13

‘Place-­reflexivity’ as an
imaginary kaleidoscope to
explore methodological issues
in ELF research
Masuko Miyahara

Introduction
As English as a lingua franca (ELF) research in Japan expands and increases
(Murata 2016), there comes along with it a diverse range of approaches and
methods used to conduct these studies. According to Murata (2016), there are
basically three approaches most frequently used in current ELF research: corpus-­
based studies, conversation analytic studies, and narrative approaches. This paper
focuses on the third approach, narratives. In particular, it discusses some of the
emerging methodological issues involved in analyzing narrative research by using
data collected from a study that offers a unique perspective on the understanding
of the process of L2 identity construction and development in EMI (English as a
Medium of Instruction) classrooms in higher education in Japan (Miyahara 2015),
where English is a lingua franca. As ELF research diversifies both thematically
and methodologically, it is essential that researchers develop a more critical eye
to evaluate the various research approaches employed and to evaluate the appro-
priate methodology and method to explore their own research inquiry. Based on
the understandings of researchers’ reflexivity, this paper attempts to argue for the
importance for researchers to establish a space for critical and reflective thinking
towards their research. More specifically, it will draw on the most recent discus-
sions in qualitative research methodology that argue for a fuller account of the
‘where’ in the research encounter, that is, more focus on the research site where
the study is conducted. In recent times, scholars have increasingly pointed out
that the spatial contexts in which the ‘where of method’ matters have received
less attention compared to the ‘how’ of qualitative research (i.e., Anderson et al.
2010; Cresswell 1996; Sin 2003). The social relationship in methodology of the
research and the process of researcher reflexivity in terms of the positionality of
the researcher and the participant have been well discussed. The chapter thus intro-
duces a less documented perspective on reflexivity, the ‘where’ in the research.
It will draw on the notion of place-­reflexivity as proposed by Swaminathan and
Mulvihill (2019) by revisiting one of my previous research projects that explores
the construction of L2 identity of Japanese learners at higher education in Japan.
The chapter begins by presenting an overview of how ELF identity is concep-
tualized by referring to previous relevant studies conducted on the subject. It then
222 Masuko Miyahara
offers a brief summary of how narrative inquiry is understood in the sample study
(Miyahara 2015) used in this chapter. I then outline how researchers’ reflexivity
could be advanced by drawing on the understandings of place-­reflexivity (Swa-
minathan and Mulvihill 2019) that brings the research site to the forefront rather
than as a backdrop of the study. After providing a descriptive account of the sam-
ple study and employing the notion of place-­reflexivity in revisiting the original
data, I attempt to illustrate that, with the shift of focus on the ‘where’ of quali-
tative research, researchers are now able to develop increased sensitivity and a
more nuanced understanding towards the data. As is often pointed out, reflexivity
should be reflected at all stages of the research process, but it is especially impor-
tant at the analysis stage that place matters (Swaminathan and Mulvihill 2019).
At this present age when a surge of diversity and plurality in ELF research can
be anticipated, the chapter concludes by arguing the importance of serious con-
templation on the methodological issues that surround ELF research. In this first
book on research methodology in ELF research, it is most timely to bring the fun-
damental concerns on research methodology in narrative studies to centerstage.

Situating the scene

ELF identity and the use of narrative approach

Defining ELF as ‘any use of English for communication among speakers of differ-
ent first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and
often the only option’ (Seidlhofer 2011: 7), an increasing number of ELF studies
have begun to acknowledge that ELF speakers’ identity construction is a relevant
and unavoidable part of ELF communication (Baker 2009; Jenkins 2007; Nogami
2019). In these studies, following poststructuralist understanding, the identity of
the second language learner is discursively constructed and conceptualized as
multifaceted, fluid, dynamic, and emerging in interactions with others (i.e., Block
2007; Norton 2013; Miyahara 2015). Work on the construction of ELF identities
using a narrative approach is exemplified well, for instance, in Virkkula and Niku-
la’s (2010) narrative study, which investigated Finnish students’ identity transfor-
mation from that of a language learner to language user during their study abroad
in Germany. Another narrative study that explored similar transitions of university
students’ identities was conducted by Iino and Murata (2016), but this time, in
an EMI setting at a Japanese university. In both cases, the students underwent
a change in their L2 identities: from confident English language learners who
are conscious of their language in relation to the ‘native speaker’ competence, to
language users who have acquired communicative capability (Widdowson 2016).
The sample study employed in this chapter follows the trajectory of one of my
participants, Megumi (a pseudonym, Miyahara 2015), who follows similar pat-
terns in her identity construction as a language learner to a language user at a
multilingual liberal arts college in Tokyo, the main research site.
As exemplified in an increasing number of identity-­related ELF studies, narra-
tive inquiry is now one of the prominent methodological approaches used (Iino
 ‘Place-­reflexivity’ as kaleidoscope 223
and Murata 2016; Kanno 2003; Nogami 2016; Miyahara 2017; Takino 2016) in
trying to understand the implications of one’s identity in ELF interactions. Under-
standing the complexities involved in forging L2 identities required me to exam-
ine the experiences of the participants from their perspectives and to listen to their
‘voices’. This called for a methodology that would allow me to be sensitive to the
learners’ (and users’, for that matter) account of their experiences as understood
from their viewpoints. Narrative approach that focuses on the meaning making
process of the participants, and where I could emphasize my role in co-­producing
the narratives, appeared to be the best way to probe into the inner complexities
of my research participants. In the sample study in this chapter, following Bruner
(1990) and Clandinin (2007), narratives are understood as fundamentally stories
of ‘experience’. In the experience-­centered approach, narratives are the means of
human sense-­making where human beings create meaning from their experiences
both individually and socially (Bruner 1990; Polkinghore 1995). Connelly and
Clandinin (1990) have argued that narrative inquiry stems from an understanding
of human experience in which people, both individually and socially, lead storied
lives. Life is ‘storied’ in the way that people make sense of who they are (and
others are) by interpreting their past in terms of their present lives and selves as
well as their future lives and selves. Thus, narratives are not only about people
describing their past experiences, but also about how individuals understand those
experiences and how they ascribe meanings to those experiences (Barkhuizen
2013; Clandinin and Connelly 2000).

