The archaeology of knowledge
01 Sep 1989-pp 227-260
TL;DR: We may not be able to make you love reading, but archaeology of knowledge will lead you to love reading starting from now as mentioned in this paper, and book is the window to open the new world.
Abstract: We may not be able to make you love reading, but archaeology of knowledge will lead you to love reading starting from now. Book is the window to open the new world. The world that you want is in the better stage and level. World will always guide you to even the prestige stage of the life. You know, this is some of how reading will give you the kindness. In this case, more books you read more knowledge you know, but it can mean also the bore is full.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, it is argued that an analysis of im/politeness as social practice necessitates a move away from a simplistic speaker-hearer model of interaction to a consideration of the broader participation framework within which they arise, and the positioning of the analysts vis-a-vis that participation order.
170 citations
01 Jan 2009
TL;DR: This chapter provides a general introduction to some key theoretical concepts of use in library and information science (LIS) research and describes thirteen metatheoretical approaches in wide use in LIS.
Abstract: The objective of this chapter is to provide a general introduction to some key theoretical concepts of use in library and information science (LIS) research. First, the three terms in the title, metatheory, theory, and model, are defined and discussed. Next, an extended example is provided of a case in which a researcher might consider and test various models or theories in information seeking research. Next, metatheories are considered at greater length, and the distinction is made between nomothetic and idiographic metatheories. Finally, thirteen metatheoretical approaches in wide use in LIS are described. Explanatory texts are referenced, as well as example studies using each approach. The discussion is necessarily brief and simplifying.
167 citations
Cites background or methods from "The archaeology of knowledge"
...” This metatheory arose from the work of Bakhtin (Holquist, 2002) and Foucault (1972), among others. Frohmann (1994) and Talja (1999) have expounded on the use of this approach in LIS....
[...]
...” This metatheory arose from the work of Bakhtin (Holquist, 2002) and Foucault (1972), among others. Frohmann (1994) and Talja (1999) have expounded on the use of this approach in LIS. This approach has been applied in LIS by Budd & Raber (1996), Frohmann (2001), and Talja (2001), among others....
[...]
...This metatheory arose from the work of Bakhtin (Holquist, 2002) and Foucault (1972), among others....
[...]
...” This metatheory arose from the work of Bakhtin (Holquist, 2002) and Foucault (1972), among others....
[...]
...” This metatheory arose from the work of Bakhtin (Holquist, 2002) and Foucault (1972), among others. Frohmann (1994) and Talja (1999) have expounded on the use of this approach in LIS. This approach has been applied in LIS by Budd & Raber (1996), Frohmann (2001), and Talja (2001), among others. A non-LIS, but highly relevant example can be seen in Hayles (1999)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, a more sophisticated understanding of organizational discourse is developed, in which discourse is viewed as a duality of communicative actions and structural properties, recursively linked through the modality of actors' interpretive schemes.
Abstract: Existing approaches to organizational discourse, which we label as 'managerialist', 'interpretive' and 'critical', either privilege agency at the expense of structure or the other way around. This tension reflects that between approaches to discourse in the social sciences more generally but is sharper in the organizational context, where discourse is typically temporally and contextually specific and imbued with attributions of instrumental intent. As the basis for a more sophisticated understanding of organizational discourse, we draw on the work of Giddens to develop a structurational conceptualization in which discourse is viewed as a duality of communicative actions and structural properties, recursively linked through the modality of actors' interpretive schemes. We conclude by exploring some of the theoretical implications of this conceptualization and its consequences for the methodology of organizational discourse analysis.abs>
167 citations
Cites background from "The archaeology of knowledge"
...Discourse and the study of organization: Toward a structurational perspective...
[...]
TL;DR: The authors examined the extent to which academic staff are "captured" by the discourse associated with the new higher education (NHE) in the UK and identified the factors which condition their ability to displace, negotiate, reconstruct and create alternative discourses.
Abstract: This paper addresses the extent to which academic staff are ‘captured’ by the discourse associated with the ‘new higher education’ (NHE) in the UK and identifies the factors which condition their ability to displace, negotiate, reconstruct and create alternative discourses. In addressing this task, the paper draws on data from a five-year ethnographic study of an English university, NewU, a single document from NewU published after that study, a comparative study of ‘new’ academics in England and Canada, and spontaneous textual data produced at a conference on higher education. The paper concludes that the dialogical nature of universities means that the impact of NHE discourse on organizational practices is mitigated as it is read and reacted to in varied ways: that academics are not fundamentally ‘captured’ by this discursive form. However, caution is advised in extending this argument too far.
165 citations
Cites background from "The archaeology of knowledge"
...Foucault (1977) argues that discourses are: . . . practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak . . . Discourses are not about objects; they do not identify objects, they constitute them and in the practice of doing so conceal their own invention....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) origins, what it has meant to the academic world as a whole, how it encapsulates various trends with different theoretical backgrounds and methodological approaches, what are its limitations and its new developments.
