Content uploaded by Sal Consoli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sal Consoli on Mar 24, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
147
Critical Incidents in a
Teacher–Researcher and
Student–Participant
Relationship: What Risks
Can We Take?
Sal Consoli
Introduction
Doing classroom-based research such as Action Research (Burns,
2019), Exploratory Practice (Allwright & Hanks, 2009) and Refl ective
Practice (Mann & Walsh, 2017) means doing research about and with
people, and such research is ‘messy’ (Mckinley, 2019). This is because
people’s lives are complex and investigating people entails dealing with
their ‘life capital’ (Consoli, 2021). People’s life stories and behaviours are
rich, unique and unpredictable and, therefore, result in research messiness
(Rigg, 1991). Crucially, this type of research leads to the researcher’s life
and identity (or identities) becoming interwoven with the lives of their par-
ticipants, thereby pointing to the need to revisit the researcher’s ‘role, rela-
tionship and ethical responsibilities’ (Kubanyiova, 2008). These last three
concepts are at the heart of this chapter. Drawing upon a project which
combined the methodological traditions of Exploratory Practice and
Narrative Inquiry, I will share critical incidents of my story as a teacher
researching my own students during a pre-sessional course in the UK, and
after the end of this programme in a more traditional researcher capacity.
My overarching research aim was to understand the students’ motivation(s)
to study at a UK university. Coming from what they defi ned as ‘a formal
and serious’ educational context in China, these students found themselves
being taught by a ‘friendly’ teacher in the UK. This may have positively
infl uenced their motivation; however, through ethical, refl exive and refl ec-
tive considerations, I discuss several tensions, challenges and compromises
which raise the question of what risks a teacher(-researcher), investigating
their own students, can take in order to obtain ‘good’ research data.
10
Copyright 2021. Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV
AN: 3020897 ; Clare Cunningham, Dr. Christopher J. Hall.; Vulnerabilities, Challenges and Risks in Applied Linguistics
Account: s3890005.main.ehost
The First Phase of the Study: The Pre-sessional
The fi rst part of the study consisted of my experience as an English for
Academic Purposes teacher on a UK university pre-sessional programme.
A pre-sessional is a course designed to equip international students with
basic academic language and study skills which will facilitate successful
completion of a degree at an English-speaking university. Within this spe-
cifi c pre-sessional, I was in charge of a module concerning the develop-
ment of reading and writing skills for postgraduate studies. Therefore, my
primary role entailed responsibilities typical of a pre-sessional teacher
who must ensure that their students complete the course successfully and
progress to the target master’s degree programme. However, I was also
interested to investigate these students’ motivation(s) to study and live in
the UK.
In order to fulfi l these research aims during the pre-sessional, I adopted
Exploratory Practice (EP) – a form of practitioner research which lends
itself well for a busy teacher on an intensive high-stakes course such as
this. EP o ers teachers the opportunity to investigate their own practices
by drawing on the notion of puzzle(ment) which instigates a search for
understanding (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). The main advantage of using
EP is that the teacher(-researcher) does not need to devise additional inves-
tigative instruments to fulfi l their research aims, thereby avoiding extra
work. Rather, EP promotes the use of potentially exploitable pedagogic
activities (PEPAs) which are nothing less than the very lesson activities
that teachers would design/use for their teaching purposes but, possibly,
with some small tweaks to suit the research objectives. Therefore, EP is
an approach that may mitigate risks such as workload management for
teachers as well as the impact research may have on students’ performance
(Galloway, 2016).
As an illustration of what I did in this context, I now share the instruc-
tions for a sample PEPA I used to research my students’ motivation(s). At
the start of a pre-sessional, I generally ask my students to write a short text
about themselves, and normally give them very broad guidelines to write
freely (e.g. about their educational background and interests). However,
this time, in the spirit of EP, I formulated the following instructions to
guide them in writing about their motivation or somehow touch upon it:
Write a paragraph for each question:
(A) What are your reasons for choosing to study at [name of the univer-
sity]? Describe your personal motivation for coming here and what
you hope to achieve.
(B) Why are you doing the pre-sessional?
(C) What are your expectations of the pre-sessional?
(D) What are your expectations of the Text-based Studies module with me?
148 Part 3: Research
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
For a fuller illustration of the EP experience on this pre-sessional, see
Consoli (2020). I will now focus on my role and responsibilities in this
phase of the study.
My Initial Role and Responsibilities as a Pre-sessional
Teacher–(Researcher)
I should begin this section with a micro-ethical consideration
(Kubanyiova, 2008), which was crucial in shaping my conduct during the
pre-sessional. My main duty as a teacher was to develop these students’ study
skills and their academic writing. This also involved a strong focus on under-
standing and developing academic integrity (e.g. avoiding plagiarism or col-
lusion). Given t he rich curriculum for this module as well as my responsibi lity
to o er regular formative feedback on their writing, I was aware that both
my students and I had a very busy schedule during each week of this 5 week
course (week 6 was devoted to summative assessment and feedback).
