The discourse you plan to research is laid out well, and I think you have a great framework to begin more in depth analysis. You have a solid lay out for the discourses you plan to analyze and in which order you plan on doing this. Even though it’s only an initial plan, I would be careful not to get too stuck on your initial proposal. One of the strongest points you made was on your exposure to the reconstruction of meaning and forestry policies. In terms of other discourse you could look at during your research, analyzing interaction of interest groups such as businesses or local elites with the UN in the development of policy may add to your question on reconstruction of meaning.
Gwenyth Szabo says:
I enjoyed your presentation, and you have a very professional voice! I thought you did a great job of showing how your puzzle is backed by many sources. I think your question is on the right track, but I think you should define what you mean by “shifting discourses” and try to find a concrete identification or definition for deforestation. I thought your literature review was very strong and gives great foundation for your topic. While I thought the charts you had were helpful, they made it seem like you had a specific process for unpacking the meaning of your discourse, even though the chart was simply identifying the discourses you would be analyzing. I think you gave a great explanation of the differences between the methodologies, but you didn’t explain why interpretivism is the best approach for your research. I liked your questions at the end, and I’m curious about your future plans for SISU-306.
Adam Majeski says:
Hi Zainab! I like how your puzzle directly relates to an interpretivist design because it connects to the idea of constitutive causality. Your evidence of looking at official documents and speeches makes sense as your question lends itself to official discourses, but I also liked how you plan to analyze texts is more than just documents, but maps. This shows your commitment to deep understanding and also shows how your research has been informed by the scholars in your field. In response to your discussion on power relationships and reflexivity, What is your power relationship to the people in the UN making the policy? Does this put you at any disadvantage? I also like how open ended you have left much of your design as it is important to remain flexible in this methodology. Finally, I know you are mainly interested in the official discourse, but I wonder how adding the discourses of the developing countries that are impacted by this policy may give you a more nuanced understanding of this topic? Overall, this is a great design and I’m excited to see where this research takes you!
Overall a good job Zainab, both in presentation style/pace and in substance. You’ve also received some good comments from your peers, so be sure to take those into account as you look ahead to your SISU-306 research. As is noted above and as we discussed after your presentation you can still work on making the question more concrete by naming/showing the specific discourses and meanings that are shifting. Make sure the question is about those discourses (how did we get to a particular meaning / why did meanings or understandings of X shift) and not about any “effects” or implications of those discourses. Your choice to focus on the official/elite levels is sound, but keep thinking about this question of pinning down the representations at stake so that you can tell us something like “I am analyzing discourses on sustainabile development, and in particular the shift in a representation of sustainability that emphasized X to one that now represents sustainability as Y” or something like that. What specific meanings or representations are in the discourse now, post-addition of “degradation” that were not there before? The article from Faccer et al. would likely be a good resource for you. Keep reading and researching — I look forward to seeing how your work develops in 306!
Hey Zainab!
The discourse you plan to research is laid out well, and I think you have a great framework to begin more in depth analysis. You have a solid lay out for the discourses you plan to analyze and in which order you plan on doing this. Even though it’s only an initial plan, I would be careful not to get too stuck on your initial proposal. One of the strongest points you made was on your exposure to the reconstruction of meaning and forestry policies. In terms of other discourse you could look at during your research, analyzing interaction of interest groups such as businesses or local elites with the UN in the development of policy may add to your question on reconstruction of meaning.
I enjoyed your presentation, and you have a very professional voice! I thought you did a great job of showing how your puzzle is backed by many sources. I think your question is on the right track, but I think you should define what you mean by “shifting discourses” and try to find a concrete identification or definition for deforestation. I thought your literature review was very strong and gives great foundation for your topic. While I thought the charts you had were helpful, they made it seem like you had a specific process for unpacking the meaning of your discourse, even though the chart was simply identifying the discourses you would be analyzing. I think you gave a great explanation of the differences between the methodologies, but you didn’t explain why interpretivism is the best approach for your research. I liked your questions at the end, and I’m curious about your future plans for SISU-306.
Hi Zainab! I like how your puzzle directly relates to an interpretivist design because it connects to the idea of constitutive causality. Your evidence of looking at official documents and speeches makes sense as your question lends itself to official discourses, but I also liked how you plan to analyze texts is more than just documents, but maps. This shows your commitment to deep understanding and also shows how your research has been informed by the scholars in your field. In response to your discussion on power relationships and reflexivity, What is your power relationship to the people in the UN making the policy? Does this put you at any disadvantage? I also like how open ended you have left much of your design as it is important to remain flexible in this methodology. Finally, I know you are mainly interested in the official discourse, but I wonder how adding the discourses of the developing countries that are impacted by this policy may give you a more nuanced understanding of this topic? Overall, this is a great design and I’m excited to see where this research takes you!
Overall a good job Zainab, both in presentation style/pace and in substance. You’ve also received some good comments from your peers, so be sure to take those into account as you look ahead to your SISU-306 research. As is noted above and as we discussed after your presentation you can still work on making the question more concrete by naming/showing the specific discourses and meanings that are shifting. Make sure the question is about those discourses (how did we get to a particular meaning / why did meanings or understandings of X shift) and not about any “effects” or implications of those discourses. Your choice to focus on the official/elite levels is sound, but keep thinking about this question of pinning down the representations at stake so that you can tell us something like “I am analyzing discourses on sustainabile development, and in particular the shift in a representation of sustainability that emphasized X to one that now represents sustainability as Y” or something like that. What specific meanings or representations are in the discourse now, post-addition of “degradation” that were not there before? The article from Faccer et al. would likely be a good resource for you. Keep reading and researching — I look forward to seeing how your work develops in 306!