Search results

This chapter, together with those that follow, builds upon the ideas presented in the previous volume in this series (Maginn, Thompson, & Tonts, 2008). There we outlined our vision for a ‘pragmatic renaissance’ in contemporary qualitative research in urban studies. We argued that to survive as an effective and frequently used tool for policy development, a more systematic approach is needed in the way that qualitative-informed applied urban research is conceptualised and undertaken. In opening this volume we build on these initial ideas using housing as a meta-case study to progress the case for a systematic approach to qualitative research methods. We do this to both stimulate broad debate about the ways, in which qualitative research in urban/housing scholarship might be of greater use to policymakers and practitioners, as well as to suggest a way forward in realising the ‘pragmatic renaissance’.

Higher Education (HE) is spinning. The systematic erosion of our academic freedom, (Docherty, 2012) means that the authors of this chapter no longer know how to navigate what is on the horizon. The neoliberal agenda now driving HE is threatening how we work via, ‘a quiet ruination and decay of academic freedom’ (Docherty, 2012, p. 47). This chapter offers an autoethnography of a collaborative creative project that engaged the authors in dialogues about the effects of neoliberalism on how they teach, work, live and where they compare working in HE to hula-hooping as both demand relentless movement and activity to prevent everything from collapsing. Our story offers ideas for valuing time and space in our academic lives that are playful, creative, bonding, and suggest that by mastering hula-hooping, we have enjoyed a renewed sense of confidence with academic work and academic life.

We employ a range of styles of writing that seek to engage the reader with reflection on their own experiences. Guiding questions for any reader might be, but are by no means restricted to:

What are the effects of neoliberalism on how we work?

How much time do we give for creative play and risk-taking?

What creative methods can we adopt and develop in order to preserve our academic freedom?

How can we navigate the HE landscape effectively without succumbing to neoliberal pressures and shifts?

How can we value human experiences in academic work and in academic life?

There are seven main characters of which five are women: Sindiswa, Mia, Susan, Thenjiwe and Nicky. The other two characters, Glen and Zaccaria, represent males from very different socio-economic and political backgrounds. The character of Dumasani, a young boy, is referred to in the play. What makes the play especially significant is that of a cast of seven, five are women. Throughout the play the character of Glen, a spy for the apartheid government, reveals the manipulative and deceitful manner in which the members of the South African police force and political informers carried out their work. He forms relationships with people about whom he professes to care; however, his only concern is that they are able to provide information that will secure financial reward for his spying activities for the apartheid government. Born in the RSA offers the audience an interesting exchange of ideas and thoughts about the political, economic and social situation in apartheid South Africa. Through the exploration of narratives and improvisation a landscape of violence is thrown open. A landscape of violence, that is not only physical, but also psychological. The play presents a complex situation in which violence does not only come from one source but from various sources such as the government, the youth, the opposition parties, the comrades, the private domestic space, subversive activities and political organisations. Any opposition to government policies results in harsher and more extreme violence by the apartheid regime strengthening their oppressive forces.

Purpose – This chapter presents an analysis of a researcher-led follow-up activity during an early childhood reading lesson that was aligned with a gradual release of responsibility (GRR) model. Particularly, the authors seek to understand how students used their language(s) in this lesson, how they described particular linguistic decisions, and how language could be further conceptualized in such events.

Design/Methodology/Approach – The authors develop a telling case (Mitchell, 1984) from the guided instruction portion of a lesson to make salient theoretical connections between metacognitive strategies taught in early literacy and metalinguistic knowledge theorized from the field of linguistic anthropology. The lesson was video recorded for interactional analysis. The video recording was also used to stimulate recall and allow students to reflect on their own language use.

Findings –Through the telling case, the authors use language socialization as a lens to understand the way students represent story retell with physical objects. Though some students do not use the school-based conventionalized form of retelling, they do engage in retelling by using a variety of other forms. The authors highlight through the case that the metacognitive strategy of story retell is distinct from the abstract linear, left-to-right representation of sequencing of events.

Research Limitations/Implications – This study suggests that further attention is needed to theorize the relationship between reading strategies and forms of representation in multilingual preschool contexts. In particular, the very notions of literacy and language need to be nuanced through conversations among multiple disciplines.

Practical Implications – Practitioners are encouraged to attend to the differences between metacognitive strategies that are useful for reading comprehension and the expected styles of representation. Teachers can consider leveraging the communicative repertoires of emergent bilingual students as they accomplish early literacy activities, thereby, potentially offering further scaffolds for learning reading strategies.

Originality/Value of Paper – This chapter brings nuance to the GRR model by demonstrating that there is a difference between the GRR of metacognitive strategies in reading instruction and the way they are represented through diverse semiotic repertoires.