Thursday, October 7, 2010
Week Eight Discussion
This week's topic: Discourse Analysis. What is it? What are the various definitions of it? What are some of the ways it might be conducted or theorized? How might it dovetail with case study research or ethnography? Why might it be of particular interest to teacher researchers? I think it's particularly helpful when you quote from the texts and respond to these quotations, so I encourage you to include citations in your posts, in addition to discussing anything else of interest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI haven’t completed a lot of reading on discourse analysis before these texts and found myself constantly questioning my beliefs and assumptions about what I understood to be “discourse analysis.” So, bear with me as I’m working this all out in my post (:
ReplyDeleteDiscourse analysis operates from the understanding that language and other methods of communicating (or even choosing not communicate as this also contributes to discourse), “Discourse” with a “big D,” (Gee, 2005, p. 7), only have meaning “in and through social practices” (p. 8) and that we “fit our language to a situation that our language, in turn, helps to create in the first place” (p. 10). Gee suggests that people construct “seven things or seven areas of ‘realities’” (significance, activities, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and sign systems and knowledge) (pp. 11-13) that, in turn, lead to seven questions researchers can ask about any piece of language-in-use. I really liked Gee’s method of analysis, and it seemed consistent with ways that I understood to be discourse analysis before reading.
Bloom and his colleagues (2008), however, described discourse analysis a little bit differently and explained that for them, “discourse analysis is not a set of methods per se but a set of ways of ‘seeing’ language and literacy events in the classroom” (p. 2). I appreciated that Bloom et al. explained that “the construct of discourse is central to both the theoretical framing and to the logic-of-inquiry” (p. 2) and that they extensively defined how they were using several of the terms, including discourse, literacy, language, and social event. I also appreciated the examples they provided in chapter three to show how a variety of approaches can be taken when analyzing discourse.
In thinking about our discussions of local versus institutional influence and teacher research in light of Bloom et al.’s definition of micro and macro approaches, it seems like a macro approach would allow teachers to take their situated classroom discourse and apply it to “broad social, cultural, and political processes that define social institutions, cultural ideologies, and all that happens within and across them” (p. 20). What I mean is that by looking at the same discourse on a macro level, teachers may able to better theorize discourse in ways that cross social, economic, and cultural boundaries rather than solely understanding what’s going on in one particular classroom on a specific day.
I loved the idea that Bloom et al. present as discourse as a verb rather than as a noun; “the focus is shifted from what discourse is to what discourse does” (p. 42). This resonated with me in thinking about my own classroom practices and how true it is that we don’t discuss but instead discourse, that we come together in spaces to create some kind of reality that is situated in time and space and laden with all of our subjectivities. And, as far as I understand it, researchers use a variety of approaches (like the examples in chapter three of Bloom) to understand this Discoursing (should Discoursing also keep the “Big D” Gee mentions??) of texts, ideologies etc. As Bloom et al. later say, “By defining discourse as a verb we emphasize the concerted actions people take through language and related semiotic systems to create, maintain, challenge, circumvent, interpellate, resist, and transform the manifest ideologies and social, cultural, and economic tools of a social institution, including the relationships of people to teach other and the movement of people through time and space” (p. 58).
That’s all for now. I’m interested to hear what everyone else has to say.
A general, basic definition of discourse analysis could be the analysis of text plus context. This definition seems to fit with the way both books discuss discourse. The various, and more specific, conceptions of discourse analysis come from people making decisions about what "text" and "context" are. For some, a text can be just about anything--words, spoken language, gesture, icons, symbols, etc. Context is broad as well since it can refer to immediate, specific situations or broader social contexts that texts occur within. Bloome, et al. raise this issue at the beginning of their text when they point out that "many authors of discourse analysis studies either do not specify their definitions of discourse or discourse analysis or give vague definitions" (p. 2). For this reason, it seems important for us as readers to seek to understand which conception(s) of discourse a writer has put into play, and it also points to the importance for us as researchers to make up our own minds about what these words mean--in other words, to take a stance from which we can begin our work.
