This study examines the use of literacy practices in a performance management system which aims to produce reflective practitioners, and how these practices were discursively resisted by staff. It employed a linguistic ethnographic research method, drawing on interactional data, interviews, field notes, and documentation to examine technologised literacy practices. These practices were a form of technologisation of discourse in the workplace, and were usually forms of writing connected to the performance management system that worked to also position reviewees as reflective practitioners. However, running parallel with these was a form of discursive counter-conduct that variously portrayed these practices as HR language, KPI language or managese. Implications for workplace discourse, and the interplay between institutional and professional discourses, are explored.

This paper tells the story of how a small group of academics and practitioners worked together using action learning to produce a collectively planned research proposal aimed at addressing challenges in the English special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system. A genuine attempt to try something new, the paper reflects on the pros and cons of taking an approach which tries to balance doing action learning with engaging in research planning. After describing some of the challenges the SEND system faces, the paper focuses on the topic of transitions which emerged as a common theme in the action learning set we established. The paper summarises some of the problems brought to the set by its members, the asynchronous action learning process which evolved over email, the analysis of the textual threads contained in the emails and the emerging research focus on the importance of strategic documents which aim to introduce change. The paper concludes by reflecting on what we have learned from the process focusing especially on the tensions between research and practice.

Linguistic ethnography combines ethnographic and linguistic methodologies to study language use in a range of social settings. The term describes a broad area of shared interests rather than a distinctly bounded field. It refers to a body of research by scholars with overlapping interests and connections who share an orientation towards using ethnographic approaches to address linguistic and social questions. This chapter explores the disciplinary antecedents of linguistic ethnography and of linguistic anthropology in the US, and it reviews more recent developments in these closely related areas of work. It moves on to describe work which can be located under the broad umbrella of the term linguistic ethnography, identifying productive tensions in the field and exploring possible developments and emerging areas.

Los estudios de la escritura, definidos como el campo que indaga sistemáticamente la enseñanza, aprendizaje, adquisición, desarrollo y usos de la escritura a lo largo del ciclo vital, son un campo vibrante de investigación y práctica que se ha ido consolidando en el mundo entero durante las últimas décadas.La escritura es un objeto complejo de investigación, que puede ser abordado desde una multiplicidad de perspectivas en las diferentes dimensiones que lo constituyen.Esto habilita una diversidad de paradigmas, métodos y conceptualizaciones, que se plasman justamente en la riqueza de las investigaciones producidas en Latinoamérica.

Autoethnography is the study of culture through the study of self (ELLIS, 2004; ELLIS et al, 2011). In this paper, we explore the value of autoethnography in the study of academic literacies. We draw on our own experiences as ethnographers and autoethnographers of literacy to provide illustrative examples. We show how autoethnography has provided a fresh understanding of the role of place and space in developing academic writing across countries and between English and Spanish (OLMOS-LÓPEZ, 2019). We discuss the value of team autoethnography in researching academic writing (TUSTING et al., 2019). And we reflect together on our own journey of development as academic writers, showing how a mentoring relationship has been part of both of our trajectories. The paper aims to argue for the value of autoethnography as an approach to studying academic literacy practices, particularly in providing insight into identity and personal experience.

ABSTRACT Autoethnography is the study of culture through the study of self (ELLIS, 2004; ELLIS et al, 2011). In this paper, we explore the value of autoethnography in the study of academic literacies. We draw on our own experiences as ethnographers and autoethnographers of literacy to provide illustrative examples. We show how autoethnography has provided a fresh understanding of the role of place and space in developing academic writing across countries and between English and Spanish (OLMOS-LÓPEZ, 2019). We discuss the value of team autoethnography in researching academic writing (TUSTING et al., 2019). And we reflect together on our own journey of development as academic writers, showing how a mentoring relationship has been part of both of our trajectories. The paper aims to argue for the value of autoethnography as an approach to studying academic literacy practices, particularly in providing insight into identity and personal experience.

This chapter outlines how to go about discourse analytic research from an ethnographic perspective. It briefly describes two complementary research traditions which have informed each other in this area: ethnographic approaches to critical discourse analysis, particularly as these have been developed within the discourse historical approach; and the emergence of linguistic ethnography as an independent research paradigm. A sample of written discourse data is taken from an ethnographic project which explored the impact of paperwork demands in a workplace nursery, consisting of written materials posted to the walls of the nursery. Sample analysis illustrates how research questions can develop over the course of an ethnographic project; how observations, interviews and photographs can be drawn on together in analysis to illuminate the purposes and meanings of discourse in social context; how ethnographic findings can be presented; and some of the issues and limitations around ethnographic discourse analysis, particularly in relation to bounding the scope of the research.

ABSTRACT This paper reports on an international collaborative project working with deaf learners of English literacy (19–28 years old) in five locations in India: Indore; Vadadora; Comibatore; Pattambi; and Thrissur. Indian Sign Language (ISL) was the language of instruction. The project drew on a social practices view of literacy. Deaf peer tutors were trained in creating lessons using authentic materials: texts collected from students’ everyday lives. Tutors and students shared content via an online teaching resource. In the paper, the authors draw on notes from the training, tutor and student data, to clarify the strengths and challenges of this approach. Real literacies were used fruitfully, but authentic texts could be complex and grammar lessons were often unrelated to these texts. This challenged our assumptions about the applicability of the real literacies concept to pedagogy. Nevertheless, the study confirms the value of an approach that privileges ISL, peer tuition and online materials.