Why Read (Diffractively)?

IF 0.6 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
P. Du Preez, J. du Toit
{"title":"Why Read (Diffractively)?","authors":"P. Du Preez, J. du Toit","doi":"10.20853/36-1-4837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academics should produce quality scholarly research. However, the demands of the marketised, neoliberal higher education institution and the increase in the academic’s bureaucratic and administrative tasks do not allow for adequate engagement with the deep work and slow forms of scholarship that are needed to produce cutting-edge and insightful research. Many academics find it challenging to think critically and creatively under such conditions, yet they are unwilling to fill their time with shallow work instead. Thus, they are torn between producing an institutionally-determined number of research outputs, and striving towards producing quality scholarly work that advances knowledge in the academic’s discipline. Reading groups serve to rework this tension by providing a communal and scheduled place and mind-space for reading major academic works. Reading takes time and persistence. We find that setting aside time and creating creative spaces for reading groups offer an opportunity for silent revolt against the pressures of the higher education institution. In this (post)qualitative inquiry we diffractively read – “through one another” – two autoethnographical accounts to experiment with our experiences of various reading groups over a period of three years while positioning ourselves in relation to Barad’s notion of diffraction. This speculative experimentation entails a myriad of ideas and methods that serve to decentre hegemonic, monolithic knowledge systems through seeking alternative ways of knowing, and recognises the importance of the entanglement of matter and meaning in tracing (and countering) the social relations produced in neoliberalist contexts. Such (re)thinking is thus a vital counterpoint to the neoliberal obsessions of the higher education context, (re)directing the scholar to new non-autonomous and mutable landscapes.","PeriodicalId":44786,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20853/36-1-4837","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Academics should produce quality scholarly research. However, the demands of the marketised, neoliberal higher education institution and the increase in the academic’s bureaucratic and administrative tasks do not allow for adequate engagement with the deep work and slow forms of scholarship that are needed to produce cutting-edge and insightful research. Many academics find it challenging to think critically and creatively under such conditions, yet they are unwilling to fill their time with shallow work instead. Thus, they are torn between producing an institutionally-determined number of research outputs, and striving towards producing quality scholarly work that advances knowledge in the academic’s discipline. Reading groups serve to rework this tension by providing a communal and scheduled place and mind-space for reading major academic works. Reading takes time and persistence. We find that setting aside time and creating creative spaces for reading groups offer an opportunity for silent revolt against the pressures of the higher education institution. In this (post)qualitative inquiry we diffractively read – “through one another” – two autoethnographical accounts to experiment with our experiences of various reading groups over a period of three years while positioning ourselves in relation to Barad’s notion of diffraction. This speculative experimentation entails a myriad of ideas and methods that serve to decentre hegemonic, monolithic knowledge systems through seeking alternative ways of knowing, and recognises the importance of the entanglement of matter and meaning in tracing (and countering) the social relations produced in neoliberalist contexts. Such (re)thinking is thus a vital counterpoint to the neoliberal obsessions of the higher education context, (re)directing the scholar to new non-autonomous and mutable landscapes.
为什么要(衍射地)阅读?
学者应该进行高质量的学术研究。然而,市场化、新自由主义高等教育机构的需求,以及学术界官僚主义和行政任务的增加,不允许充分参与产生前沿和有见地的研究所需的深度工作和缓慢形式的学术研究。许多学者发现在这样的条件下进行批判性和创造性的思考是一项挑战,但他们不愿意用肤浅的工作来填补他们的时间。因此,他们在生产由机构决定数量的研究成果和努力生产提高学术学科知识的高质量学术工作之间左右为难。阅读小组通过提供一个公共的、预定的地点和思维空间来阅读主要的学术作品,从而重新解决了这种紧张关系。阅读需要时间和毅力。我们发现,为阅读小组留出时间和创造创意空间,为默默地反抗高等教育机构的压力提供了机会。在这个(后)定性调查中,我们衍射地阅读——“通过彼此”——两个自我民族志的叙述,以实验我们在三年时间里不同阅读群体的经历,同时将我们自己与巴拉德的衍射概念联系起来。这种推测性的实验需要无数的想法和方法,通过寻求替代的认识方式来分散霸权的、单一的知识体系,并认识到在追踪(和反击)新自由主义背景下产生的社会关系时,物质和意义纠缠的重要性。因此,这种(重新)思考是对高等教育背景下的新自由主义痴迷的重要对照,(重新)将学者引向新的非自治和可变的景观。
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
South African Journal of Higher Education
South African Journal of Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
28.60%
发文量
38
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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