Advertisement

The (Semiotics of) Social Aesthetics in an Elite School in Singapore: An Ethnographic Study

  • Aaron KohEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies and Transdisciplinarity in Education book series (CSTE)

Abstract

The attention to the visual field is making significant methodological contribution in ethnographic research. Yet there is no one definitive ‘method’ and ‘theory’ agreed upon to deal with visual data because new (mobile) technologies and theoretical explorations are changing the methodological palette of doing ethnography. Indeed contemporary ethnography is but an evolving field. This chapter considers the methodological contribution of ‘social aesthetics’ to ethnography with a view to critique it. As a point of departure, specific to the ethnographic fieldwork conducted in an elite school in Singapore, taken from the bigger ‘Elite Independent Schools in globalizing circumstances: a multi-sited global ethnography’ project, this chapter argues for a semiotic turn to ethnography. Informed by a theory of semiotics, it is argued that the visual saturation in the school warrants a closer examination of the semiosis in the visual-scape of the school that also contributes to ethnographic knowing. The chapter introduces semiotic ecology as a new conceptual and methodological framework to think about epistemology, design and educational research that brings together the visual field, semiotics and contemporary ethnography.

Keywords

Visual Data Service Learn Photo Image Ethnographic Fieldwork Mineral Water Bottle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1988). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burawoy, M., Blum, J. A., George, S., Gille, Z., & Thayer, M. (2000). Global Ethnography: Forces, connections and imaginations in a postmodern world. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dicks, B., Soyinka, B., & Coffey, A. (2006). Multimodal ethnography. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Emmison, M., Smith, P., & Mayall, M. (2013). Researching the visual (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Gottdiener, M., & Budd, L. (2005). Key concepts in urban studies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Harper, D. (2012). Visual sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Haugen, E. (2001). The ecology of language. In A. Fill & P. Muhlhauster (Eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment (pp. 57–66). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  8. Howes, D. (2003). Sensual relations: Engaging the senses in culture and social theory. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Steohenson, B., Lange, P., Pascoe, C., & Robinson, L. (2009). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the Digital Youth Project. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation reports on digital media and learning. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Koh, A. (2014). Doing class analysis in Singapore’s elite education: Unravelling the smokescreen of ‘meritocratic talk’. Globalisation, Societies & Education, 2(1). (in press).Google Scholar
  11. Kress, G. (2009). What is mode? In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodaly analysis (pp. 54–67). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Kress, G. (2011). ‘Partnerships in research’: Multimodality and ethnography. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. MacDougall, D. (1999). Social aesthetics and the Doon School. Visual Anthropology, 15(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. O’Reilly, K. (2009). Key concepts in ethnography. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Pink, S. (2009). Doing sensory ethnography. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Pink, S. (2011). Multimodality, multsensoriality and ethnographic knowing: Social semiotics and the phenomenology of perception. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Rose, G. (2011). Visual methodologies: Interpretating visual materials (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Rose, G. (2013). On the relation between ‘visual research methods’ and contemporary visual culture. The Sociological Review, 1–13. doi:10.1111/1467-954X.12109.Google Scholar
  22. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2003). Discourse in place: Language in the material world. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Spencer, S. (2011). Visual research methods in the social science: Awakening visions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Sturken, M., & Cartwright, L. (2001). Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sweetman, P. (2009). Revealing habitus, illuminating practice: Bourdieu, photography and visual methods. The Sociological Review, 57(3), 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations