What I posted the other day was the first third of the prospectus; the place where I say, “Here’s why this is necessary.” The second third, the middle part, is basically a nod towards the review of the literature (here’s how class shows up in x, y, and z) I’m going to have to do, plus methodology: why am I choosing these texts? (I’ll probably have to say something a little more sophisticated than, “Well, my disciplines barely talk about class at all, so I’m pretty much covering the whole shebang. You’re lookin at it, baby.” Because part of what I’m doing is showing that even when it’s not explicitly present, class is still implicit in so many of the theoretical discussions writing teachers engage in.)
Where I’m stymied is the third third; the final part. I figure I can put together a pretty solid rationale for what I’m doing. I can summarize a dash through the literature for class seen and unseen, no problem. I’ve even got the beginnings of some conclusions: I like Bourdieu’s relational infinitude of classes; the instrumental view of technology can only further marginalize any progressive agenda in composition — but how do I look forward to a conclusion that I haven’t yet arrived at myself?
One possibility: a common rhetorical concluding move is the call for more research. Perhaps I should ask, particularly given my recent “D’oh!” moments concerning the expanded economy, what forms such additional classroom research might take. How do the intersections of Bourdieu’s notions of class, the diverse or heterogeneous economy, and an alternative to technological instrumentality shape the questions one might ask about the classroom?