ReplyDeleteAs some of you know, discourse analysis is my main interest in education research, and my linguistics experience is based in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). Since I lack a formal education background I really appreciate the narrow focus on educational settings in Bloome et al.'s book. They write that for "researchers interested in discourse analysis, part of the analytic task is to examine how, what, and when a discourse becomes taken as truth, common sense and rationality, how it naturalizes that common sense, and rationality, how it marginalizes and obfuscates alternatives, and who is privileged by the truth, common sense, and rationality promoted by the discourse...researchers have to learn to see again (to "re-search") beyond what they have come to understand in their own lives as natural, commonsense, and rational" (p. 54-55). So, that's a long quote, but it really struck me when I read it as a great explanation of the task of discourse analysts. It also speaks to some of our previous discussions about teacher research and the challenges of getting teachers to see themselves in the role of 'researcher'. Using the tools of discourse analysis in the above mentioned way could help us to unpack these constructions of 'teacher' and 'researcher' and shed some light on why it is so difficult to shift from one "discourse model" (Gee, p. 71) to another.
For me, Gee's concept of discourse models and simulations was new, and very interesting. Gee writes that discourse models "mediate between the "micro"(small) level of interaction and the "macro" (large) level of institutions" (p. 71). Gee claims that we take the various discourse models in our culture and run simulations of them in our mind (p. 76). These simulations can help us to reinforce the dominant discourses at play in our culture, or they can help us to practice the disruption of those discourses. I think this idea is a powerful one for teacher researchers because many of them must do this very thing when their self identity shifts from 'teacher' to 'teacher-researcher' or 'researcher'. Establishing a practice of simulation with teachers--where they see how the discourse model of 'teacher' has been constructed and then seek to re-imagine it--might be a useful way to promote teacher research.
Since the discourse analysis approach is concerned with analyzing text (in various forms), it is a great complement to case study and ethnography approaches--both of which produce a lot of data in text form. The discourse analysis approach assumes that language constructs the social and that, in turn, the social is embedded in language. So, it makes sense, then, that if we analyze the textual data from our ethnography or case study we can come to some deeper understanding of the social phenomena we have been observing--because the social is embedded in the language. I just want to add that if you want to do this kind of analysis of text, it is important to have some tools that allow you to examine the text grammatically. When I say grammar I mean a functional, descriptive approach rather than a prescriptive approach--see Gee p. 9 and the appendix. These grammars give you a metalanguage that will allow you to talk about the meaning you find in the text. Okay, I'm getting off of my soapbox now...
ReplyDeleteI was just thinking about my own project in terms of Ryan's comment about using discourse analysis with case study or ethnography, which I agree that data analysis would be beneficial with these two types of research, and wondering if "data analysis" would be the correct term for what I'm starting to complete with my pre-service teachers' reflections to volunteering?? They are simply reflections, but I *think* the way I understand discourse analysis as analyzing a variety of texts, as Ryan also mentioned, that this is essential what I'm doing? Before my understanding was more of discourse analysis as analyzing a classroom discussion where at least two voices are dialoguing, so is it still discourse analysis if I'm just analyzing my students' discourse to me?? Any thoughts you have would be great!
ReplyDeleteThe way I’ve always thought of discourse analysis (and discourse in general) mimics Bloome’s (et al.) statement at the end of Discourse Analysis in the Classroom. He writes, “One way to view discourse analysis is as definitions of language in search of definitions of ‘human beings in the world’” (Bloome, p.139). And Gee argues the same thing in seeing big D Discourses as “ways of being in the world” (Gee, p.7).
ReplyDeleteThese ways of being in the world are tied to ourselves (our identities), and the social / cultural groups to which we belong. Our dress, texts (artifacts), actions (or lack there of), mannerisms, gestures, language and many other things are all related to our discourses. As Gee writes, “We are all members of many, a great many, different Discourses, Discourses which often influence each other in positive and negative ways, and which sometimes breed with each other to create new hybrids” (p. 7). While my previous understanding of discourse “fits the bill” I’ve just described (and Gee’s d/D discourse), I hadn’t really unwrapped discourse the way much of Bloome’s text does.
One thing I really enjoyed about Bloome’s text was chapter three where he presents different ways of understanding and conducting discourse analysis. Getting a glimpse of these different perspectives (along with macro vs. micro / discourse as noun vs. verb) really helped me come to a better understanding of how we perform discourse analysis. Another thing I began to better understand (or perhaps that reinforced some previous thoughts) was the true importance of discourse analysis not only to the classroom, but also to (for lack of a better phrase) the world at large.
When I think about discourse, I think about what discourse does or does not do. How it allows one to, sometimes simultaneously, feel both a part of a group as well as the “other.” This reminds me of George in Bloome’s text (p.67). In a certain context (social structure), George was seen as the “other” because he was a “basic writer.” Not having certain skills caused others to impose an identity on him.
Identity and discourse is something I think is very important to think about when we define discourse and conduct discourse analysis (Gee talks about this to when he discusses discourse and forming identities and relationships). Bloome writes, “One of the dynamics regarding discourse and identity concerns who is allowed to have a particular identity” (p.52). Not only does this speak to discourse and identity formation, but it also speaks to discourse and power – who holds its and wields it in different contexts. We are not necessarily the ones who form our own identities, but others can form them for us in our different social and cultural groups. Or, we can take on certain identities so that we can become a part of a discourse.
We also need to consider the ramifications of privileging one discourse over another (if this is the right way to put it). For example, Bloome discusses in his text (the Iranian village example - p. 39) how power and a privileged discourse “disadvantaged those already marginalized” (p.40) because they neglected to consider the literacies the students already possessed.
Given what I’ve discussed here, I think this has many implications for teacher research – especially in light of Bloome’s text. Discourse analysis can help us understand our students (their Discourses and discourses) as well as the school discourse which is, as Bloome writes, “the social and linguistic practices that constitute schooling, that give it meaning and give its ‘inhabitants’ identities and stands for acting, believing, perceiving, talking, and valuing (cf. Goodenough’s, 1981, definition of culture” (p. 49).
I think there are some many discourse elements which go unnoticed, questioned, examined etc., and that teacher research can help to illuminate some of these practices.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have not had much experience with discoure analysis, so the definitions and some of the specifics of methodology were fairly new to me, but the language our authors use to discuss d/Discourse itself was very familiar. Ideas I recognized included Gee's assertion that “language-in-use is everywhere and is always 'political'” (p. 1), and that the purpose of language is, in part, to negotiate the definition of what counts as “social goods” = sources of power, status, value, or worth (Gee, 2005, p. 2). I think recognizing this as the motivation behind language-in-use is important to the overall goals and methods of discourse analysis as described by both Gee and Bloome et al. As a teacher, I am interested in “what counts as knowledge, reading, literacy, text, and learning; what counts as an argument, a warrant, and evidence; and what counts as a narrative and what narratives count” (Bloome p. 130), and recognizing that these concepts are all social goods whose definitions are highly political and very important to power-play in our society is key to helping me help my students live well in the world.
ReplyDeleteBeth mentioned the spheres of influence in conjunction with Bloome's et al. discussion of the micro and macro levels of discourse analysis (p. 21-23) I thought of this, too – it reminded me of our discussion concerning the spheres that teacher research might seek to influence. I prefer the diagram in the last chapter (p. 131). I realize that Bloome and his colleagues developed this graphic to make visual the relationships between the three sets of theories that influence the interpretation of a discourse analysis study. However, I believe that a more fluid relationship, like the one amongst those theories, is also more appropriate for the relationship between the micro and macro levels of discourse analysis. A good “fluid” metaphor (literally) is Gee's “soup” (p. 6). He says that “we have to get minds, bodies, social interactions, social groups, and institutions all in the soup together” (p. 6). Similarly, Bloome et al say, “Researchers. . . are often interested in how people in interaction with each other transform events, identities, and institutions and how they change the social relationships among themselves and between themselves and others” (p. 49). I think a greater recognition of the circular nature of the influence that micro and macro levels assert over each other is important. Gee mentions this when he says that “language and institutions 'bootstrap' each other into existence in a reciprocal process through time” (p. 10).
