Discourse Analysis, Learning, and Social Practice: a Methodological Study Author(S): James Paul Gee and Judith L

Discourse Analysis, Learning, and Social Practice: A Methodological Study Author(s): James Paul Gee and Judith L. Green Source: Review of Research in Education, Vol. 23 (1998), pp. 119-169 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167289 . Accessed: 09/09/2014 18:51 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of Research in Education. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 9 Sep 2014 18:51:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Chapter4 Discourse Analysis, Learning,and Social Practice: A MethodologicalStudy JAMESPAUL GEE Departmentof Curriculumand Instruction,University of Wisconsin-Madison JUDITHL. GREEN Universityof California,Santa Barbara' In the past two decades,the studyof discoursehas become an importanttheoretical perspective for those concernedwith the study of learningin social settings. Dis- course analysisapproaches have been developedto examineways in which knowledge is sociallyconstructed in classroomsand other educational settings. By studying discursive activity within classrooms and other social settings, researchershave providednew insightsinto the complexand dynamic relationships among discourse, social practices,and learning.Specifically, this body of work has providedunder- standingsof the ways in which opportunitiesfor learning are constructedacross time, groups, and events; how knowledge constructedin classrooms (and other educational settings) shapes, and is shaped by, the discursive activity and social practices of members;patterns of practice simultaneosulysupport and constrain access to the academiccontent of the "official"curriculum; and how opportunities for learningare influencedby the actionsof actorsbeyond classroomsettings (e.g., school districts,book publishers,curriculum developers, legislators, and commu- nity members) (for recent syntheses and conceptual analyses, see Hicks, 1995; Luke, 1995). Discourse analysis approachesused to examine such educationalissues drawon discourse theories and methods developed in other disciplines (e.g., applied lin- guistics, law, literarystudies, psychology, sociolinguistics, and sociology, among others) (see van Dijk, 1985, for a comprehensive look at the issue of discourse theory and methodacross disciplines, includingeducation). However, educational researchershave not merely takenup and appliedexisting approaches.They have also contributedto the development of discourse theories and methods as they have adoptedand adaptedexisting approachesand constructed new approachesto addressquestions of importanceto education as a discipline.2 Given the complex and continuingnature of life in classroomsand othereduca- tional settings, educationalresearchers often combine discourseanalysis with eth- nographicapproaches to examine questions of what counts as learningin a local setting,how andwhen learningoccurs, andhow what is learnedat one point in time becomes a socioculturalresource for future learning for both the group and the individual.Through this combined approach,educational researchers are able to examine how educationalprocesses and practices are constructedacross time by 119 This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 9 Sep 2014 18:51:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 120 Reviewof Researchin Education,23 membersof the classroom;how studentstake up, resist, or fail to learn academic content throughthese processes and practices;and how discourse processes and practicesshape what counts as knowing, doing, andbeing within andacross events in classrooms and other educationalsettings (e.g., staff rooms, psychoeducational diagnostic team meetings, parent-teacherconferences, and testing situations).3 One way to understandthe valueof the approachesthat combine discourse analysis withethnography is thateach represents a logic-of-inquiry,or whatBirdwhistell (1977) calls a logic-in-use.This logic-of-inquiryinfluences the ways in which learningcan be studiedin social settings,the questionsthat can be asked,the researchdecisions and proceduresused, and the ways of reportingand representingfindings. Our goal in thischapter is to proposea conceptualframework for constructing a logic-of-inquiry for studyinglearning in social settingsthat uses differentforms of discourseanalyses guidedby anethnographic perspective in theoreticallycoherent ways.4 The discussion of the frameworkand its applicationis presentedin threeparts. In the first part,we describethe theoreticalperspective on discourseand languageunderlying the proposed framework.In the second part,we illustratehow this frameworkcan be used to study learningas a socioculturalactivity in communitiesof practice.In the third part,we discuss issues of vality and implicationsfor theory,research, and practice. CONSTRUCTINGA LOGIC-OF-INQUIRY: THEORY-METHODRELATIONSHIPS Concern for understandingwhy a theoretically grounded logic-of-inquiry is needed was articulatedby Birdwhistell(1977) two decades ago: "Theinterdepen- dence of theory and methodology can be hidden by exclusive focus upon either philosophy or technique.Once separated,only the most sophisticatedcan recon- stitutethem into investigatorypractice" (p. 104). He was led to this conclusion by a review of the literaturehe undertookwhen his studentsasked whetherMargaret Mead and GregoryBateson had a methodology.Their question surprised,amazed, and challenged him, since he thoughtthat he had made visible the importanceof consideringtheory-method relationships guiding his and others' research. This literaturereview also led him to conclude that, while this was a general trend across research perspectives, it was particularly true of a number of researchers from disciplines concerned with "what is termed 'direct observation'" (p. 104). He found that these researchers had a tendency to "reject the use of theory except as a device for the interpretation of data" (p. 104). In addition, his analysis led him to conclude that this was not a new tendency; rather, it was one that was ongoing: I havecome to the conclusionthat the pasttwenty-five years have seen a separationof theoryfrom methodsof researchprocedure. This tendency becomes manifest in thechoice and analysis of import of problem,in the locationof observationalsite, in thepreliminary isolation of data,in thedevelop- ment of relevant, consistent and explicit techniques of observation,in the recordingand storage of data,in the orientationof rulesof evidence,and, finally, in themethods of dataand evidence assess- ment and presentationthat permit and assist in orderingreexamination, and research.(pp. 104-105) An analysis of the literatureon observationalresearch in education shows a parallelcondition for those engagedin manyforms of directobservational research This content downloaded from 128.97.27.21 on Tue, 9 Sep 2014 18:51:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Gee and Green:Discourse Analysis, Learning, and Social Practice 121 in education(Evertson & Green, 1986). ExtendingBirdwhistell's (1977) observa- tions to this chapter,we arguethat to create a coherentlogic-of-inquiry, an understanding of the socioculturalnature of discourse, social practice, and learningis necessary.Without such understanding,researchers will not be able to engage with and use ethnographicallygrounded methods of discourse analysis in theoretically appropriateways. Our purpose in making visible the theory-method relationships grounding the proposed framework is twofold. First, we view this knowledge as critical, since each decision about method implicates the use of particulartheories and the exclusion of others, and each decision about theory entails related deci- sions about method. Second, such knowledge is needed to understand what philosopher Kenneth Strike (1974) calls the expressive potential of a theoretical language. Strike argues that each research program has an expressive potential that places limits on what can be discussed and what phenomena can be described in and through that language. He also argues that the choice of language (theoretical orientation), with all of its related conventions for use, inscribes a particular view and set of understandings about the phenomena under study. From this perspective, then, there is the relationship of the language to the actions, problems, and processes of a researcher. Viewed in this way, a logic-of-inquiry is a way of working as a researcher, a theoretically coherent research approach, and a language of the research that has a particular expressive potential. A THEORETICALPERSPECTIVE ON DISCOURSEAND LANGUAGE In this section, we presenta theoreticalorientation to languageas a sociocultural practice and social resource of a group, and, in so doing, we demonstratethat discourse analysis entails more than writing talk down and readingthe transcript. Specifically, we show that an ethnographicallygrounded approach to discourse analysis involves a particularperspective on discourse

Load more