Dialogic analysis vs. discourse analysis of dialogic pedagogy: Social science research in the era of positivism and post-truth

A review of Skidmore, D & K. Murakami (Eds). (2016). Dialogic pedagogy: The importance of dialogue in teaching and learning. Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual MattersSkidmore and Murakami’s collection of essays takes on a dual theoretical and empirical project: first, to define and advocate for dialogical classroom pedagogy; and second, to unearth such practice through microstudies of classroom dialogue. This project divides itself neatly in half: the first six chapters trace the theory of dialogic pedagogy, including the history of discourse, coding, and practices, while the remaining seven are devoted to empirical studies marked by a careful microanalysis of dialogue.The work distinguishes itself from scholarship on the dialogical the past 20 years, during which works have either been single-authored, deeply-researched, and theoretical (Matusov, 2009a; Wegerif, 2013) or vast collections of essays organized conceptually (Ball & Freedman, 2004; White & Peters, 2011; Ligorio & Cesar, 2013). While special journal editions have brought new focus to unexplored threads of the dialogical, such as the exploration of silence in the classroom or the history of the School of the Dialogue of Cultures (Matusov 2009b), this collection affords considerable latitude to its theoretical and historical frame. A comparable work of conceptual breadth is that of White (2016), whose publication frames classroom research of lower school learners with concepts from Bakhtin. Like White’s work, Skidmore and Murakami paint at once in broad strokes and miniature: on the one hand, the collection situates dialogical pedagogy into its historical context, interweaving the work of early Russian theorists; at the same time, it offers granular studies of classroom dialogue. Since Skidmore authors or co-authors seven of the 13 chapters, the collection somewhat serves as a project of singular intent, one that raises a persistent question as to whether the methodologies in the studies presented in the second half of the work, focused on Conversational Analysis (CA) and the Discourse Analysis (DA), cohere to the ambitions of dialogical pedagogy offered in the first. In the end, the promise that CA affords greater magnification of classroom moments does not overcome what may be a limitation of the methodology to unearth dialogic pedagogy.

Section: A Dialogical Methods For the Dialogical Classroom?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Theoretical Promises and Methodological Troubles Capturing Dialogical Discourse in Classroom Research

Gregory

2020

“…It is rather a matter of theorizing the common sense understanding. 3 There is an apparent overlap between my approach and that of Matusov et al (2019), particularly in the titles, but also a distinct difference. My article elaborates Bakhtin's methodology conceived of as dialogic discourse analysis, whereas Matusov et al (2019) discusses dialogic analysis in education against discourse analysis as an established, predominantly linguistic field of research.…”

Section: A144mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Bakhtin is a source of inspiration in the sense that he provides us with theoretical concepts, and increasingly we also see an interest in how he performs his analyses (cf. Matusov et al, 2019) 3 . This article will be an attempt to bring us closer to Bakhtin's analytical practice and his methodology.…”

Section: A144mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dialogic Discourse Analysis: A methodology for dealing with the classroom as a text

Skaftun

2019

Bakhtin is a source of theoretical inspiration for educational research. This article will be an attempt to activate also Bakhtin’s analytical practice and his methodology. I will explore and elaborate the typology of discursive relations which are suggested in Bakhtin’s book on Problems of Dostoevsky’ Poetics (Bakhtin ,1984), and the potential application of it in the study of discourse in the classroom. In order to do so properly it will be necessary to activate Bakhtin’s understanding of the utterance as a meaningful unity, and thus also the problem of authorship and the relationship between author and hero.Bakhtin’s analytical practice can be considered a consistent methodology for the study of literature in schools as well as in the scholarly study of literature (cf. Skaftun, 2009; 2010), and I have called it dialogic discourse analysis (DDA). The first main part of the article elaborates key features of DDA in dialogue with Bakhtin’s work. In the other main part, DDA is applied to educational settings in order to enter the educational dialogue on how to make sense of authorship and the adhering conception of the classroom as a text. My ambition here is primarily to elaborate DDA as a powerful and dynamic toolkit also for educational research. In doing so I also hope to contribute to the ongoing work of transferring Bakhtin’s dialogism as a whole from the study of literature to the study of education. Examples will in part be drawn from literature, but for the most part from educational settings.

“…That's even better! Minority opinion, minority students, minority experiences, they are terrific for dialogue because they are close to the uniqueness (uniqueness is minority in its extreme) (Matusov, Marjanovic-Shane, Kullenberg, & Curtis, 2019). So, I would say, on the one hand, we don't have much problem with this issue in dialogic pedagogy.…”

Section: Eugene Matusovmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controversies and consensus in research on dialogic teaching and learning

Asterhan

Howe

Lefstein

et al. 2020

Self Cite

Scholarly interest in dialogic pedagogy and classroom dialogue is multi-disciplinary and draws on a variety of theoretical frameworks. On the positive side, this has produced a rich and varied body of research and evidence. However, in spite of a common interest in educational dialogue and learning through dialogue, cross-disciplinary engagement with each other’s work is rare. Scholarly discussions and publications tend to be clustered in separate communities, each characterized by a particular type of research questions, aspects of dialogue they focus on, type of evidence they bring to bear, and ways in which standards for rigor are constructed. In the present contribution, we asked four leading scholars from different research traditions to react to four provocative statements that were deliberately designed to reveal areas of consensus and disagreement[1]. Topic-wise, the provocations related to theoretical foundations, methodological assumptions, the role of teachers, and issues of inclusion and social class, respectively. We hope that these contributions will stimulate cross- and trans-disciplinary discussions about dialogic pedagogy research and theory.[1] The authors of this article are five scholars, the dialogic provocateur and the four respondents. The order of appearance of the authors was determined alphabetically.