Understanding the researcher’s reflexivity

Researching learners’ identity naturally involves a certain degree of interpreta-
tive activity by the researcher. More than we would like to admit, researchers are
thus inevitably as much a part of the study as the participants. How we take into
account the effect of our presence on our research through researchers’ reflexivity
is a critical issue. Although discussions of incorporating researchers’, reflexivity
in the research process seem to be established as an important strategy (i.e., Fin-
lay 2012; Mann 2016; Miyahara 2017, 2019; Prior 2016; Riessman 2008, 2012;
Roulston 2010), there appears to be no common understanding towards the notion
of reflexivity, and the concept is often confused with reflection. In fact, one of the
reasons for my interest in the notion of ‘reflection’ emerged from this very ques-
tion: what is the difference between ‘reflection’ and ‘reflexivity’? In this paper,
following Finlay (2012), I take reflection to mean ‘thinking about’ something
after the event and reflexivity, in contrast, to mean an on-­going self-­awareness.
That is, the former is more of a descriptive process, whereas, the latter, refers to
how you position yourself in the research context and contemplate on how one’s
own self could influence the actions one takes (self-­awareness), including their
influence on the interactions with the participants. In fact, in general, reflexivity is
comprised of mainly two dimensions: an understanding of researchers’ positional-
ity by the researchers themselves and how that affects the overall research process
and outcomes. The question is not whether one should engage in reflexivity, but
224 Masuko Miyahara
how and to what degree, all of which would depend on the focus of the research
(Finlay 2012).
Reflexivity, understood as researchers’ positionality, is akin to turning the mir-
ror on yourself. But some scholars have criticized self-­reflexivity because of its
self-­indulgent nature (i.e., Guillemin and Gillam 2004). In my view, the important
point is to always consider how the researcher’s personal disclosure does for qual-
itative analysis and how it contributes to understanding the phenomena at hand
(Berger 2015). Furthermore, self-­reflexivity should not be just about the ‘self’,
so to speak, although extending one’s reflexive gaze also helps to reinforce and
furthers one’s awareness of the self. Researchers should not merely discuss how
their personal identities shaped their narrative projects; they should also consider
how these identities intersect with the institutional, cultural, and socio-­political
context (Nagar and Geiger 2007). Furthermore, turning the mirror on one’s pre-
vious works could reveal the situatedness (the academic, theoretical, political,
social, etc.) of our interpretations. For instance, depending on the researcher and
their relationship with the participant, the same experience of a participant could
be narrated quite differently. There may be discrepancies between one’s telling
and another depending on when, who, and even where the talks were constructed,
but these differences do not necessarily indicate that one is more fictive than the
other. The different telling is considered to be merely another interpretation of the
same individual’s narrative. A kaleidoscope is a metaphorical term often used to
describe such notion of multiple ways of seeing: ‘You look and see one fascinat-
ing complex pattern, the light changes, you accidentally move, or deliberately
shake the kaleidoscope, and you see – composed of the same elements – a some-
what different pattern’ (Stanley 1992: 178). Reflexivity can function as an imagi-
nary kaleidoscope for us to employ in order to broaden our ways of thinking and
understanding of our research.
There appear to be various ways of working with reflexivity. Some are con-
nected to the co-­construction of data; others are interested in the positioning of
the researcher, the participant, and their ever-­changing relationship, and so forth.
Still yet, others consider reflexivity in qualitative research ‘as a tool to measure
legitimacy, validity, rigor’ as well as ‘to maintain one’s integrity’ (Kim 2016:
250). However, in this paper, I would like to depart from the norm of reflexivity
that tends to put prominence on the social relationships, for instance, the position-
ality of the researcher or the researcher-­participant relationship to more emphasis
of the context of the research site, and instead, ‘appreciate the multifaceted and
the interactive nature of the respective research sites, and the role they play in the
production of knowledge’ (Anderson et al. 2010: 592) – that is, move towards a
methodological praxis that explicitly includes the researcher, researched, and the
place of method rather than the conventional approach in the research that tends
to focus on the dialogue between the researcher and the participants. As Tilley
puts forth:

[Place] is a medium rather than a container for action, something that is

involved in the action and cannot be divorced from it. [It] is meaningfully
 ‘Place-­reflexivity’ as kaleidoscope 225
constituted in relation to human agency and activity. A humanized space forms
both the medium and outcome of action, both constraining and enabling it.
(1994: 10)

I intend to pursue this goal by revisiting one of my previous studies on identity

constructions of L2 learners from learners to users in an ELF context. In doing so,
I draw heavily on the concept of place-­reflexivity as advocated by Swaminathan
and Mulvihill (2019), which I turn to in the following section.

Positioning place-­reflexivity
Understanding place as comprised of two interrelated dimensions (Cresswell
1996; Sin 2003), the social and the geographical, the notion of place-­reflexivity
conceptualized by Swaminathan and Mulvihill (2019) attempts to put emphasis on
the rich, contextual factors that research sites represent. It specifically addresses
the ‘where’ of qualitative research and intends to acknowledge the significance
of the role place plays in the meaning-­making process. Their notion of place-­
reflexivity is a response to the generally accepted methodology which tends to
obscure the relationship of the researcher and the participant to the place, the
research location, or the research site in which research occurs. They question the
prominence put on the social dimension of place, where the researcher’s ability
to interpret and reflect on the power structures and relationships are at the center
of discussion, and, instead, argue for the inclusion of a more broader understand-
ing, where place can be considered as an active participant in the constitution
of relationship, and, consequently, in the production of knowledge. In addition,
it could be helpful to provide clarifications as to some of the terms used in this
chapter, namely, place, site and context, at this point. According to scholars, the
differences appears to represent a disciplinary focus. For example, site (Creswell
2014; Agnew and Duncan 2014) is often used in sociology, while, in education,
context is used to contemplate variety of factors that includes place (Agee 2002).
Apart from terminologies, it is, however, important to emphasize that place-­
reflexivity is not regarded as an alternative concept to replace the traditional under-
standing of reflexivity. Rather it is understood as one that seeks to complement
the current dominant focus on the social dimension, where the relationship or the
action and/or interactions of participants among themselves as well as the partici-
pants and researcher are the main areas of concern. The aim of such move is to
enrich and contribute to the methodological complexities of qualitative research.
Integrating the ideas of space, place and site by Soja (2010), Bhabha (2009) and
Turner (1969), Swaminathan and Mulvihill understand ‘place’ as ‘spaces that are
used in research by scholars; material as well as conceptual places for both long-­term
and ephemeral time periods’ (2019: 8). It acts as a methodological tool that can assist
researchers keep place at the center of research rather than merely as a backdrop:

