Al-Hoorie, Hiver, and In’nami (2024) offer compelling arguments for why L2 motivational self-system research is currently in a state of validation crisis. Seeking a constructive resolution to the crisis, in this response we argue that two fundamental conditions are needed for the field to emerge stronger: psychological readiness and methodological maturity. For psychological readiness, we call for a reframing of the “crisis” narrative. We highlight the need to value controversy, to normalize failure and (self-)correction, and to resist the allure of novelty. For methodological maturity, we suggest that an argument-based approach to validation can provide a constructive solution to current controversies. We present an integrated framework that can guide systematic validation efforts, and we demonstrate its application using a recent validation study as an example.
