Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Seeing What Needs to be Seen, Saying What Needs to be Said: Discourse Analysis for Critical Adult Education
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Niewolny, Kim L. Wilson, Arthur L. |
| Copyright Year | 2008 |
| Abstract | We explore several prominent traditions of discourse analysis and thei r potential for critical scholarship in adult educati on. Conclusions include key insights for adult educators to engage with the the ory and practice of conducting discourse analysis. Problem and Purpose There has been continuing discussion in the field o f adult education about what some colleagues refer to as critical adult education (e. g., Brookfield, 2004; Cervero & Wilson, 2001; Edwards & Usher, 2000; Foley, 1999; Hart, 1990). M uch of the adult education literature that is variously defined as “critical” underscores the rol e f educational practices in producing, sustaining, and transforming relations of power and the interests they represent from social, cultural, and historical perspectives. Although se veral areas of study exist, critical approaches to adult education generally aim to link critique with social action for purposes of social and educational justice (St. Clair & Sandlin, 2004). Critical adult educators draw upon such intellectual traditions as Critical Race Theory, cr iti al theory, cultural studies, feminism, literary criticism, Marxism, neo-Marxism, poststructuralism, postcoloni alism, and queer theory to inform research agendas and i structional practices . We claim that while some adult educators have embraced this rich theoretical landscape to explore issues of power, knowledge, subjectivity, and representation in educational settings , the investigatory “methods” employed are often poor ly explained or too often loosely amalgamated as “qual itative” or “content” analysis. This weak articulation of theory and method limits the use and effectiveness of critica l adult education scholarship. We propose, therefore, that inquiry i nto “critical” topics could benefit from a serious engagement with the theoretical/methodologi cal insights of discourse analysis as one way to provide solid conceptual and methodological footing for the types of critical work we aim to do. In order to understand this claim, we must first recognize that discourse analysis means different things to different people. In this pape r, we examine a limited range of those differences and their potential for critical schola rship in adult education. We conclude with key insights for adult educators to engage with the the ory and practice of conducting discourse analysis. Review of the Literature: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Discourse is clearly a messy concept. The meaning and usage of discourse has undergone several shifts in social science, reconfi guring how discourse analysis is applied in educational research (MacLure, 2003). For Lee and Poynton (2000) these transitions signify a “linguistic turn” in social theory that has influen ced disciplines for over thirty years. Mills (2004) describes a range of philosophical and theor etical meanings of the term; “discourse” is historically informed by cultural theory, linguisti cs, and social psychology and can mean such things as, but not limited to: the utterance of la nguage ( parole), a whole system of language (langue), a way of signifying areas of experience from a p articular perspective (e.g., academic discourse), and a type of practice that constitutes m aning (e.g., identity) and regulates conduct in society. With such a range of meanings, it is c hallenging to decipher what constitutes the boundaries of discourse. Gee (1999, pp. 6-7) provi des a helpful distinction between the textual (micro) and social (macro) features of discourse by designating “discourse” with a “little d” and “Discourse” with a “big D”: “When 'little d' discourse (language-in-use) is melded integrally with non-language 'stuff' to enact specific identit ies and activities, then, I say that 'big D' Discourses are involved.” For Gee, the micro-analy tical descriptions of what people “say and do” are embedded within larger, social “Discourses, ” such as educational discourse. These textuallyand socially-oriented characterizations are very important for conducting discourse analysis and are subject to much debate in the lite rature of discourse analysis theory and method. Applied linguists, poststructuralists, and critical discourse analysts have operationalized the larger project of discourse analysis in the fie ld of education (MacLure, 2003). While each uniquely handles the “micro” and “macro” approaches of discourse analysis, they are all concerned on some level with analyzing the relation s between discourse and power to reveal the (re)production of social practices and structures. According to Luke (1995, p. 12), a critical analysis of discourse can help educators “see” how p er relations are produced and circulated in our everyday words and images: discourse analys is “attempts to establish how textual constructions of knowledge have varying and unequal material effects and how whose constructions come to 'count' in institutional