Academic discourse: An inter-disciplinary dialogue
- Martin, J R, Maton, Karl, Doran, Y JR
- Authors: Martin, J R , Maton, Karl , Doran, Y JR
- Date: 2019
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , book chapter
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/445880 , vital:74439 , ISBN 9780429280726 , https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429280726-1/academic-discourse-martin-karl-maton-doran
- Description: This volume has been designed to showcase the cutting-edge of the ever-growing dialogue between systemic functional linguistics (SFL) and Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) and the insights into academic discourse this brings. This opening chapter reviews the foundations of this dialogue and positions the work presented throughout the book within this context. First it steps through the development of SFL work in education, focusing on the register-variable field and how it has been impinged upon by successive developments in Bernstein’s code theory and subsequently LCT. It then introduces how LCT extends and integrates Bernstein’s work to embrace a greater range of phenomena within a more systematic framework. It does this by introducing the dimensions of Specialization and Semantics, and showing the insights these conceptual tools can bring to academic knowledge and academic discourse. Finally, it introduces the chapters that make up the volume and positions them in relation to the ways the LCT–SFL dialogue has driven their understandings. This opening chapter lays the foundations for what is to follow and gives a flavour of energy and explanatory power this dialogue generates.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2019
- Authors: Martin, J R , Maton, Karl , Doran, Y JR
- Date: 2019
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , book chapter
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/445880 , vital:74439 , ISBN 9780429280726 , https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429280726-1/academic-discourse-martin-karl-maton-doran
- Description: This volume has been designed to showcase the cutting-edge of the ever-growing dialogue between systemic functional linguistics (SFL) and Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) and the insights into academic discourse this brings. This opening chapter reviews the foundations of this dialogue and positions the work presented throughout the book within this context. First it steps through the development of SFL work in education, focusing on the register-variable field and how it has been impinged upon by successive developments in Bernstein’s code theory and subsequently LCT. It then introduces how LCT extends and integrates Bernstein’s work to embrace a greater range of phenomena within a more systematic framework. It does this by introducing the dimensions of Specialization and Semantics, and showing the insights these conceptual tools can bring to academic knowledge and academic discourse. Finally, it introduces the chapters that make up the volume and positions them in relation to the ways the LCT–SFL dialogue has driven their understandings. This opening chapter lays the foundations for what is to follow and gives a flavour of energy and explanatory power this dialogue generates.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2019
Semantic waves: Context, complexity and academic discourse
- Authors: Maton, Karl
- Date: 2019
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , book chapter
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/445894 , vital:74440 , ISBN 9780429280726 , https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429280726-3/semantic-waves-karl-maton
- Description: This chapter introduces ideas from the Legitimation Code Theory dimension of ‘Semantics’ that have been influential in shaping research into academic discourse and theory in systemic functional linguistics (SFL). The concepts of ‘semantic gravity’ and ‘semantic density’ explore the context-dependence and complexity of meanings. These concepts have been used widely by applied systemic linguists in research into education and beyond. They have also helped spur theoretical development in the framework of SFL – specifically Martin’s meta-concepts of ‘mass’ and ‘presence’. This chapter is an introduction to the concepts and illustration of how they are being used in research into accessing academic discourse. It begins by briefly highlighting how LCT concepts attend to two key obstacles to supporting knowledge-building: knowledge-blindness and shallow theorizing. Second, the key concepts are defined. Third, the chapter demonstrates how these LCT concepts are being used to explore education, drawing on studies of student assessments and teaching practice. These analyses suggest that ‘semantic waves’, where knowledge is transformed between relatively decontextualized, condensed meanings and context-dependent, simplified meanings, are the key to student achievement and enabling knowledge-building in teaching practice. How these concepts are being widely used to explore organizing principles of diverse practices in education beyond classrooms, including research and curriculum, is discussed, revealing the widespread, complex and suggestive nature of ‘semantic waves’ and their implications for understanding how to promote access to academic discourse.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2019
- Authors: Maton, Karl
- Date: 2019
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , book chapter
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/445894 , vital:74440 , ISBN 9780429280726 , https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429280726-3/semantic-waves-karl-maton
