Blythe

Instead of one line of questioning being pursued, the very act of

research leads us into unexpected areas. For instance, the research method itself

may raise unexpected questions: Why did a chosen method prove less effective

than we expected? Would another method, or a modification to the original one,

work more effectively in this situation? Sometimes projects yield entirely unexpected

results: We were looking for X, but we were surprised to discover Y and

Z instead. – Blythe, 282

The Blythe article was certainly an intriguing read… in the past few weeks, it seems each piece presented offers a new angle on possibilities for research. Blythe, with the focus on “sustainable relationships”, “reciprocal relationships”, “trascend(ance) of academic calendars”, “activitist research” – music to my community service-loving ears. The complexity and scope of the problem as presented – both the environmental issue, health issue and the communication of dealing with it helped me to see possibilities with this kind of research.

So, we have the sediments, the health issue – and the stakeholders: EPA, TOSC, communication specialists – part of TOSC, third party experts (professors), community members, city govt.

Then, of course, the ideologies of each – just one example -- the mistrust of city gov’t by local residences.

Blythe’s manner of approach was of interest – the time in which he and his partner took to assess the myriad of variables “Jeff and I spent most of our first year meeting with local residents, journalists, government employees, and members of environmental groups” (273). I am recognizing that I can expand my conception of time frame to expand my ideas of research – or, the research I might like to do. Prior to these courses, I considered research something I’d do in a semester, a year. It took Blythe a year to simply assess & build trust w. various stakeholders. Later, he discusses the challenges of initiation and access “it can take significant amounts of time to build the trust necessary to get invited to participate.”

And, the complexity this kind of research raises, as Blythe points out in his discussion of “Wicked Problems”

Such problems involve so many variables, and institutions, and

individual stakeholders that it is hard to know where to begin

seeking a solution.

• Comprehending such problems requires technical and scientific

data that even supposed experts sometimes lack.

• An attempt to fix one part of a wicked problem usually raises a

new one.:

Such complexities (and others) of course make it difficult for researchers to “report” on a given project – Blythe asks the following: “How do activist researchers manage to write to other researchers about their work, especially when their research may not have yielded obvious results?” Given his own restriction of time”because the work was ongoing Jeff and I had little that we could report in terms of out comes 8 years later.”

Ok, here is where I found a bit of a gap. I understand the limitations of Blythe’s reporting for the particular project – and Blythe’s move to look at activist research gave me a rich series of articles to look at myself (I’d like to use Cushman for the class presentation next week)—I am with him when he restates ways in which “activist researchers involved in sustained reciprocal relationships also have been able to publish- and the valule of that activity” through methodological, theoretical, & praxis arguments… but I wanted to know how he applied the heuristic he provided to his own site he introduced us to (perhaps I need to read the article again).

This article, and subsequent conversation in class, got me thinking of long-term relationships forged with environmental community groups that my workplace forged when I worked in Pburgh with the Student Conservation Association. The work was not focused on the classroom, but community (though some classroom-style instruction was included). Each year ended with a Community Action Project which followed a set of heuristics to assess and create a plan to improve the community as generated from the participants (there were typically 3 groups of high school students, about the size of 8-10 students each – the project ran after school and on weekends).

We also used a heuristic (adopted from a group called EarthForce –I’d now like to know what investigation led to the heuristic) and set the project up as directed by students. Don’t get me wrong, though, my colleagues and I gave some very pointed “tugs” to the direction the project went – to ensure we were working ina neighborhood was safe, or to ensure the participants were planning more than a pizza party in the park as the end project. We had our own expectations as detailed by the work we were all doing (we were considered to be their work supervisors…unlike school they were being paid to implement this projects – this was definitely an interesting structure in which activist event occur).

How It Works:

Educators use the Earth Force Process curriculum to incorporate service-learning and civic action into the classroom. Local partners and experts can provide added depth to the six steps outlined here:

Step 1- Community Environmental Inventory: Students identify environmental issues and strengths within their own community.

Step 2- Issue Selection: Students learn democratic decision-making processes to select the issue they will be researching. They research the issue and narrow and refine its definition.

Step 3- Policy and Practice Research: Students identify and analyze policies and practices related to their issue. They research the issue from all sides and identify key stakeholders they can engage in their research and action.

Step 4- Options for Influencing Policy and Practice: Students identify a policy or practice related to their issue that they want to affect. They set a project goal and use democratic decision-making again to determine a course of action.

Step 5- Planning and Taking Civic Action: Students develop and implement a well-organized plan of action to ensure project reaches completion.

Step 6- Looking Back and Ahead: Students assess the project and process, identify next steps, celebrate successes, and share their stories.

Again, I’d like to do some research to see where these Steps emerged (not provided on website).

As discussed in the Blythe article – the complexity generated by these steps (raising one issue or question often raised several more) created a more complex project – period. But I will say, this process (which stretched over an entire 6 month period), yeilded results I had not seen in a classroom – and much of it was seeing changes in students through PROCESS (like seeing a participant become engaged or become a leader – or even, get involved in a rip-roaring fight, which happened when we ran our first CAP).

A couple of other connections – I am part of the International Reading Association & get the publication Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy – just two days ago, was sent a series of articles on social responsibility.

Steven Wok, author of Reading for a Better World: Teaching for Social Responsibility With Young Adult Literature uses books/ writing as a platform for inquiry across the curriculum. The following is a quote from the book - on how books, literature can be used:

“Teaching through inquiry and

teaching for social responsibility

have a symbiotic relationship.

Classroom inquiry nurtures social

responsibility, and living a socially

responsible life means to live a life

of inquiry. With inquiry-based

teaching, the process becomes part

of the content. No longer is the

curriculum simply the novel or the

facts to be learned but, rather, the

students and their teacher together using books, other

authentic resources, and their own opinions and experiences

to create the “living curriculum” as a true

community of learners.” (666)

While I find this to be interesting…when I relate the article (and ones like it, that outline best practices) to some of our explorations in class…I want to know more. Where is this working? In what ways, specifically, does it work? What projects can be outlined? Who is in charge of the learning here, and why?

I run across lines like this:

“Using young adult literature is one of the most

meaningful and enjoyable ways for students to inquire

into social responsibility because we can situate this

content in the wonderful stories of good books.” (667)

And wonder about the relevance for students I have taught in the past. Yes, certain novels/nonfiction pieces had were agency to lead students to inquire…but there was often much to it (some serious scaffolding which involved building, among cognitive skills & literacy practices, trust, so they would open up and write about subjects they found they cared about). Also, reading this piece highlights for me how entrenched in the traditional classroom still is. And I get it. Community outreach/ inquiry can turn into a logistical mess when you have a certain number of students and certain outcomes that must be met. But previewing Cushman’s article: “The Rhetorician as an Agent of Social Change” – I read the following:

“To empower, as I use it, means:

(a) to enable someone to achieve a goal by providing resources for them;

(b) to facilitate actions-particularly those associated with language and

literacy; (c) to lend our power or status to forward people's achievement.” (8) - Hmmn… the acknowledgement of “providing resources “ – not necessarily solely reading or writing …but certainly part of language and literacy.

When I worked at the SCA… it was clear that we were out of the classroom, and I think that it why the projects were so dynamic. Participants were reading, writing, collaborating, working, inquiring in neighborhood communities in which they cared about.

When I consider the inquiry I am encouraging in my current adjunct College Writing I position here at KSU, I reflect back to the “naturalness” (though complex) inquiry experienced in a community-based position. Of course, I have to remind myself, the SCA participants were getting paid. Ha. Ha.