move sites from static, already there, background concept to an interac-

tive dynamic space so that questions of power, ethics of respect and the
226 Masuko Miyahara
intersections of place, globalization and indigenous ways of knowing can be
culled from sites and fieldwork through a process of place-­reflexivity.
(Swaminathan and Mulvihill 2019: 3)

As a methodological tool to facilitate reflexivity that ‘goes beyond research sub-

jectivity and interrogates the familiar’ (p. 9), they propose several aspects to
place-­reflexivity in order to help researchers focus on the details in the field as
data is gathered and analyzed by referring to the following six features (from
Swaminathan and Mulvihill 2019: 9):

a Place-­reflexivity is an attention to sites that seeks to capture the physical loca-

tion of the site and examine it in relation to other sites. It promotes reflection
on the location and context and the wider environment.
b Place-­reflexivity means attending to the everyday flow of people through
places. The ways in which the everyday habits of people become stable over
time in particular places is part of site-­see through place-­reflexivity. Place-­
reflexivity also means paying attention to biographical discourses to high-
light connections between people and places.
c Place-­reflexivity means thinking about resemblances or using the research
imagination to deconstruct place from taken for granted ideas.
d Place-­reflexivity helps researchers to examine how places are organized and
whether they promote or inhibit social interaction. It also means thinking
about the voices which are less heard than others, who gets marginalized at
what site.
e Place-­reflexivity involves self-­consciously observing and listening to how
participants regard places. It means attending to the spectrum of emotions in
certain places and learning from them. It also means the researcher attending
to their own emotions and senses.
f Place-­reflexivity helps researchers with the awareness that stories that people
tell in sites and about sites need to be noticed, acknowledged, and docu-
mented. It also means looking for liminal spaces where multiple stories can
co-­exist.

Swaminathan and Mulvihill (2019) emphasize that we should not reflect on what
we observe and base our understandings on the assumptions we hold about our
research, but we should contemplate and deliberate on how we come to know
what we think we know. It is in this line of thought that I later turn to re-­examine
my data and findings from the sample study.
Place-­reflexivity is particularly apt for the purpose of this chapter, firstly,
because of its relevance in the analysis stage of research as the authors claim:

It is in the analysis of qualitative data that we suggest place-­reflexivity can

bring greater awareness to the ways in which place matters in qualitative
research. A place-­reflexivity would need to not only take into account social
and relational networks (e.g. social dimension of place) but in addition
 ‘Place-­reflexivity’ as kaleidoscope 227
analyze place for its material and environmental characteristics thus moving
sites into the foreground of qualitative thinking.
(Swaminathan and Mulvihill 2019: 3; the current author’s emphasis in italics)

I believe this is an important point to make since at the data collection stage, many
researchers do in fact think seriously about where the data is to be collected. For
example, using interviews, researchers would be most conscious about the place
or the location where the interview could take place in order to create the most
comfortable atmosphere for the participants and, hence, hope to build rapport with
the participants and to be able to elicit rich stories for the research.
Secondly, I also regard place-­reflexivity as a particularly relevant concept in
revisiting my sample study that explores the transition in my participant’s subject
position from a language learner to that of a legitimate English user. Although
studies, including my own, often conclude that ELF users’ identity tend to emerge
and flourish as they are exposed to a variety of ELF encounters, the details of the
ELF contexts that the participants operate in are not sufficiently explored or rather
not explicitly presented. The focus on the peculiarities in different ELF contexts
that make up the environment that enables learners to construct new identities or
transform identities is obscured or taken for granted in many cases.
In the sample study that I draw on in this chapter, I refer to one of my par-
ticipants, Megumi, and attempt to examine the details of ELF encounters that
eventually enable her to construct a new identity as a language user and how the
materials and the environmental characteristics of the different sites had influ-
enced in the creation of the new subject positions.

The sample study

Drawing on one of my previous works, I would now like to critically reflect on the
story of Megumi’s identity formation in different ELF contexts, and to illustrate
how the discussions of place-­reflexivity so far have provided additional insights
to the original study. In doing so, I will first give a brief outline of this research
by presenting a descriptive account about the researcher, the research site, the
participant, the methodological approach including data collection methods, the
analytical process, and the reflexive strategies used in the sample study.

An overview of the sample study

Narrative data for this chapter is drawn from a study that aimed to shed light
on the understanding of process of L2-­related identity construction and devel-
opment among Japanese English learners at the tertiary level (Miyahara 2015).
The particular feature of this study was its attempt to integrate the socially and
the psychologically oriented perspective on L2 identity formation. The research
contributed in highlighting the instrumental agency of individuals in responding
to and acting upon the social environment and in developing, maintaining and/
or reconstructing their desired identities as L2 users. It offered unique insights
228 Masuko Miyahara
into the role of experience, emotions, social and environmental affordances, and
individuals’ responses to these, in shaping their personal orientations to English
and the transformation of their self-­perceptions as English learners to users as
they envision themselves in an international community of English-­speakers (or
as Iino and Murata would say ‘from EFL learners to users’) (2016: 111). The
original study helped to show the intricate analysis of past, present, and future
dimensions of individuals’ L2-­related experiences and trajectories and how these
dimensions are intertwined through the process of narrative construction as par-
ticipants relate their thoughts, and the researcher represents and interprets their
stories (for details, refer to Miyahara 2015).

