Getting to the point where I could articulate my framework in a formal way has taken several years of study and experience. I feel, though, that while both theory and practice did indeed enhance the end result, it's my own life experiences that have predisposed me to view social interaction in the following way. Several personality-building factors have conspired to instil in me a keen sensitivity to the differences among individuals. Studying anthropological theory enhanced this sensitivity by exposing me to rigorous methods of analysis; in particular, I found in French structuralism (tempered by a degree of post-structural critique) the method best suited to my procedural mind.
      I firmly believe that, in general, effective social interaction requires substantial translation across the life experiences of the agents involved. By being sensitive to the variables or factors (such as age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, religion, etc.) that distinguish individuals from each other, a greater mutual understanding can be achieved. This applies directly to education in two important ways: as a discursive frame and as an agenda for transformation. By the former, I mean to say that effective teaching requires an awareness of the diversity in the classroom; by the latter, I suggest that truly great teaching calls for a challenge and response to these same social categories of difference. For a theoretical and practical extension of the ideas presented below, visit my philosophy & pedagogy page.

      I should state from the outset that my analytic framework is informed by a basic distinction between the public and private self; that is to say, I make a distinction between the individual as socially constructed by a set of external variables, and the individual qua agent with the capacity to act and reflect. Structuralist theory and method is applied to the socially constructed individual, and post-structural perspectives are invoked towards private individuals.
      This needs to be unpacked. As a researcher or observant in an educational community (or community in general), one set of analytic methods helps define and map-out socially constructed systems and institutions, as well as the external and public dimensions of any given individual therein; another set - post-structuralist methods of analysis - deconstructs, critiques and challenges these social constructions, as well as their projection and internalization by private individuals.
      At this point, those familiar with these two schools of thought may be wondering how it is possible to reconcile them into one coherent framework; after all, post-structuralism emerged as a critique and a response to the rigid and imposing nature of structuralist thought. The two are united through a common unit of analysis, what I term the socially constructed boundary. This construction occupies a central place in my framework, as it serves as the nexus-point between wholly different spheres of analysis: one that focuses on external constructions as objective, detached structures, and another that emphasizes individual, personal experience as the starting point for any form of inquiry.