51 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 D AVID S OLER O RTÍNEZ , C ATERINA S UGRANYES E RNEST * Understanding the plurilingual researcher in context Abstract. Despite the vast body of research on plurilingualism which has emerged over the past years, it seems that few studies analyse the role of the plurilingual researchers when working in collaborative projects. The main purpose of this article, therefore, is to examine how research on plurilingualism is developed in a context where researchers from different language backgrounds work together in plurilingual collaborative research teams. Framed by the European project ENROPE, which enables networking structures for researchers in the field of language education and plurilingualism, the study was conducted during a plurilingual intensive study week in Barcelona (June-July 2021). The participants of the study are researchers, professors and PhD candidates from different European Universities developing research on plurilingualism. Relevant factors, such as the role of the English language and the role of languages other than English in plurilingual contexts, specific collaborative strategies and practices or the plurilingual identity are analysed. Initial results regarding the benefits and drawbacks of collaborating in plurilingual teams are discussed. 1. Introduction ENROPE (European Network for Junior Researchers in the Field of Plurilingualism and Education) is “an international, cooperative project aiming to provide high-quality qualification and networking structures for junior researchers in the field of plurilingualism and language education” which ensures “an interand transdisciplinary environment for academic exchange and reflection” (https: / / enrope.eu). The following study conceives ENROPE as a plurilingual collaborative setting which enables plurilingual competences through the use of language repertoires as well as English as a facilitator language and identity negotiation. Framed by the most recent research in plurilingual collaborative connections, language use and identity negotiations, this study focuses firstly on the linguistic repertoire of the participants, referred to as ‘own languages’ (cf. C OOK 2012) in the present article, and how the use of these languages enables the development of plurilingual competence of junior researchers. It also * Contact addresses: David S OLER O RTÍNEZ , PhD, FPCEE-Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull. Carrer del Císter, 34, 08022 B ARCELONA , Spain E-mail: Davidso1@blanquerna.url.edu Research areas: CLIL, Plurilingualism, Educational innovation, Educational leadership. Caterina S UGRANYES E RNEST , PhD, FPCEE-Blanquerna, Universitat Ramon Llull. Carrer del Císter, 34, 08022 B ARCELONA , Spain E-mail: Caterinase@blanquerna.url.edu Research areas: Plurilingualism, Use and visibility of own languages. 54 David Soler Ortínez, Catarina Sugranyes Ernest DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 51 • Heft 2 examines how these collaborative strategies in plurilingual settings can favour the development of plurilingual competence. Secondly, it looks at the role of English as a facilitator language within plurilingual collaborative settings. The third field of research upon which this study is based, focuses on defining the identity of the junior researcher in plurilingual collaborative settings by addressing the concepts of identity negotiation and development. The article then explains the ENROPE project, the context referred to in this study and defines the participants involved. Through a thorough analysis of the data collected, results will be presented in view of the aims identified previously. Final conclusions point to the fact that in collaborative settings such as ENROPE, English is perceived as a facilitator language which promotes the use of one’s own languages and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Moreover, collaborative strategies are favoured and plurilingual identity awareness is promoted. 2. Setting the scene: ENROPE as a plurilingual collaborative space for using own languages As stated in the ENROPE Handbook (ENROPE 2021: 6), “ENROPE operates at the interface of language education research, language teaching and professional development to develop more plurilingual mind-sets and practices in education and research”. For the purpose of the present study, ENROPE is therefore conceived as a plurilingual setting in which own languages and experiences are not only acknowledged but also encouraged to interrelate and interweave in order to generate new linguistic practices. This study adopts the definitions put forward by the Common European Framework for Languages (cf. C OUNCIL OF E UROPE 2001, 2020) in relation to multilingualism and plurilingualism. Plurilingualism emphasises the fact that an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples. He or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact (C OUNCIL OF E UROPE 2020: 123). Multilingualism on the other hand focuses on the use of more than one language either by an individual speaker or by a group of speakers. Authors such as A RONIN / S INGLETON (2012) and C ONTEH / M EIER (2014) refer to multilingualism from a plurilingual perspective. In plurilingual spaces, individuals integrate their own languages (cf. G ARCÍA / W EI 2014) and promote plurilingual competence, the ability to use - in different ways and forms of communication − the different languages a person knows (cf. C OUNCIL OF E UROPE 2020). A plurilingual speaker therefore, makes use of their integral linguistic repertoire (cf. M EIER 2017). As suggested by W EI (2017), within these spaces, language practices are not only brought together to extend their