The researcher
In line with Canagarajah (1996: 324), in any research, ‘the subjectivity of the
researchers – with their complex values, ideologies, and experiences – shapes
the research activities and findings’, I believe it is crucial that researchers write
themselves into the research by providing a brief account of relevant aspects of
the researcher that appear to be pertinent to the study. Thus, what follows is an
account of the aspects of my trajectory as a learner, practitioner, and a researcher
that are particularly relevant in the shaping of the research project.
My interest in identity and language learning is largely rooted in my educa-
tional experiences in and out of Japan. I was born in Japan but spent most of
my formative years overseas. After graduating from a high school in the United
States, I returned to Japan to attend a college in Tokyo, which happens to be the
research site of the sample study. My educational experience as such is what some
academics like Kanno (2003) would call the ‘returnee’ experience. One apt phrase
that would characterize my language learning experiences over the years would
be riding on a virtual roller coaster of ups and downs in language learning experi-
ences and, henceforth, undergoing identity shifts and periods of mixed emotions
towards myself as a language learner and user and, later, as a practitioner and
researcher.

The research site and the participants

The research site, a private university located in the suburbs of Tokyo, aims to
build a global community where a diversity of people from various ethnic and
religious backgrounds gathers together. This institution is also famous for its
bilingual identity, and, in Japan, the graduates and alumni are regarded by the
general public as being fluent and well versed in the English-­speaking language
and culture. English is used on a daily basis as a means of communication not
only in classes, but also in the daily lives of the students and faculty alike. The
university has several college-­wide courses that are required components for all
students, and the English Language Program (ELP), that was later renamed ‘Eng-
lish for Liberal Arts’ (ELA), is one of them. Students, for whom English is a sec-
ond language, must study English intensively for the first 2 years. The main focus
 ‘Place-­reflexivity’ as kaleidoscope 229
of the program is designed to teach English for academic purposes with a focus
on critical thinking. The curriculum is further complemented by an optional study
abroad program referred to as the Study English Abroad (SEA) Program. First-­
and second-­year students can take part in a 6-­week program during the summer
break at various universities located in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Canada, New Zealand, and Australia (at the time of the research). A total of six
students, volunteers, in their first year of their 2-­year English language curriculum
participated in the study. For the purpose of this chapter, I will focus on one of
them, Megumi (a pseudonym), who exemplified most clearly the identity changes
from a language learner to that of a language user.

Data collection
The method employed in this particular study is what is generally characterized as
autobiographical narratives. I used a narrative interview strategy based on a series
of semi-­structured questions to generate data in that the researcher did not have
a list of questions but rather a range of topics to be covered (Block 2006). The
language in which talks were conducted is related to the jointly constructed nature
of the interview process in narrative studies, and thus, the participants were given
choices, but none opted for English, and thus, the language used in all interviews
was Japanese. Five sets of interviews were conducted over a period of 1 year, each
kept within an hour and a half, mainly for practical reasons (e.g., time to conduct
these interviews was limited for the participants). The narrative data was sup-
plemented by other sources such as weekly journals, audio recordings or group
discussions, and weekly self-­reports during the 6-­week study-­abroad programs
for those who participated in the SEA Program. The talks were audio-­taped and
transcribed in their entirety using a simplified transcription style. In terms of prac-
ticality, translations from Japanese to English were prepared for selected sections
during the course of the analysis. The transcripts were translated by the researcher
and were reviewed and cross-­checked by a bilingual colleague.

Analytical model: incorporating the researcher’s reflexivity

The analytical approach taken in the original study situates its philosophi-
cal approach to its analysis within the constructivist perspective on narratives
(Gubrium and Holstein 2002; Kasper and Prior 2015; Mann 2011), where the
focus is more on the how questions as opposed to the what questions. The ‘what’
questions include ‘what happened’ and ‘what were the experiences people had’,
while the ‘how’ questions include ‘how do the participants position themselves
while telling the stories?’ and ‘how does the interpersonal and/or social relation-
ship shape the making of the stories?’ (Frost 2011). Obviously, any ‘analytical
model’ will oversimplify the empirical practices of narrative analysis. I do not
intend to prescribe or endorse a certain model, but the Six Step Analysis Model
(refer to Miyahara 2015 for a detailed account of the model) represents my attempt
to take into account the content (what) and form (how) as well as the context
230 Masuko Miyahara
where context can range from the micro-­local to the macro-­global. The purpose
in providing the analytical framework is to offer a guide to how the analysis was
carried out, and also, to give transparency to the process of attempting to offer
some insightful order to the multiple accounts of human experiences that my par-
ticipants brought to the research site. The precise framework used will naturally
depend on the enquiry, but in any narrative analysis, the reflexive involvement of
the researcher at various stages of the analysis and representation of the data is
inherent (Miyahara 2017).

Place-­reflexivity in action: Megumi’s stories

In this section, I offer an example of how reflexivity was practiced by thinking
more consciously about how different sites contributed in promoting a deeper
understanding of how learners adopted new identities as language learners to
language users as they moved from their educational contexts in Japan to those
abroad. Informed by place-­reflexivity, I ventured out to re-­examine the original
data in order to explore the different ways learners experienced their learning by
focusing on the changes in their identities from learners to users. Practicing place-­
reflexivity enabled me to understand the diverse ways in which place could be
thought of more critically and purposefully, sometimes confirming or reinforcing
the findings from the original study. At other times, it expanded and enhanced my
thinking of the subject matter. For this chapter, I focus on one of my participants,
Megumi, and her narratives to illustrate how, by engaging in place-­reflexivity,
I was able to gather additional insights that allowed me to see how ELF identity
was formed from a more detailed and nuanced perspective. In employing the six
areas of place-­reflexivity presented earlier, I found that some features could occur
simultaneously or that some could be more prominent than others, making it thus
increasingly difficult to distinguish which feature is at play at a given time and
space. Also, certain features do not exhibit their characteristics in a linear fashion,
but they can overlap or co-­exist or are liable to reoccur. Therefore, my discus-
sions of applying the features of place-­reflexivity to Megumi’s narratives will be
holistic in the sense that they will be considered as a group of interrelated factors.

