Conceptualizing students´ written assignments in the context of information literacy and Schatzki´spracticetheory
Trine Schreiber
Royal School of Library and Information Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the ways to practice the written assignment in a university setting in the context of information literacy and in perspective of Schatzki´s practice theory.
Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on both a qualitative in-depth study involving individual interviews with students from higher education and the practice theoretical perspective.
Findings – By analyzing informants´ negotiations of the “acceptable” way to perform the written assignment practice, a configuration of the particular practice has been made. In perspective of Schatzki´s practice theory, a study into information literacy involves focussing on the changing character of the activities performing the practice in question. In this paper the changing character is analyzed by comparing the configuration of the written assignment practice with a description of the genre of scientific articles. The article draws the conclusion that the configuration consists of both regular and irregular occurrences. Job orientation and use of social media seemed to influence the written assignment practice as it was performed by the informants.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to research into information literacy in educational settings by proposing an analysis based on Schatzki´s theory combined with concepts of routinization, reflexivity and genre.
KeywordsInformation literacy,Practice theory, Genre theory, Study practices, Written academic assignments
Paper type Research paper
- Introduction
In information literacy research, students´ written assignment has from time to time been used as a context for investigating information behavior and learning processes (Kuhlthau, 2004; Limbergand Sundin, 2006). Investigations of the practice of writing assignments in school or university settingshas contributed to the understanding of what makes information meaningful in study life. In recent years, research into information literacy hasfocussed on theories of practice (Cox, 2012; Limberget al., 2012; Lipponen,2010; Lloyd, 2010a, 2010b, 2012). Thepaper continues this application of the practice theoretical approach by making an information literacy study of students´ written assignments practice. The aim of thepaper is to analyze the ways to practice the written assignment in a university setting in the context of information literacy and in perspective of Schatzki´s practice theory.
When apracticetheoretical approachis used,information literacy is not seen as an individual phenomenon involving an assessment of individual skills, but as a collective phenomenon, which is developed in a field of social activities and interaction. In this paper students´ written academic assignments is seen as a social practice consisting of a constellation of activities. Therefore, information literacy unfolds and is shaped within this practice. As such this paper presents an empirical study based on a theoretical approach.Further, in perspective of Schatzki´s practice theory, a study into information literacy involves focussing on the changing character of activities performing the practice in question.Therefore, in thepaper, information literacy is expressed in informants´ negotiations of the “acceptable” way to perform the written assignment practice. By analyzing these negotiations, it is possible to construct a configuration of the particular practice.
This analysis of the written assignment practice in a university setting shows what kind of analysis Schatzki´s theory enables. The analysis is based primarily onSchatzki´s(2001, 2002, 2003, 2010, 2012)own works; but also on the interpretation of his theory byReckwitz (2002) and Halkier (2010, 2011; Halkier and Jensen, 2008,2011).The concepts of the analysis are “practice” and the organizing elements of “understandings, rules and teleo-affective structures” from Schatzki´stheory, and “routinization” and “reflexivity” from the works of,respectively,Reckwitz (2002) and Halkier (2010). Further, the paper introduces the concept of genre developed by Miller (1984) and Bazerman (1988) (Andersen 2006, 2008).
The use of practice theory involves making certain assumptions about the process of understanding social action. Practice theory as defined by Schatzki leads to an analysis of the micro processes which make up everyday interaction, where social action is at one and the same time both conditioned and constituting. The act of doing something is constituted by a flow of actions and agency processes, where the action is done, re-done and often slightly differently from before, thereby initiating possible change (Halkier, 2010, p. 35). By using the concepts mentioned in the analysis of the written assignment practice it is possible to discuss whether some activities in this practice are indeed done “slightly differently from before”. In this way it is possible to come closer to information literacy as it unfolds and is shaped within the particular practice.
