Facework and the negotiation of multiple identities in online classes discussions

Abstract: Qualitative text analysis investigates idea that professional and academic identity is built and asserted in online classrooms via written discourse, using discourse strategies associated with the sociological concept of ‘face. Researcher concludes that discourse strategies pattern in ways that may be analyzed, described, and ultimately used to improve teaching and learning efficacy.FACEWORK AND THE NEGOTIATION OF MULTIPLE IDENTITIES IN ONLINE CLASS DISCUSSIONS Linda Di Desidero, Ph.D. Communication Studies & Professional Writing Abstract Qualitative text analysis investigates idea that professional and academic identity is built and asserted in online classrooms via written discourse, using discourse strategies associated with the sociological concept of ‘face. Researcher concludes that discourse strategies pattern in ways that may be analyzed, described, and ultimately used to improve teaching and learning efficacy. . •Initial project can lead to qualitative and quantitative investigations about •agency of student writers •connection of writing agency to identity processes •efficacy of specific online pedagogies Introduction •Identity is enacted via symbolic communication with others within and across various channels, cultures, and contexts. Establishing identity helps individuals interpret experience and create meaning. Thus, identity constitutes the basis for the discursive choices that individuals make as they interact. •In communication contexts, individuals use a set of communicative behaviors, resources, and strategies designed to enact identity relations. These strategies are collectively known as “facework.” •In the online university classroom, negotiating and enacting identity via symbolic communication is typically limited to different forms of writing. Because the online discussion board invites students to negotiate and enact complex identities, it constitutes a rich environment in which to observe the ways in which students implement the discourse strategies of facework. Research Questions 1.Displaying Identity Through Writing: How do advanced undergraduate students use discussion board writing to create, enact, and display their identities both as scholars and as members of a disciplinary community? 2.Facework in Written Interaction: How do the concept of ‘face’ and the discursive strategies known as ‘facework’ contribute to student identity formation in the online classroom? . 3. Theory: How can theories of social (oral) interaction and conflict negotiation be useful in understanding online (written) interaction? 4. Pedagogy: •What does identity enactment through facework have to do with learning? •How can effective use of the discussion board facilitate student agency in learning activities, particularly writing activities? •How can online teachers more effectively facilitate learning, particularly through writing? Methodology •Qualitative text analysis approach to specific data sets from COMM 495 classroom discussions. •Discussion prompts invite students to enact particular identities or aspects of identity. •Interaction is analyzed using a framework associated with ‘face.’ •Four Student Cases: Tom, Karen, Sarah, and Christi. Assumptions/Framework •Discourse = Language as social action •(DeFina et al, 2006; Foucault, 1978; Fairclough, 2001) •Language (use) encodes power and aspects of identity(Fairclough, 2001, Foucault, 2001, Fowler & Kress, 1979; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) •Identity is enacted and displayed; it is process DeFina et al, 2006 •Identity behaviors are learned and expressed in social contexts (Goffman, 1979; Cameron & Kulick, 2003)) •Writing is essentially dialogic (Bahktin) •Written discourse and spoken discourse share qualities •Face (Goffman, 1959, 1967, 1979; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Ting-Toomey, 2004; Scollon et al 2012) •identity-based resource •public self-image •Facework •rooted in culture (ethnicity, gender, age, profession) •Strategies = tools used to enact identities Facework •Facework: A set of communicative behaviors/strategies used to enact, enhance, preserve, affront, or destroy face •Facework Strategies are driven by cultural orientation: •Individualistic and masculine cultures support self-oriented, face-saving strategies •Collectivistic and feminine cultures support other-oriented, face-giving strategies •Self-face concern is associated with dominating and emotionally expressive conflict styles. •Other-face concern and mutual-face concern are associated with integrating, obliging, compromising styles Facework Strategies (Ting-Toomey et al) •Types of Facework •Preventive •Restorative •Factors Affecting Facework •Cultural Orientation: Individual-Collective •Power Distance Face-Related Response Styles in Conflict Situations (ranging from face-giving other-oriented to face-saving self-oriented strategies) •avoiding •obliging •compromising •integrating •dominating •emotional expression •passive aggression Facework Strategies (Brown & Levinson) •Expressing solidarity by actions such as claiming common ground. This honors the face needs of the subject by viewing these needs as desirable or shared; helps to build community •Expressing respect or regard for the other individual with mode of address or flattery, etc. •Expressing restraint by hedging or apologizing or using additional forms of politeness that acknowledge the other’s need for autonomy •Avoiding confrontation with off-record or indirect facework, such as using irony, understatement, overstatement, metaphor, rhetorical questions, etc. •Inviting challenge or provoking confrontation by bald insult or direct threat to an individual. Sequence of Discussion Topics & Writing Assignments Class Week Discussion Topics Assignments Due Week 1 Meet Your