Megumi in her new environment of a liberal arts college

Megumi is a ‘jun-­Japa’, which is a jargon and an emic term used in the environ-
ment of this bilingual college that refers to L1 Japanese students who were edu-
cated in the Japanese educational system. The use of this term distinguishes them
from other group members such as kikoku (returnee) or seputen (September entry
students who come from educational institutions overseas or the international
schools in Japan) or ryugakusei (international students who often have native-­like
proficiency of English or are experienced ELF users). These terms were created
and used by the students themselves since the inception of the university almost
70 years ago (see Iino and Murata 2013, 2016, for the use of similar terms in a
different institution in Japan).
 ‘Place-­reflexivity’ as kaleidoscope 231
Although Megumi had been attending English conversation school since kin-
dergarten and, therefore, was ‘exposed’ to English from an early age, English
was basically a formal school subject associated with exams that had little func-
tional purposes. Megumi in this context consistently refers to the need to learn
English for exams and also emphasizes its instrumental potential for her future
career:

Extract 1
If we study English, it would be useful to pass the entrance exams. English
will also open up a lot of doors to different kinds of careers. So, I know it is
important to study and get good grades for English.
(Miyahara 2015: 113)

Megumi was influenced by the official discourse that emphasized the importance
of a school subject, which generated a strong sense of obligation to learn English.
Megumi’s recollection of learning English at the secondary level, the pedagogical
approach was typical, with an emphasis on language structure. Teachers would use
government approved textbooks that followed a curriculum specified by the gov-
ernment. Many hours were allocated to language forms, including grammar and
phrasal expressions, which were usually based on the ‘standard’ native speaker
norms. Rote memory and pattern practices were the dominant instructional
styles, coupled with another commonly used pedagogical method, the translation
method. Megumi explained that ‘teachers used Japanese to translate everything: it
was exam-­oriented English’. In this context, Megumi was positioned as ‘language
learner’ of English with little awareness of viewing it as a ‘tool’ for communica-
tion as exemplified in one of her initial interview extracts: ‘To me, English was a
language that gaijin (meaning ‘foreigners’ in Japanese) used, and not a tool to use
to communicate with people’. Megumi’s views towards English and English lan-
guage learning started to go through a major transformation in her new academic
environment at university.
Practicing place-­reflexivity, let us now pay more attention to the details of this
site and contemplate on what and why this site is considered as ‘bilingual’. As
Megumi states in Extract 2, there is indeed a sense of diversity especially in terms
of the make-­up of the students: a mix of nationality, ethnicity, language, and cul-
ture. Even among the Japanese students, there are the returnees or students who
have been educated in the international school system in Japan. Similarly, the
faculty come from all over the world, from a diverse range of professional back-
grounds with non-­Japanese faculty teaching Japanese culture or history. In such
an environment, the medium of communication and/or instruction is mainly in
English. Both English and Japanese can be heard all over the campus. There are
a lot more opportunities for encounters of different values and ways of thinking
compared to a more monolingual educational atmosphere. Two months after first
being immersed in the English-­medium university environment, Megumi, notices
the differences about her new learning context.
232 Masuko Miyahara
Extract 2
With overseas students, returnees, and people who are good at speaking Eng-
lish here on campus, you get a feeling that ‘English’ isn’t just in the textbooks.
It’s real! You can see people using it. This was quite new to me. And, it’s fun
to use English to communicate your ideas. At high school, the questions we
were asked in our English classes were very simple; you could respond to
them by just saying yes or no. But now, I have to think, and try to put my
opinions into one coherent argument. It’s challenging, but interesting.
(Miyahara 2015: 113)

In my original study, I used a very holistic descriptor, ‘bilingual environment’

in an attempt to emphasize the uniqueness and globalized nature of this institu-
tion. However, instead of presenting such a cursory view, foregrounding the site
enabled me to think and interrogate the material and environmental character-
istics a site offers, and the implications of the relationship between people and
the research site, where interactions among people take place, that reveals fresh
insights that had gone previously unnoticed.
In addition, from Extract 2 we can see that Megumi also notices the change
in the pedagogical approach and the changes made in her interactions with her
teacher and classmates as a result of it. In fact, although the students in these
first-­year ELP classes are mainly jun-­Japa students, English is the sole medium of
instruction. As noted earlier, there is a focus on nurturing critical thinking as well
as the accumulation of the English knowledge in these classes. The pedagogical
approach is mainly in the form of group discussions where the students are given
a topic to discuss and then presented in a form of presentations, which is subse-
quently consolidated in an academic paper. Compared to a lecture-­driven type of
approach that is a more common form of teaching used in many language classes
at the Japanese tertiary level, there is a lot more interaction with the teacher as
well as their classmates in the classroom. However, in one of Megumi’s personal
email exchanges with me, she ‘confesses’ that activities in this ‘new style of learn-
ing’ (learner centered) sometimes

marginalized people. Those who are proficient in English gets to speak out
more, while the less able ones keep silent, and aren’t given much chance to
voice their thoughts. I wish the teacher could do something about this.
(email from Megumi in York to the researcher)

Megumi’s comments bring me to discuss one of the features of place-­reflexivity

that conceptualizes the relationship that people have to places as constituting ‘a
sense of place’. These are subjective emotions or feelings that represent the inter-
actions of the affective dimensions between human and the research site. Refer-
ring to Relph (1976), Swaminathan and Mulvihill explicate that positive emotions
can lead to a sense of belonging, while, on the other hand, negative dispositions
can provoke a sense of isolation or a sense of being an outsider.
 ‘Place-­reflexivity’ as kaleidoscope 233
This is an interesting phenomenon to note when we consider how Megumi’s
conceptualization of English expanded to include not only the Anglophone norms
but also different varieties of ‘Englishes’ by observing how English was used
by overseas students on campus as seen in the following extract, Extract 3. In a
way, English became more personalized and she now felt ‘closer’ to the language
because she was required to use it in a meaningful way:

Extract 3
I felt for the first time I have likings for English. It wasn’t anything formal.
Neither was it difficult. It was something that was used in everyday life and
something you use to communicate with people. I felt an affinity towards
English and also, I realized that people had different accents, and was okay.
(Miyahara 2015: 120)

