Schlagworte
Higher Education Studies
poststructuralism
Social Studies of Higher Education
pragmatics
methodology
Zitationsvorschlag
Abstract
One can broadly divide research on higher education settings into three strands investigating 1) the production of specialized scientific knowledge, 2) the dynamics of institutional power (academic decision-making and governance), 3) teaching and learning. In all three areas the notion of ‘discourse’ has been salient in the last decades. However, the term is often understood differently by researchers from different fields, and the respective disciplines haven’t always been receptive one to another. In the paper we present an overview of discursive approaches to the study of higher education in 1) social theory, poststructuralism in particular, and 2) linguistics. We explain the outlook on discourse which is prevalent in these areas and present the most significant studies on higher education contexts conducted within them. We argue that while social theory often lacks analytical detail and focus on empirical objects, linguistics on the other hand does not account for the way practices produce and reproduce social order. Therefore, a study of academic discourse drawing on both strands would enable putting forward a robust theory and a precise methodology. In the last section of the paper we present an outline of such a field informed by both poststructuralism and pragmatics – Social Studies of Higher Education.
Literaturhinweise
Angermuller J. (2013a). Discours académique et gouvernementalité entrepreneuriale. Des textes aux chiffres. [W:] M. Temmar, J. Angermuller, F. Lebaron (eds.). Les discours sur l’économie. Paris, s. 71–84.
Angermuller J. (2013b). How to become an academic philosopher. Academic discourse as a multileveled positioning practice. “Sociología Histórica” 3, s. 263–289.
Angermuller J. (2014). Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis: Subjectivity in Enunciative Pragmatics. Basingstoke, New York.
Angermuller J. (2015). Discourse studies. [W:] J.D. Wright (ed.). International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. 2 nd ed. Amsterdam, s. 510–515.
Angermuller J. (2017). Academic careers and the valuation of academics. A discursive perspective on status categories and academic salaries in France as compared to the U.S., Germany and Great Britain. “Higher Education” 73(6), s. 963–980. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-017-0117-1.
Angermuller J. (2010). Widerspenstiger Sinn. Skizze eines diskursanalytischen Forschungsprogramms nach dem Strukturalismus. [W:] J. Angermuller, S. v. Dyk (eds.). Diskursanalyse meets Gouvernementalitätsforschung. Perspektiven auf das Verhältnis von Subjekt, Sprache, Macht und Wissen. Frankfurt am Main, s. 71–100.
Angermuller J. (2012). Wissenschaft als Wissen/Macht. Für eine Wissenschaftssoziologie nach dem Strukturalismus. [W:] H.-G. Soeffner (ed.), Transnationale Vergesellschaftungen. Verhandlungen des 35. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Frankfurt am Main 2010. Band 1. Wiesbaden, s. 707–718.
Angermuller J., Maeße J. (2015). Regieren durch Leistung. Zur Verschulung des Sozialen in der Numerokratie. [W:] A. Schäfer, C. Thompson (eds.), Leistung. Paderborn, s. 61–108.
Angermuller J., Maingueneau D., Wodak, R. (2014). The discourse studies reader: an introduction. [W:] J. Angermuller, D. Maingueneau, R. Wodak (eds.), The Discourse Studies Reader. Main currents in theory and analysis. Amsterdam-Philadelphia, s. 16–36.
Antaki C., Billig M., Edwards D., Potter J. (2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a1/antaki2002002-t.html.
Ashmore M. (1989). The Reflexive Thesis. Writing Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago.
Austin J.L. (1962). How To Do Things with Words. Oxford.
Baert P. (2012). Positioning theory and intellectual interventions. “Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour” 42(3), s. 304.
Ball S.J. (1990). Foucault and Education: Disciplines and Knowledge. London-New York.
Ball S.J. (2013). Foucault, Power, and Education. New York.
Bamberg M. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance “Journal of Narrative and Life History”, 7(1–4), s. 335–342.
Bamberg M. (2010). Who am I? Narration and its contribution to self and identity. “Theory & Psychology” (21), s. 1–22.
Bazerman C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of The Experimental Article in Science. Madison, Wis.
Bhatia V.K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London-New York.
Cohen M.D., March J.G., Olsen J.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. “Administrative Science Quarterly” 17(1), s. 1–25.
Coulthard M. (1992). Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London-New York.
Davies B., Bansel P. (2010). Governmentality and academic work: shaping the hearts and minds of academic workers. “JCT: Journal of Curriculum Theorizing” 26(3), s. 5–20.
Ducrot O. (2014). Outline of a polyphonic theory of enunciation. [W:] J. Angermuller, D. Maingueneau, R. Wodak (eds.), The Discourse Studies Reader. Main Currents in Theory and Analysis. Amsterdam, s. 167–175.
Duszak A., Kowalski, G. (2015). Academic (Inter)genres: between Texts, Contexts and Identities. Bern.
Fahnestock J. (1999). Rhetorical Figures in Science. Oxford.
Fairclough N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: the universities. “Discourse & Society” 4(2), s. 133–168.
Fairclough N. (2007). Global Capitalism and Change in Higher Education: Dialectics of Language and Practice, Technology, Ideology. Paper presented at the BAAL Conference 2007.
Flowerdew J. (1993). An educational, or process, approach to the teaching of professional genres. “ELT Journal” 47, s. 305–316.
