Methodology in This Study

In the subgroups of English studies, rhetoric and composition is a relatively new field. In a sense, the field emerges and reemerges through empirical approaches to theory, writing research, and compositional practices of writers. The name “rhetoric and composition” itself connotes an

interdisciplinary praxis of theory or philosophy on discourse (rhetoric) and practice (composition). This sort of praxis isn’t confined to this particular field, either. In discussing discourse analysis in

communications studies, van Leeuwen (2008) emphasizes the need to participate in social practices and to represent them: “I will insist on the difference between ‘doing it’ and ‘talking about it,’ and on the plurality of discourses – the many different possible ways that the same social practice can be represented” (p. 6).

Discourse analysis is useful to compositional studies in that it is a review of the literature of a public or similar publics. The researcher looks for clues on meaning and “recontextualized social practice” (ibid). Systematically, she finds clues on the identities and writing practices of students or authors and how those practices reflect not only compositional knowledge and abilities, but also future pedagogical implications for improvement. Because of the retrospective aspect involved in discourse analysis, the only certainty in theorizing about a discourse is that is always historical: the discourse is an artifact on what has occurred (the writing). Here, another praxis in compositional research is needed that focuses on the present and the context surrounding the present.

MacNealy (1999) points to the educational aspect of discourse analysis for writing studies: “Discourse analysis was first used in writing research by scholars interested in improving education in writing” (p. 127). Indeed, discourse analysis carries a didactic component for the researcher and his audience.

Discourse analysis also can be a pedagogical tool for the participants of the discourse. For example, a critique of the writing of a street newspaper (SNP) can demonstrate to those particular organizations the need to improve how their articles are represented. Torck (2001) performed such an analysis by looking at the articles of several SNPs part of the International Network of Street

Newspapers (INSP): “Contents of SNPs can be extremely different. At the root of this article lies the desire to reflect on the ambivalence of this transaction, and on the various approaches to the

homelessness issue as presented by these newspapers” (p. 3). While he poses an acerbic tone here with “ambivalence” in the content, the statement serves as a challenge for those newspapers to rethink their representations of “the homelessness issue.”

Discourse analysis, as in the aforementioned case, accomplishes a duality: a critique of content and “issue” through rhetoric and a production of a new rhetoric. van Leeuwen (2008) again highlights this new discourse: “As discourses are social cognitions, socially specific ways of knowing social

practices, they can be, and are, used as resources for representing social practices in text. This means that it is possible to reconstruct discourses from the texts that draw on them” (p. 6). This reconstruction aligns with MacNealy’s (1999) theorization: “Writing Researchers…are usually not much interested in language itself as they are interested in what they can learn about something else through studying the language used in a particular situation” (p. 126). The “something else” here can be the reconstruction itself in discourse analysis.

Although Miles and Huberman (1994) don’t explicitly name discourse analysis in the following quotation, their general discussion of empirical studies in writing and the need to diversify samples of analysis lend to discourse analysis and theory: “One aim of studying multiple cases is to increase generalizability, reassuring yourself that the events and processes in one well-described setting are not wholly idiosyncratic” (p. 172). In other words, it is important for researchers to refrain from using a particular discourse (one SNP, for example) in application of the universal. Each deserves its own separate analysis.

More recently, Blakeslee and Fleischer (2007) define discourse analysis in pragmatic terms; in other words, how language is normative: “[Discourse analysis] entails looking at language use” (p. 16). They go on to say that such analysis can be applied in two different ways: “There are two ways to carry out such analyses. One is to consider either the text as a whole or parts of it alone as independent objects of study. The other, which is referred to as context-sensitive text analysis, entails taking into account the setting and situation in which the text was created or is functioning” (p. 122). However, I argue that thorough discourse analysis considers both content and context. The two are reliant on each other, and I’m not the first to assertively say so: “In no context should we choose our method first, allowing it to narrow what kinds of questions we can ask, for to do so is to ignore context itself” (Johanek, 2000, p. 3).

Following the statement by Johanek (2000), good research questions for discourse analysis of SNPs, for example, may look like: How does the changing or transient environments for homeless writers effect their writing? This question may point to particular SNPs of cities and their attitudes on whether or not to have homeless writers (several SNPs have freelance or paid writers, neither homeless nor formerly homeless). The question also may highlight the need for “institutionalization” or stability through writing and a discourse community (van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 20).