- Description: This chapter introduces ideas from the Legitimation Code Theory dimension of ‘Semantics’ that have been influential in shaping research into academic discourse and theory in systemic functional linguistics (SFL). The concepts of ‘semantic gravity’ and ‘semantic density’ explore the context-dependence and complexity of meanings. These concepts have been used widely by applied systemic linguists in research into education and beyond. They have also helped spur theoretical development in the framework of SFL – specifically Martin’s meta-concepts of ‘mass’ and ‘presence’. This chapter is an introduction to the concepts and illustration of how they are being used in research into accessing academic discourse. It begins by briefly highlighting how LCT concepts attend to two key obstacles to supporting knowledge-building: knowledge-blindness and shallow theorizing. Second, the key concepts are defined. Third, the chapter demonstrates how these LCT concepts are being used to explore education, drawing on studies of student assessments and teaching practice. These analyses suggest that ‘semantic waves’, where knowledge is transformed between relatively decontextualized, condensed meanings and context-dependent, simplified meanings, are the key to student achievement and enabling knowledge-building in teaching practice. How these concepts are being widely used to explore organizing principles of diverse practices in education beyond classrooms, including research and curriculum, is discussed, revealing the widespread, complex and suggestive nature of ‘semantic waves’ and their implications for understanding how to promote access to academic discourse.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2019
Specialization codes: Knowledge, knowers and student success
- Maton, Karl, Chen , Rainbow Tsai-Hung
- Authors: Maton, Karl , Chen , Rainbow Tsai-Hung
- Date: 2019
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , book chapter
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/445910 , vital:74441 , ISBN 9780429280726 , https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429280726-2/specialization-codes-karl-maton-rainbow-tsai-hung-chen
- Description: This chapter introduces concepts from Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) that launched the productive cross-disciplinary dialogue with systemic functional linguistics (SFL) and which have become central to research using the two frameworks to explore education. The concepts are from the LCT dimension of Specialization, specifically ‘specialization codes’. The chapter illustrates these ideas through showing how the concepts allow research to explain why some students are more successful than others by exploring the dispositions students bring to education, the nature of the knowledge practices they encounter in their studies, and how these relate together to shape their experiences. The example explored draws on a major study of Chinese students who attended higher education in Australia. The chapter analyses the dispositions the students brought and the teaching practices of their educators, and show how these represented a ‘code clash’ between two different ways of measuring achievement. As a result, students struggled to successfully access academic discourse.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2019
- Authors: Maton, Karl , Chen , Rainbow Tsai-Hung
- Date: 2019
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , book chapter
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/445910 , vital:74441 , ISBN 9780429280726 , https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429280726-2/specialization-codes-karl-maton-rainbow-tsai-hung-chen
- Description: This chapter introduces concepts from Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) that launched the productive cross-disciplinary dialogue with systemic functional linguistics (SFL) and which have become central to research using the two frameworks to explore education. The concepts are from the LCT dimension of Specialization, specifically ‘specialization codes’. The chapter illustrates these ideas through showing how the concepts allow research to explain why some students are more successful than others by exploring the dispositions students bring to education, the nature of the knowledge practices they encounter in their studies, and how these relate together to shape their experiences. The example explored draws on a major study of Chinese students who attended higher education in Australia. The chapter analyses the dispositions the students brought and the teaching practices of their educators, and show how these represented a ‘code clash’ between two different ways of measuring achievement. As a result, students struggled to successfully access academic discourse.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2019
LCT and systemic functional linguistics: Enacting complimentary theories for explanatory power
- Maton, Karl, Martin, James R, Matruglio, Erika S
- Authors: Maton, Karl , Martin, James R , Matruglio, Erika S
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66491 , vital:28955
- Description: publisher version , Interdisciplinarity is the future. Such is the thrust of pronouncements repeatedly heard across the social sciences and humanities. Interdisciplinarity is often equated with intellectually and socially progressive stances and greater responsiveness to business and workplace needs. Yet such axiological and economic benefits are more often assumed or proclaimed than evidenced or demonstrated (Moore 2011). Moreover，what is declared to be 'interdisciplinary' often comprises the appropriation by literary or philosophical discourses of ideas from other fields rather than genuinely interdisciplinary dialogue. Nonetheless，to highlight the vacuity of much written in its name is not to dismiss the potential of interdisciplinarity itself. There are serious ontological and epistemological arguments for bringing disciplines together in substantive research (Bhaskar and Danermark 2006). Simply put，the social world comprises more than the phenomena addressed by any one discipline. Education，for example，involves at least knowledges， knowers， knowing， and the known, implicating insights from, among others，sociology，linguistics，psychology，and philosophy (Maton 2014b: 212-13). This is not to suggest a single study must encompass the disciplinary map in order to recreate reality in its entirety, Rather，it highlights that drawing on more than one disciplinary approach may offer greater explanatory power when exploring a specific problem-situation.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Maton, Karl , Martin, James R , Matruglio, Erika S