Informed by the place-­reflexivity framework, we notice that, at the more macro-­

level of the institution, the campus atmosphere contributed in creating a sense of
‘internationality, multicultural’ community for Megumi, but, at the micro-­level of
the classroom, her interlocutors were mainly L1 Japanese speakers with whom
she was required to communicate in English. This illustrates how the material
environment of the place assisted in creating this new view towards English as
real and meaningful, and fun to use. It also exemplifies how the place interacted
with the participant to create a new awareness towards English. That is, immersed
in the English-­medium university environment, Megumi was now able to observe
how English is used not only with native English but also with ELF speakers
alike. This, in turn, helped her to generate a view of herself as an English user
and envision herself functioning in an ELF community, which influenced the way
she related to the world. This suggests how the place with its various material
resources could interact to create new subject position or identity.
With Megumi’s positive views and affinity towards English as well as her
increasing self-­awareness as a user, it came as no surprise to find out that she had
applied for the 6-­week study abroad program at the University of York in the UK.
Megumi explains her decision as follows:

Extract 4
Now that I feel comfortable with the language and have less fear about
communicating with people who speak a different language, I wanted to
go abroad. That is, not just with the family on holidays with Japanese tour
guides, but on my own to study.
(Miyahara 2015: 122)

Shifting to the scene on a different platform, namely, in the study abroad context,
I will examine the findings of the original study by incorporating some of the com-
ponents of place-­reflexivity in order to engage in reflexivity more intentionally.
234 Masuko Miyahara
The study abroad program
The summer program overseas, known by the acronym SEA Program, is a pro-
gram for first-­and second-­year students that is designed to improve students’ lan-
guage proficiency (rather than studying the subject content) while experiencing
different cultures at their designated locations. All the programs at the sites have
been developed in collaboration with the university, and they are credit-­bearing
courses so that students are able to fulfill a portion of their ELP unit requirements
during their 6-­week program.
In the first interview upon her return from the study-­abroad program in York,
UK, Megumi described her experience as ‘great’! She was not sure if it had a
substantial effect in developing her linguistic performance, but the rewarding and
enriching experience of interacting with people from different cultures was a great
discovery for her as illustrated in this extract:

Extract 5
I really appreciated the talks with friends I made there. Especially with one
particular Spanish student. We keep in touch through emails. I found out that
although my English is not perfect, people will try to understand you. They
don’t usually ridicule you because of your English. By asking them to repeat
things, and rephrasing things, you can make yourself understood. You don’t
have to be perfect. It’s okay to make mistakes.
(Miyahara 2015: 122)

At York University, the classes were generally kept small with about ten to fifteen
students per class. As in most study abroad programs, the make-­up of the students
was diverse in terms of nationality, ethnicity, and culture. The classes were also
streamed by a placement test, and classes were organized so that, in the mornings,
they were oriented towards building up students’ knowledge of English and prac-
ticing the four skills; in the afternoons, the approach was more communicative,
open-­ended, and project-­based. Planning a weekend trip to London was one such
project, which would require the students to work in groups to make the neces-
sary travel arrangements and plan sightseeing trips using on-­line resources. Upon
their return from such trips, students were asked to make a presentation of their
preparations prior to their trip and to report on the trip upon their return. Not sur-
prisingly, such hands-­on projects were very appealing to the students, as Megumi
explains here:

Extract 6
These afternoon projects were fun. I also liked to do volunteer work in the
stores in the high streets. We rotated stores every afternoon for about a week.
This was another highlight of my stay in York. Yes, you were communicat-
ing! It was real. It was great!
(Miyahara 2015: 123)
 ‘Place-­reflexivity’ as kaleidoscope 235
These were the positive aspects of Megumi’s narratives of her studies in York,
which had propelled her to take more initiatives towards her learning. For instance,
as she was interested in acting, she would search websites and seek information
on the most sought-­after shows in that area. Arranging for tickets, finding direc-
tions to the theatre on her own were all enjoyable ‘tasks’ for Megumi. As she
noted in one of her weekly email exchanges with me, ‘I am learning and using
English. It feels great!’.
On the other hand, Megumi encountered several disappointments and chal-
lenges while at York. Contrary to what Megumi had expected, the students in her
class were L2 English learners and users. This is obvious since the program is
targeted for international students, but it appears that Megumi thought she would
be engaging with L1 English speakers (as shown in her email):

I had expected to myself to be talking to native English speakers, but all my

classmates were from different parts of the world. Although this was nice, but
it would have been nice if I could have interacted more with the British from
my own generation.
(email to the author from York)

However, Megumi could get a glimpse of the British people and culture through her
middle-­class host family from an Italian heritage. While enjoying herself with her new
acquired identity as an ELF user communicating with other ELF users in her class,
Megumi had at the same time, the desire to interact with native English speakers.
The other difficulty was related to the variety of interactional patterns in class
group discussion. In Japan, her classroom interactions were mainly with her Japa-
nese counterparts; in comparison, at York University, she was immersed in an
ELF environment where English served as the medium of communicative trans-
actions and interactions. In Megumi’s class at York, students came from a wide
range of places each with their different cultural profile such as Kuwait, China,
Spain, Italy, and Germany. One-­third of the students in Megumi’s class were
from Kuwait, but Megumi found these students ‘quite vocal sometimes even to
the point of being obnoxious’ (from Megumi’s weekly journal during her study
abroad). Her comments in Extract 7 illustrate her reservations:

Extract 7
I had a hard time with these students from Kuwait and China (in my class).
In group discussions, they were so loud. The Chinese would try to stop the
Kuwaitis sometimes. But it didn’t help much. They just kept going. And even
if I had something to say, by the time it was my turn I would have forgotten
what to say; or, many times, by then, the discussion would have headed in a
different direction. . . . Although the teacher noticed it and tried to facilitate
things. Their English was not much different from ours, but they spoke more
fluently. Their behavior puzzled me. . . .
(Miyahara 2015: 123)
236 Masuko Miyahara
One component to place-­reflexivity is to critically approach the site by contemplat-
ing how places are organized and how they could promote or impede social inter-
actions as well as to contemplate on what this means in terms of the relationship
of the participant to the site. The interview extracts earlier brought to the surface
how Megumi faces difficulties in acknowledging herself as a language user. Back
in Japan, she experiences for the first time what it is like to see herself more of a
language user rather than imbued on identity as a language learner. However, even
in this environment, the dominant language and culture is Japanese, using English
mainly with her Japanese cohort. In contrast, at York, Megumi is genuinely inter-
acting in the ELF environment. She is not a bystander anymore, but a legitimate
ELF communicator actively functioning in ELF transactions. As we have observed,
she had experienced both the positive and negative emotional forces of developing
identity as a language user. As her words towards the end of Extract 7 indicates,
we find her wondering about the reasons why these students from the Middle East
exhibit, from her point of view, such forceful behavior. However, this to me, sug-
gests that Megumi is trying to understand her interlocutors by showing respect for
cultural diversity, and not merely as a criticism towards unfamiliar culture.

