Paper published on pedagogy, parenting, and rhythms


Well, it’s a good week for getting stuff out there! My paper in Studies in Continuing Education has been published online, available from Taylor & Francis. It is based on my ethnographic study of the Residential Unit of Karitane, in Carramar, Sydney.

The full reference is:

Hopwood, N. (2013). The rhythms of pedagogy: An ethnographic study of parenting education practices. Studies in Continuing Education, Online Preview (published 01 May 2013), doi:10.1080/0158037X.2013.787983.

The abstract is:

Educational research is increasingly turning to conceptual frameworks from a range of disciplines in order to enrich understandings of education, pedagogy and learning. This paper draws on the work of Henri Lefebvre, specifically rhythmanalysis, to explore the nature and the function of pedagogy. The context is an ethnographic study of parenting education and pedagogic practices in a child and family service in Sydney. Three features of rhythmanalysis are discussed: kinds of rhythm, rhythms and bodies, and oppositions such as repetition and difference, fast and slow and secret and public. Through these concepts, intricate connections between rhythm and pedagogy are identified, including rhythms as providing a pedagogic imperative, rhythms as content and mechanisms at the heart of pedagogy and rhythms as outcomes of learning. The paper argues that rhythmanalysis opens up possibilities for new questions, different kinds of empirical sensibilities and distinctive accounts of pedagogy and learning in continuing education. 

Hope you like it! I would really appreciate if you can post replies with your comments, responses, thoughts etc


3 thoughts on “Paper published on pedagogy, parenting, and rhythms

  1. NoMoneyLoser

    It’s unreadable. Cut the awkward sub-clauses and watch the run-on sentences. Some of your sentences are really two or three sentence units. The other problem you have is your tendency to use unstressed syllables. In a published article, the stressed syllables in a sentence should always outnumber the unstressed syllables.

  2. nickhopwood Post author

    There are some interesting questions and issues raised by NoMoneyLoser’s reply to my post, which I assume refers to the language used in the paper recently published. I could have chosen not to approve the comment, but I think there is something worth exploring here, and I stand by my writing style for that paper. No one piece of writing will ever please everyone, so I have no ill affect in learning it has clearly frustrated NoMoneyLoser, and I feel no embarrassment in publishing her/his comments for others to see. Here is my reply, which I hope is useful (and which points to some things I plan to blog about in future!).

    Dear NoMoneyLoser

    Thank you for your reply. One of the reasons I blog is to hear other people’s opinions on my work. There are several ways I would like to respond, in the spirit of dialogue and exchange that I think makes the blogosphere fun and valuable.

    1. Understanding your response as situated:
    Your opinion and judgement focus on issues relating to syllables and sentence structure. I read them as coming from your situated position as someone who cares strongly about these aspects and has a technical literacy that I (and perhaps many of my readers) do not share. What we see in evidence here is something that is seen time and again in academic peer review processes: reviews are not a property of what is reviewed alone, but rather reflect the text, the reviewer, and her/his values, commitments, and judgements.

    Any review, including yours, should not and cannot be taken as an absolute pronouncement of truth (no matter whether the language tries to fit such a guise on, as appears to be the case in the way you have responded). The issues you raise were not raised by the reviewers of the paper, the editor of the journal, the copy editors or proof readers. Nor were they raised by my colleagues who gave feedback, nor by professionals from the health service involved in the study who commented on the paper before I submitted it.

    Indeed in all my training as a social scientist, in my experience as an academic writer spanning a decade now, and in my contact with social scientists from a range of fields, in all my experience publishing papers, books, and book chapters, your point about stressed and unstressed syllables has never been raised. It seems quite likely that I have broken the linguistic rules that you are applying in reaching your conclusions about ‘unreadability’. I confess: these are simply not rules I am trying to follow. More importantly, they are not rules that my peers, colleagues, editors, and anticipated readership, are applying either.

    2. Examining your response as a text and a form of address
    I think there are some questions that could be usefully raised about the way your critique has been framed. Publishing works means being ready to receive critique (in the peer review process and when things are published) and as authors we cannot invite certain kinds of critique and not others (“content critique please, but not linguistics, thank you” does not fly). However I think we can expect critique to observe certain canons of articulation that in my opinion seem not to be observed in your response.

    For example ‘It’s unreadable’ is an assertion of your opinion, but written as an absolute judgment. ‘I find the piece to be unreadable’ might be a more collegial (and accurate) way to respond. However even then it is fuzzy: is the whole piece equally unreadable?

    Secondly, your imperatives ‘cut the awkward awkward sub-clauses’ position you in an instructing position rather than as a peer seeking to offer constructive criticism (as well as it being rather too late as this refers to a published piece).

    Thirdly, your response is actually calling into question not only my style, but the judgement of the reviewers, editors, copy editors, and proof readers: all of whom found not problem with my writing style (indeed some commented directly to the contrary, complementing the clarity of expression). So your assertion that ‘In a published article, the stressed syllables in a sentence should always outnumber the unstressed syllables’ is not one that has been shared by the many people involved in the process of putting this together. Framing your comment more sensitively and acknowledging that it comes from a particular context would make your criticism stronger in my view: as it stands the rather crude assertions stand perhaps to encourage a dismissive reading of what you say.

    I receive and write many reviews in my academic life. The best ones, I find, are ones that are specific in their reference to parts of texts, and framed in a way that acknowledges their situatedness, and which encourages a writer to take ideas on board. The worst make generalised judgements, writes as if they are unquestionable truths, and adopt confrontational, pejorative or aggressive styles that provoke and invite defensiveness or other unhelpful reactions in authors. If I want people to engage with my suggestions and thoughts as a reviewer, I’m very careful to think about the way I deliver those suggestions and how they might land with the author. In your comment, NoMoneyLoser, I find much to question in terms of the way you have articulated your opinion.

    By means of conclusion
    The issues you raise were not an accidental error on my part. The style I adopted was deliberate, reflecting my experience as a reviewer and author for that journal, as well as my extensive experience in publishing in social scientific outlets in my field. As I have noted, this style was welcomed by many people among the readership I had intended, including those gatekeepers in the review and publishing process.

    However I am always keen to improve the clarity of my writing and the way it engages readers. If you have examples of your own published work in which there are no awkward sentences and where the syllable stress patterns meet the standards you are applying in critiquing my writing, I would welcome you to share the link with me and my other blog readers here.

  3. cpanel vps

    Hi my friend! I wish to say that this article is amazing, nice written and come with approximately all significant infos. I’d like to see extra posts like this .|


Please join in and leave a reply!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s