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66491 , vital:28955
- Description: publisher version , Interdisciplinarity is the future. Such is the thrust of pronouncements repeatedly heard across the social sciences and humanities. Interdisciplinarity is often equated with intellectually and socially progressive stances and greater responsiveness to business and workplace needs. Yet such axiological and economic benefits are more often assumed or proclaimed than evidenced or demonstrated (Moore 2011). Moreover，what is declared to be 'interdisciplinary' often comprises the appropriation by literary or philosophical discourses of ideas from other fields rather than genuinely interdisciplinary dialogue. Nonetheless，to highlight the vacuity of much written in its name is not to dismiss the potential of interdisciplinarity itself. There are serious ontological and epistemological arguments for bringing disciplines together in substantive research (Bhaskar and Danermark 2006). Simply put，the social world comprises more than the phenomena addressed by any one discipline. Education，for example，involves at least knowledges， knowers， knowing， and the known, implicating insights from, among others，sociology，linguistics，psychology，and philosophy (Maton 2014b: 212-13). This is not to suggest a single study must encompass the disciplinary map in order to recreate reality in its entirety, Rather，it highlights that drawing on more than one disciplinary approach may offer greater explanatory power when exploring a specific problem-situation.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
LCT in mixed-methods research: evolving an instrument for quantitative data
- Maton, Karl, Howard, Sarah Katherine
- Authors: Maton, Karl , Howard, Sarah Katherine
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66479 , vital:28954
- Description: publisher version , A mantra of social science declares a fundamental divide between the quantitative and the qualitative that involves more than methods. According to this depiction, the two methodologies are intrinsically associated with a range of ontological, epistemological, political and moral stances. Each of these constellations of stances is strongly integrated, such that choice of method is held to involve a series of associated choices. Each constellation is also strongly opposed to the other, along axes labelled positivism/constructivism, scientism/humanism, conservative/critical, old/new, among others. These ‘binary constellations’ (Maton 2014b: 148-70) offer a forced choice between two tightly-knit sets of practices that are portrayed as jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive. So widespread is this methodological binarism that many scholars ‘are left with the impression that they have to pledge allegiance to one research school of thought or the other’ (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004: 14). A competing mantra disclaims this divide. Distinctions underpinning the picture of binary constellations have been regularly dissolved. Arguments that one deals with numbers, the other with words, one studies behaviour, the other reveals meanings, one is hypothetico-deductive, the other inductive, one enables generalization, the other explores singular depth, among others, have been repeatedly undermined (e.g. Hammersley 1992). Indeed, the death of the divide is frequently declared. Calls for ‘transcending’ (Salomon 1991) or ‘getting over’ (Howe 1992) the quantitative-qualitative debate and arguments for mixed-methods research (Brannen 2005; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004) are recurrent. These calls highlight how the methodologies offer complementary insights for research and demonstrate that eschewing either methodology on principle is unnecessarily renouncing potential explanatory power. However, the call to mixed-methods research remains more breached than honoured. Methodological monotheism remains dominant – studies of education and society typically adopt either quantitative or qualitative methods. As we shall discuss, the former is typically associated with the influence of psychology and the latter is often claimed as emblematic of sociology. Studies utilizing the sociological frameworks on which Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) builds have echoed this pattern by overwhelmingly adopting qualitative methods. Accordingly, Part I of this volume begins by exploring how LCT concepts can be enacted in qualitative research (Chapter 2). However, LCT is not limited to one methodology and a growing body of mixed-methods research is engaging with both qualitative and quantitative data. In this chapter we illustrate how this research works and the gains it offers. For resolutely qualitative researchers, the prospect of reading anything quantitative, even in mixed-methods research, may be unenticing. However, it would be a mistake to pass over this chapter, for several reasons. First, we offer insights into research practice that might surprise such scholars. As Bourdieu argued, ‘methodological indictments are too often no more than a disguised way of making a virtue out of necessity, of feigning to dismiss, to ignore in an active way, what one is ignorant of in fact’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 226). Our aim is to contribute towards removing this reason for one-sidedness. We show, for example, how quantitative methods confound their common portrayal as neat, straightforward and procedural; they are complex and involved and require craft work and judgement. Our focus is, therefore, more practical than metaphysical. We shall not enter seemingly endless debates over whether the ‘quantitative-qualitative divide’ refers to paradigms, epistemologies or methods and whether these are complementary or