Some afterthoughts on practicing place-­reflexivity

In terms of the various features of place-­reflexivity, in my previous study, I noticed
that, although my discussions had covered, more or less, most of these areas, it
was done unconsciously and without much heed and awareness towards how place
could be considered as an active agent in the research encounter. In activating the
rather passive category of the research site and paying more attention to the mate-
rial resources that place has to offer could provide deeper insights for the research.
The need for more explicit focus of place is crucial. For instance, upon entering
college, its multilingual and academic environment helped Megumi, a jun-­Japa,
become aware of herself as a language user. The physical characteristics of the cam-
pus such as its location away from the central Tokyo, to the suburbs, the greenery
and the vast space was very much unlike the university campus in the center of the
city and often gave the impression of ‘foreignness’. Such environmental charac-
teristics coupled with the international atmosphere where students would not only
converse in Japanese, but in English in different varieties have enabled Megumi to
observe first-­hand, ‘English in action’. In addition, her classes and tutorials were
conducted all in English. The majority of the faculty were non-­Japanese, both Eng-
lish and non-­native English speakers, who used English as the common language
for communication. The pedagogical approach was based on the ideas of liberal arts
education where critical thinking is at the base. Such material and environmental
characteristics appeared to facilitate Megumi’s awareness of herself as an English
learner transforming herself to additional identity of a user. In my original study, the
construction of Megumi’s identity from learner to user was based on the grounds of
‘exposure’ to the bilingual environment of the research site. However, incorporating
several aspects of place-­reflexivity has enabled me to see in a more explicit man-
ner the details of the site, and the significance and meaning place has in containing
diverse types of interrelationship among different users of English.
 ‘Place-­reflexivity’ as kaleidoscope 237
Megumi’s study abroad experiences at York consolidated her identity as lan-
guage user. Through both the positive and negative experiences at this site, she
consolidates here identity as language user. She develops understandings that the
Anglophone form of English is not the only norm and that there could be varieties
in English; linguistic deficiencies are regarded not as negative, although she also
simultaneously shows her desire for communicating with native English speak-
ers. In addition, she also encounters negative disposition in the process of forming
her language user identity, but such negative experiences led to her awareness
to develop a respect towards different cultures as implicated from her interview
extract about her classroom interactions with the Arab students. She also expe-
riences a sense of ownership towards English as she realizes the potentials of
her communicative capabilities (Widdowson 2016) to make English her ‘own’ by
having the opportunities to use her English in ‘genuine’ ELF contexts.
In my original study, the developments towards English ownership was visu-
alized as a more linear process progressing from one to the other: that is, from
language learner, to language user, and then, eventually, building a sense of own-
ership towards the language. Employing the place-­reflexivity framework and also
an ELF perspective helped me to look the phenomena form more nuanced and
multidimensional perspectives, and now, I conceptualize the process to be repre-
sented as a tri-­level concentric circle where the three components do not progress
in a linear manner, but could sometimes going back and forth (depending on the
context), eventually building up on one another as seen in Figure 13.1.

宒宺宱宨宵家宫宬害季宷宲宺室宵宧家季
宷宫宨季宯室宱宪宸室宪宨季

宏室宱宪宸室宪宨季宸家宨宵

宏室宱宪宸室宪宨季宯宨室宵宱宨宵季

Figure 13.1 Conceptualization of language learner, to user, and developing a sense of

ownership
238 Masuko Miyahara
Place-­reflexivity has illustrated that the research practice is not merely a dia-
logue between the researcher and the researched, but should be conceived as a
‘trialogue’ that includes the researcher, the researched, and the research site where
the methodology is being practiced. It is also crucial that we put prominence on
the interrelationship between these three actors and what they produce. Place
could include unique arrangements of people, landscape, buildings, etc. or the
non-­human actors as well. Place in this context ascribes agency to non-­human
actors, and in some cases, they are as important as human actors (Hinchcliffe
et al. 2015). The important point is to grant agency to place and to acknowledge
its influence in the production of knowledge.

Final remarks and limitations

Overall, place-­reflexivity has offered me a new lens in which to ponder reflexively
on my research. However, one of the difficulties of incorporating place-­reflexivity
to my original study was how to conceptualize place in creating virtual spaces or
liminal spaces such as the imagined communities (Kanno and Norton 2003) that
learners could aspire (Dörnyei 2009; Miyahara 2015). How does the various aspects
of place interact with the participant, the researcher and the context in creating such
a virtual space? This is certainly another area that needs further exploration.
In the meantime, as ELF research firmly establishes itself in the field of applied
linguistics, approaches to ELF research will certainly diversify and increase as
research inquiries expand. Particularly, studies that attempt to explore ELF users’
voice, attitudes, and identities should critically examine their methodology and
methods and take heed to be mindful of the researchers’ involvement in the entire
research process. It is my hope that this chapter may serve as a useful guideline
to illuminate such an approach, contribute in delineating the issues at stake, and
make researchers aware of the challenges that they may encounter.

