Tuesday, June 27, 2006
My first month home
It’s been good to be back home, “where everybody knows your name,” where your heart is, where the wind blows and sings when passing through the trees, where the birds call each other and the coqui sings with joy after it rains, and where the sea is warm and invites you to go in. I cannot say time has passed as a blink of an eye; instead it seems as if it has been a very long time since I was in Gainesville. I almost can’t believe I spend four years away from home!
Every week, Arturo and I go out to the movies; we go out to a basketball game once in a while; and try to go for a walk as much as possible – something we always say we want to make a habit but have not been able to yet. He is working on his own project, writing and revising, and spends long hours at his desk or at the computer. I am very proud of him and his work.
These last few weeks, I have dedicated my time to read, summarize, and reflect about discourse analysis; to search for new sources; to identify new pieces of my research puzzle; and to clarify misunderstandings. I have also identified new readings about reflection, communities of practice/learners, and informal learning environments. However, I still need to do a more comprehensive search on these topics and also search for mathematics and writing. -- Thanks Susan for the Thorpe reference in the Reflection Practice journal. I’ve found many good references there.
With this I should be able to complete the recommendations made by my committee about the review of literature (Chapter Two). Two new sections will include information about informal learning environments and writing in mathematics. If you have some ideas or resources you want to share with me, please do so by adding a comment to this entry. The link is at the end of the message.
But first, the revisions to Chapter Three must be completed. My plan is to work on these during this week and the next. This week will be a little slow because my daughter is home, on vacation.
Every week, Arturo and I go out to the movies; we go out to a basketball game once in a while; and try to go for a walk as much as possible – something we always say we want to make a habit but have not been able to yet. He is working on his own project, writing and revising, and spends long hours at his desk or at the computer. I am very proud of him and his work.
These last few weeks, I have dedicated my time to read, summarize, and reflect about discourse analysis; to search for new sources; to identify new pieces of my research puzzle; and to clarify misunderstandings. I have also identified new readings about reflection, communities of practice/learners, and informal learning environments. However, I still need to do a more comprehensive search on these topics and also search for mathematics and writing. -- Thanks Susan for the Thorpe reference in the Reflection Practice journal. I’ve found many good references there.
With this I should be able to complete the recommendations made by my committee about the review of literature (Chapter Two). Two new sections will include information about informal learning environments and writing in mathematics. If you have some ideas or resources you want to share with me, please do so by adding a comment to this entry. The link is at the end of the message.
But first, the revisions to Chapter Three must be completed. My plan is to work on these during this week and the next. This week will be a little slow because my daughter is home, on vacation.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
"critical discourse analysis" according to Gee
In this chapter, Gee presents a distinction among discourse analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and critical discourse analysis.
One way to look at this is through a continuum. At one end, Gee presents discourse analysis as "anecdotal reflections on written or oral texts" (p. 20) and “patterns of social interaction” (p. 32). At the opposite end, critical discourse analysis can be related to political proselytism (p. 20). For Gee, CDA (with capital letters) is based on Fairclough's work and critical discourse analysis (with lowercase letters) is a more inclusive term: one that not only includes CDA, but also Gee's work on "models of grammatical and textual analysis ... sociolinguistics ... [and] literary criticism" (p. 20), as well that of as others.
Gee also adds that the combination of "sociopolitical and critical theory with ... analysis of language" even if it is not rooted in a "particular linguistic background" is too considered critical discourse analysis (p. 20). Later in this chapter, he states “[c]ritical approaches … treat social practices not just in terms of social relationships,” but also in terms of their implications to matters of politics, such as “status, solidarity, distribution of social goods, and power” (p. 33).
So, with this my quest has been completed. Discourse analysis can be critical and it can also be non-critical. What makes it critical is its relationship with the idea of politics, as in critical theory you may say. Finding patterns is not enough, anecdotal reflections is not enough either to make discourse analysis critical.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse Analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, pp. 19-50. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
One way to look at this is through a continuum. At one end, Gee presents discourse analysis as "anecdotal reflections on written or oral texts" (p. 20) and “patterns of social interaction” (p. 32). At the opposite end, critical discourse analysis can be related to political proselytism (p. 20). For Gee, CDA (with capital letters) is based on Fairclough's work and critical discourse analysis (with lowercase letters) is a more inclusive term: one that not only includes CDA, but also Gee's work on "models of grammatical and textual analysis ... sociolinguistics ... [and] literary criticism" (p. 20), as well that of as others.