Gee says that one purpose of discourse analysis is to “[contribute], in terms of understanding and intervention, to important issues and problems in some 'applied' area” (p. 8) That purpose is reflected in Bloome's description of “field-based problems,” which “call upon the researcher to bring to bear upon the problem whatever intellectual tools disciplines and previous studies may provide, but to subordinate those intellectual tools to addressing the prolem as people experience it” (p. 6). Those concepts really resonated with me as I think this purpose of discourse analysis is most salient for teacher research. I believe it was Taylor who asked in a previous blog post, what is the point of what we are doing?? Taking these goals of discourse analysis as our jumping off points allows us to answer that question and lend purpose to our research if we wish to honor the action research roots of teacher research.
Part II. . .
ReplyDeleteEarlier I mentioned Gee's soup metaphor – I thought that was also very applicable to teacher research because I don't feel we can disconnect our student's minds from their bodies, and from their experience of “ways of being in the world” (Gee, p. 7), all of which are influenced by their individual contexts. Adolescents especially (the age group with which I work) are fully engaged in Big D Discourse for the purpose of constructing an identity for themselves. This also ties back to my earlier discussion of the fluid nature of the relationship between the micro and macro levels of discourse. I believe there is a lot to be gained by giving students the metacognitive skills necessary to recognize how they are influenced by culture and how they, in turn, have the power to reshape that culture if they don't like where it is taking them or how it values their evolving identities.
Finally, I just wanted to briefly mention the transcript of Ms. Yung working with Tommy in On the Case (Dyson and Genishi, 2005, p. 93-96). While the transcript presented in a basic format not very similar to the tables in chapter 3 of Bloome's text, I thought it was another good example of how an analysis of language could be employed within the context of a case study. I think the intersection between ethnography and discourse analysis is a little more tricky. Bloome's asserts that “Although an ethnographic study may not accompany every discourse analysis study, the discourse analysis if a social event needs to be predicated on acknowledgment that it exists within an ethnographic context” (p. 32). If we accept what Gee says, that “language and institutions 'bootstrap' each other into existence in a reciprocal process through time” (p. 10), I don't see how one can expect to truly understand a culture or context without engaging in an analysis of the language of the culture. Something to ponder until tomorrow night.
“For many “Discourse” has become a reductive category that collects virtually every form of human social expression (e.g. talk, texts, films, clothing, and culture). For analysts of natural conversation, however, the organizing insight is that for whatever else our distinctions, humans are a talking species” (Macbeth, 2008, p. 106).
ReplyDeleteMacbeth’s article, entitled “The Moral Order of Questions and Answers: ‘What Kind of Person is Dee?’”, dissects the laminating effect discourse can have among school children and their teacher while discussing a recently read story. Two things I absolutely relate to when reading this dissection, first I taught Alice Walker’s “Everyday Use” to remedial sophomores, and second I have worked with students and their belief in story and its ability to teach moral order. So, please allow me a few minutes to unpack this article, on my own terms. The above quote is taken directly from Macbeth’s article. While analyzing the students’ reaction to the story and the teacher’s facilitation of the classroom discussion, Macbeth sidelines this comment. Stating that although we are a species of conversation, this conversation is lead by the teacher. What I hear is this: The teacher read the story and decided what she wanted her students to take from it, she then began the story with leading questions that would facilitate her moral discussion about name change, and after reading she led each child’s reaction to the story toward her analysis of Walker’s story. My issue: first, if discourse can be defined as a reductive category that collects virtually every form of human social expression, why is a led discussion necessary? It seems that if we are a talking species, a led discussion would not be natural or even authentic to the question of morality and a child’s reaction to story (or even a child’s use of language and literacy). Second, like I said, I have taught this story, and each time my sophomores were able to come up with this idea, this idea of Dee needing to change her name to find a new identity, each time without guidance. Through natural conversation, this question of moral order can still be found. I know that I am only looking at a piece to this entire puzzle known as discourse analysis, but as far as I am concerned discourse is not about planned conversation, and the Walker story has so much more to offer than just a discussion of identity and moral order…when teachers plan a student’s reaction to any given object it does not allow the child to grow, in fact, I believe it stunts their intellectual growth; and, I believe that is why discourse analysis is so important and effective, it allows students to grow intellectually through dialogue.
