Abstract
I respond to Zeyer and Roth’s (Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2009) paper on their use of interpretive repertoire analysis to explicate Swiss middle school students’ dialogic responses to environmental issues. I focus on the strategy of interpretive repertoire analysis, making sense of the stance Zeyer and Roth take with this analysis by synthesizing their argument and comparing their analysis with other researchers that have also used this analytic tool. Interpretive repertoires are discourse resources, including mores, tropes, and metaphors that can be evoked by speakers in support of a tenuous claim. So interpretive repertoires have rhetorical character and function. Interpretive repertoire analysis requires looking for patterns in the contradictions in the speech of a collective of participants that can be codified as interpretive repertoires. Interpretive repertoires provide insight into macro-structures that frame, and are used to justify participants’ behavior. My response to Zeyer and Roth’s argument might also be thought to be contradictory but I think defensible. In this paper, I outline why I am excited by the possibilities I can image for this type of analysis in areas of science education research. However, I also felt the need to identify possible limitations of Zeyer and Roth’s exclusive focus on environmental issues to the neglect of other issues, such as those associated with gender, embedded in participants’ discourse. I argue that a critical and historical focus, in conjunction with interpretive repertoire analysis, offer a rich strategy for analysis in science education research, especially in the study of macrostructures, such as gender, race, identity and power.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Blood, S. (2005). Body work: The social construction of women’s body image. New York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). An outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Edwards, D. (2005). Discursive psychology. In K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 257–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gergen, K. J. (1994). The limits of pure critique. In H. W. Simons & M. Billig (Eds.), After postmodernism: Reconstructing ideology critique (pp. 58–78). London: Sage Publications.
Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Milne, C. (1993). The pedagogical implications of teacher personal philosophies of science in the school science classroom: An interpretive study. Unpublished Masters thesis. Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Milne, C., Scantlebury, K., & Otieno, T. (2006). Using socio-cultural theory to understand the relationship between teacher change and a science-based professional education program. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 325–352.
Potter, J., Wetherell, M., Gill, R., & Edwards, D. (1990). Discourse: Noun, verb, or social practice? Philosophical Psychology, 3, 205–217.
Reis, G., & Roth, W.-M. (2007). Environmental education in action: A discursive approach to curriculum design. Environmental Education Research, 13, 307–327.
Roth, W.-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of method. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Roth, W.-M., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). From “truth” to “invented reality”: A discourse analysis of high school physics students’ talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 145–179.
Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1–29.
Sewell, W. H. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. In V. E. Bonnell & L. Hunt (Eds.), Beyond the cultural turn: New directions in the study of society and culture (pp. 35–61). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Slade, P., & Russell, G. F. M. (1973). Awareness of body dimensions in anorexia nervosa: Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Psychological Medicine, 3, 188–199.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–286.
Talja, S. (1999). Analyzing qualitative interview data: The discourse analytic method. Library and Information Science Research, 21, 459–477.
Tobin, K. (2009). Global reproduction and transformation in science education. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Australasian Science education Research Association, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria Australia, 1–4 July, 2009.
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretive repertoires. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analyzing everyday experience: A casebook of methods (pp. 168–183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zeyer, A., & Roth, W.-M. (2009). A mirror of society: A discourse analytic of 15–16-year-old Swiss students’ talk about environment and environmental protection. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5. doi:10.1007/s11422-009-9217-2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Milne, C. Interpretive repertoires as mirrors on society and as tools for action: reflections on Zeyer and Roth’s A mirror of society . Cult Stud of Sci Educ 4, 1013–1022 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9237-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9237-y