language repertoire, but also for “sophisticated metalinguistic awareness” (G ARCÍA / W EI 2014: 228) to Understanding the plurilingual researcher in context 55 51 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 develop. In plurilingual settings, mainstream language and cultural practices, which are commonly developed, are transformed (cf. G UITIÉRREZ / B AQUEDANO -L ÓPEZ / T EJADA 1999). Plurilingual competences, moreover, can be effectively developed through the use of collaborative strategies in plurilingual spaces. In this study, collaborative strategies are defined as the active exchange of ideas in small group interactions with the objective of completing or achieving specific shared goals (cf. L AW / C HUNG / L EUNG / W ONG 2017). The effectiveness of collaborative strategies, however, may vary on different factors, such as the quality of the interactions or the type of goal to be achieved (cf. G ÖMLEKSIZ 2007). What role does English have in plurilingual collaborative settings? How can communication be guaranteed and plurilingual competence developed in a research context where many languages coexist? The following section addresses the above questions by suggesting that, despite widespread belief that English substitutes the use of other languages in multilingual contexts, English may be conceived as a language that facilitates communication and favours plurilingual development. 3. English as a facilitator language within plurilingual settings The ENROPE language policy document defines English as a Lingua Franca (henceforth ELF) which is the language used in “the negotiating act of mediating between interlocutors with varied multilingual repertoires” (J ENKINS 2015: 55). The viewpoint put forward in this study claims that English may be conceived as an opportunity language (cf. P ENNYCOOK 2011) in plurilingual collaborative settings and not as a threat to other lesser spoken languages as would be generally believed, as English in this context may not be a predator language (cf. H ORNBERGER 1997) which would annihilate other languages. As P ENNYCOOK (2007: 111) suggests: If we are concerned about the relation between English and lesser used languages, the way forward may be not so much in terms of language policies to support other languages over English but rather in terms of opposing language ideologies that construct English in particular ways. In the context concerning this study, it is suggested that ELF is a language for facilitating communication and for developing plurilingual competence. The challenge of a setting such as ENROPE is to enable plurilingual competence by promoting the free use of different languages of the participant. It has been explored that a critical approach to English can be used to support other languages (cf. G OITIA / S UGRANYES 2011; L ÓPEZ -G OPAR / J IMÉNEZ / D ELGADO 2014; S UGRANYES / G ONZÁLEZ D AVIES 2014) and similar studies point to the fact that the learning context where English is the means of instruction can be conceived as a possible space for plurilingual competences to develop (cf. S UGRANYES 2017). Nevertheless, effective plurilingual competence goes hand in hand with recognition and the development of plurilingual identity 56 David Soler Ortínez, Catarina Sugranyes Ernest DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 51 • Heft 2 (cf. S TRATILAKI 2014) by negotiating and renegotiating our sense of self in relation to the larger social world and reorganising that relationship across time and space (cf. S UGRANYES 2017). The following section attempts to understand the identity of the researcher within plurilingual settings. 4. The plurilingual identity of language users in plurilingual settings One of the aims of the ENROPE project is to promote meta-reflection with regard to one’s own role as a researcher in a plurilingual context (ENROPE Handbook 2021: 11). This relates to understanding how the identity of the researcher in a plurilingual collaborative setting is developed through the use of their own languages and ELF. Following C UMMINS (2001), identity integrates the language user and their context; it develops in a social context (cf. C REESE / B LACKLEDGE 2015; R ILEY 2008) and emerges through social interaction (cf. Jø RGENSEN 2008; R ILEY 2008), much in line with a socially-culturally constructed framework such as ENROPE by “creating a sense of community through establishing a community of practice offering meaningful interaction between junior researchers from different disciplines and academic and linguistic backgrounds” (ENROPE 2021: 11). According to B YRAM (2006), identity is a negotiation act between the individual and the environment. It is a negotiation and renegotiation of our sense of self in relation to the social world (cf. N ORTON 2013; T HORNBORROW 2004) and these negotiations are strongly influenced by social and cultural factors (cf. C UMMINS 2001). Identity is dynamic, it changes depending on the goals and situations the individual encounters and it is a never-ending process (cf. N ORTON 2013). The diversity of languages that coexist within a given context may imply, as suggested by R ILEY (2010: 376) that identities are “reconfigured, recovered and rejected”. As stated by A RONIN / O’L AOIRE / S INGLETON (2011: 171), the study of identities goes hand in hand with the “background of a myriad of language repertoire configurations and patterns of language use”. C UMMINS (2001) argues that interactions between teachers and pupils always entail a process of negotiating identities, of affirming who pupils are and “recognising the agency of culturally diverse pupils and communities” (C UMMINS 2001: preface VIII). Identity, therefore, is seen as a whole within a milieu