Search results

Despite a small but compelling body of literature arguing that transcription represents a key moment of choice and the exercise of power in the research process, many qualitative researchers appear to believe (or at least proceed as if they believe) that transcription is relatively unproblematic. Translation studies and its engagement with visibility, power, authenticity and fidelity has a lot to offer to qualitative researchers working critically with transcription theory and practice. This paper explores the translation studies theories of equivalence, overt and covert translation, foreignisation and domestication, and the remainder, and demonstrates some fertile connections between transcription and translation. These connections help us to think about some broader political and cultural issues in relation to transcription and academic discourse, the complexity of equivalence and the central role of the situated transcriber. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100223 ; A pesar de un pequeño pero convincente cuerpo de literatura argumentando que la transcripción representa un momento clave de la elección y al ejercicio del poder en el proceso de investigación, muchos investigadores cualitativos parecen creer (o al menos actúan como si lo hicieran) que la transcripción es relativamente exenta de problemas. Los estudios de traducción y su compromiso con la visibilidad, el poder, la autenticidad y la fidelidad tienen mucho que ofrecer a los investigadores cualitativos al trabajar críticamente con la teoría de la transcripción y su práctica. Este artículo explora los estudios de traducción, las teorías de la equivalencia abierta y encubierta, exteriorización y domesticación, hace un balance y muestra algunas conexiones fértiles entre transcripción y traducción. Estas conexiones nos ayudan a pensar sobre algunas cuestiones políticas y culturales más amplias en relación con la transcripción y el discurso académico, la complejidad de la equivalencia y el rol central del transcriptor situado. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs100223 ; Zwar ...

Zwar gibt es in der qualitativen Sozialforschung einen kleinen und aufschlussreichen Korpus an Literatur, demzufolge Transkriptionen sowohl Schlüsselmomente von Entscheiden als auch von Macht im Forschungsprozess sind. Zugleich scheinen aber viele Forschende Transkriptionen für relativ unproblematisch zu halten (oder sie verhalten sich zumindest so). Die Translationswissenschaft mit ihrem Fokus auf Sichtbarkeit, Macht, Authentizität und Exaktheit kann hier wichtige Denkanstöße bereitstellen für Forscher/innen, die sich kritisch mit der Praxis und Theorie des Transkribierens beschäftigen. In diesem Beitrag erläutere ich zunächst einige aus der Translationswissenschaft stammende Theorien von Gleichwertigkeit, offener und verdeckter Übersetzung, von "Zähmung", "Auswilderung" und von "Rückständen", und ich versuche dann, fruchtbare Verbindungslinien zwischen Übersetzung und Transkription aufzuzeigen. Die Verbindungslinien verweisen auf weiter gehende politische und kulturelle Implikationen von Transkription und akademischem Diskurs, auf die Komplexität von Gleichwertigkeit und auf die zentrale Rolle derer, die – je spezifisch situiert – transkribieren.

This paper explores the glitch as a generative problem which is capable of introducing unanticipated possibilities and futures into situations. We understand the glitch as a sociomaterial encounter rather than merely a technical error, and argue that it calls for (re)consideration of here-and-now possible futures through practices of response and repair. Exploring the ways that people seek to respond to glitches, we consider two case studies in which unexpected problems provoke those involved to speculate playfully and practically about new possibilities. In the first case, a malfunctioning 'Teacherbot' incites new challenges and pedagogical opportunities in an online learning environment. In the second, Hungarian activists creatively use infrastructural and political problems to make new spaces of protest and to press the government to respond to their concerns. Considering these empirical cases allows us to observe how playful and disruptive dispositions have worked to question the terms of possible futures in the real world, and to unsettle the seemingly given terms of power-relations. Glitches are not a panacea, but they can provide an impetus to act from within situations that are uncertain, and can therefore point to new trajectories and possible futures.

