For What and for Whom Is Our Research? The Ethical as Transformative Lens in Instructed SLA LOURDES ORTEGA Department of Second Language Studies University of Hawai‘i at M¯ anoa 1890 East-West Road Honolulu, HI 96822 Email: lortega@hawaii.edu In this article, I argue for adopting an ethical lens that interrogates our ends and purposes when generating research on second language learning and teaching, in light of concerns surrounding questions about the uses and users of our work. Such an ethical lens would help us transform our methodological and epistemological debates and would also strengthen the social and educational worth of the research that is generated by diverse second language acquisition (SLA) communities. I offer 3 normative principles for disciplinary discussion: The value of research is to be judged by its social utility; value-free research is impossible; and epis- temological diversity is a good thing. For each principle, I present the thrust of the argument and illustrate it by reference to 1 or more selected problems central to SLA research programs. I end with a broad brush characterization of a field of instructed SLA that is epistemologically diverse and ethically involved in justifying both the methodological rigor and the value com- mitments of our research programs and our studies. My goal is to open a space for disciplinary dialogue that allows us to engage in the articulation of valued research goals and professional and social responsibilities for the field of instructed SLA. IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, THE FIELD OF SEC- ond language acquisition (SLA) has undergone a period of intense metareflection about research practices, which can be followed through position papers available for public inspection. In these publications, the generation of knowledge about second language (L2) learning and teaching has been discussed largely as a methodological and an epistemological problem, whereas the ethical dimensions of our research activities have been explored to a much lesser extent. The dearth of SLA publications in this area is particularly no- ticeable when it comes to reflections not only on the moral conduct of research on human sub- jects, the traditional focus of institutional review boards, but also on moral imperatives, values that guide action, and worthy purposes of research that give meaning to entire research programs as well as to single studies. It is this broad sense The Modern Language Journal, 89, iii, (2005) 0026-7902/05/427–443 $1.50/0 C 2005 The Modern Language Journal of the ethical dimensions of instructed SLA re- search that I would like to explore in the present article. Joining similar calls in the social sciences and education, I will argue that “to be truly ethi- cal, educational researchers must be prepared to defend what their research is for ” (Howe & Moses, 1999, p. 56) and that we have a responsibility to design our research programs in light of difficult questions regarding who the beneficiaries of our research are (Fine, Weis, Weseen, & Wong, 2000). I must warn readers that I am writing from the specific vantage point of doing research on L2 learning and teaching in education con- texts, or the branch of SLA that has been called instructed SLA in textbooks and handbooks. I also work within a cognitive perspective that is rooted in the acquisition metaphor of learn- ing (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000; see also Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004; Sfard, 1998) and that looks for explanations of L2 learn- ing in the interaction between learner-external and learner-internal influences. Such cognitive- interactionist theories and findings make up the