Narrative Matters 2012 — Panel Possibilities
See my separate new thread re the overall thinking for NM2012 in Paris: next May-time http://edtechandtesol.info/phd/?p=2638
The purpose of this new thread is to focus on the second area (in that overall thinking), that of a Panel offered by the LTE reseachers and their associates. This is where my thinking had reached previously:
My thinking so far – but not as yet checked out thoroughly against the information about the conference themes and Panel possibilities – is concerned with what might be termed subversive storylines, i.e. the storylines that our research participants (including ourselves) tell which challenge existing, dominant storylines re gender, nation, ethnicity, etc. Vague, I know, but an idea is germinating …
So, some new thinking:
- Eljee suggests that, from the six suggested bullet points in Call for Papers, the second one seems like the best “fit”, i.e. “How can narrative research have a greater impact on the lives of real persons and institutions? How can narrative theory and practice better inform one another?” She wonders if the pragmatic tone signalled by the “how” could allow for the area of subversion to open up for us …
- Conference organiser Brian Schiff notes that “A panel will include the title and abstract for the panel itself and the title/abstract/info on each of the papers. Abstracts are limited to 300 words. I would think of addressing one of the conference themes. Does that help? We are still getting the submission tool up and running. It should be more clear once this is in place.”
- So, although there may be room for some creativity within the Panel genre, the line seems to be that of a set of papers all relating directl;y to the Panel theme. But, we are potentially many – current students (Eljee, Lou, Tanya, Magdalena? Achilleas? Magda?), former students (Viv, Mariam), research associates (Leah?, Hiromi?, Clare Lennie?), and potentially a wider circle also (e.g. Stephen for the transgender project mentioned elsewhere) – so, I suggest that we use comments on this posting to explore who might want to be involved in the Panel as performers as it were …
- What do I mean by subversive storylines? I am thinking that at any point in time each of us has available to us a set of storylines, narrative schemata for understandng our experience and projecting into the future, and that, for a variety of reasons, the set of possible storylines available to us may change, and new storylines may emerge which challenge something about the previous storyline status quo. Thus, the emergent storylines may subvert the prevoous possibilities. A key word here is ’emergent’ since this helps me to keep as distinct subervisve storlines from more politically-driven counter-narratives for example (but the distinction is blurred in my thinking still).
- Let me give some concrete examples: as her professional experience developed in the worlf of TESOL, the existing professional storylines of being a NEST or a NNEST were challenged by Eljee’s emerging sense of a new kind of storyline, that of being a VEM-NEST, and as this new construct became more concrete in her thinking, it challenged/subveted the previous binarydistinction (Eljee does this work for you?).
- A second example, working with Leah on the Ladino stories of the elderly Sephardic Jews in Bulgaria, I can see now how their accounts (in whivch, for example, one of these ‘Bulgarians’ spoke Ladino as a first language (n the home and in the SEphardic community), then Turkish (for village communication more broadly), then Hebrew (as a language of instruction in the Jewish schools in operation in the 1930s,a nd only then, in 4th place maybe, Bulgarian. This storyteller’s account in some ways challenges the availabel storlines about what it might mean (in linguistic terms) to be Bulgarian. (Does this work for you Leah?)
- Tanya’s study is most obviously connected to this subversive storylines theme as she explotes how the women in her research subvert the available storylines for womern in Yemeni society (is this an ok summary Tanya?)
- Hiromi’s auto-biographical work on the ‘passive Asian language learner’ not only probematises that noton but also cteates new storylines through which EFL teachers might understand their e.g. Japanese learners …. does this work for you Hiromi?
- I could, given time, play around with my sense of the possibilities of ‘subversive storylines’ for each of the research areas you are each involved in, and as ahve been doing so, I can see potential in all of these research topics that (to a larger or lesser extent) I know about, but the Panel idea will only work if such possibilities work for each of you as well.
- So, can you have a think about your topics in this kind of way, and see whether the ‘subversive storylines’ theme does make any sense to you, and whether or not you could imagine making a contribution on this theme using one of your topis/interests as the foreground? If so, post a comment here in response to my prompt 🙂
So, that is more than enough for one posting from me. Any thoughts?