During the analysis the written academic assignments practice will be configured. The configuration is based on interviews with students from different disciplines within a higher education setting. Further, this configuration of the written assignment practice will be compared with Bazerman´s description of the genre of scientific articles. The comparison points towards some possible regularities as well as irregularities of the practice.
The article is structured as follows: First, Lloyd´s application of Schatzki´s theory in the field of information literacy is briefly described followed by a presentation ofSchatzki´stheoryitself. Next, I describe the production of the empirical material for the analysis of the written assignment practice. After this, the concept of genre is explained, and the genre of the scientific article as described by Bazerman (1988) is presented. Then, there is the analysis of the written assignment practice based on interviews with students from higher education and on the theory and concepts mentioned. Finally, the article draws some conclusions about the way to practice the written assignment in the context of information literacy and in perspective of Schatzki´stheory.
- Information literacy
The application of a practice theoretical approach to information literacy research was originally based largely on the worksof Vygotsky and Säljö (Wertsch, 1998; Säljö, 1999; Sundinet al., 2008; Sundin andFrancke, 2009), gradually also embracing Lave and Wenger (Lipponen, 2010; Lloyd, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2012,Moring, 2011; Tuominenet al., 2005) as well as Schatzki´s theory (Franckeet al., 2011; Lloyd,2010a, 2010b).As it is mainly Lloyd who has applied Schatzki´s theory to the field of information literacy, her work will be briefly mentioned here.
Viewed in the perspective of Schatzki´stheory, Lloyd defines information literacy as a complex sociocultural information practiceseen as part of a “practice architecture which shapes and maintains practices within a social site” (Lloyd, 2010a, p.29f.).She regards it as a “dispersed practice” (Lloyd, 2010b). According to Schatzki dispersed practices cover those kinds of actions that are typicallypart of other practices, i.e. asking, typing on a keyboard, reading, moving things, etc. (Schatzki, 2002, p.88). In contrast, integrative practices are more complex than dispersed practices and are characterized by a multiple dynamic. Lloyd describes information literacyas “a dispersed practice that hangs together as a bundle of information focused activities that are constituted within the larger integrative practices” (Lloyd, 2010b, p.249). Information literacy is understood as situated in a specific setting,and thismeans that a central task forfuture research is to investigate how information literacy as a practice is formed and enacted within each social setting (Lloyd, 2012, p.781).
For Lloyd an important area of research is the process by which newcomers become experts in a particular information landscape. However, “learning”per se does not feature strongly in the vocabulary of Schatzki´s theory. Therefore the concept of learning used in Lloyd´s work is based on Wenger´s theory and his notion of “community of practice”. In the following sections a further combination is proposed, namely Schatzki´s theory combined with both the work of Reckwitz (2002) and Halkier (2010) on the concepts of routinization and reflexivity, and genre theoryas developed by Bazerman (1988). This means that it is not newcomers becoming experts, but rather the changing character of the written assignment practice which forms the pivotal point of the analysis.
- Practice theory
According to Schatzki the concept of practice is defined as an organized constellation of activities. In an article from 2002,Reckwitz highlights the fact that we talk about routinized types of activities: “A ´practice´[…] is a routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, “things” and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge” (Reckwitz, 2002, p.249). Examples of practices from the educational field would be, for example reading, teaching, negotiating, and political practices.
Traditionally, philosophical thought in the European modern era has been characterized by a dichotomy between subject and object. In contrast practice theory emphasizes that subject and object have to be connected. As mentioned in the definition byReckwitz, the idea of practice involves activities of the body as well as the mind. The actions that compose a practice are bodily doings and sayings, and the latter, sayings, is seen as a “subclass” of doings (Schatzki, 2012, p.15). These doings are seen as organized activities. Schatzki defines practice in the following way: “As indicated, practices are organizednexuses of actions. This means that the doings and sayings that compose a given practice are linked through (1) practical understandings, (2) rules, (3) a teleoaffective structure, and (4) general understandings” (Schatzki, 2002, p.77).