All of this makes me think more critically about professional pieces I receive (wow, what a difference when I read Wok and Cushman -- I like Wok's suggestions, but he leaves me with many unanswered questions -- as compared to some of the "groundednes" I am feeling from Cushman) , how I teach my class, and considerations for research in the future.

text and orality

A couple of themes in the past few week's readings got me thinking about the way in which communication is built -- both in and out of texts. Teston states, about workplace documents: "Much of this scholarship uses workplace documents, or their production,
as evidence or data for better understanding how work gets done and decisions
are made. Prior to, and even during the production of workplace documents,
however, are hours’ worth of oral deliberations and debates that invariably
play a part in decision making. An investigation into the role of these knowledge-
building and decision-making processes in workplace practices—processes
that may or may not yield formal, textual documentation"...next, indicating such an exploration in scholarship "has not yet been exhausted" (303).
The initial emphasis of the Tumor Board textual document is natural, as is the disappointment when it is not a major factor in the ensuing discussions "Much to my disappointment as a researcher in writing and rhetoric studies,
however, the Tumor Board participant packet is rarely ever used in any kind of
explicit way during the conferences" (308)

How often I forget that the text evolved from other social forces. The discussions occurring were a large part of what Teston explores. This led me to revisit some of the philosophers I explored in an Educational Philosophy course last semester...forgive me, all of these rhetoricians must be old hat for you, but in placing the works from last week into some kind of context...I refer back to Plato.

"Writing, you know, Phaedrus, has this strange quality about it, which makes it really like painting: the painter's products stand before us quite as though they were alive; but if you question them, they maintain a solemn silence. So, too, with written words: you might think they spoke as though they made sense, but if you ask them anything about what they are saying, if you wish an explanation, they go on telling you the same thing, over and over forever. Once a thing is put in writing, it rolls about all over the place, falling into the hands of those who have no concern with it just as easily as under the notice of those who comprehend; it has no notion of whom to address or whom to avoid. And when it is ill-treated or abused as illegitimate, it always needs its father to help it, being quite unable to protect or help itself. "
... (enter seed analogy)
"Socr. Then he will not, when he's in earnest, resort to a written form and inscribe his seeds in water, and in inky water at that; he will not sow them with a pen, using words which are unable either to argue in their own defense when attacked or to fulfill the role of a teacher in presenting the truth. . . . In this regard, far more noble and splendid is the serious pursuit of the dialectician, who finds a congenial soul and then proceeds with true knowledge to plant and sow in it words which are able to help themselves and help him who planted them; words which will not be unproductive, for they can transmit their seed to other natures and cause the growth of fresh words in them, providing an eternal existence for their seed; words which bring their possessor to the highest degree of happiness possible for a human being to attain."
- from - (Phaedrus 67-71)
Hmmmn...sounds a lot like the following from Teston, found in her description of developing heuristics:

"Rhetoric as epistemic, however, assumes no preexisting “T”ruth, but truths
about which we collaboratively construct meaning (see Scott, 1967)—perhaps in
ways that are heuristic. Enos and Lauer (1992) argue for the ways that rhetoric is
epistemic in nature, and propose that heuristics are a way for the “rhetor and
audience to share in the determination of meaning, to engage in creating meaning
based on shared interpretive patterns” (p. 85). (314)
So, Teston refers to Enos and Lauer who document this dialectic -- through whatever medium -- in this case, orality -- to promote knowledge, in this case, best practices in discussions of the Tumor Board.

