Meeting with Supervisor

Meeting with Supervisor

So I recently met with my supervisor for the doctoral process for him to review what I’ve written so far. I’ve been pretty pleased with how the writing has gone, but these conversations are valuable because he provides me with such great feedback, as well as identifying new directions for the writing to head in. It’s also a great time to reflect on the Ph D journey. Here are the main points that we discussed:

1) I’ve been perhaps too slavish with identifying my work as a critical pedagogical project. If I was to coin a new term – Justice Pedagogy, or something similar – then that would allow me to draw from other traditions – like progressive, social movement, popular and radical pedagogies. Necessarily, this means that i need to read more widely from these traditions.

2) My authorial voice in the writing is perhaps a little too reticent. I need to both inject a little more of my criticism, but also find opportunities for theorists to speak to each other, rather than just my comments or a simple paraphrasing of the work.

3) In my chapter on Critical Pedagogy, I think I should broaden it to include work from Feminist Critical Pedagogues and Critical Race Pedagogues. This will allow me to broaden my research field to include people like Deb Hayes, Carmen Luke and Jennifer Gore, as well as Bell Hooks and Morrell and Duncan Andrade in this section. This will mean a little bit of rewriting and re-organising here.

4) In my chapter about media, there is a need to talk about other projects that have utilized media in the way that I am doing – YPAR, CCD, PhotoVoice and FilmVoice projects. Also, it might be worth exploring the idea of citizen journalism and story making here. I need to be careful of my argument about digital citizenship, too. Also, what is meant by critical literacy? Is it really participatory critical literacy?

5) The final chapter that I gave to my supervisor to read was about theories of citizenship education. He suggested that I split this chapter into two – defining citizenship and theories of citizenship education. This means that in here there will be a lot of different refinements and revisions needed to unpick the two. Regarding the chapter about definitions of citizenship, I need to make a point about the new ways of theorizing about identity – very postmodernist here – that include consumer identities. That is, how has the notion of activism changes to reflect the fact that we are now defined as consumers rather than citizens? What does this new activism look like?