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to see what Critical Discourse Analysis is. This implies scrutinising its origins, what it has meant to the academic world as a whole, how it encapsulates various trends with different theoretical backgrounds and methodological approaches, what are its limitations and its new developments. A simple practical example will show its potential.
164 citations
References
More filters
Book•
18 Jul 2003
TL;DR: Part 1: Social Analysis, Discourse Analysis, Text Analysis 1. Introduction 2. Texts, Social Events, and Social Practices 3. Intertextuality and Assumptions Part 2: Genres and Action 4. Genres 5. Meaning Relations between Sentences and Clauses 6. Discourses 8. Representations of Social Events Part 4: Styles and Identities 9. Modality and Evaluation 11. Conclusion
Abstract: Part 1: Social Analysis, Discourse Analysis, Text Analysis 1. Introduction 2. Texts, Social Events, and Social Practices 3. Intertextuality and Assumptions Part 2: Genres and Action 4. Genres 5. Meaning Relations between Sentences and Clauses 6. Types of Exchange, Speech Functions, and Grammatical Mood Part 3: Discourses and Representations 7. Discourses 8. Representations of Social Events Part 4: Styles and Identities 9. Styles 10. Modality and Evaluation 11. Conclusion
6,407 citations
TL;DR: A set of principles for the conduct and evaluation of interpretive field research in information systems is proposed, along with their philosophical rationale, and the usefulness of the principles is illustrated by evaluating three publishedinterpretive field studies drawn from the IS research literature.
Abstract: This article discusses the conduct and evaluatoin of interpretive research in information systems. While the conventions for evaluating information systems case studies conducted according to the natural science model of social science are now widely accepted, this is not the case for interpretive field studies. A set of principles for the conduct and evaluation of interpretive field research in information systems is proposed, along with their philosophical rationale. The usefulness of the principles is illustrated by evaluating three published interpretive field studies drawn from the IS research literature. The intention of the paper is to further reflect and debate on the important subject of grounding interpretive research methodology.
5,588 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1999
TL;DR: In Sorting Things Out, Bowker and Star as mentioned in this paper explore the role of categories and standards in shaping the modern world and examine how categories are made and kept invisible, and how people can change this invisibility when necessary.
Abstract: What do a seventeenth-century mortality table (whose causes of death include "fainted in a bath," "frighted," and "itch"); the identification of South Africans during apartheid as European, Asian, colored, or black; and the separation of machine- from hand-washables have in common? All are examples of classification -- the scaffolding of information infrastructures. In Sorting Things Out, Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star explore the role of categories and standards in shaping the modern world. In a clear and lively style, they investigate a variety of classification systems, including the International Classification of Diseases, the Nursing Interventions Classification, race classification under apartheid in South Africa, and the classification of viruses and of tuberculosis. The authors emphasize the role of invisibility in the process by which classification orders human interaction. They examine how categories are made and kept invisible, and how people can change this invisibility when necessary. They also explore systems of classification as part of the built information environment. Much as an urban historian would review highway permits and zoning decisions to tell a city's story, the authors review archives of classification design to understand how decisions have been made. Sorting Things Out has a moral agenda, for each standard and category valorizes some point of view and silences another. Standards and classifications produce advantage or suffering. Jobs are made and lost; some regions benefit at the expense of others. How these choices are made and how we think about that process are at the moral and political core of this work. The book is an important empirical source for understanding the building of information infrastructures.
4,480 citations
TL;DR: In this article, two such metaphors are identified: the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor, and their entailments are discussed and evaluated, and the question of theoretical unification of research on learning is addressed, wherein the purpose is to show how too great a devotion to one particular metaphor can lead to theoretical distortions and to undesirable practices.
Abstract: This article is a sequel to the conversation on learning initiated by the editors of Educational Researcher in volume 25, number 4. The author’s first aim is to elicit the metaphors for learning that guide our work as learners, teachers, and researchers. Two such metaphors are identified: the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor. Subsequently, their entailments are discussed and evaluated. Although some of the implications are deemed desirable and others are regarded as harmful, the article neither speaks against a particular metaphor nor tries to make a case for the other. Rather, these interpretations and applications of the metaphors undergo critical evaluation. In the end, the question of theoretical unification of the research on learning is addressed, wherein the purpose is to show how too great a devotion to one particular metaphor can lead to theoretical distortions and to undesirable practices.
3,660 citations
TL;DR: Problematization is proposed as a methodology for identifying and challenging assumptions underlying existing literature and, based on that, formulating research questions that are likely to lead to more influential theories.
Abstract: It is increasingly recognized that what makes a theory interesting and influential is that it challenges our assumptions in some significant way. However, established ways for arriving at research questions mean spotting or constructing gaps in existing theories rather than challenging their assumptions. We propose problematization as a methodology for identifying and challenging assumptions underlying existing literature and, based on that, formulating research questions that are likely to lead to more influential theories.
1,126 citations