Colleagues; Explore/Share Ideas for Portfolio Essay; Explore Course Resources Week 2 Research Project Models, Ideas, Tools, Approaches Portfolio Essay Week 3 Specific Topic Ideas, Audience Analysis, Approaches to Information Gathering Research Proposal Memo Week 4 Primary Research Tools; Summary Reports on Background/Secondary Research Annotated Bibliography Week 5 Audience and Scope Revisited; Summary Reports on Primary Research Progress Report Memo Week 6 Organization; Professional Expectations; Ethical Considerations Draft for Peer Review Week 7 Peer Review; Preparing Presentations Peer Review Memo or Letter to 2 Peers; Presentation Week 8 Students Facilitate Discussion on Project Presentation Final Draft of Project Sample Discussion Prompt Week 1, Topic 3: Looking Backward, Looking Forward Review your course of study in the discipline and share detailed information about a specific project and/or a specific idea that is meaningful to you, personally and/or professionally. How will you take the insights that you have developed from this project/idea into the future? … Consider all of the courses that you have taken in your major…As you remember these courses, think about one project (or one idea) that has been especially meaningful to you in some way. Describe the project or idea in detail and discuss its significance. What makes the project valuable to you now, as you remember it? Did the experience lead you to develop a particular insight about communication, about life, about people, about yourself? And how will this insight serve you personally and/or professionally in the future?.... ….Your undergraduate degree affords you an opportunity to broaden your view of the world and your place within it, as well as the work that you do to earn a living. Share an insight with us in a detailed posting to this conference by Saturday (midnight EST). Respond to at least two other students by Monday (EST). Title your post to indicate your topic. Sample Discussion Prompt Week 5, Topic 3: Persuasive Strategies Discuss your persuasive strategies in more depth than you did in your proposal memo. Consider what you have learned about your audience. What sort of evidence have you found that will be appealing? How can you best present this evidence to this audience? Week 5, Topic 4: Writing Process Insights Now that you all are deep in the research and writing of your projects, share two aspects of your writing and research processes with the class: 1)Which aspects of writing and research are you especially good at? 2)Which aspects of these processes make you uncomfortable? For example, what sorts of strategies do you use to keep track of and process all of the information that you are gathering? How do you take notes? Do you have any special things you do that save you time? Some of you added writing process strategies to your research proposal timelines. Think about sharing some of these with your colleagues. Sample Discussion Prompt Week 6, Topic 1: Professional and Ethical Considerations You continue to make many decisions and choices about your senior project…Some of your decisions are guided by how you see the professional expectations in the field. These will have to do with assumptions about frameworks and what constitutes evidence, as well as decisions about appropriate form, format, and language for a particular audience… Related to this set of professional decisions are subset of decisions that concern your ethical behavior as a communication professional, particularly concerning persuasion and the use of evidence. How do you present your case fairly, but persuasively? Surely, you do not want to present a one-sided case, but you also want to be convincing and persuasive. How do you accomplish this within the ethical expectations? In this conference describe in detail at least one of each type of decision that you have already made or that you are currently considering (even one that you are struggling with). That is, describe one type of professional decision and one type of ethical decision that you are making. These may be related to one another. (For example, should you suppress evidence that clearly contradicts your position? Or do you present the evidence, but try to diminish its value? ) Sample Data Method: Representative Student Set •N=11/23 •Karen and Tom: clear class leaders •Sarah and Brian: exhibit leadership qualities •LaKeshia and Timothy: did not succeed in the class •Tom, Christi, Irv, and Brian: affiliated with military •LaKeshia, Timothy, Julianne, and Irv: identify fully or partially as minority students Leadership Identity Display •Student Leaders •had the most interaction with other students •approached by many other students for advice and support in the discussion forum •leaders’ research presentations had more responses and comments than others •highly competent students who performed well on the coursework •Leadership Strategies through Discourse: •Display Expertise (Karen) •Display Personal Connection (Tom) •Display Initiative (Tom) Case Data: Tom •Tom identified himself as a military student, spouse, and father (Asian Division) •Preference for face-to-face classes; relative novice in the online classroom •Openly dissatisfied about taking capstone course online. • He wrote 174 posts on the discussion boards, each with an average length of 200 words. Tom •Facework evolves •“Classmates, I just wanted to see the general consensus on some questions I have, and I wish to learn about how you all are going about this project. I have learned so much already from everyone…. Again, it is a pleasure to be working with such a great group. Being Communication Studies majors, it is refreshing to see and feel the compassion this class has for the topics. good luck everyone. Sincerely, Tom” Christi •“Tom, I definitely think you found your calling with communication studies! It was a