Research practice and culture in European universities’ Language Centres. Results of a survey in CercleS member institutions

3.1.1 Language Centre management

We wanted to explore in which way staffing relates to research activity and culture. First, we asked about the size of management teams. Whilst the survey identified a significant minority of responding centres (27 %) with only one manager, the majority have more than two managers in post (cf. Figure 1). However, the duties of management staff vary considerably, and a majority also have teaching duties. Even in smaller Language Centres with possibly only one manager, a strong majority (77 %) also have teaching duties.

Figure 1:

Number of management staff employed in the language centre.

At a national level, the larger associations clearly influence the overall statistics. Associations with fewer member institutions (i.e., Finland, Switzerland) also reported fewer management staff (when compared to the UK, Germany and Spain); the reason for this, however, remains unclear (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2:

Number of management staff who teach.

Figure 3:

Proportion of management staff who also teach – by national association.

3.1.2 Language Centre staffing and research

It may be assumed that the research culture will be at its strongest in the larger Language Centres. This may be because, in a large team, tasks can be more easily reorganised without overburdening individuals. Also, a larger team could foster fruitful discussions on pertinent issues among staff, potentially leading to research activities.

The average number of permanent full-time staff engaged by responding institutions is between 11 and 20, for permanent part-time staff it is 6–10, fewer than 5 for fixed term staff, and 6–10 hourly-paid part-time staff (see Table 2). It is evident that centres with fewer staff tend to have fewer areas of research, and research-related activities, while larger centres often engage in more activities (see also Section 3.2.1). However, the correlation is inconsistent, with several examples of good practice. For example, individual respondents from AICLU, from AKS and from FINELC have no staff contracted to undertake research, but 50 % of their staff are research active. One respondent from AULC and one from FINELC have no staff with research duties, and only a low proportion of staff engaged in research (1–10 %) but report activities in five research areas.

Furthermore, data on staff numbers across national associations are comparable among those with a higher response rate (see Table 3), although AKS employ a higher proportion of part-time and hourly-paid teachers. FINELC notably has a higher proportion of Language Centres with larger staff numbers, probably reflecting different national languages policies. Conversely, SSH/CHES/CSUS have proportionately fewer staff on permanent full-time contracts, and more permanent part-time staff.

The survey asked about the proportion of Language Centre staff who are expected to undertake research as part of their contracts (see Figure 4).

Figure 4:

Proportion of staff whose contracts include research. To help interpret Figure 4, 63 institutions responded that they have no permanent staff contracted to undertake research, while 19 have more than 50 % of their permanent staff contracted to undertake research. 49 institutions responded that between 1 and 10 % of their staff undertake research even though this is not required in their contract.

A clear majority of 63 % of institutions have no staff whose contracts include research, whereas at the other end of the scale, in 19 % of institutions, more than half of their staff are expected to undertake research. The total proportion of institutions employing staff with research included in their contracts is 36 %. AULC (n = 22) is an outlier in this respect, with 45 % (n = 10) of responding institutions having more than 50 % of their permanent staff expected to undertake research, significantly higher than any other national association (see Table 3). By contrast, AKS (n = 21) reported only 10 % (n = 2) institutions with research duties.

Once again, there are notable individual exceptions. Two Language Centres in Spain and two in Switzerland have over 50 % of staff contracted to carry out research, whereas all other institutions in those countries report having no, or a very low proportion of staff with research included in their contracts. This implies that the volume of research conducted is highly dependent on the institution.

After establishing that the majority of staff are not contracted to engage in research, the results for time allocation for research were unsurprising. The average contractual time allocation is 15 % whereas the most common contracts specify 10 %, equivalent to half a day per week on a full-time contract (see Figure 5 and Table 4).

Figure 5:

Proportion of research time in contracts.

Crucially, the data highlight the discrepancy between contractual time allowance and actual research activities. Despite this, a striking 78 % of centres have permanent staff in this category (see aggregates in Figure 6), and even 41 % of non-permanent staff (see aggregates in Figure 7). The findings already indicate that research is seen as an important aspect in Language Centres, a perspective that will be further explored below.

Figure 6:

Proportion of permanent and research-active staff without contractual research allocation (n = 96).

Figure 7:

Proportion of non-permanent and research-active staff without contractual research allocation (n = 93).

3.1.3 Staff training and development

Anecdotal evidence suggests a tendency for contracts to aggregate several related duties and responsibilities, for example conflating research time and professional development. Our survey found that significantly more institutions allocate time to training and development than to conducting research (see Figure 8). While 87 % of responding institutions expect staff to undertake training and professional development, 4 % of them do not specify the time allocated. Where it is, time is most commonly 5 % of contract time (see Figure 9). Additionally, the data indicate that training and development time is more frequently included in contracts in the UK, Finland and Switzerland, than in Germany and Spain.

Figure 8:

Time allocation for professional development/training.

Figure 9:

Proportional time allocation for professional development/training.