Gee also adds that the combination of "sociopolitical and critical theory with ... analysis of language" even if it is not rooted in a "particular linguistic background" is too considered critical discourse analysis (p. 20). Later in this chapter, he states “[c]ritical approaches … treat social practices not just in terms of social relationships,” but also in terms of their implications to matters of politics, such as “status, solidarity, distribution of social goods, and power” (p. 33).
So, with this my quest has been completed. Discourse analysis can be critical and it can also be non-critical. What makes it critical is its relationship with the idea of politics, as in critical theory you may say. Finding patterns is not enough, anecdotal reflections is not enough either to make discourse analysis critical.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse Analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, pp. 19-50. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
To be reflective or reflexive
Would you say reflective and reflexive are synonymous? Maybe so, in some contexts it could be, but not according to Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000). These authors sustain being reflexive is a lot more than just being reflective. In qualitative research, being reflexive entails taking different standpoints when interpreting data, conducting metainterpretations, “reflection in various domains” (p. 280).
Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) analyzed the main orientations in qualitative research: grounded theory, hermeneutics, critical theory, and postmodernism (at moments interchanged with poststructuralism or social constructionism). They dedicated a chapter to each of these orientations, compared them, and identified common criticisms. And at the end, they tied them all together into a reflexive methodology.
What makes reflexivity interesting, is the different theoretical perspectives the researchers need to work from. This means that the researcher is a scholar always reading, always searching for new ideas. This also makes it more difficult, because the researcher needs to stand outside of his/her comfort area and redress him/herself with the principles of another orientation.
Reflexivity is more of a qualitative holistic research methodology, reviewing the data once and again, from four main qualitative perspectives: grounded theory, hermeneutics, critical theory, and postmodernism. But don’t get the idea that the reflexive methodology will allow you to find the truth, or “some sort of reality ‘out there’” (p. 289). Reflexivity stands on a postmodernist theoretical base and as such ‘reality’ is always changing!
As a personal note, reflexive methodology cannot be the object of a doctoral dissertation; one theoretical perspective is more than enough to work with!!
Alvesson, M., and Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodologies: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) analyzed the main orientations in qualitative research: grounded theory, hermeneutics, critical theory, and postmodernism (at moments interchanged with poststructuralism or social constructionism). They dedicated a chapter to each of these orientations, compared them, and identified common criticisms. And at the end, they tied them all together into a reflexive methodology.
What makes reflexivity interesting, is the different theoretical perspectives the researchers need to work from. This means that the researcher is a scholar always reading, always searching for new ideas. This also makes it more difficult, because the researcher needs to stand outside of his/her comfort area and redress him/herself with the principles of another orientation.
Reflexivity is more of a qualitative holistic research methodology, reviewing the data once and again, from four main qualitative perspectives: grounded theory, hermeneutics, critical theory, and postmodernism. But don’t get the idea that the reflexive methodology will allow you to find the truth, or “some sort of reality ‘out there’” (p. 289). Reflexivity stands on a postmodernist theoretical base and as such ‘reality’ is always changing!
As a personal note, reflexive methodology cannot be the object of a doctoral dissertation; one theoretical perspective is more than enough to work with!!
Alvesson, M., and Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodologies: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
A little jewel
In developing "ideas for a pragmatic postmodernist qualitative method” (p. 185), Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) identified the following six principles.
Pluralism – the idea of emphasizing multiple perspectives and looking at various angles, not only the atypical or at dichotomies (looking at opposites or extremes). It also includes the importance of addressing “what [data] is being included and what is excluded. And why does he or she [the researcher] choose to exclude certain voices?” (p. 187).
A well-grounded process of exclusion – which implies that not all possible voices and categories identified from the data (an infinite process) can be included in the final research report. The authors stated, “[w]hat is important is not to include all possible categories and voices that are at odds with established ones, but to reflect upon the process of exclusion and thus to avoid getting entangled in established categories and distinctions” (p. 188). This would have direct implications in how the generalizations or results of the study are made.
Cautious process of interacting with empirical material – Theory can help the researcher emphasize a particular voice present in the data, but what about the researcher’s voice? Should it be silenced or undervalued? “What can be attempted in PM/PS-inspired [postmodernist and poststructuralist - inspired] research is a cautious process of working with inclusions/exclusions in terms of representations and readings … of the material.” (p. 189). The researcher’s voice/interpretations “should be a complement to what emerges in the texts” (p. 190).
Avoiding totalizing theory – there is always “an element of skepticism and self-criticism with regard to theoretical frames of reference” (p. 190) in postmodernism. So, different interpretations can be confronted among themselves, allowing for ambiguities and new meanings to surface that will lead to reframing initial metaphors/interpretations.
