Premium
Ground rules for talk: the acceptable face of prescription
Author(s) -
Lambirth Andrew
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
the curriculum journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.843
H-Index - 36
eISSN - 1469-3704
pISSN - 0958-5176
DOI - 10.1080/09585170903424971
Subject(s) - common ground , sociology , argument (complex analysis) , epistemology , ideology , face (sociological concept) , context (archaeology) , politics , curriculum , social science , law , pedagogy , political science , philosophy , paleontology , biochemistry , chemistry , communication , biology
In this second article on the theory of ‘ground rules for talk’ I extend a debate between myself and Professor Neil Mercer over the introduction of ‘ground rules’ into classrooms. I critique ground rules through the use of sociological theory and argue that advocates of the ground rules perspective need to recognise the ideological nature of their theoretical position. In making this article a clear extension of my previous argument I introduce the work of Bernstein and Fairclough to support my new arguments. I use Bernstein's theory of pedagogy as cultural relay and Fairclough's appropriateness model of language variation to critique ‘ground rules perspectives’. In doing so, I draw out the political nature of educational theory and curriculum within the context of a specific socio‐economic society.