Difference between revisions of "Harris-etal2019"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Jess Harris; Maryanne Theobald; Jayne Keogh; |Title=Combining analytical tools to inform practice in school-based professional experienc...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=143 | |Volume=143 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=255–266 |
| − | |URL=https:// | + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216617307592 |
| − | |Abstract=While always an interdisciplinary endeavour, rapid growth in the | + | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2018.04.002 |
| − | + | |Abstract=While always an interdisciplinary endeavour, rapid growth in the fields of Ethnomethodology (hereafter EM) and Conversation Analysis (hereafter CA) has led to the broader application of EM/CA methodologies and the engagement of researchers from beyond the more traditional fields of sociology and linguistics. EM/CA methodologies are being used to both understand the orderliness of social interaction and also to address specific institutional issues, in this instance in higher education settings. This paper explores the challenges inherent in using these approaches to researching institutional relationships, particularly when a primary aim of the research is to inform practitioners of practices used within institutional settings. We argue the need to draw on a variety of analytical tools to understand in situ practices alongside other lenses to translate these understandings of institutional practice to practitioners. Drawing on data from a study of audio-recorded conversations between supervisory and preservice teachers during the school-based professional experience component of initial teacher education, our analysis illustrates how the tools of conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis reveal the intricacies of how supervising and preservice teachers negotiate issues of asymmetry and position themselves through references to specific institutional documents. We then use the work of Dorothy Smith to support the translatability of descriptive findings to support interventions in the field. We use this example to demonstrate the affordances of using various analytic tools in complementary ways to overcome methodological challenges and provide new insights into institutional relationships and inform future practice. | |
| − | application of EM/CA methodologies and the engagement of researchers from beyond | ||
| − | |||
| − | used to both understand the orderliness of social interaction and also to address | ||
| − | institutional issues, in this instance in higher education settings. This paper explores the | ||
| − | challenges inherent in using these approaches to researching institutional relationships, | ||
| − | particularly when a primary aim of the research is to inform practitioners of practices | ||
| − | used within institutional settings. We argue the need to draw on a variety of analytical | ||
| − | tools to understand in situ practices alongside other lenses to translate these | ||
| − | |||
| − | audio-recorded conversations between supervisory and preservice teachers during the | ||
| − | school-based professional experience component of initial teacher education, our | ||
| − | |||
| − | analysis reveal the intricacies of how supervising and preservice teachers negotiate | ||
| − | |||
| − | documents. We then use the work of Dorothy Smith to support the translatability of | ||
| − | descriptive | ||
| − | demonstrate the affordances of using various analytic tools in complementary ways to | ||
| − | overcome methodological challenges and provide new insights into institutional | ||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:38, 19 January 2020
| Harris-etal2019 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Harris-etal2019 |
| Author(s) | Jess Harris, Maryanne Theobald, Jayne Keogh |
| Title | Combining analytical tools to inform practice in school-based professional experience |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Qualitative research methodologies, Conversation analysis, Membership categorisation analysis, Dorothy smith, School-based professional experience, Education |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2019 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 143 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 255–266 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.04.002 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
While always an interdisciplinary endeavour, rapid growth in the fields of Ethnomethodology (hereafter EM) and Conversation Analysis (hereafter CA) has led to the broader application of EM/CA methodologies and the engagement of researchers from beyond the more traditional fields of sociology and linguistics. EM/CA methodologies are being used to both understand the orderliness of social interaction and also to address specific institutional issues, in this instance in higher education settings. This paper explores the challenges inherent in using these approaches to researching institutional relationships, particularly when a primary aim of the research is to inform practitioners of practices used within institutional settings. We argue the need to draw on a variety of analytical tools to understand in situ practices alongside other lenses to translate these understandings of institutional practice to practitioners. Drawing on data from a study of audio-recorded conversations between supervisory and preservice teachers during the school-based professional experience component of initial teacher education, our analysis illustrates how the tools of conversation analysis and membership categorization analysis reveal the intricacies of how supervising and preservice teachers negotiate issues of asymmetry and position themselves through references to specific institutional documents. We then use the work of Dorothy Smith to support the translatability of descriptive findings to support interventions in the field. We use this example to demonstrate the affordances of using various analytic tools in complementary ways to overcome methodological challenges and provide new insights into institutional relationships and inform future practice.
Notes