AbstractThe launch of Postdigital Science and Education helped generate a burst of new scholarship about this emerging turn in educational research and theory. Yet, what it means to do postdigital research remains obscure to many. Ongoing debates around definitions, combined with the complexity of analysing digital activity within rich contexts that are also social, material, political, economic, and so on, make it challenging to understand what constitutes postdigital research. Meanings of the postdigital emerge from within the processes of postdigital research. Furthermore, while some individual contributions to postdigital research may be grounded in particular disciplines, we argue that postdigital research, in general, benefits from transdisciplinary knowledge. All of this points to a need for flexibility, and principled, rather than prescriptive, research and scholarship practices. It situates postdigital research in the tradition of compositional and inventive research approaches, and this paper traces that relationship.

Introduction (Networked Learning Editorial Collective): Since the turn of this century, much of the world has undergone a tectonic socio-technological change. Computers have left the isolated basements of research institutes and entered people's homes. Network connectivity has advanced from slow and unreliable modems to high-speed broadband. Devices have evolved: from stationary desktop computers to ever-present, always-connected smartphones. These developments have been accompanied by new digital practices, and changing expectations, not least in education, where enthusiasm for digital technologies has been kindled by quite contrasting sets of values. For example, some critical pedagogues working in the traditions of Freire and Illich have understood computers as novel tools for political and social emancipation, while opportunistic managers in cash-strapped universities have seen new opportunities for saving money and/or growing revenues. Irrespective of their ideological leanings, many of the early attempts at marrying technology and education had some features in common: instrumentalist understanding of human relationships with technologies, with a strong emphasis on practice and 'what works'. It is now clear that, in many countries, managerialist approaches have provided the framing, while local constraints and exigencies have shaped operational details, in fields such as e-learning, Technology Enhanced Learning, and others waving the 'Digital' banner. Too many emancipatory educational movements have ignored technology, burying their heads in the sand, or have wished it away, subscribing toa new form of Luddism, even as they sense themselves moving to the margins. But this situation is not set in stone. Our postdigital reality results from a complex interplay between centres and margins. Furthermore, the concepts of centres and margins 'have morphed into formations that we do not yet understand, and they have created (power) relationships which are still unsettled. The concepts … have not disappeared, but they have become somewhat marginal in their own right.' (Jandrić andHayes 2019) Social justice and emancipation are as important as ever, yet they require new theoretical reconfigurations and practices fit for our socio-technological moment. In the 1990s, networked learning (NL) emerged as a critical response to dominant discourses of the day. NL went against the grain in two main ways. First, it embarked on developing nuanced understandings of relationships between humans and technologies; understandings which reach beyond instrumentalism and various forms of determinism. Second, NL embraced the emancipatory agenda of the critical pedagogy movement and has, in various ways, politically committed to social justice (Beaty et al. 2002; Networked Learning Editorial Collective 2020). Gathered around the biennial Networked Learning Conference,1 the Research in NetworkedLearning book series,2 and a series of related projects and activities, the NL community has left a significant trace in educational transformations over the last few decades. Twenty years ago, founding members of the NL community offered a definition of NL which has strongly influenced the NL community's theoretical perspectives and research approaches (Goodyear et al. 2004).3 Since then, however, the world has radically changed. With this in mind, the Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC) recently published a paper entitled 'Networked Learning: InvitingRedefinition' (2020). In line with NL's critical agenda, a core goal for the paper was to open up a broad discussion about the current meaning and understandings of NL and directions for its further development. The current collectively authored paper presents the responses to the NLEC's open call. With 40 contributors coming from six continents and working across many fields of education, the paper reflects the breadth and depth of current understandings of NL. The responses have been collated, classified into main themes, and lightly edited for clarity. One of the responders, Sarah Hayes, was asked to write aconclusion. The final draft paper has undergone double open review. The reviewers, Laura Czerniewicz and Jeremy Knox, are acknowledged as authors. Our intention, in taking this approach, has been to further stimulate democratic discussion about NL and to prompt some much-needed community-building. ; lict