Readings Aug 29

Data I will collect: I have a meeting with my two PD Specialists on Monday, Sept. 9th. Thought I'd record thirty minutes of that. PD Specialists are art teachers that I have hired to help me with developing and facilitating professional development (hence, PD).

Mini-lit review focus: art education. I'd really like to find anything about evaluating or supervising art teachers, but I don't think it exists. So, I may look for evaluating and supervising teachers. (This all connects in my dissertation.)

BTW- I picked up the notebook from the ISC this week. Thanks for helping us with that!

**************************

Jorgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.  Chs. 1-3 

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. 

**************************

This week we read the first 3 chapters of Jorgensen and Phillips (2002). As I read, I found myself using a DP lens to not just search for "ammo" for my eventual dissertation, but also as a way to connect (or not) to the reading. I also discovered a lot of connections to  my experiences in the art world. The authors introduce us to three approaches to social constructionist discourse analysis: Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory, Fairclough's Critical Discourse Theory, and discursive psychology. The first chapter outline DA. Chapter 2 focused on Laclau and Mouffe. Chapter 3 focuses on Fairclough.

Here are some of the key points from Chapter 2 and 3 in a top hat chart for comparison. (I learned about this type of chart today!) I did not include DP because I currently do not understand some of the references the authors make to DP and would like to consider it after I read Chapter 4.

	Laclau & Mouffe Everything is discursive including the economy. Created their theory in opposition to Saussurian’s work that signs are fixed and related to other fixed signs (like a fishing net). Instead, signs are contingent on other signs and sometimes there is a struggle between what a sign is and what it could be (Antagonism). There is no truth- instead we have objectivity (people forget that these signs can change) and myths (Signs that seem like a totality).  Mostly theory work. Did not develop a methodology for analysis.	Fairclough While discourse is produced and consumed, not everything is discursive. Some things are material- like economy. Discourse is the social world and shapes the social world. Discourse is ideology because power is a part of discourse creation. The critical part of Fairclough’s (and others) DA comes from the goal of the researchers to uncover discursive practices and try to change them. Created a model for DA- 3 parts:  text, discursive practices, and social practice.
Similarities Are post-structuralists- they do not believe that discourses are fixed, but contingent. How we understand and interact with in the world is based on our social processes- like discourse. Researchers could use Fariclaugh’s analysis model with Laclau and Mouffe’s theory.

Rogers, et. al. was a review of literature on CDA in education. There was a lot of repeat here- with Foucault, Fairclough, and the range of (little d) discourses. The authors reviewed 40 articles on  education using CDA, and found five themes: variation of CDA definitions, overcoming (or not) written language bias, how CDA is situated and its relationship to context, the methods used, and reflexivity. I enjoyed that this article was a ROL and that it was connected to education. There are a few references I have noted to look up for my own research (and possibly my mini-lit review).

My two ah-ha's this week are about DP and art. I can not stop using a DP lens when reading this work! As I read through Chapter 2 and 3, I found myself finding pieces of their theories or methods that seem like they work with DP and others that do not. Although other researchers use critical DA, I find myself uncomfortable with the idea of trying to change society. I actually enjoy change in my "real life" and work in the critical realm when I advocate for art teachers. But, for my research, I find myself thinking that the critical aspect does not belong in my dissertation. (I wonder if this goes back to our DP conversations about downplaying our stake and interest?) 

Also, there were some great connections to the visual arts in the text. Some were explicit- critical DA uses visual images as text that should be analyzed. But also, in the preface and in Chapter 3, the authors describe how text comes from other text and is sometimes cited within text (manifest intertextuality). The same is "true" (whatever true means!) for art. My current work, for example, comes from and directly references the work of Jasper Johns and (maybe) Georges Seurat. They were each influenced (directly or indirectly) by other artists. And, when you finish a piece and hang it in a gallery, you let go of your work and interpretation is now open to the viewers. Earlier this year, one of my pieces was interpreted by a dance troupe. They choreographed a dance for my piece. The choreographer envisioned a lot of circular movement. My piece is very static so it was a surprising interpretation.