I have something else. I will not be in class this week because I am in Colorado with my father. We are staying with my sister and my brother-in-law. My brother-in-law, Tony, and I have been friends since we were children. We are from the same graduating class, and we have shared many classrooms. He is finishing his course work in economics, here at Colorado State University, this semester and moving onto his dissertation this spring. He wrote a literature review that I thought we would all be interested in, so I am attaching it. It does not have much to do with discourse but it does deal with early child development, socioeconomic status, and literacy. I hope it adds something to the discussion—because economics and its involvement in education (and vice versa) have monopolized many of our conversations this week.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt will not let me attach the review, so I will email it...
ReplyDeleteWithin the texts for this week, I found the definitions and views of language to be particularly interesting. When discussing his ideas of language, Gee states that language has not one, but two functions: “to support the performance of social activities and social identities and to support human affiliation within cultures, social groups, and institutions” (1). In this way, as Gee reminds us, language is political. On the same page, he states, “In the process (of discourse analysis), we will see that language-in-use is everywhere and always “political.”
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about this in conjunction with my role as a teacher, I am instantly reminded of the politics that surround my job and role within my community. The “social goods” that I give to my students are political choices that I make and directly influence the population of students that I am in contact with. With this in mind, I recognize the importance of discourse analysis in the world of education and the connections that it can have to teacher research. I believe that there must be a connection between the two, and am starting to wonder if one can do one without the other. If language is the driving force behind social interactions and the ways in which we make meaning of out them, how can we neglect this when doing a case study or an ethnographic study?
Last semester I had an opportunity to take a course based in discourse analysis. The course specifically looked at systemic functional linguistics (SFL), which to me seems like a very structured way of doing discourse analysis. When I first started the class, I was very skeptical about the results that would be produced by doing this type of analysis, and more importantly the relevance of the results. What I found though was the exact opposite. After analyzing a small work using different methods presented throughout the course, I was able to find hidden meaning and agenda just by analyzing the words, word choice, word placement, voice intonation, etc. The meaning of the work had completely transformed after being given a different lens. This concept is important to think about as teachers or conveys of information. We need to be conscious about the ways in which we position ourselves and others in the classroom through our use of language.
FROM SUDHA:
ReplyDeleteGee defines Discourses with a capital D
as "socially accepted associations among
ways of using language, of thinking, valuing,
acting and interacting in the "right" places and
at the "right" times with the "right" objects
(associations that can be used to identify oneself
as a member of a socially meaningful group or
"social network"), "making visible and recognizable
who we are and what we are doing (Gee, 2005, p.26)."
Discourse with a little d refers to language-in-use
as in conversations and stories.
The example Gee uses is how Native Americans,
"real Indians" acknowledge one another which could be
considered an ethnography study or ethnomethodology
where individuals signal each other as to the beginning and
ending of a text.
It involves recognition and being recognized requiring the
participation of others in the form of verbal sparring or
"razzing" (p.24). The participants establish cultural
competency from each other's perspective by showing
modesty, first exchanging greetings lapsing into periods
of silence, and acknowledging roles of teacher and student.