Taking Schatzki´s four parameters in turn, firstly, practical understandings refers to the kind of practical sensibility required in order to know how to carry out and recognize the desired actions. Particular practical understandings can belong to multiple practices.Secondly, rules constitute explicitly formulated procedures, instructions, laws etc. Thirdly, by the teleoaffective structures Schatzki wants to highlight the importance of both teleology as the orientation towards an end and affectivity as the question about what things matter. The actions are carried out for the sake of particular ends, while simultaneously embracing beliefs, hopes and emotions expressed in an appropriate way. It is a kind of normative structure implying “acceptable and correct ends” and “acceptable and correct beliefs” (Schatzki, 2001, p.60f). As already mentioned above, people do what makes sense for them to do, and what makes sense is determined by the teleology and affectivity, i.e. the normative orientations concerning acceptable ends and feelings. In other words, the organization of a practice is a normativized array of mental states (Schatzki, 2003, p.192).Finally,general understandings refer to an abstract kind of knowledge about for instance the worth, beauty or value of an action (Schatzki, 2012, p.16). The pools of understandings of both a practical and general character would then determine what makes sense to people to do.
Practices are seen as a kind of context, but Schatzki translates context into the concept of “a site” where activities occur (p.54). In Schatzki´s theory the concept “arrangement” also plays a central role. He defines an arrangement as a layout of material entities consisting of people, organisms, artifacts, and things, where these entities establish positions in relation to one another. As an example of an arrangement he mentions teacher, students, desks, blackboard, plantsin a classroom(Schatzki, 2001, p.52). Every practice deals with the material entities of the arrangement by giving meaning to the entities, while the entities might enable or constrain the practice. Arrangements do not only exist within practices, but are also established across practices. Practices and arrangements form “bundles”, where arrangement and practices might constitute each other, and together these bundles form the “sites”(2012, p.16f; Schatzki, 2002).
According to Schatzki,“agency” is “the central motor of a constant becoming that sweeps the social site” (Schatzki 2002, p.189). In sociological studies, the concept of agency has commonly been associated with notions of freedom, free will, action, creativity and the possibility of change through the actions of free agents (Barker 2000, p.182). For the sociologist Giddens, individual actors are influenced by social forces which lie beyond them as individual subjects, but which at the same time enable them to act. However, Schatzkitakes another view. By agency is meantjust “doing” (Schatzki 2002, p. 191).To perform an action means carrying on the practice of which it is a part. The actions of individuals are therefore not determined by social structures at all. On the contrary, activity is indeterminate in the sense that it is not fixed or laid down prior to a person acting. It is only with the performance itself that what a person does becomes definite. In addition, as mentioned above,activities which make up practices are regarded as being organized.Participating in a practice involves operating in an arena where certain actions and ends are prescribed, and therefore can be correct or acceptable on certain occasions (Schatzki 2002, p.75).
The individual is doing something as part of a practice, but the organization of practices as such is not contained in the mind of the individuals. People who carry out the actions have developed versions of the mental states but cannot be said to possess the organization of the practice as such. The versions of the organization which the individual holds are developed through training and learning through participation in the practices. As Reckwitz expresses it, the individual is a body or mental agent who acts as the “carrier” of a practice. The individual is a carrier of patterns of bodily behavior and at the same time “also of certain routinized ways of understanding, knowing how and desiring” (Reckwitz, 2002, p.250). The mind and the mental states have a central position in the theory but they do not belong to the individual “deep inside” as Reckwitz (2002)puts it (p.252). Instead the mind and the mental states have to be seen as part of the practices.
In Halkier and Jensen´s use of practice theory, the concepts of negotiation and social interaction play an important role (Halkier and Jensen, 2008, 2011). The normative element is not seen as being made up of permanent rules but rather of performed practices, where the appropriate conduct is under negotiation. When people carry out a practice,there is negotiation of the “right” way to perform the practice. Thus, social interaction is seen by Halkier and Jensen as a kind of productive social process. They describe normative regulations as continuous practical and discursive “accomplishment” between practitioners as they negotiate acceptable and expected conduct (Halkierand Jensen, 2011, p.106).
