OK, I admit it. I am one of those logical mathematical thinkers (per Gardner) who loves organized data in charts and graphs. Thank you, Phillips & Hardy (2002) for the Reflexivity in Discourse primer (p. 85) that lays out the reflexive stances of researchers adopting this stance. It helps to explain (to me) which elements of DA, CDA, and DASP that are either natural or unnatural to my own epistemology. Now, I am looking for areas to include this gem in all of my work which may or may not fly with my group members.
I am really looking forward to the class feedback tomorrow to my group's project. We have wrestled, struggled, faltered, etc. in our approach to the task, but we have also progressed, analyzed, learned, and negotiated meaning in the process. As has been the case for each qual course I take, I learn in huge jumps that require a settling in afterward. My experience with into to qual required a big break before I felt comfortable allowing the shifting of my earth again with DA. Now, I am sure that I need the Spring semester off again to allow the new DA fault line to run its course.
Thank you for the patience as I struggle with my own post-positivist, progressive-pragmatist background. These foundations have been given a good shaking over the past many years and qual (in general) and Dr. Trena Paulus (in particular) have been largely responsible for the big ideas I now feel are discussable.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Philosophy in Baton Rouge
Hello from Louisiana! I have been struggling with some of the philosophic assumptions embedded in discursive psychology and social constructivism. This makes for an interesting experience in a course based firmly in those ontological and epistemological principles. I find that I have needed to "talk through" these issues with myself, in the form of "notes to self" in the margins of our texts and readings, and in dialogue with others, in multiple forms. What does it say about my struggle with understanding that we create reality through our talk in action coupled with my own need for "talk" (in the forms just mentioned) to make sense of it all? It sounds like a hypocritical position!
In an effort to make sense of it all, my approach has been to focus on the trees in the forest. I have created a list of textual devices to use in analysis of texts. These are the terms used in our readings that explain how to do discourse analysis and in the studies that have applied these analyses. It is beginning to look like a glossary of terms for beginning discourse students and I am currently at around sixty terms that are used in this work. I plan to attach that document to this blog site as soon as I feel it is complete. Some of my classmates may find it useful as they navigate this new world. As a budding qualitative researcher, I have focused on the vocabulary of discourse analysis as "what stands out for me" when I read texts. An earlier post demonstrated my grapple with the assumptions that underlie such concepts as how talk can "make possible" new positions and new identities. There is power in talk that uses such language.
I have been focusing on the agency that is implied, both implicitly and explicitly, in discourse analysis. Agency is an area that I have been researching and dialoging about all semester. Jessica Lester and I began a dialogue around the achievement gap and educational excellence over a year ago and turned it into a research project for MSERA this year. We were joined by another member of our research team, Tiffany Dellard, to create a mediated, co-constructed narrative study of educational excellence through our differing philosophical positions. Tiffany and I will be presenting the paper that evolved from this work later this morning, but for the purposes of this discussion I would like to mention that agency is everything for me in both the paper that we will present and in my struggles with DA. The issues for me run in a circular and illogical fashion. In DA, we assert that reality and individual and group identities are created through our talk. We then say that the talk creates the capacity for new beliefs, new roles, new possibilities that did not exist before the talk. Perhaps it is the old chicken and egg dilemma that has me puzzled. Does the talk allow the new possibilities or does something within the speaker occur that is confirmed through the talk? We sometimes "talk things over" with another to clarify our thinking, but does this talk actually create the thinking? Dr. Paulus, I think there is an idea in the synapses..... Where am I wrong?
In an effort to make sense of it all, my approach has been to focus on the trees in the forest. I have created a list of textual devices to use in analysis of texts. These are the terms used in our readings that explain how to do discourse analysis and in the studies that have applied these analyses. It is beginning to look like a glossary of terms for beginning discourse students and I am currently at around sixty terms that are used in this work. I plan to attach that document to this blog site as soon as I feel it is complete. Some of my classmates may find it useful as they navigate this new world. As a budding qualitative researcher, I have focused on the vocabulary of discourse analysis as "what stands out for me" when I read texts. An earlier post demonstrated my grapple with the assumptions that underlie such concepts as how talk can "make possible" new positions and new identities. There is power in talk that uses such language.
I have been focusing on the agency that is implied, both implicitly and explicitly, in discourse analysis. Agency is an area that I have been researching and dialoging about all semester. Jessica Lester and I began a dialogue around the achievement gap and educational excellence over a year ago and turned it into a research project for MSERA this year. We were joined by another member of our research team, Tiffany Dellard, to create a mediated, co-constructed narrative study of educational excellence through our differing philosophical positions. Tiffany and I will be presenting the paper that evolved from this work later this morning, but for the purposes of this discussion I would like to mention that agency is everything for me in both the paper that we will present and in my struggles with DA. The issues for me run in a circular and illogical fashion. In DA, we assert that reality and individual and group identities are created through our talk. We then say that the talk creates the capacity for new beliefs, new roles, new possibilities that did not exist before the talk. Perhaps it is the old chicken and egg dilemma that has me puzzled. Does the talk allow the new possibilities or does something within the speaker occur that is confirmed through the talk? We sometimes "talk things over" with another to clarify our thinking, but does this talk actually create the thinking? Dr. Paulus, I think there is an idea in the synapses..... Where am I wrong?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Reasoning with Rapley
Thank you, Tim Rapley, for making sense of this new world of discourse analysis!