that influences language learning and use (cf. A RONIN 2016) and recognises the “cumulative effects on a person of emotional, psychological and linguistic aspects” (A RONIN / S INGLETON 2012: 80). For the purpose of this study, identity is defined as a complex negotiating process between the researcher and their environment and it is contextbased, plural and dynamic as, understanding ENROPE as a plurilingual space, entails conceiving it as a plurilingual and holistic whole which implies considering and recognising the different individualities that compose it. In accordance with the authors above, each individual has their own identity forged by the languages they use and their relationship with the environment through these languages. We shall now turn to describe the context of this study by explaining how the Understanding the plurilingual researcher in context 57 51 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 ENROPE project developed, the participants part of this study and the instrument designed for collecting the data. 5. The Study The European Network for Junior Researchers in the Field of Plurilingualism and Education ENROPE was sequenced in different training and learning phases running from 2018 to 2021. As stated in the ENROPE Handbook (2021: 6), “as part of its aim to foster strong and reflected professional and researcher identities, ENROPE offered an Intensive Study Programme (ISP) which provided junior researchers with opportunities for collaboration, networking and professional qualification. The ISP consisted of three annual Intensive Study Weeks (henceforth ISW) from 2019 to 2021, linked and enhanced through regular Online Study Phases (OSPs)”.The aim of the ISWs was to develop the “reflection, practice, and interaction of practitioners about multi-/ plurilingualism and multi-/ pluriculturalism in the field of research and education” (ENROPE 2021: 31) in an optimal setting for awareness-raising where, among other actions, participants are encouraged to share their own research and promote plurilingual collaborative spaces. The study presented here focuses on ISW3 titled “Context-Based Research: Integrating the Stakeholders” which took place online and was hosted by FPCEE Blanquerna − Universitat Ramon Llull (Barcelona). It welcomed 36 participants during the first week of July 2021. The aims of ISW3 were to develop context-based research by integrating the stakeholders (such as teachers and policy planners), to understand how multilingual policies are developed in different European contexts and to analyse how research can be taken to real classrooms. The week was structured in morning sessions which were devoted to talks and workshops. In the afternoons participants were grouped into ‘family groups’ according to research interests, and previous ISW experience. 5.1 Objective and research questions The general objective of the present article is to understand the role of the plurilingual researcher when collaborating in a plurilingual context by analysing the perceptions of researchers who had participated in the ENROPE ISW3. Taking this objective into consideration, and the previous theoretical framework, the present study poses the following research questions: RQ1. What role does the English language have when collaborating in plurilingual contexts? RQ2. What uses do languages other than English have when collaborating in plurilingual contexts? RQ3. What strategies enabled a plurilingual collaborative context in ENROPE ISW3? 58 David Soler Ortínez, Catarina Sugranyes Ernest DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 51 • Heft 2 RQ4. How did the identity of the plurilingual researcher change throughout the ENROPE ISW3 experience? 5.2 Participants [= Partic.] The original sample was made up of 36 participants, however, the survey was only fully completed by ten of them. Seven of the participants that were included in the study are junior researchers who have been developing research in plurilingualism for 1-3 years. Two of them have an experience of 4-6 years in this field and one has been studying plurilingualism for 7-9 years. Nine participants stated that they currently use the English language in their daily professional life. Spanish (3), French (3) Catalan (3), German (1), Dutch (1), Gaelic (1), Welsh (1) and Greek (1) were the other languages that the participants affirmed to use daily. 5.3 The instrument The survey used in this research (see Table 1) was sent online to the participants and they were invited to answer it with the language they felt more comfortable with. The survey consisted of four different dimensions of analysis which correspond to the theory which frames this study. The first dealt with the role of English when collaborating in a plurilingual context and its aim was to understand the role of English during the ENROPE ISW3. The second section explored the use of other languages when researching in a plurilingual context. The main aim of this second section was to understand the role of languages (other than English) during the ENROPE ISW3. The third section examined the impact of ENROPE as a plurilingual collaborative context. The fourth section dealt with the identity of the plurilingual researcher, which in this study we define as the complex negotiating process between the learner and their environment, and is portrayed through the languages the researcher uses. Moreover, before its implementation, the survey was shared and validated by two senior researchers on the field of plurilingualism. The instrument was designed after ISW Barcelona had taken place. It was designed specifically for this study, while guaranteeing, through the nature of its question, that it could also be transferable to other similar settings. Understanding the plurilingual researcher in context 59 51 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 Section / Dimension of analysis Question The role of English when collaborating in a plurilingual context 1. Observation developed during ISW3 suggests that English was the main language used for communicating. What have been the main benefits (if any) of using English when working on plurilingualism with other researchers? 