Authorship and linguistic sensitivity – The different voices present in the data, the multiple interpretations that arrive form it, implies that there would be different perspectives presented. The researcher can then assume a second voice, with which to entail a dialogue with the reader, “indicating pertinent problems and imperfections in the text … problems that the researcher has been unable to solve” (p. 192).
Research and the micropolitics of the text – postmodernism and poststructuralism believes “research text is always, in some sense, about authority and consequently about power” (p. 194). The way things are stated implies a certain political statement. “One representation may block another possible one” (p. 194).
These principles exemplify the author’s stand over research data analyzed from a postmodernist, poststructuralist, and even social constructionist perspective. The researcher’s own limitations when interpreting data, the political standings by which s/he abide, the knowledge of the subject, will all impact the interpretations/generalizations made. The postmodernist and poststructuralist researcher is well aware of this and opens a door to expose him/herself to the reader.
Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology: New vistas for qualitative research, pp. 148-199. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Pluralism – the idea of emphasizing multiple perspectives and looking at various angles, not only the atypical or at dichotomies (looking at opposites or extremes). It also includes the importance of addressing “what [data] is being included and what is excluded. And why does he or she [the researcher] choose to exclude certain voices?” (p. 187).
A well-grounded process of exclusion – which implies that not all possible voices and categories identified from the data (an infinite process) can be included in the final research report. The authors stated, “[w]hat is important is not to include all possible categories and voices that are at odds with established ones, but to reflect upon the process of exclusion and thus to avoid getting entangled in established categories and distinctions” (p. 188). This would have direct implications in how the generalizations or results of the study are made.
Cautious process of interacting with empirical material – Theory can help the researcher emphasize a particular voice present in the data, but what about the researcher’s voice? Should it be silenced or undervalued? “What can be attempted in PM/PS-inspired [postmodernist and poststructuralist - inspired] research is a cautious process of working with inclusions/exclusions in terms of representations and readings … of the material.” (p. 189). The researcher’s voice/interpretations “should be a complement to what emerges in the texts” (p. 190).
Avoiding totalizing theory – there is always “an element of skepticism and self-criticism with regard to theoretical frames of reference” (p. 190) in postmodernism. So, different interpretations can be confronted among themselves, allowing for ambiguities and new meanings to surface that will lead to reframing initial metaphors/interpretations.
Authorship and linguistic sensitivity – The different voices present in the data, the multiple interpretations that arrive form it, implies that there would be different perspectives presented. The researcher can then assume a second voice, with which to entail a dialogue with the reader, “indicating pertinent problems and imperfections in the text … problems that the researcher has been unable to solve” (p. 192).
Research and the micropolitics of the text – postmodernism and poststructuralism believes “research text is always, in some sense, about authority and consequently about power” (p. 194). The way things are stated implies a certain political statement. “One representation may block another possible one” (p. 194).
These principles exemplify the author’s stand over research data analyzed from a postmodernist, poststructuralist, and even social constructionist perspective. The researcher’s own limitations when interpreting data, the political standings by which s/he abide, the knowledge of the subject, will all impact the interpretations/generalizations made. The postmodernist and poststructuralist researcher is well aware of this and opens a door to expose him/herself to the reader.
Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology: New vistas for qualitative research, pp. 148-199. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Finding an answer
Reading about critical discourses gave me a chance to clarify some of my misconceptions about Gee’s Discourse Analysis about it being critical or not.
According to Siegel (2000), critical theory has two purposes: to critique positivism (“the description, classification, and generalization of facts” (p. 144)), and to study “the relationship [between] theory and practice … connections among the economy, the culture industry, and the psychology of individuals” (p. 144). Critical approaches “look beyond the taken-for-granted” and “seek to challenge and transform the status quo” (p. 149).
Expanding on these ideas, Gee (2000) indicated that cultural models “explain why and how things happen” (p. 196). His idea of ‘cultural models’ has evolved today to ‘discourse models.’ This is evident when examining and comparing the first and second editions of his book An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method (1999, 2005). In the first, he writes about cultural models (Chapter 4), in the second he changed the concept to ‘discourse models’ instead (Chapter 6). Both concepts are related to storylines or theories that explain why things are the way they are (Gee, 2000, p. 200); that help us understand texts and the world (Gee, 2005, p. 71); that “ ‘rationalize’ the situated meanings and practices that people in … [communities of practice] use” (Gee, 2000, p. 200). As Gee stated in the second edition of this book, “discourse models are deeply implicated in ‘politics’ [that is]… anything and any place … where ‘social goods’ are at stake, things such as power, status, or valued knowledge …” (p. 84).