I must also highlight here my longstanding pedagogic desire that every-
one in the classroom should have a good time or be happy. This, in turn,
leads to my disposition to create an educational environment where every-
one feels safe to make mistakes, express their voices and ultimately learn.
The fi rst step towards generating this safe and motivational learning space
is to create good rapport with the students. Through some PEPAs pro-
duced in weeks 1 and 2, it became apparent that the students’ understand-
ing of my role and teaching persona aligned with my desire of creating such
a pleasant learning environment, and they noticed my e orts to achieve
this goal. As a result, they described me as ‘humorous’, ‘patient’ and ‘nice’.
One could reasonably argue that these students wrote what they
thought I would be happy to read in their PEPAs or that they expressed
their thoughts to please me (social desirability bias; Riazi, 2016: 299). I
cannot discard these concerns because, arguably, any teacher researching
their students may have to live with such student bias. However, it is
worth noting that the students ‘justifi ed’ their statements with specifi c
reasons, for instance, my use of humour made May’s experience of the
pre-sessional ‘delightful’ and Velika referred to my ‘patience to answer
their questions’. While this friendly rapport and atmosphere in the class-
room seemed to encourage a healthy learning experience, it does not mean
that unexpected challenges and surprises are uncommon. I now describe
two ‘ethically important moments’ (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004: 262) or
critical incidents concerning my teacher–student relationship with one
student, George (pseudonym), whose behaviour was shaped, to some
extent, by this friendly teaching demeanour and atmosphere.
Fostering Rapport
The fi rst episode relates to a PEPA where George expressed his admi-
ration for my teaching persona by referring to an icebreaker joke which I
Critical Incident s in a Teacher–Re searcher and Student– Participant Relationship 149
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
used on the fi rst day of the course. I had told the students I could speak
four languages (which is true), but with the twist that I had learnt these by
being with four girlfriends (one per language) at the same time. This joke
aimed to generate an opportunity for humour at the beginning of the
course. This kind of humour, in my view, would lay the foundation for
good rapport and a pleasant classroom atmosphere. However, when I read
the following in George’s refl ective writing, which I collected as research
data (PEPA), I questioned the appropriateness of my joke:
I met a nice teacher in my pre-sessional course and learnt a lot from him
in these days. Sal, our tutor for reading and writing, is a smart man from
London. What interests me most was that he said he had had 4 di erent
girlfriends from 4 di erent regions, speaking 4 di erent languages.
(George, PEPA-1)
This joke was framed in such a way for me to say that having multiple
relationships at the same time was a struggle and therefore stimulate laugh-
ter in the classroom. The joke seemed to be well received by these students
and certainly contributed to creating a pleasant classroom ambience
enriched with humour. However, when I read the above extract in George’s
fi rst PEPA, I realized that this joke had had a lasting impact which I had
not expected and led me to challenge its appropriateness. Despite my good
intentions I began questioning whether this kind of humour might actually
entail considerable risks within an international and culturally rich context
such as the UK higher education sector. While there was no consequence
on this occasion, I believe that my teacher–(researcher) ability to identify
this potential risk is signifi cant and this now leads me to discuss the notion
of humour further.
Is Humour a Risk?
I should clarify that on this pre-sessional I taught Chinese students who
had completed an undergraduate degree in mainland China and were now
aiming to begin a master’s in the UK. During the pre-sessional, these stu-
dents foregrounded the value of humour as part of my teaching, and despite
some learning challenges, my use of humour reduced their learning anxiety
and kept them motivated to study. Megan, for instance, highlighted that
my use of jokes helped when she was unable to answer a question I asked,
which, in turn, made her feel less stressed about her inability to respond.
Humour has been characterized as the intentional use of behaviours
that stimulate laughter and delight (Booth-Butterfield & Booth-
Butterfi eld, 1991: 215), which positively contributes to the mental health
of the individual as well as the collective emotional climate of a social
group. The benefi ts of humour have reportedly been numerous with
reduction of student anxiety being a recurrent one (Aylor & Opplinger,
2003; Wanzer & Frymier, 1999). However, careful consideration is
150 Part 3: Research
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
required in relation to the appropriateness of humour and how certain
cultural infl uences may interact with humour. For example, humour may
help lessen students’ anxiety within individualist societies, but Zhang
(2005) suggests that, for Chinese students, seen as collectivists, humour
may have countere ects. Nonetheless, my pre-sessional students clearly
showed that teachers’ use of humour may indeed have positive e ects on
Chinese students as well.