pleasure having this class with you. You reviewed my paper when you didn’t have to. Thank you for going the extra mile to help me. I see great things in your future!” •To Timothy: “I don’t really think your presentation effectively conveys all the research and findings that I am sure you have done,” LaKeisha • “My biggest weakness in taking classes is that I am the biggest procrastinator in the whole world!” Sarah •“I lived in the same small town in Michigan my entire life. I thought I had life all figured out. Then we moved to Europe…I realized that I didn’t know too much about anything!” Karen •“I feel my strength lies in my written communication skills, although I know improving in this area is an ongoing journey.” •“When I started this degree, I felt a little tentative about writing for different audiences, but now I feel I do a more than adequate job (I don’t want to sound conceited here…lol).” • “I can see how my writing style has grown…I get pretty much to the point and have a direct but polite style….The other thing I notice is a new confidence level…I now feel extremely comfortable approaching almost any type of writing task.” Karen •“I feel it’s best to use current sources.” •“After mulling it over a bit, I decided that even though it supported the rest of my material, it didn’t fit or flow as well as I thought it would…so separate sections it is!” Conclusions While I predicted that students’ deployment of facework strategies would vary with respect to their interactional goals, and that face display and identity enactment would vary with respect to student perceptions of situation and over time, I was not entirely prepared to find such a strong relationship between student agency and student enactment of identity as a writer within the context of a writing community. Specifically, I found that •Students used varied facework strategies in different situations with respect to goal and purpose •Facework strategies patterned consistently across themes: •Leadership, power, authority •Personal Identity •Group Identity •Professional Identity •Identity as Writer An analysis of the data makes it clear that, by using specific facework strategies to enact identity in interaction with community members, students developed confidence and professionalism in their writing and in their relationships with others. The outputs of my research present different aspects of my findings. Conclusions for Research Questions 1.Displaying Identity Through Writing Identity is displayed and enacted on discussion board in response to the different situations of discussion prompts and student and instructor interaction throughout online course. 2.Facework in Written Interaction Facework of students evolved throughout course; student identities as evident in displays developed over time. 3. Theory Facework theory may be more useful than traditional theories of rhetoric to analyze and understand events in online classroom discussion board writing. 4 Pedagogy Identity process is an important factor in learning. In fact, writing identity display proved to be significant indicator of learning. Current Work (Outputs) 1. Chapter: “Facework and the Negotiation of Multiple Identities in Online Class Discussions” In Phoebe Jackson & Chris Weaver, Eds., Writing in Online Courses: Disciplinary Differences. William Paterson University. STATUS: With Editors (Hamden) SUMMARY: Chapter presents case study approach to identity management within context of online classroom discussion. Case of Tom exemplifies use of facework to develop leadership ability and confidence; Case of Karen exemplifies use of facework to assert and enact writing identity; Case of Sarah exemplifies use of facework to enact and enhance gender identity. Concludes that identity management can be facilitated by online professor and can lead to increased agency over learning. 2. Chapter: “Creating Effective Discussion Boards in the Online Writing Class” In Teresa Henning, Ed. Principles, Practices, Programs and Online Writing Instruction: A Showcase of Techniques. Southwest Minnesota State University. STATUS: Sent out for review by Publisher (CCDigital) SUMMARY: Chapter uses data and facework/identity construct to argue for efficacy of particular approach to class discussion in Online Writing Instruction. Student samples illustrate evolution of personal and professional identity through facework (Tom); student gaining control of audience to direct writing (Sarah); and student asserting writing identity in facework interaction with authority figure (Karen). Selected References Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Fina, A., Schriffrin, D, & Bamberg, M. (2006) Discourse and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and power. Harlow, England: Pearson Limited. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G, & Trew, T. (1979) Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fowler, R. & Kress, G. (1979) Critical linguistics in Fowler, R. et al, pp. 185-213. Foucault, M ([1978] 1990).The history of sexuality, vol. 1. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York:Vintage. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor/Doubleday. Goffman. E. (1967) Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor/Doubleday. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Maltz, D.N., & R.A.Borker (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J.J. Gumperz (Ed.) Language and social identity (pp. 196-216), Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Scollon, R. Scollon, S. & Jones, R. (2012) Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Ting-Toomey, S. (2004) The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. Gudykunst, (Ed.)Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. & Kurogi, A. (1998) Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. Journal of intercultural relations, 22, 187-225.