Richard
Hi Richard and everyone,
Richard, thank you for inviting me to join this discussion, and also sorry that it took me so long to actually do so.
Yes, as you suggested, subversive storytelling perfectly matches my interest area. I’m Japanese, and Japanese people are often believed to have unique attributes. Such belief is held by both non-Japanese and Japanese people themselves. For example, many claim that the Japanese culture and its education system have programmed its people to be passive, reticent learners. One of the mainstream storylines which support such a belief is “At school we were required to sit quietly and to copy down notes what the teacher writes on the blackboard. We were never allowed to question what the teacher tells us.” I don’t claim it is not true. In some classrooms, as are in other countries/communities, this can be an accurate portrayal of actual communication. However, Japanese also have different styles of classroom communication. When I was a local elementary school student, most teachers encouraged active classroom participation and many students were eager to do so. We enjoyed exchanging opinions freely under the teacher’s supervision. Although teachers were authoritative, we were not too afraid to challenge them. …When I present this story to fellow Japanese, most of them say they have the similar stories. They say such stories just don’t come to their mind when talking about the Japanese culture or education system. When they become aware that their own stories subvert their own belief, such storytelling could be a very powerful agent of change.
Recently one of my former students started to live and work in Edinburgh. Although I had taught him English for two years, I never had a chance to discuss intercultural issues with him. So I didn’t know he had a firm belief that Japanese people are too modest to be heard and should be more assertive. When he had some trouble with his host family, he decided to express his dissatisfaction openly and to tell them what he wants. As you can imagine, his assertiveness did not help him solve the problem. Their relationship got no better, and he left them eventually. When I heard this from him, I felt sad. I could have helped him if I had had a chance to discuss intercultural issues with him earlier, but then I thought, this story of him and his host family itself is a valuable material which we should all share and learn from.
… This is what I’m currently thinking. Richard, am I on the right track?
To see what the Conference Call was all about, check out the webpage:
http://my.aup.edu/conference/narrative-matters-2012
Hi Richard et al!
Yes, this looks interesting.
Subversive storytelling fits with my previous research in Global Citizenship in HE wherin participants discussed issues on human agency. A number of my participants related students agency to their ability to act in society and related stories of thatcherism in the UK and how this was seen as a negative affect for industry workers and unions. However, when answering my questions they related thatcherism to inhibiting human agency and a lack of community action enforced by previous political changes in contemorary society. In my interpretation of the above, I think, the storyline of political change was, therefore, subverted by relating the original tale to other areas of social action and participation and not just the original story of trade union decline?
I am free and able for the conference but running our one in March so not sure of my use on a panel. Do they want full research papers/posters/presentations?
Miri
Today, when reading the hard-copy of the Observer – and specifically an article by war reporter Peter Beaumont reflecting on the riots in his home neighbourhood of Tottenham (and I have so far failed to find the corresonding e-copy of the same article) – a quotation from a youth worker, Alvin Carpio, caught my eye as it uses the imagery of ‘path’ in a way which seems to me to resonate with that of ‘[subversive] storylines’.
Carpio is quoted as saying that the local groups of youths who describe themselves as being in gangs do have a sense of responsibility (pace Cameron-Clegg) and loyalty but that this is misdirected, thereby creating communities (with their own rules) within communities. His thinking continues as follows:
“They are loyal to themselves. If someone acts and someone else does not, it raises the question: ‘What were you doing when I was taking a risk? Why weren’t you there?’ and that increases the pressure for the others to join in.”
The article then reports Carpio’s analysis that, for those with few paths available to them to follow, the figure in the community with the big car, the drugs and money, appears to offer an alternative.
He concludes: “The challenge is for us to open up more paths”.
So, in this use of ‘paths’, I see parallels with our use of ‘storyline’, e.g. “The challenge is for us to open up more storylines”, i.e. new storylines for these youths, storylines which subvert the dominant storylines relating to the gang cultures of conformity to which Carpio refers earlier.
