Teaching Ethnography/ically: Entanglements of Knowing/Being/Doing in a Doctoral Research Course

M. Botelho, M. Felis
{"title":"Teaching Ethnography/ically: Entanglements of Knowing/Being/Doing in a Doctoral Research Course","authors":"M. Botelho, M. Felis","doi":"10.1177/1940844721991086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1970s and 1980s numerous books and articles on the processes and procedures of qualitative research are published each year, ranging from accounts of different traditions, methodologies, and methods to comprehensive treatments of single approaches or specialized research practices. A small corpus of literature exists on the teaching of qualitative inquiry with the teaching of ethnography rarely considered. The primary focus in these research literatures on methodology and how to do research promotes a divide between epistemology and methodology (Eisenhart & Jurow, 2011). Drawing on feminist poststructuralist and posthumanist theoretical tools this article examines the pedagogical practices and the entanglements they produce in a research course on ethnography in education for doctoral students. Through collective memory work among five faculty members and one graduate teaching assistant, we offer a historical overview and design of the yearlong course within a doctoral program in language, literacy, and culture and, through writing and diffractive reading as analysis, offer commentary on the entanglements of hanging out and hanging loose, going through thick and thin, and disturbing knowledge/power dynamics. This collective remembering and analytical work demonstrates that students’ understanding of ethnographic research as epistemological-methodological-ontological practice as the entanglements produce new knowing/doing/being.","PeriodicalId":90874,"journal":{"name":"International review of qualitative research : IRQR","volume":"15 1","pages":"81 - 102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1940844721991086","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International review of qualitative research : IRQR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1940844721991086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the 1970s and 1980s numerous books and articles on the processes and procedures of qualitative research are published each year, ranging from accounts of different traditions, methodologies, and methods to comprehensive treatments of single approaches or specialized research practices. A small corpus of literature exists on the teaching of qualitative inquiry with the teaching of ethnography rarely considered. The primary focus in these research literatures on methodology and how to do research promotes a divide between epistemology and methodology (Eisenhart & Jurow, 2011). Drawing on feminist poststructuralist and posthumanist theoretical tools this article examines the pedagogical practices and the entanglements they produce in a research course on ethnography in education for doctoral students. Through collective memory work among five faculty members and one graduate teaching assistant, we offer a historical overview and design of the yearlong course within a doctoral program in language, literacy, and culture and, through writing and diffractive reading as analysis, offer commentary on the entanglements of hanging out and hanging loose, going through thick and thin, and disturbing knowledge/power dynamics. This collective remembering and analytical work demonstrates that students’ understanding of ethnographic research as epistemological-methodological-ontological practice as the entanglements produce new knowing/doing/being.
民族志教学:博士研究课程中知/存在/做的纠结
自20世纪70年代和80年代以来,每年都会出版大量关于定性研究过程和程序的书籍和文章,从对不同传统、方法和方法的描述,到对单一方法或专业研究实践的综合处理。在质的探究教学中存在着少量的文献,而民族志教学很少被考虑。这些研究文献中对方法论和如何进行研究的主要关注促进了认识论和方法论之间的分歧(Eisenhart&Jurow,2011)。本文借鉴女权主义后结构主义和后人文主义的理论工具,考察了在博士生教育中的民族志研究课程中的教学实践及其产生的纠葛。通过五名教员和一名研究生助教的集体记忆工作,我们对语言、识字和文化博士项目中为期一年的课程进行了历史概述和设计,并通过写作和衍射阅读作为分析,对闲逛和放松、经历厚薄、,以及令人不安的知识/权力动态。这项集体记忆和分析工作表明,学生们将民族志研究理解为认识论方法论本体论实践,因为纠缠产生了新的知/行/存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信