In the context of policy-driven language testing for citizenship, a growing body of research examines the political justifications and ethical implications of language requirements and test use. However, virtually no studies have looked at the role that language testers play in the evolution of language requirements. Critical gaps remain in our understanding of language testers’ first-hand experiences interacting with policymakers and how they perceive the use of tests in public policy. We examined these questions using an exploratory design and semi-structured interviews with 28 test executives representing 25 exam boards in 20 European countries. The interviews were transcribed and double coded in NVivo (weighted kappa = .83) using a priori and inductive coding. We used a horizontal analysis to evaluate responses by participant and a vertical analysis to identify between-case themes. Findings indicate that language testers may benefit from policy literacy to form part of policy webs wherein they can influence instrumental decisions concerning language in migration policy.
BallS. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630930130203
5.
BallS. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1015279
6.
BlackledgeA. (2009). “As a country we do expect”: The further extension of language testing regimes in the United Kingdom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300802606465
7.
BonottiM.WilloughbyL. (2022). Citizenship, language tests, and political participation. Nations and Nationalism, 28(2), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12799
8.
BruzosA.ErdociaI.KhanK. (2018). The path to naturalization in Spain: Old ideologies, new language testing regimes and the problem of test use. Language Policy, 17(1), 419–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-017-9452-4
CookeM. (2009). Barrier or entitlement? The language and citizenship agenda in the United Kingdom. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300802606580
12.
DaviesH.NutleyS.WalterI. (2008). Why “knowledge transfer” is misconceived for applied social research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(3), 188–190. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008055
13.
De JongJ. H. A. L.LennigM.KerkhoffA.PoelmansP. (2009). Development of a test of spoken Dutch for prospective immigrants. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300802606564
14.
DeygersB.BigelowM.BiancoJ. L.NadarajanD.TaniM. (2021). Low print literacy and its representation in research and policy. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18(5), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2021.1903471
15.
DeygersB.MaloneM. E. (2019). Language assessment literacy in university admission policies, or the dialogue that isn’t. Language Testing, 36(3), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219826390
16.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
17.
ElderC. (2021). Towards “policy responsible” language assessment: Framing the Language Testing Research Centre’s contribution in languages other than English. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 10(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.58379/HQYM2624
FortierA.-M. (2022). The speaking citizen: Language requirements and linguistic neoliberal colonialisms. Citizenship Studies, 26(4–5), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2022.2091226
20.
GaleT. (1999). Policy trajectories: Treading the discursive path of policy analysis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 20(3), 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630990200304
21.
GoldbergM. P. (2006). Discursive policy webs in a globalisation era: A discussion of access to professions and trades for immigrant professionals in Ontario, Canada. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(1), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767720600555103
GrinF. (2003). Language policy evaluation and the European charter for regional or minority languages. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502666
24.
HamidM.HardyI.ReyesV. (2019). Test-takers’ perspectives on a global test of English: Questions of fairness, justice and validity. Language Testing in Asia, 9(16), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-0092-9
25.
HardingL.BrunfautT.UngerJ. (2019). Language testing in the “hostile environment”: The discursive construction of “secure English language testing” in the United Kingdom. Applied Linguistics, 41(5), 662–687. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz017
26.
HerwegN.ZahariadisN.ZohlnhoferR. (2018). The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 17–53). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494284-2
27.
HornerK. (2015). Discourses on language and citizenship in Europe. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(5), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12133
28.
JosheeR.JohnsonL. (2005). Multicultural education in the United States and Canada: The importance of national policies. In BasciaN.CummingA.DatnowA.LeithwoodK.LivingstoneD. (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp. 53–74). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3201-3_3
29.
KaneM. T. (2004). Certification testing as an illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2(3), 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0203_1
30.
KaneM. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
31.
KhanK. (2022). The securitisation of language borders and the (re)production of inequalities. TESOL Quarterly, 56(4), 1458–1470. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3186
32.
KnochU. (2021). The challenges of providing expert advice in policy contexts. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 10(1), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.58379/WOIC6861
LeeJ. (2010). Amendment to the naturalization examination and its social impact on international marriage immigrants in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 44(3), 575–585. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.232866
35.
Lo BiancoJ.AlianiR. (2013). Language planning and student experiences: Intention, rhetoric and implementation. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090051
36.
McNamaraT. (2005). 21st century shibboleth: Language tests, identity and intergroup conflict. Language Policy, 4, 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-005-2886-0
37.
McNamaraT. (2010). The use of language tests in the service of policy: Issues of validity. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, 15(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfla.151.0007
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). Macmillan.
40.
MilaniT. (2008). Language testing and citizenship: A language ideological debate in Sweden. Language in Society, 37(1), 27–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404508080020
PillJ.HardingL. (2013). Defining the language assessment literacy gap: Evidence from a parliamentary inquiry. Language Testing, 30(3), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213480337
43.
PillerI. (2001). Naturalization language testing and its basis in ideologies of national identity and citizenship. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(3), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069010050030201
44.
RoccaL.DeygersB.CarlsenC. H. (2020). Linguistic integration of adult migrants: Requirements and learning opportunities. Council of Europe.
45.
SavilleN. (2009). Language assessment in the management of international migration: A framework for considering the issues. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300802606499
46.
SavskiK. (2017). Language policy at times of instability and struggle: The impact of fluctuating will and competing agendas on a Slovene language strategy. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1265280
47.
ShepardL. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education, 19, 405–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167347
TarnanenM.HuhtaA. (2008). Interaction of language policy and assessment in Finland. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(3), 262–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200802139547
50.
van OersR. (2014). Deserving citizenship: Citizenship tests in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004251076
51.
WodakR.BoukalaS. (2015). (Supra)national identity and language: Rethinking national and European migration policies and the linguistic integration of migrants. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190514000294
52.
ZabrodskajaA. (2009). Language testing in the context of citizenship and asylum: The case of Estonia. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300802606572
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