This debate requires a consideration about culture and how this con-
cept may be operationalized within an international context like this UK
pre-sessional. In light of my Chinese students who actually enjoyed the
use of humour, I do not take an essentialist view of culture. Therefore,
while I recognize the infl uence of ‘large culture’, I place stronger emphasis
on the notion of ‘small culture’ (Holliday, 1999), a space where individuals
form their own cultural stance(s) with their own unique cultural traits and
in relation to the (multi)cultural context(s) and other actors where they
fi nd themselves and the other social actors cohabiting such context(s). As
such, my debate here, as a teacher–researcher, concerns the attention
teachers may need to pay when forging a ‘good’ rapport with their stu-
dents and handle humour sensitively without taking the risk (as I did) of
clashing with students’ cultural personalities. This would, possibly,
require some groundwork tasks whereby the teacher gains a clearer under-
standing of the students’ characters and personalities, thus establishing
what kind of humour may be possible. Ultimately, from a researcher per-
spective, it is worth noting that a favourable relationship that takes care
of these cultural sensitivities in forming a good teacher–student rapport
will open up opportunities for data generation. This would be in contrast
with a teacher–student relationship presenting ‘cultural blocks’ (Holliday
& Amadasi, 2019), which may actually disrupt the relationship altogether.
I now return to the teacher–researcher’s ability (and disposition) to create
a safe and friendly learning environment as part of forging such ‘good
rapport’ with their students (participants).
Is Friendliness a Risk?
The notion of friendliness within the teacher–student relationship is
another one which deserves careful attention in the context of my study,
especially because it led to a second critical incident which I wish to illus-
trate. In my teacher–researcher journal I have called this, the ‘WhatsApp’
incident. WhatsApp is probably one of the most popular messaging appli-
cations in the world and I am one of those people who use it. However,
one night (close to midnight) during the time of the pre-sessional, I
received a WhatsApp message from George who had found my mobile
phone number on the university website and thought that we could be
‘friends’ on WhatsApp and communicate better through this channel.
While I appreciated the gesture, my professional teacher-self felt that this
Critical Incident s in a Teacher–Re searcher and Student– Participant Relationship 151
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
was not appropriate despite my desire to foster a friendly rapport with the
students. Therefore, the following day, I approached George after class
and explained that I did not think it was possible for me to be ‘friends’ on
WhatsApp during the pre-sessional course. He seemed to struggle to
understand why as they often use WeChat in China (a similar application
to WhatsApp). I explained that after the end of pre-sessional maybe this
could be a possibility.
This episode shows that my desire to create a friendly and safe learn-
ing environment was somehow misconstrued by some students who began
seeing me as a ‘friend’. The concept of friendship stems from my attempt
to adopt a caring teaching persona which was compounded by my aim to
create a bond or connection with the students. The notions of caring and
connectedness between teachers and students have been largely researched
at primary and secondary education levels, but less within higher educa-
tion contexts (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). The small debate about this
adult–adult relationship at university has brought up the argument that
caring for students is important (Fitzmaurice, 2008), and that a safe envi-
ronment should be created for students and teachers to interact (Ayres,
2015); but others have stressed that students should not be coddled
(Lahteenoja & Pirttila-Backman, 2005). Therefore, while the benefi ts of
becoming involved in students’ learning are evident, e.g. increased motiva-
tion (Komarraju etal., 2010), there is also a need for this student–teacher
relationship at university to be ‘balanced’. For instance, Holmes etal.
(1999) have highlighted that a friendship dimension is inappropriate
whereas Sibii (2010: 532) has argued for the university teacher to be
‘friendly but not a friend’.
The ‘WhatsApp’ episode during the pre-sessional indicated that a
friendly connection between teacher and students may involve the risk of
blurring professional boundaries which may then compromise the student–
teacher relationship. I cannot deny that in this challenging experience I was
exclusively contemplating my professional ethics as a teacher; after all, I
had wished to continue my interactions with George post-pre-sessional in
order to complete my research. As such, while I was adamant about my
teacher–student boundaries, I was also concerned about the possibility of
compromising a relationship with this student, which in the future, may
lead to ‘good’ data. However, this begs the question what is good data?
Good Data: What Risks Can we Take?