With this I can say that Gee’s discourse analysis IS critical [he has even stated it himself] and then I have answered my question. I still will make other readings about this topic, one from Gee himself, published in Rogers edited book. But the good thing is that with what I have now I can continue editing Chapter Three in my dissertation.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method. [1st ed.]. NY, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method. [2nd ed.]. NY, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research: Volume III (pp. 195-207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Publ.
Siegel, M. (2000). Critical approaches. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research: Volume III (pp. 141-151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Publ.
According to Siegel (2000), critical theory has two purposes: to critique positivism (“the description, classification, and generalization of facts” (p. 144)), and to study “the relationship [between] theory and practice … connections among the economy, the culture industry, and the psychology of individuals” (p. 144). Critical approaches “look beyond the taken-for-granted” and “seek to challenge and transform the status quo” (p. 149).
Expanding on these ideas, Gee (2000) indicated that cultural models “explain why and how things happen” (p. 196). His idea of ‘cultural models’ has evolved today to ‘discourse models.’ This is evident when examining and comparing the first and second editions of his book An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method (1999, 2005). In the first, he writes about cultural models (Chapter 4), in the second he changed the concept to ‘discourse models’ instead (Chapter 6). Both concepts are related to storylines or theories that explain why things are the way they are (Gee, 2000, p. 200); that help us understand texts and the world (Gee, 2005, p. 71); that “ ‘rationalize’ the situated meanings and practices that people in … [communities of practice] use” (Gee, 2000, p. 200). As Gee stated in the second edition of this book, “discourse models are deeply implicated in ‘politics’ [that is]… anything and any place … where ‘social goods’ are at stake, things such as power, status, or valued knowledge …” (p. 84).
With this I can say that Gee’s discourse analysis IS critical [he has even stated it himself] and then I have answered my question. I still will make other readings about this topic, one from Gee himself, published in Rogers edited book. But the good thing is that with what I have now I can continue editing Chapter Three in my dissertation.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method. [1st ed.]. NY, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method. [2nd ed.]. NY, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research: Volume III (pp. 195-207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Publ.
Siegel, M. (2000). Critical approaches. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research: Volume III (pp. 141-151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Publ.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
A partial answer
I suppose that everything has to do with how we set things out from the beginning. In searching for an answer for my own questions I went back to Teun A. Van Dijk’s (2003) article titled "Critical Discourse Analysis". The way Van Dijk defines CDA is very different from that of Rebecca Rogers, et al. (2005). Lets see …
Van Dijk starts his article by stating “Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context” (p. 352). On the other hand, Rogers et al. presented CDA as focusing “on how language as a cultural tool mediates relationships of power and privilege in social interactions, institutions, and bodies of knowledge” (p. 367). Both definitions include the concept of power, but Rogers also included the idea of “language as a cultural tool” absent in Van Dijk’s definition. Still this is not to say that Van Dijk does not consider language and culture in critical discourse analysis.
For Van Dijk, CDA tries to explain discourse structures “in terms of properties of social interaction and …social structures” (p. 353). Again the idea of explaining why things are the way they are comes up – one that I have not seen in Gee’s writings yet [probably a misinterpretation??!!]. Note that the idea of finding an explaination is the third step presented in Foucault’s framework. These are three intersecting domains: to describe (textual explanation), to interpret (discursive presentation), and to offer an explanation (society-wide interpretation).
So I wonder if it would be appropriate to say that Gee’s Discourse Analysis is more oriented toward the identification of cultural models; that it is more descriptive, that it seems to be in search of questions, a hypothesis, or even theory building, to be answered or examined with further research. In this sense, Gee’s Discourse Analysis is more theoretical, grounded in data that is recursively analyzed, whose final object is to develop ‘Discourse models’ – cultural representations. With this, note that no explanation is presented, just a theory or hypothesis [if you which], a description and interpretation of data recursively analyzed with different questions (building tasks questions) and inquiry tools.
However, is language and therefor discourse always related to power? According to Rogers, et al., “language is a social practice and because not all social practices are created and treated equally, all analyses of language are inherently critical” (p. 367).
The search continues … I feel like I’m searching for a treasure, like a mine digger, a treasure hunter … And while I wait for a book to arrive, I’ll continue reading more about critical approaches to research.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis. In Schiffrin, D. S., Tahnen, D., and Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pp. 352-371.
