I think criticism based on opinion rather than evidence is probably a part of all science, just look at the controversy global warming caused despite the overwhelming scientific evidence behind the claims. I also think it is important to remember that science and research are as much about inspiration and ideas as they are about rational evidence based inquiry. I particularly like this comment from a rather well known scientist in a letter to Karl Popper.

“Altogether I really do not at all like the now fashionable tendency of clinging to what is observable … I think (like you, by the way) that theory cannot be fabricated out of the results of observation, but that it can only be invented.”

(Letter to K Popper from Albert Einstein written 1935, in Popper 1972 p 458)

However, I agree that certain fields seem to attract more opinion based criticisms. There is an important difference between the ‘hard sciences’ and social sciences, which is where I believe Applied Linguistics belongs, in that social sciences are examining socially created systems, such as language, that do not have an objective reality outside of human perception and actions. This obviously makes them much more interpretive and subjective and in turn more open to subjective criticism.

What is unfortunate is that some scholars seem to use the subjective nature of the social sciences as an excuse for poorly argued and poorly supported criticisms. While social research may have different standards for what constitutes good research and theory to the hard sciences, there are still standards. One of the most basic of which must be a good knowledge and understanding of what is being criticised. This has often not been the case in the three subjects discussed here, World Englishes, English as a lingua franca and Critical Discourse Analysis. Criticisms have frequently simply been misunderstandings that become perpetuated through repetition. Why do researchers do this? As the last two answers have noted, if long held beliefs are being challenged there will inevitably be resistance (see Thomas Kuhn on the history of science as defending established paradigms rather than challenging them). Others, I believe, see it as an easy way to publish ‘research’(if poorly conducted criticism can be called that) and get themselves noticed in the ‘publish or perish’ climate in which many academics now exist.

This is a very interesting question. And I imagine that this phenomenon is also not unheard of in the natural sciences – though it is probably less commonplace in the natural sciences than in social sciences and humanities. In my experience of presenting and writing on research in ELF – especially when reporting on findings that conflict with long held assumptions and orthodoxies – I have found that established beliefs and opinions can prevent audiences from hearing the evidence completely (or even at all). No matter how loud and clear the evidence may be, if we are not mindful of our own beliefs and prejudices, these can very easily mask the data being presented.

Nothing can be entirely opinion free of course, and any discussion of empirical evidence will be presented from particular perspectives and will be underpinned by particular opinions. Our opinions need to remain open to counter evidence, and this is for me the crux of the issue. What matters is how we balance these opinions and keep them in check when the evidence is telling us that it is perhaps time to rethink. The trouble is, we invest a lot of ourselves in the academic and professional beliefs we subscribe to. We tend to hold our opinions close to us, as they become part of the discourses we use to identify ourselves in the academy, and so any challenge to these can be unsettling. This is by no means unique to fields of study such as ELF and World Englishes, but any discipline that requires a paradigm shift, and with it new ways of thinking about a problem, seems especially prone to overtly opinion-based critique.

This is an interesting question. It might not be surprising that new developments attract both criticism and endorsement. ELF challenges the traditional concepts on the basis of which many researchers have worked for years and have become established. There might be pressure and anger caused by the challenge. If this is the case, it is not difficult to understand why people are opinionated. It is true, however, that criticism would be more constructive and the debate can be healthier if based on evidence rather than opinion.

Despite some attack on ELF research, we still see a growing number of students join the field and an increasing interest in ELF in different localities. When I, as a L1 Chinese speaker of English and a researcher who is doing research on English, present my research based on an ELF perspective, I often see Chinese researchers approach me and say, yes, this is so true (i.e. we are using ELF rather than 'native English speakers' language). Meanwhile, I also met people who said to me that the concept of ELF is 'too advanced'. Being 'too advanced' might make people feel uneasy, just like the feeling being thrown into new environment. But you certainly can't stop new things occurring.

So my point is, I can understand why there is opinionated criticism. But (un?)fortunately the development of ELF is something that is happening and can't be stopped.

I think criticism based on opinion rather than evidence is probably a part of all science, just look at the controversy global warming caused despite the overwhelming scientific evidence behind the claims. I also think it is important to remember that science and research are as much about inspiration and ideas as they are about rational evidence based inquiry. I particularly like this comment from a rather well known scientist in a letter to Karl Popper.

“Altogether I really do not at all like the now fashionable tendency of clinging to what is observable … I think (like you, by the way) that theory cannot be fabricated out of the results of observation, but that it can only be invented.”

(Letter to K Popper from Albert Einstein written 1935, in Popper 1972 p 458)

However, I agree that certain fields seem to attract more opinion based criticisms. There is an important difference between the ‘hard sciences’ and social sciences, which is where I believe Applied Linguistics belongs, in that social sciences are examining socially created systems, such as language, that do not have an objective reality outside of human perception and actions. This obviously makes them much more interpretive and subjective and in turn more open to subjective criticism.

What is unfortunate is that some scholars seem to use the subjective nature of the social sciences as an excuse for poorly argued and poorly supported criticisms. While social research may have different standards for what constitutes good research and theory to the hard sciences, there are still standards. One of the most basic of which must be a good knowledge and understanding of what is being criticised. This has often not been the case in the three subjects discussed here, World Englishes, English as a lingua franca and Critical Discourse Analysis. Criticisms have frequently simply been misunderstandings that become perpetuated through repetition. Why do researchers do this? As the last two answers have noted, if long held beliefs are being challenged there will inevitably be resistance (see Thomas Kuhn on the history of science as defending established paradigms rather than challenging them). Others, I believe, see it as an easy way to publish ‘research’(if poorly conducted criticism can be called that) and get themselves noticed in the ‘publish or perish’ climate in which many academics now exist.

There are good answers above, but I'd just add a couple of points that relate to the differences between people not believing something, disagreeing with something, and actively arguing against something. The latter is the case in point.

With ELF research, I think that cognitive bias is an issue, where people have invested in a particular way of thinking, with particular ways of talking about it, and people using some aligning ideas mixed with aspects they might not agree with, and then they often over-interpret the negatives and ignore the positives. I don't just say that as a defensive put-down, but rather as a natural part of our thinking processes which we have to acknowledge. Where I see this in ELF is this act of saying 'this is wrong' on a macro-level rather than being able to engage with different ideas in within the field of enquiry. To use a new metaphor, I suppose it is attacking the body for containing the infection (not an effective treatment for either). This shows a lack of engagement with ideational developments, and a simplistic rejection of a perceive constellation of ideas which do not, in fact, work that way. Foucault was a controversial and challenging thinker, but he rejected the very idea of 'rejecting' whole sets of ideas, instead realising value, purpose and interpretation in all our thinking.

Another interesting aspect of ELF research is that it is not like many scientific endeavours, in that the reasons for rejection or acceptance are rarely empirical in nature. Many disagreements over ELF are more closely linked to philosophy than traditional objectivism. By this I mean that it is acknowledged as dynamic, variable and contextual in nature - if you find a very common trend, people will criticise an attempted generalisation of something fluid, whereas if you find something fluid, people will question its value against competing conceptions of fluidity.

What makes this field interesting to me seems to be what makes others reject it. I think the fact that an observed interaction could have multiple interpretations, or could feed into many different reactions (from educators, testers, theorists, etc.) reflects more accurately human's relationship with knowledge of language. If I don't agree with somebody's point, I can tell them that, but I will disagree on specific grounds and specific meanings, whether based on empiricism or the thinking that comes before or after data collection/interpretation - I never disagree with a whole research field because there are few that are entirely rejectable (and I especially wouldn't reject one I haven't read extensively within and with whose researchers I have not closely engaged).