The student avoids eye contact and is silent, only the
teacher speaks. Self-display is not allowed, even in
written essays.
Bloome discusses four definitions of discourse as a noun:
"Discourse as text, language-in-use, identity, and
truth, rationality, and common sense (Bloome, 2008,p.44)."
Text is described as social space in which people create
meaning; once text is in use, the boundaries are
determined, then questions are asked about the contexts
within which the texts are embedded.
People signal each other as to how they are contextualizing
their words on a both a micro and macro level.
This is exemplified by the teacher asking the class about
how speaking in an educated manner is accepted as
"talking white."
Language-in-use is give and take of face-to-face interaction.
Discourse as identity is a role or position assigned or assumed
within a social group or network (p.50).
An example given was of reading groups assigned according
to ability.
Discourse as truth, rationality, and common sense:
Discourse as a system of concepts, ideas and social practices,
and a natural, accepted ideology (p.53).
A natural and common sense discourse controls how people
act, think, evaluate, interpret, feel, believe, and respond.
The example used concerns what is considered to be
research on reading, and what knowledge about reading is valid.
The government led National Reading Panel (p.54) concluded
that only certain types of research would be allowed,
so-called scientific clinical studies which were deemed
common sense. Any study outside this realm would be
considered deviant and be marginalized.
This is why Teacher Research is crucial, to bring to
the public sphere what is really needed in education,
equality in education for all students,
for all learners.
People create meaning in their lives by how they use
shared symbol systems;
this is the essence of
ethnography and case study,
and the essence of humanity.
Thank you
Sudha
The discussion regarding the relationship between micro and macro level processes and discourse analysis caught my attention because it echoed the objectives of the objectives being addressed in my multiculturalism classes this week. In conversations over the past seven weeks, the classes have discussed the history of school, assimilation, and socialization. This week the conversation turned to the role of media in the process of socialization. We analyzed texts that reviewed/critiqued the media and started down the path that will hopefully end in my students seeing the macro level processes in their classrooms. The reactions and interactions in my classroom regarding the texts, specifically Henry Giroux’s “When You Wish Upon a Star It Makes a Difference Who You Are: Children’s Culture and the Wonderful World of Disney,” made me ponder how aware teachers are of the influences macro level processes can have on the classroom.
ReplyDeleteAs humanities teachers, I think we are aware that we bring themes such as race, class, and gender to the surface in our curriculums but are less aware of these themes in the daily actions/activities in the classroom. Similar to the criticism Bloome et. al points out regarding Figure 1.2, I think classroom teachers under appreciate the influences of macro level discourse processes. “The tension between macro and micro level approaches to discourse analysis reflects acknowledgement that while people live their lives “locally,” interacting with others, moving in and out of and across events, they also are influenced by broad social, cultural, political, economic, and historical processes that exist far beyond the local situations in which people interact” (Bloome et. al, 24). The claims Giroux made in the article regarding the portrayal of women and race in Disney films sparked strong reactions in my students, reactions that revealed that most of them do not look beyond the local, face-to-face events or at best only see the macro level discourses that “apply” to them. Granted the purpose of multiculturalism and education is to expose students to the macro level influences on culture and society, but I am not sure there is transference of macro level discourse analysis being applied to the day-to-day interactions.
Reflecting on their own experiences as children with the Disney movies, not one student said they picked up on the racist or sexist attitudes Giroux claimed exist in the films. One female student said she could see where Giroux was coming from, but would not have identified The Little Mermaid as a sexist film until now. Most of the other pre-service teachers defended Disney and their favorite childhood story. I’m still reading over their written reflections so perhaps there are a few more students who agreed on paper but would not challenge Disney publically.
I guess these are my questions about discourse analysis in the classroom: Is a teacher too close to the students, the curriculum, the environment to see the micro and macro levels of analysis clearly? Is there enough distance and is it possible for a teacher to be that aware of the classroom environment in the moment?