Van Dijk starts his article by stating “Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context” (p. 352). On the other hand, Rogers et al. presented CDA as focusing “on how language as a cultural tool mediates relationships of power and privilege in social interactions, institutions, and bodies of knowledge” (p. 367). Both definitions include the concept of power, but Rogers also included the idea of “language as a cultural tool” absent in Van Dijk’s definition. Still this is not to say that Van Dijk does not consider language and culture in critical discourse analysis.
For Van Dijk, CDA tries to explain discourse structures “in terms of properties of social interaction and …social structures” (p. 353). Again the idea of explaining why things are the way they are comes up – one that I have not seen in Gee’s writings yet [probably a misinterpretation??!!]. Note that the idea of finding an explaination is the third step presented in Foucault’s framework. These are three intersecting domains: to describe (textual explanation), to interpret (discursive presentation), and to offer an explanation (society-wide interpretation).
So I wonder if it would be appropriate to say that Gee’s Discourse Analysis is more oriented toward the identification of cultural models; that it is more descriptive, that it seems to be in search of questions, a hypothesis, or even theory building, to be answered or examined with further research. In this sense, Gee’s Discourse Analysis is more theoretical, grounded in data that is recursively analyzed, whose final object is to develop ‘Discourse models’ – cultural representations. With this, note that no explanation is presented, just a theory or hypothesis [if you which], a description and interpretation of data recursively analyzed with different questions (building tasks questions) and inquiry tools.
However, is language and therefor discourse always related to power? According to Rogers, et al., “language is a social practice and because not all social practices are created and treated equally, all analyses of language are inherently critical” (p. 367).
The search continues … I feel like I’m searching for a treasure, like a mine digger, a treasure hunter … And while I wait for a book to arrive, I’ll continue reading more about critical approaches to research.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis. In Schiffrin, D. S., Tahnen, D., and Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pp. 352-371.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Is Gee's Discourse Analysis critical?
In reading about Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis I wonder if Gee’s method is really ‘critical’. Rogers, et al. (2005) stated “Gee’s theory is inherently ‘critical’ in the sense of asserting that all discourses are social and thus ideological, and that some discourses are valued more than others” (p. 370). However, in the same article Rogers presented Fairclough's (1989, 1992, 1995) ‘three-tiered framework’ common among critical discourse analysts. This framework includes the following three goals: to describe, interpret, and offer an explanation.
After reading An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice, I can see how Gee (2005) describes and interprets data in order to construct a ‘Discourse model,’ but I still cannot see how the explanation goal is accomplished. This goal includes the exploration and explanation “of why and how social practices are constituted, changed, and transformed in the ways that they are” (Rogers, et al., 2005, p. 371”). Rogers, et al. also added that this goal “is concerned with issues of power” (p. 371).
In Gee (2005) I read how ‘Discourse models’ are related with politics, and politics with ‘social goods’ “such as power, status, or valued knowledge, positions, or possessions” (p. 84). However, is this enough to say that Gee’s discourse analysis is critical? I am not sure!
Well, this brought me to keep looking for other resources that could help me understand this issue. One cited by Rogers is Gee’s 2004 chapter titled “Discourse Analysis: What makes it critical?” published in a book edited by Rogers herself, titled An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis. So, now I need to check this source out and try to find the missing link.
Would you like to comment?
– Two other chapters that seem interesting in this book are one by N. Fairclough, “Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning,” and another by L. P. Stevens, titled “Locating the role of the Critical Discourse Analyst.”
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), pp. 365-416.
After reading An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice, I can see how Gee (2005) describes and interprets data in order to construct a ‘Discourse model,’ but I still cannot see how the explanation goal is accomplished. This goal includes the exploration and explanation “of why and how social practices are constituted, changed, and transformed in the ways that they are” (Rogers, et al., 2005, p. 371”). Rogers, et al. also added that this goal “is concerned with issues of power” (p. 371).
In Gee (2005) I read how ‘Discourse models’ are related with politics, and politics with ‘social goods’ “such as power, status, or valued knowledge, positions, or possessions” (p. 84). However, is this enough to say that Gee’s discourse analysis is critical? I am not sure!
Well, this brought me to keep looking for other resources that could help me understand this issue. One cited by Rogers is Gee’s 2004 chapter titled “Discourse Analysis: What makes it critical?” published in a book edited by Rogers herself, titled An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis. So, now I need to check this source out and try to find the missing link.
Would you like to comment?
– Two other chapters that seem interesting in this book are one by N. Fairclough, “Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning,” and another by L. P. Stevens, titled “Locating the role of the Critical Discourse Analyst.”
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), pp. 365-416.