cont exts is a manifestation of larger political investments and interests.” Adult education schola rs h ve shown interest in various forms of discourse critique that share this vision of politi cal practice. Many of these analyses concentrate on the construction and effects of spoken or writte n d/Discourse in community education (e.g., Rule, 2005), lifelong learning (e.g., Usher & Richa rds, 2007), literacy education (e.g., Rogers, 2003; Wickens & Sandlin, 2007), online communities (e.g., Kelland, 2006), planning theory (e.g., Wilson & Cervero, 1997), the media (e.g., Wr ight, 2007), and higher education (e.g., Nicoll & Harrison, 2003). Despite differences in c on eptual orientation, many of these analyses seek to critically examine the production, interpre tation, and/or use of educational “texts” in order to disrupt or “denaturalize” (Luke, 1995) und erlying “structures of meaning” for purposes of social equity. While indeed promising for revea ling and challenging the (re)production of inequality, the variousness and lack of theoretical /methodological articulation of such investigations limits their usefulness. Our point is that if adult educators aim to use discourse analysis as an effective form of political practice , we need to more closely account for specific theories of discourse analysis and precise descript ions of method. Although evident, the potential of discourse analy sis remains largely under-developed in adult education scholarly practice, which suggests we could learn from several prominent discourse traditions available to us. MacLure (200 3, p. 174) makes a distinction between two traditions: “one stems from European philosophical and cultural thought” that is associated with poststructuralism while the other has roots in “Ang lo-American linguistics.” Luke (1995) recognizes critical discourse analysis (CDA) as ano ther tradition of discourse analysis which integrates elements of linguistic analysis with (po st)structural discourse theory to critically examine discursive practices (e.g., classroom teach ing in higher education) that constitute the (re)production of ideological-discursive structures of power. For the purpose of this paper, we limit our discussion by briefly recognizing key fea tures of linguistic discourse analysis, poststructuralist discourse theory (particularly Fo ucault's approach), and CDA to stimulate further discussion and debate about the theory and practice of discourse analysis for critical adult education. Linguistic Discourse Analysis Linguistic discourse analysis is broadly defined by its emphasis on the detailed textual analysis of written and spoken language, particular ly at the clause and sentence level of texts and talk. According to MacLure (2003, p. 174), many ki nds of discourse theories and methods exist within linguistic study; however, nearly all are gr ounded in structuralist thought, where the relationship between language-use and the social wo rld is conceptualized as a “fixed” and logical set of conditions. As structuralists, Chomsky, Hal lid y, and Hymes are widely recognized with developing influential linguistic theories that gen erally (with important differences) assume language comprises multiple functions and dimension s of meaning that coexist and interact; therefore, we can systemically analyze the structur es (e.g., grammars) and meanings (e.g., semiotics) of what people actually “say” and “do” t understand the “structured” organization of language and its functions (Mills, 2004; Schiffrin, 1994). Discourse analysis stemming from linguistics emerge d in education during the 1970s to underscore the social context of language developme nt and learning in the classroom that was largely ignored by psychology literature (Heath, 19 84). For MacLure (2003, p. 184) classroom studies of learners and teachers raised serious que stions about the relationship between discourse and learning in the 1980s: “Educationalists noted that traditional teacher-led talk tended to position students as passive recipients of knowledg e, and began to argue for collaborative, informal, non-hierarchal discursive arrangements, s uch as small-group talk, which would grant students greater autonomy.” Although applied lingu stics has influenced important educational research in the areas of cognitive development, lan gu ge acquisition, and literacy, Pennycook (1994) suggests that this work often neglects to il lustrate how discourses constituted in local contexts have political and sociohistorical implica tions. The attachment of this form of linguistics to a positivist tradition, he argues, l egitimatizes rigid, technically driven scientific procedures, thereby emphasizing technical descripti on and ignoring critical analyses of the conditions that give rise to our experiences and concerns. Ge e (1999) states, however, that a burgeoning body of literature in applied linguistic provides valuable insight into the “micro” politics of discourse by elucidating the ways in wh ich language-use discursively produces meaning (norms, beliefs, |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2934&context=aerc&httpsredir=1&referer= |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
