Abstract
This chapter explores the processes of case selection, data analysis, theoretical framing and representation in the move from research data to publication of a research article in a linguistic ethnographic study of classroom discourse and interaction. Over the course of our fieldwork in an East London primary school we observed and video-recorded a lesson in which the teacher invoked the televised talent show, X-factor, in organising the class to provide feedback on pupil writing. The subsequent 8-min episode intrigued us, so we spent a considerable amount of time analyzing it, and also played it back and discussed it with the teachers in the school. Ultimately, we published an article based on this episode: “Promises and Problems of Teaching with Popular Culture: A Linguistic Ethnographic Analysis of Discourse Genre Mixing” (Reading Research Quarterly, 2011). However, the move from “interesting episode” to published article was not at all straightforward. In this chapter we discuss the interpretive and representational dilemmas that we confronted in this process. In doing so, we reflect on the relationship between data and theory in linguistic ethnography, and on how academic institutions and genres impinge upon practices of interpretation and representation.
I have fundamental concerns with the match of the data episode being presented with the theoretical constructs being explored, with the presentation of data collection and analysis methods, and with the contribution being offered in this draft of the article, and so I’m recommending rejection of the manuscript. However, because I value the theoretical concepts being explored in this article and because I was intrigued by the episode, I do feel some regret about rejecting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Lefstein and Snell (2011a). The other three reviews were much more positive.
- 2.
X Factor is a highly popular British television music talent show in which would-be pop stars audition in front of a panel of celebrity judges in order to demonstrate that they have what it takes to be a successful recording artist (i.e., the allusive “X Factor”). The show was originally aired in 2004 and has been exported throughout the world, including to the USA (American Idol), Canada (Canadian Idol), France (Nouvelle Star), Brazil (Ídolos), and the Arab States Emirates (Super Star).
- 3.
These researchers have joined the Linguistic Ethnography Forum (www.lingethnog.org/), and attended regular annual conferences, seminars, and colloquia. Set up in 2001, UKLEF now has over 400 members, around half of whom are UK based.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
A pseudonym, as are all names of teachers and pupils used in this chapter.
- 7.
For more details on the professional development component of the project, see Lefstein and Snell (2011b).
- 8.
For a comprehensive analysis of this episode, readers are recommended to consult the original article (Lefstein and Snell 2011a).
- 9.
See Lefstein and Snell (2011a) for a more detailed exposition.
- 10.
Students were also able to instigate a change in footing, though in practice only certain students (i.e., those who were often at the center of classroom discussion) took advantage of this opportunity).
- 11.
We do not aim to provide an exhaustive analysis of the episode here but rather demonstrate how our interpretation takes advantage of linguistic ethnographic key concepts and principles.
- 12.
An additional complication that Goffman’s production format does not account for; perhaps an additional role of “plagiarizer” would be appropriate.
- 13.
See Lefstein and Snell (2011a) for a full account of the phenomena that seem to us particularly noteworthy for future study of discourse genres and their interaction in classrooms.
- 14.
See Lefstein and Snell (2011a) for detailed analysis.
- 15.
We distinguish between structural, epistemic, interpersonal, substantive, and political dimensions of dialogic pedagogy (Lefstein 2010; Lefstein and Snell 2011c).
- 16.
Amanda Holden and Piers Morgan were judges on Simon Cowell’s show Britain’s Got Talent.
- 17.
Further consideration of the relationship between linguistic ethnographic and professional cultures can be found in Lefstein and Snell (2011b).
- 18.
Ms. Leigh may also have been as confused about these evaluations as we were—recall that most pupils followed William’s lead in orienting to available frameworks for assessment rather than to the actual stories in voicing their assessments.
References
Alexander, R. J. (2005). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos.
Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bakhtin, M. M., Holquist, M., & Emerson, C. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M., Emerson, C., Holquist, M., & McGee, V. W. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (1st ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73.
Berkun, S. (2012, February 13). In defense of Brainstorming: Against Lehrer’s New Yorker article. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2012/in-defense-of-brainstorming-2/.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 18, 3–10.
Briggs, C. L., & Bauman, R. (1992). Genre, intertextuality, and social power. Journal Linguistic Anthropology, 2(2), 131–172.
Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1), 4–33.
Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
DfES (Great Britain Department of Education and Skills). (2003). Speaking, listening, learning: Working with children in Key Stages 1 and 2: Handbook, The Department of Education and Skills.