What constitutes ‘good’ data in the context of practitioner research
like mine, and what risks should one take to obtain such good data? To
address these questions, I refer to Hanks’s (2017) discussion of ‘good
enough research’. By drawing on Yates’s (2004) ambitious and, potentially
for some, unattainable defi nition of research, Hanks pro ers the notion
of ‘good enough research’ whereby she acknowledges the superb value of
152 Part 3: Research
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
the research work promoted by Yates, whilst appreciating that much
research exists which is worthwhile despite not meeting all of Yates’s cri-
teria. ‘Good enough [research is able] to contribute to understandings in
the fi eld, good enough to build upon, good enough to inspire others’
(Hanks, 2017: 34). As such, good enough research is possible and valuable
despite the potential epistemological and methodological limitations
encountered by most (if not all) researchers, whether teacher–researchers
or ‘traditional’ researchers.
Following from this debate, I propose the notion of ‘good enough data’
which can o er some insights into the phenomenon under investigation
through whatever means and methods conceivable by the researcher. Good
enough data can contribute nuanced understanding(s) to the fi eld despite
the possible contradictions, complexities and limitations which one may
experience throughout the research process. In the fi rst phase of my study,
in my capacity as pre-sessional teacher, I made the ethical decision to pri-
oritize my students’ pedagogic needs over my research and thus followed
my professional ethics. One could argue that doing so may have compro-
mised a potential source of ‘superb data’. For instance, if I had decided to
‘become friends’ with George on WhatsApp I may have been able to seek
and obtain very rich data about his experiences on the pre-sessional; how-
ever, this would have been, in my view, ethically complex and led to the
challenge of managing certain professional boundaries. I therefore chose
to avoid the risk of compromising a teacher–student relationship for the
sake of ‘superb data’, and instead obtained less rich, yet good enough data
which supported my research aims whilst remaining loyal to my profes-
sional code of practice. The discussion of ‘good enough data’ in practitio-
ner research applies to more traditional forms of applied linguistics
research – more about this in the second phase of the study below.
Owing to space constraints, I cannot share further details about my
pre-sessional experience. Nonetheless, the above-mentioned critical inci-
dents seem su cient to recognize the complexity of teacher–student rela-
tionships and the risks which such relationships may involve when a
teacher invests in a friendly approach which might, however, lead to ques-
tions of professionalism and appropriateness. These are risks which all
caring teachers are certainly aware of; however, in the context of a teacher
conducting research involving their students, we must account for these
complexities more carefully in order to shape our conduct as ethical edu-
cators as well as ethical teacher–researchers. As such, a n approach towards
‘good enough data’ seems to support practitioners wishing to conduct
inquiries into their practice(s).
Ethical Questions About Practitioner Research
Any research project that involves people requires ethical attention prior
to the beginning of the research work and throughout (e.g. Mann, 2016).
Critical Incident s in a Teacher–Re searcher and Student– Participant Relationship 153
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
More crucially, when research brings the researcher and participants
together within a longitudinal dimension, macro- and micro-ethical consid-
erations are required to ascertain the sustainability of this relationship
(Kubanyiova, 2008; Consoli & Aoyama, 2020). For the research experience
here reported, the overarching ethical principle that guided my teacher–
researcher behaviour was putting the students’ educational and pastoral
needs before my research aims. Nonetheless, one can see that EP, as a form
of practitioner research, lends itself well to fulfi lling ethical responsibilities
such as monitoring student academic and pastoral wellbeing. In other
words, if, as educational researchers, we adopt an approach that ecologi-
cally accounts for the student’s (or other participant’s) life story and capital
(Consoli, 2021), which constantly infl uence their present and future experi-
ences, we are well positioned to produce ethically sound research. I believe
that it is important for other practitioners or teacher–researchers doing
similar research in their practice context(s) to consider the following ques-
tions. These questions follow a Practitioner Research approach (Hanks,
2017), where practitioner refers to both teachers and students.
• Who are the practitioners of your context? Are they students or/and
other colleagues? Are they fully aware of their roles and how these
may support, impair, facilitate your research?
• Are the practitioners involved in your research fully aware of your
research intentions and timescale? Are they willing to participate or
has the research inadvertently been imposed on them?
• Are all practitioners fully aware of what is expected of them?
• Have principles of respect, confi dentiality and anonymity been fully
discussed with all practitioners involved?
• Do you frequently check that all practitioners involved are happy to
continue to be engaged in the research?
• Are all practitioners (teachers, students and whoever else is involved)
given enough space and opportunities to fully express their voices and
views as they wish?
• What happens to the fi ndings (or understandings) at the end of the
research? Who owns these? Is everyone happy with how they have
been represented in any report, conference paper or poster?
• Is everyone fully aware of the benefi ts of the research? If there is a lead
practitioner, has this person ensured that everyone is happy with how
work has been concluded?
I now move to a discussion of my relationship with these students after the
end of the pre-sessional programme, in the new phase of the study.
