James Paul Gee
James Gee (/dʒiː/; born April 15, 1948) is a retired American researcher who has worked in psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, bilingual education, and literacy. Gee most recently held the position as the Mary Lou Fulton Presidential Professor of Literacy Studies at Arizona State University,[1] originally appointed there in the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education. Gee has previously been a faculty affiliate of the Games, Learning, and Society group at the University of Wisconsin–Madison[2] and is a member of the National Academy of Education.[3]
James Paul Gee
April 15, 1948
MA, Linguistics; Ph.D., Linguistics
Involvement in literacy research and New Literacy Studies; work with video games and learning
Mary Lou Fulton Presidential Professor of Literacy Studies
Biography[edit]
James Paul Gee was born in San Jose, California. He received his B.A. in philosophy from the University of California at Santa Barbara and both his M.A. and Ph.D in linguistics from Stanford University. He started his career in theoretical linguistics, working in syntactic and semantic theory, and taught initially at Stanford University and later in the School of Language and Communication at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. After doing some research in psycholinguistics at Northeastern University in Boston and at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands, Prof. Gee's research focus switched to studies on discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and applications of linguistics to literacy and education. He went on to teach in the School of Education at Boston University, where he was the chair of the Department of Developmental Studies and Counseling, and later in the Linguistics Department at the University of Southern California. At Boston University he established new graduate programs centered around an integrated approach to language and literacy, combining programs in reading, writing, bilingual education, ESL, and applied linguistics. From 1993 to 1997 he held the Jacob Hiatt Chair in Education in the Hiatt Center for Urban Education at Clark University in Massachusetts. From 1997 until 2007, he held the Tashia Morgridge Professor of Reading at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.[4][5] In 2007, Gee relocated to Arizona State University, where he was the Mary Lou Fulton Presidential Professor of Literacy Studies in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction.
In 2019, Gee retired.
Discourse analysis[edit]
Gee's 1999 text An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method[9] is a foundational work in the field of discourse analysis.
New literacies[edit]
According to Gee,[10] there are at least two reasons why we should consider literacy in broader terms than the traditional conception of literacy as the ability to read and write. First, in our world today, language is by no means the only communication system available. Many types of visual images and symbols have specific significances, and so “visual literacies” and literacies of other modes, or the concept of multimodal literacy, are also included in Gee's conception of new literacies.[10] Second, Gee proposes that reading and writing (the ‘meat’ of literacy according to the traditional notion of the term) are not such obvious ideas as they first appear. “After all,” he states, “we never just read or write; rather, we always read or write something in some way”.[11] In other words, according to which type of text we read there are different ways in which we read depending on the “rules” of how to read such a text. Literacy to Gee, even if it is the traditional print-based literacy, should be conceived as being multiple, or comprising different literacies, since we need different types of literacies to read different kinds of texts in ways that meet our particular purposes in reading them.
Furthermore, Gee also argues that reading and writing should be viewed as more than just “mental achievements” happening inside people's minds; they should also be seen as “social and cultural practices with economic, historical, and political implications”.[12] So, in Gee's view, literacies are not only multiple but are inherently connected to social practices. In order to expand the traditional view of literacy as print literacy, Gee recommends that we think first of literacy in terms of semiotic domains. By this, he means “any set of practices that recruits one or more modalities (e.g., oral or written language, images, equations, symbols, sounds, gestures, graphs, artifacts, etc.) to communicate distinctive types of meanings”.[13] There is a seemingly endless and varied range of semiotic domains, including (but certainly not limited to) cellular biology, first-person-shooter video games, rap music, or modernist painting. Most pundits would describe this conception of literacies as a key element in what has come to be known as the New Literacy Studies. In short, this theoretical and methodological orientation emphasizes studying language-in-use and literacies within their contexts of social practice. It includes work by colleagues such as Brian Street, Gunther Kress, David Barton, Mary Hamilton, Courtney Cazden, Ron Scollon, and Suzie Scollon, among others.
Gee's current work in the field of new literacies has seen him shift in his research focus somewhat from studying language-in-use to examining the D/iscourses of a range of new social practices—with a particular emphasis on video games and learning. Gee applies many key concepts from his previous research to studying video games. For example, Gee continues to argue that if we take reading to mean gaining understanding (instead of simply decoding letter sounds and words), one needs to be able to recognize or produce meanings inherent to any one semiotic domain in order to be literate in that domain. As such, and as Gee sets out in his text What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, one can be literate in the semiotic domain of video games if he or she “can recognize (the equivalent of “reading”) and/or produce (the equivalent of “writing”) meanings” in the video game domain.[13] Therefore, because new literacies are multiple and attached to social and cultural practices, Gee explains that people need to (1) be literate in many different semiotic domains, and (2) be able to become literate in other *new* semiotic domains throughout their lives.[10] This theoretical orientation aligns with work in the broad field of "new literacies" research—by colleagues such as Colin Lankshear, Michele Knobel, Henry Jenkins, Kevin Leander, Rebecca Black, Kurt Squire, and Constance Steinkuehler, among others.
Identity theory[edit]
James Gee defines identity as: “Being recognized as a certain ‘kind of person,’ in a given context...” (p.99).[16] Gee talks of identity differences based on social and cultural views of identity and identifies four of these views, each of which are influenced by different forms of power, though they all have an effect on one another. Gee describes them as “four ways to formulate questions about how identity is functioning for a specific person (child or adult) in a given context or across a set of contexts” (p. 101).[16]
The first of Gee's identity perspectives is what he calls “the nature perspective (or N-identities)” (p. 101).[16] N-identity represents an identity people cannot control, one that comes from forces of nature. An example of this type of identity would be male or female. While the person has no control over the sex they were born with, this identity only means something because society and culture say this biological difference is important.[16] Gee explains this idea further by stating, “N-identities must always gain their force as identities through the work of institutions, discourse and dialogue, or affinity groups, that is, the very forces that constitute our other perspectives on identity” (p. 102).[16]
“[T]he institutional perspective (or I-identities)” (p. 102) [16] refers to identities set by authorities within an institution. An example of an I-identity is a student, whose identity is defined by the school as an institution with rules and traditions the student must follow. Gee claims these I-identities can be something imposed on a person, such as being a prisoner, or can be a calling for the person, such as being a college professor.[16]
The third perspective Gee identifies is the “discursive perspective (or D-identities)” (p. 103).[16] D-identity refers to an individual trait, such as caring. D-identities are a matter of social interaction that only become identities because “other people treat, talk about, and interact” with the person in ways that bring forth and reinforce the trait (p. 103).[16] According to Gee “D-identities can be placed on a continuum in terms of how active or passive one is in ‘recruiting’ them, that is, in terms of how much such identities can be viewed as merely ascribed to a person versus an active achievement or accomplishment of that person” (p. 104).[16]
The final identity perspective Gee identifies is the “affinity perspective (or A-identities)” (p. 105).[16] A-identities are built by shared experiences as part of an affinity group, which according to Gee's definition is a group that share “allegiance to, access to, and participation in specific practices” (p. 105).[16] Joining these groups must be something the person has chosen to do and feels a part of in order for the A-identity to be built. Gee explains this further by stating, “While I could force someone to engage in specific practices, I really cannot coerce anyone into seeing the particular experiences connected to those practices as constitutive (in part) of the ‘kind of person’ they are” (p. 106).[16]