incommensurable. Rather, we discuss the development of an instrument for enacting LCT concepts in quantitative methods and ground this account in real examples of mixed-methods research. Specifically, we trace the evolution of an instrument for embedding specialization codes within questionnaires through its creation for research into school music and then its development within studies of educational technology. Given that mathematics can be off-putting to the noviciate, we minimize discussion of statistics and explain measures in lay terms. Second, this is much more than a story of quantitative methods. The evolution of the instrument both shaped qualitative methods and was shaped by the data they generated, offering insights into how qualitative research can more fully engage with LCT. Its development also involved intimate dialogue with theory that shed fresh light on LCT itself, making explicit the ‘gaze’ embodied by the framework (Chapter 1, this volume). We shall highlight wider lessons learned about the craft of enacting LCT in research, lessons of direct relevance for studies using any methods. Third, we shall illustrate the explanatory power offered by using quantitative and qualitative methods together, such as providing a robust basis for detailed findings, identifying wider-scale trends typically inaccessible to qualitative methods that provide a context for their data, and facilitating knowledge-building through greater replicability across contexts and over time. For example, the technology studies built directly on the music studies to cumulatively develop the instrument and generated probably the largest data set in code sociology: 97,386 responses (83,937 student and 13,449 staff surveys) on the organizing principles of academic subjects, alongside 20 in-depth qualitative case studies of secondary schools. This offers a foundation of substantial breadth and depth for making claims about knowledge practices across the disciplinary map and a firm basis on which future research into disciplinary differences can build. Moreover, the quantitative instrument itself can be adopted or adapted in new studies, further enabling cumulative knowledge-building. Given these substantive, methodological and theoretical gains, it is perhaps surprising there exists any temptation to skip past discussion of mixed-methods research. This reflects the methodological character of the fields in which LCT emerged. We thus begin by briefly illustrating how the sociological frameworks on which the theory builds have become distanced from quantitative methods.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
- Authors: Maton, Karl , Howard, Sarah Katherine
- Date: 2016
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66479 , vital:28954
- Description: publisher version , A mantra of social science declares a fundamental divide between the quantitative and the qualitative that involves more than methods. According to this depiction, the two methodologies are intrinsically associated with a range of ontological, epistemological, political and moral stances. Each of these constellations of stances is strongly integrated, such that choice of method is held to involve a series of associated choices. Each constellation is also strongly opposed to the other, along axes labelled positivism/constructivism, scientism/humanism, conservative/critical, old/new, among others. These ‘binary constellations’ (Maton 2014b: 148-70) offer a forced choice between two tightly-knit sets of practices that are portrayed as jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive. So widespread is this methodological binarism that many scholars ‘are left with the impression that they have to pledge allegiance to one research school of thought or the other’ (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004: 14). A competing mantra disclaims this divide. Distinctions underpinning the picture of binary constellations have been regularly dissolved. Arguments that one deals with numbers, the other with words, one studies behaviour, the other reveals meanings, one is hypothetico-deductive, the other inductive, one enables generalization, the other explores singular depth, among others, have been repeatedly undermined (e.g. Hammersley 1992). Indeed, the death of the divide is frequently declared. Calls for ‘transcending’ (Salomon 1991) or ‘getting over’ (Howe 1992) the quantitative-qualitative debate and arguments for mixed-methods research (Brannen 2005; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004) are recurrent. These calls highlight how the methodologies offer complementary insights for research and demonstrate that eschewing either methodology on principle is unnecessarily renouncing potential explanatory power. However, the call to mixed-methods research remains more breached than honoured. Methodological monotheism remains dominant – studies of education and society typically adopt either quantitative or qualitative methods. As we shall discuss, the former is typically associated with the influence of psychology and the latter is often claimed as emblematic of sociology. Studies utilizing the sociological frameworks on which Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) builds have echoed this pattern by overwhelmingly adopting qualitative methods. Accordingly, Part I of this volume begins by exploring how LCT concepts can be enacted in qualitative research (Chapter 2). However, LCT is not limited to one methodology and a growing body of mixed-methods research is engaging with both qualitative and quantitative data. In this chapter we illustrate how this research works and the gains it offers. For resolutely qualitative researchers, the prospect of reading anything quantitative, even in mixed-methods research, may be unenticing. However, it would be a mistake to pass over this chapter, for several reasons. First, we offer insights into research practice that might surprise such scholars. As Bourdieu argued, ‘methodological indictments are too often no more than a disguised way of making a virtue out of necessity, of feigning