After reading the first five chapters of Rapley's Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis I have more answers, more rationale, and more questions -- my favorite signs of learning-in-process. Here are a few of my new beginnings at sense-making.
When analyzing discourse, I am focused on "how language is used in certain contexts" (p. 2). I am able to view language as constructive - it produces the world I/we live in. The social constructionist traditions tell me that my "understanding of things... is not somehow natural or pre-given but rather is the product of human actions and interactions, human history, society and culture" (p. 4). Further, this knowledge is created by me and by my interactions with others. It is "performative and functional" (p. 7). My goal in discourse analysis is to examine "how the specific thing [I am] interest in routinely occurs or 'comes off' as it does" (p. 21).
Dr. Paulus' references to how people "work up" a "performance" of their identity in action is beginning to make sense. How do I "perform" researcher, student, teacher, etc. in my everyday activities and language use? I invoke certain societal norms when I address my class and say, "Let's get started." The students know how to perform the student role and I know how to perform the teacher role. If I were studying such an interaction, I should look for the unusual, the inconsistent, the disruptions of that performance. Or, I might look at the language in use of these performances to see what they might say about the culture of "doing school." Be patient with me, followers, I am just beginning to understand...
After reading the first five chapters of Rapley's Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis I have more answers, more rationale, and more questions -- my favorite signs of learning-in-process. Here are a few of my new beginnings at sense-making.
When analyzing discourse, I am focused on "how language is used in certain contexts" (p. 2). I am able to view language as constructive - it produces the world I/we live in. The social constructionist traditions tell me that my "understanding of things... is not somehow natural or pre-given but rather is the product of human actions and interactions, human history, society and culture" (p. 4). Further, this knowledge is created by me and by my interactions with others. It is "performative and functional" (p. 7). My goal in discourse analysis is to examine "how the specific thing [I am] interest in routinely occurs or 'comes off' as it does" (p. 21).
Dr. Paulus' references to how people "work up" a "performance" of their identity in action is beginning to make sense. How do I "perform" researcher, student, teacher, etc. in my everyday activities and language use? I invoke certain societal norms when I address my class and say, "Let's get started." The students know how to perform the student role and I know how to perform the teacher role. If I were studying such an interaction, I should look for the unusual, the inconsistent, the disruptions of that performance. Or, I might look at the language in use of these performances to see what they might say about the culture of "doing school." Be patient with me, followers, I am just beginning to understand...
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Catching up with The Single Woman
On the topic of agency and personal identity:
Early on, Reynolds begins to use phrases of an external "other," sometimes labeled society or the culture and sometimes an unidentified dominance, which is somehow responsible for making resources "available" for single women in their self construction. I find myself troubled by the idea that one is "acted upon" in the viewing of herself. Can it be the responsibility of "culture" to assure that each member of the collective has the tools for examining each self? How is this accomplished? Does the inability of a member of a minority group, such as single women, to be able to imagine, view, speak and act in whatever way she wants about her identity mean that this member or group has been "marginalized" by the remainder of the culture?
"If single women are in some way marginalized, this becomes an issue for their presentation of themselves and their conversational practices" (p. 3).
"Singleness is a discourse regulating conduct" (p. 20).
Could it be that rejecting others' views and language is itself the act of identity formation? This seems the most plausible and empowering view to take. Perhaps I need to explore the evolution of the term "marginalization" further to understand the use of this term in so much of our literature.
I appreciate Reynolds' very open reflexivity statements whereby she positions both herself, the single woman, and herself, the researcher of single women. In outlining the purpose and aim of the book, Reynolds tells the reader that "I expect the single identity to be shaped by the wider cultural resources available to the individual woman, her own personal history and the conversational turns suggested the immediate situation" (p. 25). She further states that she is interested in exploring the questions of "What different ways do they [models and types of singleness] offer a woman on her own of understanding her life and her current situation?" (p. 26).
I find problematic the notion that "society" could allow or hinder the identity formation of its members. I further find it troubling to imagine that anyone needs to be offered models or types of others to understand themselves.
I am grateful to Reynolds for the format and flow of her book. This is a wonderful opportunity to examine the researcher's developing thoughts and not just read a review of the materials she read in preparing her study.
Early on, Reynolds begins to use phrases of an external "other," sometimes labeled society or the culture and sometimes an unidentified dominance, which is somehow responsible for making resources "available" for single women in their self construction. I find myself troubled by the idea that one is "acted upon" in the viewing of herself. Can it be the responsibility of "culture" to assure that each member of the collective has the tools for examining each self? How is this accomplished? Does the inability of a member of a minority group, such as single women, to be able to imagine, view, speak and act in whatever way she wants about her identity mean that this member or group has been "marginalized" by the remainder of the culture?
