From the title you can probably guess that I had a good supervision meeting yesterday. It was hard going for me, but so stimulating and challenging. We focused our discussion on the piece I had written with both my supervisors raising questions – in effect getting me to explain my understanding of BB and his theories. But their questions also forced me to think about how ‘others’ might view his work, along with how I would substantiate my use of his theories. I came away thinking, well I feel more confident about what I know about BB’s work and I am more astute at judging the perspectives other authors take when reading or engaging with his work. I can also see the gaps in my own understanding – primarily around the sociology of education – all those wonderful little “isms”. We also spoke about the relevance of BB’s work for my research – importantly the relationship between BB and academic literacies. An area I need to think and write about in the coming weeks.
On a more reflective note I was confront by two sort of related issues
• My own identity work
• How I give expression to my voice
Identity work
As yet I haven’t taken a firm position on my identity – I’m still struggling with this notion of ‘PhD student’ and would much rather be the ‘teacher-as-researcher’ I was a mere 13-14 months ago. Also I see myself as an academic developer, not an academic literacies researcher, yet I am working in the field of academic literacies without a background language, literacies or linguistics. So who am I and what position do I take? Mary made the point yesterday in our meeting that she was reading BB from an academic literacies perspective and couldn’t see his work with any other lens. As such she struggled to understand his position and questioned the use of his terminology etc…My experience had been an almost ‘neutral’ reading, seeing connections with my MRes research and my experiences of working in the HE field as a teacher. This connected a bit with the workshop I attended yesterday where the facilitator was stressing the importance of scholarly identity and authority in writing. I had to ask myself – so where are you located? I felt I couldn’t answer, but of course I have a stand – working with BB and academic literacies means I have taken a stand. One of the questions Robin asked me was whether I was still committed to the agenda which Bernstein’s work is aligned to – namely “deconstructing the ideological, political and social basis of knowledge and curriculum, while focusing on a concern for the consequences on these constructions for different social classes as they enter and engage with the educational system” So I have a stance, but I don’t feel I have taken on the authority of that stance (well not in a pure academic rhetorical way) – I am still tentatively testing the water, maybe as I forge and development a new identity and grapple with the boundaries that define those identities.
My voice
Two incidents made me think about this – firstly, during supervision, listening to myself try and explain my ideas and thoughts and thinking – hell I sound like a babbling fool. No sophistication or refinement in my word choices or vocabulary. Robin asked me if I could explain the controversy surrounding BB’s code theory – yes of course I could, but what came out of my mouth was another story all together. Secondly, while writing my blog last night, which took me almost an hour I was conscious that I was constantly editing my thoughts and expression – I wasn’t just saying what I thought, capturing my impressions and reflections, no I was constructing a position, fashioned in a sort of pseudo academic-come-casual voice. Was that the real me, was that really my voice? Then a comment from a friend today, referring specifically to how my writing was giving expression to my academic, and therefore formal rhetorical writing, development. I’m wondering if this is how I want this blog to develop. Is this ‘formalised’ writing curtailing my more reflective and affective insights? I looked at a hand written research journal I kept during my MRes and it was a gritty, raw and unmasked exploration of my thoughts and ideas – an aspect I don’t see in this blog. As I move towards one position I drift away from the other – and within the cultural context of the OU I perceive I should be talking, sounding, writing in a particular way, creating more internal conflict and contestation.
My voice and identity – two sides of the same coin, reflective of my current context, underlying intentions to project a version of my own reality, always aware of the audience and their interpretation of my voice and identity. Where the hell is that capeflatsgirl??? Heavy stuff hey!
No comments:
Post a Comment