Keywords
normative orientation
ideology of correctness
ethnography
How to Cite
Abstract
This paper puts the spotlight on the dominant ‘imaginary’ (Castoriadis 1987) governing writing research, focusing in particular on the way in which evaluation regimes shape analytic orientations towards writing as a phenomenon.
Drawing on data from three different research projects- student writing ( e.g. Lillis 2001), scholars’ writing for publication (e.g. Lillis and Curry 2010) , writing in professional social work (e.g. Lillis, 2017)-the paper has three objectives: 1) to illustrate the normative evaluative approach towards writing evident in practises of uptake within the evaluation regimes, that is by teacher, reviewer, manager/inspector; 2) to signal that some widely used analytic categories/frames used across writing research traditions may mirror features of evaluation regimes and lead to a misrecognition, rather than an illumination of what is going on; 3) to illustrate the value of ethnographically oriented approaches, in particular work which explores writing through a focus on trajectories (of texts and of people) for opening up our research imaginaries and for making visible key dimensions to the phenomena we are exploring.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Barton, D. [1994] (2007). Literacy. an introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical intro- duction. Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. (2006). Ethnography as counter- hegemony: Remarks on epistemology and method, Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 34, 1-8.
Bourdieu, P. (2000 [1977]). Pascalian meditataions. Stanford University Press.
Burgess, S. y Martín Martín, P. (2008). English as an additional language in research publication and communication. Oxford: Peter Lang.
Cameron, D. [1995] (2012). Verbal hygiene. Londres. Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). A geopolitic of academic writing. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Carlino, P. (2005). Escribir, leer y aprender en la uni- versidad. Una introducción a la alfabetización académica. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Oxford: Polity Press.
Curry, M. J. y Lillis, T. (2013). A scholars’ guide to getting published in English. Critical choices and practical strategies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Delcambre, I. y Donahue, C. (2011). University lite- racies: French students at a disciplinary “thres- hold”? Journal of Academic Writing, 1(1), 13-28.
Fischer, A. (2015). “Hidden Features” and “Overt Instruction” in academic literacy practices: A case study in engineering. En T. Lillis, K. Har- rington, M. Lea y S. Mitchell (Eds.), Working with academic literacies: case studies towards transformative practice. [en línea]. Recuperado de http://wac.colostate.edu/books/lillis/
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge.
Horner, B. (2016). Rewriting composition: Terms of exchange. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press. Hymes, D. [1973] (1996). Speech and language: On the origins and foundations of inequality among speakers. En D. Hymes (Ed.), Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality. Towards an understanding of voice (pp. 25-62). Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kapp, R. (2012). Students’ negotiations of english and literacy in a time of social change. Journal of Advanced Composition, 32, 591-614.
Kell, C. (2010). Ethnographic studies and adult literacy policy in South Africa. En C. Cof- fin, T. Lillis y K. O’Halloran (Eds), Applied linguistics methods. A reader (pp. 216-233). Londres: Routledge.
Lather, P. (2010). Engaging science policy: From the side of the messy. Nueva York: Peter Lang. Lea, M. y Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
Lillis, T. (2001). Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. Londres: Routledge.
Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology and ‘deep theorising’: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25(3), 353-388.
Lillis, T. (2013). The sociolinguistics of writing. Edinburgh: EUP.
Lillis, T. (2017). Imagined, prescribed and actual text trajectories: The ‘problem’ with case notes in contemporary social work. Text and Talk, 37(4). Recuperado de https://linguistlist.org/ issues/28/28-3152.html
Lillis, T. y Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context. Londres: Routledge.
Lillis, T. y Curry, M. J. (2015). The politics of English, language and uptake: The case of international academic journal article reviews, AILA Review, 28, 127-150.
Lillis, T. y McKinney, C. (2013). The sociolinguis- tics of writing in a global context: Objects, lenses, consequences. Journal of Sociolinguis- tics, 17(4), 415-439.
Lillis, T, Harrington, K., Lea, M. y Mitchell, S. (2015). Working with academic literacies: Case studies towards transformative practice [en línea]. Recuperado de http://wac.colostate. edu/books/lillis/
Lu, M. Z. (1987). From silence to words: Writing as struggle. College English, 49, 437-448.
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rai, L., Lillis, T., Harrison, A. y Garcia-Maza, G. (2014). Effective case recording. En L. Rai (Ed.), Effective writing in social work. Making a difference (pp. 165-195). Bristol: Polity Press.
Rampton, B. (2010). Linguistic ethnography, interactional sociolinguistics and the study of identities. En C. Coffin, T. Lillis y K. O’Halloran (Eds.), Applied Linguistics Methods. A Reader (pp. 234-50). Londres: Routledge.
Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 4, 504-554.
Scott, M. (2017). Special Issue: Academic literacies. London Review of Education, 14,1. Recuperado de https://www.ucl-ioe-press.com/journals/ london-review-of-education/
Seargeant, P. y Swann, J. (2011). English in the world: History, diversity, change. Londres: Routledge.
Thesen, L. (2014). Risk as productive: Working with dilemmas in the writing of research. En L. Thesen y L. Cooper (Eds.), Risk in academic writing. Postgraduate students, their teachers and the making of knowledge (pp. 1-27). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Thesen, L. y Van Pletzen, E. (2006). Academic literacy and the languages of change. London: Continuum.
Trimbur, J. (2013). Grassroots literacy and the writ- ten record: Asbestos activism in South Africa. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17,(4), 460-487.
Turner, J. (2011). Language in the academy. Cultural reflexivity and intercultural dynamics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
This journal is registered under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. Thus, this work may be reproduced, distributed, and publicly shared in digital format, as long as the names of the authors and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are acknowledged. Others are allowed to quote, adapt, transform, auto-archive, republish, and create based on this material, for any purpose (even commercial ones), provided the authorship is duly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided, and it is specified if changes have been made. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not hold the rights of published works and the authors are solely responsible for the contents of their works; they keep the moral, intellectual, privacy, and publicity rights.
Approving the intervention of the work (review, copy-editing, translation, layout) and the following outreach, are granted through an use license and not through an assignment of rights. This means the journal and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana cannot be held responsible for any ethical malpractice by the authors. As a consequence of the protection granted by the use license, the journal is not required to publish recantations or modify information already published, unless the errata stems from the editorial management process. Publishing contents in this journal does not generate royalties for contributors.