There is a weakness in some discourse analysis; in addition to looking at historical context – the past, not the present, tense – some researchers on discourse simply don’t have enough knowledge about the particular discourse reviewed. Blakeslee and Fleischer (2007) imply that it is preferable to have extensive knowledge of the discourse of a particular focus area. (p. 16) Again, this knowledge is a part of the contextualization and “recontextualization.”

Also, some discourse analyses provide no feedback from the authors of the text. Blakeslee and Fleischer (2007) suggest that although the author’s input isn’t required for discourse analysis, discourse- based interview questions can shed light on the author’s particular use of words. (p. 123) As with this latter case, however, there is still a degree of uncertainty: are the interviewee’s responses reliable? Are the researchers’ questions leading or insinuating?

In any event, the questions and responses would still be reflection on the past. The need for immediacy and focus on the present in addition to the past is prevalent.

If purposes and questions for research determine the methods used for a study (Johanek, 2000; MacNealy, 1999), then ethnography is beneficial to a field when a dearth of information about a

particular culture and environment is available. MacNealy (1999) states, “An ethnographic study is especially useful when little is know about an area of interest, and ethnographic studies contribute, as do case studies, to the development of hypotheses” (p. 214). Unlike laboratory experiments, then,

hypotheses in ethnographic studies are constructed and reconstructed during the study itself. As such, ethnography is contextual and contemporary, exposing the present state of a subculture.

MacNealy (1999) further breaks down ethnography in discussing the participant-observer researcher that possibly requires previous, extensive training to do so. (p. 220) It is important, in certain situations, for an ethnographer in composition studies to be both participating and observing. This scenario is analogous with teaching. For example, teachers of writing are writers themselves; immersive studies on writing involve not just seeing, but doing and calculating the time those studies take. Miles and Huberman (1994) tacitly say: “Field research is a process of progressive focusing and funneling” (p. 151). Again, a process denotes time, which poses a problem or challenge for ethnographic participant- observers.

Blakeslee and Fleischer (2007) insinuate time as potentially problematic of ethnography: “Immersion generally requires large blocks of regularly scheduled time (ideally on a daily basis) so that you can lose yourself in your data” (p. 168). Of course, here, “losing yourself” doesn’t apply to the participant-observer; rather, the participant-observer preserves herself as a part of the study. Still, as a study of not only others, but himself, the participant-observer requires more time than mere

observation.

In addition to time, ethnographers must resist colonization. Creswell (2009) emphatically states: “Both the researcher and the participants should benefit from the research” (p. 90). In order to do so, ethnography should not disempower the population of study. (p. 89) In other words, the participant- observer ethnographer should effect a positive change if possible with the subculture of study.

Although the participant-observer preserves herself in ethnography, the sense of otherness within a subculture can still be sensed. MacNealy (1999) is instrumental in acknowledging this aspect:

Even though a participant researcher, by definition, works right alongside co-workers, there is still a sense of isolation because the researcher is also collecting data that he or she cannot

discuss with co-workers during the collection phase because doing so could affect the behavior of the co-workers and thus distort subsequent data. (p. 221)

Indeed, the researcher may be the only one within the subgroup that is reflexively commenting on the behaviors and practices therein, including his own. Although the researcher may not share the observations and findings with the participants, it is imperative that the researcher obtains permission from authors or speakers to analyze their words. (Blakeslee and Fleischer, 2004, p. 126)

If possible, a participant-observer of ethnography should contextualize the past and

recontextualize the present through respective discourse analysis that produces a generality and the ethnography itself, focusing on the particular state from which that or similar discourse is produced. Both methods of empirical research can work alongside each other, highlighting weaknesses and strengths each method produces. For example, Torck (2001) admits that although there is a “general ambivalence,” Street Sheet, an SNP based in San Francisco, is a solid representation of the issues surrounding homelessness. (p. 14) An ethnography on Street Sheet and its contributors could expose some answers to the question: Why is this street newspaper a better representation of homelessness than its distant and international relatives?

More importantly, a combination of discourse analysis and participant-observer ethnography could expose future implications about the possibility of advancement or progression within a particular discourse community. A more recent SNP example would be the phenomenon of Nashville’s The Contributor. That monthly paper, now six years old, has a circulation of more than 100,000. Not only are all of the writers homeless or formerly homeless, the paper organization is a recognized not-for- profit entity. A discourse analysis of the paper’s progression from the pilot issue to now provides

context of its relatively short history; an ethnography on the papers’ environment as a not-for-profit, the vendors, and the readers of the paper could recontextualize the paper for present and future

implications. (van Leeuwen, 2008) Perhaps most importantly the dual methods could answer burning questions such as: how has the paper empowered its participants and how does it continue to do so?