be more narrowly scoped communities of practice, like the testing commu-
nity or people working on second language writing, but belonging to that
niche community does not exclude the possibility of feeling engaged at a
higher level, too.
In Chapter 9, data on AL and citations of publications are presented. This
information is somewhat different in nature from that in other chapters,
since it is not based on informants’views but on their publications as they
are cited (or not). The data show that citations and impact factors are rele-
vant now, much more so than in the 1980s and early 1990s. The analyses
presented tell us little about the structure of thefield of AL, who cites who,
and who is co-cited with whom, but more advanced analytical tools are
emerging that will provide that kind of information. A comparison of who
are seen as leaders and their impact shows that leadership depends on academic
status as measured with citation indices, but only partly. Other characteristics
of leaders, such as stimulating and supporting young colleagues, contribu-
tion to thefield through organizations and publishers, are also important.
The data also show that AL follows developments in the social sciences
closely in this respect, making it move away even further from the literature
community where this type of citation analysis is still problematic, both
technically and in terms of attitudes.
Chapter 8 presents some research applications of CDST. It is argued that
CDST is effectively a paradigm shift, with all that entails. Many of the
assumptions about research in the area of AL as defined in this book, appear
to be problematic if one takes a CDST perspective. For some of the new
ideas, we do not even have the right words, which makes it hard to present
them. There is one area of AL where CDST is striving: research on attitudes
and motivation in language learning. This shows that for a fundamental shift
in perspective it is necessary that some of the leading researchers in afield
take on the new ideas and propagate them widely. At least for this area of
research the Dynamic Turn has already taken place. More areas are likely to
follow, but there is still substantial resistance that needs to be overcome.
When I started this project, I was convinced that AL as a discipline ex-
isted and that what I did was at the core of that enterprise. The conferences
and workshops I attended were all in line with what I was working on, and I
published in the same journals and books as my colleagues and friends.
We met at the same places and shared our likes and dislikes. Sometimes the
input from other disciplines would play a role, but that would ultimately be
integrated with what we already did. As mentioned in thefirst chapter,
my perception of thefield was defined by my social setting and so were my
preferences. I realized that I was the product of the system I was part of. My
views on generative grammar were not based on a deep and thorough insight
in the theory, but the result of interactions with people in my universities
and the Max Planck Institute in Nijmegen. I was socialized in that setting and
conformed to the norms there. Not that I just followed the fashions, I went
my own way and explored new avenues beyond the confines of my
136 Concluding remarks