Thanks Achilleas. You have explained what sin my mind much better than I did 🙂
Tonight, after dinner (still don’t know what the Brits call it) we had Turkish coffee. My wife, her parents and I. Then my wife’s mother happily proclaims that she sees two fish in the crud-like inside rim of her little mug. Ah, fish is wealth. Someone jokes it will soon be ours through inheritance. Then my wife proclaims to see a Christmas tree – that is Zeynep in a nutshell. Always on the lookout for Christmas. I look at the inside rim of my own little mug … I squint … I imagine … but I see no wealth, no Christmas and no Jesus figure. I only see the residue of the coffee ‘crema’ unevenly patterned.
Richard, I am confused. What are you seeing that I am not seeing?
Juup
This ‘coffee-mancy’ incident invites much commentary, but I will limit myself to saying that my wife and Zeynep appear to have something in common.
I think that Richard is talking about the scope for a making a methodological contribution to knowledge. The parallel, as I understand it, lies in the fact that by looking into reconciliation talk, post-conflict discourse etc. the work by you and Lynn also offered insights on how metaphors work, and how to study metaphors. Similarly, individual papers in the proposed panel might present substantive findings in a range of topic areas (from feminist perspectives to post-method pedagogy), but the panel could perhaps focus on the methodological common ground shared by all papers (i.e. subversive narrative) and how it can be analysed.
To return to Achilleas’ last message: “By abstracting from different cases and comparing them to each other, we could perhaps theorise about how such storylines emerge, how they relate to the dominant discourse and what they offer.”
What came to mind at this point was Juup’s previous work with Lyn Cameron in which they analysed a particular piece of discourse using metaphor analysis (I summarise it somewhat crudely). I give the references below if you want to follow this work up further. Why did it come to mind? I was thinking in terms of a process of a particular analytical frame on a particular piece of discourse to see what could be learned about both the topic of the discourse and the analytical methodology.
So, we would each be using the particular analytical frame provided by the notion of storylines to explore our particular topic areas with view to seeing what we could learn about the dynamics, practicalities, complexities, characteristics etc of both subversive storylines as well as about the ways in which these storylines shed new light on our favoured topics.
I’m not sure how far I can take this analogy (and maybe Juup will have some thoughts on the matter?) but as it occurred to me I decided to share it.
Cameron, L. (2010) Metaphor and reconciliation: The discourse dynamics of empathy in post-conflict conversations. London, Routledge.
Cameron, L. (2007). Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk. Discourse and Society, 18(2), 197-222.
If it is an account of the actual analytical processes then one possible source is:
Cameron, L., & Stelma, J. (2004). Metaphor clusters in discourse. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 7-36.
Very exciting 🙂 Thanks for the very useful exchange Richard and Achilleas! I am still thinking, as I believe there might be other subversive storylines in my research – maybe less obvious but equally interesting…
That might work well. And there is also the relationship between the Panel contribution and a separate paper by each of us potentially, and for some, there might be a close relationship between the two things, for others, not so much.
Or there could be ‘long’ and ‘short’ versions of each paper. A full version could present the subversive storyline in some detail, and a panel version could focus sharply on those aspects that are most relevant for the theorising, i.e. the common ground and salient differences between cases.
Yes, I am similarly intrigued. Imagine also adding Eljee plus subervsions of professional storylines such as NEST vs NNEST professional trajectories? Or Made’s re the dominant storyline of professional development for teachers being organised by and located in the capital and how her project and the teachers in it asert a different locale and driver for such CPD? So, by bringing such an eclectic set of cases together I do indeed hope we could therorise along the lines you suggest about SSs.
I take your point about what each of us might focus on and that in your case the topic might not flow directly out of an existing reseach project (with data already generated etc) and therefore public texts might work best. I think you might be the only one in this category BTW.
Panel formats vary and this one seems to be vague so I think we will need to scale what we do. i.e. the cases – and the depth we go into in each case – will need carefully managing so that we have space also for the overall theorising for them …. tricky 🙂
Still processing what you wrote, but here are two quick comments:
1. I am intrigued by the idea of a panel that would bring together, under the theme of subversion, political, gender (cf. Tanya), linguistic (ELF?) and other emergent storylines. By abstracting from different cases and comparing them to each other, we could perhaps theorise about how such storylines emerge, how they relate to the dominant discourse and what they offer.