Foucault M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge & the Discourse on Language. New York.
Fowler R., Hodge B., Kress G., Tony T. (1979). Language and Control. London-Boston.
Frank D.J., Meyer J.W. (2007). Worldwide expansion and change in the university. [W:] G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, M. Torka (eds.), Towards a Multiversity? Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions. Bielefeld, s. 19–44.
Garton S., Richards K. (2008). Professional Encounters in TESOL. Discourses of Teachers in Teaching. Palgrave.
Gee J. (2015). Social Linguistics and Literacies Ideology in Discourses. Florence.
Gilbert G.N., Mulkay M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s Box: a sociological analysis of scientist’s discourse. Cambridge.
Gill R. (2009). Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of neo-liberal academia. [W:] R. Flood, R. Gill (eds.), Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections. London.
Gross A.G. (1990). The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge.
Gross A.G., Harmon J.E., Reidy M. (2002). Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. New York.
Gross N. (2002). Becoming a pragmatist philosopher: status, self-concept, and intellectual choice. “American Sociological Review” 67(1), s. 52–76.
Hamann J. (2015). “Let us salute one of our kind.” How academic obituaries consecrate research biographies. “Poetics” 56, s. 1–14, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.005.
Harré R., Van Langenhove L. (1999). Positioning Theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford.
Harris R. (2007). The Semantics of Science. London.
Hicks D., Potter, J. (1991). Sociology of scientific knowledge. A reflexive citation analysis or Science disiplines and disciplining sciences. “Social Studies of Science” 21(3), s. 459–501.
Hyland K. (2009). Academic Discourse English in a Global Context. London.
Hyland K., Hyland F. (2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge.
Hyland K., Shaw P. (2016). The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes. Oxford.
Jessop B., Fairclough N., Wodak R. (2008). Education and the Knowledge Based Economy in Europe. Rotterdam.
Keith W., Rehg W. (2009). Argumentation in science: the cross-fertilization of argumentation theory and science studies. [W:] W. Rehg (ed.), Cogent Science in Context. The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas. Cambridge, Mass.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford-New York.
Lamont M.L. (2009). How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, Mass.
Latour B. (1987). Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, Mass.
Lemke J.L. (1992). Using Language in the Classroom. Oxford.
Luhmann N. (1998). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main.
Maasen S., Weingart P. (2000). Metaphors and the Dynamics of Knowledge. London.
Maingueneau D. (2002). Analysis of an academic genre. “Discourse Studies” 4(3), s. 319–342.
Masschelein J. (2007). The Learning Society from the Perspective of Governmentality. Malden, MA.
McClosky D.N. (2009). The Rhetoric of Economics. Madison.
Merton R.K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure (1968 enl. ed.). New York.
Mulkay M., Potter J., Yearley S. (1983). Why an analysis of scientific discourse is needed. [W:] K. Knorr Cetina, M. Mulkay (eds.), Science Observed. Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London, s. 171–203.
Münch R. (2014). Academic Capitalism: Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence. Abingdon-Oxon.
Musselin C. (2009). The Market for Academics. London.
Myers G. (1985). The social construction of two biologists’ proposals. “Written Communication” 2(3), s. 219–245.
Myers G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. “Applied Linguistics” 10(1), s. 1–35.
Myers G. (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, Wis.
Myers G. (1995). From discovery to invention: the writing and rewriting of two patents. “Social Studies of Science” 25, s. 57–105.
Nesi H., Gardner S. (2012). Genres Across the Disciplines: Student Writing in Higher Education. Cambridge.
Perelman C., Olbrechts-Tyteca L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: a Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, Ind.
Peters M.A., Olssen M. (2009). Governmentality Studies in Education. Rotterdam.
Popow M. (2016). Kategoria narodu w dyskursie edukacyjnym. Analiza procesów konstruowania tożsamości w podręcznikach szkolnych. Poznań.
Porter J.E. (1992). Audience and Rhetoric: An Archaeological Composition of the Discourse Community. Englewood Cliffs.
Power M. (1997). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford-New York.
Reershemius G. (2012). Research cultures and the pragmatic functions of humor in academic research presentations: A corpus-assisted analysis. “Journal of Pragmatics” 44(6–7), s. 863–875.
Rehg W. (2009). Science as argumentative practice. [W:] W. Rehg (Ed.), Cogent Science in Context the Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas Cambridge, Mass., London.
Rose N. (1999). Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. Sidmouth.
Sinclair J.M., Coulthard R.M. (1981). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London.
Skinner Q. (1988). Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. [W:] J. Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context. Quentin Skinner and his Critics. Cambridge, s. 29–67.
Swales J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge-New York.
Swales J.M. (1998). Other Floors, Other Voices: A Textography of a Small University Building. Mahwah N.J.
Swales J.M. (2011). Aspects of Article Introductions. Ann Arbor.
Thomas J. (2013). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New York.
Van Dijk T.A. (1990). Discourse & Society: a new journal for a new research focus. “Discourse & Society” 1(1), s. 5–16. doi:10.1177/0957926590001001001.
Ylijoki O.-H. (2005). Academic nostalgia: A narrative approach to academic work. “Human Relations” 58(5), s. 555–576. doi: 10.1177/0018726705055963.
Lizenz
Copyright (c) 2019 Marta Natalia Wróblewska, Johannes Angermuller
Dieses Werk steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0 International.