2. To what extent (if any) has the use of English facilitated the use of other languages? 3. Did you feel comfortable when using English in collaborative meetings with international researchers? The use of other languages when researching in a plurilingual context 4. Besides English, how have the languages you know contributed when collaborating with other researchers in a plurilingual context? 5. In what specific situations (if any) have you used languages other than English? (if possible, support your answer with an example) The impact of ENROPE as a plurilingual collaborative context 6. Could you explain (if any) what made ENROPE ISW3 a plurilingual collaborative context? What activities or tasks enabled a plurilingual collaborative context? 7. In your opinion, do collaborative strategies (which we define as dynamics that facilitate the construction of knowledge and the achievement of common goals through interaction and collaboration) benefit speaking and using other languages in a plurilingual context? The identity of the plurilingual researcher 8. Has your approach to research methodology changed when collaborating with other plurilingual researchers on plurilingualism? If so, in what ways? 9. Do you think that ENROPE has helped you become aware of your own plurilingual identity? If so, how? Table 1: Survey questions 5.4 Data collection and analysis The data were collected online in November 2021 through the use of Google Forms. Web survey was used due to the fact that the participants were placed in different countries throughout Europe and it has been proved to be effective and practical (C HECK / S CHUTT 2012). The dimensions of analysis were established before sending 60 David Soler Ortínez, Catarina Sugranyes Ernest DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 51 • Heft 2 the survey. Thematic coding was later used to analyse the data and identify subdimensions using Atlas ti (version 8.4.4). 6. Results Results are presented in relation to the research questions. Examples of the participants’ citations have been included in order to make the discussion more transparent. RQ1. What role does the English language have when collaborating in plurilingual contexts? The analysed data show that the English language allowed participants to communicate effectively as it was perceived as a “language that everyone understood and, therefore, communication was easier” (Particip. 2). Although this is a perspective shared by all participants, data presents other relevant roles that the English language had when collaborating in a plurilingual context. Therefore, “English was also used to compare our languages as it worked as a bridge” (Particip. 5) and, consequently, this allowed participants to “understand each other, learn from others and learn from their culture and their language” (Particip. 4). Besides, English set the context to connect with other researchers globally and was a facilitator to have “a common ground to interact with each other” (Particip. 6). Seven participants perceived that the English language facilitated the use of other languages. According to their views, this was possible because of the use of English “worked as a bridge and [...] by being understood, we were encouraged to make use of our mother tongues” (Particip. 3). Comparing languages was also a common strategy used by the participants when collaborating in a plurilingual context. Thus, this allowed participants to learn more about other languages, such as “German or French” due to “similarities among languages in its syntactic or semantic sides” (Particip. 4). However, two participants stated that they are not sure whether the use of English facilitated the use of other languages or not. Moreover, one participant expressed that, instead of facilitating the use of other languages, English could exclude them: The use of English does rather mean the exclusion of other languages; once English has been established as the linguistic norm it “kills” the use of other languages, more so than French or German (Particip. 1) 9 participants stated that they felt comfortable when using English in collaborative meetings with international researchers. Although one participant expressed that he/ she “would have liked to hear other participants’ own languages more” (Particip. 6), data show that participants tend to perceive that English had a positive impact on the collaborative relation among the participants as it was “one of the things we all shared and this made me feel closer to them” (Particip. 5). However, one participant mentioned that the use of English made his/ her “emotional relationship with the language get worse” as “English seems for me to be a duty, not a personal choice” (Particip. 7). Understanding the plurilingual researcher in context 61 51 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 RQ2. What uses do languages other than English have when collaborating in plurilingual contexts? Considering the use of other languages than English in a plurilingual context, nine participants perceived that they were useful in different spheres. First, other languages than English “reduced misunderstandings because I could figure out the meaning from the perspective of their mother tongue or other languages they know” (Particip. 8). Second, the use of different languages facilitated the understanding of the diverse cultures and contexts of the participants. Finally, participants also expressed that languages other than English were used at some points when “we needed to compare languages” (Particip. 5). The most common situations in which participants stated that they used other languages than English to collaborate and better understand different contexts and research cultures were when (1) talking about concepts and defining them in other languages, (2) comparing languages, (3) talking in informal moments of the meeting and (4) developing the ENROPE activities and tasks, as mentioned by one participant: We first created a poem using all the L1s of all the members of our family group. At that moment, we all had to use our L1 and make comparisons to enable the other members to understand what we were saying. (Particip. 5) However, one participant felt that other languages than English did not contribute when collaborating in a plurilingual context and they were only used to “mention some words” (Particip. 7). RQ3. What strategies enabled a plurilingual collaborative context in ENROPE ISW3? Seven participants perceived that most of the tasks done in the ENROPE ISW3 enabled them to develop collaborative strategies as “all of them were great opportunities” (Particip. 3). Designing a plurilingual educational project, creating a presentation in small groups and preparing the farewell for the end of the ISW3 were the activities in which, according to the participants, most of the collaborative strategies took place. However, regarding the relation between collaborative strategies and its impact on the use of other languages in a plurilingual context, participants do not share a common perspective. Five of them stated that collaborative strategies, which we defined as dynamics that facilitate the construction of knowledge and the achievement of common goals through interaction and collaboration, benefited speaking and using other languages. One participant believed that collaborative strategies “gave people the opportunity to participate, interact and learn from others. This interaction, at the same time, gave space to using other languages when people needed to translate something or when we naturally codeswitch” (Particip. 5). In some cases, collaborative strategies “without realising it, pushed us to use different languages” (Particip. 6). Although very few specific strategies were mentioned in the collected data, participants stated that “we were able to use our languages with English if we wanted and to make our 62 David Soler Ortínez, Catarina Sugranyes Ernest DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 51 • Heft 2 languages visible on the presentation we were preparing” (Particip. 9) or that “we taught each other some sentences in our own native languages” (Particip. 4). Results show, nevertheless, that four participants perceived that the collaborative strategies developed in the ISW3 did not facilitate a plurilingual context or they did it to a very short extent. Among others, participants highlighted that the predominance of English as the language of communication among them was an obstacle when it comes to promoting strategies to enable plurilingual collaboration. This perception can be seen in the following extract: The small group discussions could have enabled the use of other languages, but in my experience, they didn’t, as everyone spoke English. I think it is difficult to find an alternative language that everyone is equally comfortable using in a context where people have such different linguistic backgrounds. (Particip. 8) Finally, one participant referred to the importance of working in small groups in order to make the collaborative strategies effective. Otherwise “it is highly likely someone will feel excluded by the choice of language” (Particip. 8). This participant highlighted the relevance of ‘passive competence’ in language proficiency and suggested that this could encourage the use of own languages in collaborative plurilingual contexts: I don’t know why people feel everyone needs to actively speak and use one language. Passive competence of large European (French, Spanish, German) languages is quite high across Europe, yet the default seems to be English. I think it would be great if more people were encouraged to use their native languages to express themselves, without the expectation that others would respond in this language. Hearing a multitude of different languages spoken in collaborative contexts would be so much more enriching. Perhaps groups could be created according to passive knowledge, without the expectation that everyone should use that language to speak actively. (Particip. 8) RQ4. How did the identity of the plurilingual researcher change throughout the ENROPE ISW3 experience? Considering the impact of collaborating with other plurilingual researchers on the participants’ approach to research methodology and their identity as researchers, five of them perceived that it changed throughout the ENROPE ISW3 experience. This change experienced by half of the participants was mainly promoted by the exchange of perspective among them as they “learnt from such interactions” (Particip. 8). As a result, due to the ENROPE ISW3 experience some participants decided to rethink or redesign their own research methodology since “I have viewed some ways of research design in other cultures and contexts and I have my own now based on what I have seen” (Particip. 4) or since ENROPE “has opened me up to many other methodologies, I have researched them and try to frame them and compare them” (Particip. 