28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
The Mystery of 50,000 Words: Tracing Numbers of Fiction
Elin Sundström Sjödin1, Tatiana Mikhaylova2, Daniel Pettersson2
1Mälardalen University, Sweden; 2Gävle University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Sundström Sjödin, Elin;
Mikhaylova, Tatiana
This study is part of a larger project called The Fiction of Numbers, in which we locate and explore the intersections between the spheres of science, public discourse, policymaking and educational practices. We specifically examine how reading becomes a specific node, or discourse, where the changing ideas on societal, sociotechnical and educational imaginaries (cf Jasanoff, 2015; Rahm, 2019; Sundström Sjödin, 2017; 2019) and solutions take place. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS), we are primarily concerned with how knowledge and facts are produced and naturalized; that is, how a phenomenon is produced as a matter of course and thus becomes difficult to question, and the ways in which values and politics of knowledge become invisible in this process (Dussauge et al. 2015; Latour, 1987, 1993).
In this sub-study, we “trace” – in Latour’s (2007) sense of the word – specific ‘numbers’ related to reading that are regularly referred to in media as well as in educational and political settings in contemporary Sweden. The numbers are used in reading promoting arguments: it is claimed that seventeen-year-olds who read a lot have a vocabulary of 50,000 words, while their low-reading peers have only 15,000 words in their vocabulary. It is also argued that 50,000 words is what is needed to be able to read and understand a typical newspaper text.
These kinds of numerical claims circulate in the public discourse and are often unchallenged and presented as matters of facts. Uncontested, the numbers are left to do their work – efficient in establishing truths, suggesting impartiality and transparency, ‘strengthened by the historical relationship between numbers and rationality, objectivity and control’ (de Wilde & Franssen, 2016, p. 505; see Hacking, 1990; Porter, 1995). They stabilize beliefs about reading into hard facts. By that, they also naturalize reading as something inherently good and useful, and therefore difficult to question (Sundström Sjödin, 2019). Moreover, although the construction of the problem implies the construction of the recipient, i.e. the so-called troublesome subject, in this case it remains unclear for whom exactly the lack of reading is a problem (Marres, 2005).
In this study, we trace the specific numbers we encountered in various sites of what we call “the reading industrial complex” (Sundström Sjödin et al, in press). We trace the origins of these numbers, how they have been produced, and with what tools. In doing so, we aim to develop knowledge on how reading is constructed as a public problem and a societal desire and what role numbers play in this construction. This aim is specified in the following three research questions: I) Which actors are involved in the dissemination of particular numbers related to reading, and who are the (implied) addressees of these numbers? II) What societal and educational imaginaries and desires are embedded in these numbers? III) What are the “origins” of the numbers? How and for what purposes were they produced? Theoretically and methodologically, the study draws on concepts and sensibilities of STS to explore the processes of knowledge production and dissemination, developed in the section below.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAligning with STS sensibilities, we analyze things that appear as naturalized (that is, factual, closed, readymade and stable) in the ways they are settled, that is, through the stabilizing mechanisms of fact, science and truth making (Latour, 2007, p. 120; see also Dussauge et al., 2015). These mechanisms are created, negotiated and agreed upon by actors with specific interests and motives. Accordingly, we examine the ways in which reading is stabilized as something natural and intrinsically good, by focusing on actors, including numbers and quantifications, that give the numerical value political significance through these relational performances.
As we trace the numbers and actors that use the numbers, in referrals and references in the interviews and documents, we look for where the quantifications and valuations (Dussauge et al., 2015) originate from, how they were created (when possible), and in what ways they have been distributed into public discourse. What actors are for example part of the dissemination of these numbers and what actors can be seen as enrolled into the issue by the numbers?