Every individual carries out a multitude of different practices, and therefore Reckwitz maintains that the individual is the unique crossing point of practices (Reckwitz, 2002, p.256). The multiplicity of different practices in the crossing point challenges one another through the different understandings, rules and teleoaffective structures. Halkier and Jensen have seen this aspect as important for explaining changes and dynamics of practices (Warde, 2005, p.139f; Halkier and Jensen, 2008, p.55). Practices and bundles arise, persist, and dissolve principally through human activity. Halkier describes practices which “come into being in the processes of activities carried out in front of, together with, and in relation to others” (Halkier, 2010, p.30); further, these practices are “practically done, re-done and slightly differently done” (Halkier, 2010, p.35). By being the unique crossing point of practices, the individuals´ small adaptations, adjustments and experiments can potentially change the way of performing certain practices.
A central question is whethertheroutinisation of activities implies a procedure which is taken for granted by the individual. This would lead to a kind of “doings”, a performance which is based on tacit knowledge or practical consciousness but without reflexivity (Halkier, 2010, p.63ff). The concept of reflexivity is inspired by Giddens (2001) but adapted to Schatzki´s theory. Halkier defines reflexivity as occurring “when understandings, procedures and engagements in practices and performances are explicit and reflected upon through discursive consciousness” (Halkier, 2010, p.63). Halkierdescribes how performances may be conceivably asneither simply routine nor exclusively reflected upon. She thus divides the concept into three categories: The first is “routinisation of reflexivity”, where reflections have become a routinely integrated element of the practice. The second is “routinisation as release from reflexivity”and means virtually the opposite, in that the reflexivity is facilitated by routinised doings. The activities belonging to this category may come close to constituting a kind a rationalization. Finally, the third category is “ambivalence between routinisation and reflexivity”, which indicates a potential conflict in a practice. Although reflexivity is placed at the level of general understandings, at the level of concrete doings,it is still the routines which dominate, and togetherthis causes a tension and ambivalence of the practice (Halkier, 2010, p.65). The three categories, thereby,provide a tool to express how bodily and mental procedures may interact.
In the analysis of the written assignment practice (see Section 6), the organizing elements of a practice will make up the structure. The empirical material for examining this practice comes from interviews with students from different disciplines at university level. Theuse of practice theory means that no attempt has been made to look for specific explanations such as social structures or user segments behind the doings and sayings of the students as informants. Instead my intention is to lay out the multiple processes and variety found in the empirical material. Rather than claiming that the written assignment practice has some kind of stability as a social category, the assumption is that it has a dynamic and changing character. One of the objectives of the analysis is therefore to capture some of this complexity.
- The concept of genre
The concept of genre is useful for the study of the written assignment practice. Human activity, texts, and social practices are brought together in the concept of genre defined as “typified rhetorical actions based in recurrent situations” (Miller, 1984, p. 159; Bazerman, 1988, p.7; Andersen, 2008). This means that a genre is socially recognized as a way of formulating responses in certain situations. As typified rhetorical actions, genre is shaped by recurrent communicative actions by students and teachers in the university setting; genre in turn shapes the knowledge-producing activity into a typified activity (Bazerman, 1988; Andersen, 2008, p.349f). It is therefore typified activities which form the unit of the analysis below and which are presented as the written assignment practice. Information activities are seen as a subsection of human activities, which together with texts, a pool of understandings, rules, and a teleoaffective structure (to use Schatzki´s vocabulary)are organized in a particular way in order to accomplish social actions. The written assignment practice is a genre in which the communication and organization of knowledge and information take place. Therefore, to study the written assignment practice is to study how knowledge and information “is regulated, codified, and altered by people and their communicative activities” (Andersen 2008, p.355).