New Phase of the Study: New Roles, New Identities
After the pre-sessional, the students all progressed to their master’s
programme, and therefore I was no longer their teacher. However, in
154 Part 3: Research
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
order to obtain a longitudinal understanding of their motivation to study
and live in the UK, I was minded to follow them throughout their master’s
year. As such, I was willing to position myself as a researcher, rather than
the ‘friendly’ pre-sessional teacher, and obtain data through several
rounds of interviews. However, this was not possible without ethical dif-
fi culty. While it would have been useful to capitalize on the good rapport
formed throughout the teacher–student relationship, one should not aim
to exploit their participants just because they may agree to help out of
good will.
Therefore, I wished for the students and me to turn our student–teacher
relationship into a researcher–participant one. In order to foster my ‘new’
identity as the ‘researcher’ in the more traditional sense of the term, i.e. as
an outsider of their experience, I asked the students if they would be will-
ing to meet for a few rounds of interviews. However, I was aware that they
could have ‘far more important things to do and think about’ than joining
a research project (Holliday, 2015: 56), which, I think, is a valid argument,
especially for international students completing a demanding postgraduate
course with various deadlines and heavy workload.
During the pre-sessional it was easy to observe this ethical consider-
ation because, thanks to the EP principle of integrating pedagogy and
research through PEPAs, the students did not do anything ‘extra’ to fulfi l
my research objectives. However, this became more challenging when my
student–participants became fully engaged with a demanding master’s
after the pre-sessional. In this light, I aimed to show appreciation and
generate some kind of ‘benefi ts’ by o ering a compensation of £10 for each
interview, and up to 30 minutes of tutorial-like interactions at the end of
each interview or other convenient time for them.
These tutorial-like interactions were intended to o er the students an
opportunity to share their academic concerns, doubts or questions with
someone in whom they may have academic trust and had experience of
working in di erent UK higher education settings. However, I made it
clear both in writing and verbally that I did not wish to provide universal
advice that might confl ict with the guidance o ered by their new aca-
demic department. Rather, my support was meant as an opportunity for
them to articulate their thoughts with a sympathetic and empathic listener
who could help them make sense of their own thinking or o er views on
academic matters (e.g. how to prepare a dissertation proposal).
The Student–Participants’ Perspectives
Unsurprisingly, my desire to establish a new identity in this new phase
of the study, when I was no longer a teacher, proved challenging. I kept
‘seeing’ them as students and in our interview interactions I could not sepa-
rate my experience as their teacher from my new capacity as researcher.
More interestingly, the six (out of 15) students who eventually allowed me
Critical Incident s in a Teacher–Re searcher and Student– Participant Relationship 155
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
to follow their journeys on the master’s saw me as a ‘friend’ or still as their
‘teacher’. Below are two illustrations from some early interviews:
now that I can talk to you because you’re like my friend I like to think of
what I do in the MSc and learn from you because you are still my teacher.
(May – second interview)
You are my teacher so I am happy to talk to you and I am interested in
your work because it can help other people. I think there should be more
teachers like you to improve teaching at University. (Megan – fi rst
interview)
These students show that my intention to be seen as a friendly teacher,
rather than a friend, was not matched by the perceptions of some of them,
and they clearly continued to view me as a teacher or friend after the pre-
sessional. One may argue that the shift to considering me a friend may be
natural after a successful pre-sessional experience where we forged good
rapport. Whilst, at times, I was still unsure about my professional bound-
aries and whether their positioning me as a ‘friend’ was a risk for my
professional wellbeing, I found that being a ‘teacher’, even after the pre-
sessional, was equally challenging. For example, Xiaoxin consistently
refused my research money because I was her teacher and I struggled to
convince Amber that this money was to recognize her time and thank her
for her availability.
Outsider–Insider Identities in a Longitudinal Relationship
If we frame these students in their UK journey as communities of
‘small culture(s)’, I would argue that I was an outsider–insider to these
small cultures: insider in the sense that I had insights into the immediate
educational background of the students as well as a solid understanding
of their characters and personalities; outsider in the sense that I was
‘external’ to their new unfolding experiences during the master’s. In a
cross-cultural debate, Suwankhong and Liamputtong (2015) maintain
that cultural insiders are in a stronger position than outsiders because of
their resonance with the research population and their clearer insights
about the group under investigation. In this respect, the students and I
shared the experience of forming our small culture of learning and teach-
ing during the pre-sessional and, as such, they exhibited a favourable dis-
position towards sharing their opinions about all matters related to
teaching and learning at university in the UK. However, the privilege of
being so ‘close’ to the students’ previous small culture on the pre-sessional
did not come without data collection challenges. For instance, when I
interviewed them about aspects of their life and experiences on the pre-
sessional they often assumed or appeared to retain information which
they thought could be taken for granted. This is similar to Gawlewicz’s
(2016) research experience where she felt disconnected from her
156 Part 3: Research
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
participants because, being from the same cultural heritage as her partici-
pants, they seemed to keep insightful information from her by saying: ‘We
both know what I mean’ (2016: 35).