10). In a similar line, another participant mentioned that “I have looked at more creative ideas and contexts for research and considering different linguistic lenses” (Particip. 1). The other five participants, however, stated that their research methodology had Understanding the plurilingual researcher in context 63 51 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 not changed due to the ENROPE ISW3 experience or it changed “just in winning some new ideas on cultural perspectives” (Particip. 7). One of them perceived that it had not changed since the participant considers herself as “new in the research world and I feel my first steps have been taken in that same way” (Particip. 3). Moreover, there is a shared perception by eight of the participants that working together in a plurilingual context helped them to become aware of their own plurilingual identity. Among other aspects, participants highlighted that collaborating in a plurilingual context modified their identity and helped them reflect on the languages they use and it encouraged them to redefine their “relation to my languages and how I feel about them” (Particip. 7) and, at the same time, “I could see other people’s reality and reflect on mine” (Particip. 2). Other reflections, such as the different uses of languages and their impact on the researchers’ plurilingual identity, were present among participants. Therefore, collaboration made them “reflect on the languages I know and realize that we can use all of them in different contexts and for different purposes. It has also made me think about the languages I would like to learn” (Particip. 5). Other participants, took a similar standpoint, stating, that “through networking with other people included in ENROPE and the activities and tasks we have conducted broaden my identity as well” (Particip. 4). Although English was the main language used for communicating in the meetings of ENROPE ISW3, the analysed data also suggests that those participants whose dominant language is English also became aware of their plurilingual identity. Thus, ENROPE ISW3 “made me aware that I am privileged to use English as my dominant language [...] and that means that I am at an advantage at communicating − it has helped” (Particip. 1). Nevertheless, one participant considered that collaboration in a plurilingual context did not help her become aware of her own plurilingual identity as she “already was aware” (Particip. 10). Finally, another participant “could only attend for a short amount of time in the meetings” and, therefore, and since she “only heard and spoke in English”, the participant “did not feel that I became more aware of my own plurilingual identity” (Particip. 8). 7. Discussion and conclusions We shall conclude this article by providing a discussion of the data collected according to the different aims posed for this study. It should be noted that prior to discussing the results, reference should be made to the limitations encountered when analysing the results, specifically in relation to the limited numbers of participants. As stated by L ATORRE / R INCÓN / A RNAL (2003), research in the field of education is dynamic, interactive and often uncontrollable. In this study, the relevance resides in the interpretation of the data within the ENROPE context and it is considered that the results may be extrapolated to other learning contexts and studies with similar characteristics. Special emphasis will be placed on the discussion of specific individual cases in order to 64 David Soler Ortínez, Catarina Sugranyes Ernest DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 51 • Heft 2 explore the different positions of the participants. Worth mentioning is the fact this study emerged from observation of a specific context (in this case ENROPE) and not the other way round. In relation to research question 1, our analysis of the results reveal that participants perceive English as a facilitator language in contexts such as ENROPE where different own languages of participants coexist. This is consistent with research developed by P ENNYCOOK (2007) and H ORNBERGER (1997) who regard that the use of English in these contexts can actually be beneficial, as one participant states “communication was easier in English”. However, Participant 1 and 7 expressed that they did not feel especially comfortable when using English as they perceived that English did not favour using other languages and that the use of English meant “the exclusion of other languages” (Particip. 1). In a similar way, Participant 7 highlighted the relevant role that languages have in the construction of emotions, as pointed out by many authors (cf. e.g. R ICHARDS 2020). In this specific case, the use of English made the participant’s emotional relationship with the language “get worse” as English was “a duty, not a personal choice” (Particip. 7). With regards to research question 2, data reveal that participants referred to using other languages especially for defining and understanding concepts. This is especially revealing as it seems that metalinguistic reflection has emerged through own language use in a plurilingual setting where ELF is the language of communication. This is very much in line with the model developed by W OLFF / L EGENHAUSEN (1992) and E STEVE / M ARTÍN -P ERIS (2013), in which language use has two dimensions: firstly, use is conceived as an action which implies using the language in communicative situations. Secondly, use implies reflection from a cognitive perspective upon the functioning of the new linguistic system. From this perspective, it is argued that ENROPE has become a space for social negotiations, metalinguistic awareness and practicebased learning as participants feel that they can use their own language for learning, reflection and communication within a context where ELF eases communication. Participant 7, however, perceived a limited impact of languages other than English when collaborating in a plurilingual context as they were “only used to mention specific words” (Particip. 