Readings Sept. 5

Jorgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage. Chapters 4-6.



Rex, L.A., Bunn, M., Davila, B.A., Dickinson, H.A., Ford, A.C., et al. (2010). A review of discourse analysis in literacy research: Equitable access. Reading Research Quarterly 45(1), 94-115. 

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

Jorgenson and Phillips 

Chapter 4- Discursive Psychology

      Most of the DP info was familiar. I liked the comparison of the 3 strands of DP (poststructuralist, interactionalist, and combo). I found myself orienting toward interactionalism. Although, I'm wondering if what we've been reading (in DP, mostly) is more of the combination of the two. Is this how DP reserachers identify themselves or their work or are these labels from Jorgensen and Phillips?

     What I don't quite understand is the link between DP and critical research. I know that Wetherell and Potter research the Maori, but that was one example. Not all DP is critical, right? It doesn't feel appropriate to include DP. Are the authors just including DP because it can be critical? (Maybe I'm just missing a piece of the puzzle here....)

Chapter 5- Combining Approaches
     This was my least favorite chapter. The authors wrote a how-to by combining the different results into an "across the approaches" method that combines all of the "strengths" of each of the 3 DA approaches. What I mostly got from this chapter is a stronger commitment to DP. As I read the text, I make notes like "What if you don't care about why?" (p. 142 in response to "it can explicate why people draw on some discourse rather than others in specific situations), or "I don't like this" (p. 143 identifying discourse boundaries), and finally "Thank, Jesus" (p. 145 "Those discursive psychologists who are most influenced by CA are not particularly interested in analysing how certain discourses circulating in society construct subjects and objects in particular ways... Discources are treated as resources that are freely available for use...")
 

Chapter 6- Critical Social Constructionism
     Chapter 6 was the sum-up and big-picture chapter. What stuck out mostly to me, because of the close ties to the art world, was the discussion on critiques. I believe, like Jorgenson and Phillips, that once you put your work "out there" for interpretation, you are stating your position (partially by not including all other possibilities) and that your work should then be part of the "on-going discussion." This gels with my art experiences, as well. When I display my art, I am communicating something and part of the discussion should be 1) what did I communicate/ what is my knowledge? 2) is it art/ did I follow the rules? 3) did it contribute to new perspectives within the on-going discussion?

     The authors also discuss why knowledge building in science is different than other discources because of the obligation to adhere to rules- theoretical frameworks, epistemologies, and methodologies. When researchers follow those rules, then a certain type of knowledge is produced. I interpreted this to mean a "better" type of knowledge, and I can't say I agree to that... but it is specific and differentiated. I don't know how many times I've heard, "research says..." in everyday talk. So, maybe it's "better" because we discursively refer to it as better?

Rex, et. al.- ROL on Discourse Analysis & Literacy

      This ROL was not as easy (nor as helpful) to read as last week's ROL on critical DA and education. The authors examined over 300 studies on DA and literacy. Their purpose was to find out which literacy issues have been studied using DA and for what purpose, how DA was used, and reasons for using DA. The ROL was broken into 2 segments. The first was on whose and which literacies count. The second was answering 5 questions:

1. What are literate identities, how are they consumed, and by whom? 
2. How are disciplinary literacy knowledges, discources, and identities constructed? 
3. How can schools provide students with access to school-based  literacies?  
4. What are the shifting roles of literacy teachers and learners within and outside of school? 
5. How does DA research address movement within and across literacy sites and practices in a globalized and digital world?

     Mostly, I slogged through this article. However, there were some practical pieces here. First, I've read the Ruby Payne book on poverty. I would be interested to read the study by Dworin and Bomer in more than just a paragraph to see how they analyzed the text. It is a book used frequently in our county, and I seem to remember that Payne is reflective about coming from a middle class perspective within the book.

     I found some connections with the 2nd question to the Accountable Talk model that TN is using with Common Core. Lea & Street's research included that students need to understand the discursive practices of multiple disciplines and sometimes these models compete. I have to connect Accountable Talk to the Visual Arts discipline for my art teachers this month. This will be a point that I bring up to them as to why we need to use AT in the art room.