Language and legitimation：Disciplinary differences in constructing space for new knowledge

Pearling seminar October 22, 2010 Language and legitimation Disciplinary differences in constructing space for new knowledge Dr Susan hood Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Technology Sydney (Uts sue.hood@uts. edu.au Visiting Scholar Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Language and legitimation: Disciplinary differences in constructing space for new knowledge. Pearling seminar October 22, 2010 Dr Susan Hood Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) sue.hood@uts.edu.au Visiting Scholar Hong Kong Polytechnic University

How does discipline impact on who gets to know what in the introduction to a research paper?

How does discipline impact on who gets to know what in the introduction to a research paper?

The problem There has been much recent discussion in studies of academic literacy around the need to address disciplinary differences An understanding of the ways in which disciplines use language differently and hence mean differently, is fundamental to providing meaningful academic language support for students and researchers. It is also especially relevant in an evolving academic context in which inter-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary study and research are actively encouraged. Effective inter-disciplinary collaboration relies on a better understanding of disciplinary differences To date studies of disciplinary differences in applied linguistics have been dominated by two orientations corpus-based quantitative studies of distributions of discrete linguistic features and/or ethnographic studies that choose to largely ignore language in favour of observations of 'activity Engaging with sociological theorisations of knowledge Bernstein Maton)has suggested a number of fruitful directions for the linguistic analysis and explanation of disciplinary difference

The problem… There has been much recent discussion in studies of academic literacy around the need to address disciplinary differences. An understanding of the ways in which disciplines use language differently, and hence mean differently, is fundamental to providing meaningful academic language support for students and researchers. It is also especially relevant in an evolving academic context in which inter-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary study and research are actively encouraged. Effective inter-disciplinary collaboration relies on a better understanding of disciplinary differences. To date studies of disciplinary differences in applied linguistics have been dominated by two orientations: - corpus-based quantitative studies of distributions of discrete linguistic features, and/or - ethnographic studies that choose to largely ignore language in favour of observations of ‘activity’. Engaging with sociological theorisations of knowledge (Bernstein; Maton) has suggested a number of fruitful directions for the linguistic analysis and explanation of disciplinary difference

From the field of the sociology of knowledge.. disciplines as kinds of knowledge structures (Bernstein 1999) Bernstein draws our attention to differences in kinds of knowledge what he calls discourses Horizontal discourse or commonsense knowledge local, segmentally organised, context-specific and dependent The kind of knowledge we acquire and use in the home and local community Vertical discourse or un-commonsense knowledge coherent, explicit and systematically principled structure characteristic of formal schooling and of academic study where knowledge is abstracted from everyday and commonsense understandings Then bernstein differentiates vertical discourse into different kinds of knowledge structures: Hierarchical knowledge structures Horizontal knowledge structures

From the field of the sociology of knowledge …. Disciplines as kinds of knowledge structures (Bernstein 1999) Bernstein draws our attention to differences in kinds of knowledge (what he calls discourses): Horizontal discourse or commonsense knowledge ‘local, segmentally organised, context-specific and dependent’ The kind of knowledge we acquire and use in the home and local community. Vertical discourse or un-commonsense knowledge 'coherent, explicit and systematically principled structure'. characteristic of formal schooling and of academic study where knowledge is abstracted from everyday and commonsense understandings. Then Bernstein differentiates vertical discourse into different kinds of knowledge structures: Hierarchical knowledge structures Horizontal knowledge structures

Disciplines as Hierarchicalor Horizontal knowledge structures( Bernstein 1999) a hierarchical knowledge structure is one that builds on and integrates knowledge at lower levels in the attempt to create very general propositions and theories. there is an integration of existing knowledge in the process of constructing new knowledge s in the natural sciences This orientation towards integration at lower levels in the building of generalised propositions is typically represented visually as a triangle a horizontal knowledge structure is 'a series of specialised languages, each with its own specialised modes of interrogation and specialised criteria as in the humanities a horizontal knowledge structure is represented diagrammatically as a series of discrete strongly bounded and so segmented languages L1 L2L3L

Disciplines as Hierarchical or Horizontal knowledge structures (Bernstein 1999) A hierarchical knowledge structure is one that builds on and integrates knowledge at lower levels in the attempt 'to create very general propositions and theories’. There is an integration of existing knowledge in the process of constructing new knowledge - as in the natural sciences. This orientation towards integration at lower levels in the building of generalised propositions is typically represented visually as a triangle: A horizontal knowledge structure is 'a series of specialised languages, each with its own specialised modes of interrogation and specialised criteria’ - as in the humanities. A horizontal knowledge structure is represented diagrammatically as a series of discrete strongly bounded and so segmented languages L 1 L 2 L 3 L n