Then...this from Plato:

"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." - Phaedrus (275 a-b)
After rereading this, I couldn't help but flash back to the following quote from Teston (p. 318) on observational freehanding and the wish to document events that were not fitting into the existing hueristic:
"Specifically, observational free-handing is a result of returning from a Tumor
Board conference and feeling as though a good deal of what was deliberated
about that day was lost in some kind of experiential ether because the templated,
checklist-like heuristics that were deployed no longer accounted for the
kinds of deliberative events that took place during the meetings. I would later
return to the Tumor Board without a heuristic, therefore—a pencil and some
paper as my only accompaniments (see Fig. 15.6). Initially, I had hoped that by
free-handing Tumor Board observations for a visit or two, a newer, more inclusive
observational tool would be developed. Interestingly, however, and probably
due to months and months of using various observational heuristics, even when
free-handing observations, I found myself relying on some of the core categories
or key concepts that had previously been identified when using prior observational
heuristics (i.e., the letters A, B, C in Fig. 15.6 are remnants of codes used
for speakers in previous heuristics). In other words, even in the free-handing
phase of data collection, after a period of relying on heuristics, my ear and hand
were prepared to, or biased toward hearing and documenting previously defined
recurring references and connecting them with their relevant temporal and
sequential dimensions."

I am very much appreciative of Teston's piece overall...but it is the above passage, where she documents both her recognition of the need to shift her observational lense/ heuristics to account for events unfolding disappearing "experiential ether", and the difficulty she had in removing herself from the "bias toward hearing...previously defined recurring references." Reading this piece prior to my own research is valuable. I don't pretend to assume I would not assume...but this chapter highlights so clearly how this constant questioning and shifting.

Her moves to employ grounded theory as a methodology was also a powerful aspect of the peice -- it was valuable to see how this develops in her situation and how she makes confidential, mainly oral meetings accessible through the methodology.

This gives me some incentive to consider some of my past experiences -- as a Green Jobs educator in Pittsburgh (whatever, really, that is! I worked with urban kids in park and urban spaces), I became increasingly interested in reconsidering urban space -- particularly the "dregs" of the industrial belt --much going on in the Rust Belt; I just saw connections Kent is making there in terms of the recent Sustainability recognition given to Kent State's Urban Design Collaborative which works with large-scale urban vacancy issues in Cleveland: http://www.kent.edu/news/announcements/success/cudcsustainabilityaward.cfm
--need to check it out -- TIME!!! Never enough of it).

Along with investigating this, I would like to attend some neighborhood redevelopment meetings in Youngstown (I live outside of Ytown), particularly in a program called Lots of Green: "an innovative vacant land reuse program focused on comprehensively reactivating vacant land in the focus neighborhoods where YNDC operates. Lots of Green was created to address the negative conditions caused by demolition and the resulting unmaintained vacant lots. The program provides a new way of viewing vacant land as an opportunity to create productive and maintained spaces and economic opportunities for residents."

Both programs work extensively with several stakeholders...Teston gives me some measures to consider if I should attempt to discuss the ways in which knowledge is introduced, discussed, created were I to investigate either program...or a similar one. Again, I very much enjoyed the Teston piece.

Looking at the text, continued.

I am having a lot of fun looking more closely at the texts I am working with from the SRU graduate reading program & considering decisions researchers made...which lead to representation, then practice as delivered to the reading program students (this is my 2nd grad degree...the first, in Sustainable Systems, was interestingly, a whole different world research...which I'd like to explore in a post down the road).

In one course, we are looking at the concept of "coaching" and how literacy coaches augment coursework in K-12 schools. Much like the listserv post on the decisions, in recent years, to change the ways English Language Learners are taught to include prior literary and language experiences to augment the teaching of English, rather than immerse students in English only classes, an emphasis on this class is the community/ literacy connection...and how power structures among schools, students, parents create complex and sometimes troubling dynamics in the positioning of literacy in students' lives (a topic covered this extensively in Pam's class too). The last class offered practices to make the divide more integrated...including parents in classrooms, helping to make decisions in some policies, offering, in some communities, courses at the school from which parents might benefit (computer courses) etc. This positioning of practice as embedded in an awareness of social practices of both school and home is extremely intriguing...and is certainly something I'd be willing to try out --but, of course, I want to understand why the field has moved in this direction.
A search on the International Reading Association's publication Reading Research, led to a title "Analyzing Epistemological Considerations Related to Diversity: An Integrative Critical Literature Review of Family Literacy Scholarship." (Compton-Lilly, Rogers, Lewis) seems a start. Interesting, how I am viewing this document now. A cruise through the subheadings:

