Project Plan (draft)

Following the genre perspective developed by Miller, Russell, and Barwarshi, this study will need to describe profiles as a genre in relation to an activity system or discourse community. I hope to make this connection through the use of a combined methodology of content analysis to compile and analyze the linguistic and visual features of a corpus of texts and critical discourse analysis to relate the textual analysis to the larger sociocultural context. In addition, I will check my results with members of discourse communities that produced the texts.

Methodology

The methodology for this research attempts to account for the discursive relationship between genres and recurring situations. Essentially, critical discourse analysis (CDA) links text to ideology, which is the crux of genre theory. As defined by Richardson in his analysis of newspapers, “CDA approaches discourse as a circular process in which social practices influence texts, via shaping the context and mode in which they are produced, and in turn texts help influence society via shaping the viewpoints of those who read or otherwise consume them” (37). The method, particularly as described by Fairclough, stems from earlier theories of Bourdieu and Foucault, who articulate the interaction between discourse and power. For Fairclough discourse refers to written or spoken language, and discursive practices refer to the production, distribution, and consumption of theses texts (Discourse and Social Change, 78). Accordingly, critical discourse analysis links linguistic analysis with social analysis. In Richardson’s description, it incorporates methods of textual analysis (see MacNealy), with discourse analysis of text production and consumption. For the purposes of this study, a content analysis will focus on linguistic and structural features of the texts. As explained by Huckin this type of analysis works well to empirically ground other methodologies as it focuses on “identifying, quantifying, and analyzing of specific words, phrases, concepts, or other observable semantic data in a text or body of texts with the aim of uncovering some underlying thematic or rhetorical pattern running through these texts” (14).

The framework described by Kress and van Leeuwen will extend critical discourse analysis to the visual. Taking the page as the semiotic unit, a layout can be compared from left to right, as given and new; from top to bottom as the ideal and real; and from center and margin as the nucleus of information. For images, the analysis will include gaze as a form of direct address, size of frame and length of body shown in relation to social distance, and angles as displays of power relations. Thus, the grammar of visual design as they title it (1996), is functionally equivalent to grammar in a traditional CDA approach, as a way to uncover the ideological subtext in media production, through description extended by modality clues to the explanation of the composition.

In this framework of three stages, outlined by Fairclough in 1989 and 1995, interpretation and explanation complement the first stage of description of the textual and visual features. These latter two stages respectively involve elements and changes of member resources stemming from what may be called common sense, in order to highlight the function of power and ideology. In other words, as Fairclough restated in Media Discourse in 1995, CDA consists of three levels of analysis. A linguistic analysis of a text focuses on “superficial” features such as vocabulary and metaphor. An intertextual analysis refers to the interpretive art of drawing upon member resources. At the third tier, a sociocultural analysis addresses issues of underlying relations of power and associated ideological effects. Yet, these levels of analysis may not be as separate as they seem. As Fairclough states, “both selections amongst available discourses and selections of particular ways of articulating them together are likely to be ideologically significant choices” (1995a, p. 102). However, for the purposes of better understanding the connections, I will attempt to delineate the steps into data collection, levels of analysis, and project evaluation.

Project Steps

1. Compile a corpus of profiles from approximately 10 universities within a defined region. Both the profiles and university will have similar defining characteristics.

2. Conduct a content analysis to record and describe the textual and visual features of the texts, following Yates and Orlikowski’s division of substance and form, with additional image and design components drawn from Kress and van Leeuwen’s work in reading images.

3. Relate the texts to each other and to other resources such as the university style guide to interpret the conventions of the genre or the member resources of the discourse community.

4. Explain the genre conventions in relation to the discourse community and check the explanation with members of the community, such as the writer or editor.

Project Schedule

June 30, 2008 - Thesis Proposal (committee chair)

December 18, 2008 - Final GS2 Form (Enrolled Services)

January 16, 2009 - Chapter 1

January 30, 2009 - Chapter 2

February 13, 2009 - Chapter 3

February 27, 2009 - Chapter 4

March 13, 2009 - Chapter 5

March 23, 2009 - Complete Thesis (committee)

April 10, 2009 - Thesis Defense (committee)

April 24, 2009 - GS7 Form (Enrolled Services)

April 24, 2009 - Complete thesis (Manuscript Review Office)

May 2, 2009 - Format revisions (Manuscript Review Office)

Writing Proposals - Chatper 5

Again, because I am working on a thesis proposal, I try to apply the suggestions in our book to the special case of research proposals. Reading the material on the project plan or the methodology section reminded me of several important components of the proposal. Perhaps the most important feature is answering the why question, as discussed on page 83. However, in most of my coursework, instructors have referred to this aspect as the “so what” question. By asking “so what” as I write, I’m constantly delving deeper into my topic. It’s also about anticipating and answering your readers’ why questions before they have a chance to ask them, and doing so in a way that doesn’t interrupt the flow of the proposal. If you include the information upfront they have more reason to continue reading. At the same time, I think this issue brings up similar concerns from our previous discussion of the audience, specifically to what level do we write the proposal? If we try to anticipate every question, we may include too much want to tell information.

I think one way to learn more about the ideal amount of information is to study the form of proposals and of theses as well. For instance, for another research project an instructor suggested that I skim journals in my field to discover what methodologies article authors found useful. In doing so, I could quickly review methodology sections to determine how much detail they include and to see if I could replicate the study in my own case. I’m a firm believer that we need to read other work in order to improve our own writing, so this method fit well into my thinking about my own research.

I also found it helpful to review other MAPC thesis as I formulated my ideas. While the library stores mostly print copies, you can find several online, including those from other subjects for the purpose of this class. If you are interested in learning more about the structure of the final thesis, so that you can better map out a project plan or chapter outline, the website is http://etd.lib.clemson.edu/. (Note: the database begins with December 2006 submissions.)