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

Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Tina Kullenberg, Kelly Curtis

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).

Keywords


dialogic analysis; discourse analysis; dialogic pedagogy; positivism; post-truth;

Full Text:

PDF

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.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2019.272

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2019 Eugene Matusov, Ana Marjanovic-Shane, Tina Kullenberg, Kelly Curtis

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.