Overall, I considered having a ‘unique’ position because I was the
teacher (or friend) who knew about life in the UK and particularly at uni-
versity, and these students seemed to enjoy meeting with me and asking
questions or sharing their UK stories with me. Nonetheless, this some-
times led to my sympathetic self becoming entangled with dilemmas I had
not anticipated. I soon developed a sympathetic attitude during my inter-
views and, arguably, in my relationship with these student–participants,
which resulted in them opening up about personal matters which I strug-
gled to respond to. For example, David once began disclosing a very per-
sonal motivation which concerned his desire of shaping a new identity in
the UK, a new identity which would include the presence of more friends
in his life despite his shy character. This was something that David had
not disclosed during the pre-sessional whilst completing PEPAs which
elicited data about his motivation. Perhaps this was because David felt
comfortable talking to me and trusted me, but I cannot deny feeling emo-
tional whilst I discovered these aspects about his motivation. From a
research perspective this was an enriching experience, as I gained a greater
quantity of, and more nuanced, data than I had through the pre-sessional
PEPAs (Consoli, 2018), but I felt that my code of practice as an interviewer
was challenged because I had developed such a caring attitude towards
these people.
Normally, issues of empathy like this are debated in relation to the
danger of ‘creating a warm bath e ect that shifts towards the kind of
understanding and empathy that is characteristic of therapy or counsel-
ling’ (Mann, 2016: 164). However, if we go beyond the concern for ‘lim-
ited data’, we realize that we have, to some extent, an ethical responsibility
towards our participants. This is clearly debatable and arguably depends
on the specifi c background and circumstances of the researcher and par-
ticipants. Srivastava (2006) maintains that the multiple identities and
positionalities that we adopt and perform in the research contexts we fi nd
ourselves are ‘constantly in fl ux’ and, crucially, these are connected to our
understanding of who we are, and what she defi nes ‘real life identities
outside the fi eld’ (Srivastava, 2006: 211). Therefore, in my complex posi-
tionality as a researcher who also embodied the lived experiences and
identity of a caring, friendly teacher, it was impossible to ignore some of
the controversial data or disclosures which some student–participants
made. Perhaps, unwittingly, I was still performing my pastoral role from
the pre-sessional experience, which is why, at times, I conferred with more
experienced researchers and colleagues when more complex dilemmas
were brought to my attention during interviews. On these occasions, I
attended to the participant’s wellbeing (academic or somewhat personal)
even if this meant limiting the potential for ‘superb’ data. This behaviour
Critical Incident s in a Teacher–Re searcher and Student– Participant Relationship 157
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
is in line with Ushioda’s (2020: 140) call for an ethical research agenda
whereby the researcher or teacher–researcher negotiates a balance
between ‘investigating’ and ‘supporting’ their participants.
One Critical Episode: New Year’s Party
After a few months from the beginning of the master’s programme, I
decided to organize a mini social gathering for the six participants I was
following throughout the academic year. This was an opportunity to meet
them outside the confi nes of interviews and show them that I cared about
them and their wellbeing in the UK in a way that went beyond my need to
generate research data. I thought this would also be an opportunity for
them to meet with each other because, while they were together on the
pre-sessional, they were in di erent master’s groups and, as such, no
longer had the time to socialize. Also, I was aware of the heavy master’s
schedule and workload, and therefore wished to create an opportunity for
them to take a little time o their academic work and enjoy a pleasant
social experience. Organising this gathering was not easy as it involved
coordinating six di erent people as well as my own availability.
After several attempts, I organized one, but most people cancelled on
the day except David. I decided to take him for dinner to honour his com-
mitment. Nonetheless, I must confess I felt somewhat uncomfortable
because it felt like these circumstances brought down all barriers, bringing
us into a closed proximity at a social event where I had envisaged other
people. David disclosed some di cult details about a sad experience he
had had on the master’s, and while I aimed to be supportive, I also tried
not to perform the ‘therapist’ role mentioned above. I o ered advice main-
taining some distance in the matter, and I presume that this attitude to
maintain certain boundaries was driven by the social context, a restaurant
as opposed to a classroom where I would usually conduct interviews. This
clearly shows how the physical context may have major e ects on people
and their behaviour (Mann, 2016). However, David also capitalized on the
meal time to ask for advice on job opportunities and internships in the
UK, which was a pleasant exchange.
A week or so later, I managed to organize a gathering with all of the
students; this time I ordered plenty of food and hired a room at the univer-
sity. The illustrations of data I share below are excerpts of my researcher
journal which I wrote at the end of the evening after all the students had left:
It was a very pleasant event. Alita arrived fi rst and brought me a present.
