Closeness and distance: Using close reading as a method of educational enquiry in English studies

Abstract

This article draws on a pedagogical case study in order to reflect on the value of using a Humanities disciplinary practice (the 'close reading' of literary studies) as a method of educational enquiry and to provide a worked example of this approach. We explore the introduction of a pedagogic strategy -students writing abstracts for essays and sharing them in advance of group discussion -into the tutorial at the University of Oxford, and an evaluation of it. We then read the student 'texts' (written abstracts and evaluation forms) more closely, to problematize the initial evaluation findings and reveal hidden aspects of student learning and the teaching relationship. We reflect upon our approach and suggest some of the difficulties and advantages of 'close reading' student texts while achieving scholarly 'distance' as a pedagogic research practice. In addition, we explore further the relations between social science and humanities approaches to educational enquiry.

Inquiry-based reading – Towards a conception of reading as a research method

“…This suggests that researchers do not consider reading to be a methodological practice significantly influencing the knowledge they produce. Thus, although reading is recognized as a core academic skill (Brookman and Horn, 2016; Culler, 2010; Love, 2010; Maclellan, 1997; Weed, 2012; Weller, 2010), it is by implication constructed as a supplement to genuine research methods. To our knowledge, research undertaken specifically to identify how reading informs and influences knowledge production processes, as well as to develop a conception of reading as a method of inquiry in its own right, is lacking.…”

“…The literature covers numerous conceptions of different reading approaches. The most commonly discussed concepts are ‘close reading’ (Brookman and Horn, 2016; Culler, 2010; Douglas et al., 2016; Hayles, 2010; Love, 2010; Poletti et al., 2016; Weller, 2010), ‘active reading’ (Douglas et al., 2016), ‘reflective reading’ (Weller, 2010), ‘reparative reading’ (Sedgwick, 2003), ‘symptomatic reading’ (Best and Marcus, 2009; Hayles, 2010; Weed, 2012), ‘surface reading’ (Best and Marcus, 2009), ‘instrumental reading’ (Douglas et al., 2016; Weller, 2010), ‘distant reading’ (Love, 2010) and ‘flat reading’ (Love, 2010). In particular, close reading and surface reading are discussed extensively.…”