CDA:-)

The readings for this week were really good for researchers who are new to qualitative work, especially critical discourse analysis.  Each of the chapters and the article shared the theories and assumptions that backed up the work that these types of research encompass.  One of the missing elements for me in the research courses that I have taken previously is the lack of background knowledge that I personally have in working with studies of these types.  It has been very hard for me to make sense sometimes of the comparisons that my fellow classmates make between different studies that we have been reading in relation to critical race, post-structuralism, etc.  I have tried asking ‘How do I get that?’, but I never seemed to answer the question correctly. Readings, such as the readings for this week, help guide me in looking for the right person/persons tied to the different theories and what some of the theories are that I can start looking for more information on.  I am also hoping that TPTE 640 also helps guide me in this endeavor.  Any suggestions for growing in this area would be greatly appreciated.

I loved the part of the reading that tied to something shared by Hollie’s group in class last week.  ‘The meaning we attach to words is not inherent in them but as result of social conventions whereby we connect certain meanings with certain sounds (10).’ The example given in the book and I believe, in class, was the word dog. If you look up the word ‘dog’ in a dictionary, you will encounter a specific definition, but the meaning that is attached to that word is different for every individual.  That is something that those in literacy encounter a lot, especially when working with struggling readers or those with weak vocabularies.  Helping them identify the word and identify meaning in context can be difficult without background knowledge to support the learning.  It was interesting to read how this is tied to research of this type.

I really liked the fishing-net analogy.  ‘All signs in a discourse are moments.  They are the knots in the fishing-net, their meaning being fixed through their differences from one another (26).’  It tied to the meaning of the word ‘dog’ example.  If you looked up the word ‘dog’ in the dictionary, you would get a specific definition.  As you move further out from the definition, you get more varied in the meaning that is derived from the word ‘dog’.

Fairlough came up a lot in both readings and I really liked the breakdown of his approach in terms of the way it unites traditions and how it applies the concept of discourse.  Fairclough’s approach is a text-oriented form of discourse analysis that tries to unite three traditions:

1.     detailed textual analysis within the field of linguistics

2.     macro-sociological analysis of social practice

3.     micro-sociological, interpretative tradition within sociology (including ethnomethodology and conversation analysis), where everyday life is treated as the product of people’s actions in which they follow a set of shared ‘common-sense’ rules and procedures (65-66)

Fairclough applies the concept of discourse in three different ways:

1.     discourse refers to language use as social practice

2.     discourse is understood as the kind of language used within a specific field

3.     discourse is used as a count noun; referring to a way of speaking which gives meaning to experiences from a particular perspective (66-67)

I thought that the breakdown of the research design was also really helpful. ‘The research design should be tailored to match the special characteristics of the project’ (76):

1. Choice of the Research Problem (rectify injustice and inequality in society)

2. Formulation of Research Questions (starting with social practice to formulate research questions drawing on the discipline)

3. Choice of Material (depends on research questions, researcher’s knowledge of relevant material, and available access to material).

4. Transcription (decided on the basis of the research goals)

5. Analysis

a. discursive practices: focus on how the text is produced and how it is consumed

b. text: (interactional control, ethos, metaphors, wording, and grammar); transitivity-focus on how events and processes are connected with subjects and objects; modality-focus on the speaker’s degree of affinity with or affiliation to her or his statement

c. social practice: relationship between the discursive practice and its order of discourse is to be explored; aim is to map the partly non-discursive, social and cultural relations and structures that constitute the wider context of the discursive practice (81-86)

6. Results (the researcher needs to be aware that there is a risk that the results may be used as a resource in social engineering)

Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 75(3), 365- 416.

The article reading was appreciated, not only for the nice introduction that it provided me into the components of critical discourse analysis, but also because it tied specifically to research that has been done (and needs to be done) in educational settings.  ‘Education researchers turned to discourse analysis as a way to make sense of the ways in which people make meaning in educational contexts (366).’  One of the areas that I am thinking of pursuing is the professional development that is offered to ESL teachers in the realm of CCSS and the new assessment mandates.  I think that DA would provide an excellent way of looking at the discourse that these teachers use as they make meaning of these mandates.

Another element that I pulled out of the article in terms of my own possible research concerned critical discourse analysis. ‘Critical Discourse Analysis focuses on how language as a cultural tool mediates relationships of power and privilege in social interactions, institutions, and bodies of knowledge (367).’ I wondered if this could be used to look at the relationship or roles of mainstream teachers and ESL/specialist teachers.  It seems like in my school, at least, that there are power and privilege issues in relation to these two sets of teachers.  I think that it would be interesting to look at the discourse that it used in this area.

I just had to point out this quote, I think you would be disappointed in me if I didn’t…’The big question is how much of the context—beyond the here and now of the interaction—is important, or necessary, to understanding the interaction (377).’

The following was an ‘oh’ moment for me. ‘Education researchers are often researchers of familiar educational settings.  As members and ex-members of the school communities that we study, we bring with us (often successful) histories of participation in those institutions as students, teachers, and parents (382).’ This was talked about in the section discussing researcher roles and the balance needed to make sure that there was enough reflexivity applied as well as the ability to identify the everyday discourse that was spoken by participants.  Too much insight might lead to an inability to recognize the importance of the everyday since it is all seen as routine/unimportant and too little might lead to an inability in being able to recognize the everyday discourse as being relevant to the study. 

This was an area for me that I struggled with in the reading.  My struggle was more in a worry for the future for myself as a researcher than with the material itself.  ‘A real problem for education researchers who are interested in Critical Discourse Analysis is their relative lack of experience in dealing with the micro-structure of texts.  This is compounded by the relative lack of attention to SFL in the American context (384).’ How does one accomplish this experience or gain the understanding needed to deal ‘deal with the micro-structure of texts’.  Is this something that you take a linguistics course on?  Is there one offered at UT? ‘Education researchers should spend more time incorporating SFL theory and method (or comparable linguistic models) into their analysis (386).’

Along with the article’s discussion on reflexivity, the following made me think of Elizabeth’s work with Special Education meetings.  ‘What was refreshing is that researchers in education also looked closely at the language of those who suffer (students, parents in meetings, teachers) and found places of agency, creativity, and resistance.  We need to proceed cautiously with conducting research on groups of people who have been oppressed historically, as opposed to conducting research with these people (385).’  I could see where this would be an important and difficult area to work.  Every stage of the IRB process discusses the need to avoid risk and procedures are put into place that help the researcher protect the participants.  I knew that research involves students was a tricky area, but I had never thought previously as parents or teachers being oppressed.  I started thinking about it and my brain started spinning in all of the situations in which that is true.