Research Log

Notes in progress.
Published

September 10, 2026

Modified

September 24, 2026

10th September 2026

I considered a few different kinds of review for this project. I thought scoping was the most appropriate because of the mixed genres / paradigms and for the ‘quick map’ and ‘reconnaissance’ approach. It was kind of the closest fit rather than a perfect fit. One option I considered was a ‘methods’ or ‘methodology’ review, but ultimately I scrapped that because I think they are linked to appraising methods. This doesn’t appraise methods and Arksey & O’Malley (2005) are clear that scoping reviews don’t attempt to do so.

My main concern is this idea that scoping is for getting a read on some new and emerging work or for work that is relatively ‘unstudied’ and this is not that. I guess the key thing is that I have to justify what this scoping review is for this project. Research framed like this is not about ‘following a formula’ but it is about having a coherent argument for your choices.

11th September 2026

I downloaded to Zotero Volumes 67 - 72 (January 2024 to November 2024). I figured that looking at what shape a year of papers might constitute would help me with scope. There were 93 papers in total, and 77 of those were research articles.

I have decided to move from a stated year range (e.g. 2025 - 2026) to a Volume Range. I have to decide if I can do the two whole years available to me (2024 and 2025 print publications) or just focus on, e.g. 2025. I am currently thinking I can do both 2024 AND 2025. Which would be volumes 67-78.

To ‘develop my instrument’ / pilot the process, I plan to code a small number of 2023 papers. What I need to do now is write a section that explains why I have chosen to use an extraction form and ‘finalise’ extraction form options for a pilot.

Having completed the extraction form I can start coding. I have picked a 2023 volume at random and plan to code it in its entirety.

24th September 2026

I took a brief break from the project to visit Oslo with family. On my return I coded Volume 63 of JEAP, published May 2023. From this I have made a number of changes to the extraction form. I noticed that the submitted and accepted dates sometimes had large gaps that I felt was an interesting finding if time to publication is considered a resource. I also found that describing epistemology and methodology didn’t capture research that used prior frameworks, so I added a ‘framework’ field. I have also added a section to allow me to take notes on conceptual coherence. As in the study by Riazi et al. (2023), I noticed a number of occasions where language used to warrant quantitative research (reliability, validity, objectivity) was being used for more interpretive work. I felt this was worth recording, although it perhaps stretches the RQs a little.

To support my coding I consulted Claude.ai to write html code for an ‘extraction form’ tool. The tool works by ‘loading’ a Zotero export csv into an html page. The html page reads the .csv file, and allows the user (me) to add extracted information and then save a new csv file with the updated details. No data is sent anywhere in the process of extraction.

I also decided to limit the scope of the research significantly for feasibility reasons. From the pilot, I estimate I can code around one Volume in one day of work. This suggests that, as a Term 1 (Sept > Dec) project, I can only do one year. I have decided to do 2025 only as an initial study, with the option of completing 2024 or 2026 as an extension / comparison if the study goes well.

I had a ‘peer debriefing’ with my supervisor about this project, and we discussed the extraction form and the possibility that the ability to pilot studies was also a potential resource. As I have discovered with this project, piloting is a time-consuming but valuable process, so it is relevant. However, I have not worked out if this can be worked into the extraction form. In any case, this was a fruitful discussion, and important when working towards credibility.

25th September 2026

I decided now is the time to register my protocol. I decided to use IDESR again. I have used it previously and it is the protocol recommended in Chong (2025). While registering my protocol I want to revisit my RQs and check they still matched the updated extraction form. I decided my ideas around potential ‘frameworks’ needed to be noted in the RQs and adapted RQ2 from:

  1. What can be said about the epistemological frameworks of published work?
    1. How often are epistemological or methodological positions made explicit?
    2. Where an epistemological or methodological stance is taken, which appear and how often?

To:

  1. How do published items describe their approach to research?
    1. How often do items name their epistemology, their methodology, or theoretical frameworks?
    2. Which are named, and how often?

References

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Chong, S. W. (2025). Synthesis Methods and Reporting Tool (SMART) for Research Syntheses in Applied Linguistics. Research Synthesis in Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/29984475.2025.2456880
Riazi, A. M., Rezvani, R., & Ghanbar, H. (2023). Trustworthiness in L2 writing research: A review and analysis of qualitative articles in the Journal of Second Language Writing. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100065