Research methodology landscapes have changed greatly over the past century, especially since the 1920s when ethnographic research approaches became widely used in sociology and the social sciences (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Skukauskaitė, Rangel, Rodriguez  Ramon, 2015). Even though the popularity of ethnography had waned between the 1930s-60s and positivistic and post-positivistic approaches gained ground they continue to hold to this day, the changing world in the 1960s, especially in the U.S. and the U.K., opened doors to a broader range of epistemologies and research methodologies, including varied approaches to ethnography, discourse analyses, narrative research, grounded theory, phenomenology, and others (Bogdan & Biklen, 2017; Skukauskaitė et al., 2015).

Ethnographic educational research has a long and rich history primarily in English-speaking countries such as the U.S., UK and Australia (Beach, 2019; Skukauskaite, Rupsiene, Player-Koro & Beach, 2017; Anderson-Levitt & Rockwell, 2018). Many master and doctoral programs in these countries include at least one  qualitative research methodology course in which ethnography is introduced. A number of programs have multiple qualitative methodology offerings and even certificates. Ethnography or methods derived from ethnography are embedded in these course offerings. Students and faculty also have  access to many resources, such as electronic and physical books and journal articles available through university databases as well as networks of researchers locally and nationally. The situation is different in countries, which, due to political, economic, linguistic, and other reasons, have been separated or have not had access to the international research literature and history of methodological developments.

One of the challenges faced by scholars from countries where English is a foreign language (EFL) is access to and ability to read and deeply understand the epistemological and historical foundations of research methodologies. Most publications of research methodology  are published in English, mainly by researchers from the U.S., U.K, Australia and Western European countries (e.g., Aidynli & Matthews, 2000; Andriopoulos, 2013). Work from other countries remains almost invisible (e.g., Anderson-Levitt, 2017). Invisible also remain the EFL scholars’ struggles as well as accomplishments in learning the varied research methodologies and contributing to the international research knowledge and networks.  

Since Lithuania regained independence from the soviet union in 1990, its higher educational system has undergone major transformations (Skukauskaite & Rupsiene, 2017). Entry into the EU and the world-wide internationalization processes in higher education created new opportunities while also posing challenges for Lithuanian researchers who had been behind the “iron curtain” for over 50 years. In the past 30 years, Lithuanian scholars have tried to identify, select, and learn educational research methodologies that have long histories and varied theoretical underpinnings. Their stories, struggles, and the changes they have implemented in the Lithuanian higher educational system makes visible the layers of contexts and factors that influence research learning – factors that may be invisible in the English-speaking “West” with more steady overtime developments in the research knowledge.

In this paper we draw on our ethnographically-informed work in Lithuania to make visible, how contextual, professional, historical, and interpersonal factors intersect  to create opportunities for learning ethnographic educational research in the setting where ethnographic educational research is little known and/or generates extensive mistrust.

This paper is based on two ethnographically-informed research studies in Lithuania. Both studies, one of which is supported by a large EU research grant, center on understanding Lithuanian scholars’ (faculty and graduate students) experiences in learning and teaching research methodologies and the contexts that support, constrain, and inform their opportunities. For this presentation, we focus on ethnographically-informed interview-conversations and reflexive accounts of the authors whose 5-year collaboration created opportunities for learning ethnographic educational research in Lithuania over time. Data sources also include: ethnographically informed interview conversations (Skukauskaitė, 2017) with Lithuanian faculty and graduate students; audio and video records and documents of research seminars conducted in Lithuania by international scholars; notes and audio records from meetings of the research team that developed the EU-funded grant; as well as narratives, emails, and conversations that helped us delve deeper into understanding the contextual, professional, historical, and interpersonal factors that shaped the opportunities for learning ethnographic educational research in Lithuania. Analyses are guided by principles of ethnography (Green & Bridges, 2018) and its overarching goals to understand what is happening in a particular social/cultural context at particular moments in time and overtime. The ethnographic perspective (Green & Bloome, 1997) drives our focus on the actors, actions, and the culturally relevant contexts that construct a multifaceted representation (Green, Castanheira, Skukauskaite, & Hammond, 2015) of the developing and changing research landscapes.

This paper makes visible how people, time and resources come together to create new possibilities for learning ethnographic educational research in Lithuania. Analyses of interview-conversations and reflexive accounts of the researchers demonstrates the key role personal agency, professional and personal relationships, and commitments to the larger national and international developments in research play in creating research learning opportunities within and beyond the national boundaries. The paper also makes visible how a relatively small group of actors can create lasting change and transformations, despite the historical, economic, and other challenges in the national and disciplinary research environments. The case of transformations in the ethnographic educational research in Lithuania makes visible the potential pathways through which scholars seeking to learn research in other countries where English a foreign language can create learning opportunities and attain access to international research knowledge and networks.

References 400 words Aydinli, E. (2000). Are the core and periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary international relations. Review of Educational Research, 1, 289. doi:10.1111/1528-3577.00028 Anderson-Levitt, K. M. (2006). Ethnography. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (pp. 279-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates for AERA. Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.K. (2007) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods, 5th edn, Pearson, Boston MA. Collins, E. C., & Green, J. L. (1992). Learning in classroom settings: Making or breaking a culture. In H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational restructuring (pp. 59-85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Green, J. L., & Bloome, D. (1997). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A situated perspective. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 181-202). New York: International Reading Association & MacMillan. Green, J. L., & Bridges, S. M. (2018). Interactional ethnography. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475-488). New York: Routledge. Green, J. L., Castanheira, M. L., Skukauskaite, A., & Hammond, J. (2015). Exploring traditions studying discourse and interaction in classrooms: Developing transparency, reflexivity, and multi-faceted research designs. In N. Markee (Ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 26-43). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kelly, G. J., & Green, J. L. (2019). Framing issues of theory and methods for the study of science and engineering education. In G. J. Kelly & J. L. Green (Eds.), Theory and methods for sociocultural research in science and engineering education (pp. 1-28). New York: Routledge. Skukauskaitė, A. (2017). Systematic analyses of layered meanings inscribed in interview conversations: An Interactional ethnographic perspective and its conceptual foundations. Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia, 39(2), 45-60. Skukauskaite, A., Rangel, J., Rodriguez, L., and & Ramón, D. (2015). Understanding Classroom Discourse and Interaction: Qualitative Perspectives. The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction, (1), 44-59. Skukauskaitė, A., & Rupšienė, L. (2017). Teaching and learning qualitative methodologies in the context of developing doctoral education in Lithuania. Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia, 39(2), 61-82.