May arrived and gave me a hug. I noticed a level of ease and comfort
amongst all. (…)
We started the meal by talking of what we did during the Xmas break.
(…) we told a lot of funny jokes and exchanged thoughts like they would
invite me to their weddings one day.
158 Part 3: Research
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
These impressions confi rm the positionality which the students had
ascribed to me picturing me as their ‘friend’. However, in this group con-
text, unlike the one-to-one meal with David, I felt rather comfortable and
joined in the exchanges easily, but later in the evening, this sense of com-
fort was challenged.
During dinner, I perceived that the barriers or fi lters between what
they think and what they say came down more noticeably. They talked
about my age and jokingly speculated about it. They then brought up ‘my
girlfriend’; they tried to enquire more about this area of my ‘private’ life
and I didn’t feel comfortable sharing such information
My perception of this part of the evening clearly indicates a sense of
discomfort as if the students were pushing the boundaries of our social
relationship, which to them may have appeared natural given the social
event and my friendly disposition. However, I did not allow for these
boundaries to disappear completely as I did not wish to run the risk of
meshing this social, yet somewhat research-related, relationship with my
private life. Having said this, I am not arguing that a fully fl edged friend-
ship is not possible between a researcher and their participants, especially
when they become involved in a longitudinal experience such as this.
Conclusion: Ethical Refl ection and Refl exivity
I would argue that a study involving a complex and dynamic relation-
ship with research participants, especially teachers researching their stu-
dents, merits constant ethical refl ection on one’s actions and refl exivity
about one’s self or selves. I began this project with the expectation that I
would be able to follow a dichotomous approach to my relationship with
these people whereby at the beginning I would be a teacher researching
his own students. At this stage I employed Exploratory Practice to ensure
that the students’ learning objectives would not be compromised by my
research interests. However, I soon realized that I took the risk of foster-
ing a strong and friendly rapport which challenged my positionality as a
teacher because the students began seeing me as a friend and acting
accordingly, thereby pushing some professional boundaries of this rela-
tionship. In the second phase of the study, I expected to turn my relation-
ship with these students purely into a researcher–participants relationship.
This was perhaps naive of me because it was indeed challenging to sepa-
rate our life capital (Consoli, 2021) as teacher and students and the good
rapport forged previously.
Given the complexities that emerged from my e ort to manage a pro-
fessional research relationship alongside my caring and friendly disposi-
tion, I argue that our multiple identities are not to be seen as ‘dichotomous;
rather, they [draw] on each other to facilitate exchange, alter power dif-
ferentials, and access data’ (Srivastava, 2006: 211). This means being ethi-
cal and constantly acknowledging one’s self in the research process, where
Critical Incident s in a Teacher–Re searcher and Student– Participant Relationship 159
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
‘the self is not some kind of virus which contaminates the research. On the
contrary, the self is the research tool, and thus intimately connected to the
methods we deploy’ (Cousin, 2010: 10). Importantly, one needs to accept
that identities and related behaviours ‘are frequently situational, depend-
ing on the prevailing social, political, and cultural values of a given social
context’ (Kusow, 2003: 592). I, for example, cannot deny developing a
genuine friendship with some of my participants after the end of our
research interactions. However, whilst researching, one must inspect their
sense of self with ethical refl ection and refl exivity, thereby performing
good conduct even if this means sacrifi cing opportunities for ‘superb data’
and being left with less but, at least, safeguarding our human integrity
and individual boundaries.
References
Allwright, D. and Hanks, J. (2009) The Developing Language Learner: An Introduction
to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Aylor, B. and Oppliger, P. (2003) Out-of-class communication and student perceptions of
instructor humor orientation and socio-communicative style. Communication
Education 52 (2), 122-134.
Ayres, R. (2015) Lecturing, working with groups and providing individual support. In H.
Fry, S. Ketteridge and S. Marshall (eds) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice (4th edn). Abingdon: Routledge.
Booth-Butterfi eld, S. and Booth-Butterfi eld, M. (1991) Individual di erences in the com-
munication of humorous messages. Southern Journal of Communication 56 (3),
205–218.
Burns, A. (2019) Action research: Developments, characteristics, and future directions. In
J. Schwieter and A. Benati (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning
(pp. 166–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Consoli, S. (March, 2018) Understanding motivation through exploratory practice: Early
Musings Paper presented at the FOLLM research seminar, King’s College London.