The fact that staff are given some time allocation for training and development, however small, is encouraging. In fact, it may create opportunities to engage with research-based activities as part of a workplan. However, it is less common to combine time for research with time for training and development (Figure 10), as this occurs in only 33 % (n = 12) out of 36 Language Centres with research duties.

Figure 10:

Combined time allocation for research and professional development (n = 99).

3.2.1 Areas of research

Subsequently, we aimed to gain insight into the actual research activities. The findings show that 73 % of 99 responding institutions carry out research, even though only 36 % have staff with contractual research obligations. As expected, language teaching and assessment was the area where most research is conducted (63 of 73 responses overall, see Table 5 for total results and national breakdown), followed by intercultural/pluricultural competence, learner autonomy and motivation, multi-/plurilingualism, professional development and other applied linguistics (from 40 to 24 responses) (see Figure 11).

Figure 11:

Research areas (n = 99).

Only few responses mentioned research areas such as Literature/Literary Theory and Language Policy. As regards Literary Theory, possibly because it falls outside the Language Centres’ remit. Similarly, due to its strategic implications, Language Policy research may be dealt with by other units or at a higher level. In the ‘other’ category, only three answers named Technology, Blended Learning, or AI. This is particularly surprising as 17 out of 98 responding institutions cited AI and other digital learning and teaching keywords among their priorities (see Section 3.3.2). In contrast, digital learning and teaching may already be largely integrated and therefore not mentioned.

3.2.2 Funding for research

Clearly, funding is important in developing a research culture. 50 % of respondents have no access to research funding, while the other half have one or more sources available to apply for (see Figure 12). Of the 27 respondents who do not conduct research, four state that they can apply for funding. This indicates a clear correlation between access to research funding and being research active.

Figure 12:

Research funding available.

Conversely, 23 of the 50 respondents without funding are engaged in research. This initially surprising result could be explained in the response below. The respondent selected answer option “no research conducted”, but clarified their answer as follows:

“There is a difference between literally “conducting research” and dealing with those areas of research at a university level. In our Language Centre we officially don’t research. That’s why I cannot say, that these areas of research are conducted at our language center. On the other hand, we deal with many of them and include them in our professional development.” (AKS)

This situation is likely more common at AKS, where research figures low on job descriptions (see Section 3.1.2), managers have a higher teaching load (see Section 3.1.1) and there are more part-time and hourly-paid teachers.

3.2.3 Dissemination of research

Among research-active staff (n = 72), only those at 13 institutions are expected to present their findings at conferences (see Figure 13), while the majority (51 of 72) are merely encouraged to do so. Eight respondents reported that this question does not apply.

Figure 13:

Presenting research at conferences (n = 99, of which 72 research-active).

A similar pattern emerges regarding the publication of research findings (see Figure 14). In fact, more than half (n = 47) of research-active Language Centres widely encourage publications, with 20 expecting staff to publish, including 10 requiring publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Figure 14:

Publication of research (n = 99, of which 72 research-active).

3.3.1 Impact of research on Language Centre activities

Regarding impact, we sought to explore how research was perceived in relation to the wider activities of Language Centres. Using an iterative approach, responses were initially categorised into three groups: clear impact (n = 66), moderate impact (n = 8) and no impact/not applicable/no answer provided (n = 25) (see Table 6). In the next stage, free-text answers were examined more closely.

The findings indicate that two-thirds of the respondents state that research clearly impacts on Language Centre activities. Most often, the impact on teaching is mentioned, followed by course design and curriculum development, and professional development, highlighting the practical, day-to-day benefits of research for a Language Centre and emphasising their applied approach.

Several responses also refer to research activities enhancing the Language Centre’s status within the institution, fostering connections with other academic departments and the wider community. One respondent commented on the impact on professional identity, job satisfaction and career perspectives:

“Research is vital in the sense that we engage in evidence-based and data-driven teaching and assessment. Practices, as well as our curriculum and assessments, are subject to constant monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation. For permanent and fixed-term staff to perform our jobs, we need to engage in (very) applied research, including needs analyses, surveys of student/teacher perspectives and experiences, action research, classroom interventions, and evaluation. We encourage all teachers to engage in reflective practice. So we need to remain connected to academic and professional discourses beyond our institution but also reflect upon, investigate and evaluate our own practices. We need to be teacher-researchers, researcher-teachers, and reflective practitioners all at once!” (AICLU)

A small number of respondents (n = 8) state that research is moderately useful, illustrated by the limitations that those Language Centres perceive, e.g.: “maybe as part of CPD sessions” (AULC); “individually: yes, [for the] majority: no” (AKS) “we have a research-informed framework of work” (AULC) or “supposedly, we have a model of research-led teaching!” (FINELC). It is worth further exploring the 25 responses that did not answer the question or state that research has no impact. Several comments provide additional information, i.e. “no impact (but would impact if time allowance)”, “no impact (but sharing best practices yes”, “no impact due to resources, therefore no research; some teaching projects”.