Duff, P. A. (2003). Intertextuality and hybrid discourses: The infusion of pop culture in educational discourse. Linguistics Education, 14(3–4), 231–276.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1–17.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: CUP.
Gutierrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the Third Space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.
Hanks, W. F. (1987). Discourse genres in a theory of practice. American Ethnologist, 14(4), 668–692.
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language & communicative practices. Boulder: Westview Press.
Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analysing data. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, practice (pp. 161–182). London: Sage.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Oxford: Polity.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality. London: Taylor and Francis.
Kwek, D. (in press). Weaving as frontload and backend pedagogies: Building repertoires of connected learning. In C. Day (Ed.), International handbook of teacher and school development. London: Routledge.
Lefstein, A. (2005). Teacher enactments of the English National Literacy Strategy – An extended case study. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. London: King’s College London.
Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the english national literacy strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 701–737.
Lefstein, A. (2010). More helpful as problem than solution: Some implications of situating dialogue in classrooms. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 170–191). Abingdon: Routledge.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011a). Promises and problems of teaching with popular culture: A linguistic ethnographic analysis of discourse genre mixing. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), 40–69.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011b). Professional vision and the politics of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 505–514.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011c). The promise and complexity of dialogic practice. In S. Ellis, E. McCartney, & J. Bourne (Eds.), Applied linguistics and primary school teaching: Developing a language curriculum (pp. 165–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lesftein, A., & Snell, J. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. London: Routledge.
Lehrer, J. (January 30, 2012). Groupthink: The brainstorming myth. The New Yorker. Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lehrer.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.
Luke, A., Kwek, D., & Cazden, C. (2006). Weaving in classroom discourse. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association 2006 Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
Maybin, J. (2006). Children’s voices: Talk, knowledge, and identity. Houndmills/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maybin, J., & Tusting, K. (2011). Linguistic ethnography. In J. Simpson (Ed.), Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 515–528). London: Routledge.
Mitchell, J. C. (1983). Case and situation analysis. Sociological Review, 31(2), 187–211. Reprinted in Evens, T. M. S., & Handelman, D. (2006). The Manchester School: practice and ethnographic praxis in anthropology. New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 23–42.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M. I., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
Moss, G. (2000). Informal literacies and pedagogic discourse. Linguistics Education, 11(1), 47–64.
Noldus Information Technology. (2008). The observer XT 8.0 (Computer software). Wageningen: Noldus Information Technology.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pahl, K., & Kelly, S. (2005). Family literacy as a third space between home and school: Some case studies of practice. Literacy, 39(2), 91–96.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2005). Opening up talk. London: QCA (DVD).
Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rampton, B. (2011). A neo-Hymesian trajectory in applied linguistics. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 78.
Rampton, B., & UK Linguistic Ethnography Forum. (2004). UK linguistic ethnography – A discussion paper. Retrieved February 15, 2012, from http://www.ling-ethnog.org.uk/documents/papers/ramptonetal2004.pdf.
Rampton, B., Channell, J., Rea-Dickens, P., Roberts, C., & Swann, J. (1994). BAAL recommendations on good practice in applied linguistics. http://www.baal.org.uk/dox/goodpractice_full.pdf. Accessed December 2011.
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organisation in interaction (pp. 58–96). Cambridge: CUP.
Silverman, D. (1999). Warriors or collaborators: Reworking methodological controversies in the study of institutional interaction. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings (pp. 401–425). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Smith, F., Hardman, F., Wall, K., & Mroz, M. (2004). Interactive whole class teaching in the national literacy and numeracy strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 395–411.
Snell, J. (2010). From sociolinguistic variation to socially strategic stylisation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(5), 618–644.
Snell, J. & Lefstein, A. (2011). Computer-assisted systematic observation of classroom discourse and interaction. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies 77. King’s College London.
Teo, P. (2008). Outside in/inside out: Bridging the Gap in literacy education in Singapore classrooms. Language and Education, 22(6), 411–431.
Wells, C. G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wortham, S. E. F., & Rymes, B. (2002). Linguistic anthropology of education. Westport: Praeger.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Snell, J., Lefstein, A. (2015). 2.8 Moving from “Interesting Data” to a Publishable Research Article: Some Interpretive and Representational Dilemmas in a Linguistic Ethnographic Analysis of an English Literacy Lesson. In: Smeyers, P., Bridges, D., Burbules, N., Griffiths, M. (eds) International Handbook of Interpretation in Educational Research. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9282-0_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9282-0_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9281-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9282-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)