Studies in Second Language Acquisition· 2026Q1
The ethical work of openness in qualitative L2 research
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Responsible openness in qualitative L2 research means prioritizing 'circulation ethics'—reasoning about how data moves across contexts—rather than simply making data public.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Open scholarship in qualitative L2 research necessitates 'circulation ethics' to manage data movement across diverse contexts.
- Responsible openness involves ethical reasoning about data translation, contextual detail, risk, and reuse.
- Refusal of data access is accountable when documented and reasoned, not simply asserted.
- A proposed ethical access statement and decision framework can guide researchers in managing openness.
- Evaluation of open scholarship should shift from quantity of public materials to accountability of circulation decisions.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract Open scholarship (OS) is increasingly visible in second language acquisition (SLA) and applied linguistics as a means of supporting transparency, rigor, accountability, and knowledge sharing. In qualitative L2 research, however, the ethical implications of openness depend on context, participants, data type, and conditions of circulation. This critical commentary argues that responsible openness is best understood as circulation ethics, or the ethical reasoning required when qualitative materials move across languages, infrastructures, audiences, and political conditions. Drawing on two vignettes, one involving an externally funded fellowship with Ukrainian refugees in Poland and another involving research connected to Cuba, we distinguish broader qualitative research ethics from concerns generated or intensified by OS. We then develop a relational and CARE-informed framework for evaluating decisions about openness, including decisions to limit, delay, control, or refuse access. Refusal is accountable when it is documented and reasoned, not when it is simply asserted. The commentary proposes an ethical access statement and a decision framework for documenting access decisions related to consent, translation, contextual detail, risk, reuse, and institutional support. We argue that qualitative L2 research can contribute to OS by shifting evaluation from the quantity of materials made public to the accountability of the decisions that govern circulation. Responsible openness requires shared support among researchers, institutions, funders, journals, and reviewers.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Literature and Literary Theory
Literature and Literary TheoryArts and Humanities