Re: [xmca] legitimacy

From: bb (
Date: Mon Apr 24 2006 - 13:48:47 PDT

The title of Kevin's paper looks very interesting. Mike, maybe the x can
discuss this?
On Monday 24 April 2006 2:37 pm, O'Connor, Kevin wrote:
> On 4/17/06 3:03 PM, "bb" <> wrote:
> > CoP certainly seems useful for the lads study in that it addresses
> > identity development -- in the lads view they have become outsiders --
> > but the socio-economic/cultural-historical dimensions that lead this
> > development of conciousness are not well laid out in the CoP framework,
> > last I checked. What are boundaries of the community in other ways seem
> > to need more definition. Still, as you point out Nancy, there is a lot of
> > purchase in the notion of LPP. Is there anything recent about who
> > determines what is "legitimate"?
> Bill asks if there's anything recent about who determines what is
> "legitimate." I have a couple of papers that address some of the
> interesting issues regarding legitimacy, boundary crossing, etc., that are
> raised in this thread.
> One of the arguments of these papers is that some CoP research (e.g., much
> of the work that uses the concept of CoP for designing learning contexts)
> has taken L&Wšs focus on (mostly) bounded, stable, and benign CoPšs as a
> model for studying all CoPšs. This has backgrounded crucial issues like
> those that Bill and others raise on the sources of legitimacy, etc. But if
> we look at L&Wšs focus on these sorts of CoPšs as acknowledged
> simplifications made for strategic analytic purposes rather than as a
> description of all CoPšs, it leads us to suspend these simplified
> assumptions and open us up to taking on different kinds of analyses that
> foreground different aspects of CoP's.
> The direction Išve taken with this has been to make a different strategic
> choice, i.e. to study a setting in which boundedness, stability, and
> benignness are clearly not reasonable assumptions to make, in that key
> disciplinary and institutional values and practices are overtly undergoing
> transformation (e.g., bringing historically separated institutions into
> contact through videoconferencing technology). I closely examined the
> communicative processes by means of which participants in interaction
> construct and, more importantly, contest the identity of various
> communities and their roles in them ­ e.g., as legitimate participants or
> not. Some of the socio/cultural/historical dimensions that Bill and Nancy
> want to see are available in the interactional details, and these are what
> my analyses try to show.
> For those who might be interested, the most relevant reference is below.
> I'd be happy to send a copy if you don't have easy access to the book.
> Kevin
> OšConnor, K. (2003). Communicative practice, cultural production, and
> situated learning: Constructing and contesting identities of expertise in a
> heterogeneous learning context. In S. Wortham and B. Rymes (Eds.),
> Linguistic anthropology of education. Westport, CT: Praeger.

xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 01 2006 - 01:00:12 PDT