Comparing responses on research impact with those from respondents who reported “no research conducted” (n = 27) in Section 3.2.1, we find that 12 clearly acknowledge that research impacts Language Centre work, three report some impact, 10 state “no answer given/not applicable”, and three modify their “no” answer (see Table 6 marked with *). This suggests that even Language Centres not engaged in research widely believe it as influential to some degree, as indicated by a slight majority (15 and respectively 18 out of 27).

When comparing the responses from individual national associations with the overall results, the findings are similar: a slightly higher proportion of responses confirm the impact of research, with approximately three-quarters indicating “yes”, or “some” impact, compared to two-thirds of the total sample.

3.3.2 Research prioritisation

The survey sought to explore the extent to which Language Centres influence the nature of research conducted, as opposed to individual choice. Notably, in only 8 % cases, research areas are exclusively aligned to Language Centre’s priorities. Approximately one-third (34 %) report no research priorities, 22 % determine research activities individually, and 35 % state that they combine personal interests and Language Centre priorities (see Figure 15). Individual national associations reflect the results to some extent. An exception is AKS, where half of the responses state “not applicable”, presumably because most staff contracts do not allow for research.

Figure 15:

Prioritisation of research.

Continuing with the analysis for research priorities, these were compared with reported areas of research undertaken (see Section 3.2.1) to identify possible correlations (see Table 7).

Consistent with other responses, 41 Language Centres report having no specific research priorities, with seven stating that they do not engage in research at all. Since 27 respondents reported no research activity, these same centres also did not state priorities. Among the 72 research-active Language Centres, 54 specify focus areas that largely align with the ranking of actual research activities. The most frequently reported are language learning (n = 22), teaching (n = 19), and assessment (n = 15), followed closely by AI (n = 13). Other areas, mentioned less frequently (n = 4–8), include intercultural learning, autonomy, motivation, multilingualism, and digital learning/digital literacy.

Some of the answers in category ‘no research priorities/no research conducted’, merit a closer reading. One respondent stated “No clearly communicated priorities. We encourage research focusing on language learning and teaching but some research has also been conducted in different fields” (FINELC). Another comment was: “Our Language Centre does not carry out research. The research carried out by the department members is not related to the activities of the Language Centre” (ACLES). This clearly differentiates between individual research interests and the Language Centre’s priorities.

Another respondent commented: “None officially but informally we are working on technology enhanced teaching and learning/comparing modes of delivery/embedding action-oriented tasks in the curriculum and assessments, AI in language learning and assessments and teacher beliefs” (AULC), or, as stated by another AULC member: “We haven’t set institutional research priorities (aside from the strategic priorities set by the university, on a university level)”. This last statement aligns with the institutional role of a Language Centre as a service unit within the university. The survey comments reveal ambivalent views on research in Language Centres, oscillating between the official remit set by the university, the personal and professional development needs of staff, and the managerial perspective.

3.3.3 Research-related activities on offer

In addition to conducting research, many Language Centres engage in activities to stay informed about research findings, either through internal sharing, or external learning. Figure 16 outlines some of these activities, available to all staff, regardless of research activity. These activities are further detailed by national association in Table 8.

Figure 16:

Promotion of research-related activities.

The range of activities offered is quite impressive but might also reflect an over-representation of Language Centres that engage in research or make use of research outcomes. Furthermore, the specific number of research activities does not provide information about the quality of these activities.

Of the 12 Language Centres that do not promote research-related activity (see Table 9), six do not conduct research and four of these also see no benefit in research, while the remaining six centres that do not promote internal research-oriented activities indicate one or more areas of research-activity (see Section 3.2.1), and four acknowledge its benefits (see Section 3.3.1). A closer look at the volume of promoted research-oriented activities compared to actual research undertaken reveals the following pattern:

A strong trend emerges: the more research areas in which a Language Centre is engaged, the more likely it is to promote research-oriented activities, which seems plausible. Given this finding, we analysed the more research-active Language Centres promoting between four and six research-oriented activities (n = 29) and their assessment of the research impact (Section 3.3.1, Table 6). As expected, the majority reported a clear (n = 22) or some (n = 2) impact, while 5 saw no impact. This suggests, that promoting research-oriented activities in a Language Centre generally correlates with actual research, and an appreciation for its contribution to their work.

Interestingly, one Language Centre promoted four types of research-oriented activities but conducted no research, nor does it believe research has any impact on its work.

3.3.4 Barriers to research

There are several barriers preventing Language Centres from engaging in research, and we sought to explore the main obstacles. The three most common barriers are lack of time (71 %), research not being included in staff contracts (66 %) and lack of funding (51 %) (see Figure 17). In addition, “lack of staff qualified to undertake research” cited by 32 % of respondents, seems plausible as Language Centre staff are typically hired for their teaching profile, rather than their research expertise. This would also explain the 27 % of responses citing “lack of staff motivation”. Interestingly, only half the respondents regard lack of funding as an obstacle, while lack of time is the most frequently cited barrier overall, closely followed by staff contract issues. While results vary slightly across national associations, they largely follow this pattern.

Figure 17:

Barriers to research.