Between tradition and innovation: the discursive construction of a “world-leading” university
Article Sidebar
Published
Apr 7, 2016
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper applies critical discourse analysis to two discursive samples (“texts”) produced by Harvard University: a sample from the official course catalogue and the list of courses provided as “HarvardX” on the MOOC platform EdX. The analysis shows how Harvard legitimates its role across “innovative” and traditional forms of provision, employing an apparently neutral language to shape identities and practices. The analytic section considers the generic structure of both texts and how semiotic relationships are realised through stylistic choices and grammatical structures. The analysis suggests that the differences between traditional and open access provision at Harvard are simultaneously educational and socio-political. The analysis also opens a window onto the instructional practices at Harvard - something that seems to be missing in the educational research literature.
Article Details
Section
Articles - General topics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)
References
Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid modernity. John Wiley & Sons. Binkley, S. (2008) Liquid Consumption. Cultural Studies, 22(5), 599-623.
Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13-25.
Bulfin, S., Pangrazio, L., & Selwyn, N. (2014). Making ‘MOOCs’: The construction of a new digital higher education within news media discourse. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5).
Colvin, K. F., Champaign, J., Liu, A., Zhou, Q., Fredericks, C., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Learning in an introductory physics MOOC: All cohorts learn equally, including an on-campus class. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(4).
Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., Small, J., & Walji, S. (2014). Developing world MOOCs: A curriculum view of the MOOC landscape. JOGLTEP, 2(3).
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133-168.
Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, new language?. London, UK: Routledge - Taylor & Francis.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, UK: Routledge - Taylor & Francis.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Halliday, M. A. (1994). Functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In The Kristeva Reader, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/ TheKristevaReader/The Kristeva Reader_djvu.txt
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Massive Open Online Courses, digital ways of knowing and learning. Retrieved from https:// oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud. org/files/MOOC_Final_0.pdf
Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., & Evans, C. (2014). Moving Through MOOCs Understanding the Progression of Users in Massive Open Online Courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421-432. doi: 10.3102/0013189X14562423
Perrotta, C., Czerniewicz, L., & Beetham, H. (2015). The rise of the video-recorder teacher: the sociomaterial construction of an educational actor. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1044068
Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith tools version 4. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Stuttgart, DE: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Wernick, A. (1991). Promotional culture: Advertising, ideology and symbolic expression. London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods for critical discourse analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid modernity. John Wiley & Sons. Binkley, S. (2008) Liquid Consumption. Cultural Studies, 22(5), 599-623.
Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13-25.
Bulfin, S., Pangrazio, L., & Selwyn, N. (2014). Making ‘MOOCs’: The construction of a new digital higher education within news media discourse. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5).
Colvin, K. F., Champaign, J., Liu, A., Zhou, Q., Fredericks, C., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Learning in an introductory physics MOOC: All cohorts learn equally, including an on-campus class. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(4).
Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., Small, J., & Walji, S. (2014). Developing world MOOCs: A curriculum view of the MOOC landscape. JOGLTEP, 2(3).
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133-168.
Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, new language?. London, UK: Routledge - Taylor & Francis.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, UK: Routledge - Taylor & Francis.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Halliday, M. A. (1994). Functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In The Kristeva Reader, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/ TheKristevaReader/The Kristeva Reader_djvu.txt
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice. Massive Open Online Courses, digital ways of knowing and learning. Retrieved from https:// oerknowledgecloud.org/sites/oerknowledgecloud. org/files/MOOC_Final_0.pdf
Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., & Evans, C. (2014). Moving Through MOOCs Understanding the Progression of Users in Massive Open Online Courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421-432. doi: 10.3102/0013189X14562423
Perrotta, C., Czerniewicz, L., & Beetham, H. (2015). The rise of the video-recorder teacher: the sociomaterial construction of an educational actor. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1044068
Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith tools version 4. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Stuttgart, DE: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Wernick, A. (1991). Promotional culture: Advertising, ideology and symbolic expression. London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods for critical discourse analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.