Making assumptions about what might be understood

I've been rewriting my paper so I can send it in for its re-review and part of the process means I need to cut out about 300-500 words (I've managed about 300-400 so far). I was reading through I section where I try to explain how knowledge and practices from the professional domain of web design becomes integrated or recontextualised into the academic environment of the multimedia course. I've been writing about this, in some way or another, since 2006 and used a particular diagram to explain my interpretation of the recontextualisation process. Previously one of my supervisors noted that the diagram was complex, but because I understood it and I had some positive feedback about it from another researcher I didn't think much about it. I used the diagram at Lancaster and struggled to explain it. In Lille I used a much amended version which I felt made a lot more sense and better helped to explain the relationship between the professional field and the academic curriculum of the course. Yesterday I realised again that the diagram needed to be changed and my explanation of this process needed clarification.

I guess I  realised AGAIN (I suspect this will always be part of the writing and learning process) that I make so many assumptions about my explanations about things - I just assume that it makes sense and that others will understand it just like I do. Writing is a process - linked irrevocably to the process of learning, knowledge and trying to make sense of what you are writing about. So it will always be changing and developing as your ideas and thoughts about that 'something' changes.

Original diagram and explanation

I have used recontextualisation theoretically to uncover how knowledge and practices located in the web design field’s professional domain are appropriated into the course curriculum and illustrate this in Figure 1 (above). In the web design field, website production is commonly referred to as web design, although a ubiquitous distinction made in this broad and fluid professional environment by the professional community and the literature in the field, is to differentiate between technical and visual components involved in the production of a website (Nelson, 2009; Krunic et al., 2006; Krug, 2000 and Lynch and Horton, 2001). The visual component involves the framework for the ‘look and feel’ of the website and includes consideration of all graphic and visual elements that make up a website including page layout, navigation, visual hierarchy and colour scheme. Professionals tasked with this component are called ‘web designers’. Web developers on the other hand, work with programming and technical components required to build a functional website. This might include the use of specialist dynamic scripting languages and database programming like PHP, MySQL, Flash, Java and JavaScript. The epistemological differences which underlie the distinctions in the professional environment between web design and development are, I believe, appropriated or recontextualised in particular ways in the course as illustrated in Figure 1. I want to suggest further that how this epistemological distinction is taken up in the course influences how the academic environment is physically and organisational constructed and which academic literacy practices are privileged.

Through the recontextualisation process, the course curriculum reproduces the design/development divide through its subject allocations and content. Considering the subject content of the course, it would appear that, the course is geared towards the development of graduates with more web design competencies, albeit with a strong programming focus. The course therefore inhibits the hybrid space where the two areas overlap. The course further recognises academic success predominantly through the design and production of functional and visually pleasing websites. Described in Bernstein’s terms, the web design field is the field of knowledge production where different kinds of knowledge are produced in professional practice, namely design knowledge and development knowledge. The overlap between the two types of knowledge illustrated in Figure 1 suggests that in the professional practice there is more scope for permeable boundaries to exist. However when recontextualised into the course curriculum, stronger boundaries are set up between these knowledge types. While not subject to empirical evaluation in the research, the professional field of web design can still be seen as performing a regulatory function informing the particular character of the course curriculum.

New version written just yesterday 

I have used recontextualisation theoretically to uncover how knowledge and practices located in the web design field’s professional domain are appropriated and transformed into the course curriculum and illustrate this in Figure 1. In the web design field, website production is commonly referred to as web design, although a ubiquitous distinction made in this broad and fluid professional environment by the professional community and the literature in the field, is to differentiate between technical and visual components involved in the production of a website (Nelson, 2009; Krunic et al., 2006; Krug, 2000 and Lynch and Horton, 2001). The broad field is therefore constituted by two main areas of knowledge and practice, web design and web development, that sit in an uneasy dichotomous relationship with each other. Each component of this relationship is made up of a set of sub-specialist areas; the web design component delineates the tasks associated with the visual aspects of a building a basic website using HTML and style sheets, including the ‘look and feel’ of the site, all the graphic and visual elements including page layout, navigation, visual hierarchy and colour scheme. Typically a professional web designer would inhabit the hybrid space where the two knowledge areas intersect, suggesting basic competency in both the visual and technical components required to produce a functional website. Web developers are defined by their work with complex programming languages (for example specialist dynamic scripting languages and database programming like PHP, MySQL, Flash, Java and JavaScript) and the creation of data bases linked to interactive websites. The epistemological differences which underlie the distinctions in the professional environment between web design and development are, I believe, appropriated and recontextualised in particular ways in the course. I want to suggest further that how this epistemological distinction is taken up in the course influences how the academic environment is physically and organisational constructed and which academic literacy practices are privileged.

Through the recontextualisation process, the course curriculum reproduces the design/development divide in how the subjects are epistemologically differentiated from each other i.e. as either having a design or development focus. This differentiation is further extended with the bulk of the subject content in the four course subjects devoted to technical and programming knowledge. Design based knowledge is only allocated to one subject in the course and when applied to this subject, all technical knowledge and practices evident in the professional domain is removed and allocated to the programming subjects. The course it would appear is geared towards the development of graduates with web design competencies, albeit with a strong programming focus. Academic success in this course recognises academic primarily through the design and production of technically functional and visually pleasing websites. Described in Bernstein’s terms, the web design field is the field of knowledge production where different kinds of knowledge are produced in professional practice, namely design knowledge and development knowledge. The overlap between the two types of knowledge illustrated in Figure 1 suggests that in the professional practice there is more scope for permeable boundaries to exist. However when recontextualised into the course curriculum, stronger boundaries are set up between these knowledge types.