to dismiss, to ignore in an active way, what one is ignorant of in fact’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 226). Our aim is to contribute towards removing this reason for one-sidedness. We show, for example, how quantitative methods confound their common portrayal as neat, straightforward and procedural; they are complex and involved and require craft work and judgement. Our focus is, therefore, more practical than metaphysical. We shall not enter seemingly endless debates over whether the ‘quantitative-qualitative divide’ refers to paradigms, epistemologies or methods and whether these are complementary or incommensurable. Rather, we discuss the development of an instrument for enacting LCT concepts in quantitative methods and ground this account in real examples of mixed-methods research. Specifically, we trace the evolution of an instrument for embedding specialization codes within questionnaires through its creation for research into school music and then its development within studies of educational technology. Given that mathematics can be off-putting to the noviciate, we minimize discussion of statistics and explain measures in lay terms. Second, this is much more than a story of quantitative methods. The evolution of the instrument both shaped qualitative methods and was shaped by the data they generated, offering insights into how qualitative research can more fully engage with LCT. Its development also involved intimate dialogue with theory that shed fresh light on LCT itself, making explicit the ‘gaze’ embodied by the framework (Chapter 1, this volume). We shall highlight wider lessons learned about the craft of enacting LCT in research, lessons of direct relevance for studies using any methods. Third, we shall illustrate the explanatory power offered by using quantitative and qualitative methods together, such as providing a robust basis for detailed findings, identifying wider-scale trends typically inaccessible to qualitative methods that provide a context for their data, and facilitating knowledge-building through greater replicability across contexts and over time. For example, the technology studies built directly on the music studies to cumulatively develop the instrument and generated probably the largest data set in code sociology: 97,386 responses (83,937 student and 13,449 staff surveys) on the organizing principles of academic subjects, alongside 20 in-depth qualitative case studies of secondary schools. This offers a foundation of substantial breadth and depth for making claims about knowledge practices across the disciplinary map and a firm basis on which future research into disciplinary differences can build. Moreover, the quantitative instrument itself can be adopted or adapted in new studies, further enabling cumulative knowledge-building. Given these substantive, methodological and theoretical gains, it is perhaps surprising there exists any temptation to skip past discussion of mixed-methods research. This reflects the methodological character of the fields in which LCT emerged. We thus begin by briefly illustrating how the sociological frameworks on which the theory builds have become distanced from quantitative methods.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2016
LCT in qualitative research: creating a translation device for studying constructivist pedagogy
- Maton, Karl, Chen, Rainbow Tsai-Hung
- Authors: Maton, Karl , Chen, Rainbow Tsai-Hung
- Date: 2015
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66465 , vital:28952
- Description: publisher version , This chapter addresses how Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) can be used to overcome this divide in qualitative research. Specifically, we discuss how to develop an ‘external language of description’ or translation device between theory and data. We ground our discussion in the example of a major study that enacted the LCT concepts of specialization codes (Chapter 1, this volume) to explore how constructivist pedagogy shapes the educational experiences of students (Chen 2010). First, we elaborate on Bernstein’s notion of an ‘external language’ – its rationale, its role in research, and ways it has been interpreted – to clarify the nature of a ‘translation device’. Second, we introduce the study we use to exemplify how such a device can be evolved. Third, we analyse the evolving process of that study. There are few published examples of ‘external languages’; there is even less public discussion of how they can be developed. Publications typically reveal the products of research; here we reveal the process as well as the product, to make explicit part of the craft of LCT (Chapter 1, this volume). We analyse the study as an unfolding narrative, focusing on how relations between theory and data were negotiated in the development of an external language of description. Last, we introduce the resulting translation device, discuss how it enables dialogue between theory and data, and consider the nature of the process more generally. We should emphasize that this chapter is intended to be neither a definitive guide nor a template for enacting LCT. More widely, it aims neither to normatively define how theory and data should be related nor to restrict diversity in how this can be achieved. As we discuss, there are several interpretations of ‘external languages’, and, as other chapters in this volume illustrate, there are many ways of using LCT and developing translation devices. Rather, by focusing in detail on one study we hope to shed some illustrative light on how the framework can be used in qualitative research to generate explanatory power through fostering dialogue between theory and data.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Maton, Karl , Chen, Rainbow Tsai-Hung
- Date: 2015
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66465 , vital:28952
