Diversity within unity

Let me begin by addressing the guest editors and authors of this special issue directly: My response is necessarily limited, but know that I find your research perspective and synergy statements to be richly stimulating. I pay homage to your generosity in your willingness to pursue common ground with colleagues who might understand second language acquisition (SLA)—or second language development—differently from you. I know from first-hand experience, as a member of the Douglas Fir Group (2016), the extraordinary good faith it takes to suspend one's own theoretical commitment in order to truly listen to others’ perspectives, not to mention the time that it takes to carve out common ground. I know you agree that we also must take care that any synthesis does not become the new dogma, excluding voices of those who are not represented. Equally, we would not want an integrated perspective to impose a stranglehold on our field in a way that linguistics was dominated by transformational grammar when I was coming of academic age—the effect of which was to stifle other views. Besides, entertaining differences can also help us hone our own position. Nor are we relieved from the responsibility to respectfully challenge others when we feel that they have misconstrued our stance. Finally, it is worthwhile noting that diversity within unity makes a system, such as a network of researchers, that much more robust (Page, 2011). Now, briefly, here are three, less vocative, comments. First, I recently overheard an exchange between an experienced “head” teacher and a similarly experienced literacy coach. At one point, the teacher questioned a particular procedure. The coach responded, “Research shows that it is best done this way.” “OK then,” the teacher replied, immediately acquiescing. Both parties were sincere in their attempt to improve literacy instruction. This brief exchange and the phrase “research shows...” make it clear what an awesome responsibility researchers have. However, as is clear from the combined synergy statement, in order to find common ground for pedagogy, a level of abstraction has to take place. Inevitably, it is left to practitioners to interpret and implement such abstract statements locally. Theory and practice do indeed have different accountabilities. A second comment is not only to underscore the importance accorded to the individual differences (IDs) of learners (Four Pillars, Zheng et al., 2025, this issue) but also to point out that IDs also apply to researchers. We each have our own way of viewing SLA, based on our unique experiences. A research approach, just as a new language, gives one a way of thinking, one that is sometimes hard won and brings about a reluctance to abandon or even to compromise. Being a convergent thinker, I myself am theoretically committed to complex dynamic systems theory (CDST). I was watching my own reaction of approval when I encountered discourse that resonated with CDST, among other theories (e.g., interacting systems, adaptivity to affordances, emergent, dynamic, holistic, complex, unpredictable, open-ended, nonlinear, focus on process, and agentive), and conversely, my reaction when I was reading synergistic understandings that did not comfortably align with my own views (e.g., “any theory of language learning acknowledges the necessity of input for language development” (Pragmatists, Sato et al., 2025, this issue) and (only) “use authentic language in the classroom” (Four Pillars, Zheng et al., 2025, this issue). Nevertheless, it is difficult to learn or be synergistic when one is defensive. What does it take, therefore, to overcome negativity, to withhold judgment, and to play the believing game? I believe that it takes openness, a corollary of humility. The reward is that we get to learn something new (as I recently have from indigenous ways of knowing). As the Elephants observe (Atkinson et al., 2025, this issue), an important contribution resulting from forging these syntheses is that the researchers themselves may have changed. My third comment is a suggestion: Rather than limiting the attempt to find common ground among the views that are presented here, add another dimension. No doubt the authors and editors are groaning at this suggestion, but at times it takes complexifying something in order to ultimately simplify it. To this point, in these syntheses I see little presence of learners’ voices, but engaging in a dialogic Bakhtinian approach with a learner (Harvey, 2015) can be truly generative, the stated purpose of this synthesis project. What I do believe is that the current fragmentation where we retreat to our own affinity groups and remain there is worrisome (Larsen-Freeman, 2019), as we lose sight of what we have to contribute to our collective understanding and how we convey this to an external audience. Nevertheless, we do not want to focus on similarity at the expense of distinctiveness (De Jesus, 2016; Larsen-Freeman, 2022). I therefore conclude by reiterating my admiration and encouragement for the effort the authors have expended in connecting that which may be fractionated, while at the same time, urging a kind of thinking that respects diversity as it recognizes unity (Morin, 2008)

Diversity (politics) · Geography · Sociology · Unity in diversity · Anthropology · Global Education and Multiculturalism · International Student and Expatriate Challenges · Multilingual Education and Policy

• Beyond member-checking

  Lou Harvey•International Journal of Research…•2015

  Añadir item

• Praxeology, humanism, equity, and mixed methods

  Open Access•Yongyan Zheng, Lourdes Ortega et al.•Modern Language Journal•2025

  Añadir item

• Relationality, interconnectedness, and identity

  Open Access•D Atkinson, Jorge Andres Mejía-Laguna et al.•Modern Language Journal•2025

  Añadir item

• Language, people, classrooms, world

  Open Access•Masatoshi Sato, Steven L Thorne et al.•Modern Language Journal•2025

  Añadir item

• Diversity and Complexity

  Sarah E Page, Scott E Page et al.•Diversity and Complexity•2010

  Añadir item