2. In opting for public, rather than private, discourse I was thinking mainly of the challenge of obtaining ethical approval at such short notice, assuming that the data we draw on is not being already generated for some other project.
Hi Achilleas, many thanks for this. It is in such ‘taking an idra and running with it’ that we (as a group) will see if there is any mileage in the idea of Subversive Storylines for Paris. You ask “Is that close to what you have in mind?” and, to be honest, what I have in mind is as yet a shadoow of something rather than a clear image so this work by you is very helpful. So, I attach some comments, reactions etc below by way of a continuing dialogue on this theme.
> Let’s suppose one were to approach the topic of ‘subversion’ from a political perspective
… which is indeed one of the ‘levels’ or perspectives I have in mind, along with e.g. professional storylines, gende storylines, linguistic storylines etc etc.
> This would involve comparing the dominant ‘narrative’ (a conceptual abstraction) of Greek identity / history / education, and a piece of public discourse (a ‘subversive storyline’)
…. would it have to be public?Couldn;t individuals have private or more localised storylines that subverted the dominant narrative? this is how I see Leah’s Ladino stories for example. I am not sure whether they count as public texts (yet).
> that challenged this ‘narrative’ in some way.
…. Yes. Challenged, reformulated, re-nuanced, used for differnet purposes, problematised, etc etc. All of these verbs run uncatalogued in my mind.
> Here’s a crude example, just to illustrate what I mean: In the Greek consciousness (and much public discourse) it is taken for granted that the Greek society was homogeneous up until the 1990s, at which point it became multicultural due to the massive influx of immigrants. A subversive storyline would be one that challenged this conceptualization e.g. there was repressed diversity in Greece before the 1990s, but the influx of immigrants stressed the repressive apparatus beyond its effectiveness.
… OK. This fits with my uderstandings for sure. It has explanatory power.
> A possible contribution to the panel would be to take such a subversive storyline, analyse its features and its role within the Discourse and demonstrate how it can enrich our collective understanding.
… Yes. That is very much the way I am working my way towards, i.e. the use of particular cases drawn from our different stdies and areas of interest, each of which illumniate this dominant stprylines challenge, and through a presentation and examination of these cases to explore the anatomy (for want of a better image) of the subversive storyline, and invite our audience to do likewise.
R
Hi Richard,
I was thinking about this, building also on our previous exchange, and I was wondering if you might validate my thinking.
Let’s suppose one were to approach the topic of ‘subversion’ from a political perspective. This would involve comparing the dominant ‘narrative’ (a conceptual abstraction) of Greek identity / history / education, and a piece of public discourse (a ‘subversive storyline’) that challenged this ‘narrative’ in some way.
Here’s a crude example, just to illustrate what I mean: In the Greek consciousness (and much public discourse) it is taken for granted that the Greek society was homogeneous up until the 1990s, at which point it became multicultural due to the massive influx of immigrants. A subversive storyline would be one that challenged this conceptualization e.g. there was repressed diversity in Greece before the 1990s, but the influx of immigrants stressed the repressive apparatus beyond its effectiveness.
A possible contribution to the panel would be to take such a subversive storyline, analyse its features and its role within the Discourse and demonstrate how it can enrich our collective understanding.
Is that close to what you have in mind?
I think the idea of ‘suberversive storylines’ needs elaborating and sharing across the LTE Panel contributors and we also need to position a Panel on such a theme within the conference parameters and decide what it is we want to say about subversive storylines as illustrated with eamples from the separate research projects. I have, as yet, only scratched the surface on this foundational thinking but I am hoping that we can make more progress on this in coming weeks bt also that you each have something to work with for the time being.
Hi everyone
I am definitely interested in contributing. I think I understand what you mean by subversive storylines, but I have to do some more thinking on how this relates to my story….
I must admit that, for the time being, I am struggling to see the relevance of my work to the themes of the conference. Perhaps, and hopefully, something worthwhile will emerge in time, but it is very likely that I will need to confine myself to the role of a non-presenting participant.
So far, the ‘we’ might be (ie these are where expressions of interest have come from):
Richard, Eljee, Tanya, Magdalena, Achilleas? …
and I have high hopes for others including Lou, Leah, Hiromi, Clare ….