Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Reading, writing; revising, understanding; rewriting …
Working with Chapter 3 revisions: As I go back and forth checking my old notes, comparing them to my new notes and readings, I realize that in my previous draft I had summarized but had not really understood many of my points. It is interesting how the mind works!
First, I've been clarifying my epistemology -- the theory of knowledge or simply put how we learn, or in Crotty's (1998) words "how we know what we know" (p. 3)
Crotty (1998) divides epistemology into three main groups: on one extreme objectivism, in the middle constructionism, and on the other extreme subjectivism. On one extreme, think of Plato (1976) and the allegory of the cave, on the other extreme think about random interpretations, where meaning is imposed on the object. Constructionism is about finding meaning in interaction, in relationship, one with the other, subject and object; it is about shared meaning. As you might guess and Crotty stated, there is a lot more to each of these epistemologies and the way they are interpreted.
Secondly, I am working with the theoretical perspective -- the assumptions that guide our methodology, the context in which the process is grounded
The research project I am developing falls within the epistemology of constructionism, the one according to Crotty "qualitative researchers tend to invoke" (p. 9). In terms of the theoretical perspective, the research project will fall within the postmodern perspective, one that Gergen adopts in his writings.
rewriting ... smoothing out edges
Adding information where it is needed to clearly make a point, adding examples, moving a phrase or a sentence to another location where it makes more sense, taking out ideas, whole sentences that no longer fit, changing a word for another that is more accurate, that is what rewriting is about. Sometimes it feels like a sculptor, one who carves, models, casts its piece with special care. Little by little it takes form.
References:
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE Publications.
Plato. (1976). Meno. [Translated by G. M. A. Grube]. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.
First, I've been clarifying my epistemology -- the theory of knowledge or simply put how we learn, or in Crotty's (1998) words "how we know what we know" (p. 3)
Crotty (1998) divides epistemology into three main groups: on one extreme objectivism, in the middle constructionism, and on the other extreme subjectivism. On one extreme, think of Plato (1976) and the allegory of the cave, on the other extreme think about random interpretations, where meaning is imposed on the object. Constructionism is about finding meaning in interaction, in relationship, one with the other, subject and object; it is about shared meaning. As you might guess and Crotty stated, there is a lot more to each of these epistemologies and the way they are interpreted.
Secondly, I am working with the theoretical perspective -- the assumptions that guide our methodology, the context in which the process is grounded
The research project I am developing falls within the epistemology of constructionism, the one according to Crotty "qualitative researchers tend to invoke" (p. 9). In terms of the theoretical perspective, the research project will fall within the postmodern perspective, one that Gergen adopts in his writings.
rewriting ... smoothing out edges
Adding information where it is needed to clearly make a point, adding examples, moving a phrase or a sentence to another location where it makes more sense, taking out ideas, whole sentences that no longer fit, changing a word for another that is more accurate, that is what rewriting is about. Sometimes it feels like a sculptor, one who carves, models, casts its piece with special care. Little by little it takes form.
References:
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London: SAGE Publications.
Plato. (1976). Meno. [Translated by G. M. A. Grube]. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Dare to step forward!
Yesterday was an excellent work day! I worked all day, two periods of four hours. It felt as if I was back to my Gainesville pace. The conditions were good, no worries about having to take my iBook to the shop, or our PC to get fixed, or having to change the Internet connection because the dial-up was too slow. Everything has been taken care off and now was time to work.
I finished reading Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This book is about apprenticeship and communities of practice, about learning more than teaching. As I was reading I remembered some of the courses I took at UF, the way we worked together and shared ideas, the way we applied what we read, as in communities where everyone was there to collaborate with each other, as in a community of academicians.
I’ve decided to follow my advisor’s advice and write the revisions to chapter 3. I’ve been prolonging this moment, insecure of what I know, always thinking that I needed to find another piece of information. This could be a never ending story, I know! So, although I will keep reading some more about social constructionism – I already bought Social Constructionism of What? (I. Hacking) and Social Construction: A Reader (K. Gergen) – I am making a pause to write. New revisions will be needed after this draft, but at least I will be a little closer to a final revision.
My plan looks like this:
- This week – revisions to chapter 3
- Next week – start organizing the data set
Gergen, M. & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.) (2003). Social Construction: A reader. NY: SAGE Publications.
Hacking, I. (2000). The Social Construction of What? MA: Harvard University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
To understand social constructionism
After reading Foucault, I headed back to Chapter 3, to continue editing and revising it. Still, I had once more to stop. As you can see, I have read about and researched discourse analysis. I have followed the trail from one author to the next until I found I had the tools to write something coherently. But I had neglected doing the same thing with social constructionism. Yes, I have read Gergen’s (1991, 1994, 1999) work, I also read Berger & Luckmann (1966), and Crotty (1998, Chapter 5: Constructionism: The making of meaning), but this was not enough. So now I am expanding my research about this theoretical perspective.
