"No One Is Saying That!" and Other Common Tweets in Twitter's Version of the Reading Wars

• In Event: How Reading Researchers Can Collaborate Beyond the Academy to Promote the Common Good: The Case of the Curious Dyslexia Debate

Abstract

The sheer volume of articles, blogs, tweets, podcasts and other media devoted to the “reading wars” is evidence that no side feels particularly well understood or well heard. In an effort to understand how and why those engaged in these debates continuously disagree despite both claiming to have evidence on their side, I undertook an analysis of 200 tweets related to beginning reading drawn from a larger dataset of over 2,000 thousand tweets that appeared on the topic after the release of a profile on dyslexia and beginning reading instruction published by American Public Media in 2018.

A close analysis of the standards of organizations positioned on opposite sides of the reading wars, the International Literacy Association and the International Dyslexia Association, include substantial overlap and coherence (Author et al., 2018). Much like denominational differences within a broad religious tradition, commonly held dogma (that which is revealed as truth, or evidence) can sometimes be obscured by variations in doctrine (that which is taught based on revealed truths, or evidence-based practices).

Using a constructionist approach to discourse analysis (Potter & Hepburn, 2008), I draw on positioning theory (Davis & Harré, 1990) to identify the linguistic strategies used to reveal, contest, and - at times, conceal - doctrine and dogma, here defined as evidence and evidence-based practices. I scraped and organized twitter data related to recent news articles concerning dyslexia, and conducting a microlevel line-by-line analysis of discourse features found in the resulting transcripts. In doing so, I consider the discourse features and rhetorical tools used when making claims about the nature of reading, reading instruction, and when positioning oneself and others.

It was common within this dataset for tweeters to spend as much time describing the “other” side as their own. In the paper, I discuss two themes, named for emic codes that emerged as repetitive patterns throughout the data set, define the positioning strategies used within the dataset, are: “based on the field” and “no one is saying that.” These each represent phrases that were used frequently to position oneself as scientific and one’s opponent as ignorant (e.g. “based on the field of cognitive science”), and to reposition oneself as victimized and/or misunderstood (“no one is saying that”). These patterns of positioning and repositioning oneself and others separate and polarize the “sides,” perpetuating the cycle of positioning stakeholders in contrast to or as opposites of one another.

What is known and viewed as evidence (dogma) is broad and broadly agreed-upon. It is the practices based on that evidence, or doctrine, where there is significant disagreement. Considering such differences as similar to denominational differences has the potential to draw attention to shared beliefs and interests, explain the variation in beliefs among those on either “side,” and provide clearer and more useful information to those who are new to the debate and/or faced with making personal or policy decisions in the area of beginning reading instruction.

Author

• Rachael E. Gabriel, University of Connecticut