Practitioner research is a flourishing area with a significant body of theoretical and empirical research, but often researchers remain isolated, unaware of impactful work by colleagues in related fields. Exploratory Practice (EP) is one innovative form, uniting creative pedagogy and research methods. The potential contributions have hitherto been neglected. EP's emphasis on puzzling and understanding is a means of demystifying occluded practices which place learners, teachers and researchers as co-investigators at the heart of the research-practice nexus. EP's radical positioning of learners as co-researchers, alongside teachers, teacher educators and others, means crossing boundaries – (re-)negotiating identities, in language learning/teaching/researching – thus raising epistemological challenges for the field. The contribution of this state-of-the-art article is to provide a meta-analysis of these themes and challenges, critically analysing the complexities involved as the paradigms of research, practice and practitioner research shift from research-as-practice towards practice-as-research.

This overview of seven years of research on language learning and teaching in Austria reflects a period of steady growth for the language teaching and learning research community, a development due to a national policy agenda aiming for a stronger research base in teacher education. The target languages of the teaching and learning processes investigated are primarily German, English, French, Italian, Spanish as well as several Slavic languages, reflecting the geographical, sociolinguistic and language policy situation of this increasingly multilingual country. This multilingualism means there are clearly many more first languages (L1s) than only German involved in the learning situations investigated. While all the studies reviewed here illustrate research driven by a combination of local and global concerns in connection with different theoretical frameworks, some specific clusters of research interest emerge. These are: societal and individual multilingualism, language education policy, language teacher education, language(s) in other subjects, early language learning, language acquisition and learning, literature and culture, testing and standardisation, digital media, and teaching materials.

In virtually every research paper on this topic we come across we read that, in the particular context that the writer is operating, English as a medium of instruction (EMI) is on the increase. But what exactly is EMI? If we consider every classroom around the world in which learners are exposed to English language as their second language (L2) we are faced with a huge variety: English as a foreign language (EFL); Immersion, English for academic purposes; English for specific purposes, English for examination purposes, Content and language integrated learning (CLIL); content-based teaching; content-based language teaching, and so on. And then we have EMI. Here at the EMI Oxford Centre we define EMI as:

This definition was first used in Dearden (2015).

Academics are coming under increasing pressure to publish internationally. Given the global dominance of English, this very likely means publishing in English-medium journals and with publishers which publish in English. This raises the important question of the possible disadvantage of those scholars whose first language is not English and who therefore have the additional burden of having to develop adequate proficiency in an additional language, English. As a student of modern languages to university level and of other languages to rather lower levels of proficiency and as a teacher of English for academic purposes (EAP) and of English for research and publication purposes (ERPP), since I became aware of this issue, I have always believed this extra burden on the English as an additional language (EAL) academic writer to be a self-evident truth. Ken Hyland, however, in a recent book (Hyland, 2015) and an article titled ‘Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice’ (Hyland, 2016a), has taken it upon himself to argue that such an assumption is ill-founded. Hyland argues that native-speakers (NSs) of English encounter the same difficulties as non-native speakers (NNSs) when it comes to academic writing, that ‘academic English is no one's first language’, and that it requires ‘deliberate learning’ by both NSs and NSs (p. 57). Native and non-native writers, Hyland implies, are on a level playing field when it comes to writing for publication, both groups having to jump the same hurdles.

This paper suggests six areas of vocabulary research which the author believes would be fruitful for future research. They include (1) developing a practical model of vocabulary acquisition, (2) understanding how vocabulary knowledge develops from receptive to productive mastery, (3) getting lexical teaching/learning principles into vocabulary and language textbooks, (4) exploring extramural language exposure and how it can best facilitate vocabulary acquisition, (5) developing more informative measures of vocabulary knowledge, and (6) measuring fluency as part of vocabulary competence. Nine tasks are suggested for how to research these six research directions, with advice on research design and how to set about carrying out the tasks.