Dialogic analysis vs. discourse analysis of dialogic pedagogy: Social science research in the era of positivism and post-truth

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Mar 6, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2019.272
Keywords:
dialogic analysis discourse analysis dialogic pedagogy positivism post-truth

Main Article Content

Eugene Matusov
School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States
Ana Marjanovic-Shane
Dialogic Pedagogy Journal
Tina Kullenberg
Kristianstad University, Sweden
Kelly Curtis
School of Education, University of Delaware

Abstract

The goal of this article is to compare and contrast dialogic analysis versus discourse analysis of dialogic pedagogy to address Bakhtin’s quest for “human sciences” and avoid modern traps by positivism and by post-truth. We argue that dialogic analysis belongs to dialogic science, which focuses on studying “the surplus of humanness” (Bakhtin, 1991, p. 37). “The surplus of humanness” is “a leftover” from the biologically, socially, culturally, and psychologically given – the typical and general – in the human nature. It is about the human authorship of the ever-unique meaning-making. Dialogic analysis involves the heart and mind of the researchers who try to reveal and deepen the meanings of the studied phenomena by addressing and replying to diverse research participants, other scholars, and anticipated readers (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, & Gradovski, 2019, in press). We argue that dialogic science is concerned with meta-inquiries such as, “What does something in question mean to diverse people, including the researchers, and why? How do diverse people address and reply to diverse meanings?” In contrast, traditional, positivistic, science is concerned with meta-inquiries such as, “How things really are? What is evidence for that? How to eliminate any researchers’ subjectivity from the research?” (Matusov, 2019, submitted). Positivist (and monologic) science focuses on revealing patterns of actions, behaviors, and relationships. We argue that in the study of dialogic pedagogy, it is structural and/or functional discourse analysis that focuses on studying the given and objective aspects of dialogic pedagogy. In the paper, we consider, describe, interpret, and dialogically re-analyze a case of dialogic analysis involving science education coming from David Hammer’s and Emily van Zee’s (2006) book. We also discuss structural and functional discourse analysis of two pedagogical cases, a monologic and a dialogic one, provided by David Skidmore (2000). We dialogically re-analyze these two cases and Skidmore’s research. We conclude that in research on dialogic pedagogy (and beyond, on social sciences in general) both dialogic science (involving dialogic analysis) and positivist science (involving discourse analysis) are unavoidable and needed, while providing the overall different foci of the research. We discuss the appropriateness and the limitations of discourse analysis as predominantly searching for structural-functional patterns in the classroom discourses. We discuss dialogic tensions in the reported dialogues that cannot be captured by discourse analysis search for patterns. Finally, we discuss two emerging issues among ourselves: 1) whether discourse analysis is always positivist and 2) how these two analytic approaches complement each other while doing research on dialogic pedagogy (and beyond).

Article Details

How to Cite
Matusov, E., Marjanovic-Shane, A., Kullenberg, T., & Curtis, K. (2019). Dialogic analysis vs. discourse analysis of dialogic pedagogy: Social science research in the era of positivism and post-truth. Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2019.272
Issue
Vol. 7 (2019)
Section
Editorials

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

Author Biographies

Eugene Matusov, School of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States

Eugene Matusov is a Professor of Education at the University of Delaware. He studied developmental psychology with Soviet researchers working in the Vygotskian paradigm and worked as a schoolteacher before immigrating to the United States. He uses sociocultural and Bakhtinian dialogic approaches to education. His recent books are: Matusov, E. (2017). Nikolai N. Konstantinov’s authorial math pedagogy for people with wings, Matusov, E. & Brobst, J. (2013). Radical experiment in dialogic pedagogy in higher education and its Centauric failure: Chronotopic analysis, and Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy

Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Dialogic Pedagogy Journal

Ana Marjanovic-Shane is an Independent scholar in Philadelphia, USA. She studies meaning making in human development, dialogic educational relationships and events, democracy in education, dialogic teacher orientation, the role of imagination, drama, play and critical dialogue in education. In her studies, she is developing a dialogic sociocultural paradigm, inspired by a Bakhtinian dialogic orientation. Her articles were published by "Mind, Culture, Activity Journal", "Learning, Culture and Social Interaction", and as book chapters in books on play, education, and democracy. Her most recent publication is: Marjanovic-Shane et al, (2019). Idea-dying in critical ontological democratic dialogue in classrooms. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction.

Tina Kullenberg, Kristianstad University, Sweden

Tina Kullenberg holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Education, currently working at Kristianstad University (Sweden) as a lecturer with teacher students from various programs, and the Master's program in Educational Science. Her research focuses on pedagogical communication, applying dialogic and sociocultural perspectives on teaching and learning. Lately she has been especially engaged in Bakhtin-inspired approaches to education. She also has a special interest in addressing democratic issues with a relational lens, for example, exploring the intricate dynamics of power-relations in educational dialogues between teachers and students or peers, premises for student agency, and other institutionally embedded dilemmas or opportunities in schooling of different types. Moreover, she has a background from the area of music education, in theory and practice.

Kelly Curtis, School of Education, University of Delaware

Kelly Curtis is currently a PhD student in mathematics education at the University of Delaware with a Bachelor's degree in mathematics and a Master's degree in mathematics education from Brigham Young University. She has taught mathematics and mathematics content courses for pre-service teachers at the secondary and college level for six years (in Utah, Colorado, and now Delaware). She is currently working on her dissertation which has to do with how cognitive demand of mathematical tasks affects the way that teachers and students interact around mathematics. She wants to help teachers learn how to improve their teaching skills. She is especially interested in mathematical discourse and how teachers can implicitly send messages to students about what it means to do mathematics and be good at mathematics

References

Akutagawa, R., & Lippit, S. M. (1999). The essential Akutagawa: Rashomon, Hell screen, Cogwheels, A fool's life and other short fiction. New York: Marsilio.