References
Agee, J. 2002. Winks upon winks: Multiple lenses on setting in qualitative educational
research. Qualitative Studies in Education 15, 569–585.
Agnew, J.A. and J.S. Duncan (eds). 2014. The power of place (RLE social & cultural geogra-
phy): Bringing together geographical and sociological imaginations. London: Routledge.
Anderson, J., P. Adey and P. Bevan. 2010. Positioning place: Polygic approaches to research
methodology. Qualitative Research 10, 589–604.
Baker, W. 2009. Language, culture and identity through English as a Lingua Franca in
Asia: Note from the field. The Linguistic Journal 4, 8–35.
Barkhuizen, G. 2013. Introduction: Narrative research in applied linguistics. In G. Barkhu-
izen (ed), Narrative research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 1–16.
Berger, R. 2015. Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualita-
tive research. Qualitative Research 15(2), 219–234.
Bhabba, H.K. 2009. In the cave of making: Thoughts on third space. In K. Ikas and
G. Wagner (eds), Communicating in the third space. New York: Routledge, ix–xiv.
 ‘Place-­reflexivity’ as kaleidoscope 239
Block, D. 2006. Identity in applied linguistics. Where are we? In T. Omoniyi and G. White
(eds), The sociolinguistics of identity. London: Continuum, pp. 34–49.
Block, D. 2007. Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Canagarajah, S. 1996. From critical research practice to critical research reporting. TESOL
Quarterly 30(2), 321–331.
Clandinin, D.J. 2007. Handbook of narrative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Clandinin, D.J. and F.M. Connelly. 2000. Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in quali-
tative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-­Bass.
Connelly, F.M., and Clandinin, D.J. 1990. Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Edu-
cational Researcher 19(5), 2–14.
Creswell, J.W. 2014. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage publications.
Creswell, T. 1996. In place/out of place: Geography, ideology and transgression. Minne-
apolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Dörnyei, Z. 2009. The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. New York: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9–24.
Finlay, L. 2012. Five lenses for the reflexive interviewer. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A.
Marvasti and K. McKinney (eds), The Sage handbook of interview research: The com-
plexity of the craft. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 317–332.
Frost, N. 2011. Qualitative research methods in psychology. London: Open University Press.
Gubrium, J.F. and J.A. Holstein. 2002. Handbook of interview research: Context and
method. London: Sage Publications.
Guillemin, M., and Gillam, L. 2004. Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments”
in research. Qualitative Inquiry 10(2), 261–280.
Hinchcliffe, S., M. Kearnes, M. Degen and S. Whatmore. 2015. Urban wild things: A cos-
mopolitical experiment. Environment and Planning D 23, 643–658.
Iino, M. and K. Murata. 2013. We are Jun-­Japa: Dynamics of ELF communication in an
English medium academic context. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 2, 84–100.
Iino, M. and K. Murata. 2016. Dynamics of ELF communication in an English – medium
academic context in Japan: From EFL learners to ELF users. In K. Murata (ed), Explor-
ing ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 111–131.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Kanno, Y. 2003. Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt
two worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kanno, Y. and B. Norton. 2003. Imagined community and educational possibilities: Intro-
duction. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 2(4), 241–249.
Kasper, G. and M. Prior. 2015. Analyzing storytelling in TESOL interview research.
TESOL Quarterly 49(2), 226–255.
Kim, J. 2016. Understanding narrative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mann, S. 2011. A critical review of qualitative interview in applied linguistics. Applied
Linguistics 32(1), 6–24.
Mann, S. 2016. The research interview: Reflexive practice and reflexivity in research pro-
cess. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Miyahara, M. 2015. Emerging self-­identities and emotions in foreign language learning:
A narrative oriented approach. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
240 Masuko Miyahara
Miyahara, M. 2017. Using a narrative approach in ELF research: Developing a reflexive
framework. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 6, 91–109.
Miyahara, M. 2019. Methodological diversity in emotion studies: Reflexivity and identi-
ties. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning 1, 83–105.
Murata, K. 2016. Introduction: ELF research, corpora and different approaches to data.
Waseda Working Papers in ELF 5, 1–12.
Nagar, R. and S. Geiger. 2007. Reflexivity and positionality in feminist fieldwork revisited.
In A. Tickell, E. Sheppard, J. Peck and T. Barnes (eds), Politics and practice in economic
geography. London: Sage Publications, pp. 267–278.
Nogami, Y. 2016. A narrative approach to ELF-­focused research: Diary study for investigat-
ing identity construction of Japanese ELF speaker. Waseda Working Papers 5, 136–152.
Nogami, Y. 2019. Identity and pragmatic language use among East Asian ELF speakers
and its implications for English-­medium education. In K. Murata (ed), English-­medium
instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca perspective. Abingdon, Oxon: Rout-
ledge, pp. 176–198.
Norton, B. 2013. Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Polkinghore, D.E. 1995. Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 8(1), 8–25.
Prior, M. 2016. Emotions and discourse in L2 narrative research. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Relph, E. 1976. Place and placeness. London: Pion.
Riessman, C. 2008. Narrative methods for human sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Riessman, C. 2012. Analysis of personal narratives. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A. Marvasti
and K. McKinney (eds), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the
craft. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 367–380.
Roulston, K. 2010. Reflective researcher: Learning to interview in the social sciences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Sin, C.H. 2003. Interviewing in “Place”: The socio-­spatial construction of interview data.
Area 35(3), 305–312.
Soja, E.W. 2010. Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Stanley, L. 1992. The auto/biographical, vol. 1: The theory and practice of feminist auto/
biography. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Swaminathan, R. and T. Mulvihill. 2019. Learning to “site-­see”: Place reflexivity as a
methodological tool for qualitative researchers. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education 32(8), 1–16.
Takino, M. 2016. Using narrative inquiry in ELF Research: Exploring BELF users’ per-
spective. Waseda Working Papers 5, 117–135.
Tilley, C. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape: Places, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg.
Turner, V. 1969. The ritual processes: Structure and anti-­structure. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Virkkula, T. and T. Nikula. 2010. Identity construction in ELF contexts: A case study of
Finnish engineering students working in Germany. International Journal of Applied Lin-
guistics 20(2), 251–273.
Widdowson, H. 2016. Competence and capability: Rethinking the subject English. In
K. Murata (ed), Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts. London:
Routledge, pp. 213–223.