"If single women are in some way marginalized, this becomes an issue for their presentation of themselves and their conversational practices" (p. 3).
"Singleness is a discourse regulating conduct" (p. 20).
Could it be that rejecting others' views and language is itself the act of identity formation? This seems the most plausible and empowering view to take. Perhaps I need to explore the evolution of the term "marginalization" further to understand the use of this term in so much of our literature.
I appreciate Reynolds' very open reflexivity statements whereby she positions both herself, the single woman, and herself, the researcher of single women. In outlining the purpose and aim of the book, Reynolds tells the reader that "I expect the single identity to be shaped by the wider cultural resources available to the individual woman, her own personal history and the conversational turns suggested the immediate situation" (p. 25). She further states that she is interested in exploring the questions of "What different ways do they [models and types of singleness] offer a woman on her own of understanding her life and her current situation?" (p. 26).
I find problematic the notion that "society" could allow or hinder the identity formation of its members. I further find it troubling to imagine that anyone needs to be offered models or types of others to understand themselves.
I am grateful to Reynolds for the format and flow of her book. This is a wonderful opportunity to examine the researcher's developing thoughts and not just read a review of the materials she read in preparing her study.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Stammering in Public
OK, now.... I believe this course should have a disclaimer (or warning label) posted that says, "This course may cause hemming and hawing in your speech acts. Beware, teachers!" I cannot tell you how many times I catch myself wanting to say [something] and instead pausing [and thinking] about all of the ways my words might be used. My speech acts while teaching the undergraduates would be a horrible source for analysis due to the confounding of my pauses with "turns" in the dialogue. Speaking of which, I am fascinated by the ideas of analysing the turns in discourse; asking what is this doing here....
I hate that I missed the discussion on The Single Woman, but I have a fun image for anyone reading. Here I am, on the back of my husband's Harley Davidson Electra Glide Classic, heading to Washington, D.C. to protest irresponsible leadership and spending, wearing my leather "biker chick" jacket and reading.....The Single Woman! Let me tell you about the looks some time!
I hate that I missed the discussion on The Single Woman, but I have a fun image for anyone reading. Here I am, on the back of my husband's Harley Davidson Electra Glide Classic, heading to Washington, D.C. to protest irresponsible leadership and spending, wearing my leather "biker chick" jacket and reading.....The Single Woman! Let me tell you about the looks some time!
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Extending the discussion from Doug's Blog
I am enjoying reading thoughts and comments from others. I am also hyper-aware of my novice posture with blogging. It is intimidating to put one's ideas, thoughts, etc. out there without a review, peer edit, revision, etc.. It is my own discomfort with the permanency of one's written words...
That said,
I was able to post some thoughts on others' sites, but was unable to post a comment to Doug's blog site without a Google password. Here are the observations I would like to make about the conversation between Dr. Paulus and Doug.
(I don't seem to possess the ability to paste comments from Word here, either...)
Dr. Paulus:
"This is particularly important when doing analysis from a DASP perspective - you want to identify all the possible angles, assumptions, beliefs going on in a particular conversation segment, and working with people you don't share a lot in common with can help with this."
I understand and deeply value the benefit of trying to uncover/discover the multiple meanings of language, the background possibilities, the intentionality, etc. Jessica Lester and I are working on a project to speak directly into and at our own assumptions and the origins of those thoughts on a topic in which we disagree. It is quite informative and I am anxious to experience it with others. The key for me is mutual regard and respect and a willingness to expose your own hidden meanings....
Doug:
"You espouse a centralized view of instruction and pedagogy that is not only diametrically opposed to my point of view, but to the overwhelming view of higher education."
What, specifically, are you talking about here? This "centralized view of instruction" is what, specifically? How does the "overwhelming view" of others work to bolster your point?
That said,
I was able to post some thoughts on others' sites, but was unable to post a comment to Doug's blog site without a Google password. Here are the observations I would like to make about the conversation between Dr. Paulus and Doug.
(I don't seem to possess the ability to paste comments from Word here, either...)
Dr. Paulus:
"This is particularly important when doing analysis from a DASP perspective - you want to identify all the possible angles, assumptions, beliefs going on in a particular conversation segment, and working with people you don't share a lot in common with can help with this."
I understand and deeply value the benefit of trying to uncover/discover the multiple meanings of language, the background possibilities, the intentionality, etc. Jessica Lester and I are working on a project to speak directly into and at our own assumptions and the origins of those thoughts on a topic in which we disagree. It is quite informative and I am anxious to experience it with others. The key for me is mutual regard and respect and a willingness to expose your own hidden meanings....
Doug:
"You espouse a centralized view of instruction and pedagogy that is not only diametrically opposed to my point of view, but to the overwhelming view of higher education."
What, specifically, are you talking about here? This "centralized view of instruction" is what, specifically? How does the "overwhelming view" of others work to bolster your point?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
I Did It!
Sorry to be so dramatic, but in the past 24 hours I have purchased my first Blackberry and started my first Blog. I feel like an old dog at the moment, but happily learning new tricks. Thanks to Dr. Paulus for pushing my technological bubble along!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)