One thing that I already have cleared out is where does the foundation of social constructionism reside. Gergen (2002) himself stated:
In this segment, Gergen presented some of the pieces to the social constructionism puzzle as it is related to different theories. In other writings, Gergen (1997) related social constructionism to education, making reference to Vygotsky, and how his work has influenced the idea of “learning as a social (as opposed to an individual psychological) process” (‘Social construction and the pedagogical project’ section, second paragraph). Continuing this line of thought he sustained the importance of dialogue and group problems solving, which is precisely the focus of my research. He suggested, “work by Edwards and Mercer (1987), Lave and Wenger (1991), and Wertsch and Toma (1995).” Of these I am already reading Lave and Wenger’s.
The idea of dialogue is at the center of social constructionism. Dialogue is the tool we use to “generate meaning together” (Gergen & Gergen, 2004, p. 299). Even more, meaning “is rooted in social process … sustained by conversations occurring between people” (Sampson, 1993, p. 99, as cited in Gergen, 2000, p. 149). For Gergen (2000), meaning is not the result of the individual mind, nor that of the community, but “a byproduct of language use within relationship" (p.150). A clear conecction is established here between social constructionism and discourse analysis: the study of language. Taking Gergen's cotentions about theories related to social constructionism, discourse analysis must be critical, must study power issues, and transformation. This is then supported by Gee's (2005) discourse analysis methodology. Some researchers will also argue that Fairclough's discourse analysis can also be the means to study discourse analysis (Rogers, 2004).
References:
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the research process, pp. 42-66. London: SAGE Publications.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common Knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method. [2nd ed.]. NY, NY: Routledge.
Gergen, K. J. (1991). The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. USA: Basic Books, Harper Collins Publishers.
Gergen, K. J. (1999). An Invitation to Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Toward Transformation in Social Knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gergen, K. J. (1997). Constructing constructionism: Pedagogical potentials. Issues in Education, 3 (2), p. 195, 7p. [HTML copy].
Gergen, K. J. (2000). Technology, Self, and the Moral Project. In J. E. Davis (Ed.), Identity and Social Change. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Gergen, K. J. (2002). Beyond the empiricist / constructionist divide in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (3), pp. 188-191.
Gergen, M. M. & Gergen, K. J. (2004). Reflections: Between Narcissus and Dorian Grey. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, pp. 299-301.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, R. (2004). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wertsch, J., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Alternative Epistemologies in Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
One thing that I already have cleared out is where does the foundation of social constructionism reside. Gergen (2002) himself stated:
- constructionism finds its early roots in the sociology of knowledge and the history of science. However, constructionist views have been deeply enriched and expanded by more recent developments in literary theory (poststructuralist and deconstruction theory most visible), critical theory (from the Frankfurt school to contemporary feminist theory), social theories of power (most notably, Foucault’s work), rhetorical analyses of rationality and objectivity, and philosophic contributions to neo-pragmatism (from Wittgenstein to Rorty), among the most prominent (p. 188)
In this segment, Gergen presented some of the pieces to the social constructionism puzzle as it is related to different theories. In other writings, Gergen (1997) related social constructionism to education, making reference to Vygotsky, and how his work has influenced the idea of “learning as a social (as opposed to an individual psychological) process” (‘Social construction and the pedagogical project’ section, second paragraph). Continuing this line of thought he sustained the importance of dialogue and group problems solving, which is precisely the focus of my research. He suggested, “work by Edwards and Mercer (1987), Lave and Wenger (1991), and Wertsch and Toma (1995).” Of these I am already reading Lave and Wenger’s.
The idea of dialogue is at the center of social constructionism. Dialogue is the tool we use to “generate meaning together” (Gergen & Gergen, 2004, p. 299). Even more, meaning “is rooted in social process … sustained by conversations occurring between people” (Sampson, 1993, p. 99, as cited in Gergen, 2000, p. 149). For Gergen (2000), meaning is not the result of the individual mind, nor that of the community, but “a byproduct of language use within relationship" (p.150). A clear conecction is established here between social constructionism and discourse analysis: the study of language. Taking Gergen's cotentions about theories related to social constructionism, discourse analysis must be critical, must study power issues, and transformation. This is then supported by Gee's (2005) discourse analysis methodology. Some researchers will also argue that Fairclough's discourse analysis can also be the means to study discourse analysis (Rogers, 2004).
References:
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the research process, pp. 42-66. London: SAGE Publications.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common Knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and method. [2nd ed.]. NY, NY: Routledge.
Gergen, K. J. (1991). The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. USA: Basic Books, Harper Collins Publishers.
Gergen, K. J. (1999). An Invitation to Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). Toward Transformation in Social Knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gergen, K. J. (1997). Constructing constructionism: Pedagogical potentials. Issues in Education, 3 (2), p. 195, 7p. [HTML copy].
Gergen, K. J. (2000). Technology, Self, and the Moral Project. In J. E. Davis (Ed.), Identity and Social Change. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Gergen, K. J. (2002). Beyond the empiricist / constructionist divide in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6 (3), pp. 188-191.
Gergen, M. M. & Gergen, K. J. (2004). Reflections: Between Narcissus and Dorian Grey. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, pp. 299-301.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, R. (2004). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wertsch, J., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Alternative Epistemologies in Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
