When I originally proposed my
object of study, I chose to examine a genre situated within an academic
discipline because I am interested in looking at how disciplinarity constructs
discourse and knowledge. I am also interested in genre theory.
Therefore, I proposed to examine the genre of the academic interview. In
other words, I have been considering published interviews of scholars, normally
by another disciplinary practitioner and typically featured in a disciplinary
publication, such as a professional journal.
When I started, I saw this as situated within the disciplinary matrix
and thus, an artifact within a network.
Since working with several theories, I am now inclined to view the genre
as a mediating node. That is to say, I
have not changed how I see the genre situated in a network, but I have fine-tuned
my understanding of how it functions between other elements within the
disciplinary matrix, or network. (I don’t
know it I am conceptualizing the technology correctly, but “router” seems like
a possible metaphor.)
As I noted in my original proposal,
I hope to explore disciplinarity and discourse in my dissertation. I have been planning to examine assignment
genres because I am interested in how disciplinary identities are
constructed. I imagined that assignment
genres would not be practical for this course, so I chose to look at another academic
genre that I thought would be important for arguing disciplinary values,
namely, the academic interview.
Why examination of the interview
genre would be important within English studies can be argued from several
angles. Trivially, investigation of
various genres remains a fairly robust research area within rhetoric and not
much has been done on academic interviews, a fact that I learned in preparation
for the second case study. But beyond
shining a light on yet one more genre, the study of academic genres adds value
for increasing our understanding of how disciplinary values are
inculcated. Charles Bazerman, David
Russell, John Swales, Christine Casanave, Paul Prior and a number of other
scholars have looked at related questions.
Often this is part of an English for Specific Purposes research program
or writing across the curriculum (WAC) initiatives.
As I have said, I started with the
assumption that the interview is situated within a network. Part of the reason for that is that I did
have some exposure to Syverson and to the genre theorists, both of whom have a
somewhat ecological understanding of writing—at least an understanding of the
rhetorical situation. I was also
influenced by Bakhtin’s ideas about discourse and intertextuality, so it seemed
axiomatic to me that there was a genealogy of ideas implicit in every
interview.
One thing I am less sure about now compared
with my original proposal is that I then believed that the interview genre does
not do boundary work because it is internal to the discipline. I imagine that the impetus to do boundary
work is lessened compared with some of the genres I have looked at in the past,
such as the departmental website, but I do think disciplinary practitioners might
argue for the inclusion of new research objects or make forays into other
disciplines. Scholars who are
interviewed are often innovative thinkers who are probably even more likely than
the average disciplinary practitioner to argue that neglected or new areas,
fresh methodologies, and interdisciplinary connections ought to be explored within
the discipline, and thus redraw the boundaries.
I might add, here, that I have not explored how—or whether—network
conceptualizations might be compatible with discussions of boundary work.
Original proposal
I would like to examine interviews
of key figures within discourse studies, rhetoric, and related fields as a
genre that engages disciplinary discourse, and would probably be productively
engaged through network theories, both because of its dialogic nature and
because of its connections to concepts and influences within (or outside of) a
field.
My goal for my dissertation is to
explore disciplinary discourse and identity, probably through the lens of
assignment genres. In other words, I intend to examine how professors
create classroom genres designed to mentor students into thinking as
professionals within their disciplines. For the last few semesters I have
been exploring disciplinary discourse in various ways. I have particularly been
interested in boundary-work, in addition to acculturation and identity. For
example, several semesters ago I looked at three landmark documents in
oceanography presented to the National Academy of Science specifically to lay
out how oceanography should position itself as a discipline and what it could
accomplish by establishing its boundaries in this way. Last semester I looked
at how "new media" or "digital media" are being disciplined
as new departments or within English and communication/journalism departments
by looking at the boundary-work done by program introduction pages on
departmental websites. Because it is not practical to look directly at
assignment genres this semester or to interview faculty about how they design
assignment genres, both of which would require IRB approval, I propose to
examine interviews (in professional peer-reviewed journals or similar
sources). An interview does not exactly do boundary-work since it works
within a discipline for disciplinary practitioners, but I still think it offers
an interesting way to look at genealogical connections within disciplines, connections
between concepts, and ways that disciplines may be appropriating from other
discourses. It also can give me a chance to hear from key theorists whose
ideas I might want to explore for my theoretical framework for my dissertation.
This would be a bonus.
No comments:
Post a Comment