建立社会等级的权力。我们通过解释方式的选择如何指导成员的行为和价值观,将每个代码描述为道义伦理。在2021-24年期间,我们的语料库包括AERA(2011)、MLA(1992)、LRA(2016)和AAAL(2017)的详细指南文件。我们的研究结果突出了这些道德准则的特点及其差异。这些文档配置一个通过假定的值和义务影响成员的程序集。此外,我们确定了在研究人员的实际生活现实中出现的未经审查的伦理需求,这些需求需要更多的流动性,偶然性和响应性伦理;因此,我们提出了一种批判性和对话参与的立场,对定期但持续的重新表述开放。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethics for researching language and education: What the discourse of professional guidelines reveals
How do the guidelines provided by language and literacy professional organizations configure the ethical stances of their members, who are practitioners and researchers? As part of a larger project involving the lived experiences of teacher educators and researchers who work with multilingual populations, we present an initial critical discourse study of four professional organizations’ ethical codes of conduct. This article focuses on ethics as it materializes through contemporary textual analysis of public guidelines readily accessible to educational linguistics professionals during the 2021–2024 timeframe. It examines how ethical statements operate on the imagination of professionals desiring membership. We employ critical discourse analysis (CDA), where Van Dijk’s (1993) definition of discourse conceptualizes how language use creates power to dominate, resist, and build social hierarchies. We characterize each code as within deontic ethics by interpreting how the choice of modality guides members’ actions and values. During 2021–24 our corpus included documents detailing guidelines from AERA (2011), MLA (1992), LRA (2016), and AAAL (2017).
Our findings highlight the characteristics of these ethical codes and their differences. These documents configure an assemblage that affects members through assumed values and obligations. Furthermore, we identify unexamined ethical needs that arise in actual lived realities of researchers that require more fluid, contingent, and responsive ethics; hence, we propose a critically and dialogically engaged stance open to periodic yet continual reformulations.
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信