tracing what this term referred to, and how it formed an anchor for constructing two
data sets, each framing the basis for examining the point of view of particular actors
in particular roles, interacting in particular spaces.
Bloome and Egan-Robertson’s research ( 1993 ) on intertextuality as a social
accomplishment made visible how in and through the discourse (oral and written),
actors inscribe historical contexts, meanings as well as actions. This argument, and
related research builds on, and provides evidence of Bakhtin’s( 1986 ) theoretical
argument that“Any utterance is a link in a very complexly organized chain of other
utterances,”(p. 60). Bloome and Egan-Robertson ( 1993 ) further argue that, in and
through discourse, actors in a particular event, propose, recognize, acknowledge,
and interactionally accomplish what is socially significant, and by extension, aca-
demically significant to know, understand, and do.
Bloome et al. ( 2005 ) take this argument further by making visible how inter-
textuality is socially constructed in and through the everyday discourse in which
particular events of social life are being constructed. They present how, in and
through moment-by-moment interactions in particular events, actors construct local
and situated identities, what counts as literacy processes and meanings as well as
how in such interactions they make visible locally situated power relationships that
define whose perspectives count, when and where, for what purposes and under
what conditions.
By grounding the analysis of records from the archive in these conceptual ar-
guments, we created a basis for identifying intertextual references that were then
used to bound particular levels and angles of analysis (Green et al. 2012 ).
These conceptual arguments also framed the need to examine roles and relation-
ships being constructed in the local situations among different configurations of
actors, not just the official positions each held. This angle of analysis, as the telling
cases that follow will show, provided an empirical grounding for examining how,
not just what, each actor proposed to others as counting asprofessional practices of
lesson planning. It also frames the need to trace the chain of proposed actions to
examine how, and in what ways, those with whom the actor was interacting,
whether in a common languaculture or in an intercultural space, responded to the
email queries and comments sent to them from particular actors in particular social
situations, for particular purposes. In this way, these chains of interaction made
visible the sources of influence and local inscriptions of what was proposed, rec-
ognized, and interactionallly accomplished grounded in collective decisions with
others in their official work sites (i.e., the classroom and ECTE program). This logic
of inquiry was held constant along with the focus on lesson planning references,
while the actors, points of contact, and their frames of reference varied. Through
triangulating differencesin reference, actions, and interactions, as the telling cases
will show, the internal–external ethnography team laid a foundation for reflexive
decision-making processes that will be discussed in thefinal section of this paper.
242 L. Katz and J. Green