Consoli, S. (2021) Understanding motivation through ecological research: The case of
exploratory practice. In R.J. Sampson and R. S. Pinner (eds) Complexity Perspectives
on Researching Language Learner and Teacher Psychology (pp. 120–135). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Consoli, S. and Aoyama, T. (2020) Longitudinal L2 motivation inquiry: A response to
Lamb’s (2016) ‘when motivation research motivates: Issues in long-term empirical
investigations’. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 14 (2), 178–187.
Cousin, G. (2010) Positioning positionality. The refl exive turn. In M. Savin-Baden and
C.H. Major (eds) New Approaches to Qualitative Research: Wisdom and Uncertainty
(pp. 9–18). New York: Routledge.
Fit zmauric e, M. (20 08) Voice s from wit hin: Teaching in higher education as a moral prac-
tice. Teaching in Higher Education 13 (3), 341–352.
Galloway, N. (2016) Researching your own students: Negotiating the dual practitioner–
researcher role. In J. McKinley and H. Rose (eds) Doing Research in Applied
Linguistics. Realities, Dilemmas, and Solutions. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gawlewicz, A. (2016) Language and translation strategies in researching migrant experi-
ence of di erence from the position of migrant researcher. Qualitative Research
16(1), 27–42.
Guillemin, M. and Gillam, L. (2 004) Ethics, refl exivity, and “ethically important moments”
in research. Qualitative Inquiry 10 (2), 261–280.
160 Part 3: Research
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Hagenauer, G. and Volet, S.E. (2014) Teacher–student relationship at university: An
important yet under-researched fi eld. Oxford Review of Education 40 (3), 370–388.
Hanks, J. (2017) Exploratory Practice in Language Teaching: Puzzling About Principles
and Practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holliday, A. (1999) Small cultures. Applied Linguistics 20 (2), 237–264.
Holliday, A. (2015) Qualitative research and analysis. In B. Paltridge and A. Phakiti (eds)
Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Resource (pp. 4 9– 6 2). Lond on:
Bloomsbury.
Holliday, A. and Amadasi, S. (2019) Making Sense of the Intercultural: Finding Decentred
Threads. London: Routledge.
Holmes, D.L., Rupert, P.A., Ross, S.A. and Shapera, W.E. (1999) Student perceptions of
dual relationships between faculty and students. Ethics & Behavior 9 (2), 79–106.
Komarraju, M., Musulkin, S . and Bhattacharya, G. (2010) Role of student–faculty interac-
tions in developing college students’ academic self-concept, motivation, and achieve-
ment. Journal of College Student Development 51 (3), 332–342.
Kubanyiova, M. (2008) Rethinking research ethics in contemporary applied linguistics:
The tension between macroethical and microethical perspectives in situated research.
Modern Language Journal 92 (4), 503–518.
Kusow, A.M. (2003) Beyond indigenous authenticity: Refl ections on the insider/outsider
debate in immigration research. Symbolic Interaction 26 (4), 591–599.
Lähteenoja, S. and Pirttilä-Backman, A.M. (2005) Cultivation or coddling? University
teachers’ views on student integration. Studies in Higher Education 30 (6),
641–661.
Liamputtong, P. (2008) Doing Cross-cultural Research: Ethical and Methodological
Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mann, S. (2016) The Research Interview: Refl ective Practice and Refl exivity in Research
Processes. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mann, S . and Walsh, S. (2017) Refl ective Practice in English Language Teaching: Research-
based Principles and Practices. Abingdon: Routledge.
Mckinley, J. (2019) Evolving the T ESOL teaching research nexus. TESOL Quarterly 5 3(3),
875-884.
Riazi, A.M. (2016) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Rigg, P. (1991) Whole language in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 25 (3), 521–542.
Sibii, R. (2010) Conceptualizing teacher immediacy through the ‘companion’ metaphor.
Teaching in Higher Education 15, 531–542.
Srivastava, P. (2006) Reconciling multiple researcher positionalities and languages in
international research. Research in Comparative and International Education 1 (3),
210–222.
Suwankhong, D. and Liamputtong, P. (2015 ) Cultural insiders and research fi eldwork: Case
examples from cross-cultural research with Thai people. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods 14 (5), 1–7.
Ushioda, E. (2020) Language Learning Motivation: An Ethical Agenda for Research.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wanzer, M.B. and Frymier, A.B. (1999) The relationship between student perceptions of
instructor humor and students’ reports of learning. Communication Education
48,48–62.
Yates, L. (2004) What Does Good Education Research Look Like? Maidenhead: Oxford
University Press.
Zhang, Q. (2005) Immediacy, humor, power distance, and classroom communication
apprehension in Chinese college classrooms. Communication Quarterly 53 (1),
109–124.
Critical Incident s in a Teacher–Re searcher and Student– Participant Relationship 161
EBSCOhost - printed on 3/24/2022 11:00 AM via HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIV. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