Alexander, R. J. (2004). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk: Dialogos Cambridge.

Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world (H. Iswolsky, Trans. 1st Midland book ed.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1991). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1999). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darnton, R. (1984). The great cat massacre and other episodes in French cultural history. New York: Basic Books.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221(3), 349-382.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK ; Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Hall, R. T. (1987). Emile Durkheim: Ethics and the sociology of morals. New York: Greenwood Press.

Hammer, D., & van Zee, E. (2006). Seeing the science in children's thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hunt, G. (1995). Reading: Key stage two, Scottish levels C-E. Leamington Spa: Scholastic.

Ilyenkov, E. V. (2009). The ideal in human activity. Pacifica, CA: Marxists Internet Archive.

Krailing, T. (1989). Rocky’s Fox. London, UK: MacMillan Education, LTD.

Kress, G. (2001). From Saussure to critical linguistics: The turn towards a social view of language. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader

(pp. 29–47). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Kumar, M. (2008). Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the great debate about the nature of reality. Thriplow, UK: Icon.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or, The love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp.

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia, PA: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.

Lobok, A. M. (2017). The cartography of inner childhood: Fragments from the book. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 5, SIa1-SIa42.

Marjanovic-Shane, A., Meacham, S., Choi, H. J., Lopez, S., & Matusov, E. (2019). Idea-dying in critical ontological democratic dialogue in classrooms. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 20, 68-79. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.10.001

Matusov, E. (2009). Journey into dialogic pedagogy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Matusov, E. (2011). Authorial teaching and learning. In E. J. White & M. Peters (Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe (pp. 21-46). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

Matusov, E. (2015). Comprehension: A dialogic authorial approach. Culture & Psychology, 21(3), 392-416. doi:10.1177/1354067X15601197

Matusov, E. (2017). How to engage practitioners from across the learning landscape in the research enterprise: Proposal for phronêtic research on education. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 51(1), 94–119. doi:10.1007/s12124-016-9365-3

Matusov, E. (2018a). Mapping dialogic pedagogy: Instrumental and non-instrumental education. In A. Rosa & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 274-301). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Matusov, E. (2018b). What kills science in school?: Lessons from pre-service teachers’ responses to urban children’s science inquiries. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52(2), 257-287. doi:10.1007/s12124-018-9415-0

Matusov, E. (2019, submitted). Dialogic analysis of a lesson on the educational controversies of religious holidays in a dialogic multi-regime college classroom. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education.

Matusov, E., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2017). Bakhtin’s mystical organic holism and its consequences for education. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 5, DB61-DB74. doi:10.5195/dpj.2017.222

Matusov, E., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2019). Intrinsic education and its discontents. In L. Tateo (Ed.), Educational dilemmas: A cultural psychological perspective (pp. 21-40). New York: Routledge.

Matusov, E., Marjanovic-Shane, A., & Gradovski, M. (2019, in press). Dialogic Pedagogy and Polyphonic Research: Bakhtin by and for Educators: Palgrave Macmillan.

Matusov, E., & von Duyke, K. (2010). Bakhtin’s notion of the Internally Persuasive Discourse in education: Internal to what? (A case of discussion of issues of foul language in teacher education). In K. Junefelt & P. Nordin (Eds.), Proceedings from the Second International Interdisciplinary Conference on perspectives and limits of dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin Stockholm University, Sweden June 3-5, 2009 (pp. 174-199). Stockholm: Stockholm University.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mercer, N. (1992). Culture, context and the construction of knowledge in the classroom. In P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 28-46). Hemel Hemstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Mercer, N. (1994). Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education. In B. Stierer & J. Maybin (Eds.), Language, literacy, and learning in educational practice: A reader (pp. 92-110). Clevedon: Multilingual matters/Open University.

Nikulin, D. V. (2010). Dialectic and dialogue. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Nosowitz, D. (2013, September 5). What sound does a fox really make? Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/what-sound-does-fox-make

Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics: critical analysis for social and individual psychology. London ; New York: Routledge.

Plato, & Bluck, R. S. (1961). Meno. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.

Ritzer, G., & Stepnisky, J. (2018). Sociological theory. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Säljö, R. (2011). Kontext och mänskliga samspel: Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv på lärande. [Context and human interaction: A sociocultural perspective on learning]. Utbildning & Demokrati, 20(3), 67-82.

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Skidmore, D. (2000). From pedagogical dialogue to dialogical pedagogy. Language and Education, 14(4), 283-296.

Skidmore, D. (2016). Pedagogy and dialogue. In D. Skidmore & K. Murakami (Eds.), Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning (pp. 98-110). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Sullivan, P. (2011). Qualitative data analysis using a dialogical approach: SAGE.

Tobin, J. J., Davidson, D. H., & Wu, D. Y. H. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Tobin, J. J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Trappes-Lomax, H. (2004). Discourse analysis. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 133-164). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Walkerdine, V. (1987). No laughing matter: Girls' comics and the preparation for adolescent femininity. In J. M. Broughton (Ed.), Critical Theories of Psychological Development. New York: Plenum Press.

Wells, C. G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Wood, D., & Wood, H. (1996). Vygotsky, tutoring and learning. Oxford Review of Education, 22(1), 5-16.