One might assume that of all the flavours of ELT, English for Academic Purposes (EAP) would be the most attuned to inclusivity — especially given that it so often involves learners relocating to an English‑speaking context to study. Yet the research suggests the picture is far less straightforward. A new systematic review by Bakogiannis & Papavasiliou (2025) offers a much‑needed exploration [notice how I resisted saying ‘deep dive’] of this very question, synthesising a decade of research across global Higher Education (HE) contexts to map out what genuinely inclusive EAP practice entails.
What struck me immediately is how the authors frame EAP as both a gateway & a gatekeeper. Although EAP is often presented as a neutral form of academic support, the review shows that multilingual students are routinely negotiating unspoken language hierarchies, disciplinary expectations & cultural mismatches. This echoes long‑standing critiques from scholars such as Hyland (2006) & Wingate (2015), who argue that EAP is never as neutral as it appears. These tensions can shape students’ academic identities, confidence & participation in ways that are rarely acknowledged in institutional narratives.
The study
The authors carried out a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, screening a wide range of empirical & theoretical studies across HE contexts. From an initial pool of research, they synthesised evidence into five overarching strands of inclusive EAP practice:
- Inclusive curriculum design that anticipates diverse needs rather than retrofitting “support”
- Culturally responsive & social‑justice‑oriented pedagogy that fosters critical awareness
- Equitable assessment practices that reduce linguistic & cultural bias
- Intercultural communication strategies that promote collaboration & belonging
- Decolonial & multilingual approaches that validate linguistic diversity rather than treating it as a deficit
These findings are grounded in established frameworks such as intercultural competence, culturally responsive pedagogy & decolonial theory. What’s refreshing is how the review positions EAP not merely as language instruction but as a potential transformative space—one where linguistic diversity becomes a resource for educational quality rather than a problem to be managed.
The review forms part of a larger BALEAP‑funded project (an organisation which ‘supports the professional development of those involved in learning, teaching, scholarship, & research in EAP’), which also includes survey research, focus groups & a recommendations report. Together, these phases build a coherent picture of how inclusion is conceptualised, enacted & experienced in EAP settings.
Teacher Takeaways?
- Consider how your course content signals whose knowledge & linguistic practices are valued—small shifts in examples, texts or tasks can broaden who feels “seen”.
- Build in opportunities for intercultural dialogue, not just language practice—students often learn as much from each other as from us.
- Review assessment criteria for hidden linguistic expectations—are we assessing the skill we intend to assess?
Do you ever explicitly discuss linguistic diversity or academic identity with your EAP students?
Leave a Reply