Social Impacts/Outcomes/Implications


SSILA requires members to address the broader social significance of their work in their paper abstracts, and of the different types of impact that the research can have in specific contexts. Please read the 2022 Statement Regarding Social Impacts/Outcomes/Implications Requirement in SSILA abstracts.

This page presents discussion around including social impacts, provides examples of social impact, and guidance on how these may be articulated in a broad range of contexts. While not exhaustive, these illustrations and examples are meant as a starting point for abstract writers and reviewers. 

We acknowledge that social implications vary tremendously across contexts, and that a given project’s implications can be assessed only within the frame of the relevant community’s language practices and ideologies, regional norms, relevant disciplinary and institutional protocols, and other socio-political variables specific to each case. Abstracts writers are thus asked to situate the broader significance of their proposals within the specific contexts in which they operate, with particular emphasis on the needs, intellectual tools, and cultural protocols of the Indigenous communities they work with or who are represented in the research.. Successful implementation of the requirement does not presuppose preconceived notions of what the broader significance should be, but rather involves linking broader impacts/implications, even if hypothetical, to attested needs and issues that language communities deem to be important. By extension, this requirement also serves to document that abstract authors are aware of communities' needs and concerns, and that both inform the research.

In some cases, broader social impacts are not easily separable from the scientific objectives of specific projects (e.g., those focusing on language revitalization, reclamation, pedagogical issues, or language activism). In other cases, social implications/outcomes are better framed in terms of the larger context in which research is situated. For example, language documentation projects often include development of resources for community use, community literacy work, training, etc. Some SSILA paper abstracts may arise out of larger projects, and describe smaller projects whose social impacts are unclear when considered in isolation. In these cases, providing an explanation of the larger project from which the abstract proposal arises helps the reader of the abstract situate this research within the broader context of how the work occurs. The following are the originally submitted SSILA abstract with annotations and a modified version, both from its author, that illustrate this point:

The original statement focuses somewhat narrowly on the contents of the abstract and not the larger research project from which it arises. It also construes broader impacts too narrowly, and doesn't think about impact on linguistic theory as one of those impacts. The revised abstract reorients the statement to talk first about the larger project and to then talk about broader impacts on understanding of historical linguistics.

Effects might take a while to be felt, and might be nuanced with respect to who is influenced and how. Implications are likely to relate to the social significance to the language community, such as the project’s capacity for developing tools for pedagogy or revitalization, valorizing the language within a broader social context, or (perhaps at the same time) introducing points of tension regarding approaches to language research and teaching. 

There are many possible positive implications.

  • Bringing a situation regarding a language community’s status to wider attention, educating the public regarding language endangerment and its significance, promoting the application of Indigenous ways of knowing in linguistic research, or community-related goals. 

  • Development of new materials for teaching linguistics, building capacity, or developing materials for training in linguistics.

  • Historical/comparative work may lay the foundation for language reconstruction that may potentially be used in language reclamation and development of resources for language learners in stakeholder communities.

In other cases, implications may be negative. 

  • Orthography development or the creation of language resources using a particular orthography could inadvertently create prescriptive standards that can later have negative consequences for communities, especially in cases when there is a large amount of phonological or lexical variation.

  • Issues may arise or be reinforced about what it means for the data to be “good”, what it means to know a language, who gets taken to be a legitimate speaker in language work, and authenticity.

  • Claims about a language’s endangerment or vitality may work against future language efforts, particularly by community stakeholders. For instance, the label “extinct” can preclude funding for reclamation work.

And in many cases, implications will be complex and thus may be both positive and negative, and this evaluation itself may be contested. For instance, there are often complex questions about archiving language documentation materials with respect to access, community vs. researcher expectations and goals, how materials are displayed and organized, and data sovereignty. Abstract writers in these cases are encouraged to discuss the main issues, focusing on what is of most concern to the language communities.

Moving forward, these guidelines and examples can be further developed with the input from members working across different regions, disciplines, and perspectives.

More Resources

The following abstracts (submitted to SSILA Annual meetings) provide some examples of successful discussion of social outcomes/impacts/implications. These abstracts share the property of linking the broader impacts/implications of research, even if hypothetical, to attested needs or issues (vs. invoking hypothetical consequences without an anchor or further contextualization, e.g., “can support language revitalization”). We share them here with permission from their authors:

Note that SSILA had a one-page abstract requirement when these were written. Abstracts may now be up to two pages with references.