Introduction - Including the following quotes which jumped out at me:
"Therefore, in this review we ask the following questions:

• How has diversity been addressed and treated in family literacy scholarship?
• What epistemological stances are discernible in family literacy scholarship?" and:"We begin by presenting a brief and general review of family literacy, highlighting historical family literacy initiatives in the United States—public and private—as well as family literacy initiatives around the world. This review provides a sense of the political context within which family literacy developed and reveals some of the historical tensions that have characterized family literacy scholarship in the United States and abroad. We then explore various epistemological stances that operate in scholarship related to diversity. Insights from this analysis will be applied to family literacy scholarship later in the article. Next, we describe the methodological processes used in the current review and delineate the analytic processes used. Findings from three analyses of diversity are then presented. In the final section, we argue that epistemological awareness offers possibilities for family literacy scholars to reflect on their own work and strategically support families."

We view these two questions as intimately related. After addressing them and presenting our review, we end by addressing the question, What does an analysis of epistemological foundations offer family literacy scholars and practitioners?

A Brief History of Family Literacy Politics and Programs;
A Theoretical Framework: Epistemological Considerations in Diversity Scholarship (modernist epistemological ASSUMPTIONS and diversity scholarship/ postmodernist epistemological ASSUMPTIONS and diversity scholarship); Approaches to Diversity in Education (Freirian Pedagogy, Funds of Knowledge, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, Critical Race theory);
Method: Data Collection and Analysis
Findings: (representations - tables -
Sample Table:

Table 2. Twenty-Eight Most Cited Scholars in Reviews of Family Literacy

Number of citations	Dates of works cited	Name	Methods/theory	Focus
46	1982–1995	Shirley Brice Heath	Qualitative ethnography	Language and literacy practices

Another sample table:

Analysis of Comprehensive, Edited Volumes

We analyzed the tables of contents, introductory materials, and editorial statements of nine comprehensive, edited volumes that focused specifically on family literacy. These volumes clustered around three periods: 1995 and 1996 (Benjamin & Lord, 1996; Morrow, 1995b), 2003–2005 (Anderson, Kendrick, Rogers, & Smythe, 2005; DeBruin-Parecki & Krol-Sinclair, 2003b; Gregory, Long, & Volk, 2004; Wasik, 2004a), and 2009 and 2010 (Dantas & Manyak, 2010; Dunsmore & Fisher, 2010; Li, 2009; see Table 3).

Table 3. Sections and Chapters of Comprehensive, Edited Volumes

Text	Organization of the volume	Chapter foci relevant to this article	Populations addressed
Note. ESOL = English for speakers of other languages; SES = socioeconomic status.
Morrow, L.M. (Ed.). (1995). Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.	Foreword and 20 chapters within three sections: • Perspectives on Family Literacy • Family Literacy Practices • Developing New Practices: Research and Perspectives	• Eight describe family literacy programs. • Two address local contexts.	• Adolescent mothers • Teenagers

Discussion;


And, of course, the Reference page. I won't go into all of the findings here, but feel oddly recast...as though I am really starting to normalize this research lense into anything I'm asked to do as a practioner (or a student training to practice). Suddenly, this short lesson on "family literacy" becomes a wide open discussion of where this concept came from, how it has moved through time (and place). The lesson we did last week, which I submitted and got credit for, explodes out of the "completed assignment" status I'd been happy enough to place it in before. This reminds me of a group of students I had in the past, when we were learning rhetorical strategies and worked with texts they saw each day -- a group returned after Christmas break saying, "we can't just sit there and watch tv anymore...we're always analyzing everything. Argh!"
Well, perhaps with less of the "argh" I feel the same.