Abstract
Signs in the early stages of research (e.g. pathways, thoughts/ideas, and structured feedback) form a web that we call the semiotic web of the research proposal. This web is based on the unlimited semiosis of signs, the semiotic square of education, and the semiotic web of law. We start weaving this web by formulating a raw thought and a number of research ideas. Βy travelling various pathways, we develop patterns of thinking which in turn lead to several potential research proposals, one of which will become the chosen research proposal. We use the concept “semiotics of education” as our theoretical base for a heuristic tool, the semiotic web of the research proposal, to explore an aspect of educational research methodologies. Recognizing that overcoming habitual dualisms is a distinguishing feature of the semiotics of education, we open up the discussion about the extent to which the research proposal should be an integral part of the main supervision process and explore some of the possibilities surrounding this goal. The study highlights the evidence arising from a lifelong distance-learning programme in research proposal development and provides illustrative examples of the way in which educational principles have been translated into practice in a Greek university. [1]
References
Benson, R. W. 1987. The semiotic web of the law. In R. Kevelson (ed.), Law and semiotics, vol. 1, 35–64. New York: Plenum.10.1007/978-1-4613-0959-8_3Search in Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. J. 1987a. Outline of an education semiotic. American Journal of Semiotics 5. 201–216.10.5840/ajs19875216Search in Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. J. 1987b. Semiotics and education: An instance of the “new” paradigm. American Journal of Semiotics 5. 195–199.10.5840/ajs19875215Search in Google Scholar
Damaskinidis, G. & A. Christodoulou. 2014. Η ερευνητική πρόταση στην μεταπτυχιακή και διδακτορική έρευνα [The research proposal in post-graduate and doctoral research]. Thessaloniki: Epikentro.Search in Google Scholar
Damaskinidis, G. & A. Christodoulou. 2016. Η διδασκαλία της ερευνητικής πρότασης σε μεταπτυχιακά προγράμματα σπουδών [The teaching of the research proposal in postgraduate programmes]. In K. D. Malaphantis, Β. Papadopoulou, S. Aygitidou, G. Iordanidis & Ι. Mpetsas (eds.), Proceedings of ninth Panhellenic conference of Hellenic pedagogical and educational research, vol. A, 252–265. Athens: Diadrasi.Search in Google Scholar
Danesi, M. 2010. Foreword: Edusemiotics. In I. Semetsky (ed.), Semiotics education experience, vols. vii–x. Rotterdam: Sense.Search in Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. 1993. The fold: Leibniz and the baroque Tom Conley (trans.). Minnesota: University of Minneapolis Press.Search in Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. 1994. Difference and repetition Paul Patton (trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Deuchar, R. 2008. Facilitator, director or critical friend?: Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education 13(4). 489–500.10.1080/13562510802193905Search in Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1913. Interest and effort in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.10.1037/14633-000Search in Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1979. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1986. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Glassman, M. & M. J. Kang. 2007. Semiosis as an educational instrument: The irrelevance of mediation and the relevance of social capital. Semiotica 164(1/4). 81–99.10.1515/SEM.2007.020Search in Google Scholar
Grant, B. 2005. Fighting for space in supervision: Fantasies, fairytales, fictions, and fallacies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 18. 337–354.10.1080/09518390500082483Search in Google Scholar
Greimas, A. J. & J. Courtés. 1982. Semiotics and language: An analytical dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hasrati, M. 2005. Legitimate peripheral participation and supervising PhD students. Studies in Higher Education 30(5). 557–570.10.1080/03075070500249252Search in Google Scholar
Heath, M. T. & C. Tynan. 2010. Crafting a research proposal. Marketing Review 10(2). 147–168.10.1362/146934710X505753Search in Google Scholar
Imbert, P. 1980. Multidisciplinarity, semiotics, and pedagogy. Ars Semeiotica 3. 275–281.Search in Google Scholar
Jewitt, C. 2009. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Kondrátov, A. M. 1973. Del sonido al signo [The sound of sign]. Buenos Aires: Paidos.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, G. R. 2009. What is mode? In C. Jewitt (ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis, 54–67. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Lifelong Learning Programme. 2015–2016. Designing a research proposal for conducting scientific research in social sciences and humanities. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. http://diaviou.auth.gr/research_proposal_e-learning_b (accessed 10 May 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Lotman, Y. 1991. Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mavers, D. 2011. Children’s drawing and writing. New York & London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203844366Search in Google Scholar
Merrell, F. 1997. Peirce, signs, and meaning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442678330Search in Google Scholar
Morris, C. 1962. Signos, lenguaje y conducta. Buenos Aires: Lozada.Search in Google Scholar
Nöth, W. 2010. The semiotics of teaching and the teaching of semiotics. In I. Semetsky (ed.), Semiotics education experience, 1–19. Rotterdam: Sense.10.1163/9789460912252_002Search in Google Scholar
Piaget, J. 1978. La formation du symbole chez l’enfant. Paris: Delachaux and Niestlé.Search in Google Scholar
Pietarinen, A. V. 2003. The semantic + pragmatic web = the semiotic web. In Proceedings of the international WWW/Internet conference, 981–984. Lisbon: IADIS Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pikkarainen, E. 2011. The semiotics of education: A new vision in an old landscape. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43(10). 1135–1144.10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00632.xSearch in Google Scholar
Roland, S. 2008. Technological options in supervising remote research students. Higher Education 55. 121–137.10.1007/s10734-006-9038-0Search in Google Scholar
Saussure, F. De. 1974 [1916]. Course in general linguistics. London: Peter Owen.Search in Google Scholar
Semetsky, I. 2007. Towards a semiotic theory of learning: Deleuze’s philosophy and educational experience. Semiotica 164(1/4). 197–214.10.1515/SEM.2007.025Search in Google Scholar
Shapiro, B. 2015. Structures that teach: Using a semiotic framework to study the environmental messages of learning settings. Journal of Eco-Thinking 1(1). 5–17.Search in Google Scholar
Stables, A. 2010. Semiosis and the collapse of mind-body dualism. In I. Semetsky (ed.), Semiotics education experience, 21–36. Rotterdam: Sense.10.1163/9789460912252_003Search in Google Scholar
Surinder, J. S. 2009. The power of raw thought: A story of spiritual insights. Bloomington: Xlibris corporation.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, S. & N. Beasley. 2005. A handbook for doctoral supervisors. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203415740Search in Google Scholar
Tomlinson, M. M. 2012. How young children use semiotic tools to communicate through music play in school contexts. In A. Niland & J. Rutkowski (eds.), Proceedings of the international society for music education: Early childhood commission seminar, 76–82. Nedlands, Western Australia: Corfu.Search in Google Scholar
Watts, M. 2001. The holy grail: In pursuit of the dissertation proposal. http://hegis.umn.edu/pubs/Watts_2001_Proposal_writing.pdf (accessed 10 May 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Wright, J. & G. Forrest. 2007. A social semiotic analysis of knowledge construction and games centred approaches to teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 12(3). 273–287.10.1080/17408980701610201Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