Our material consists primarily of digital documents of different kinds where the numbers in question are mentioned, gathered from official websites, social media, teaching material, and government information sites. To trace the origin of the numbers, we also consulted the sources to which some of the collected empirical materials referred. In other cases, we interviewed those who mention these numbers in different contexts, including researchers, writers, librarians, and teachers.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsStabilizing mechanisms in fact- and truth making processes, such as quantifications of reading and vocabulary, has enrolled some actors while excluding other possibly relevant actors (Callon, 1986; Hamilton, 2012). The specific number that we have set out to trace – the 50 000 words a 17-year-old experienced reader would have – has been found in a number of places. These include, for example, student teacher textbooks, parent-teacher meetings at school, social media, research pieces and policy documents. The number(s) are used by politicians, researchers, teachers, and in different kinds of reading promoting work. However, the origin of these numbers remains somewhat of a mystery. They are usually cited without any reference to any source. In rare cases, they are cited with references to scientific publications which, however, do not themselves contain these numbers. In other words, it is not known on what basis this number of 50,000 originated, since it seems to have no source. Nevertheless, this enigmatic number is performative and appears to be an actor in its own right in the reading-industrial complex.
No matter if they are “true” or not, the numbers do their work. In most cases, as mentioned above, these numbers are used to emphasize the importance of reading because it is believed to lead to an increase in vocabulary, which in turn is considered valuable. Thus, reading is mostly discussed in quantitative terms, leaving aside what is read and why. In other words, mastering a certain number of words by a certain age – in this case, 50,000 by the age of 17 – is presented as something to strive for. Consequently, those with a smaller vocabulary appear to be an obvious problem to be prevented or addressed.
ReferencesCallon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge.
de Wilde, M., & Franssen, T. (2016). The material practices of quantification: Measuring “deprivation” in the Amsterdam neighbourhood policy. Critical Social Policy, 36(4), 489–510.
Dussauge, I., Helgesson, C-F., & Lee, F. (Eds.) (2015). Value practices in the life sciences and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hacking, I. (1990). The taming of chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamilton, M. (2012). Literacy and the politics of representation. London & New York: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of Modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S-H Kim (eds.) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor–network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marres, N. S. (2005). No issue, no public: Democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Amsterdam: Ipskamp Printpartners.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers. The pursuit of certainty in science and public life. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rahm, L. (2019). Educational Imaginaries: A genealogy of the digital citizen. Linköping University.
Sundström Sjödin, E. (2017). Tracing reading to the dark side: Investigating the policy producing reading and readers in detention homes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39(6), 887–900.
Sundström Sjödin, E. (2019). Where is the Critical in Literacy? Tracing performances of reading, readers and non-readers in educational practice, Örebro Studies in Education, 59, Örebro Studies in Educational Science with an emphasis on Didactics, 18.
Sundström Sjödin, E., Persson, M., & Pettersson, D. (In press) Läsning, ekologi och siffror: Sanningspraktiker hos en läsfrämjande aktör. Språk och litteratur: En omöjlig eller skön förening? SMDI-15. Studia Rhetorica Lundensia nr. 8. 2024
28. Sociologies of Education
Paper
Poland’s March of Independence as a space of heterotopia
Klaudia Wolniewicz-Slomka
Kazimierz Wielki University, Poland
Presenting Author: Wolniewicz-Slomka, Klaudia
The main aim of the presented paper is to analyze the Independence March as a heterotopia according to the approach introduced by Michel Foucault.
The Independence March is an annual event celebrating the regaining of independence by Poland on 11th of November in 1918. The initiators and organizers of the March are nationalist youth organizations - the All-Polish Youth (in Polish: Młodzież Wszechpolska) and the National Radical Camp (in Polish: Obóz Narodowo-Radykalny) - who formed together the Independence March Association. Though organized by civil society rather than being an official state event, the March became over the years the leading public event on Poland’s Independence Day. The March as an event and as a social phenomenon has already been discussed by many researchers (Malendowicz, 2016; Wiącek, 2019, Wiśniewski, 2019, Rukat, 2020, Witkowski, Woroncow, Puchała, 2023), but wasn’t so far studied as a space of heterotopia, which allows to understand the complexity of the event, the social role it plays, and the involvement of organizers in defining concepts of citizenship and national identity in Poland.
The main research question this paper attempts to answer is the following: is the Independence March a heterotopia? Michel Foucault set six rules of heteropia, four of which are analyzed to answer the research question and understand the role that the March plays within the Polish society in defining and marking categories of citizenship and national identity (see more detailed information below under „Research Methods”).
The key point of reference is the 2018 March of Independence, which celebrated the cententary of regaining independence by Poland. The collected materials include: documents of theese organizations, information posted on the official website of this event, posts on Facebook and press articles published in 2018. In total 232 documents were analyzed.
The paper presents the results of author’s own research carried out within the scientific project titled ‘Heterotopias of Citizenship. Educational Discourse and Pedagogies of Militarization in the Spaces of Youth Organizations. A Critical-Analytical and Comparative Approach’ (no. 2019/35/B/HS6/01365), financed by the National Science Centre in Poland.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research was embedded in the constructivist paradigm, because of the role of the researcher in the process of collecting and analyzing data, which Denzin and Lincoln define as a “mediator of multi-vocal reconstruction” (2005, p. 196). The research was conducted as part of a qualitative strategy. The central analytical category is ‘heterotopia’ introduced by Michel Foucault. Heterotopias are ”spaces that provide an alternative space of ordering while paradoxically remaining both separate from and connected to all other spaces” (Topinka, 2010, p. 55)
Foucault indetified six principles of heterotopia, and the author analyses four of them: 1) heterotopias arrange multiple spaces, 2) heterotopias arrange multiple times, 3) heterotopias manage entrances and exclusions and 4) heterotopias expose real spaces.
A total of 232 documents were analyzed and coded using Atlas.ti. The collected research material includes: official documents of the organizations behind the Independence March Association (i.e. statutes, statements); content about the event provided by the Independence March Association on its website (and specifically any information related to the history of the March and volunteer work within the March); All-Polish Youth posts on Facebook from 2018; and press articles published in the same year.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsTwo main conclusions arise from the heterotopic nature of the Independence March, which go beyond the space of this event and influence the entire society. Firstly, the March reveals the struggle for power between different actors in Polish society, and became a symbolic tool by itself in this fight. Secondly, due to its complexity, the Independence March affects the Polish society with varying intensity and its scale is really broadly spread, i.e. from people who did not participate in the March, through random participants, then physically and emotionally involved people and/or groups that have in purpose participated in this March, up to the organizers, for whom it is the most important event of the year.
ReferencesDenzin, Lincoln. (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Foucault, M. (2005). Inne przestrzenie. [Other Spaces] Teksty Drugie, 6, 117–125.
Malendowicz, P. (2016). Marsz Niepodległości, czyli inna Europa jest możliwa [Independence March, or another Europe is possible]. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie Skłodowska. Sectio K. Politologia 2(23): 195–206.
Rukat, R. 2020. „O «zwykłych ludziach» na Marszu Niepodległości. Etnografia demonstracji ulicznej”. Adeptus 16: 1–15.
Topinka, R. J. (2010). Foucault, Borges, heterotopia: Producing knowledge in other spaces.
Foucault Studies, 9, 54-70.
Wiącek, E. (2019). The Rhetoric of the “March of Independence” in Poland (2010–2017) as the Answer for the Policy of Multiculturalism in the EU and the Refugee Crisis. Politeja 4 (61): 149–166.
Wiśniewski, R. et al. (2019). O 11 listopada pewnego roku. Świętowanie stulecia odzyskania niepodległości w ujęciu socjologicznym [On November 11 one year. Celebrating the centenary of regaining independence from a sociological perspective]. Wydawnictwo NCK.
Witkowski, Woroncow, Puchała (2023). The Polish Independence March as a Contact Hub and a Model for European Extremism. Counter Extremism Project https://www.counterextremism.com/sites/default/files/2023-03/CEP%20Report_Polish%20Independence%20March_Jan%202023.pdf [Access 24.10.2023]
|