- Description: publisher version , This chapter addresses how Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) can be used to overcome this divide in qualitative research. Specifically, we discuss how to develop an ‘external language of description’ or translation device between theory and data. We ground our discussion in the example of a major study that enacted the LCT concepts of specialization codes (Chapter 1, this volume) to explore how constructivist pedagogy shapes the educational experiences of students (Chen 2010). First, we elaborate on Bernstein’s notion of an ‘external language’ – its rationale, its role in research, and ways it has been interpreted – to clarify the nature of a ‘translation device’. Second, we introduce the study we use to exemplify how such a device can be evolved. Third, we analyse the evolving process of that study. There are few published examples of ‘external languages’; there is even less public discussion of how they can be developed. Publications typically reveal the products of research; here we reveal the process as well as the product, to make explicit part of the craft of LCT (Chapter 1, this volume). We analyse the study as an unfolding narrative, focusing on how relations between theory and data were negotiated in the development of an external language of description. Last, we introduce the resulting translation device, discuss how it enables dialogue between theory and data, and consider the nature of the process more generally. We should emphasize that this chapter is intended to be neither a definitive guide nor a template for enacting LCT. More widely, it aims neither to normatively define how theory and data should be related nor to restrict diversity in how this can be achieved. As we discuss, there are several interpretations of ‘external languages’, and, as other chapters in this volume illustrate, there are many ways of using LCT and developing translation devices. Rather, by focusing in detail on one study we hope to shed some illustrative light on how the framework can be used in qualitative research to generate explanatory power through fostering dialogue between theory and data.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2015
Legitimation code: building knowledge about knowledge-building
- Authors: Maton, Karl
- Date: 2015
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66444 , vital:28950
- Description: publisher version , Education and knowledge have never been more important to society, yet research is segmented by approach, methodology or topic. Legitimation Code Theory or 'LCT' extends and integrates insights from Pierre Bourdieu and Basil Bernstein to offer a framework for research and practice that overcomes segmentalism. This book shows how LCT can be used to build knowledge about education and society. Comprising original papers by an international and multidisciplinary group of scholars, Knowledge-building offers the first primer in this fast-growing approach. Through case studies of major research projects, Part I provides practical insights into how LCT can be used to build knowledge by:-enabling dialogue between theory and data in qualitative research-bringing together quantitative and qualitative methodologies in mixed-methods research-relating theory and practice in praxis-conducting interdisciplinary studies with systemic functional linguistics Part II offers a series of studies of pressing issues facing knowledge-building in education and beyond, encompassing:-diverse subject areas, including physics, English, cultural studies, music, and design-educational sites: schooling, vocational education, and higher education-practices of research, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment-both education and informal learning contexts, such as museums and masonic lodges Carefully sequenced and interrelated, these chapters form a coherent collection that gives a unique insight into one of the most thought-provoking and innovative ways of building knowledge about knowledge-building in education and society to have emerged this century. This book is essential reading for all serious students and scholars of education, sociology and linguistics.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2015
- Authors: Maton, Karl
- Date: 2015
- Language: English
- Type: text , book
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/66444 , vital:28950
- Description: publisher version , Education and knowledge have never been more important to society, yet research is segmented by approach, methodology or topic. Legitimation Code Theory or 'LCT' extends and integrates insights from Pierre Bourdieu and Basil Bernstein to offer a framework for research and practice that overcomes segmentalism. This book shows how LCT can be used to build knowledge about education and society. Comprising original papers by an international and multidisciplinary group of scholars, Knowledge-building offers the first primer in this fast-growing approach. Through case studies of major research projects, Part I provides practical insights into how LCT can be used to build knowledge by:-enabling dialogue between theory and data in qualitative research-bringing together quantitative and qualitative methodologies in mixed-methods research-relating theory and practice in praxis-conducting interdisciplinary studies with systemic functional linguistics Part II offers a series of studies of pressing issues facing knowledge-building in education and beyond, encompassing:-diverse subject areas, including physics, English, cultural studies, music, and design-educational sites: schooling, vocational education, and higher education-practices of research, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment-both education and informal learning contexts, such as museums and masonic lodges Carefully sequenced and interrelated, these chapters form a coherent collection that gives a unique insight into one of the most thought-provoking and innovative ways of building knowledge about knowledge-building in education and society to have emerged this century. This book is essential reading for all serious students and scholars of education, sociology and linguistics.
- Full Text: false
- Date Issued: 2015
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »