Finding a stake for the ground

By and large, the Learning Sciences takes great pride in its place in Pasteur's quadrant. We do research that seeks to theoretically advance our knowledge and understanding of learning and to apply findings to some form of practice  (often, but not always, education). As an interdisciplinary field, I have become familiar with a variety of theories and corresponding methods under the sociocultural umbrella. While I have not yet landed on that particular theory to build my academic empire upon (though I find myself drawn to Soviet-inspired activity theory), I have come to realize how powerful theory can be in guiding our research questions, method, and design. With this in mind, I was very intrigued by Jørgensen & Phillips' (2002) discussion of the interconnections of theory and method and the prospect of multiperspectival work. To me, this affords the opportunity to come to my own justifiable definition of "discourse," which appears to be as messy as trying to pin down "learning."

So, what is discourse? Wait or do I mean where is discourse? Why is discourse? Okay, bad questions, maybe, but I do hope to eventually be able to define what is discourse to me. While at this point I do not have a satisfiable answer, I find myself intrigued by discursive psychology's approach to the million-dollar question, "how is the social world, including its subjects and objects, constituted in discourses?" (Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p.14). While I look forward to obtaining a fuller understanding of discursive psychology this semester, I believe, at least at first glance, we (discursive psychology and I) cautiously place discourse as constitutive on Jørgensen & Phillips' continuum (p. 20). While I cannot account for this placement beyond "it just feels right," I believe that discourse is situated in social and historical practices. Moreover, I feel that discourse has varying levels of materiality. I am curious to how discursive psychology would account for this, if at all. I also appreciate the consideration of discourse in the everyday and taken-for-granted. I can immediately think of how this might be insightful to some of my data and research interests on play, story/narrative, and games. So, discourse is fully constitutive, but embedded in the social, historical, and material. Not quite sure what that buys me, yet; but this is me heedfully picking up the discursive psychology stake and considering its place in the ground.

Identity

Art credit: Helen Green

David Bowie showed us that identities were eggshells and unreliable and also infinite. I have often heard scholars connect discourse with identity. Discourse is an identity toolkit or that we use discourses to perform identities (Gee, 1989 comes to mind). So if discourses are identities performed and identities are, perhaps, limitless, are there limitless discourses? And while the answer is probably "it depends who you ask," I find it difficult to come to the conclusion that discourses (and identities) are limitless or that they are fixed. I found Hepburn (1997) to be a very interesting take on how identities can be discursively constructed as a dialectical between the social and individual. If my reading was correct, the discourses we have access too are, to Hepburn, not identity toolkits; they are identity constraints. Discourses as identity toolkits may inevitably lead us to the "what you do is what you are" conundrum Hepburn is trying to eschew. 

A large part of my research interest is aimed at investigating identity play. How do individuals construct, negotiate, and improvise imagined identities? While I currently am looking at the context of performative and pretend play, I see discourse analysis (or maybe more likely conversation analysis) as a means to understand how individuals are using, performing, or developing identity. For example, I have recently explored identity in the context of narratively-driven, improvisational role-play, where individuals frequently develop and perform as characters of a gender, race, religion, socioeconomic status, and so on different from their own (this is my perspective on their representations of self). When I explain this element of my research I typically get one of two responses:  

- Wow! That must be great for perspective-taking and understanding difference.

or

- Isn't that just identity tourism?

This has always bothered me, and it is something that I have always wanted to explore further. What are they doing? Is it one, the other, or both? This is where I see DA/CA coming into the picture. Can I use their talk as a means to understand the ways in which they are using identity in the context of narrative play and is this somehow representative of identity in other contexts? After that, I will probably have to start thinking about learning.

Chris Georgen1 Comment