7). From this perspective, English was seen as a bridge to other languages but the use of these other languages was rather selective and did not lead to a critical discussion and integration of the different languages. Considering research question 3, data indicates that working together in a small group and towards a common goal favoured the development of collaborative strategies in a plurilingual context. The types of tasks done in ENROPE ISW3, considering participants’ views, could have facilitated the use of the above-mentioned strategies. This is in line with previous studies on collaboration learning (cf. e.g. L AW / C HUNG / L EUNG / W ONG 2017) and could indicate that the effectiveness of collaboration is connected to grouping criteria and a thorough design of the goals and tasks to be achieved. Although few strategies were identified from the collected data, five participants referred to the benefits of interaction. Through this interaction, specific strategies such Understanding the plurilingual researcher in context 65 51 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 as intentional and unplanned codeswitching, translation or language comparison were used by the respondents and they were reported as practices that facilitated the inclusion of languages other than English. This perception exemplifies what different studies have concluded concerning the benefits of plurilingual strategies and practices (cf. e.g. C ORCOLL / G ONZÁLEZ -D AVIES 2016). Nevertheless, 4 participants perceived that the predominance of English as the language of communication could be an obstacle when it came to promoting strategies to enable plurilingual collaboration and collaborative strategies. There is a common belief among these four participants that the use of a majority language such as English could be a threat to the inclusion of other languages and, as a result, interaction is not considered an opportunity to promote plurilingual strategies. This perception is connected to the results obtained in research question 1, where some participants perceived that English did not favour the use of other languages. A fact worth mentioning is that Participant 8 suggested ideas of collaborative strategies to increase the use of languages other than English when collaborating in plurilingual contexts. This participant highlighted the relevance of what has been referred to as ‘passive competence in language proficiency’ and suggested that strategies encouraging the use of one’s own languages without the expectation that the others will respond in that same language could create an enriching collaborative context and, at the same time, enhance mediation skills. Besides, Participant 8 made reference to the relevance of working in small groups in order to make the collaborative strategies effective. Participant 8 also suggested that when grouping participants, ‘passive’ knowledge and languages could be taken into account “without the expectation that everyone should use that language to speak actively” (Particip. 8). A close examination of the data with regards to the last research question 4 shows that respondents perceived their participation in ISW3 as helpful for becoming aware of their own plurilingual identity. As the data reflects, participating in ISW3 encouraged participants to redefine their relation and feelings towards their own languages by viewing other realities and languages, as “broadening my identity”, as one participant suggested, would entail that their identities have been re-negotiated. These reflections exemplify what N ORTON (2013) and T HORNBORROW (2004) refer to as the negotiation and renegotiation of our sense of self in relation to the social world and seem very pertinent to this study. With regards to their identity as a researcher, collaborating in plurilingual settings does not seem to have significantly affected their perceptions in this sense, as half of the respondents do manifest change and the other half do not. However, more research should be done in similar settings to confirm this result. All in all, collaborating in plurilingual settings seems to have affected the participants of this study in terms of metalinguistic awareness. Respondents perceive that they have broadened their plurilingual mindset by linguistically collaborating with other junior researchers mainly in ELF through their own languages. It could be suggested that this should impact, in one way or another, their research on plurilingualism. 66 David Soler Ortínez, Catarina Sugranyes Ernest DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 51 • Heft 2 References A RONIN , Larissa (2016): “Multi-competence and dominant language constellations”. In: C OOK , Vivian / W EI , Li (Eds.): The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multicompetence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 125-141. A RONIN , Larissa / O’L AOIRE , Muiris / S INGLETON , David (2011): “The multiple faces of multilingualism: Language nominations”. In: Applied Linguistics Review 2, 169-190. A RONIN , Larissa / S INGLETON , David (2012): Multilingualism. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamin. B YRAM , Michael (2006): Language and Identities. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. C HECK , Joseph / S CHUTT , Russell (2012): Research Methods in Education. University of Massachusetts, Boston: SAGE. C ONTEH , Jean / M EIER , Gabriela (Eds.) (2014): The Multilingual Turn in Languages Education. Opportunities and Challenges. Bristol et al.: Multilingual Matters. C OOK , Vivian (2012): “Nativeness and language pedagogy”. In: The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 3768-3774. C ORCOLL L ÓPEZ , Cristina / G ONZÁLEZ -D AVIES , Maria (2016): “Switching codes in the plurilingual classroom”. In: ELT Journal 70.1, 67-77. C OUNCIL OF E UROPE [Conseil de l’Europe] (2001): Un Cadre Européen de Référence pour les Langues: Apprendre, Enseigner, Évaluer. Strasbourg: Division de politiques linguistiques. C OUNCIL OF E UROPE (2020): Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. www.coe.int/ lang-cefr (15.02.2022). C RESSE , Angela / B LACKLEDGE , Adrian (2015): “Researching bi/ multilingual education multilingually: a linguistic ethnographic approach”. In: W RIGHT , Wayne / B OUN , Sovicheth / G ARCÍA , Ofelia (eds.): The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, 127-144. C UMMINS , Jim ( 2 2001): Negotiating Identities. Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education. ENROPE (2021): ENROPE Handbook. https: / / enrope.eu/ de/ node/ 688 (02.02.2022). E STEVE , Olga / M ARTÍN P ERIS , Ernesto (2013): Cuestiones de autonomía en el aula de lenguas extranjeras. Barcelona: Hosorio. G ARCIA , Ofelia / W EI , Li (2014): Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. G OITIA , Verònica / S UGRANYES , Caterina (2011): “The foreign language classroom: A positive context for promoting plurilingualism”. In: APAC of News 73, 24-30. G ÖMLEKSIZ , Mehmet Nuri (2007): “Effectiveness of cooperative learning (jigsaw II) method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (Case of Firat University, Turkey)”. In: European Journal of Engineering Education 32.5, 613-625. G UITIÉRREZ , Kris / B AQUEDANO -L ÓPEZ , Patricia / T EJADA , Carlos (1999): “Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space”. In: Mind, Culture and Activity 6, 286-303. H ORNBERGER , Nancy (1997): “Literacy, language maintenance and linguistic human rights: Three telling cases”. In: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 127, 87-103. J ENKINS , Jennifer (2015): “Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca”. In: Englishes in Practice 2.3, 49-85. Understanding the plurilingual researcher in context 67 51 • Heft 2 DOI 10.24053/ FLuL-2022-0019 J ØRGENSEN , Normann (2008): Languaging: Nine years of Poly-Lingual Development of Young Turkish-Danish Grade School Students. Copenhagen: Rode Hane. L AW , Queenie / C HUNG , Joanne / L EUNG , Lawrence / W ONG , Thomas (2017): “Perceptions of collaborative learning in enhancing undergraduate education students’ engagement in teaching and learning English”. In: US-China Education Review 7.2, 89-100. L ATORRE , Antonio / R INCÓN , Delio / A RNAL , Justo (2003): Bases metodológicas de la investigación educativa. Barcelona: Ediciones Experiencia. L ÓPEZ -G OPAR , Mario / J IMÉNEZ , Narcedalia / D ELGADO , Aracio (2014): “Critical classroom practices: Using ‘English’ to foster minoritized languages and cultures in Oaxaca, Mexico”. In: G ORTER , Durk / Z ENOTZ , Victoria / C ENOZ , Jasone (Eds.): Minority Languages and Multilingual Education. Berlin: Springer, 177-199. M EIER , Gabriela (2017): “The multilingual turn as a critical movement in education: assumptions, challenges and a need for reflection”. In: Applied Linguistics Review 8.1, 131-161. N ORTON , Bonny (2013): Identity and Language Learning: Extending the Conversation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. P ENNYCOOK , Alastair (2007): “The myth of English as an international Language”. In: M AKONI , Sinfree / P ENNYCOOK , Alastair (Eds.): Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Cleveland, UK: Multilingual Matters, 90-115. P ENNYCOOK , Alastair (2011): Language as a Local Practice. London/ New York: Routledge. R ICHARDS , Jack (2020): “Exploring emotions in language teaching”. In: RELC Journal 53.1, 225- 239. R ILEY , Philip (2008): “Language, culture and identity: an ethnolinguistic approach”. In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18.2, 224-228. R ILEY , Philip (2010): “Reflections on identity, modernity and the European language portfolio”. In: O’R OURKE , Breffni / C ARSON , Lorna (Eds.): Language Learner Autonomy: Policy, curriculum, classroom. A festschrift in honour of David Little. Oxford et al.: Lang, 375-383. S TRATILAKI , Sofia (2014): “Discourse, representation and language policies”. In: G ROMMES , Patrick / H U , Adelheid (Ed.): Plurilingual Education. Policies - Practices - Language Development. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins, 139-160. S UGRANYES , Caterina / G ONZÁLEZ D AVIES , Maria (2014): “Translating heritage languages: Promoting intercultural and plurilingual competences through children’s literature”. In: S NEDDON , Raymonde / D ALY , Nicola (Eds.): Children’s Literature in the Multilingual Classroom. London, UK: IOE Press Trenthem, 114-121. S UGRANYES , Caterina (2017): A Plurilingual Approach to Language Teaching and Learning in Catalonia: Using Heritage Languages in the Additional Language Classroom. Barcelona: Universitat Ramon Llull. T HORNBORROW , Joanna ( 2 2004): “Language and identity”. In: P ECCEI , Jean / S INGH , Ishtla (eds.): Language, Society and Power. London, UK: Routledge, 157-172. W EI , Li (2017): “Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language”. In: Applied Linguistics 39.1, 9-30. W OLFF , Dieter / L EGENHAUSEN , Lienhard (1992): “Storyboard and communicative language learning: Results of the Düsseldorf CALL project”. In: S WARTS , Merryanna / Y AZDANI , Masoud (eds.): Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Foreign Language Learning. Berlin: Springer, 9-25.