1. This article examines the methodological tensions between Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and Situated Literacies in the study of multimodality in literacy and writing studies.
2. The author analyzes recent literature from both approaches and two empirical studies to highlight the differences in their treatment of multimodal texts and practices, as well as their methodologies.
3. Despite some shared theoretical assumptions, SFL and Situated Literacies have distinct approaches to multimodality, and this article aims to outline their respective contributions to ongoing research in the field.
The article titled "Contrasting Systemic Functional Linguistic and Situated Literacies Approaches to Multimodality in Literacy and Writing Studies" by Kate T. Anderson explores the methodological tensions between two theoretical perspectives, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and Situated Literacies, in the study of multimodality in literacy and writing studies.
The article begins with an abstract that provides a brief overview of the topic and the main arguments presented in the article. It states that SFL and Situated Literacies share some underlying theoretical assumptions but differ in their treatment of multimodal texts and practices, as well as their methodologies. The abstract also mentions that the article aims to outline the respective contributions of SFL and Situated Literacies to ongoing research on multimodality.
The article then proceeds to provide a detailed analysis of selected literature from both approaches, highlighting their methodological tensions. It also analyzes two empirical studies published in this journal that illustrate each approach. The author discusses various aspects such as research design, data collected, analytic methods, and possible implications.
While the article provides a comprehensive analysis of the methodological tensions between SFL and Situated Literacies, it is important to note some potential biases or limitations in its content. Firstly, there is a lack of discussion on other theoretical perspectives or approaches to multimodality in literacy and writing studies. This narrow focus on only two perspectives may limit the overall understanding of the field.
Additionally, there is a possibility of bias towards one perspective over the other. Although the author claims to present both perspectives objectively, there may be subtle biases or preferences towards one approach based on how certain arguments are presented or emphasized.
Furthermore, while the article acknowledges that SFL and Situated Literacies share some underlying theoretical assumptions and are sometimes used together by scholars, it does not explore potential synergies or areas of overlap between these approaches. This omission limits a more nuanced understanding of how these perspectives can complement each other in the study of multimodality.
The article also lacks a discussion on the limitations or potential risks associated with each approach. It does not address any ethical considerations or potential biases that may arise from using either SFL or Situated Literacies in research. This oversight undermines the overall credibility and completeness of the analysis.
In conclusion, while the article provides a detailed analysis of the methodological tensions between SFL and Situated Literacies in the study of multimodality, it has some limitations and potential biases. The narrow focus on only two perspectives, lack of exploration of synergies between them, and omission of ethical considerations weaken the overall argument presented in the article. Further research is needed to provide a more comprehensive understanding of multimodality in literacy and writing studies.