Knowledge structures( Bernstein 1996, 1999, 2000) Accumulating knowledge through integration Hierarchical knowledge structure th e sciences Accumulating knowledge segmentally Horizontal knowledge structure the humanities Segmented languages some with with stronger verticality the e social sciences

Accumulating knowledge through integration Hierarchical knowledge structure the sciences Accumulating knowledge segmentally Horizontal knowledge structure the humanities Segmented languages some with with stronger verticality the social sciences Knowledge structures (Bernstein 1996,1999, 2000) L 1 L 2 L 3 L n

On the basis of this theorisation from sociology of disciplines as different kinds of knowledge structures we might expect to find differences in the ways in which research writers from different disciplines go about constructing a warrant for their research in the introductions to their research papers If they come from disciplinary homes that view knowledge differently and have different ways of accumulating knowledge then we might expect that they would engage differently with other sources of knowledge in the construction of their research warrants. We might expect to find evidence in their writing of differences in degrees of integration or of segmentation

On the basis of this theorisation from sociology of disciplines as different kinds of knowledge structures … we might expect to find differences in the ways in which research writers from different disciplines go about constructing a warrant for their research in the introductions to their research papers. If they come from disciplinary homes that view knowledge differently and have different ways of accumulating knowledge then we might expect that they would engage differently with other sources of knowledge in the construction of their research warrants. We might expect to find evidence in their writing of differences in degrees of integration or of segmentation

Disciplines as Hierarchical or Horizontal knowledge structures and Hierarchical or Horizontal knower structures Maton 2007, 2009) Maton takes the conceptualisation of different kinds of knowledge structures a step further claims to knowledge are not just of the world, they are also made by authors for every knowledge structure there is also a knower structure Just as we can speak of disciplines as representing hierarchical or horizontal knowledge structures. so we can also consider them as hierarchical or horizontal knower structures Science can be characterized as a horizontal knower structure, in which knowers are segmented by specialized modes of acting and where the social profile of the scientist is irrelevant for scientific insight, while the humanities can be seen as a hierarchical knower structure where knowers are integrated hierarchically in the construction of an ideal knower

Disciplines as Hierarchical or Horizontal knowledge structures and Hierarchical or Horizontal knower structures(Maton 2007, 2009) Maton takes the conceptualisation of different kinds of knowledge structures a step further. ‘claims to knowledge are not just of the world, they are also made by authors’ 'for every knowledge structure there is also a knower structure’ Just as we can speak of disciplines as representing hierarchical or horizontal knowledge structures, so we can also consider them as hierarchical or horizontal knower structures. Science can be characterized as a horizontal knower structure, in which knowers are segmented by specialized modes of acting, and where the social profile of the scientist is irrelevant for scientific insight, while the humanities can be seen as a hierarchical knower structure where knowers are integrated hierarchically in the construction of an ideal knower

LCT theory Maton 2007) epistemic relation ER+ knowledge elite socia SR SR+ relation relativist knower ER- Legitimation codes of specialisation (Maton 2007

Legitimation codes of specialisation (Maton 2007) LCT theory (Maton 2007)

Legitimation Code Theory( lct)(Maton 2000) two sets of relations: the epistemic relation and the social relation The epistemic relation is that between educational knowledge and its proclaimed object of study that part of the world of which knowledge is claimed) What can be known and how? The social relation is that between educational knowledge and its author or subject who is making the claim to knowledge Who can know? Each of these sets of relations can be relatively stronger or weaker. Stronger epistemic relations give emphasis to the possession of explicit principles skills and procedures Stronger social relations and give emphasis to the attitudes and dispositions of knowers Legitimation Code Theory(LCT)proposes that intellectual fields or disciplines can be differentiated in terms of the relative strength or weakness of their epistemic relations and their social relations

Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) (Maton 2000) two sets of relations: the epistemic relation and the social relation. The epistemic relation is that 'between educational knowledge and its proclaimed object of study (that part of the world of which knowledge is claimed)'. What can be known and how? The social relation is that 'between educational knowledge and its author or subject (who is making the claim to knowledge)’. Who can know? Each of these sets of relations can be relatively stronger or weaker. Stronger epistemic relations give emphasis to the possession of explicit principles, skills and procedures; Stronger social relations and give emphasis to the attitudes and dispositions of knowers. Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) proposes that intellectual fields or disciplines can be differentiated in terms of the relative strength or weakness of their epistemic relations and their social relations